Parties registered for 2013: the record is broken

1. This to me is beyond ridiculous and wasted votes.

2. That’s democracy for you – people are entitled to form as many political parties as they like and there is nothing in the constitution that says we should only have two parties. Oligopolies are not a great idea and duopolies even less of a good idea (see in the retail field what happens with Coles and Woolworths).

   The probability that any of these newly registered parties will have much of an impact is low – though it will be interesting to see how far Mr Palmer can get by throwing a lot of money at the process. An interesting test case for the psephologists.

   On the other hand with preferential voting, contrary to ‘Shirl in Sydney’ above, people don’t have to waste their vote – if they go for one or more of the small parties first.

3. @Doug

   Having worked at Local, State and Federal level on elections for over 20 years at least, I can tell you in all honesty that very few people have any idea how the preference voting system works.

4. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some move to tighten the rules around party registration after the election. By my rough estimate we’ll probably have around 45 groups on the NSW Senate ballot paper – that’s crazy.

5. Regardless of the level of understanding people have as to the preferential system the preferences get filled in and the votes aren’t wasted in any meaningful sense. The patterns that emerge from preferences from minor parties suggest that people have employed some logic to their preference choices. The left/right stance of a minor party candidate is a useful predictor of where the majority of their preferences will go.

6. The AEC is reportedly ordering magnifying glasses to help voters read the Senate ballot papers due to the reduced font size that will be required to fit all of these groups on the ballot papers. However, the article probably over-estimates the number of groups that would run in any one state as several of the new (and existing) parties won’t run in every state
   http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/explosion-of-candidate-numbers-mean-voters-will-be-given-magnifying-glasses-to-read-metre-long-senate-ballot-paper/story-fnho52ip-1226676220957

   Maybe we need to redesign the Senate ballot papers to have the group voting squares in a column and the candidates in rows to the right of them???

7. This is yet another reason why the way senate group voting tickets currently work should be changed. Most people who vote above the line have no idea what the parties are doing with their preferences, but with this many registered political parties, and presumably a corresponding number of candidates, it makes voting correctly below the line an ordeal. This really disempowers people from fully using preferential voting to express their democratic choices. Maybe optional below the line preferences should be considered (e.g. you have to order your preferences for the number of vacancies – 6 for a half-senate or 12 for a double-dissolution), with no above the line voting?, with no above the line voting (and no group voting tickets).

8. Just checked the link, and 3 more parties were registered on 9th July, bringing the total number of registered parties to 50.

9. Polly – you’re right, it needs to be reformed.

   I’d suggest four things that should be necessary:

   1. Change the voting itself, so you have four choices – Vote 1 above the line, Number at least up to 6 (12 for double dissolution) below the line (should all explicit preferences be exhausted, remaining preferences follow those equivalent to above-the-line for the candidate that you numbered 1), Vote preferences above the line (full preferences), or Vote for parties above the line and independents below the line.

   2. Place a strict requirement that, to be on the Senate ticket, you must get a petition signed by enough people to represent 0.02 quotas. In Victoria in 2010, this would have been roughly 8000 signatures, or about 0.25% of the electorate. It’s not a high bar, given that there’s zero chance of being elected with 0.02 quotas anyway, and it would cull out the parties and independents that simply do not have sufficient support to get anywhere. If a party or independent has even the remotest chance of getting enough support, they’ll be able to get 8000 people in Victoria to sign a petition saying they intend to vote for that candidate/party.

   3. Have a requirement that each party provide their preference orders at all poll booths, in a way that makes it easy for people to see the party’s “just vote 1” preferences.

   4. Consider a new layout for the ballot paper itself – the column structure isn’t exactly efficient. Some consideration could also be given to the idea of having two distinct ballot paper forms, with the voter being able to choose which one they take and fill out. This would compress down the space required for the vast majority of voters, who vote above the line only.

   Sadly, it’s not likely to change, because the current system actually significantly benefits the major parties.

10. Three more parties were registered on 16 July, bringing the total to 53 (and four still pending).

    I’m not really sure the AEC ordering 40,000 magnifying glasses is going to make that much difference. With ungrouped independents also on the ballot it’s going to be a struggle voting for the NSW Senate with columns less than 2 cm wide.

11. What do you know, some of the parties that have successfully registered include:

    Australian Independents,
    Coke in the Bubblers Party,
    Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop The Greens),
    Palmer United Party,
    Senator Online (Internet Voting Bills/Issues), and
    Uniting Australia Party

    There could be some very interesting and firey debates between some of these parties. Imagine getting Bullet Train for Australia and the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party together! Or the Secular Party vs the Australian Christians. Or Animal Justice Party vs the Shooters and Fishers Party. So entertaining.

    Also, as an interesting aside, I never knew the DLP was the Democratic Labour Party as opposed to Labor.

12. The DLP formally changed their name recently.

    True, the magnifying sheets may not help much, but I guess AEC have limited options at this point, unless they can find a way of getting larger ballot papers printed.

13. Here’s an interesting article on the plethora of new parties
    http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1650949/something-for-everyone-how-niche-parties-are-taking-over-australias-political-landscape/?cs=7

Comments are closed.