On the other hand, FPTP can operate as an optional system, if candidates are able to advocate a ‘tick one box only’ HTV, with voters electing not to select a second candidate.

As for declaring affiliations, I think it is reasonable for the electorate to expect to know about such affiliations prior to voting. This is a different matter from official party campaigning. It surely cannot be an issue of candidates’ privacy (should any candidate be fool enough to make that claim). Clearly political affiliations have a direct connection to seeking elected office, and should be declared.

However, if Western Australians are serious about this all they need do is ensure that their local media outlets ask the question. To date, the media hasn’t really pursued this issue, leaving everyone with the unrealistic and incorrect belief that local government is above party politics. True, there may be greater opportunity for intra-party rivalry where affiliations are not declared: it’s much easier to disagree with your fellow party members if no-one knows and are thus unable to make mileage of it. But if anyone thinks that party political machines aren’t involved at least at a branch level in local government elections, they’re fooling themselves.

Peter van Onselen weighs in… he reckons parties should endorse candidates, so people know who’s in which party. I’m not so sure about that… I like the idea of local councils being non-partisan, even if half of them are party members.

As evidenced by Generic Heffalump’s outburst against the Fairfield Council in a previous thread.

Under the FPTP system candidates need only to win the support of their local community whereas under (preferential) there is a greater focus on running mates and backroom deals that suit the organised, larger political parties.

Eh? Anyway, the mayors of Perth and Stirling agree. Lisa Scaffidi gives a similar argument against preferences I’ve seen used by the English lately; candidates running against each other shouldn’t have to strike deals with each other. (Bird solution: don’t do preference deals then, and/or have OPV, but then that’d be too easy, wouldn’t it.) John Hyde (Perth MLA) points out it gets a bit weird with multi-member wards, like Perth (4 members) and Vincent (2).

This week, there’s a bit of a grump about councillors being in political parties without being upfront about it; example being Nick Catania, mayor of Vincent (and also father of Vincent ) – he’s obviously a Labor man, used to be a state MP, but is a bit shy about it apparently. The Voice rang up a whole bunch of councillors in Perth, Vincent, Bayswater and Stirling to ask them if they were members of any party; most were either ‘no affiliation’ or didn’t respond. Family First have one in Stirling. the Greens and Libs one each in Bayswater, and there’s several Labor ones around the place. One of the ‘no affiliation’ fellas is Lou Magro, mayor of Bayswater, who went for Labor preselection in Morley against Reece Whitby but apparently ain’t in the party any more (probably followed D’Orazio out). Peter van Onselen weighs in… he reckons parties should endorse candidates, so people know who’s in which party. I’m not so sure about that… I like the idea of local councils being non-partisan, even if half of them are party members.

Also, Bayswater was the only council where everybody responded to the Voice. They go 1 Grn, 3 ALP, 1 Lib, 6 no affiliation.

http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/elections/state_elections/2009_Fremantle_By-Election/District_of_Fremantle/District_results.php

And the ALP wouldn’t have to please as many groups to pass the Carbon Reduction Sceme.

Funny how stupid decisions come back to haunt you.

Lets hope that mistake is never repeated.

However, the Western Patriot article argues, rightly or wrongly, that Batong Pham would have secured preferences from Family First or the CDP.

Ahead of the Libs??

The WP must be dreaming, why would CDP or FF do that?

However, the Western Patriot article argues, rightly or wrongly, that Batong Pham would have secured preferences from Family First or the CDP. So in that sense, quite possibly.

Batong Pham was a member of the former New Right Faction which included John D’Orazio and there was speculation that Batong may have been part of certaqin Branch Stacking activities, which Carpenter was trying to reform the Party from.