Creating an optional preferential above the line system where there are no options
- Details
- Category: Political Corruption
- Created: Wednesday, 06 July 2016 12:50
- Written by Graham Williamson via the Climate Sceptics Party
The reform of the above the line system is publicised as an optional preferential system - where the power to decide any preference flow is transferred back to the voter, who will be instructed to fill out six squares in order of preference. The big problem is, the government has introduced a ‘savings’ provision for people who continue to vote 1 only (ie number 1 square only) above the line (4, 5, 6, 7). It is the purpose of this savings provision to convert such informal votes into formal votes, which will not be lost. There will though, be absolutely no preference flow for these votes, creating a virtual first past the post system.
As Daniel Hurst points out: “The legislation, tabled in the lower house on Monday, shows the new “advice” for people to number at least six boxes above the line is a recommendation and not a requirement.
Turnbull says if a person numbers only one square above the line, or marks fewer than six preferences, the vote would still be counted. This appears designed to allay concerns that the changes would lead to an increase in “informal” voting and disenfranchise some voters, bearing in mind that people have been told for years that they could just vote once on Senate ballots.
If someone marks their top preference and nothing else – and that group falls short of a Senate quota – the ballot paper is “exhausted” and there will be no preference flows to others. If a voter marks 1, 2, 3 next to their top three choices, the preferences would “exhaust” after the third choice falls short.”
The government believes this savings clause is necessary because too many people are so stupid they will continue to vote 1 only above the line, as they have done for 30 years. No doubt the government believes it is the unthinking dyed in the wool Liberal/Labour voters who are most likely to continue to vote so robotically.
An excerpt from the article How to scam the system & disadvantage political opponents by ‘giving the power back to the people’, all in the interests of ‘democracy’
