Assemblies of god

[DaveW]

The quota is lower as pointed out by Dave W. However this will change if there is a double dissolution.

Yeah it'd be even lower to fill 12 seats! 7.7%

You could lower the number of senators per state to give a higher quota.

The number of senate seats (76) has to be roughly equal to HALF the number of House of Reps seats (150).

I can't see the size of the House of Reps being reduced anytime soon.

 

[PA HOG]

Slightly off the subject but............................

There seems to be a variety of methods used to elect representitives to all the parliaments in Australia. Are there over ten different voting systems in use? Have any of you posters tallied them up?

 

[MightyFighting]

The number of senate seats (76) has to be roughly equal to the number of House of Reps seats (150).

76 ≈ 150 ???

 

[Freo Big Fella]

76 ≈ 150 ???

The Nexus Clause states that the numbers in the House of Reps must be as close to double the Senate as is practically possible.

 

[Mr Q]

The population of Tasmania and its minimum five seats also puts some limitations on the overall minimum number of seats in the House of Reps.

 

[OldLion]

Family First are fine, they just want to instill some Judeo-Christian values in our system and there's nothing wrong with that as long as they understand the division between religion and state.

All this hysteria is sickening, we are slowly becoming like the USA where any possibility of Christian involvement in the political process is made out to be a bad thing.

You'd have to agree that there are many 'shades' of Christianity so the 'values' of one may be rejected by other Christians. I assume that the Family First are less liberal than say the Uniting Church on social issues, so it becomes a little ideological .. and that's a dangerous thing as spokespeople scramble for the moral high ground. For example, the interpretation of the parables of Jesus can be used to justify all sorts of ideas but one could imagine the commotion now if he tried to 'drive out the moneychangers' or suggest that the 'meek will inherit the earth'. All fairly radical. There has been a history of humbug when it comes to politicians using phrases like 'Christian values' to deliver legislation and I guess those old enough to remember all that are wary of it's re-emergance. The message to 'do unto others as you would like them to do unto you' - empathy - is a very practical statement but can sit uncomfortably with a number of exclusionist policies practiced over the years. It's also hard to see a coherent environment policy being driven by creation scientists.

 

[OldLion]

Dont be trying to pass off those nutters as WASPS. They are by definition not protestant.

I'm confused - who are not Protestant ? Creation scientists ? There are a zillion web sites in the States that would say other.

 

[Mr Q]

I'm confused - who are not Protestant ? Creation scientists ? There are a zillion web sites in the States that would say other.

\Prot"es*tant\, n. [F. protestant, fr. L. protestans, -antis, p. pr. of protestare. See Protest, v.] One who protests; -- originally applied to those who adhered to Luther, and protested against, or made a solemn declaration of dissent from, a decree of the Emperor Charles V. and the Diet of Spires, in 1529, against the Reformers, and appealed to a general council; -- now used in a popular sense to designate any Christian who does not belong to the Roman Catholic or the Greek Church.

On the last part of this definition, most fundamentalist Christians would be classed as Protestant, particularly in the US. Certainly not all Creation Scientists would be Protestant (as I have no doubt there are Catholics or Orthodox Christians who are fairly fundamentalist), but I have no doubt they would be in the majority.

 

[telsor]

The population of Tasmania and its minimum five seats also puts some limitations on the overall minimum number of seats in the House of Reps.

Actually, no..At least not for any constitutional reason.

The mainland seats could, theoretically have twice a many people in them and it would still be a legal election.

Technically, it's not a Tasmanian issue either..Every state gets a minumum of 5 in the house of reps...It's just that Tasmania is the only state it's likely to happen to any time soon.

 

[DaveW]

Slightly off the subject but............................

There seems to be a variety of methods used to elect representitives to all the parliaments in Australia. Are there over ten different voting systems in use? Have any of you posters tallied them up?

They all use the preference system. The quota is just dependent on the number of members being elected to the seat.

For single member constituencies, like the House of Reps, the quota is 50%.

There are some slight variations...

NSW & Qld use optional preference voting. (i.e. you don't have to number every square.)

NSW has done away with the dogs breakfast ticket system. You can put multiple numbers above the line. Your vote will never reach a party you did not preference.

Some states design their upper houses differently. Some are divided into multiple divisions. NSW is one that isn't. Qld doesn't have an upper house.

Tasmania and ACT have multi-member lower house electorates. And there's no above-the-line at all, at least not in the ACT.

WA has smaller rural lower house electorates.

I think that about covers it.

 

[DaveW]

Actually, no..At least not for any constitutional reason.

The mainland seats could, theoretically have twice a many people in them and it would still be a legal election.

Technically, it's not a Tasmanian issue either..Every state gets a minumum of 5 in the house of reps...It's just that Tasmania is the only state it's likely to happen to any time soon.

But then you're violating one vote one value.

Tasmania is already overrepresented in the current House; no need to exacerbate that.

 

[Mr Q]

Actually, no..At least not for any constitutional reason.

The mainland seats could, theoretically have twice a many people in them and it would still be a legal election.

No, but there is a basic effort to approximate similar size electorates across the country, although Tasmania does have smaller average electorates (by about a quarter. To keep within spitting distance of one vote one value the size of Tasmania's five electorates (each of which has a population about 90,000) defines the basic quota for an electorate.

 

[telsor]

But then you're violating one vote one value.

Tasmania is already overrepresented in the current House; no need to exacerbate that.

One vote one value is a principle, to be adopted as closely as possible within the rules..One of those rules is that all states get at least 5 reps seats.

No, but there is a basic effort to approximate similar size electorates across the country, although Tasmania does have smaller average electorates (by about a quarter. To keep within spitting distance of one vote one value the size of Tasmania's five electorates (each of which has a population about 90,000) defines the basic quota for an electorate.

There is no obligation to do this, but I would think (hope?) that if the discrepancy got too large, then something would be done. The only options would appear to be an amendment to change the 5 seat minimum or expanding the house/senate. I suspect the latter idea wouldn't exactly be embraced by the major parties as it would probably lead to greater representation by minor parties in the senate ( more seats=lower quotas ) and an amendment would be nasty in it's own way....so I expect this will be ignored for as long as possible.

Tassie electorates are all mid-high 60,000's in population, mainland is ~80,000.

If we were to expand, it would be to 88 senate seats ( 6*14 + 2*2 ) and ~176 reps seats. Each rep seat would have a little over 64,000 resident voters...sounds about right..Tassie would be a little underrepresented, but that would right itself soon enough.

Ask yourself this question though...which is the lesser evil..Tassie being overrepresented by ~1 rep, or having an extra 38 pollies on the Canberra gravy train?