PREFERENTIAL VOTING - The Big Picture
Can we UNCONFUSE voters on PREFERENTIAL VOTING???
Preferential voting is a rare gift granted in few democracies. In Australia
about 40% vote ALP, 30% Liberal and 10% National. With first-past-the-post,
on average, the ALP would be elected in every seat in parliament forever
even though 60% don’t want them.
With preferential voting, when it gets to counting your preferences, it is
because your candidate has been beaten. You are left with the same choice as
a fighter pilot trapped in a burning plane. He can die alone or crash on the
enemy and take a few with him.
Any voter who uses optional preferential and votes [1] only, or
[1]-[2]-[2]-[2], places his ballot in the “exhausted vote” box where it no
longer counts. This leaves the ALP/LIB/NAT crowd happily counting only their
votes.
I urge every voter to fill out every square and put the major parties last,
second last, and third last in order of dishonour. Deny them the money they
pay each other for each primary vote counted.
It is hard to pick the least rotten. The major parties sold Australia, taxed
us to poverty, regulated us to a standstill, closed many hospitals, allowed
the banks to clean us out, forced business to close or flee, bankrupted
farmers, timber mills etc. and created a nation of jobless and hopeless.
Enough is enough. Kick them all out.
Tony Pitt
-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jess Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Wolter Joosse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sunday
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'Queensland Radio'
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Ourradio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mark
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Bruce Kirkpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Derek Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Neil Baird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Ian McLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; City Country
Alliance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; John Hugo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Selwyn Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Brian McDermott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; McGuinness, Paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Dorothy Pratt MLA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Neither Newsgroup
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Ron Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; John
Pasquarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Paterson, Ian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Tony Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tom Round <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Paul Sheehan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Graham Strachan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'Queensland Times' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Darryl
Wheeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Letters The Australian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Noel Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Peter
Brun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Jim Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, March 02, 2001 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence of disenfranchisement, and real chances to do far more
than help Mr O'Shea
>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
