Comments on: The fix is in

By: grace pettigrew

grace pettigrew — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:23:57 +0000

The MSM, particularly the Murdoch press, has almost completely ignored these “reforms” to the Electoral Act. Australians are being left in the dark. In the USA similar laws are being passed by the Republicans, which suggests a larger agenda that we should be watching closely. See what is happening in Ohio, with respect to voter ID, provisional voting, etc:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=26698&mode=nested&order=0

By: John

John — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:56:59 +0000

Damn these complex electoral laws. After a closer reading of my election timetable I see I was wrong. Guess it is easy to ignore something that doesn’t exist.

By: William Bowe

William Bowe — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:09:41 +0000

John, Antony Green confirms that I am correct.

By: William Bowe

William Bowe — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:32:00 +0000

John, I don’t think that’s right: presently the timetable is that nominations close 10 to 27 days after the issue of the writs and polling day is between 23 and 31 days after that, all of which is independent of when the election roll closes. Nevertheless, I have referred this to a higher authority for adjudication.

By: John

John — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:57:07 +0000

I believe one important aspect of these electoral changes has been ignored.

Previously, at least a week was given for changes to the role before the roles closed. Now, they close the day the election is called.

This would reduce the minimum time period between when an election is called and polling day from 33 days to 26, shortening the campaign period and allowing the PM to take better advantage of short-term spikes in popular opinion.

This gives a significant advantage to the incumbent’s campaign management.

By: Graeme

Graeme — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:29:32 +0000

Grace, in theory it’s a case of ’suck it and see’ but in truth there’s such a paucity of reliable research that it’s all speculation.

Undoubtedly most of these ‘reforms’ will last only as long as the government, so we can only deal with them on the level of principled justification (generally lacking) rather than claims of electoral advantage.

StephenL gave a v.rough rule of thumb on the changes, but why discount tax deductibility. It is an article of faith of Liberals dating to at least the ‘83 changes (where they opposed public funding but championed deductibility). What the changes do is permit small business to donate up to $3000pa – nb the sort of sum that the Republican machine thrives on. How? Because now sole/family corporations can claim up to $1500pa (ie $500 public subsidy at corporate rate) plus the proprietor can donate $1500pa in his personal/family earnings (at just under $700 subsidy at new 45c/$ top rate). ie $3000 in donations favouring the conservatives, $1200 of which is taxpayer insured.

By: Soo Droll

Soo Droll — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:23:20 +0000

Why all the hatred of the nutters?

I agree with Mumble, oz politics needs more of them to interest the masses, and confuse the political junkies, who are of course mostly nutters themselves…

Also, I read a paper on ballot spoiling that found the absence of One Nation candidates in the 2001 Qld election may have led to a slight increase (0.5% if memory serves) in the informal votes in electorates that they did not run… ie if the people’s choice of nutters was not available, there were some who would not vote.

I think all of these changes suck. Donations the most. I would cap donations for everyone and make all donations disclosed.

But then I would also like 2007 to be the Year of the Nutter. I demand a coin.

By: grace pettigrew

grace pettigrew — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 04:41:54 +0000

Graeme, you might be right, you might be wrong, about making enrolment harder not necessarily advantaging the conservatives, but its my guess that when the ALP returns to the government benches they will reverse the early close of the rolls and return to the status quo ante, citing the widespread confusion and anger at the polling booths in 2007 (and they will not reverse the increased secrecy of donations to political parties).

By: grace pettigrew

grace pettigrew — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 04:26:15 +0000

The “temporary” deregistration of minor parties now possible under the newly amended Commonwealth Electoral Act completes the campaign waged by the Howard Government against liberals for forests. This campaign received a set-back from the AAT a few years ago, after the then Electoral Commissioner Andy Becker (appointed by cabinet despite not being one of the short-listed applicants for the job) was apparently arm-wrestled by the govt into deregistering the WA liberals for forests under the provisions of the Electoral Act as it stood then. The EC’s decision was taken to the AAT and overturned as being a nonsensical interpretation of the legislation (the court did not think voters were so stupid as to confuse liberals for forests with the Liberal Party), sooo embarrassing for the EC, who ended up looking like a government stooge.

By: Graeme

Graeme — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:14:56 +0000

Also, I don’t doubt figures that show new and younger voters may be disproportionately affected by the early roll closing. In theory what is needed is a concerted campaign to enrol them – whether the AEC/traditional advertising will do that is dubious. And with student unions, for instance, nobbled, there may not be the civic structure to do this.

But I’ll float again my thesis that traditional assumptions about what electoral laws favour the conservatives are not as strong as we think: voluntary voting; making enrolment harder… Such moves may advantage the side for whom politics has more salience: in Oz politics the Greens most fit this bill, but generally people vote ‘negatively’.

Howard wins elections by winning the apathetics and this is replicated in opinion polls underestimating the conservative vote. However he alienates, strongly, a large proportion of the population, who are easier to motivate to take the trouble to vote than the band of ’she’ll be righters’, who are far from politically engaged but plump for the status quo.

So the conservatives put barriers in front of voters at their own peril.