I think I have to accept I will never fully understand the Australian Electoral System

[sqbr]

pedanther linked this article by Antony Green(*) about some changes to how voting works in Western Australia and I just...I mean I understand some of it.

(*)A respected Australian political analyst

Like, they're getting rid of the system where remote areas with a low population got extra votes. I get why the currently ruling Labor party would do that (those people don't generally vote for Labor), and why it's arguably more democratic. He doesn't go into it, but I've heard rural voters say the old system was necessary for practical reasons, because a sufficiently large region will overwhelm any one politician by it's sheer size, regardless of how few people live there. Unless...that's a different issue I'm conflating /o\

Also I understand that they're making it a little harder to register as a party to help avoid overfilling the METRE WIDE voting forms.

But they're also getting rid of "group voting tickets" (???) to avoid Weird Preference Stuff that (somehow??) leads to very minor parties getting in as a result of backroom deals, but this will add names.

He thinks we risk voting forms that look like this (from an East Coast election):


But the rest is all an applied game theory headache I just DO NOT GET. I clicked some links to further explanation and just got more confused /o\ And I mean I think some of this is a result of Antony Green using his blog to let his full election nerd flag fly and assuming any reader is at least a little bit of an election nerd too. Which is totally legit, but confusing for a new non-election-nerd reader like me.

All I really need to understand is the basic way preferential voting works, and what I think of the various parties. At the very least, I need to know which party I like most overall, and which I prefer of the main two parties. And I have that covered!

But it's still a bit embarrassing to be an adult Australian with a lot of strong political opinions who is so frequently confused by or vague about so many basic aspects of our political system. Like, I can't remember who the opposition leaders are off the top of my head on a state or federal level (I do remember which party is in power of each! And who the Prime Minister is! Yay me!). I have trouble remembering the difference between the upper and lower house. I'm fuzzy on which electoral district I'm in and always have to remind myself when elections come around, though in my defence the boundaries did change at one point. Also I recognised Antony Green in that photo more easily than I would the Premier (though I do know his name! Hi Mark!) I absolutely cannot consistently remember how many states and/or territories there are, though I can find all the bigger ones on a map.

Anyway! No very deep point, just felt like talking about my Feelings and thought other people in a similar boat might find it relatable. And if it's not relatable you get to feel superior ;P

Ok before I post I'll look some stuff up, maybe myself temporarily less ignorant.

Federal opposition leader: Anthony Albanese. He's been in the role since 2019 and I have ZERO opinion on the guy except that I should have an opinion on him beyond the name ringing a bell /o\

Western Australian opposition leader: Mia Davies A WOMAN??? From the NATIONALS?? I HAD NO IDEA. She's a year older than me and went to the highschool down the road from mine I wonder if we ever met. Anyway, the WA Coalition is in a shambles barely holding onto what little power they have by the skin of their teeth, so it's probably not surprising that their leader is a total nonentity to me.

And this is my best attempt to understand the lower vs upper house:

Federal Lower House/House of Representatives: In some ways the 'main' government. Members of Parliament/MPs in charge of representing a specific region of their state, with the numbers per state roughly proportional to state population. Makes laws. The party with a majority of Lower House seats after a Federal election gains power, and chooses the Prime Minister from one of their MPs.

Federal Upper House/The Senate: A separate group which is supposed to act as a 'check' on the Lower House. 12 senators per state regardless of relative population. Can amend and block laws. Apparently based on a mix of the English House of Lords and US Senate. So now I kinda know what the US Senate is, I guess(**)! Hooray for learning!

Both are voted for at Federal elections, but state senators serve six year terms and any given state senator's position is only up for a vote every second election. (It's different for the territories, just to make things fun, but I live in a state)

And then in WA we have the Legislative Assembly (lower house) and the Legislative Council (upper house) which afaict work in a similar way. These are voted for in state elections.

Wikipedia only says what happens in WA and Queensland even though I am pretty sure the other states and territories have their own governments. I've seen them on TV!

I could remind myself of all the states and territories again but eh, I'll just forget again. At least I remember which of New South Wales and Victoria is the cold/southern one, that was my issue all through primary school.

(**)I already had some sense of the House of Lords because any time I am reminded of it's existence I have an intense, and thus memorable, reaction of "Wait they get to vote on laws etc and it's HEREDITARY?? WTF??" This makes the House of Lords vs MPs distinction clear in my mind in a way "elected politicians who decide on laws vs different elected politicians who decide on laws etc in a slightly different way" does not.

Comments

[sqbr]

Yeah the situation in the US is a bit different and afaict much more undemocratically skewed. Here it's like...what we have now leaves everyone about equally unsatisfied. As someone who lives in the most densely populated part of the least densely populated state, I'm on different sides of the high population/low population divide on the state and federal level respectively, and have felt the advantages and disadvantages of both. And people on the other sides from me feel about as equally hard done by afaict. Like lilacsigil, who afaict lives in a low population part of a high population state, which has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

That means you need protections and ways to avoid the majority hurting the minority — but giving the minority more votes isn't really the answer, and urban/rural is hardly the best way to figure out whose interests are vulnerable to that in any case.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the best solution is, but extra votes does not seem to be it.