Ship of Fools: 2013 Australian election results and voting system -

Thread: 2013 Australian election results and voting system - Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026377

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

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]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

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!]

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

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]

, a Bullet Train and a Green. One from another single issue group. Not much choice at all.

Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on :

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.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

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? [Eek!]

(And, as a non-Australian, am I even asking the question correctly?)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

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 ]

Posted by David (# 3) on :

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.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

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.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

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 ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

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]

Could do themselves a nasty injury.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

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 ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

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 ]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

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.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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?

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

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]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

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 ]

Posted by David (# 3) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Of course, that should have been "unrepresentative swill" - same meaning.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

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.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

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.

Giving the smaller States an equal voice is entirely my point. The purpose of the Senate, and of our referendum mechanism, is to ensure the vastly greater populations of NSW and Victoria don't get to decide everything. The principle of equal Senators from each State was consciously adopted from the United States.

And most of the people who get upset about the Senate are from NSW and terribly used to the idea that Sydney controls the country.

I might also add that Canberra exists for the exact same reason. The criteria for the location of the national capital were placed in the Constitution as well.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

This is why Quebec was given a Legislative Council but Ontario was not under the British North America Act, 1867. Ontario elected a populist Grit (proto-Liberal) majority and was almost entirely English; Quebec was 25% English and 75% French.

The Quebec Legislative Council was the last to disappear in 1968. The Nova Scotia Legislative Council was abolished in 1928 after a lengthy battle with the House of Assembly and an appeal to the Privy Council.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Giving the smaller States an equal voice is entirely my point. The purpose of the Senate, and of our referendum mechanism, is to ensure the vastly greater populations of NSW and Victoria don't get to decide everything. The principle of equal Senators from each State was consciously adopted from the United States.

And most of the people who get upset about the Senate are from NSW and terribly used to the idea that Sydney controls the country.

I might also add that Canberra exists for the exact same reason. The criteria for the location of the national capital were placed in the Constitution as well.

The "review" by the senate is on party lines, not on State lines. It was review on State lines that was intended. And I am aware of the basis for the choice of Canberra as the national capital.

As to your second paragraph, I stand by the position I've stated. It's undemocratic to give such power to those elected by such a small number of electors. The real answer of course is to do away with the States and move much closer to a confederal system such as Canada and Switzerland.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

What on earth has doing away with the States got to do with Canada or Switzerland? If you're suggesting that a different distribution of powers is preferred, that's your view, but it's not as if Canadian provinces or Swiss cantons have no powers or separate existence!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Simple - do away with States and the present local govt, and establish provinces on a confederal basis in place of both. And in drawing the boundaries of the new provinces, ignore those of the present States.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

And again I ask, what has this got to do with Canada or Switzerland? Because what you're proposing looks nothing like the history of either country. Canadian provinces existed before federal Canada, and Swiss cantons existed before Switzerland. They weren't created by some central authority whimsically doodling on a map.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Simple - do away with States and the present local govt, and establish provinces on a confederal basis in place of both. And in drawing the boundaries of the new provinces, ignore those of the present States.

What gave you the impression that Canada is more centralized then Australia? Some rather misinformed commentary from the 1890's in Australia aside, the opposite is the case. Currently Australia is more centralized then Canada is due to political pressure in Canada and different constitutional jurisprudence.

There is no Canadian equivalent of the First and Second Taxation Cases. Provinces have the explicit constitutional right to levy income taxes and Ottawa never wanted to go as far as raising its rates to exclusive levels and push the provinces out of the field completely through Federal Paramountcy.

Quebec has its own completely separate system parallel to the Federal system; the other provinces levy their own rates independently and use the Federal Government as their collection agent.

Second, there is no Canadian equivalent to the Social Service Referendum. Medicare is a provincial responsibility and the Federal Government simply has a general grant system for it given to provinces.

Which leads me to my fourth point, that Canada has no Tied Grant system like Australia does, far from it. Equalization is untied and the Health and Social Grants have extremely vague guarantees. The Canada Health Act has five "principles" that must be adhered to and that's it. Quebec would scream blue murder if it were ever subjected to the tied grant system that Australian States put up with.

Fifth, Australians never read far enough when studying Canada to get to the really important gentlemen, the Wicket Stepfathers of Confederation, aka the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Between 1880 and 1920 they managed to eviscerate the Federal Trade & Commerce Power in favour of the provincial Property & Civil Rights Power and vastly overused the "Local Matters" power. Canadian jurisprudence still hasn't fully recovered though admittedly the JPCC had help from Oliver Mowat, Premier of Ontario 1870-1896 and called the "Father of Provincial Rights". POGG, the Reserve Power is not used so much anymore, instead the Supreme Court prefers the "Living Tree Doctrine" which can cut either way.

Australia started out with the Reserved Powers Doctrine and then eschewed it in the Engineer's Case. Canada started out without a Reserved Powers Doctrine and managed to contrive one.

Which brings me to my last point, Australia has no counterpart to Quebec. It's like the unholy offspring of Queensland and Western Australia with the worst aspects of both parents redoubled. You try living with that!

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

SPK - it's not as simple as less centralised vs more centralised as if it's a one-dimensional continuum, there are some aspects which go each way in each country. You might remember the thread a couple of months ago where we talked about the awkward issue of the state crowns and the six bills authorising the commonwealth parliament to act on the behalf of the state with respect to the royal succession changes - and the de-patriation of the Canadian constitution along the way. At that time, you argued the Canada was more centralised than Australia and that it was a good thing!

Given that the arrangements in Canada (along with Britain, Switzerland and the USA) were looked at in the process of drafting our Constitution (both to pick the good bits and make sure mistakes weren't repeated) you can expect that where there are differences some will go either way.

As for our equivalent of Quebec, I'm sure the Principality of Hutt River should be wacky enough to count [Snigger]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

My comments then were only in reference to the Crown, not to the global picture. The far greater fiscal autonomy afforded to Canadian provinces is the biggest factor that outweighs the others.

Everyone's fine with our national Criminal Code instead of provincial criminal law (which doesn't exist). Disallowance is a dead letter in Canada. The new Charter of Quebec Values, which in days gone by would have been a prime candidate for Reservation and Disallowance will instead fall on the Charter of Rights & Freedoms at the Supreme Court.

You put far too much emphasis on what people intended in 1867 and 1900 respectively, my dear giant cheeseburger. That ideal is not what either country has, see WorkStart in Australia or Securities Regulation in Canada. You have to examine what came out of the washing after the courts got done with both Constitutions.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And again I ask, what has this got to do with Canada or Switzerland? Because what you're proposing looks nothing like the history of either country. Canadian provinces existed before federal Canada, and Swiss cantons existed before Switzerland. They weren't created by some central authority whimsically doodling on a map.

I was suggesting a confederation. Both Canada and Switzerland are confederations, and perhaps we could learn from their experience. Just thinking.

Posted by mertide (# 4500) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And again I ask, what has this got to do with Canada or Switzerland? Because what you're proposing looks nothing like the history of either country. Canadian provinces existed before federal Canada, and Swiss cantons existed before Switzerland. They weren't created by some central authority whimsically doodling on a map.
I was suggesting a confederation. Both Canada and Switzerland are confederations, and perhaps we could learn from their experience. Just thinking.

Australian states existed before federal Australia too. I don't see them voting themselves out of existence. At least, not any apart from NSW or Victoria, perhaps. Western Australians, Queenslanders and Tasmanians are I would say at least as loyal to their state as to the federation.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The wikipedia article on confederations takes issue with the notion of EITHER Canada or Switzerland being a confederation in modern terminology. In the case of Canada it positively states it is a federation, and in the case of Switzerland it points out that the 2 words meant exactly the same thing at the time.

And the article on 'Federation' makes the exact same points. So no, I don't think Canada and Switzerland are confederations.

[ 20. September 2013, 08:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Also, suggesting confederation and 'abolish the States' in the same breath suggests you don't actually have a clue what a confederation IS. The constituent parts of a confederation have greater autonomy, not less, than in a federation.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

It may suggest that to you, Orfeo, but I do have some idea of what a confederation is, ways in which it may operate, and how confederations have operated in the past.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Orfeo wrote:

quote:
And again I ask, what has this got to do with Canada or Switzerland? Because what you're proposing looks nothing like the history of either country. Canadian provinces existed before federal Canada, and Swiss cantons existed before Switzerland. They weren't created by some central authority whimsically doodling on a map.

Actaully, as this time-lapsed map shows, most of the Canadian provinces did not exist with their current territory at the time of Confederation, and in fact five of them did not exist at all.

BC, in fact, was outright British territory until 1871, and Newfoundland was a Falklandsy colony of the UK until 1949.

So, the Canadian provinces, as we currently know them, were largely created by central authorities carving up land on a map.

[ 20. September 2013, 09:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Clarification...

quote:
and in fact five of them did not exist at all.

BC and Newfoundland did exist with their current borders, but were not Canadian territory. The other three were carved out of Canadian territory after Confederation, Manitoba in various stages.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

All of which I know. All of which is remarkably similar to the history of another federal country just south of Canada.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

To which I can only add that under the Constitution Act, 1982 the boundaries of a province can only be changed with that province's consent.

Which is just like Australia, AIUI South Australia handed over the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth under provisions of the Australian Constitution to do so.

Canada can't go ripping up provinces on a whim.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

SPK beat me to it. The Northern Territory was part of Sth Australia from around 1860 until decade after federation. Perhaps others were not taught that in their Aust History classes.

Orfeo, can you not find an authority for your approach to confederation?

And Mertide, you're almost certainly right that the less populated States would be against the proposal, but that does not stop some of us thinking of alternatives to the present system, some of which would be closer to the principle of one vote, one value.

When you look at it, the only natural State boundary is the southern bank of the Murray - all others are just lines drawn on a map. Developments since have not always paid regard to what may be better boundaries. The Gold Coast/northern NSW and Albury/Wodonga are frequently cited, but the lower Murray region, starting around Mildura, is another area which has developed as a region, split amongst 3 States. Would it make sense to combine these into a province? Or perhaps to combine much of the northern end of the NT with the Pilbara and Kimberly as another? What I was suggesting is that these are matters worth considering.

Posted by mertide (# 4500) on :

The NSW/Vic centrism that considers the Murray River a more natural border than Bass Strait is the whole point, really, of bumping the regional voting power in the Senate.

There are arguments for rather increasing the representation of the regions. Splitting into voting cantons strictly based on population, as if each say 5 House of reps were a state (and even then, you'd have to combine three western Australians with the two NT's so that mini-state would contain at least a third of Australia - how many states would Sydney contain?

Canada appears to be all over the place compared to Australia since Federation - SA getting rid of the half they didn't want to the Commonwealth has been the only significant change. I can see how you can imagine a better system, I can't for the life of me see how you intend to get a majority of states to agree to disband in a referendum.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

My apologies - I had intended to write that it was the only natural mainland boundary, to deal with the matters you raise.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Sorry for double post, but things went wrong.

For some reason, States-Righters work on the basis that states have an existence independent to that of its citizens. You are right, as I said before, that it is very unlikely that a move to smaller provinces would succeed.

An alternative is to vary the number of senators each State returns, in an attempt to equalise the value of votes. Perhaps Tas could return 6 Senators - still more than the number of Representatives - and NSW and Vic a dozen each; other states in between.

That would of course mean fewer Senators overall. Apart from the problems in persuading the electors in a majority of States to agree, there would be the very great difficulty of persuading party machines. A Senate seat is seen as a way of rewarding one of the party faithful (a few euphemisms there) at the cost of the general public purse, rather than as a burden on party funds. But let's be honest. The pool of talent to return a dozen Senators from the larger States is very limited, and the position in the smaller ones even more so.

Posted by mertide (# 4500) on :

The thing is, I'm not sure if the bottom right corner understands just how lightly populated the Top End is. If you take the 26th parallel (the NT border, across WA, and Qld apart from the SE corner) you have less than 2 million population, three quarters of that in Qld. Half the country, less than 1/10th the population. Sydney has more than twice that. You have population proportional representation in the Reps, the Senate goes a small way toward redressing the voice of the regions.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Aust is called the empty continent for that very good reason. But aren't we electing representatives of the people, and don't we ascribe the philosophy of "one vote, one value"?

Posted by mertide (# 4500) on :

In the Reps, yes. In the Senate, never has been. On a strict one person one vote for the Senate, Sydney would have a quarter of the Senators. I'm not sure that would be an improvement. Any further movement to centralize power in the Melbourne/Sydney/Canberra triangle would see at least WA and North Queensland increase their secession pressure.

While the Senate votes on party lines (largely), the parties have to take regional interests into account in their caucusing. One vote, one value could result in the country being run for the benefit of the large cities to an even greater extent than it is at present.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Er, "Province" is used as synonymous with "state", especially when comparing India, Australia, Canada and the United States.

GeeD's use must be an OZ idiosyncrasy.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo, can you not find an authority for your approach to confederation?

I wasn't aware I was supposed to be looking for one, apart from having spent a Semester studying the Canadian system when I was at university, and 2 Wikipedia articles on federation and confederation both of which cite various sources to say that the Canadian 'confederation' is not, in modern parlance, actually a confederation, and which cite the European Union as the closest thing to a modern confederation.

I already mentioned the Wikipedia articles. Where's YOUR authority?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Er, "Province" is used as synonymous with "state", especially when comparing India, Australia, Canada and the United States.

GeeD's use must be an OZ idiosyncrasy.

More like a GeeD idiosyncrasy.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
For some reason, States-Righters work on the basis that states have an existence independent to that of its citizens.

...when exactly is the last time you read the Constitution?

There are lots of references in there to States as their own entities.

I am hardly a States-Righter. I don't even live in one. But we live in a system that was created by 6 separate colonies agreeing to join together.

Of course those 6 colonies had PEOPLE in them, but the legal world is full of countries, organisations, societies, etc etc ad infinitum that have their own legal status as you very well know. And the Constitution is chock full of references of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States/each State. If you don't think the States really exist, one could just as easily say the Commonwealth doesn't really exist either. We're just 23 million people wandering around on a piece of land not-entirely-correctly-defined by the boundaries of a continental shelf (PNG and a few bits of Indonesia belong with us).

I'm well aware that many Senators appear to just blindly vote along party lines, but there are also those that don't, and there are also quite a few that do hard work for their particular State outside the chamber. I've seen several Senators publicly voice their views on an issue that they think is particularly relevant to their State. The ACT's Liberal Senator crossed the floor on a vote that pertained specifically to the ACT.

It's quite obvious to me that it's pointless to attempt to 'even out' the Senate vote to create a second House of Representatives, when one House of Representatives will do. The Senate is there to provide a check. I have no problem with it doing that because it doesn't actually block things that often, and it's pretty much only the more hare-brained ideas that don't get through. The Constitution already provides the means for dealing with a really serious dispute between the 2 houses, and ensures that the House of Reps will win such a dispute.

[ 21. September 2013, 02:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Orfeo, submissions I was making a couple of weeks ago made considerable reference to the Constitution, esp Chapter III and also to a couple of the placita in s.51. What about you?

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

House of Representatives ballots are now fully counted after the expiry of the postal vote deadline last night and final postal/declaration votes counted today.

That means it's now official that the bitch is ditched in the division of Indi [Yipee]

The division of Farifax in Queensland is headed for a recount as the margin of Clive Palmer's win was only 36 votes, less than the 100 mark where a recount is automatic. He was going to exercise his right to request a recount even if it wasn't going to happen automatically, due to the large number of former military personnel who use their temporary employment with the Australian Electoral Commission to enact military coups d'etat [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mertide:
In the Reps, yes. In the Senate, never has been. On a strict one person one vote for the Senate, Sydney would have a quarter of the Senators. I'm not sure that would be an improvement. Any further movement to centralize power in the Melbourne/Sydney/Canberra triangle would see at least WA and North Queensland increase their secession pressure.

While the Senate votes on party lines (largely), the parties have to take regional interests into account in their caucusing. One vote, one value could result in the country being run for the benefit of the large cities to an even greater extent than it is at present.

Well said. It certainly would not be an improvement to have that many Senators from NSW.
Here in Perth, federalism is barely tolerated at the best of times - and that's when our population is feeling super patriotic, like during the Olympics. Or when our Premier so badly mismanages the nation's strongest economy that we need the Feds to do us a solid.
Many of us would be very happy to see reforms to the Senate voting system, to avoid ballot papers that double as bed sheets, or to ensure stupid parties (see: Australian Sports Party, Motoring Enthusiasts Party) don't get a seat despite winning a microscopic proportion of the primary vote. But no way would I be comfortable with the reforms Gee is advocating, and good luck finding a Sandgroper who would be.

Posted by Herrick (# 15226) on :

Posted by the Giant Cheeseburger

-------------------------------------------
House of Representatives ballots are now fully counted after the expiry of the postal vote deadline last night and final postal/declaration votes counted today.

That means it's now official that the bitch is ditched in the division of Indi
[Yipee]

--------------------------------------------

Agree with you 100%, she is one of the nastiest, mean-spirited politicians I've ever seen in our Federal sphere. [Yipee]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

As I said, the pool of talent is very limited even in the larger States. The way out is to reduce the numbers of Senators instead. The only constitutional restriction is that there be at least 6. The problem is in taking away jobs for party faithful.

It's a curiosity that it is the mendicant States which are the least federally minded. For example, had WA succeeded in seceding in 1933, within 15 years or less it probably would have been in the position of Newfoundland in the immediate post World War II years. The defence of the west coast during WW II could only have been achieved either as a part of the federation which had been left, or by calling on the stretched resources of the UK.

Posted by mertide (# 4500) on :

What defence of the west coast? And from who? The only landing was a 4 man Japanese reconnaissance in the Kimberleys, that stayed 1 night and left. There were 3 gun placements in the south, and one of them consisted of US naval guns.

Broome was almost undefended when it was bombed. There's no evidence I know of that the West Coast was seen as anything as significant as Tenterfield, with it's tank traps.
edit traps

[ 22. September 2013, 11:01: Message edited by: mertide ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

AIUI, there was a considerable naval presence along the w coast, of which the fatal patrol by HMAS Sydney was only one example. Have a quick look at Randolph Stowe"s The Mery-Go-Round in the Sea for some more detail (and a good read as well).

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

The Merry-go-round in the sea is a bloody good read. You know it's a novel, right? You know - fiction?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

It's fiction, but fiction along the lines of Dance to the Music of Time. In other words, fiction but strongly informed by author's own life growing up in Geraldton during WWII.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As I said, the pool of talent is very limited even in the larger States. The way out is to reduce the numbers of Senators instead. The only constitutional restriction is that there be at least 6. The problem is in taking away jobs for party faithful.

It's a curiosity that it is the mendicant States which are the least federally minded. For example, had WA succeeded in seceding in 1933, within 15 years or less it probably would have been in the position of Newfoundland in the immediate post World War II years. The defence of the west coast during WW II could only have been achieved either as a part of the federation which had been left, or by calling on the stretched resources of the UK.

I believe you mean WWI. Newfoundland threatened to default on its debt in 1933; the debt resulted from building the Newfoundland Railway in the 1890's and from Newfoundland's participation in WWI (namely the Newfoundland Regiment). The House of Assembly was disbanded in 1933, Responsible Government was withdrawn and the Commission of Government instituted. In 1945 Newfoundland was solvent and had a $12 million surplus on hand, though nobody expected the good times to continue.

Westminster gave such a cold shoulder to Western Australia in 1933 precisely because it didn't want another Newfoundland.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks SPK for the correction. I had understood that in 1948/9, the UK was a desperate vendor and Canada an unwilling purchaser. Is that right?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The UK was a most willing vendor but Canada was a most eager buyer in 1949.

Newfoundland participated in the Confederation Conferences at Charlottetown and Quebec in 1864 but was diffident, and dropped out by 1869. Confederation again was raised in 1895 when Newfoundland's banks went bust but the motion was again defeated (Canadian banks moved in anyway and Newfoundland adopted the Canadian Dollar).

Confederation was briefly discussed in 1933 but Canada didn't want a liability. However WWII changed everything.

Newfoundland was the base for air patrols over the Western Atlantic and it played a leading support role to Halifax in the Battle of the Atlantic. Newfoundland was the most heavily militarized area in North American in WWII.

Worringly for Canada, the Americans got bases there too and got a naval base at Argentia under the "Destroyers for Bases Agreement". So it was time to buy, or else.

None other then Clement Atlee chaired the British Parliamentary Committee in charge of Newfoundland during the war. He made it clear that when the War was done, Newfoundland was to go, gently, in a respectably democratic fashion. Canada quietly agreed to do what it always did in Confederation Elections, buy victory with lots of funds. Newfoundland had no election expense laws.

The Confederate Party was led by Joey Smallwood, a radio broadcaster and pig farmer. He got elected to the National Convention (a democratic fig-leaf) in 1948. The Convention sent out two delegations, one to London and one to Ottawa. The London delegation was told there was no money and that Responsible Government meant absolutely no money on any terms whatsoever.

The Ottawa Delegation was received by the Prime Minister and Clerk of the Privy Council (head of the Public Service). Headed by Smallwood, they received briefing books about what Canadian programs Newfoundlanders would receive as Canadians, the standard Provincial powers and returned with draft Terms of Union. Smallwood was also given a list of reliable Liberal donors in Toronto and Montreal to solicit funds from by the PM's Chief of Staff.

The entire Canadian elite funded the Confederate Party in the Newfoundland Referendums. The cartoons in the popular "Confederate" newspaper were drawn by the Glove & Mail's staff cartoonist and mailed to St. John's daily. All free.

Annoyingly, the Convention, stuffed full of the old elite left Confederation off the Referendum Ballot. London put it back on. Two Referendums later, Newfoundland was Canada's 10th Province and its arms were carved in the stone shield reserved for it on the entrance to the Peace Tower. Joey Smallwood was known from then on as the "Last Father of Confederation".

So yeah, London was a willing seller and Canada was a willing buyer. You must understand that when it comes to Confederation Elections, the Confederation side has no use for mere rules on spending. No effort is spared to save and expand the country, see New Brunswick 1866, Newfoundland 1949 and Quebec 1995.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
AIUI, there was a considerable naval presence along the w coast, of which the fatal patrol by HMAS Sydney was only one example.

Sydney was sunk by a German commerce raider in the course of a patrol to protect vital merchant shipping routes, not by the escorts of a Japanese invasion force.

An invasion going through WA was impossible simply because no army in the world had the capability to extend a logistical tail long enough to do anything useful. Port towns that were important for strategic logistics were of course military targets that needed self-defence capability against raids and minelaying, but that's very different to the sort of territorial defence that led to MacArthur's controversial Brisbane Line strategy.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

TGC, I don't disagree with what you're putting, but I don't think I was saying that the defence requirement was limited to forestalling an invasion of Aust through WA. Any invasion would have been limited to coastal WA, maybe as far as Kalgoorlie. The consequence of a successful invasion would have been to place that Allied shipping in the Indian Ocean under severe threat. The Kormarin's activities were targeted directly at that shipping, rather than an invasion of WA. Taking of WA coastal towns would have greatly facilitated both the privateering type activities and also formal actions.

Had either the Germans or the Japanese started to invade, an independent WA govt would have had 3 choices: to ask the Aust govt for support (which would have been forthcoming, even if it were delayed); to have sought and obtained UK assistance, with an even greater delay; or invited the invaders in for a cup of tea.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

I'm not sure why we are talking about a fictitious invasion (which, as tgc explains adroitly above, is simply logistically impossible) of a fictitiously independent WA. I am not advocating secession. I do not think it is a good idea. Australia should be united.
I was just saying, Gee, that your ideas for senatorial reform are not only not particularly good (with respect), but they would not be tolerated in WA, where federalism is something that most people - however mistaken they probably are - believe is not always in the state's best interests.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks DK. I think the discussion arose from my comment that had the Westralia movement succeeded, the new dominion would have been looking to the Commonwealth from which it had seceded for protection in WW II. And from my other comment that it is the mendicant states which are those least attached to the federation.

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

"It ain't over till the fat lady sings"! Yes, folks, a key part of the Australian election looks set to be re-run.

The result of the Senators to represent Western Australia having originally been decided by less then 20 votes (out of 1.3 million). It then went automatically to a recount, which had a different last 2 in the 6 elected, but again with less than 20 votes in it. Worse: 1375 votes had gone missing in between the original count and the recount!

The result affects not only a nice salary windfall for those lucky enough to be elected, but also the balance of power in the (Federal) Senate.

So the result looks set to go to the High Court, which is probably going to order an unprecedented new election for WA senators. Maybe a whole lot of new micro-parties will emerge to contest it, given the results in other states, where at least one senator was elected after getting less than 1% of the primary vote.

What do Aussie voters think?

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I hope that voters wake up and realise not to vote for microparties who have no policies and whose opinions on issues of importance are quite unknown in the vast majority of cases. Am in support of returning to the polls in WA, suspect it will benefit the ALP, but who knows.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:

What do Aussie voters think?

I think a lot of nasty things have been said about the Electoral Commission, most of them unwarranted. I've seen lots of comments along the lines of "how hard can it be?" and I'd say the answer is "quite hard, actually". I'd like to lock some people in a room with 2 million ballot papers and see how they go with getting an accurate count.

Anthony Green says that, assuming the missing ballot papers were found and were error-free from the first count, it would literally have come down to a single vote.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

My guess is that these votes haven't just vanished, and that somebody - probably an electoral commission temporary employee who didn't declare their party affiliation - has taken them. 1375 freshly printed ballot papers would be pile standing about 20cm tall, 1375 ballots which have been filled in and folded take up over twice the space - they didn't disappear through a crack in the floor.

Consider that the the Labor-Green Party was desperately fighting to minimise a record defeat, it was the Green part of the LGP which mysteriously called for a historic first Senate recount despite no credible suggestion anything went wrong with the first one, and then a whole lot of votes "went missing" (all above-the-line group ticket votes where the effect would be predictable) leading to the LGP gaining two seats they didn't from the original count. It's a little too hard to believe it's all a coincidence or a mistake.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Well, you really have out-conspiracy theory'd yourself, tgc.
A recount for a margin as small as 14 is actually pretty standard, and suggesting there was something untoward about that is absurd. When Palmer was in trouble in his seat and the margin was seven, no one had any trouble with the fact that a recount took place as a reflex.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yes, I don't know where tgc got this idea that the recount was unprecedented. Maybe it's the first time it's happened in the Senate - I've no idea - but the basic criteria for a recount are exactly the same whether it's Senate or House of Reps.

Also, the initial report I heard of the contents of the missing ballot papers was that they were NOT for a particular party, and that therefore the odds that someone had got rid of them based on a party affiliation were quite low. If there was a subsequent report that revealed the missing votes were all in a particular group's favour, I'd like to see it please.

[ 11. November 2013, 07:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
My guess is that these votes haven't just vanished, and that somebody - probably an electoral commission temporary employee who didn't declare their party affiliation - has taken them. 1375 freshly printed ballot papers would be pile standing about 20cm tall, 1375 ballots which have been filled in and folded take up over twice the space - they didn't disappear through a crack in the floor.

The old saying - given a choice between a fuck-up and a conspiracy, go for the fuck-up 9 times out of 10 - is probably right again this time. Let's wait and see what Kelty finds out. He has already said that he'll be recommending some changes.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, I don't know where tgc got this idea that the recount was unprecedented. Maybe it's the first time it's happened in the Senate ...

Right - it is indeed the first Senate recount ever, exactly as I said.

quote:
... but the basic criteria for a recount are exactly the same whether it's Senate or House of Reps.

You couldn't be further from the truth. A recount of Senate ballots may be ordered on the discretion of the State Electoral Officer or by an order of the High Court, unlike the House where there is an automatic recount if the final two candidate preferred margin is less than 100 ballots, and a recount must happen if one or more candidates demand it.

quote:
Also, the initial report I heard of the contents of the missing ballot papers was that they were NOT for a particular party, and that therefore the odds that someone had got rid of them based on a party affiliation were quite low. If there was a subsequent report that revealed the missing votes were all in a particular group's favour, I'd like to see it please.

Above-the-line votes are grouped into bundles of fifty at the polling place on the night of the election, and during a recount these existing bundles are checked and recounted rather than all the votes being put in a pile and the whole process started from scratch. You'd only need It would have been quite easy for somebody with some high school maths skills to work out how many bundles of which parties to remove from which divisional centre to get the Greens candidate over the line.

I think it goes without saying that the chain of custody rules will be tightened for future elections to prevent a party sympathiser who didn't declare their affiliation to the AEC from being able to get away with this.

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Well, you really have out-conspiracy theory'd yourself, tgc.

Outside of stealing an election, what other motives can you think of for somebody removing a pile of ballots as big as a microwave?

quote:
A recount for a margin as small as 14 is actually pretty standard, and suggesting there was something untoward about that is absurd. When Palmer was in trouble in his seat and the margin was seven, no one had any trouble with the fact that a recount took place as a reflex.

As I explained above, the rules for the Senate are not the same as the rules for the House.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

TGC, you are just flat out wrong.

The law on Senate recounts:

quote:

At any time before the declaration of the result of a Senate election the Australian Electoral Officer may, on the written request of any candidate setting forth the reasons for the request, or of the officer’s own motion, direct or conduct a re‑count of the ballot papers contained in any parcel or in any other category determined by the Australian Electoral Officer.

The law on House of Representatives recounts:

quote:
At any time before the declaration of the result of a House of Representatives election the Divisional Returning Officer may, on the request of any candidate setting forth the reasons for the request, or of the officer’s own motion, and shall, if so directed by the Electoral Commissioner or the Australian Electoral Officer, re‑count the ballot papers contained in any parcel or in any other category determined by the Australian Electoral Officer or the Electoral Commissioner.

That's from sections 278 and 279 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The only differences in those texts are differences necessitated by the fact that House of Reps elections are electorate by electorate (or 'Division') and Senate elections are State or Territory-wide.

[ 11. November 2013, 10:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's from sections 278 and 279 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The only differences in those texts are differences necessitated by the fact that House of Reps elections are electorate by electorate (or 'Division') and Senate elections are State or Territory-wide.

There's more to the way it works than just the CEA though, there is also the AEC's internal policy which is an agreed convention - to automatically recount a House result when the margin is less than 100, and to do always recount a House result where requested by one or more candidates - for a DRO to not grant a requested recount would be quite controversial and inevitably overruled from further up the chain. I have this on good authority from a former DRO.

The reality of this point is also supported by looking at the scarcity of Senate recounts - we have just had the first, and it may yet end up counting for nothing if the unprecedented recount is followed by an equally unprecedented by-election.
You can then compare that to the normality with which House recounts are treated - nobody except a handful of beardy lefties complained when Clive Palmer requested Fairfax get recounted and many were a little surprised when Sophie Mirabella did not make what would have been a very reasonable request for a recount of the close result in Indi.

On a point of semantics, there is one "Australian Electoral Officer" for each state/territory and while they do formally hold that title they are conventionally referred to as the "State Electoral Officer" to head off any potential ambiguity.

Hopefully the inevitable by-election in WA will be contested with the same candidates from each party (unless they choose to withdraw) without any registration fee and with no campaigning other than every candidate being given equal space for a written manifesto to be printed in the newspapers at the AEC's expense and published online. To require registration fees and allow campaigning for doing over a botched/stolen election would give an unfair disadvantage to the poorer-funded parties which can't afford to do more than one campaign in a year.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Above-the-line votes are grouped into bundles of fifty at the polling place on the night of the election, and during a recount these existing bundles are checked and recounted rather than all the votes being put in a pile and the whole process started from scratch. You'd only need It would have been quite easy for somebody with some high school maths skills to work out how many bundles of which parties to remove from which divisional centre to get the Greens candidate over the line.

The maths skills obviously rules out anyone on the right.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Well, you really have out-conspiracy theory'd yourself, tgc.
Outside of stealing an election, what other motives can you think of for somebody removing a pile of ballots as big as a microwave?

I have no idea. I don't engage in conspiracy theorising. I have shit to do. Gee's suggestion that it was some kind of fuck up seems the best one.

quote:
A recount for a margin as small as 14 is actually pretty standard, and suggesting there was something untoward about that is absurd. When Palmer was in trouble in his seat and the margin was seven, no one had any trouble with the fact that a recount took place as a reflex.
quote:
As I explained above, the rules for the Senate are not the same as the rules for the House.

My response was to your insinuation that there was something untoward in the request for a recount, or in the fact that it was granted. Responding "That has never been done for the Senate before" is neither here nor there. For such a small margin, it would have been exceptional if no such request was made, and if the recount did NOT take place.

[ 12. November 2013, 08:54: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0