The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The budget impasse reflects an indulgent electorate and an undemocratically elected senate > Comments

The budget impasse reflects an indulgent electorate and an undemocratically elected senate : Comments

By Brendan O'Reilly, published 16/9/2014

Despite the extent of cuts, Hockey's Budget is still unable to produce anything near the Budget surpluses promised (and presumably thought appropriate) by the outgoing Labor Government.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
The Coalition polled only 37.7 per cent in the 2013 Senate election. Almost two thirds of Australians voted against them, and almost a quarter of the population voted for micro-parties. That, not the supposedly broken voting system, is why they got so many seats.

The Senate balance of power has been held by minor parties almost continuously since 1955 (first by the DLP, then by the Democrats and more recently by the Greens). The Senate has been more democratically representative of the people than the House of Representatives since 1949, when the single transferable vote was introduced. (For tables of results for both Houses, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14427&page=0.)

Every one of the four referenda to reduce the role of the Senate has been defeated, and two of them were defeated despite both major parties being in favour and only the DLP and a few rebel Liberals being against.

I’ll take the Abbott government’s protestations seriously when and if it calls a double dissolution. Until then, it’s just hot air.

The sudden triumph of the micro-parties has created consternation across the land and predictable calls to “reform” the system. Some are thoughtful but most are knee-jerk, designed to advantage one particular party (the Greens) and/or deeply undemocratic.

There is nothing wrong with a candidate being elected from a tiny initial vote. After all, no one has ever objected to the number 2 and 3 major party candidates being elected in that way, as hundreds have been. There is nothing wrong with group voting tickets, which have halved the informal vote. The only change needed to the actual voting system is to make preferences below the line optional after a certain number so that those who are currently intimidated into not voting below the line can feel confident in doing so.

I have presented a longer argument at post 288 at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2013/09/25/senate-call-of-the-board/?comment_page=6/#comments. An even more detailed argument is in my submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (Nos 131 and 131.1 at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2013_General_Election/Submissions).
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 8:03:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Typical tory "the system isnt giving me what I want so we need to change it" attitude to democracy.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 11:23:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the Government doesn't like the senate; it can only blame itself and previous governments, who created the current voting system, replete with preferences that can and do, skew the results that completely counter the demonstrated will of the people.
If you're not happy Jan?
Then you have the power to fix it, and just by embracing optional preferring, and for both houses!
Which should exhaust according to the wishes of the voter, rather than the machinations of too clever by half pollies, who just don't want to held to account by the electorate!?
Face it, this is the government we voted for and are stuck with!
And if you don't like/can't change what the government does, then change the government!
And if young people are thoroughly pee'd off, by current political machinations, then they, particularly the 40% who don't vote! Need look no further than the nearest mirror, to find the true/real source of their discontent. [Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most stupid fool of all?]
I mean, and seriously, just don't do something, stand there endlessly bitching about outcomes!
That'll work, but only on long suffering parents, maybe? Sometimes, occasionally?
Grow up poor little ickle diddums, accept your share of responsibility, and get out there and vote!
Then if you get a government you don't like, you can only blame yourselves, as opposed to virtually everyone else!
And then they say it's pollies who are first among equals in reapportioning blame for less than desirable outcomes!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 12:23:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Party duopoly liked the Senate system just fine when they were the beneficiaries of it, but as soon as the "little guys" figured out how to use it to advantage all of a sudden it's a problem
The ungrateful hoi-poloi are making a stab at power and politics, that's entirely unacceptable, so, change the system to make it even LESS democratic.
God forbid that the electors should have their wishes make any difference to the feeding frenzy at the golden trough!
Posted by G'dayBruce, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 1:47:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The argument that "as soon as the little guys figured out how to use it (the voting system) to advantage all of a sudden it's a problem" doesn't hold water. The reality is that the Motoring Enthusiasts' senator was elected with only 0.51% of the primary vote in Victoria, the successful DLP candidate got only 2.3% (in Victoria in 2010), while the Family First senator got only 3.8% of the primary vote in SA.

So how did they get a Senate quota of 14.3% of the vote, after preferences were distributed? It was mainly courtesy of the back-room party boys who had control of the preferences of those who voted above the line.

Taking the power to allocate preferences away from the parties and giving it back to the voters is something that needs to happen urgently for the sake of democracy.
Posted by Bren, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 8:36:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting and mind boggling to hear tonight that members of the Senate are earning more than the American president. They are who? And do diddly what?
Posted by jodelie, Tuesday, 16 September 2014 9:50:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bren

I completely agree

In WA we "elected" (in our first senate election, before the re-run) a senator from the Australian Sports Party that attracted 0.23% of the primary vote. We also lost capable and experienced Senator Louise Pratt to union hack and faction guru Joe Bullock due to Labor placing Bullock above Pratt (many below-the-line voters ranked Pratt over Bullock, but of course the party ticket won out).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-14/louise-pratt-outpolling-joe-bullock-below-the-line/5389000

I have no objection to minor parties holding the balance of power – in fact, I can see benefits. But the preference system seems guaranteed to ensure that the major parties control most of the senate while the balance goes to parties that almost no-one wants in government.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 11:24:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty,

How do preferences “skew the results that completely counter the demonstrated will of the people”?

Bren,

Why is the 2013 election of Ricky Muir from an initial .51 per cent of the vote a problem but the 2004 election of Stephen Conroy of the ALP (with 780 votes or 0.03 per cent), Julian McGauran of the National Party (with 1190 or 0.04 per cent) and Judith Troeth of the Liberal Party (with 829 or 0.03 per cent) not one?

Rhian.

Why is it a problem that “the party ticket won out”?

People freely choose to follow a party how-to-vote ticket and thus accept the results of their choice. There is nothing undemocratic about that. Those who don’t want to are free to vote below the line. It takes time and effort, but it is open to everyone to make that choice. There are even websites available that ensure your vote is formal and allow you to print you own how-to-vote card.

We have the single transferable vote. It makes no distinction in transferring that vote between a candidate in the same party and a candidate in a different party because it is, in line with Section 7 of the Constitution, designed to elect individuals, not parties.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 2:30:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If every one had to vote below the line and did so in such a way as to replicate the results of the 2013 election, there could be no rational argument that the result was invalid. The leap-frogging of one candidate over several others is not a fault but an essential capacity of the STV system. All that is happening is that candidate with the least support drops out and his or her voters move to their next choice. It is a series of contests, each of which has one candidate less in it, until one candidate demonstrates that he or she has the support of the majority of voters left in the count. Instead of occurring over several separate elections on perhaps 100 days, it occurs at one election, with preferences substituting for returning to the polling booth.

The “experts” claimed that people were horrified that micro-party candidates (voted for by 23.5 per cent of the national population in 2013) actually won seats, that they were appalled that they did not know where their votes had ended up, that they would realise their “mistake” and that they would flock back to the “proper” parties. Yet, the micro-party candidates actually gained votes in the Western Australian Senate election, showing that people were not horrified or appalled at all but pleased that the system allowed “outsiders” to be elected, relaxed about where their preferences went and completely understood that the system gave expression to “the demonstrated will of the people”. The total micro-party vote was 25.5 per cent http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ (Sunday, 06 April 2014 03:11:32 AM)), up 5.9 per cent on 2013
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 2:32:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris C

You say that "People freely choose to follow a party how-to-vote ticket and thus accept the results of their choice. There is nothing undemocratic about that. Those who don’t want to are free to vote below the line. It takes time and effort, but it is open to everyone to make that choice.

You have hit the nail on the head with the observation that "it takes time and effort". People don't freely choose to vote above-the-line. They are induced to do so because it takes a lot less time and trouble.

If you could only vote for the Labor or Greens tickets above-the-line (but not for other tickets) would that be fair? According to your argument, it would be because supporters of other parties could still vote for their preferences below-the-line!

I don't share your view. I think that true democracy requires a level playing field at the voting booth.
Posted by Bren, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 5:51:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris C

It is a problem that the party ticket won out because, as the article points out, the ticket system and above-the-line voting subverts the intent of the Hare-Clark system to deliver competition between candidates within as well as between parties. It is the political equivalent of third-line forcing.

I would be less concerned with micro parties gaining power if they are genuinely the least objectionable option for voters. This would be the case if everyone voted below the line according to their own preferences. But the labyrinthine preference deals that determine who turns up in the senate are not a reflection of voter preference between candidates, only the preference not to individually number 70+ boxes.

It is true that the micro parties attracted quite a large share of the vote in 2013, but irrelevant. People don’t vote for “A Micro Party”. It its very unlikely that people who did vote for them are indifferent between which minor party politician winds up in the senate. I imaging Australian Christians or Family First voters would be quite unhappy if their preferences contributed to the election of a Sex Party senator.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 17 September 2014 7:23:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bren,

I don’t think spending a few minutes every three years is too much to give for the cause of democracy, though many people apparently do. No, it would not be fair if “you could only vote for the Labor or Greens tickets above-the-line (but not for other tickets)”, but that is not the case: all parties have above-the-line votes.

Rhian,

The ideal would be for everyone to fill out every square below the line in whatever order they chose, but that does not happen. The group voting ticket has halved the informal vote and that is a good thing.

The group voting ticket are al on the AEC website before the election. People can check them before deciding how to vote. The idea that people are annoyed that the wrong micro-party won was tested in the WA special Senate election. If they had been annoyed, fewer would have voted for micro-parties the second tome around, but more did so.

As I have said, I agree with making preferences below the line optional after certain number (which should be the same for half Senate and full Senate elections and in all jurisdictions), but I see no problem in the convenience of group voting tickets because they are not compulsory. I can even see an argument for the preferences in a group voting ticket to exhaust at whatever the number of compulsory preferences below the line is o that GTVs do not carry more weight than below-the-line votes. I made this suggestion to the Joint Standing Committee.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 18 September 2014 3:11:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy