2016 Election Preferences

[datakid23]

I think Rebecca meant party in the Sustainable Party sense

[datakid23]

Great discussion, thanks everyone.

As I read the policy, it’s intended to discriminate in the real estate market, in favour of buyers who will live in the property. To what extent that will ease pressure on the residential market bubble, I’m not qualified to say.

My personal, and I’ll be honest, not 100% investigated or thought through (I’m a comp scientist, not a real estate guru or economist) view is that, on reading: we don’t have an issue with foreigners buying our property. Some do, but not in such quantities that it’s an issue worth making policy on. If they are, it’s often for investment (cough) purposes, and in that case, I think that our (the PPau) land tax will sufficiently adjust the market to make that option less attractive, less viable.

I live on the land. I’m all too familiar with the consequences of poor management. Overstocking can work in the short term, but it inevitably damages the land. Extended overstocking degrades carrying capacity. A good farmer will destock to allow the land to recover. If that isn’t done, then the land will continue to degrade until the population crashes.

In my view, Australia and the planet have been in the degradation phase since the middle of last century. Ignoring the issue is the most anti-human thing we can do. We either control our population or nature will do it for us. In my experience, nature is neither kind nor gentle.

I don’t live on the land, so I’m glad you are here to speak for those that do. I’ve always been a city kid. I hear what you are saying, and I don’t disagree.

I think that we have mismanaged immense tracts of land across the whole planet - and by “we” I mean, as I said, “white men from rich countries”. It’s embarrassing to me, and it’s a regretful part of our history. But it’s still true. And, with that understanding, I believe that excluding people from what’s left, based on not necessarily race but whether they are “from around here” or not, is racist.

And, unfortunately, your last sentence, while true, when coupled with my analysis, leads to “we fucked this planet, and then we will protect what little is left from the marauding hordes, for our own benefit.”

My morals don’t let me do that. I believe we should all face the consequences of the actions of our forebears, like we must with regard to invasion. We have to stand with the people who are affected by those actions, rather than against them. That is the only way to make sure that this gets solved in our lifetime, rather than pushed aside while we make noises in committee meetings, and build walls to keep them out in the meantime.

I’m a globalist. I spent years on the fringes of the No Borders movement, reading and listening. I’ve spent years in the NGO, NPO and Aid space, listening, watching and learning. I’ve lived in a country that will sink, made friends with a people that will be severely displaced, not only geographically, but also culturally and psychologically.

I understand and acknowledge that these views aren’t held by all and I don’t expect them to be. I chose to be a part of this community and this party. I will temper my opinions accordingly when in public, speaking on behalf of the party.

But I won’t be silent in this house.

I think that the Sustainability Party do not deserve our acknowledgement or support. I would urge PPau members to put them low on their ballots.

[Brandon (Brandon Selic)]

Thanks for your analysis; it’ll be useful.

I need to do some more research on the Online Democracy Party,

Also, I’m curious as to your statement about the Australian Greens: “A history of pragmatism gives cause for caution.” Are you talking about pragmatic polices, or something else?

[davidb (David Boxall)]

[quote=“datakid23, post:22, topic:789”]
… I think that our (the PPau) land tax will sufficiently adjust the market to make that option less attractive, less viable. [/quote]We have our solution and they have theirs. Whether either will work and whether it’s really a problem or not isn’t the subject of this debate.

[quote=“datakid23, post:22, topic:789”]
… I believe that excluding people … based on not necessarily race but whether they are “from around here” or not, is racist.
[/quote]The rationality of that belief is questionable. Furthermore, reducing overall immigration intake cannot honestly be characterised as you have. It does not discriminate on any basis, let alone race.

But I won’t be silent in this house.

I hope that you won’t give up before you’ve worked out the true foundations of your attitude. It seems to me that you started with an objection (perhaps to realisation of the true nature of “sustainability”), then found justification in imagined racism. Many who treasure the belief that they’re entitled to as many children as they can manage will be with you.

You’re evidently not alone. For the Pirate Party more generally, population control implies discipline. There’s a substantial libertarian bent in PPau. In my experience, libertarians don’t do discipline very well.

Where you see racism, I see policies that have little hope of working. If the planet goes under, Australia won’t stay afloat by itself. If population is to be controlled, then it will happen globally. In that, I fear, nature will take its course. If we’re to discriminate against the party in question, then the workability of their policies provides an honest basis, not imagined racism.

Population is the focus of Sustainable Australia, but only one of the ways that humanity has degraded the planet. I’ve read that the current Syrian refugee crisis originated in conflict triggered by famine caused by drought which can be attributed to climate change due to global warming. It’s pretty clear that we aren’t going to control ourselves. Conflict will continue to increase and asylum-seeker flows will continue to rise.

Australia has borders. The community expects government to at least try to control who crosses them. We might not like the consequences, but bandying about words like racism does our credibility no good. For example, offshore processing might feel like racism, but you’ll be hard-pressed to find evidence of racial discrimination. Violations of human rights; violations of our responsibilities; other things that I’m too tired to think at the moment, but not racism. In the end, I believe that efforts to control our borders will fail. That’s when we can expect things to get really nasty. From one perspective, reducing immigration sounds rational. From another, it’s futile.

[JulianT (Julian Trickett)]

A good exercise in democracy; not just putting up the preferences for a vote within the party but actually sitting down and thinking about where our priorities truly lie further down the list. I made sure to fill out all 56 boxes, and I won’t deny that part of that impetus was for the pleasure of putting the Fred Nile Group in box no.56

[Hypershock (Daniel)]

How much will preference deals effect the outcome now that we’ve lost GVTs? Is it possible to game this system somehow? Is gaming the system beneath us? I know that on an individual level, voting below the line, up the page, usually means your vote counts for slightly more.

One thing we may be able to turn to our advantage is the fact since people need to number at least six above the line, every above the line vote has to include at least 2 minor parties (even if only as 5th and 6th preference). I’d be willing to do a deal with a major party (maybe even both) to get these spots on their how to vote cards. Someone with more maths skills and electoral systems knowledge correct me if I’m wrong, but with the abolition of GVTs, I think this would be more advantageous to us than minor party preference deals.

[alexjago]

getting mentioned on major’s HTVs.

Yep, that’s how this goes now.

The trouble is that we can really only do an effective deal with one major at a time, as the only thing we can offer is to put them favourably.
And no micro-major cross-promotion deal can possibly count for much, because if we had the resources to put an HTV in every voter’s hand we wouldn’t need promotion.

This may be giving too much credit, but for a major to list a preference for ideologically-aligned micros likely to do well, will probably be in the major party’s interest, as it signals that alignment and might increase the pref flow to the major from those micros.

I believe it’s in our interests to clearly preference at least one non-micro party, because exhaustion is a thing now and we have a clear interest in getting people who at least vaguely represent our views elected.

---

I don’t think it’s possible to game the system in any way that couldn’t be done far more effectively with GVTs.

Probably the strongest thing you can do is set up bogus parties with names designed to appeal to the other side. Previously, you could then GVT their prefs to you (this essentially is what happened in NSW-1999). Now, GVTs are gone, so you either need to have enough people to spare to get HTVs in hands, or else just hope for exhaustion helping you.
EDIT TO ADD: There is one advantage now: now that GVTs are gone, the bogus party need do nothing but exist and stand candidates. With GVTs, if you actually did siphon preferences it would get noticed — now you can just quietly sit back and hope for exhaustion.

The Druery strategy is for all the micros to pool their votes (regardless of ideology) in the knowledge that there’s about a quota there and one of them will get a good shot.

The Leyonhjelm variation is to set up lots of single-issue front parties to form a pool within the pool (and to hope for a much better ballot position than the Liberals).

Neither of those work now (in the absence of having enough people to put an HTV in nearly every hand, at which point you ought to be a challenger for a quota on the basis of your primary vote share).

[davidb (David Boxall)]

I’m curious as to your statement about the Australian Greens: “A history of pragmatism gives cause for caution.” Are you talking about pragmatic polices, or something else?

My comment relates to the Greens’ increasing propensity to compromise. For me, the GST is the biggest compromise. There have been others; something on corporate tax evasion more recently, if memory serves.

Overall, as they become more mainstream, the Greens grow less trustworthy in my eyes.

[twisty]

I believe it’s in our interests to clearly preference at least one non-micro party, because exhaustion is a thing now and we have a clear interest in getting people who at least vaguely represent our views elected.

My bold. Please explain “exhaustion” to this lay-twisty …

[alexjago]

A ballot is said to have exhausted when it does not list a preference for any candidate remaining in the count.

You no longer need to give a complete list of preferences in the Senate ballot, merely 6 groups above-the-line or 12 candidates below-the-line. So it’s entirely possible (especially if you vote for all micro parties) that your ballot can exhaust now.

---

This also means that vote splitting is a thing we have to worry about now, just like under plurality voting (aka first-past-the-post).

An example of vote splitting under FPTP:

• Romans 35%
• People’s Front Of Judea 30%
• Judean Peoples Front 20%
• Judean Popular Peoples Front 10%
• Campaign For A Free Galilee 4%
• Popular Front Of Judea 1%

The Romans got the most votes (the plurality) and won the election, yet 65% of people would’ve voted for anyone but them.

We have the advantage of being able to combat vote splitting by recommending preferences, and we need to do our best to ensure that anyone who’s voting for us because they know what we stand for knows who we recommend preferences to.

[idcrisis]

Thanks for this. Good practice going into elections.

Points:

• The Pirate on-line preference form seems to take the same rank for multiple entries ( at least before submit ).

• The 3 parties with “LNP” above - confusing!

• A diagrammatic how-to-use-case with images may be warranted too?

• Is a “State of Affairs” app in the offing?

Just trying to reduce / remove all complexity that may throw off the actual voting process.

[alexjago]

The Pirate on-line preference form seems to take the same rank for multiple entries ( at least before submit ).

That’s entirely deliberate. The system we use (internally for this) is a Schulze method rather than mere STV (as per the election proper); it can handle multiple groups being ranked equally

[Frew]

The results are in. The voting figures can be viewed here: https://voting.pirateparty.org.au/results/preferences-2016

Rankings

1. Australian Greens
2. Australian Sex Party
3. Science Party
4. Australian Labor Party (ALP)
5. Renewable Energy Party
6. Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party
7. Secular Party of Australia
8. Nick Xenophon Team
9. Drug Law Reform Party
10. Voluntary Euthanasia Party
11. Australian Progressives
12. Online Direct Democracy - (Empowering the People!)
13. The Arts Party
14. VOTEFLUX ORG Upgrade Democracy!
15. Australian Equality Party (Marriage)
16. Bullet Train For Australia
17. The Australian Mental Health Party
18. Socialist Alliance
19. Animal Justice Party
20. Sustainable Australia
21. Australian Cyclists Party
22. Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party
23. Socialist Equality Party
24. Glenn Lazarus Team
25. 21st Century Australia
26. Health Australia Party
27. Consumer Rights & No-Tolls
28. Australian Defence Veterans Party
29. Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)
30. Australian Country Party
31. Liberal Democratic Party
32. Mature Australia Party
33. Seniors United Party of Australia
34. Liberal Party of Australia
35. Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party
36. Jacqui Lambie Network
37. Australian Antipaedophile Party
38. Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
39. Smokers Rights Party
40. CountryMinded
41. Australian Recreational Fishers Party
42. Democratic Labour Party (DLP)
43. Katter’s Australian Party
44. Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party
45. Palmer United Party
46. John Madigan’s Manufacturing and Farming Party
47. Rise Up Australia Party
48. Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop The Greens)
49. Australian Liberty Alliance
50. Country Liberals (Northern Territory)
51. National Party of Australia
52. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation
53. Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated
54. Australian Christians
55. Family First Party
56. Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

[mofosyne]

228 ballots received out of a potential total of 1,282 (18%).

Is there a way to improve this participation rate next time? E.g. via an app? (Also it would be nice if the voting system starts at 50% for each candidate, and you can increment up and down from there.).

[Archaic (Liam Pomfret)]

I guess Labor being this high in the list is a reflection of people acknowledging the problem of votes exhausting. Still a few surprises in there though.

[Frew]

I guess Labor being this high in the list is a reflection of people acknowledging the problem of votes exhausting. Still a few surprises in there though.

I suspect it will be inversely proportional to the ALP’s proximity to power.

When the Labor is in government, we will put them much lower due to living through them being awful on civil liberties, human rights etc. When the Libs are in, they aren’t seen the same way because they are the ‘opposition’ to the government so they will drift back up the list.

That is my theory anyway. People shouldn’t forget what they are really like.

[alexjago]

I don’t see how an app would substantially change the user experience.

Turnout for these things is always pretty low. It’s a worry, but it’s not inconsistent.

I mean, the pre-selection meeting that replaced Bronwyn bloody Bishop only had about 100 people at it. In blue-ribbon Liberal territory. And the Liberals have a bit under 50K people nationwide, I think; that’s about 300 per electorate on average.

So if they can’t manage 30% turnout for a contentious preselection meeting to take over a safe seat, what hope do we have?

[MartinS]

How interesting…If I’m reading the results correctly - there’s at least one vote that preferences Australian Christians, Family First and the Fred Nile Group (due to their Internet Censorship Policies are the antithesis of PPAU) over the Greens. Also, I suspect they’re advocates for Intelligent Design in the curriculum.
Now I’m not a Greens fanboy (think they may have been in my top 10) but they’re way way better than those three.
Democracy is fascinating…

Please Please Please don’t pull apart sentence-by-sentence this statement. Got a bit tired of that onslaught with the Telecommunication Policy - that’s why I’m more of an observer now…and I’m bald too just like an Observer…but I do have eye-brows…and I don’t time-travel

[Frew]

Please Please Please don’t pull apart sentence-by-sentence this statement. Got a bit tired of that onslaught with the Telecommunication Policy - that’s why I’m more of an observer now…and I’m bald too just like an Observer…but I do have eye-brows…and I don’t time-travel

I’m the President of the Party and I won’t go near the telecommunications policy debate. I don’t understand the intricacies of it, and if I don’t understand any proposals that come out of it, I will vote against it. >.>

[Edit] I think that thread is a good example of why datakid23 has suggested we have a code of conduct for the forums in this thread.

[bug1 (Glenn)]

I didnt notice the email, not sure why.
Perhaps if there was a reminder with 1 day to go might help.