[LINK] New proposal for e-voting - Turnbull

Jan Whitaker jwhit at janwhitaker.com
Tue Sep 10 17:19:31 AEST 2013

At 05:10 PM 10/09/2013, Janet Hawtin wrote:

>If the parties are required to be transparent then we have the 
>information about what they aim to represent.
>Perhaps people should be required to have some kind of declared 
>position - some seemed to be a bit hard to find info on.

There was a terrific link from the Age electoral page that showed all 
the preference flows by party. I looked them up because I wanted to 
make sure the flows from my minor party of choice weren't going to 
absolutely ridiculous places. So it can be done. An easy thing to do 
would be to have an official preference flow listing on the back of 
the ballot paper, essentially a printed version of what the online 
app presented. Simples. Or post them on the wall in the voting booth 
for everyone to see.

I think it's the hidden nature of the flow that made things weird. 
However, the interaction of preferences as they start to cascade 
might be a problem since they are based on counts before they kick 
in. Still, I doubt many people took the time to even do what I did.

Re the single issue 'parties', I suggested to a friend at lunch that 
Abbott should give the Sport guy the sport portfolio. Not sure I 
would go that far with Family First, though!

Did you read that the motorists guy is an unemployed father of 5 who 
will now be making around $200k/yr for the next 6? Boy is his wife 
going to be happy! And at least there is Supernats to look forward too......


Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com

Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how 
do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
~Margaret Atwood, writer

_ __________________ _

More information about the Link mailing list