Thread: Election stuffup

Try this, Tasmania's Hare-Clark Electoral System.

Tasmanian Electoral Commission
.

Originally Posted by one_iota

My simple view:

Exercising one's democratic right by voting also requires taking the responsibility that attends that right.

In the case of the Senate if there are 110 candidates (NSW) then you have the choice either to pick one grouping above the line and let the preferences cascade from there or choose each and every one below the line.

If you choose to vote above the line then you should do so knowing how those preferences are likely to be distributed. There are resources available to inform that decision such as Crikey or belowtheline.com with links to each aspirant's "policies".

If you don't like the way the cookie will crumble you can choose to vote below the line and then those resources will inform your choice and you will then fully exercise your rights.

There can be no excuse. It takes time before you vote to understand what it is that you are doing. If you don't do your home work then you will get what you didn't want.

As Inc say's the Senate is what makes our system work.

The only criticism I have is struggling with a 100cm piece of paper in a 45cm cardboard cubicle in a dimly lit hall numbering 1 to 110 with a blunt HB pencil tied to a short bit of string.

I share your view 100%, I always select my preferences by voting bellow the line.
It takes only 5 minutes or less to fill the paper and then your wright it is protected.

Originally Posted by vnx205

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.

I think preferential voting clearly works in the lower house.

But clearly not in the senate where almost nobody bothers voting below the line.

Explain why you think these results make sense:
in WA

Party / votes / &
Liberal 0 340,816 39.50% 2.7647
Australian Labor Party 0 232,861 26.99% 1.8890
The Greens (WA) 0 85,782 9.94% 0.6958
Palmer United Party 0 45,213 5.24% 0.3667
The Nationals 0 37,140 4.30% 0.3012
Liberal Democrats 0 29,538 3.42% 0.2396
Australian Christians 0 14,037 1.63% 0.1138
Sex Party 0 12,376 1.43% 0.1003
Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party 0 8,864 1.03% 0.0719
Shooters and Fishers 0 7,920 0.92% 0.0642
The Wikileaks Party 0 6,127 0.71% 0.0497
Animal Justice Party 0 6,080 0.70% 0.0493
Smokers Rights 0 5,656 0.66% 0.0458
Family First Party 0 5,389 0.62% 0.0437
Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party 0 4,856 0.56% 0.0393
Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party 0 3,107 0.36% 0.0252
Australian Democrats 0 2,510 0.29% 0.0203
Rise Up Australia Party 0 2,467 0.29% 0.0200
Australian Independents 0 2,451 0.28% 0.0198
Katter's Australian Party 0 2,099 0.24% 0.0170
Australian Sports Party 0 1,908 0.22% 0.0154

But elected will be:

1 David JOHNSTON Liberal Party
2 Joe BULLOCK Australian Labor Party
3 Michaelia CASH Liberal Party
4 Linda REYNOLDS Liberal Party
5 Wayne DROPULICH Australian Sports Party
6 Scott LUDLAM Australian Greens

Note that the ASP party was one of the lowest on the list and only got 1908 unique votes! Yet they end up getting a seat before the greens, which got the 3rd highest number of primary votes...

I think FPTP voting makes clear sense in the senate.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I think preferential voting clearly works in the lower house.

But clearly not in the senate where almost nobody bothers voting below the line.
................

That is not a problem of the system it is that the people do not care or do not bother to be informed.
IMO if something have to be change is eliminating the option of voting over the line.
The other improvement should be provision to vote for a second person in case that a senator resign.

The phenomenon of the ASP being elected ahead of the Greens is not indicative of a problem with preferential voting. Obviously the ASP received a lot of second or third preferences from the votes of other people whose first choice candidate was unsuccessful.

The problem is not with preferential voting. The problem in this case, (if you consider that there is a problem) is the lack of transparency about preference deals.

If the information was available about preference deals and if people knew where the preferences would flow, then there would be no grounds for complaint. If people are unhappy about where the parties have organised for their preferences to flow, then they can direct preferences in the way they would prefer by voting below the line.

Rejecting the whole system of preferential voting because someone has legitimately manipulated things to achieve an unexpected result smacks of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

There are ways to reduce the likelihood of results like the election of candidates like the ASP without taking away from people the right to have some influence on the final result if their first choice is unsuccessful.

Originally Posted by vnx205

...

If the information was available about preference deals and if people knew where the preferences would flow, then there would be no grounds for complaint. If people are unhappy about where the parties have organised for their preferences to flow, then they can direct preferences in the way they would prefer by voting below the line.

...

That is all well and good, however the information is of course available (all parties must publish their group voting tickets). Most people vote above the line, but I am sure most people who helped the ASP get elected would not be happy that their preferences went to the ASP.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

That is all well and good, however the information is of course available (all parties must publish their group voting tickets). Most people vote above the line, but I am sure most people who helped the ASP get elected would not be happy that their preferences went to the ASP.

That's true.

I do realise that I am describing a rather utopian system where all voters take the trouble to educate themselves and take their democratic responsibilities seriously.

EDIT
Actually people should not be surprised that we now have some senators from micro-parties. In the week before the election, in both the print and electronic media, there was some information about deals between micro-party candidates and a prediction that it could lead to the election of candidates with quite a low first preference vote.

So we were warned!

I voted above the line, why?

I only wanted to vote for my party of choice.

To go below the line, I would have felt embarrassed to spend all the time to fill out that huge clumsy inept form, then on the point of the preferences being not disclosed, to find out that I had inadvertently supported a party that I hated would cause me no end of personal grief.

Electronic voting setup at the polling booths is a move in the right direction along with proving who you are by showing some suitable Id, if a one off ID is sent to the registered voter, that would be the key for that voter's security.

Just how many people have been sent a 'please explain' after an election? Because some identity thief has used their name in other booths to vote multiple times, maybe a person with a vendetta .

It's too easy for a imposter to answer 'No' when asked, 'Have you voted before in THIS election?'.
.