# Australian Federal Election: 7th September \[edited title\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 30, 2013, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772 "2013-01-30T03:13:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/141 "2013-09-08T11:40:44Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > How do these 80 or 100 people all get on the ballot? Do they have to demonstrate some level of support, or is just a matter of saying, “I’m in!” No. They have to actually have financial members and the Australian Electoral Commission audits the membership. I am a member of the Socialist Equality Party and the AEC ring me up to check that I really exist. I think (not sure though) that they need 500 financial members. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/142 "2013-09-08T13:38:05Z")
I’m okay with the “WLP” vote getting some bizarre and somewhat random candidates into parliament. Basically, what the WLP voters are mostly saying is “we don’t really give a stuff about either of you two big buggers and we want to punish BOTH of you for being completely crap”. Which, they have. The changes I’d make to the voting system are: - Like Grumman, allow people to stop their preferences at any point (I’d personally want this for both Reps and Senate, because sometimes I want a chance to PutTheBastardsEqualLast, but fat chance of that I know). I know why the pollies aren’t going to do this any time soon - they want to be able to do their little back room deals and have it count. But it would be a whole lot more democratic \*Ban How To Vote Cards. Same deal - it’s all about the backroom politics and often parties direct preferences specifically to try to game the system, rather than as any sort of reflection of who they are aligned with politically ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/143 "2013-09-08T13:59:08Z")
The simplest solution is to reduce the number of Senators per state from the current 12 back to the originally allocated number of 10. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/144 "2013-09-08T14:41:51Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > The simplest solution is to reduce the number of Senators per state from the current 12 back to the originally allocated number of 10. That’s not a solution; the problem being discussed is the number of candidates, not the number who actually get the job. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/145 "2013-09-08T22:33:23Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > The simplest solution is to reduce the number of Senators per state from the current 12 back to the originally allocated number of 10. Nitpick: the original number was 6 per state. It was changed to 10 in 1949. And if you reduce the number of senators, you also have to reduce the number of members of the House of Reps, since the Constitution sets that as twice the numbder of senators. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/146 "2013-09-08T23:01:25Z")
If you don’t understand the cause of the problem, how the hell do you know what constitues a solution? The combination of half senate elections and the size of quota because there are 6 spots mean that is mathematically improbable that the majors can take all 6 spots. So because there will always be a free 6th spot it’s an inevitable and direct consequence that there will be this flock of vote harvesting seagulls fighting over the last chip. They might have 1 chance in 10,000 that the combination of a catchy name (and selecting that name is the only policy decision these parties make) and a lucky draw on the ballot paper presents them with a 6 year term in Canberra (or State parliament) and a parliamentary pension. It’s better odds than the lottery, so why not give it a burl? The Senate can be cleared with a double dissolution election. But then the situation will rebuild over a couple of cycles because the root cause remains. I have no problem with one hundred genuine single issue micro parties being on a ballot pa[er over a metre long. But these guys aren’t in it for the politics, they are gaming the system. So rather than do something undemocratic that prevents the genuine single issue party from testing support for their issue, remove the reward for simply . You could also clear the problems by increasing the number of spots to 8 (with the flow-on effect of increasing the number of seats in the HoR), but in a country profoundly overgoverned now, there isn’t anybody whose name wasn’t on one of those senate ballot papers who thinks that a proposal to increase the number of politicians has merit. Exhausting preferences will prevent “you” as an individual electing a micro party candidate you’ve never heard of. But the final spot is going to be filled whether “your” vote is counted or not. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/147 "2013-09-08T23:26:52Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Nitpick: the original number was 6 per state. It was changed to 10 in 1949. Point taken. Carelessness on my part. > [@](#): > > In 1948, with Chifley facing defeat in the coming 1949 election, Labor’s senate majority, after sweeping election victories in 1943 and 1946, was 33 to 3. So Labor was able to amend the electoral laws which fixed the size of parliament as well as the voting system (i.e. change to proportional representation) used to elect the senate. Bert Evatt, as deputy prime minister, introduced the two relevant bills on April 16. Both were signed off by the government’s senate majority on May 6. > > Only twice in more than a century have parliament’s numbers been increased substantially - both by Labor governments. The first time, was 1948 when the Chifley government increased the senate from 36 (six senators for each of the six states) to 60 senators (10 in each state). The House of Representatives, to bring it into line with the constitutional requirements, went from 75 to 122 members. Then, in 1984, the Hawke government increased the senate up to 76, at which it remains today, and the House to 148 (now 150). ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/148 "2013-09-09T01:53:09Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > I’d like to see an end to preference voting entirely, but failing that, I really don’t see why we can’t number above the line on the senate paper as you do with the house of representatives. > > [snip] > > I’m not really sure what the solution is, since I think introducing a “No single-issue or lunatic fringe parties” rule would be undemocratic but at the same time, I don’t think saying “Here’s 100 people you’ve never heard of, number them in order or hope their backroom preference deals don’t actually run contrary to what you want” is especially democratic either. I think your solution is a good idea. I hate voting above the line because I don’t like feeling like a sheep. But the work involved in filling in (in my case) 82 preferences is ridiculous - though that’s what I did on Saturday - and the chance of making a mistake and making your vote not count is high. And counting ballots where the voter has voted below the line must be a nightmare. I don’t really care _which_ person from the parties I support gets my first, second etc preference, and so I’m prepared to be a sheep to that extent. As you say, if we could just number above the line we could cut the number of boxes that had to be numbered down massively, while still controlling our own preferences at least between if not within parties. I don’t really know anything about it and maybe one of the electoral [del]tragics[/del] (;)) historians participating in this thread can fill me in. However I can’t help wondering if the current system was fairly deliberately designed to make it as hard as possible for anyone not wanting to go along with the above-the-line “just give us your proxy and we’ll decide who gets your preferences” system. ---
**Author:** ![stui\_magpie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stui_magpie/32/11010_2.png) [@stui\_magpie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stui_magpie)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/149 "2013-09-09T03:57:43Z")
Just following on, I guess it’s pretty clear to all what happened? Labor lost, Krudd retained his seat but stepped down as leader so the party will have internal processes to elect the next leader. Abbott is now PM with a majority of around 30 seats in the lower house. Some of the potential new senators look…interesting to say the least:p ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/150 "2013-09-09T10:08:24Z")
For anyone interested in understanding how you can get 1,908 votes, be the 21st most popular party on the ballot in your state and still end up in the Senate, the full counts are [here.](http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/wa/). After 9 counts Wayne Dropulich was still 21st and headed for elimination but 762 votes being reallocated for the second time saved him. Pretty weird system that means PUP got the Australian Greens home ahead of Labor in WA and got Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party home ahead of the LIbs and the Sex Party in Victoria. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/151 "2013-09-09T10:35:29Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > \*Ban How To Vote Cards. This was raised by several submissions to the recent Queensland Electoral Reform white paper and the official response was basically “Lol, No.” > [@Princhester](#): > > I don’t really care _which_ person from the parties I support gets my first, second etc preference, and so I’m prepared to be a sheep to that extent. As you say, if we could just number above the line we could cut the number of boxes that had to be numbered down massively, while still controlling our own preferences at least between if not within parties. I feel pretty much exactly the same way - if I vote for the Silly Party in the Senate, I really don’t care if they pick Jethro Q. Walrustitty or Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F’tang-F’tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel for that seat (assuming they win) as long as it’s a Silly Party senator. But I do want to make sure my vote doesn’t end up with the Very Silly Party or even (_quelle horreur!_) the Sensible Party somewhere along the line, if I can help it. > [@](#): > > I don’t really know anything about it and maybe one of the electoral [del]tragics[/del] (;)) historians participating in this thread can fill me in. However I can’t help wondering if the current system was fairly deliberately designed to make it as hard as possible for anyone not wanting to go along with the above-the-line “just give us your proxy and we’ll decide who gets your preferences” system. I figured it was a holdover from the days when there may have been 20 names at most on the list and many of them were people you were vaguely aware of (perhaps having heard them on that newfangled wireless or read about them in one of those big city newspapers that assayer’s kid was always reading with his high-falutin’ book-learning), and by the time it ballooned to the horror we’ve got now, it was too complicated and politically inexpedient to change it. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/152 "2013-09-09T13:39:24Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > I’m okay with the “WLP” vote getting some bizarre and somewhat random candidates into parliament. Basically, what the WLP voters are mostly saying is “we don’t really give a stuff about either of you two big buggers and we want to punish BOTH of you for being completely crap”. Which, they have. > > The changes I’d make to the voting system are: > > - Like Grumman, allow people to stop their preferences at any point (I’d personally want this for both Reps and Senate, because sometimes I want a chance to PutTheBastardsEqualLast, but fat chance of that I know). Are there any WLPs whose primary platform is to make this change? That way, you get some idea as to how much popular support there is for it. I’m also surprised there isn’t a significant number of people who give the lowest numbers to their party’s candidates, the highest numbers to the main opposition candidates, and the rest of the numbers to everybody else - you would think more minor party candidates would get elected this way. ---
**Author:** ![Essured](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Essured](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Essured)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/153 "2013-09-09T22:52:30Z")
I was told at the polling station that if I voted below the line (110 candidates in my state), that I only had to do 90% to have my vote qualify. I’m assuming this is so that if you accidently write number 96 twice, for example, your vote still counts and isn’t thrown out. But I can’t find any mention of that anywhere. Does anybody know if this is correct information or not? I did vote below the line (always do), and double-checked to make sure there were no errors, but would still be interested in knowing if this is true or not. And I feel sorry for the vote counters - if it was painful numbering them from 1 to 110 when I actually cared about the issue, how painful must it be counting them, when you don’t care about 1 random strangers vote! Poor bastards ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/154 "2013-09-09T23:01:32Z")
The relevant law is [section 270 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s270.html). A translation of that into English is found in [this PDF document](http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Backgrounders/files/2010-eb-informal-voting.pdf). And yes, you only need to get 90% of the numbers below the line correct. ---
**Author:** ![Essured](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Essured](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Essured)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/155 "2013-09-10T00:11:09Z")
Thanks Giles! So at least some of the concerns about ‘one tiny mistake’ invalidating your vote should you choose to vote below the line are misplaced, which is good to know ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/156 "2013-09-10T00:34:14Z")
> [@don\_t\_ask](#): > > For anyone interested in understanding how you can get 1,908 votes, be the 21st most popular party on the ballot in your state and still end up in the Senate, the full counts are [here.](http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/wa/). After 9 counts Wayne Dropulich was still 21st and headed for elimination but 762 votes being reallocated for the second time saved him. > > Pretty weird system that means PUP got the Australian Greens home ahead of Labor in WA and got Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party home ahead of the LIbs and the Sex Party in Victoria. ooooh…that’s a nice site. I was wondering exactly how it went. Since they haven’t yet counted the below the line votes though, and those are likely to be quite diverse, isn’t the count quite likely to change dramatically at some point? Also - what’s going on there at step 5 where the SEP distributed its preferences three different ways? I had heard about preference splitting, but I had always thought it just meant for the Reps, the party printed up two equal sets of how-to-vote cards. Are they actually allowed to register any number of different preference allocations for the Senate? Is there a limit? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/157 "2013-09-10T00:56:18Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Since they haven’t yet counted the below the line votes though, and those are likely to be quite diverse, isn’t the count quite likely to change dramatically at some point? Yes. Johnston, Bullock and Cash are definitely in (since the Liberal and Labour parties had 2.76 and 1.89 seats just from the first preference votes), but anyone else might be out. At one point Mr. Dropulich was just one step away from being excluded, before receiving 2,467 votes from the Rise Up Australia party. If the below the line votes push things 204 votes in Rise Up Australia’s favour, Dropulich will not be a senator. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/158 "2013-09-10T10:01:04Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > ooooh…that’s a nice site. I was wondering exactly how it went. > > Since they haven’t yet counted the below the line votes though, and those are likely to be quite diverse, isn’t the count quite likely to change dramatically at some point? > > Also - what’s going on there at step 5 where the SEP distributed its preferences three different ways? I had heard about preference splitting, but I had always thought it just meant for the Reps, the party printed up two equal sets of how-to-vote cards. Are they actually allowed to register any number of different preference allocations for the Senate? Is there a limit? I don’t know if there are limits but the SEP had 3 tickets for above the line voting, splitting the vote. They said > [@](#): > > As always, Our preferences are divided evenly between the major parties to ensure that no major party benefits from those who vote for us. We are required to make preferences by Australian electoral law in order to stand. A vote for the SEP is a vote against war, austerity and the attack on democratic rights and should not be turned into a vote by proxy for the ALP, Liberals or Greens who are carrying out this agenda. The preference flows are [here](http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/Federal_Elections/2013/index.htm) at the AEC site. Unfortunately they are PDFs of the actual ballots. They were far easier to follow online up until the election as they listed the flows in order. ---
**Author:** ![AaronX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7bcc69/32.png) [@AaronX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AaronX)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772/159 "2013-11-14T02:07:01Z")
I wonder if this is the right thread? Kevin Rudd has retired from politics www.heraldsun.com.au/news/former-prime-minister-kevin-rudd-calls-shock-end-to-turbulent-career/story-fni0fiyv-1226759371780 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-federal-election-7th-september-edited-title/648772.md?page=7)