Australian Election
Sep. 7th, 2013 09:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kerravonsenSo... those of you who aren't Australians and don't follow me on Twitter, may not even be aware that we're having Federal elections today, or may be confused about strange Australian politics even if you do know.
So in this brief lull, where the polling stations in the eastern states have closed, but those in timezones further west are still open, I shall attempt to explain just a few little quirks we have. (Illustrated with excerpts from Twitter)
A. First of all, it isn't a proper election without a sausage sizzle.
This election was much improved by the kind services of electionsausagesizzle.com.au, which let you know which polling booths had sausage sizzles, cake stalls and the like. I was fortunate that this time, my nearest polling booth (at the local primary school) did have a sausage sizzle; last election they didn't.
I do not know the origin of the democracy sausage; it is probably tied in with the traditions of the Aussie barbecue, the use of sausage sizzles as fund-raisers, the tendency for schools and church halls (which are the most common sites for polling booths) to need funding, and the assurance that compulsory voting gives that people will turn up, all coming together in a delicious whole.
Indeed, the true winner this election may be the sausage sizzles.
EXIT POLLS SHOW SAUSAGE ON BREAD LEADS MOST NT BOOTHS, STEAK SANGA HANGING IN THERE, SALAD ROLL SUPPORT TOTALLY COLLAPSED
As Australians head to the polls together we have hit a worldwide peak for the use of the word #sausage on Twitter in 2013!
B. Oh, yes, did I mention that voting here is compulsory?
Strictly speaking, turning up at the polling booth is compulsory. They look you up on a copy of the electoral roll, and mark your name, and give you your ballot papers. They don't actually check whether you've filled them in. They just check that you put them in the correct box. You could leave them blank if you want, but it seems a bit silly, after you've turned up, not to actually vote.
If your name isn't marked on the roll as having turned up, you get fined. To be precise, they send you a form inviting you to explain why you didn't vote, and if you don't have a good excuse, you get fined. I failed to vote in my local council elections once. It was a postal vote, they sent the ballots by mail. I told them the snails ate the ballot paper. They didn't consider that a good excuse. 8-P
I cheerfully paid the fine.
Thing is, I consider it my civic duty to vote. I think compulsory voting is one of the best things about Australia's democracy. It baffles me how folks from other democracies seem horrified that Australia has compulsory voting. What's wrong with it? It seems a lot better to me to have a democracy where (a) the MPs are elected by an ACTUAL MAJORITY of the citizenry; (b) the politicians have to woo the undecided middle, not the dedicated extremists; (c) knowing that one has to vote makes it more likely that folks will think about their vote; (d) the government is motivated to make it easier to vote, not harder.
C. Being upside-down, our Liberals are conservative.
That is, where the USA has the Republicans, the UK has the Tories, we have the Liberal Party, or, to be more precise, the long-standing coalition between the Liberal Party and the National Party (formerly known as the National-Country Party), so long-standing that their current logo is "LNP". The major "liberal" party is called Labour. I put "liberal" in quotes because, given their behaviour recently, they aren't liberal any more, but centrist, while the LNP are even more right-wing than they used to be.
Fortunately, we do actually have minor parties, and preferential voting... which brings us to...
D. Our ballots are somewhat intimidating.
So, American friends... this was our Victorian senate voting sheet. Number the boxes under the line 1-97!
To allay your confusion somewhat...
The green ballot paper is the ballot for the House of Representatives. It is pretty simple: there's half a dozen candidates for your electorate (where you live), and you number the boxes in order of your preference. Simple.
The white ballot paper is for the Senate. The Senate is the "house of review"; it has to approve of the laws that are passed by the House of Representatives. Now, the founders of Australia were rather clever. They wanted a house of review that would be effective as a house of review, not a rubber stamp. Which means that they needed to find a way to have elected members of the Senate, who were NOT in exactly the same proportions as the House of Representatives. They needed to find a different way of electing them. They took a two-pronged approach. The first part is that, with every Federal Election, only half the Senate is elected. The other half were elected the previous election. This means that the Senate will be a mix of who the nation liked three years ago, and who they like now. Which will be a different mix than in the House of Representatives. The second part is that election to the Senate is determined by proportional representation, per state. That is, each state gets a certain number of seats, and the seats are determined by the proportion of the votes of the whole state.
This means that it's much easier for small parties to get into the Senate.
Which means that a LOT of small parties put candidates in for the Senate.
This election, in Victoria, there were 97. Candidates, that is, not parties.
That's a lot of boxes to fill in. Because, yes, the Senate ballot is also preferential. When I first started voting, you just took a deep breath and filled in all the boxes. But a few elections ago (I can't remember exactly when) the politicians reckoned it was too complicated... so they introduced another method, which just made the whole thing more confusing: they introduced THE LINE.
The LINE divides the Senate ballot paper into two sections, the section ABOVE THE LINE, and the section BELOW THE LINE. The two sections represent two different ways of filling in your ballot; you can choose one or the other (but not both). The section BELOW-THE-LINE is the old, original way of filling in the ballot, huge numbers of squares and all. The section above the line is the simple and stupid way of filling it in - you let one party vote for you.
"What?" you ask. "You let a party vote for you?"
Well, that's what it boils down to. Instead of filling in all the boxes below the line, you fill in ONE box above the line, a box representing a major-ish party (there's about half a dozen). That party has very kindly figured out what ballot order is in their best interests, and given that to the electoral commission beforehand, so that if you vote ABOVE-THE-LINE, that "official ballot for that party" becomes your vote.
"What's wrong with that?" you say. "They'll put themselves first, that's obvious."
Yeah, but who are they putting second, third, fourth? It might not be who you want. A lot of negotiating goes on between the parties beforehand, for "preference swapping". Things like "I'll put you third on my ballot if you put me third on yours." And it isn't always who you would expect. And it's not that easy to find out what those preferences are. Oh, it isn't impossible, but it isn't easy.
I have ALWAYS voted BELOW-THE-LINE. This year it was much easier because I found belowtheline.org.au; it enabled me to ponder my vote in the comfort of my own home, looking at the various parties' websites, figure out my ballot order and save it as a PDF, which I simply printed out this morning and referred to in the polling booth. MUCH easier.
So in this brief lull, where the polling stations in the eastern states have closed, but those in timezones further west are still open, I shall attempt to explain just a few little quirks we have. (Illustrated with excerpts from Twitter)
A. First of all, it isn't a proper election without a sausage sizzle.
This election was much improved by the kind services of electionsausagesizzle.com.au, which let you know which polling booths had sausage sizzles, cake stalls and the like. I was fortunate that this time, my nearest polling booth (at the local primary school) did have a sausage sizzle; last election they didn't.
I do not know the origin of the democracy sausage; it is probably tied in with the traditions of the Aussie barbecue, the use of sausage sizzles as fund-raisers, the tendency for schools and church halls (which are the most common sites for polling booths) to need funding, and the assurance that compulsory voting gives that people will turn up, all coming together in a delicious whole.
Indeed, the true winner this election may be the sausage sizzles.
EXIT POLLS SHOW SAUSAGE ON BREAD LEADS MOST NT BOOTHS, STEAK SANGA HANGING IN THERE, SALAD ROLL SUPPORT TOTALLY COLLAPSED
As Australians head to the polls together we have hit a worldwide peak for the use of the word #sausage on Twitter in 2013!
B. Oh, yes, did I mention that voting here is compulsory?
Strictly speaking, turning up at the polling booth is compulsory. They look you up on a copy of the electoral roll, and mark your name, and give you your ballot papers. They don't actually check whether you've filled them in. They just check that you put them in the correct box. You could leave them blank if you want, but it seems a bit silly, after you've turned up, not to actually vote.
If your name isn't marked on the roll as having turned up, you get fined. To be precise, they send you a form inviting you to explain why you didn't vote, and if you don't have a good excuse, you get fined. I failed to vote in my local council elections once. It was a postal vote, they sent the ballots by mail. I told them the snails ate the ballot paper. They didn't consider that a good excuse. 8-P
I cheerfully paid the fine.
Thing is, I consider it my civic duty to vote. I think compulsory voting is one of the best things about Australia's democracy. It baffles me how folks from other democracies seem horrified that Australia has compulsory voting. What's wrong with it? It seems a lot better to me to have a democracy where (a) the MPs are elected by an ACTUAL MAJORITY of the citizenry; (b) the politicians have to woo the undecided middle, not the dedicated extremists; (c) knowing that one has to vote makes it more likely that folks will think about their vote; (d) the government is motivated to make it easier to vote, not harder.
C. Being upside-down, our Liberals are conservative.
That is, where the USA has the Republicans, the UK has the Tories, we have the Liberal Party, or, to be more precise, the long-standing coalition between the Liberal Party and the National Party (formerly known as the National-Country Party), so long-standing that their current logo is "LNP". The major "liberal" party is called Labour. I put "liberal" in quotes because, given their behaviour recently, they aren't liberal any more, but centrist, while the LNP are even more right-wing than they used to be.
Fortunately, we do actually have minor parties, and preferential voting... which brings us to...
D. Our ballots are somewhat intimidating.
So, American friends... this was our Victorian senate voting sheet. Number the boxes under the line 1-97!
To allay your confusion somewhat...
The green ballot paper is the ballot for the House of Representatives. It is pretty simple: there's half a dozen candidates for your electorate (where you live), and you number the boxes in order of your preference. Simple.
The white ballot paper is for the Senate. The Senate is the "house of review"; it has to approve of the laws that are passed by the House of Representatives. Now, the founders of Australia were rather clever. They wanted a house of review that would be effective as a house of review, not a rubber stamp. Which means that they needed to find a way to have elected members of the Senate, who were NOT in exactly the same proportions as the House of Representatives. They needed to find a different way of electing them. They took a two-pronged approach. The first part is that, with every Federal Election, only half the Senate is elected. The other half were elected the previous election. This means that the Senate will be a mix of who the nation liked three years ago, and who they like now. Which will be a different mix than in the House of Representatives. The second part is that election to the Senate is determined by proportional representation, per state. That is, each state gets a certain number of seats, and the seats are determined by the proportion of the votes of the whole state.
This means that it's much easier for small parties to get into the Senate.
Which means that a LOT of small parties put candidates in for the Senate.
This election, in Victoria, there were 97. Candidates, that is, not parties.
That's a lot of boxes to fill in. Because, yes, the Senate ballot is also preferential. When I first started voting, you just took a deep breath and filled in all the boxes. But a few elections ago (I can't remember exactly when) the politicians reckoned it was too complicated... so they introduced another method, which just made the whole thing more confusing: they introduced THE LINE.
The LINE divides the Senate ballot paper into two sections, the section ABOVE THE LINE, and the section BELOW THE LINE. The two sections represent two different ways of filling in your ballot; you can choose one or the other (but not both). The section BELOW-THE-LINE is the old, original way of filling in the ballot, huge numbers of squares and all. The section above the line is the simple and stupid way of filling it in - you let one party vote for you.
"What?" you ask. "You let a party vote for you?"
Well, that's what it boils down to. Instead of filling in all the boxes below the line, you fill in ONE box above the line, a box representing a major-ish party (there's about half a dozen). That party has very kindly figured out what ballot order is in their best interests, and given that to the electoral commission beforehand, so that if you vote ABOVE-THE-LINE, that "official ballot for that party" becomes your vote.
"What's wrong with that?" you say. "They'll put themselves first, that's obvious."
Yeah, but who are they putting second, third, fourth? It might not be who you want. A lot of negotiating goes on between the parties beforehand, for "preference swapping". Things like "I'll put you third on my ballot if you put me third on yours." And it isn't always who you would expect. And it's not that easy to find out what those preferences are. Oh, it isn't impossible, but it isn't easy.
I have ALWAYS voted BELOW-THE-LINE. This year it was much easier because I found belowtheline.org.au; it enabled me to ponder my vote in the comfort of my own home, looking at the various parties' websites, figure out my ballot order and save it as a PDF, which I simply printed out this morning and referred to in the polling booth. MUCH easier.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-09-07 11:20 pm (UTC)You'd think so, but my sister proudly admits to drawing on her ballot and nothing else. (Given that she's dependent on penalty rates to earn a living wage, three years under the Liberals may actually politicise her. Or ... not.)
no subject
Date: 2013-09-08 02:14 am (UTC)97 parties...what...
I need my political teddy bear now. Or an explanation of how anyone keeps them all straight in their heads?
no subject
Date: 2013-09-08 02:50 am (UTC)No, no, not 97 parties, 97 candidates!
Minor parties field two or possibly three candidates, major parties would field half-a-dozen. So it's not that bad.
And most people don't keep them all straight. Most people just decide between Liberal, Labour, and Greens, and are pretty random about the rest. Besides which, the minor parties often have their politics in their name, because they know that for most people, seeing the name on the ballot is the first time they've heard of these people.
Minor party names can be as entertaining as band names.
Here are some real, actual minor party names from this year's ballot:
Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP)
Secular Party
No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics
Bank Reform Party
Stable Population Party
Smokers Rights Party
Fishing And Lifestyle Party
Building Australia Party
Stop CSG Party -- "CSG" stands for "Coal Seam Gas" mining.
Animal Justice Party
Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party
Wikileaks Party
Australian Sex Party
Stop The Greens
Drug Law Reform
Bullet Train For Australia
Socialist Equality Party
Pirate Party
One year there was even a Party Party Party Party. (grin)
no subject
Date: 2013-09-07 12:21 pm (UTC)I had never heard about the above and below the line before, I can see the drawbacks and possible advantages from your explanation.
I think we should have compulsary voting as well. Not because people fought and died to get you the right to vote, but how can you complain if the people you don't like got in and you couldn't be bothered to vote the other way.
no subject
Date: 2013-09-07 04:18 pm (UTC)Exactly!
Apathy is the enemy of democracy.
no subject
Date: 2013-09-07 12:42 pm (UTC)(And to be honest in this state I often feel that way, but I vote anyway--when I know there's voting going on. They do not publicize local elections here very well. There have been a couple of times recently that I did not EVEN KNOW voting was going on until it was too late! Can you believe that? I'd never lived anywhere before where the politicking was more or less a secret!)
no subject
Date: 2013-09-07 04:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-09-08 11:02 am (UTC)Americans might find it odd that the right wing party is blue and the left is red, although that is kind of normal outside the US.
Also: the Labor Party spells its name without a "u" in Australia.
no subject
Date: 2013-09-09 12:21 am (UTC)I'm a little iffy on compulsory voting, if only because I imagine that would result in a lot of very uninformed people making their nonexistent opinions known. But perhaps knowing that you MUST vote would encourage people to better inform themselves.
no subject
Date: 2013-09-09 01:17 am (UTC)I'm kind of appalled by that statement.
But perhaps knowing that you MUST vote would encourage people to better inform themselves.
That is my theory, yes. Not that everyone will better inform themselves - that would be too much to expect - but that more people would better inform themselves than they would have otherwise.
Another good thing is that the turnout for voting is not at the mercy of the weather, either.
Apathy is the enemy of democracy.
no subject
Date: 2013-09-09 01:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-09-09 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-09-09 02:39 am (UTC)Everyone ought to have the right to vote. I was trying to say that everyone in a democracy (if they're going to vote, or if they are required to vote) has a responsibility to vote with thoughtfulness rather than the opposite. They have the RIGHT to vote however they want, but if they don't educate themselves, they are shirking their responsibilities.
no subject
Date: 2013-09-09 01:39 am (UTC)I'm curious as to whether compulsory voting would increase the number of people voting that way, or whether the knowledge that you must vote would actually encourage more people to educate themselves. Basically, would it increase actual effective democratic power, or would it just increase what looks like democratic participation?
Sounds like it's working out fairly well for you guys.
no subject
Date: 2013-09-09 02:29 am (UTC)Some people's reasons are shallow, yes, but not that shallow. Of course the party leaders try to project the image that they think will appeal to the electorate - for example, Tony Abbot went on the campaign trail with his daughters in tow, to give the impression that he's a caring family man (when he's really a right-wing reactionary who wants women kept barefoot and pregnant). The party does tend to be judged by the behaviour of the party leader, and why not? Where the leader goes, the others will follow.
Some people just staunchly vote for the same party election after election, because they believe in the general principles of that party (whether out of enlightened self-interest or whether they think it is best for the country). Party leaders come and go, but the parties themselves roll on. The Liberal Party attracts supporters because they think a Liberal government is "good for the economy"; the Labor Party attracts supporters because they think a Labor government is "good for society". To wit, the usual methods of the Liberal Party are: cut spending (to "balance the budget"), cut services, privatize everything they can get their hands on (in the name of "efficiency"),
kowtow to big businesssupport business, and attack unions. The usual methods of the Labor Party are: increase spending (and make a deficit), increase services, support the unions, and uphold social justice.And, whatever the case, it isn't going to be "off the cuff"... okay, the statistics say that one in ten people decide their vote at the polling booth, but that means that there are 90% who do actually think about it beforehand.
Sounds like it's working out fairly well for you guys.
Well, yes and no. What tends to happen is when the people are fed up enough, they vote for whichever party isn't in government.
IMHO, this time around, Labor deserved to lose, because they had betrayed their traditional values in a race to the bottom, but the Liberals didn't deserve to win, though, of course, by Labor losing, the Liberals did win.
The flip-flop gives us a kind of balance, I suppose.
My hope is that the next three years will give Labor the time and incentive to pull their act together while Abbott makes a fool of himself. And that the Senate will be able to stop Abbott from destroying too much of our infrastructure and our freedoms in the meantime.
no subject
Date: 2013-09-09 02:34 am (UTC)I think your founders were onto something awesome with mixing it up in the House and Senate as they did. Anything that would help to break monopolies on such things seems good to me.