Australia implements a form of proportional representation where the votes of losing candidates in an election can be directed to other candidates who remain viable, so as to ensure they are not wasted even though they are no longer optimized. Candidates encourage their supporters to vote themselves #1, and give their second-preference votes to someone else, though voters are free to disregard this. In such a system, by voting for every candidate in order you can also make sure that your least favorite candidate is disadvantaged, essentially an explicit vote for 'anyone but X'.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting</a><p>'white-anted' refers to erosion from within, as by termites.<p>As for the particular events of the story, I am somewhat surprised (eg by the idea of giving preference to right-wing candidates), but also not. Assange's comment that Wikileaks is a party of accountability and not government sounds to me like a desire for power (as a kingmaker) without responsibility. The coalition structures that often emerge in proportional representation systems lend themselves to this sort of politicking.
The Wikileaks party ought to be ashamed of themselves.<p>Not only did they screw up majorly by preferencing hard-right parties ahead of the progressive Greens. But they betrayed Scott Ludlam in WA who was one of the only people to stand up for Assange.<p><a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/19/wikileaks-partys-administrative-errors-incense-greens/" rel="nofollow">http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/19/wikileaks-partys-adminis...</a>
See a better explanation here: <a href="http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignation-from-wikileaks-party-national-council/" rel="nofollow">http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignat...</a>
Australian election politics sounds like a genuine labyrinth. And I thought the primary process in the US was difficult to wrap my head around. Compound this with what, according to bentoner's link [0], sounds like substantial internal conflict within the party, and I don't have high hopes for the success of the Wikileaks party in Australia this go 'round. Though honestly, it sounds like they're just discovering that a democratic, Kumbaya approach is anathema to actually getting anything done. It all works great when everyone agrees. When divisive decisions have to be made and stuck by? Not so much. Dr. Mathews appears to agree:<p>>He really ought not to have set up a party with internal democracy.<p>[0] <a href="http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignation-from-wikileaks-party-national-council/" rel="nofollow">http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignat...</a><p>EDIT:<p>Excerpt from Wikileaks party response<p><a href="https://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/the-wikileaks-party-announces-independent-review/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/the-wikileaks-party-announ...</a><p>>If we are unsuccessful in having the AEC adjust the submitted preference nominations to meet the National Council’s directives, we will release a “how to vote below the line” card so all supporters and voters can follow our true preference nominations, or select their own, so any remaining errors on our GVTs will not be passed on to our voters.<p>If I'm understanding this right, the Australians have the privilege of instant run-off preferential voting, and still prefer to just vote party line? Could an Aussie please explain this phenomenon to me? Coming from the states, I'd be frothing at the mouth to have anything other than our absurd closed (depending on state) primary single-vote elections.
Bloody hell we've got an interesting election on our hands. The Liberals and Abbott will triumph in the House of Reps and probably the Senate depending on preferences it seems. After that though, it's very interesting.