the Nanny State

[medhead]

We keep seeing all these pronouncements on AFF about the dreaded Nanny State. It might be worthwhile investigating what is a nanny state and why. Personally I don't see the posting of a warning sign about a potential hazard as a nanny state type of thing. A warning sign certainly isn't overprotective and it doesn't interfere with personal choice. As per the definition attributed to the OED by Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state

People are free to choose to ignore a warning sign and a sign doesn't protect people from a hazard.

Nanny state is a term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.

Anyway, I'll kick off with my nanny state moment.
Let me state clearly, up front, that this is not a comment about the politics of this example, even if there is a strong politic aspect to it.

The changes to the senate voting mechanism. the SMH have published a couple of items on these changes today.

Gary Gray mounts case for Senate vote changes, before saying he won't vote for them

Why Labor is wrong on Senate voting reform

The reasons give in support of the change include:

That there are complex preference deals done by all parties. Where:

That complex arrangement is simply not known to the voter at the time of voting.

The issue is probably better expressed in a quotable way by Gary Grey:

"Senate reform remains an issue for the future. It remains a vital issue for our nation, a nation that was built on the sanctity of the ballot and on the integrity of the ballot," he said.
"We as parliamentarians need to keep that central fact in mind and the principle in mind that how an elector marks their ballot paper is how that ballot paper should be counted.
"The counting of a ballot paper should reflect the intention of a voter and not the desires of ballot manipulators."

But both arguments boil down to the same idea that voters don't know what they're doing because of some secret back room deal. The premise of the back room deal is just wrong. All preference deals are registered with the Australian Electoral commission, something that Mark Kenny does acknowledge. That means that the preference flows are available to voters to look up. A fact that tends to refute the claim that the preference deals are secret.

If voters don't look up the preference flows, surely that's their choice. Why aren't voters allowed to decide that they're happy to vote how XYZ party determines without the need to know any more information? This seems to be a prime example of the Government being overprotective of voters exercising their personal choice.

The appearance of a nanny state policy overrides any political aspect of these proposed changes.

 

[opusman]

If voters are lazy enough to vote above the line they're presumably too lazy to research preference flows. Voting below the line is still an option.

 

[medhead]

If voters are lazy enough to vote above the line they're presumably too lazy to research preference flows. Voting below the line is still an option.

Indeed. But that is their choice. The government seems to be nanny in trying to force them to research their vote. Or do you disagree that this is a case of being overprotective.

Personally, I always vote below the line.

Look forward to other examples of nannyism and the reasons for such view.

 

[Moody]

Indeed. But that is their choice. The government seems to be nanny in trying to force them to research their vote. Or do you disagree that this is a case of being overprotective.

Personally, I always vote below the line.

Look forward to other examples of nannyism and the reasons for such view.

Simple solution - publish the preference deals at each polling booth so that voters are informed (if they want to be) at the POS, so to speak. I am sure I remember this being the case a while back, though that may have been NSW State rather than Federal elections.

Because of this current lack of transparency, I also vote below the line. That and the pathological need to put Fred Nile last ......

 

[Mogul]

Voting should be optional.

 

[dajop]

Voting should be optional.

Voting is optional. It's only collecting a ballot paper that's compulsory.

On the topic at hand, I've always been annoyed that the options for the senate have been either 1 choice above the line or numbering candidates 1 to 89 below the line. My preference is to indicate my preferences above the line, numbering 20 groupings not the hundred or so individual candidates.

 

[clazman]

First time every about 2 weeks ago I was polled about certain government / opposition policies and thoughts on the party leaders.

Typically with a well written survey your answer were contained so you couldn't give your exact answer.

 

[Dr Ralph]

Voting is optional. It's only collecting a ballot paper that's compulsory.

No, voting is compulsory in Australia:

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 245 Compulsory voting

The Act makes no reference to 'collecting a ballot paper'

 

[dajop]

No, voting is compulsory in Australia:

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 245 Compulsory voting

The Act makes no reference to 'collecting a ballot paper'

That is the way the law is written, but not the way it is enforced. In practice enforcement is based on a voter collecting a ballot paper. Excluding postal votes, once you have collected your ballot paper no one checks to see that you have voted on that paper, or indeed that you have put it in the ballot box. Even with postal votes the check is that the ballot paper is returned not that you have voted.

 

[clazman]

That is the way the law is written, but not the way it is enforced. In practice enforcement is based on a voter collecting a ballot paper. Excluding postal votes, once you have collected your ballot paper no one checks to see that you have voted on that paper, or indeed that you have put it in the ballot box. Even with postal votes the check is that the ballot paper is returned not that you have voted.

or added Fat Cat to the list of names

 

[amaroo]

Voting should be optional.

One side of politics would never allow that.

 

[Milefest]

No, voting is compulsory in Australia:

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 245 Compulsory voting

The Act makes no reference to 'collecting a ballot paper'

As far as I'm aware, it's not illegal to vote informally which includes not marking the ballot paper.

Also there are a variety of valid legal reasons not to vote (Section 4).

It's a $20 fine for not voting, it's there mainly to encourage people to vote, not force people. If you don't want to vote it's easily avoidable.

 

[medhead]

No, voting is compulsory in Australia:

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 245 Compulsory voting

The Act makes no reference to 'collecting a ballot paper'

voting is also anonymous. They check you've voted by marking your name of a list.

One side of politics would never allow that.

Didn't take long to go off topic. Time to drop the political rhetoric and get back on topic?

 

[amaroo]

voting is also anonymous. They check you've voted by marking your name of a list.



Didn't take long to go off topic. Time to drop the political rhetoric and get back on topic?

Just responding to a post ... no harm done. Maybe you meant to flag the Fred Nile post?

 

[serfty]

Simple solution - publish the preference deals at each polling booth so that voters are informed (if they want to be) at the POS, so to speak. I am sure I remember this being the case a while back, though that may have been NSW State rather than Federal elections.

Because of this current lack of transparency, I also vote below the line. That and the pathological need to put Fred Nile last ......

They are supposed to have the preference flows available for viewing at each polling booth. ABoubt a decade ago I asked to see them and was referred to the senior returning officer who looked at me like I had two heads and perhaps gills and scales for asking.

 

[serfty]

I generally vote below the line, it's been a PITA- I'll look more closely at this 6 prefernce thing.

 

[serfty]

....
If voters don't look up the preference flows, surely that's their choice. Why aren't voters allowed to decide that they're happy to vote how XYZ party determines without the need to know any more information? This seems to be a prime example of the Government being overprotective of voters exercising their personal choice....

People in general are lazy and won't research much. As such they get the government they deserve.

With that, I like the proposed changes. It will quell some out and out manipulation of said lazy people.

For example have a look at the last election.

There was a "party" on the Victorian Senate ballot called "No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics".

With preference flows, votes for them were set to flow to the greens before labour.

Hardly what, on face value, a climate change sceptic who being against the carbon tax, would expect.

The 5104 votes they received stopped with Ricky Muir - I suspect this was not what the Greens expected either.

Senate Results: Victoria - Australia Votes | Federal Election 2013 (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[JessicaTam]

Simple solution - publish the preference deals at each polling booth so that voters are informed (if they want to be) at the POS, so to speak. I am sure I remember this being the case a while back, though that may have been NSW State rather than Federal elections.

Because of this current lack of transparency, I also vote below the line. That and the pathological need to put Fred Nile last ......

They are supposed to have the preference flows available for viewing at each polling booth. ABoubt a decade ago I asked to see them and was referred to the senior returning officer who looked at me like I had two heads and perhaps gills and scales for asking.

The booklets are available at all polling booths. I always ask to see it - and I hang onto it whilst filling out the ballot.

And yes, sometimes it takes a while to find, but it is part of the kit so I just wait. I like to think of it as educating the staff.

 

[moa999]

The booklets are available at all polling booths. I always ask to see it - and I hang onto it whilst filling out the ballot.
And yes, sometimes it takes a while to find, but it is part of the kit so I just wait. I like to think of it as educating the staff.

Also available online..
But it seems pretty certain these reforms will get up

They seem to advantage the Greens and Xenephon who will vote for them,
as they will work to reduce the number of microparties who might take the vote, and also result in more excluded votes which will lower the threshold for the 6th seat.

Labor seems against it only because in the current state of the polls it is more likely to mean LNP 3,LAB 2,GRN/XEN 1 in most states, but obviously this will change election to election..

More importantly however it will undoubtedly reduce the size of the ballot paper, and save the AEC a fortune in magnifying glasses

 

[esseeeayeenn]

The reason Labor oppose it is because the "saving provision" - which means a single 1 above the line will be formal - will favour the coalition.
I am no fan of micro parties or preference whisperers.
However, real reform would be abolishing above the line voting completely, and allowing optional preferential voting below the line.
That would let voters determine their preferences (or lack of them) completely.
And it would be utterly and completely neutral.