Election count – Where we’re at

Oh, and just to add – you could get the same effect if the above the line vote in the Senate meant a vote for the candidates in that column, in random order. That would 1) Allow above-the-line voting for people who don’t care about who in that party is elected, but also 2) take the power to decide who is elected from each party away from the party officials and give it to the electors who voted for that party.

verbalkint: The election last weekend right here had several instructive examples of incumbents (eg. Pratt) being turfed out in favour of newcomers from their own party.

Thanks sepi & caf! That’s all I needed for the proverbial penny to drop.

Not at all johnboy. I already said ‘sure’ to fnaah’s moral assertion. I was merely providing what I believe is the reason behind why the major parties don’t go out and talk about below the line voting.

If I have however misunderstood, I apologise and please point out my mistake (I’m not particularly well versed in Rawls).

verbalkint said :

The fact is that the people speak with their pencils every federal election and vote above the line because they want the parliament to be controlled by people who represent their values, and other than political leaders, they don’t care about the person who fills the suit that votes in the chamber for those values.

They do it because they’re lazy and stupid and the unnecessary requirement to completely number the ballot nudges them to be ever more so.

It’s not something to be encouraged.

Also to Jakez:

jakez said :

Sure. However a very important rule in politics is ‘don’t make it hard for people to vote for you’. If I were to be preselected as the Liberal candidate for the ACT senate, and went out with a convoluted pitch that included voting below the line, I’d lose the election.

…I’d probably lose the election anyway but I wouldn’t be helping matters. ;-P

Meaning you’re rather failing the veil of ignorance test no?

Yes but that can lead to dodgy preference deals and even fake parties.

Eg – the Motorists Party, or the Support Logging Party could be registered as a party, and their preferences could go straight to the Liberals.

They would never get their candidate in, and the people voting for that ‘idea’ have no concept that their vote is just a straight out vote for the liberal party.

johnboy said :

A noble defence of a corrupt system Verbalkint.

Convenience is a poor substitute for democracy.

The practice of the current system, rather than whatever justification you drag up for it, is that the composition of a house of parliament, and a house of review no less, is determined by the party executives rather than the electorates.

Very handy for party executives, notso hotso for the rest of us.

The people of Australia can vote below the line and change the people without changing the government, but most don’t care. If you look at the big vote grabbers, they are people that are known the electorate – Stanhop, Gallagher, Zed and previously Big Bill.

The effect is just the same as if we had above the line voting – they look for the people or party they know and put a 1 in it. It isnt anymore thought out, genuine or democratic, because they do it for a persons name rather than a party name.

The fact is that the people speak with their pencils every federal election and vote above the line because they want the parliament to be controlled by people who represent their values, and other than political leaders, they don’t care about the person who fills the suit that votes in the chamber for those values.

fnaah said :

Mate it sucks I know, but sometimes you just have to accept that the majority of people don’t give a sheizen.

That doesn’t make it right for a political party to take advantage of ignorance by courting people with the “ooh, it’s so easy to vote like this” line.

Sure. However a very important rule in politics is ‘don’t make it hard for people to vote for you’. If I were to be preselected as the Liberal candidate for the ACT senate, and went out with a convoluted pitch that included voting below the line, I’d lose the election.

…I’d probably lose the election anyway but I wouldn’t be helping matters. ;-P

areaman said :

Mrshmellowman said :

Unfortunately most people don’t see voting as an exciting and important demonstration of their right to choose – most people see it as an interruption of their Saturday
Maybe we should get rid of compulsory voting so only those with a real interest turn up and vote
I wonder how many would come?

Then it just becomes about who can bully and ship enough of thier voters to the polling place. Elections should be about ideas not logisitics.

It doesn’t become that at all. You need ideas in order to inspire people to get to the polls. Can you seriously tell me that Australian elections are more about ideas than US elections? NZ elections? UK elections? I’d keep going but we are one of a very small number of countries that have compulsory voting.

Mrshmellowman: Hard to say really. US and UK are around the 50-60% mark roughly. NZ gets about 80% (they have compulsory registration but not compulsory voting). In Iraq they got about a 60-70% turnup to vote on the constitution and first elections even with the great threats of violence.

It doesn’t matter to me personally. Not showing up to vote is just as powerful a statement as voting in my book.

whistle said :

4 The graphs are easy to follow. Don’t claim you can follow the system if you cannot follow the graphs.

Rubbish. Don’t presume to tell people what they do or don’t or can and can’t understand with ease.

caf said :

jakez: Wouldn’t Optional Preferential Voting (where you can stop numbering preferences whenever you like) be a good enough sop to those who find it hard to understand?

I assume we’re talking about the Senate (and HoR if you want).

I would absolutely like to see that change happen. I think it would go a long way to making things easier for people. I’m not sure if I’d get rid of above the line, though even in that situation. Teetering on the edge.

Mrshmellowman said :

Unfortunately most people don’t see voting as an exciting and important demonstration of their right to choose – most people see it as an interruption of their Saturday
Maybe we should get rid of compulsory voting so only those with a real interest turn up and vote
I wonder how many would come?

Then it just becomes about who can bully and ship enough of thier voters to the polling place. Elections should be about ideas not logisitics.

Mate it sucks I know, but sometimes you just have to accept that the majority of people don’t give a sheizen.

That doesn’t make it right for a political party to take advantage of ignorance by courting people with the “ooh, it’s so easy to vote like this” line.

Unfortunately most people don’t see voting as an exciting and important demonstration of their right to choose – most people see it as an interruption of their Saturday
Maybe we should get rid of compulsory voting so only those with a real interest turn up and vote
I wonder how many would come?

jakez: Wouldn’t Optional Preferential Voting (where you can stop numbering preferences whenever you like) be a good enough sop to those who find it hard to understand?

johnboy said :

A noble defence of a corrupt system Verbalkint.

Convenience is a poor substitute for democracy.

The practice of the current system, rather than whatever justification you drag up for it, is that the composition of a house of parliament, and a house of review no less, is determined by the party executives rather than the electorates.

Very handy for party executives, notso hotso for the rest of us.

Mate it sucks I know, but sometimes you just have to accept that the majority of people don’t give a sheizen.

Caf
Thankyou
Thankyou
Thankyou

It finally makes sense with a real life example

whistle said :

A few myths:

1 Preference deals don’t apply in Hare Clark, they only apply to its sister system the Senate voting system (another variant of the STV family).
2 Those who claim they “pick up” Hare Clark right away are usually wrong, whether they realise or not. eg: They would not know in which cases you redistribute the last bundle assigned to a candidate and in which cases you redistribute from the first bundle.
3 Not all votes are fractionalised – this is only the case where a vote starts with a candidate who topped quota.
4 The graphs are easy to follow. Don’t claim you can follow the system if you cannot follow the graphs.

Can you please explain why these are each myths?

Arty said :

Jakez, I would be surprised if you picked anything up quickly.

Like a dagger through my heart. Who is this clown?

Spectra said :

Nothing shits me more than voting for my prefered candidate and finding out later that they had a preference deal with someone I particularly dispise!

If that happens, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Nobody forces you to follow the how-to-vote cards, or to put a 1 “above the line”. Your preferences are yours to distribute, and it’s only by choice that you put them at the mercy of “preference deals”. And even if numbering all the boxes is all too much effort, the preference distributions are publicly published before the election. If you can’t be bothered spending the time to be an informed voter, that’s nobody else’s fault.

I absolutely agree.

johnboy said :

The existence of the above the line voting for the senate, however, remains a crime against the people and the spirit of the constitution. Perpetrated by the major parties.

Mate I used to think the exact same thing until I actually had to help people with how to vote. A gigantic amount of people (especially old people) find voting extremely difficult to understand. The above the line gives them an easy way to do it. I vote below the line and encourage others to do so, but I certainly don’t have as much animosity to it as I used to.

Arty said :

Don’t waste time on the “un representative swill”. Vote above the line.

A noble defence of a corrupt system Verbalkint.

Convenience is a poor substitute for democracy.

The practice of the current system, rather than whatever justification you drag up for it, is that the composition of a house of parliament, and a house of review no less, is determined by the party executives rather than the electorates.

Very handy for party executives, notso hotso for the rest of us.