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 > Fixing the vote > Comments

Fixing the vote : Comments

By Brett Walker, published 7/9/2007

Compulsory voting is bad enough so let’s at least make the act of voting fair and transparent.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
While I will have to disagree on compulsory voting being a bad thing, I do agree with the rest of article.

Allowing people to vote as they intend rather than handing the majors the ability to anoint the final senate seat can only be a good thing.

I'll be adding this to my open government policy.

http://jamespurser.com.au/Policies/Open_Government
Posted by James Purser, Friday, 7 September 2007 10:17:19 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
I think the suggestions are excellent, except, possibly: "make ticket voting selections only allocate preferences to the political party selected, not to any others."

This would lead to votes surplus to the number of whole quotas achieved for a group being wasted.

From a perspective of democracy this may be preferable to having those surplus votes being allocated in ways that the voters are unaware of, but I think it is still problematic.

---

I believe Independent Federal MP Peter Andren suggested that voters be allowed to vote preferentially for groups above the line. So, if there are, say 10 groups, only numbers up to 10 need be entered, instead of up to the order of 100. If it was only optional preferential instead of compulsory preferential, as it should be, then even fewer boxes would need to be numbered.

---

I think nearly every voter, even those who don't give their first preferences to candidates of the two major parties, does have a view on which of the two major parties is preferable (or, perhaps, less undesirable) and should be encouraged to express that view using the preferential system.

However, in Queensland the optional preferential system has largely been turned in to 'first past the post' because nearly every party has miseduacted voter about preferential voting system.

This is unfortunate, but not a reason to make it compulsory to number all boxes (nor for that reason to make voting compulsory).
Posted by daggett, Friday, 7 September 2007 12:41:32 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
Brett Walker,

Why not (1) abolish compulsory voting itself, then there's a better chance that voters will actually know what they're doing. and (2) get rid of preferrential voting and introduce proportional representation in all lower houses.
Posted by mac, Friday, 7 September 2007 1:10:57 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
Focus on APEC's "democratic processes". What can we do to make this ASIAN PACIFIC MOMENT count.

South East Asia a forgotten success story.

Village Farmers struggle for subsistant livelihood.

We talk of APEC trade exchange in $ millions while village farmers have no land to farm.

Australia: What is the purpose of APEC's "democratic processes".

http://www.miacat.com/
.
Posted by miacat, Friday, 7 September 2007 1:37:17 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
Compulsion to attend the ballot box (usually seen as a compulsion to vote) is undemocratic. It also leads to a situation where, instead of working for the votes of all potential voters, the would be politician only needs to work on the minority of swinging voters. The majority vote one way all their lives. Their vote is given without thought, even when they do not like the policies of the party concerned.
In a democracy people have both a right and a responsibility to vote but there should be no compulsion to do so - and certainly no compulsion to attend the ballot box. People should be encouraged to vote - and part of that encouragement should come from having candidates who make people want to vote.
The Australian electoral system is riddled with fraud, multiple voting, failure to vote and the use of votes by others - particularly where the elderly and the disabled are concerned.
There are howls of rage every time the suggestion that we should have non-compulsory voting is raised. The major parties see it as benefitting them so they do not want to change. Others see it as something people should be required to do.
The reality is that it does not require thought on the part of most - and politicians get away with far too much because of it.
Posted by Communicat, Friday, 7 September 2007 5:18:24 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
Thanks for comments so far.

MySpace should be: www.myspace.com/savethesenate

bw
Posted by bitey, Friday, 7 September 2007 5:20:26 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
Well argued article but 'no compulsory voting' - no chance of the ALP forming a Govt. Simple.

The point about Family First is well made. God (no pun) knows if ALP voters in Victoria realised (and the Democrats behind them) that their preferences would be allocated to FF.

I also have a strange suspicion that some voters in the recent Victorian election may have thought they were voting Democrat but instead voted DLP! Go the Groupers - you weirdos.

Nine out of 10 Australians don't have any clear conception of how Senate preferences are allocated. I also suggest that a good many senior political party strategists don't know either.

Go for a more transparent system. One that people can understand.
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 7 September 2007 5:40:02 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
Cheryl,

I've heard that compulsory voting favours Labor, what's the evidence? I suspect that compulsory voting is the reason for so many "no" votes in referendums.
Posted by mac, Friday, 7 September 2007 5:50:52 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
Somwhere I read that the only way to keep a politician upright, is for him to have pressure applied to him from both left and right.This is the kind of SENATOR I like to be elected.The present system ,I agree, does not assist this type of supposed STATE'S SENATOR. cOULD THEY BE ELECTED IN A state election?
Posted by TINMAN, Friday, 7 September 2007 6:56:06 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
When a candidate has enough votes for a quota (determined by whether it is a full or half senate election) the balance of votes is redistributed to the next preference. But which voters were used up in achieving the quota and which voters should have their preferences reallocated? I was puzzled and so looked it up. The way it is done is that a fraction is established of the total votes minus the quota, divided by the quota. So only a fraction of each preference is reallocated. So, if a candidate gets exactly double the quota, 0.5 of each preference is reallocated to the next in line. It is a bit unfair if I get my preferred candidate, because I then also get 0.5 of my second preference. The system certainly has flaws. Forgive me if I have not explained this too well and get the official pamphlet on election day.
Fencepost.
Posted by Fencepost, Friday, 7 September 2007 7:15:51 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
mac,

The system of compulsory voting favours both major parties (as their public funding is calculated on the vote they get), but particularly favours the one in government. This is because no government can avoid occasionally hurting their supporters, and although a committed voter could not bring himself to vote against his party, he could easily stay at home, which is half as effective. That is why compulsory voting has survived many changes of government.

I just cannot see how any of the alternatives offered can possible be implemented, as the obstacles are too great. You will never abolish the senate, as EVERY state has to agree, and the smaller ones would never do so. Similarly with state governments.

One thing I have discovered is how to vote for someone, whilst denying them public funding. (I would like to see an amendment providing that the only money politicians can spend on elections is that raised by putting their daughters on the streets).

To do this, you give your first preference vote to one of the ungrouped candidates on the right side of the paper. You then give your second preference to the one you want, and so on with preferences. As a candidate must poll 4% of the formal vote to qualify for funding, and this is hardly likely to happen, the system will work.

All this hoo-ha about blame shifting will never go away, as the aspirations of voters are totally unrealistic. As a result, politicians have to humbug the voters, as they have been doing since elections began.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 7 September 2007 8:31:15 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
The generally accepted explanation for why a non-compulsory voting law might mean no more labour govts, is that the average working class voter is far less likely to turn out to vote than his/her more educated and wealthier middle class counterpart. The working class are much more likely to vote labour than liberal.(pls don't write in and tell me you are working class and vote liberal, I know you exist, unfortunately)

I can't be bothered finding any data to back that explanation up, although I am sure it exists.

Seems to me like it might do the two party system some good if people ended up with a gov't they didn't want because they didn't vote. It might encourage them to get a little more involved in the way the country is run and not waste their precious vote next time.

Kowing people though, they might still fall victim to the 'what can I do with one vote' mentality.

Question. Does someone who doesn't vote deserve to have their views represented?
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 7 September 2007 11:55:14 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
Answer to that question Paul L is no. There have been enough voters go through school and learn about the system for the majority to know about the importance of voting. Everyone has contact with the media or people who have contact with the media so there is no excuse that they do not know about an election or when it is to be held. There can be no excuse that they do not know about the issues.
There is no excuse whatsoever for the 'compulsory voting' system. There would be no excuse even if the electoral roll was accurate and there really was one vote per person.
It is up to people to vote. If they do not vote then they cannot complain.
Compulsion to attend the ballot box makes for lazy, careless, ill-informed voters who take little interest in politics and end up thinking that what they are told must be true because "X" said it.
Posted by Communicat, Saturday, 8 September 2007 8:13:25 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
Not so sure about that Communicat. We're interested in Oz Politics but I suggest that many people don't give a 'fat rats' about it. Pollies on the most part rate very low on trust. Just a bit below journos and used car salesmen.

We don't want ala the USA where 30-40 percent of elligible voting population elect the Government.

I do take your point that people might just 'tick n flick' or donkey on election day but my thinking is that 90 percent of people vote historically, ie, 'I've always voted ALP therefore', etc, etc. That's not set in concrete though as we saw with Howard in 96 as he carved in to Labors heartland.

It's those swingers who walk in and decide who'll rule the roost. They're open to argument as per discussions like this one. They make have historical preferences but they're not strong.

Those swingers would probably vote whether it was compulsory or not.

The case for removing compulsory voting hitting the ALP was strong (or I should say was reasonably strong) in the 60s and 70s when the party did its own polling. I can't produce definitive data post Keating. That would make a good study.
Posted by Cheryl, Saturday, 8 September 2007 1:07:10 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
compulsary voting hmm

Lets take away the money for votes and see what happens

this is the only reason it is really there so labor and liberal can spend millions and not go broke.
Posted by tapp, Saturday, 8 September 2007 1:27:32 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
Plerdsus, Paul L,

Thanks, I'm not sure, however, that many people still vote on the old class lines, whether or not it's due to the Howard effect. I favour voluntary voting in principle, pushing the apathetic to the polls does more harm than good, especially in Constitutional referendums. Paul L - I agree, a few terms of voluntary voting might result in more informed voters. Better a government elected by 51% of an interested 60% of the total electorate under a voluntary system than 51% of 90% in compulsory voting, anyone who has to be compelled to vote has no business voting.
Posted by mac, Saturday, 8 September 2007 3:05:52 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
Every now and then we get some spiv or lazy stooopid coming out with this unimaginative promotion of arguments for the "uninterested, the indifferent, the gullible and ignorant" with a need to consider voluntary voting. By simply and arrogantly promoting apathy herein we will find the crux of the democracy deficit.

Under compulsory voting, every vote is a quality vote that reflects very much a democratic responsibility and the necessary discipline. Perhaps it is not by accident that this article, ignores democratic responsibility and discipline in favour of dumbo ideas of arrogant manipulation that obvious lead to discrimination, then full blown discrimination, then to the reality that is the US of A with obviously rigged elections.

With regard to voluntary voting may I suggest to Brett Walker that *"to do nothing is to live in denial and accept the lie of our "existence". To sit in silent complacency is to welcome the domination over our lives. The failure to act is an act in failure, and a warm embrace to an unmitigated corruption befalling humankind."

*I believe someone important said this.
Posted by Keiran, Sunday, 9 September 2007 8:00:17 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
Fencepost,

It is not correct to say that the system “is a bit unfair if [you] get [your] preferred candidate, because [you] then also get 0.5 of [your] second preference” because it is not you who are your second preference – it is a group of voters. It is better to think of yourself as a member of a group. The group does not need all the votes so rather than having some members’ votes wasted, they are passed to the next choice.

The single transferable vote is the mots democratic system in the world, because it allows the individual voter to express preferences in any order at all. If you are a committed Labor voter, you can put the No. 2 Labor candidate ahead of the No. 1 Labor candidate. If you want, you can give your first vote to the No. 2 Green and your second preference to the No. 3 Liberal. It is totally your choice. That is why the idea of changing the system to having only preferences above the line is less democratic. That would mean that the parties would choose the candidates and you would have absolutely no say in the choice of individual candidates.

It is true that most voters do not use the system, but Tasmanian voters do – because they have had it for over a century. It is often the case in Tasmanian elections that a member of one party will get kicked out and replaced by a member of another party.

The current above-the-line voting gives voters the choice of following their parties’ preference allocation. It does not force them to do so. Everyone is free to number the candidates below the line.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 9 September 2007 1:05:39 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,

There may not be an official impediment to filling in below the line, but given the size of the "table cloths" (and I will admit to being one of those adding to its size) people naturally pick the easiest route.

This does work against independents, its been shown time and again. Making preferential voting optional (ie you don't have to number all the boxes) means that more people will actually select the person that they want rather than just the party they want.
Posted by James Purser, Sunday, 9 September 2007 1:19:19 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
If enough people refused to vote or refused to vote in the manner demanded then there would be an outcry and something would be done. I suspect however that a majority of Australians believe (a) that nothing can be done and (b) nothing should be done - and of course it is an offence to encourage people to (ab)use their ballot in an improper manner.
They get you all ways.
Posted by Communicat, Sunday, 9 September 2007 4:18:08 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
There is an invalid assumption in this article. That is, a healthy number of Labor voters in the last election in Victoria were not happy with giving their second preference to Family First. How do you know this? How could you know this to be true?
Posted by Mick V, Sunday, 9 September 2007 5:29:08 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
Education is positively correlated with left leaning political views, particulary tertiary education and even more so in the US where liberal arts is a requirement.

Google the Australian Election Survey. You can fiddle around with as many variables as you like to see how different demographics vote, and their attitudes on all sorts of issues.

Blue collar working class used to be Labor support, but it's not any more and the blue collar working class now think of themselves as middle class. Blue collar workers are just as likely as white collar ones to send their kids to expensive private schools and buy a new car every year. They're just as likely to own investments but less likely to have Year 12 or equivalent.

People who work in caring professions, with or without higher education, are more likely to vote Labor than white collar workers without higher education. But education is the most strongly associated with political preferences of all variables.
Posted by chainsmoker, Sunday, 9 September 2007 6:03:00 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
Proficiency in logic, reason and facts should be a pre-requisite.

Followed by an IQ test.

Otherwise its another popularity contest, in which case, just acknowledge it for the facade that it is and turn it into a reality TV show phone poll.

The vote is not equal. Someone in an electorate that is twice the size of another effectively has half the voting power of his neighbour.

What a joke.

Democrazy is just a charade anyway. Mob rule. Tho its the least worst of a very bad bunch. No matter who ya vote for, gubbermunt always gets in.

Australia is only one of a few contries that has complusory voting. All those other countries arent worse than ours and our isnt inherently healthier, nor better.

Compulsory voting just gives the government fodder to rationalise its claim to be speaking for all of us.

In any event, enrolment and attendence on election day is compulsory, the vote is not.

Role call and periodic attendence is what the thing is about l suspect.

The paranoid, controlling beauru-rats just have to know where all ITS 'citizens' are, least we be off doing something bad. Heck, we might be having too much freedom and fun, WITHOUT them. Oh, the horror.
Posted by trade215, Monday, 10 September 2007 12:23:33 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
Mick V, I will assume you are being serious and not just mischevious.

I have no idea whether the above the liners who picked ALP as 1st preference actually wanted to give FF their 2nd preference - except anecdotal evidence (feedback) I have seen.

My entire point is that above the line as it currently operates is opaque at best (and lends itself seemlessly to backroom shenanigans) whereas below the line optional pref. is 100% transparent and actually tells candidates what the voters thought of them on the day, not because they HAD to distribute preferences but because they COULD and sometimes DID.
Posted by bitey, Monday, 10 September 2007 12:29:03 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
Compulsory preferences are undemocratic. In House of Reps. elections the way they are allocated means that no matter who you vote for, eventually your vote will arrive at either Labor or the coalition.
Proportional representation is the only remotely democratic process, As for senators being cabinet members of the house of Representatives! How can they keep the bastards honest if they are the government? Surely that's unconstitutional?
Ban all political parties, I say. Have a parliement of independents who debate intelligently and make consensus decisions for the greater good. No prime minister, but a rotating chairman/woman. Remember though. Most so-called 'independents' are religious stooges.check them out carefully.
Perhaps if everyone simply wrote, "I want proportional representation" on their ballot papers, we might see some democracy.
Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 10 September 2007 8:33:00 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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