For those that fear coming to Australia!

[Gwiwer]

Good news for a Moan-day 

 

After a long fight between parties which resulted in the Australian High Commission in London becoming involved the larger of my two Aussie superannuation funds has finally paid out. 
 

Edited March 11 by Gwiwer

[monkeysarefun]

8 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

There was an interesting item on last nights Antiques Roadshow. It was a small bronze Buddha from the Ming period. What was unusual was that it was found (by metal detectorists) in the Australian outback. It is known that the Ming Treasure Fleet visited Borneo in the early fifteenth century and may well have discovered Australia at that time.

 

 

They used to come in more recent times  (still pre- European era though) for the Trepang (sea cucumbers). There has been a coin from a later Dynasty ( around 1700 or so from memory) found on a beach in NW WA.

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

 

They used to come in more recent times  (still pre- European era though) for the Trepang (sea cucumbers). There has been a coin from a later Dynasty ( around 1700 or so from memory) found on a beach in NW WA.

Sea cucumbers? They're welcome to 'em. Pretty well the most disgusting things I've ever eaten (once).

[Tumut]

On 12/10/2023 at 21:35, Gwiwer said:

MUST vote. In default of which a fine applies even if you have no other connection with Australia than its blue passport in your name. 
 

Having spent most of my life in a nation where universal franchise was hard-won but  remains at your discretion I found the Aussie “big stick” approach, uncommon but not unique in the world, to be closer to coercion than what I understand by freedom of choice. 
 

Aussies who grew up knowing that system rather than another often have a different view. 
 

To my mind it is no surprise that “donkey-voting” is endemic and that crude representations of male genitalia are regularly drawn on ballot papers in lieu of (or occasionally in addition to) the more appropriate use of those forms. 

 

Hello All, Re Donkey Voting , ie numbering the ballot paper from 1 at the top , and then in order to the bottom. Donkey voting IS NOT endemic in Australian votes, the AEC / Australian Electoral Commission statistically dismissed that furphy decades ago. In the 1970s one electorate , I think it was in NSW, coincidentally had the three candidates listed top to bottom in the order that the electorate traditionally voted for the Parties they represented. It was widely commented at the time that a donkey vote would be achieved, which it was ! The AEC, for House of Representatives / lower house, draws lots to allocate a candidates order on the Ballot paper. Also, despite allegations to the contrary, the number of invalid ballots, as in being incomplete. duplicate numbers, non numbers, defacement etc, is usually below 5% of ballots cast, which indicates that when voters actually get the ballot and go into the voting booth, they actually do cast a considered ballot. Senate ballots order of candidates is decided by the Party, and usually the top Party Candidate gets the most votes, though this is not always the case. Parties need to be aware that a popular candidate placed in the unpopular third or lower place can affect the final count. The ALP / Labour found this out when it placed John Halfpenny ( a prominent Metal Workers Union official ) 3rd, and the final count showed him equal, and in some electorates, exceeding the 1st candidate, which did detrimentally effect the final outcome for Labour. 

[Hroth]

On 11/03/2024 at 10:59, PhilJ W said:

There was an interesting item on last nights Antiques Roadshow. It was a small bronze Buddha from the Ming period. What was unusual was that it was found (by metal detectorists) in the Australian outback. It is known that the Ming Treasure Fleet visited Borneo in the early fifteenth century and may well have discovered Australia at that time.

 

You know why its called the "Ming" period?

 

If you gently tap an artefact, it'll go Minggggggg.....

 

[DavidB-AU]

2 hours ago, Tumut said:

Hello All, Re Donkey Voting , ie numbering the ballot paper from 1 at the top , and then in order to the bottom. Donkey voting IS NOT endemic in Australian votes, the AEC / Australian Electoral Commission statistically dismissed that furphy decades ago. 

 

However Tasmania has Robson Rotation where candidates appear in random order on every ballot paper, ostensibly to negate any donkey vote. They used to print equal numbers of ballot papers with every possible combination of candidate order. Now in many booths the ballot paper is printed on the spot.

[Ozexpatriate]

The donkey vote is largely an unintended consequence of obligatory voting.

 

It is less common elsewhere.

 

Also the Australian Federal Senate ballot is insane - also encourages donkey voting.

 

Edited March 16 by Ozexpatriate

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, Tumut said:

 

Hello All, Re Donkey Voting , ie numbering the ballot paper from 1 at the top , and then in order to the bottom. Donkey voting IS NOT endemic in Australian votes, the AEC / Australian Electoral Commission statistically dismissed that furphy decades ago. In the 1970s one electorate , I think it was in NSW, coincidentally had the three candidates listed top to bottom in the order that the electorate traditionally voted for the Parties they represented. It was widely commented at the time that a donkey vote would be achieved, which it was ! The AEC, for House of Representatives / lower house, draws lots to allocate a candidates order on the Ballot paper. Also, despite allegations to the contrary, the number of invalid ballots, as in being incomplete. duplicate numbers, non numbers, defacement etc, is usually below 5% of ballots cast, which indicates that when voters actually get the ballot and go into the voting booth, they actually do cast a considered ballot. Senate ballots order of candidates is decided by the Party, and usually the top Party Candidate gets the most votes, though this is not always the case. Parties need to be aware that a popular candidate placed in the unpopular third or lower place can affect the final count. The ALP / Labour found this out when it placed John Halfpenny ( a prominent Metal Workers Union official ) 3rd, and the final count showed him equal, and in some electorates, exceeding the 1st candidate, which did detrimentally effect the final outcome for Labour. 

There is always someone that attempts to undermine voting in Australia, such as Gwiwer's comments. Fact is all the evidence says that there is no proof that there is anything wrong with how elections are held.

 

The compulsory part came about, because post WW1 IIRC, the percentage of voting was very low and so the the law was changed.

By voting on Saturday's, it means that people are more likely to find the time to vote (also public buildings such as schools are available to host voting booths), compared to mid week. There is postal voting for those who cannot and there is increasing interest in voting using that method - but you have to cook your own sausage under that scheme!

 

Donkey voting and other forms of invalid voting are always going to occur - for that matter, how does one judge the voter didn't intend to vote that way? You can't ask them, if that's how they actually meant to vote.

 

There are some types of voting in Australia, where it is NOT compulsory to vote. Some examples are unions, automobile clubs and credit unions, these all have many thousands of members, but what is common is how few actually vote.

 

So yes, by having compulsory voting, you get a better idea of what people prefer, even if it means they copy from a pre-arranged list, put out by the relevant party.

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

The donkey vote is largely an unintended consequence of obligatory voting.

 

It is less common elsewhere.

 

Also the Australian Federal Senate ballot is insane - also encourages donkey voting.

 

The problem is not obligatory/mandatory voting. It is the need to exhaust all your preferences for your vote to be valid (not true in every election, I know, but where it is then that encourages donkey voting or other similar selections).

[kevinlms]

A rare case of problems with an election in Australia! Many gave up waiting - not good.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-16/council-elections-queensland-electoral-commission/103589260

[Gwiwer]

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The problem is not obligatory/mandatory voting. It is the need to exhaust all your preferences for your vote to be valid (not true in every election, I know, but where it is then that encourages donkey voting or other similar selections).

Compulsory voting is not the wrong system - it is a different system.  It is different to that I grew up with.  I have opinions which may or may not match the feelings of born-and-bred Aussies regards being "forced" to vote.  Whilst it is a hard-won right it remains my opinion that it should be our choice or - if not - that there should be a "None of These" option on every ballot paper.  I do not wish to vote for someone whose politics I disagree with.

 

It is also a chaotic system in my opinion when there are large numbers of candidates and one has to select all in order of preference to cast a valid vote.  There are other options.  A "party vote" can be used.  But I still have no wish to be any part of possibly allowing into power someone who might be a threat to any part of the community for any reason.  However passively.  Voting preference 28 out of 28 candidates for such a person still indicates a preference and in a preferential voting system there is a chance that my vote might actually allow them into power.  

 

One can argue that failing to vote where it is optional allows such people in by default through failure to vote for someone else.  That is a fair argument.  But if I only wish to see one person represent me I prefer to be able to cast one vote for that person rather than have to go 1, 2, 3, etc..  The same argument holds for having a "None of These" option on all ballot papers.  Something I have been keen to see for as long as I have been permitted to vote.  

[St Enodoc]

10 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Compulsory voting is not the wrong system - it is a different system.  It is different to that I grew up with.  I have opinions which may or may not match the feelings of born-and-bred Aussies regards being "forced" to vote.  Whilst it is a hard-won right it remains my opinion that it should be our choice or - if not - that there should be a "None of These" option on every ballot paper.  I do not wish to vote for someone whose politics I disagree with.

 

It is also a chaotic system in my opinion when there are large numbers of candidates and one has to select all in order of preference to cast a valid vote.  There are other options.  A "party vote" can be used.  But I still have no wish to be any part of possibly allowing into power someone who might be a threat to any part of the community for any reason.  However passively.  Voting preference 28 out of 28 candidates for such a person still indicates a preference and in a preferential voting system there is a chance that my vote might actually allow them into power.  

 

One can argue that failing to vote where it is optional allows such people in by default through failure to vote for someone else.  That is a fair argument.  But if I only wish to see one person represent me I prefer to be able to cast one vote for that person rather than have to go 1, 2, 3, etc..  The same argument holds for having a "None of These" option on all ballot papers.  Something I have been keen to see for as long as I have been permitted to vote.  

I have no problem with either compulsory voting or optional voting - the obligation is in fact of course only to register at the polling station, not actually to cast a vote.

 

The option to vote for "none of these" is already there, either by casting a blank ballot, not casting a ballot at all or indeed by actually writing "none of these" on the ballot paper - I actually did exactly that once in a UK election.

 

The problem is having to exhaust preferences, as you rightly say.

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

the obligation is in fact of course only to register at the polling station, not actually to cast a vote.

 

The option to vote for "none of these" is already there, either by casting a blank ballot, not casting a ballot at all or indeed by actually writing "none of these" on the ballot paper - I actually did exactly that once in a UK election.

 

This is what 'voting' should be and it is exactly that - because no one knows how you vote! No one EVER stands over a voter and ensures that the required number of boxes are filled in or whatever. Even graffitied or obscene papers are accepted, if correctly filled out and there is no personal information on it. People counting may think your a DH, but you haven't committed a crime.

 

As for the complaint about Senate voting, that's actually different now as you can only vote for a few, providing certain conditions are met. There are above and below the line options.

 

The only thing that MUST be done if you take a ballot paper, is that it MUST be returned and put in the relevant box, you can't take it away with you or otherwise destroy it. Even a spoilt paper MUST be returned for a replacement.

[Ozexpatriate]

6 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

It is different to that I grew up with.  I have opinions which may or may not match the feelings of born-and-bred Aussies regards being "forced" to vote.

Well I grew up with it. Every system has 'unintended consequences' and those consequences will derive from the system.

 

Optional voting in the US leads to a very small minority in a very small number of precincts deciding the highest levels of national office - but this is exacerbated more by the electoral college than by optional voting. Turnout can swing elections. This is less a problem in Australia but federal elections in Australia have representative issues related to the parliamentary system. I personally don't believe the chief executive should have a local constituency.

 

I don't like preferential voting. "Ranked choice voting" is being introduced for many local election in the US to encourage minority representation because a consequence of this approach is the inclusion (and election) of minority (AND fringe) candidates. An example is a certain Australian Federal Senator for Queensland in the Ipswich area. 

 

There will always be "unintended consequences". With preferential voting the ballots for Federal Senate in Australia are nuts. It is one thing for voting for one MP but what 'problem' is this supposed to solve versus 'first past the post' for12 senators? Exacerbating the problem is why are there so many senators?  The US model of two per state would not work - too much concentrated power, but 12 - with preferential voting?

[Ozexpatriate]

11 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The problem is not obligatory/mandatory voting. It is the need to exhaust all your preferences for your vote to be valid (not true in every election, I know, but where it is then that encourages donkey voting or other similar selections).

I would argue that it is the intersection of the two. People who don't want to fill in all their preferences still 'have' to vote. I don't like preferential voting either. First past the post is superior - in my opinion.

[Ozexpatriate]

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

As for the complaint about Senate voting, that's actually different now as you can only vote for a few, providing certain conditions are met. There are above and below the line options.

Do not have to vote for all 12 with preferences?

 

But even with "above the line and below the line" options suggests an inherent complexity.

 

(It has been a very long time since I voted for senators in Australia.)

 

Edited March 16 by Ozexpatriate

[monkeysarefun]

3 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

First past the post is superior - in my opinion.

 

 

But preferential voting is the perfect solution for those who say "I hate all politicians" because you can start with the one you hate most and number that one accordingly, then work your way up to the one you hate least,  so you don't need to have positive thoughts about any of them,  which saves wear and tear on your conscience due to not having to wrestle with it. 

 

Edited March 16 by monkeysarefun

[St Enodoc]

37 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

 

But preferential voting is the perfect solution for those who say "I hate all politicians" because you can start with the one you hate most and number that one accordingly, then work your way up to the one you hate least,  so you don't need to have positive thoughts about any of them,  which saves wear and tear on your conscience due to not having to wrestle with it. 

 

I actually quite like preferential voting but not having to exhaust all my preferences. I'd rather stop after one, two or (at a pinch) three.

 

Actually, two would be good - "yes please" and "over my dead body"...

[Ozexpatriate]

44 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

start with the one you hate most and number that one accordingly, then work your way up to the one you hate least

I know Queenslanders who vote that way. 

 

On a completely unrelated topic Clive Palmer is back in the news:

 

CNN: Australian billionaire revives dream to set sail on Titanic II

[monkeysarefun]

On another completely unrelated topic, may I make  a shout out to the traffic control company that is supplying the traffic controllers ( those girls who hold the stop and go signs at roadworks)  at the various roadworks along Silverdale Road at the moment.

 

I've become aware that for the last 3 or 4 years the preference seems to be to employ  young attractive ladies in the role, but the last week this particular company  have outdone themselves in the hotness department!   Its almost a disappointment to arrive and find that you have the "Go" and don't get the chance to be held up by them. 

 

 

 

(I assume they are backpackers on working visas  since the  union payrate for casuals is pretty attractive,  double time and a quarter for hours worked over 36 per week, and on top of this they get $28 daily  meal allowance when working more than 1.5hours overtime, and $800 per week  living away from home allowance if required, plus superannuation, long service leave entitlements etc):

 

Edited March 17 by monkeysarefun

[monkeysarefun]

https://www.newsweek.com/tiger-snake-bite-venomous-australia-hospital-antivenom-1879666

[Hroth]

One assumes that attractive young women are preferred for stop/go duties as drivers will actually look at them and have a better chance of seeing the boards too. And as you say, if it's a Stop, they've a chance for an oggle until the board changes!

 

Here, such a policy would be instantly denounced in the Guardian as "objectification" and heads would roll.  We just get old blokes in dirty hi-vis jackets with a half-smoked ciggy dangling from a corner of their mouths...

 

Edited March 18 by Hroth
spelin an suchlike

[kevinlms]

On 17/03/2024 at 09:53, monkeysarefun said:

On another completely unrelated topic, may I make  a shout out to the traffic control company that is supplying the traffic controllers ( those girls who hold the stop and go signs at roadworks)  at the various roadworks along Silverdale Road at the moment.

 

I've become aware that for the last 3 or 4 years the preference seems to be to employ  young attractive ladies in the role, but the last week this particular company  have outdone themselves in the hotness department!   Its almost a disappointment to arrive and find that you have the "Go" and don't get the chance to be held up by them. 

 

 

 

(I assume they are backpackers on working visas  since the  union payrate for casuals is pretty attractive,  double time and a quarter for hours worked over 36 per week, and on top of this they get $28 daily  meal allowance when working more than 1.5hours overtime, and $800 per week  living away from home allowance if required, plus superannuation, long service leave entitlements etc):

 

I doubt that many are backpackers. Good money for someone saving for a home deposit or getting ready to start a family. Better than Uber driving.

 

Still plenty of older blokes doing traffic control duties. More likely on road resurfacing projects and the ladies on stuff like grass verge cutting - often they are mobile walkers, keeping up with the mowing machines, which can be quite fancy when mowing on the sides of cuttings and embankments. Not many of the smoking older blokes would be able to keep up!

[monkeysarefun]

https://youtu.be/ZeCbH1FQlk8?si=bgCk3BM8t2YT64wn

[monkeysarefun]

On 18/03/2024 at 23:50, kevinlms said:

Still plenty of older blokes doing traffic control duties. More likely on road resurfacing projects and the ladies on stuff like grass verge cutting - often they are mobile walkers, keeping up with the mowing machines, which can be quite fancy when mowing on the sides of cuttings and embankments. Not many of the smoking older blokes would be able to keep up!

Here it's more like 75% young ladies, and they do all locations -  I go through 3 different roadworks to get to work and there is only one grizzled old bloke, way  outnumbered by the girls.

Entrances to construction sites that are controlled to allow heavy equipment to get out onto the road also seem to be a favourite habitat for  them.

 

Many of them have either a sultry  Latino or a sexy  Nordic look which makes me assume that  they are backpackers doing the working bit of their working visa, since it is one of the popular roles they fill these days, along with the more  usual bar work, fruit picking, mining camp cleaning, solar farm construction etc. 

Edited March 20 by monkeysarefun