Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Didn't see a topic on this, I guess no one really cares about Australian politics

But eh, it's an interesting one. The different tally projections seem to vary, a bit under 80% of the vote has been counted and there's no clear winner and it looks like there's a good possibility that neither Liberal nor Labour parties is going to be able to form a majority.

For people who don't know, Australian politics has been pretty tumultuous in recent years. If this parliament is hung, it'll be our 2nd hung parliament this decade, the previous one occurring in 1940. We've also had 3 Prime Ministers not last out their full term in the past 6 years! Prior to that, the last PM that didn't last out their term was in 1991.

A recent history:

We had a run of Liberals under John Howard from 1996-2007, in 2007 Labour won out with Kevin Rudd but he lost support from his own party part way through and stepped down.

We then got Julia Gillard as PM but she was voted in by her party, not the population.

At the next election Labour got in again and Julia Gillard continued as PM, Labour didn't win majority and it was the first hung parliament since 1940.

But then in 2013 she got booted out again by her own party and Rudd came back.



Another election occurred soon after and the vote swung away from the Labour party which was incapable of deciding who should actually lead the party so we got a Liberal government under Tony Abbott. People quickly grew to hate Abbott and he got the arse late 2015, replaced by Malcolm Turnbull, again, Tony was kicked out by his own party.

So now we're in 2016 and people again can't decide if they want Labour or Liberal in power.

It was a fun night last night, watching everything progress as it was. AEC tally tracker having the different at a few hundred votes (in terms of primaries I think) for the two major parties, it's a heck of an election. All I know is my local member who does good work got in again, and that's the biggest victory I was hoping for this election ha.

I honestly thought that Australians giving their PMs the boot was a normal thing, shows what I know.

It is recently, and to be fair it is something that if you approach it from one direction it isn't that big of a deal. In that you vote for your local member, and trust him to vote for the leader of the party (and, if they're in power, that makes them PM).

The thing is a lot of people don't actually take the time to talk to/get to know/interact at all with their local member, so when stuff like that happens they feel put out because they only really voted for Rudd or Abbott, and just numbered their party box '1' regardless of who it is that actually represents them in their electorate.

I'm more of the former camp, because I've asked the member for my electorate to help with things in the past and always felt responded to, and by and large he's been able to help get things sorted if it has been in his control to at all, and knowing his policies and feelings on things I feel I can trust him to vote for a party leader who would represent us well, but as I said that's just me. But I do understand the frustrations of the latter, and I do dislike the feeling of disunity it brings about.

Yeah, my local electorate has been strongly Liberal for decades. We haven't had a Labor dude since before I was born. The current Lib dude is pretty good so I'm not really complaining there.

 Ustrello wrote:
I honestly thought that Australians giving their PMs the boot was a normal thing, shows what I know.

That;s only been the last 6 years. Prior to Kevin Rudd who got the job in 2007 and got kicked out in 2010 we had John Howard who was PM for almost 12 years.

My electorate has never been a liberal seat (since Federation).

They'd rather vote green than liberal around here but Labor has pretty much owned it forever.

I think it's interesting that mandatory voting can still produce this level of gridlock.

I heard something interesting about the Aussie ballots though - is it true that at the top of the page there is a list of the parties running (Labor, Liberal, Green, ????) and you can simply select your party preference, and then underneath there is a list of candidates, and you can vote for them in order of preference?

This struck me as interesting because combined with mandatory voting wouldn't it produce a situation where a lot of disengaged voters either 1, 2, 3 for the parties (as it's nice and easy) or 1, 2, 3 down the candidate list? It seemed like combining party selection like that with mandatory voting would really favour the two biggest parties, as well.

Well, ish. On the Senate (upper house) ballot there are parties instead of candidates at the top, but the candidates listed 'below the line'. And you can vote either above or below the line. And on the regular ballot you just go 1-X. I'm not sure if you're allowed to just put 1 or not, I always know the order I want to go in it's entirety so I've never considered just putting one number ha.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think it's interesting that mandatory voting can still produce this level of gridlock.

I heard something interesting about the Aussie ballots though - is it true that at the top of the page there is a list of the parties running (Labor, Liberal, Green, ????) and you can simply select your party preference, and then underneath there is a list of candidates, and you can vote for them in order of preference?

This struck me as interesting because combined with mandatory voting wouldn't it produce a situation where a lot of disengaged voters either 1, 2, 3 for the parties (as it's nice and easy) or 1, 2, 3 down the candidate list? It seemed like combining party selection like that with mandatory voting would really favour the two biggest parties, as well.

1. I think (emphasis here) that mandatory voting produces more engaged voters, generally. If you want to vote for nobody, you can donkey vote, so you don't have to number anything.

2. Funny you should mention the idea of just numbering from left to right. The parties are listed in Alphabetical Order, not from largest to smallest (if I am remembering correctly).

In Australia we vote for the Senate (upper house) and the House of Representatives (lower house).

The lower house is where you vote for your local representative. In that you vote for the parties, led by the specific candidate. The leader of the party that has the most seats in the lower house becomes the Prime Minister. This time neither of the major parties has enough seats to form a majority government, but the postal and absentee votes haven't been counted yet.

For the Senate, you have to put in at least 1 to 6 if you'r'e voting for parties, or 1-12 if you're voting for specific candidates. So it's possible that a person could get in to the senate even if their party didn't get a lot of votes.

For the lower house, which is the local guys, you're typically not very likely to get anything but Labor or Liberal in power, occasionally a Green or someone else, this time round there's been 5 out of 150 electorates gone to something other than Lib or Lab. Sometimes it feels like throwing away your vote because of that.

But in the Senate you have a chance of voting in someone who you think represents your views, even if it's not from one of the major parties.

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-20499.htm

That is the link for a voting tracker for our election for anyone interested. The most interesting part so far (to me at least) is this bit about the number of votes the 2 parties have so far.

LNP: 4,887,478
ALP: 4,930,218

Ridiculously close. Really goes to show that sometimes your vote does count.

 Pendix wrote:

1. I think (emphasis here) that mandatory voting produces more engaged voters, generally. If you want to vote for nobody, you can donkey vote, so you don't have to number anything.

2. Funny you should mention the idea of just numbering from left to right. The parties are listed in Alphabetical Order, not from largest to smallest (if I am remembering correctly).

Donkey voting usually refers to just numbering 1-6 top to bottom.

I would hope most people who don't want to vote just do something to make it invalid so it doesn't get counted. If you just put in an empty slip or put the number 5 in all of them or (as some people seem to have done) draw a dick on the ballot paper, the vote will be invalid. Compulsory voting just means you need to show up to vote, no one is looking over your shoulder to make sure you don't put in an invalid vote.

I don't think they put them in alphabetical order. I don't know what the order is, but I didn't think it was alphabetical. It seems they usually put some random minor party at the top for the lower house (at least the ones I've participated in), so hopefully if you get a bunch of donkey voters it either won't count or they'll get their comeuppance when they vote some moron in to power for their local government


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-20499.htm

That is the link for a voting tracker for our election for anyone interested. The most interesting part so far (to me at least) is this bit about the number of votes the 2 parties have so far.

LNP: 4,887,478
ALP: 4,930,218

Ridiculously close. Really goes to show that sometimes your vote does count.

Yeah it's close. Even just personally, in years gone by I've usually been very much one way or the other, in recent years and especially this year I struggled more to decide, and not in a good way.

All I'm really concerned with is weekend penalty rates.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I would hope most people who don't want to vote just do something to make it invalid so it doesn't get counted. If you just put in an empty slip or put the number 5 in all of them or (as some people seem to have done) draw a dick on the ballot paper, the vote will be invalid.

That doesn't make it invalid.

I seriously don't get how you guys have gone through so many PM's in such a short space of time. It's nuts.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
]Donkey voting usually refers to just numbering 1-6 top to bottom.

Huh, I thought the term was just for any kind of invalid vote.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't think they put them in alphabetical order. I don't know what the order is, but I didn't think it was alphabetical. It seems they usually put some random minor party at the top for the lower house (at least the ones I've participated in), so hopefully if you get a bunch of donkey voters it either won't count or they'll get their comeuppance when they vote some moron in to power for their local government

Make me wonder if it is totally random each time. I wouldn't think it would be too hard to do.

Election day is about the only time I ever get kind of patriotic. ANZAC Day and the rest actually leave me kind of cold, but election day it's actually really nice to be part of this big democratic institution.

But most of the disappeared when I saw the senate election paper. I'm used to their being a fair few crazy parties on there, but this time there was heaps, and they weren't just crazy, maybe half of them were really racist. Maybe that was just a WA party, because we're a very racist state, but it was a real dampener on my day.

As to the actual election... I'm a little perplexed that everyone was so surprised when it was close. Polls had been saying 51-49 or thereabouts throughout the campaign.

As to the actual result as it plays out... I'm not sure what I think about the whole thing. I tend towards the libs, but in this election on policy issues (limiting negative gearing for instance)... I was leaning towards Labor. But then the mediscare campaign came out, and that bothered me not just because it was shameless lying, but because those lies were so patronisingly stupid. And now we're hearing about dirty tricks on election day like sending out text messages from QLD labor, but gave the impression they were from medicare.

The whole thing just left a sour taste in my mouth. I'm not all that bothered about Turnbull losing, and I think the policy positions of Labor right now are probably stronger. But I think the way in which you win power actually matters. And it gets really worrying when you consider that this mediscare campaign is dishonest in the exact same ways that the carbon tax scare campaign was... I'm concerned this may be the new tone in Australian politics.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I seriously don't get how you guys have gone through so many PM's in such a short space of time. It's nuts.

Before that we had our second longest Prime Minister John Howard, who lasted 11 years, and before that we had Hawke & Keating, who between them controlled a Labor Government for 13 years. So just before our recent history we went 24 years with two governments, and three leaders. So it isn't like instability is in our bones or anything like that.

Rather, it's more that one situation led to the next. Rudd's disfunction led to Gillard, who picked up a poisoned chalice and had to suffer leaks from the Rudd camp... which opened the door for an aggressive little headkicker called Abbott to beat them and take the prime ministership, who's own run as PM was amazingly ridiculous, which led to the non-politican in Turnbull taking over. He got basically nothing done, and went to election promising even less. Meanwhile another aggressive little headkicker called Shorten run a nasty and very stupid scare campaign and might win office because of it. If so I expect Shorten's time in the prime ministership to be as unsuccessful and as embarrassing as Abbott's time was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pendix wrote:
Make me wonder if it is totally random each time. I wouldn't think it would be too hard to do.

It's random each time. Once the candidates are finalised they draw names out of a hat for position on the ballot.

And it isn't just because of the bonus votes you get from donkey voting. It's also because people often figure out their vote right there in the booth. People start with deciding their first vote, and given the tendency to read from top to bottom, left to right, then being on the top of the lower house ballot, or the left of the upper house ballot can be a big advantage. The effect is most felt for minor parties on the senate, but it's important enough for everyone.

 sebster wrote:
The whole thing just left a sour taste in my mouth. I'm not all that bothered about Turnbull losing, and I think the policy positions of Labor right now are probably stronger. But I think the way in which you win power actually matters. And it gets really worrying when you consider that this mediscare campaign is dishonest in the exact same ways that the carbon tax scare campaign was... I'm concerned this may be the new tone in Australian politics.

Dishonest scare campaigns are not new. Remember Liberals Unions scare campaign when it was Rudd vs Howard?

Yeah, there were a fair few racist (or religious fanatic) minor parties on the ballot this year, though it doesn't do them any good in the house (none of them are going in). You only need a few thousand signatures on a petition to get a party on the ballot though, so don't take it too badly that those parties are on there, it doesn't mean they're at all popular.

The senate though is another matter... Because it's a double dissolution election, the thresh-hold for senate candidates is half what it normally is, so it was much easier for the racist (Pauline Hanson), bigoted (Fred Nile) and crazy (Derryn Hynch) candidates to slime their way into a seat, needing only 7.5% of the votes in a state to get a seat rather than the normal 15%. With any luck though. I'm really hoping it shakes out so that none of those individuals hold the balance of power, and with any luck the Greens and xenephon team will form a voting block to allow the passage of bills, though there's obviously a lot they don't agree on...

 -Loki- wrote:
Dishonest scare campaigns are not new. Remember Liberals Unions scare campaign when it was Rudd vs Howard?

But you'll note that campaign lost. I don't think there's much to complain about when liars lose their campaigns.

And you'll also note that while that campaign was a lie, it wasn't completely ludicrous. It is actually possible to pass laws that advantage unions. On the other hand... privatising Medicare is as sensible a scare campaign as selling Tasmania. Who'd fething buy it? There's a small revenue stream from the contribution levy that might come attached, but it's basically just a $30 billion outlay each year. If it was possible to sell something like, to get someone else to buy the right to pay for your and my healthcare then by all means sell... but of course that is ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maddermax wrote:
The senate though is another matter...

I'm talking about the senate. And it while it will be a lot worse if a few of the bigots actually win a seat, just having that many on the ballot is really sad.

so it was much easier for the racist (Pauline Hanson)

Seriously, when she got famous 20 years ago it was on the back of being scared of Asian people. Is she okay with Asian people now?

with any luck the Greens and xenephon team will form a voting block to allow the passage of bills, though there's obviously a lot they don't agree on...

Xenophon won't form a voting bloc with other parties. That's why he's impressed - he was willing to mentor the last crop of independents and help them along without actually trying to control them or use their votes to advance his own power. His challenge will be that much of his voting base has come from the good things he's done for SA... but now he'll owe support to multiple states. It's all good and well pushing a hard deal to make sure more defence contracts go to SA than WA when you're an independant for SA... but now he's leading senator from SA and WA?

The Greens.. well the Greens will continue to be the obstructionist black hole in the senate they've always been. Labor and Liberal governments have both failed to work with them, and I can't see that changing. It's just so fun and righteous to say no to everything.

You should be glad there's so many crazy parties. It spreads the votes out. Combined all the Christian parties would have a chance of getting a few people in to the Senate, but with so many little factions, for better or worse, the votes get spread thinly.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You should be glad there's so many crazy parties. It spreads the votes out. Combined all the Christian parties would have a chance of getting a few people in to the Senate, but with so many little factions, for better or worse, the votes get spread thinly.

Possibly. First up remember preferential voting. That doesn't work for the crazy Christian groups because they all fight amongst themselves, but the bigot parties probably preference each other.

Second up, the issue to me isn't about any of these groups achieving real power - even if they somehow won a senate seat it won't translate to power. One Nation probably has a senate seat, but no-one is going to cut a deal to get rid of halal tomorrow. The real issue is that they remind me how much racial hate there is in Australia. I mean, its 2016 and we have political parties campaigning on direct discrimination against a religion. It's sad.

I've never really felt Australia is more racist (and often less so) than anywhere else I've been in the world. I say that as someone who is half Australian, half Indian, looks middle eastern and lives in a very bogan suburb.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I've never really felt Australia is more racist (and often less so) than anywhere else I've been in the world. I say that as someone who is half Australian, half Indian, looks middle eastern and lives in a very bogan suburb.

I've never considered 'no more racist than anyone else' to be much of a standard.

People will be people. If you can't find a better country to live in, then I guess we aren't doing too badly.

I think the worst Australia gets is being anti-religion, specifically Islam. Being anti-religious doesn't mean racist (though sometimes racism goes under the guise of anti-religion, I think for the most part in this case it isn't).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
People will be people. If you can't find a better country to live in, then I guess we aren't doing too badly.

I think the worst Australia gets is being anti-religion, specifically Islam. Being anti-religious doesn't mean racist (though sometimes racism goes under the guise of anti-religion, I think for the most part in this case it isn't).

I agree, the very worst thing the establishment can do is continue shaming dissent and sweeping it under the rug, sooner or later something ugly is going to force its way out. Why can't we have a frank discussion about the flaws on both sides?

It looks as though Liberal will be able to form a majority government, counting predictions are now expecting them to get 76 seats, the minimum for a majority government (total of 150 seats).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:It looks as though Liberal will be able to form a majority government, counting predictions are now expecting them to get 76 seats, the minimum for a majority government (total of 150 seats).

Yep, and even if they fall one short of the mark, Katter has said he'd side with the Liberal/Nationals to form goverment. I believe one of the other independents also said they'd offer confidence and supply as well.

This does mean that Turnbull is on a knife edge still though, so getting legislation through will be a pain for him, even before talking about the Senate, which is going to be a dogs breakfast. The good thing for Turnbull though is that with such a tight margin the Liberal Party would be absolutely crazy to change leaders, as any infighting could easily see them lose that thin majority. It gives him a little (not much, but a little) Job security in the short term.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:People will be people. If you can't find a better country to live in, then I guess we aren't doing too badly.

I think the worst Australia gets is being anti-religion, specifically Islam. Being anti-religious doesn't mean racist (though sometimes racism goes under the guise of anti-religion, I think for the most part in this case it isn't).

There is a current of Racism that runs deep in Australia, and the hatred of Islam is definitely just a new cover for that old hatred. Remember the "Anti-Islam" poster child, Pauline Hanson, started as an Anti-Asian candidate in the late 90s when there was panic about "Asian Invaders" immigrating to the country legally. She's just found a new target to let out her Racism, using the cover of another form of ..."socially acceptable"... bigotry.

As someone with an Asian wife, I can also tell you from experience that there is still plenty of racism in some parts of the country that still boils to the surface at times. Whether we're more racist than some other countries though, it's hard to say, as it seems many countries have similar issues, even socially liberal ones like France and Denmark.

As someone with an Asian wife, I can also tell you from experience that there is still plenty of racism in some parts of the country that still boils to the surface at times. Whether we're more racist than some other countries though, it's hard to say, as it seems many countries have similar issues, even socially liberal ones like France and Denmark.

It's rubbish, I feel Europe and European Union is shutting both eyes when it comes to this topic. The degree of hate will without a doubt vary and certain groups will have it worse than others. At some point I pondered what the relationships are going to be should EU dissolve.

It's an interesting subject as I considered Australia to be relatively open society.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
In Australia we vote for the Senate (upper house) and the House of Representatives (lower house).

The lower house is where you vote for your local representative. In that you vote for the parties, led by the specific candidate. The leader of the party that has the most seats in the lower house becomes the Prime Minister. This time neither of the major parties has enough seats to form a majority government, but the postal and absentee votes haven't been counted yet.

For the Senate, you have to put in at least 1 to 6 if you'r'e voting for parties, or 1-12 if you're voting for specific candidates. So it's possible that a person could get in to the senate even if their party didn't get a lot of votes.

For the lower house, which is the local guys, you're typically not very likely to get anything but Labor or Liberal in power, occasionally a Green or someone else, this time round there's been 5 out of 150 electorates gone to something other than Lib or Lab. Sometimes it feels like throwing away your vote because of that.

But in the Senate you have a chance of voting in someone who you think represents your views, even if it's not from one of the major parties.

Thanks for that summary.