Election time in the land of Oz.

[Bluenose]

Well, it's two weeks, more or less, until we Ozwalds go to the polls.

For your edification and amusement here is how it works here...

Australia is a parliamentary democracy with a bi-cameral legislature.  The lower house, the House of Representatives, consists of 150 members elected to represent electorates of approximately equal numbers of voters, within a specified tolerance.  Voting for the lower house is via a preferential voting system.  The lower house term is nominally three years.  The upper house or Senate, sometimes known as "the States' House" consists of 76 members, 12 elected for each state (6 States), plus 2 each for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.  Senators are elected using a proportional representation system for fixed six year terms and in an ordinary general election half the Senate positions are declared vacant.  Half-Senate elections are held at the same time as the election for the lower house, but the newly elected Senators do not take up office until the expiry of the fixed term period after the general election.  There's more to it than that, but that will suffice, lest I bore you all to death!

The Prime Minister is the lower house Member of Parliament who commands a majority on the floor of said lower house.  Our nominal head of state is the Queen of Australia AKA Betty the tooth (hey, I'm an Aussie, I'm supposed to be disrespectful of authority, so sue me...).  However the Queen has only one power and that is to appoint the Governor General, who is our actual head of state, and in doing so she is required to follow the advice of the Prime Minister.  There are a great number of Australians who argue that we should become a republic, however, I feel we are for all intents and purposes a republic already, plus we get the added advantage of all the spectacle of a royal visit every now and then and we can feel a sense of ownership of all the pomp and ceremony that happens over in The Old Country without having to pay for any of it - bargain!  In the mean time the Royals don't effect our day to day lives in any meaningful way at all (except for those that buy trashy magazines) so we can safely ignore them.  I can't think of a better use for a head of state, can you?

Anyway we are now in the grip of election fever - or not, as the case moves us.  Mostly not, we just want it over.  So who do we get to vote for?

The current Labor (no, they can't spell) government is led by Kevin Rudd.  He was first elected Prime Minister two elections ago (Kevin 07), got himself a reputation for being a total workaholic nut job, rude and disrespectful and maker of policy on the run, much of which proved to be abject failures or complete wastes of money, so his fellow Labor (the buggers still can't spell) Party colleagues decided to chuck him out and put Julia Gillard in his place.  Julia proceeded to not quire win the next election and held onto minority government by making a deal with the devil Greens and the three independent MPs, thus delivering her a "majority" of one in the lower house.  Many people thought that she should have called a new election, but she determined to press ahead.  As part of her deal with the Greens, Julia introduced a carbon tax, despite having specifically and adamantly ruled it out in a much publicised television interview a few days before the election.  Julia continued along the policy on the run approach sometimes announcing major policy decisions affecting our near neighbours, without consulting them first.  Due to this and other continued policy failure the government standing in the polls plummeted.  The same faceless men that ejected Kevin the first time, noting that Labor (I really wish they would learn how to spell their own name) was well and truly on track to be annihilated in the upcoming election, now turned on his replacement and put Kevin back in the drivers seat hoping somehow that he would save their collective bacon.  Two months on and now two weeks away from the election. the polls have been through their "new" leader bounce - they maxed out just about the time Kevin actually called the election, and since then have continued to slide for the party with the poorly spelled name, probably as people remember why they hated him so much the first time.  Kevin's amazingly bizarre attempts to use the vernacular, usually coming out with clumsy, not quite right wonders of ineptitude, sound just like a dad trying to be cool in front of his teenage kids' friends - truly cringe worthy.  As things stand now it seems likely that Kevin will be ex-Prime Minister this time on 8 September.

Hoping to become the new Prime Minister is Liberal Party leader Tony Abbot.  Tony was the former health minister in the previous Liberal/National Party coalition.  (The Nats are a sort of country auxiliary wing of the Libs.)  He is a Catholic, as indeed is Kevin Rudd (Julia Gillard was openly atheist).  Detractors say this will colour his approach to a number of issues, but somehow seem to think this is not the case for Kevvy.  Oh well. consistency was never the hallmark of the political apparatchiks.  However, in Tony's favour it should be pointed out that as health minister, despite admitting that he personally did not support it, but he did nevertheless take the advice of his department and oversaw the introduction of RU486 (the "morning after" pill).  Tony has tended to suffer a bit in the past from foot-in-mouth disease, but so far in this election has managed to avoid any major gaffs.  I guess time will tell.  His main challenge is to not succumb to hubris based on the polls (that he has the election in the bag) and to control his colleagues in the same way.

Snipping around the edges are a number of smaller groups, the largest of which are the Greens.  The Greens have one member in the lower house and 9 Senators.  Australia has for a long time had a third party that polls about 10-12% of the vote, before the Greens it was the Australian Democrats and before them the Democratic Labour Party.  As a rule these parties have served the purpose of providing an alternative for those jaded with the two main political parties and for those that believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden.  The Greens achieved their biggest success at the last Federal election due to some preference deals, but this time round both main parties have decided to place the Greens last on their tickets (primarily to avoid another minority government which it has to be said has been far from a resounding success) which is likely to have a major negative impact on Green MPs' chances of re-election.

After the Greens there are a hodgepodge of minor parties from what can only be considered to be joke parties (not least because he is deadly serious) like the Clive Palmer's Palmer United Party (yes, he of the Titanic II "fame"), to some that defy description such as Bob Hatter's Hatter's Australia Party, sometimes unkindly called the Mad Hatter's Party.  Also there is the Australian Sex Party, which actually just about has a chance to pick up the sixth Senate seat in Victoria due to preferences.

All in all, I think that the best policy was expressed in some graffiti I saw a few years ago: "Don't vote, it only encourages them".  However, seeing as how Australia has compulsory voting, I do at least have to turn up at a polling booth, get my name ticked off the electoral roll and pick up my ballot papers.  Whether I fill them in or use them to draw a nice fire engine, is up to me.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

My son (who will study Foreign Relations next year if all goes correctly) has been following the election and he showed me this:
[youtube=550,350]gfftbmFCz4o[/youtube]

Ain't politics fun? 

[Griffin NoName]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him vote. Compulsory voting seems ridiculous to me. Unless they count protest votes, which they never do.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I would go the other way around, voting should be compulsory and, protest votes must count and have consequences.

[Griffin NoName]

I would go the other way around, voting should be compulsory and, protest votes must count and have consequences.

Humbly, that's what I was saying.

[Bluenose]

To be honest, I have never been convinced by the arguments in favour of compulsory voting, but I doubt that it is likely to change here any time soon.  The law here does not actually require you to cast your vote, only attend a polling booth and get your name crossed off the electoral roll.  Still, at least we do get the opportunity to vote in fair and free elections in this country, something which a lot of the world's people cannot say, even if the choices we are offered are less palatable than we would like.  Then again, even there, our pollies are for the most part incompetent rather than corrupt so we do have it a lot better than it could be.

[Aggie]

To be honest, I have never been convinced by the arguments in favour of compulsory voting, but I doubt that it is likely to change here any time soon.  The law here does not actually require you to cast your vote, only attend a polling booth and get your name crossed off the electoral roll.  Still, at least we do get the opportunity to vote in fair and free elections in this country, something which a lot of the world's people cannot say, even if the choices we are offered are less palatable than we would like.  Then again, even there, our pollies are for the most part incompetent rather than corrupt so we do have it a lot better than it could be.

Do you get the day off to vote? What's the penalty for non-compliance?

[Bluenose]

Do you get the day off to vote? What's the penalty for non-compliance?

Our elections are always held on a Saturday.  If you cannot make it to a polling booth in your electorate, you have a number of options available.  You can vote at any other polling booth, an "absentee vote", or if you know in advance that you will not be able to make it you can cast a pre-polling day vote (at the moment there have apparently been something like 700,000 of these cast already), or you can make a postal vote - which has to be post marked before polling day.  If you do not make it without lawful excuse then you can be fined up to $2,000.  However, if something unexpected comes up so long as you are prepared to supply the reason you are not likely to be in any trouble.  Generally there are plenty of polling booths so I have never had to wait very long to vote, not more than a few minutes, the booths are open (from memory) from 8 am to 6 pm, so even if you were working you would probably be able to get to a polling booth either before or after work.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Perhaps we should enter a thread for Compulsory Voting in the Debate Chamber, I'd like to hear the arguments against.

[Griffin NoName]

Our polling booths are fixed, eg we have to go to the one specified. But they are open to 10 pm which is useful, and results in the exciting overnight results events.

Argument against compulsory voting - I don't see why anyone should be forced to vote. Having to register at a booth, and then being able to not cast a vote seems ridiculous.

[Swatopluk]

Perhaps we should enter a thread for Compulsory Voting in the Debate Chamber, I'd like to hear the arguments against.

Easy, if there is enough malice. Make it impossible for those you don't want to vote to reach the polling place, then fine them for not showing up (only in-person voting being allowed of course).

North Carolina is currently experimenting with all parts except the fines for not voting (They'd prefer heafty fees again for the privilege to vote).
E.g. they combined three Dem leaning precincts and moved the single polling place to a location that can only be reached safely by car (no sidewalks along the road but ditches). There is no public transport. And the parking lot at the location has just enough room for ten cars. It's expected to serve up to 9400 people (iirc 1500 is the norm for other polling places in NC).

---
Iirc Turkey has compulsory voting too but the first measure taken after each election is a general amnesty for violation.

[Griffin NoName]

Yeh, paying people to vote might work.

Chat with my in-Oz son today. Apologies in advance to Blue. Son said debate between who we'd call Chancellor and Shadow Chancellor, electioneering, was like two infants bickering, no actual financial policy or content. (He's in finance himself, maybe he has high standards? but I doubt it: more likely there is a difference between levels of debate between us and Oz). I actually think our debates are like children bickering, but they do at least have some financial content and policies.

It might be preferable to not have the politicians themselves debate but to have them assign a more financially educated debater to pretend to be them. Like the Chancellor could put forward the Bank of England chappie (currently Canadian and seems good) and the Shadow Chancellor could put forward, hmmm, who else?, well er someone else. And they could debate instead. <can you tell what I think of politicians?>.

[pieces o nine]

Regarding compulsory voting, and potential pros and cons:

It sounds like South Carolina is also encouraging vigilante vote-challenging as well. Instead of self-appointed busybodies challenging anyone  who is attempting to vote while not WASP Repub  who seems suspicious in their own polling place, while they are present, they now have the blessing to go forth and challenge any voter at any precinct in the state who is attempting to vote while not WASP Repub  who seems suspicious.

I say, Yay for you, Patriot Vote Checkers!  Of course, challenges must be made in the form of a written affidavit bearing your legal signature (a public notary will be on-premises to check your multiple forms of State ID  [c wot I did thar], and notarize your signature for your convenience). You will also be fined ten thousand dollars for each false challenge to a fellow citizen duly exercising his or her constitutional right to vote even if attempting to vote while not WASP Repub  you don't like it.

[Bluenose]

Original message posted here moved to the compulsory voting thread here.

[Aggie]

It might be preferable to not have the politicians themselves debate but to have them assign a more financially educated debater to pretend to be them. Like the Chancellor could put forward the Bank of England chappie (currently Canadian and seems good) and the Shadow Chancellor could put forward, hmmm, who else?, well er someone else. And they could debate instead. <can you tell what I think of politicians?>.

You'd prefer a wunch of bankers over the usual bunch of....?

[Griffin NoName]

Only because they can speak finance. It's always irrlevant what is actually said. But it should be the right langiage.

[Aggie]

One would think a proper leader should be able to handle these conversations. Jargon isn't generally hard to learn.  I (somewhat hopelessly) expect a candidate for leadership to be fluent in all aspects of running a country. They can count on experts for providing advice, but they should understand what they're being told, and be able to report it to the rest of the nation using technically correct language, even if they need to describe it in less technical terms for general consumption.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

My friend, I'm troubled, you keep referring to things that don't exist, like competent managers, leaders -or harder even- politicians, next thing you'll talk about your last Sasquatch encounter, or even more absurd, a considerate banker.

[Bluenose]

Just an update.  The polls are continuing to show an increasing slump in support for the government.  Whilst both leaders claim that it is going to be a close election the available polling suggest that the result will more likely be the proverbial landslide victory to the Liberal-National Party coalition. Whatever the outcome I'll be more than happy when the election is over.  I'm more than a little sick of the lies and distortions from both sides.

[Griffin NoName]

I'm more than a little sick of the lies and distortions from both sides.

I never ever watch the political broadcasts that precede our elections. Though I did watch the three leader debate for fun.

Since we all know it's lies and distortions, it does rather beg the question of why we ever have elected people of any sort. It's quite an odd way of going about things really.

[Bluenose]

Well Winston did say that democracy was the worst possible form of government, except for all the other systems that have ever been tried.

[Swatopluk]

Our elections are in 18 days. The election campaign is the most boring in living memory. The only difference between the social democratic (SPD)leadership and the currently in charge christian democrats (CDU) is the natural coalition partner. Green for the former, free democrats (FDP, once liberal now libertarian) for the latter. A grand coalition between CDU and SPD seems a likely and not totally unpopular idea, although both parties deny any desire for it, primarily for tactical reasons. If we could get rid of the Texas GOP..eh..the CSU (Bavarian sister party of the CDU), the differences would verge on negligible since the SPD lost its left wing to the new Left party (Die Linke). Currently the CDU is in essence a social democratic party painted black that has locked up the mad con members of the family in the basement. Politically we don't live in interesting times around here at the moment. Given the problems the EU has, primarily with its Southern members, we are an oasis of boredom. Could become a rude awakening when those problems can no longer be contained. We sit down and we own, let us sleep (to semi-quote Wagner ).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Isn't it great when the traditional left parties (Labour UK, Dems US, SPD, Labor Australia) became washed up supposedly centrish right parties?

According to politicalcompass this is Germany:

and Australia:

[Swatopluk]

Since the graphic does not differentiate between CDU and CSU, I fear they threw them together. The bulk CDU would be a good deal closer to the center. And party program and actual policy also tend to differ strongly quite often. That the SPD is in a center/right position owes a lot to the loss of her own left wing that separated and fused with the PDS (heir of the ruling party SED of the fomer GDR).

[Aggie]

Weird.  Canada pretty much has a linear relationship between authoritarianism and the right.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

No commies and no american libertarians (according to political compass) in your midst.

[Aggie]

Nope, we tend to be pretty predictable in linking our love of personal freedom with the other people's right for personal security and privacy.

I'm on the same line, BTW, although apparently somewhere left of the Dalai Lama (and almost dead opposite of Harper on both axes). This may explain why I have so little enthusiasm for any of the current options:  


For what it's worth, I consider myself a leftie, but much less so than many people on the left coast. I'm actually surprised that the Green Party is so central in Canada, as I've always thought they weren't pragmatic enough for my tastes. I tend to vote Green with the understanding that they don't have a hope in hell of actually taking power. I'd love to see them win a few seats, but have no confidence in their ability to run the place. I was reasonably comfortable with a Conservative minority government, but I don't trust any of the bastards to take a majority, except maybe the NDP. I might actually have to start voting for them.  

[Griffin NoName]

Most people in Britain are disenfranchised. I just read an article in The Gruniad about what comes after party politics has failed. oh, and someone has started a new non-EU party which is left -ie. welcomes immigrants etc, to compete with UKIP.

[Bluenose]

Well we had our election and as expected there was a change of government.  The Liberal / National party coalition has won something like a 30-35 seat majority in the 150 seat lower house.  The final results for some seats will not be known for perhaps another two weeks or so as pre-poll votes come in.  There were a record number of pre-polls this time, something like 30% of all votes and the results in some electorates being just too close to call until all the votes are counted.

The most notable thing IMHO on election night was the former PM Kevin Rudd's concession speech.  He rambled on for 25 minutes and had you turned the sound down it would have looked like he was claiming victory.  It was graceless and crass.  The speech has been criticised not only by his political opponents but also by long time stalwarts of his own party.  Kevin has resigned as leader of the Labor party (spelling again...) and it looks like he is going to return to the back benches rather than resign as has been customary for Labor (sic) leaders that lose elections.  Recent history shows that he may well then seek to undermine the new leadership from there as he simply does not get it that he is not the Messiah.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

... as he simply does not get it that he is not the Messiah.

An affliction that is, unfortunately, quite common among those who seek high office...

... *sigh*