longweekend58 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 1:23pm:

Add to that the ability to pay the registration fee, somewhere around $2000 IIRC.

I think some of these candidates are there for no other reason than to harvest preferences. I'm especially suspicious of parties with "Liberal" or "Labor" in their name, as they may be confused with the major parties.

If we could number groups as we wished, we may see a reduction of candidates if the preference-harvesting candidates are made irrelevant.

Bam wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 8:27pm:


the $2000 fee is also NOT a vetting process.  Not that I think we could safely have one anyhow.

My OP was inspired by an interview with Antony Green on the ABC. He has also posted an article on ABC Online on 29 August expressing similar ideas to improve the system. (Look for the article "Senate voting threatens more than our eyesight".) I'll post a couple of paragraphs below and comment on them.
Quote:

(Without checking, I think a threshold quota is a minimum percentage of the vote that a party or candidate can receive to be eligible to be elected. In the NZ parliament which has proportional representation, the threshold is four percent.)
Quote:

Green is suggesting that we abolish tickets completely, rather than using the #1 ticket as the default as I suggested. If optional preferential voting is also implemented below the line, a similar system is needed above the line, so that the number of candidates numbered above the line is at least equal to the number of vacancies. On the other hand, it would explode the below-the-line candidate count.

Do we really need below-the-line candidate lists at all?

We could make a compelling case to abolish below-the-line voting. We should consider taking a look at other voting systems around the world. Many countries with a bicameral system have the equivalent of a Senate with proportional representation. In many of those systems, the voters vote for parties and not individual candidates. Germany has this kind of system for the proportional representation - vote for the party, and if the party meets a threshold their candidates get elected.

(The German and New Zealand parliaments are unicameral with local seats and list seats, such that the parliament overall has proportional representation. Governments by coalitions are the norm because it is rare for one party to exceed 50%.)
Quote:

I suggested exactly the same idea here (see OP). It is a natural extension of optional preferential voting.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 1:54pm:


A neat summary of the progressive mindset.

JC Denton wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 9:32am:



That's really silly. Only the vote counters see it but none of the politicians.
And the vote counters don't care either way. Whatever you draw or write or leave it blank - it's just a donkey vote.

Soren wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:08am:

Incorrect. Spoiling the ballot paper in these ways is an informal vote. The donkey vote is a valid vote where the boxes are simply numbered in the same order they appear on the ballot paper.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] etc.
Or it can be from the bottom.

Because a few percent of the voters do vote this way, having the top or bottom position on the paper is highly prized.

Bam wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 11:24am:


some analysts have suggested that donkey voters are more liked to be lower socio-economic groups and therefore more likely to be labor supporters.  The donkey-voter will therefore disadvantage the labor candidate unless they get the #1 position.