Feb 19, 2016

Poll Bludger: a double dissolution on the cards for July?

The whispers are intensifying that Malcolm Turnbull will call for a double dissolution election after passing Senate reform legislation.

William Bowe — Editor of The Poll Bludger

William Bowe

Editor of The Poll Bludger

A few short weeks after Malcolm Turnbull publicly foreshadowed an election to be held on the usual timetable between August and October, a sudden change in the government’s tune is prompting fevered speculation that the nation’s seventh double dissolution election will be held at the start of July.


Leave a comment

28 thoughts on “Poll Bludger: a double dissolution on the cards for July?

  1. John Newton

    Abbott did to much stupid stuff. Turnbull does nothing stupidly.

  2. form1planet

    “…there is no longer a large casual workforce available with the requisite data entry skills [to transcribe a sequence of six numbers], which technological developments have largely rendered obsolete.” Do they need to enter the data in Morse code? Or is interpreting handwritten numbers considered an obsolete skill?

  3. James O'Neill

    The problem seems to me to be entirely self-inflicted. Quite why we persist with our impossibly complicated Senate voting system escapes me. The committee that is looking at possible changes seems to have an extremely limited brief.
    Why not adopt a proportional voting system? The voter simply puts a cross beside the party of their choice. If they get 50% of the vote, that party gets 50% of the available seats, knowing in advance who will be elected because the party (as now) has candidates listed in order of the party’s preference.
    Having a 5% threshold (as in Germany and New Zealand for example) excludes the lunatic fringe with minimal real support.
    At a stroke you have done away with “preference whisperers”, people getting elected with less than 1% of the vote; the need for complicated counting software etc etc.
    Too innovative and agile for a political class that is not interested in real reform and never will be.

  4. Mike Smith

    I know they want to use the proposed legislation now, but it’s more reasonable to use it for the following election. Trying to modify the software in this short a timeframe is dangerous.

  5. AR

    Why is the Senate vote “reform” not offering the option of numbering a reasonable minimum number of boxes below the Line? Never mind the beachtowel ballot paper – there are only 6 places on offer (apart from the NT & ACT)so make it double that.
    JO’N – have I misunderstood that you suggest party voting? Look what that gave us in 2004!

  6. CML

    @ James O’Neill…what you say is correct, but probably too sensible for this government.
    I am extremely concerned about an article in the SMH earlier this week, which I outlined yesterday, but was moderated over…which means no one read it.
    Basically, the new legislative changes for Senate voting, agreed by the Coalition and the Greens, will mean that if a DD election is called in early July, the Coalition will end up with outright control of the Senate, possibly into the foreseeable future.
    The investigative report for this SMH article was done in conjunction with the ‘preference whisperers’, who seem to know more than most about ‘gaming’ the Senate vote. Apparently these people met with DiNatale as well, and pointed out the end result of the proposed legislation. The Greens are quoted as saying that they think Senate ‘reform’ is more important than their loss of at least 2 seats (if you can believe such idiocy)! Closet Libs indeed!!
    So…if Talcum Malcum has his DD…and wins the election (I think this article makes VERY clear why it will happen), then it won’t matter what the LNP government does in the budget. Since they will have an outright majority of at least 2 seats in the Senate, it will be Abbott-style broken promises for ever more.
    Welcome to the privatisation of Medicare (the whole damn thing), dismantling of public education (including tertiary), Work Choices Mark 11, and anything else the IPA has on its outrageous ‘list’.
    At least we will know who to blame…The Greens and Xenophon, both of whom seem to have lost their marbles!!!

  7. Venise Alstergren

    Ho ho, ho ho, why am I not surprised?

    On-the-other-hand I notice that in spite of government’s pious yelps about the need for restrained spending, we are to be slugged for the cost of a general election. Yes Mr Turnbull?

  8. James O'Neill

    @AR. Isn’t that exactly what we have now as the parties list their candidates. If the party qualifies for only one seat by getting over the threshold, then the person at the top of the party list is the one elected. and so on down the list.
    @CML You are probably right. I think the real motive for the current proposals (I hesitate to misuse the word ‘reform’) is to entrench Labor and the Coalition in perpetual power, with occasional changes between them to maintain the pretence of democracy.

  9. Venise Alstergren

    JAMES O’NEILL: What kind of a person are you? 1) Senate Voting System, 2) Proportional voting system. 3) 50% of the Vote. 4) Candidates in order of Party Preference. 5) Excluding the lunatic fringe. All amount to the most seditious and subversive comment I’ve ever read.

    Good God, the next thing you’ll want is to reduce government spending.

    PS: What is the cost of a general election?

  10. CML

    Sorry…I don’t know how to do ‘links’, but here are the details of that SMH article…
    “Coalition could clean up in the
    Senate if vote reform deal is finalised”.
    Author: Heath Aston…published on Tuesday February 16, 2016.

    James #8…I may have it wrong, but think it is the LNP who will be ‘entrenched’! The Labor Party is not having the bar of the proposed legislation, which should tell us something!!

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details