tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post6140764292219923704..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Senate Reform: Change This System, But To What?Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-43998560265941575342013-11-03T14:50:57.717+11:002013-11-03T14:50:57.717+11:00The systems in force prior to 1983 were quite iniq...The systems in force prior to 1983 were quite iniquitous and undemocratic. The '49 - '82 rules only survived, I suspect, because almost all voters were unaware of the random nature of the preference distribution.<br /><br />In regard to HTVs I should like to see the distribution of these banned on polling days and within (say) 50 metres of pre-polling locations.<br /><br />Having handed the things out since 1966 I am confident that only a very tiny percentage of people do not know how they are going to vote prior to going to the polling place and that the influence of the sheets thrust into electors hands is minuscule. The only useful purpose handing them out to voters on polling day serves is to keep partisans moderately sane prior to the commencement of the count.<br />Albert Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06872588387691003792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-22789646321297015182013-10-26T23:57:08.604+11:002013-10-26T23:57:08.604+11:00Thanks for that comment. I could not directly acc...Thanks for that comment. I could not directly access the Facebook page, possibly because I am not a Facebook member (for reasons related to personal aversion to public "friending" decisions and associated social pressures.) I did manage to access a cache of the front page of the site.<br /><br />I also managed to find what seems to be the full text of McKinlay's Case at https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!article=66561<br /><br />Given the lack of direct or even apparent indirect relevance of much of what is discussed there and given that it predated ATL voting I did wonder if you actually meant the similarly named post-ATL case of McKenzie v C of A and others (https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#article=67159). (Point 6 may be relevant). If I'm wrong to wonder that I'd be interested to know how McKinlay's Case is relevant.<br /><br />Abolishing BTL voting would entail that some candidates would be running for election while being incapable of receiving primary votes, but only as a consequence of their decision to stand as secondary candidates of a party and not as a consequence of their decision to stand as candidates per se. I can see that this could be problematic. <br /><br />As for the threshhold issue I wonder if any implication of unconstitutionality in the different treatment of candidates with the same primary votes could be avoided by the following method: Don't set a primary vote threshhold per candidate. Instead set a threshhold for the total vote a candidate must have following the distribution of all initial surpluses and at the point at which exclusion of the candidate with least votes would normally commence. (At this point any major party candidate with any hope will be above the threshhold.) <br /><br />Alternatively if the issue is consistency with requirements in the House, perhaps threshholds could be introduced in both at once?<br /><br />I'd be quite happy if threshholds were unconstitutional as that would get one of the less good reform options off the table. But it would be good to be clear on it if the concept is really unsalvageable - and I add a general request: if readers here ever want to say something is unconstitutional (and it isn't obvious or general knowledge), please spell out why.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-49806889446619465582013-10-26T22:21:03.168+11:002013-10-26T22:21:03.168+11:00Thanks Dr Kevin Bonham for your valuable insights ...Thanks Dr Kevin Bonham for your valuable insights and suggestions. We at Australian Senate Ballot Reform agree with the majority of your recommendations. But it's worth your while having a look at Attorney-General (ex rel McKinlay) v. The Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1 ("McKinlay's Case") as to why abolishing or restricting Below The Line voting, or using a threshold against minor party candidates but not the weak candidates of the major parties in the same way, would be unconstitutional. https://www.facebook.com/AUSenateBallotReformAustralian Senate Ballot Reformhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07012031420541035078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-61495480459408265722013-10-26T14:20:43.440+11:002013-10-26T14:20:43.440+11:00It wouldn't be my first pick as a 'categor...It wouldn't be my first pick as a 'category' either; it's far more important to have a house where those whose primary source of income is the government aren't eligible to vote. But we don't have that, and we do have a Federated structure. Even in it's current dysfunctional form, it is what we have, and in so many ways its is an easier task to restore the intent of federation than to introduce something altogether new.<br /><br />The simple reason we have 12 senators is that without them we wouldn't have federated. For better or worse, the state is our formal unit of government, with the federation as an overlay. <br /><br />Your third and fourth paragraphs align fairly well with my thoughts/expectations given those circumstances.<br /><br /><br />intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-76985312409020991372013-10-25T23:36:07.012+11:002013-10-25T23:36:07.012+11:00While the regionalism issue is obviously the root ...While the regionalism issue is obviously the root of the current Senate system, I've never been convinced that states (or any other regional category) actually deserve special representation and protection any more than any number of other categories. It's the way it has been but that doesn't mean it has to be the way it should be.<br /><br />Firstly I believe that no matter what system we had, state-of-residence would not be one of the most powerful indicators of advantage or disadvantage for a particular citizen. I cannot see any a priori reason why there should be 12 Senators reserved for Tasmanian voters and yet no Senators reserved, say, for unemployed voters nationwide. If anything, I think the arguments for specific representation for unemployed voters are stronger (ignoring the demarcation and other practical problems involved), since they have unusual difficulty mobilising as a group. But it's all irrelevant because we are stuck with equal Senator numbers per state as a legacy of Federation; I cannot see that changing any time soon.<br /><br />Secondly I think that with the two-party systems that democracies tend to develop, even with a disproportionate number of seats, a state could still wield power if it had to. So for instance if there was a national Senate PR, even two Tasmania Party Senators would have a fair chance of holding the balance of power. Most likely if there were multiple states or regions being downtrodden a national-PR Senate would be flooded with Harradines in the blink of an eye. At present, it's difficult for disenchanted rural voters to band together because there are just not enough of them to get over the state quotas to get elected. <br /><br />I didn't canvass Robson Rotation in my article because of the logistic difficulties in printing and counting when done on a massive scale, but it's worth having in the mix if it can somehow be practical. It would be very nice to have voters and not parties deciding who is dropped to third on the Senate ticket. Parties might also become less inclined to preselect bigots or low-profile hacks to high positions, as they would not attract preferences.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-89324272916936867542013-10-21T14:59:57.713+11:002013-10-21T14:59:57.713+11:00Kevin, that's a pretty good run through on a c...Kevin, that's a pretty good run through on a complex issue. The only concept I think it misses to some extent is commentary on the purpose of the senate and how that should influence the decision.<br /><br />The nominal purpose of the senate in Australia is to prevent domination of the smaller states by the larger ones. This to a reasonable extent can be generalised as an effort to provide protection on a geographical basic, so that urban areas don't completely dominate rural areas in lawmaking.<br /><br />To be blunt, it hasn't worked.<br /><br />This doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile goal - for long term stability, a federal democratic system needs both geographic protection (to make federation viable for a state) and economic protection (so that it doesn't abuse those who pay the costs of the state). Given the original intent, and the continuing need, the system chosen for the senate needs to function in such a way as to preserve and strengthen regionalism.<br /><br />As such, I think the concept of a national senate is counter-productive, as it only worsens the shortcomings of the senate.<br /><br />Assessing the options proposed against a regionalism criteria:<br /><br />Thresholds: - make the thresholds state based rather than national. There were a number of people standing for the Tasmanian Senate who have never even been to Tasmania as far as I can tell.<br /><br />Full option preferential would strengthen the dominant party paradigm, and thus weaken regionalism. <br /><br />Semi optional preferential, especially with some of the Hare Clarke style provisions regarding competition within each party could be beneficial in terms of regionalism. <br /><br />Compulsory A/B would just be a disaster from a count perspective. Compulsory Above may work well, but is anti-regionalism in nature.<br /><br />The Limited GTV would be interesting to see in practice. I suspect based upon current practice, that the minor bandings would preference other minors then exhaust without preferencing a major in many cases, leading to significant rates of exhaustion.<br /><br />I can't see the regionalism issue being resolved fully without dividing the existing states up further. Possibly the best outcome would involve partitioning off each of the state capital and surrounds into their own new city states, and then considering the remainder in terms of lasting geo-political divisions.<br /><br />intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-62790015143768761152013-10-19T22:28:01.001+11:002013-10-19T22:28:01.001+11:00Western Australia Count
(Subject to review follow...Western Australia Count<br /><br />(Subject to review following the WA Senate recount)<br /><br />1. if you had a weighted surplus then Palmer United and the Greens would have been elected.<br />2. if you removed segmentation and adopted a reiterative count then Palmer United and the ALP would have won the last two seats<br />3. If you adopted a reiterative count and weighted surplus with the major groups able to proportion out the group ticket and removed the Droop quota vote the LNP would elect 2, ALP 2, Palmer United 1 and Greens 1<br /><br />Its all in the order of exclusion. At present the system favours minor parties. Segmentation and non weighted surpluses must go.<br /><br />The last thing would should adopt is the Tasmanian/ACT Hare Clark "last bundle" segmented system. It is inherently undemocratic. <br /><br />A reiterative count best reflects the voters intention and mans that a primary vote will always be allocated to the first candidate in the count at full value. A reiterative count also allows for adjustments in the calculation of the quota with the adoption of Optional preferential voting. <br /><br />Above the line voting is akin to using a HTV card.<br /><br />Given that most people vote for groups/parties then preferential voting above the line makes sense but should include all parties or a savings provision<br />democracyATworkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07041145331051669236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-31115049809552520792013-10-19T21:59:55.003+11:002013-10-19T21:59:55.003+11:00Yes to a weighted Transfer system'
But missing...Yes to a weighted Transfer system'<br />But missing from the above list is the need to remove the segmented distribution of preferences from excluded candidates. <br /><br />The system we have was designed to facilitate a manual counting process. <br /><br />With the aid of computers and a weighted surplus we should adopt a reiterative counting system where the vote is reset and restarted on every exclusion. <br /><br />"Distributing the vote as if the excluded candidate had not stood"<br /><br />remainders should stay with the value of each vote. a single transaction per candidate. Surpluses only distributed on any iteration. The count progressing until all vacancies are elected in a single iteration.<br /><br />Try counting the QLD 2007 Senate Ballot by excluding all candidates except the last seven standing. (3 ALP, 2 LNP and 1 Grn)<br /><br /><br />Parties should also be able to allocate the percentage of vote allocated to each registered Group distribution ticket and allowed to change the order of preferences within the group. <br /><br />if optional preferential voting is adopted then the Electoral Commission MUST include a statement that says<br /><br />"In order to maximise your vote you should preference EVERY candidate in order of your Preference"<br /><br />In 2010 Western Victoria the VEC promoted Optional Preferential and a group of voters preferences Family First and DLP and stopped after 5 candidates. This had the unintended consequence of electing the Greens to the last position in the count. Had they completed their preferences allocation the Greens would not have been elected.<br /><br /><br />democracyATworkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07041145331051669236noreply@blogger.com