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 > Nothing underhand about Labor-Greens deal > Comments

Nothing underhand about Labor-Greens deal : Comments

By John Warhurst, published 29/7/2010

Preference deals rarely signify private policy deals. They are about win-win electoral benefits.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
John, it's a pity you don't spend much time talking about the byzantine nature of Senate Preference deals and the fact that the current above the line system (along with voter apathy) ensures these are the primary tool (95% last election) that determines who holds the balance of power. It is a sad mockery of democracy. I can just see Graham Richardson's sly grin when he thinks about the beauty of this rort. If preference deals are so benign then can I suggest we make voting in Senate elections optional preferential and mandate that the allocation of a "1" above the line allocates votes only to the Group (or Party) to whom it is allocated. Then let the voters use whatever how to vote messages their favourite party wants to put in front of them. The outcome would be the first truly democratic election outcome since at least 1983.
Posted by bitey, Thursday, 29 July 2010 10:16:12 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
The word “deals” linked with the word “politicians” will always invoke thoughts of “something underhand”, no matter what John Warhurst believes. His claim that “…the majority of the supporters of the parties involved are already inclined to vote that way anyway” (as in preference ‘directions’) also needs to be questioned. Mr. Warhurst doesn’t have any more idea of how people will place their preferences at any one election any more than I do. If he thinks that Labor voters will automatically put 2 next to the Greens, he overlooks the fact that there are some very conservative Labor voters out there who would rather be dead than help the Greens run interference on an elected government.

The party manipulators might not have the influence over non-party members (the vast majority of voters) as they and Mr. Warhurst believe. And, given the shonky cards and illusions handed out in the recent SA election by Labor, it stands to reason that anyone with a serious interest in what happens to Australia at the hands of politicians will be very careful about how-to-vote cards and preferences.

The same goes for the Coalition. I will vote Liberal as the lesser of two evils, but I will not necessarily preference the way they want me to.

As the main hope for Labor is seen to lie in Green preferences, let’s stick with that arrangement. Bob Brown has said clearly stated that he had nothing to do with the Labor/Green preference deal. This has led some commentators to ruminate on just who runs the Greens these days, with the suggestion of creeping ‘evil’ much further to the Left than Bob Brown himself. Conservative Labor voters are going to think about these things, along with the silliness of a communist-reared Greens candidate who has been getting some publicity lately. They might be asking themselves, what is the point of electing a government if everything it does is invalidated by the Greens?

.....
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:04:29 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
.....

Don’t be fooled by John Warhurst. Politicians don’t do deals unless there is something in it for them, particularly with the Labor/Greens deal where the parties are so far apart on basic ideals. Labor is still a democratic, middle of the road party. The Greens are neither.

The most important part of the Warhurst article is this: “After all voters can quite easily throw the how-to-vote card in the bin. Many do.”

The sooner we get rid of preferential voting, the better. It aids the major parties, but it also makes them beholden to people whom most Australians do not want a bar of
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:05:28 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
Another 85 illegals arrived today. If the Greens gain the balance of power in the Senate, and Labor owes them for their preferences, how many can we expect on a daily basis then? And how long will it be before they are back to being processed on the mainland? That's what the Greens want - a return to mainland processing and an easier time for anyone wanting to come here without being invited.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:49:28 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
When the author talks about “win-win” deals he means “win-win” for the parties, not for the electorate.

The preference system delivers otherwise unelectable minority party candidates to the Senate in a result that clearly does not reflect the electorate’s actual preference - see here for Anthony Green’s analysis of how we wound up with Fielding in the senate despite the fact that Family First attracted only 1.9% of the primary vote.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/results/sendVIC.htm

Preferences are fine as long as they’re voters’ preferences, not parties’ preferences. Electors should be free to preference as many or as few candidates as they like, with no option to vote the part ticket.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 29 July 2010 6:10:01 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
I completely agree with you Rhian- preferencing is in my opinion a very good thing IF it is by voters.
When parties do it, it's as you said, "win-win" for them, we on the other hand, lose.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 29 July 2010 7:20:16 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
It stinks!

Any sort of alignment between the Greens and Labor is just repulsive.

I mean, how can they, when there are such fundamental policy differences?

The Greens are atrocious on border protection. Labor is at least theoretically trying to undo the terrible stuff-up caused by Rudd… which the Greens very strongly don’t want to happen.

The Greens SHOULD be very strong on population growth / sustainability issues and CERTAINLY not aligned in any way with the rapid-growth-with-no-end-in-sight big parties!

Ahhhh, the Greens have turned out to be such a dismal disappointment!!

At least when I was a Qld Greens candidate in 1995, there was a principled position of no allocation of preferences, with it being left entirely to the voter to decide, or if a particular candidate felt that a Liberal or Labor candidate in his seat deserved preferences, then s/he was allowed to publicly espouse it.

No, the Groans have completely gone off the rails.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 30 July 2010 7:20:58 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
Rhian,

The preferences are always the voters’ preferences. Voting above the line is a decision to allocate preferences in line with the voter’s chosen party. If a voter does not want to follow his or her party’s preference allocation, he or she has the legal right to vote below the line. If he or she chooses not to exercise that legal right, he or she has still chosen a particular preference allocation.

That Steve Fielding was elected with an intial vote of 1.9 per cent is no more shocking than the fact that Stephen Conroy was elected with an initial vote of 0.03 per cent or the fact that Judith Troeth was elected with an initial vote of 0.03 per cent. In al cases, candidates had to reach the quota of 14.3 per cent to be elected. The path by which they did that is irrelevant.

The STV system of PR is based on individuals being elected. If voters choose to accept the recommendations of parties that is their choice.

If voters were allowed to vote any number at all, that could destroy the whole proportional nature of the voting system.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 1 August 2010 3:51:36 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
Chris C

The 1.9% was the first preference for the entire Family First party slate, not just a single individual. Some 44% of the electorate gave their first preferences to the Lib-Nats and 36% to Labor. Of course individual candidates from the major parties scored fewer first preferences because those parties had several candidates in the field. But I strongly suspect that most voters are more interests in the party they vote for than the person.

The path by which candidates progress to achieving quota is not “irrelevant”, it is the whole point of this discussion.

Although voters are permitted to choose their own order of preference, for the senate the ticket typically lists dozens of candidates and filling in each box is onerous. It’s far easier to vote the party ticket.

One simple reform would be to remove the requirement that 90% of squares must be numbered when voting “below the line” in the Senate, with voters able to fill in as many or as few squares as they choose.

Another would be to have voting in the Senate regulated the same as for the Reps, with voters required to fill in their own preference order rather than simply voting the party ticket. Parties could still put out “how to vote” cards with recommended preference orders, but the system would be less heavily weighted towards voting the party ticket.

The “proportional” nature of the system is illusory if it assumes voters’ actual preferences are reflected in the ranking of preferences for minor parties we would not dream of actually voting for. Or do you think the preference swaps that put Family First in the senate ahead of the Greens really reflected Victorians’ preferences?
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 2 August 2010 12:19:36 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
Rhian,

It used to be compulsory to fill put al the preferences individually for the Senate. There was a high informal vote, so the above-the-line system was introduced for people who couldn’t count or couldn’t be bothered counting.

Now, you have a choice: fill in your ticket or accept your party’s preference allocation. It is still your choice. More than 95 per cent of voters decide, freely, to accept their party’s choice. It is their choice to do so.

The system allows them to vote for individuals in any order they like. If they choose not to do so, it is their own choice.

The preference swap that put Family First in instead of the Greens did reflect voters’ preferences. The preference swap was not a secret. It was reported in the press when it was done. The group HTVs were available before the election to any voter.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 6 August 2010 9:59:03 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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