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 > Diminishing democracy: the Australian senate changes > Comments

Diminishing democracy: the Australian senate changes : Comments

By Binoy Kampmark, published 7/3/2016

Fruit salad selections to the upper house are made because of an assortment of extraordinary preference swaps and a system known as 'voting above the line'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
The proposed changes are s huge gerrymander to the major parties, as they encourage people to vote in a way where the value of their vote gets destroyed rather than distributed further.

What they should do instead is keep the current system with one minor change to greatly reduce the value of preference deals: allow people to number as many boxes above the line as they want to. So if they number one box, it will be distributed as now. If they number six boxes, it will be distributed according to the voter's preference but if the vote reaches the end of those preferences before all senate seats are filled, any furhter distribution will be done according to their number one group's voting ticket. And if they fill in all the boxes, it will be distributed entirly according to the voter's own preferences, exactly as it would be if they'd voted below the line (theoretically there'd be a difference if the final choice came down to two below the line only candidates, but that's virtually impossible).

Party deals may be undesirable, but they're unavoidable (unless we want to ban How To Vote cards) and they're nowhere near as bad as destroying the value of votes.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 7 March 2016 12:32:18 PM
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
One must not forget that other dog of a voting system... The Hare-Clark fiasco.

All that it ensures is hung Parliaments where the tail wags the dog.

Thus Tasmania has the Greens governing then with 15% of the Vote.

25 individual seats instead of 5x5 seats , thank you.

At least , that way I will really know who my local Pollie is ,instead,of the current shambles.
Posted by Aspley, Monday, 7 March 2016 1:03:50 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
Dear Aidan,

<<as they encourage people to vote in a way where the value of their vote gets destroyed rather than distributed further.>>

The proposed changes will relieve many voters' conscience as they will no longer be required to speculate (and perhaps be wrong about) which of the major parties is likely to be slightly less immoral than the other.

I definitely would like to have the peace of mind to know that whoever comes to power is not there because of my "preference". Let those politicians know too that they were elected by and represent perhaps only 7% of the population.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 7 March 2016 1:23:38 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
Hare/Clark? no good? So, what about Duckworth Lewis or Jerry Mander? No? Optional preferencing? No?

Well then, what about uninterfered with straight out, proportional representation? With say 5% the lowest possible cutoff point? Gaining 3-5 seats or places?

And those with less, being able to give gift their partial proportion to another(like minded) party with at least a mandatory minimum 5%?

And given that would be the only possible backroom deal, limit the dirty deals done in the dead of night that completely defy the clear and unmistakeable will of the people!

Which current preferencing practises ENABLES NOW! And the patent reason for the clear and visible rubbishing of anything else?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 7 March 2016 4:54:26 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
Yuyutsu, the decision to do nothing is still a decision. Denying responsibility doesn't make you any less responsible.

________________________________________________________________________

ttbn, what's wrong with being at odds with the majority?

________________________________________________________________________

Cobber, in SA the Senate seems to be working very well. Why do those in the eastern states see it differently?
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 7 March 2016 5:10:59 PM
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
Dear Aidan,

It's not about responsibility - it's about refraining from doing evil.

The option of doing nothing already exists: I was not talking about that but about voting for my favourite party(s) without having to perform something unconscionable as a side-effect. That option did not exist till now (and still would be missing when voting for the lower house).

If other people want to vote for the oppressive major parties, then it should weigh against those other-people's conscience, not on mine.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 7 March 2016 5:52:05 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. Page 2
  4. All

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