Senate voting reform.

[Ripper]

I thick that as the senate is supposed to be a state house that senator should be elected as is but at the state election and the should also sit in the states upper house.

E.G. So the 12 WA senators should also be the house of review for the WA lower house.

 

[samFFC]

If anything, the Senate is actually diffusing that dissatisfaction, because it allows people to express dissatisfaction without risking government.

That's an interesting point, hadn't considered that.

 

[samFFC]

I thick that as the senate is supposed to be a state house that senator should be elected as is but at the state election and the should also sit in the states upper house.

E.G. So the 12 WA senators should also be the house of review for the WA lower house.

I definitely like the idea, but being a Senator is already a HUGE job, so this would be a truly impossible task. How to resolve this?

 

[samFFC]

http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/optional-senate-preferencing-not.html

 

[mottrain]

The LDP won their seat in the Senate because most people thought they were voting for the Liberal Party. He's the Senator for the illiterate.

Like Sarah Hanson Young has become the senator for mining and the church.

 

[mottrain]

Who'd have thought that the party for idiots is helped by donkey votes and and folk unable to understand so much as a basic senate ballot? This guy will be the new Steve Fielding, we'll point and laugh at him for six years before he disappers into deserved obscurity.

So Sarah Hanson and the Greens had no idea how to understand the way the senate elections work by the way she preferenced them then.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

It's back on the agenda. Good. http://www.theguardian.com/australi...aces-battle-to-change-voting-rules-for-senate

 

[Lebbo73]

It's back on the agenda. Good. http://www.theguardian.com/australi...aces-battle-to-change-voting-rules-for-senate

How does it work at present? If I only mark 1 on the Upper House ballot, can they decide where my preferences go?

 

[Giants FC]

How does it work at present? If I only mark 1 on the Upper House ballot, can they decide where my preferences go?

Yes. Every party nominates a list of where their preferences go. If you number a 1, you accept the party's distribution of preferences. You can over-ride that party's nomination and make your own preferences that by numbering every square below the line.

 

[Lebbo73]

Yes. Every party nominates a list of where their preferences go. If you number a 1, you accept the party's distribution of preferences. You can over-ride that party's nomination and make your own preferences that by numbering every square below the line.

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with that!

 

[samFFC]

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with that!

Yup. The problem is that we end up with occasionally getting perverse outcomes that don't reflect the will of the people (in terms of who they would preference). Having said that, that's what happens when people don't fill out the preferences themselves. Better engagement=better voting=better outcomes.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

What a load of shit. If you don't want the ****ing party you've just voted for having the responsibility of preferencing for you do the ****ing job yourself.

 

[samFFC]

What a load of shit. If you don't want the ******* party you've just voted for having the responsibility of preferencing for you do the ******* job yourself.

Yup. But that doesn't mean the parties should be able to game the system either!

 

[The Punter]

The solution here is really simple - Senate voting should require you to number every box either above the line or below the line.

 

[samFFC]

The solution here is really simple - Senate voting should require you to number every box either above the line or below the line.

Still get the issue of dodgy preference deals. Parties just put out HTV cards and get same outcome as vast majority would simply follow the HTV.

Banning HTV on the other hand.

 

[The Speaker]

Still get the issue of dodgy preference deals. Parties just put out HTV cards and get same outcome as vast majority would simply follow the HTV.

Banning HTV on the other hand.

In which case parties become totally reliant on media coverage to have any chance of winning a seat, and the media is only interested in 'winners'.

 

[samFFC]

In which case parties become totally reliant on media coverage to have any chance of winning a seat, and the media is only interested in 'winners'.

Do you mean minor parties?

 

[RolandF1]

Still get the issue of dodgy preference deals. Parties just put out HTV cards and get same outcome as vast majority would simply follow the HTV.

Banning HTV on the other hand.

I have to ask this: Are people really so stupid that they need to rely on how to vote sheets? Seriously, it amazes me people can't work out which parties to prefer over. However at the last election I noticed quite a few knocking back the HTV compared to previous ones so maybe people are finally working out 3 comes after 2.

 

[The Punter]

HTVs are suggestions, and a lower percentage of people are taking them.

And if you have to distribute preferences rather than the party having that power (which admittedly you've given them), then you have the ultimate responsibility for where those preferences go.

The problem here is a wide swathe of minor parties from all parts of the political spectrum swapping preferences before giving them to the major parties who sit somewhere reasonably centrally on the spectrum. Vote 1 above the box for the Shooters Party, and your preferences go to the Socialists and One Nation before going to the ALP.

 

[samFFC]

HTVs are suggestions, and a lower percentage of people are taking them.

And if you have to distribute preferences rather than the party having that power (which admittedly you've given them), then you have the ultimate responsibility for where those preferences go.

The problem here is a wide swathe of minor parties from all parts of the political spectrum swapping preferences before giving them to the major parties who sit somewhere reasonably centrally on the spectrum. Vote 1 above the box for the Shooters Party, and your preferences go to the Socialists and One Nation before going to the ALP.

Hence if you have OPV or require full preferencing+ban HTV = very difficult for those parties to be elected with tiny proportion of vote as currently it is possible.

 

[CbayT]

Hence if you have OPV or require full preferencing+ban HTV = very difficult for those parties to be elected with tiny proportion of vote as currently it is possible.

Don't even have to do that ban preferences altogether. Use a quota system and then if there is not a full quota for 5th and 6th place select the two with the most votes. We shouldn't have people in the senate with 1% or two of the primary vote

 

[The Speaker]

I have to ask this: Are people really so stupid that they need to rely on how to vote sheets? Seriously, it amazes me people can't work out which parties to prefer over. However at the last election I noticed quite a few knocking back the HTV compared to previous ones so maybe people are finally working out 3 comes after 2.

It's not about being stupid. It's about minimising effort. The vast majority of people pay enough attention to know which party they'll put first, and no more than that.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

I know one thing, if I could easily direct my preference flow via above the line preferencing I would, below the line is a major hassle and too easy to stuff up and have to start again.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

When you look back at the origins of group ticket voting, its origin was to fix a disgraceful level of informal voting. But it was only proposed because there was disagreement about whether preferential voting in the Senate should be optional or exhaustive.

Which is where the debate is in 2015. The proposal put forward by the Coalition, Labor and the Greens through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and largely backed by Senator Xenophon, is to abolish group ticket voting and move towards optional preferential voting.

For the micro-parties on the cross bench, the argument about optional versus exhaustive preferential voting is irrelevant. Both systems would increase voter choice by putting the power over preferences back into voter hands and end the ability of parties to control preferences and do preference deals.

The ability of micro-parties to be elected would be destroyed if the power over preferences is put back into the hands of voters. Which is why micro-parties resist any attempt to abolish ticket voting, whatever the decision on optional versus exhaustive preferential voting.

Under group ticket voting, electors choose their first preferences but the parties determine all further preferences. Abolishing group ticket voting would tilt the system in favour of parties that campaign for votes, and disadvantage those that only deal in preferences.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...et-voting-and-it-wasnt-the-major-parties.html

 

[The Punter]

You're going to have to deal with what the major parties will agree to, and they'll never agree to abolish HTVs. It's an area where their popularity and large membership/volunteer base gives them an advantage.