Re: POLICY: Compulsory Preferential Voting
I agree, but the nature of the Australian electorates will hardly change, even in the next millennium, if they continue to read corporate media 'news'papers and watch their propaganda on the Tunnel Vision. -Original Message- From: alister air [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, 25 October 1998 1:43 PM Subject: POLICY: Compulsory Preferential Voting At 18:52 23/10/98 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fellow Neitherists, I would like to propose: That until the nature of Australian electorates changes, Neither adopt national policy in favor optional preferential voting for both single member and multi-member electorates. and that support for such a policy be a requirement for membership. I'd propose this because (unless I've completely missed the point) this seems to me to be where we're coming from, whether anarcho-Stalinist or otherwise. Forcing voters to preference people they may wish to actively vote against seems to be somewhat undemocratic, and definitely is another tool which props up the two-party state. (So are single-member electorates, I'm coming to that in a separate post) To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject. For help with this mailing list, look at http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
RE: POLICY: Compulsory Preferential Voting
Neither doesn't have a policy on what voting system it prefers. My understanding is that neither at the minute opposes the two party system and this is the only requirement for membership. I want a system that opens up the political arena. When neither votes and adopts a system I can't see why it would be the end of the debate. The primary concern is to get rid of the two party system and there may be more than one system that will do this. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 1998 22:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: POLICY: Compulsory Preferential Voting Dumping CPV might seem the easiest road to take especially in NSW and QLD where state electoral provisions providing for optional preferential voting are coming under threat but it is at the heart of a crucial misunderstanding about the Neither! campaign. The media and politicians have always characterised Albert as being a well known advocate of optional preferential voting, or as Nick Minchin recently put it, an advocate of a defacto first past the post system, or as exposing a loophole in the electoral act. All of these characterisations mask the real position which was put to the high court, namely, that if compulsory preferential, (often referred to by the media and politicians as Full Preferential voting) requires one to make a mark in every box ie place a number in every square, that is one thing, but when it is interpreted to require that people cast a positive vote in favour of candidates they reject, then that is an entirely different matter and obviously Ultra Vires. This is why AL said that your point re OPV missed the boat. What is more, he tried to get the High court to interpret s240 but they would not. When the High Court refused to rule on s240, it eventually came to the attention of the Supreme court of Victoria and they were "forced to interpret" s240 ie the decision of justice Beach in 1996, where he ruled that the legislation did require the use of consecutive unrepeated numbers and it it this decision which is now enshrined as the offending amendments to the Electoral Act. (ie the repeal of s270 and the "tightening up" of 240) Regards Anita The original high court case was about -Original Message- From: alister air [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 25, 1998 4:42 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: POLICY: Compulsory Preferential Voting At 18:52 23/10/98 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fellow Neitherists, I would like to propose: That until the nature of Australian electorates changes, Neither adopt national policy in favour optional preferential voting for both single member and multi-member electorates. and that support for such a policy be a requirement for membership. I'd propose this because (unless I've completely missed the point) this seems to me to be where we're coming from, whether anarcho-Stalinist or otherwise. Forcing voters to preference people they may wish to actively vote against seems to be somewhat undemocratic, and definitely is another tool which props up the two-party state. (So are single-member electorates, I'm coming to that in a separate post) To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject. For help with this mailing list, look at http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
RE: POLICY: Compulsory Preferential Voting
[AA]
At 23:19 26/10/98 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me a different question entirely. How about this?
"Neither rejects as criminal any attempt to coerce voters to vote in
support
of candidates who they choose to vote against, regardless of whether
such
criminal coercion is disguised as requirements to not use repeated
preference
numbers or by other means."
Fair enough - it's certainly much broader.
[AL]
I am taking that response and your remarks below as an indication that
you are not pressing your original proposal and would be happy with
the above instead. Seems to me the above is already implicit policy
so unless somebody actually opposes it or wants to formalize it in
those words or with amendments we would be better off moving on to other
topics.
[AL]
2. Experience has shown that far more "accidentally incomplete" votes
result from OPV
than the number of "accidentally informal" votes that result from CPV.
[AA]
I would have thought that it wouldn't be possible for an OPV vote to be
accidentally incomplete?
[AL]
By "accidentally incomplete" I did not mean incorrectly marking a ballot
paper by accident but marking a ballot paper with less complete
preferences than
the voter actually has as a result of not understanding the importance
of later
preferences. I was referring to the situation explained below with the
possibly
confusing term "accidentally incomplete".
[AL]
In fact CPV was
originally introduced because of outrage over a state election held
under OPV in a strongly
anti-ALP seat where the ALP candidate won because too many voters for
the several anti-ALP
candidates failed to record their actual preferences fully and were
surprised to discover
that this resulted in none of the anti-ALP candidates being elected in
a
seat which they
were certain was safely anti-ALP.
I see - fair enough.
In any case, unless you're prepared to kick out the OPV supporters, does
it
matter whether we've got OPV vs CPV differences? (This question isn't
rhetorical, by the way).
[AL]
As far as I can make out we seem to be in agreement after brief
discussion.
I don't quite understand the rhetorical question. I did not propose a
policy
resolution for Neither to adopt a policy of support for CPV, let alone
to make
it a criterion for membership.
On the contrary I agree with Tom Brennan, Anita Hood, and now yourself
that there
is no need to have a policy either way, let alone make it a criteria for
membership.
What I said (re opposing O'Farrel's alleged plans in NSW), was:
***
Neither has no policy for either compulsory ("full") or optional
preferential voting.
(I prefer compulsory myself).
Any campaign should make it quite clear that whether voters are required
to
put a number in every box or not it is a crime to attempt to coerce
voters
to vote in favor of candidates they want to vote against. If that is
what
is behind the O'Farrel then he is a criminal. Opposition to that crime
should be described as support for free elections and opposition to
coercion of voters, not as support for optional preferential and
opposition
to "full preferential".
It has been extremely difficult to get that across to the media and
Courts continue
to write judgments about it based on media reports rather than anything
before
them (as recently as 30 September).
It is important that we take a consistent line on this nationally.
***
I believe the (implicit) current policy you expressed agreement with
above
does cover this and a common understanding about it ensures that any
campaign against moves to
introduce Criminal Coercion in NSW under the guise of a switch from OPV
will avoid the
error of assuming that Neither has a policy for OPV and against CPV as
the media and
courts keep insisting.
Previously, you proposed in this subject thread:
***
That until the nature of Australian electorates changes, Neither adopt
national policy in favor optional preferential voting for both single
member and multi-member electorates.
and that support for such a policy be a requirement for membership.
***
So I opposed your proposal precisely because I do not think it matters
whether
"we've got OPV vs CPV differences" and object to kicking out CPV
supporters.
Does that answer your rhetorical question ;-)
Or have I completely missed the point (as is pretty common in email
lists) ;-)
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
For help with this mailing list, look at
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
Re: POLICY: Compulsory Preferential Voting
"Neither rejects as criminal any attempt to coerce voters to vote in support of candidates who they choose to vote against, regardless of whether such criminal coercion is disguised as requirements to not use repeated preference numbers or by other means." The above has my vote. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, 26 October 1998 8:26 PM Subject: RE: POLICY: Compulsory Preferential Voting [AL] "Optional Preferential Voting" refers to the method used in some States where voters are not required to mark a preference number with respect to those candidates they do not choose to vote in favor of. [AA] Which is essentially what you're calling CPV without the need to mark 3, 3, 3, 3 etc in every box, isn't it? [AL] Yes [AL] There was no requirement to vote in favor of candidates that voters actively wish to vote against under the "Compulsory Preferential Voting" (CPV) system used in recent Commonwealth House of Representatives elections prior to 1998. [AA] Yes. In that case, then perhaps my policy thingy needs to have some reference to the 1998 changes then? Surely that's not "completely missing the point", but rather a minor (but notable) omission in what I was proposing? Alternatively, a re-wording to favour optional-preferential over forcibly assigning preferences to htose you wish to vote against? [AL] Seems to me a different question entirely. How about this? "Neither rejects as criminal any attempt to coerce voters to vote in support of candidates who they choose to vote against, regardless of whether such criminal coercion is disguised as requirements to not use repeated preference numbers or by other means." [AA] I'd wish to support OPV over CPV as it appears to have the same end but be easier and simpler to cast an OPV vote, meaning that (slightly?) less votes end up informal. I would not wish people who support CPV excluded from Neither. [AL] Ok, that's an argument for OPV over CPV, quite different from your previous argument about coercion, and also withdrawing the last sentence of your proposal: "and that support for such a policy be a requirement for membership." Assuming that you are now withdrawing that bit, here's a response to your argument above (omitting additional arguments for now): 1. Although OPV is slightly easier and simpler it is not difficult to write a number in every box and in particular it is not difficult to simply write the same (next highest) number in all the boxes that would have been left blank under OPV. Not many accidentally informal votes result from that requirement. (Most informal votes are deliberate and most accidental informal votes result from using ticks or crosses). 2. Experience has shown that far more "accidentally incomplete" votes result from OPV than the number of "accidentally informal" votes that result from CPV. In fact CPV was originally introduced because of outrage over a state election held under OPV in a strongly anti-ALP seat where the ALP candidate won because too many voters for the several anti-ALP candidates failed to record their actual preferences fully and were surprised to discover that this resulted in none of the anti-ALP candidates being elected in a seat which they were certain was safely anti-ALP. 3. Above is an important real reason why the ALP has strongly supported OPV rather than CPV in the past and why the AEC has been trying to make CPV as absurd as possible by pretending that the only way to prevent their Criminal Coercion is to shift from CPV to OPV. (Although the ALP has had second thoughts about that when they depend on Green and Democrat preferences, they are still at less risk from OPV than the Liberal-National coalition). This has nothing to do with freedom of choice but simply avoiding parties taking advantage of mistakes made by their opponents. 4. When a mass based "left" party challenges the ALP the ALP will of course withold their preferences by issuing How to Vote cards that either put just "1 ALP" (and the rest blank) with OPV or by putting the left opposition to them (equal) last or below the Coalition with CPV, as they are perfectly entitled to do. Those ALP supporters who do in fact prefer the left party to the Coalition will be more inclined to disregard the ALP How to Vote card under CPV as they notice what they are being asked to do according to the ALP instructions, than they would under OPV. Many ALP voters who in fact prefer the left party to the Coalition would still just vote "1 ALP" (and the rest blank) as usual under OPV without realizing that they are helping the ALP to hand the seat to the Coalition rather than see the left party gain representation and thus be in a better position to challenge the ALP further. 5. Under OPV blank squares are no
