It's election day in Australia and election fever has swept the nation. Unfortunately it's the kind of fever that leaves you heavy, lethargic and hanging for it to end - in reality it's more of a pandemic. I can't vote in this election as I wasn't enrolled in time but it's interesting to watch the proceedings as a semi-involved citizen.
One thing that's been evident is the lack of diversity between the major parties. Pretty much the only point of difference between the two major parties (Labor (sic) and the Liberals / Coaltion) has been their broadband policy - Labor favouring a country wide fibre optic network and the Liberals a combination of ADSL, satellite & wireless connectivity. It's funny to watch politicians trying to distinguish themselves by explaining something that they blatantly don't understand.
There's also lots of emphasis on 'stopping the boats' - the refugee boats that try to land on Australian shores. The impact of the boats seems to be pretty small in reality but looms large in the Australian psyche. Both parties are keen to show themselves as 'able to stop the boats', implying that government policy over here will somehow dissuade destitute, downtrodden and desperate people from trying to navigate small leaky overcrowded boats across large tracts of dangerous storm-whipped shark-ridden oceans in an attempt to get a better life for their families. 'Abbot's in - bugger that. I'm heading back to Indonesia to live in abject poverty for the rest of my life. If I end up in Australia I might be forced to do a triathalon'.
This lack of difference has lead to some very negative advertising. The only party that had any positive statements about their policies was the Greens, whilst the big two spent almost all of their election budget badmouthing the opposition. Ask not what we can do for you, but what names we can call the other guys. One TV advert had vintage black and white footage of two steam trains running into each other with the tagline 'their policies are a train wreck' - and that was it. Is it any wonder that Australians have little faith in their politicians?
The voting system is a little different here too. One big difference to the UK is that voting is mandatory, enforcable by small fines. Elections are also always held on a Saturday and there's a more community feel to the process with schools, churches & community groups running sausage sizzles or selling cakes to soften the blow of having to stand in line.
Australia also uses a 'preferential' voting system. This means that when voting for the House of Representatives (the equivalent of the House of Commons) you need to rank all candidates in your electoral region in order of preference. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the No 1 votes then they're in. If not then the candidate with the least number of No 1 votes is excluded and the second preferences for all ballot papers that had him as No 1 preference are added to the remaining candidates votes. If this leads to a candidate getting more than 50% of the votes then they're in, if not the next lowest candidate is excluded and the process continues. Each party has representatives outside the polling booths giving suggested voting preferences based on the political policies so it's interesting to see who the parties suggest as second & third choices.
Confused? It gets worse. Over here you also vote in Senators - the equivalent of the House of Lords. There can be 50 or 60 candidates for the 6 Senator positions that each State has and you need to rank these candidates in order of preference. You can do this in two ways, generally known as 'above the line' or 'below the line'. If you vote above the line you select a single political party - by doing this you are then agreeing to accept the ranking of the senators as laid out by that political party. If you have more time on your hands you can vote below the line, which means that you have to manually rank each candidate in order of preference from 1 to the no of candidates. I know a few people who've tried to do this and apparently you almost always end up getting to the end and finding your numbers don't match up, meaning you've missed somebody or put down the same ranking twice. This invalidates your ballot paper and means you have to start all over again.
Once the rankings have been established for the Senate there is a very complicated mathematical process to see who gets in. I won't attempt to summarise it as I don't fully understand it but it looks like a quota is set based on a calculation of no of possible votes & no of positions. If a candidate recieves more votes than that quota he is in. Once a candidate is elected a proportion of the second choice votes on his ballot papers are transferred - the number is pro-rata'd, based on the proportion of no 1 ranking votes that candidate received and calculated to 8 decimal places (without rounding).
My favourite part of the Australian Electoral Commission information sheet detailing all this is the bit that says 'It is some weeks before all Senators are declared elected'. No kidding!
One thing that's been evident is the lack of diversity between the major parties. Pretty much the only point of difference between the two major parties (Labor (sic) and the Liberals / Coaltion) has been their broadband policy - Labor favouring a country wide fibre optic network and the Liberals a combination of ADSL, satellite & wireless connectivity. It's funny to watch politicians trying to distinguish themselves by explaining something that they blatantly don't understand.
There's also lots of emphasis on 'stopping the boats' - the refugee boats that try to land on Australian shores. The impact of the boats seems to be pretty small in reality but looms large in the Australian psyche. Both parties are keen to show themselves as 'able to stop the boats', implying that government policy over here will somehow dissuade destitute, downtrodden and desperate people from trying to navigate small leaky overcrowded boats across large tracts of dangerous storm-whipped shark-ridden oceans in an attempt to get a better life for their families. 'Abbot's in - bugger that. I'm heading back to Indonesia to live in abject poverty for the rest of my life. If I end up in Australia I might be forced to do a triathalon'.
This lack of difference has lead to some very negative advertising. The only party that had any positive statements about their policies was the Greens, whilst the big two spent almost all of their election budget badmouthing the opposition. Ask not what we can do for you, but what names we can call the other guys. One TV advert had vintage black and white footage of two steam trains running into each other with the tagline 'their policies are a train wreck' - and that was it. Is it any wonder that Australians have little faith in their politicians?
The voting system is a little different here too. One big difference to the UK is that voting is mandatory, enforcable by small fines. Elections are also always held on a Saturday and there's a more community feel to the process with schools, churches & community groups running sausage sizzles or selling cakes to soften the blow of having to stand in line.
Australia also uses a 'preferential' voting system. This means that when voting for the House of Representatives (the equivalent of the House of Commons) you need to rank all candidates in your electoral region in order of preference. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the No 1 votes then they're in. If not then the candidate with the least number of No 1 votes is excluded and the second preferences for all ballot papers that had him as No 1 preference are added to the remaining candidates votes. If this leads to a candidate getting more than 50% of the votes then they're in, if not the next lowest candidate is excluded and the process continues. Each party has representatives outside the polling booths giving suggested voting preferences based on the political policies so it's interesting to see who the parties suggest as second & third choices.
Confused? It gets worse. Over here you also vote in Senators - the equivalent of the House of Lords. There can be 50 or 60 candidates for the 6 Senator positions that each State has and you need to rank these candidates in order of preference. You can do this in two ways, generally known as 'above the line' or 'below the line'. If you vote above the line you select a single political party - by doing this you are then agreeing to accept the ranking of the senators as laid out by that political party. If you have more time on your hands you can vote below the line, which means that you have to manually rank each candidate in order of preference from 1 to the no of candidates. I know a few people who've tried to do this and apparently you almost always end up getting to the end and finding your numbers don't match up, meaning you've missed somebody or put down the same ranking twice. This invalidates your ballot paper and means you have to start all over again.
Once the rankings have been established for the Senate there is a very complicated mathematical process to see who gets in. I won't attempt to summarise it as I don't fully understand it but it looks like a quota is set based on a calculation of no of possible votes & no of positions. If a candidate recieves more votes than that quota he is in. Once a candidate is elected a proportion of the second choice votes on his ballot papers are transferred - the number is pro-rata'd, based on the proportion of no 1 ranking votes that candidate received and calculated to 8 decimal places (without rounding).
My favourite part of the Australian Electoral Commission information sheet detailing all this is the bit that says 'It is some weeks before all Senators are declared elected'. No kidding!
No comments:
Post a Comment