Senate results

[DaveW]

Might as well keep a running thread of the senate results coming out this week. (Or the coming weeks.)

The good news today is the Greens have won the final senate seat in Tasmania. In spite of the major parties and the Dems directing prefs to Family First ahead of them. The Greens have the 'below the line' voters to thank.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/news/
http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/publications/update17.htm

The other results are expected to be: NSW (3 Coal; 3 ALP); Victoria (3 Coal, 2 ALP, 1 FF); WA (3 Coal; 2 ALP; 1 Greens); SA (3 Coal; 3 ALP). And both the territories delivering one seat each for the major parties.

The most interesting race is in Queensland, where if the Coalition gets four senators up they'll have an outright majority. At the moment it looks like that will happen (4 Coal; 2 ALP). But if the Nationals candidate falls out of the race at an important stage of the count (they need to move ahead of One Nation and then get their preferences), then the seat will be delivered to the Greens.

 

[medusala]

The good news today is the Greens have won the final senate seat in Tasmania. In spite of the major parties and the Dems directing prefs to Family First ahead of them. The Greens have the 'below the line' voters to thank.
.

for those of us who believe the earth isnt square, can you explain why this is such good news.

 

[DaveW]

for those of us who believe the earth isnt square, can you explain why this is such good news.

Simple.

The current senate ticket system is just wrong.

Family First got 2.4% of the primary vote. The Greens got 13.4%. With a quota being 14.3%.

The only reason Family First were even competitive is because the party preference deals. Above-the-line voters don't know where their preferences are going.

Thankfully there were enough below-the-line voters (due to the smaller size of Tasmania's ballot paper) to combat this and deliver the Greens their quota.

It's a win for democracy.

And oh yeah, the senate is better served with progressive forward-thinking people in it rather than a bunch of fundamenalist far-right wing intolerent idiots.

 

[medusala]

I like the way alot of people are advocates of preferential voting but only when it suits them. I dont have any issue with a party getting in because it got more votes than another. First past the post everywhere.

The greens progressive? I would call ending all nuclear reactors in the world, negative population growth, wealth taxes, much higher income tax etc etc extremely regressive economic measures. Unemployment would soar in Australia if the Greens ever got to introduce their policies and it would be the poor who would suffer the most. How anyone in Tas can vote for the greens after the debacle of them being in power is beyond me. It was an unimitigaged disaster and Christine Milne is quite possibly the most average MP I have ever had the displeasure to listen to. Almost single handedly responsible for destroying thousands of jobs on the north west and west coast of Tas.

 

[DaveW]

Read my post again. My beef is not with preferential voting but with the above-the-line ticket system.

I quite like the preferential voting, but not this hidden preferential system.

 

[Mr Q]

I quite like the preferential voting, but not this hidden preferential system.

Absolutely. I think the "above the line" should enable you to number the boxes from 1-10 (or whatever) to redirect your preferences by party so you can choose where to direct them.

Alternately, the parties "How to Vote" cards should be required to show the order of preferences for the Senate if you vote above the line so you know if some nutters you wouldn't vote for in a fit are getting your vote by proxy.

 

[teams]

The most interesting race is in Queensland, where if the Coalition gets four senators up they'll have an outright majority. At the moment it looks like that will happen (4 Coal; 2 ALP).

Has happened barring a recount challenge.

 

[funkyfreo]

As a Greens voter I'm very happy they gpot up in Tassie, however the fact is that if you vote Labor above the line you are voting for the Labor party's preference deal, and are putting faith in that party's decision making in terms of preferences. The preference deal was done to increase their chances of getting Labor senators in above the greens, but backfired because Labor performed much worse than anticipated.

I think the assumption that the vast majority of those voting above the line Labor would have preferred their preferences to go to Greens is highly presumptive (if that is indeed a word). Just has to be lived with and no sour grapes.

I think it shows the importance of a strong democrat party, because "Liberal" voters who abandoned the Dems as a basket case really have no option other than to revert to the Coalition, because they basically do not agree with the Lab or Greens, and fair enough for them to make that choice.

It is clear that the Greens and Dems are not "similar" parties just there to balance things out. That is clearly the Dems position, wheras the Greens are a genuine alternative. Not bagging the Dems, but they are like Libs with a conscience, rather than a "left-wing" party.

 

[DaveW]

As a Greens voter I'm very happy they gpot up in Tassie, however the fact is that if you vote Labor above the line you are voting for the Labor party's preference deal, and are putting faith in that party's decision making in terms of preferences.

People understand they're voting for Labor. But I would say most of them wouldn't know where their preferences are going once Labor falls out of the race, if indeed they even realise that their votes could reach other parties.

This is what makes the above-the-line ticket system so undemocratic.

The preference deal was done to increase their chances of getting Labor senators in above the greens, but backfired because Labor performed much worse than anticipated.

Oh, I'm sure the ALP have their reasons. I suspect they expected to be competing with the Liberals for the final spot and needed to cut this deal to boost their chances. (As it happened the Liberals easily got three senators up and weren't in contention for the last sport. Thanks probably to Howard's kow-towing to the timber workers in the last week of the campaign.) Of course if they expected to be competing with the Greens for the final spot then the deal was pointless for Labor; there's no way a party like FF wouldn't put the ALP ahead of the Greens.

This link however, suggests it was more personal than that: http://home.iprimus.com.au/ltuffin/hagfamily.html

Whatever the reason, it doesn't make things any more democratic.

I think the assumption that the vast majority of those voting above the line Labor would have preferred their preferences to go to Greens is highly presumptive (if that is indeed a word). Just has to be lived with and no sour grapes.

Where did I make such an assumption? If you're defending the above-the-line ticket system, then you're saying that every last one of these above-the-line voters wanted their preferences to go to Labor. That's pretty hard to defend. I'll say with some certainty that a significant amount would have gone to the Greens, probably even a majority. Perhaps not a "vast majority", however you define that.

I think it shows the importance of a strong democrat party, because "Liberal" voters who abandoned the Dems as a basket case really have no option other than to revert to the Coalition, because they basically do not agree with the Lab or Greens, and fair enough for them to make that choice.

It is clear that the Greens and Dems are not "similar" parties just there to balance things out. That is clearly the Dems position, wheras the Greens are a genuine alternative. Not bagging the Dems, but they are like Libs with a conscience, rather than a "left-wing" party.

I've said before that the dwindling relevance and left-ward drift of the Australian Democrats is the worst thing to happen to those who believe the senate should never be in the hands of one party. (or one coalition)

Do you think the Democrats are still a centrist party?

 

[funkyfreo]

Do you think the Democrats are still a centrist party?

Sorry Dave I wasn't specifically taretting your statements (god only knows why I quoted your post? I will delete it), but general issues that come up whenever this topic gets a run here. People know they can vote above the line if they trust the party, or below the line if they want to make certain where the preferences go. I agree having to number 1-whatever ABOVE THE LINE would force a lot more people to think about what they do. the 1-60 odd is clearly a disincentive.

As for the statement I gleaned from your post re: democrats. I don;t even think they could answer that question - they are a rabble.

 

[DaveW]

No worries funky.

As has been pointed out, the Nationals did get that vital senate seat up in Queensland, giving the Coalition an outright majority. Thanks in part to some of the below-the-line Hanson voters choosing the Nationals ahead of One Nation.

The new senate will almost surely be as follows:

Coalition 39 (Lib 33, Nat 5, CLP 1)
Labor 28
Democrats 4
Greens 4
Family First 1

Look on the bright side... at least Family First don't hold the balance of power.

Note that all four Democrats senators are up for re-election next time, so it could be curtains for them in 2007.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

No worries funky.

As has been pointed out, the Nationals did get that vital senate seat up in Queensland, giving the Coalition an outright majority. Thanks in part to some of the below-the-line voters Hanson voters choosing the Nationals ahead of One Nation.

The new senate will almost surely be as follows:

Coalition 39 (Lib 33, Nat 5, CLP 1)
Labor 28
Democrats 4
Greens 4
Family First 1

Look on the bright side... at least Family First don't hold the balance of power.

Note that all four Democrats senators are up for re-election next time, so it could be curtains for them in 2007.

So the forces of good have 36, compared to the 40 of the forces of evil.

Good riddance to the democrats in any case, hopefully Stott Despoyja stays on as an Independent though.

 

[Tim56]

Today is a great day for Australia.

 

[funkyfreo]

Today is a great day for Australia.

Why greater than any other day? Or are you not a supporter of democracy?

 

[mantis]

Well done liberal voters, you have started the downfall of Australia, we are screwed.

 

[pazza]

I am a little concerned about whether or not there are enough checks and balances with the way the new Senate will be from July...the situation could be so easily abused.

 

[Grendel]

And oh yeah, the senate is better served with progressive forward-thinking people in it rather than a bunch of fundamenalist far-right wing intolerent idiots.

So... fundamentalist far-left-wing intolerant idiots are the progressive forward thinkers then?

What every happened to middle ground?...

Oh and mantis.. check who's been running/elected govt of the country for the majority of the last half-century. Then compare how ruinous our path is compared to say.. that big continent to our east (been a plethora of left wing govt's there.. junta's if you will) and compare how we're going. Onya Fidel.. onya Evita.. onya bike.

 

[evo]

Absolutely. I think the "above the line" should enable you to number the boxes from 1-10 (or whatever) to redirect your preferences by party so you can choose where to direct them.

Alternately, the parties "How to Vote" cards should be required to show the order of preferences for the Senate if you vote above the line so you know if some nutters you wouldn't vote for in a fit are getting your vote by proxy.

Yes I agree.

I've never actually heard the reasoning behind why they decided this wasn't a good idea.

Why is it so?

 

[DaveW]

I don't see how you can describe the Greens as fundamentalist or intolerant. But anyway, there was a reason I put that comment right at the end of my post; it was an indulgent comment rather than my essential argument.

And if you're going to use communist Latin America as an example of failed left-wing govts then you might as well use facist Europe as an example of failed right-wing govts.

 

[DaveW]

Yes I agree.

I've never actually heard the reasoning behind why they decided this wasn't a good idea.

Why is it so?

I can think of one reason...

With compulsary preferential voting you'd have to number every column and every ungrouped candidate. In NSW this election, that would have meant placing numbers from 1 to 33 on the ballot paper.

The logical alternative being optional preferential voting. But both major parties are against that for some reason.

 

[mantis]

And if you're going to use communist Latin America as an example of failed left-wing govts then you might as well use facist Europe as an example of failed right-wing govts.

Germany springs to mind.

 

[Grendel]

Dont worry Dave, my 'far-left' was a much a shot as your 'far-right'. There's extremes to both sides but there is also (imo) plenty on both sides that do actually have strong but considered beliefs. Tarring all with the same brush (as you originally did) just needed to be balanced from my pov with all to have the other side equally 'tarred'.

As to the euro-facisim, fair point. However that goes back (for the most part) to first half of last century and has been pretty much replaced in most cases (not all) with working democracies. That has yet to happen to the same (sadly) case in Latin America.

 

[Grendel]

Germany springs to mind.

Yea but Argentina wouldn't.. spring to mind that is.. would it... Or Cuba.. El Salvador. No mention of the USSR in there either.


Last I noticed the Germans had pretty much moved on from the war too and done so rather successfully.

 

[mantis]

Last I noticed the Germans had pretty much moved on from the war too and done so rather successfully.

Exactly, just a shame little johnny wants to send Australia back in history.

 

[Grendel]

We're going to start gassing our Jewish population then, is that what your saying?

Make a few on here happy I suppose but I'd really be kind of strongly against it myself.

Have to wait until he starts to grow a 'Blakey' type moustache I suppose before your supposition is given even the remotest shred of credibility.

No response to how well our Latin American left wing brethern are doing/or did I notice either....