VOTE GREENS TOADY!

Heh! I think their get-out-of-jail card is that straight above the list
of things that constitute an informal vote is a perfectly unambiguous
description of what consitutes a formal vote, which I assume would take
precedence.

 

Since you never actually got your answer: the Electoral Act was amended
in 1998. The effect of the changes were: a) that it was no longer an
offence to encourage or induce voting otherwise than in accordance with
full preferential voting; and b) Langer-style voting (1, 2 , 3, 3, 3, 3
....) would no longer be accepted for the House of Representatives, and
would only be accepted for the Senate if the votes were below the line,
and then only up to the first break in continuity.

This information from AEC publications.

 

Until you change your enrolment it continues. Therefore on election day
you were still enrolled in your old electorate and you will have been
recorded as failed to vote. If they can be bothered, and they can find
you, they will hit you with a $20 fine. If you don't pay promptly,
they'll take it to court, and add another $50 in the process.

Mind you, this is still cheaper than actually voting if you value your
own time, as you should. 30 mins of your time at average Australian
income of $66,000 p.a. x multiplier of, say, 2.0 = $34.00, litre of fuel
(RON 98, of course) $1.35, and a P&C sossij $2.50. All up, $37.85.

 

Why, I annoyed you of course!

And for what it's worth, I think I'm more of a "reactionary" than an
"extremist".


BTH

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he's looking for a 'humble
politician'...

not very common those!


G-S

 

One who actually wants to represent their electorate's interests for more
than just the last 6 weeks of their term.


BTH

 

Oh... an honest one...

Ummm I think they're extinct :-(


G-S

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:50:01 +0000 (UTC)

it appears you need to move to an electorate with a strong independent
who bolted from the Nats.

I think one of them, Windsor?, even holds polls to find what his
electorate thinks so he can properly represent them.

Zebee

 

Yeah, got to admit he is one of the few pollies that I hold respect
for.

 

Wrong, I am not on the roll. I have asked. I've moved so many times in
Australia and overseas in the last decade and they couldn't find me,
I've been struck off.

And considering my contract here in Sydney finishes in 3 weeks, I
might be moving again.

If I can settle down somewhere I might re-enroll if I can see someone
worth voting for.

 

There is a statement of sorts there. The census knows how many people
of voting age are in Australia. If 1/10th of that population (which I
think is the current level of non-voters) then the pollies should be
wondering why.

 

Thanks Andrew.
(I wonder why that didn't make the papers like the original kerfuffle did)

 

Bwould welcome you with open arms
or you might move to bobs electorate and get a different sort of greeting

 

Wont happen as that consideration would require self examination and a
reality check

 

I checked on it. From AEC.gov.au
a search for "exhausted vote" found the following

•Langer Style Voting. This category contains ballot papers with
repeating numbers such as 1,2,3,3,3.. A description of Langer style
voting is found in the above text.

Langer Style Voting

Any study of informality in Australia must take into account the
effects of Langer style voting. Prior to the 1998 election, ballot
papers that were assumed accidentally marked non-consecutively for the
House of Representatives (1,2,3,3,.) were counted as formal votes. The
vote was accepted as formal and preferences distributed up to the
point where the mistake of numbering began. These ballot papers then
became 'exhausted'.

This part of the CEA was specifically introduced to assist voters in
casting their vote "below the line" in Senate elections. The Senate
ballot paper in Australia can be extremely large and the chances of
making a mistake in numbering it are great.

The parliament decided that the part of the CEA, which allowed for
ballot papers to be counted in the Senate where preferences were
marked non-consecutively in the Senate should also be applied in the
House of Representatives. This effectively allowed for a system of
optional preferential voting which was rejected in 1981 by the
Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters ( JSCEM). In
order not to encourage electors to take advantage of the provision to
allow ballot papers accidentally marked non-consequentially, a section
of the CEA 1918 was enacted to make it an offence to print, publish
and distribute electoral advertising such as how-to-vote cards, that
might induce electors to vote otherwise than in accordance with the
instructions on the ballot paper.

At the 1987 and 1990 federal elections Mr Albert Langer conducted
campaigns encouraging voter's inter alia to use a type of optional
preferential vote. In 1990 the CEA 1918 was again strengthened to
protect full preferential voting and made it an offence to encourage
voting otherwise than full preferential voting.

At the 1996 elections Mr Langer indicated that he intended to
encourage electors to use a form of optional preferential voting. As a
result of an advertisement published by Mr Langer encouraging the
above style of preferential voting, the AEC obtained an injunction,
preventing him from continuing the campaign. Mr Langer defied the
injunction and was sentenced to jail for contempt of court. The term
Langer Styler voting arose from Mr Langer's high profile campaigns of
encouraging electors to vote in a form 1,2,3,4,4,4 or similar. In 1998
the CEA was again amended so that it was no longer an offence to
encourage voters to vote other than in accordance with full
preferential voting. However Langer-style votes would no longer be
counted as formal.

In the 1998 and 2001 elections Langer-Style votes were counted as
informal. Prior to 1998 these votes would have been counted up to the
point that the numbering became non-consecutive at which time they
would have been classified as 'exhausted'. Consequently this type of
voting has contributed to the rise in informality at the 1998 and 2001
elections.

So my memory was correct, it was a valid way to vote until 1998 but
now is counted as informal.

Listed here are the types of informal votes
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/Strategy_Research_Analysis/paper1/index.htm

Theo

 

The current way results in the 2 parties servoing down a middle path.
Lean too far to the left, and piss of too many people on the right,
who then correct the course at the next election. If you register
your intentions beforehand, then you just end up freewheeling --
leaning more and more in the predominant direction with no corrections
ever being registered.

In the end, it probably doesn't matter much that only the people in
Western Sydney ever get a say, because if it wasn't them, it would
still find a path where 50% of the people think the government are too
soft, and the other 50% will think the government are too hard on
droogs, asylum seekers, welfare recipients, etc.

What sucks is that in this modern world, local representatives,
combined with votes that are spread between party lines rather than
actually acting as local representatives, make little sense (but this
has nothing to do with our constitution or electoral system, but
merely the conventions applied by the 2 big parties). More people
support the ideas of the Greens than the Nationals, but the latter
have much more say because they're more concentrated into a small
number of seats, and aren't spread out all over the country. The
Greens only get a say in the uncommon scenario that they occupy enough
of a senate vote that they can pass contentious legislation with the
aid of some deal. The Nationals get to do this every time a vote
comes up, because they can simply argue in the party room with the
Liberals, and nut something out before the senate is ever called to
vote on something.