Friday 15th of November 2024
Home » content

Get rid of elections.

Hi guys,

I'm doing some thinking and writing about the level of representation in various political models, and there are a few things I'm looking for definitions, or terms for so I can look them up... Any suggestions of where to look for more information on these topics more than welcome! Thanks!

1) Rezoning in the westminster political system

Under this topic a lot of effort has been put into the discussion on PR vs. first past the post vs. OPR vs. CPR voting, but I'm specifically interested in the geographical implications of the westminster system (or the Australian version).

Not vote weighting so much, but how the shaping and definition of electoral zones affects the system.

For example: Pauline Hanson had her consistituency split into parts via re-zoning which (arguably) prevented her from being elected because her support base was scattered (although not physically). Anyone know what the term for this is? Rezoning hasn't found me any particularly useful information.

2) Tablecloth Party System

I've read a number of things about the so-called "tablecloth" voting paper from NSW where all of the candidates were put on the ballot resulting in a single ballot that was simply unmanagable.

However, I can't find (or don't know the term for) a similar prospect for where only parties (but all parties) appear on the ballot paper for the region and no electoral zones are used. Anyone?

3) Get rid of elections.

I read a magazine editorial where the author was suggesting that year terms for elected representatives was not the best way to measure the will of the people. Rather, the government should be determined by the total member count of the political parties, assessed annually and every term rather than elections the average membership over 5 years should be used to determine the new members of government. Anyone heard of this before?

Thanks!

Thanks.

Thanks for that guys. Sorry I put that thread in the wrong spot on the forum there.

Cheers. 

I'll do my best ...

Can't really help you with question one. You've got your gerrymandering and your malapportionment, which I'm sure you're familiar with, but I don't know of any particular term dealing with the vagaries of fairly conducted redistributions. If you're after a more recent example, something similar has happened to independent MP Peter Andren, whose seat of Calare has been redrawn for the coming election: it has lost Bathurst and Lithgow and moved deep into the rural and remote interior of NSW.

Question two: The tablecloth refers to the ballot paper for the 1999 election. The problem was not so much that every candidate was listed, but that there were 81 separate voting "groups", most of which were set up purely in order to "harvest" preferences. So the "Gay and Lesbian Party" existed to gather up the votes of those who liked the name so they would boost the vote for another micro-party. This led to reforms that dramatically cut the number of groups at the 2003 election, namely optional preferential above-the-line voting (which defeats the purpose of harvesting, because preferences only go beyond a party list if the voter specifically directs them there) and the requirement that groups have at least 15 candidates (which means paying 15 deposits). You can read a very good paper by Antony Green on these reforms <a href="http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/48938DAD890A6A27CA256ECF000C7F10">here</a>. There will actually be more upper house candidates for the March 24 election than there were in 1999, but the ballot paper will still be reasonably manageable because there are only 19 groups. Note the distinction between a "group" and a "party" - the Libs and Nats are separate parties, but they form one "group" for the purposes of the upper house election.

With regards to the terminology, there are "closed list" and "open list" systems: the former mean you have to accept the order of candidates dictated by the party you are voting for, whereas the latter allow you to determine your own order. All Australian PR systems are of the latter type; by definition, they require that all individual candidates be listed. A closed list system could include the names of the candidates in the lists for information purposes, but could just as easily name the parties only. I'm not sure if there is any terminology making this distinction, because it's a fairly minor point.

Once again, I don't know of specific terminology distinguishing systems where the whole country or state votes as one region (as is the case for the NSW and SA upper houses) from those with a number of multi-member regions (the Senate, the WA and Victorian upper houses, the Tasmanian lower house).

Question three: No.

William Bowe

www.pollbludger.com

for Mint .....

Hi Mint.

You might be able to get some help from Dr Phil Larkin, at the Political Science Faculty of the ANU.

Phil manages the Democratic Audit of Australia project & his updates are regularly published on our site.

His contact number is: 02 6125 0696 or 02 6125 1600 .... sorry, I don't have an email address for him.

Good Luck.