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.