Hi Deane,
I wasn't. Last thing I was aware of was that removing the illegality of advocating a
1-2-3-3-3 vote was being considered but that it was quickly shelved as soon as One
Nation put the wind up the laberials.
Might have expected it though. After all labor and liberal MP's have been writing
feature articles on how the electoral system should be changed to place a higher hurdle
on minor parties in the Senate.
It's a cosy system they've engineered.
Cheers
Ric
"Crabb, Deane (PIRSA)" wrote:
> Ric
>
> Are you aware that if you vote 1-2-3-3-3, it is now an informal vote? Done
> by the Laborals with the support of the Democrats (from memory in the Senate
> only the Greens voted against this change) before the last election to
> counteract the successful Neither campaign at the previous election.
>
> In an ideal world, we should have optional preferential voting so that you
> would not even need to put a number next to the Laborals.
>
> Deane Crabb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtechow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 1999 23:42
> To: Brian Jenkins
> Cc: Neither
> Subject: Re: Direct democracy proposal
>
> Thanks Brian,
>
> I'm glad my interests fit and I take your point about general
> disillusionment since labor and liberal (I like to call them laberals)
> parties are so entrenched.
>
> But the next federal election is not so far away. I'd like to air my views
> and hopefully persuade folks there is some merit in them.
>
> As I see it the Neither campaign has the following structural problems.
>
> 1. It is pitched to individuals.
> 2. It is focussed on an issue that is not related to dinner on the table or
> other things that get people upset and therefore is only ever going to be
> important to a few.
> 3. A 1-2-3-3-3 vote destroys most of the potential value of a vote (more
> later)
> 4. Ignores that whilst labor and liberal parties might be nearly
> omnipotent, their individual candidates are very vulnerable in the House of
> Reps and that is the way to hurt them.
>
> Last point first. Only 57 labor and liberal party Members of Parliament can
> withstand a 10% swing against them as individuals. The remaining 84 labor
> and liberal Members of Parliament would take a holiday on the dole queue if
> they each had a 10% swing against them.
>
> And it only takes 5% of electors to produce a 10% swing because a changing
> vote counts twice. It is one vote less for the incumbent and one vote more
> for the opponent. That is where a 1-2-3-3-3 vote loses power. It is only
> one vote less. It only counts once. (Note there is a simplistic assumption
> that the 5% are all changing their voting direction. In reality it is
> probably good.)
>
> Technically it is possible for 5% of the Australian Electors to kick out of
> office 84 labor and liberal MHRs (based on the last election results). That
> is a high degree of vulnerability. It is a lot of leverage for 5% of the
> votes. It is a lot of power for 5% - forget the Senate. Sure they would
> be replaced with a new batch of 84 labor and liberal MPs and the
> liberal/labor parties would still be supreme but the laberals would be badly
> hurt and destabilished.
>
> This could be achieved by getting the electors to direct their vote AGAINST
> their sitting labor/liberal member. If 5% do so then there will be 84
> labor/liberal ex-MPs gnashing their teeth. Even 2% of the vote directed
> against the sitting member would unseat 34 of the laberal bastards. In
> contrast, to have the same effect, you would need to have 10-20% of the
> vote going 1-2-3-3-3 to minor parties.
>
> What are the chances of this happening? Bugger all. Because 5% of the
> vote is a lot of people to convince without a lot of money. And the issue
> is not dinner related. Electoral systems will never be a populist issue.
>
> But the point is that there is no need to directly convince 5% of the people
> to vote a particular way. At the last election the 22% of the national
> primary vote went to minor parties. If minor parties could be persuaded to
> direct their preferences in an appropriate way then potentially up to 22% of
> the vote could go to unseating incumbent labor and liberal MPs.
>
> As a for instance take One Nation. You may not like One Nation's ideas but
> the liberal and labor parties declared war on One Nation so it possibly does
> not feel kindly disposed to either of them. Perhaps One Nation could be
> persuaded to direct the preferences of its votes against the sitting
> labor/liberal member in order to deliberately unseat them and damage it's
> enemies.
>
> What would happen? Well One Nation retains about 4-5% of the vote so there
> would be a serious threat. Newspapers would rail about it and generate a
> lot of publicity on electoral systems. Labor and Liberal parties would be
> scared. A lot of ordinary Australians would enjoy that and perhaps be
> motivated to kick the laberals in the balls just for the fun of having a bit
> of revenge.
>
> Now if other minor parties could be persuaded to join in the labor and
> liberal parties would be up shit creek. Each minor parties vote would
> reinforce each others against the labor and liberal parties. The threat of
> it would improve their negotiating position.
>
> I think we would find the electoral system changed very quickly. Probably
> to multi-member electorates which would be less vulnerable to the strategy.
>
> The key to electoral change is make the current arrangement hurt the liberal
> and labor parties. Once electoral change is on their agenda it becomes
> possible.
>
> The key to that is to lobby and to find reasons to persuade minor parties
> not to be part of the vote catchment area for labor and liberal by doing
> preference deals. There wouldn't seem to be a great deal of value in that
> for minor parties anyway. It just seems to be a convention that it is done.
>
> OK so this might not be easy. But I'd say it is a lot more likely then for
> a small group to persuade enough individual Australian Electors to make a
> difference without fistfulls of money.
>
> I would like peoples thoughts on how this strategy might be achieved. A
> point is that the strategy applies to any single member electoral system so
> there is no need to limit the scope to Australia.
>
> Cheers everybody,
>
> Ric
>
>
>
>
>
> Brian Jenkins wrote:
>
> Welcome, Ric.
>
> Yes, your interests fit the original direction of the Neither list.
> However, any public list can only reflect the views and disciplines of
> those who contribute to it - and, as you imply, there's very little of
> interest in Neither at present.
>
> OK, so there's a general disillusion about politics and electoral
> matters. Esoteric spoutings of discontent are filling the vacuum. But,
> don't despair - Rome wasn't built in a day!
>
> Regards
> Brian Jenkins
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtechow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Brian Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Neither <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Monday, 22 November 1999 22:37
> Subject: Re: Direct democracy proposal
>
> |Hi everyone,
> |
> |I've just joined this email list. I've seen some of the emails from
> the start of
> |langer's Neither campaign and seen some the past two weeks.
> |
> |Would somebody be kind enough to re-state Neither's objectives and
> stratgegies for
> |acheiving those objectives?
> |
> |Truth is I haven't seen much direction in recent emails.
> |
> |My objectives are that I want to screw the guts out of the labor and
> liberal parties by
> |breaking the electoral system we've got whereby
> |
> |1. Electors have to vote
> |2. Electors have to vote liberal or labor as they must, at a minimum,
> give a second last
> |preference to either a liberal or labor candidate.
> |
> |Does that fit?
> |
> |Cheers
> |
> |Ric Techow
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
>
> To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
> To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
>
> For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
> For archives
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
