Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

To Make an Informed Decision in the Senate

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by PatB, Aug 6, 2010.

  1. I recently found this site, giving the Senate tickets for all the candidates contesting the Federal election.

    It's worth having a squiz at the ones for your State if you're intending to vote above the line, just to see where your vote might end up.

    It's also handy, if you want to vote for independents but don't know much about the individuals involved. You can get a pretty good idea of their general stance by checking out who they're preferencing, although it can be a bit like the "who owns the fish" puzzle.

    Anyhow, just thought I'd put it out there to help make an informed choice for your Senate vote.

    Me, I'll be voting Australian Sex Party as their ticket more or less reflects my basically secular, left libertarian outlook. Close enough that I can't be arsed working out anything different anyway.
  2. Oh don't you love how the senate ballot is usually the width of 4 polling booths.....
  3. Thanks Pat!

    I just jiggled the sex party vote by putting liberal 3rd last, labour 2nd last and family first last and will be taking that into the polling booth. Wooot!
  4. ps click the pdf option and you actually get a senate ticket printout... eassssyyyy peeeaaasssyyy!
  5. Yeah I found the sex party pretty close to the way I wanted to vote too. Though I pulled the Democrats up above them in some vain hope.
  6. PatB, thanks for posting this one up. Interesting reading...

    It seems to me that, based on preference, there are roughly three meaningful scenarios for a vote:

    A. The centre-right choice: Lib/Nats 1, Famliy First 2.

    B. The centre-left choice: Labour 1. Greens 2.

    C. The left proper choice: Greens 1, Labour 2.

    The un-named fourth option ("D") is a vote for a minor party, which, depending on the relative ranking of the major parties, will essentially boil down to one of the above three options. (Of course, I'm presuming here that the Democrats, Lib Dems, Aussie Sex Party, Family First will simply not get enough to make them viable contenders.)

    This raises the question: why vote for a fringe party? Genuine ideological loyalty? A single issue of individual concern? (The sex party's anti-censorship stand is a plausible reason to see them as attractive, but aside from being vaguely libertarian, what else do they stand for?)

    (Smee, you seem to know a bit more about them than most. I'd be interested to hear your reasons. My question is why vote for the Sex Party on libertatian grounds when you can vote for, say, Joseph Toscano who is a genuine and fully committed anarchist?)

    I am likely going to make the vote along the lines of option D out of ideological loyalty, knowing full well it is very likely going to result in option C (https://www.belowtheline.org.au/vic/group_k.html). so my question is, presuming the above logic is correct (please let me know if you think it mistaken), if you are making an option D vote, what are your reasons, and will it boil down to A, B or C?
  7. These parties are all a borderline chance. Family first already have a senator and of course the Democrats have been there in force before. the Sex party has a chance on name alone as well as protest vote.

    The beauty of voting below the line in the senate is that you can put your ideology ahead of the likely reality. If enough people do that we might get some fresh blood in the senate and get some genuine process back into our Federal Parliament.

    unfortunately the shear inconvenience of doing that means that most people wont do it.
  8. How about because of 'multiple issues of concern with both of the major party options'?

    Lib/Nat policies I don't like - anti NBN, anti euthansia, too close to christian lobby groups and family first.

    Labor/Green policies I don't like - pro censorship filter, anti fishing/shooting/4wd/trail bike national park access.

    I guess I don't fall into a convenient box... I'm happily socially progressive (give gays the right to get married etc) but I don't want the pseudo green agenda that goes with the greens (increase parks both marine and land and block access to recreational users).

    I'll be voting below the line in the senate (oh and I'll be putting conroy at 60!)

    See this guide to filter Conroy....http://filter-conroy.org/ballots.html
  9. Have a look at the Australian Secular Party... If you're disaffected Labor they also look pretty good.
  10. I did. It was a close thing, but the ASP won out because of (a) a few minor differences in the ordering of minor parties on their ticket, (b) the fact that they have a collective sense of humour and (c) atheist though I am, I can see the SPA as being full of the sort of po faced and earnest types who piss me off almost as much as the evangelically religious. Besides, they'll see my vote on its way through to the Greens/ALP.
  11. Having seen their preferences they seem to be in line with my voting intentions
    Secondly they balance out the family first tosser that is in already
    Thirdly both major parties need a good kick in the balls as they don't seem to have any and are not listening.
    I'm not in favour of anarchists or loony leftists/rightists either, whereas the ASP seem to be a good balance in line with my way of thinking.
    Also I'm all in favour of sex over violence and other.
  12. the greens it is
  13. Everyone who votes BELOW the line has to have their vote manually factored and they will stand out. If EVERY other crowd and lunatic are placed above the majors, they will know that the vote came from a disaffected voter. It'll stand out.

    I'm taking the same philosophy into the lower house, however my options are VERY limited... but since I'm in a very very very safe labor seat, Libs will be above Labs so that should send a message.
  14. All sound reasons, although I disagree that the major parties arn't listening, smee. They're certainly listening. Unfortunately they're just listening to a vacillating mass who are largely apolitical, uninformed and self-involved. The fact we're even having this discussion means that, from the perspective of the major party machines, we're simply not where the swinging surplus of votes are to be had. (This doesn't mean I disagree with your sentiments.)

    I completely agree with this, ibast. I've never understood why, with a preference system, some people think voting for a minor party is a waste of a vote. Nothing could be less true, so long as your preferences are thoughtfully allocated. Yet people still vote as if it were. Perhaps the pre-selected party preferences baffles them.

    All these reasons are sound. My thanks for putting them forward.

    It's good logic. But as you said, you have to be in a safe seat for either one or other major party to consider this type of protest vote. I guess my only question to this would be, does anyone from the major parties actually go back and seriously analyse these votes, and if so, does it impact on policy formation? I suspect not, but it don't really know.

    I still think there are three steps to putting together a coherent vote, (i) putting your (perhaps unrealistic hopes) at the top of your preferences, (ii) ensuring the ranking of major parties fits with your (realistic) aspirations, (iii) putting those you hate last. So long as you can ensure this, the relative ranking of many of the minor parties & independents is unlikely to matter. If a party's preference selections suit you well enough on these counts, you can vote above the line with relative safety. (It also helps you vote below the line, without missing the wood for the trees.)

    That's fair enough, if its your perspective. I reject the loony epithet, though... 8-[

    Love not war? If I didn't know better, I'd accuse you of being a closet hippy:p
  15. Why vote then if it doesn't count?

    What's important to me is that I cast my vote to represent my view. My vote counts to me. If my senate vote ends up being handled 30+ times before my preferences land on a party that has enough of the proportional vote, my message will be well received... by someone. The boffins in the backroom will analyse voting patterns and if mine is an oddball, it will either be discarded or analysed out of interest.

    Why is the bolded so important?
  16. Of course it counts. In formal, abstract terms, it counts as much as any other vote, but I was listening to what you were saying when you said:

    In this instance, your vote is likely to carry very little efficacy in terms of actually changing the situation in your electorate, hence the logic of the protest vote.

    I've no arguement with this.

    I'm failing to follow you here. Surely a protest vote only counts as such if it is interpreted in this way by the party you're protesting against with your vote. (Mind you, you've never characterised it as a "protest vote", this is my assumption.)

    I'm not sure, given the numbers involved, that they will break the stats down in this way. I think they interpret a protest vote via an inference made by looking at (a) the loss in primary vote, and (b) the "two-party preferred" swing against. But if anyone can confirm otherwise, I'm willing to stand corrected.

    Its a matter of probabilities. Its unlikely to matter, as those minor parties are unlikely to have your preferences counted toward them, since they are likely (depending on who you actually voted for) to have been eliminated by the time your first preference is eliminated from the running (the number of rounds being one less than the number of individuals running). I appreciate the variables at play make it more complex than this, but I hope this is enough to indicate the reasoning behind what I said.

    All I was trying to say is that its not necessary to agonise over the order of every single preference, even if you are voting below the line. Most of the minor parties/independents (and there are a lot of them) are sufficiently unpopular as to make them not worth worrying about, especially if one has never heard of them before. By all means, give 'em your preferences if you like them and rate them above both majors, but if you don't, the order you put them is likely to be trivial in 99.9% of cases.

    My intention in offering this advice is to make voting below the line a prospect less daunting than some believe it to be. But please tell me if I've managed to confuse the issue.
  17. Why is change the only measure of efficacy?

    :? In a safe labour seat does every primary Liberal vote count as a protest vote? Probably not. Every vote that has the majors scrabbling around the bottom of the list sends a clear message - but in the majority of cases, it's the major that's ahead of the other that ultimately gets the vote via the preference counting. I'd rather cast the vote and have it's intent be ignored by the parties rather than cast an informal vote as a protest. Ideally I'd like to vote using the Langer system, but the fun police killed that option off.

    Probably right, but so what? Why would that influence the casting of my valid vote?

    True, but if there's enough cannon fodder between my primary vote and the majors, then my vote is unlikely to end up going towards a major.

    Fair enough, but it matters to me - even if I distribute the vote solely by my interpretation of their name. I'm not going to spend time with the form guide... it doesn't matter to me that much.

    I suspect I can hear crickets out there in NR land. :)
  18. Voting Liberal in a Labor seat or vice versa isn't seen as a protest vote - all it shows is that there is another Liberal/Labor vote.

    If you want to protest vote for a minor party with policies and ideology closer to the party you want to protest about. If you're on the left, vote for the Greens or Socialist Alliance first then preference Labor.

    If you're on the right vote for CEC or the loony religious parties then preference the Libs.

    What that means is they realise that there are people out there they need to win back.
  19. TonyE, you're spot on. I stand corrected.

    I was about to say that should be obvious, the more I think about it, the more it looks like you've got a point here.

    I disagree, this is purely dependent on the breakdown once they start counting the votes. Most likely your preference will end up with one or the other.

    Regarding this point I think we have an agreement of sorts.

    Bugger, where did everyone go? What do you mean they were never here? How do I get down from this soapbox? :)