Talk:Electoral system of Australia/Archive 2010

Double Dissolution terms for Senators
After a Double Dissolution election has been held, which Senators (other than than the ones coming from the territories) will have 3 year terms instead of 6? User:Jleonau 22:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

None of them. All Senators have a 6-year term, that's provided by the Australian Constitution. Senators do not actually have a 3-year term. When we elect half of the Senate every 3 years in a General Election, we are electing the half of the Senate whose 6 year terms are expiring. With a double dissolution election, it's usually followed by a General Election to force one half of the Senate to be re-elected. The other half is then re-elected in 3 years time, and then it's back to normal, I think. LudBob 09:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm very confused by this. How exactly is it determined which half of the Senate is forced to be re-elected? Timrollpickering 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The rotation of senators stems from section 13 of the Constitution, wherein it is provided that after the first meeting of the Senate in 1901, and again after each first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen into two classes, senators of the first class holding their seats for 3 years and senators of the second class holding their seats for 6 years &mdash;Odgers J. R., Australian Senate Practice, 5th Edn 1976. The 6-year terms are given to the 3 senators in each state returned by the highest number of votes and the 3-year terms to the 3 lowest on the poll. The terms are all fixed to commence on 1 July and end on 30 June. Where necessary to meet this condition after a dissolution, the commencement date is artificially backdated. Bjenks (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it "artificial"; it's a constitutional provision. Para 3 of s.13 says: "For the purposes of this section, the term of service of a senator shall be taken to begin on the first day of July following the day of his election, except in the case of the first election and of the election next after any dissolution of the Senate, when it shall be taken to begin on the first day of July preceding the day of his election".  So, the backdating occurs after every double dissolution, because those are the only occasions when the Senate is dissolved.  It's otherwise continuous, unlike the House of Reps.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that is wrong. In a normal "half-senate" election,  all the persons elected get a six year term.   When there is a double-dissolution election,  there are 12 senators elected in each state.   Half of those 12  ( i.e. 6 senators not three as stated above ), are in the first class which get a six year term.    The other half of the 12 ( the other six )  are in the second class which only hold office until the subsequent half-senate election ( i.e. normally a three year term ), unless there is another double dissolution election of course.Eregli bob (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Compulsory voting favouring Labor?
''Some political scientists believe that compulsory voting benefits the Australian Labor Party, while others dispute this. It is argued that most of the social groups who would tend not to vote if voting were voluntary are more inclined to vote Labor (people from the ethnic and immigrant communities, indigenous Australians, and people with lower levels of education). Occasionally conservative politicians or libertarian intellectuals argue for the abolition of compulsory voting on philosophical grounds, but no government has ever attempted to abolish it.''

This is something I've never heard, and wouldn't mind seeing some sources. Trampoline Man (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are passing references to it at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/stories/s1117921.htm and http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2003/879162.htm . But they're both Liberals saying that's what Labor thinks, rather than the opinions of political scientists. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind betting that non-compulsory voting would benefit the Coalition more then the ALP the latter tends to have a broader member base and more established links to outside organisations. I also think that this statement reeks of POV given it alludes to the fact that Indigenous Australians, immigrants and working class Australians are less likely to vote when this I don't believe is an established fact. Additionally, all 3 of these groups are regular targetted by the extreme right and to a more subtle degree by the Coalition. Maybe thats all this statement is. Another attempt at an attack on these groups.--58.178.174.10 (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for and against compulsory voting- unsourced material
The first paragraph of this section is not sourced, and is highly dubious. I'm going to remove it unless there are sources added (that go beyond a radio interview). Ninahexan (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Um no? How about you raise individual issues here first. Timeshift (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Some political scientists believe that compulsory voting benefits the Australian Labor Party, while others dispute this. It is argued that most of the social groups who would tend not to vote if voting were voluntary are more inclined to vote Labor (people from the ethnic and immigrant communities, indigenous Australians, and people with lower levels of education)" All of this is unsourced, and may indeed be totally fabricated. I have already spent time trying to find any supporting evidence for these assertions, found none, and rather than delete it I asked for others to provide sources. The sources should have been put in when it was written, or it should not have been included at all. "Some political scientists believe..." is bordering on weasel wording, by the way. Do you have an issue with my asking for sources on the claims put forth? Ninahexan (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That particular bit I have no qualms with you removing. Timeshift (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will wait a few days to see if either the original author or anyone else has sources before I remove it. Ninahexan (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)