What if you held an election and nobody came?

Al says:

02:06pm | 23/07/12

A by-election would not be called, they simply count the valid votes cast, the rest are excluded.
This is why I keep saying I want 1 additional option on all voting.
That being ‘I find none of these candidates suitable’.
If majority vote that way then a by-election should be held with none of the original candidates being allowed to stand (as they have already been voted not suitable).

Karen from Qld says:

02:26pm | 23/07/12

Al having worked for both the QEC and the AEC at both State and Federal elections I can assure you that a lot of people do voice their opinions in their own way. In fact some go to great lengths to get their point of view across even to the extent of drawing little pictures.
I have worked at elections where the informal vote out ranked some of the candidates.

Mahhrat says:

02:55pm | 23/07/12

@Al:  I love it.  Where do I sign up?

The very best part is you’d get arguments around “But then we’d always do that, because society sucks.”  If that’s the case, make society better.  You actually need to give people a reason to vote for you, not the other people.

Al says:

03:02pm | 23/07/12

Karen - just how many of those expressions made their way to the candidates?
None, right.
What impact did they have on the outcome?
None, right.
As such the candidates are not privy to the disatisfaction, they just know they did/didn’t get a majority of the valid votes cast (and only realy care about the invalid ones if they lose).

Karen from Qld says:

03:26pm | 23/07/12

Al The scrutineers from each party get to see the votes and the ones that I have come across are certainly interested. Most of these votes are actually counted as formal. They are only informal if they don’t show a clear voter intention towards a candidate or the voter has left information as to their identity as in vote 1 for and placing an actual name and that does happen.. If the boxes are marked correctly and there is no way to identify the voter then they are indeed formal comments, drawings and all.

Al says:

03:41pm | 23/07/12

Karen - sorry, I thought you were commenting along the lines of this thread which was to do with informal votes, not accepted/formal votes.

true democracy says:

03:55pm | 23/07/12

We would have another election with new faces and the same shit.

The best way is to have a direct democracy a la Switzerland in which only the people are sovereign.

Switzerland’s direct democracy means that all proposed amendments to the constitution are decided by referendum. Any other federal law can be put to a referendum if 50,000 citizens sign a petition - meaning that Switzerland’s federal system can be changed by its citizens.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY:
- Restores authority to the people, and makes them responsible, not the parties.
- Curbs the imbalance of power, makes politicians responsible to the people
- Gets the community involved
- Makes for better legislation
- Politicians are forced to act on petitions instead of throwing them out right away.
- Helps to gain control over Parliament and the direction of the country.
- Restores parliamentary government with representatives.
- Makes politicians be accountable.

and “shit happens” would be history once and for all.

Shane says:

06:00pm | 23/07/12

@true democracy,
That system? Here in Australia? Hahahahahaha…. that’s a good one.

marley says:

06:38pm | 23/07/12

@true democracy - well, I can’t say that Switzerland is better governed than the rest of us. Glacial movement on major issues, xenophobic reactions to asylum seekers, and whatever the banks want, they get.  Essentially, imagine yourself governed by your local town councillors. That’s what they have.

A la Switzerland says:

07:49pm | 23/07/12

@Marley. Not True. If, like in Switzerland, Australians had the right to vote on all issues rather than to elect a ‘face of the party’ once every three years, once elected this face would still be accountable to the people: they would vote for or against the ideas put to them. So carbon tax, super, compulsory third party, asylum seekers etc, all those issues would be voted on by the people and it would not matter if the ‘face of the party’ lied or not. Even better, the people can themselves submit a modification of their choice, granted they have sufficient support to start with. There are too many laws being changed or passed through without people even hearing about it here in Australia. A democracy ‘a la Siwtzerland’ would prevent that, even if, like my wife always comment, I have to vote for ‘every bloody things’ every three months. I prefer to have too many elections than none. I wish I could vote more often in Australia (double nationality), and vote about ideas, not about who we are going to hear negative things about for the next three years. It may not be perfect but politicians are much more accountable this way.

Karen from Qld says:

07:59pm | 23/07/12

Al even the informals get closely scrutinised

Anniebello says:

01:00pm | 24/07/12

I too have worked as a scruntineer and totally agree with Karen here.  What I can’t figure out is if a person puts a great big number one, tick or cross in the box of their choice and leaves the rest of the boxes empty it counts as an informal vote. Surely this is a clear indication of the voter’s intention - I want THIS person and NO ONE else. It’s all about the preferences - just look at how many Federal members owe their jobs to people who didn’t want them in first place.

subotic says:

02:18pm | 23/07/12

What if you held an erection and nobody came?

That would scare me more…

Bitten says:

03:05pm | 23/07/12

@subotic: I think pretty much the same situation as we have in federal Parliament right now - all show, no blow

Pwned says:

02:56pm | 23/07/12

Well you did and now I did so that’s at least 2 comments.

Jad Jones says:

02:39pm | 23/07/12

In the highly unlikely event that absolutely no-one lodged a valid vote in the the entire electorate then, I believe, the returning officer from the VEC would have the deciding vote.

Essentially that provision exists for when there’s a tie between candidates at the end of the count.

In reality it would probably end up in court instead of the vote of the returning officer being accepted and that being the end of it.

Gordon says:

02:34pm | 23/07/12

Given there is a full spectrum out there from loony left across to loony right, what you are saying is either autralians simply have no political beliefs to represent, or that Aussies are too lazy to engage and find out who might represent them.

M says:

03:18pm | 23/07/12

Too lazy to engage.

Tad says:

04:28pm | 23/07/12

@ Gordon

What’s the point of voting for them when they can’t win a seat and your preferences will result in your vote helping one of the major parties win or hold a seat, even though that’s exactly what you don’t want?

Markus says:

04:30pm | 23/07/12

@Gordon, while I know federal elections are not quite the same thing, I think it’s worth pointing out that my HoR electorate in 2010 had exactly three options: Labor (a token female thrown into a safe seat after the retirement of a long standing member), Liberal, and Greens (whose preferences of course all went to Labor).
Hardly a full spectrum representing all beliefs.

Sandra says:

04:32pm | 23/07/12

What about Direct democracy as mentioned above by true democracy ?

bella starkey says:

04:48pm | 23/07/12

Sandra, if you think direct democracy is a good thing i suggest you look up women’s sufferage in Switzerland.

iansand says:

04:55pm | 23/07/12

In the last few months the cities of San Bernadino and Stockton in California have gone bankrupt I don’t know if this is connected with directly democratic rejection of higher property taxes by the electorate in citizen sponsored referenda, but I have seen that link made in relation to the generally parlous state of Californian finances.

marley says:

05:00pm | 23/07/12

@Gordon - I do not agree that there is a full spectrum to choose from.  There’s loony left and right, there’s the Greens (but I repeat myself), there’s the ALP and Coalition, neither of which is even close to representing my views, and then there’s the Sex Party and a few others.  And while I’m greatly in favour of sex, I’m not sure that the Party actually represents the full range of my political views.

maria says:

05:20pm | 23/07/12

@iansand
Switzerland does not have any oil or good recources it did not participate in most european wars did not do any colonizing but they are richest country in the world is this only because of swiss banks or are there anything else?

@bella starkey
i suggest you look up women’s sufferage in Switzerland.
What do you mean?
woman are voting too in Switzerland, you better check before making any phony comment as our politicians and nobody get screwed by them there.

Extreme laws will mercilessly be blocked by the electorate in referendums, parties are less inclined to radical changes in laws and voters are less inclined to call for fundamental changes in elections.

marley says:

06:41pm | 23/07/12

@maria - women got the vote in Switzerland in 1971.  That’s just a tad after women got the vote in most of the western world.  Say 50 to 70 years.  If you think that speaks well of Swiss direct democracy, well, I don’t.  I think its incredibly timorous.

PhilD says:

08:25pm | 23/07/12

@Maria :Switzerland….it did not participate in most european wars”
Swiss guards still guard the Vatican and they were used by other counties as well. Swiss mercenaries fought in most European wars from the 15th to 19th centuries including those involving the the Holy Roman Empire and the Napoleonic wars.
The Swiss have pharmaceutical companies and engineering companies, and they make pretty good watches, light aircraft and cuckoo clocks.

Gordon says:

09:18pm | 23/07/12

good replies, thanks all,  I guess if you want both a party that both exactly reflects your views AND is a strong chance at winning then unless you are Mr Mainstream you will likely cop dissapointment one way or another. Democracy gives you a voice but doesn’t guarrantee it will be loud. To be heard your fellows have to pick up your song, like it and join in. Spitting the dummy when they (unaccountably!) aren’t interested is not going to get you anywhere really.

St. Michael says:

09:52pm | 23/07/12

@ PhilD: minor point of trivia, but Swiss mercenaries were so effective it’s actually still a war crime to use them in war.

They’re also still holding onto a good portion of the gold Hitler stole off an entire generations of Jews’ corpses, but that’s another story.

maria says:

03:47pm | 24/07/12

@bella starkey
@marley   women got the vote in Switzerland in 1971

Funny and phony or phony and funny which way you want….
Today’s Daily Telegraph question

Is it time for a woman to carry the aussie flag at Olympic’s?

Where the bloody hell are you??????????

marley says:

09:25pm | 24/07/12

@maria - neither funny nor phoney.  Who’s flag bearer for the Swiss Olympic team?  That would be Stanislas Wawrinka.

Hamish says:

02:41pm | 23/07/12

I think the most interesting aspect is how well the independents did. Clearly, both Labor and Greens were an unpalatable choice for a large number of voters. You’re right though. If the Greens can’t win Melbourne, where are they going to win?

AdamC says:

04:09pm | 23/07/12

Hamish, that is the largely ignored story here. It seems that, without generous preference flows, the Greens cannot win anywhere.

James In Footscray says:

04:43pm | 23/07/12

Greens are expressing anger over the fact the ALP ‘stole the election’ with preferences from the Sex Party - ‘has the ALP no shame’ etc.

Pity Adam Bandt won the federal seat of Melbourne with Liberal preferences.

fml says:

03:49pm | 23/07/12

When you find an intelligent person could let me know?

Kthnxbye.

james says:

02:46pm | 23/07/12

It doesn’t make sense not to try and win an extra seat when you govern by a 1 seat majority?

Thats 2 in row the libs have squibbed in Vic.

Phil S says:

04:32pm | 23/07/12

Well, if it turned out that the 33% who didn’t vote would have voted coalition, and specifically did not vote because they did not have a coalition candidate to vote for, and refused to vote for the lesser of “evils” listed on the form, then yes, I think you can lay the low turn out rate at the feet of the coalition.

The fact is that this poll was dominated by major left wing parties. Sure there were some right wing candidates, but if you don’t have one from the major party that represents a large portion of the electorates views, then I would expect a large number of people not to show up…

MarkS says:

08:54am | 24/07/12

I suspect that many people simply refused to vote because there was no Liberal party candidate. So yes, I would blame the Liberal party.

After all, it would not cost them anything to simply put some dropkick on the paper & spend nothing campaigning.

Mattb says:

08:43pm | 23/07/12

ive heard from a few friends on the gold coast they’re printing the same T-shirts for the newman government…

nihonin says:

08:34am | 24/07/12

No prizes for 2nd Mattb.

Interloper says:

05:17pm | 23/07/12

Justin, I think you’re conflating preferential voting and compulsory voting. They’re separate issues

maria says:

06:10pm | 23/07/12

Why is that a problem?

because voting under our phony system means surrender all your democratic rights to the mob ( will you sell your soul and your boby to the devil?) and “think Abbott is the root of all evil” as all autocrats are under our crooked.

The best way to stop the mob to screw us is to have a direct democracy.

If you know a better system than a direct democracy to keep the bastards honest please tell us.

marley says:

06:45pm | 23/07/12

@maria - well, if you go to direct democracy, you can be damn sure you’re surrendering your democratic rights to the mob.  What exactly do you think direct democracy is?

Tony says:

10:39am | 24/07/12

@marley
Democracy means “the will of the people” without any preferences whatsoever.

Oligarchy means rule by the few.

Can you spot the difference?

No wonder that “shit happens” everyday.

Gerard says:

04:34pm | 24/07/12

“Compulsory voting (when adhered to) basically ensures that we get a middle of the road government”

You know the country’s in serious trouble when a party which advocates internet censorship is considered “Middle of the road”.

Croyden says:

04:25pm | 23/07/12

Are you kidding? Gillard could give us the world, we’ll take it and return the favour with the worst election outcome in Labor’s history. If a hard arse Labor dude such as myself is over this government and its constant back flips and failures, you know the Gillard mob are in deep trouble.

Richard says:

07:29pm | 23/07/12

What election bribes exactly did the Greens offer which aren’t working, Shane ?

bael says:

03:45pm | 23/07/12

Or you end up with a situation like America.

M says:

04:00pm | 23/07/12

What situation is that?

Shane* says:

04:59pm | 23/07/12

Where they have nothing even remotely resembling a “better class of politician who tries to pander to the informed voter rather than scare the stupid one” and they have one-issue politicians winning seats comfortably because they manage to get one-issue voters to mobilise.

LJ Dots says:

07:17pm | 23/07/12

M, I know compulsory voting is a pain in the butt and comes with it’s own problems, but without it the problem of lobby groups incentivising (I made that Americanism up) their tribe to vote one way on one topic is simply not worth it.

LJ Dots says:

07:35pm | 23/07/12

M, just to add to my previous post. The slogan in favour of compulsory voting could be *Outrage beats indifference every time*. I will leave it to you to fill in the outraged lobby groups, there is a fine selection available.

marley says:

08:28pm | 23/07/12

I cannot see that the quality of governance in Australia is any better than in the many countries that do not have compulsory voting.  The US is a mess, but that’s more to do with their peculiar mix of presidential and congressional governance than with optional voting.  Canada, the UK, Germany, and a lot of other countries seem to manage reasonably well without forcing people to the polls.  The lobbyists go after politicians;  the aren’t nearly as good at influencing individual voters.

As for “one issue” politicians - sorry, but Australia is hardly exempt on that point - remember Family First?  How about the Shooters? Getting one issue politicians has far more to do with preferential voting than it does to do with optional voting. And the Australian system is in fact more prone to tossing them up than some of the other Westminster democracies.

Marcus says:

03:15pm | 23/07/12

Get rid of compulsory attendance/voting/ticking name off. It’s what’s lead us down this sorry path in the first place.

Lie Lover? says:

11:50am | 24/07/12

What is the point of (2)?

Sandra says:

04:28pm | 23/07/12

As mentioned Direct democracy a la Switzerland is the only answer.

marley says:

06:48pm | 23/07/12

@Sandra - and what difference do you think direct democracy would make?  You’d still be voting for someone whose ideas you probably didn’t agree with entirely.

fml says:

03:51pm | 23/07/12

I paid $20 bucks once, I was actually overseas at the time, I couldn’t be bothered filling out the form and saying I was away or going to the consulate to vote.

TimR says:

04:10pm | 23/07/12

I got the letter for not voting a few years back. I actually went to pay the $20 fine and the lady at the desk asked why I don’t offer an excuse. I went with “I didn’t know there was an election on”.
No fine for Timmy!!

gnome says:

08:13pm | 23/07/12

Melbourne non-voters are going to declare in droves that they were in Darwin to watch their team playing Port- one of the few chances of a win this year.  No absentee voting arrangements interstate.

Note to the Electoral Commission- 15,000 didn’t vote, but there were only 6,000 at the game.

St. Michael says:

03:27pm | 23/07/12

Darth Vader seems to have the confidence of a good slice of the electorate from what I’ve seen as a scrutineer.

Karen from Qld says:

08:03pm | 23/07/12

St Michael as does The Pope, Jesus, Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse

Inky says:

06:25pm | 23/07/12

“I should be able to vote online from home”

Good lord no. Given that the last attempt made by the government for internet security cost, what? $70-80 million? And was cracked by a 16 year old kid in what? 30 minutes.

Do you really trust the election to not be tampered with if it’s taken online? I don’t, and it’s not due to ignorance towards technology that I come to this conslusion.

Still, having a Federal Electioon won by Rick Astley might be cool.

Alec says:

07:32pm | 23/07/12

Labor won the seat, right ?

leaving says:

06:29pm | 23/07/12

Probably people are starting to realise that it’s a waste of their time and energy to care about something over which you can have no verifiable influence, that our political identities are pretty boring and obvious, and that I’d rather stay home and make hot love to an unskinned kiwi fruit.

Put simply, voting is a waste of my time and caring about politics for 99% of us is utter furious intellectual masturbation.

LC says:

09:25pm | 23/07/12

The seat of Melbourne has been historically a safe labor seat since the first federal election held in the country until the 2010 one. Why would the Libs bother? They would be better concentrating the bulk of their campaign at swinging seats.

I imagine at state level it’s little different. The Labor stronghold of Melbourne, and the labor/greens one of Brunswick are impenetrable, so they don’t bother having a candidate.

Who knows? Maybe, if they were given the choice, the missing 39.4-41.4% of voters would’ve shown up or voted[properly if a liberal candidate was available.

LC says:

07:16pm | 25/07/12

Oh, and introduce new laws so that members of parliament don’t have to destroy their careers when they vote on a matter contrary to the party stance. This way they can better represent their constituency, rather than being forced into voting for or against something to because that’s the party line.

Anniebello says:

01:14pm | 24/07/12

So long as your informal votes are the ‘leave the form completely blank’ or draw pictures kind of informal. Maybe add your own ‘none of the above’ box?
People who number the boxes from top to bottom or bottom to top are not voting informally, they are actually voting for someone - that’s how most of the idiots get elected.