Where we're at - 2016 panic edition
- Thread starter The Speaker
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Just looking at the seat of Grey,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/grey/
Surely the preference count would just count those that didn't preference NXT or Lib and add them to the respective party?
I can't see why this seat is considered NXT ahead
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/grey/
Surely the preference count would just count those that didn't preference NXT or Lib and add them to the respective party?
I can't see why this seat is considered NXT ahead
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #53
Smart money is on the next change of seasons.
SJ
Premium Platinum
Down the bottom it looks like the Coalition is ahead, so not sure how that matches up with the headline.
Can't see how the Coalition can form a majority government.
- Sep 16, 2006
- 35,877
- 35,481
- AFL Club
- West Coast
They cant. They need to fall only two seats short. If they fall any more short then I think Labor will form government. Otherwise Katter and McGowan will get it done.
- Thread starter
- #58
If they win all of the seats currently listed as in doubt, they will have 78. Hardly out of the question.
Aec has declared for the libs but NXT candidate is not conceding till whyalla is counted and you can see her point
Overall, the tpp is a tick over 40,000 difference, eek!
telsor
Hall of Famer
Regarding long and short term senators...
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...are-allocated-after-a-double-dissolution.html
In summary
The old system was that the first 6 got long term, the next 6 short, which favored smaller parties that got full quotas.
The new system is that the AEC determines the 12 winners, then does a recount (with only those 12 eligible) as if there were 6 spots, and they get long term, with the rest get short.
New system supposedly came in in 84, but the senate gets to decide what they do for themselves, and last time it came up (in 87), the ALP & Democrats decided that the old method benefited them more so used their numbers to ensure that was used.
Since then there have been many resolutions saying they'd use the new system, but in a battle between power and fairness, I suspect our esteemed parliamentarians will go for power almost every time.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...are-allocated-after-a-double-dissolution.html
In summary
The old system was that the first 6 got long term, the next 6 short, which favored smaller parties that got full quotas.
The new system is that the AEC determines the 12 winners, then does a recount (with only those 12 eligible) as if there were 6 spots, and they get long term, with the rest get short.
New system supposedly came in in 84, but the senate gets to decide what they do for themselves, and last time it came up (in 87), the ALP & Democrats decided that the old method benefited them more so used their numbers to ensure that was used.
Since then there have been many resolutions saying they'd use the new system, but in a battle between power and fairness, I suspect our esteemed parliamentarians will go for power almost every time.
Last edited:
They are behind in 5 of those seats, 3 of them by 0.5% or more. Lot of ground to make up with only about 20% of the count to go.
Demosthenes
Premiership Player
- Jun 9, 2015
- 3,364
- 3,074
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
As long as minorities control the Senate, the old system will always be used.
It's really something that needs a constitutional amendment, but it'll never happen. 'Correction of upper house seat distribution anomalies' isn't exactly a topic to ignite the interest of the electorate.
Don't get the point of electronic voting
goodbye old problems, hello new ones.
whats to stop identy fraus, or manipulative people persuading people they know to vote in front of them
for the same reason they insist on secret ballots for union members
goodbye old problems, hello new ones.
whats to stop identy fraus, or manipulative people persuading people they know to vote in front of them
for the same reason they insist on secret ballots for union members
In Britain the Lords can't over rule the commons if the policy is spelled out in detail in the election manifesto of the winning party
telsor
Hall of Famer
- Thread starter
- #66
In Britain, the Lords are selected, not elected.
And here they are.....?
- Thread starter
- #68
Elected (though pre-selected
), and therefore have more democratic legitimacy in blocking legislation (in theory) than the Lords ever could.
Demosthenes
Premiership Player
- Jun 9, 2015
- 3,364
- 3,074
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Privacy is not a real issue with electronic voting. Countries which have electronic voting mark a voter off the roll same as we currently do, then hand them a one-time-use barcode for accessing the computer in the booth to vote. Which barcode is given to which voter is not recorded, so you couldn't identify who cast which vote even if you wanted to.
More of a concern is the integrity of the systems when providing a result. I don't really know enough about the details to comment on that.
More of a concern is the integrity of the systems when providing a result. I don't really know enough about the details to comment on that.
Demosthenes
Premiership Player
- Jun 9, 2015
- 3,364
- 3,074
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Yeah I was following a different train of thought.
I guess my main point is that electronic voting doesn't have to mean people on their computers at home. It can remain functionally similar to how it happens now - get your name marked off, go into a booth, cast a secret vote. The advantages are instant results, less informals, and hopefully lower costs.
The risk is that regardless of how much encryption you have, it is a lot harder to change a million paper ballots than it is to change a million electronic votes. I can't speak to the security of the proposed systems, but the inefficiency of our pencil and paper system does give me a lot of comfort.
Maybe I've been watching too much Person of Interest.
I guess my main point is that electronic voting doesn't have to mean people on their computers at home. It can remain functionally similar to how it happens now - get your name marked off, go into a booth, cast a secret vote. The advantages are instant results, less informals, and hopefully lower costs.
The risk is that regardless of how much encryption you have, it is a lot harder to change a million paper ballots than it is to change a million electronic votes. I can't speak to the security of the proposed systems, but the inefficiency of our pencil and paper system does give me a lot of comfort.
Maybe I've been watching too much Person of Interest.
What to do with the computers between elections? seems a huge waste of resources. Analysing the system I don't think it justifies computerization on cost alone.
It can only make sense cost wise if it is majorly from home computers or devices
Anyway who suffered from the delay in a result? just the pride of a few politicians. seems like a good thing to me
It can only make sense cost wise if it is majorly from home computers or devices
Anyway who suffered from the delay in a result? just the pride of a few politicians. seems like a good thing to me
telsor
Hall of Famer
a) Sent how?
b) What happens when someone forgets their PIN/password?
c) I'm old enough to remember the drama over the 'Australia Card' and the concerns about civil liberties loss//big brother is watching. Yes, the world has become a lot more electronic since then, but it's still another chip away on that front.
telsor
Hall of Famer
That bit's easy...Most polling booths are in schools, so leave them there for use by the teachers or something.
Every election, backup, overwrite the image with the election package, and after it's done, restore. (yes, you could have both alongside each other, as another user or something, but this way would be more secure).
