What would the plebiscite be about?
Malcolm can’t get any more votes by going to the right.
If he goes to the left, and gets more from LAB than he loses from the reptilian right then that’s where people who like him are.
Say he throws the SSM plebiscite out and goes for the issue with an open parliamentary vote, which he’d win if the LIB right can’t depose him first in a leadership spill?
This is the same electorate which has given the balance of power in the Senate to:
[ul]
[li]Fred Nile[/li][li]Jacqui Lambie[/li][li]Pauline Hansen[/li][li]Derryn Hinch[/li][/ul]
They patently need the practice.
Going to be a bit difficult to poke barrack at the Poms over BREXIT while that’s mob occupies the upper house.
BTW how is it decided which Senators serve 6 year terms, and which only serve 3 year terms (in order to restore the cycle of half the Senate being up for election each time)? Does each state delegation draw lots or something?
The first six elected get the longer term.
Antony Green has a long blog post on what should happen after a DD to allocate the long and short terms.
-
The constitution says the Senate shall decide how the different terms are allocated.
-
The “First 6” method was used until 1984.
-
This was changed to the fairer “Recount” method by the Labor gov in 1984.
-
After the 1987 DD the returned Labor gov and the 3rd party Democrats realised they would get an advantage under the “First 6” method, so they passed a resolution to use it instead.
-
The Senate has since passed resolutions saying they will use the “Recount” method in the future.
-
The constitution says the Senate shall decide how the different terms are allocated.
Who knows how it will all shake out. If there is a majority block (Lib + Green + ? or Lab + Green + ?) that will get an advantage they could use either method.
He should have been invited to Don’s Party.
I live in Bennelong, which reverted to its conservative roots last election after being wrested from J. Winston Howard in 2007 (best present EVAH!!) so my vote counts for nothing.
Regardless, I’m a political junkie and stayed up half the night, switching channels between the ABC and the two commercial channels, expecting a result any second. Because I had to work today, I finally tipped myself into bed at about 1:00.
Still no result. Almost the best thing that could happen. Stickin’ it to ALL the pollies.
Mal refused to buy a democracy sausage. Elitist bastard!
I’m sure this outrage has not been lost on Australian voters either, judging by the results of the election thus far.
Anyone know why they’re not counting any more results until Tuesday?
They are trying to ensure there isn’t a repeat of the lost ballot papers of 2013: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-electoral-commission-just-explained-why-well-have-to-wait-until-tuesday-2016-7
That sort of makes sense, but at the same time, I don’t really get why they can’t keep counting anyway.
Thanks for the link, though!
Senate voting is easy . . .
. . . once people understand that they don’t have to express any preference with respect to parties or candidate about which they don’t actually have any preference - or even any opinion. No clue what the “Mature Australia Party” stands for? Then leave the box blank.
I think we got into the mess we’re in because of the view that, to vote fully, you have to allocate a preference to every candidate. This, coupled with the above-the-line voting system whereby parties could allocate the lower preferences of their voters, created an environment in which, as the economists would say, there were strong incentives to register political parties and put them on the ballot, and no need to campaign in order to get elected.
The recent voting reforms are designed to reduce these incentives. It hasn’t worked yet for two reasons. First, it’s very recent, and party structures haven’t yet had time to respond. Secondly, we’re in a double dissolution, which means that Senate quotas are half what they normally would be, and this makes it easier for minor parties to get elected, a factor which tends to undercut the effect of the reforms. But that’s a one-off. It won’t be the case in the next election.
Anthony Green has suggested that, by the time of the next election (assuming this Parliament runs for the usual term), there’ll have been quite a shake-out among the minor parties. There’ll be one right-wing Christian party, for example, rather than three or four, and maybe one anti-immigrant party. Some of the single-issue parties will merge to become few-issue parties. (Even in this election, the Sex Party and the Hemp Party ran a single ticket. By next time 'round, there could be a single sex-and-drugs-and-rock-and-roll party.)
They’ll get my vote.
Why would this happen? If I am currently running as the “No Kids On My Lawn” party, how would I benefit from not running? Sure, I could make an agreement with the “No Loud Parties After 8PM” party that they would take up the cudgel for me, but that wouldn’t be legally binding and, more important, wouldn’t achieve any more than if we both just reached the agreement and both ran and traded preferences.
These parties have such a small primary vote that it’s not like splitting the vote has a significant impact on their chance of success. They only get in on preferences anyway. The “real” minor parties like Family First or or One Nation, where a split vote might conceivably make a difference, would never benefit from merging with each other anyway, since their voting success lies in being both recognisable and distinct.
The major parties have “shaken out” because they know that running, for example, a DLP and ALP candidate or a Lib and a Nat in the same seat has a measurable impact on their chance of winning. Where two parties are competing, either natural selection has eliminated one or they have agreed to cooperate. There doesn’t seem to be any mechanism that will produce the same result with the minor parties since they are unlikely to get elected except through preferences anyway.
According to the AEC, you currently need only 500 members to form a political party of your own, and only 100 supporting nominators to put your name on the ballot as an Independant.
It would be a logical move, if the government was determined to cut down the Bedsheet Ballot, to bump those numbers up some - or at least, to make it more stringent for the Senate. Requiring a couple of thousand nominations for a Senate ballot spot would certainly weed out some of the riff-raff
The “riff raff” being most anyone who has to work for a living and everybody who lives outside a major city. That is hardly democratic. As it is it is disproportionately difficult to form a party in regional Australia. 500 members in Sydney is 20 minutes outside a Westside with a clipboard. 500 members in Katherine is canvassing and persuading the entire unaliggned electorate. 100 signatures to run in Brisbane is attending an AGM of a club that supports your goals. 100 signatures in Yuelamu is the entire voting population in a 100km radius.
Unless of course we allow electronic signatures, in which case it wouldn’t matter if you set the limit at 100, 000, I’d still be able to register the Boaty McBoatface Party.
I think the question you need to be asking is “how have minor parties benefitted from running up to now?” And the answer is, because there was a non-negligible chance of being elected, on account of the preference deal system.
Even if you don’t campaign very much, it does cost money and effort to run, and therefore you don’t run unless you perceive there to be some advantage. And the big advantage, up to now has been, you might be elected, despite getting the support of a derisorily small number of voters. That advantage will have all but disappeared by the time of the next Senate elections.
It should be pointed out that many of the small parties that stood in the Senate elections existed only for the purpose of standing in the Senate elections; they had no other activities or presence. And if they have no possibility of being elected in the Senate elections, they have no reason to exist at all. If you really feel strongly that there should be a law banning loud parties after 8pm, your best strategy for getting that law will not be (a) form a single-issue party (b) stand and hope to be elected (c) hope to find that you hold the balance of power (d) demand a no-loud-parties-after-8pm law as the price of supporting a government. It will be to persuade politicians from major parties that people care about this, and that they can secure votes by including a no-loud-parties etc plank in their platforms.
Similarly if you have a broader agenda - a right-wing Christian socially conservative agenda, perhaps - you won’t be able to do much to advance it effectively by founding yet another right-wing Christian socially conservative. It will be a better strategy either to involve yourself in one of the major parties and infuence it from within, to to work with one of the (relatively) more successful existing parties who occupy this space. And those parties will also find that they have an incentive to merge.
On current figures, for example, in the NSW Senate election the Christian Democrats have 0.36 of a quota. The DLP has 0.15 and Family First has 0.15. If transfers are absolutely solid between those three parties, that will eventually aggregate to a total of 0.66 of a quota. Up to now, those three parties could make sure that transfers would be absolutely solid by entering into preference deals, but that’s no longer possible. But it will be possible if they can co-operate to the extent of running a single list of candidates, and it’s very much in their interests to do that. So, we have to ask, given that it’s in their interests to do that, why would we expect them not to do it?
While that’s likely true, I’d personally rather that a lot of these parties with zero chance weren’t allowed on the ballot in the first place.
I’m actually OK with that. Let’s be honest here, if (generic) you are struggling to get 100 signatures in Yuelamu, then you’re not going to get elected to the Senate because no-one else has heard of you - so stop wasting your time and ours (the voting public), and either give up or run as a member of a party.
I’m sure a lot of the random names I saw on the Senate ballot for Queensland were probably people like those you mentioned - people in regional areas wanting to make a go of it because [burning local issue that no-one outside the readership area of the local newspaper cares about].
But the reality is if you live in the Middle of Nowhere, Western Queensland you’re going to need the support of people living in Brisbane or Townsville or Cairns or Toowoomba to get voted in - which is never going to happen if all you’ve got is a Facebook page and your mug in the local paper looking cross about something that Canberra hasn’t fixed (but you totally will).
I really, really don’t get why these random chancers or microparties keep trying to get voted into the Commonwealth Parliament, and not the State/Territory Parliament where they might actually be able to do something.
I think the single-issue parties in the Senate elections all think they have a single issue of national significance. If your single issue is, I dunno, a new hospital for Didyabringyamumalong, you’re more likely to run a candidate for the lower house in whichever electorate contains Didyabringyamumalong, and those of us fortunate to live in the 149 other electorates will never hear of it. Whereas Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party, say, is concerned solely with more punitive treatment of offenders, but it wants more punitive treatment everywhere, and it sees this as an issue of national signficance. (They’re wrong, it turns out; they have run Senate candidates in every state, but their vote totals are off the bottom of the scale everywhere except Victoria.)
I’m kind of reluctant, on democratic principles, to tell anybody that they can’t run. Yes, it’s a bit of a pain to have to find the candidates you actually have a preference for in the sea of candidates you’ve never heard of, but nobody ever said good citizenship was easy.
In terms of chosing the smaller evil, I’ll take the random chancers and micro-parties over Hansen, Hinch, Lambie and Palmer.
Touche’