Slashdot Mirror
Australia Elects Libertarian-Leaning Senator (By Accident)
LordLucless writes "Australia's Liberal Democratic Party, which describes itself as a classically liberal, free-market libertarian party, has had their candidate for New South Wales elected to the upper house, with roughly double the number of votes they were expecting. In part, this has been attributed to them being placed first on the ballot paper (which is determined by a random process) and similarities in name to one of the major parties, the Liberal Party of Australia."
...there's a bit of trick, too:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/22/revealed-the-libertarian-rights-micro-party-links/
In the last 30 years, when has the losing party every accepted the loss gracefully?
... but what else is he supposed to say?
Sure, the article says "Mr Leyonhjelm accepts his party probably gained votes in error, with voters thinking they were choosing the Liberals."
When the people make a massive mistake in democracy, it's still their decision to make. Look at the american elections for the last 20 years. Both sides will say the people made mistakes.
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
In my experience, you get better government when there are more opinions at the table. The occasional election of people from minor parties (Greens, Pirates, Libertarians, etc...) makes it more likely for there to be objections to the really awful policies that the mainstream politicos try to force through. Even if you don't necessarily agree with what the guys have to say, they're probably a better choice than the typical minions of the expected 'lesser evil'. As such, it's good news when these sorts of guys get in... even if it was possibly 'an accident'.
Once the count was on and I started to see a few more votes in that pile for the liberal democrats, I knew it was going to take a sizable proportion off the mainstream party in error. Having a look at statistics though, where I was working and surrounding regions had informal vote rates of 12% to 15% (much higher than the national average). It's also a labor party stronghold, which is the party who just got knocked out.
It's also worth pointing out that the particular ballot paper was enormous, over 1m long, 110 candidates for 6 positions, 35 parties and can be very confusing to explain to people who barely speak english, on how to make their vote formal, let alone read the 6.5 point print on who they're voting for.
Moral of the story is, you can't help stupid people, but you can let them to vote... (NB: Australia has compulsory attendance to vote and compulsory preferential voting in federal elections)
#Florida
New slashdot poll.
How many hours did you spent researching candidates?
1. 0. I don't vote.
2. 0. I just vote along party lines.
3...5 The rest of the options are probably statistically insignificant anyway so I won't even put them.
Any system that lets someone be elected by accident is absolutely appalling. Australia would do well to reevaluate their system so that this doesn't happen in the future.
Politics and national leadership is far too important to be decided by absurd errors.
I spent about 15hrs going through all the various policies from all the senate candidates. It truly was a difficult decision who to put last... and really quite depressing to have parties like the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party, who only got a very small number of primary votes make it through to the senate on preferences.
... wait, what?
6. Profit!
I suppose "by accident" is as good as by stupidity, apathy or voting AGAINST a candidate vs. FOR a candidate.
It should be noted that in the 2010 election, for the NSW Senate seats, the Liberal Democrats where the 'first runner up', i.e. top 6 gets a Senator in, they came 7th (undeniably though preferences from the Shooters & Fishers and the Sex Party, which are all ideologically similar), knocked out in the final round by the Greens . They didn't need much more than what they had to get in, and likely would have even if they hadn't been first on the ballot (presuming their support-base has increased since the last election, even if only a little).
I honestly thought the Liberal Democratic Party was part of the "Liberal Party", since what is referred to as the Liberal Party is actually a coalition of 4 (I think) different parties with names of a similar structure.
And they sure as heck aren't liberal in policy, either. In fact they are the more conservative of the two main parties.
The Australian Labor party is what you'd call a liberal party.
The Australian Liberal party is a centre-right conservative party,
And this Liberal Democratic party is closer to your republicans.
Got it?
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Just want to point out here that "Libertarian" is not at all the same as "Liberal." In fact, it's pretty much the exact opposite: conservative on both economic and social axes. People get confused because the terms are often applied backwards because of how the major parties tend to be the opposites on the social axis as on the economic axis.
Did you use senate.io? Really great tool.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of voters will not take the 10-15mins it takes to vote below the line, let alone the hours of studying the policies AND the registered preferences of the 45 odd parties vying for election. I think perhaps the most egregious outcome is the probable election of a WA Senator who received less the 0.25% of the primary vote!
As much as I like exhaustive preferential voting on principle, the time has come to give voters the right to vote optionally preferentially above the line (if not also below it), so that votes are not cast against the voters actual preferences.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
What about "a couple of hours because I set up a head to head bracket and flip coins until there's a single winner".
Voting is mandatory in Australia. If you don't vote, and they catch you, you get fined.
will not take the 10-15mins it takes to vote below the line, let alone the hours of studying the policies AND the registered preferences of the 45 odd parties vying for election.
Que? It took me about ten minutes to classify all of the minor parties on a rough political spectrum, and about two to sort them on senate.io. Then less than five minutes to number all the boxes on Saturday.
Of course, below-the-liners don't even get counted unless there are enough to match the above-the-line minor voters.
As much as I like exhaustive preferential voting on principle, the time has come to give voters the right to vote optionally preferentially above the line (if not also below it), so that votes are not cast against the voters actual preferences.
Better to eliminate the above the line vote, but allow people to preference for as many below-the-line candidates as they wish. Once they stop (which can be just a [1] for the preferred party-leader) the remainder of their distributed preferences would then flow according to the registered-preferences of their [1] choice. (So that no one is disenfranchised by limiting their vote, only if they deliberately spoil their ballot.)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
I think perhaps the most egregious outcome is the probable election of a WA Senator who received less the 0.25% of the primary vote!
As much as I like exhaustive preferential voting on principle, the time has come to give voters the right to vote optionally preferentially above the line (if not also below it), so that votes are not cast against the voters actual preferences.
I am totally for optional preferences above the line, but I think it's dubious to think of the primary vote as somehow indicative of a party's validity. We have a preferential system for a reason, and that's because first-past-the-post is unrepresentative - it forces the vote into a two-party system.
We need to get people allocating their preferences themselves, not suggesting that preferences are somehow less valid that the primary vote.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
IIRC, #1 isn't an option in Australia, for better or worse. That probably inflates group #2 a bit.
Reason #1 - Even though it's the opposite side of the globe from me it spreads the ideology and that makes me happy.
Reason #2 - This most likely happened due to Australia mandatory voting policy - which as a Libertarian mandatory anything annoys me - so it sort of proves our point.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
As it was my first time in Australia for an election, I watched on TV. The coverage was completely about the lower house. By the time I quit watching (Rudd's concession speech) I don't think there had been so much as a mention of the fact that senators were being elected also. It was weird and puzzling.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Did you use senate.io? Really great tool.
Nope, I used belowtheline.org.au.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of voters will not take the 10-15mins it takes to vote below the line, let alone the hours of studying the policies AND the registered preferences of the 45 odd parties vying for election. I think perhaps the most egregious outcome is the probable election of a WA Senator who received less the 0.25% of the primary vote!
I *almost* considered voting above the line, but none of the parties put their preferences quite the way I liked them. It must be frustrating for the candidates who did well in the primary votes to be pipped at the post by preference deals.
As much as I like exhaustive preferential voting on principle, the time has come to give voters the right to vote optionally preferentially above the line (if not also below it), so that votes are not cast against the voters actual preferences.
I actually think the time has come for the idea of true democracy - where everyone gets to vote in parliament on every thing - a large percentage of the population carries a smart phone and would be able to install an app to vote in federal issues. I think that's what the Senator Online party were aiming for. If the time hasn't come already for this style of democracy, it will soon...
... wait, what?
Your suggestion wouldn't help. You'd still get crazy shit like the AMEP, because preference harvesting would continue to determine the results.
The only plausible options are optional preferential with either no above the line or preferential above the line (so you can number 1, 2, 3 etc. above the line as a shortcut for the whole party). If a person honestly has no preference of this party over that party, their vote should exhaust (because they're saying "I don't care"), and with vote exhaustion the party with the largest share of people who care would win at any given time.
None of this would fix the LDP getting elected (or the DLP in Victoria last election). Howard changed the naming laws so that parties with names that were close to another party's, who'd been elected to parliament, couldn't register, but all that did was stop Clive Palmer's United Australia Party, and no-one's going to confuse the old UAP with the new one, unlike the LDP and the DLP with Liberal and Labor.
It's my understanding that voting is compulsory in AU. When you vote, must you mark your ballot?
Given that not everyone is interested in voting, would it not make sense to simply mark the ballot the easiest way possible (i.e., from the top)?
I found ClueyVoter much easier to use. I used senate.io last election. This election there was just to much dross to sift through.
What better way to block the Liberal's plan for internet censorship http://www.zdnet.com/au/australian-opposition-vows-to-implement-internet-filter-by-default-7000020270/ than to get a libertarian with the balance of power into the senate? Can't exactly trust Labour as they tried the same shit with Conroy and chasing Family First preferences.
One of the "motoring enthusiasts" who is now in a row over footage of him in a kangaroo poo fight is also a 9/11 truther, apparently:
''Media is reporting that the person who ordfered [sic] the 911 terror attacks is dead what a load of shit, george bush is still alive!''
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/detours-ahead-as-minor-parties-claim-senate-balance-20130908-2te36.html
I actually think the time has come for the idea of true democracy - where everyone gets to vote in parliament on every thing
If the majority of people won't spend 15 minutes sorting out who they want to represent them once every few years, what on earth would be the advantage of giving them a direct vote on every issue?
They'd be voting based on TV soundbites they weren't able to avoid while skipping around the DVR, and the name of the Bill.
If anyone was looking for evidence that straight ticket (aka party line) voters aren't so bright, here it is.
A push notification comes up on your phone. "Parliamentary vote on carbon tax" with an option of "Yes, No, Abstain" with no answer supplied taken as an abstention. Much easier, much fewer politicians required. ;)
... wait, what?
Not all Australian residents are Australian citizens over the age of 18.
Monty Python had a great example of this issue in "The Life of Brian"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Clever naming / rebranding by the libertarians.
New slashdot poll. How many hours did you spent researching candidates? 1. 0. I don't vote. 2. 0. I just vote along party lines. 3...5 The rest of the options are probably statistically insignificant anyway so I won't even put them.
Fuck statistics.
I spent about 4 hours looking over their platforms and fidlling on belowtheline.org.au. Took me 4 minutes in the booth to transcribe all the preferences on the senate ballot, making sure it's not an informal vote.
At 2010 election, I even rated all Labor senators high (but not the highest), except for Conroy with his push for Internet filters, he went straight on the last place.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
If voters aren't even going to take the time to learn the difference between two parties with vaguely similar names then what are we supposed to do? The problem isn't that the parties are named similarly, the problem is that people are stupid and spend more time deciding what to wear in the morning than they do deciding who to vote for. The only solution to that is to not let stupid people vote. This generally starts as "let's just make a test to make sure that people have spent at least 5 minutes researching the issues" but inevitably turns into someone abusing the system in order to rig the vote.
It's often been said that the best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter, and it's true, most people are dumber than a sack of hammers. But no other system of government can practically function for more than five minutes without someone abusing their power to great extent.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
We have a branch of the Pirate Party here in Australia which I voted for.
They also elected the KANGAROO POO YUM YUM Motorists Enthusiasts party: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/likely-senator-dodges-questions-about-kangaroo-poo-fight-video-20130909-2tf8j.html
A shame in South Australia where Nick Xenophon has been reelected as an excellent Senator beloved by his constituents and the Interwebs http://www.news.com.au/national-news/independent-senator-nick-xenophon-overwhelmed-by-record-voter-support/story-fncynjr2-1226714814451
but Xenophon couldn't get his #2 elected because the Greens cut a deal with the major parties. HA! That will come back to haunt them BECAUSE THEY JUST HELPED ELECT THEIR ARCH RIVALS THE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE FAMILY FIRST PARTY. That will really come back to haunt the Greens now. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/micro-parties-harvest-three-seats-in-senate/story-fn9qr68y-1226714827198
I don't understand why we don't adopt the same principal that we use for the lower house, where you have the option of numbering all the parties above the line, rather than just voting "1" and relying on their preferences.
That way they would have to hand out senate 'how-to-vote' cards and the layman could override the preferences.
If people had to only number the senate parties from 1 to 15, rather than the individual senators (1 - 82 in QLD this cycle), I'm sure you would find the population that direct their preferences increases from about 2% to 80%.
On a different note, has anyone published results of the question: What percentage of people actually follow the preferences they are given by their selected party's "how-to-vote" card in the lower house?
Two of them bought their seats
One is a rev head
One is a religious nutter
One is a gun nutter
One is a sports nutter
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-09/senate-balance-of-power---who27s-who/4945390
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
I actually think the time has come for the idea of true democracy - where everyone gets to vote in parliament on every thing - a large percentage of the population carries a smart phone and would be able to install an app to vote in federal issues. I think that's what the Senator Online party were aiming for. If the time hasn't come already for this style of democracy, it will soon...
I know you said it, but that is exactly what the Senator Online party does.
http://www.senatoronline.org.au/
I wonder if we could lobby one of the two new 'accidental' senators to adopt this strategy for all bills for which they have no policy or direction from their party (motoring enthusiast party of Victoria and Sports Party of WA - I'm looking at you).
Yeah, because choosing national policy should be done in similar fashion has selecting who wins a karaoke contest.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
Using one of the preprint howtovote online systems was definitely the way to go. Previously I'd start at 100 (or whatever) and vote down to 1, putting the totally poisonous parties like Rise Up Australia and coalition at 100 and vote down to those I despised least. But this online system made it easy to lookup the parties and preference them based on that, with no risks of messing up and having to start over.
In this election, I suspect enough *did* vote below the line to warrant their being counted.
The article is incorrect, the senate count is nowhere near final, this result is based on computers predicting the flow of votes from people who voted above the line. Given the amount of preferences, it is entirely possible that another minor party could overtake him (it is however unlikely).
null
It took me two or so hours to decide on my preferences and then I used Belowtheline.org.au to order them. Senate.io is also good though.
FYI given the small margins that some of the preferences were decided by, below the line votes could very well make a difference in this election. For example it could change the order of elimination of one or two minor parties which would change the flow of preferences.
null
I can't be bothered to google it, but I remember the SMH mentioning that 1 in 5 voters in the seat of Melbourne didn't follow how to vote cards. Not sure if this would be the same nationally.
null
Or perhaps selecting the winner of a karaoke competition should be done in a similar manner to choosing national policy? It doesn't sound as bad when you write it that way.
Because the Liberal party is the conservative party, after all. That a conservative would accidentally vote Libertarian because of this naming issue has me almost pissing myself with laughter.
Did he get a seat?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
draw a penis on it
That just may count as a vote for the biggest dick on the list. At least it would explain a lot about the outcome of these elections.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
There's nothing depressing about it. The preferential system is designed to not only elect the most popular, but also to elect the least unpopular. If the preference allocation makes the motoring party the least offensive to the largest possible group of people, then so be it, a good choice for especially the senate watchdog role.
The political knowledge of those who can't vote is somewhat tangential to this discussion.
That is exactly the system.
When a voter selects a vote above the line, they are choosing for their numbering of all the candidates to be as the party has outlined to the electoral office. It is a short-cut - a useful one, because there is often over 100 candidates for the senate.
You can choose not to use the shortcut, and number alllllll the boxes below the line. You might just get finished before the count is done.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
In our experience when there's minor parties on the table there are a lot of backroom deals done with minor parties to get them to vote on the governing party policies. That's exactly how we ended up a carbon tax despite voting for a party that guaranteed no carbon tax would be offered. It's how the seat of Lyne (a tiny part of the New South Wales mid-north coast) ended up with a new hospital, legislation making it easier for regional kids (like those in the seat of Lyne) to receive youth allowance, and in total about $1.2bn has been spent on Lyne in the last 3 years, which is more money than had been spent in total on that seat by the federal government since the seat has existed.
The minor parties have funnelled cash to their electorate in exchange for agreeing with policies the major parties put forward.
Looks like we're going to be at the whims of a bunch of gun wielding libertarians and the motor racing association. Yay guns and racing cars for all!
I think they could learn a bit from the backward Indian political system. Ballots have the name of candidate, affiliation and the most important thing... the party symbol. Illiterate or idiot, you can never mistake a symbol.
Hey guys, I've just setup a petition on change.org to see if we can get some momentum behind doing something about this. It'll probably go nowhere, but gotta start somewhere right? https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/australian-government-revise-the-senate-voting-system-2
cheers
Australia has always lacked a 'REAL' Libertarian option. Our fiscal liberals believe in draconian religiously based social controls and our progressive parties believe in a big taxing, big spending government. Whilst some of the ideology of this new party seems odd - it's a step in the right direction.
Robbak:
What I'm saying, is instead of being able to just put a "1" above the line, is people should be able to number the parties above the line 1 to 15 (or whatever) and thus direct their preferences, but not have to vote all 82+ senators below the line.
So you're directing your preferences [across] the senate paper, but not [down].
Almost everybody who votes below the line (except in Canberra where voters know the actual senators) vote in sequential order down each column anyway.
In effect, I'm saying we should be able to 'vote across the line'
Fun Fact: You do not have to show ID at a polling booth in Australia.
Fun Fact #2: No cameras are allowed in polling booths in Australia.
Anybody over the age of 18 who knows the name and address of a registered voter can turn up at 8:00am and vote.
This could be the solution to everything. First, start some new political parties, let's say Democratts and Republicuns. Have Anonymous Coward and Cowboy Neal run for president on these tickets. I figure we'd have half a chance getting someone other than a Democrat or Republican for once.
c0lo: I did the same.
He's a teetotaller too, so he can't be trusted.
Ironic that he gave us the NBN and no Internet filter though.
Vulnerable to deliberately misleading bill titles.
Sometimes I wonder about getting rid of ballots entirely and requiring every vote to be a write in. We probably can't do that because ballots are somewhat necessary to resolve name ambiguities, but it would be nice otherwise.
No more arguments about who gets on a ballot.
If you can't spell your candidate's name, well then you can't vote.
Nobody gets any special treatment.
Nobody can vote party line any longer without at least putting in enough effort to find out who the party candidates are.
Maybe some intermediate solution like "register a unique name with the elections office", similar to a trademark, would be enough. Damn it would fix a lot of problems quickly.
Umm, not they aren't left wing. Unless your view of left wing is pro-gun, small government and what you'd generally describe as non-enviromental policies (especially on carbon). The candidate said he actually supports a lot of the Liberal party's policies. (Liberal originally meaning liberal in the classical - now-libertarian - sense).
If you read the article one of the parties he created is called "Stop the greens". Enemy of my enemy and all that?
Below The Line is a great resource to remember next time around too.
Ironic that he gave us the NBN and no Internet filter though.
Not for the lack of trying, no.
1 week before 2010 ellection, I sent an email to di Natale (Vic Greens) asking him his opinion on the internet filter. Here's an excerpt from his answer:
Thanks for getting in touch. You'll understand that now is a busy time, so my answer will have to be pretty brief. We don't support a mandatory filter, nor a classification-based system based on a blacklist. As far as the proposed review of the blacklist, it's obviously very difficult to imagine a model whereby a secret list could be reviewed transparently, and given the way the internet works an annual review by a retired judge is not going to suffice. We'll have to see the exact details on this part of the policy when the legislation finally emerges, but it's unlikely to mitigate our concerns with the filter policy.
...
I can't comment in any detail on the data retention issue, and have to defer to Scott Ludlam. All I can say is it's very worrying, we reject the need for the secrecy surrounding this, and we will do everything we can in the Senate to bring as much transparency as possible to the process.
You probably can guess who got my higher (than the Labor's) preference for the Senate in 2010.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
He says the voters only have themselves to blame.
not entirely. the flow on of preferences is fiendishly complicated, even if you only vote above the line.
the below-the-line votes haven't even been counted yet. in my state there were 97 boxes that you had to put a number in. one number wrong and the vote doesn't count.
add to that the fact that most people still don't know how preferential voting works.
tl;dr: i drew a 4 foot long dick on my senate ballot, after meticulously numbering 97 candidates in ascending order of my hatred of the candidate.
non-australians: our Liberal party is basically the opposite of liberal.
greens preferences are actually pretty on-message. no nasty surprises there. in fact, i should have just voted above the line because i didn't do hours of research but they did, so some of my manual preferences will have been fudged.
The correlation between first place and more votes in the senate is essentially zero (actually its just less than 1% - with 16% needed to win a seat). LDP has been around for decades and been on the senate ballot in the first place previously - so that doesnt explain it. There is no evdence at all people were confused. People did not mix up their names at all. Australia has a long history of low government spending and low debt. Both sides of politics have ran campaigns promoting surplus and low debt. Libertarian leanings have grown recently due to the debt bringe and tax increases of the left Labor/Green alliance that have seen the fastest debt growth and biggest debt and deficit in Australias history. The left are trying to down play the fact that Australians have voted in what will almost certainly be a majority right wing senate. I Notice that no one Claims the Democratic Labor Party was mistaken for the Labor Party - as this wouldnt fit their view that Right only won this election by luck/stupidity/mistake. The truth is the major left wing party suffered their lowest two party vote in over 100 years - and previously fringe right wing parties have benefitted.
From what I have heard, everyone in Australia must vote. Which I imagine is the biggest culprit here; A significant portion of people are voting who cannot even tell two parties with liberal in their name apart. Also, we should not discount the group who just picks a random party on the ballot box, which likely have a large percentage which picks the first one.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
It took me about ten minutes to classify all of the minor parties on a rough political spectrum
Check out the policies of the Australian Independents Party. How would you classify them on a rough political spectrum?
Now go to belowtheline.org.au and see which parties they preference (AEC has now disabled their "below the line preferences" data?!) Does this affect how you would classify them on a rough political spectrum?
Now try to search news stories to understand how those preferences came to be. Now how would you classify them?
Repeat 45 times.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Don't title bills. Just have it as Issue 1001 with a summary. Like public questions are done.
We have a preferential system for a reason, and that's because first-past-the-post is unrepresentative
Preaching to the choir mate. My position put elsewhere in response to a call for optional preferential (as well as non-compulsary voting):
Now I have philosophical objections to optional preferential voting: With exhaustive preferential voting each elected representative carries with them a majority of formal votes in that seat. Laws passed by a parliament so comprised crystallise the will of the majority of voters (in a majority of seats). And this is a claim the laws of most other democratic countries (ie where voting is not compulsory), cannot make.
However, as a matter of sheer practicality, --in the face of massive ballots (110 candidates for on the NSW Senate ballot), and especially in the Senate election, where preference flows are not always intuitive and where most voters elect to vote above the line, --I think it is pretty clear that optional preferential voting (esp above the line) has become a necessity.
Certainly the practice of political parties devising and registering lists of preferences, which then determine the flow of most votes actually cast, makes a mockery of the idea of preferential voting. I can see no argument for continuing it. Optional preferential voting above the line, my misgivings notwithstanding, would much more accurately reflect the will of voters.
The problem with a senator winging it in on 0.25% of primaries is this. Only a tiny proportion of people allocate their preferences. I was speaking to an electoral worker who told me that of roughly 1,400 ballots they had 50 voted below the line (anecdotal I know, but go to the AEC for the real figures). That means that we will have a senator elected not on the will of the people (or any significant portion thereof), but as a result of ballot orderings made by political parties and preference exchange deals made between parties.
Candidates with far higher primary votes, or running mates thereof will miss out because of the registered preference lists of political parties. Consider the situation in SA where Xenophon received ca. 1.8 quotas in primary votes alone. But the major parties preferenced him or his running mate lowly. The Greens in fact preferenced Xenophon's running mate Stirling Griff below the No Carbon Tax Climate Skeptics party. Now Xenophon and Griff are centrists who are strong advocates for a market based approach to carbon abatement. The real possibility existed that someone voting for The Greens could have their vote electing a Climate "Skeptic" to parliament, hardly what they would want one imagines, because of the sillyness in the Greens preference list. As it happens the spill over from the Greens, ALP, LNP, and indeed the 80% quota from Xenophon looks like it will go to elect a Family First member who received, I think (haven't re-checked) somewhere about 0.4 of a quota on primary vote.
See the problem?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re-checked:
Xenophon got >25% of the primary vote. Family First got 4.03%. Both look set to get equal representation.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Have you heard of range voting? It could solve some of these problems.
Range voting is a system where you score as many candidates as you want to 1 - 10 and the highest average wins. It is nice for several reasons.
There are fewer spoiled ballots: Since candidates can be ranked the same value or not at all, ballots aren't spoiled as often as in other systems
No benefit from betraying your favorite: You can *always* rank your true favorite with the highest mark without causing an undesirable outcome. You will never cause a candidate you don't want to win to do better by voting for your true favorite.
There are other benefits, but since we are talking about Australia. Check out the article about range voting vs IRV.
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
"Free market guy in [any] government" is an oxymoron.
Nobody can ever be a "real" libertarian. As such, attempts at libertarianism always fails, just like communism.
...the name you know.
Preferential voting is a step in the right direction, but there are problems. Arrow's impossibility theorem shows that with any ranked system there is certain desirable qualities that will always be mutually exculsive. So, mathematically IRV will always have that weakness (although first past the post is categorically worse). Some even argue that IRV pathologies makes it not as effective at nuturing more than two parties compared to other systems.
However, with range voting, you don't *order* the candidates, you score them and multiple candidates can have the same score. It works this way: score as many candidates as you want to 1 - 10 and the highest average wins.
This system has lots of benefits over IRV. Also, check out the analysis of IRV during Australia's 2007 elections.
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
And, yet, that isn't enough.
The UK had people on the ballot representing the Conversative Party and the Literal Democrats. One Liberal candidate euro election lost by a margin less than the number who voted for the Literal Democrats. So the UK changed the system so that political parties had to be registered with a name unlikely to cause confusion with other registered parties, otherwise the candidate could only stand as an independent rather than for a party.
... a vote for a Libertarian candidate isn't a vote for Libertarianism.
Actually, all votes have to be counted -- the "above the line except when it's close" story that goes around from time to time is quite wrong. The fine details of what you did below the line determines which candidates get knocked out and thus how the preferences flow. These calculations are down to the very last vote and no shortcuts are possible
Contrary to attempts to define themselves otherwise, the Libertarians are far from liberal.
Back in 1988, they nominated the most conservative member of congress, more conservative than even the likes of Jim Inhofe, as their presidential nominee.
Only in the US! Outside the US Liberal still means libertarian.
That's a really cool idea. There are probably problems with it, that'll come out past a certain level of adoption... but it seems very unlikely to be worse than the existing systems, and very likely to be a much-needed breath of fresh air wherever it does wind up being implemented.
Welcome to the meme factory.
Excuse me, sir, you were supposed to pick only one set of self-serving corporate smoke-screen misrepresentations, not both. Only one choice of standard talking points is permitted!
Please leave your money and pride in the donation box as you leave the factory.
http://politicalcompass.org/
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
wait, Australia has two liberal parties? i'm so used to USA where they have Democrat and Republican. or is it Democrat and GOP? need to read about Australia politics. only thing I know is Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd and Quentin Bryce.
ok, bye
Libertarian, free market guy in any government? I just hope he is in fact a real libertarian.
What the hell do you know about a "real libertarian"? Your version of libertarianism is just fascism with fancy veneer. It wouldn't do you, or >>99% of the rest of the country, any good to elect someone with your beliefs to power. Your version of libertarianism only brings pain and fascism for the people.
Its a perversion of democracy that you must not let the voter know what the hell he's voting for, as this would be preferable to electioneering.
I agree with Any Web Loco, the problem is that election officials are there for the election not to educate people on the parties, and I could see a vague question like "the liberals" causing a lawsuit by the Liberal Democrat party because, hey, they have liberal in their name. Of course, you have the Country Liberals, Liberal Democratic Party, Liberal Party of Australia, and Liberal National Party of Queensland.
In other words, in order to properly answer the question, they'd have to ask a number of questions and spend more time on it than they have available to avoid any possibility of 'electioneering', as opposed to, as they say, simply referring them to the various campaigners right outside the polling place that are more than happy educate potential voters on their platform.
BTW: If I was an australian, my 'short list' from a simple wiki search, in rough order of preference:
Liberal Democratic Party
Drug Law Reform Australia
Australian Sex Party
Country Alliance
Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party
Pirate Party Australia
Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop the Greens)
Shooters and Fishers Party
Of course, I've probably just done more work on selecting my choices than 50% of Australians. ;)
I don't read AC A human right
Ideology is religion. It's believing things are true when the evidence says otherwise. It's choosing to believe something is true when you WANT it to be true, but it isn't true. Is it true that humans respond rationally to incentives? No. That is [true in rare cases but but mostly] not true, and all libertarianism is based on it.
Nice high speed ramble.I couldn't even follow all of it - I think you called libertarinism a false idealogical religion not based on reality, but I'm not 100% sure. It really read as though my beliefs offended your own and you had to respond with an attack to defend your own.
That's okay. We're used to it, and you can go back to embracing your own reality because that's where you feel most comfortable. That's the thing about us Libertarians, we're okay with other people doing their own thing, we respect people having their own beliefs even if they don't respect our beliefs.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Given the huge level of dis-satisfaction with both of the major parties, I think blaming this on chance or simply due to his name being first on the ballot is making a MASSIVE leap.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Easily misleading summaries, then.
Here in NJ we usually have 1-4 public questions on our ballot. Somehow we manage.
These kind of mistakes are bound to happen when voting is not only not limited to land owners, but actually compulsary--making it a form of slavery.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
What you describe is tolerance, for which libertarians are well known. I also tolerate libertarians, insofar as I don't try to round them up, put them in jail, or silence them.
It's just that they believe things that aren't true, and I think people should shed untrue beliefs.
I agree that "across the line" would be a major improvement. But... how do you deal with ungrouped independents? Over time, you'd end up with the 70+ micro-party candidates being instead listed as independents, and the "across the line" would still be 70+ names long.
Write to Nick Xenophon's office. His group got a quarter of the primary Senate vote in SA (actually finishing above Labor and second only to the Libs (LP 26%, NX 25%, ALP 22%)) and yet only ended up with one quota due to preference harvesting by the motoring/shooting/fishing/immigration/sport/neonazi cluster and stupid preferencing by the left-minors. And the two majors will almost certainly accept a deal to change the rules to hurt the micro-parties.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Australian Independents Party. How would you classify them on a rough political spectrum?
Social left, economic populist. Naive or counter-preferencing, therefore politically inept or a front party. Preference low. Bam! Done.
Now go to belowtheline.org.au and see which parties they preference
Irrelevant, except to understand the handful of parties I didn't recognise. I voted below-the-line, my preferences override their above-the-line deals. The preference harvesting only occurred with above-the-line voters.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
And in the lower house, the liberals are running 90/40 = 2.25 seats per % of vote
And the greens are running 1/9 = 0.11 seats per % of vote
Its the system, it is designed to return two flavours of capitalist stooge, and force left parties to become stooges to be returned.
WAD: take the matter up with the designer.
Ideology? like believing that institutionalised violence can solve social problems? It can't.
How does the state alter behavior? Incentives.
Are you religiously devoted to the state?
I actually think the time has come for the idea of true democracy - where everyone gets to vote in parliament on every thing
I could not disagree more. Talk about the lunatics taking over the asylum!
If the time hasn't come already for this style of democracy, it will soon...
Hopefully I will be dead before the time arrives.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Or perhaps selecting the winner of a karaoke competition should be done in a similar manner to choosing national policy? It doesn't sound as bad when you write it that way.
On the contrary. It sounds like a terrible way to select the winner of a karaoke competition.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
This happened in the state north of mine, New South Wales. How embarrassing... As the article points out, the party was first on the ballot paper and had a name a lot like another larger party.
And in related embarrassing news, here in Victoria someone from the "Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party" was elected to the senate! It's not even clear if they have any policies at all. A lot of this was because of preference deals with the Sex Party. Yes, your read that right, the Sex Party.
Voting is compulsory here in Australia. It's usually pretty clear (no chance of hanging chads), but this time around the senate paper was more than a metre wide and had 97 candidates on it. The easy voting option is to put one number above the line. The hard voting option involves putting a number in all 97 boxes... which I've done in the past, but didn't the patience to do this time.
Oh FFS, just spotted someone from the "Australian Sports Party" has won a seat in Western Australia... It's going to be a very weird six year senate term...
Bills can't address any matter not included in the title, generally. Afaik; this is in British-style systems and may be completely different in America.
Tell you what - lets do an experiment.
All Libertarians need to test their ideology is to be left alone - we don't need anything else from anyone else. Just space and to be left alone, we're not isolationist, we'll be happy to trade with people that aren't us, but your regulations tend to have incredible strings attached that try to nail us to your service, there is great punishment involved with trading with statist.
When we fail at being sufficient without the rest of you, you may laugh.
If we try it and you still try to make us comply with your regulations, fail or not it wasn't a fair experiment.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
That means that we will have a senator elected not on the will of the people (or any significant portion thereof), but as a result of ballot orderings made by political parties and preference exchange deals made between parties.
Uh, no. A vote above the line means "I endorse this party's preference list". It's just as valid a set of preferences as if you vote below the line. Just because it's an ill-thought-out, apathetic vote doesn't mean it's not valid.
And if you need to remove ill-thought-out, apathetic votes from the system, you should probably start by not compelling apathetic people to vote in the first place. Most of these issues (people taking shortcuts on preferences, donkey votes, people being confused by names) derive from the fact that most people voting just don't give a stuff.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Okay. The place you described exists, in fact there are two such places. Places with lax government oversight, places where individuals are free to make economic deals with each other and to manage their own affairs. The two "free-est" places in the world are Sudan and Afghanistan, and since ZERO of you big-talking libertarians are rushing to move there, that proves that you know, deep down, that a reasonable amount of moderate government regulation is one of the things that makes a country a nice place to live in.
Think of the gun rights you'll have in Sudan! You can hire your own private army to guard your compound and you can crouch down in your spider-hole bunker thinking about how awesome it is that you don't rely on gubmint for your safety. Think about the unregulated crops you can grow in Afghanistan without Big Brother trying to stop you from growing opium poppies, or stopping your fertilizer runoff from polluting the watershed. FREEDOM!
Send me a postcard from your new address in one of those two countries, and then I will issue you an apology. Until then you're a freeloader complaining about exactly the system that delivers your high standard of living.
"Libertarian" like here in Europe, like in, "Anarchy", "self decision","self organization"
Or "Libertarian" like "Lemme keep ma gun, no taxes, shoot the abortionist" ???
Well, Australia is fortunately quite far.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
The instructions say you must fill in every square, but the savings provision of the act require that only 90% of the squares be filled in, and will allow a maximum of three sequencing errors. A sequencing error is any doubling up of numbers and any break in the number sequence.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/08/voting-below-the-line-in-the-senate.html
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Uh, no. A vote above the line means "I endorse this party's preference list".
Obviously that's what it means. However unless the voter has actually read the registered party list [I'd put money on any random voter not having done, heck I'll even give you 3:1 ... not very fair to you I know :)] this "endorsement" does not reflect the actual preferences of the voter, it reflects a hope that the party will treat their vote with respect. And in fact it can, and in some cases does, express the exact opposite of the voters actual preferences.
Just because it's an ill-thought-out, apathetic vote doesn't mean it's not valid.
You are talking, what, >95% of votes cast?
No one I know who voted above the line, and that includes our prof (Law), is apathetic nor was their vote necessarily "ill-thought-out." They wanted to ensure that their vote was valid. Voting below the line in a 110 numbered ballot runs a very real risk of informality. And anyway, you know those ballots just get filed away in the to-hard-to-count pile. ;)
And if you need to remove ill-thought-out, apathetic votes from the system ...
What we need is a system that allows voters to express their preferences. Our (federal) voting system no longer achieves this objective. The option to vote preferentially above the line, possibly non-exhaustively, would go some way to repairing this.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
It seems that the education system in Australia could be even more underfunded and worse than that in the U.S., where for decades the Republicans have been cutting education funding to try to create the perfect noble and serf two class system!!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
this "endorsement" does not reflect the actual preferences of the voter, it reflects a hope that the party will treat their vote with respect.
It reflects the fact that they didn't even bother to lookup how their party's preferences would be distributed - that is, they were apathetic about their vote. That's what happens when you compel a few million people to vote.
No one I know who voted above the line, and that includes our prof (Law), is apathetic nor was their vote necessarily "ill-thought-out."
Then, since they cared and were informed, they would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows would have gone, and presumably, were happy with that.
Voting above the line doesn't mean you were apathetic and or unthinking - voting above the line and then bitching that your preferences went where you didn't want them to go is.
What we need is a system that allows voters to express their preferences. Our (federal) voting system no longer achieves this objective. The option to vote preferentially above the line, possibly non-exhaustively, would go some way to repairing this.
I agree. But if there's a move for senate reform, you know what we're actually going to get is something that makes it more difficult for minor parties to register, or win an election.
It's not like doing dodgy preference deals is anything new; the major parties have been doing it forever - like the Labor party endorsing the ideologically-opposed "Rise Up Australia" party, or the Greens (well, they're sort of major) preferencing the "Climate Skeptics" party. This blow-up isn't about dodgy preference deals, it's about the "wrong people" being elected, where "wrong" means "not aligned to one of the major parties".
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
What's wrong with alphebetical order? I for one welcome Aaron A. Abbot as the next president.
Until then you're a freeloader complaining about exactly the system that delivers your high standard of living.
I always get a kick out of it when people who fight to maintain a system that forcibly takes from others to benefit themselves call me the freeloader.
I give you credit, you didn't scream Somalia.
The places you named are not libertarian minded places, one in particular has strongly enforced sharia law which most certainly is not libertarian. The other is not libertarian either, it's waring military states funded and propped up by other states that fund them for their own gain. Your examples suck.
Sadly the best example of a libertarian economy is in Estonia, a country that is far from libertarianism otherwise.
The fact is no place currently exist that us libertarians dream of. Precisely for the freeloader reason you mentioned, any time someone has something someone else wants there will be people who band together to take it by force, either in the Sudan method you mentioned, or more peacefully they'll form a government and claim imminent domain or taxes. There are just so many people who need the warm embrace of compulsory safety nets provided by others. People like you want big government because they are cowards. People like me are happy with city-states, think Indian tribe, Scottish Clan, Viking Village etc... There's no reason why someone in Montana should have to finance the seawall in Galveston that helps to protect my butt, nor should I have to help pay to fix the Golden Gate Bridge no matter how significant of a structure it is.
People try to convince me on a regular basis we need federal funding to do things.
I live in Texas - we give more money to the feds than we get back. Of the money we get back how much was siphoned off on the way? Say the feds pay to fix a water main in my town. I sent $100 to the feds in income tax, the IRS takes $5 for the privilege of having taken my money, who then gives the $95 to the department of the interior that takes out their operating cost of $10. The department of the interior then gives the $85 to some large interior contractor, I'm going to make up a name to keep from singling out the obvious transgressors - Pipeanon. Pipeanon of course is required by federal regulations to have sub-contractors from a "disadvantaged" business do the actual work. Pipeanon calls up Hector & Son's Pipe Layers and sends them $35 of my dollars to fix the water main. Hector & Son's Pipe Layers then hires Juan for $12 to go dig a hole and patch the pipe.
I would have rather given my city $50 so they could pay Hector & Son's Pipe Layers $45 so they could pay Juan $20. Juan is a good guy, my kid and his go to school together and I usually sit next to him at our kid's soccer games and his boss Hector always brings a BBQ grill and makes burgers and hotdogs for everyone now that his business is making more, not to mention now that our money is being used more efficiently we have more bike lanes in town for our kids to safely ride their bikes to the park with and I have a better car since my money goes further locally and I have to pay less in taxes.
Feel the power of the big government, let it flow through you, swear off freedom and personal responsibility, only then can you fully embrace the power of the dark side.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
It reflects the fact that they didn't even bother to lookup how their party's preferences would be distributed - that is, they were apathetic about their vote. That's what happens when you compel a few million people to vote.
Sorry we'll have to agree to differ on that one. I think having the vote of 100% of the electorate, even if the lack the wherewithall or motivation to discover the registered preferences, is preferable to relying on the putative 5% of voters who meet you criteria of "car[ing] and informed." If anyone was so motivated as to look up the registered preferences they almost certainly are motivated enough to vote below the line. Practically no-one "would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows," but you know that.
My point is that it is precisely because people don't know whom the are voting for, or if you prefer because people are apathetic, that we can't leave it to political parties to make these kinds of decisions. That would be setting the fox to guard the geese.
As far as compelling a few million people to vote, IMHO the evils we suffer because of compulsory voting, I submit, are outweighed by the evils suffered where voting is not compulsory. But, practical considerations aside, people have strong philosophical objections compulsion in the exercise of democratic duties. I understand that. I simply disagree.
[I]f there's a move for senate reform, you know what we're actually going to get is something that makes it more difficult for minor parties to register, or win an election.
It's certainly on the cards, but there's no need to be fatalistic about it. The is the real discussion to be had at the moment.
It's not like doing dodgy preference deals is anything new; the major parties have been doing it forever
Well voting above the line was only (umm showing my age here) introduced in the late 80s. Before that preference deal meant a negotiation between parties of how how-to-vote cards were to be set out (as it still does for the lower house). And it's arguable that the cynicism of the registered lists actually has grown over time.
This blow-up isn't about dodgy preference deals, it's about the "wrong people" being elected, where "wrong" means "not aligned to one of the major parties".
It's about both. The former was foregrounded by the implosion of the Wikileaks party and the later by Abbott's wish to have a Senate free of minor parties (PUP & Greens included). I guess there's an irony of fate here inasmuch as the cynicism of the majors has somewhat blown up in their face.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Sorry we'll have to agree to differ on that one. I think having the vote of 100% of the electorate, even if the lack the wherewithall or motivation to discover the registered preferences, is preferable
Except you don't even have that. You have 95% of registered voters (about 5% cop the fine each election), not factoring in the estimated ~10% of eligible voters who've never registered.
the putative 5% of voters who meet you criteria of "car[ing] and informed."
The only criteria I propose putting in place is being motivated enough to trundle your backside up to the polling place and make a mark on paper. Hell, give me an appropriately transparent and secure online voting mechanism, and you wouldn't even have to do that. Ideally that make you caring and informed, but not necessarily. Maybe you just like lamingtons.
My point is that it is precisely because people don't know whom the are voting for, or if you prefer because people are apathetic, that we can't leave it to political parties to make these kinds of decisions. That would be setting the fox to guard the geese.
No; as long as people can cast their preferences it is the geese guarding the geese. It's just that the vast majority of geese don't care about guard duty, and do it poorly. If people won't cast their preferences (and you know there are plenty who won't, even if we develop some sanity and go OPV above the line) then the only alternative is to let someone cast them for them (or revert to first-past-the-post).
If you don't want them to be the party they nominate, who would you delegate to distribute those preferences? Any option I can see is a more egregious case of vulpine poultry guardianship than the current setup.
My preference, as I've said, is allocate the guardianship only to those geese who show up for duty.
It's certainly on the cards, but there's no need to be fatalistic about it. The is the real discussion to be had at the moment.
And this is due entirely to your aforementioned fox-henhouse scenario. The people in charge of "reforming" the ballot process are the ones with the most to gain by excluding minorities. The only hope the minor parties have of deflecting the majors if they try this approach is to squawk loudly enough that public pressure will divert that course of action.
Of course, the media's been busily blacking the reputations of all the minor parties, so that nobody will care what they're squawking about...
Well voting above the line was only (umm showing my age here) introduced in the late 80s. Before that preference deal meant a negotiation between parties of how how-to-vote cards were to be set out (as it still does for the lower house).
I will amend my statement to say the major parties have been doing it for as long as it has been possible to do ;P
It's about both. The former was foregrounded by the implosion of the Wikileaks party and the later by Abbott's wish to have a Senate free of minor parties (PUP & Greens included).
Both majors don't want anyone not aligned to them in power. The Greens are tolerated by Labor, but it'd still get rid of them if they could - as seen by their preference allocation in Melbourne.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
The power over preferences should be returned to the voters.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-11/green-hand-the-power-of-preferences-back-to-the-people/4951020
He suggests that optional preferential voting should be made possible both "above the line" and "below the line", an either/or option in the Senate ballot that made the situation, as originally posted, possible.
Being able to mark one or more preferences, either as to parties, or as to individual candidates, would wipe out the "preference swap" vote rigging.
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
The only criteria I propose putting in place is being motivated enough to trundle your backside up to the polling place and make a mark on paper
You led me to believe you had stricter standards when you wrote: "since they cared and were informed, they would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows would have gone."
No; as long as people can cast their preferences it is the geese guarding the geese.
Seems to be a species of the formal vs practical freedom problem. In practice voting below the line has become too arduous (added to the fact that the votes of those of us who do take up undue time in to booth to do so are counted last, if at all), and practically no-one can understand the actual effect of their above the line vote.
Maybe you just like lamingtons.
Lamingtons? You get lamingtons at your polling station ... damn ... where do you live?
If you don't want them to be the party they nominate, who would you delegate to distribute those preferences? Any option I can see is a more egregious case of vulpine poultry guardianship than the current setup.
The most obvious solution, and the one which most offends my philosophical sensibilities, is simply to exhaust the vote after it has reached its last stated preference. So if you had to make a minimum of 3 votes and voted 1. One Nation 2. Socialist Alliance and 3. Liberal/National your vote could never be used to elect anyone not in those three groupings. And BTW, with preferential above-the-line, there is a problem, though perhaps not an insurmountable one, of what to do about ungrouped independents.
Or we allocate the remaining preferences based on a knowledge base using statistical analysis of what other voters who had the same early preferences selected further down on their ballots. ;)
And this is due entirely to your aforementioned fox-henhouse scenario
I thought it was all geese/geese. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too, or did I simply confuse my animal analogy ... I was trying to avoid wolves and sheep. But sure, the majors would be motivated to do that, and yes it's time to squawk.
Both majors don't want anyone not aligned to them in power.
Clearly. There's an article in the Guardian about this today and an interesting comment put by one iMurray, who thinks, "the biggest problem is not the fringe candidates like the Motoring Enthusiasts guy who sneak in - it's the prevalence of the major parties and the way they operate in the Senate."
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
You led me to believe you had stricter standards when you wrote: "since they cared and were informed, they would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows would have gone."
That comment was in reply to your friends and law professor not being apathetic. It wasn't the criteria of who should be allowed to vote; I was just enumerating a logical syllogism:
they voted above the line AND they weren't apathetic or ill-informed THEREFORE they must be happy with where their preferences went
Lamingtons? You get lamingtons at your polling station ... damn ... where do you live?
Not at my current one, actually. But at the one in Kentlyn, which I used to work at occasionally, they did. Good lamingtons, but probably not worth the trip.
The most obvious solution, and the one which most offends my philosophical sensibilities, is simply to exhaust the vote after it has reached its last stated preference.
Uh, did you mean least offends your sensibilities? I'm all for offending people, but I'd really rather know which alternatives you think are good at this point in the discussion :P
Or we allocate the remaining preferences based on a knowledge base using statistical analysis of what other voters who had the same early preferences selected further down on their ballots. ;)
I'm going to assume you know how I'd react to that. All hail our algorithmic overlords!
I thought it was all geese/geese. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too, or did I simply confuse my animal analogy
I meant that this was another independent instance of foxes guarding henhouses - allowing incumbents to change the rules about how easy it is to vote them out of office results in incumbents who don't get voted out of office.
And yes, it probably should have been goose-run or something - I don't know the correct noun for a goose's farmyard domicile.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Samuel Adams
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
That comment was in reply to ...
Now be fair. I wrote of "you [sic] criteria of 'car[ing] and informed'", based on your statement "since they cared and were informed, they would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows would have gone." I'm was entitled to believe that you require more "being motivated enough to trundle your backside up to the polling place and make a mark on paper" to satisfy caring and being informed. There was no question of "who should be allowed to vote," which is, after all, a duty.
But at the one in Kentlyn, which I used to work at occasionally ...
Oh good. Your style of arguing left me wondering if I knew you personally. Unlikely then.
Uh, did you mean least offends your sensibilities?
No, I meant what I wrote. (Refer back to me quoting myself above). I'm not sure that there is a practical solution to this problem which doesn't offend against that theoretical position.
I meant that this was another independent instance of foxes guarding henhouses
I got that, and in fact agreed. The disagreement is simply that I find both independent instances irksome.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
"one in particular has strongly enforced sharia law"
No, it doesn't, because there is no law there because there is no government there. What there is, is a "free market" of "private actors" each "pursuing his own interests" which, apparently, includes cutting the heads off of infidels. Don't like it? Surely you can raise your own army to enforce your own interests. FREEDOM!
Oh, suddenly the free market isn't good enough for you? Freeloader.