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.

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.

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?

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.