Small party's and independents, growing in numbers but what can they achieve
Out side the Chook pen of Australian politics the Senate, not much it seems
The last independents who did much Tony Windsor and his mate, attempting a return did
Who else could, well the three Liberals challenging other Liberals, will surely rejoin the Liberals if they win
Greens still hold I think, only one lower house seat,a decoration at best
Bob Katter is not going to say anything we can understand, woops vote with other than LNP so what happens to disaffected votes
It in the end is called two party preferred

Hi Belly,

Its hardly democratic that the likes of the National Party can win 10 seats in the Federal Parliament with an average of 62,500 votes per seat won. Whilst the Greens get one voice with around 1.4 million votes. Even Labor won 69 seats at an average of 68,000 votes. As I said its hardly democratic.

Hi Paul,

So would you support NZ's MMP system, a double-system of elected representatives by electorate, AND party representation on the basis of national share of votes ? All in the one house of parliament.

But isn't that what our two-house system, Reps and Senate, is supposed to resemble ?

Clearly, if the Greens had half a brain between them, they would focus their electoral and financial efforts on the handful of seats that they are most likely to do well, i.e. gain at least 25 % of the primary vote.

That way, they might be able to sneak one or two of their candidates over the 2PP line.

Of course, that was then; the dissolution of the Greens, 2019, is now.

Good luck. :)

Joe

Belly Quote "well the three Liberals challenging other Liberals, will surely rejoin the Liberals if they win"

** What information do you base that statement on. **

Philip S it is not my intention to have this post put in the fantasy section
Or to teach you how to research things
We are talking about small party's
And it seems clear they both earn money and gain influence in the Senate
Out side the Senate they rarely have an impact
I do think the first two posts need addressing
One vote one value,in both houses, if for some reason we keep the Chook House Senate,seems best, and Democratic too
Not even remotely interested in the NZ one
And warn about the America system
Interested people could go to past election results, look at their seat, and say a few others, and see what did happened to minority votes

Hi Joe,

The Greens rightly believe to maximise the Senate vote they need to contest lower house seats at the same time. It is critical that as many polling booths as possible are manned. Labor and the Coalition who have far greater financial resources do the same thing.

//Clearly, if the Greens had half a brain between them, they would focus their electoral and financial efforts on the handful of seats that they are most likely to do well, i.e. gain at least 25 % of the primary vote.//

Absolutely; from my experience all of the labour costs are covered through volunteers. The direct finances from head office would range from a low $6k in tough low vote seats, to about $30k in the more receptive seats. Adam Bandt seat of Melbourne would have a substantial budget to work with. Then there is the general expenditure as well.

The biggest problem for minor parties is finding candidates, and then finding supporters to back up those candidates. A party like the CDP often run a candidate from well beyond the electorate, and then can't support that person at pre-polls or on the day. In some small unmanned booths they might score 10 votes. Ghosts than don't even show their face to the voters, mystery candidates we call them.

The Senate is unrepresentative with Tasmania having as many Senators as NSW. The Senate can't make its own laws, so its not the same as the fairer NZ system.

The House of reps represent people in an area, and country areas are bound to have less votes than densely populated areas of cities where they are influenced by Greens propaganda.

http://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/HouseDefault-20499.htm
The link shows seats won
It however, neither can any poster, tell what voters think or why
Telling us they did not know what they wanted is foolish
We can however see in the above link some things of interest
Clive Palmer, now trying for a rebirth, is spending very very big
But if current polls mean anything he will not do all that well
Be honest
Polling points to a coming change in government
Surely that is based on opinion of that government nothing else

" but what can they [Small party's and independents] achieve"?

First they can try to achieve momentum. Lots of other small parties have developed into true political forces in this country over the years - Australia party, greens, Democrats.

Second they can indicate to the majors where the electorate's views really lie. By far the best example of that was the first Hanson surge. This showed the Libs that a large part of the electorate and particularly a large part of their erstwhile supporters were (and are) concerned about the nations immigration policy. This in turn caused Howard to subtly move Liberal policy toward a more Hanson-lite policy. End result...Tampa and the boat turn-backs.

I would also argue that the Greens have forced the ALP to move more to the left to try to protect their far left vote.

Its a misunderstanding of politics to assume that the only issue is getting bums on seats in the House of Representatives. A vote for a minor party or independent doesn't always go unnoticed.

Pauletc,

"Its hardly democratic that the likes of the National Party can win 10 seats in the Federal Parliament with an average of 62,500 votes per seat won. Whilst the Greens get one voice with around 1.4 million votes. "

That's an utterly false comparison. The Greens run candidates in every electorate. The Nats run candidates in only about 1/3rd of the electorates - they don't run in Queensland and they don't run against sitting Liberal members.

It'd be interesting to know whether you made this false comparison because you utterly misunderstand the the issue or because you thought you could slip it through. I guess we'll never know.

Belly Quote "Philip S it is not my intention to have this post put in the fantasy section Or to teach you how to research things"

It is in the fantasy section because you say "well the three Liberals challenging other Liberals, will surely rejoin the Liberals if they win" To me that is fantasy because I do not think they will.

The problem with researching things are two people researching the same subject can and often do come to different conclusions.

Just out of interest what makes you think you would be teaching me how to research things?

mhaze not able to mount a case against your view on why the greens get only one lower house seat
Do not wish to in fact
The Chook Pen Senate, is different, but they do better than most there
Look at the history of the more prominent small party's
DLP Democrats, Greens, One Nation, and King of them all National party
Not one made it to the top, or ever will
You can make a case for the Nationals being in decline, for this election at least
NSW will be bleak in the extreme for the Greens
But both, not unlike true Liberals, may/will bounce back, as a result of this election loss

Belly,

"One vote one value,in both houses, if for some reason we keep the Chook House Senate,seems best, and Democratic too"

Do you mean 'First Past the Post'?

is mise that would be the result but lets be clear
And end to preferences is what I want
Most do not need to think about who they place second
Some, far to many, do not understand after voting for a small party they in fact, via preference, vote for some one else
I am told time after time this is undemocratic, but why
If the one with the majority of votes wins in both houses surely that is ok

Must have missed a post here found the 2016 Senate numbers thought I put them in a post
However we are not going to talk about the subject
But will do so in depth after the election

Belly,

One vote one value is about the most undemocratic system of voting that exists, if you mean first past the post, if you mean the one vote one value system that already exists in Australia then I don't see the point of your argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_vote,_one_value

Unless there are runoffs, with one vote one value/fptp, 'till one contestant gets more than 50% and that is expensive and time-consuming.

Australia used first past the post from 1901 'till 1917 when the undemocratic system was thrown out and the much fairer Preferential system was introduced.

Example: A gets 28%, B gets 26%, C gets 24% and D 22%.
A is declared elected, even though 74% of the electors hate his guts and wouldn't put their own water on him if he was on fire.

Is that the sort of democratic vote that you have in mind?

is mise yes ok your figures are right, but, some one first past the post with 23 percent of the vote, is not different than my one vote one value
Or is it
IF we stopped preferencing soon after the very small party,s would no longer exist
As voters understood they had no chance
Labor gains seats, as do LNP from second or third past the post.
Both may still win them when smaller tooth acre party's no longer stand
The senate stands alone, it will always be my view the party controlling the lower house should control that house
If they go over board we can remove them next election

Belly,

So you think that the majority rules is bad; why don't you like democracy?

The Senate is a House of Review, if the party that controls the Reps also controls the Senate, then out goes any meaningful review.

See:http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP0708/08rp05#preferential

This explains the whole system very well.

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/she-is-a-federal-senator-but-her-new-books-says-she-remains-a-voiceless-wife-20190205-p50vso.html
is mise mate! how please tell me, do you come to that conclusion
First past the post CAN NOT BE ANY DIFFERENT than one vote one value
The one with the most votes, without preference wins!
Look now at the link, tell me some thing is not dreadfully wrong here.
How did this woman end up in the house of the chooks
Elected [if you insist] by one party, that then merged with another
She betrayed those who voted for her [very few] by joining yet another
Our system stinks
Back on subject
If the one with the most votes wins under first past the post and one vote one value, what is your concern

Belly,
>First past the post CAN NOT BE ANY DIFFERENT than one vote one value
It can and it is. Under FPTP, a vote for the candidate who comes third has ZERO value.

The Australian system is a lot fairer: all votes have the same value, and retain that value until the voter decides to exhaust it.

>The one with the most votes, without preference wins!
Yes, which is grossly unfair! Votes are votes, whether they're preferences or not.

Under FPTP if you run for parliament as an independent, you're likely to harm the causes you're trying to advance, as anyone who votes for you effectively destroys their ability to determine who wins (unless you finish in the to two which is very unlikely as a lot of people won't vote for you for fear of destroying their ability to determine who wins...)

As for Lucy, when her party abandoned her, she did what she thought was right. And if voters aren't happy with it, they won't reelect her. It won't be the first or the last time voters are dissatisfied with what their MPs do.

Belly,

"If the one with the most votes wins under first past the post and one vote one value, what is your concern"

My concern is that FPTP is not democratic as it does not reflect the will of the majority of voters unless one candidate gets over 5o%.

Margaret Thatcher famously became PM of the UK with 46% of the vote.

Preferential voting was introduced in Australia precisely to stop the unfairness of FPTP.

"In October 1918, a by-election was held in the then rural Western Australian seat of Swan. Labor's 21 year-old candidate polled 34.4% of the vote and won, ahead of the Nationalist candidate on 29.6% and the Country Party candidate on 30.4%. Something needed to be done to prevent the two conservative parties splitting the vote and delivering seats to Labor. The solution was preferential voting.

The Corangamite by-election two months later on 14 December 1918 was the first Federal poll conducted under the new system. In a field of five, Labor again led on the primary votes, future Labor Prime Minister James Scullin polling 42.5% of the vote. But a tight exchange of preferences between four competing conservative candidates saw Scullin's vote rise to only 43.7% after preferences. The Victorian Farmers Union candidate coming from 26.4% on primaries to win with 56.3% after preferences."
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/prefhistory.htm

Scullin lost because a majority of the voters didn't vote for him, they preferred someone else; democracy in action.

Aiden is mise look at the senate
Tell me you think that is fair
The will of over 80 percent of voters can be over turned because one of the two, with the support of minors, can stop bills just for the sake of it
Note is mise seems now to understand there is no difference first past the post v no preference
It is undemocratic to demand voters vote for people right down the list'
NSW Next month votes
No need to preference exists unless you want to

Hi Belly,

Its an exaggeration to say the will of 80% can be overturned by 20%. The biggest voting block in the Senate is the Coalition with 35%, then Labor with 30%. Neither party has been given any clear majority. Government legislation coming from the lower house, is from a Coalition with only minority support of 42%. Reaching the Senate government legislation has immediate 35% support or 30 votes from 76 (40%). We are looking for a majority here, I can't see it. The legislation can only be defeated in the Senate at the behest of the Labor Party with the support of the majority of minors. Labor has 26 votes (34%) need another 12 votes, 9 from the Greens (12%) total 35 votes 46% still 3 votes short. can obtain those 3 votes from about 4% of the representation. The reality is it requires the support from about 42% of the electorate for the Senate to defeat government legislation that was put up by the Coalition which had only 42% of the house of reps voter support to start with.

Belly,

Of course, the Senate is fair, it is elected by Proportional Representation which is even more democratic than Preferential.

The Senate is a House of Review and by making the Government accountable does a good job; Heaven help us when the ruling party has a majority in the Senate.

The question you should ask yourself is, do you want democracy or not?

Paul sorry mate, while your numbers are right I have wounds inflicted by your party
Not about to forget or forgive them
They stopped the Malaysian solution
And a working carbon control plan
So your numbers are right but tell me how many voters did not vote green
ismise unable to continue to debate on fairness we are too far apart
Aiden she is now a Liberal, will be reelected because of that
How do family first voters think of that

Belly,

"The will of over 80 percent of voters can be over turned because one of the two, with the support of minors, can stop bills just for the sake of it"

What party ever got 80% of the vote?

How do you know that they stop bills just for the sake of it?

Maybe they stop them because the majority, having been deceived by the Government, want them stopped.

"ismise unable to continue to debate on fairness we are too far apart"

Not surprised as you seem to be quite unaware of what democracy is and unable to understand the concept of fairness.

is mise as hard as it will be for you to understand
Here is why my figures [while proven wrong by Paul] still matter
A center exists, not left not Conservative
That center has both Liberal and Labor voters in it
We saw John Howard own that center
Hawk and Rudd briefly did too
Such as the greens/one nation/the then dreadful lost, Democrats, all used power they, in my view, never should have had
And insulted that center
EG
Next election that center in part, will reject Liberalism, because it has concerns not shared by them, about climate change
PS that center is about 65 percent of voters from each side

Belly,

What have you got against majority rule?

Hi Issy and belly.

The principle of one vote one value, should be up held at all times. However the original concept of the Senate being a states house, with each state (colony) given equal representation, was in principle reasonable for the conditions that existed in 1901. Perth was over 2,000 miles away from the Capital Melbourne, even further by sea. Brisbane was 600 miles from the largest city Sydney. Impossible distances in those days when you consider a 30 mile journey was a major undertaking. To entice the smaller isolated colonies to federate the Senate was the carrot at the end of the stick. WA was extremely isolated thought of as nothing more than a sparsely populated desert, with nothing of value in it.

Issy, you like me, like a little bit of history. A gun story for you. I was out and about, now we are living in Brisbane, came across an old cannon (cast in 1800) in a park. Back in around 1870 Queen Victoria (probably her government) dispatched, I think it was 12, smooth bore cannons from the Napoleonic era, out of date even then, to defend the defenceless colony of Queensland. The military set up a battery of these old cannons on the shores of the Brisbane River to defend Her Majesties Queensland colony, I think from the Russians at that time. I don't know what they would have done if the Russians had landed even 10 miles to the north or south of the city. Surrender!

>Tell me you think that is fair
>The will of over 80 percent of voters can be over turned because one of the two,
>with the support of minors, can stop bills just for the sake of it

Yes that's fair.
The situation you've described is extremely unlikely. Something supported by >80% of voters is unlikely to be opposed by both a major party and enough minor parties to stop it getting over the line. But even if that occurs, having minors holding the balance of power is much better than blindly letting the government get its own way all the time, and also much better than the power to block legislation resting with the other major party alone.

OK so tell me we saw a woman put in to the senate because another was removed
Her total numbers of votes is not at hand, but likely to be no more than the 19 a one nation person got
She then left the party that saw her? well inserted,
How many who voted for her wanted to elect a Liberal
Hard question
Would your view change if she had become a Labor Senator
Now tell me the chook pen Senate is worth saving

Paul.

"The principle of one vote one value, should be up held at all times."

That's not a principle, that's an un-principle, if you mean FPTP but if you mean it as applied to the Australian voting system then I'm all for it.

is mise please help
I need you to tell me how one vote one value differs from first pqast the post
No distribution of preferences
So one vote one value see,s my vote for one person
If that person get just 23 percent in a field of five others, but is ahead of the rest he wins
How is first past the post different

Hi Belly,

I much prefer preferential voting to first past the post. With FPP even without manipulation the winner could be elected with a very small percentage vote. To give you an example there are 10 candidates 'A to J' and 101 voters. A scores 11, votes B to J, 10 votes each. A is elected with 10.9% of the vote. There is no option to indicate 90 votes under no circumstances wanted 'Á' elected.

Manipulation of FPP; There are two serious candidates for election P and B, there is 100 voters. P has done his sums carefully and knows he has 49 votes in his pocket, but B has 51. What does P do, he gets his good mate I to nominate. I campaigns with the same platform as B.
P tells voters under no circumstances vote for B or I. I is very unpopular, but he's good for 3 votes. Look P wins with 49 votes to B's 48, I was a distant last with 3 votes.

A system that is harder to manipulate and fairer than preferential or FPP voting. Is giving the voters an optional number of positive votes and a unlimited number of negative votes. In that way its much harder for micro candidates to rally support amount themselves and with a little support from one of the big guys to get elected. Its also harder for the big parties to run stooge candidates to given them that bit of extra support.

cont

cont

Simply put, a Senate vote with 6 to be elected, Labor has 2, Liberal 2, Greens 1. The contentious position is who gets number 6. One Nation after gathering preferences from the micros still only has a part quota, they need the residual Liberal preferences to get elected, over Labor's number 3. However the bulk of Liberals, the small 'l' Liberal voters have been indifferent towards Labor, not giving them a positive or negative, but they are particularly antagonistic towards One Nation giving them negative votes, they don't want these people elected. Greens have give a strong positive to Labor and an equally strong negative to One Nation. The upshot is Labor's number 3 takes position 6 or, could be Liberals number 3 or Greens number 2, but unlikely. Certainly it will not be One Nations lead candidate. The people really have spoken.

Well hands up, I admit it, my concern is two many very small party's are about
Some voters waste the vote on them, believe it or not some of them, fail to understand they in fact via preference, vote for one of the big two
Chook Pen senate, very very long ago, stopped being the states house
Micro party's got seats on micro votes
Even only 19 in the case of a one nation tin hat person
Eliminating that, in my view is worth doing
A future small party can if its policy's suit, still become the government

Hi Belly,

There are far more democratic models than the model Australia has adopted. The big two will each remain a minority within the Senate for some time to come. The fact is two-thirds of Australian want one or the other of the big two, Labor or Coalition. But and its a big BUT, one-third prefer someone else.

Lamenting the "injustice" of not obtaining a majority in the Senate should not be the priority of Labor or the Coalition. Their priority should be to do some soul searching and find out why so few Australians are willing to vote for them. Its not the voters who are getting it wrong, its the major parties. For too long both parties have treated the voters with a degree of contempt, only a secondary consideration at best. Collectively the big guys were believing "no matter what I do to them (the voters), they will always tick my box come election day". How wrong they were.

Just on the up coming election, good to see Labor still has a commanding lead in the latest 'Newspoll' 53/47. The only worrying aspect is Bill trails Scum O' as preferred PM. It should be of concern to us all, except for the die-hard's from the dark side, who are going down with the ship anyway.

Obviously fringe dwellers like the Greens like preferential voting as it is the only thing they have going for them

With it they can become the tail that wags the dog to some extent by hawking their preference to the highest bidder. This is nothing but corruption on a grand scale, where a small minority gain power illegitimately over the majority.

It is a totally corrupt system which should never been allowed in a democracy.

Dear Hassie,

Where would the Liberal Party be without the Nationals?
Should Coalitions be allowed?

Foxy I think Hasbeen would not think that fair
As we age some get even more grumpy, my view on Australian Conservatives and one nation are while well thought out not a reaction to my age or biases
Reality has a roll to play but not always seen here post election loss it will be clear the right of this government has helped defeat the government

Steady on there Foxy, your'e talking about the good guys, of course Hassy will agree with coalitions, for the good guys.

Hasbeen, have you been able to find a peace loving party to vote for? One that supports your peace loving idea of the nuclear annihilation of 200 million innocent men, women and children in Pakistan. You said it!

No use trying to get balanced comment out of some
And in fact if Pakistan said that about us?

Need to expand on my last post
See some views here, if made public, would see even more voters flee the LNP
It remains true voters do not want a purely left or right government
Putting our hands over our ears or eyes and shouting I can not hear/see you is not going to change that
The fact is as we age we some at least, get further from just what others are thinking
In leaving our bias in the bucket at the door we may just see and hear that unpleasant thing, truth