# Micro party coalition to control the Senate



## Bushman (9 September 2013)

I was listening to the new force in Australian politics on the radio before, namely the Australian Sport Party! 

This is an apolitical party that is mainly interested in raising sporting participation rates. A noble ideal in this age of obesity but should this really be a member of the 'micro alliance' that will be shaping policy in Australia? 

No democratic system is perfect, but the ASP is likely to receive a senate seat (in WA) with less than 0.25% of the vote. 

Other likely members of the Alliance: 
1. Family First (SA)
2. Nick Xenophon (SA)
3. The Motorist Party (Vic) 
4. PUP x2. 
5. The Liberal Democrats (NSW)

Good lords, this will be like herding cats! 

The Lib/Dems seem to be in power as they were listed first above the line on the Senate ballot in NSW. As for the rest, it is the result of a plethora of 'back door' preference deals. 

Double dissolution on the cards? 

PS, thanks to Queensland, the likely third force in Australian politics will be Clive Palmer .... ha ha.

- - - Updated - - -

Whoops, did not realise there was already a 'micro party' thread .... pls move if deemed appropriate. 

Very important topic though and this result hopefully yields a movement to reform the way we elect our Senate!


----------



## Knobby22 (9 September 2013)

*Re: Micro party coalition to control the Senate ...*

Democracy at work. There is also the Greens and Labor who can approve bills.

The Libs will need to convince them. Maybe we might see a senate that actually really debates rather than trades insults. That is how parliament used to work.

If the story is good I am sure most of these independent senators will pass the legislation.


----------



## Bushman (9 September 2013)

*Re: Micro party coalition to control the Senate ...*



Knobby22 said:


> Democracy at work. There is also the Greens and Labor who can approve bills.
> 
> The Libs will need to convince them. Maybe we might see a senate that actually really debates rather than trades insults. That is how parliament used to work.
> 
> If the story is good I am sure most of these independent senators will pass the legislation.




The problem is the vested interests that will need to be met to get legislation through. In the WA example (Sports Party), these vested interests only represent 0.25% of the primary vote in WA. Yet the trade-off for say the Carbon Tax being repealed might well be funding of some WA sporting project or complex. I am not sure if that is equitable. 

But at least there will be a number of different voices in the Senate. My view is that there is no way that Abbott's Paid Parental Leave will get up in its current form. Also, there will be a blend of Direct Action and a lower Carbon Tax rate. 

Interesting times ahead.


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2013)

*Re: Micro party coalition to control the Senate ...*



> The man elected to take one of six Senate seats in New South Wales says allowing the general public to carry weapons is one way of curbing gun crime in western Sydney.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-09/nsw-sends-liberal-democrat-to-senate/4945080

The senate will be a sick joke on the public who have suffered enough.
The Electoral Commission was told on many occasions to fix things but just didn't , we may have to go back to the polls over this.


----------



## Judd (9 September 2013)

*Re: Micro party coalition to control the Senate ...*



MrBurns said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-09/nsw-sends-liberal-democrat-to-senate/4945080
> 
> The senate will be a sick joke on the public who have suffered enough.
> The Electoral Commission was told on many occasions to fix things but just didn't , we may have to go back to the polls over this.




I understand the Electoral Commission applies the legislation as passed by Parliament, so I wouldn't be blaming the EC but our politicians.  Not disagreeing with the nonsense but simply saying the finger of blame should possibly be pointed elsewhere.


----------



## Julia (9 September 2013)

*Re: Micro party coalition to control the Senate ...*

Bushman, your title suggests a 'coalition of micro parties'.  Perhaps it will ultimately be that, but at present it's looking more like the government having to negotiate individually with all these disparate individuals.  Just crazy having people elected with such a tiny proportion of the vote and with such a minority interest.

And if PUP is indeed going to end up with four representatives across both houses, it's a pretty sad reflection on the powers of discernment of the electorate if they have simply believed the rubbish spouted in Palmer's massive advertising.


----------



## nioka (9 September 2013)

*Re: Micro party coalition to control the Senate ...*



Knobby22 said:


> Democracy at work. There is also the Greens and Labor who can approve bills.
> 
> The Libs will need to convince them. Maybe we might see a senate that actually really debates rather than trades insults. That is how parliament used to work.
> 
> If the story is good I am sure most of these independent senators will pass the legislation.




The major parties would like to eliminate all others from having a say. It would be like only having Coles and Woolworths controlling all the retail business and dominating all the retail sales. (We have almost reached this point too).  The libs, particularly, need a senate to control and oversee the legislation.


----------



## Bushman (9 September 2013)

*Re: Micro party coalition to control the Senate ...*



Julia said:


> Bushman, your title suggests a 'coalition of micro parties'.  Perhaps it will ultimately be that, but at present it's looking more like the government having to negotiate individually with all these disparate individuals.  Just crazy having people elected with such a tiny proportion of the vote and with such a minority interest.
> 
> And if PUP is indeed going to end up with four representatives across both houses, it's a pretty sad reflection on the powers of discernment of the electorate if they have simply believed the rubbish spouted in Palmer's massive advertising.




Hi Julia, 

My expectation is that they will unify under Xenophon (or god help us, Palmer) due to a lack of political experience and funding. However, this will be a fraught 'coalition' at best. They will probably figure out that they will be more powerful as a voting block. 

Can you imagine what their success will do next time around? There will be an explosion of micro parties more so even than this election. Something will need to be done as 0.25% of the vote makes Family First's 2% Senator of a few years back seem like a landslide!


----------



## McLovin (9 September 2013)

*Re: Micro party coalition to control the Senate ...*



Bushman said:


> Hi Julia,
> 
> My expectation is that they will unify under Xenophon (or god help us, Palmer) due to a lack of political experience and funding. However, this will be a fraught 'coalition' at best. They will probably figure out that they will be more powerful as a voting block.




Someone described it as like trying to herd cats, which seems rather apt. I doubt the DLP and LDP will be unifying under Xenophon. The senate has become a farce and needs the electoral process in the senate needs to be changed pronto.


----------



## tinhat (9 September 2013)

The new senate does sit until July 2014. The current senate with The Greens in balance of power will sit until then.

There could well be a double dissolution before the new senate sits.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 September 2013)

The rules were changed for Senate by a Labor Liberal coalition to reduce the effect of small parties but they have had the opposite effect.

Many people vote the smaller parties first. I see nothing wrong with this as I am pro democracy.

Also, note the Greens were losers in this election and James Diaz actually got a swing against him. People are engaged and vote accordingly and calling them fools just reflects on the speaker. it is obvious, people wanted the Liberals to win government but wanted fail safes. The Greens just block so lost votes and others were sought. People still remember Howards last term.


----------



## pixel (9 September 2013)

Be careful what you wish for.
The micro parties are the electorate's answer to the two Big One's arrogance and taking their appeal for granted. What other opportunity did thinking voters have? Informal, a sad alternative, accomplishes nothing. A minute interest group will at least force representatives of bigger interest groups to explain their rationale for new policies. Of course, Abbott would love to hide as much as possible and then claim a mandate to do what he wants. Eliminating the discussion will eliminate that scrutiny and open the door to ever Bigger Government, if not even dictatorship.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 September 2013)

Well said pixel.


----------



## McLovin (9 September 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> The rules were changed for Senate by a Labor Liberal coalition to reduce the effect of small parties but they have had the opposite effect.
> 
> Many people vote the smaller parties first. I see nothing wrong with this as I am pro democracy.
> 
> Also, note the Greens were losers in this election and James Diaz actually got a swing against him. People are engaged and vote accordingly and calling them fools just reflects on the speaker. it is obvious, people wanted the Liberals to win government but wanted fail safes. The Greens just block so lost votes and others were sought. People still remember Howards last term.




Agree with most of what you're saying, Knobby. Although I think the senate voting has just become unwieldy. How many people who vote above the line actually know who ends up with their vote? Maybe partial pref voting above the line or some derivation of it is better than the current system which has become very opaque and decidely undemocratic.

I have been impressed with the way people have voted. Hopefully it's sent a message that this wasn't an overwhelming endorsement of the LNP but rather a rejection of the ALP.


----------



## sydboy007 (9 September 2013)

The issue I have is a DD may increase this problem since the micro parties would need half the votes for a senate seat than the last election.

I'm not sure how we resolve this issue in a democratic way, especially when you factor in the number of votes for a senate seat in the smaller states is mockingly small.

The fact we've had this results shows the disillusionment within the community over the major parties.

I though Gillard had a hard time, but think Abbotts will be even harder.  Lets hope he keeps the pork barrel to a minimum.


----------



## Bushman (9 September 2013)

pixel said:


> Be careful what you wish for.
> The micro parties are the electorate's answer to the two Big One's arrogance and taking their appeal for granted. What other opportunity did thinking voters have? Informal, a sad alternative, accomplishes nothing. A minute interest group will at least force representatives of bigger interest groups to explain their rationale for new policies. Of course, Abbott would love to hide as much as possible and then claim a mandate to do what he wants. Eliminating the discussion will eliminate that scrutiny and open the door to ever Bigger Government, if not even dictatorship.




Receiving a seat in the Senate due to 'back door' preference deals when you have received a tiny fraction of the primary vote cannot be right.  

I believe that the correct system should be that everyone votes 'below the line' and only lists their top five preferences after their primary endorsement. Otherwise all we are doing is swapping the 'faceless men' of the ALP with the 'faceless preference dealmakers' of the Senate. Its not democratic. My system would have ample room to capture any protest vote due to a lack of trust in KRudd and Abbot.


----------



## Whiskers (9 September 2013)

McLovin said:


> Agree with most of what you're saying, Knobby. Although I think the senate voting has just become unwieldy. How many people who vote above the line actually know who ends up with their vote? Maybe partial pref voting above the line or some derivation of it is better than the current system which has become very opaque and decidely undemocratic.
> 
> I have been impressed with the way people have voted. Hopefully it's sent a message that this wasn't an overwhelming endorsement of the LNP but rather a rejection of the ALP.




Agree with your sentiments, McLovin.

It looks live a review of the qualification as a political party may be in order. In the context of a democracy, we must protect the right of people to form a new party, but maybe review the public funding to avoid people just profiteering from gaining above 4% of the vote.

Similarly, it must make for better representation for people to fill out below the line rather than frustratingly just tick one box above. If the above review doesn't reduce the size of the ballot list, then surely some analysis must show once you get past a certain number of preferences, say 5 or 6, that there is little or no consequential effect... or at least any effect is mitigated by people not really knowing what the party preference is past first for second preference anyway.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 September 2013)

Good points McLovin and Whiskers. it got a bit crazy when I got to my 97th preference.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 September 2013)

*Re: Micro party coalition to control the Senate ...*



Julia said:


> And if PUP is indeed going to end up with four representatives across both houses, it's a pretty sad reflection on the powers of discernment of the electorate if they have simply believed the rubbish spouted in Palmer's massive advertising.



I'm thinking that much of the Palmer vote would come down to:

1. In the case of Clive Palmer personally, a perception that having a high profile party leader as the local member would be a good thing for that electorate. 

2. A general protest vote against the two major parties.

Personally, this is the first election I've voted in without an underlying strong preference for either Labor or Liberal. Both have apparent downsides that I don't like and not enough good points to offset them. 

I suspect many feel much the same way. Labor no longer effectively represents the workers and the Liberals are simply conservative and this time around there's even been a hint of religious bias. If you're an employee with a reasonably progressive and non-religious view of the world then there is no major party you'd logically vote for. Labor, Liberal, Greens - none of them are offering much in that regard. So it's either pick the best of a bad bunch, or find someone else to vote for. Enter PUP as, in most electorates, the only significant alternative.

I doubt that many voted PUP expecting or even wanting them to form government. More likely, they've just concluded that having someone outspoken in parliament who isn't from the major parties might just prompt some sensible debate on the issues. Whether that happens remains to be seen, but I suspect that's what people are hoping for - putting the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons who seem to have become overly complacent and uninteresting. 

Historically I expect that many have voted Green for the same reasons. Simply to spark debate and give the big two a bit of a stir. Hence the decline in the Green vote now that other non-big two alternatives have arisen.


----------



## tinhat (9 September 2013)

McLovin said:


> Maybe partial pref voting above the line or some derivation of it is better than the current system which has become very opaque and decidely undemocratic.




Perhaps a partial preferential voting system either above or below the line. This is the easiest and most democratic solution I can think of. Partially preference the groups (above the line) or alternatively partially preference the individual candidates below the line. Let the voter distribute their preferences as far as they want to and do away with the party registered preference allocation system (which is only a fairly modern innovation). I can't remember exactly when above the line voting came in for the senate but it was not that long ago.

Interestingly, I think I heard Anthony Green mention on the ABC that in the lower house there are a lot more informal votes in NSW because voters get confused about the preferential system because in the elections for the NSW parliament it is a partial preferential system whereas in the federal election you must allocate a preference to all candidates on the paper.


----------



## So_Cynical (9 September 2013)

What, the noalition wont control the senate after the July change over..so much for a mandate then.


----------



## Julia (9 September 2013)

Bushman said:


> Hi Julia,
> 
> My expectation is that they will unify under Xenophon (or god help us, Palmer) due to a lack of political experience and funding.



Hello Bushman, you might be right.  At present I don't see them uniting.  They have until July next year to figure out how the system works and by then shouldn't need to be guided by either Xenophon  or Palmer. ( The very notion of Clive Palmer guiding anyone on how to behave in any tier of parliament is a complete joke!)

There was a somewhat reassuring interview on 7.30 this evening with three of the Senators, Madigan who is I think already in the Senate, plus the winner from the Australia Sporting Party (or whatever its name is) and ditto from the Liberal Democrat Party.
Just on the last organisation, when I looked at the Senate voting paper in Saturday I had to look twice at the first entry which was the Liberal Democrats.  We never hear anything about them, I had no idea that they even existed, and i almost ticked that box until I woke up that it wasn't actually the Liberal National Coalition.
I'm pretty politically focused so if I almost made that mistake, I think lots of people would have just ticked Box One thinking they were voting for the Coalition.  
However, that Senator-elect seemed pretty sensible on the 7.30 interview.  He indicated he would endorse the Coalition's wish to get rid of the carbon tax, and the Sporting Party bloke indicated similarly while saying he wouldn't commit himself until he knew for sure he had been elected which is pretty reasonable.

So perhaps Mr Abbott is just going to have to postpone his abolition of the tax until he has a more friendly Senate in July next year.  I think the electorate would prefer that to going to a double dissolution election, but of course I might be completely wrong.



> Can you imagine what their success will do next time around? There will be an explosion of micro parties more so even than this election. Something will need to be done as 0.25% of the vote makes Family First's 2% Senator of a few years back seem like a landslide!






McLovin said:


> Someone described it as like trying to herd cats, which seems rather apt. I doubt the DLP and LDP will be unifying under Xenophon. The senate has become a farce and needs the electoral process in the senate needs to be changed pronto.






pixel said:


> Be careful what you wish for.
> The micro parties are the electorate's answer to the two Big One's arrogance and taking their appeal for granted. What other opportunity did thinking voters have?



I'm not sure you're right in characterising those who voted for minority parties as "thinking voters".  Aren't they more likely to represent the protest vote which has previously gone to the Greens from people who are sick of the two main parties?
I don't believe for a moment that most people voting for a minor party had even the remotest idea of how that party's preferences were destined to be distributed.

All up, obviously the Senate system at the very least needs total reform.  I'd go for the simplicity and unambiguous result of First Past the Post.  Neither can I see any reason why this shouldn't apply in the House of Reps also.  No more How to Vote Cards, no more complicated preference deals behind the scenes where the general public essentially has no idea where their vote will end up.


----------



## pixel (9 September 2013)

*Re: Micro party coalition to control the Senate ...*



Smurf1976 said:


> I'm thinking that much of the Palmer vote would come down to:
> 
> 1. In the case of Clive Palmer personally, a perception that having a high profile party leader as the local member would be a good thing for that electorate.
> 
> ...




+2  from me

Ditto for so_cynical


----------



## bellenuit (9 September 2013)

Julia said:


> So perhaps Mr Abbott is just going to have to postpone his abolition of the tax until he has a more friendly Senate in July next year.  I think the electorate would prefer that to going to a double dissolution election, but of course I might be completely wrong.




What is the process here? Does it have to be rejected by the senate 3 times before he can call a DD? 

If that is the case, perhaps he should put it to the senate twice before July 1 (assuming potential Labor/Green  delaying tactics allow that to happen). That will then have Labor on the record as twice rejecting the Coalition's headline mandate. Then put it to the senate a third time as soon as practicable after July 1, with the threat of DD if it is rejected. I'm not sure if many of the new micro party senators would relish having to stand for re-election within a few months of taking up the role, particularly those that may have slipped in this time due to confusion (Liberal Democrats) or on the tails of the PUP. The electorate will hopefully be a lot wiser then and any upper house electoral reforms in the interim would also help.


----------



## Whiskers (9 September 2013)

Julia said:


> So perhaps Mr Abbott is just going to have to postpone his abolition of the tax until he has a more friendly Senate in July next year.  I think the electorate would prefer that to going to a double dissolution election, but of course I might be completely wrong.




Yeah, I think you're right there. 

But I'm curious how the transition from the floating price system and compensation for those affected under it... to a new direct action system will be implemented. Do they just draw a line through a day, write off the old system and the compensation for some industries and start the direct action system? It may yet fall into so many other bills that state and fed gov's have declared to difficult or costly to wind back.




> I'm not sure you're right in characterising those who voted for minority parties as "thinking voters".  Aren't they more likely to represent the protest vote which has previously gone to the Greens from people who are sick of the two main parties?
> I don't believe for a moment that most people voting for a minor party had even the remotest idea of how that party's preferences were destined to be distributed.




After about no 10 or so I had no idea who the rest were and just went from one side of the paper to the other. I hope I didn't unwittingly preference one of them into a job. 



> All up, obviously the Senate system at the very least needs total reform.  I'd go for the simplicity and unambiguous result of First Past the Post.  Neither can I see any reason why this shouldn't apply in the House of Reps also.  No more How to Vote Cards, no more complicated preference deals behind the scenes where the general public essentially has no idea where their vote will end up.




I like simplicity and unambiguity, but not sure that a first past the post system necessarily will provide results that unambiguously represent the preferred voter choice. Obviously if there is only two candidates it's effectively first past the post anyway... but typically I'm seeing three or four getting significant primary votes in the reps and more in the senate under the quota system.

Looking at Qld for example... given the senate is also a quota system, how would a first past the post work?.. ie would the party who scored the most votes be allocated all the senators for the state... or eliminate quotas, each party only allowed one candidate and the six highest scoring candidates (or some lessor number) get a senate seat each? 

Come to think about it, given senators are obliged to protect the interests of their state ahead of their party, the latter seems a pretty good idea. That would completely circumvent the abuse of senate as a rubber stamp for major parties and likely be a better, or at least more independent house of review.


----------



## tinhat (10 September 2013)

Someone mentioned first past the post voting. I personally am not for it for the house of reps. As for the senate it makes no sense. Each state elects ten senators. In a half senate election each voter gets to vote in five new representatives. A person should at least be able to vote 1-5 for their top five picks in the case of a half senate election and 1-10 in the case of a full senate election (double dissolution).


----------



## pixel (10 September 2013)

tinhat said:


> Someone mentioned first past the post voting. I personally am not for it for the house of reps. As for the senate it makes no sense. Each state elects ten senators. In a half senate election each voter gets to vote in five new representatives. A person should at least be able to vote 1-5 for their top five picks in the case of a half senate election and 1-10 in the case of a full senate election (double dissolution).




+1, tinhat
That's the most sensible proposition of any I've heard.

... and that's most likely also the very reason it won't happen.


----------



## Bushman (10 September 2013)

Nice touch. The strategist that 'helped' the micros gain power also owns a lobbying firm! Yep, democracy at work. 

'The strategist behind the likely surprise election to the Senate of three minor party candidates, Glenn Druery, owns a lobbying firm selling itself to business as able to ''build a productive working relationship with Independent and minor party MPs''.

The dual roles mean Mr Druery could be lobbying senators he helped get elected on Saturday - from the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party, Australian Sports Party and Family First - on behalf of private sector clients.'


Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-p...ndependents-20130909-2tgc7.html#ixzz2eRT7TtoY


----------



## drsmith (10 September 2013)

Michael Smith has put together a profile of six of the Senator elect minors.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/09/what-will-the-new-senate-look-like.html


----------



## Julia (10 September 2013)

tinhat said:


> Someone mentioned first past the post voting. I personally am not for it for the house of reps. As for the senate it makes no sense. Each state elects ten senators. In a half senate election each voter gets to vote in five new representatives. A person should at least be able to vote 1-5 for their top five picks in the case of a half senate election and 1-10 in the case of a full senate election (double dissolution).



Is the above what actually happens for the Senate now, or is it something you're proposing?

Nothing wrong with first past the post which has worked successfully in several countries, and no reason not to have that in the lower house and something different (but more sensible than at present) in the Senate.  In the current situation, someone with 1900 votes is apparently taking a Senate place while someone with 37,000 is not.


----------



## 13ugs13unny (10 September 2013)

So_Cynical said:


> What, the noalition wont control the senate after the July change over..so much for a mandate then.




YA not a clear mandate...needs rubber stamp from senate...headwinds, but empty threat double dissolution, tony wont risk vicious electorate backlash.

current senate will sandbag coalition until July 2014 nothing will get through.

markets won't like it stalemates.


----------



## craft (10 September 2013)

Julia said:


> In the current situation, someone with 1900 votes is apparently taking a Senate place while someone with 37,000 is not.




To me that's the important point. No matter how you slice and dice the argument that's not what I call democracy.

Simple to understand and representative of what people actually want  - is that too much to ask for or too complicated to achieve? or is the road block to reform that change doesn't suit the current power status quo.


----------



## Whiskers (10 September 2013)

*Re: Micro party coalition to control the Senate ...*



Knobby22 said:


> Democracy at work. There is also the Greens and Labor who can approve bills.
> 
> The Libs will need to convince them. Maybe we might see a senate that actually really debates rather than trades insults. That is how parliament used to work.
> 
> If the story is good I am sure most of these independent senators will pass the legislation.




Yes, it is indeed democracy at work... and we get what we deserve. We deserve this aberration of 'democracy' because we collectively became too complacent.

------------------------

The problem is neither major party is going to make too much fuss atm or rush into changes for fear of being seen as sore loosers... in the sense that some of the small fry have beaten them at their own (back room lobbying) game.

Since I'm on a bit of a run of 'slogans and anecdotes', I'll offer this as well.

“Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” 
― Thomas Jefferson​
... and thus when the major parties abuse the power, process and trust placed in them, one can hardly frown on these small fry who learnt well from their big brothers. 

So, who is to blame... the big two of course, for designing a system that allowed them to dominate the political landscape for soo long. 

It's unfortunate that such small fry will have such power and rort the system for awhile, but we got what we deserved. Karma has kicked in... ie, whatever you do comes back to you, to soothe or haunt, as the case may be.


----------



## Calliope (10 September 2013)

Whiskers said:


> But I'm curious how the transition from the floating price system and compensation for those affected under it... to a new direct action system will be implemented. Do they just draw a line through a day, write off the old system and the compensation for some industries and start the direct action system? It may yet fall into so many other bills that state and fed gov's have declared to difficult or costly to wind back.




That seems to be the beauty of the rag bag new Senate. The idiotic Direct Action will be consigned to the scrap heap along with the Carbon Tax. 

If they nullify the Green vote they will be performing a great service to their country.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...but-taxes-doomed/story-fn9qr68y-1226715513999


----------



## McLovin (10 September 2013)

Julia said:


> Is the above what actually happens for the Senate now, or is it something you're proposing?




It's sort of what happens now, although state government's do not select candidates and the bar from getting a group ticket is very low, which is why the BP is so damn big. The problem with what happens now is that preference deals have made the election a big bowl of spaghetti. Like I said earlier, how many people actually know where their senate will end up? The distributions are on the AEC website but you've got your work cut out for you trying to actually understand who will end up with your vote.

At the more radical end you could just have state parliaments send the required number of senators and do away with senate elections all together. This was common practice in the USA until the 17th Amendment was ratified. Of course it would basically mean the end of minor parties in the senate.

Personally, I think a system that requires a threshold primary vote (say2.5%) before allowing that party/individual to receive preferences isn't a bad idea.


----------



## tinhat (10 September 2013)

Julia said:


> Is the above what actually happens for the Senate now, or is it something you're proposing?
> 
> Nothing wrong with first past the post which has worked successfully in several countries, and no reason not to have that in the lower house and something different (but more sensible than at present) in the Senate.  In the current situation, someone with 1900 votes is apparently taking a Senate place while someone with 37,000 is not.




That is one option I am proposing for the senate. When you think about it you have to elect five senators in a half senate election so I don't see why you can't just be required to number one to five and then if you want let your preferences exhaust there or if you want go on and keep distributing your preferences. Sort of an optional preference proportional voting system. The thing is, you have to vote for a minimum of five candidates or else theoretically a senate election could end up only electing two or three or four senators instead of the required five (in the case of a normal half senate election). That's the only problem with a first past the post system where you need to elect five senators, theoretically you could end up with less being elected (although highly unlikely in practice).

Under this system you could do away with the above the line group ticket preferences system. It is the group ticket preference system that has stuffed up the proportional representation system in the Senate. The Senate worked fine until the introduced the above the line system because the number of candidates kept growing. What they should do is move to an optional proportional preference system.

As for the lower house, yes I can see that there is merit in the first past the post system but I don't favour it. If voting is to be compulsory, and I believe our democracy is stronger because it is and it should be, then each person's vote must count. With proportional voting your vote still counts even if your first preference is not elected your vote can flow on to your number two choice and so on. Proportional representation broadens the choice and the ability of people to have a voice and chose and without it, given our compulsory voting system you would just end up with a lot more informal votes which doesn't give expression to the electorate as much as proportional voting does.

Personally I don't mind the system in NSW where it is optional whether you distribute preferences to all candidates or just a second, third preference and so on.

In the senate the current system of proportional representation being implemented by way of group preference tickets has broken down. No doubt there.


----------



## Calliope (10 September 2013)

I don't see how it can be justified that preferences should have the same value as the primary vote. Someone has suggested that the second preference should have a value of half a vote, third preference one third, and so on. It wouldn't need any change in the system and wouldn't change the counting of the votes. After the second preferences were tallied e.g. it would be just a matter of dividing by two before allocation.


----------



## Julia (10 September 2013)

tinhat said:


> That is one option I am proposing for the senate. When you think about it you have to elect five senators in a half senate election so I don't see why you can't just be required to number one to five and then if you want let your preferences exhaust there or if you want go on and keep distributing your preferences. Sort of an optional preference proportional voting system.



Sounds pretty reasonable, certainly an improvement on what we have now.

My comments are from most of my life in NZ with a first past the post system which worked well, despite optional voting.  There was always a turnout of more than 75% from memory. ( One of the benefits of voluntary voting is that the people who vote are those who have taken a genuine interest in the political options, and the elimination of those who turn up and tick any box simply to avoid a fine.)

Then about 1990 some genius decided NZ should try a very complicated proportional representation system and it all went downhill from there, with all the sort of stuff we are presently seeing in the latest Senate results.

Also, the new system was so complicated, few voters actually understood what they were doing when it came to election day.



> As for the lower house, yes I can see that there is merit in the first past the post system but I don't favour it. If voting is to be compulsory, and I believe our democracy is stronger because it is and it should be, then each person's vote must count. With proportional voting your vote still counts even if your first preference is not elected your vote can flow on to your number two choice and so on.



I see your point, but don't believe democracy needs to be that finely tuned.

People should be able to make a simple choice and that's that.  You're perhaps talking from the position of someone who is politically aware.  Probably about half the population is simply not, and are unlikely to be making considered, thoughtful choices in any preferential system.

A good example of this is the number of votes that went in the Senate to the Liberal Democratic Party who were first on the voting paper and who many voters would have confused with the Liberal Party.  As I've said before, I almost ticked them until I looked twice and I'm not politically unaware.

We didn't hear anything about the Liberal Democratic Party throughout the election campaign, at least in Qld, no representative of their party was interviewed on any media that I'm aware of, so I cannot believe too many people actually ticked their box as a result of carefully thinking about their policies, none of which I would have even the faintest idea of.




Calliope said:


> I don't see how it can be justified that preferences should have the same value as the primary vote. Someone has suggested that the second preference should have a value of half a vote, third preference one third, and so on. It wouldn't need any change in the system and wouldn't change the counting of the votes. After the second preferences were tallied e.g. it would be just a matter of dividing by two before allocation.



That's a valid suggestion, but still imo unnecessarily complicated.


----------



## Purple XS2 (11 September 2013)

"Above the line" voting was introduced to reduce the donkey & informal senate vote.
But over last 12 - 15 years it became clear that it was leading to bogus parties doing under-the-counter trade-offs with the major parties - remember "Doctors for forests"?

The election of Family First senator Fielding was confirmation of an obviously increasing tendency for mini- and micro- parties to get elected.

So why did our major parties not fix it?

Because the ALP and coalition are united in one thing: to prevent the rise of _any_ substantial third force in Australian politics. If everything outside ALP + Lib/nats is reduced to a gaggle-bag of nutters, that's a great thing.

Even for the ALP, the election of Fielding was a success: it kept the greens out of a senate seat in Victoria, despite their having polled about 80% of a quota (that means about 80% of 14.5% of the total if you get what I mean) in their own right.

And while many present here in ASF would say anything that keeps the greens out is a good idea, be careful what you wish for. The next third force to be the target of this _conspiracy_ could be someone you support.

The sick joke of the incoming senate is a reflection of the corruption of our political class.

[Exuent stage right, muttering]


----------



## tinhat (11 September 2013)

An interesting argument purple.

Just one point of information to correct what I have now posted several times. Each state has twelve senators not ten. It use to be ten until the Hawke reforms of 1984 when they decided Australia needed more politicians. I'm surprised no one picked me up on that


----------



## Bushman (11 September 2013)

Xenaphon is on board. He is looking to introduce a bill into parliament about the Senate 

'Senator Xenophon believes it is time to do away with above the line voting which led to ridiculously complicated preference deals.

Similarly, below the line voting, requiring voters to number every box on the ballot paper, should also end.

"A better system would be to have only the below the line set-up, but not force voters to number every box," he said.

"Instead, they would be required to list their first six preferences and as many as they wanted after that."' 

Sounds like a sensible plan to me ...


----------



## Whiskers (11 September 2013)

Bushman said:


> Xenaphon is on board. He is looking to introduce a bill into parliament about the Senate
> 
> 'Senator Xenophon believes it is time to do away with above the line voting which led to ridiculously complicated preference deals.
> 
> ...




Sounds a good and easy resolution of the problem to me.


----------



## pixel (11 September 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Sounds a good and easy resolution of the problem to me.




In Canberra, that's reason enough that it'll never happen


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 September 2013)

Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.

Having to number all the boxes I can live with, but "above the line" voting ought to be banned in my opinion.


----------



## So_Cynical (11 September 2013)

We need electronic voting terminals, at least a few in each polling place...i had to fill out 115 boxes so as to avoid my preference going to Hanson or some other right wing nutter.

-----------

The vast majority of the PUP and informal vote was a protest vote, Liberals that couldn't vote for Tony or Labor and Labor voters that couldn't vote for Labor or Tony...the Liberal Democrats was right wing nutters thinking they were voting Liberal.

The protest vote was more than twice the size of the primary swing against Labor and the Primary Swing to the LNP combined...so much for a mandate.


----------



## drsmith (18 September 2013)

The Senate count is still jumping around a bit.

The Sex Party is into the sixth spot in Tasmania with 91.46% of the vote counted.


----------



## Whiskers (18 September 2013)

drsmith said:


> The Senate count is still jumping around a bit.
> 
> The Sex Party is into the sixth spot in Tasmania with 91.46% of the vote counted.




What an indictment on our electoral system that we can have three senators taking away around $200,000 per year, whose main claim to office is Sex, Sport and Motoring Enthusiasts respectively!!!

I'm starting to wonder about Abbott and this Sports and Motoring Enthusiasts Party senators with the elevation of sport to the front bench of cabinet. :

Are we going to end up with a ministry of Sex on the front bench as well!!?


----------



## drsmith (18 September 2013)

Whiskers said:


> Are we going to end up with a ministry of Sex on the front bench as well!!?



If we had that along with Labor's Ministry of Cities, we could have our own version of Sex In The City.

I wouldn't want to watch it though.


----------



## Julia (18 September 2013)

Whiskers said:


> What an indictment on our electoral system that we can have three senators taking away around $200,000 per year, whose main claim to office is Sex, Sport and Motoring Enthusiasts respectively!!!
> 
> I'm starting to wonder about Abbott and this Sports and Motoring Enthusiasts Party senators with the elevation of sport to the front bench of cabinet. :
> 
> Are we going to end up with a ministry of Sex on the front bench as well!!?



. 

However,  I'm going to stick up for the Sports Senator.  When I heard him discussing what he stands for, it's not sport as in elevating the importance of football eg (god knows, we don't need that!), but rather the promotion of physical exercise and healthy eating in an effort to counter the growing obesity problem.

He also made the point that they see organised exercise as helping to promote healthy, active, co-operative communities.
Sounds OK to me.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 September 2013)

Hear, hear.
I like all the senators except the Victorian one who really is a typical 4WD meathead. I voted him near the bottom of the paper. I dislike the sex party who if you read their policies are really closer in allegiance to communists than the greens. I hope they don't get up in Tassie.  You would think a party called the Sex Party would be all freedom and rights, not controllers and freedom takers.


----------



## Calliope (20 October 2013)

> A KEY cross-bench senator has pleaded with Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party senator-elect Ricky Muir not to sell out the people who voted for him.
> 
> Democratic Labour Party senator John Madigan has also defended the rise of micro parties in the upper house, saying they played by the rules and deserved to be in parliament.




- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...y-fn3dxiwe-1226743278211#sthash.u9jmOeDJ.dpuf

Yes it would be a shame if the 4WD crazy 0.52% who gave him their first preference were let down.



> WHO ELECTED RICKY MUIR TO THE SENATE?
> 
> You did, if you voted above the line for:
> 
> ...





Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...senate-spot-20130909-2tfc4.html#ixzz2iDeboz5B


----------



## sydboy007 (20 October 2013)

If they pushed for a Housing Policy along the lines to what Family First had then I can see this being good for the country.

When the current _Dream team_ believe rising housing prices is good for us, well I shake my head in sorrow.


----------



## drsmith (2 November 2013)

WA Senate recount results announced and it's off to court it goes.



> Australian Sports Party candidate Wayne Dropulich claimed the fifth spot, while Mr Ludlam claimed the final seat.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-02/aec-announces-wa-senate-results-amid-missing-ballots/5065974


----------



## drsmith (5 November 2013)

> The Australian Electoral Commission is poised to join several political parties in asking the High Court to order an unprecedented re-run of the WA Senate election.The Australian Electoral Commission is poised to join several political parties in asking the High Court to order an unprecedented re-run of the WA Senate election.




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/19678211/wa-set-for-senate-vote-re-run/

Not only that, a new election would see the electoral roll updated and the AEC call for fresh candidates according to the above article.


----------



## drsmith (18 February 2014)

The fate of the WA senate (re-election or not) will be known at high noon (EST) today.


----------



## drsmith (20 February 2014)

From earlier in the week,



> Justice Kenneth Hayne found "the only relief appropriate is for the election to be declared void" because the loss of the ballot papers had prevented electors from voting.




The High Court has today ruled WA goes back to the polls for a new Senate election.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-20/high-court-decision-on-wa-senate-election/5272068


----------



## drsmith (1 April 2014)

http://media.smh.com.au/news/national-news/missing-wa-senate-ballots-found-5312090.html

It is April Fools Day.


----------



## drsmith (3 April 2014)

Another clanger by the AEC.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/22346999/residents-to-vote-for-a-third-time/


----------

