tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post5869200408129307456..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: JSCEM Comes To HobartKevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-49669361291553308022014-04-29T00:41:17.871+10:002014-04-29T00:41:17.871+10:00It's interesting there is even a need for a gr...It's interesting there is even a need for a group to have two candidates to get an ATL box. There is no reason for such a requirement. The Tasmanian House of Assembly allows a party or "group" to run a single candidate with their own ballot column if they have enough nominators. Can get a bit silly as in Denison 2014 when there are multiple indies with their own columns (and then they all drew the tail end of the ballot paper anyway).<br /><br />I may have more comments later.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-23400685891434056462014-04-29T00:21:50.709+10:002014-04-29T00:21:50.709+10:00I’m very late to this party but I’ve just had a mi...I’m very late to this party but I’ve just had a minor personal epiphany on this subject and figured this might be a good place to get feedback.<br /><br />I was thinking about how ungrouped candidates might be dealt with in a system that allowed ATL preferencing rather than ticket votes. The options that I came up with were: (1) bad luck – no friend, no ATL votes, (2) only allow group nominations or (3) give the independents an ATL box.<br /><br />I think (1) and (2) could run into some constitutional issues. But (3) means that you’ll start to get nearly as many boxes ATL as BTL. And if a micro-party can get ATL without having a group, why would you worry about a group?<br /><br />And that was the epiphany. The reason we need ATL is that there are a stupid number of candidates BTL. But with most micro-parties having just two candidates, there are nearly half as many boxes ATL. But the only reason they run two candidates is that you need at least two to get an ATL box. But if there was no ATL, you largely eliminate the incentive to run two candidates when you can only even dream of getting one elected.<br /><br />So get rid of ATL. Double the nomination fee to remove the temptation to run extra candidates just for the personal vote. (Without tickets you’d be risking your already negligible chances by splitting your vote anyway). If the only multiple nominations come from the majors who are a chance to win multiple seats, you’ll end up with only a few more boxes in a single-section ballot paper than you’d have ATL under the current system.<br /><br />And with a single-section ballot paper you have a lot more layout options. For a start, you’ve got rid of the duplication of ATL and BTL. And got rid of a bunch of superfluous candidates. The 2013 NSW ballot had 44 ATL boxes and 110 BTL for 154 boxes on the ballot. If you had 6 LIB/NAT, 6 ALP, 3 GRN, 3 PUP and one from every other micro and the independents, that would be 62. That’s not an order-of-magnitude more than the 44 ATL options (48 if you had to give the ungrouped candidates one) and it is an order-of-magnitude less overall boxes on the ballot. <br /><br />The ballot could be a proper shape, with multiple columns. Parties with multiple candidates could opt to have them in the ballot draw as a single entry so they would be grouped together.<br /><br />What am I missing?Alarichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17187841259314152786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-11342963071029633502014-04-22T23:02:06.674+10:002014-04-22T23:02:06.674+10:00I think the transcript will go up at www.aph.gov.a...I think the transcript will go up at www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2013_General_Election/Public_Hearings . It's not up yet though the one from the day before is.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-60094926112594033802014-04-22T20:49:16.706+10:002014-04-22T20:49:16.706+10:00Is there a podcast or recording online somewhere? ...Is there a podcast or recording online somewhere? I had a look around the parliament house website, but can't find either the recording or transcripts.BlackVegiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06380314430186538856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-864935797620704812014-04-17T13:12:56.119+10:002014-04-17T13:12:56.119+10:00One other 'counting system' note: It seems...One other 'counting system' note: It seems to me that an elected candidate should not be treated in further rounds in the same manner as an excluded candidate. An excluded candidate should take no further part; arguably, an elected candidate should continue to accrue votes as other candidates are excluded and elected, diluting their original vote and the preferences expressed within them out into the subsequent count.<br /><br />The unfortunate side effect of taking this attitude is that the value of each package of votes has to be iteratively recalculated, which is a significant downside for any manual system.<br /><br />Still, the federal (BTL) senate count is not done manually, so in that instance there is no additional effort.intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-60089053270640418792014-04-17T10:32:25.075+10:002014-04-17T10:32:25.075+10:00Yes, there may well be disappointments and obstacl...Yes, there may well be disappointments and obstacles ahead! I guess my main hope is the replacement of the present system with something that is better, whether it is my preferred choice or not. A small side-hope is that Parliament can at least do the no-brainer and finally fix Inclusive Gregory.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-91077871861133989952014-04-17T10:08:57.160+10:002014-04-17T10:08:57.160+10:00Will see how that works outing a month or so then....Will see how that works outing a month or so then. My limited experience is that the process of gathering this sort of information then runs into the process of politics, and what comes out is not necessarily overly related to what went in.<br /><br />We do what we can.<br /><br />intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-74675770944643029002014-04-16T17:30:44.970+10:002014-04-16T17:30:44.970+10:00I was quite pleased with how it went, especially i...I was quite pleased with how it went, especially in that there does seem to be a genuine will to reform the Senate system with an interim proposal or discussion paper expected to be issued next month.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-27268424272072718812014-04-16T16:49:23.105+10:002014-04-16T16:49:23.105+10:00How did the day go?How did the day go?intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-37682977065161758002014-04-15T20:41:38.287+10:002014-04-15T20:41:38.287+10:00For those who can't make it there will be writ...For those who can't make it there will be written transcripts available online later. Not sure about DVD box sets though.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-72937445801325752072014-04-15T20:24:47.839+10:002014-04-15T20:24:47.839+10:00This is a real shame - I wanted to attend but unfo...This is a real shame - I wanted to attend but unfortunately I will be at Legal Prac down in Hunter Street.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-85322804026094275772014-04-15T00:42:04.277+10:002014-04-15T00:42:04.277+10:00For the sake of consistency and to avoid confusing...For the sake of consistency and to avoid confusing voters, I believe HoR and Senate should use the same voting system. If the HoR is going to remain full preferential, I believe the Senate should be the same. Given this system has been used for a long time at Federal level, I think we should keep it.<br /><br />One option is to significantly increase the party membership requirement and registration costs, and then require full preferential voting either above or below the line. Filling in something like 10 - 15 boxes above the line is not a huge ask. Having optional preferential with minimum numbering requirements may well prove too complicated for some voters.Dukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00490870959853928692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-91191645431390241492014-04-14T18:22:56.899+10:002014-04-14T18:22:56.899+10:00Unfortunately I can't attend as I've got t...Unfortunately I can't attend as I've got the second year review for my PhD on that day.<br /><br />I wrote up my own thoughts on this recently; in brief:<br /> - Adopt Hare Clarke at a required depth of 10 to redress the number of parties there to work the system<br /> - Divide each state into Capital and Regional areas (potentially even hiving the capitals off as their own, new city-states) with equal representation to redress the lack of effective geopolitical restraint<br /> - Increase the representation in each state to 16 (or 8) (for a total of 100, given 6 (or 12) states, +4 between the territories) and the House of Reps to match (i.e. 200, which resolves the inequity currently affecting Tasmania and the ACT)<br /> - Restrict voting for the Senate to those not dependant on the Government for the majority of their income, to redress the lack of effective restraint against excess government consumption.<br /><br />Not all the above would be popular.intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.com