March Election

[-CG-]

Thank you!

Thats a lot better explained than how my mum tried to tell me

 

[jo172]

Thank you!

Thats a lot better explained than how my mum tried to tell me

I'm shocked you didn't get the annual primary school lesson on how it worked?

They drummed it into us so hard that blokes who dropped out in Year 10 to smoke more weed can still count preferential votes!

 

[-CG-]

I'm shocked you didn't get the annual primary school lesson on how it worked?

They drummed it into us so hard that blokes who dropped out in Year 10 to smoke more weed can still count preferential votes!

Not that I can remember.......

I did legal studies in year 11 and 12 though so I'm not totally out of my depth

 

[ams4crows]

when i went to school we had like a 3 day tutorial on the whole thing! hell that was primary School and we did Preferential voting to find are SRC was quite good actually.

 

[relapse]

when i went to school we had like a 3 day tutorial on the whole thing! hell that was primary School and we did Preferential voting to find are SRC was quite good actually.

Ah okay, we got none of that when I was at school sadly

 

[jo172]

Just caught labor's ad for the first time and couldn't help but raise a smile when they cut to Rannbo working at his desk.

You cab only wonder if it's the same one!

 

[smoovy]

Lower house voting in a nutshell (Preferential voting)

To win, you need 50% + 1 of the vote.

Say there's 4 candidates in an electorate

Labor
Liberal
Greens
Family First

Once the booths are closed, there is a simple count of the first preference votes. Say there's 20000 votes and the result is:

Labor 10001
Liberal 8000
Greens 500
Family First 1499

Then Labor with 50% +1 of the vote wins the seat.

However, if the result at the end of the fist count is

Labor 8000
Liberal 9000
Greens 500
Family First 2500

No party has 50% + 1 of the vote. So the last placed candiate (the Greens in this example) are eliminated and their 2nd preference votes are distributed across the remaining parties. Say at the end of round 2

Labor 8300
Liberal 9200
Family First 2500

We still have no party with 50% + 1. Now the Family First 2nd preference votes are redistributed. At the end, if the result is:

Labor 10100
Liberal 9900

Then Labor would win the seat

Good summary. The only thing wrong is that the family first preferences will never favour Labor .

I find it staggering countries like the US and the UK use first past the post voting.

Another voting misnomer is that minor parties can direct their preferences where they want. This is wrong, preferences go where you vote for them. The only direction the parties give is on their how to vote cards they hand out at the booth.

 

[Riggy1]

Can I get a package of ALL policies from both Labour and Liberal
I'm in a margina seat so my vote will count, but I swing side to side.

atm, im probably going to go Labour in the lower house because Liberals really arn't wowing me, and the few things I've seen (RAH + New Stadium) just seems to be a waste of money when we can do (Marj + Adelaide Oval) for cheaper (IMO)

but if the Libs can wow me with propoganda I may change (and I want something after the writs have been done, Im not reading propoganda in the mail sent BEFORE the election is officially on

Upper house im more undecided. I can vote anywhere atm

I'm a weird fella
My personal opinion on the perfect world is extreme left
but I know with most of the developed world being center(ish) I know extreme left has no chance in hell (Russia Failed, China and Australia are probably the 2 nations I beleive it wouldn't be a total **** up in though with the natural resources) So I will vote for what I beleive is best (probably slightly right of center, but the Liberals are too far right for me to want them in)

 

[brucetiki]

Good summary. The only thing wrong is that the family first preferences will never favour Labor .

I find it staggering countries like the US and the UK use first past the post voting.

Another voting misnomer is that minor parties can direct their preferences where they want. This is wrong, preferences go where you vote for them. The only direction the parties give is on their how to vote cards they hand out at the booth.

Not to mention the US and UK voting is optional so you could end up with something like 30% of the population voting in their President/PM, of which only 30-40% of the vote going to them (meaning they've really only got the vote for 10-15% of the country). With the US, you've also got to throw in the Electoral Collage (which was how Bush got in in 2000).

Your final point is spot on. However, alot of people use 'How to vote' cards to complete their ballot paper (idiots), which is why the major parties will strike deals with the minor parties to get higher up on their 'how to vote' preference list. The Democrats often had one with two options on there (one with a Labor preference, one with a Liberal preference). Generally the Greens will put Labor as number 2 on their cards, while Family First base it on the candidates who agree with their values most for each seat.

Interestingly alot of seats in the Northern suburbs only have 4-5 candidates. Taylor, Napier, Light, Little Para, Wright, Playford, and Port Adelaide all have 4 (Labor, Liberal, Greens, Family First), while Ramsay has 5 (Labor, Liberal, Greens, Family First, Democrats). Definately the shortest list I've had to fill in.

 

[jo172]

Not to mention the US and UK voting is optional so you could end up with something like 30% of the population voting in their President/PM, of which only 30-40% of the vote going to them (meaning they've really only got the vote for 10-15% of the country). With the US, you've also got to throw in the Electoral Collage (which was how Bush got in in 2000).

It wouldn't seem you quite have a grasp on the American system.

I can assure you all Presiden't get in on the Electoral College .

Also, arguably W got in through the Supreme Court

 

[Drakescoffeecake]

Liberal for me. Would prefer tying the noose than voting for that smug Rann. Or Labor all together really.

 

[KUNG FU]

For those interested http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au will have the Upper House preference forms listed in the weeks before the election, or on the day you can ask the party representatives to see where your preferences will go if you vote above the line. An optional preferential system would be great, but I am always afraid I'll miss a number, making my vote void, so I reluctantly vote above the line.

Would require a swing of 18.4% for Turbo Tom to lose his seat.

One thing to consider is the possibility Labor will regain Mitchell (held by Kris Hanna by just 0.7%), meaning that's an extra seat the Libs have to gain somewhere else. Also, some of the seats the Liberals have their eye on require some decent swings (for example they reckon they can get Newland, which would require a 6.9% swing - possible but highly unlikely).

Using 6% as the mark between marginal and safe, even if all marginal Labor seats went to Liberal (Hartley, Light, Mawson, and Norwood), they would require significant swings in at least 5 other seats (6 if Labor regain Mitchell) to win government in their own right.

Some will go to Liberal, but not enough for them to win IMO.

For those that want to see the 2006 results, they're at http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/archive/2006/pdf/Results_and_Outcomes_Booklet3.pdf (lower house results on page 15)

Hanna actually has a good chance of retaining Mitchell. Will be close once again. Rosemary Clancy was a very good candidate last time, so if she was unable to take it back from Hanna with a statewide swing to Labor, I can't imagine they'll have a grand chance of pulling it off this time. SA has a strong tendency to support independents who have been shunned by the major parties - McEwen, Bob Such, Geoff Brock. In terms of forming government though, its largely irrelevant as Hanna would always support a Labor government over Liberals.

The Liberals will be looking at taking back a lot of vulnerable independent seats such as Frome, Rory McEwen's vacated Mount Gambier seat & maybe even Maywald's Chaffey, as discussed earlier. Even if they achieve that, they'll still need another 7 seats: Light, Mawson, Norwood, Newland, Hartley, Morialta & Bright (6.9% swing required state wide) without losing any of their seats. I think that Bright, Morialta & Mawson are probably outside their reach. Plus Stuart & Morphett are vulnerable to be taken by Labor.

 

[johnnypanther]

Lower house voting in a nutshell (Preferential voting)

To win, you need 50% + 1 of the vote.

Say there's 4 candidates in an electorate

Labor
Liberal
Greens
Family First

Once the booths are closed, there is a simple count of the first preference votes. Say there's 20000 votes and the result is:

Labor 10001
Liberal 8000
Greens 500
Family First 1499

Then Labor with 50% +1 of the vote wins the seat.

However, if the result at the end of the fist count is

Labor 8000
Liberal 9000
Greens 500
Family First 2500

No party has 50% + 1 of the vote. So the last placed candiate (the Greens in this example) are eliminated and their 2nd preference votes are distributed across the remaining parties. Say at the end of round 2

Labor 8300
Liberal 9200
Family First 2500

We still have no party with 50% + 1. Now the Family First 2nd preference votes are redistributed. At the end, if the result is:

Labor 10100
Liberal 9900

Then Labor would win the seat

Good summary. The only thing wrong is that the family first preferences will never favour Labor .

I find it staggering countries like the US and the UK use first past the post voting.

Another voting misnomer is that minor parties can direct their preferences where they want. This is wrong, preferences go where you vote for them. The only direction the parties give is on their how to vote cards they hand out at the booth.

see....Big Footy is more educational than school


Of course, neither, "first past the post" nor "full preferential voting" are ideal.
IMO the flaw with preferential voting is that somebody's "x"th preference has the same value as my 1st preference.

eg hypothetically, if there were say 100 candidates, and it came down to preferences, then it can be that some voters 99th preference has the same value as others 1st preference.


As for my personal outlook: i'm a bit like Riggy.... extreme left (but i dont believe in democracy either but that's another topic)......

and as for this election..... i'm in a real quandary:
My main thing is that i do support a new RAH on the new railway site but i vehemently oppose the Adelaide Oval proposal in its current form (and i think the Libs inner city stadium is a vision and nothing more) - hence i cannot vote for the Libs but at this stage my AO opposition is so great that i cant vote Labor either (despite a new RAH)..... (I just see the Adelaide Crows being screwed over in virtually every way with the AO plan).

i guess i will vote "informal".

 

[brucetiki]

It wouldn't seem you quite have a grasp on the American system.

I can assure you all Presiden't get in on the Electoral College .

Also, arguably W got in through the Supreme Court

Does anybody

 

[jo172]

http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/the-vulnerable-and-the-venerable/1755970.aspx?storypage=1

Good article for Carl Spackler regarding the party for life argument(and anyone who still considers the South Australian Labor Party a force of progressive values).

 

[Cap]

I have to admit, its great to have an election where there is some interest in the result instead of how bad one party will do

 

[smoovy]

As for my personal outlook: i'm a bit like Riggy.... extreme left (but i dont believe in democracy either but that's another topic)......

Commy!

 

[brucetiki]

Was out in the western suburbs today, and noticed the Communist Party got a little lost with their signs - they had their signs for their candidate for Lee in the Cheltenham electorate!

 

[jo172]

how do you know this and how has this not been reported ??

That just seems crazy that this wouldn't be reported given an election is coming up.

Already sent Cappy a PM but it's hinted at here by one of the few reputable SA publications:

http://www.adelaidereview.com.au/features.php?subaction=showfull&id=1267052713&archive=&start_from=&ucat=16&

Anyone who enjoys a laugh at the state government's expense also must read Alistair C this month!

 

[Cap]

tell you what the Labor govt are getting worried, there adverts are now purely scare tactics, they are almost paranoid.

 

[Alex99]

I still don't know who I'm going to vote for but at the end of the day I recon the ALP will get up. It will come down to the devil
you know rather than the devil you don't.

Both are a bunch of flogs.

 

[jo172]

I still don't know who I'm going to vote for but at the end of the day I recon the ALP will get up. It will come down to the devil
you know rather than the devil you don't.

Both are a bunch of flogs.

I accept that logic in nearly all fields but politics.

I prefer the devil I don't know as the more frequent the changes of government the less they can **** things up and the less arrogant and conceited they get

 

[Cap]

I accept that logic in nearly all fields but politics.

I prefer the devil I don't know as the more frequent the changes of government the less they can **** things up and the less arrogant and conceited they get

you know the sad part is I reckon your right.

 

[Alex99]

I accept that logic in nearly all fields but politics.

I prefer the devil I don't know as the more frequent the changes of government the less they can **** things up and the less arrogant and conceited they get

But your using intellegence, education and industry passion for that decision however the adverage punter doesn't. The adverage punter only see the scare tatics Advertsing used and votes safe. They vote for the incombent and unlike Howard, Rann hasn't ****ed enough (yet).

 

[jo172]

you know the sad part is I reckon your right.

Kevin Rudd and co. Are proving this beautifully. Whilst they're not bad people (except Conroy) but have started to believe their own shit. Frequent changes of government prevent travesties such as the Internet filter and work choices ever actually going through.

Relevant to this election would be Adelaide Oval, RAH, St Clair as all thongs that can be brought to a screaming halt.

Having said this I should point out I'm philosophically opposed to government in general so the idea of hamstringing them from doing anything disproportionately appeals to me.

The only campaign idea I'm interested in and feel is necassary is an ICAC and the stadium mildly interests me. Everything else I'd really rather the government stops meddling in such are their odds of ****ing it up.