Notes on an election
[Or: Voting Strategies for Dummies]
Today, Saturday, August 21st, is election day here in Australia.
Voting is compulsory in Australia. (Nevertheless, koan911 has not voted since March, 1983. He made some poor decisions earlier in life and has been on the lam these last 25+ years. He has felt that appearing at a polling booth, (even heavily-disguised), might bring too much unwanted attention, (i.e. Hellfire), down on his coordinates.)
I used to enjoy telling Americans that if they ever made voting compulsory in the States, the Republican Party would be out of business overnight. (In the 70s, I worked as a polling clerk: in electoral parlance, while a blank or otherwise invalid vote is an "informal vote", a valid, 1-2-3-straight-down-the-ballot vote is known as a "donkey vote". ;) Hee haw. Get it?)
In my electorate today, there were 5 candidates for a seat in the House of Representatives and 42 candidates for 6 seats in the Senate.
Australia uses preferential voting for the House and proportional representation in the Senate.
Preferential voting means that you mark candidates in order of preference, 1..N, and if the candidate of your first preference is eliminated, your next preference(s) may actually still have an influence in selecting the eventual winner.
This provides a) an avenue to register a protest vote without "throwing your vote away", and b) promotes the existence of numerous, confusing, special-interest candidates, (e.g. of the Australian Sex Party, (I kid you not)).
Needless to say, the major parties hate preferential voting. This is because they are scumbags.
With 42 candidates to choose from, the diligent voter faces some considerable homework. It used to be that you could number just the first few candidates that you liked and that would be considered a valid vote. In 1984, the Senate ballot was repackaged with a horizontal line across the middle. You could "vote above the line", simply by putting a 1 for the party you chose and nothing else. Your preferences would then be automatically distributed by the party according to its own deals with other parties. Or you could continue to "vote below the line", numbering the host of candidates in order of preference.
Somewhere along the line, they changed the rules and now demand that you number (nearly) ALL the candidates, if you vote below the line. (I.e. they made it really easy to do it their way and fiendishly difficult to do it any other way.) This is because, "they" -- the major parties -- hate preferential voting. This is because they are scumbags and hate democracy.
The two major political parties here in Australia are the Liberal Party, which is conservative, and the Labour Party which represents big business, such as the mining companies and Rupert Murdoch, (who made a guest appearance in Tomorrow Never Dies as the media-mogul arch-villain, or provided the inspiration for that character, anyway). (Unfortunately, James Bond is a fictional character and Rupert Murdoch is not.)
An advantage of voting "below the line" is that you can pick and choose for the Senate. Each state is represented by 12 senators, 6 of whom face re-election each alternate election. So if you live in Victoria, want to favor the Labour Party, but can't stand Stephen Conroy because he is evil and has sponsored legislation to filter the internet to the extent that Australia has now been rated as having the same freedom of expression as China... Voting below the line, you can give preference to the five other Labour candidates -- but mark Stephen last, (e.g. "666th").
Now let's turn to voting strategies under Western democracy.
There is just one major strategy. Choose the major political party that you dislike the least, suck in your breath and vote for it.
You will generally be given a choice of just two. The differences between those two may seem major, but so also will be the difference between what a party says before the election and what it does after the election. The end result after the election will be predictably similar to the status quo before the election -- no matter which party gets elected!
The two-party political system is a triumph of Political Science and the faith people place in it is a source of constant pride to all politicians and academics. The system itself is very similar in principle to World Wide Wrestling, (and no coincidence either!); only, the interest in it is inexplicably, considerably more wide-spread.
Imagine for a moment, a wrestling match with only one wrestler in the ring and no referee! The Soviet Union tried this (one-party) system and, although the results were pretty much the same, (one party wins), it did not hold up -- it wasn't much of a spectacle, nobody believed its premise and you could neither bet on it nor talk about it in the media.
All right. "Surely," you are saying, "there has to be more!? What else can we do??"
Well, yes. But are you really ready for it...?
First Rule of Vote Club:
1. Vote against the incumbent!
"Just who do you think you are, making a career out of being a single-point of failure in the execution of the will of the people. In these times, one term and then you're out! Not so enticing to sell out your country for 30 pieces of silver when you only get three or four years and no re-election, is it?"
The incumbent in my electorate is a young, bright, diligent, no doubt idealistic, junior member of the House of Representatives. It was really hard to rank her dead last(*) on my ballot, but I closed my eyes, swallowed hard and punched her in the face. Why? She works for the party which works for who-knows-who and certainly not me; yes, she's idealistic now, but she'll become an expert dissembler soon enough if given the chance; and because it is the First Rule of Vote Club.
Second Rule of Vote Club:
2. Never vote for a member of a major party!
Political parties are oligopolies, subsidiaries to one vast, hidden monopoly of political power: they are anti-trust and anti-democratic.
So I ranked my incumbent's only real opponent second last. No choice, anyway: it is the Second Rule of Vote Club.
Third Rule of Vote Club:
3. Vote according to your principles and vote for the candidates that represent you on issues dear to your heart and mind.
If you live in the Soviet Union, you can't do this because it's gone; therefore you must be dead and in Commie heaven; and because there was only one party, anyway: so you had no real choice.
If you live in the United States, you can't do this either because there's only two parties -- the Left Ventricle Party and the Right Ventricle Party: either way, it's winner rules all...
But if you live in Australia...
Well, for the Senate, I cast my top preferences:
#1: Senator Online party, (direct democracy!!!)
#2: Climate Sceptics, (down with ETS, cap-and-trade and neo-feudalism),
#3: an independent, (thanks, Mark, and I wish you well)
#4: the Australian Sex Party, (dedicated to the destruction of Stephen Conroy 666, as are we all)
#5: the Secular Party, (admit I did no research on it and it was only the name which closed the deal)
In reality, only the vote for the SOL will show up on the radar and only as a disturbing protest.
This is the intent of the Third Rule of Vote Club.
Fourth Rule of Vote Club:
4. In Vote Club, we live by first principles and lateral thinking. We detest giving in to pragmatism, compromise or fuzziness such as emotional intelligence. But like The Third Rule of Fight Club... I mean Vote Club... the Fourth Rule of Vote Club promotes freedom of spirit, flexibility. I could not quite bring myself to vote my incumbent last, according to The First Rule of Vote Club.
* I pulled my punch. A bit.
And why?
Because there were a bunch of reptilian dregs I could not possibly bring myself to elevate from the bottom of the ballot.
(And Australian Electoral Commission rules nowadays demands one pencil in at least a mark of disrespect against all.
Damn you, Australian Electoral Commission! Damn you... One day, I swear, you will be replaced by Vote Club and it will be we who administer the Rules of Voting...)
:)
The Christian Democrats got a punch in the face; at least from me. My own personal belief is that religious zealots should never be allowed a say in politics, just as serial killers on death row are denied. It's just my personal belief, separation of church and state and all that -- I can't justify it -- and, although it may effect you indirectly, I hope you will respect my personal beliefs... ;)
(And now let me spaketh directly unto you, Christian Democrats, in your own tongueth, as a personal aside: God may yet be on verily your side and therefore the untiring exercise of your kneecaps every morning, noon and night shall be sufficient unto ye. Polling places are indeed a den of iniquity, wrought by sATAN hIMSELF. Go ye there therefore in peril that ye demonstrate yer lack of faith in the Almighty: woe be unto you!)
And finally, in last place: Family First. This one is a front for wowserism and, in my book: deception on top of religion -- DOUBLE FAULT!! Family First: dead LAST, on my ballot.
This concludes the Fourth Rule of Vote Club.
Fifth Rule of Vote Club:
5. Go placidly amid the noise and the haste. :)
There were a bunch of candidates I couldn't recognize. Not bad, not good. Just distracting. Ignore the noise, I thought.
(Example: the Shooters and Fishers Party.)
Noisy, miscellaneous people. I put them all, collectively, second on my ballot -- where they can do little or no harm. In accordance with the Fifth Rule of Vote Club.
In summary, the final ranking:
1. the good guys
2. the miscellaneous, nondescript, vainly hopeful
3. the big party apparatchniks, seeking power
4. the incumbent, (evil or not) (* OK, so not quite last)
5. the vituperous zealot trash
Monday morning analysis of Saturday's election results:
(i.e. so what did I, (k9's personal autobiographer), actually achieve?)
No net difference. Que sera, sera.
Others vote simply to prevent a worse outcome.
I voted so that I could simply hold my head up afterward!
Like the "sour grapes" bumper sticker that says, "Don't blame me! I voted for the other guy...":
mine says: "hasta la revoluciòn!"
Recent Comments