on โ16-05-2014 03:46 PM
I found this but could someone explain process of voting leading up to and process of a Double Dissolution? Thanks.
Solved! Go to Solution.
on โ16-05-2014 04:11 PM
I can't read all that.......................... I remember the Whitlam one very well!
on โ16-05-2014 04:14 PM
yes i can remember it too az. Sorry if that was too much but thought some might be interested.
I am interested to see if Palmer is wooed successfully by TA....and who these minority party senators esp the Indep ones will side with. Am guessing that the Greens will side with the ALP.
on โ17-05-2014 01:53 PM
@paintsew007 wrote:thanks people.
Aren't there moves afoot to 'change' voting so that it will be harder at an election for minority parties to get elected?.....
Also, saw this headline "Clive Palmer to run for PM if double dissolution called"
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/clive-palmer-to-run-for-pm-if-double-dissoluti...
No, the proposal is to change the criteria for the recognition of a political party. Currently an organisation only needs 500 members to be so recognised, whereas the proposal is to increase that number to 1,500. There is also a proposal to change the way preferences are allocated in above the line voting.
โ17-05-2014 04:26 PM - edited โ17-05-2014 04:28 PM
Thanks for this info aftanas,
paintsew007 asked:
Aren't there moves afoot to 'change' voting so that it will be harder at an election for minority parties to get elected?.....
and aftanas answered:
No, the proposal is to change the criteria for the recognition of a political party. Currently an organisation only needs 500 members to be so recognised, whereas the proposal is to increase that number to 1,500. There is also a proposal to change the way preferences are allocated in above the line voting.
I am very pleased to hear that something is going to be done about how preferences are dealt with and specifically allocated. Was very 'sneaky poos' the way we had it IMO.
on โ17-05-2014 09:23 PM
on โ18-05-2014 12:37 PM