Here we go again.
>
> jess>> They cannot be distributed to other candidates because the elector
> chose not to preference any other candidate and their ballot is kept as
part of
> the total because what is being determined is who has the majority of the
ballot
> with or without preferences. If there is no majority clear winner then
you have
> to
> go to another election with candidates and policies that the majority
agree
> with.
> This way Politicians may actually start representing the electorate
rather than
> is
> the case, their party.
That may be what you want, but such a provision does not exist in law. And
once again, the law states that the majority is of "votes remaining in the
count". Votes can only reside with candidates, and if a candidate does not
remain in the count, how can they have votes?
>
> jess>> So your logic is that in a seat with say 5 candidates running it
is
> possible that
> the "winner" may have won on a little over 1/5 fifth of that electorates
total
> formal votes
> if they all chose not to exercise their preference vote.
> If that is Democracy and a fair election where 4/5 fifths of the
electorate did
> not vote for the winner
> what does that tell you?
That's not my logic, that's what the act says. If you think it is wrong,
you have to work to change it, but you won't get the wording of an act
re-interpreted for that reason.
Most of the electoral acts in this country existed before preferential
voting, using first past the post voting. Elections around the world are
regularly decided on that basis, and whether you think that is right or
wrong is a matter of opinion.
I always prefer optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential
because I don't see why in the end voters should have to choose between
candidate they see no difference between. But if a minority of voters
choose not to choose between two candidates, why should the choice of the
majority who did have an opinion be overturned?
>
> jess>> The votes are not the candidates votes. They are ballots on which
the
> elector has
> nominated their preference or preferences for a candidate in the running
to
> represent them
> in that electorate. If enough of the total electors in that electorate
agree the
> candidate wins
> otherwise put up another candidate that the majority will agree to.
>
> That is why preferences that are not exhausted are passed to the
remaining
> candidates according to the preference indicated on the ballot.
>
> An election win is based 50% plus 1 of 100% of formal ballots not 92.1%
of
> formal ballots as in the KAWANA seat where 8.8% of the ballot papers have
> been removed from the ballot/count.
>
> *** There is not one statement in the electoral act that says that the
> majority must be of formal votes, except on the first count. ****
>
> jess>>Correct, because the candidates are all in the running while they
are
> establishing what the total count is, based on total formal first
preferences.
> In KAWANA that total count was 23612. Because none had the required
> 11807 votes majority the second count is started to distribute
preferences
> to see who gains the required minimum of 11807. After preferences the
> closest was Labour with 11376 unfortunately that is 431 votes short of
> 50% plus 1 of the count 23612. This seat is a failed election bring on
the
> candidates that the majority of the electorate agree to.
>
IT IS NOT A FAILED ELECTION. The act says a majority of votes remaining in
the count, not of the formal vote.
Just as an example, say what you want applied, and 5% of the electorate did
not choose between the final two candidates and the election was voided.
Should an election be re-called because 5% said they didn't like the choice
of candidates, or should the 95% who did make a decision have their choice
validated ?
As far as I am concerned, there is nothing in the act that backs your point
of view. There has never been a provision in Australian electoral acts that
supports the concept of a failed election if no candidate achieves 50% of
the vote. The provision that exists in the Federal act is for the case
where missing ballot papers make it impossible for a candidate to achieve a
majority. Failed elections of that sought are an automatic provision to
allow an election to be reconducted if there was something wrong with the
conduct of the poll, without the need of a court appeal. For instance, the
death of a candidate in Frankston East at the 1999 Victorian election
resulted in a failed election and automatic re-election.
There is no point continuing to argue this point with me. As far as I can
see, the act describes how a majority is achieved with optional
preferential voting, and it is of a majority of the votes remaining in the
count, that is residing with candidates remaining in the count. If you want
it to be considered in any other way, then your recourse is the courts.
There is nothing in the act that says a candidate must have a majority of
the formal votes.
In both NSW and Queensland, when optional preferential voting was
introduced, the majority provision was amended to read majority of "votes
remaining in the count" in place of "majority of formal votes". It was a
deliberate act to do with the introduction of optional preferential voting,
and the intent was to allow a candidate to be elected with less than 50% of
the formal vote. If the intent of the act had been to allow elections to be
declared void and re-called, there would be a provision to say as much and
there isn't.
I wish you luck in the courts, but you are reading an interpretation into
the wording of the act which was not implied by the passage of legislation.
In determining the intent of the words, the courts will consider the
speeches in Parliament outlining the intent of the provisions. You will
find no mention in the debates that the intent was to allow failed
elections, but plenty of examples where it is acknowledged a candidate
needed only a majority of votes "remaining in the count".
Good luck.
Antony Green
----------------------------------------------------------------
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/public-list@neither.org
