the Nanny State

[moa999]

Saving provision only slightly negative to Labor now... but I think necessary as people are used to putting just a 1 above the line.

1 for either the LNP,Labor,Greens what you put 2-6 doesn't really matter apart from final quotas (and I suspect many may want their vote excluded - albeit the result is just others vote counts more) - and it only impacts Labor as the Greens generally preferenced Labor above the LNP (not in all states/seats)

I suspect enabling people to show their preferences above the line will drastically reduce the number of people voting below the line
(and also reduce the number of exclusions)

That said if a 1 above the line is formal.
Doing the same and just filling out a 1, or 1-6 below the line should also be formal.

 

[Hvr]

As noted above the booklet showing how preferences flow is available at every polling place and when I worked as the OIC I was asked for it at least once a day. I did a pre-polling booth open a fortnight prior to the election.

It is forbidden to take the ballot paper away from the booth area and one person is specifically rostered on at all times to ensure people do not leave with the paper.

As for compulsory voting I now believe it is appropriate. By ensuring that there are sufficient polling places to allow for quick voting the process it actually more democratic than some countries where voluntary voting is the norm.The politicisation of the voting process perverts it and means that the opposition is disenfranchised.

Our electoral borders, voting processes and procedures are conducted with strict independence ensuring that the will of people is reflected via the ballot paper.

 

[dajop]

As for compulsory voting I now believe it is appropriate. By ensuring that there are sufficient polling places to allow for quick voting the process it actually more democratic than some countries where voluntary voting is the norm.The politicisation of the voting process perverts it and means that the opposition is disenfranchised.

I agree, and if someone genuinely wants to express their democrat right to not vote, for whatever reason, they can choose to pay the modest fine, or put an unmarked or defaced ballot paper into the ballot box. No-one is forcing anyone to actually vote for someone, just forcing people to think about whether they want to vote, and if they do who. Rather than just being lazy. Still think a box on the bottom of each ballot paper that says "Don't care" could send a powerful message to politicians.

 

[Deleted member]

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.

And potentially increasing the number of informal votes

 

[Deleted member]

Without quoting specific examples, I am of the opinion that Australia is well on its way down the path of a full blown nanny state.
The absurd levels of audit and compliance in everyday life is just plain dumb, and seems to be designed to feed an ever increasing industry of watchers watching watchers. We have allowed a system to evolve that makes us less and less responsible for our own actions.
Ok Rant over.

 

[vetrade]

I draw a distinction between a government “being overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice” and one which seeks to better inform or simplify something for its citizens. The senate voting reforms belong in the latter category and therefore I don’t think they are indicative of a nanny state. 18C would be a better example – but try and discuss that without it degenerating into a political stoush!

I think the focus on the secrecy, or otherwise, of the senate preference deals misses the point somewhat. Isn't the real issue whether some voters may inadvertently cast a vote, via preferences, for a person or party they never intended simply because the present system is confusing or too complex for many? If you take preferences out of the equation the issue of secret deals becomes a moot point.

I know the arguments for preferential voting but I take a different view. I believe it should be optional for people to allocate preferences or not and still have it count as a valid vote. If my preference is not to allocate preferences then so be it, so to speak. To me that would better reflect the value of someone’s personal choice than the present system.

 

[medhead]

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)

But should government be protecting people from their laziness?
On the political aspect the preference whispering applies to all parties. the persons in the number 2 and 3 position of the ALP and LNP would get the same primary vote as Ricky Muir got. Why are they any more deserving of gaining the big seat because of preferences?

I draw a distinction between a government “being overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice” and one which seeks to better inform or simplify something for its citizens. The senate voting reforms belong in the latter category and therefore I don’t think they are indicative of a nanny state. 18C would be a better example – but try and discuss that without it degenerating into a political stoush!

I think the focus on the secrecy, or otherwise, of the senate preference deals misses the point somewhat. Isn't the real issue whether some voters may inadvertently cast a vote, via preferences, for a person or party they never intended simply because the present system is confusing or too complex for many? If you take preferences out of the equation the issue of secret deals becomes a moot point.

I know the arguments for preferential voting but I take a different view. I believe it should be optional for people to allocate preferences or not and still have it count as a valid vote. If my preference is not to allocate preferences then so be it, so to speak. To me that would better reflect the value of someone’s personal choice than the present system.

The real issue you mention somewhat contradicts your first paragraph. This is basically about protecting people from their laziness or confusion - inadverently casing an unintended vote. The information is currently available for people to be fully informed. The proposed reforms don't make senate voting any simpler. Seems overprotective to me. (unless this is really a push to protect the big parties ).

In terms of simplification of the voting process, it seems clear from many of the arguments advanced that not even MPs and Senators understand senate voting. The vote for the senate requires the people in each state to elect 6 senators not one. That requires preferential voting. We have to nominate the 6 people we want to represent us. So the number of "1"s that an senator gets is somewhat irrelevant. Only voting for one person can't be an option.

In any case, these changes don't simplify the voting process, they just change how preferences are handled. If they really want to tackle so-called preference whispers then they would change to the Hare-Clark system. But they don't because the big parties benefit from the current voting system via their own preference whispering.

In terms of how the count is conducted, there are only minor differences between the Senate-style systems and Hare-Clark. The real difference is created by the way the Senate system favours parties, while Hare-Clark gives greater weight to candidates.

An Antony Green explains it the Hare-clark system is more complex, which makes it more complex to vote tactically. But the method of casting a vote is the same, list your candidates in order of preference.

 

[medhead]

Without quoting specific examples, I am of the opinion that Australia is well on its way down the path of a full blown nanny state.
The absurd levels of audit and compliance in everyday life is just plain dumb, and seems to be designed to feed an ever increasing industry of watchers watching watchers. We have allowed a system to evolve that makes us less and less responsible for our own actions.
Ok Rant over.

Great circuit breaker post. In my area at least, industry is having responsibility put onto us. We no longer have to send a bit of paper to government to prove that we comply with standards. Instead we have to keep that bit of paper and produce it if government audit us.

 

[vetrade]

Although I don’t see my comments as contradictory, medhead, I can certainly see how someone else might think they are. I think it reflects the nuances of interpretation that influence how different individuals can perceive the same facts or circumstances differently. As I see it it’s a case where there’s no clear right or wrong answer. From my perspective there is a vast difference between protecting people from their own laziness and protecting them from confusion so I wouldn’t characterise them similarly.

I agree with your comments regarding the senate voting system and preferences and the fact that voting for just one person is not an option. I oversimplified my comments by expressing a general principle about letting people decide whether they wanted to allocate preferences or not without invalidating their vote. Even when voting for 6 senators I think there should be an option for your vote not to be directed to anyone else, if you so choose.

As a bit of probably useless information I was in Tassie last week and happened to walk past an old house in the Battery Point area of Hobart which had a plaque stating it was the former residence of former Tassie Attorney-General, Andrew Clark, who also happens to be the “Clark” in Hare-Clark. Prior to that I had no idea of the Hare-Clark system’s link to Tasmania.

 

[medhead]

Although I don’t see my comments as contradictory, medhead, I can certainly see how someone else might think they are. I think it reflects the nuances of interpretation that influence how different individuals can perceive the same facts or circumstances differently. As I see it it’s a case where there’s no clear right or wrong answer. From my perspective there is a vast difference between protecting people from their own laziness and protecting them from confusion so I wouldn’t characterise them similarly.

[snip]

As a bit of probably useless information I was in Tassie last week and happened to walk past an old house in the Battery Point area of Hobart which had a plaque stating it was the former residence of former Tassie Attorney-General, Andrew Clark, who also happens to be the “Clark” in Hare-Clark. Prior to that I had no idea of the Hare-Clark system’s link to Tasmania.

Only somewhat contradictory, no completely. I don't see the changes as providing better information or simplifying the system*. But they are clearly based on the premise of preventing people from making the "wrong" vote.

Nice link with history.

* If anything the changes make the voting more complex, how are the preference distributed with preferential above the line voting? If my vote doesn't get extinguished on the first person on my number 1 vote. does it then go to my number 2 vote, or does it go to the second spot under my 1 vote? Also what about extinguished votes. If someone votes parties X, Y, Z and another person votes parties X, Z, Y How do they decide which vote to extinguish on party X? and why should party Y or Z miss out on a second preference? Anyway, these are just rhetorical musings?

 

[Hvr]

Great circuit breaker post. In my area at least, industry is having responsibility put onto us. We no longer have to send a bit of paper to government to prove that we comply with standards. Instead we have to keep that bit of paper and produce it if government audit us.

And while some industries will comply both with the intent and spirit of the law others will deliberately flout the law knowing that there will not be constant oversight nor penalties.

Banks are an example of the latter type of industry with new revelations coning out daily about their malfeasance. Yet for some reason governments are reluctant to pay more than lip service to an effective compliance regime.


A low level example of the so called 'nanny state' is the current spotlight on the Montague st bridge in Sth Melbourne. Several times a week trucks and buses hit the bridge despite it being clearly sign posted and its height properly displayed.

Heavy vehicle drivers are required to plan their route to ensure that bridges are high enough and that they only drive on appropriate roads. This is basic road safety being ignored by the companies and drivers.

The proposed solution? More warning signs and discussion of lowering the road under the bridge. No comment at all on the lack of compliance with existing laws or increased penalties or even corporate responsibility to ensure a safe workplace for their employees.

 

[medhead]

And while some industries will comply both with the intent and spirit of the law others will deliberately flout the law knowing that there will not be constant oversight nor penalties.

Banks are an example of the latter type of industry with new revelations coning out daily about their malfeasance. Yet for some reason governments are reluctant to pay more than lip service to an effective compliance regime.


A low level example of the so called 'nanny state' is the current spotlight on the Montague st bridge in Sth Melbourne. Several times a week trucks and buses hit the bridge despite it being clearly sign posted and its height properly displayed.

Heavy vehicle drivers are required to plan their route to ensure that bridges are high enough and that they only drive on appropriate roads. This is basic road safety being ignored by the companies and drivers.

The proposed solution? More warning signs and discussion of lowering the road under the bridge. No comment at all on the lack of compliance with existing laws or increased penalties or even corporate responsibility to ensure a safe workplace for their employees.

Maybe if the road works go on long enough, the companies with get use to taking alternative routes.

 

[JohnK]

The political discussion is giving me a headache.

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

The political discussion is giving me a headache.

Me to !

A few nanny (because you cannot look after yourself ) rules from my ever growing list that
seem to effect me daily :

Bicycle lanes - sometimes perhaps but everywhere ?

Swimming pool fences - particularly considering unfenced rivers, dams, lakes, canals etc.

Light Rail everywhere because the economists say so ( and we all know economics is a philosophy and not a science ! )

Planning rules that have no common sense and change regularly anyway.

And why can't I have a 600mm doorway in my house.

Does it all come about because minorities have the loudest voice or because common
Sense is no longer common ?

 

[Warks]

One thing that would have been perceived as nanny stateism at the time (if the expression happened to be in use back then) was random breath testing. They used to trust us not to drink and drive and you'd only get breath tested if you were in an accident or caught driving erratically. I'm fairly sure most would accept that RBT has been a success despite the opposition of the liquor industry.

On voting, my late father was always pushing for a "none of the above" box on all ballot forms. If the % of NOTA was above a certain level then a by-election would have to be held with new candidates. Don't know what that level would be. 50%?

 

[Milefest]

One thing that would have been perceived as nanny stateism at the time (if the expression happened to be in use back then) was random breath testing. They used to trust us not to drink and drive and you'd only get breath tested if you were in an accident or caught driving erratically. I'm fairly sure most would accept that RBT has been a success despite the opposition of the liquor industry.

I guess there's still a bit of resistance with speed cameras too.

And in relation to drink driving, it's interesting that hands free calls is just as dangerous as drink driving, yet that hasn't been banned.

 

[Ausbt]

Me to !

A few nanny (because you cannot look after yourself ) rules from my ever growing list that
seem to effect me daily :

Bicycle lanes - sometimes perhaps but everywhere ?

Swimming pool fences - particularly considering unfenced rivers, dams, lakes, canals etc.

People don't allow young children to spend extensive amounts of time unsupervised around unfenced rivers, lakes and canals. However if you have a pool at home, where you spend 90% of your weekend and large amounts of weekdays at, what you want to have eyes-on your 3 y.o. that entire time? That is practical common sense, if you are looking for it. Why the hell wouldn't you make a home pool as hard as possible for a young child to slip into, which they do soundlessly while you are in the bathroom? It's rediculously impractical to expect parents to have a 3 y.o. wait outside a toilet door, even if it is open, while things are attended to. I suppose you could tie them up.

Bicycles lanes are not everywhere. In fact they are not anwhere enough, yet. Can't see much so-called nanny-state in that anyway. My office is right on Kent St which I cross as a pedestrian almost every day. It's not the bikes you have to worry about - it's the cars running red lights at the corner of Margaret & Clarence. I never step into that intersection until a full two seconds have passed, it's a death trap. If you took the bike lane back out you could put parking in sure. You know what's parked all along there? Cars with disabled permits - lots of them. Some of them rather curious choices for those claiming to be disabled - low to the ground, utes with tools, you get the idea. A very well known rort. I suppose you could argue we ought to get rid of disabled parking permits - problem solved!

 

[Warks]

I guess there's still a bit of resistance with speed cameras too.

And in relation to drink driving, it's interesting that hands free calls is just as dangerous as drink driving, yet that hasn't been banned.

However dangerous they both are I think texting (or checking Facebook) while driving is probably twice as dangerous. I look out my office window in this industrial area and the number of cars and especially trucks (dump trucks and vans especially) with drivers texting away with their eyes down is simply shocking. Virtually impossible to police though.

 

[under the radar]

a 'nanny state' exists because there are so many 'adults' who wont take responsibility (like children) for their (often illegal) actions:evil:...actions come with consequences.., but the general public turn to the govt/authorities to 'fix' EVERYTHING...but in the same breath the general public feel they are being 'nannied':shock:...govts/authorities do the best they can...BUT ITS ALSO UP TO SOCIETY TO DO THEIR PART TOO!!! and stop behaving like children!!!

 

[medhead]

Me to !

Light Rail everywhere because the economists say so ( and we all know economics is a philosophy and not a science ! )

How does that fit with scientists who do PhDs?
Used to work with a real Dr who would bang on about how wrong it was for economists to being doing PhDs.

I guess there's still a bit of resistance with speed cameras too.

And in relation to drink driving, it's interesting that hands free calls is just as dangerous as drink driving, yet that hasn't been banned.

They've banned a large number of hands free calls by banning any touching of a phone while driving. I don't believe it is possible to dial a number without touching a phone, (excluding in built car bluetooth)


----------------------

I'll indulge myself with a reversion back to the senate voting thing. In particular the point about low primary vote. I've just looked up the senate results for victoria. Keeping in mind that our political masters have expressed the opinion that a senator must get >1% of the primary vote to be elected. Here are the primary vote numbers for the elected senators at the last election, with above the line ticket vote being assigned to the person listed in the first position for the ticket.

Mitch FIfield (position one) - 40.04%
Scott Ryan - 0.02%
Janet Rice (position one) - 10.77%
Ricky Muir (position one) - 0.5%
Gavin Marshall (position one) - 32.35%
Jacinta Collins - 0.05%

That pretty much kills any arguments based on Primary vote against Ricky Muir. He has more right to be there than Scott Ryan or Jacinta Collins on that basis.