November 18th, 2007

whoa i can't believe that about the climate change coalition! really makes u think

November 19th, 2007

We used to be able to number only about 16 boxes for the senate in NSW below the line and our votes still counted. Is this no longer the case?
Can you hypothesise when one's vote fizzles out--say for example one voted 1234 for the greens in NSW and then 56 for what women want. Does that mean my vote doesn't count if green candidate number 2 fails to reach the quota?
thanks heaps for this

November 19th, 2007

oops Patrice Newell

November 20th, 2007

The other micro that is getting a bit of mainstream attention is What Women Want, bit of a feature in this months mainstream mag, New Woman. I checked out their flow, they have preferenced the Greens across Oz. We may just see a Green balance of power- woo hoo.

November 20th, 2007

WHY VOTE FOR MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATES IN THE SENATE AT ALL?

Australians should ask themselves how they can put their Senate to better use. If it is just a Rubberstamp Senate, as it is has been for the last three years, they may wish to abolish it. However, the Senate has in fact real potential to launch system change rather than be a subservient major party House. It is up to the voters.

Understandably, the preference of both major parties is for a Rubberstamp Senate so that they can pursue their legislative program, and even any action that is not mandated. Major party Senators will tow the line – or be expelled!
One can refer back to PM Holt’s plan to “break the nexus”, Keating’s taunt at “the unrepresentative swill” and Howard’s attempt to create joint sitting to stop blockages”. All in vain though. Voters at least insist on avoiding a Rubberstamp Senate.

The Senate was given VERY substantial legislative powers in Section 53 of the Constitution. These are almost equal to those of the Lower House. Neither of the major parties has shown any inclination to seriously look at system reform in Australia. In the current election system change has been avoided entirely, in spite of the massive dissatisfaction in the many areas of federal-state relations. Not surprisingly this was the topic of a recent ABC – TV Difference of Opinion program in which I participated and put the case for abolishing state governments. I also mentioned a number of related practices, which have made this continent, politically and in terms of the Constitution, a frozen system.

Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of Senators actually are members of the two major parties voters should make use of their precious right to vote in candidates who are NOT members of the major political parties. Indeed I would go as far as to say that it would be sensible not to vote for any major party Senate candidates. Proportional Representation in the Senate provides for that opportunity.

If they did that, and the choice is very wide indeed, voters are in a position to elect a chamber that directly represents the people rather than the major parties. It opens the way for a historic Senate election. In recent elections some 95% of those who vote for a major party in the House of Representatives also vote for that same party in the Senate. WHY we ask in our group? Voters unwittingly destroy thereby the essential function of the Senate as well as its great potential for reform. The opportunity to vote in a Senate which does not represent either of the major parties is immense, really unlimited, if voters can overcome the force of habit. Given that we now have a political system that is dominated by two look-alikes, or almost alike parties, the urgency of popular action to change direction, is obvious.

We need to reflect on what has actually made the political system and Constitution so inflexible and stale. Many would answer that it is the inflexibility created by Section 128 of the Constitution, which requires that referendums need an overall majority of voters as well as a majority in a majority of states. Certainly this has been a huge barrier but it is by no means the only one. Secondly, the initiative to launch a referendum can only come from the politicians. Australia does not know the popular initiative so that, in practice, only referendum proposals are put that do not disadvantage politicians. The third barrier is that these politicians are, in practice always major party politicians, but unless they agree amongst themselves, the proposal has Buckley’s change of getting through.

So why should we continue with this two party tyranny because that is what it amounts to. The cause is Australia’s electoral system, plus compulsory voting (which reinforces the two party system). Our dominant electoral system is the single-member district system, which yields one member per constituency. Nowadays in most of these districts the eventual winner of an election rarely receives more than 45% of the primary vote. That means that around 55% of the electors don’t get their first preference elected. This limited form of democracy is further distorted by the fact that governments can win a majority of seats without having a majority of votes. Leaving that aside diversity is not well served by this system. So unless the Senate provides a real alternative, there is none.

Is it enough to say, as defenders of this combination of systems often do, well, the Senate provides the diversity and more democratic representation as a kind of counter balance? There was some truth in this until 2004 when the Howard Government was presented with a Rubberstamp Senate that came into effect in July 2005. The reality is in fact quite different because the domination of the two-major party tyranny extends well into the Senate. A guaranteed five of the six Senate seats, in each half Senate election, go to the major parties.


The disadvantages of the single-member district system are numerous and well known. Perhaps the most unproductive and damaging is pork barreling, which is simply not known in PR systems because these are based on multi-member electoral districts. The ACT and Tasmania also know PR. The Tasmanian judge Ingliss Clarke was the co-inventor of the Hare-Clarke system of PR. PR moves politicians away from adversarialism. It encourages diverse parties to seek common ground in order to be able to form government.


Klaas Woldring is a former Associate Professor of Southern Cross university and author of How about OUR Republic? BookSurge 2006.

He is the NSW lead Senate Candidate for Beyond Federation – Abolish State Governments Group P on the Ballot Paper.

November 20th, 2007

I note on the AEC website...
"Exclusion of unsuccessful candidates

Starting with the lowest scoring candidate, unelected candidates are excluded from the count and their ballot papers are distributed to the remaining candidates to whom the voters have given their preferences. When a candidate gains a quota following the distribution, he or she is elected. The above process continues until all Senate positions are filled.

In certain circumstances, 2 or more candidates may be excluded simultaneously. This is called a bulk exclusion."
Does anyone know how that works? It's not clear to mefrom this what value is transferred in these cases. Very little it would seem. scusi my head is spinning!

November 21st, 2007

Eeuw!

I'm so glad I filled out my entire Senate ballot when I cast my postal vote.

It made no difference *on this occasion*, but it could have done.

November 21st, 2007

The most effective way of ensuring your Senate vote goes where you want it to is to VOTE BELOW THE LINE on your Senate ballot paper, i.e. number all the boxes below the line rather than a single box above the line.

The reason for this is that voting above line results in Senate preferences being distributed according to the wishes of (the major) political parties, which are not necessarily the same as the individual voter's preferences. With more than more than 90% of voters voting above the line we risk skewing the representation of the Senate away from that of the electorate towards that of the major parties.

An ABC Radio National "Perspective" by the late Peter Andren provides greater detail

http://abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2007/1954625.htm

See also Anthony Green's article at

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3359

November 21st, 2007

The climate change coalition (CCC) is really surprising. I don't understand why any party would gamble with their preferences in such a way. The climate and environment is far too precious to give any climate skeptic a chance in parliament.

If you believe in what the CCC stand for, just make sure you vote below the line!

November 21st, 2007

Gee thanks folks. That's a great help. I've just had a squizzy at the late Peter Andren ABC site-magnificent stuff--what a loss--now to Anthony Green and working out v. carefully how I shall vote.
There was information about Group Voting tickets on the AEC website a while ago. But i'm having difficulty finding it again at present. Working with that will be a great help in deciding where to place my votes below the line.
Thanks again

November 21st, 2007

Amazingly helpful, thanks, guys! I'm doing HTVs for the Greens on election day - I may write up the preference flows for the represented parties (and major interest ones, like CDP and CEC, who are both standing in my electorate) for the day. I know we have our own preference flow charts for the Greens, at least!

November 21st, 2007

Hi

and thanks for the preferences guide. I have to say I have never trusted any party to allocate preferences for me and always vote under the line. Labouriously numbering every candidate. This way I can be sure that my most despised are last.

Jane

November 21st, 2007

Thank you for the info regarding how preferences are handled. I was ignorant regarding these things. This info will be a big help on Saturday.

November 21st, 2007

I may sound ignorant but I have never voted here before and am a citizen now. I do not understand the link on preferences on AEC site. Can anyone explain what it all means - I am really confused.
I know that each party has a preference where the vote will go but it doesn't seem clear. All the lists look the same, I can't see the Greens on the list at all and below each party are lots of names but they mean nothing to me, are they the preferences??
Also I assume Democratic Labour Party is Labour - and the Australian Democrats are what is refrred to as the Democrats - is that right?
HELP!!! quickly

November 21st, 2007

You haven't mentioned the Carers Alliance.

You'll be surprised what micro parties can do!

Thanks

Jane Salmon
02 94168459

November 21st, 2007

great info - ta -saved me the trouble of looking it up myself

November 21st, 2007

Jo, when you vote, you are expected to number the parties in order of your preference from best starting at 1 up to the worst. On the small green ballot paper you have to number all the boxes. But on the big white ballot paper there are a lot more boxes, so on the big white ballot paper you can number every box below the line without putting anything above the line. But if that's too hard then on the big white paper you can put a 1 in one of the boxes above the line and not number any other boxes. If you do that, then that party chooses which numbers should go in every box, and it will count the same as if you numbered the boxes the same as the form on the AEC website for that party. In the PDF file there is one or two pages for each party. It is a picture of a ballot paper with each candidate numbered from best to worst in that party's opinion.

The Democratic Labour Party (DLP) is NOT the Labor party. The ALP (Australian Labour Party) is Kevin Rudd's Labor party. The DLP is very bad, they are like the Liberal party. Almost nobody votes for the DLP.

But you are right that the Australian Democrats are the Democrats.

November 21st, 2007

Thank you very much. MVEM (M(y) V(ery) E(lderly)M(other)) wanted to know who was preferencing whom. Thanks for making it easy for us both!

November 21st, 2007

In case Jo might want to know what the parties stand for as well how to vote for the senate, here's a very crude answer. ALP or Labor is what i would call centre centre left at the moment. The DLP or Democratic Labour Party was formed in the 1950s when a right wing Catholic group split from the ALP. The Democrats were formed when a member of the Liberal party (aka Christian democrats in a european context(?)) the late Don Chipp broke away and set up his own party 'to keep the bastards honest'. They are a Senate party recently fallen on hard times. The Greens you would know perhaps as environmentalists. Lots of the others despite what they call themselves are pretty right wing of one hue or another with notable exceptions--socialist, what women want and some others. Other's may disagree with this crude synopsis. Please feel free to disagree.
Personally, I'd recommend BenA's advice below, this time round ie vote above the line eg put a 1 in the Greens box on your paper and maybe have a stab at numbering all the others below the line depending on what you've been able to find out about them in the meantime. best of luck with it.

November 21st, 2007

Your comment Our current Senate voting system favours one extreme or the other. Either you vote below the line requiring a number in every square (very tedious), or above the line restricting the voter to placing "1" in the square of choice, thereby creating some uncertainties in the voter's mind. The greater part of the problem could be overcome by allowing above-the-line voting where it would be permitted to number every square, placing control of preferences back in the voter's hands - where it belongs.

November 21st, 2007

In NSW CCC preferences the climate sceptic fish party then carers, who might be good people but whose pref flows to Libs, before CCC getting to Greens. Remember FF didn't used to be in parliament until Lab preferenced them. Could happen again.

November 21st, 2007

I tried asking the CCC in NSW why they had preferenced the climate sceptic Fishing Party, but had no joy. I did get a response on Dr Karl's blog and eventually from Dr Karl himself, but his response didn't seem to correspond to my question.

Remember - the only circumstance in which your senate vote is NOT redistributed is if the candidate that you put as [1] gets exactly the number of votes required for a senate seat. If the candidate gets fewer votes then your whole vote shuffles onwards, looking for a home. If the candidate gets MORE votes than they need, then a fraction of your vote goes on to be redistributed. It seems that not even the candidates with brains the size of a small planet understand this.

Andy

November 21st, 2007

Why was it called Global Warming once upon a time, and now it is "Climate Change", because it is a fruad.

The sun drives the climate, that why venus mars jupiter europa and many other planets have heated up in recent decades.

Challenge yourself and test your beliefs instead of just blindly following NGO's with vested interests.

What about 90,000 CO2 measurements over the last 180 years that prove the ice core samples are a fraud.

I challenge you to use your critical mind, that is what makes you human.

The ability to think and question.

November 21st, 2007

I'm still confused, I want a Labour lower house and a Senate where the Greens break the balance of power. I know how to vote for the lower house (anyway I live in a Labour electorate) How do I vote for my desired Senate? I think the Democrats are a spent force.
KayeCole

November 21st, 2007

The preferences information is a valuable resource. I am postal voting in Mongolia where it's possible to keep up with the broad picture, but not the flow of preferences - great tool, wonderful campaigns, lets hope Australia get's up to go into the complex future.

November 21st, 2007

Re senate above-the-line voting and how parties allocate preferences - the electoral act says that there should be a brochure or poster available to voters at each polling place, showing where each party's preferences go. At the last elections, this didn't happen. It was raised by a few people but none of the parties followed it up. It seems like something for Getup to support given that a lot of Labor supporters in Victoria were surprised to find that they had in fact voted in Family First!

November 21st, 2007

I am so impressed with the work of getup around the election, the information and updates have been so valuable. I am deeply disturbed by CCC,s preferences.
As for Grahams comment around Climate change and his scepticism.Yes i'm sure there are many vested interests around this whole issue and we can't be absolutely sure of causes or outcomes of global warming/climate change/peak oil, but the lack of depth in thinking that disturbs you ,must surely be placed at the feet of a humanity that has brought into a false belief in the infinite growth of an industrial instead of embracing the reality that we live on a planet that provides us with many wonderous resources, that are quiet obviously finite. I personally know where I'd rather be placing my energy for the future of, if not humanity then, the planet and its in climate action, not climate scepticism

November 22nd, 2007

Kaye, it doesn't matter whether you think a party is a spent force or not. If you like that party you can still vote for them, and if they don't get in, your vote will go to your second preference in the list. You should always vote for the party that you like best, not who has the best chance of winning, because that is what preferences are for.

In the senate you have two choices. Put a 1 in a single box above the line for the party that you want, or number every box below the line, starting with a 1 next to the candidate you like the best, and counting up until you reach the end.

So if you want to vote for the Greens in the senate like you say, then you can either number every box below the line starting with the greens candidates, or you can just put a 1 in the Greens box above the line. But if you put a 1 in the box above the line, then your preferences go the way the Greens party chooses instead of the way you choose.

If you want to vote for Labor in the lower house then you must number every box on the green paper, starting with a 1 next to the labor box.

But if there are other parties that you like better, you can put a minor party first, and if they don't get elected your vote will go to your second preference and be worth the same amount as if you had put them first.

November 22nd, 2007

If you are having trouble reading the PDF versions of the Senate group voting tickets at the AEC website, you can view HTML versions at the ABC website here:

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/groupvotingtickets.htm

Again, it pays to study who is preferencing who and to vote below the line if you want to be explicit about where you want your vote to flow.

November 22nd, 2007

I've always been under the impression that, in the lower house, if no candidate gets 50% plus one vote then the lowest scoring candidate is knocked out and their preferences distributed amongst the remaining candidates, then if that doesn't produce a winner the next lowest has their preferences distributed, and so on. Surely this would mean that if your preferred candidate scored reasonably well, but not well enough to win, there is a real possibility that your preferences will never be taken into account.

So for example, in a field of 6 candidates with ALP and Lib getting say 40 and 35 % respectively, if the green candidate comes in third with 15%, but the remaining 10% of the primary vote is distributed amongst minor candidates who all preference very strongly to Lib, then Lib could easily win without a single green preference ever being counted. So even if all the green voters in that election preferenced ALP their preferences would have no value.

Am i wrong about this?

November 22nd, 2007

I should add that my explanation below is only for the lower house where you MUST enter all numbers.

For the Senate, it's a different story.

November 22nd, 2007

I think this type of voting is utter confusion and a deception for the general public. Surely there has to be a better way. Personally, I do not think that religious organistaions such as Family First, and Christian Democrats with their Christian mythological propaganda should be in the political area at all.

November 22nd, 2007

Claire,

In your scenario, even if all the minor party voters preferenced the Liberals, the Liberal vote would only reach 45% at which time the Green votes would get distributed and Labor would win.

There is no way that if you preference Green then Labor that your vote will not help Labor getting in ahead of Liberal in the same way as if you had preferenced Labor first.

November 22nd, 2007

There are well-founded concerns about the major parties controlling the flow of preferences for votes above the line in the Senate. Greens Leader Bob Brown intends to introduce a Bill after this election to allow voters to list preferences above the line instead of just putting "1".
Then the electorate will have real 'grass-roots democracy'
and be able to direct their own preferences - just as they do in the Lower House vote now.

November 22nd, 2007

Go to www.makepovertyhistory.com.au to see how the major parties differ in their committment to tackle extreme poverty in our region.

November 22nd, 2007

I always fill in every square on the Senate ticket. I work out how I will number the squares beforehand and take a copy in to the booth with me. I also number the parties I least prefer in reverse order to minimize the chance of preferences leaking to them.

November 22nd, 2007

I'm now totally confused - why would the Climate Change Coalition preference Pauline Hansen, One Nation, Family First and Labour above the Greens?? A few of those parties are climate change sceptics! How does that work?

November 22nd, 2007

Thank you very much for bringing this issue to voters' attention.It is generally somthing most Parties don't want aired as there is a great deal of hypocracy in preference deals. Just two examples: Steve Fielding from Family First saying, on directing preferences to Pauline Hanson, "Parties do not have to have things in common to preference each other" and senior Labor officials admitting they prefer to work with the Democrats and then preferencing the GREENS because they expect to gain a larger preference flow that way.
In contrast the Australian Democrats ensure preferences go to like minded Parties as far down the line as possible and in general encourage voters to make up their own minds.
Pat Olver
Campaign Manager
Australian Democrats (WA)

November 22nd, 2007

i admit I'm usually a Liberal voter and agree with a lot of their policies, but after completing GetUp's How Should I Vote questionnaire, it was recommended i place the Liberal candidate last on my list of preferences.

i'm confused. is this something to do with the complexity of preference flows? or is there another reason?

November 22nd, 2007

Good on you GetUp. I was going to vote above the line for the first time this election, but after reading the possibleunintended consequences, I will stick to my past habits.

November 22nd, 2007

Hi guys,

That was excellent, very useful.

Perhaps you could also publish a complete list of upper house parties giving preferences to the coalition before the greens or labor. Perhaps under the heading "A Vote for These Clowns Is a Vote for Global Warming".

Cheers,

rpm

November 22nd, 2007

Fair go!! What about the Carers Alliance? Not a single mention anywhere. There are over 2.7 million carers in Australia. In Western Australia, there are over 600,000 carers, people with disabilities, frail aged seniors and families dealing with mental health illness. In an environment of national and state prosperity, the voters seem to be more generous and thoughtful about their vote in the Senate. The Carers Alliance have preferenced the minor parties above the major parties as an electoral program for success. A new and competent independent voice for carers is a vital voice and Senate representation for this huge group of disadvantaged citizens ought to be an imperative for the voters. Please consider.

November 22nd, 2007

In response to Jean Callender, given the urgency of efforts to address Global Warming, I think it would be better to think in terms of diverting these taxes to public transport and measures that will reduce our use of polluting energy resources. There is a school of thought that rising petrol prices may finally nurture the inventiveness required to produce good energy alternatives.

November 22nd, 2007

Your comment Thank you for all the information and work the team have given to us this election. I have enjoyed the process and feel much more involved this time. I hope after the election GETUP will be able to continue and eventually become a bonefide political party. It is already much more representative than any of the other contenders. Can this be the new politics? Online? It sounds great to me. Good luck. Janet

November 22nd, 2007

Hi GetUp,

thanks for the individualised how-to-vote thingy idea, and also for the information on how Australia's electoral system works. I'm ashamed to say that I've never really clearly known (or cared!) before, but this year, and from now on, I do. Things are getting too serious now, in Australia and the world, to say 'I don't care about politics, it's all just full of bloody politicians'.

November 22nd, 2007

Do all of the numbers count in senate preferences? I know that you need to number all the boxes, but does it really make any difference once you get past the first twenty or so? I don't understand the system. I can understand it for the house of representatives. Can any body explain senate preferences?

November 22nd, 2007

I too am suspicious of the Climate Change Coalition.It is likely their name is another devious attempt at deception if their preference flows to Pauline Hanson are any indication.

November 22nd, 2007

C'mon ACT voters- here's your chance to repay the incumbents for riding roughshod over a lot of ACT (& NT) legislation. Rather than the old standard 1 ALP, 1 Lib senator combination we have a chance at last to really make a difference to the senate's balance of power.

November 22nd, 2007

Well done! When I stood for parliament many people asked me where my preferences go. I told them that they go where they want them to go and that it is not a decision made by me on their behalf. After all this is meant to be a democracy!

More education will actually make the preferential voting system work better - or, rather, how it should work.

November 22nd, 2007

DELBO

I think that actually means that you don't agree with the Libs' policies as much as you had previously thought.

November 22nd, 2007

i would very much love to have a list of upper house parties whose preferences go before the greens or labor so we will all know who NOT to vote for if we want to make a stand to assist the planet against global warming.
great info ... should be sent to all australians to help them work out preferences.

liz

November 22nd, 2007

it has taken half a day to make my decision; otherwise I'd have voted disastrously above the line and regretted it. You've done a wonderful service: thankyou.

November 22nd, 2007

I always make a point of filling in every box on the Senate ticket so as to be able to put Fred Nile last. Imagine my delight the other day when talking to a Labour spruiker and oshe said she did exactly the same. Made my day, tho' it hasn't changed my voting plan.

November 22nd, 2007

Have been out in Bennelong doing the climate change getup flyer thingo. MAybe my next question has already been answered but a quick survey suggests not.

I think i must be in love--with 'how senate votes are counted'. At least she's the one who wakens me in the middle of the night with difficult questions.

Here's what happened last night. She says,'Let's assume i vote 1 for the number one green candidate and she is elected with x number of votes above the quota which means my vote then has a transfer value of .306783 (yes 6 decimals places is right --see the Aec website to see how it's done).

But instead of making green candidate number two my second choice, i place a two in the box for the first candidate on either the LAbor or even Liberal ticket, both of whom are highly likely to be elected with a large number of votes above the quota. Let's say the transfer value of their vote is .698789. I then put number 3 in the box beside green's candidate number 2.

This should mean the value of my vote for the second greens candidate is much higher than if i'd simply put a 2 in his box and giving him a better chance of being elected. Isn't that so?', she says, so innocently. Surely it's not so easy to work the numbers like this, sez I?

Well ask your Getup friends then she says. Lawd ha' mercy. Is she right? anyone please. i need to get some sleep.

November 22nd, 2007

The only party with a 100% left-to-right preference flow is Socialist Alliance. After themselves, they flow Greens, Labor, Democrats, Coalition, Family First/Hanson among the groups with a serious chance of being elected.

November 22nd, 2007

A word for those who hold the opinion that compulsory voting is undemocratic.

There are a lot of things that are compulsory in a democratic society -- like driving on the left-hand side of the road, paying taxes etc. The fact that we live in a (representative) democracy means that the people, or our representatives, make the rules, and the rule is that you must vote. The idea that no one should be able to force you to vote (or pay taxes) is more akin to anarchy than democracy.

November 23rd, 2007

Please take a moment to "Digg" GetUp's howshouldivote.com.au web-site by visiting and "digging"

http://digg.com/political_opinion/HowShouldIVote_com_au_Does_America_need_this

(you may need to register - don't worry it's spam-proof)

Digg is an influential web-site ranking engine - we can collectively drive traffic to howshouldivote.com.au by improving its ranking on Digg.

November 23rd, 2007

Thanks, I found this very informative, and learned important things I didn't know.

Generally, although I don't support everything Get Up supports, I think you're marvellous, and I'm so glad you're providing a forum to share many of these important issues that most of us are too apathetic to raise.

November 23rd, 2007

Also, at my main campaign site, I have a list of the websites of all the senate candidates from Victoria, so you can go over their policies, platforms, to help you order them for your Below The Line Voting.

Tejay M Sener

http://sener4senate.googlepages.com/links

P.s. It goes without saying that it is in my interests to help you form an informed opinion so that you can vote below the line. Good luck Australia!

November 23rd, 2007

The guide to lower house voting would have been better if the non labor/green/democrats party's policies had been factored in so that a more realistic matching process could occur (ie even if they failed to respond to questionnaires, perhaps someone could have checked their announced policies). It lost a bit of credibility because the other parties were randomly allocated.