Morgan’s latest polling release covers 955 respondents from last weekend’s face-to-face surveys, and shows Labor’s two-party lead down from 61.5-38.5 to 60.5-39.5. Labor’s primary vote is down a point to 50.5 per cent, and the Coalition’s is up 1.5 per cent to 34.5 per cent. On top of which:
• Silly Steve Fielding joined with the Coalition on Wednesday to vote down government electoral reforms that would tie public funding for election candidates to their electoral expenditure, lower the threshold for disclosure of donations to $1000 from $10,000 (which the Howard government used its Senate majority to jack it up to), ban foreign donations and anonymous donations of over $50, and require parties to disclose donations every six months rather than annually. The sticking point is Fielding’s insistence that the government also arbitrarily cap public funding to political parties at $10 million. The bill was reintroduced to the House yesterday.
• Submissions have been published in response to the federal government’s green paper on donations, funding and expenditure.
• Responding to mounting speculation she will take on Don Randall in Canning at the next federal election, senior Gallop/Carpenter government minister Alannah MacTiernan tells The West Australian: “It’s something that I’d consider but it’s far too early. The election is a long way away and it’s not something a decision can be made on until early next year.”
• The South Australian Liberals have picked a new candidate for the state seat of Mawson to replace former Kingston MHR Kym Richardson, who was charged in December with attempting to pervert the course of justice by impersonating a police officer. Matthew Donovan, described by the local Southern Times Messenger newspaper as a “self-employed importer and property developer”, won preselection ahead of Heidi Harris, adviser to Shadow Transport Minister Duncan McFetridge and unsuccessful candidate for federal preselection in Mayo; Heidi Greaves, public servant, former Onkaparinga councillor and unsuccessful candidate for Elder; and Alana Sparrow, Housing Industry Association lawyer and former media adviser to Richardson.
• The Daily Telegraph reports that NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell “will hire a team of constitutional lawyers to explore recall provisions to end fixed four-year terms for incompetent governments”. This would involve provisions for the Governor to “sack a corrupt or useless government” if called on to do so by public petitions, presumably in a fashion similar to that which brought Arnold Schwarzenegger to power in California. UPDATE: More from a skeptical Imre Salusinszky at The Australian.
• Chris Back this week took his place in the Senate, filling the vacancy created by the departure of Western Australian Liberal Chris Ellison.
[because thru the process of electing our representatives we are intimately involved in our gvt and its laws]
There is nothing stopping people voting if they wish to do so.
The reason I support compulsory voting is the same reason I suppose compulsory tax paying, compulsory seatbelt wearing, compulsory sending children to school, compulsory not smoking in restaurants and dozens of other compulsory things, despite the fact that they are infringements on my right to do as I please: because they facilitate the operation of society in the interests of all its members. Compulsory voting means that all citizens participate in the operation of our democracy and take resoponsiblity for its outcomes. The alternative is to be like Romania, where the turnout at this year’s election was 38% and where no-one takes responsibility for anything.
GO back to 975
As said I don’t believe in god, I also don’t believe in rights that exist because I was born a human, an animal I think many species would find particularly nasty, we eat and destroy everything. Our right and our moral come from what we are, an animal that builds societies, and lets be honest our morals are so poor we kill within the species.
Is it illegal to encourage people to not vote at Federal elections?
It is also compulsory to LIVE!!!
[The reason I support compulsory voting is the same reason I suppose compulsory tax paying, compulsory seatbelt wearing, compulsory sending children to school, compulsory not smoking in restaurants and dozens of other compulsory things, despite the fact that they are infringements on my right to do as I please: because they facilitate the operation of society in the interests of all its members. Compulsory voting means that all citizens participate in the operation of our democracy and take resoponsiblity for its outcomes. The alternative is to be like Romania, where the turnout at this year’s election was 38% and where no-one takes responsibility for anything.]
Hear hear. Take some responsibility Glen. 😀
[There is nothing stopping people voting if they wish to do so.]
Shows
as meaningful as there is nothing stopping people killing each other if they wish to do so.
We have fought long and hard for unversal suffrage, just cos someone’s too apathetic to vote doesnt mean society should bend to their wishes.
Or should only the vote be given to those that want to vote – that seems to be what you are advocating??
Not a problem, just so long as the “no show” pay for the unused ballot paper. Which is what we have.
I do bob1234 i vote 🙂
[despite the fact that they are infringements on my right to do as I please: because they facilitate the operation of society in the interests of all its members. Compulsory voting means that all citizens participate in the operation of our democracy and take resoponsiblity for its outcomes.]
I don’t know how you can reconcile this with the fact most voters in Australia (perhaps 75%) always vote the same?
We give our politicians a free ride, in the U.S. politicians must FIRST motivate people to vote, then motivate them to vote for them. The politicians here use legislation to compel people to attend (which most people THINK means they must vote). I would rather a Government win an election because they attracted votes, rather than just attracted a lot of people who hated their candidate a bit less than the candidate for the other parties.
e.g. There were a lot of reasons why Obama won last year, but one important reason was the fact he offered something new and attracted a lot of young and minority voters who had never voted before.
Meanwhile, back in the deep north. The maltese python is making a very good sketch.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2009/03/14/39135_ntnews.html
[Is it illegal to encourage people to not vote at Federal elections?]
I believe so. It is in general illegal to urge anyone to break the law. It is illegal to encourage people to vote informal, as Albert Langer demonstrated. That, incidentally, is further evidence for the view that informal voting is technically illegal. It would seem to be perverse to make it illegal to advocate something which is itself legal.
ShowsOn
And why did bush win the last two elections? Work that out and you will see the reason is why compulsory voting should be compulsory in any democracy.
I agree with Adam on compulsory voting. You may end up with governments getting elected with less than fifty per cent of the vote , as often happens in Britain and America.
If people were made to vote than they may look at the issues and consider and this may have been the case when Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry, Bush may have lost on both occasions. Although Kerry was a dud candidate.
Kerry wouldnt have won even with complusory voting. The Dems put up a shocker and Bush was still popular in 2004 with many people in the US.
Kerry just didnt get people wanting to vote for him so boom he’s gone 🙂
[There were a lot of reasons why Obama won last year, but one important reason was the fact he offered something new and attracted a lot of young and minority voters who had never voted before.]
There were also a lot of reasons why Bush “won” in 2000, but one important reason was the fact that 48.7% of the voting age population didn’t bother to vote, most of them young, poor and/or minority. In a polarised society like the US, voluntary voting tends to entrench the power of the wealthy, educated, white, male elite, which in turn makes the society more polarised.
[As said I don’t believe in god, I also don’t believe in rights that exist because I was born a human,]
I don’t believe in god either, I have no idea what that has to do with this.
The old version of ‘rights’ was that they are given people by the State, and the government can thus revoke them at will. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proposes that humans inherently posses rights simply because they are human, and thus these can’t be legally or morally revoked by anyone or any institution.
[Our right and our moral come from what we are, an animal that builds societies, and lets be honest our morals are so poor we kill within the species.]
I’m not saying society, and representative government aren’t positive developments in human history, but I don’t think this is the same as saying that any government has the authority to do whatever they like to its citizens.
[as meaningful as there is nothing stopping people killing each other if they wish to do so.]
Killing is a crime because it infringes on a person’s right to life. If I choose not to vote, how does that infringe on someone elses right to vote? I don’t think the analogy makes sense.
[We have fought long and hard for unversal suffrage, just cos someone’s too apathetic to vote doesnt mean society should bend to their wishes.]
Universal suffrage means people have the right to vote if they want to, that doesn’t imply they are compelled to exercise that right. That should be each individual’s choice.
[Or should only the vote be given to those that want to vote – that seems to be what you are advocating??]
No. Everyone has the right to vote, it should be up to each individual to decide whether or not they exercise it. Remember, something like 12% of eligible adults are NOT enrolled to vote in Australia, and thus don’t vote.
[Not a problem, just so long as the “no show” pay for the unused ballot paper. Which is what we have.]
Ballot papers are paid for out of general revenue. Why should that change?
If Edwards was the Democrats candidate in 2004 they would have won.
Because he at least had some personality, and because it was in the end very close he would have just got the Dems over the line.
Kerry was just hopeless…
[And why did bush win the last two elections? Work that out and you will see the reason is why compulsory voting should be compulsory in any democracy.]
He won in 2000 thanks to a Supreme Court challenge to the legality of the Florida recount.
He won in 2004 because he won more electoral college votes than the absolute dud John Kerry.
[You may end up with governments getting elected with less than fifty per cent of the vote , as often happens in Britain and America.]
If people are really worried about this, they will go out and vote.
I just don’t understand why we don’t have confidence in our fellow citizens to make a choice about whether or not to vote? I don’t think it would favour either party, I think it would force them to be more responsive to voters, and to maybe broaden party politics beyond the low membership enterprises that they have become.
1062
Adam in Canberra
As I thought.
The possibility for election outcomes that don’t reflect society’s collective preference is greater under an optional model. The effort to encourage certain demographics to not vote could distort democracy. Let voting remain compulsory but turning a blind eye to informal voting is much safer.
[ In a polarised society like the US, voluntary voting tends to entrench the power of the wealthy, educated, white, male elite, which in turn makes the society more polarised.]
hear, hear
Well I guess Obama is wealthy and educated, but he ain’t white! I don’t consider him elite (he isn’t the son or wife of a President).
[No. Everyone has the right to vote, it should be up to each individual to decide whether or not they exercise it. Remember, something like 12% of eligible adults are NOT enrolled to vote in Australia, and thus don’t vote.]
and if it wasn’t compulsory that figure would balloon out to 40-50%
and we would face what AIC outlined earlier.
🙁
Adam @ 1062 – Mr Langer got into trouble not because he was encouraging others to break the law, but because of an explicit provision then in the Commonwealth Electoral Act (s. 329A) which stated (among other things) that
“A person must not, during the relevant period in relation to a House of Representatives election under this Act, print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed, any matter or thing with the intention of encouraging persons voting at the election to fill in a ballot paper otherwise than in accordance with section 240.”.
For the full details, see Langer v Commonwealth [1996] HCA 43, at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1996/43.html
This provision was subsequently repealed after the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters found itself in agreement with your view, that the provision was perverse.
HSO
The Pine Bark Beetles are grateful to Kings Coal and Oil for the pressure they put on IPCC scientists to go conservative in their predictions, and the beetles are also very grateful for the party politicals who identified all those balanced and practical responses.
Just about perfect. Consequently, there has been a huge population boom for the Pine Bark Beetles with scads of conifers left, and plenty of space for young conifers to get a hurry on for later munching.
But even the Pine Bark Beetles are getting a tad concerned that things might be getting out of hand. For one thing, a recent study of old growth forests in the US found that all sorts of things were killing older trees, including changes to hydrology.
The Pine Bark Beetles bitterly resent the fact that they are not the only ones in at the kill.
abbott’s up late for lateline
Hope he doesn’t fall asleep
😉
Adam summed it up very well Shows On, it polarises society and entrenches certain groups over others. Thus people who are interested are groups such as the educated, wealthy and the elites. If you join a party you Shows you will find that parties tend to made up of generally speaking the educated, the wealthy and the informed and the elites.
Very few working class poor people are interested in party politics.
Parties would not be responsive to voters at election time, do you really think that compulsory voting in the U.S has made parties more responsive?
Bush winning on a court challenge had nothing to do with compulsory voting, if compulsorty voting was in place it is likely that Gore would have won and it would never have been any Supreme Court challenge.
[and if it wasn’t compulsory that figure would balloon out to 40-50%]
And so what if he did? To me this is similar to saying that elections are only valid if enough voters do the right thing and vote for a particular candidate.
The outcome of an election is always ‘right’, because voters have the last say. If part of their decision making is that the candidates are so crap they can’t even be bothered to go to the polling station, then that is valid to. What is invalid IMO is the State deciding for them what to do with part of a Saturday every three years.
“Very few working class poor people are interested in party politics.”
They should.
Everybody should.
But why should we force these people to vote?
[ What is invalid IMO is the State deciding for them what to do with part of a Saturday every three years.]
following your logic we should get rid of public holidays
Lateline is not baised. It goes like this : one week Liberal conservatives and the next Labor conservatives and then back to Liberal conservatives( this week) .
So turn off one week and watch the next simple.
How many working class people frequent Liberal meetings or for that matter are allowed in the Liberal party doors Glen?
Student, thanks for that clarification of the Langer case. Thanks also for drawing our attention to s240 of the Act, which reads:
240 Marking of votes in House of Representatives election
(1) In a House of Representatives election a person shall mark his or her vote on the ballot?paper by: (a) writing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom the person votes as his or her first preference; and (b) writing the numbers 2, 3, 4 (and so on, as the case requires) in the squares opposite the names of all the remaining candidates so as to indicate the order of the person’s preference for them.
(2) The numbers referred to in paragraph (1)(b) are to be consecutive numbers, without the repetition of any number.
This makes it clear that not only is it compulsory to fill out a ballot paper and put it in the ballot box, it is also compulsory to fill in the ballot paper so as to make a formal vote. The fact that this provision cannot be enforced because the vote is secret does not alter that.
Unfortunately, Boerwar, very few people have noticed. Most people here are arguing about the method of electing some one, while the planet goes down the tubes. Arguments about psephological points are going to be just terrific when the methane starts bubbling out of the Ukraine.
HSO, some of us can do more than one thing at a time, you know. I have spent a fair chunk of today on activities related to the ETS bill, but I can still argue about compulsory voting in the evening. (And I think you’ll find the methane is bubbling out of Siberia, not Ukraine.)
Besides which, psephological points are this site’s raison d’etre. If that isn’t profound enough for you, try somewhere else.
Anyone want me to post about nuclear power?
😀
[Anyone want me to post about nuclear power?]
Double dog dare you!!
Ps as long as you accept that you are going to get your ass smacked
🙂
Oh, OK already.
I’ll make a psephological point.
If you can’t make it to the polling booth for one reason or another, you get a letter requesting an explanation.
You then write a letter offering something like: the car broke down, I had the flu or such like.
End of story.
Adam @ 1083 – It is not the case that every statutory provision which states what someone is to do makes it “compulsory” for him or her to do it – the distinction between “mandatory” and “directory” provisions is a well established tenet of statutory interpretation.
On this, the Federal Court of Australia (Black CJ, Lockhart and Beaumont JJ, in Albert Langer v Australian Electoral Commission [1996] FCA 1277) stated among other things that:
“Although expressed in mandatory language s. 240 does not impose a legally enforceable duty on the voter to mark his or her vote on the ballot-paper in the manner stated in the section. The question was examined by the High Court in Langer v The Commonwealth, which is authority for the proposition that s. 240 was intended not to impose a legal duty on the voter, but to be interpreted as if it gave directions to a voter as to how the voter is to discharge the statutory duty to vote in a Federal election.”
Incidentally, the AEC’s stated view of the legal position is that “It is not an offence to vote informally in a federal election, nor is it an offence to encourage other voters to vote informally.”
(See http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/backgrounders/18/EB_18_Informal_Voting.pdf)
O.k. I know when I’ve been told to exit. Been nice knowing you. So long.
So, Adam, is it also compulsory to write the numbers on a ballot paper in the order of your preference for the corresponding candidates rather than any other order you want to?
[O.k. I know when I’ve been told to exit. Been nice knowing you. So long.]
Harry, I think WB has been out in the sun too long.
( I have fond memories of that riposte )
Unbelievable! We are running a deficit, yet the Greens and Xenophon want to hand over $200 million back to the alcohol industry!
Adam
In ethics euthaniasia is used to describe the assisted death of another person, whether voluntary or not. The distinction is simply that the method of death is painless or humane. Involuntary euthanasia is arguably murder. Voluntary euthanasia for cases of incurable illness etc where the person can give informed consent is not controvesial in philosophy – most agree pesons should have the right to so choose if that is their wish. The case of coma patients etc where no consent is given are far more difficult. Most current laws would be seen as infringing on the rights of pesons to make end of life choices.
[f your preference for the corresponding candidates rather than any other order you want to?]
It’s all besides the point, if you go over to the ballot box, count to five, fold the ballots in half, put them in the ballot box. Then there is no way for them to say you haven’t ‘voted’.
What are they going to do, open the ballot box, and thus invalidate the entire election for that seat?
Shows
another way at looking at voting is to analyse the number of electors v the informal vote.
If people Didnt want to exercise their democratic right, then the informal vote would be correspondingly high than it currently is.
oui???
Student, I wasn’t aware of that, so thanks. I stand corrected. It is not compulsory to vote formally. It is only compulsory to vote.
[If people Didnt want to exercise their democratic right, then the informal vote would be correspondingly high than it currently is.]
And how many votes are just donkey votes, or reverse donkey votes? How many votes are just random votes?
Plus you are omitting the eligible voters who deliberately aren’t enrolled.
Plus you are ignoring the general belief that you must make a formal vote, which is untrue because it is un-policeable.
[Voluntary euthanasia for cases of incurable illness etc where the person can give informed consent is not controvesial in philosophy – most agree persons should have the right to so choose if that is their wish.]
Well, the majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament didn’t agree with that, because they voted (in a conscience vote) to overturn the Northern Territory act which decriminalised assisted suicide.