Lead by Donkeys

Is it any wonder why politicians elected under an undemocratic system would defend that system? Well, that’s exactly what they are doing. 

While we can’t stop people making uninformed choices at the polling booth, donkey voting is very much a symptom of compulsory voting.

Some people select candidates at random, take a stab in the dark, confuse party names, or treat the election as if it were a Melbourne Cup horse race and pick the party, or should I say donkey, with the best sounding name, irrespective of form.

Of course it’s easy to blame the individuals who do this, but it does happen. And the system itself tells people that they should vote. It’s illegal not to. So technically donkey voters are obeying the law, even if the system has made donkeys out of them.

And then there is the complex preferencing system. Where preferences rely on secretive backroom deals, unknown to voters, or when people select preferences because they have no choice, whether they like the alternatives or not.

So what’s the result? Politicians elected undemocratically, not based on the will of the people, but due to a sampling error or a selection bias. And the trouble is, the problem is swept under the rug.

Why would politicians who have prospered under an undemocratic system complain? Why would they claim that their newly bestowed power is illegitimate? After all, many of them have worked hard to play the system.

At best politicians keep their mouths shut or smugly placate the electorate with glib suggestions of change, while others promote the undemocratic nature of the system as a virtue, in order to maintain the system that favours their style of politics.

Clearly we should all have the same free and equal right to vote, free from government coercion. Our decision to vote should be democratic, and our choice should be final.

But who will champion electoral reform? The Queen? Because the politicians almost certainly won’t.

I think Australian politicians are afraid of democracy. Scared of losing support if the people’s decision to vote were democratic.

Jason Kent

Free Our Right To Vote

Comments

[Deejay]

1.

Today in the Central Coast Express Advocate we have O'Neill crying about the deal done between Singleton's "Independents" and the Libs in Robertson where the Libs have won, helped to some extent by the McKinna "Independents" first Preferences.
Lucy Wicks gained at least 4000 more first preference votes than O'Neill and yet O'Neill is still crying.
In 2010 O'Neill polled LESS FIRST PREFERENCE votes than the Lib candidate but "won" the seat on Green Preferences. This time they were not enough to do that.
Last time the preference deal favouring labor was OK because O'Neill got the nod. This time it isn't although she was comprehensively thrashed.
They are such Hypocrites these left wing fools.

[RB]

2.

Spot on, Jason!
Ronald Bradley
www.governmentisajoke.com

[Grumpyoldman2]

3.

Perhaps now is the time to reassess our whole Federal/State political system and the Constitution under which it is supposed to operate, all with an eye to getting matters into better shape before the Republic issue gets traction again.
We are in a way fortunate that we have come through the last two parliaments without serious harm to our Australian way of life, other than a big hole in our government bank account. The lessons to learn have been that the parliamentary systems proposed in the original Constitutions have been bent into versions that traditional Political Parties favour. We have seen that a hung parliament in the wrong hands can have disastrous results. A few Political Parties have removed all semblance of democratic representation and democratic government, replacing these with party control and regulation of the ordinary man in the street. Today our politicians must be affiliated with a party to stand much of a chance of election and that brings with it the conundrum of who to show most loyalty to, Party, Party Faction or People. Fear of bringing a Party into disrepute supersedes fear of falling foul of electors.
It could be appropriate to review the need for party-selection of Prime Ministers, return the running of Parliament to the Speaker, ensure the Senate is never again controlled by any one Party. Bring all electoral boundaries into congruency, we don’t need more State MPs than Federal.
Even donkeys can be useful if managed properly.

[Francis Young]

4.

A massive 23% voted for small parties in the Senate, delivering about 3% of seats to small parties. Even if the 5% who voted Liberal Democrat in NSW were removed, this still proves that people want the Senate to be a house of review, not a rubber stamp for the big parties.

The claims by Liberal and Labor and their media buddies are utterly predictable and deceptive. We deliberately elected small parties to the Senate.

[ibbit]

5.

Conversation overheard when handing out how to vote cards: "I just don't know who to vote for? They're all rotten. Oh, there's fruity, the bloke who runs the local fruit shop. I'll vote for him."

So, donkey's (literally) apples, cabbages and god know what else. It's all the same under compulsory voting

[John Mc]

6.

A massive 23% voted for small parties in the Senate, delivering about 3% of seats to small parties. Even if the 5% who voted Liberal Democrat in NSW were removed, this still proves that people want the Senate to be a house of review, not a rubber stamp for the big parties.

I think that sums it up very nicely. As much as Australians wanted a change of government, they clearly didn't want the Libs to have both houses, probably due to being worried about things like internet filters.

[Trish]

7.

As long as no one suggests that we move towards the perpetually flawed First Past The Post system, then I think that there will be a beneficial discussion on how to improve the proportional representation in this country.

[Allan]

8.

Well done Jason. I think your comment, "Clearly we should all have the same free and equal right to vote, free from government coercion. Our decision to vote should be democratic, and our choice should be final.", says it all.

I notice that Trish believes that you can only have a beneficial discussion as long as it doesn't include any system that she doesn't agree with. A very democratic attitude!!

She claims that First-Past-The-Post is "perpetually flawed" but doesn't elaborate. I wonder if she could convince the plethora of countries around the world that successfully use that system, including Canada, UK, India and the US, that it is "perpetually flawed". Probably not.

[John Mc]

9.

Moderators, I've got posts in the spam catcher.

[Trish]

10.

Two reasons, there can technically be no spoiler effect in Instant Runoff Voting as there is with FPTP, which also means that people are more likely to pick a party that they like or relate with rather than resort to tactical voting, as what commonly happens when FPTP is used.

[Allan]

11.

And the problem with that is?

[Jim Witt]

12.

It should be noted that most of the small parties that garnered votes to preference around lean, to the Libs. rather than to the left. I think the reasons for this are: 1. After at least 10 years of Labor propaganda about Abbott being the devil incarnate, many swing voters who would have swung to the Libs and were unsure of Abbott, voted for a non-Labor alternative. 2. Many who intentionally voted for an alternative would have thought by the nature of the small party they were voting for that the preference would flow to the Libs. anyway, and had no idea of the way the system was being manipulated. Hopefully by next election people will have woken up to the fact that all these small parties with convoluted preference swaps can produce a Pandora's Box of improbabilities in our house of review, and will vote more responsibly. Of course some modification to the voting system may be required as well. For one, I am in favour of being on the electoral roll as mandatory, but voting itself voluntary. If you are to damn lazy, uninterested, or noncommittal to go and vote, why should you be forced to o so? Also, I am not against first past the post, but would also welcome a limited preference system of below the line voting.

[Trish]

13.

That voters would be less likely to vote for a party that aligns more with their political beliefs because votes under such a system can be 'wasted'.
As such, the majority of the time under FPTP it boils down to a two party system similar to the US, and that sort of development leads to policy stagnation.
That's why IRV is better in that regard, voters can choose to elect a party that aligns with their beliefs without allowing their vote to be wasted by letting it flow onto their next preference.

[AlterEgo]

14.

The ultimate Donkey Vote was for the Senate in NSW.

By the luck of the draw, the No.1 Position on the left end of the ballot paper (tablecloth) went to the Liberal Democrats (formerly the Outdoor Recreation Party).

The absurd size of the vote they got indicates at least two things.

1. The Donkey Vote for people who really didn't know and/or didn't care who they voted for.

2. People who were misled into believing they were voting for the Liberal party.

Question 1 : Why did the AEC allow a party to register a name which was custom designed to be confused with the Liberal Party?

Question 2 : Why did the Liberal Party not put up advertisements to warn people of this potential confusion?

Question 3 : Where did the Liberal Democrats direct their preferences? Could provide the answer to Question 2.

[John Mc]

15.

the Liberal Democrats (formerly the Outdoor Recreation Party).

First incorrect assumption.

[Allan]

16.

"That voters would be less likely to vote for a party that aligns more with their political beliefs because votes under such a system can be 'wasted'.
As such, the majority of the time under FPTP it boils down to a two party system similar to the US, and that sort of development leads to policy stagnation."

Substantiation of that claim please.

[Sly]

17.

>> Why did the AEC allow a party to register a name <<

The party was first registered in 2001 (starting in the ACT) -- are you saying that someone made a plan 12 years ago to try and confuse people at the 2013 federal election in NSW? That is absurd.

We also have the Australian Democrats, the Christian Democratic Party, the Democratic Labour Party, and the Australian Labor Party -- a bit too confusing for you is it?

>> Where did the Liberal Democrats direct their preferences? <<

You make it sound like some secret that "could provide the answer", yet the group ticket is publ available on the AEC website, if you bothered to look.

Lib Dem preferences - Stop the Greens, Smokers Rights, Drug Law Reform, Shooters & Fishers, One Nation, Sex Party, Wikileaks Party, Australian Republicans, Equal Parenting, Secular Party....

The bottom end at 79+ Liberals, Christian Democrats, Labor, Greens, various socialist parties.

[AlterEgo]

18.

Thanks for the info. You are correct about the Liberal Democrats.

You said from AEC website :

Lib Dem preferences - Stop the Greens

From the Outdoor Recreation Party's website.

The Outdoor Recreation Party is registered as a political party in NSW and for federal elections, where its name is Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop the Greens)

So the Liberal Democrats first preference goes to - Stop the Greens, which is really the Outdoor Recreation Party.

Just saying.

We also have the Australian Democrats, the Christian Democratic Party, the Democratic Labour Party, and the Australian Labor Party -- a bit too confusing for you is it?

Not too confusing for me, but for some other voters ....?

[Trish]

19.

With pleasure.

FPTP will eventually devolve into a two party system due to Duverger's Law. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)

The tactical voting issue is one that is also well documented in FPTP systems.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Tactical_voting)

[Philip Lillingston]

20.

"She claims that First-Past-The-Post is "perpetually flawed" but doesn't elaborate. I wonder if she could convince the plethora of countries around the world that successfully use that system, including Canada, UK, India and the US"
Does "successfully use" mean situations such as Australia in 1998 when John Howard accrued fewer votes than Kim Beazley but still won? Or how about the UK where, as of 2010, “the average seat in England, where the Tories are the strongest party, has 73,212 voters while the average seat in Labour-dominated Wales has just 56,531 voters"

[John Mc]

21.

FPTP delivers good results in the US because the US devolves power to lower levels than Australia. The citizens get more control over their political outcomes by having more meaningful voting more often at the different levels of government. Also FPTP in this way tends to mean the quality of candidates that get put forward are of very high quality. These things combined results in their system working well.

In Australia, we try to concentrate political power in Canberra (for some stupid reason). This means that, for us, FPTP would result in a two party race to the mediocre with no way out.

[Allan]

22.

FPTP is well documented by Wikipedia??? That is your substantiation? At best the two examples you have submitted are opinion and nothing more.

[Anton]

23.

Neither voting system (FPTP or proportional) is the cause of poor (or good) government.

Bad government is caused by paying politicians too much. Really - pay more, get worse.

This is because the KPIs for being elected are completely unrelated to the KPIs for performance. To be elected requires being part of a large party machine, arse-kissing and obedience to the machine are essential. Even as an independent (rules out higher office)just requires crowd pleasing populism.

Performance requires some level of technical skill - management, engineering, military etc.

It is very unusual for a person to be gifted in both KPIs. So as politicians' pay increases, more political types are attracted, crowding out the performers. The current Labor party is a perfect example of this.