On the length of a piece of string - or the dobbing in of cheating cheats

I was still using my old Nokia 5110 (the popular little brick) until quite recently, too. Got it a new battery but it faded very fast. Realised that phones without cameras were dirt cheap on the net and got a tiny little nokia.

I do hope the Green hoists that footage!

Well that was easy – no line up and no spruikers* @ Ngunnawal

Pretty much WIWO

*There was at entry to far car park but I drove straight past with a smile wink and nod [She was cute] 🙂

I’m still using the same nokia brick i bought in 1999. Doesn’t have fancy features like a camera or battery life. I think one of the Greens may have captured it though. Greenie – if you’re reading this, put up the footage!

D-Man, why on earth didn’t you record it on your phone?! Can you imagine the popularity of such a video? And the news would have paid money for it, too. Maybe someone else filmed it?

Kudos to the head honcho although he’ll probably cop an official complaint now.

Funny – I just went to vote at St Thomas’ at Kambah. Zed was there right outside the booth – maybe 10 metres away. The electoral official politely asked him to move off twice, Zed completely ignored him. Then the head honcho stormed over, had a screaming match and told Zed to ‘f*** off!’….Zed scuttled away with his tail between his legs. I cacked myself.

I also can’t help noticing vehicles emblazoned with Zed Instead driving past the front doors of polling places.

God, I do my best to avoid reading Overhead’s posts but sometimes I do by mistake. How can one squeeze so much wankiness into a single post?

At my local primary school they were stationed at the car park entrance and they waved their pamphlets furiously at everyone who drove in. Naturally every car I saw just kept driving! And by walking across the school grounds a lot of people managed to miss them all together however one keen pamphlet handler ‘chased’ a few people taking her within the 100 metres. She must have been in training as one of her colleagues yelled at her to come back!

The positioning of Arawang Primary made it possible to avoid all the HTV thrusters just by walking down a hill instead of following the footpath. Now that’s what I call civic planning.

As at 9.30 am this morning, all political parties were observing the 100m exclusion zone at the Aranda Primary School polling station.

It was very pleasant to just stroll in without having to run the gauntlet of How To Vote cards being thrust at you and invading your personal space.

That being said, I know a number of people holding on to How to Vote cards around Canberra. Sorry guys. A bit of a let down for you all I’m sure.

Oh, and if you’re bent out of shape over the faux web address then I repeat my invitation for you to go read the refugee camp thread for some context.

Context is my middle name. It comes from Brittany. (She’s the desk chick down at the Registrar’s office.)

> If you can point to where I did we can have a discussion

“Then goandget.farked.fh”

Pretty clear instruction there Overheard.

justbands said :

….just leave out the “ner, ner…you’re dumb. Get f*****ed” stuff hey.

Didn’t say it, didn’t mean it, didn’t imply it.

If you can point to where I did we can have a discussion. But please do not put words in my mouth, son-shine.

I gave you a couple of opportunities to withdraw with grace, justbands, so here comes the final one, as breakfast, the streets, my shoe leather, a ship load of singing practice and the road to Turner await.

Have a nice day!

> Go back and read all your old comments, justbands, and then go find a mirror and repeat the question.

I certainly have never come out & suggested someone go & get f****ed for having a different opinion to my own, or for daring to make a claim without backing it up (would the internet even exist under those conditions?). So yeah…happy to discuss anything, same opinion or different, whatever the issue….just leave out the “ner, ner…you’re dumb. Get f*****ed” stuff hey.

Oh dear! Laugh??!! Well, there’s my morning vocal warm-up. $hit, I can hit some sop notes eve, Still shaking as I type.

“When did this site turn into a p155ing contest?”

Tagline!

Still laughing.

Go back and read all your old comments, justbands, and then go find a mirror and repeat the question.

Be well, my son.

Bugger, got the giggles again. Might be singing with the girls tonight!

Thanks Dad. Some people don’t need ar$eholes, they talk enough sh1t out of their mouths. When did this site turn into a p155ing contest?

1. Opinions are like ar$eholes. Everyone’s got one. Some individuals are one. (That last bit was NOT aimed at you.) Express your opinions at will, but just be careful of appearing to present your opinions as received wisdom. It’s a big audience out there, and you don’t know who’s in the crowd. (I aim to write conference papers on the subject. Thanks, you just reminded me of an abstract I should get cracking on.)

2. Perhaps you should ~~ (Lose the ampersands, though. OK, that one was a $hit-stir!)

3. You’re very welcome. (Read the refugee camp thread for the genesis of that faux web address, if you like. I invite you to.)

Enjoy this lovely day.

Overheard…. Well, no. I don’t *know* it to be true at all, it’s my personal opinion based on my own interactions with Joe Public. That’s ok right? To have an opinion?

Perhaps I should give the people of Canberra more credit, we are afterall very well educated & intelligent for the most part.

I can do without the “goandget.farked” bit though thanks very much. I’m not sure exactly why my comment warranted personal abuse.

justbands said :

You see, that’s the problem. Most people are stupid. Most people really don’t give a toss.

justbands, do you know this to be true? Proof? Research? No?

Then goandget.farked.fh

That’s the sort of mentality that lets some elected leaders sleep soundly at night because their paternalistic/maternalistic decisions and actions are saving the gormless proles from themselves.

I’d credited you with more wit and wisdom. Mayhaps I was wrong but then, I always am open to the fact that I may be wrong.

My observations on the exclusion zone are on the 16 Oct election wrap. http://the-riotact.com/?p=9315 Love this thread (but didn’t know it was here til Jazz gave me the heads-up last night.)

Is there an election on this weekend?

Among the sheer mountain of election bumpf in today’s mail is a how to vote from Katy.

It has instructions to put a 1 next to her name and then all the other boxes in her column are blank!

If you look carefully it says in small print to also number all the other ALP column, but at a quick glance (and frankly, who is going to give it more than that?) it appears to say don’t bother voting for anyone else. Be interesting to hear what the other ALP candidates think of that!

The sausage sizzle stalls should all be set 100m from the polling place and the sellers given tasers. Any how-to-vote peddler that tries to go inside the “barbecue barrier” gets a 2000-volt lesson.

Ugh! redundant. 180 degrees = opposite. I hate it when others do stuff like that. 🙂

Every booth should carry all the how-to-vote cards stuck to the wall. An example of a rule that is 180 degrees opposite to how it should be.

I remember the ‘Don’t Berry Canberra’ stickers. In fact, in 2002 when i first joined the ANU Liberal Club I received one of those stickers.

TALK ABOUT OUT OF DATE!

Oh, and the fact that hargreaves and quinlan were from the right of the party and stanhope unaligned helped a little bit as well.

jakez,
Potted history of the 1998 election (from my point of view, others will disagree),

The ALP was lead by Wayne Berry at the time and the libs were able to run a very effective campaign that painted wayne and the ALP as only slightly removed from Castro. “Don’t Berry Canberra” was one of their more memorable slogans.

Quinlan, Hargreaves and Stanhope had reasonable public profiles as both Hargreaves and stanhope had been very active on the tuggeranong and belconnen community councils (hargreaves I think had served as President of the Tuggeranong community arts festival and stanhope had been a key organisor of the belconnen community fun run among other things) and quinlan had served on the board of various charities as well as deputy chief of ACTEW.

In a shocking election for the ALP, where they only got 26% of the vote, the three of them were able to use their existing profiles in their campaigns as well as robson rotation to overcome ALP incumbents, who in theory should have had had higher name recognition. Robson Rotation at least gave them equal opportunity to head the ticket on the ballot papers and benefit from the donkey voters.

They also benefitted from the fact that the three incumbents they beat were pretty much hopeless.

I think you’ll find most parties work that way Al.

jimbocool said :

Jakez – why is the dread Jacqui Burke in trouble? I haven’t seen much of her in the campaign (a good thing I suppose) but given there’s no Mulcunty in the Liberal column this time around and Zed will presumably get an overquota, she’d still have to be looking good for number two Lib elected wouldn’t she?

Sorry mate, it’s only gossip I’ve heard from someone who could be very reliable or very unreliable. I’m sure a lot of things will come out after the election (not as fun though).

Gungahlin Al said :

That’s twice today you’ve said that Jake. Couldn’t? As in my party will make life hard if I do?
Gotta love that sort of party. And if that is the case, they should still have the reins of government should they Jake?

Technically I said it once today and once yesterday (or has today just been a really really long day).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards

“So the problem is in your party, not the public?”

“You might very well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.”

That’s twice today you’ve said that Jake. Couldn’t? As in my party will make life hard if I do?
Gotta love that sort of party. And if that is the case, they should still have the reins of government should they Jake?

amarooresident said :

robson rotation does work – it was part of the reason that stanhope, quinlan and hargreaves were able to get elected over the top of ALP incumbents in 1998. That and the fact that each of them had a reasonably strong profile in the community to begin with.

Tell me about this, it sounds like it could restore my faith. How much was Robson rotation and how much was their profile? What was the state of support within the ALP for the different candidates? How even were the individual campaigns?

Jakez – why is the dread Jacqui Burke in trouble? I haven’t seen much of her in the campaign (a good thing I suppose) but given there’s no Mulcunty in the Liberal column this time around and Zed will presumably get an overquota, she’d still have to be looking good for number two Lib elected wouldn’t she?

Sorry that was incorrect. I believe that about the system as a whole.

I believe that robson rotation was designed to get the power into the hands of the public and further encourage the ‘diversity’ that Hare-Clarke allows. The incumbents have learned to engineer the campaigns (and utilise their advantages) to sidestep this honourable goal.

Obviously i can only truly talk about the Liberal Party.

I want to be a believer. I want Robson Rotation to work. I want the incumbents to have to fight on an even playing ground. I want Hare Clarke to deliver us a diversity of views WITHIN the major party candidates.

It’s not, and that frustrates the hell out of me.

I certainly would not get rid of Hare Clarke though. It is absolutely a net positive.

Come on people, stop bickering and help me sell Seselja Slices, CAP Cupcakes! We don’t need the 100 metre rule when we’ve got people selling cakes with election material on them.

johnboy said :

So the problem is in your party, not the public?

You might very well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.

My problem is with the system. I honestly believe that it was brought in to nullify the (unfair) advantages of major parties and incumbency. I simply believe that they have failed.

robson rotation does work – it was part of the reason that stanhope, quinlan and hargreaves were able to get elected over the top of ALP incumbents in 1998. That and the fact that each of them had a reasonably strong profile in the community to begin with.

much as i want to see jakz unload i’m on his side; maryhow’s just missed the point completely

jakez said :

http://www.act.org.nz

I don’t think so, any party which is prepared to let my nut of an Aunt run as a candidate is not getting my vote.

Torment away – I want to hear what he’s got to reveal.

i can answer that one jimbocool, i’ve asked the same thing, the answer is because it’s a bit of a tradition now, no conspiracies or any thing cool like that.

Caf – yes indeed Doszpot was about 400 votes shy of knocking off Steve Pratt

Maryhow – you need to stop tormenting Jakez like that, I think the poor boy has had as much as he can take.

My question is – is the peice of string the same as the one they used four years ago and can the Electoral Commission guarantee that there has been no shrinkage?
Finally, from memory both Robson and the 100m rule were intended to reduce the advantage of the major parties – the Carnell government introduced them as they relied on the support of conservative independents, so it was strategically to their advantage. I don’t know why Labor hasn’t scrapped it.

So the problem is in your party, not the public?

johnboy said :

Jakez,

I can guarantee you that if a section of the party were willing to put their names and faces on such a statement it would be heard far and wide.

Yes and then they suffer disciplinary action. I can’t say anymore and that should say a lot.

caf said :

jakez, didn’t Doszpot come *very* close to knocking off an incumbent from his own side last time around?

It’s not impossible and the rumour is that Burke is dead in the water.

jakez, didn’t Doszpot come *very* close to knocking off an incumbent from his own side last time around?

I don’t mind the jam and scones at the schools where they hold the votes. However, I can see an opportunity here for any one desperate enough – I suggest cakes with icing on them advocating either labor, liberal or whoever tickles their fancy, giving them out next to ballot boxes.

Imagine that, biting into a cupcake with Stanhope’s face on it.

Jakez,

I can guarantee you that if a section of the party were willing to put their names and faces on such a statement it would be heard far and wide.

Gungahlin Al said :

More of entrenching incumbents TT. The candidate rotation means there’s a better chance of offing lame duck incumbents. Can you imagine how many lame Senators would not be there if above the line voting was turfed and the rotation introduced???

Complete rubbish. Robson rotation favours the incumbents. In the liberal Party preselection, all an incumbent needs to do is gather an extremely small amount of supporters to vote for them. They regain preselection, and then their name recognition and MLA entitlements mean it’s extremely hard to get them out.

Robson rotation is a complete failure. The incumbents have learned how to manipulate the campaigns in order to favour themselves. The grassroots membership can do nothing to get the message out that they think this person is a disgrace.

NoAddedMSG said :

Hilarious! I wonder how much time will be devoted to untangling the bit of string?

I finally get to vote in an election next month, whoo! I love voting, I have been thinking of becoming an Aussie just so I can vote lots. I am voting in the NZ general election, where the system means you get to vote twice – for the party you want and then for the person you want. In past elections, in my electorate the majority tend to split the party and person vote, so it is obvious that people don’t just place their electorate vote based on the party the candidate belongs to. The system does mean you have to be a bit careful with protest votes though, because it doesn’t take much for a minor party to get into parliament.

Also, all campaigning is banned for the 24 hours leading up to the election, so when you go to vote you don’t run a gauntlet of pamphlets, just a gauntlet of people trying to sell you scones and jam.

http://www.act.org.nz

maryhow said :

Jakez – bit touchy over jimbocool, are you prison lovers.

If jimbo had read the original post instead of going into a spasm that the electoral officials wouldn’t do that or I was lying or Giulia was telling porkies he would have noticed that I said that I spoke to her within 20m of the Polling Booth where she also had her signs out as well.

Matbe an apology from Jakez and jimbocool seeing Elections ACT have admitted it has happened

First of all, you have already made that prison lovers joke and it made you look like an idiot then. Repetition is not helping.

Secondly, i cannot understand how you don’t get this. Everything jimbocool has said is entirely in line with your original post. He said that either you are lying or Giulia is lying. He never said that you were lying, he’s only said that it was a possibility.

Surely you are taking the piss. I’m this close to ruining any future political ambitions with the spray I want to unleash.

The chick should have been in a bikini

but the other side of that would be it would allow the parties to rank candidates in order of talent/ experience etc (and if the AEC can manage the current system they should be able to manage that)

oh and on balance i dont want a comment editor; god only knows how much trouble i could create by editing my comments later

“if i were king i’d get rid of the 100m thing and rotate the order ‘parties’ appear on the ballot while leaving the candidates in order. your thoughts on that?”

More of entrenching incumbents TT. The candidate rotation means there’s a better chance of offing lame duck incumbents. Can you imagine how many lame Senators would not be there if above the line voting was turfed and the rotation introduced???

If we swing over to computerised voting, then rotating the parties as well as the candidates would be easy peasy – and a good idea. But now I suspect it would be too logistically hard for the electoral commission to do the printing and distribution.

And bring on a wysiwyg comment editor…

Hilarious! I wonder how much time will be devoted to untangling the bit of string?

I finally get to vote in an election next month, whoo! I love voting, I have been thinking of becoming an Aussie just so I can vote lots. I am voting in the NZ general election, where the system means you get to vote twice – for the party you want and then for the person you want. In past elections, in my electorate the majority tend to split the party and person vote, so it is obvious that people don’t just place their electorate vote based on the party the candidate belongs to. The system does mean you have to be a bit careful with protest votes though, because it doesn’t take much for a minor party to get into parliament.

Also, all campaigning is banned for the 24 hours leading up to the election, so when you go to vote you don’t run a gauntlet of pamphlets, just a gauntlet of people trying to sell you scones and jam.

dunno what happened there; theres meant to be a quote of a paragraph from comment 36 (starting tom-tom…) between my first and second paragraphs

gunghalin al; i see and understand your argument and dont buy it much as I expect you see mine. (half the reason i wrote it was to get a response from you, occasionally i like throwing bombs)

Reply

“As for the “volunteers” argument, you need several hundred votes to stand some chance of being elected – a few thousand if you want to get there in your own right. If you can’t get 40 people to stand out from of polling places for 1 day a year, you probably don’t have a lot of support in the community.”

Verbal: Simple B&W answer from you, but the reality is something else entirely. I had enough support to get elected, but finding enough people to staff booths *and* do the oh-so-wonderful job of scrutineering was a major ask. Because as someone else said – too many people don’t give a toss.

“my personal opinion on the ACT system is that it favours the minors to too great an extent,”

Tom tom: pure major party spin. Precisely the contrary – the system is designed not to *favour* minors but to negate (as much as possible) the natural advantage of the majors and incumbents. There is a fine but important difference. Can you appreciate that difference?

The simple truth of this (IMHO) is that ACT is the one place in Australia where the big party machines don’t have carte blanche and it really rubs them the wrong way. Tough.

I’m a little amazed to be on the short end of the stick of this one. For a short answer, the 100 meter rule is a rule — a law! — and one expects that people trying to be part of government ought to appreciate the rule of law. Once you’re outside the rule of law and in power, you’re in the same boat as ole Bushie and Cheney and those fine folks. Extreme case? Sure. But if you give a politician an inch, they will take a mile.

Beyond that, if you don’t enforce the law at 100 meters, then where? 80 meters? Once that’s the law, expect people to be putting signs at 60. Once that’s the law, expect signs at 40. Before long, you’ll be arguing that it’s ridiculous to argue about political advertising inside the polling place, because c’mon, everyone knows their minds are made up before going in there.

Give them an inch, they’re take a mile. Always has been the case. Always will be the case. It’s great when you support the party in power and they’re the ones abusing the law, but things get a bit tricky when you’re on the short end of the stick.

There is no way known that a polling offical would or could give permission for someone to be canvassing within the 100m – the story is either completely made up or Giulia-with-a-G was telling porkies.

Hey jimbocool – reread my post , I was taliking to Giulia inside the courtyard at Pilgrim House – 20m from the door. I was being sarcasstic about the Tasmanian connection

How is his statement in contradiction with your original post?

Because jimbocool said the story is either completely made up or Giulia-with-a-G was telling porkies.

I had already stated that i spoke to her 20m away from the polling booth

Jesus christ. Jimbocool doesn’t need to reread your post maryhow. He has taken the facts as you have put them. Applied his own knowledge (that a polling official would never give permission), and then stated the two possible conclusions.

These two conclusions are that either you are a liar or that Giulia is a liar. You saying that you aren’t lying isn’t evidence that you aren’t lying.

What exactly are you trying to say about jimbocool’s post?

Jakez – bit touchy over jimbocool, are you prison lovers.

If jimbo had read the original post instead of going into a spasm that the electoral officials wouldn’t do that or I was lying or Giulia was telling porkies he would have noticed that I said that I spoke to her within 20m of the Polling Booth where she also had her signs out as well.

Matbe an apology from Jakez and jimbocool seeing Elections ACT have admitted it has happened

same here; there’s a difference between not liking a law and breaking it.

He’s talking to you jakez, he said so.

All fine JB, just having a laugh.

johnboy said :

At least we’ve exposed the contempt with which party operatives hold the law.

Oddly enough you’re all ready to come the pedant when it’s to your advantage.

Making you hypocrites at best or scum at worst.

Mate who are you talking to? I may not like the law but I’m not going to break it. I won’t be out there at all on Saturday actually.

Those people should be adequately catered for by the fact that candidates are arranged into columns according to party, with party affiliations listed. If they really just want to vote for Party A, all they need do is find Party A’s column and number the candidates there. The randomisation of candidate positions ensures that all the votes like this are effectively votes for “Party A, no candidate preference”.

I wasn’t referring to all readers, just the election law pedants who choose to ignore the bits they don’t like.

You can lump yourself in there if you like but I was thinking of jakez and tom tom. Neither of whom I plan to listen to much in the future.

There’s a new slogan for the shirts JB:

“RiotACT: We think the people paying our wages are hypocritical scum”

>> It appears that your definition of “get it right” and mine differ substantially. I still contend that catering to lazy voting does nothing but encourage lazy voting.

I agree caf..personally, I’d love for all people who vote to be fully informed of all the candidates & their policies, as well as their party memberships…I’d want them all to know exactly how they need to number candidates on their paper in order to cast their vote the exact way they intend. Trouble is, it’s never going to happen. You can be well informed, I can be well informed….but sadly, a large number of voters never will be. These are the people that the voting system needs to be designed for…not for you & I.

I’m a pedant all the time, and hate everybody equally.
Am I scum, or a hypocrite?

Given we have multi-member electorates, I beleive that they ought to do away with columns for parties. All candidates, regardless of party, should be randomly distributed across the entire ballot sheet.

Best idea I have heard yet. Would be interesting to see how much the lib’s and lab’s share of the vote dropped if people had to try and actually remember the candidates names.

At least we’ve exposed the contempt with which party operatives hold the law.

Oddly enough you’re all ready to come the pedant when it’s to your advantage.

Making you hypocrites at best or scum at worst.

what Jakez and justbands said

plus my two cents; people mostly do vote for a major party and not the candidates (or if they pick out candidates within a party its mostly by name recognition) and so how to votes are useful in that respect.

my thinking would be that minor party/independant voters come to the booth more informed and committed as to how they’ll vote and so how to votes are less effective for these people.

the 100m rule is just plain stupid, the majors have the resources to stick people around the boundaries so it’s ineffective, honestly either ban how to votes altogether or work it like in federal elections. (and as a personal whinge on this issue; in close the booths there’s usually some shade; this makes a big difference to those stuck out there.)

my personal opinion on the ACT system is that it favours the minors to too great an extent, while independents are great examples of people who care a lot about their community the quality and depth of their policies is much lower than that of the majors of have the resources to consult experts and get the policies accurately costed etc.

and dont even get me started on robson rotation…..

It appears that your definition of “get it right” and mine differ substantially. I still contend that catering to lazy voting does nothing but encourage lazy voting.

You might as well just put pretty pictures of the candidates on the ballot paper with a tickbox next to them.

fhakk said :

Oh quit your whinging – do you hear any ‘civilians’ complaining about this 100m law? I don’t think so. The only people who are making a big deal of it are those actively involved in this weekend’s election.

Actually, I get really annoyed by people shoving how-to-vote literature in my face when I go to vote. I make up my own mind, and I don’t need people telling me how to order my preferences! (And, no, I’m not involved in anyone’s campaign, and I don’t belong to any party. I just take an interest in what’s going on and have a somewhat naive idea that I should make an informed choice when I exercise my democratic right to vote. Having people too close to the polling booth interferes with my ability to vote free from pressure or, at the very least, to vote without getting so stressed that I want to hit someone.)

I think it damages independants and small parties because a huge number of people don’t care about elections and turn up on polling day without having made up their mind.

If a small party or candidate can’t put something into their hand at the time that they are making up their mind, that candidates or party mean nothing to the voter when they see it on a ballot paper. So they see the parties they know and put their votes into those columns, or alternately they randomly vote based on the name of the party, rather its ideas or policies.

As for the “volunteers” argument, you need several hundred votes to stand some chance of being elected – a few thousand if you want to get there in your own right. If you can’t get 40 people to stand out from of polling places for 1 day a year, you probably don’t have a lot of support in the community.

> You think the solution to “most people don’t give a toss” is to pander to their laziness?

Well, actually…yes. That’s exactly what I think. Voting should be so easy that any idiot can get it right, ’cause there’s a lot of idiots voting.

Sorry about the CAPITAL LETTERS Jonathon Reynolds. 😛

verbalkint said :

This is a silly rule that discriminates against minor parties and independants, 100m exclusions are over the top and pointless. We can manage to be within 100m everywhere else in the country, and even here for federal elections.

It was instituted to even the playing field between the majors and minors (as the majors hypothetically have a greater pool of volunteers). How do you feel it disadvantages the minors and independents?

Personally, although I have a great deal of sympathy for minor parties, I don’t agree with a policy such as this. People should be free to communicate (with sensible policies relating to harassment, maintenance of dignity of voting place etc).

heaven forbit that someone might vote purely based on crumpet factor. didnt we dismiss that theory somewhere?

You think the solution to “most people don’t give a toss” is to pander to their laziness?

there’s a tazer attached to one end of the string, right?

Oh quit your whinging – do you hear any ‘civilians’ complaining about this 100m law? I don’t think so. The only people who are making a big deal of it are those actively involved in this weekend’s election.

Campaign managers take note – just let the issue rest. Most members of the public would not want to be harassed when waiting to vote. In Sydney, you have to run the gauntlet of all these people pushing pieces of paper into your hands, jostling for position.

I for one appreciate the fact that, at least in the ACT elections, I don’t have to worry about that kind of stuff.

@justbands

justbands said :

That’s the problem with the entire system….MOST voters WANT to vote for a party, not an individual.

I doubt you speak for MOST voters nor would you know what those individuals WANT.

Given we have multi-member electorates, I beleive that they ought to do away with columns for parties. All candidates, regardless of party, should be randomly distributed across the entire ballot sheet.

> Maybe if people paid more attention to the INDIVIDUALS they’re electing we’d have a better standard of individuals in the assembly?

You see, that’s the problem. Most people are stupid. Most people really don’t give a toss. Any system that needs the voters to be so educated about the candidates is always going to be wrong. People don’t care. They want to walk in thinking “I’m voting Green/Libs/whatever” & not think about what that means. They don’t care if the candidates name is Bob or Mary, they only care what party they are in. They want someone to hand them a card telling them how to vote, or they want to be able to tick a box saying “This party”.

“This is a silly rule that discriminates against minor parties and independants, 100m exclusions are over the top and pointless. We can manage to be within 100m everywhere else in the country, and even here for federal elections.”

I disagree Verbal. I think it helps those candidates who don’t have the party machine behind them whistling up dozens of helpers – especially through pre-poll periods.

It also substantially reduces printing costs for HTVs – as a person who has handed out HTVs on too many occasions I can attest to the majority of people being repulsed by them. But when they are allowed, you are crazy not to have them there.

(As an aside, I once got a post-election email from someone saying “you didn’t have anyone at my booth handing anything out so I had to vote for someone else.”)

It could be argued though that with a difficult and large electorate like Molonglo, the alternative mailout costs are higher…

And then you’d complain about how secret preference deals conducted in smokey rooms were causing strange candidates with only a few hundred first preference votes to get elected.

Maybe if people paid more attention to the INDIVIDUALS they’re electing we’d have a better standard of individuals in the assembly?

> The intention behind the rule is to maintain the concept that we vote for individual candidates, not a party list.

That’s the problem with the entire system….MOST voters WANT to vote for a party, not an individual.

The intention behind the rule is to maintain the concept that we vote for individual candidates, not a party list. It’s the same reason we don’t have above-the-line voting, and multiple ballot papers are printed with a different order of candidates within the columns.

> So please. If you see an operative too close to a polling place take a photo of them and send it in to images@the-riotact.com

It’s a stupid rule in any case. I’m more likely to thank them (assuming they are from the party I aim to vote for) & go about my day..smiling & happy.

Quick update from Elections ACT.

The 100m rule is from the building. Wall, Front door, back door doesnt matter as long as there is no cavassing within 100m (technically as the crow flies, although the string is a useful tool being employed here).

Canvassing within that boundary can be reported directly to Elections ACT, or to the office in charge at each polling booth.

It would seem that the OIC will take action and ask the offending canvassers to move on and have the authority to call the police in to forcedly remove offenders if asking nicely doesnt work.

Whether any penalties would be enforced after that is anyones guess.

I thought it quite amusing that about 30mins ago i suggested to some liberal canvassers that they might be within 100m of pilgim house by handing out material on the same block. They angrily invited me to pace it out and I was a little disappointed that they’d disappeared before i’d finished.

as i said yesterday; if a candidate isn’t doing absolutely everything they can to gain an unfair advantage then they bloody well should be

Okay, if they’re being so pedantic as string measuring and you want photos…
Where is the ‘polling place’, is it the hall with the ballot box, is is the ballot box, is it the modesty booth, is it the building that holds them all, is it the door -into- that building, in the case of schools where you enter to vote and wind your way through coridoors, is it the door to the school?

Simpler idea
Why not just generate some Google Earth\Maps apps to project a 100m ring around every polling place, and say “Step inside that zone carrying election material and you’re fucked”?

Seriously?

Of all the things, in all the world that are worth worrying about, this is surely a very, very long way down the list.

This is a silly rule that discriminates against minor parties and independants, 100m exclusions are over the top and pointless. We can manage to be within 100m everywhere else in the country, and even here for federal elections.

Seems like an aweful waste of the polling managers time, not to mention your contributors!

And it was only yesterday people were accusing me of being a pedant on exactly this matter! Sheesh!