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 > Winning but losing: why our electoral system needs to be re-thought > Comments

Winning but losing: why our electoral system needs to be re-thought : Comments

By John Phillimore, published 16/11/2007

Cross your fingers and hope you get what you vote for.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
A return to optional preferential voting would surely reflect the will of the electorate better than the current compulsory preferential system. By allowing us to 'terminate' our vote after indicating number one, or to exclude candidates we dislike and still record a valid vote would be much more democratic. Of course, this would disadvantage the major parties, and reduce their bargaining power in setting up preference deals - which is why they banned it. Same thing with the Senate - above the line voting gives all the power to the major parties, and it is quite alarming to see how their preferences flow - but filling in all the boxes below the line is such a chore and one slip up invalidates the whole thing. The old system of filling in just 12 votes (I thing it was 12) was much better.

I've always thought 'How to Vote' cards should be prohibited - and was amazed last election to come across a friend who was under the impression that unless she followed a how to vote card, her vote would be invalid. I always get very strange looks when I refuse HTV cards and say I don't need to be told how to direct my vote!
Posted by Candide, Monday, 19 November 2007 7:27:17 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
Rain are you completely satisfied with what the member for your area delivers?I am fed up with the continual lies,poverty & crime in our area.We definately need a knew system our vote should stay with the party we vote for,preferential between parties should be thrown out.
Posted by Dr Who, Monday, 19 November 2007 1:36:58 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
Candide,

In the Senate a valid vote is to preference your favourite party and give every other party the same number. Below the line that is. Eg the four Liberal candidates 1 to 4 and everyone else 5. Tedious I know but then you don't have to allocate a valid preference for Labor, the Greens, Pauline or any other weirdos.

Oh it is counted as a valid vote in the Senate. It is not informal. But don't do the same in the House of Reps...where such an option is an informal vote.
Didn't know that? Well of course none of the parties want you to vote like that.

Wizo,

The betting agencies are holding roughly just as much on a labor win as they are on a coalition win. I'm a modest gambler and have reached my limit already. Yes of course a win to Howard.
Posted by keith, Monday, 19 November 2007 2:22:20 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
"Wizofaus", you say:

"Bryn, it may well be more democratic - but it would be a) a bureaucratic nightmare and worse, b) a farce, because in reality a very small percentage of people have the time or inclination to do the work necessary to determine the possible effects of various policies."

I disagree. I think if people really thought there was a chance that they could make a difference, we'd get a far greater pool of people taking their civic duty seriously. Indeed, the mere fact that large numbers of people who didn't make it would be getting specific training would over time, increase the pool. I also don't see why it should be all that bureaucratic. Once they got into parliament, surely the structures would be much as they are now. Another advantage of this system is that you wouldn't get institutional corruption and you'd just about eliminate politcal parties from the system, except as organisations for the promotion of policy ideas (rather than the promotion of careerist hacks pushing small target ideas and smearing their opponents. And because getting itno office wouldn't cost a bomb, you caould pay everyone a wage that was more like everyone else's.

Bryn
Posted by Bryn, Monday, 19 November 2007 5:15:01 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
John,

When you refer to voting is compulsory you just showed you really haven’t got a clue what is constitutionally applicable.
.
On 19 July 2006 I succeeded in the County Court of Victoria against the illegal federal elections held in 2001 and 2004. I proved that regardless of Section 2456 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act purporting voting is compulsory constitutionally it is not. The Court upheld my position!
.
I am BOYCOTTING the purported federal election again!
.
See my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH sets out in detail the issues about elections.
.
All writs are “defective” and so ULTRA VIRES;
ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD (1950) 81 CLR 161
The authority state:
The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
Here the Court held that the period of 14 days for the notice had been one day short and the notice therefore was invalid!
1st day 2 November 2007 Friday (declaration of candidates)
2nd day 3 November 2007 Saturday – (start counting for polling)
3rd day 4 November 2007 Sunday –
4th day 5 November 2007 Monday

21st day 22 November 2007 Thursday
22nd day 23 November 2007 Friday
23rd day 24 November 2007 Saturday
24th day 25 November 2007 Sunday (not being a Saturday polling to be held following Saturday)
25th day 26 November 2007 Monday
26th day 27 November 2007 Tuesday
27th day 28 November 2007 Wednesday
28th day 29 November 2007 Thursday
29th day 30 November 2007 Friday
30th day 1 December 2007 Saturday (only possible polling day
.
Again, I succeeded in Court on 19 July 2006 in two cases on this type of calculation!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 12:47:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John,

Who succeeds in Government isn’t based on who get most of the overall votes of electors but rather who can form between those who take up a seat a majority to form a Government. Even then the Governor-General is not bound to appoint members to the federal executive from the parties that have the majority in the House of Representatives.
.
Take the purported 24 November 2007 federal election. The House of Representatives was dissolved on 17 October 2006, meaning that Section 64 allows Ministers only to hold office from thereon for maximum 3 months. As such, if the first sitting of parliament is beyond that, as it is, then not a single Minister retains his office regardless if they held on to holding government.
Also the writs fail to show a “date” for the return of the writs, as the writs show no specific date but on or before!
.
Care should be taken that "shall not be less than 23 days…after the date of the nomination" means 23 clear days and so the 24th day is the first day (if on a Saturday) a poll can be held and failing this to be a Saturday then the next following Saturday is the polling date.
As I presented in my successful cases on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria, "shall not be less than" means (case law) that not until the number of days have been fully completed can action be taken.
.
In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred to the general rule that "not less than" so many days refers to clear days – "unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention".
.
What we need is an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations, so finally we can hold real valid elections!
.
Somehow all the lawyers fail to be aware that the writs and proclamation were all "DEFECTIVE" and so "ULTRA VIRES"!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 1:04:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage 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. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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