|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 2013 Australian election results and voting system -
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
In response to mine host of All Saints , here is a brand new thread, so the Aussies are not restricted to being Saintly in their comments.
Here's a start.
The Senate looks on its way to being even more shambolic than before, with half a dozen wildcards being voted in, several of whom got fewer than 2% of the first-preference votes in their state. The Libs leader in the Senate will have his work cut out herding those cats; he will need better negotiating skills than Mr Abbott showed after the 2010 election. That may lead the bigger parties to agree on one thing at least: to amend the Electoral Act that controls how the voting is done in the Senate. (Contrary to popular impression, the Constitution specifies only the number to be elected, not the manner of their election.)
A maxim of Australian political science is that Queensland is different. And so it is again in this election, with moneybags Palmer being elected and taking Glenn Lazarus to Canberra with him. Unlike many of the new senators, Lazarus can honestly say that he “knows his way round Canberra” - he used to play rugby league for the Canberra Raiders. That leads me to surmise that his local knowledge is more about the best drinking spots rather than about the corridors of power.
And as for her nastiness Sophie Mirabella losing her seat, as now looks likely, ...what goes around , comes around.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The usual result here, but there was a DLP candidate on the list of hopefuls. Part of his surname was Harrold, so I assume he's some sort of relation to the Harrold who took the Gordon State electorate when Jago failed to renominate in time. all those years ago.
We really don't vote for people simpliciter. We vote for people who are members of the party we would like to see forming govt. If the particular candidate happens to be a decent person and a good local member - as were the successful local members here from Turner, through Connolly to Nelson - that's a bonus. I can't find much to say in favour of the present member though, and even family who are strong Liberal supporters share this opinion.
And most of us would like to see the party for whom we vote being able to carry out its platform. Don Chipps "keep the bastards honest" really meant "make the bastards give me some of the things I'd like" even though he and his party obtained very limited popular support.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
The problem with the Senate voting is above-the-line pre-registered preferences. This enables pretend parties to get on the ballot paper and register preference swaps with other pretend parties. In this way they accumulate enough votes to get into parliament. There are a few possible solutions:
- Make the party registration process more rigorous. Not sure how this can be done and democracy still exist, but there you go.
- Remove the ability to vote above the line. The problem with this is it will dramatically increase the number of informal votes because Australians are fundamentally lazy. And stupid (cf. election result).
- Optional preferences, ie. limited below-the-line. This way, you'd only have to specify the first (perhaps) 6 preferences rather than the full 110 we in NSW had to cope with. However, exhausted votes are a substantial change to the way we do Federal elections, not sure if they'd go for it.
- Above-the-line preferential voting, where you number each group from 1 to n. Over-quota transfers would take place as usual in the order that the candidates in each group are listed. The issue with this is that you would need to change the way ungrouped individuals are presented on the ballot paper, or else allow a combination of above the line for parties and below the line for individuals. Could get messy.
I'm not convinced any of these would work. My preference (ha!) is for no ticket votes (ie. no above the line), but I always vote below anyway. How else can you enjoy the pleasure and privilege of writing the number 110 next to Pauline Hanson's name?
But maybe exhausted prefs is the answer, like in some of the state upper houses.
Election interest:
1. Palmer. Take one part humanitarian, one part loon, add 400kg of lard and stir. Send to Canberra to occupy a substantial part of the crossbench. I'm interested to see how The World's Richest Conspiracy Theorist handles parliamentary privilege. Could be some very colourful afternoons in the Reps where there is no possibility of defamation suits.
2. Who'd have thought The Brick with Eyes would get a Senate seat? Hilarious.
3. The Puff Adder is probably gone. Word is the Libs are happier than the rest of the country.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I would have thought optional preferences/allowing a vote to exhaust would be a perfectly reasonable option. Many of the States and Territories seem to do just fine with it.
If you don't number a person's box, it's because you'd prefer not to have that person elected. Having to find a ranking for all the people that I know I don't want is pretty annoying - and that's in the ACT where it was at least viable because I only had 27 boxes to fill out.
(EDIT: You know what would be just as satisfying to me as writing number 110 next to someone's name? Leaving their box blank. It's a lovely way of saying "I'd rather have no-one than see you elected.")
In the ACT system, I live in a 5-member electorate and I'm only required to number boxes 1 to 5. Any further preferences are optional, and while I do go further than that, I stop when I've run out of people I'd be vaguely happy to see elected. I can't see any reason why you couldn't have the exact same system in the Senate, with people in the States having to number 1 to 6 in a normal election, and 1 to 12 in a double dissolution.
One of the obvious advantages is that it would make people a bit more conscious of how many Senators they're actually electing.
If below the line preferences were optional I'm not sure the above the line system would even be needed.
[ 13. September 2013, 14:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
[*]Optional preferences, ie. limited below-the-line. This way, you'd only have to specify the first (perhaps) 6 preferences rather than the full 110 we in NSW had to cope with. However, exhausted votes are a substantial change to the way we do Federal elections, not sure if they'd go for it.
Could always treat exhausted votes as votes for RON.
quote:
Originally posted by David:
I'm not convinced any of these would work. My preference (ha!) is for no ticket votes (ie. no above the line), but I always vote below anyway. How else can you enjoy the pleasure and privilege of writing the number 110 next to Pauline Hanson's name?
How long did it take you to vote!?! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927
|
Posted
quote:
How long did it take you to vote!?!
Quite a long time. I had a postal vote, so mine was done at home.
It was hard to put #110. Far too many deserved that place but I think I finally put Pauline Hanson there. Then I worked back from her for about twenty places. Twenty from the beginning and slotted others in between those.
I discovered yesterday that the ex Mr L and his running mate received a few over 3000 votes . This gave them 0.007 % of a quota so I guess his deposit is gone. What a shame! Not. Far right religious group run by a nutter from Victoria.
Lower house vote was much shorter as there were only six candidates. The sitting member for my electorate has just announced his candidature for Labor Party leader. He did at least answer an email I sent and while it may have been written by a staff member, it wasn't a pro forma acknowledgement. I had never heard of Liberal candidate. There was a guy from Fred Nile's group ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) , a Bullet Train and a Green. One from another single issue group. Not much choice at all.
--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.
Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
Next time, I'm doing a postal vote. I got to 80 by the time I filled all the boxes when there's meant to be 82 candidates. I had two duplicate numbers somewhere, so I gave up, asked for a new paper, looked at the queue behind me and just placed a 1.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
Next time, I'm doing a postal vote. I got to 80 by the time I filled all the boxes when there's meant to be 82 candidates. I had two duplicate numbers somewhere, so I gave up, asked for a new paper, looked at the queue behind me and just placed a 1.
Does the Australian system require one to rank every single one of the candidates on the list, and not just the top few, if there are that many? (And, as a non-Australian, am I even asking the question correctly?)
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
Next time, I'm doing a postal vote. I got to 80 by the time I filled all the boxes when there's meant to be 82 candidates. I had two duplicate numbers somewhere, so I gave up, asked for a new paper, looked at the queue behind me and just placed a 1.
Does the Australian system require one to rank every single one of the candidates on the list, and not just the top few, if there are that many? (And, as a non-Australian, am I even asking the question correctly?)
Yes, the federal system currently does. Which is a problem in the Senate.
The alternative in the Senate is to put a single number 1 against the party of your choice. And the parties then dictate what that means for preferences, with tickets they have lodged with the Electoral Commission beforehand.
Most people just put the 1. The problem is, most people don't have a clue about the details of the lodged preference ticket. The Electoral Commission does put them on their website but most people don't look and I can tell you they are not THAT easy to find even when you're looking.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927
|
Posted
quote:
Most people just put the 1. The problem is, most people don't have a clue about the details of the lodged preference ticket. The Electoral Commission does put them on their website but most people don't look and I can tell you they are not THAT easy to find even when you're looking.
I don't even accept lower houses how-to-vote tickets given out at polling booths. I refuse every offer and make up my own mind. Actually, I go to booth with mind already made up.
Orfeo, I do agree with you re finding the the lodged preference page on electoral commission. I do think however that the site is vastly improved this time round. If needed, there was a practice voting page, a page where preferences could be filled out and then printed for voting at booth. Lots more information on electorates than there has been previously, with interactive maps and so on. Potted biographies of candidates. A relatively easy to use electorate finder for those who didn't know or who had moved. And more. All a step in the right direction.
I always vote below the line for upper house.
[ 14. September 2013, 02:20: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]
--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.
Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
The problem with optional preferential voting in a proportional system like the Senate is that it reduces the chance of the minor parties - the legitimate ones, that is - from gaining a seat. This is because the smaller parties nearly always get elected on the dross leftover from one or other of the major parties.
If the votes exhaust - and remember that most people vote for the two major parties - then these votes are denied to the minors and the two-part system becomes even more entrenched, which isn't a good thing.
It's also true in the lower house, but the impact isn't as big because the minor parties and independents rarely pick up seats. But if they do do it's on the preferences of one of the larger parties, and is less likely to occur under an optional system (although there are exceptions, there have been some very popular independents who don't even go to preferences in the first place).
With the recent election, one thing that annoyed me this time around was that there were no independents standing in my seat. Usually there are heaps, and I always vote for the least obnoxious one first so that the big parties don't get money just for the privilege of turning up. I don't think I've ever seen this before.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
One more thing - postal votes in Indi are nearly all counted, Puffy is nearly 900 votes behind, I don't think there's any way she'll get up from there because she's getting smacked on the absentees and probably not enough pre-polls left to get her close enough. Good thing too, she's a nasty piece of work.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
(EDIT: You know what would be just as satisfying to me as writing number 110 next to someone's name? Leaving their box blank. It's a lovely way of saying "I'd rather have no-one than see you elected.")
You can do that with up to 10% of the boxes and still have your vote counted as formal. A friend told me there were a couple like that at the polling place she was counting, Greens voters who marked 1 to 71 and left the two "Stop The Greens" independent candidates boxes blank. Those votes would have been treated as formal except if it did come down to the 72nd and 73rd preferences actually meaning something.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Most people just put the 1. The problem is, most people don't have a clue about the details of the lodged preference ticket. The Electoral Commission does put them on their website but most people don't look and I can tell you they are not THAT easy to find even when you're looking.
They are available in a printed booklet form at the polling places as well. Easier just to do a full BTL vote in my opinion, dividing the candidates into two groups of those counted from the top down and those counted from the bottom up.
I agree that optional preferences beyond a certain number would be good, so long as it is adequately explained that to leave boxes empty is to assent to what other voters choose. Eliminating the group voting tickets and randomising the positioning of candidates on the grid individually (not grouped by party) would make this relatively fair.
Optional preferences could work with above the line votes as well, in place of the group voting tickets. Rather than assenting to a full ticket numbered down to 73, a '1' in a box above the line would simply allocate the top preferences to only the candidates from that group. You could then add a '2' in a different above the line group to put their candidates after the first group's candidates, and a '3' and so on. It would be a step forwards in eliminating the group voting ticket problem, but a step backwards in endorsing the election of parties rather than people.
--------------
As I posted in the other thread, I would like to see an evolution from the preference system - awarding points according to the preferences marked instead of progressively eliminating the lowest-ranked candidates. You would still mark six (or twelve for a full senate or the applicable number for a state legislative council) boxes from 1 (highest preference) to 6 (lowest) but the mechanism would be different. You first preference would receive 6 points, the second 5 points and so on down to 1 point for the sixth preference. Then the top six point-scorers would win the seats.
It would be easier to verify formality (just look for six numbers only) and far easier to count. It could even be done by handing out a small ballot paper where the numbers of the candidates are entered into just six boxes from a long printed list in every voting screen.
I think it would also lead to reasonably similar results for the top few seats in the state and less likely to elect an extremely low-polling candidate into the sixth seat than the group voting ticket system. If I get the time I might model how it would have turned out based on the first preference votes (assuming the next five would follow the party's GVT preferences) for a couple of the states.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
The problem with optional preferential voting in a proportional system like the Senate is that it reduces the chance of the minor parties - the legitimate ones, that is - from gaining a seat. This is because the smaller parties nearly always get elected on the dross leftover from one or other of the major parties.
If the votes exhaust - and remember that most people vote for the two major parties - then these votes are denied to the minors and the two-part system becomes even more entrenched, which isn't a good thing.
Hmm. I'd have to have a look at the maths more to be sure whether I agree with you or not. Or ask the inestimable Anthony Green.
One reason I'm not so sure is that the whole notion of a 'quota' wouldn't work in quite the same way if there were votes being exhausted along the way. The bar to be reached wouldn't be 1/6th of the vote anymore, it would simply be ending up in the top 6.
I actually tend to think this would help the upper candidates in the larger 'minor' parties, such as the Greens. Rather than having them be overtaken by someone who comes off an extremely low base of first preference votes but with a lot of much lower preferences being funnelled in their direction.
The latest article I've seen from Anthony Green does have some pretty clear examples of people planning the funnelling effect very carefully, with a string of minor parties all directing towards a particular person and with evidence that the same people were behind each party.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
The problem with optional preferential voting in a proportional system like the Senate is that it reduces the chance of the minor parties - the legitimate ones, that is - from gaining a seat. This is because the smaller parties nearly always get elected on the dross leftover from one or other of the major parties.
If the votes exhaust - and remember that most people vote for the two major parties - then these votes are denied to the minors and the two-part system becomes even more entrenched, which isn't a good thing.
This could be avoided by making the minimum number of boxes to be numbered larger than the number of seats on offer. For a half-senate election you would need to fill maybe 15 or 20 boxes instead of 6, enough to bring the preferential system into play instead of allowing votes to get exhausted on just one party's list of candidates.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
They are available in a printed booklet form at the polling places as well.
Really? Where are these copies (assuming it's multiple copies)?
They certainly weren't in the voting booths, so I assume that means you have to go and actively ask someone for it. Most people aren't going to do that.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
One more thing - postal votes in Indi are nearly all counted, Puffy is nearly 900 votes behind, I don't think there's any way she'll get up from there because she's getting smacked on the absentees and probably not enough pre-polls left to get her close enough. Good thing too, she's a nasty piece of work.
I know others in your electorate who are also gleeful. The SMH this morning does point out that journalists will lose a good source of copy when she goes. I think most people would just be glad she's gone.
And an ignominious departure at that.
[ 14. September 2013, 03:25: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]
--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.
Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
One more thing - postal votes in Indi are nearly all counted, Puffy is nearly 900 votes behind, I don't think there's any way she'll get up from there because she's getting smacked on the absentees and probably not enough pre-polls left to get her close enough. Good thing too, she's a nasty piece of work.
I know others in your electorate who are also gleeful. The SMH this morning does point out that journalists will lose a good source of copy when she goes. I think most people would just be glad she's gone.
And an ignominious departure at that.
It's a national thing, not just local. I was chatting to a fairly firm Liberal supporter last night who asked what the latest was, on hearing she was likely to lose her seat the reaction was something along the lines of what you would do when your favourite football team scores a big win against a cross-town rival. Don't worry, I'm sure she'll be back at some point like a rodent problem, probably at next year's state election.
The reaction in South Australia to the defeat of Senator Don Farrell (a foul union thug and ALP string-puller) is fairly similar but not as strong thanks to him being a Senator rather than a Representative of a local division. There would have been an outcry if he had read the tea leaves better and attempted to parachute into a safe seat, or if he tries that at the state election in March.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
They are available in a printed booklet form at the polling places as well.
Really? Where are these copies (assuming it's multiple copies)?
They certainly weren't in the voting booths, so I assume that means you have to go and actively ask someone for it. Most people aren't going to do that.
Not enough for every voting screen, but there should have been a couple on the tables for the ordinary vote issuing points and one for declaration or absent votes.
As I said, if you're interested enough it's easier to vote the way you want rather than to trace the group voting ticket preference flows.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The latest article I've seen from Anthony Green does have some pretty clear examples of people planning the funnelling effect very carefully, with a string of minor parties all directing towards a particular person and with evidence that the same people were behind each party.
I take a less cynical view of this preference flow effect than some who seem to be going as close as they can (i.e. as close as possible without ending up in court) to saying the Liberal Party was behind all of them. If they actually had evidence that the Liberal Party was behind it instead of just wanting to score a few points they should actually say it and be prepared to defend it instead of the passive-aggressive bullshit.
Yes, after playing hot potato with each other (including both left and right micro parties) most of the micro* parties' group voting tickets did end up having Liberal candidates ahead of Labor or Greens candidates, with a smaller number going the other way. But that's just a symptom of there being a larger number of micro* parties from the right-libertarian area than the left - because there is already a viable minor* party for the extreme left - The Greens.
Dual membership should be fairly easy to regulate - publish the register of political parties on the ACE website with full names and real addresses of every member. But in the end, I'm not really too concerned with dual membership so long as none of the major or minor parties are involved - it's an abuse of the system but one that's fairly harmless compared to the antics of the major parties.
What will be interesting is if one of the three micro party senators quits or dies before their term is up. Normally somebody from the same party is appointed to fill the slot (like Julia's captain's pick to get Bob Carr in) but I can see the state parliaments instead deciding to have a by-election if any of Muir, Dropulich or Leyonhjelm's seats are vacated. At least the SA governor will have an easy choice, Nick Xenophon's no2 went within 3% of getting a quota at one point in the count.
* I'm working on there being major parties (Labor, Liberal), minor parties (Democratic Labor Party, Family First, The Greens, Palmer etc) and the ridiculous micro parties (Motoring Enthusiasts, Shooters and Wankers, Bullet Train etc) as a separate category.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927
|
Posted
quote:
* I'm working on there being major parties (Labor, Liberal), minor parties (Democratic Labor Party, Family First, The Greens, Palmer etc) and the ridiculous micro parties (Motoring Enthusiasts, Shooters and Wankers, Bullet Train etc) as a separate category.
I'm guessing the single issue parties think they get cheap advertising out of their deposit and bring some issue to the public attention. Cheaper than ads in newspapers or letterbox drops etc. I'm thinking here of those advocating for better custody agreements re children in divorce cases.
Shooters and Wankers ?? They had better be careful of guns and ammunition. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) Could do themselves a nasty injury.
--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.
Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
I'm guessing the single issue parties think they get cheap advertising out of their deposit and bring some issue to the public attention. Cheaper than ads in newspapers or letterbox drops etc. I'm thinking here of those advocating for better custody agreements re children in divorce cases.
Yep.
And I think it's a good thing for democracy, even if one of them occasionally gets elected. Nick Xenophon originally got elected to the SA Legislative Council as the No Pokies MP, and has turned out to be one the finest parliamentarians in the history of Australia.
quote:
Shooters and Wankers ?? They had better be careful of guns and ammunition. Could do themselves a nasty injury.
Would enhance the gene pool though.
[ 14. September 2013, 04:49: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
The problem with optional preferential voting in a proportional system like the Senate is that it reduces the chance of the minor parties - the legitimate ones, that is - from gaining a seat. This is because the smaller parties nearly always get elected on the dross leftover from one or other of the major parties.
If the votes exhaust - and remember that most people vote for the two major parties - then these votes are denied to the minors and the two-part system becomes even more entrenched, which isn't a good thing.
There are a couple of assumptions there that neither Madame or I share. The first is that there's a problem in reducing the chances of minor parties; the second is that it's not a good thing to entrench the two-party system. We vote in the hope that the party we support will be able to form government, with sufficient numbers in each house to implement the programme on which it was elected.
Having minor parties in the same controlling position in the Senate as has occurred for the last 25 years is not a good thing. It gives a handful of voters, often from a smaller State, much greater power than a larger number of voters in one of the larger states. Is it a good thing to give such power to Brian Harradine, Bob Brown or Nick Xenephon? Harradine and Bob Brown in particular had not many more supporters than do councillors in many local govt councils here.
The optional preferential vote may be a way to move, as would a requirement that a minimum percentage of first preferential votes be obtained before distribution of preferences or the allocation of surplus votes. And these methods are quite capable of being combined.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts for 20 years. It uses proportional representation to elect the City Council. It has pros and cons but I remember two advantages.
If your choice of candidates is mostly depressing you can distract yourself with trying to calculate ways to vote in order to get the least unpleasant winners. If they are mostly bad candidates you can instead ponder ways to modify the process of proportional representation.
When I was there, counting the ballot was a long party counting hand written ballots at the High School Gym. The results tended to lag the rest of the Commonwealth Machine voting results by 2 or 3 days.It's been computerized but it certainly defeated journalists making exit interviews and predicting the results before the polls closed.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Palimpsest, the method of Senate voting here is a slight variation on the Hare-Clarke system. Was that the method you used? This link:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/tas/2006/guide/hareclark.htm
gives an idea of the complexity of the counting. The author is a recognised expert on Aust voting systems and elections. It's worth noting his comment:
Advocates of Hare-Clark concentrate on two aspects of the system as selling points. First, they stress the system is proportional. Second, with Robson rotation and the lack of ticket voting, they emphasise the anti-party nature of the system, and the stress on voting for candidates.
To an extent, these to aims are in conflict with each other. The concept of proportionality only makes sense when you talk about party vote. You can't have proportionality between independents.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
TGC, the article I had in mind didn't make any suggestion, as far as I recall, that the Liberals behind the micro parties. Simply that the same people were behind several micro parties.
The Liberals certainly weren't behind the Liberal Democrats because they protested that the Lib Dem name shouldn't be allowed to be registered.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Palimpsest, the method of Senate voting here is a slight variation on the Hare-Clarke system. Was that the method you used? This link:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/tas/2006/guide/hareclark.htm
gives an idea of the complexity of the counting. The author is a recognised expert on Aust voting systems and elections. It's worth noting his comment:
Advocates of Hare-Clark concentrate on two aspects of the system as selling points. First, they stress the system is proportional. Second, with Robson rotation and the lack of ticket voting, they emphasise the anti-party nature of the system, and the stress on voting for candidates.
To an extent, these to aims are in conflict with each other. The concept of proportionality only makes sense when you talk about party vote. You can't have proportionality between independents.
Um, there's hardly anything slight about the variation, given that the second of those 2 selling points simply doesn't exist in the Senate system.
Frankly that's the first time I've heard anyone call the Senate a Hare-Clark system. I know what a Hare-Clark system looks like, because it's what the ACT adopted from Tasmania.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I took that from the linked article. Hare-brained is probably a better name for the system, especially with the Robson rotation added in both the Tasmanian lower house, and the ACT.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Cambridge Ma Proportional Representation is candidate rather than party based. One theory is that the few cities that had it put it in as a progressive movement to eliminate corrupt city "machine" politics.
The voters put a number next to each candidate that puts them into an order.
Ballots are sorted by first choice and counted. The "quota" is that count divided by the number of candidates. The votes for each candidate up to the quota are assigned to the candidate. The remainder are surplus and distributed to the second choices. I don't know the details but I believe it's a random selection from the full set of first choices. This may be equivalent to the rotation in the Australian system.
If insufficient candidates have met the quota, the ballots of the candidate with the least first choice votes are distributed to the second choice on the ballot or third if second has been eliminated.
The process is repeated until there are enough candidates who have a quota of votes.
With OCR equipment it now can be mostly counted on the day except for write ins and ambiguous ballots. It used to take up to a week.
One of the musings is about bullet voting. Does only voting for your first choice candidates yield any difference than voting for all? Pondering the ambiguity is cherished when you despise the candidates on the slate. :-)
[ 14. September 2013, 08:28: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
There are a couple of assumptions there that neither Madame or I share. The first is that there's a problem in reducing the chances of minor parties; the second is that it's not a good thing to entrench the two-party system. We vote in the hope that the party we support will be able to form government, with sufficient numbers in each house to implement the programme on which it was elected.
I voted for Nick Xenophon in the hope that he would support the purpose of the Senate as a house of review that wouldn't give either of the major parties unchecked control.
The last time the government had a majority in both houses (2005-2007, the last Howard term) was a disaster (remember WorkChoices) which led to another disaster (Kevin Rudd) and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I voted for Nick Xenophon in the hope that he would support the purpose of the Senate as a house of review that wouldn't give either of the major parties unchecked control.
The last time the government had a majority in both houses (2005-2007, the last Howard term) was a disaster (remember WorkChoices) which led to another disaster (Kevin Rudd) and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again.
The founding fathers intended that the Senate represent the States as States. They did not contemplate that the Senate would operate to give the result you seek.
As to your second paragraph: Why cannot an elected government carry out it's policy? Now I strongly disagree with Work Choices, and also with some of Labour's legislation, but as both governments had been elected to govern, the passage of the legislation should not be able to have been blocked by the likes of those I referred to. The most which should have occurred - and that probably at the Committee stage in the Reps - is an examination of the detail of the legislation to ensure that it carries out the stated purpose and no further. Nasty side effects should have been searched out and eliminated.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
What will be interesting is if one of the three micro party senators quits or dies before their term is up. Normally somebody from the same party is appointed to fill the slot (like Julia's captain's pick to get Bob Carr in) but I can see the state parliaments instead deciding to have a by-election if any of Muir, Dropulich or Leyonhjelm's seats are vacated. At least the SA governor will have an easy choice, Nick Xenophon's no2 went within 3% of getting a quota at one point in the count.
Not "normally", it's part of the constitution as amended in 1977 after the behaviour of Tome Lewis and Joh the Peanut Farmer during the Whitlam government. A by-election isn't possible either - that only occurs for lower house seats, casual Senate vacancies are appointed by the State government. The interest will come from trying to find a real member of their parties.
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
And I think it's a good thing for democracy, even if one of them occasionally gets elected. Nick Xenophon originally got elected to the SA Legislative Council as the No Pokies MP, and has turned out to be one the finest parliamentarians in the history of Australia.
I take a slightly different viewpoint: Xenophon is a single-issue nobody who enhances the parliament not one bit. I think it's hilarious that he's complaining about the microparties when he himself first got into the parliament via preference harvesting. Hopefully he'll be as irrelevant in the future as he is now.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
There are a couple of assumptions there that neither Madame or I share. The first is that there's a problem in reducing the chances of minor parties; the second is that it's not a good thing to entrench the two-party system. We vote in the hope that the party we support will be able to form government, with sufficient numbers in each house to implement the programme on which it was elected.
Having minor parties in the same controlling position in the Senate as has occurred for the last 25 years is not a good thing. It gives a handful of voters, often from a smaller State, much greater power than a larger number of voters in one of the larger states. Is it a good thing to give such power to Brian Harradine, Bob Brown or Nick Xenephon? Harradine and Bob Brown in particular had not many more supporters than do councillors in many local govt councils here.
If that's what you want, you should probably move countries because that isn't the Australian system. I think you misunderstand the Senate balance of power - none of the independents or minor parties can prevent any legislation from passing if the two major parties band together, which happens a lot.
Anyway, what's wrong with a party which gets 10% of the Senate vote getting 10% of the seats? Is that somehow undemocratic? Truth is, if the senate system was truly democratic a party like The Greens would have about one in 6 seats, but they don't because the system is weighted toward the major parties.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The founding fathers intended that the Senate represent the States as States. They did not contemplate that the Senate would operate to give the result you seek.
As to your second paragraph: Why cannot an elected government carry out it's policy? Now I strongly disagree with Work Choices, and also with some of Labour's legislation, but as both governments had been elected to govern, the passage of the legislation should not be able to have been blocked by the likes of those I referred to. The most which should have occurred - and that probably at the Committee stage in the Reps - is an examination of the detail of the legislation to ensure that it carries out the stated purpose and no further. Nasty side effects should have been searched out and eliminated.
Nearly half the country didn't vote for the government at any one election; were I one of these I would expect the people I voted for to represent me the way they said they would.
The conservative mob, when in opposition, are the most obstructive group of people imaginable. The Whitlam government won two elections yet had nearly 70% of bills rejected in the Senate. Since 2010, they couldn't actually get anything blocked without siding with the Greens, so they spent the last three years doing their best to interfere with the operation of the government through the parliament. Yet Abbott is now bleating about a "mandate", notwithstanding what he wrote after the 2007 election:
quote:
Rantings of a Hypocrite:
Nelson is right to resist the intellectual bullying inherent in talk of "mandates". What exactly is Rudd's mandate anyway: to be an economic conservative or an old-fashioned Christian socialist? The elected Opposition is no less entitled than the elected Government to exercise its political judgment and to try to keep its election commitments.
Our system isn't designed to give unfettered writ to the government of the day as if 100% of the elctorate voted for them. They didn't. If they can't get their legislation through they need to amend it or call an election.
[ 15. September 2013, 02:56: Message edited by: David ]
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
TGB , not everyone would share your opinion of Xenephon. David and I are starters there.
And David, the major problem I see with your approach is that it inevitably leads to minority rule. I notice you make no comment about Harradine, a senator elected with fewer votes than many local govt councillors, but wielding very substantial power, and power well beyond his abilities also. As for the Greens, they also have power well beyond their national support.
Much legislation does go through all parliaments by consent. There really is limited political opposition to many of the provisions of such legislation (using NSW titles) as the Succession Act or the Real Property Act. That forms a very large part of parliamentary business, at both State and Federal levels.
Finally, neither of you comments on Antony Green's remarks which I quote above on the inherent contradiction in voting for individual candidates in a chamber elected by proportional representation.
In any event, none of this addresses the election of senators from the ultra-micro parties. I like the German idea for the need to have a minimum percentage of first preferences, but others suggested above are worth investigation also.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And David, the major problem I see with your approach is that it inevitably leads to minority rule. I notice you make no comment about Harradine, a senator elected with fewer votes than many local govt councillors, but wielding very substantial power, and power well beyond his abilities also. As for the Greens, they also have power well beyond their national support.
Minority rule? What are you talking about?
Harradine had no power on his own. His Senate vote was only useful when combined with the Chippites, because then Labor - the government, mind you - could get their legislation through. As always, if the opposition sided with the government then his seat was worthless. In the end there was a time when he could leverage the situation, good luck to the rat I say.
Anyway in 1983 he got 18% of the vote, isn't that enough for you? Over that time, The Greens vote has grown from less than 1% to more than 10%. Is that not enough for them to have representation in the parliament? Do tell - what have local council elections to do with proportional representation in the Senate?
quote:
Finally, neither of you comments on Antony Green's remarks which I quote above on the inherent contradiction in voting for individual candidates in a chamber elected by proportional representation.
Green is talking about the Hare-Clark system, which is used in Tasmania's lower house, not in the Federal senate. What did you want me to say about it?
[ 16. September 2013, 01:49: Message edited by: David ]
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I'm appalled to find that one of the weirdos standing for a Tasmanian Senate seat doesn't even live in Tasmania, but says he might move here if elected. I'm sure Most Tasmanians wouldn't have realised this on election day.
My preference for Senate voting is for preferential above the line with the option instead to vote for 6 or more below the line. I don't think it is possible or desirable to prevent small single issue parties from standing, but the deals done between these groups has been very disturbing.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
What will be interesting is if one of the three micro party senators quits or dies before their term is up. Normally somebody from the same party is appointed to fill the slot (like Julia's captain's pick to get Bob Carr in) but I can see the state parliaments instead deciding to have a by-election if any of Muir, Dropulich or Leyonhjelm's seats are vacated. At least the SA governor will have an easy choice, Nick Xenophon's no2 went within 3% of getting a quota at one point in the count.
Not "normally", it's part of the constitution as amended in 1977 after the behaviour of Tome Lewis and Joh the Peanut Farmer during the Whitlam government. A by-election isn't possible either - that only occurs for lower house seats, casual Senate vacancies are appointed by the State government. The interest will come from trying to find a real member of their parties.
And if a genuine member of that party couldn't be found, or the dubious micro party was no longer in existence, then what?
The constitution provides for the state parliament to appoint the replacement senator by a vote in a joint sitting. The state parliament resolving to ask their state electoral body (rather than the AEC) to conduct a by-election as a method of working out who should be appointed would be quite defensible, with the joint sitting then assenting to the result of the by-election. This would be a possibility if neither side had the numbers to control the joint sitting, passing a bill to make that happen would be easier than an embarrassing deadlocked joint sitting.
quote:
Originally posted by David:
I take a slightly different viewpoint: Xenophon is a single-issue nobody...
"Nick for SA" is definitely no more of a single-issue platform than Labor stands on the single issue of trade unionism or the Greens stand on the single issue of koalas being cuddly. He may have first entered the SA Legislative Council on a single-issue platform, but he has since then moved to a far broader platform and successfully defended his Legislative Council seat, then made history twice as the most popular independent in the history of Australian elections.
As for being a nobody, you're just wrong. Thanks to the Australian people have declared that they want the Senate to watch over the government by denying Tony a majority, he is now extremely relevant except if Tony goes down the ill-advised path of pursuing a double dissolution. Even if there is a double dissolution, Mr X will easily get one of the top results for a six year term.
I don't think there will be a double dissolution next year though, the anti-government backlash and an even higher number of minor party senators resulting would make it a poor move for Tony, and he's not stupid. Unless he feels he isn't up to the job and resigns as leader, Tony is going to have to govern with what the nation gave him, and that means going with more moderate policies that are going to get enough of a consensus with either Labor/Green senators or the cross-bench.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The minority govt to which I referred arises from the need to satisfy the demands for support from those controlling the balance of power in the Senate - that incidentally being something I do understand. Now maybe Harradine did obtain 18% of the vote, but that was only in Tasmania. Not a large number of votes to give such bargaining power.
I would have thought that the reference to local council elections was obvious, but I'll make it clear: the number of votes Harradine got would be relevant in larger States in the context of local council elections, not obtaining a Senate seat. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it does point out the non-democratic nature of the Senate.
Green's comments are interesting and they raise a point worthy of non-political discussion. YMMV.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I'm appalled to find that one of the weirdos standing for a Tasmanian Senate seat doesn't even live in Tasmania, but says he might move here if elected. I'm sure Most Tasmanians wouldn't have realised this on election day.
I share your appalledness. How is such a person even eligible?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I'm appalled to find that one of the weirdos standing for a Tasmanian Senate seat doesn't even live in Tasmania, but says he might move here if elected. I'm sure Most Tasmanians wouldn't have realised this on election day.
I share your appalledness. How is such a person even eligible?
I agree, I thought that it was a requirement to be on the electoral roll in the same state. Maybe he was, but had enrolled fraudulently (all you need is a witness to sign it) or had previously lived in Tasmania and not updated his enrolment.
Maybe it's one that slipped through the system but could have been challenged in the High Court by a voter from Tasmania if they did get elected. If they were then disqualified, the procedure for dealing with an elected Senate candidate disqualified (or who dies) after the election is to re-run the scrutiny with that candidate eliminated first up and preferences simply skipping past them.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
And I think it's a good thing for democracy, even if one of them occasionally gets elected. Nick Xenophon originally got elected to the SA Legislative Council as the No Pokies MP, and has turned out to be one the finest parliamentarians in the history of Australia.
On what basis do you make this ridiculous sounding claim? Because he's a croweater? Most of us know him as the Senator who misused parliamentary privilege to avoid getting sued.
And I heard him lauding "our most extraordinary Australian" last night on Q&A. Believe it or not, he was talking about Rupert Murdoch. He makes me want to vomit. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Something else Xenophon has got wrong: Murdoch has been a US citizen for almost 30 years. That's without going into the substance of the comment.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The minority govt to which I referred arises from the need to satisfy the demands for support from those controlling the balance of power in the Senate - that incidentally being something I do understand. Now maybe Harradine did obtain 18% of the vote, but that was only in Tasmania. Not a large number of votes to give such bargaining power.
I would have thought that the reference to local council elections was obvious, but I'll make it clear: the number of votes Harradine got would be relevant in larger States in the context of local council elections, not obtaining a Senate seat. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it does point out the non-democratic nature of the Senate.
Most local councillors are elected on a vote of between 2000 to 4000, it varies a lot by council size and structure. Harradine got around 37000.
Yes, you may have exaggerated.
[f'n spelling]
[ 17. September 2013, 23:17: Message edited by: David ]
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
What will be interesting is if one of the three micro party senators quits or dies before their term is up. Normally somebody from the same party is appointed to fill the slot (like Julia's captain's pick to get Bob Carr in) but I can see the state parliaments instead deciding to have a by-election if any of Muir, Dropulich or Leyonhjelm's seats are vacated. At least the SA governor will have an easy choice, Nick Xenophon's no2 went within 3% of getting a quota at one point in the count.
Not "normally", it's part of the constitution as amended in 1977 after the behaviour of Tome Lewis and Joh the Peanut Farmer during the Whitlam government. A by-election isn't possible either - that only occurs for lower house seats, casual Senate vacancies are appointed by the State government. The interest will come from trying to find a real member of their parties.
And if a genuine member of that party couldn't be found, or the dubious micro party was no longer in existence, then what?
The constitution provides for the state parliament to appoint the replacement senator by a vote in a joint sitting. The state parliament resolving to ask their state electoral body (rather than the AEC) to conduct a by-election as a method of working out who should be appointed would be quite defensible, with the joint sitting then assenting to the result of the by-election. This would be a possibility if neither side had the numbers to control the joint sitting, passing a bill to make that happen would be easier than an embarrassing deadlocked joint sitting.
Is Tap Dogs touring again?
If there's no outcome from a joint sitting, the Governor appoints someone. This has to be endorsed in a joint sitting, otherwise the appointment lapses 2 weeks after the first sitting and the process starts again. As far as I know they can keep on doing this forever.
State governments have no jurisdiction over the method of filling a casual vacancy, it's governed by Section 15 of the Constitution as amended in 1977.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I'm bemused you actually care about your Senate. Canada waxes between not caring and wanting to take the Senate out back behind Parliament Hill and putting it out of its misery.
None of the provinces have a Legislative Council anymore; the last one (Quebec) was abolished in 1968.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I'm bemused you actually care about your Senate. Canada waxes between not caring and wanting to take the Senate out back behind Parliament Hill and putting it out of its misery.
None of the provinces have a Legislative Council anymore; the last one (Quebec) was abolished in 1968.
Queensland abolished their upper house in the 1920s, all other states maintain theirs, possibly because they don't want to be the same as Queensland.
There are possibly two very real reasons for keeping the senate Federally. First, changing the constitution to get rid of it will never ever happen. A bill to abolish the Senate would need to be passed by both house of Parliament (or rejected twice by the Senate). Then, it would need a double majority - a majority of electors and a majority of states - to be passed.
Second, a government with control of both houses, while rare, has been achieved before, but summarily abused. While elections are a good leveller for governments which do this, it doesn't make it likely that we'll be changing anything in the near future.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
Most local councillors are elected on a vote of between 2000 to 4000, it varies a lot by council size and structure. Harradine got around 37000.
Yes, you may have exaggerated.
It depends on your local council - some local govt areas have a population below 4000.
in 1998, Harradine got 24,254 votes and got into the Senate. In 1993, he and his group got 32,202. It may have gone higher after distribution of preferences. To put that into some perspective, the 1998 result gave him 0.2% of the vote Australia wide, while Labor and the Coalition each got a bit over 37%. Even in Tasmania, the major groupings each got over 100,000 votes. It took more than ten times Harradine's vote to elect a Democrat's senator from NSW. Keating's jibe of undemocratic swill is at least half right.
Your later comment "summarily abused" really means that the party elected to control both the Reps and the Senate put its programme into operation.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Of course, that should have been "unrepresentative swill" - same meaning.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The entire point of a Senate is to prevent free and easy rule by the popular majority. It always amuses me when people get so upset that it works.
[ 18. September 2013, 11:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The entire point of a Senate is to prevent free and easy rule by the popular majority. It always amuses me when people get so upset that it works.
Rather naughty, Orfeo. You know as well as I do that the Senate was established as it is for 2 reasons: firstly to reassure the smaller states that there would be a chamber where they would have a voice equal to that of the larger; and to allow the States as States the opportunity to review legislation. The second still lingers in the US in the form of senatorial courtesy, but it never took root here. The Senate has always operated on party lines.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Your later comment "summarily abused" really means that the party elected to control both the Reps and the Senate put its programme into operation.
No, you can't rewrite history on a whim. If, for example, Workchoices was the libs programme they would have taken it to the election. They didn't, but when they saw they had control of both houses they couldn't help themselves.
Ask the PM who lost his seat as a result if that was a good idea.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
Most local councillors are elected on a vote of between 2000 to 4000, it varies a lot by council size and structure. Harradine got around 37000.
Yes, you may have exaggerated.
It depends on your local council - some local govt areas have a population below 4000.
in 1998, Harradine got 24,254 votes and got into the Senate. In 1993, he and his group got 32,202. It may have gone higher after distribution of preferences. To put that into some perspective, the 1998 result gave him 0.2% of the vote Australia wide, while Labor and the Coalition each got a bit over 37%. Even in Tasmania, the major groupings each got over 100,000 votes. It took more than ten times Harradine's vote to elect a Democrat's senator from NSW. Keating's jibe of undemocratic swill is at least half right.
I can't see what relevance the percentage of the national vote has to the discussion. Every member of the House of Reps gets far few votes than a NSW Senator, is that an issue as well? FWIW, we all know that the senate is unrepresentative, because it was designed to be that way. It's a feature, not a problem, but you need to localise the discussion a fairness to each state.
The current problem is people can get elected with very few votes by working the system. Nearly everyone says it needs to be changed, some of them even have a clue what they're talking about; the question is how to change it.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
