Explaining the Australian Electoral System to foreigners
Posted by Jacques Chester on Monday, February 4, 2008
Recently I’ve had recourse to explain some of the features of our electoral system to folk overseas — principally in the USA. It’s hard to get the items across because a lot of it is utterly unlike other modes of work. So for example, scrutineering comes as a surprise to Americans; conversely they distrust preferential voting as easier to manipulate centrally (in their view).
I’ve been toying with throwing up a small website on the topic. What should I cover? I’d be interested in getting feedback from the Troppo Army, 4th Wonks and 17th Hacks Divisions.
This entry was posted on Monday, February 4th, 2008 at 12:16 PM and filed under Blegs, Politics - international, Politics - national.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
My American friends are always surprised to learn that, in Australia, liberals are good guys and republicans are the bad guys. :)
Posted on 04-Feb-08 at 2:04 pm | PermalinkThe AEC website is pretty informative, you could just use the source.
Of course, they don’t call it preferential voting.
Preferential voting is easier to manipulate? I mean, sure, back in the 19th century you had to do things centrally, these days it’s far easier to get fraud going locally/regionally. I mean, diebold machines??
Posted on 04-Feb-08 at 2:13 pm | PermalinkJacques
Judging by the deabte here recently with all those coves arguing Her Majesty is our H of S, I think we should we start by explianing it to our compatriots first before we go off preaching to the Pacific Rim! ;)
Posted on 04-Feb-08 at 2:23 pm | PermalinkSounds like a job for a wiki, Jacques. I don’t think you’d have any shortage of contributors.
Not if you’ve ever done stocktaking. That’s the best way to explain optional preferential to people who can’t understand it, I think; when you get down to it, it’s just an extended count of objects where each object is a political decision.
Posted on 04-Feb-08 at 5:01 pm | PermalinkThe best feature of the Australian electoral system, anyway, isn’t its technical process, but its independence from political appointments, and openness to scrutiny. You’ve really got to tell the *story* of polling day to a foreigner before they really get it, from the Parties trying to get up earlier than the other to set up card tables in the morning, to staying behind and watching over the shoulder of the scrutineers while *every* vote gets counted.
How do they argue that preferential voting(IRV as its usually sold to the Yanks for the single member version or choice voting for the multimember version by fairvote.com) is easier to manipulate? It is far easier to manipulate FPTP systems, particular with the overpriced and undersecured abacuses they call voting machines!
Posted on 04-Feb-08 at 5:43 pm | PermalinkDoc;
The argument runs that FPTP can be counted in each district and then totalled; whereas at some point IRV requires all votes to be gathered together in one place. In the American way of thinking this makes it more liable to tampering.
To which there are two answers:
1. Voting machines make it easy to tamper in every district.
Posted on 04-Feb-08 at 5:48 pm | Permalink2. Scrutineers, numbered ballot boxes, numbered seals, multiple counts.
The crucial points surely are the difference between the excreable Euro List system and true PR with Transferable Preference. The Brits still can’t get their heads around the latter because the backwoods brigade constantly yell “Look at Italy!” when the real examples are Denmark, Germany and ..err everywhere else, excluding, as always, the Frogs.
Posted on 04-Feb-08 at 9:21 pm | PermalinkDon’t forget to explain the donkey vote. It may cause confusion with the Democratic Party mascot/symbol.
Posted on 04-Feb-08 at 11:14 pm | PermalinkHow-to-vote cards, with the argy bargy of preference swapping, should not be overlooked.
The concept of the informal vote should be easier than our attempts to understand chads or whatever it was that gave us George W. Mind, after the McKewen debacle I’d hate to scrutineer again. When is a vote not a vote these days?
I always found Bryan Palmer’s Oz Politics guide a useful resource
Posted on 05-Feb-08 at 12:44 am | Permalinktest
Posted on 05-Feb-08 at 2:25 pm | PermalinkTry explaining the French model to Australians! I have found the contrary relatively easy :)
Posted on 05-Feb-08 at 3:12 pm | Permalinkanyone who explains the donkey vote makes an ass of themselves
Posted on 06-Feb-08 at 7:43 am | PermalinkVoting below the line…without filling all the boxes…on a mile long senate paper. Yay!
Posted on 06-Feb-08 at 9:27 am | PermalinkScrutineering might not be such a surprise if you called it poll-watching or observing. We send them overseas and have them ourselves.
Posted on 07-Feb-08 at 1:46 pm | Permalink