Public perception of the function of scrutineers within the polling place during the primary vote count has historically been one of their being there to get a feel for the drift of preferences in seats where no candidate can be assured of attaining an absolute majority of votes, early on. Then to run away and ring this information through to 'party HQ' before anybody else knows.

What a shame this perception is, because the real function of scrutineers at the count in polling places should be to ensure that none of the predominantly casual (ie. engaged just for the election) polling officials make mistakes as to in which pile counted ballot papers are placed, and that at the end of the count that the ballot paper accountancy is complete and reconciles. All honest and competent scrutineers are really there in the interest of Australians at large, irrespective as to which candidate may have signed their scrutineers appointment form.

The great tragedy of recent years has been the spreading of the polling place scrutiny requirement over so many days that comprehensive competent volunteer scrutiny of the conduct of the electoral process is all but impossible to sustain.

At the 2007 Federal elections, around 20% of voters cast pre-poll votes. Polling place scrutiny there would have required some volunteer's presence all day, every day, for I think a fortnight. Almost impossible. If anything, governments have been making this form of voting easier and easier, and more and more people are resorting to it, if we are to believe the official figures. In the vast majority of pre-poll voting places, there would exist no scrutineer presence to confirm the reality of this, however.

It must be remembered that the full-time Divisional staff number around three persons. They can't be everywhere. In one close-run contest in 2007, at a pre-poll centre (not that of the DRO's Divisional office) the enveloped ballot papers filled in by vote claimants were not going into a sealed ballot box as they were cast, but into a pile under the counter.

<< The minute a party shows up that shows its worth by pointing our society in a more constructive and cooperative direction, I will be willing to listen. >>

Poirot, I think Gillard IS doing this.

For the first time in this country’s history, our PM is questioning the merits of rapid population growth and talking about a sustainable society.

While this is very rudimentary and actions that move us in the right direction are small, if not trivial, it should be enough for all of us environmentally concerned people to really perk up and listen, and be involved.

I find it really unfortunate that the consensus about this election appears to be one of disinterest and disillusionment when such a momentous and profoundly important (or potentially so) change in political rhetoric has been delivered by Gillard.

The challenge now has surely got to be to make sure that it is not just rhetoric. This election is NOT one to be blasé about, IMO.

That doesn’t mean that we should necessarily vote for Gillard. In fact, I will still probably be voting for no one. But it should surely mean that there is a lot more interest in the general populace than there has been in past elections.

Forrest

I’m not so sure that tight scrutineering is all that important.

There is a big check and balance in place – the recount option.

If a vote is close, then a recount can be requested. If this happens, then presumably a very accurate assessment of votes takes place.

It is also apparent, from my understanding, that when recounts have occurred, the original count has been shown to be pretty accurate. Maybe you can confirm or counter this.

The possibility of a recount certainly helps to keep those administrating voting procedure honest, I would think.

Ludwig,
Please read what I said.
I did not say vote for a candidate you don't like. That is too narrow a perspective. I look at the whole parliament.

I will vote against a irksome/ inappropriate candidate in the lower house but my senate vote is different.
i.e. I will vote anti lib in the lower house because of the candidate in the hope he will lose, so next election the party will select a worthwhile representative of the area.

however that doesn't mean I won't be giving my senate vote to the same party I voted against in the reps.

my point it the vote in the reps won't make a difference either way in determining govt. Policy at that end is smoke and mirrors as indicated elsewhere.

In the senate policy is important as the senate are the gate keepers.
Fail the senate and it fails.

Ludwig, it is simply a matter of a little analytic thought.
albeit by reverse logic.

Cheese :-)

Ludwig,

I understand your position and agree to a certain extent. I believe that Australia's optimum population would be best under thirty million. However, I believe Julia Gillard's motives for raising the sustainability issue regarding population were not as straight forward as they seemed - for one, it allowed her to jump on the "offshore processing" bandwagon quite comfortably.

There are other reasons why I have stopped listening - not the least being her attitude to schooling. Being a homeschooler, I'm obviously interested in autonomy in learning and abhor the one size fits all mentality. Ms gillard seems to be a great supporter of regimented test oritentated, teacher driven learning - I'm not, which is , of course, a personal thing.

P.S. I wouldn't vote for the present shadow front bench lead by Tony Abbott in a pink fit.

Ludwig, how can you say that?

So far Gillard has dodged every serious issue, with continual motherhood statements. To me this means she is not prepared to express what her, [or her party's], real policies are, as she believes knowledge of them would cost her the election.

Every time I see & listen to her I become more worried that she will get elected, then uncover a wide range of very bad policies. Her reference group idea is a smoke screen for hiding a bad policy, that would cost her votes, & nothing else.

I was saying what everyone else is saying now about Rudd, 6 months before he was elected, & was unhappily expecting him to be elected by dumb Ozzie's. So take heart, I feel the same way, now after some consideration, about little Julia. I expect she will be elected, & be an even worse mistake than Rudd, if that's possible.