tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post2700149439394444192..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Electoral Process, But Not As We Know It: Postal Plebsicite V2Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-27195403307379535432017-08-12T21:37:07.891+10:002017-08-12T21:37:07.891+10:00Ahhh Kevin - but the answer to that is that a No v...Ahhh Kevin - but the answer to that is that a No vote is a vote for the return of Tony Abbott. He as good as said so. The Yes people should use that line: "Vote Yes if you don't want Tony to come back as the leader of the Libs" Jack Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210027164177789357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-41255137364266162292017-08-12T21:20:12.690+10:002017-08-12T21:20:12.690+10:00I worry a little that if a consensus emerges that ...I worry a little that if a consensus emerges that a No vote will be a crucial defeat for Turnbull, then some people may vote No just in the hope of bringing him down. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-87778653365092397652017-08-12T13:41:56.840+10:002017-08-12T13:41:56.840+10:00Oh, and an insight into the conservative mind (you...Oh, and an insight into the conservative mind (you know, those with brains that are fearful of change and can't process complex ideas - maybe fearful of change _because_ they can't process complex ideas). On the phone to an old frenemy of mine last night, he said "So a Yes vote will be a victory for Malcolm eh?" I would have thought that even calling the "plebisurvey" was an admission of hopelessness by Malcolm, but if his supporters think that way, there's a good source of Yes votes. Jack Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210027164177789357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-17949422114497380582017-08-12T13:30:15.885+10:002017-08-12T13:30:15.885+10:00First Dog cartoon may be seen at http://bit.ly/2vv...First Dog cartoon may be seen at http://bit.ly/2vvqQWl<br /><br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-43385264961791339112017-08-12T13:23:00.492+10:002017-08-12T13:23:00.492+10:00As to your question "It's ridiculous, so ...As to your question "It's ridiculous, so should we boycott it?", one of the birds in the latest First Dog has the answer. It's holding up a placard that says <br /><br />MARRIAGE EQUALITY<br />IT SHOULD BE<br />NONE OF MY<br /> BUSINESS<br />BUT NOW IT IS<br /><br />So yes it's ridiculous, but assuming the High Court doesn't stop it (and my guess is they won't), then everyone should vote! If our elected representatives are so weak that they want our guidance, then we should give it to them - as many of us as possible. And if we think they should have made up their own minds, that's something we can bear in mind next time we vote.Jack Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210027164177789357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-16956247884148088862017-08-11T21:30:23.593+10:002017-08-11T21:30:23.593+10:00Another Michael Maley comment:
------------------...Another Michael Maley comment:<br /><br />-----------------------------------------<br /><br /><br /><br />Regarding voting by 16 and 17 year olds in the plebisurvey, the AEC has today issued the following statement:<br /><br /> <br /><br />“There has been speculation that 16 and 17 year olds will be allowed to participate in the marriage survey. This is not correct. The survey instruments will be sent to those who are on the roll; 16 and 17 year olds are not on the roll.<br /><br /> <br /><br />The normal enrolment processes apply – 16 and 17 year olds are not added to the Commonwealth electoral roll until they turn 18. They are provisionally’ enrolled until they turn 18. Under section 90B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act the AEC only provides the details of electors that are enrolled, not provisionally enrolled. Section 90B is the AEC’s authority to provide the roll to the ABS, therefore 16 and 17 year olds will not be included in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey.”<br /><br /> <br /><br />There are real problems with this AEC statement. <br /><br /> <br /><br />First, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 recognises no concept of "provisional enrolment" for 16-17 year olds. Subsection 98(1) of the Act states that "Names may be added to Rolls pursuant to ... claims for age 16 enrolment".<br /><br /> <br /><br />Subsection 93(3) states that a person on a roll who is less than 18 cannot vote at an election. The existence of this provision clearly implies that 16 and 17 year olds can be on the roll, since if that were not the case, subsection 93(3) would be unnecessary.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Subsection 93(4) says that in relation to an election, a person is deemed not to be enrolled unless 18 by polling day. This deeming provision is limited in scope, as it operates only “for the purposes of this Act in its application in relation to an election”. It has no explicit relevance to a plebisurvey.<br /><br /> <br /><br />If a claim for age 16 enrolment is “in order”, s 102(1)(b) of the Act requires the claimant to be added to the roll "without delay". Subsection 100(2) of the Act makes it clear that this requirement applies to a claim for age 16 enrolment “as if the person making the claim were 18 years of age”.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Finally, an AEC officer who fails to enrol a person when required to do so commits an offence against section 103 of the Act.<br /><br /> <br /><br />So it would appear that if the AEC hasn't been adding 16 and 17 year olds to the roll, something has gone badly wrong. <br /><br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-3810927415052456752017-08-11T12:26:11.231+10:002017-08-11T12:26:11.231+10:00Due to the excellent commentary here, I have decid...Due to the excellent commentary here, I have decided to call the federal government's bluff and participate by voting 'yes' to extending the rights and obligations of the Commonwealth Marriage Act to same-sex couples.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13348696264889566530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-36670979397284335412017-08-10T16:46:53.663+10:002017-08-10T16:46:53.663+10:00And another comment by Michael Maley!
------------...And another comment by Michael Maley!<br />----------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />In all of this, there’s quite some doubt about the role to be played by the AEC. In a comment on his blog today, Antony Green observed that “…clearly the ABS will be out-sourcing large parts of the conduct of the ballot to the AEC.” Senator Cormann’s media release MC 46/17 of 8 August 2017 states that “The ABS will make arrangements for the secondment of officers from the Australian Electoral Commission to assist the Australian Statistician with this process as required”, while his media release MC 47/17 of 9 August goes somewhat further, stating that “the ABS, supported by AEC officers as appropriate, will make relevant announcements about timetables and practical arrangements …”. The ABS, in a statement published today, has said that it “has formed a Taskforce to deliver the survey and will publish the results by 15 November. The survey Taskforce includes staff from the Australian Electoral Commission seconded under ABS legislation.”<br /><br />There are two problems with this. The first is that by themselves AEC officers cannot do all that much to help any more: the postal voting process has long been automated, so what the ABS would really need would be access to the AEC’s offices, procedures, IT systems, management structures and contracts. (They would also need access overseas to staff from DFAT and Defence who run postal voting outside Australia, including for deployed forces.) <br /><br />The second problem is that it is arguable that any such support from the AEC - indeed, any AEC support other than secondment of staff in circumstances which had them strictly on the ABS’s books and off the AEC’s - would exceed the AEC’s powers and functions under section 7 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. In particular, it is clear that the AEC’s power under paragraph 7(1)(d) of the Act “to provide information and advice on electoral matters to the Parliament, the Government, Departments and authorities of the Commonwealth” isn’t applicable in this case, as section 5 of the Act clearly defines “electoral matters” for the purposes of section 7 as “matters relating to Parliamentary elections, elections, ballots under the Fair Work Act 2009 or the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and referendums”; and this doesn’t include what purports to be a statistical exercise conducted by ABS.<br /><br />In fact, it is clear from the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum to the Electoral and Referendum Act 1992 (which inserted in the Electoral Act sections 7A and 7B, permitting services to be provided by the AEC on a fee for service basis) that that amendment was intended to cover a lack of power to provide such services under section 7. (“This clause inserts a new section 7A of the Principal Act to empower the Australian Electoral Commission, in a manner not inconsistent with the performance of its primary functions, to provide goods and services to other organisations or individuals (for example, providing a "scanning” service to State electoral authorities, or assisting in the conduct of an election other than a federal election).“ See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill_em/earab1992308/memo_1.html.) <br /><br />Support under section 7A would be permitted, but it seems that the government has already decided that trying to make use of section 7A would be too legally risky. Not being a constitutional lawyer, I have no view if it would make any difference if such an arrangement were between the ABS and the AEC, rather than between the government and the AEC.<br /><br />This makes the conduct of the process by ABS even less plausible. It will be interesting to see if the litigants planning to challenge the process will seek to have the courts restrain the AEC from taking any actions which would exceed its statutory powers.<br /><br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-39269973240017009342017-08-10T16:46:49.616+10:002017-08-10T16:46:49.616+10:00That's a fascinating thought Michael. I wonder...That's a fascinating thought Michael. I wonder if things may play out, say, should the Court find various gaps in statutory powers of the ABS, or with statutory usage of the electoral roll, or with potential conflicts with privacy laws which government agencies must adhere to arising from the practicalities of the proposed "voluntary survey" (the ABS' terminology in their press release today), that at some point the ABS finds that it must urgently resort to good old statistical methods to answer the ministers' Directive, and just do a quality 10,000 respondent poll instead.<br /><br />Come to think of it, I wonder what the professional statisticians at the ABS think of the very idea of a "voluntary survey" as a means of gathering statistics? Since the Senate is apparently launching an inquiry, the leading staff at ABS could be asked their professional opinion on the matter.<br /><br />Another question is what professional commentary the ABS ultimately adds to it's report on the Directive should the raw survey results represent only 40% turnout, geographically and demographically clumpy, etc. If the ABS adds caveats that the nominal/raw survey result is unreliable, or better still attempts to scale and weight the raw numbers so as to meaningfully return an answer to the Directive, things would become even more absurd. <br /><br />I fear that peak stupid may still be some way off with this whole sorry business.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17207687947495129674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-12351006353769317742017-08-10T12:06:36.505+10:002017-08-10T12:06:36.505+10:00Comment from Michael Maley - Part 2
--------------...Comment from Michael Maley - Part 2<br />-----------------------------------<br /><br />“Votes are not bought and sold.” At present there seems to be nothing to prevent someone from setting up a market in which those uninterested in the issue can sell their “votes”.<br /><br />“Voters can cast a secret ballot, without fear of any adverse consequences.” The provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act which require even postal votes to be marked in private will not apply. People could be invited to mark their “votes” ceremonially in churches in front of the whole congregation.<br /><br />“Everyone votes only once.” The provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act making it an offence to vote more than once will not apply.<br /><br />These are major defects, of the type which would often lead international observers to deem an election not free and fair.<br /><br />Surveys, on the other hand, depend for their validity on a properly designed probability-based sample, along with appropriate weighting for non-response bias. ABS runs these sorts of surveys all the time. What is proposed here, however, isn’t such an exercise, but rather a “survey” with a self-selected sample, with likely inherent biases associated with the postal process, for which no corrections are proposed. As a survey intended to give an accurate snapshot of opinion, it would be close to worthless.<br /><br />So the ABS really need to be held to account on this. They need to be asked why they will comply with the words of the Direction from the Treasurer by adopting an expensive and methodologically defective process, rather than a cheaper and more accurate one. The extent to which they are really undertaking this process in an independent, professional and transparent way should be urgently tested through an immediate Senate inquiry.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-46970636325466654962017-08-10T12:06:13.466+10:002017-08-10T12:06:13.466+10:00Comment from Michael Maley (also posted on Antony ...Comment from Michael Maley (also posted on Antony Green's site and Facebook) - Part 1<br /><br />----------------------------------<br /><br />The Census and Statistics (Statistical Information) Direction 2017, given to the Australian Statistician by the Treasurer yesterday to initiate this process, has a number of interesting features.<br /><br />Most notably, it does not require the ABS to acquire information by a postal process, nor does it require that all electors be approached for input: it simply requires the collection of “statistical information about the proportion of electors who wish to express a view about whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry”, along with information about the proportion (of those electors who wish to express such a view) who are in favour or against. This information is to be compiled by State and Territory, and by electoral division.<br /><br />It would therefore be entirely open to the ABS to obtain this information using a well-constructed sample survey with a sufficient sample size in each electoral division to ensure reasonably tight confidence intervals.<br /><br />And in fact, that would be a better, cheaper and more accurate option than what the government seems to have in mind. Right now, presumably for legal reasons, what is being attempted is a plebiscite dressed up as a statistics gathering exercise, but entirely lacking the features which would validate it either as a plebiscite or as a survey. Plebiscites, like elections, depend for their validity on certain basic “free and fair” criteria, which I spelt out some years ago in a Senate Occasional Lecture, several of which look unlikely to be satisfied.<br /><br />“The process is administered impartially, and opportunities exist for complaints about the process to be lodged and dealt with in an even-handed and transparent way.” This is problematical as things stand now, with the use of the postal service potentially discriminating against voters less likely or able to use it, and with no rights of “voters” or scrutineers defined by law (and, in particular, no right to a transparent process for handling complaints). I might add here that the behaviour of the ABS in the aftermath of last year’s census night was hardly a model of transparency.<br /><br />“People qualified to vote, and only people so qualified, are able to do so.” This is problematical with a postal process with uneven coverage, especially in relation to voters overseas, and as things stand there will be no legal ban on impersonation, let alone proof of identity requirements.<br /><br /><br /><br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com