Continuing to find things to question in news reports, I found a version of my recent favourite misunderstanding/oversight again yesterday, when I looked at the election coverage in the Daily Tele I found on the train seat. Speaking of the hits Labor took in inner Sydney without looking like losing a seat, they said Grayndler had gone from a massive 25% margin to 5% or less. Apples and oranges, anyone?
The (almost) 25% figure is based on the two-party preferred results between Labor and Liberal at the last election. Had preferences between Labor and the Greens been compared, it would have been significantly less, despite the Greens not doing well enough on primary votes to make that count happen. (Actually, there wasn't a need to look at any preferences.) While we can't say for sure, I'd be surprised if the change in Labor v Green 2PP result was much more than the primary swing against Labor, that is, about the same as the 8% swing being reported for the Labor-Liberal 2PP in nearly safe Labor seats. Moving on to even more guesswork, the change in the Labor v Liberal was probably even less than that.
In any case the parliament is almost certainly going to be hung. For many years I've had a dream, probably inpsired by NSW in the early 90s, of hung parliaments where independents actively pressure the major players to work together across party lines, as well as providing a separate voice of their own. Now, I'm amazed that Independent Rob Oakeshott is actually make this sort of “cheeky” proposal. I'm not still naive enough to think that this would be all good, but I like the way Oakeshott and Windsor are talking.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Friday, 20 August 2010
Stopping the boasts
With a resurgence in the number of asylum seeker-carrying vessels moving shorewards, Tony Abbott has taken us back to 20011 and told us he will
In response, Gillard and the ALP are slightly more confused about persuing an almost identical outcome. While there are issues of fairness and honesty involved, and the policy in this area doesn't deserve to be ignored, the acceptance of the idea that unauthorised boat arrivals are significant to the overall questions related to immigration and population2 is ridiculous.
The rest of the Liberal mantra can almost be summarised as 'stop the bloat'. While I've seen some details of Labor's “real solutions”, mostly they've been simply telling us to
sorry, stop Abbott, and that only they can achieve this for us. I am told that, if elected, Abbot will “take Australia backwards”. Economics and industrial relations get a run, but no doubt we're also meant to conclude that the coalition broadband-lite will 'stop the posts', at least the ones requiring a lot of bandwidth.
Not wanting to be outdone on personality-driven anti-campaigning, in the last week the opposition moved their ads forward from the bloat and boats message to also question the PM's trustworthiness. Both sides have put a lot of effort into telling us not to choose the others, and they both get agreement from Mark Latham, who thinks the answer is to
Whatever your choice, I expect that most of the boasts and promises will be stopped and forgotten pretty soon - probably by Monday.
1Which was, incidentally, the last time I was in Australia for a federal election campaign.
2The discussion of which has been, for the most part, bringing together every issue that has population as a factor and putting them together as a scare campaign targetted at self-interest, with very little consideration of how the details interact with each other.
Stop the boats.
In response, Gillard and the ALP are slightly more confused about persuing an almost identical outcome. While there are issues of fairness and honesty involved, and the policy in this area doesn't deserve to be ignored, the acceptance of the idea that unauthorised boat arrivals are significant to the overall questions related to immigration and population2 is ridiculous.
The rest of the Liberal mantra can almost be summarised as 'stop the bloat'. While I've seen some details of Labor's “real solutions”, mostly they've been simply telling us to
Stop a boat,
sorry, stop Abbott, and that only they can achieve this for us. I am told that, if elected, Abbot will “take Australia backwards”. Economics and industrial relations get a run, but no doubt we're also meant to conclude that the coalition broadband-lite will 'stop the posts', at least the ones requiring a lot of bandwidth.
Not wanting to be outdone on personality-driven anti-campaigning, in the last week the opposition moved their ads forward from the bloat and boats message to also question the PM's trustworthiness. Both sides have put a lot of effort into telling us not to choose the others, and they both get agreement from Mark Latham, who thinks the answer is to
Stop your votes.
Whatever your choice, I expect that most of the boasts and promises will be stopped and forgotten pretty soon - probably by Monday.
1Which was, incidentally, the last time I was in Australia for a federal election campaign.
2The discussion of which has been, for the most part, bringing together every issue that has population as a factor and putting them together as a scare campaign targetted at self-interest, with very little consideration of how the details interact with each other.
Friday, 13 August 2010
First preference: getting it straight
In several places, I've emphasised the fact that Labor seats reported as "safest" due to the high two party preferred result against the Liberals are actually closer to being taken by the Greens. I've done this mainly it is often overlooked in an unhelpful tendency to make everything one-dimensional and it find it interesting just in being unusual.
As it turns out, Sam Byrne's campaign material has this plastered all over it - "It's between the Greens and Labor". I must admit that while it may add legitimacy to their perceptions, I doubt that it's an effective way to campaign, particular combined with the rest of their comments.
Still, at least it makes more sense that Anthony Albanese's complaints about them. Whatever they suggest regarding preferences, they're making it very clear that they're not looking for a "protest vote". There might be more to say when you put it in the national context, but I don't see anything misleading said about this particular contest.
Then there's the (inconspicuous) Liberal candidate, who also seems to protest a bit much. Even though he may well have other outcomes foremost in his mind, suggesting preferences for the Greens ahead of Labor is exactly the same as saying (truthfully or otherwise - not that I think there's a deal here) that you'd rather the result go that way. Not that that in itself should matter to a potential voter. In fact, let's completely avoid the Alan Jones response to how-to-vote cards and point out that whatever you think of the parties, candidates, and electoral and parliamentary machinations, there's no reason not to choose your own ordering.
As it turns out, Sam Byrne's campaign material has this plastered all over it - "It's between the Greens and Labor". I must admit that while it may add legitimacy to their perceptions, I doubt that it's an effective way to campaign, particular combined with the rest of their comments.
Still, at least it makes more sense that Anthony Albanese's complaints about them. Whatever they suggest regarding preferences, they're making it very clear that they're not looking for a "protest vote". There might be more to say when you put it in the national context, but I don't see anything misleading said about this particular contest.
Then there's the (inconspicuous) Liberal candidate, who also seems to protest a bit much. Even though he may well have other outcomes foremost in his mind, suggesting preferences for the Greens ahead of Labor is exactly the same as saying (truthfully or otherwise - not that I think there's a deal here) that you'd rather the result go that way. Not that that in itself should matter to a potential voter. In fact, let's completely avoid the Alan Jones response to how-to-vote cards and point out that whatever you think of the parties, candidates, and electoral and parliamentary machinations, there's no reason not to choose your own ordering.
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Rolling duties
I've previously discussed the fact that, compared with the UK, the electoral enrolment system in Australia relies much more on voters to take the initiative to enrol. While the resulting expection that the rolls be kept up-to-date from month-to-month has advantages over relying on a yearly update, the system leaves plenty of room for enrolments (or changes) to simply never happen.
The NSW government has announced plans to improve the accuracy of the rolls by automatically using information held by government agencies (such as the current sponsor of the state cricket team). From the point of view of reducing the burden on voters, and removing disenfranchisement caused by simply neglecting to enrol, although would be worth paying some attention to who might not be covered by any of the information sources.
Criticism of the plan describes it as an invasion of privacy - using personal information for purposes other than for which it was supplied. In a country where voting is compulsory, there are people who are deliberately not on the roll. Will this sort of enforced enrolment cause these people to be more reluctant with their information in other circumstances?
The question of compulsory voting itself is an interesting one, often phrased in terms of whether voting is a responsibility or simply a right. I thought of this recently when events caused me to remember discussing the fact that Australians are required to update their enrolment within a month of changing address, not simply wait until an election is imminent.
My point then, which also helps explain why enrolling is compulsory even in places where voting is not, was simply that voting in elections are not the only use of the electoral roll. Appearing in a jury is not something we tend to see as a right. It is certainly treated as a responsibility, or as the Sheriff's material and court officers repeatedly describe it, a "civic duty".
The NSW government has announced plans to improve the accuracy of the rolls by automatically using information held by government agencies (such as the current sponsor of the state cricket team). From the point of view of reducing the burden on voters, and removing disenfranchisement caused by simply neglecting to enrol, although would be worth paying some attention to who might not be covered by any of the information sources.
Criticism of the plan describes it as an invasion of privacy - using personal information for purposes other than for which it was supplied. In a country where voting is compulsory, there are people who are deliberately not on the roll. Will this sort of enforced enrolment cause these people to be more reluctant with their information in other circumstances?
The question of compulsory voting itself is an interesting one, often phrased in terms of whether voting is a responsibility or simply a right. I thought of this recently when events caused me to remember discussing the fact that Australians are required to update their enrolment within a month of changing address, not simply wait until an election is imminent.
My point then, which also helps explain why enrolling is compulsory even in places where voting is not, was simply that voting in elections are not the only use of the electoral roll. Appearing in a jury is not something we tend to see as a right. It is certainly treated as a responsibility, or as the Sheriff's material and court officers repeatedly describe it, a "civic duty".
Friday, 12 September 2008
Disenfranchised
A year ago, I was enrolled to vote on two sides of the world, one where I wasn't a citizen and one where I didn't live. This year, there's no voting for me at all. Whatever the state of the electoral roll, I had left London by the time the city elected the wacky Bozza Johnson as Mayor. Now, with local government elections in New South Wales, tomorrow, I find that I moved into my council area after the rolls had closed. Even if I were inclined to vote at my previous address, I couldn't, since the current council has been re-elected unopposed.
Thursday, 29 November 2007
An outside view
As far as I could tell from here in London, the recent Australian election campaign featured a lot of talk about education and industrial relations/union bosses as well as Iraq and climate change. However, most British media reports seem to suggest the result was all about the latter two, and then start talking about Rudd's republicanism. I guess Brits aren't that interested in Australian domestic issues, despite down under's status as one of the top destinations for British emigrants.
A BBC report just before the election also said that Australians had only sacked their government four times since World War II. I suspect they actually meant since the Liberal Party first came to power in 1949, although I guess they might have argued that the Governor-General got in before the electorate in 1975.
A BBC report just before the election also said that Australians had only sacked their government four times since World War II. I suspect they actually meant since the Liberal Party first came to power in 1949, although I guess they might have argued that the Governor-General got in before the electorate in 1975.
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Am I on the list?
In the last month or so, I have confirmed online my electoral enrolment in two different countries. The laws allowing me to vote in two countries are a story in themselves, but it is interesting to compare the two enrolment systems.
I confirmed, that is, checked, my Australian enrolment online at https://oevf.aec.gov.au/, since an election is coming up on 24 November. It's probably too late to point this out, but if you need to change your enrolment details, you have until 8pm, about an hour from now (at least in Sydney - I'm not sure how the deadline fits in with timezones, so it might be no time at all in Tasmania!) This online service allows you to see your enrolment status, but not change it. Australian voters are required to enrol when they become elegible to vote, and then change their enrolment whenever they change address.
I also confirmed my British enrolment, in the sense of officially confirming to the authorities that none of the details of people living at my address on 15 October had changed since last year, at http://www.registerbyinternet.com/. The British electoral rolls are constructed on 1 December each year, based on where people live in October, according to forms that are sent to each household. The process can be done online or by phone if no details have changed.
While the British system does leave itself open to some electoral fraud (e.g. each person is not responsible for their own enrolment, it's legal to be enrolled at more than one address), the idea of a yearly reminder to check details may avoid some of the controversy that occurred in Australia concerning people who leave enrolling/changing their enrolment by the time an election is called.1 Then again, the general lack of need to enrol when moving means that the British system might have had trouble had the press been right about an election being held here as well. The roll would have been almost a year old, and while it is possible to enrol with "rolling enrolment" after the October forms go round, I don't think this fact is well known.
1 I don't actually think the reduction in the time allowed to enrol once the election is called has had much effect - I suspect most people who haven't paid attention to the resulting reminders to enrol earlier wouldn't have bothered once the election was called anyway.
I confirmed, that is, checked, my Australian enrolment online at https://oevf.aec.gov.au/, since an election is coming up on 24 November. It's probably too late to point this out, but if you need to change your enrolment details, you have until 8pm, about an hour from now (at least in Sydney - I'm not sure how the deadline fits in with timezones, so it might be no time at all in Tasmania!) This online service allows you to see your enrolment status, but not change it. Australian voters are required to enrol when they become elegible to vote, and then change their enrolment whenever they change address.
I also confirmed my British enrolment, in the sense of officially confirming to the authorities that none of the details of people living at my address on 15 October had changed since last year, at http://www.registerbyinternet.com/. The British electoral rolls are constructed on 1 December each year, based on where people live in October, according to forms that are sent to each household. The process can be done online or by phone if no details have changed.
While the British system does leave itself open to some electoral fraud (e.g. each person is not responsible for their own enrolment, it's legal to be enrolled at more than one address), the idea of a yearly reminder to check details may avoid some of the controversy that occurred in Australia concerning people who leave enrolling/changing their enrolment by the time an election is called.1 Then again, the general lack of need to enrol when moving means that the British system might have had trouble had the press been right about an election being held here as well. The roll would have been almost a year old, and while it is possible to enrol with "rolling enrolment" after the October forms go round, I don't think this fact is well known.
1 I don't actually think the reduction in the time allowed to enrol once the election is called has had much effect - I suspect most people who haven't paid attention to the resulting reminders to enrol earlier wouldn't have bothered once the election was called anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)