Senate voting

[calla_s]

As always, the exciting thing about tomorrow is deciding whether to number ALL THE BOXES for the Senate or just go for one above the line. I've done both, and actually found it quite freeing to just go for the one box rather than trying to decide who out of the most appalling candidates to rank slightly higher than last

Comments

[exp_err]

Lovely :)
We only have about half a dozen senate candidates in the ACT, so there's not nearly as much thought to be put into it.

[calla_s]

Oh, that's a bit few to make it exciting. But 55 or so is rather too many. I assume bigger states have even more. I have a horrible feeling I may have accidentally put the DLP rather too high in a previous election when I hadn't done as much research. I also need to go look up exactly how Senate voting works. Number from bottom up for the hideous parties? Additional tactic suggested by idling of numbering across from the bottom for the dregs? What about strategically numbering to get that 2nd senator when the first is a shoe-in?

Good luck with your volunteering! (I checked a bit of the f-list last night for the first time in months).

[jay_summers]

Firstly a disclaimer: I do not understand our political system. We'd hate it but it really should be summarised at school in year 12. Just a basic understanding of the process would be helpful

[jay_summers]

*dons tweed jacket with leather patches on the elbows

[jay_summers]

I've never thought of my electorate as a cool name. How nice of you to say.

Thanks, I just got an email notification of this reply and it came at a good time. I was about to start looking up online our political process. I will look at Green's guide first.

Yes, I just read something in a e-zine that Secular were almost the opposite to my thought so maybe I should have put 'em higher. I'll know next time. That being said, I don't know their policies, they kept quiet. There's been very little advertising of candidates in my area short of those pickets outside houses and the eye-sore of utes parked on the side of the road with tens of placards with posters of Kirsten Livermore. I'm not against Kirsten, as such, just the advertising method. It's ugly and looks very amateurish and a country-hick approach.

NO NOT WANT is my reaction to Family First. They always get the worst number.

[calla_s]

Anthony Green
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/

The How to Vote section near the bottom of the list is pretty good. That's not the one that told me how the distribution of Senate preferences works, though. I'll go and look for it.

[kiwisue]

I for one appreciate your commentary :)

My (NSW) Senate How-to-vote was drawn up on belowtheline.org, and I numbered all 84? of the buggers, taking much delight in placing One Nation and Family First at the end. I was interested in the Secular Party, but had huge issues around some of their policies, so *shrugs*.

All I know about the Senate voting is that it's an elimination race. Get a quota and you're in, but if there are no clear quotas they start with the lowest candidate and distribute their votes to the remainder. I think that tactical voting for a second candidate in a particular group might boost their chances, IF the first gets more than a quota, but I'm not sure.

Re. the Climate Sceptics, a mate of the bloke's wondered whether that meant they didn't believe we had a climate.

Senator On-Line - someone's been reading the wrong kind of science fiction...

[calla_s]

I did enjoy putting the last 2 numbers next to the One Nation candidates, but I always hate having to number people I loathe as high as 30 or so.

I looked up the senate rules this morning before I voted. Turns out they distribute the excess votes once someone's got the quota, so there's no need to get fancy. Hopefully I can remember this for the next election.

Yeah, the online voting sounds all very futuristic and cool until you think about it for more than 2 seconds.

[calla_s]

Oh, and the Secular Party - yeah, I like their main point, but they've also against a bunch of religious stuff that I don't think hurts anyone. I do give them points for saying something I haven't seen anywhere else (not that I've looked comprehensively), given that they're against too much population increase they're also against artificially encouraging people to have lots of kids and specifically say they're against demonising immigrants/refugees. I dither about population, because I keep thinking (perhaps naively) that if we try we can manage decent growth while not screwing the environment over, but the consistency is nice.

[danielletom]

if only I'd seen this before I voted! went above the line for the first time ever today - partly because miss 2 (experr's niece) was with me & not in the mood for me to label 52 or so boxes!

[calla_s]

I did decide to post late last night before going to bed just in case it'd be useful for anyone to see before voting rather than after. I did do all the boxes (a couple of times, because I kept messing up), and I was nearly ready to chuck it all in and just go for the one box by the end.

[calla_s]

1983 isn't even that bad! It just feels that way. We just had our youngest ever MP elected - 20!

Nah, the WA First guy isn't going to get a seat. Serves him right for having a stupid amateurish personals-ad-type bio on his political web page.

[calla_s]

Ah, got it! I'd wondered where that LJ had come from but hadn't got around to checking out if it was someone I knew yet.