Possibly helped by 20% of the Australian electorate taking the newly formed Wikileaks Party seriously, and there being a Federal Election in 90 days [1].
It should be pointed out that due to the way Australia's preferential voting system works [1] candidates that don't actually stand a chance of winning have a lot of power at election time.
When voting, all candidates are numbered in order of your preference. If your first candidate doesn't secure a majority of votes, their votes are removed, and then allocated to the voters second preference and so on, until a winner is found.
Candidates also hand out 'how to vote' cards [2] that show how the candidate suggests you allocate your preferences.
If a smaller candidate or party is getting decent support before the election, the other parties will then try to make deals with that candidate to secure their second preferences.
Preference deals only really matter in marginal electorates in close elections.
In Australia seats are laid out by a politically neutral Electoral Commission. There's no gerrymandering, so seats can and do have a varying distribution of "safeness" for each of the major parties.
In a safe seat, the necessity for preference deals is greatly diminished.
Only in marginal seats do preference deals count, and only when the nationwide margin of preference is sufficiently close that a few seats will decide the election.
The upcoming election is absolutely not shaping up that way. On current figures, the Labor Party are going to be thumped very hard; potentially the worst drubbing in Federal election history. The Liberal-National coalition have somewhere between zero and zilch requirement to kiss up to minor and microparties.
That's a strength of preferential voting, but you make it sound like a negative somehow. It means you can vote for who you like, and your hand is not forced by 'but they'll never get in', as seen with the Lib Dems in the UK.
In the senate it's not the case since each state currently elects twelve senators each, and each territory two.
Since there are a greater number of people being elected from the same pool, it's more likely that a minor party candidate will be elected to the senate.
On the other hand, in the house of representatives you're most likely going to get a candidate from one of the major parties since most people preference them first.
> Countries with compulsory voting generally hold elections on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Postal and pre-poll voting is provided to people who cannot vote on polling day, and mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens.
Saying voting is compulsory isn't 100% accurate. The actual requirement is that you attend the poll, there is no way anyone can enforce that you cast a vote. You can simply turn up, get your name crossed off and walk right out the door without voting, or as many others choose to, cast an invalid vote.
However, while it is in practice unenforceable, you are still legally obliged to vote. In Australia it is considered a bit of a crisis if turnout falls below 85%.
That they are populist I would tend to agree. Having voted in both the UK and Australia, I've concluded that compulsory voting in Australia leads to a type of popularity contest, and that the so called informal vote is viewed as either one of an error, a wasted opportunity for democratic engagement, or an act of stupidity. Certainly when counting votes, the informal votes are discarded as merit less.
In the UK the election turnout percentage is just as important a metric for measuring overall confidence in the political process as the proportion of votes gained for the candidates. Another dimension to voter attitude which is lost in the compulsory system I believe. As it shows a general vote of confidence, the entire political class is highly observant of it.
> Notably, this results in election candidates adopting populist policies that more closely represent their constituents.
I think a better term is more centrist policies. In compulsory systems, the Median Voter Theorem [0] is a much more accurate description of behaviour.
In particular it means that the major parties can't be captured as easily by highly motivated minorities. And it also means that our politics is very transactional compared to countries with voluntary FPTP. No need to "get out the base", so no need for soaring rhetoric and less need for negative advertising. Some people see our generally uninspiring politicians as a bug; I see it as evidence of underlying features.
The numbers were large enough in the most recent English elections to arrive at the same kind of 'centrist' outcome as in the most recent Australian general election. In England, turnout increases generally when important contention arises.
Unless they've changed in recent years, Roy Morgan research is utterly worthless. I had a friend who worked there and he brought home one of their questionnaires. It was full of the most leading, biased questions you could hope to write. I'd sooner trust a guess from a random stranger in a pub than Roy Morgan's cooked books.
I have to second this. Once Scott Steel started blogging as "Possum Comitatus" a few years back, Roy Morgan fizzled and evaporated like spit on a BBQ plate. It's just not very good polling.
I feel like you are short-changing the very hard work done by Electronic Frontiers Australia and some ISPs (iinet in particular) to campaign against the worst excesses of this government and the government before it.
[1] http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/roy-morgan-research/2013/0...