Record 97 per cent of eligible Australians are enrolled to vote
24 replies, posted
The federal election is set to be big and peak early.
Close to 17 million Australians are enrolled to vote, around a million more than the 2016 poll.
And the increase is not just down to population growth.
The participation rate — the number of people on the roll compared to the number calculated to be eligible to vote — climbed from 95 per cent three years ago to 97 per cent.
Electoral commissioner Tom Rogers said that was the "highest percentage since Federation" and attributed the rise to outreach efforts of his organisation in the last three elections.
The 2019 election is the first poll in which those born in the current millennium will have a vote.
Approximately 50,000 Australians aged 18 to 24 will vote for the first time.
Rolls closed on Thursday at 8pm ahead of the election on Saturday, 18 May.
Mr Rogers said the Electoral Commission was hoping to get people out of booths as fast as possible to improve the voter experience.
“We've been saying in the average adult Australian's lifetime, you are likely to consume around 40 democracy sausages, election falafels or election cakes if you add state and federal elections," he said.
“It's important we get [the experience] right."
Three in four voters were in and out of the polling place within 15 minutes at the 2016 election, according to the commission.
Mr Rogers has promised more staff, better queueing and additional booths this year.
Despite these efforts, more Australians than ever are predicted to vote early.
In 2007, just 8 per cent of ballots were lodged early.
By 2016 that number had risen to 23 per cent.
"Australians' tolerance for queueing is diminishing over time," Mr Rogers said.
I wouldn't be surprised if the vote for Marriage Equality was a factor in this.
One wonders how well an election here would go with 97% of the voting population actually voting and enthusiastic about it.
Why is this not the way that we all refer to democracy
the American people can stand behind efforts to protect our democracy sausages
What does this even mean?
I think he's implying Turnbull knew the Liberal party was going to axe him so he pulled a 6D chess move and made the marriage plebiscite a thing so more younger voters would register (and thus mostly vote against them in the future).
I was making a joke about Turnbull sabotaging the Liberal party before he was kicked out by holding a referendum which encouraged a lot of young voters to sign up to participate in something they cared about, on the premise that young voters are more likely to not vote for the Coalition.
obviously false, but I thought was kinda funny to think about
I wouldn't be too sure about enthusiastic, I see a lot of younger people parroting the "liberals and labour r as bad as each other" mantra over and over but I'm hoping they at least vote correctly because our preference system allows votes from parties that don't get enough to win to flow over to parties that were the second selection and vice versa.
Despite having 97% of people registered to vote, there's still a big chunk who make a song and dance about choosing not to vote. I made the mistake of listen to Hack last week (shitty feel good radio show for teens/young adults) and a lot the people calling and texting in were acting like heroes because they weren't going to vote.
I would bet that most of the remaining 3% are not enrolled because they go out of their way to avoid being automatically enrolled, rather than simply being apathetic to voting.
That mantra is pretty much correct.
It's not like labor are very good at sticking to their election promises either.
I just want to be in a swing seat so money gets thrown at me.
Even if it would be destructive that a smaller party like the greens were to form government, it's often a good idea to vote for them to push the issues that you want discussed into focus. Bigger parties do notice where they're losing primary votes which is why the Coalition seem to get more and more insane as parties like One Nation gain traction. It seems like you should only put the major parties as number 1 if you agree with everything they're doing and don't want them to change at all.
Too true. I live in an ultra-safe Labor seat, which has been held by Labor non-stop since 1910 and even has a family dynasty going on with the current MP, but yet people here still overwhelmingly vote Labor in every single election. As expected, the seat is consistently ignored by Labor in every single election, while the major parties offer heaps of promises and perform heaps of campaigning for virtually every marginal seat bordering this seat.
Some foreigners look to Australia and say ‘look their democracy is perfect, they can rank their ballots’, and even members here on Facepunch advocate for just that electoral reform as if it would solve all of their problems, but being able to rank ballots (in isolation of other factors) does not solve problems related to safe seats, wasted votes and disproportional representation.
I'd say educated voting is better.
For instance, if you vote for greens, you may as well have voted for labor if you're not in a greens dominated seat.
You could theoretically put the Liberals as number 2 after the Greens as number 1 in which case your vote would go to the Coalition before Labor if you were so inclined. The Greens in the Senate and House of Reps will almost always stand on the same side as Labor but the Labor party does feel it when they lose seats to the Greens or Independents.
On a side note,
One Nation is fielding a brown person for my seat???????????????????????????????????
what the fuck pauline i vote for you for WHITE AUSTRALIANS
The parties do have their differences. Also one shouldn’t disregard the attributes of the particular candidates. For lower house elections I tend to preference Greens in front of the Nationals, and Nationals in front of Labor. But that was especially so for me in the last NSW state election as I valued the Greens candidates’ decades of experience as a chemical engineer.
Doesn't really matter when Labor do mostly good stuff on their off time and Liberals just shit all over the place being either useless or actively going against the interests of the Australian public.
We've had the Libs in for the last 2 elections and they've done nothing but Trash the NBN, allowed in MORE immigrants(One of their major policies to stop) and further put us in debt(Also one of their major policies to stop). Labor might not get the best trade deals but fuck, they don't do that.
As for 97 percent enrollment? Doesn't make a lick of difference to me. In my eyes it only forces people who have literally zero interest in voting, and an ignorant vote is not valuable at all because the media can just run senseless articles that catch attention and that's what a lot of people base their votes off which actually HURTS democracy. Modern democracy is a farce.
But surely it is easier for forces like the media to sway votes when there's a smaller voting base. It's easier to disenfranchise people than it is to convince them to support you. Then you can focus on the people who will who.
I'm no expert on the matter but I would say people who have to do something, who don't care about researching would be the easiest to sway when their only info comes from bias'd media. And to be fair the majority of our media is biased against the left leaning parties, specifically Labor.
Look, this is an extremely biased view of the liberals. Sure they're bad, we know that.
But this is objectively wrong.
The NBN was cursed from the get-go, it was meant to be privatised majorly to Telstra just to gain enough funding to make it a viable budget option. Coalition thought they could save money and hit a middle ground by making MTM, but we all know how that ended up, it's an abomination now.
And I mean, you can quickly Google search Australia's debt, and you'll see that it's been stagnant up until 2007, when labor took the reins. So yes, they do infact do that. This was partly due to the GFC, but it has been trending upwards ever since, at the fault of both Labor and the Coalition who have been in power since that time.
Gon want a source on that privatization to Telstra.
Australia's government debt seems to be less than 20% of GDP
why would you worry that much about a government debt that is that low. Most of the western world has government debt way higher than that
It's not an issue, the liberal government plastered it all over the media that the Labor party was having us spiral the drain with an even lower debt ratio, hence the mention of them not actually fixing it.
It is under control, they kept the promise. But it wasn't exactly some sort of achievement due to our current economic position.
But the 20%> debt shouldn't be normalised.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.