Like the last time this was introduced, I think this only helps the big parties and their bosses rather than the people. This prevents smaller parties like the DA from ensuring their representation as any special election to a seat vacated by their members would quite easily become a 2-way race between the two largest parties, with smaller ones having no real way to realistically compete. I get the reasoning why this may be thought of as a good idea, but for the reasons I've outlined I'll have to oppose it for now.
Not if most seats that are vacant are not from smaller parties like DA, while secondly it's less likely a seat from a minor party would become vacant, given they usually are active. It would also eliminate the possibility of strategical manoeuvring someone to "another seat". I believe in direct elections, even if major parties are at an advantage, in that case they would have to make a deal with one of the major parties, while major parties often need support from minor parties too.
When in 2020 a seat from the Green Party was vacant, a major party still found a way to claim the seat for its own without allowing the people to decide over who should get the seat either. In all fairness, the amendment i propose is the more Democratic one, and this is why i urge others to vote aye on this amendment.
The green situation was a very big exception though with all of the party leadership resigning/deregistering before they could appoint a successor. Not that I condone what was done, of course, but this would mean that in situations like what arose when transit was appointed SoS, would cause the DA to lose it’s only representation.
