 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
2 users currently in General Chat:  Dark Vampriel |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Australian Elections?? |
 |  |  |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get.  Level: 73  Posts: 347/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| 6 days to go till we all have to vote. Is anybody here Australian or following the Australian elections that are coming up? I'm Australian, and unfortunately, I have to vote. I don't even know who I want to vote for at the moment, as I don't understand the whole preferences system. I know I don't like Howard/Liberal much at the moment, but Labor haven't exactly done anything to inspire confidence and such either. I'm closely looking at a lot of Independents and parties like the Greens and the Democrats. Course, I am also AVOIDING the Family First party, in light of some of the things they want to impose (ie, a "great firewall of Australia" designed to block out all pornography and offensive content) Bleh, any other Aussies out there? Are you finding this as much of a pain in the arse as I am?  |
|||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 149/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Good that you're avoiding Family First. They're a pack of Christian fundamentalist anti-gay anti-porn moral-authoritarian lunatics and they worry me. They have secured several preference deals, have embarked on a MASSIVE publicity campaign, and could capture a surprising percentage of the vote. Maybe even a couple of senate seats. What seat are you in? Somewhere in South Australia? When all else fails, vote on local issues, I suppose. I'll be voting Green and Democrat, then Libertarian in the NSW senate. In Gilmore, my electorate, it won't matter because Liberal MP Joanna Gash will be re-elected. I'll probably vote Green then Labor, and make sure Family First and One Nation are LAS LAST LAST. I alternate between liking the look of Latham, and merely thinking "well he isn't Howard" (I was nearly yelling at him in the debate to BE MORE BETTER) but I think that I could handle his being in power. He seems an okay sort, even if I don't like all his ideas and stunts. ------- PREFERENTIAL SYSTEM EXPLAINED: ------- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The Preferential System actually functions differently in each House, which I think causes some confusion. In the House of Representatives, it is called the SINGLE TRANSFERRABLE BALLOT because your vote gets transferred from candidate to candidate as they are counted. You get a straight list of candidates for your electorate, which you number in order of preferences. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. During counting of the votes, they eliminate the candidate with the least number of votes (say, One Nation with 500) and those votes are allocated according to number '2' preferences (say, 400 to the Liberals and 100 to the Nationals). Then the next lowest candidate is eliminated, and their votes are re-allocated. If a ballot's second choice is eliminate the ballot goes to the 3rd choice, and so forth. In this way, candidates are eliminated and votes are redistributed until someone has over 50% of the vote. If someone gets over 50% of the first preferences - the PRIMARY VOTE - then they don't bother counting preferences, of course. So really, whoever you vote for, you still end up having to choose whether you like Labor or Liberals more as your Member of Parliament. Usually. This is referred to as the TWO-PARTY PREFERRED count. In some seats it's the Nationals or the Country Liberal Party as the second party, or, occasionally, an independant or (god forbid) One Nation. Maybe even the Greens or Family First, in the future. Remember though, who you vote for as first preference (PRIMARY VOTE) gets counted as well, even though you end up voting for one of the major parties through preferences. Candidates recieve some sort of campaign funding for every primary vote recieved. So it is still worth voting for a minor party... sort of. Just imagine that your vote makes them feel nice and well-liked, just like a nice fuzzy hug. ------- Then you have the SENATE. When the news talks about "preference deals" they are referring to the Senate, whose preferential system is more complicated. The Senate uses PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION meaning you elect them by state rather than electorate. 12 from each state, half of the senate being elected each time (unless there is a "double dissolution" which is rare and not happenin this time so let's ignore it). In the senate, candidates are organised on the Ballot by GROUP, not as individuals. They are listed in columns - Group A, Group B, etc. You can vote ABOVE THE LINE or BELOW THE LINE. Above the line you vote for a group, below the line you have to number every single individual candidate in order of preference. Let's ignore that, most people don't do it and I wouldn't think you would. Mostly that's how people obsessed with a single issue might vote. Voting ABOVE THE LINE means you number the boxes at the top of each column. You can number Just One Box, or you can number All Boxes. In calculating who gets senate seats, they do a rather complicated preference distribution system I don't fully understand, until 6 seats have been filled by QUOTA. If a group/column/party gets the quota in First Preferences(around 14% I think), they automatically get a senate seat first off - the top person on their list gets the seat. If they get enough they might automatically get two senate seats, and the top two people on the ballot list get in - Labour and Liberals both usually get two seats in most states. The rest of the votes are then distributed by preferences until they reach Quotas and fill the seats. If you number ALL the senate columns your ballot is distributed accoridng to those preferences, as candidates are elminated on the way to a 6 seat quota. If you ONLY place a number 1 in a senate box, then this is where PREFERENCE DEALS between the parties come into play. Basically, you are allowing the group (party) you vote for, to distribute preferences the way THEY want to. You are letting that group choose their own preferences, for who they want into the senate. The Democrats and Greens exchange preferences, meaning that if one is eliminated from the senate counting, the other gets all their ballots. The Greens usually put Labor ahead of Liberal so a "1" for the Greens will get you a Labor Senator before a Liberal one, but will get you a Green or a Democrat Senator before either of them. It's basically a more complicated, group-based version of the House of Reps preference system with a a state choosing six seats, instead of an electorate choosing one seat. It is in the Senate that you are far more likely to see minor parties get in. If you don't get it all this properly, and it is rather baffling... or even if you are just lazy, I'd recommend voting ABOVE THE LINE, either just numbering ONE box above the line in the senate, or numbering them ALL, starting with the groups you KNOW you like... then a major party... then the rest in any order, then the ones you know you don't. The major party after the ones you like, will stop your vote from going to the quota for a candidate you don't like. So for an example, I'll go Green 1, Dem 2 (or 1 Dem, 2 Green), Libertarian 3, Labour 4, then the rest, then Liberal, then National, One Nation and Family First last, so there is no way my vote helps a candidate I don't like get a senate seat. THERE. That took a lot of time and effort and I do hope you read it, and I also hope you understand a bit better now. Sorry if I came across as condescending or patronising, I have no idea how much you do or do not know about our wonderfully obscure and complicated (yet quite fair, really) electoral system. (edited by Arwon on 10-02-04 12:19 PM) (edited by Arwon on 10-02-04 12:30 PM) |
|||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get. Level: 73 Posts: 366/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Thanks for posting that, and yes, I will read it when it's not 3.14am  It's been driving me nuts, because I don't want to give preferences to the arseholes in our political system (ie, Family First, One Nation).I've been interested in the Greens, and the Democrats, and I agree with you about wanting Latham to "be more better". I am fed up with Howard, (the lying, spamming bastard), and at the moment, just trying to get a better understanding of what my options *really* are, as at this stage. (ie, understanding the preferential system) I'm in the seat of Boothby. The Liberal Candidate is Andrew Southcott, and the Labor Candidate is Chloe Fox (fun fact: Daughter of children's author Mem Fox!). It is considered a Safe Liberal seat. 2004 Federal Election: Boothby Electorate Profile Once I suss out the Preferences, I should have a better idea of how to tackle that there list of names, too Other than that I want Family First and One Nation to go away!! Family First really ticked me off with this doozy (amongst other tidbits of theirs): Family First acknowledges the role of parents in protecting children from harmful exposure to media. However Family First also acknowledges the difficulties even conscientious parents face in effectively carrying out this role in an age when media and internet are so pervasive. In the best interests of children, Government must take a more proactive role. Family First will work to achieve Government commitment to establish a Mandatory Filtering Scheme at the ISP Server Level in this country. A combination of Government subsidy and industry contributions could be explored to fund set up of such a scheme. Whilst set up costs will be large at $45 million, Family First believes that this cost is justified for the protection of vulnerable children within our community. Family First will propose that once set up, this scheme will be funded through a levy system so as to spread ongoing costs equitably amongst all end users. Family First expects this levy would be of the order of between $7 and $10 annually per end user. DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!! Gawd, they remind me of that woman in the Simpsons (Reverend Lovejoy's wife). "Won't somebody please think of the children!?" Family First Policy Statement on Internet Pornography and Children (warning, PDF doc). I say, FUCK the children....(no, not literally). I like offensive content, dammit!! (not so big on the pr0n, but I'll defend other people's right to the stuff....) (edited by ChibiTaryn on 10-02-04 02:10 PM) |
|||
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67  Posts: 584/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
| Damn, while it seems complicated to read about, I think we in the US could benefit from a preference system. Everyone always talks about how Nader and third parties are the bane of the Democratic party. Then you can still vote for Nader if you want and if (not really an if) he fails that can get siphoned off to a candidate you prefer. I'm not sure but it might be able to give third parties a foot in the door here. | |||
|
Colleen Administrator Level: 136 Posts: 4412/11302 EXP: 29369328 For next: 727587 Since: 03-15-04 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| ..... *head explodes* Sorry Taryn (and all Aussies) but that system would meet with total chaos if it was implemented in Canada.  Here, House of Representatives = House of Commons, with 308 seats. I would be in the seat/riding of LaSalle-Emard, which is the riding of current PM Paul Martin.  (So it's a safe Liberal seat.)Sadly, the Liberals didn't get a majority of the seats in the last election, so they're now presiding over a minority government - meaning as soon as one vote doesn't pass, we're screwed. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 151/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Well Colleen, your senate is appointed by the govenrment and Governor General, as positions become vacated, and is fairly weak and puppet-like as a result. In Australia our senate is a very strong, effective counter-balance to the power of the lower house. So you'd have to make whole-sale constitution altering changes to get anywhere close to our Senate system. Much less our insanely complicated Senate voting system. As to the HoC/HoR all you'd have to do is change the ballot to a preferential ballot rather than "tick one box". In the HoR voting is not very difficult. Looking at Taryn's ballot paper for instance: She just has to number the 7 boxes in order of preference. So if she wants to make sure she doesn't help FF or ON, all she has to do is put them 6th and 7th. Something like this: 4-Andrew SOUTHCOTT*---Liberal Party 5-Paul STARLING-------Independent 2-Robert SIMMS--------Australian Democrats 3-Chloe FOX-----------Australian Labor Party 1-Adrian MILLER-------Greens 7-Paul MUNN-----------Family First Party 6-Clarke STAKER-------One Nation This would guarantee that she didn't help FF or ONP. I don't know who the independant is, maybe Taryn can shed some light. Oh and Taryn, I live In Gilmore so you can see why it doesn't matter how I vote in the House of Reps. We had the largest pro-Liberal swing in the country in 2000. Granted last time the result was so bad because everyone hated the Labor candidate, but even so, we have no hope of unseating the Liberal. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A DEMOCRAT! WE HAVE 3 CRAZY LUNATIC CANDIDATES OUT OF 6. (One Nation, Citizen's Electoral Council, Christian Democrats) PLUS I think we might have a Family First candidate, too. (edited by Arwon on 10-02-04 11:40 PM) |
|||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get. Level: 73 Posts: 428/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| &%#I%$#!! Howard Government, another three years. Booooooooooo. I don't think Meg Lees won her senate position here either irritatingly (I voted for her though) Family First making an impact in SA Senate race OH NO!!!! I am very irritated right as of this moment.... |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 166/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| 3 more bloody years. 3 more flurking years of John Howard. Who votes for this guy? Who stands up and proudly says "I support John Howard"? Blarrrg. | |||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get. Level: 73 Posts: 440/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
I wish I knew who votes for Howard.  I don't think I can think of anybody....I guess this is why they make them "secret" ballots. Well, I guess it's time for the "don't blame me, I voted for the other guy" stickers... |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 167/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Anything that happens in the next three years is on their heads. Medicare, education, industrial relations, recession and inflation, interest rates rising anyway, more war, slashing of welfare and so forth. Whatever happens, it's on their bloody heads. | |||
|
Colleen Administrator Level: 136 Posts: 4522/11302 EXP: 29369328 For next: 727587 Since: 03-15-04 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
Ugh...  Well, 0/1 on elections so far this year I suppose. There's still the American election. Really, I can't remember the last time Canada/Australia teamed up to do something. I mean, we're both part of the Commonwealth and all. |
|||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get. Level: 73 Posts: 444/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| *still anguishing over elections* (I'm going to be like this for a few days, people...) |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Australian Elections?? |
| | |
