Talking Politics

[Ridley]

You need to be careful voting independent tho. Some are happy to sell out on an issue, to get a deal for their own niche concern.

Very true. Julia Gillard would never have won an election without the support of independents. Oakeshott and Windsor pork barreled her back in. That’s the system though.

But given the state of both parties at Federal and State level I’m more inclined to vote independent now more than ever. Or informal.

 

[IanG]

You need to be careful voting independent tho. Some are happy to sell out on an issue, to get a deal for their own niche concern.

Lambie does this.

 

[IanG]

How can we make our ministers and senior public service fat cats more accountable?

Like the article says an ICAC would go a long way towards this.

 

[DavidSSS]

The only way to get political parties/politicians to listen, is to vote independent.
If Liberal and Labour were the minority parties in parliament, they'd soon get the picture. They would soon start listening to the electorate instead of the scum bag lobbyists, many of whom are ex politicians

There is an irony here.

The vote share of the major parties has dropped (therefore the vote share of minor parties and independents has risen) but ministers are less accountable than ever.

I share your view that we should vote more for minor parties and independents if we want the majors to be more receptive to pressure from civil society, but somehow we need to make it more effective. With preferential voting there is certainly less disincentive to vote for candidates with little chance of winning in our system, especially when compared to first past the post.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

There is an irony here.

The vote share of the major parties has dropped (therefore the vote share of minor parties and independents has risen) but ministers are less accountable than ever.

I share your view that we should vote more for minor parties and independents if we want the majors to be more receptive to pressure from civil society, but somehow we need to make it more effective. With preferential voting there is certainly less disincentive to vote for candidates with little chance of winning in our system, especially when compared to first past the post.

DS

Less disincentive?

 

[DavidSSS]

Less disincentive?

Yes, less disincentive.

The thing is that if you vote for a candidate who is unlikely to win in a first past the post voting system your vote is effectively wasted.

Easiest to understand with an example.

Let's say you voted Green in an election with the following result:
Green: 50 votes
ALP: 10,500 votes
Libs: 10,510 votes

In a first past the post voting system the Libs win.

In a preferential voting system, no candidate won 50% + 1 votes (that would be 10,531 votes). So, the Green candidate drops out and their second preferences are distributed. If, for example, their second preferences went 40 to ALP and 10 to Lib (they never go 100% one way) then the ALP wins.

Preferential is better because in the first past the post example above most of the electorate did not want the Lib to win nor did they prefer the Lib to the ALP. In preferential more than half the electors either wanted the ALP to win or preferred the ALP over the Libs.

There is a perceived disincentive to vote for an independent or minor party candidate who is unlikely to win. But this is lessened if you know you also have a preference to allocate if your first choice candidate is knocked out.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

Yes, less disincentive.

The thing is that if you vote for a candidate who is unlikely to win in a first past the post voting system your vote is effectively wasted.

Easiest to understand with an example.

Let's say you voted Green in an election with the following result:
Green: 50 votes
ALP: 10,500 votes
Libs: 10,510 votes

In a first past the post voting system the Libs win.

In a preferential voting system, no candidate won 50% + 1 votes (that would be 10,531 votes). So, the Green candidate drops out and their second preferences are distributed. If, for example, their second preferences went 40 to ALP and 10 to Lib (they never go 100% one way) then the ALP wins.

Preferential is better because in the first past the post example above most of the electorate did not want the Lib to win nor did they prefer the Lib to the ALP. In preferential more than half the electors either wanted the ALP to win or preferred the ALP over the Libs.

There is a perceived disincentive to vote for an independent or minor party candidate who is unlikely to win. But this is lessened if you know you also have a preference to allocate if your first choice candidate is knocked out.

DS

my point is you should say "more incentive" rather than "less disincentive"

 

[22nd Man]

Yes a perfect example is that dog grooming was allowed after the Animal Justice party voted with ALP state government the other week. While gardening wasn’t allowed.

Yes Flower Power hasn't been strong since the60s

 

[22nd Man]

Nice summary of a poor week in politics:

The case for an Australian federal anti-corruption watchdog is more compelling after a troubling week | Katharine Murphy

Politicians are getting bolder with every passing year and it is becoming harder to hold them to account

www.theguardian.com

The audit of the airport land purchase was about public servants. Even the Guardian couldn't find a poltician to pin it on. As the author says the golden age of journalism is long gone.

 

[Brodders17]

my point is you should say "more incentive" rather than "less disincentive"

disagree.

 

[AngryAnt]

disagree.

No worries, just an opinion.

Agree with David's main point, but double negatives are hard to get your head around sometimes.

 

[Brodders17]

The audit of the airport land purchase was about public servants. Even the Guardian couldn't find a poltician to pin it on. As the author says the golden age of journalism is long gone.

i think her point is that a gov department paid 10times the price for a parcel of land the was owned by Lib party donors, and there is no current body that can investigate whether the government was involved. at the moment we just have to accept the denials of the minister.

 

[Brodders17]

No worries, just an opinion.

Agree with David's main point, but double negatives are hard to get your head around sometimes.

i think the point is the current system does not provide incentive to vote minor, but it does remove the disincentive- the fear of a wasted vote.

 

[Sintiger]

Yes, less disincentive.

The thing is that if you vote for a candidate who is unlikely to win in a first past the post voting system your vote is effectively wasted.

Easiest to understand with an example.

Let's say you voted Green in an election with the following result:
Green: 50 votes
ALP: 10,500 votes
Libs: 10,510 votes

In a first past the post voting system the Libs win.

In a preferential voting system, no candidate won 50% + 1 votes (that would be 10,531 votes). So, the Green candidate drops out and their second preferences are distributed. If, for example, their second preferences went 40 to ALP and 10 to Lib (they never go 100% one way) then the ALP wins.

Preferential is better because in the first past the post example above most of the electorate did not want the Lib to win nor did they prefer the Lib to the ALP. In preferential more than half the electors either wanted the ALP to win or preferred the ALP over the Libs.

There is a perceived disincentive to vote for an independent or minor party candidate who is unlikely to win. But this is lessened if you know you also have a preference to allocate if your first choice candidate is knocked out.

DS

All of that is absolutely true.
However sometimes people vote independent not because they think their candidate will win but because it's a sort on internal protest. Just can't reward any party with your vote, it's a sort of personal protest and peace of mind.
Without going into details I voted independent last time around and I actually emailed that candidate to learn what his views were on multiple issues. In the end I wanted my vote to represent what I believe as close as possible and neither Labor or Liberal do that for me these days.
I knew he wouldn't win but it was about me in the end

 

[DavidSSS]

No worries, just an opinion.

Agree with David's main point, but double negatives are hard to get your head around sometimes.

I get what you are saying but I think it is more of a lessening of the disincentive than an increase in an incentive.

Anyway not a big issue.

Wait until we debate proportional rep in the upper house, and the way the major parties have tried to tie it up so they are less likely to lose out to micro parties.

DS

 

[DavidSSS]

All of that is absolutely true.
However sometimes people vote independent not because they think their candidate will win but because it's a sort on internal protest. Just can't reward any party with your vote, it's a sort of personal protest and peace of mind.
Without going into details I voted independent last time around and I actually emailed that candidate to learn what his views were on multiple issues. In the end I wanted my vote to represent what I believe as close as possible and neither Labor or Liberal do that for me these days.
I knew he wouldn't win but it was about me in the end

That may be the case, but would you do the same in a very marginal seat with first past the post voting? Under that system your vote and a few others may be the difference between one or the other major party winning the seat.

If an independent has no chance of winning you can safely vote for them even if you disagree with a lot of what they are saying in a preferential system just as a way to send a message to the majors.

Personally I think preferential is a better system but I would make it optional preferential.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

I get what you are saying but I think it is more of a lessening of the disincentive than an increase in an incentive.

Its the stylistic pedant in me, that's all. I get there is a subtle distinction between an increased incentive and a lessened disincentive...

 

[Sintiger]

That may be the case, but would you do the same in a very marginal seat with first past the post voting? Under that system your vote and a few others may be the difference between one or the other major party winning the seat.

If an independent has no chance of winning you can safely vote for them even if you disagree with a lot of what they are saying in a preferential system just as a way to send a message to the majors.

Personally I think preferential is a better system but I would make it optional preferential.

DS

I agree. I don’t like first last the post.
Don’t know what I would do but thankfully don’t have to decide

 

[Tigers of Old]

$30m payment for land worth $3m near Western Sydney airport a ‘bargain’, Michael McCormack says

The purchase of the land has been called ‘unethical’ but the deputy prime minister says it will ‘eventually be hailed as a good decision’

www.theguardian.com

 

[DavidSSS]

$30m payment for land worth $3m near Western Sydney airport a ‘bargain’, Michael McCormack says

The purchase of the land has been called ‘unethical’ but the deputy prime minister says it will ‘eventually be hailed as a good decision’

www.theguardian.com

A good decision for whom?

DS