This man today launched his 2007 Senate re-election campaign. He’s already marked out his principal opponent as this……..err …… woman. 
From the point of view of having someone in the Senate who presents a rational, logical and well considered approach to the political atmosphere which pervades the place which was once known as the House of Review, I’d much rather see Andrew Bartlett in there representing Queensland, than Madam Carrot-Top.
Andrew posted about his Senate tilt earlier this year, althou at that time, it didn’t look as though Hansen would be his major threat. Should the major parties schmooze their way into Pauline’s preferences (eeeew, that reads badly), regardless of how poorly she polls, what vote she does garner might still spell the end of Bartlett rationality.
Those Australian Democrat Senators facing re-election this time around, apart from Andrew Bartlett, are:
- Natasha Stott-Despoya – already declared herself a non-starter and headed for retirement or other worthwhile cause;
- Lyn Allison – current party leader
- Andrew Murray – that redoubtable seat holder from W.A. who, in my opinion, is the most worthwhile person to listen to when he rises to speak. Andrew Murray is also headed for the retirement pasture, sadly.
Four very valuable seats, at the least, up for grabs for the major parties. Yet more opportunity for real democracy to be voided if either of the major parties manage to secure these seats. My advice to voters this year, especially in consideration of the House of Review and the abuses enacted by the current government with it’s balance of power numbers, is to think carefully before you mark that square on the ballot paper. The Senate is perhaps the only place where you can really make a difference, preferential voting not withstanding.
3 Responses to “Think Before You Ink”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Thanks Niall
I didn’t actually say Ms Hanson was my principle threat – although this is how it’s been reported – I said people couldn’t write her off whlie others were refusing to rule out giving her preferences. Familiy First got a seat on 2% primary vote after all, and Ms Hanson will poll more than that.
However, her policies are a threat (or at least the ones which seem to get her publicity), and they are held by more people and parties than her.
The different parties aiming to get my seat are so many that it doesn’t really matter which is the most serious – Greens, Family First, Hanson, James Baker plus the major parties – they’re all after that seat. Although you are right to note that any Democrat seats that are lost won’t necessarily go to another minor party. The party lost 4 Senate seats in 2004, and 3 of those went to major parties.
Even you make that fundimental error which allowed the Rodent to gain control of the Senate, it should NOT be “A mark in that square..” we should all mark the requisite minimum number of square -usually about a thrid. Come on if you can’t count up to 20 or 30 you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Over 97% of people vote ABOVE THE LINE in the Senate which is how the majors want it, despite being introduced by Hawke supposedly as a way to obviate ‘informals’ – the same 5% still vote ‘none of the bastards’ volunteer to be a scrutineer at the next election you’ll soon see the informals are mostly of that ilk, not people to dumb to follow a how to vote card (I’ll resist venting my spleen on that idiot obscenity).
Indeed, you are quite right. Personally, I do always number every square below the line. I completely agree that those who choose to use that one box above the line are surrendering their right to democratic process. Such as it is.