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 > This grubby senate power grab > Comments

This grubby senate power grab : Comments

By Philip Lillingston, published 15/3/2016

This 'only a miniscule primary vote' criticism seems to be on the premise that if a voter fails on their earlier choice candidates, then, apparently for the sin of not supporting a popular candidate, they should be punished.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Yuyutsu, although some of the citizens didn't consent to be citizens, the duty of voting only applies to those on the electoral roll. The duty to vote doesn't apply to those citizens who failed to register to do so.

As for replacing GVT with partial preferences above the line, I think that should be optional for voters - they should be able to number as many or as few boxes as they like above the line, and in the event that their preferences end before all seats are filled, the vote should then be distributed according to the GVT of their number 1 preference rather than being destroyed.

Partial preferences are something that should be discouraged, as the unpleasant choices are sometimes the important ones. However AIUI in some states it is possible to cast a valid Lower House vote with partial preferences by putting the same number in the box of each of those candidates you don't want to choose between. Maybe we should also make that a valid way of voting below the line in the Senate?

________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen, FPTP is a terrible system. If Labor get 34% of the vote, Nats 33% and Libs 32%, is is really fair that Labor get the seat?

Something similar to that actually happened once, and it ultimately resulted in Australia introducing preferential voting to prevent it reoccurring. Has anything changed since then apart from people being less likely to vote the way you want them to?

FPTP entrenches party power at the expense of the people. It discourages independents from standing as brings a high risk of them effectively disenfranchising their supporters (since the chance of winning is usually far less than the chance of preventing them from deciding who will win). And it's more likely than not to result in bad governments.

What led to bankruptcy in Europe was surrendering monetary sovereignty to the ECB.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 2:30:29 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
Aidan, all I've required of the unrepresentative swill is they actually face the people/their employers and account to them at the ballot box.

Now you be surprised as you like, but even if they're not fair minded, my stance clearly says I am!

You on the other hand seem to think dirty deals done in the dead of night are perfectly okay?

And those who've manipulated the system for pure self interest, have no case to answer before their peers and employers? 0.51% of the primary vote for the motorists party! Comon!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 3:28:52 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
Rhosty, firstly they're not unrepresentative swill; they're representative of the people of their state. Keating's point was that this does not make them representative of Australia as a whole, but the issues that disproportionally affect the less populous states tend to get ignored in the Lower House, so there is a strong need for the representation arrangements to be as they are.

Unless you want to resort to the (constitutionally dodgy) measure of banning parties from issuing How To Vote cards, there will be people voting the way parties want them to, so I see no reason to ban group voting tickets. However I do want to encourage people to think for themselves about how they vote rather than just trusting a party. Personally I never trust parties to distribute my preferences, so I always vote below the line, but I recognise that can be a bit awkward so I support genuine senate voting reform – but not this disgraceful gerrymander.

There is nothing wrong with the Motoring Enthusiasts Party getting a seat with 0.51% of the primary vote, as people who voted for candidates that got eliminated chose to transfer their vote to the Motoring Enthusiasts Party. Its votes were enough to keep it from getting eliminated, and ultimately the people preferred their candidate over whoever came seventh. And the government, out of pure self interest, are trying to change the system to ensure it doesn't happen again.

BTW the government's proposed legislation does not completely do away with GVTs. According to Nick Xenophon's office, it still allows people to cast a valid vote just by voting 1 above the line.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 5:21:03 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,

<<the duty of voting only applies to those on the electoral roll>>

And very sadly, the latter is compulsory for anyone who lives at the same Australian address for over a month.

http://www.aec.gov.au/enrol
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/publications/fact_sheets/centenary.htm

I still would like to have the option of partial preferences rather than have a party which I happened to place as my first preference decide for me. I wouldn't mind keeping the GVT so long as I could override their decision, say by placing X's on all the remaining squares.

Nobody should be forced to make an immoral choice. Even currently, if I cannot find even one party that is moral, then I can vote informal so that I don't need to commit the immoral act of selecting an immoral party. Now say I did find one or more moral parties, but on the list were also the Nazi party ("Kill the Jews") and the Islamic party ("Kill the Christians"): according to your suggestion I would be required to select and perhaps even bring to power one of them. I believe this to be immoral.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 5:31:46 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
It is shabby, shabby stuff from the government. The Greens, who I have voted for the past, lost my respect and my vote today, too.
Posted by paul walter, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 10:56:36 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
Aidan,

"ttbn, there's nothing undemocratic about imposing a duty on citizens."

That's what you think is it? OK, but I disagree with what you think. Compulsory votings is definitely undemocratic. Australia is one of only a few countries that feel the need to force people to vote. The UK and the USA, are no less democratic than Australia because they don't have compulsory voting. You have an authoritarian streak in you. Either that, or you need to be told what to do all the time to survive. Big Brother has certainty got you by the short and curlies.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 11:07:21 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. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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