One of the eternal frustrations of the way our democracy works is that at elections we get just one vote.

We are somehow expected to synthesise down to one choice our opinions and decisions on many complex issues ranging from matters mainly of conscience like foreign aid, asylum seekers, euthanasia and so on, to fearsomely complex matters like government regulation in the economy, climate change, deficit spending and debt, and where in the economy should tax burdens fall. That’s a pretty tough ask for anyone, but do it we must …

… or not … as unfortunately is the case with most voters.

That’s why we end up with slogans and sound-bites: with a “presidential style” election.

It’s the short-cut way: get voters to decide who they think is the “best bloke” – the rest is detail. Because we have just one vote and because there are only two genuine candidates for leader, we are all forced to synthesise our decisions about everything down to: “is it to be him (Abbott) or him (Rudd)?”

Short of changing our constitution and democratic model to one like Switzerland (where real power rests with the small Cantons (states) and most major decisions result from frequent single issue referenda), we are destined always to face elections like the recent Federal election.

Then, the winner always vociferously claims a mandate to legislate for everything they they have ever thought was a good idea.

The most striking current example of this is the current Abbott Government claiming a mandate for their climate and carbon abatement policies. Some Ministers are even claiming the election was a “referendum” on the carbon tax!

That is absolute bunk …

But maybe a more cunning reaction is to say “OK, if there was a referendum on that issue alone, what did the view of the Australian electorate look like on that one issue?

During the recent election campaign, the ABC hosted a opinion gathering tool built by the Universities of Sydney and Melbourne called Vote Compass. This was an attempt to harvest opinion on a broad range of policy issues: well over 20 distinct issues were canvassed.

The website received 1.4 million responses. The analysts equate this to a sample size of 573,000. That’s a huge sample, and a pretty good indication of opinion. The final analysis is found here. No other data or analysis would come close to throwing light on this issue.

So what does it tell us about the community view about climate change?

Even with classic hip pocket nerve in play, half the community thinks there should be a price on carbon. A good chunk doesn’t know/care. A clear minority were opposed to a price on carbon.

Then on the more generic question “should we do more?”, the opposed minority was way smaller. And just have a look at the views of those to whom this is likely to be really important in their lifetime, the 18-34 generation.

Now really, how can Abbott, Hunt and Pyne claim a mandate for their policies (that lack professional, scientific and economic credibility) in the face of opinion like this?

50,000 to 60,000 people turned out last weekend to protest about the lack of Government action/conviction/policy on climate change. By Australian standards, that’s a big protest. Based on the above, it’s no wonder. But will anyone in the Government pause?