After all the publicity, and Mark Latham’s risible interventions into the campaign (and the press obsession with his stunts, leading to various actual policy announcements being “overshadowed”), the former Labor leader’s spot on 60 Minutes was underwhelming.
Guy Beres sums it up:
The latest gem to emerge from Iron Mark, television journaliste extraordinaire, is that voters should leave their ballot papers blank “as a protest” when they vote in this Saturday’s election. This is a shameful contribution to the public debate that lays bare the depths to which 60 Minutes and indeed Channel Nine has sunk during the last year or two. An informal vote is a wasted vote; a vote for ignorance, disengagement and ultimately, recklessness. In order to perform its function as the “least worst” system of government available. a democracy needs to embody the will of the people. In a regulated, ordinated democratic environment like Australia’s, mass delinquency at the ballot box fundamentally undermines this principle.
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop on the Lathamisation of political journalism.
Really now, what’s all this huff’n puff calling for Mark Latham to be flayed alive for saying what many others think, re this election?
After watching the antics, culminating with that laughable circus involving Gillard and Keneally late last week, many out west would have decoided that’s their course anyway.
as for Abbott, contempt precludes further comment.
What a choice!
Really, now, Latham may be a tosser, but it is totally ridiculous to moan and wail about blank ballots as some kind of crime against democracy. A blank ballot is no more ignorant, and almost certainly more “engaged”, than the majority of thoughtlessly completed ones. The Australian state may, as Beres whines, need to “embody the will of the people”, but that doesn’t mean it automatically does, or that those who are aware that their wills do not find expression in the options available are somehow ruining things. Really, if compulsory voting is to remain, there needs to be a way to register “none of the above”; otherwise the system itself (though no particular party) can keep crowing about its Saddam Hussein-like 99.9% levels of “engagement” when in fact, for all we know, a clear majority of Australians may be completely detached from the political process.
Its a tactic that would be more useful if there was a way to distinguish between accidental informal votes and intentional ones, and the AEC kept statistics of it. Otherwise its likely the message will just get lost in all the other informal votes.
And from what I’ve heard from friends its not that hard to get out of the fine for not even turning up to a polling booth either.
The anarchists used to put up posters around election time saying ‘It doesn’t matter who you vote for, a politician gets in.’ Not living in the big city any more, I don’t know if they still do.
But on a more serious note, isn’t it illegal to encourage people to vote informal? Latham might be in trouble with the AEC.
“60 Minutes” viewers may spoil their ballots?
You say this like it is a bad thing.
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop on the Lathamisation of political journalism.
PB, it’s gotta be a scripted thing; a Nine confected antic, What chance Nine bosses are probably fascists and American style libertarians- their agenda has always been to remove compulsory voting in favour of a yank system, including a “Ray Martin for President” populist and media manipulable
republic.
They’ll fine Latham but weeks ago, it would have been arranged that any fines and costs for the cub reporter are absorbed by the network.
People miss the point, focussing on Latham- this is all really about the network thought worming the demographic with intrusive antics that forground their logo through a form of ambush advertising.
They did very well with the outrages of Hanson, who was their love child more than any political party.
Whether it trashes democracy they wouldn’t give two hoots.
I think Mr Beres is way off the mark (no pun intended).
When the election was called after JG had been PM for less than 4 weeks, I made the decision to vote informal. That is, I am not going to vote for the ALP, LP, Greens or anypone else. Why should I be forced to vote for a party whose policies I don’t support – and then financially support them through my vote. On my ballot paper, I will be writing ‘Kevin 07′. This may sound corny, but at least some scrutineer will see it…. and I’ll feel better for doing it!
It seems to me that this whole ‘small target’ approach in campaigning and both Party’s obsession with Western Sydney is the result of our compulsory voting system. (In the past I have supported our voting system, but no longer.)
In the present situation, I think that if the political Parties had to first get people out to vote and then second secure their vote, there would be a lot more ennunciation of the ‘leadership’ and ‘policies’ that many say are missing at present.
Speculate for a moment on what the voter turnout would be in all these marginal seats if voting wasn’t compulsory. Would such a situation given a clearer indication of what the people wanted, rather than top down policies responding to focus groups.
Who benefits from this status quo situation, the major parties of course. We have to vote and they collect $2+ per vote. And while I can say that I will vote informal, it is illegal for me to encourage others to do so. Why is that? Who benefits from that prohibition.
On reflection, the political scene here is so tightly run by a self interested duopoly that if it was business the ACCC would have been involved years ago. Is that price-per-vote fixed somehow.
Getting back to Mr Beres comments, sorry but the idea of voting for “… the “least worst” … ” no longer works for me. As a long time Labor supporter, I’m disgusted and humiliated at the treatment of Rudd – disgusted at the actions, and humiliated for all of us who voted for the man as PM less than 3 years ago. And now, the sheer gall of ‘bringing him back into the tent’. How gutless was that? Not even having the strength of their June 24 convictions.
The less said about Abbott the better. I hope someone asks him on Q&A tonight about the Catholic Church’s treatment of priests convicted on sexual abuse – why can they still practice the sacraments – and also about the Church’s treatment of the victims of abuse. Is he satisfied with Pell’s actions?
Anyway, talking about voting informal has nothing to do with Latham – but lets not view the man simply by how he is portrayed by the lazy, indulgent, sloppy and self-interested media.
Months ago Peter Brent anticipated a Rudd re-election with an increased majority. Then came Penrith. Next Gillard. Again, lets speculate for a moment what the situation would be if all Australian’s weren’t forced to rock up on Saturday to make an unenviable choice.
Enjoy Saturdee nite.
Charlie voting isn’t compulsory. Attending a polling booth and having your name ticked off is all that is expected, if one is registered.
“They’ll fine Latham but weeks ago, it would have been arranged that any fines and costs for the cub reporter are absorbed by the network.”
“And while I can say that I will vote informal, it is illegal for me to encourage others to do so. Why is that? Who benefits from that prohibition.”
You both seem to be suffering from the misapprehension that it’s illegal to encourage an informal vote. It’s not illegal, it hasn’t been since the Electoral Act was amended in 1998 to get rid of that particular prohibition.
“sorry but the idea of voting for “… the “least worst” … ” no longer works for me. As a long time Labor supporter, I’m disgusted and humiliated at the treatment of Rudd – disgusted at the actions, and humiliated for all of us who voted for the man as PM less than 3 years ago.”
Oh, we all live in Griffith, do we? Personally three years ago I voted for Barbara Norman, not Kevin Rudd. And I’m not stupid enough to refuse to vote for Labor and risk an Abbott government because I feel a little bit petulant about how Julia got the job.
It’s just a beat up by Channel 9 to generate publicity. In this sense Latham’s story is the pits of journalism, regardless of who you want to vote for.
What’s that saying about ‘sound and fury’ again?
Heaven above Rebekka, it was the pundits and thread starter that raised the issue of legality as to informal voting- it was suggested that tho voting informally is not illegal (how could you prove it!) but it is illegal to advocate or encourage it. It’s not the first election where this has been raised, either. If its been of the statute books for a decade why is it still being trotted out by those who I would thought knew better on these things than I would?
Oh, we all live in Griffith, do we? Personally three years ago I voted for Barbara Norman, not Kevin Rudd.
Yeah, yeah … but the campaign slogan was Kevin 07, not Australian Labor Party 07.
There is a reason that the pollsters ask the “favoured PM” question, and that is because people have a favoured PM, notwithstanding the Westminster system of government. Indeed, it was the Kim Beazley’ poor showing in the favoured PM polls that did him in.
So, yes, we vote for local candidates, and the PM is whoever is leader of the party that commands a majority in the HoR, where that leader is chosen his or her parliamentary colleagues, and some people are attached to the party of their choice, regardless of who the leader is, but who the leader is matters too.
Thanks for Tim Dunlop. Looks like he’d laugh if only not to cry as well.
PB, this was the relevant provision ofthe CEA:
This section was removed from the Act in 1998. So far as I can tell, it is no longer illegal to advocate an informal vote.
Some folks seem to think that sec. 329A is still law.
Well Bek/Katz, glad for your significant info, now can vote informal to me ‘earts content.
Who knows, if Kate Ellis, minister for photo-ops, continues with “silly walks” much more, I might even vote Tory- a first time for everything!
It has never been illegal to advocate an informal vote, even before the passage and repeal of section 329A.
Section 329A was inserted to stop people advocating a particular method of voting (eg 1,2,2,2, etc to exhaust preferences and still stay formal because all boxes are numbered) that was clearly in breach of section 240, which requires a full preferential vote. It failed in its purpose, thanks to Albert Langer’s campaign, and was repealed.
Advocating informality is a slightly different kettle of fish.
Leaving a ballot paper blank is not, and has never been, illegal (because individuals cannot be prosecuted where there is a secret ballot). Therefore, it cannot be illegal to advocate an informal vote.
Mark Latham is not breaking the law. Ask the AEC.
Latham’s segment with Pauline Hanson got her to recall how Abbott had set up that secret political slush fund which resulted in her imprisonment.
Hopefully that will alert some viewers to Abbott’s commitment to power by any means as well as his duplicity.
can we write “bring back 329A for Latham” on our ballot paper without spoiling it, and is it illegal to advocate doing so?
Re: Joe 2 @ 9.
Yeh, yeh. That line is a bit like .. you only vote for our local member, not for the PM…
Attendance at the polling booth is compulsory. Receiving you ballot paper is compulsory. And I assume that you are not allowed to destroy your ballot paper (interesting one that – Commonwealth property etc.) On Saturday, I’ll ask whether I have to even accept a ballot paper or not. Hummn.
I guess the crux of what I was talking about is whether the consequences of the compulsory attendance at a polling booth now impacts too much on the nature of our governance!
The obsession with winning marginal seats, the ‘small’ strategy so you can’t be picked off.
Anyway, if Mr Rabbit gets in… we can only say.. the people have spoken!!!
@ paul walter “If its been of the statute books for a decade why is it still being trotted out by those who I would thought knew better on these things than I would?”
No idea!
@ grace pettigrew, I don’t believe your interpretation is correct. Section 240 says:
The now-repealed Section 329 said that “encouraging persons voting at the election to fill in a ballot paper otherwise than in accordance with section 240″ was illegal. A blank ballot is clearly not in accordance with 240.
Leaving a ballot paper blank clearly is illegal, it’s just not prosecutable; two different things.
Yep, voting informal is the ultimate perfect crime.
@10
“I feel a little bit petulant about how Julia got the job.”
Yes well, I think it’s more likely that you’re sucking down the koolaid. Still there’s no need to be so sensitive, the friends of Kevin Rudd have been shipped off to the reeducation camps and have returned wearing blissful, if somewhat disconcerting, smiles.
FWIW it looks like there’s more signs up of Julia Gillard in my local electorate than of the ALP candidate. I wonder if any people are going to get confused at the ballot box. btw there’s none of Tony Abbott around
23, So it seems.
Pity a bit more time hasn’t been devoted to Nine, msm, etc ambit rather than their sockpuppets or strawman side issues.
If only Conroy had moved to remove the rightist bias in public broadcasting. Then folk wouldn’t have to watch s-it like “Sixty Adverts” out of lack of a fair choice and have become so ignorant that they beleive that Abbott could do it for them.
“Anyway, if Mr Rabbit gets in… we can only say.. the people have spoken!!!”
Just proved to be bunnies, Charlie, if that happens.
@Patrickb, that was only half my sentence.
Personally I think making voting decisions based on petulance about how someone got the job is ultimately stupid. Policy, and what you want to see over the next three years – like an NBN or the Liberal alternative of a magical wireless system using unavailable spectrum and a ball of string – and the prospect of the country taking its direction from someone who (as Mark Latham put it last night) has only believed in three things in his life – God, the monarchy, and Work Choices – are far more important.
And worth voting for, even if Labor’s never going to be the lily-white party of purity, and even if you don’t like what happened to Kevin. Build a bridge, or you’re going to deserve the Abbott government you get.
Thing is I think informal voting would really favour Abbott. All of the die hard Coalition supporters I know are going to hold their nose and vote regardless.
All of the die hard Coalition supporters I know are going to hold their nose and vote regardless
These being a representative sample of the Australian electorate.
Mark Latham. You can tell he hasn’t got those finely honed skills of a regular journalist, the charlitan.
@23 At the re-education camp you are probably given lessons in cognitive dissonance so that you can implicitly understand that you once voted in a presidential style campaign when it suited us, but voted for an individual candidates when it didn’t suit us. Kevin07 was either a figment of your imagination or a totally insignificant element of the campaign. Oh how your memory can play tricks.
All quite clear really, and nothing at all to be concerned about moving forward, and please don’t forget to smile.
Joe2 @ 26. How true! Tssk @ 28. I think I agree as well.
Perhaps as I’m in Goldstein, my planned informal vote won’t really mean much and is a bit indulgent/disingenous on my part. My choice though. But re Tssk’s comments, there has been a lot of obvious support activity for Andrew Robb in parts of the electorate where the booths don’t go his way. So there is some energy there.
Rebekka, 27, you are making a serious mistake in downgrading in your mind the legitimate concerns people have with Labor.
We’d be happy with Labor, if we were sure it was still Labor.
We know the Tories are the lowest common denominator, it just seems that some in Labor think the dysfunctionality of the Libs some how justifies Labor racing it to the bottom on populist rubbish rather than embracing the alternative of presenting real issues and new thinking.
But I know the problem rests with the media and the system and would blame msm parasites, rather than Greens or other dissenters who are only pointing out the obvious.
@ adrian, “At the re-education camp you are probably given lessons in cognitive dissonance so that you can implicitly understand that you once voted in a presidential style campaign when it suited us, but voted for an individual candidates when it didn’t suit us.”
Actually, since I wasn’t stupid enough to base my vote on advertising in the first place, I didn’t need to be re-educated.
I would have thought, this being a political blog and all, that people here understood the Westminster system. My bad.
@ paul walter, I am not, and have never, suggested that voting Labor is the only option.
I do think, however, that leaving your ballot paper blank if you still have any preference one way or the other is an act of complete stupidity and petulance, which is what I am arguing here.
Yes adrian, lots of Labor people have got themselves in a real bind it seems to me. On the one hand people are supposed to vote for policies and local candidates not leaders, but then on the other hand it was necessary to replace the leader to turn around Labor’s electoral fortunes. Unless they believe the far-fetched proposition that Gillard has introduced a raft of shiny new policies, it seems that leaders don’t matter except that they do.
“On the one hand people are supposed to vote for policies and local candidates not leaders, but then on the other hand it was necessary to replace the leader to turn around Labor’s electoral fortunes.”
Because the leader determines the overall direction of the government, i.e. the policies – not to mention how those policies are (or aren’t) communicated effectively to the Australian people as a whole. So if the leader is going the wrong way, then yes, they have to be changed to change the electoral fortunes of the party. These two things are not mutually exclusive as you’re making out.
‘Actually, since I wasn’t stupid enough to base my vote on advertising in the first place, I didn’t need to be re-educated.’
So all the money that goes into political advertising is used to persuade stupid people to vote for your party.
Who woulda thunk it?
BTW, we all understand the Westminster system. That ‘aint the point.
sg@19: you can write anything you like on your ballot paper, but try not to obcure your numbers or it will not be counted.
The AEC will take no notice of your artwork of course, its job is only to count the numbers, but if there are enough ballot papers in any single division, with a single clear message, like “no dams” for example, the party scrutineers will.
“So all the money that goes into political advertising is used to persuade stupid people to vote for your party.”
No, I don’t believe that to be the case. I don’t think people base their vote on a slogan (we were talking about Kevin07) at all. And I have observed on previous occasions that the left has a tendency to assume everyone who isn’t the left is stupid. I don’t subscribe to that view.
“BTW, we all understand the Westminster system.”
Oh really? Then why do people keep claiming they voted for Kevin07??
#35, that doesn’t help either.
If Abbott has no policies and Labor wont implement its promises, are we back to square one?
Perhaps the overview should include who has the least rotten policies.
I would think probably Labor.
#39, Casey-bekka, “the left has a tendency to assume that who isnt teh left is teh stoopid”.
Would that be because those of the left endeavour to get of their butts and improve their minds rather than wasting a good hangover picking the double double, or escaping into the fantasy world of the Young and the Restless?
An Electoral Commission officer has confirmed (in SMH reportage) that their interpretation of the Act is that it is illegal to publish material that causes people to mistakenly cast an informal vote (e.g. by telling them it’s a valid vote in the Federal election when you don’t number all boxes, as it usually is in state elections), but not illegal to recommend that people vote informally on purpose.
Speaking personally, if I really wanted to bitch about laziness, apathy, “ignorance, disengagement and, ultimately, recklessness”, I’d rant about the people who vote above the line for the Senate. Yes, 95% of the population, I’m looking at you.
“And I have observed on previous occasions that the left has a tendency to assume everyone who isn’t the left is stupid.”
But Rebekka it was you who used the term stupid, as in you weren’t stupid enough to base your vote on advertising.
Presumably there are people, in your own words, who would be ‘stupid enough’ to base their vote on advertising, or else what is its point.
In case you still don’t understand, I am not saying, and never have said that people who are influenced by political advertising are stupid.
That, however you may want to spin it, is the strong implication of your original statement.
Sam 2 29. Toche. Although I’m hoping my ALP and Green voting mates are more representative and don’t donkey vote.
weaver @42, in an ideal world we’d all fill in the ballot paper below the line, but when there’s so many choices to number, a lot of people must be intimidated and confused, particularly when most of us have probably only had to answer questions with 3-10 choices.
Rebekka, good on you for not getting sucked in by party political advertising.
In the main, I think it has sod all to do with providing voters with the information to make an informed decision and everything to do with sloganeering, rubbishing their opponents and reinforcing voters’ political bias.
With any luck, they might suck in some who haven’t already made up their minds.
I had meant to observe that if Mark Latham could stop clinging to all his rage and bile, he might be less aggressive and actually be a reasonable political analyst.
He always looks as if he’s about to explode with uncontrollable rage fed by years of simmering hatred at real and imagined slights and anti-Latham plots.
weaver@42, that’s right, it has always been an offence to “publish” electoral matter that might mislead or deceive a person in relation to the casting of a vote (s 329). It has never been and offence to advocate an informal vote, with or without publication. Section 329A was a faintly ludicrous and ultimately unsuccessful attempt by the major parties to put a stop to Langer’s campaign for optional preferential voting.
And yes, I agree with you that voters should express their own preferences below the line in the Senate, but this time around, it might make sense to just vote green in the senate. In the ACT, for example, the election of a greens senator could shift the BOP immediately after the election, not in another year hence. Climate change is upon us now.
I’m with you on that one, grace pettigrew @47 given the obvious benefit of the Greens’ getting up in the ACT.
Anyway, for once in my life I’m voting above the line in the Senate: I like the way the Greens are directing their preferences here in Victoria.
I almost felt sorry for Latham – it was cringe-worthy stuff. He came across as a slightly dim work experience kid.
Advocating donkey voting really should be grounds for deportation or revoking of citizenship or something.
There has always been a furphy about (common in the more moronic sections of the community) that voting is not compulsory, that you simply need to have your name marked off the roll. That’s not true. Of course, with the secret ballot there is no way to enforce these things, but we have a compulsory voting law, not a get your name marked off the roll law.
How Latham doesn’t know that boggles the mind. He really should lead a new party – the Moron’s Party.
For some reason Mark Latham’s antics make me start humming this.
There is a point to this post.
I should have used a whole bunch of hyphens in previous post, but I’m too tired. LP doesn’t have a strict hyphen policy do they?
I loved when Latham said western Sydney was a tough-minded place. Lots of people face economic hardship in western Sydney, but many also lead an extremely comfortable, middle-class suburban existence.
Thanks to Katz, Grace and others for clarifying the Electroal Act, Sections and Regns.
George Negus on 7PM said he was opposed to compulsory voting, but disagreed with Latham because people around the world are dying to get a vote. His argument seemed confused to me.
(Sidebar: should we fly on and thus support the national airlines of countries that don’t allow women to vote??)
Negus was responding to the GetUp bloke. Sure, if you don’t vote, don’t complain — like those bumber stickers “Don’t blame me, I voted for #@%X”. But, if you don’t want to vote for any of them, why do you have to.
The incumbency of the present system seems so entrenched that no-one can see the trees. And as it serves the interests of the 2 major parties, it won’t change. And I’m sure the Greens will be complicit in that as long as it serves their interests.
Yes, keep our electoral roll system, keep it up to date, encourage people to vote – if they want to.
patrickb – thank you , you have just confirmed my secret theory that conservatives are way funnier than lefties- It’s certainly their biggest handicap in capturing me.
I think it was the ” disconcerting” that really got me ;>
P.S Mao went quiet a few times too but he was just tricking the enemy…
P.PS Go Mark- you are trending in the top 2 now :>
Latham’s loony, but he’s absolutely spot on.
A vote for the “least worst” candidate is a vote for more of the same in the Australian political arena.
It is a vote for an utter neglect of policy, of vision, of direction for the country. It is an endorsement of the dumbing down politics, playing the journalists and the margins in the polls.
By voting for either major party in a backward election like this you are endorsing their approach and demonstrating that there is no punishment in just being marginally better than the other in the race to the bottom.
A large informal vote is an incentive for the political parties to develop a strong political platform to engage the population, and a deterrent against “least worst” politics.
If there is a 20% informal vote then the 51% incumbent cannot afford to squeeze through via the status quo, as has been the case in NSW for the last 15 years, because they only have 51% of 80% — or a touch less than 41% (43% if you assume there’s a natural informal rate of about 4%) of the REAL 2PP, and a real danger of genuinely being swept away by a “good” opposition, rather than a “least worst” one.
Having watched the Arbib revolution in federal ALP, after seeing the loony right vocal minority dominate the direction of the Libs in Dec 09, accepting this ‘mainstream’ view of democracy in this country and rewarding these horrid political factions for their mediocrity (because more apt words here would probably be censored) is a dangerous thing for this country.
I’m voting informally in HoR (if I could vote formally for Greens/independents only, without giving ANY preferences to the major parties, like I can in NSW I would) and for a third-party (yet undecided, but with preferences probably, ultimately, flowing to Greens) in the senate, and would urge others to do the same.