I can't believe we aren't discussing this. I've been logging on to the few Australian websites that I know of looking for info. I'll be honest, I don't get some of how the polling works. Australian voting is probably one of the most complex methods on earth. Who is expected to be the favored candidate? ~String
The two major parties are the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. Currently, Labor has the majority of seats in Parliament, which means that it forms the executive government. The leader of the Labor Party, Julia Gillard, is also the Prime Minister. The main difference between the Australian parliamentary system and the US system is that the legislative and executive branches of government are combined in the Parliament in Australia, whereas in the US the President has executive power and the Congress has legislative power. The Australian Prime Minister essentially carries out a dual role equivalent to that of President and Leader of the Majority in the House of Representatives. Australia's Constitution is based largely on the US Constitution. We have a federal system of government, with a national (Commonwealth) government and separate State governments. The election on Saturday is an election for the national government. The Commonwealth (national) government has two houses of Parliament - the House of Representatives and the Senate, which are approximately equivalent in their roles to the US ones. The voting systems for the House and the Senate are different. Voting for the House of Reps is a preferential system. That means that each voter lists his/her preferred candidates in order of preference. Here's how it works. Suppose there are three candidates, A B and C and 1000 voters, and the first-preference votes are: A 200 votes B 350 votes C 450 votes Candidate A has the fewest first-preference votes, so A is eliminated. Now, here's the tricky bit. The second-preferences of people who voted for A are now distributed to candidates B and C at full value. So, let's assume that of the 200 people who put A as their first preference, 180 put C as their second preference and 20 put B as their second preference. In the second round of vote counting, the total number of votes for the remaining candidates is: B 350 + 180 = 530 C 450 + 20 = 470 Now candidate C has the fewest number of votes and candidate B is the only remaining candidate, so B is elected. Note that B is elected here even though s/he got fewer first-preference votes than C. This is a fundamental difference between the preferential system and the first-past-the-post system where voters only vote for one candidate. The Australian Senate uses a different system, called proportional representation, which is also more complicated. I won't go into that here. It also relies on preferences, but they are handled in a different way. The current election is expected to be a close one. The latest polls predict a 52%-48% split between Labor and Liberal on a two-party-preferred basis, but you can't always trust polls. So, it looks as if the government will be returned, but its majority in the House may be only a few seats. Labor, even if re-elected to government, is unlikely to hold an absolute majority in the Senate, with its different voting system, and the Liberal Party won't either. The balance of power is likely to be held by the Australian Greens Party, and whoever ends up in government will need their votes in the Senate to get legislation passed.
So. . . The Australian government is formed by whoever holds a majority in the lower house? Does the PM need to be confirmed by the Senate? Can the lower house bypass the senate in the passage of bills to laws (like in Britain)? Does the Senate have a roll in the confirmation of government officials (ambassadors, ministers of state, judges, etc.)? Treaties? As you may (or may not) know, the US Senate is one of the few "upper bodies" (non proportional) that is the more powerful of the two houses. The House of Reps does not confirm justices and executive appointees (flag officers, ambassadors, cabinet members, etc). Treaties, as well, are approved by the Senate and not the House. ~String
superstring01: Yes. Or, if no single party holds a majority then parties must work to form a coalition and decide on who will lead. The convention is that the leader of the party with the largest share of the vote is usually PM. In practice, the Liberal Party and the National Party are so closely aligned on most issues that they campaign as a coalition government. Neither has enough support to gain a majority on its own. No. Not really. There is, however, a process that if a bill is passed in the lower house and rejected by the Senate twice in essentially unamended form, then the Prime Minister can call for a double dissolution election, in which both houses are dissolved in their entirety and then a joint sitting of both newly-elected houses reconvenes to vote on the bill. In the usual course of events, only half of the Senate is up for election each time. The current election is a half-Senate election. Double dissolutions are reasonably rare. No. Ambassadors are appointed by the government. Judges are also appointed by the government, but they cannot be removed after appointment unless they do something really really naughty. Ministers are determined by the party/parties in power and are selected from the Members of Parliament who are in the ruling parties. Yeah, that's a bit of a difference between Australian and the US. But then, it makes more sense in a system where executive power is separate from legislative power.
Does the Australian Supreme Court also have sway over constitutional matters? Can it strike down a law if it violates the constitution? Also, I thought Australia had a "sort of" constitution (a la Canada and Britain: A collection of traditions and laws that amounted to a "constitution" but more or less was a charter and could be changed by Parliament). Does the PM also have the right to call elections whenever he/she wants to? ~String
The Australian equivalent of the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is the High Court of Australia. The states each have a Supreme Court, which is their highest court (although you can appeal from there to the High Court). The High Court has jurisdiction to rule on all constitutional matters. Partly. The Commonwealth Constitution (national) is a written document, based on and similar in many ways to the US Constitution (although we don't have a national Bill of Rights). Added to that are a number of semi-formal conventions or traditions. For example, from memory, the Constitution doesn't mention the Prime Minister at all. Some, if not all, states, have their own constitutions. To amend the national Constitution requires a public referendum, and the requirements are very difficult to satisfy to pass amendments. The states have various amendment procedures for their constitutions. Some can be changed by an Act of Parliament. Yes. The national government serves a nominal 3 year term, so there's a deadline that says the PM must call the election by a certain date. However, s/he can call an election earlier than that, and that often happens because PMs tend to call elections when they think it is most politically expedient. Some of the States have moved to fixed terms, and I personally would be all in favour of that for the Federal government, too. But it would require one of those referendums...
Same here. The basic method: the proposed amendment has to be approved by a 2/3 vote in each house then passed on to the states and in order to be ratified, it must be approved by a majority vote within the legislatures of 3/4 of the states (37 states, that would be). Another method involves calling a special convention (which congress has to do) which could propose the amendment and then be ratified either by the states (3/4) or by conventions within the state (3/4 as well) or any combination of the two. Thus, in more than 200 years, there are only 27 amendments. ~String ~String
I think this basically describes this election: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV-inAzEleE#noexternalembed
Really? A hung parliament? Ugh. I have a fondness for the Westminster System that seems to fizzle at the thought of a "hung parliament" (which, one might contrarily think would get me all hot under the collar). So, what now? And why am I showing more interest in this than our Aussie members. Cough it up. What's doing on down unda'? ~String
At 805 PM Saturday I gave it to the Libs. Why? Because it should not have come to a hung parlaiment - this indicated a new, turning force of its own happening. I also think Australia is the last place on earth which should be discussing the climate - even if its population reaches 700 million. Australis is a tad difference from India, accept she is surrounded by H2O and has 77 reasons why she cannot solved her water problem. Who's going to listen to those guys in suits and ties? :shrug:
Speaking for myself String, I was almost completely disinterested in the whole election. It always comes down to a choice of two parties in OZ and frankly, at the moment they are both pretty uninspiring. The leaders of the two parties are certainly not the best representatives of each of their parties (both parties unceremoniously dumped their respective leaders in very recent memory, knives to the back). Politics at any given moment (anywhere) cries out for honest, inspirational, visionary leaders. The current crop in OZ is disappointing. Any thinking Australian is feeling a bit morose about the whole situation. The mood at the polling booths was subdued. Australians overall were well and truly sick of the low level, bitching, whining, and downright ordinary campaigning. We're glad it's over. Although now we've got more bullshit to sit through.
A Sheila as President. Om Bladdy dumbstruck, mate. When are you going to have an Aborigine as President? Free grog for all!
