![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All 17 seats of the unicameral Legislative Assembly 9 seats needed for a majority | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Turnout | 89.5 (![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() Results by electorate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Elections to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly were held on Saturday, 18 February 1995. The incumbent Labor Party, led by Rosemary Follett, was challenged by the Liberal Party, led by Kate Carnell. For the first time, candidates were elected to fill three multi-member electorates using a single transferable vote method, known as the Hare-Clark system. The result was another hung parliament. However the Liberals, with the largest representation in the 17-member unicameral Assembly, formed Government with the support of Michael Moore and Paul Osborne. Carnell was elected Chief Minister at the first sitting of the third Assembly on 9 March 1995.[1]
This election was also the first time that the leaders of both major parties have been female at an Australian federal, state or territory election. It would also be the last time that this occurred until the 2020 Queensland state election.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/5Views:16 502 19693 6665491 669 49023 658 348
-
The Law You Won't Be Told
-
The 2020 New Zealand Election Explained
-
Indigenous Australians | Wikipedia audio article
-
Spies, informants and new enemies - Today’s intelligence agencies | DW Documentary
-
The Difference between the UK, Great Britain & England Explained
Transcription
# The Law You Won't Be Told On a Jury you know your options: guilty, or not. But there's another choice that neither the judge nor the lawyers will tell you -- often because they're not allowed to and also it might better if you *don't* know. This video will tell you that third choice, but be warned: simply *watching* may prevent you from ever serving on a jury -- so this is your last chance to hit the pause button before you learn about... Jury nullification: when the defendant is 100% beyond-a-reasonable-doubt guilty *but* the jurors *also* think he shouldn't be punished. The jury can nullify the law and let him go free. But before your on your next jury and yell 'Null! Booya!' at the judge you should know that just talking about jury nullification in the wrong circumstances can get you arrested. Though a video such as this one, simply acknowledging the *existence* of jury nullification and in *no way advocating* it is totally OK. And, while we're at it: *(CGP Grey is not a lawyer, this is not legal advice it is meant for entertainment purposes only. Seriously, guy, don't do anything in a court of law based on what an Internet Video told you. No joke.)* So why can't you do this? It's because nullification isn't *in* the law †, but exists as a logical consequence of two other laws: First: that juries can't be punished for a 'wrong' decision -- no matter the witnesses, DNA, or video proof show. That's the point of a jury: to be the decider. and Second: when a defendant is found not-guilty, that defendant can't be tried again for the same crime ‡. So there *are* only two stated options: guilty or not, it's just that jury nullification is when the words of the jurors don't match their thoughts -- for which they can't be punished and their not-guilty decision can't be changed. These laws are necessary for juries to exist within a fair system, but the logical consequence is... contentious -- lawyers and judges argue about jury nullification like physicists argue about quantum mechanics. Both are difficult to observe and the interpretation of both has a huge philosophical ramification for the subject as a whole. Is nullification the righteous will of the people or an anarchy of twelve or just how citizens judge their laws? The go-to example in favor of nullification is the fugitive slave law: when Northern juries refused to convict escaped slaves and set them free. Can't argue with that. But the anarchy side is Southern juries refusing to convict white lynch mobs. Not humanity at its best. But both of these are juries nullifying the law. Also juries have *two* options where their thoughts may differ from their words. Jury nullification usually refers to the non-guilty version but juries can convict without evidence just as easily as they can acquit in spite of it. This is jury nullification too and the jurors are protected by the first rule, though the second doesn't apply and judges have the power to overrule a guilty verdict if they think the jurors are… nt the best. And, of course, a guilty defendant can appeal, at least for a little while. Which makes the guilty form of jury nullification weaker than the not-guilty kind. Cold comfort, though. Given the possibility of jurors who might ignore the law as written, it's not surprising when picking jurors for a trial, lawyers -- whose existence is dependent on an orderly society -- will ask about nullification, usually in the slightly roundabout way: "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?" If after learning about jury nullification you think it's a good idea: answer 'yes' and you'll be rejected, but answer 'no' with the intent to get on the jury to nullify and you've just committed perjury -- technically a federal crime -- which makes the optimal strategy once on a jury to zip it. But This introduces a problem for jurors who intend to nullify: telling the other 11 angry men about your position is risky, which makes nullification as a tool for fixing unjust laws nation wide problematic. (Not to mention about 95% of criminal charges in the United States never make it to trial and rather end in a plea bargain, but that's a story for another time.) The only question about jury nullification that may matter is if jurors should be *told* about it and the courts are near universal † in their decision: 'no way'. Which might seem self-interested -- again, courts depend on the law -- but there's evidence that telling jurors about nullification changes the way they vote by making evidence less relevant -- which isn't surprising: that's what nullification *is*. But mock trials also show sympathetic defendants get more non-guilty verdicts and unsympathetic defendants get more *guilty* verdicts in front of jurors who were explicitly told about nullification compared to those who weren't. Which sounds bad, but it also isn't difficult to imagine situations where jurors blindly following the law would be terribly unjust -- which is the heart of nullification: juries judge the law, not solely evidence. In the end righteous will of the people, or anarchy, or citizen lawmaking -- the system leaves you to decide -- but as long as courts are fair they require these rules, so jury nullification will always be with us.
Key dates
- Close of party registration: 12 January 1995
- Pre-election period commenced/nominations opened: 13 January 1995
- Rolls closed: 20 January 1995
- Nominations closed: 26 January 1995
- Nominations declared/ballot paper order determined: 27 January 1995
- Pre-poll voting commenced: 30 January 1995
- Polling day: 18 February 1995
- Poll declared: 2 March 1995
Source:[2]
Overview
Candidates
Sitting members at the time of the election are listed in bold. Tickets that elected at least one MLA are highlighted in the relevant colour. Successful candidates are indicated by an asterisk (*).[3]
Brindabella
Five seats were up for election.[4]
Labor candidates | Liberal candidates | Greens candidates | Democrats candidates |
---|---|---|---|
Eva Cawthorne |
Sandie Brooke |
Julie McInness |
Charlie Bell |
Moore candidates | Smokers candidates | Ungrouped | |
Nick Isaacson |
Keith Dencio |
Janice Ferguson (Ind) |
Ginninderra
Five seats were up for election.[5]
Labor candidates | Liberal candidates | Greens candidates | Democrats candidates |
---|---|---|---|
Wayne Berry* |
Lyle Dunne |
Gary Corr |
Peter Granleese |
Moore candidates | Smokers candidates | Ungrouped | |
Graeme Evans |
Donovan Ballard |
Kevin Connor (Ind) |
Molonglo
Seven seats were up for election.[6]
Labor candidates | Liberal candidates | Greens candidates | Democrats candidates |
---|---|---|---|
Terry Connolly* |
Greg Aouad |
Natasha Davis |
Nicola Appleyard |
Moore candidates | Smokers candidates | Ungrouped | |
Mark Dunstone |
John McMahon |
Mike Boland (Ind) |
Alex Middleton |
Results
Australian Capital Territory general election, 18 February 1995 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Enrolled voters | 196,959 | |||||
Votes cast | 176,264 | Turnout | 89.5% | -0.8 | ||
Informal votes | 10,994 | Informal | 6.2% | -0.2 | ||
Summary of votes by party | ||||||
Party | Primary votes | % | Swing | Seats | Change | |
Liberal | 66,895 | 40.5 | +11.5 | 7 | +1 | |
Labor | 52,276 | 31.6 | -8.3 | 6 | -2 | |
Greens | 14,967 | 9.1 | +9.1 | 2 | +2 | |
Moore Independents | 11,645 | 7.1 | +1.5 | 1 | -1 | |
Independent | 9,260 | 5.6 | +4.1 | 1 | +1 | |
Democrats | 6,457 | 3.9 | -0.6 | 0 | ±0 | |
Smokers Are Voters And Civil Rights | 3,770 | 2.3 | +2.3 | 0 | ±0 | |
Total | 165,270 | 17 |
Results by electorate | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brindabella | Ginninderra | Molonglo | ||||||||
Party | Votes | % | Seats | Votes | % | Seats | Votes | % | Seats | |
Liberal | 18,494 | 37.1 | 2 | 19,507 | 40.7 | 2 | 28,894 | 42.9 | 3 | |
Labor | 15,758 | 31.6 | 2 | 15,693 | 32.7 | 2 | 20,825 | 30.9 | 2 | |
Greens | 3,965 | 8.0 | 0 | 4,176 | 8.7 | 1 | 6,826 | 10.1 | 1 | |
Moore Independents | 1,907 | 3.8 | 0 | 3,837 | 8.0 | 0 | 5,901 | 8.8 | 1 | |
Independent | 6,779 | 13.6 | 1 | 1,059 | 2.2 | 0 | 1,422 | 2.1 | 0 | |
Democrats | 1,878 | 3.8 | 0 | 2,420 | 5.1 | 0 | 2,159 | 3.2 | 0 | |
Smokers Are Voters And Civil Rights | 1,116 | 2.2 | 0 | 1,247 | 2.6 | 0 | 1,407 | 2.1 | 0 |
Distribution of seats | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Electorate | Seats held | ||||||
Brindabella | I | ||||||
Ginninderra | |||||||
Molonglo | M |
I - Independent politician
M - Moore Independents
See also
- Members of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, 1995–1998
- First Carnell Ministry
- List of Australian Capital Territory elections
References
- ^ "Legislative Assembly for the ACT - Week 1". ACT Hansard. ACT Legislative Assembly. 9 March 1995. Retrieved 8 August 2010.
- ^ "Election timetable". ACT Legislative Assembly election - 1995. ACT Electoral Commission. 1995. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- ^ "List of elected candidates". Elections ACT. 6 January 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- ^ "Brindabella First Preference Results - 1995 Election". Elections ACT. 6 January 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- ^ "Ginninderra First Preference Results - 1995 Election". Elections ACT. 6 January 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- ^ "Molonglo First Preference Results - 1995 Election". Elections ACT. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
External links
![](/s/i/modif.png)