History UsefulNotes / AustralianPolitics

20th Mar '17 9:27:33 PM WaterBlap
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Despite the above issues as well as some questionable comments by her other senators, One Nation continued to ride high in the polls, encouraged by DonaldTrump's victory in the USA. They hoped to translate this into seats in the Western Australian election in March 2017, where some polls had them picking up to 13% of the vote in a largely conservative state. The campaign ended up backfiring after One Nation arranged a controversial preference deal with the now-unpopular but governing Liberal Party where they would preference each other in a number of marginal seats. A number of candidates from both parties were critical of the deal, resulting in Hanson kicking some of the candidates out of the party while others resigned. The party ended up wining less than 5% of the statewide as a result.

to:

** Despite the above issues as well as some questionable comments by her other senators, One Nation continued to ride high in the polls, encouraged by DonaldTrump's UsefulNotes/DonaldTrump's victory in the USA. They hoped to translate this into seats in the Western Australian election in March 2017, where some polls had them picking up to 13% of the vote in a largely conservative state. The campaign ended up backfiring after One Nation arranged a controversial preference deal with the now-unpopular but governing Liberal Party where they would preference each other in a number of marginal seats. A number of candidates from both parties were critical of the deal, resulting in Hanson kicking some of the candidates out of the party while others resigned. The party ended up wining less than 5% of the statewide as a result.
12th Mar '17 5:09:05 AM TheAndyman14
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Hanson attempted another political comeback in 2015, returning as One Nation leader and contesting a seat in the Queensland Parliament. She lost by 200 votes.
** She finally won a seat in the 2016 federal election, being elected as a senator from Queensland. It was a double-dissolution election, so thanks to the reduced quota a second One Nation senator from Queensland was elected along with her.

to:

** Hanson attempted another political comeback in 2015, returning as One Nation leader and contesting a seat in the Queensland Parliament. She lost by 200 votes.
** She
votes.However, she finally won a seat in the 2016 federal election, being elected as a senator from Queensland. It was a double-dissolution election, so thanks to the reduced quota a second One Nation senator from Queensland was elected along with her.her, along with one senator each from NSW and WA. But the gravy train didn't last long, as the WA One Nation senator was found to be in the process of being convicted over the theft of a vehicle key in NSW. This led to a public falling out between the senator and Hanson, leading to him eventually quitting the party. The court eventually ruled him [[RoleEndingMisdemeanor bankrupt]] in early 2017, rendering his position in the Senate vacant. One Nation regained the seat after a vote recount.
** Despite the above issues as well as some questionable comments by her other senators, One Nation continued to ride high in the polls, encouraged by DonaldTrump's victory in the USA. They hoped to translate this into seats in the Western Australian election in March 2017, where some polls had them picking up to 13% of the vote in a largely conservative state. The campaign ended up backfiring after One Nation arranged a controversial preference deal with the now-unpopular but governing Liberal Party where they would preference each other in a number of marginal seats. A number of candidates from both parties were critical of the deal, resulting in Hanson kicking some of the candidates out of the party while others resigned. The party ended up wining less than 5% of the statewide as a result.
11th Feb '17 3:30:58 AM AirofMystery
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Menzies had the nickname "Pig Iron Bob" due to his promotions of iron exports to Japan in the thirties. The joke (and it says a lot about Australians that this is a joke) is that the Japanese [[UsefulNotes/WorldWarI gave it back]] soon after.

to:

*** Menzies had the nickname "Pig Iron Bob" due to his promotions of iron exports to Japan in the thirties. The joke (and it says a lot about Australians that this is a joke) is that the Japanese [[UsefulNotes/WorldWarI [[UsefulNotes/WorldWarII gave it back]] soon after.
28th Dec '16 3:06:06 AM ClatoLawa
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* '''Malcolm Turnbull''' (Liberal Party), since 14 September 2015. When things were getting ''really bad'' for the government, Turnbull finally stepped in and ousted Abbott in a quick and relatively bloodless contest that was over by midnight the day he announced it, with Julie Bishop supporting him as deputy leader of the Liberals. Turnbull's coup was largely welcomed by the Australian public, although it was a nightmare for the hard right, to say the least. For the left, it was a mixed blessing: Turnbull would be more moderate than Abbott, but probably harder to beat.\\
By the time Turnbull called the 2016 election, his honeymoon was over and he and the Coalition were facing a knife-edged battle to stay in power. They ultimately won, but with only 76 seats out of 150 including the non-voting Speaker literally the smallest majority government possible. Plus, despite changes in Senate rules to avoid "preference gaming" which resulted a rather hostile Senate in 2013, [[PyrrhicVictory the election returned an equally hostile Senate with an even larger cross-bench than before]] complete with ''two'' power blocs in the form of One Nation and the Nick Xenophon Team, both of whom hate each other and are likely much less inclined to capitulate to the government than Clive Palmer ever was, ''[[FromBadToWorse and the government needs both their support to pass anything not supported by Labor or the Greens.]]'' It's been barely a month since the election and Turnbull has already had to deal with plenty of party infighting and an emboldened right-wing who are still very bitter over the Abbot coup ([[http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/malcolm_turnbull_you_are_finished/ hell, the election result hadn't even been called before right-wing figures started calling for Turnbull's head]], forgetting that had Abbot taken his government to an election it would have been a ''bloodbath''). Turnbull has a monumental challenge before him, ''if'' he isn't the victim of a leadership coup during his term, [[HereWeGoAgain and people are already predicting he'll be out by the end of 2017...]]

to:

* '''Malcolm Turnbull''' (Liberal Party), since 14 September 2015. When things were getting ''really bad'' for the government, Turnbull finally stepped in and ousted Abbott in a quick and relatively bloodless contest that was over by midnight the day he announced it, with Julie Bishop supporting him as deputy leader of the Liberals. Turnbull's coup was largely welcomed by the Australian public, although it was a nightmare for the hard right, to say the least. For the left, it was initially seen as a mixed blessing: Turnbull would be more moderate than Abbott, but probably harder to beat.beat. However, it soon became apparent that Turnbull wasn't willing to change any Coalition policies, including those that he had publicly disagreed with Abbott on in the past (such as marriage equality and climate change).\\
By As a result, by the time Turnbull called the 2016 election, his honeymoon was over and he and the Coalition were facing a knife-edged battle to stay in power. They ultimately won, but with only 76 seats out of 150 including the non-voting Speaker literally the smallest majority government possible. Plus, despite changes in Senate rules to avoid "preference gaming" which resulted a rather hostile Senate in 2013, [[PyrrhicVictory the election returned an equally hostile Senate with an even larger cross-bench than before]] complete with ''two'' power blocs in the form of One Nation and the Nick Xenophon Team, both of whom hate each other and are likely much less inclined to capitulate to the government than Clive Palmer ever was, ''[[FromBadToWorse and the government needs both their support to pass anything not supported by Labor or the Greens.]]'' It's been barely Barely a month since after the election and election, Turnbull has had already had to deal with plenty of party infighting and an emboldened right-wing who are still very bitter over the Abbot coup ([[http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/malcolm_turnbull_you_are_finished/ hell, the election result hadn't even been called before right-wing figures started calling for Turnbull's head]], forgetting that had Abbot taken his government to an election it would have been a ''bloodbath''). Turnbull has a monumental challenge before him, ''if'' he isn't the victim of a leadership coup during his term, [[HereWeGoAgain and people are already predicting he'll be out by the end of 2017...]]
11th Oct '16 8:28:51 PM LorienTheYounger
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In the technical sense, Australia does not have a two-party system. It's just that only two parties ever form government, two parties win the overwhelming majority of seats, and the only other party to have held a ministry in any government in the last 90 years is in a permanent, unending coalition with the Liberal Party. Other minor parties gaining any seats in the federal lower house at all is a very recent development, with the Greens first winning a single seat in 2010 (retained 2013) and Palmer United also winning one seat in 2013.

to:

In the technical sense, Australia does not have a two-party system. It's just that only two parties ever form government, two parties win the overwhelming majority of seats, and the only other party to have held a ministry in any government in the last 90 years is in a permanent, unending coalition with the Liberal Party. Other minor parties gaining any seats in the federal lower house at all is a very recent development, with the Greens first winning a their single seat in 2010 (retained 2013) and 2010, Palmer United also winning one seat in 2013.
2013 (since lost), and NXT winning one in 2016.
21st Aug '16 6:26:09 AM Doug86
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Hughes was also instrumental in insisting that the Treaty of Versailles should oblige Germany to pay war reparations, ganging up with French PM Georges Clemenceau to browbeat Lloyd George into backing the measure. Reparations, of course, played a huge part in the collapse of the WeimarRepublic and the rise of Nazism. If only UsefulNotes/WoodrowWilson's style had been less HolierThanThou professorial lecturing and more annoying politicking...

to:

** Hughes was also instrumental in insisting that the Treaty of Versailles should oblige Germany to pay war reparations, ganging up with French PM Georges Clemenceau to browbeat Lloyd George into backing the measure. Reparations, of course, played a huge part in the collapse of the WeimarRepublic UsefulNotes/WeimarRepublic and the rise of Nazism. If only UsefulNotes/WoodrowWilson's style had been less HolierThanThou professorial lecturing and more annoying politicking...
9th Aug '16 8:03:59 PM LorienTheYounger
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** How did Hanson win as an independent in 1996? She was a Liberal who was dropped when they realised what she thought. Before the election, but too late to take her off the list.

to:

** How did Hanson win as an independent in 1996? 1996, in a safe Labor seat? She was a Liberal who was dropped when they realised what she thought. Before the election, but too late to take her off the list.ballot.



** In 2016 they changed the system yet again. Group Voting Tickets were abolished; voting for a group above-the-line became equivalent to ranking the candidates in that group from the top down; and voters no longer needed to rank every Senate candidate. Now, voters must rank a minimum of six groups above-the-line or twelve candidates below-the-line. If all their ranked candidates get eliminated during the count, their vote becomes "exhausted" and from then on is treated as informal.

to:

** * In 2016 they changed the system yet again. Group Voting Tickets were abolished; voting for a group above-the-line became equivalent to ranking the candidates in that group from the top down; and voters no longer needed to rank every Senate candidate. Now, voters must rank a minimum of six groups above-the-line or twelve candidates below-the-line. If all their ranked candidates get eliminated during the count, their vote becomes "exhausted" and from then on is treated as informal.
9th Aug '16 8:02:47 PM LorienTheYounger
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Australia uses "preferential voting" -- also known as the "Alternative Vote" system in the UK, or as "instant-runoff voting" (which despite initial hopes is not forcing pudgy, middle-aged politicians to sprint). Rather than voting for a singular candidate and have them win through a plurality (i.e. whoever wins the most votes) such as in other countries, Australians are made to vote for their members in order of preference, ranking them 1, 2, 3 and so on. If no one wins a majority (i.e. more than 50%) of #1 votes first off, then whoever got the least number is eliminated and those votes are distributed to whoever the voters ranked as #2 instead -- the process is repeated until someone gets a majority.

to:

Australia uses "preferential voting" -- also known as "Instant-Runoff Voting" (which disappointingly doesn't involve forcing pudgy middle-aged politicians to sprint) or as the "Alternative Vote" system in the UK, or as "instant-runoff voting" (which despite initial hopes is not forcing pudgy, middle-aged politicians to sprint).UK. Rather than voting for a singular candidate and have them win through a plurality (i.e. whoever wins the most votes) such as in other countries, Australians are made to vote for their members in order of preference, ranking them 1, 2, 3 and so on. If no one wins a majority (i.e. more than 50%) of #1 votes first off, then whoever got the least number is eliminated and those votes are distributed to whoever the voters ranked as #2 instead -- the process is repeated until someone gets a majority.
9th Aug '16 8:00:35 PM LorienTheYounger
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The system is slightly different in the Senate: it's a different preferential voting system called Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Voters still rank their preferred candidates in order but because each state elects six senators in an election, candidates need to win a quota of one-seventh of the total vote to win a seat. (In a double-dissolution election, where all 12 senators per state are elected, the quota is one-thirteenth. In the territories, which have two senators each, it's one-third.) If a candidate gets more than a full quota, the remaining votes are transferred to the next preference and the process repeats. (The transfer is totally proportional, meaning that candidates can get ''fractions'' of votes on preferences.)

to:

The system is slightly different in the Senate: it's a different preferential voting system called Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Voters still rank their preferred candidates in order but because each state elects six senators in an election, candidates need to win a quota of one-seventh of the total vote to win a seat. (In [[note]]In a double-dissolution election, where all 12 senators per state are elected, up for election at once, the quota is one-thirteenth. In the territories, which have two senators each, it's one-third.) [[/note]] If a candidate gets wins more than a full quota, the remaining votes are transferred to the next preference and the process repeats. (The transfer is totally proportional, meaning that candidates can get ''fractions'' of votes on preferences.)



* Unfortunately the system has it's weaknesses as you have to number ''every single'' candidate (who can number over a hundred) to choose which ones get your preference votes so very few voters do so. Also if you vote the simpler way of labelling a single party for your vote the preference votes are distributed amongst parties according to "preference deals" or agreements between the parties. After the 2013 election it became major issue when a minor candidate who have a tiny amount of votes gained a seat purely through preference deals.

to:

*
Unfortunately the system has it's weaknesses as you have to number ''every single'' candidate (who can number over a hundred) to choose which ones get your preference votes so very few and in certain high-profile seats that can have over a dozen candidates running, this makes things complicated.
* It used to be worse, when
voters do so. Also if you vote the simpler way of labelling a had to number every single party for your vote candidate on their Senate ballot who could number ''over a hundred''. Even though the preference votes are distributed amongst parties Senate ballot arranged candidates in groups according to party, informal voting was still through the roof.
* So, in the 1980s they introduced Group Voting Tickets, and you could now vote either "above the line" or "below the line". Above the eponymous horizontal line, each group had a single box: voters would just put a 1 in that box and it would be equivalent to ranking all preferences in the predetermined GVT order. Alternatively, below the line you could rank every single candidate in order just like before so naturally over 95% of people stuck to above-the-line voting.
** The trouble was, the party's predetermined preferences as ranked on their Group Voting Ticket often didn't reflect what their supporters actually wanted. Additionally, in the 2000s the minor parties and microparties began banding together to strike
"preference deals" or agreements between deals", where they would all rank each other first regardless of ideology in the parties. After hope that one of them would luck into a Senate seat. Things came to a head in the 2013 election when the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party won a Senate seat with just 0.5% of the state's primary vote, and it became major issue when a minor candidate who have a tiny amount apparent that the Senate voting system was no more representative than pulling names out of votes gained a seat purely through preference deals.
hat.
** In 2016 they changed the system yet again. Group Voting Tickets were abolished; voting for a group above-the-line became equivalent to ranking the candidates in that group from the top down; and voters no longer needed to rank every Senate candidate. Now, voters must rank a minimum of six groups above-the-line or twelve candidates below-the-line. If all their ranked candidates get eliminated during the count, their vote becomes "exhausted" and from then on is treated as informal.
9th Aug '16 7:30:56 PM LorienTheYounger
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Australia uses "preferential voting" -- also known as the "Alternative Vote" system in the UK, or as "instant-runoff voting" (which despite initial hopes is not forcing pudgy, middle-aged politicians to sprint). Rather than voting for a singular candidate and have them win through a plurality (i.e. whoever wins the most votes) such as in other countries, Australians are made to vote for their members in order of preference, ranking them 1, 2, 3 and so on. If no one wins a majority (i.e. more than 50%) of #1 votes first off, then whoever got the least number is eliminated and those votes are distributed to whoever the voters ranked as #2 instead -- the process is repeated until someone gets a majority.[[note]]The [[UsefulNotes/IrishPoliticalSystem Irish]] vote the same way, with one key difference: Aussie divisions for the House of Representatives are single-member, while constituencies for the Dáil in Ireland are multi-member (3-5 [=TDs=] per constituency), technically making it a different system called Single Transferable Vote. For reasons of complicated electoral maths, this has the effect that the Dáil is a quasi-proportional system and has a lot more parties than the House of Representatives. Even more confusingly, the Australian Senate uses the same system as the Irish Dáil, but still call it preferential voting. This (the system, not the name) is why you see all kinds of minor parties in the Senate that never or barely ever manage to win a seat in the House.[[/note]]

to:

Australia uses "preferential voting" -- also known as the "Alternative Vote" system in the UK, or as "instant-runoff voting" (which despite initial hopes is not forcing pudgy, middle-aged politicians to sprint). Rather than voting for a singular candidate and have them win through a plurality (i.e. whoever wins the most votes) such as in other countries, Australians are made to vote for their members in order of preference, ranking them 1, 2, 3 and so on. If no one wins a majority (i.e. more than 50%) of #1 votes first off, then whoever got the least number is eliminated and those votes are distributed to whoever the voters ranked as #2 instead -- the process is repeated until someone gets a majority.[[note]]The [[UsefulNotes/IrishPoliticalSystem Irish]] vote the same way, with one key difference: Aussie divisions for the House of Representatives are single-member, while constituencies for the Dáil in Ireland are multi-member (3-5 [=TDs=] per constituency), technically making it a different system called Single Transferable Vote. For reasons of complicated electoral maths, this has the effect that the Dáil is a quasi-proportional system and has a lot more parties than the House of Representatives. Even more confusingly, the Australian Senate uses the same system as the Irish Dáil, but still call it preferential voting. This (the system, not the name) is why you see all kinds of minor parties in the Senate that never or barely ever manage to win a seat in the House.[[/note]]
majority.



* Also of note is that voting is compulsory. You can generally get away with not voting but legally you're expected to vote. A $AUS20 fine applies for not voting.
** In some states, you're not obliged to mark the ballot in any way. If you genuinely don't care about your vote, you can just write "All politicians are wankers" on your ballot and put that in. Of course, if you vote correctly ''and'' write "All politicians are wankers" on the ballot, than the vote counters, while recounting everything, will see your vote half-a-dozen times.
*** There is a joke: "For Christ's sake don't vote informal! I wrote 'Useless bastards!' on a ballot paper in 1971, and they've been in office ever since."
** "Donkey voting" is nothing to do with the US Democrats[[note]]who have a donkey as their mascot[[/note]], but rather a type of formal (valid) vote, where the voter just numbers each box, consecutively 1-onwards, this is usually an "I don't care vote" but it can be helpful if there is a lot of candidates in a lower house election because a lower house ticket must be completely filled to be valid. Unfortunately, most media outlets, and thus most voters, use the terms informal and donkey interchangeably. They are not.
** A variation of donkey voting is to rank your favourite parties at the top, then rank all the others in the order they appear on the ballot paper, which is done by voters who have a preference but not interested in ranking the other candidates.
** Some people intentionally vote informal because they feel the compulsory voting system has driven both major parties to the centre, forcing them to pander to the 'swing' voters, turning elections into tax cut auctions and fights over which party hates brown people more. They might also feel that regardless of which way they vote, there won't be a recognisable change in leadership; just in the voice doing the 'leading', and so their 'say' is pointless regardless. (The fact that by doing so they are in fact [[SelfFulfillingProphecy making damned sure]] that their vote won't count rarely seems to occur to them.)

to:

* The system is slightly different in the Senate: it's a different preferential voting system called Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Voters still rank their preferred candidates in order but because each state elects six senators in an election, candidates need to win a quota of one-seventh of the total vote to win a seat. (In a double-dissolution election, where all 12 senators per state are elected, the quota is one-thirteenth. In the territories, which have two senators each, it's one-third.) If a candidate gets more than a full quota, the remaining votes are transferred to the next preference and the process repeats. (The transfer is totally proportional, meaning that candidates can get ''fractions'' of votes on preferences.)

Also of note is that voting is compulsory. You can generally get away with not voting but legally you're expected to vote. A $AUS20 fine applies for not voting.
** In some states, * Technically, you're not obliged to mark the ballot in any way. If you genuinely don't care about your vote, you can just write "All politicians are wankers" on your ballot and put that in. Of course, if you vote correctly ''and'' write "All politicians are wankers" on the ballot, than the vote counters, while recounting everything, will see your vote half-a-dozen times.
*** ** There is a joke: "For Christ's sake don't vote informal! I wrote 'Useless bastards!' on a ballot paper in 1971, and they've been in office ever since."
** * "Donkey voting" is nothing to do with the US Democrats[[note]]who have a donkey as their mascot[[/note]], but rather a type of formal (valid) vote, where the voter just numbers each box, consecutively 1-onwards, this is usually an "I don't care vote" but it can be helpful if there is a lot of candidates in a lower house election because a lower house ticket must be completely filled to be valid. Unfortunately, most media outlets, and thus most voters, use the terms informal and donkey interchangeably. They are not.
** * A variation of donkey voting is to rank your favourite parties at the top, then rank all the others in the order they appear on the ballot paper, which is done by voters who have a preference but not interested in ranking the other candidates.
** * Some people intentionally vote informal because they feel the compulsory voting system has driven both major parties to the centre, forcing them to pander to the 'swing' voters, turning elections into tax cut auctions and fights over which party hates brown people more. They might also feel that regardless of which way they vote, there won't be a recognisable change in leadership; just in the voice doing the 'leading', and so their 'say' is pointless regardless. (The fact that by doing so they are in fact [[SelfFulfillingProphecy making damned sure]] that their vote won't count rarely seems to occur to them.)



** Unfortunately the system has it's weaknesses as you have to number ''every single'' candidate (who can number over a hundred) to choose which ones get your preference votes so very few voters do so. Also if you vote the simpler way of labelling a single party for your vote the preference votes are distributed amongst parties according to "preference deals" or agreements between the parties. After the 2013 election it became major issue when a minor candidate who have a tiny amount of votes gained a seat purely through preference deals.

to:

** * Unfortunately the system has it's weaknesses as you have to number ''every single'' candidate (who can number over a hundred) to choose which ones get your preference votes so very few voters do so. Also if you vote the simpler way of labelling a single party for your vote the preference votes are distributed amongst parties according to "preference deals" or agreements between the parties. After the 2013 election it became major issue when a minor candidate who have a tiny amount of votes gained a seat purely through preference deals.
This list shows the last 10 events of 251. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.AustralianPolitics