Australia 2007

[ag]

If Howard resigns now, would it be automatic for Costello to inherit the job, or would there be a challenge?

Also, what is considered likely to happen if Howard sticks it out as PM till the election, but fails to be re-elected himself.  How automatic would be Costello's succession?  I guess, I should specify three possible sets of circumstances, as the answer to this question might be different in each. So:

1. What if Howard is sent home righting children's books on the election night, but the Coalition manages to keep the losses to 15 or less. Is it PM Costello, or will there be a challenge?

2. There is a Lab majority. I guess, at this point it is irrelevant if Howard is reelected or not (or is it?) as he wouldn't be able to continue as Leader (or would he?). There are still two possibilities, though:

2a. Labor wins, but barely.
2b. Coalition is humiliated.

Would we be seeing Costello as the opposition leader in either case? Would Howard's personal re-election (or failure thereoff) matter here?

Of course, never say never, so the third outcome is possible, however unlikely at this point:

3. Howard is re-elected and Coaltion still has a majority. How would the succession go?

[ag]

Can someone explain to me how the transferred voting works and if a voter transfers his vote once, is he allowed to transfer again?

A voter ranks all candidates.  First the first preferences are counted (ie, at the first count each ballot is counted for the candidate that had "1" marked next to his name).  If somebody gets over 50% of the vote s/he is elected at this point, otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated and his/her votes get redistributed by looking at whom the voters marked as their number 2 choice. Again, if at that point somebody gets over 50% of the vote the counting is over, otherwise the next outsider is chosen for elimination and the process continues.  In the end only two candidates remain and one of them is bound to get the majority. I believe, there is no official legal way to deliberately  "exhaust"  the votes (ie just express a partial preference), though I might be wrong here, as this varies in some state-level elections.

Of course, if a voter's top choices are all candidates from minor parties, it is likely that his vote is going to be transferred many times. Thus, if a voter ranked

1. John Doe (Independent)
2. Jane Roe (Independent)
3. Mike Noname (Family First)
4. Mary Forgothername (Australian Democrat)
5. Woody Tree (Green)
6. Jack Outback (National)
7. Hon. Michael Abbot-and-Costello (Liberal)
8. Kim Challenger (Labor)

what is, really, most likely to matter is that he put the A&C above the Challenger. The rest of his effort is, mainly, about self-expression and complicating the job of vote counters.  But, perhaps, Mr. Outback gets Mr. A&C eliminated, in which case the vote would, in the end, count for him. Or else, Mr. Challenger gets eliminated first - in which case, once again, the vote counts for the Outback. In the House election it's extremely unlikely that anything else happens, though, on occasion, independents do win.

[ag]

It is generally accepted in Australia. They've used it (in a miriad variations, as the system differs at the state and federal levels, as well as in electing the upper and lower houses)  for so long that extremely few, if any, Australians now alive would remember anything else.   

You should realize, that, at least in the version used for the House elections, individual preferences towards minor parties rarely matter at all. The only thing that matters is, to whom of the major two candidates you asign the relative preference.  The main practical impact of the electoral system has been to allow continued semi-separate existence of the National Party as the junior coalition partner of the Liberals (as long as the Coalition voters put both the Lib and the Nat above the Lab, both Coalition candidates may be on the ballot simultaneously, witout making the parties fear that this would split the vote; sometimes a Nat wins).  This outcome could have been achieved with a simple two-round election, as in France. The reason that Australia's minor parties still exist in practice is the (vastly more complicated) electoral system used for electing the Senate. In the House they usually suffer the same fate as in the U.S. (though they might have some impact in coordinating and directing preferences towards major parties).

The main practical disadvantage of the Australian system has more to do with the time it takes to actually complete the counts. Even the full computerization would only help to an extent: until all ballots in a constituency are entered into the system, you can't even formally start doing the second count (there may be a tie for the last spot, in wich case you don't know whom to eliminate).  So, in close elections, it may take days for the outcome to be computed. As the U.S. districts are larger, it would be even slower: imagine not being able to start the count of preferences until all the precincts and postal votes report.  Furthermore, the more counting has to be done, the likelier it is that something would depend on the "hanging chads" (at least theoretically it is possible that the eventual winner is determined by who comes 4th or 5th).

There may be multiple ways for getting out of the "illiterate voter" conundrum. A whole bunch are used in various Australian elections (though never all simultaneously). For instance, one could allow minor errors (e.g., if one marks 1,2,4,5 count it through or abort the count after 2, etc., etc.). Or else, one can allow parties to provide "how to vote cards" - little "cheat-sheats" the voters could copy in the booth. Or else, one can do what is done in a (rather complicated) election to the Australian Senate: let the parties (or even other groups) register their preferred orders of preference and allow voters simply to mark such a partisan "recomendation" (in the Australian Senate case, the voters are also free to make up their own preference ranking if they so choose).

Overall, this system has been used in Australia for something like 90 years and a more complicated version of it has been used both for electing the Australian Senate and for elections in Ireland at all levels. Neither Australia, nor Ireland are full of Ph.D.'s. A simplified version has been even used in Papua/New Guinea - not a particularly well-educated country.  The main problem would not be dealing with "stupid voters" - it would be dealing with complicated vote counts.  But, on the other hand, it is not very clear what this system would ahieve that cannot be achieved in a simpler fashion.

[ag]

It gaurantees that to win an electorate you need (at least in theory) 50%+1 of all voter's support, or at least opposition to the other final-round candidate.

The French two-round system does the same in this respect.

[ag]

It gaurantees that to win an electorate you need (at least in theory) 50%+1 of all voter's support, or at least opposition to the other final-round candidate.

The French two-round system does the same in this respect.

They don't have compulsory voting, so no.

But that has nothing to do w/ the voting system - it's part of the electoral system in general, but entirely independent of the voting system used.  Both the preferential voting and the more common run-off can be adopted without regard to compulsury voting.  In fact, preferential voting is just a more complicated to administer version of the instant run-off (one could mimick the French system by asking everyone to submit a preference, then in one swoop eliminating all but the two top candidates and transfering their votes to the top two).

Actually, to be pedantic, even in Australia normal turnouts are about 90%-95%, never 100%. So, in a close election the winning candidate rarely gets much above 47% of the total voting population

[ag]

New Poll. This time it's ABC Nielsen, and it is within the margin of error of the Newspoll:

Primary vote: Lab 49%, Coalition 39%
two-party vote after redistribution Lab 57%, Coalition 43%

"MPs rally behind Howard," sez The Age. Should I read it as "if the SOB doesn't resign NOW we rebell within a week?"

[ag]

Well, here we go...

I am really going to be watching this one.

[ag]

What's going on in Victoria? NSW, SA and ALD look like a landslide, WA is close, as it should be, but Victoria?

[ag]

One other question. I was reading this article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/24/2099988.htm

And this section caught my eye as odd:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't voting mandatory, so shouldn't turn out always be big and not really a question at all?

Well, there is still variation. There are those who don't turn out for all sorts of legitimate and illegitimate reasons (in the latter case it's a matter of some slight hassle and a reasonable fine, so if you really have to miss it you might choose to pay up).  I know of an Australian who is on a plane from London right now, about to land in Mexico City - here is a voter who isn't likely to vote (business trip, couldn't be postponed, all is legit   ). 

Anyway, there could be a low turnout of, say, 89%, or a high turnout of 96%.  or an average turnout of 93% - whatever.

[ag]

Will they be able to report any results befoer polls close in WA?