Micro party coalition to control the Senate

[So_Cynical]

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

 

[Julia]

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!

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.

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]

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

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.

+2 from me

Ditto for so_cynical

 

[bellenuit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

"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]

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