Australian Elections 2013

[Nova Navarrae]

I will probably end voting for the Australian Greens and preference Labor second. Although I have reservations about the Greens economic policies and their stances against GM Foods and Nuclear Power.

The electorate I live in (Dunkley in Victoria) has been held by the Liberals since 1996 and not likely to change parties at this election. Although if current Liberal MP had retired at either the 2007 or 2010 elections, Labor would have won in Dunkley (it has been quite marginal at the last two elections).

[Beta Test]

I will probably end voting for the Australian Greens and preference Labor second. Although I have reservations about the Greens economic policies and their stances against GM Foods and Nuclear Power.

The electorate I live in (Dunkley in Victoria) has been held by the Liberals since 1996 and not likely to change parties at this election. Although if current Liberal MP had retired at either the 2007 or 2010 elections, Labor would have won in Dunkley (it has been quite marginal at the last two elections).

It's a shame the Democrats aren't relevant anymore, as they really left a void voters like yourself.

[New Chalcedon]

I will probably end voting for the Australian Greens and preference Labor second. Although I have reservations about the Greens economic policies and their stances against GM Foods and Nuclear Power.

The electorate I live in (Dunkley in Victoria) has been held by the Liberals since 1996 and not likely to change parties at this election. Although if current Liberal MP had retired at either the 2007 or 2010 elections, Labor would have won in Dunkley (it has been quite marginal at the last two elections).

It's a shame the Democrats aren't relevant anymore, as they really left a void voters like yourself.

And me - I voted Democrats through to 2007, when they finally imploded. They're too far to the right economically for my liking, but less so than the Liberals (or these days, Labor for that matter) and generally sensible on social issues.

[Beta Test]

It's a shame the Democrats aren't relevant anymore, as they really left a void voters like yourself.

And me - I voted Democrats through to 2007, when they finally imploded. They're too far to the right economically for my liking, but less so than the Liberals (or these days, Labor for that matter) and generally sensible on social issues.

In the last fifteen of their existence, they moved from being moderate Liberals to being the left of Labor.

[Blouman Empire]

They're always out when I get there. I go for the pies though. Cheap as.

One good thing about this town is if you want a cheap pie you know where to go.

Ah, indeed. Pity the Democrats aren't around anymore.

By the time I started looking at the Democrats they had become the "vote against everything the government puts forward" which certainly didn't help them. Meg Lees as leader managed to get through a few democrats policies by negotiating with the government.

I actually haven't. How is it?

Neither have I, was hoping you might be able to tell me, I just like the sign.

[Blouman Empire]

Haha I just had to say yes it is very obvious, but your vote is informal you missed out on the Liberal party. As for the male independent as I said he only nominated himself on the last day and if you haven't heard of him that says it all considering he is at your uni as a post doctorate student a place you would think would be where he would start doing any campaigning.

I'm obviously not Australian, but are you saying that you guys have to vote for all the candidates on the ballot or it will be deemed informal? And what does that mean? Does that mean the vote will not count? Could you not, say, just put 1 and 2 on your first and second preference, or just a 1 and leave at that? I ask this because if it was me voting over there, I'd only put a one or two,(eg, 1 Socialist Alliance, 2, Labor or Greens), I couldn't bring myself to vote for parties' I really hate even if I put say, Family First at the bottom, *shudders*.

So, my main question is, I know voting in Oz is compulsory, but is it compulsory to vote for all the candidates in order of preference? If that is the case, well, that really sucks.

As NC said but I will also like to say that it allows you to preference who you want and if your first pick isn;t favoured by the majority of people then it goes by your next preferred candidate because yours hasn't got a lot of support and not enough people want them.

I think it is a good idea because if you just choose whomever got the most votes then it could mean that a candidate may only get 35% of the vote but since 65% didn't prefer them it isn't very democratic. It also stops the need for such things as run off elections like you see in France.

[Blouman Empire]

ALP 62 seats (-10)
Coalition 85 seats (+13)
KAP 1 seat (+0)
Green 1 seat (+0)
IND 1 seat (-3)

Basically, Labor loses a swag of seats in NSW and bleeds a few elsewhere (particularly in Tasmania, which is seeing a 14%(!) swing against the ALP), the latter of which are made up by a small swing in Queensland. People are waiting with cricket bats in NSW, Victoria's tepid toward the ALP and WA is even more hostile territory for Labor than in 2010.

Basically, with NSW and WA united in hostility to Rudd and Victorian indifference, the limited gains he looks like making in Queensland just can't make up the difference. I'm standing by my earlier prediction of a Coalition Government and a Coalition-majority Senate.

I understand that Tasmanians are unhappy with the state ALP government not to mention high unemployment and are wanting to get rid of the ALP. According to Crikey it is also the reason why the Liberal party wants the moralist Wilkie to win his seat so he won't be a nuisance during the state election where he would win a seat.

I'm still standing by my statement that it is going to be very close and the final election figures are going to be a lot closer then the polls suggest, and the ALP can still win

They brought Rudd back hoping he could stem the losses, and so far it looks like he will.

Indeed, so they can dump him and get someone they would prefer to be their leader (Shorten) and have a chance at winning the next election.

I say we should all vote for Palmer in protest.

No, coke in the bubblers party.

[Australasia]

ALP 62 seats (-10)
Coalition 85 seats (+13)
KAP 1 seat (+0)
Green 1 seat (+0)
IND 1 seat (-3)

Basically, Labor loses a swag of seats in NSW and bleeds a few elsewhere (particularly in Tasmania, which is seeing a 14%(!) swing against the ALP), the latter of which are made up by a small swing in Queensland. People are waiting with cricket bats in NSW, Victoria's tepid toward the ALP and WA is even more hostile territory for Labor than in 2010.

Basically, with NSW and WA united in hostility to Rudd and Victorian indifference, the limited gains he looks like making in Queensland just can't make up the difference. I'm standing by my earlier prediction of a Coalition Government and a Coalition-majority Senate.

I understand that Tasmanians are unhappy with the state ALP government not to mention high unemployment and are wanting to get rid of the ALP. According to Crikey it is also the reason why the Liberal party wants the moralist Wilkie to win his seat so he won't be a nuisance during the state election where he would win a seat.

I'm still standing by my statement that it is going to be very close and the final election figures are going to be a lot closer then the polls suggest, and the ALP can still win

They brought Rudd back hoping he could stem the losses, and so far it looks like he will.

Indeed, so they can dump him and get someone they would prefer to be their leader (Shorten) and have a chance at winning the next election.

I say we should all vote for Palmer in protest.

No, coke in the bubblers party.

1. Tasmanian state government maybe, but at federal level, Labor essentially has a lock on the state
2. Shorten? That opportunistic chump? Oh dear.

[New Chalcedon]

And me - I voted Democrats through to 2007, when they finally imploded. They're too far to the right economically for my liking, but less so than the Liberals (or these days, Labor for that matter) and generally sensible on social issues.

In the last fifteen of their existence, they moved from being moderate Liberals to being the left of Labor.

They barely moved on economic issues. Labor moved hard to the Right over that time period.

1. Tasmanian state government maybe, but at federal level, Labor essentially has a lock on the state
2. Shorten? That opportunistic chump? Oh dear.

1. Latest polling shows a 14.1% swing against Labor in the upcoming election - the Tasmanians elected a hung parliament at the last election, and seem to be ever more unhappy that they're still governed by Labor. 2013 looks to be the first election in over a decade in which the Liberals (there isn't even a Tasmanian National Party) wins a TPP majority at the Federal level.

2. Shorten seems to have done a good job at the AWU - his work as head of the union saw an end to the decline in its membership. I wish he were Ferguson Left rather than Labor Unity, but I'll take him.

As NC said but I will also like to say that it allows you to preference who you want and if your first pick isn;t favoured by the majority of people then it goes by your next preferred candidate because yours hasn't got a lot of support and not enough people want them.

I think it is a good idea because if you just choose whomever got the most votes then it could mean that a candidate may only get 35% of the vote but since 65% didn't prefer them it isn't very democratic. It also stops the need for such things as run off elections like you see in France.

I prefer the STV to first past the post, true. I'd simply like it even better of the preferencing was optional - that way, the parties would have to actually work for the privilege of my vote.

Ah, indeed. Pity the Democrats aren't around anymore.

By the time I started looking at the Democrats they had become the "vote against everything the government puts forward" which certainly didn't help them. Meg Lees as leader managed to get through a few democrats policies by negotiating with the government.

By the time Lees was ousted (2002), the legislation Howard was proposing had moved steadily to the Right, I suspect as a response to 9/11. Basically, the Democrats couldn't vote for much of the legislation, not without selling out the ideals they were supposed to represent when Don Chipp split them off from the Liberal Party twenty-five years earlier.

Depending on your view of Howard, he was either scared into it by 9/11, or waiting for 9/11 or a similar incident to ram through the agenda he wanted all along. I know what I believe, but I acknowledge that the other may be truer.

[Socialist EU]

I will probably end voting for the Australian Greens and preference Labor second. Although I have reservations about the Greens economic policies and their stances against GM Foods and Nuclear Power.

.

Understandable, although, if it were me voting in your elections I would vote Socialist Alliance first, Labor second, Green third, Liberal fourth, and toss up who is the least right-wing reactionary and work from there downwards, yuk. It is better than our FPTP, but I agree with NC that making it optional to make them work for your votes would be an improvement. Of course, the most democratic system is what Israel and South Africa do, they have their entire countries' counted as one proportional constituency.

On the Senate, I think if there were too many on the ballot I'd just write "Against all" on the ballot, besides which, I'm only for one house anyway.

[Blouman Empire]

I prefer the STV to first past the post, true. I'd simply like it even better of the preferencing was optional - that way, the parties would have to actually work for the privilege of my vote.

So what happens if I choose only two but neither of them have enough support from other voters? Where does my vote go?

By the time Lees was ousted (2002), the legislation Howard was proposing had moved steadily to the Right, I suspect as a response to 9/11. Basically, the Democrats couldn't vote for much of the legislation, not without selling out the ideals they were supposed to represent when Don Chipp split them off from the Liberal Party twenty-five years earlier.

Depending on your view of Howard, he was either scared into it by 9/11, or waiting for 9/11 or a similar incident to ram through the agenda he wanted all along. I know what I believe, but I acknowledge that the other may be truer.

They could've worked with the Liberals to tone down the legislation, after all GST was orginally going to be on all food and Lees managed to knock out fresh food. In the end the democrats strategy of not wanting to work with them didn't work out too well.

[Dazchan]

I prefer the STV to first past the post, true. I'd simply like it even better of the preferencing was optional - that way, the parties would have to actually work for the privilege of my vote.

So what happens if I choose only two but neither of them have enough support from other voters? Where does my vote go?

In NSW state elections, which use optional preferencing, it doesn't go anywhere. Your vote is removed from the count once your preferences are exhausted.

[New Chalcedon]

I prefer the STV to first past the post, true. I'd simply like it even better of the preferencing was optional - that way, the parties would have to actually work for the privilege of my vote.

So what happens if I choose only two but neither of them have enough support from other voters? Where does my vote go?

If every candidate you're prepared to put a number next to the name of is excluded before the process is over, your vote is called "exhausted" and no longer counts, except that it's one more vote toward the total which determined the majority needed for the winning candidate.

Which is why even under optional preferential voting, most people end up grudgingly scrawling a "3" or "4" next to LNP or Labor. But at least this way, it's their choice. And if you genuinely think that your choice is between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, then you can exercise your right to refuse to choose at all.

By the time Lees was ousted (2002), the legislation Howard was proposing had moved steadily to the Right, I suspect as a response to 9/11. Basically, the Democrats couldn't vote for much of the legislation, not without selling out the ideals they were supposed to represent when Don Chipp split them off from the Liberal Party twenty-five years earlier.

Depending on your view of Howard, he was either scared into it by 9/11, or waiting for 9/11 or a similar incident to ram through the agenda he wanted all along. I know what I believe, but I acknowledge that the other may be truer.

They could've worked with the Liberals to tone down the legislation, after all GST was orginally going to be on all food and Lees managed to knock out fresh food. In the end the democrats strategy of not wanting to work with them didn't work out too well.

Perhaps because the Democrats had seen the ridicule heaped upon their heads for the dickering over the GST. I still recall well the mockery over cooked chicken vs. raw chicken (raw is exempt, cooked is not), for one.

[Blouman Empire]

If every candidate you're prepared to put a number next to the name of is excluded before the process is over, your vote is called "exhausted" and no longer counts, except that it's one more vote toward the total which determined the majority needed for the winning candidate.

Which is why even under optional preferential voting, most people end up grudgingly scrawling a "3" or "4" next to LNP or Labor. But at least this way, it's their choice. And if you genuinely think that your choice is between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, then you can exercise your right to refuse to choose at all.

Noe to Dazchan: Cheers but I'm just replying to the one since my questions will cover both.

So it is exhausted and it no longer goes to the next counting, which I understand. I also understand that if there are 100 votes and all choose not to preference all candidates then the total to win is 51 votes (50%+1) So what happens if after counting and all votes are exhausted one party has 40 votes one has has 35 and one has 25 then since none have majority does the party with only 40 votes win? Isn't that worse as it means that 60% preferred others over the one with the most votes after exhaustion?

Perhaps because the Democrats had seen the ridicule heaped upon their heads for the dickering over the GST. I still recall well the mockery over cooked chicken vs. raw chicken (raw is exempt, cooked is not), for one.

[/quote]

Maybe but to be honest the Democrats still managed to get a lot of their things through, but when Stott-Despoija (I know spelt wrong) took over and they started saying no it seemed like there was no point voting for them because they weren't going to get their policies through anyway, people might as well vote for a party that will either have enough power to get in or be able to do something with whomever is in government to get at least some of their policies through.

Also to me it seemed like after Lees the Democrats moved over to the left quite a bit, I may be wrong after all I was still under 15 when they were already dying out.

[New Chalcedon]

If every candidate you're prepared to put a number next to the name of is excluded before the process is over, your vote is called "exhausted" and no longer counts, except that it's one more vote toward the total which determined the majority needed for the winning candidate.

Which is why even under optional preferential voting, most people end up grudgingly scrawling a "3" or "4" next to LNP or Labor. But at least this way, it's their choice. And if you genuinely think that your choice is between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, then you can exercise your right to refuse to choose at all.

Noe to Dazchan: Cheers but I'm just replying to the one since my questions will cover both.

So it is exhausted and it no longer goes to the next counting, which I understand. I also understand that if there are 100 votes and all choose not to preference all candidates then the total to win is 51 votes (50%+1) So what happens if after counting and all votes are exhausted one party has 40 votes one has has 35 and one has 25 then since none have majority does the party with only 40 votes win? Isn't that worse as it means that 60% preferred others over the one with the most votes after exhaustion?

I'd say it's better - because at least this way, they can't call on the false notion that a majority (or "popular mandate") was received by anyone.

Frankly, I think that it allows people to tell both major parties that they've had enough of their bullshit, and makes them both work for their votes.

[Blouman Empire]

Noe to Dazchan: Cheers but I'm just replying to the one since my questions will cover both.

So it is exhausted and it no longer goes to the next counting, which I understand. I also understand that if there are 100 votes and all choose not to preference all candidates then the total to win is 51 votes (50%+1) So what happens if after counting and all votes are exhausted one party has 40 votes one has has 35 and one has 25 then since none have majority does the party with only 40 votes win? Isn't that worse as it means that 60% preferred others over the one with the most votes after exhaustion?

I'd say it's better - because at least this way, they can't call on the false notion that a majority (or "popular mandate") was received by anyone.

Frankly, I think that it allows people to tell both major parties that they've had enough of their bullshit, and makes them both work for their votes.

Alright but what happens in my scenario?

[New Chalcedon]

I'd say it's better - because at least this way, they can't call on the false notion that a majority (or "popular mandate") was received by anyone.

Frankly, I think that it allows people to tell both major parties that they've had enough of their bullshit, and makes them both work for their votes.

Alright but what happens in my scenario?

Ah, right. If no-one got a majority, under current law whoever got the plurality wins.

Personally, I'd like to see the seat go vacant under that situation - no candidate was considered even acceptable by most of the electorate, and as such the electorate made their opinion pretty clear on the slate of candidates offered.

[Forster Keys]

I just spoke to a Nepalese student the other day, who was talking about his democracy. He was happy to say the Maoists had put down their arms and entered government, and was proud to tell me that they'd deposed their monarch and put in place a secular republic. He also said that the government still cancelled public transport come election day to stop high voter turnout. Put things in perspective a little.

[New Chalcedon]

I just spoke to a Nepalese student the other day, who was talking about his democracy. He was happy to say the Maoists had put down their arms and entered government, and was proud to tell me that they'd deposed their monarch and put in place a monarchy. He also said that the government still cancelled public transport come election day to stop high voter turnout. Put things in perspective a little.

"Deposed the monarch and put in place a monarchy"?

.....

[Forster Keys]

I just spoke to a Nepalese student the other day, who was talking about his democracy. He was happy to say the Maoists had put down their arms and entered government, and was proud to tell me that they'd deposed their monarch and put in place a monarchy. He also said that the government still cancelled public transport come election day to stop high voter turnout. Put things in perspective a little.

"Deposed the monarch and put in place a monarchy"?

.....

Rectified.

[Blouman Empire]

I just spoke to a Nepalese student the other day, who was talking about his democracy. He was happy to say the Maoists had put down their arms and entered government, and was proud to tell me that they'd deposed their monarch and put in place a secular republic. He also said that the government still cancelled public transport come election day to stop high voter turnout. Put things in perspective a little.

I think we really do have the best way to allow the maximum number of people to vote. We have it on a Saturday when most people don't have work, if they are unable to vote on that day they have 3 weeks beforehand to vote, we have an independent and credible body running elections and we have universal suffrage for all people over the age of 18. We also have a large number of polling booths throughout every electorate so people are able to easily access them and those that are further away have polling booths set up before polling day so they are able to attend.

[Dazchan]

If every candidate you're prepared to put a number next to the name of is excluded before the process is over, your vote is called "exhausted" and no longer counts, except that it's one more vote toward the total which determined the majority needed for the winning candidate.

Which is why even under optional preferential voting, most people end up grudgingly scrawling a "3" or "4" next to LNP or Labor. But at least this way, it's their choice. And if you genuinely think that your choice is between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, then you can exercise your right to refuse to choose at all.

Noe to Dazchan: Cheers but I'm just replying to the one since my questions will cover both.

So it is exhausted and it no longer goes to the next counting, which I understand. I also understand that if there are 100 votes and all choose not to preference all candidates then the total to win is 51 votes (50%+1) So what happens if after counting and all votes are exhausted one party has 40 votes one has has 35 and one has 25 then since none have majority does the party with only 40 votes win? Isn't that worse as it means that 60% preferred others over the one with the most votes after exhaustion?

So you're suggesting that all 100 people had no second preference, and that as such we'd end up with a FPTP result? My instinct is that this scenario is so unlikely that it hasn't been accounted for.

[Blouman Empire]

Ah, right. If no-one got a majority, under current law whoever got the plurality wins.

I understand your reasoning for wanting it but this is what I don't like about it 60% of people don't want this one if they did they would've preferenced them. Under the current system those 60% could preferenced one of the other candidates because they would prefer that candidate over this one because a larger majority don't like theirs.

Personally, I'd like to see the seat go vacant under that situation - no candidate was considered even acceptable by most of the electorate, and as such the electorate made their opinion pretty clear on the slate of candidates offered.

Indeed but it would mean a lot more time, effort and money to run further elections that may end up going on forever. Though at least then eventually the people would get their preferred candidate.

[Blouman Empire]

So you're suggesting that all 100 people had no second preference, and that as such we'd end up with a FPTP result? My instinct is that this scenario is so unlikely that it hasn't been accounted for.

I'm saying that there could've been 4,5 or even 6 candidates and this is the final tally. Though NC has said that in this case the person with the most votes wins, thus it has been accounted for and that is what they have decided.

[New Chalcedon]

I just spoke to a Nepalese student the other day, who was talking about his democracy. He was happy to say the Maoists had put down their arms and entered government, and was proud to tell me that they'd deposed their monarch and put in place a secular republic. He also said that the government still cancelled public transport come election day to stop high voter turnout. Put things in perspective a little.

I think we really do have the best way to allow the maximum number of people to vote. We have it on a Saturday when most people don't have work, if they are unable to vote on that day they have 3 weeks beforehand to vote, we have an independent and credible body running elections and we have universal suffrage for all people over the age of 18. We also have a large number of polling booths throughout every electorate so people are able to easily access them and those that are further away have polling booths set up before polling day so they are able to attend.

Oh, our system is good - particularly compared to the shambolic wreck that is the Federal Elections Commission in the USA. My only grudge is that - deliberately or by accident - the system seems to be designed to funnel votes toward hte two major parties of people who really don't want to vote for them.

After all, you must show up to vote, and deliberately lodging an informal vote is a non-prosecutable crime (misdemeanoour equivalent in the USA). That leaves no lawful way to express at the ballot box dissatisfaction with both major parties.