This has been the first week of the campaign for the Federal Elections. Five more weeks to go before Election Day, 21 May 2022. Five more weeks of smiling politicians, empty promises and baby kissing (Covid-permitting, of course).
Three years ago, we faced the possibility of a BS government, and that was a terrifying prospect. Those on the right side of the political aisle breathed a sigh of relief when Morrison and the LNP managed to squeak in.
This Federal Election is far more critical. Alas, the choice in leaders is between worse and worser.
The AEC website has a hub containing information to help the public, in relation to this election. It is called Your vote will help shape Australia. That is true. Every vote counts and will affect the outcome. But will the shape be the right one for the country? Do the voters have access to the facts about candidates in their electorates, and the important issues facing the country? Will they get the details they need to help them make the correct decisions and vote for the best candidates?
We have a platform, here on Catallaxy, to make our voices heard with comments and posts. There will be plenty of time, after the results are declared, to lament. But, now is the time to do whatever we can, to help in making a change for the better. Those who represent the freedom parties as candidates, volunteers or supporters are welcome to share your experiences.
Scummo thinks two years almost to the day from the announced Lockdown-we-(didn’t)-have-to-have and Joe Public has forgiven and forgotten?
Chairman Dan’s gimp.
Can the AEC please add an extra box, none of the above. Checking this should give no one the first vote $ nor should go to the incumbent.
I thought it was a comedy starring Elbow.
The rules should include a requirement that a candidate can only be declared a winner, if they get a minimum percentage of the total votes cast.
That way, if there is no candidate good enough, the electorate can tick the None of the above box.
In France, Marine Le Pen has declared she will end the Convid nonsense.
Big Clive has it as policy
I honestly don’t know if it would be a winner or a loser. In my Fed electorate we had Dean Vegas as UAP candidate but he’s ineligible under s44. Maybe he’s the real Elvis and Murrican. Replaced by Diane Happ, who, back in 2013, said
I hope she’s changed her views to Oz being simply not worth the effort trying.
What are the chances of UAP in your electorate?
It is difficult to check the eligibility of candidates and a pity when the party has to discard someone who may be good and pick the next available.
UAP in my electorate. Hard to say but my guess is, from the people I know, zero. They’ve never heard of the minor parties, wouldn’t know what they stood for and are convinced there’s a really deadly virus out there. Completely brainwashed. I did see some nice young ladies in UAP T shirts last weekend around the place but my guess is they’re just bought rather than involved. They’re asking for volunteers in supermarkets this weekend. I volunteered for Cory B back in the day but it’s an exercise in failure. TV ads is where it’s at. Hope I’m wrong but it’s a low info area based on what i see.
I’ve applied for a postal vote so I can take my time going through the various candidates, parties and policies but so far there’s much downplaying of Convid and the removal of ALL mandates. Which will get my vote and preferences.
I read the LDP brochure today. It’s clear, succinct and conservative
Can they deliver? The uniparty will fight it all the way. I’m going to give them a tick.
Remember this when they hand you your ballot paper……. According to the Electoral act Part XVIII The scrutiny, Secs 268Aand 269 (Despite what you will be told at the polling pace) a vote in the senate is NOT INFORMAL if…..”.268A(b)if there are more than 6 squares printed on the ballot paper below the line -the voter has consecutively numbered any of those squares from 1 to 6 (whether or not the voter has also included one or more higher numbers in those squares)” AND “sec 269(1)(b) the voter has marked the number 1,or the number 1 and one or more higher numbers,in squares printed on the ballot paper above the line.” The meaning of this is that for a vote to be “Not Informal”it only requires that a MINIMUM of 6 marked squares(1to6 consecutively) BELOW the line ,or,2 marked squares(1to2) ABOVE the line.
My early suggestions in addition to D69’s:
📝 Even if you only have to number 6 below the line, go as deep as you can with the numbers, so your vote stays in play for as long as possible. I’ll probably go through the ones I like, the ones I can live with and stop there.
📝 Consider placing your last number with the major party you hate least. This should stop your vote from exhausting until the very end, and if anyone surreptitiously adds additional preferences to your vote during counting, they should never be reached if you do this. (I cannot recall which Çat put this forward, but it makes sense to me.) I’ll probably end up numbering the Liberal senate candidates in reverse donkey to achieve this.
Take a pen to make your preferences permanent and stymie anyone who handles a vote subsequently with a pencil in their pocket. I might dig up a purple one for extra distinctiveness.
What, me paranoid? 🙂
Destroyer D69 and Nelson, helpful information and suggestions.
Nelson, after reading your tip on the pen, I checked the site:
Being paranoid, cautious, wary are good signs under certain situations like wanting to get the best possible candidates elected. Instead of depending on the polling booth to supply the marking implements, a good citizen can carry a couple of pens to the polling place.
I agree pencils get the job done as the default option. Imagine the AEC buying the cheapest ball-points and finding they only work a third of the time? And none work after sitting in a storeroom for eight months between elections.