Daggett, I don’t have a “pre-occupation with the compulsory aspect of the compulsory preferential system, above all else.”

It is just one aspect of the whole sordid story of perversions to democracy in this country. I have mentioned compulsory preferential voting on this and other threads because it really is the most blatantly antidemocratic aspect of our whole system and hence the one that I find the most offensive.

It may not be something that is hugely important in practical terms, but it is highly important as far as the principles of democracy are concerned. And it is something that is easily fixed, as it was in Queensland in ~1990 by Wayne Goss who installed the optional preferential system.

“Could you please explain …. rather than not make that choice?”

It could easily make a difference in a close contest where a minor-party or independent candidate and a major-party candidate are the front-runners, but where the major-party candidate scores many more preferences, that they wouldn’t have got under the optional preferential system.

“* the closing of voter registration only 24 hours after the poll date is announced.”

I don’t see a significant issue here. We have had a great deal of advertising for months, telling people that they need to register to vote. Voters have all the time in the world to do this.

Continued

“* newsmedia bias in favour of pro-business political organisations (and, within that, Liberal over Labor)”

Absolutely! I’ve mentioned this many times on this forum.

“* restrictions on free speech posed by Australia's defamation laws.”

I disagree that the new laws are a significant reduction to our freedom of speech, which is already highly compromised. Again, I have had plenty to say about this on this forum.

“* government abuse of its incumbent position, in particular, its use of the pork-barrel in election year and taxpayer funded political advertising…”

Yes, pork-barrelling is a real issue. But taxpayer-funded political advertising is not IMO. Receiving donations from big business is far worse. I think it should be banned outright and that all funding political funding should be neutral, ie, from the tax base…with equal funding for the government and opposition, and some form of proportional funding for minor parties and independents to put their points of view forward.

Again, I have entertained this discussion to some extent on OLO.

Ludwig, some of the content of your recent posts is breathtaking, not to mention self-contradictory (more below). It seems to me that you can't be bothered properly reading my posts and can't be bothered thinking through these issues.

Again, how can you possible be so enraged at such a relatively inconsequential issue as to whether or not voters are required to fully express their preferences for all candidates listed on the ballot form (more below), yet be so indifferent to, or, indeed, in favour of, other aspects of our system which are far more damaging to democracy including our libel laws, pork barreling and the totally unnecessary new restrictions on the rights of eligible voters to register to change their addresses?

So, you don't see as 'significant' the fact that almost certainly, even with the best efforts of those now urging members of the public to enrol, that least tens of thousands of eligible new voters or voters who have changed address will miss out? Yes, of course everyone should enrol to vote as soon as they can, but the fact is that many do not, being human and having other concerns and complications in life to deal with.

What almost certainly motivates such people to enrol will not be the announcement of the election date. So, what possible sense does it make for the Government to have after all these years, with no problems with existing practices having become apparent to anybody, to have suddenly changed the laws in order to reduce the existing 7 day period of grace to only 24 hours in the case of voters who have not registered and three days for those who have but who may have changed their address?

The only possible motive I can see is a cynical calculated measure designed to ensure that large numbers of eligible voters, likely to vote against the Howard Government do not get the chance to do so. Given that the outcome of the forthcoming election could be decided by a handful of votes, this may well decide the its outcome.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

I am truly puzzled as to why you fail to share the outrage that I and many tens of thousands of other concerned and informed Australians feel about this. Is it only a coincidence that elsewhere you go out of your way to make lame excuses for many of the other examples I gave of inexcusable behavior on the part of the Howard Government? :

"Where would we be if we completely mistrusted our government? Do you really think so poorly of them as to think that they could be pursuing a policy direction that 'could be used to imprison at will almost any individual that this government feels threatened by'. Don't you think this is taking it just a bit too far?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=830#14341)

It seems to me that, in spite of your avowed adherence to democratic ideals that are more pure than those that most of the rest of us adhere to, you are, in fact, comfortable with the prospect of the Howard Government's re-election. To be sure, you don't like its high population and high immigration policies, but you choose to rationalise your effective support for John Howard by pointing to Labor's current support of those same policies. What you fail to do is show me how you think we can move out of the situation we are in to where we need to be.

In my view, where voters should not wait until they are presented with a choice between what is bad and what is clearly good. If they did, they will be waiting until hell freezes over. What we have to do is make the choice based on what is now on offer. The choice should be a no-brainer, even given the many serious flaws of Kevin Rudd.

---

Ludwig, you wrote: I don't have a "pre-occupation with the compulsory aspect of the compulsory preferential system, above all else."

Then two sentences later, you wrote: "... it really is the most blatantly anti-democratic aspect of our whole system and hence the one that I find the most offensive."

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Then in the very next sentence you contradict yourself again: "It may not be something that is hugely important in practical terms ..."

Then later you seem to contradict that: "It could easily make a difference in a close contest ..."

In fact my point still stands: the compulsory aspect of compulsory preferential voting will very rarely, if ever, cause an independent or minor party candidate to win over a candidate from a major political party. To state what should be obvious it is the lack of support for minor party candidates which prevents them from winning.

One way to change this (other than having electorates represented by more than one member as in the ACT) is to bring back 'first past the post' and have large numbers of candidates contesting each electorate, in which case winning is largely a lottery. This was how the elections in New Guinea were conducted (or at least in the elections before those just recently conducted - I don't know if 'first past the post was used in the most recent elections.) Certainly independents or candidates from all kind of small minor political parties were able to win those elections, but it hardly made those elections more democratic.

What optional preferential can allow on occasions, is for a different major party candidate to win than otherwise would have been the case, but, as I intend to show, that may actually make optional preferential, in practice, less democratic than compulsory preferential.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

I believe that most who vote for minor parties or independents do, in fact, have a preference for one or other of the major political parties, and if this the case, those voters should be made aware that they can express that preference and be given every encouragement to do so.

However, due to the mis-education of the public by nearly every political party the optional preferential system in Queensland has been turned into a de-facto 'first past the post' system. On occasions, the Greens have not allocated preferences on their 'how to vote' forms causing many Green voters, who I believe would otherwise have been inclined to express a preference for Labor over Liberal, not to. In marginal seats this can, and probably has, caused Labor to lose where it might otherwise have won. In such cases the winning Liberal candidate would not have succeeded in obtaining an overall majority of formal votes.

I believe that such practices are, in fact, anti-democratic. I am not arguing that Greens voters should be obliged to express a preference or that the Greens allocate their preferences on their 'how to vote' cards but I do believe that they should make the effort to advise those intending to vote for them that they should make use of the preferential voting system to express a choice for one or the other of the major parties if such a preference exists.