Goodbye naughty chair, it’s time to bring out the Latham

S.L says:

08:47am | 25/08/10

Yes lucky Mr Latham isn’t in parliament anymore. It’s also great to see yet another loud mouth bully get voted out…..Wilson Tuckey! On ALP preferences no less would really have his blood boiling!

Victor Brolik says:

02:47pm | 25/08/10

excellent point - i should have thought of that. if there’s another election that’s what i’ll be doing this time

TimB says:

10:04am | 25/08/10

Where’s the confusion? The instructions are clearly marked on the ballot paper. If people can’t read, that’s their own fault.

Actually I’d like to see Optional Preferential Voting used in the Federal arena, the Coalition would have romped home then I think.

I’m going to assume most of that vote was either A) a serious vote for the Greens or B) a protest against the two major parites.
In either scenario people would be unlikely to want their vote to eventually count for one of the two major parties and would simply vote 1 Greens, declining to allocate preferences.
Couple that with the fact that most of the Green preferences went to Labor, and all of a sudden a preference-deprived Labor gets stomped in a swathe of seats.

Apart from my obvious desire to see the Coalition get up, I think the system is much fairer.
If you want to dictate a secondary, tertiary, etc choices you can. If you don’t feel like giving your vote to someone else just because your choice didn’t get up, you dont have to.

Reg says:

10:32am | 25/08/10

I must disagree TimB. I believe it is vital to ascertain—as best possible, the thinking of the electorate, by the application of exhaustive preferential voting. To make it optional is to diminish the electoral power of those who choose not to use it. Without preferential voting a minority can take office and by that I mean a minority in the minds of the electors.

The principal of one vote one value was adopted as a reaction to the US Electoral College which effectively allocates different values on the basis that some individual’s votes are more valuable than that of others. To remove exhaustive preferential voting is to default to the inequality of the defective US system.

TimB says:

11:10am | 25/08/10

That’s their choice though Reg. The system gives the individual the power to acertain how much their own vote is worth and who they think is worthy of it. There’s nothing to stop them fully allocating preferences if they so wish.
No-one is discriminated against, and their vote isn’t rendered worthless unless done so by their own choice of actions. It’s no different from the right to vote informally.

Reg says:

12:45pm | 26/08/10

TimB, I don’t know if you’ll ever get to read this but I must clarify, as best I can, the intention of the AEC.

In a democracy there are certain things that have been agreed should be made compulsory. By far the most important is to ascertain the wishes of the people. There are only two types of votes, formal and informal. To incorporate optional preferential votes is to add a third agreed level, where the amount of information being collected is less from some, than from others.

It’s not up to the individual to decide what his vote is worth, that is a value derived by the rest of the people of Australia via the constitution and imposed on the voter as a duty he should take seriously. 

So I must disagree again. With optional preferential voting, someone IS being discriminated against. The people of Australia are being discriminated against if someone chooses not to provide the information that is essential to the adequate derivation of the wishes of the people. Just who the voter thinks is worthy of his vote, is the very reason for the election and has nothing to do with preferential voting which is only a deeper analysis of the reply.

An informal vote is a totally different issue.

Ads says:

12:08pm | 26/08/10

And its the antithesis of a free democracy to have compulsory voting.

As long as you force people into the polling booth you are gonna get garbage from those who aren’t interested

Matt Smith says:

04:46pm | 25/08/10

Hello, Randal

This is the first time I’ve ever replied to a comment, but in this case I feel the need to.
1. It was a joke more than anything. The point was to realise that actions (or inactions, in this case) should have consequences.
2. Secondly, I’ll see your ‘do some research’ and raise you a ‘do some research’.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/08/25/analysing-the-informal-vote/

Matt(2) says:

09:25am | 26/08/10

Dear Randal,

ZING!

Matt (2)

Randal says:

12:28pm | 26/08/10

Matt, I feel honored that you have elected to respond, and my point was in line with the research you have sited, there is no doubt that the informal vote at this election does reflect some voter dissatisfaction with both sides, but this is not a unique situation nor a tipping point in our political history and to link it back to Latham was in my view paying too much credit where none was due and you have clarified this as a joke which I accept.

Reg says:

06:26pm | 26/08/10

One important point Michael. It is not the right to vote, it is the duty to vote.

The people of Australia have contrived to seek your opinion on the candidates presented. You are actually morally obliged to pick the best of a bad lot, or of a good or mediocre lot, not none of them. (Didn’t think I’d ever write THAT.) 

To deliberately vote informal is to abuse the courtesy of the community, which is most cases calls for a community punishment of suitable form. Therefore to encourage voters to vote informal calls down upon the head of the inciter the cumulative punishment of the voters who were influenced. 

If you think your are better than all the candidates who are standing for election, then you have the right and a duty to present yourself for election. That’s what Wyatt did. Next election I look forward to having to select from one thousand candidates and hope that you will be one of them.