Senate voting reform.

[Theseventhhamster]

When I "fundamentally oppose" a political group I allocate my preferences to reflect that.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

That micro elected senators are kicking and screaming about this says volumes about how much support they know they never have on election day.

 

[rodney hoo]

Once again Paul Keating was right , unrepresentative swill he called them, all the senate.

Get rid of the senate, think of the savings , fixed four year terms, no preference voting, most votes in seat wins.
Example, labor 35%, 36% liberals, greens 20% balance to minor parties, liberals win that seat, party with most seats governs. Let them govern in their own right for 4years and if then they're crap get rid of them. That should stop the blame game.
At times parties might have to form coalitions, liberals, national. Greens , labor or even independents, but at least it's a true representation of the vote.

 

[Farm Boy]

Once again Paul Keating was right , unrepresentative swill he called them, all the senate.

Get rid of the senate, think of the savings , fixed four year terms, no preference voting, most votes in seat wins.
Example, labor 35%, 36% liberals, greens 20% balance to minor parties, liberals win that seat, party with most seats governs. Let them govern in their own right for 4years and if then they're crap get rid of them. That should stop the blame game.
At times parties might have to form coalitions, liberals, national. Greens , labor or even independents, but at least it's a true representation of the vote.

I would prefer to see the Greens at 2% (not 20%).

 

[The Speaker]

Once again Paul Keating was right , unrepresentative swill he called them, all the senate.

Get rid of the senate, think of the savings , fixed four year terms, no preference voting, most votes in seat wins.
Example, labor 35%, 36% liberals, greens 20% balance to minor parties, liberals win that seat, party with most seats governs. Let them govern in their own right for 4years and if then they're crap get rid of them. That should stop the blame game.
At times parties might have to form coalitions, liberals, national. Greens , labor or even independents, but at least it's a true representation of the vote.

Fixed terms are terrible, first past the past is even worse, your system would be a blast to the past with no positive effects on our governance.

 

[rodney hoo]

Fixed terms are terrible, first past the past is even worse, your system would be a blast to the past with no positive effects on our governance.

In your opinion.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Fixed terms are terrible

How so?

 

[The Speaker]

In your opinion.

Anyone who knows about electoral systems will say the same thing about first past the post will say the same thing: it is the worst system for deciding the winner of an election that exists.

How so?

Lengthens campaigns and creates unbreakable deadlocks for a small majority/minority government that they can do nothing to change, and for all the talk about how not having term limits gives the incumbents an advantage with timing, historically being tricky with your election date is just as likely to backfire on the government as it is to benefit them.

I wouldn't be opposed to an extension of the terms to four years instead of three, but it shouldn't be fixed terms. This may, at least, help halt the cycle of 'well they've only had three years so let's give them another go'.

 

[JoseMourinho]

In my opinion, the micro-parties are only hurting because all of them have no clue what they actually stand for. Ricky Muir and Jackie Lambie go from one issue to the next taking absolutely ridiculous stances.

 

[Gough]

David LevonHelm is a twit but that's what the vagaries of the system throw up sometimes. This looks like a bipartisan policy to preserve the duopoly.

 

[rodney hoo]

Anyone who knows about electoral systems will say the same thing about first past the post will say the same thing: it is the worst system for deciding the winner of an election that exists.



Lengthens campaigns and creates unbreakable deadlocks for a small majority/minority government that they can do nothing to change, and for all the talk about how not having term limits gives the incumbents an advantage with timing, historically being tricky with your election date is just as likely to backfire on the government as it is to benefit them.

I wouldn't be opposed to an extension of the terms to four years instead of three, but it shouldn't be fixed terms. This may, at least, help halt the cycle of 'well they've only had three years so let's give them another go'.

Most countries have fixed terms, with not to many problems.

The coalition are pretty good at blaming the senate for not passing bills so don't see the difference. The senate is unrepresentative, how many people would vote for Corey Bernardi placed there by his right wing religious nutters in the coalition.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

fixed four year terms, no preference voting, most votes in seat wins.

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

 

[Fire]

In your opinion.

Your proposed system objectivley entrenches the two party system, at the cost of representing the will of the electorate.

Under your proposal, if a seat has 60% left leaning voters, they will be represented by the minority of right wingers if their vote is split between two parties.

It's a terrible, less democratic proposal and I'm baffeled as to why you think it would be superior.

 

[Fire]

Look, the system needs changing. I always vote below the line, except one election. I spent 5 minutes considering and numbering the boxes, only to find that the last number I entered was 1 less than the number of boxes. I'd made a mistake but ****ed if I could find it in the 100 or so boxes I'd marked. I got a fresh paper and numbered above the line.

But the alternative is clearley to vote above the line, like the house of reps. There's no reason why a voter has to mark all the boxes; if they are willing to throw their vote away at a point, then go for it. But to enforce a limit of 6 preferences is indefensible, and serves only to entrench the major parties.

 

[The Punter]

David LevonHelm is a twit but that's what the vagaries of the system throw up sometimes. This looks like a bipartisan policy to preserve the duopoly.

You say "vagaries of the system" like it's some aspect of nature that cannot be amended or improved. He's a different issue because he got a significant portion of the primary vote (somewhere between 8-9% IIRC), so much so that it would be perfectly fair for him to be elected on preferences as he has a bedrock of support...

... only that he has the word "Liberal" in his party name and he was first on the ballot. And I don't know what to do about that.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

You say "vagaries of the system" like it's some aspect of nature that cannot be amended or improved. He's a different issue because he got a significant portion of the primary vote (somewhere between 8-9% IIRC), so much so that it would be perfectly fair for him to be elected on preferences as he has a bedrock of support...

... only that he has the word "Liberal" in his party name and he was first on the ballot. And I don't know what to do about that.

Shows the intelligence of Liberal voters

 

[The Punter]

Informality is generally higher in ALP held seats.

Two can play at this game.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Would Electoral Reform Deliver the Coalition a Senate Majority at a Double Dissolution?

Could voting reform lead to the Coalition winning a Senate majority at a double dissolution?

It is a claim that has set the dogs running this morning after analysis by the Renewable Energy Party claimed it would. (See Sydney Morning Herald article here.)

The claim is the Coalition would win 7 of the 12 vacancies in three states delivering the Turnbull government a Senate majority.

It is a claim that doesn't stand up to analysis.

First let me point out that the self-interest here on the part of the two who have done the analysis, Peter Breen and Graham Askey. Both are part of the Renewable Energy Party, a micro-party currently applying for registration. Both have been involved in previous micro-parties and Breen was one of the micro-party members elected from the famous 1999 NSW Legislative Council tablecloth ballot paper.

Breen, along with preference 'whisperer' Glenn Druery, worked briefly on the staff of Victorian Motoring Enthusiast Senator Ricky Muir after his surprise election in 2013.

So Breen has some self-interest in opposing the suggested Senate reform as it would destroy the micro-party business model.

Let me deal with the suggestion that the Coalition can win 7 seats in a single state.

[...]

To elect six Senators at a double dissolution, the Coalition would need to reach 46.2% of the first preference vote. If they poll more than 46.2%, they have a candidate in the race for a seventh seat, but realistically the Coalition would need close to 50% of the first preference vote to elect seven Senators..

But if the Coalition poll less than 46.2% of the vote, it would be impossible for it to elect seven members from a single ticket. For Breen to claim the Coalition will win seven seats in NSW, Queensland and WA is to say the party will poll more than 46.2% of the vote.

How often has the Coalition done that at Senate elections? Here's the list of first preference Coalition votes above 46.2% since 1990.

Queensland 1996 50.3%

Western Australia 1990 46.2%

Western Australia 1993 50.1%

Western Australia 1996 47.5%

Western Australia 2004 50.2%

Western Australia 2007 47.7%

Western Australia 2010 46.4%

South Australia 2004 47.5%

The above cases are the only instances in the last quarter century where the Coalition could have won seven seats at a double dissolution, yet Breen and Askey are claiming it will happen in three states in 2016, including NSW and Victoria.

If the Liberals and Nationals ran separate tickets in WA and Queensland, they could in special circumstances get an extra Senate seat by splitting their vote across two tickets. This was how the Coalition won four seats in Queensland at the 2004 half-Senate election.

Yet in their analysis, Breen and Askey claim that Labor and the Greens risk losing seats to a single Coalition ticket because of split votes, so it would be odd to reverse the argument and say splitting votes wouldn't disadvantage the Coalition.

In his argument explaining why Labor and the Greens could help the Coalition, Breen quotes a half-Senate race where Labor and the Greens split the 'left' vote and allow the Coalition to win, but he assumes the Coalition would get 53.6% of the vote.

Let's face facts. If the Coalition get the 50% of the vote to win seven Senate seats in NSW, Victoria and WA, then the Turnbull government would be returned to office with a massive House majority.

Under both the current and the proposed electoral system, a party would come close to winning seven Senate seats if its vote was above 50%. This system is proportional representation, and if a party gets more than half of the vote, there is always a reasonable chance it will get a proportionate outcome which is more than half the seats.

The current Senate electoral system could just as easily produce the same result. However, you would have to work out the labyrinthine preference flows and factor in the random factors produce by voters needing to use magnifying glasses on the over-sized ballot papers in under-sized fonts.

The proposed system is designed in part to try and control ballot paper size by discouraging multiple nominations by parties. It is specifically designed to put the power over preferences into the hands of voters and to remove the backroom dealers engineering outcomes.

The proposed system will change voting patterns because fewer parties are likely to contest the election. This may lead to an increase in support for the existing major parties. It will also allow more room to grow for the more significant micro-parties, such as the Shooters and Fishers, Family First, Christian Democrats and the Sex Party.

The proposed system will make it harder for parties with few votes to get elected and will provide greater reward to parties that poll well on first preferences. It rather strikes me that rewarding parties based on their vote is one of the purposes of an electoral system.

And the system will stand a greater chance of providing the proportional result it is designed to deliver, and less likely to be distorted by the first preference party choice of voters being sent of on some magical mystery tour designed by preference whisperers.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...-senate-majority-at-a-double-dissolution.html

The Punter

 

[The Punter]

So Green says the system will be better, just not provide the windfall that some (not me) are suggesting for the Coalition.

Here's the money quote for me:

The proposed system will make it harder for parties with few votes to get elected and will provide greater reward to parties that poll well on first preferences. It rather strikes me that rewarding parties based on their vote is one of the purposes of an electoral system.

I have no problem with the Greens Party getting Senators elected, because they get a significant proportion of first preferences. When Ricky Muir can harvest preferences from parties with no significant vote totals from all over the political spectrum to win "Senate Lotto" and get elected, then I have a problem.

Which leads to a situation where the Government has to negotiate with a group of Senators so widely randomly spread ideologically, not representative of the views of the community, and to be frank, inexperienced in how government works, that governance suffers as a result.

 

[Gough]

Abbott didn't even attempt to negotiate, perhaps if he'd tried he may have been suprised by the cross benches. It became a convenient excuse for his incompetence.

 

[Maggie5]

Perhaps if the major parties had better policies then we wouldn't have Senators from parties like Family First, Motoring, PP. etc.
Then on the other hand we wouldn't have a Senate that represents most sections of the community.
Not really an issue for me.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Perhaps if the major parties had better policies then we wouldn't have Senators from parties like Family First, Motoring, PP. etc.

You know that's not why Family First and Motoring Enthusiast were elected.

 

[Bollox]

Yes, lol, ha ha ha. Needing to get a whopping 12.5% of first preferences. lol. Imagine that.
That would be just so silly wouldnt it...being elected by the people and stuff. Lol.

 

[The Speaker]

Yes, lol, ha ha ha. Needing to get a whopping 12.5% of first preferences. lol. Imagine that.
That would be just so silly wouldnt it...being elected by the people and stuff. Lol.

That is an enormous amount for minor parties to get to, given the paucity of resources they have access to.

And I mean minor parties, not the single-issue 'micro parties'.

 

[The Punter]

If a small right-wing party polled 6%, and another small right-wing polled 5%, then one of them getting elected would be fine. 11% plus what they pick up from other parties along the way would get them close to the usual (non-DD) 14.3% you need to get elected.

But 30 small micro-parties, all of varying ideologies and agenda, whose only common ground is being small, grouping up to get one random member elected through pretty much sheer luck, is not OK, and this is what the reforms aim to fix.