iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,438
|
Post by iain on Mar 14, 2016 12:42:10 GMT
A simple 1 vote will be permitted but your preferences will no longer be distributed as GVTs will be banned. This creates the odd effect of preferencing ATL effectively being voluntary, while remaining compulsory BTL. Can you explain the acronyms as I haven't a clue what you are trying to put over? ATL - Above The Line - preference parties, candidates are preferenced in the order parties choose BTL - Below The Line - preference individual candidates
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,797
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Mar 14, 2016 12:49:32 GMT
Can you explain the acronyms as I haven't a clue what you are trying to put over? ATL - Above The Line - preference parties, candidates are preferenced in the order parties choose BTL - Below The Line - preference individual candidates Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2016 12:54:16 GMT
A simple 1 vote will be permitted but your preferences will no longer be distributed as GVTs will be banned. This creates the odd effect of preferencing ATL effectively being voluntary, while remaining compulsory BTL. Can you explain the acronyms as I haven't a clue what you are trying to put over? ATL = above the line where you simply express preference (in future, preferences) for a specific party (parties) who then set your detailed preferences according to their group voting ticket (see below). Up now the vast majority of voters take this option. GVT = group voting ticket. These are submitted by the parties and set out full preference distribution for ATL voters who back the party in question. BTL = below the line, where you preference candidates individually in line with conventional STV. Up to now, BTL voters have been required to preference all candidates, a rather laborious endeavour when there are often 100+ to choose from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 13:44:45 GMT
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,438
|
Post by iain on Mar 17, 2016 14:03:55 GMT
Why? It seems like a very good idea.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 17, 2016 16:41:41 GMT
Why? It seems like a very good idea. Not sure why Labor are filibustering, but if I've understood the proposed reforms correctly, crossbenchers are the ones most likely to lose their seats as a result.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 0:58:03 GMT
After 28 hours of debate Senate voting reform was passed.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 19, 2016 1:04:23 GMT
Why? It seems like a very good idea. Not sure why Labor are filibustering, but if I've understood the proposed reforms correctly, crossbenchers are the ones most likely to lose their seats as a result. The ALP made the point that it opposed the changes in principle, even though they would actually benefit from them. Though there are people who argue that this is a smokescreen.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Mar 20, 2016 2:54:46 GMT
After 28 hours of debate Senate voting reform was passed. It's about to be challenged by someone from Family First.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 20, 2016 17:30:04 GMT
IIUC the final law includes optional BTL as well. This is basically the system used for the New South Wales Legislative Council. If you think 12 member STV is crazy, that one elects 21(!) at a time. Group Voting Tickets got a bad name in the 1990s when loads and loads of front parties got nominated purely to soak up preferences and transfer them. Here is a voter filling in the 1999 ballot paper: post a picture(If you look closely in her left hand, you'll see the lower house ballot paper plus a How To Vote card.) From 2003 onwards they've switched to a system where a single ATL vote only transfers between that list's candidates, additional ATL preferences are permitted and party registration is much tighter, making it impossible to create forty front parties with just street stall sign up sheets. By and large this switch favours parties with high numbers of first preferences and in the four elections using it to date there have been very few cases of a candidate coming from outside the top 21 to take a seat - the only one I can think of saw Pauline Hanson defeated. Most of the big parties have had limited success in getting their voters to follow preference recommendations - the highest rates seem to be small parties with loyal membership outreach such as the Christian Democrats. And even then we're talking about less than a third of those voters giving second preferences let alone 10ths. In general Labor has been more reliant on the GVTs to win seats than the Coalition, frequently battling the Greens for the sixth seat in a state and they often end up in deals with the tiny parties to get preferences to come their way, plus they've been the beneficiary in recent years of the Coalition deciding the Greens are the worst of the two main left parties. A lot of this will disappear into exhaustion. The micro parties will also suffer because so many of them do deals with each other to combine transfers in the hope of getting one or more elected. Without GVTs they will now have to get higher first preference votes to have a hope. They may also find themselves having to merge (or form cross alliances to not stand against each other) when there's a lot of bad blood between highly similar parties.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Mar 21, 2016 13:10:56 GMT
Important thing to be aware of (with all of these discussions about union laws and reform) "Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia requires that in half-Senate elections the election of State senators must take place within one year before the places become vacant. As the terms of half the senators end on 30 June 2017, the writs for a half-Senate election cannot be issued earlier than 1 July 2016, and the earliest possible date for a simultaneous House/half-Senate election is 6 August 2016. There is no constitutional requirement for simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives, and there are precedents for separate elections; however, governments and the electorate have long preferred that elections for the two Houses take place simultaneously"
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 14, 2016 8:08:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 18, 2016 20:05:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 18, 2016 20:14:52 GMT
"There is no constitutional requirement for simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives, and there are precedents for separate elections; however, governments and the electorate have long preferred that elections for the two Houses take place simultaneously" The government certainly but the electorate have rejected about four proposals to tie the elections & terms together.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 6:07:24 GMT
July 2nd it is.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 8, 2016 12:59:48 GMT
"There is no constitutional requirement for simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives, and there are precedents for separate elections; however, governments and the electorate have long preferred that elections for the two Houses take place simultaneously" The government certainly but the electorate have rejected about four proposals to tie the elections & terms together. (Just an additional on this but the Territory Senators do have simultaneous terms with the House - they exist through legislation and thus this got included in the first place.)
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on May 12, 2016 6:30:12 GMT
Malcolm Turnball has been named by the Panama papers as a director of a shell company.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on May 12, 2016 15:16:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on May 23, 2016 7:03:15 GMT
Clive Palmer is not going to contest the forthcoming election.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 23, 2016 8:43:16 GMT
I sometimes feel it would be a lot better if the term limits of Parliaments in Australia were four or five years and not three years...
|
|