These two potential candidates want to try become the first job-sharing parliamentarians. I can see the benefits of opening up possibilities for people with kids/dependents. I think a broader range of perspectives in parliament would be great. And these people would be there to do the job, rather than career politic-ing. The linked article mentions how they'd both have to be sworn in as MP's, essentially giving their electorate 2 votes, but I don't think that'd necessarily be the case. However, you would have the power of two people's voices when lobbying.

But I'm also wary of how much easier it would be shirk responsibility to "the other person". Assuming it would work as a shared office rather than a representative person, would a line be drawn between 2 people and a group of people?

Delving into the speculative fantasy, suddenly the 2 mums with kids at home who couldn't commit to full-time parliamenting were pioneers for rotational council representatives, getting rid of politicians altogether.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

They wouldn't have two votes in parliament if they win a seat as you seem to have misunderstood. They said that whoever of the two was rostered that week would vote on a bill.

reddit.com/Australia is very hostile to the idea but I am partial to it, especially because it makes campaigning feasible when it otherwise might not be. Not just for candidates with kids but for anyone who is not time/money rich (which is most of us since time and money are usually mutually exclusive).

The main problem I see (which nobody has mentioned) is that politicians develop relationships with each other, even sometimes with opposition members. These relationships are important but the job-sharing thing weakens the chance of rapport.