Thread: Election stuffup

This is an interesting twist:

Australia's Ricky Muir | Kangaroo Poo Video | Stuff.co.nz

"Voters in Victoria will likely be represented in Canberra's upper house come July by Ricky Muir, of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party"

Originally Posted by Davo

I'd comment further on this, but I'm just on my way out to register the Liberal Labor National Greens party that I'm starting up for next time.

That'll be the party that despises the National Green Labour Liberals, right?

When two senate candidates can get elected with only 0.22% and 0.53% of the primary vote, I think that is a sign that the senate voting system needs reform...

A couple of options:
1. First past the post voting in the senate
2. Only candidates/parties with an elected representative in the lower house can nominate candidates for the senate (currently that would be Nats / Libs (LNP) / Labor / Greens / KAP / PUP / Wilkie)

Originally Posted by disco2hse

That'll be the party that despises the National Green Labour Liberals, right?

Mortal enemies, dammit!

I know a lot of people get all bent out of shape when preferential voting doesn't produce the result they want, but it could be argued that first past the post disenfranchises anyone who doesn't put one of the popular candidates at the top of their list.

Imagine a vote for the best 4WD was as follows with the top two to be announced. First preferences are:
Land Cruiser 11
Defender 10
Hilux 9
Disco 8
RAV4 7

All the RAV4 voters have Disco as second preference, so numbers become:
Land Cruiser 11
Disco 15
Defender 10
Hilux 9

All Hilux voters have Defender as second choice, so numbers become:
Defender 19
Disco 15
Land Cruiser 11

So the vote for the best two selects the Defender and the Disco.

If first past the post voting is used, then anyone who votes for the Hilux, Disco or RAV4 as number 1 has no say at all in the outcome. Surely having the Disco or the Defender as second choice indicates a desire to have one of them as one of the top two.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

2. Only candidates/parties with an elected representative in the lower house can nominate candidates for the senate (currently that would be Nats / Libs (LNP) / Labor / Greens / KAP / PUP / Wilkie)

So what happens to people like Xenophon? Probably gained more direct votes than the entire candidates of most of these major parties.

But yeah, the preference voting system in the senate is broken and needs fixing. Shouldn't involve disqualifying people though just because they have no party affiliation in the lower house.

Originally Posted by Ferret

But yeah, the preference voting system in the senate is broken and needs fixing.

please explain?

Originally Posted by isuzurover

When two senate candidates can get elected with only 0.22% and 0.53% of the primary vote, I think that is a sign that the senate voting system needs reform...

imho it is only partially broken

i think what needs changing is that political parties can declare preferences.

ie is, there is an above the line section.

the top of the paper needs scraping and it should be that people have to mark a minimum of 1 to 10 from the list of those on the ballot paper. if they mark more, then the better be it...

but with an all time record donkey vote, any reform could end up anywhere.

the idea that a lower house mandate should negate the upper houses role as a house of review is folly.

it is a house of review, to make sure the lower house can prove that what they are doing is of value and viable.

qld is the perfect example of what happens when it is abolished.