SA May Lose Federal Seat

[GreyCrow]

The Electoral Commission will decide if South Australia should have a reduction in Federal Seats from 11 to 10

Federal Parliament's House of Representatives might lose an electorate by the time Australians return to the ballot box.

According to the Parliamentary Library, a scheduled redistribution for South Australia, starting in 2017, could see the state lose one of its 11 seats.

"Based upon these projections, the author expects South Australia will lose a division."

The Northern Territory, Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland are also due for a redistribution in the next two years but the Parliamentary Library says they are unlikely to lose any seats, due to population growth.

New South Wales relinquished an electorate to Western Australia in the latest redistribution by the AEC.

The Federal Government has a majority of just one seat in the new parliament, which will sit for the first time next week.

Not so surprising due to the static nature of our population growth. My question is more to do with the 1 seat buffer. Does this redistribution take effect after the next Election ( which I strongly assume) or would a By Election be held once the determination was made?

Mr Green said once the AEC had determined that a state would lose a seat, political parties and individuals would then nominate which seats would be abolished.

 

[Gough]

I hearby declare the seat of Sturt independent from the rest of the country, first act, insurrection against or putative head of state.

 

[GreyCrow]

Looking at a map Hindmarsh may be the one to go. Give the northern boundary to Port Adelaide , the Eastern Boundary to Adelaide and the Southern Boundary to Boothby

(map outdated)


Though Gough you could also make the same argument for Sturt

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Federal Parliament's House of Representatives might lose an electorate by the time Australians return to the ballot box.

Misleading statement. SA would lose a seat but the House of Representatives would still have 150.

 

[Gough]

Hindmarsh would suit both parties given it's margin.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

I read somewhere NT will probably lose their 2nd seat, going back to 1 seat (which used to be creatively named "Northern Territory").

 

[GreyCrow]

Misleading statement. SA would lose a seat but the House of Representatives would still have 150.

Yeah. Its like reporting about an injured player. ie West Coast could be a player short.. and it was Aunty not me

 

[GreyCrow]

I read somewhere NT will probably lose their 2nd seat, going back to 1 territory-wide seat.

The article mentions NT but suggests they will be fine due to Population growth

 

[Gough]

We'd be better off losing a country MP if you look at demographics but that will never happen.

 

[Hank Scorpion]

Not so surprising due to the static nature of our population growth. My question is more to do with the 1 seat buffer. Does this redistribution take effect after the next Election ( which I strongly assume) or would a By Election be held once the determination was made?

The 10 seats only take effect at the (assuming) 2019 election. There are still 11 SA MPs until such time.

Looking at a map Hindmarsh may be the one to go. Give the northern boundary to Port Adelaide , the Eastern Boundary to Adelaide and the Southern Boundary to Boothby

View attachment 280960



Though Gough you could also make the same argument for Sturt

This is an old map, Bonython hasn't existed for years. Use this:



The map doesn't show it, but Wakefield is also to the North of Makin and takes in Elizabeth & Salisbury, as well as some regional towns.

I think it's most likely that Wakefield loses these towns to the regional seats, and becomes entirely based in the Northern Suburbs. Makin should then be abolished and shift Pt. Adelaide further east, Sturt further north (slashing Pyne's margin), then moving Hindmarsh and Boothby to fill the vacuums left by these movements.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

It's been 32 years since a proper increase of the number of House of Representatives seats. Australia's population has obviously grown considerably since. They should add a few dozen more. But they won't because they'd have to increase the Senate seats which means even more upper house seats Liberal and Labor won't win.

 

[GreyCrow]

This is an old map, Bonython hasn't existed for years. Use this:

Damn you google

 

[telsor]

Not so surprising due to the static nature of our population growth. My question is more to do with the 1 seat buffer. Does this redistribution take effect after the next Election ( which I strongly assume) or would a By Election be held once the determination was made?

Mr Green said once the AEC had determined that a state would lose a seat, political parties and individuals would then nominate which seats would be abolished.

The redistribution would be made and take effect at the next election.

As for the parties choosing which seats go...I think they really just choose the name (and sitting member).

We'd be better off losing a country MP if you look at demographics but that will never happen.

However they do it, the number of voters would remain the same, so if the demographics say there are fewer in the country, then the remaining seats will be that much more urban.

It's been 32 years since a proper increase of the number of House of Representatives seats. Australia's population has obviously grown considerably since. They should add a few dozen more. But they won't because they'd have to increase the Senate seats which means even more upper house seats Liberal and Labor won't win.

Constitutionally, the Senate needs to ~half the size of the HoR, and have an even number of members in each half election...So any expansion would need to be to 14 senators per state (7*2) and somewhere around 174 reps. It'd also bring Tassie's over representation into focus even more.

 

[Power Raid]

Perhaps all welfare states should lose all there seats until they can contribute.

 

[telsor]

Perhaps all welfare states should lose all there seats until they can contribute.

Huh?

 

[Number37]

We'd be better off losing a country MP if you look at demographics but that will never happen.

Possibly.
Seats need to have relatively equal number of voters. Could have a seat that stretches from the WA border to the VIC/NSW border.

 

[GreyCrow]

This raised its head again today

The whisper is Mayo could go. The seat formerly held by Alexander Downer and dancing boy Jamie Briggs is under the gun. Funnily enough neither major party holds it. Convenient. Personally I think it would be madness as the area is growing at a bigger rate than just about anywhere else in the state ( my belief)

I would target an area like Hindmarsh or Sturt as I have previously mentioned

Misleading statement. SA would lose a seat but the House of Representatives would still have 150.

From this article seems not

That would also leave the federal Parliament with 149 seats instead of 150. The prospect has started fuelling intense discussion in some quarters.

I recognize the writer could be misinformed

 

[telsor]

This raised its head again today

The whisper is Mayo could go. The seat formerly held by Alexander Downer and dancing boy Jamie Briggs is under the gun. Funnily enough neither major party holds it. Convenient. Personally I think it would be madness as the area is growing at a bigger rate than just about anywhere else in the state ( my belief)

I would target an area like Hindmarsh or Sturt as I have previously mentioned

From this article seems not

That would also leave the federal Parliament with 149 seats instead of 150. The prospect has started fuelling intense discussion in some quarters.

I recognize the writer could be misinformed

The writer is misinformed. Any seat lost from one state would be replaced by another seat in a state that is, relatively, underrepresented (highest number of voters per seat, with some consideration to what said average would be if another seat was added).

Doesn't really matter which seat gets targetted, it's where the resulting lines are drawn. After all, all the same people still get to vote.

 

[Maggie5]

This raised its head again today

The whisper is Mayo could go. The seat formerly held by Alexander Downer and dancing boy Jamie Briggs is under the gun. Funnily enough neither major party holds it. Convenient. Personally I think it would be madness as the area is growing at a bigger rate than just about anywhere else in the state ( my belief)

I would target an area like Hindmarsh or Sturt as I have previously mentioned

From this article seems not

That would also leave the federal Parliament with 149 seats instead of 150. The prospect has started fuelling intense discussion in some quarters.

I recognize the writer could be misinformed

Mayo is what I had heard as well. Held Xenophon group isn't it?

 

[GreyCrow]

Mayo is what I had heard as well. Held Xenophon group isn't it?

Yes it is. Rebecca Sharkey won it from Briggs.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Yes it is. Rebecca Sharkey won it from Briggs.

In the circumstance that Mayo does go, I would imagine Barker would absorb part of the Fleurieu and would fall to the NXT next election with Boothby also becoming a much more marginal seat if it takes in Mount Barker. Obviously though the biggest issue for NXT would be that Sharkey would lose the benefit of incumbency to a certain extent.

 

[Gough]

In the circumstance that Mayo does go, I would imagine Barker would absorb part of the Fleurieu and would fall to the NXT next election with Boothby also becoming a much more marginal seat if it takes in Mount Barker. Obviously though the biggest issue for NXT would be that Sharkey would lose the benefit of incumbency to a certain extent.

Hence conservatives in the Libs arguing the case for Sturt getting the arse. Pasin is a deplorable, and Flint is one of their own.

 

[Hank Scorpion]

Don't see why Mayo would go. Mayo/Barker/Grey should be able to cover all of Regional SA themselves and still meet the requirements. Abolishing one would only lead to making Wakefield/Sturt/Boothby/Kingston awkward mish-mashes of metro/regional.

Going to be a very difficult task. Electorate of Adelaide will stay largely the same, so whichever metro seat does go will create a vacuum and attract the remaining seats towards it. Margins could be very different if e.g. Sturt is drawn further North and swaps out 30% of its voter base.

 

[RedStarUncle]

The writer is misinformed. Any seat lost from one state would be replaced by another seat in a state that is, relatively, underrepresented (highest number of voters per seat, with some consideration to what said average would be if another seat was added).

Doesn't really matter which seat gets targetted, it's where the resulting lines are drawn. After all, all the same people still get to vote.

Antony Green has also said the change would likely see the House reduced to 149 seats... and he is pretty much never misinformed.

Even though SA has shrunk to the point of abolishing a seat, none of the other states have grown to the point of warranting an extra seat. There is a possibility of ACT and/or Victoria receiving an extra seat but not necessarily likely.


The adjustments are made on a fairly complex basis and don't necessarily have to ensure a 150 seat House. The House went from 125 to 148 in 1984, down to 147 in 1993 then back up to 148 in 1996 and has been at 150 since 2001.

 

[Forward Press]

Yep thanks for that bovs, was just about to say that 150 is not legally required - the Constitution only requires that the Senate is approximately half the size of the H of R and that for the sake of convenience it has hovered around 150 since the Senate expanded to 12 from each State and 2 from each territory.

Overall, it might have an impact on government - the 2019 government would then only need 75 seats for a majority and not 76.