Ding Dong, Abbot's Gone!

catbear

Well from my time in Australia I've learned that compulsory voting doesn't necessarily guarantee stable government, five PMs in five years!

My facebook feed is lit up with Aussie friends celebrating the good news!

Zambia

catbear wrote: »

Well from my time in Australia I've learned that compulsory voting doesn't necessarily guarantee stable government, five PMs in five years!

My facebook feed is lit up with Aussie friends celebrating the good news!

Well it had to happen, Abbot was far to damaged. They should never have dropped Turnbull in the first place

brandnewaward

he couldnt turn back the votes

jank

Turnbull is very very able and seems at ease in front of the media. I think the ALP are hating this. The coalition have 12 months now to sort out a few things before the next election.

aido79

catbear wrote: »

Well from my time in Australia I've learned that compulsory voting doesn't necessarily guarantee stable government, five PMs in five years!

My facebook feed is lit up with Aussie friends celebrating the good news!

Compulsory voting has very little to do with as most of the changes in leadership came from spills in the parties themselves which is out of the control of the electorate.

Tony Abbott won't be missed by most people. His time in opposition should have shown that he was clearly going to be an inept Prime Minister and it's his departure has been a long time coming. Hopefully Malcolm Turnbull will instill a bit more confidence but I wouldn't be sure of how stable it will be or for how long he will be Prime Minister for as there is a good chance Labour will be back after the next election.

Peregrinus

aido79 wrote: »

Compulsory voting has very little to do with as most of the changes in leadership came from spills in the parties themselves which is out of the control of the electorate.

Indirectly, compulsory voting may have quite a lot to do with it.

In western democracies where voting is not compulsory, anywhere between 20% and 40% of the electorate, roughly speaking, do not vote.

These people do vote in Australia but, obviously, they are not terribly interested or politically engaged. This makes their vote among the easiest to sway; they don't have established loyalties. So, not only do these people vote in Australia; they tend to determine the outcome of the election. The winning party will be the one which attracts the most votes from people who, given their druthers, would not vote at all.

Which, in turn, affects how parties campaign, and how they see their own prospects of success at the next election. Their campaigns are aimed at attracting support from people who are not interested in politics.

One of the things I have noticed since coming to Australia is how presidential campaigning is here, as indeed is the political discourse. Where an Irish government might refer to itself, or be referred to, as a Fianna Fail government or a Coalition government or whatever, Australian governments rather pointedly call themselves the Abbott government, the Gillard government, etc. Parties will campaign with language like "A vote for Gillard is a vote for . . . ", "an Abbott government will . . . ", etc, etc. I think this is at least partly because of a perception that voters who aren't interested in politics can be swayed by personalities.

And the upshot of this is that backbench MPs are hugely invested in the personal popularity of the party leader. Australia has single-seat constituencies, so individual MPs tend to have little personal profile compared with how it is in Ireland. Most Australians struggle to name their MP, but they know what party he is from. At election time they will vote by party, and their party preferences, in many cases, will be determined by their perceptions of the party leader. Australian campaigning style encourages this.

Hence, if the leader is not personally popular, backbench MPs get very nervous. And if his personal unpopularity is sustained, and starts to look irreversible, they dump him.

Note that this works in opposition too. In the last eight years the liberal party has changed its leader four times, which is actually more than the Labor party. It's just that they have been out of office for most of that period, so it has attracted less notice.

aido79

Peregrinus wrote: »

Indirectly, compulsory voting may have quite a lot to do with it.

In western democracies where voting is not compulsory, anywhere between 20% and 40% of the electorate, roughly speaking, do not vote.

These people do vote in Australia but, obviously, they are not terribly interested or politically engaged. This makes their vote among the easiest to sway; they don't have established loyalties. So, not only do these people vote in Australia; they tend to determine the outcome of the election. The winning party will be the one which attracts the most votes from people who, given their druthers, would not vote at all.

Which, in turn, affects how parties campaign, and how they see their own prospects of success at the next election. Their campaigns are aimed at attracting support from people who are not interested in politics.

One of the things I have noticed since coming to Australia is how presidential campaigning is here, as indeed is the political discourse. Where an Irish government might refer to itself, or be referred to, as a Fianna Fail government or a Coalition government or whatever, Australian governments rather pointedly call themselves the Abbott government, the Gillard government, etc. Parties will campaign with language like "A vote for Gillard is a vote for . . . ", "an Abbott government will . . . ", etc, etc. I think this is at least partly because of a perception that voters who aren't interested in politics can be swayed by personalities.

And the upshot of this is that backbench MPs are hugely invested in the personal popularity of the party leader. Australia has single-seat constituencies, so individual MPs tend to have little personal profile compared with how it is in Ireland. Most Australians struggle to name their MP, but they know what party he is from. At election time they will vote by party, and their party preferences, in many cases, will be determined by their perceptions of the party leader. Australian campaigning style encourages this.

Hence, if the leader is not personally popular, backbench MPs get very nervous. And if his personal unpopularity is sustained, and starts to look irreversible, they dump him.

Note that this works in opposition too. In the last eight years the liberal party has changed its leader four times, which is actually more than the Labor party. It's just that they have been out of office for most of that period, so it has attracted less notice.

Can't really disagree with any of that to be honest and I think the new generation of Facebook voters who see nothing but bad things about the government will make this more of an issue in the future.

Slideways

Makes sense.

How he stayed in as long as he did is slightly scary.

I've noticed that there is no sense of decorum when they are campaigning. It's all about attacking their opposition instead of promoting themselves

brandnewaward

i remember the Julia Gillard snack box on the liberal party fundraising menu a few years back. (2 fat thighs in a red box)
quality sleazebags

Peregrinus

Slideways wrote: »

How he stayed in as long as he did is slightly scary.

He didn't stay in very long at all. He served slightly under two years as Prime Minister - he won't even get a partial pension out of it.

(Trivial fact of the day; no other Australian Prime Minister has been dumped by his party after so short a time in office. Both Rudd and Gillard served longer than Abbott.)

observed

The instability here is a head wrecker.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

I find that the federal/national elections also feed into the issues as you never seem much further than 18 months from a possible policy changing election. It is different to Ireland too in the sense that the coalition and labour have completely different policies as opposed to Ireland where you have two choices that have very similar policies.
I find it very frustrating that you elect a government here and they cannot get their main election promises passed because the senate has a different party make up to the main house. At least at home our senate is useless and lets the government pass the vast majority of policies without any major issues.
In modern society it is an ongoing popularity contest and Facebook, twitter, etc. allows anyone to post rubbish that soon becomes fact because it has been shared enough times.

Peregrinus

observed wrote: »

I find that the federal/national elections also feed into the issues as you never seem much further than 18 months from a possible policy changing election. It is different to Ireland too in the sense that the coalition and labour have completely different policies as opposed to Ireland where you have two choices that have very similar policies. /QUOTE]
I'd put it almost the other way around. The Coalition and Labor used to offer competing ideologies and analyses which at least gave voters a rational basis for choosing between them. But nowadays both parties offer a similar market-based vision of society, and basically compete over which of them is more technically competent to run a government efficiently. Hence politics is boring. Hence voters vote by personality.

observed wrote: »

I find it very frustrating that you elect a government here and they cannot get their main election promises passed because the senate has a different party make up to the main house. At least at home our senate is useless and lets the government pass the vast majority of policies without any major issues.

That's not a bug, it's a feature. The Taoiseach of the day gets to nominate 11 (out of 60) Senators, which virtually guarantees the government a majority if they want it.

That's intentional, since the Dail has a popular democratic mandate and the Senate does not. It's not seen as right that the Senate should be able to obstruct a measure desired by the democratically-elected Dail; that's not its role. Its role is to be a forum where policy/legislative improvements can be suggested, which the Dail can accept it if finds them attractive, and it occasionally does function in that way (e.g. the introduction of humanist weddings in Ireland arose out of a Bill introduced by a non-government senator).

The Australian Senate is popularly elected, and therefore feels it does have a mandate to oppose measures coming from the House of Representatives with which it disagrees. Every Australian government needs either (a) the political skills to negotiate its measures through a Senate in which it does not have a majority, or (b) the good fortune to have a majority in the Senate.

Abbott had neither, which is part of why he is where he is today. Gillard didn't have a Senate majority either, but she was much more successful than Abbott in building support for the measures she wanted to get through.

catbear

My biggest gripe about the compulsory voting is that dissent for the entire political establishment is essentially illegal. No one can say "I didn't vote for any of the C**ts" as it's either for or against with no abstention.

This lack of abstention creates special interest politics like the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party and Pauline Hanson's One Nation; would either exist if there wasn't compulsory voting?

Ultimately it seemed like Australian leadership has become a perennial TV media event with actual governance a secondary concern.

lg123

yes, I disagree with the compulsory voting too. I voted for the first time in the most recent state elections. I ticked the first box so alphabetical order won my vote.

not something I am very proud of. doubt I am the only person who took this approach.

Zambia

Voting Is not compulsory, attending is.

You can scrawl "Vote Dustin" across the page. You have the right to spoil your vote.

catbear

Zambia wrote: »

Voting Is not compulsory, attending is.

Yes but the apathetic once forced to the booth can vote belligerently too!

Peregrinus

Zambia wrote: »

Voting Is not compulsory, attending is.

You can scrawl "Vote Dustin" across the page. You have the right to spoil your vote.

Strictly speaking, if you fail to indicate a preference you haven't voted, and you're in violation of the statutory requirement to vote. In practice, of course, you can do this and get away with it, since it's a secret ballot. They can enforce the voting obligation as far as requiring you to turn up at the polling place and take a ballot paper, but they can't actually enforce the requirement to vote.

Zambia

This is true but there is nothing in the legislation that covers that.

Its explained quite well here

You do not have to make a choice when voting

One final interesting aspect of Australia’s voting laws, is that although s 245 of the Electoral Act requires every person whose name appears on the electoral roll to vote in an election, the provision does not extend to forcing a person to make a choice when voting. The section instead merely requires, that a person attends a polling booth, and deposits their voting paper - rather than making a further requirement to mark the ballot paper.

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4434/australias-electoral-laws-you-dont-need-to-vote-fo.aspx

However come Electronic Voting that may change...

Essentially in a country where vast amounts of people whinge about the nanny state. Why would you not want a say in who governs you. Even if you vote for the one person who would amend the electoral act and let you sleep in that one Saturday morning every 4 odd years.

Peregrinus

No offence to the good people at FindLaw Australia, but I disagree.

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 s. 245(1) provides that "it shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election".

And, to underline the point, s. 245(15) provides that "An elector is guilty of an offence if the elector fails to vote at an election".

What is meant by "vote" and by "fail to vote"? Neither term is defined. But s. 240 provides that, in an election to the House of Representatives, "a person shall mark his or her vote on the ballot paper by (a) writing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom the person votes as his or her first preference; and (b) writing the numbers 2, 3, 4 (and so on, as the case requires) in the squares opposite the names of all the remaining candidates so as to indicate the order of the person’s preference for them." There's a similar but more complex provision in s. 239 dealing with voting in Senate elections, to accommodate above-the-line voting.

Given this, I'd say that if you haven't marked your ballot paper in accordance with s. 239 or 240, as appropriate, you haven't "voted". And I'm reinforced in this opinion by the fact that improperly completed papers aren't called "informal votes" in the Act; they're called "informal ballots".

I don't know how Findlaw can justify the claim that s. 245 "merely requires, that a person attends a polling booth, and deposits their voting paper - rather than making a further requirement to mark the ballot paper". S. 245 does not mention attendance, booths, voting papers or deposits. FindLaw seem to be assuming that "vote" means "attend booth, deposit paper", but there is nothing in the Act to back up this view.

Zambia

I would tend to go with you there but the absence a definition would make a prosecution very hard. Coupled with the fact knowing if you mark a ballot paper impossible in the first place.

As we all know you simply walk out after receiving your ballot if you wish.

The system in place to penalize offenders who do not vote is dependent on the returns of each catchment area. So all they care about is if you turned up and made your self known on the day, no other data is on offer to the court (and never will be).

Peregrinus

I think the "bottleneck" is the secrecy of the ballot rather than the lack of definition. As long as you turn up and are recorded as having been issued with a ballot paper prosecution is impossible, even if in fact you don't vote. Given that, the question of whether you could be prosecuted for depositing a blank or defaced ballot or whether the lack of a definition prevents that is moot. In my view, in principle you could be prosecuted and the undefined term "vote" would be taken to mean "express a preference as between the candidates". But we'll never know for sure, since the evidentiary obstacles to such a prosecution are insurmountable.

And I'm not alone in thinking this, it turns out. Here's the Chief Justice of the ACT in the 1981 case of O'Brien -v- Warden:

"I need not give full reasons here for the view that marking the ballot paper in a way that is not informal is part of what the Act requires the elector to do, namely to vote, and that failure so to mark it is failure to vote . . . No doubt, it would be impossible to adduce direct evidence of this particular kind of failure, because of the provisions for the secrecy of the ballot; but if such failure is an offence, a person could be convicted of it on confessional evidence. I need say no more than that it seems to me arguable that under the Act the elector's obligation to vote is satisfied not only by his attendance at a polling booth but also by going through the whole of the procedure laid down, including the marking of a ballot paper in a manner which is not informal — ie in a manner which appears to express a preference."

In that case the elector had not turned up to the polling station at all, so these comments were not strictly in point.

Mellor

catbear wrote: »

Well from my time in Australia I've learned that compulsory voting doesn't necessarily guarantee stable government, five PMs in five years!

4 PM's I'd have thought.
Rudd, Gillard, Abbot, Turnbull

Peregrinus wrote:

I think the "bottleneck" is the secrecy of the ballot rather than the lack of definition.

There could be an arguement that a spoiled vote is still a vote. But I can't see it ever been tested in court as the logical defense to claim you did vote and rely on secrecy.

AngryHippie

catbear wrote: »

My biggest gripe about the compulsory voting is that dissent for the entire political establishment is essentially illegal. No one can say "I didn't vote for any of the C**ts" as it's either for or against with no abstention.

This lack of abstention creates special interest politics like the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party and Pauline Hanson's One Nation; would either exist if there wasn't compulsory voting?

Ultimately it seemed like Australian leadership has become a perennial TV media event with actual governance a secondary concern.

There is always a third way.

You must turn up and vote, but you can spoil your vote.
The biggest problem is dikchead donkey voters who write 1,2,3,4 etc on the ballot paper in order they appear and then disappear.

IMO, if you haven't taken the time to inform yourself on what exactly you are voting on, then you should spoil your vote.

that said, I don't trust any of them. for the most part they would sell their granny for another term in office. That represents a race to the bottom when the nation has fundamental issues that will take longer than a single term.

Some of those issues require plans that must fundamentally outlast the popstars and poptarts that set them in motion. this isn't happening, so the spiral of democracy continues until a state of war or emergency enables the flavor of the term to pull a finger out.

Dats_rite

Mellor wrote: »

4 PM's I'd have thought.
Rudd, Gillard, Abbot, Turnbull
.

I think by 5 was meant Rudd, Gillard, Rudd, Abbot and Turnbull

jackbhoy

For those who want to see how it really went down this animation really nails it

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2015/sep/17/taiwanese-animators-explainer-tony-abbott-malcolm-turnbul-australia-prime-minister-tomonews-video