Galaxy Research has created a buzz by showing a lower-than-expected Labor lead of 52-48 in its poll in today’s Herald-Sun. However, it comes on the same day as an ACNielsen poll in The Age showing a Labor lead of 56-44, in line with general expectations. A discussion on the upper house contest at Larvatus Prodeo brings my attention to this analysis by Russell Degnan from June last year, which seems to paint a rosier picture for Labor than my own assessment.
UPDATE (25/10/06): Newspoll says 54-46.
88 comments on “Victorian election reading”
In Ivanhoe, Craig Langdon, the member, is quite unpopular among green members and supporters, while Jenny is a lot close to the Greens then most of the ALP, so I would guess she would be ahead of Craig and the Liberal on the Green HTV. Given she is ex-ALP she probably doesn’t like the Libs and is running against her party, I think its safe to assume the Greens will be above both. The only question is wether the Greens will beat Jenny or vice-versa, and if the combined vote will amount to a challenge to the ALP or Libs.
I think Jenny is well enough liked to get a 15% ish vote, beating the Greens. Seeing that Green support in Ivanhoe is about 10%, which means it could be possible for Jenny to beat the Libs and win the seat.
Kirstie Marshall has all but disappeared since the blackflip on tolls.
I tip she will be returned with a swing against.
Tom dream on. Melbourne is not a marginal in terms of the ALP/Liberal TPP. It is only a marginal if the ALP primary falls below 50% and the Greens can top the liberals. Preferential ballots are all about the order of elimination. The Liberal Party will ruin a stringer campaign then in 2002. I dont that the greens can make it. But Melbourne still remains their best chance in the lower-house I give them about 30% chance of winning… even then I am being generous. You better try getting some effective running mates, No doubt the ALP and others will try and find them. Watch out for a possible John So decision to run for State Parliament. he is getting old and if he is going to run it will need to be now. He could hold back for a better chance in the federal election due next year.
Peter Mitchel (I assume you are the Peter Mitchel) You are right I was highlighting the 2004 senate vote to show that it is possible for the Liberal party to win outright. It all depends if the ALP falls below 39% primary and the Liberal Party remains above 42% The greens will not go above 11% except in the northern Metro seat. and maybe in the Southern Metro) They will not secure a seat in their own right. Look closer at the thresholds the ALP will be fighting the greens for a 4th seat in the west in all others they get either two or three outright. Independents will not favor the greens before the main parties this time round as they also need preferences if they are to have a real chance of leapfrogging.. This will not be another Family First upset. The ALP will not fall below 39% as they did ion the senate. I think the results will be somewhere in between but most certainly not as shown in the 50/50 spilt analysis published on this sitye. You can not base the result based on the 2002 results. Proportional representation above-the-line voting has a totally different dynamic then the vote under the old system.
the simple analysis is to take the percentage of the vote divide that by the quota and the resulting integer is the number elected and the remainder folds up in a similar fashion to to normal preferential ballot. If it i close within less then 200 votes (0.5% of quota) the last position could change. The main factor will be the registered above the line preference deals. Whilst i support above the line voting (Most people vote for parties anyway) I believe that the voter should have the option of preferential voting above the line as opposed to just ticking one box.
Also you need to factory in the built in bais to the method used to calculate the surplus value. It distorts the value fo the vote in favour of the major parties. A more fairer system would be to calculate the transfer value based on the value of the ballot paper not the number of ballot papers. Sound a bit technical but it is an issue. the method of segmentation in the counting process is another anomaly. Ideally there should be one transaction per candidate.
Morgan Poll has been released, 55-45 on 2PP. The Greens are on 12%, putting Morgan and ACNielsen very close together. The poll has a split of 41-38-12.
Newspoll had a 41-40-7 split ALP-LIB-GRN
Morgan had 47-35-11 split
Outcome was 48-34-9.5.
I suspect that quite a large chunk of John So mayoral vote comes from the non-resident voters (land (buisness) owners) and that in a cotest where only residents vote.
His affect on the vote would be very interesting as he would probably take votes from the Liberals and Labor and could send the vote in any number of interesting ways.
You should look back at the various published polls going back to 1991. The Morgan poll has always overestimated the ALP support base. Newspoll tends to be the most accurate. never herd of Galaxy poll until now. The Galaxy poll is way out. If I was a betting man I would put my money overall on the Newspoll. But as they say the only poll that Counts is on election day. If we are to make an informed analysis ideally the poling organisation will undertake a voter intention poll broken down to the new upper-house electorates. I do not think you can accurately allocate the state state average to the new province boundaries it is possible but the error for margin could provide a different change in the outcome of the last position to be elected.
Re John So. His voting support is broad. He gained an extra 3-4% sympathy vote in the 2004 Municipal election following critical remarks about John’s accent and command of English. Unfortunately John has a speech impediment which is seen by many as being an accent. This additional 3-4% created an upset in the poll which would been much closer had the comments about his accent not been made.
I for one am opposed to the Presidential style direct election of Lord Mayor (I am also opposed to a directly elected Republican Head of State). I am a strong supporter of a parliamentary democracy with preferential proportional representation (Preferably with a open transparent and fair counting system).
Whilst rumour is abound that John So might enter the ring, I think it is unlikely. He may consider it best to try his hand at the senate. John is getting old (he turned 60 this year) and this would be his last chance to extend his influence beyond being Lord Clown. If he runs next year for the senate if elected he will take office in 2008. It is still unknown if he would need to resign as Lord Mayor. In terns of the State Parliament John could in theory hold both positions as is the case in Sydney. There is no limitation in the State constitution. (Maybe there should be) You can not hold office in two councils but there is no restriction in relation to being a councillor and a State member.
based on the polls and past support (Senate Elections) the Greens will most likely get around then 9.5% statewide. Stronger in two electorates. They will most likely only secure 2 maybe 3 seats in the Upper-house the ALP looks like getting 17-18 that leaves around 19-21 for the Liberal/NP. Its early days in the campaign and the Greens have not been subjected to serious review. At around 10% of the vote their only hope of securing a good election outcome is preference negotiation deals. Fail in this respect then they will become the wasted quota as was then case in then 2004 senate vote. Please remember that the system and formula used in calculating the transfer vote favors the major parties. The Greens were remiss for not addressing this issue before. (They are not good at addressing democratic values) They also should have advocated for a 5 seats x 9 members or 5 seats x 7 members option, where the quota would have been lower, when they had a chance (remember they signed off on the 8 seat x 5 member option). The odds are most likely that there will be a 50/50 outcome. A problem that always exists when you have an even number. Odd numbers provide for a majority outcome.
I wrote to Antony Green and he qualified the comments that were attributed to him by saying . (And I hope he does not mind me quoting him)
â€œI am constantly misquoted on having predicted the Greens will win the balance of power. All I did was transfer the votes of the 2002 election to match the new provinces. If all the parties got the same votes in the same seats at the 2006 election, thatâ€™s what you would get. But they wonâ€™t, so itâ€™s all matter of opinion.
I personally donâ€™t see why the 2004 Federal vote would be any better a guide to the LC result. It was Laborâ€™s worst Federal result in Victoria for a decade. Laborâ€™s primary vote will be better than that at the state election and the Liberal vote will be worse.â€
I agree with Antony Greens assessment and was also surprised by the misleading comments attributed to him. I am still unclear as to how he attributed vote to other parties where that party did not stand a candidate.
And yes the 2004 senate vote was the ALPâ€™s worst but it does use the same system and also shows the bottom end of the ALP pendulum and the top end of the Liberal party support. More important it includes recent voting support of the other parties (Including the Greens who in 2002 did not stand candidates in all legislative council seat). Tis is te first multi-member Victorian state election all comparisons are valid in the absence of more reliable data.
It woiuld be worthwile if the editors of this forum could debate further the issues related to the formula and process adopted in counting the vote as this does need review. (see above or my blog site) It is only a matter of time until this issue becomes an issue. (one vote – one value. One transaction per candidate based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers in each distribution). Too technical? I am happy to explain it in more detail.
I think if you explained your problem with the method of surplus preference distribution with the aid of an example, it would be easier to understand what it is you object to.
Why are people still debating the consequences of the Senate results for the state election? The federal election was fought on issues and personalities that simply aren’t at play here; there are no interest rates to fight over, no Howard to lead the campaign, and no advantage of incumbency for the Liberals. The 2002 results may be older, but they’re a far more useful measure for predicting the result, since they actually involve the same leaders and many of the same issues.
These discussions alway tend to bog down in over-analysis of individual seats and candiadtes. There are two propositions which we of the political-obsessive class ought to remember:
1. Very few people (in urban areas) know or care what seat they’re in or who their candidates are. They vote for or against the government of the day. The only contest that matters in this election in Bracks v Baillieu. If Baillieu can make an good mpression during the campaign (and he has made a good start), and not make any stupid mistakes, he will get a swing. If he can’t, he won’t.
2. Swings in urban areas are nearly always uniform. If there is a swing to the Libs, the seats will go down like dominoes regardless of who the candidates are or how good or bad the sitting members are. This is less true in regional areas, but in the Bracks swing 1999 the regional seats also swung fairly uniformly.
I agree in most cases Adam, but someone like a well liked mayor, hugely disliked MP, candidate dumped on members(Cunningham) and links to extreme groups can change things.
1. I am guessing that because of ALP prefs to FF in 2004 and reports it may happen this time, many ALP members will vote BTL.
2. Also many others will vote below the line as it is easier, I will. When I was in Tas I voted BTL but VIC had too many to do that easily.
3. The emergance of climate change and drought has shown the Greens have had the right idea, and who better to manage the environment then environmentalists.
I doubt that anyone other than the sort of political obsessives who frequent this and similar sites will trouble to vote below the line. I qualify that by noting that the new system on 25 November for the Legislative Council provides for a valid vote by numbering (iirc) 5 group/party boxes correctly, which makes below the line voting more feasible for the less engaged.
However, I’ll be surprised if as many as 10% of voters break party ranks. I can recall attempting to explain to voters that how-to-vote cards are merely recommendations by the parties, and that the allocation of preferences is a matter for the voter’s discretion. This in the face of an assumption that they were obliged to follow one or other of the tickets offered to them.
* By elections are obviously a different matter, as Wills, Ryan and Cunningham showed. Note however that both Ryan and Cunningham returned to their usual loyalty at the following general election, and Wills did so after one election.
* More generally, I was talking about the state election, but the principles I mentioned hold true for both state and federal elections. In Senate elections, 95% of voters follow their party’s ticket without a second’s thought.
* I agree that if the ALP preferences FF again, some ALP voters will refuse to follow the ticket – but not very many. Voting BTL is a cumbersome business and not many people will be motivated enough to do it.
If the ALP does a deal with FF then quite a few of their voters will vote bellow the line (only 5 boxes needed) but some will vote for other parties mainly the Greens and PP (if they don`t do the same deal).
The Greens will be helped if they do a deal with PP because they will get a lower vote as they are brand new (Have their Registration problems been fixed?) (Were not in in 2002 or Senate 2004 making those votes Less of a guide) and could more chace at some of their less likely regions and might help them in the inner 4.
PP registered some time last week.
How on earth is counting to 5 cumbersome?
Many voters will think that they need to number every box below the line Senate style.
If we are going to have these anti-democratic party ordered list system then it should be fill in at least half the boxes above or at least half below (Half being the ballance between Anti-lazyness and allowing people to not vote for candidates they don`t want at all with much chance at winning).
Hare-Clarke would probably increase the quality of elected representatives because of the real intra-pary chioce.
*My reference to BTL being cumbersome related to the Senate, where there were 67 candidates in Victoria in 2004.
*If People Power get 5% of the vote anywhere I will eat my HTV
Rebecca. As I tried to explain above you can not take the 2002 results and apply them to the new upper-house electorates. the system of voting is dramatically different as is the method of calculating and distributing the preferences. (Australia is on of the only countries to use preferential voting – Something I fully support.) A comparison with the Senate whilst obviously a different election never the less compares lemons with oranges grown in the same region where as comparing the 2002 legislative council results is like comparing Johnathan apples with orphanages frown in the same region. Not all parties nominated or participated in the 2002 election. The 2002 election did not have proportional representation or above-the-line-voting.
Adam C is right there will be some interplay based on personal profiles of particular; candidates and electorates but the percentage of variation will not change that much. As Antony green pointed out in his email to me the 2004 senate result was the liberal Parties best and the ALP worst. What it does show is the distribution of voter support across the state. If is in my view more worthy of consideration then the 2002 legislative council results.
in any event to use an old clique the only poll that counts is the one on election day. If the media polls provided a specific upper-house poll based on the new electorates this would provide a clear indication as to the outcome as most people will vote above-the-line (Why a voter can not preference vote above the line is only due to the fact that major parties want to control the vote and it is easier for the electoral commission to count .)
As to the issue of the bias built in the formula used I refer those interested to my blog and submission paper to the VEC municipal reviews.
I would be pleased to post more detail her for debate and consideration but suggest to the editors that it be a separate post.
Having written many programs over the years to count proportional ballot elections I am very much aware of the difference in calculating the result.
In most cases the result do not change but there are circumstances where the results are close that they can and will effect the result.
A system based on the value of each ballot paper if by far preferable then one that transfers votes based on the number of ballot papers. (Some papers have full value and other already used ballot papers a lesser value bare all transferred on the same value) The paper based transfer calculation distorts the proportionality. This is minimised to some extent by the method of segmentation used a negative countering a negative but both systems are wrong in principle and the system used provides an added advantage to major parties in a close election.
The distortion as a result of the inbuilt bias is more so apparent in local government elections where the number/percentage voting below-the-line vote is higher. If there is a toss-up over two places then it will also come into play.
But it never the less exists. The system in use was designed when the count was undertaken manually. With computer aided counting there is no need or justification for this distortion. We can and should transfer the vote based on the value of the ballot paper and not the number of ballot papers. Segmentation is also not required and it would be preferable to have one transaction per candidate (Elimination or surplus). The Greens running more then one candidate in the election will be purely advertising as most candidates will be eliminated from the count in the first exclusion transaction.
I may post an extract here…
Adam People power will obtain less then 1 % Stephen Mayne having lead the hopeless and disenfranchised into battle has deserted his troops on the eve of the battle. They like their leader are a sad misguided joke.
More on Andrew landeryou’s blog http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/
Stephen Mayne was never their leader. He was one of the founders the first time around, but initially refused to run this time on the same grounds that he isn’t now.
Sorry on further reflection the inbuilt bias in the calcualtion of the surplus transerfer value can come into play in the election or the last ballot. In a five member electorate where major parties tend to cross the line on first preferences there the interplay of the bias does not come into play but where there is a deferred election of the one of the quotas it most certaintly does effect the result.
I have re-published an extract of a paper I piublished in Janruary this year you can find a copy here..
I have not had a chance to edit this extract and trust that the version is up to date and relevant informatiion is not missing.
II sincerly belive that we should simplyfy teh counting process and adopt a value based formula and a siungle transaction per candidate.
Paperbased formuia’s distort the onec vote one value principle and now we have a computer aided counting we can and should consider adopting a single transaction per candidate as opposed to the illogical segmentation process adopted by the VEC. (It would be great if we could also preferential vote above the line – but thats a different issue – maybe when we have online voting this will be considered)
There are other issues related to the scrutny of the ballot.
I refer readers to a paper poubished on “Save our Suburbs” by Ian Quick.
Thank you. Much clearer.
1. I agree. In surplus distributions, doubly discounted votes should count for less than first-time discounted votes.
2. The single transaction option makes the most sense to me. I’m not real clear on how the FIFO method is different (let alone superior to) the VEC method. (As for the “Meeks method”, that link was broken. Sounds complicated though.)
I have produced the below csv data file based on the statistics published by the editor of siteâ€¦ http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/261/
The data below shows the number of quotas as opposed to just the percentage of the vote. Integers represent the number elected and the remainder would need be distributed in the similar process to that which applies to a â€œnormalâ€ preferential election with the lowest value being eliminated and redistributed until a candidate obtains a full quota. The remains are what is refer to a wasted quota the person or persons who miss out in being elected.
Please note I do not share the view that the data published is a correct or should be used as a valid comparison. (For reasons stated above). You can not compare the 2002 results with the revised new proportional representation system. It’s like comparing apples with oranges grown in the same region. There is data missing and a whole host of other inconsistencies. When considering the likely results you need to calculate the distribution of party state support for each of the eight electorates.
Having done this you need to then calculate the various permutations and thresholds that will result in a change in the results. The more information you have the better. Once registered HTV card are finalised Nov 12. (I think) the thresholds can be narrowed down. It would help is the media polls could provide a break down per upper house seat.
Notwithstanding … the following may be of some use..
csv (Comma delimited) data below.
.,,2002 RESULT,,,,,50/50 OUTCOME,,,
South Eastern Metropolitan,,54.4,34.7,8.9,2,,50.2,38.9,8.9,2
Number of Quotas allocated,,,,,,,,,,
.,,2002 RESULT,,,,,50/50 OUTCOME,,,
South Eastern Metropolitan,,3.264,2.082,0.534,0.12,,3.012,2.334,0.534,0.12
Number elected prior to eliminations,,,,,,,,,,
.,,2002 RESULT,,,,,50/50 OUTCOME,,,
South Eastern Metropolitan,,3,2,0,0,,3,2,0,0
Percentage of vote/quota be distributed,,,,,,,,,,
.,,2002 RESULT,,,,,50/50 OUTCOME,,,
Northern Metropolitan,,Quota filled,,,,,Quota filled,0.62,0.02,0.174
South Eastern Metropolitan,,Quota filled,,,,,Quota filled,,,
Northern Victoria,,0.328,0.934,0.534,0.204,,Quota filled,,,
Eastern Victoria,,0.466,0.85,0.606,0.078,,Quota filled,0.108,0.606,0.078
David I agree about the meeks system being over complicated. Although I understand what it is trying to achieve. Again most of these system are in place because they were devised to assist the manual counting process.
The vote value based surplus calculation as opposed to a paper based formula is a MUST. The single transaction/distribution per candidate is possible if you adopt the value based surplus calculation. One transaction per candidate is easy to understand.
Outdated and inaccurate process over complicate the system. YES they have adopted most of the system that is used in Senate Elections but as they say two wrongs do not make a right.
The VEC for some unknown reason like to complete the issue and prevent detailed information being made public.
(I guess the secrecy of it all makes their (VEC”s) job look more esoteric.)
Publication of detailed preference data facilitate independent analysis and better understanding of the multi-member preferential proportional representation system.
Hopefully they will publish the information without the need to make another application to VCAT. Publication of detailed preference data Should from part of the election process. Online live data collecting results following the close of the polls would be the best.
AN OFFER: Following the registration and publication of party above-the-line preference allocations I will gladly process party preference percentage data for each of the eight electorates and published the results here on this site. I can also compare the results based on the value of the vote versus the number of papers. In most cases there will not be a change in then result. Never the less it is possible and the principle is clear. Maybe the editor can facilitate the publication of various analysis for various voter distribution options so as to not over clutter the site. One per electorate would help.
Of course the extent of below the line will need to be taken into account if the results of above-the-line assessment is close.
Thanks, I’ll get back to you nearer the publication date.
Dave. I will try and explain the FIFO. Under the system of segmentation adopted by the VEC (It differs from the senate) the VEC aggregates all votes of the same value and distributes them according to the highest value to the lowest value (Again this system was designed when a manual count was required). There is a further sub-segmentation separating primary votes form other votes of full value ( I have issues with the aggregation of all full value votes other then primary votes).
The FIFO tries provides segmentation in order in which the vote was received not the aggregated value of the vote. There is a little but big difference in the system used as it can effect the distribution and outcomes based on the order of elimination.
A single process means that all votes are transferred before any further assessment is made as to the order of elimination. A single transaction process is possible with value based surplus formula and computer aided counting system. It is cleaner and straight forward and easy to follow.
There are numerous debates on the segmentation issue. (Meeks system is one such an example) The value based formula is pretty straight forward. In my view one transaction per candidate is best, followed by the meeks system then FIFO. What is clear is that the system used by the VEC is wrong and can not be supported.
Technical, yes at first it appears very technical but in reality it is not and should not be too complicated, THE VEC system as previously stated is a hangover form the manual counting systems that were devised to make manual counting easier. it was a trade-off of time versus result. With a computer based system we should consider principle and process as time is not an issue. Two wrongs do not make a right but multiplying two negative can produce a positive
The VEC’s and the city of Mlebourne’s way of thinking is to adopt two wrongs then try and multiply it by a negative to hopefully produce a positive.
Both the senate and the State voting system needs review
Sorry if I have over stated my concerns… This is something I have tried to have addressed for many years now… I have taken the AEC, VEC and Melbourne City Council to court over these issues hoping that it will spure them on to rethink the system in place. If need be I will take them back to VCAT to ensure that the system remains open and transparent (The City Council, acting on poor advise of Alison Lyons and Jim Gifford, spent over $60,000 trying to prevent the disclosure of election results)
Another issue with the VEC counting process is that
1. The VEC (again based on an outdated manual count system) strips off the remainder from candidates/distributions. Under a computerised count the remainders could and should be retained by the candidates. This could be a deciding issue if there is a deadlock in the vote. I guess if that is the case there will be most likely be a recount.
2. With the adoption of partial optional preferential voting (minimum of 5 votes – is a random figure and has not basis of rational) means that a number of votes will exhaust. The optional preferential voting below the line runs the risk of creating by default a first past the post voting system.
HTV cards that recommend stopping at 5 votes should be prohibited.
Whilst it can be argued that a voter should have flexibility and choice the same can not be said for party group voting as voters are often not fully informed as to the true impact of their above-the-line vote. All registered above-the-line registered preference allocations should list a preference for all candidates (This should be a madatory requirement for above-the-line registration). Any vote that does not allocate a preference to all candidates is weakening the value of that vote.
Another reason to support the right to vote preferentially above-the-line.
Also keep in mind that parties can register multiple above-the-line tickets (Up to 3 if I recall correctly). Unfortunately parties can not nominate a percentage distribution and if they register multiple preference allocations votes are distributed equally across each registration. (ie 50%/50% or 33.33%/33.33%/33.33%)
It would be more useful in predicting the Assembly if population trends were considered, I would think there would be 1000s of new voters in Bass and Hastings for example, where are they from? Labor polled better in the Council in Bass (which they lost because they ran dead) than in Hastings which they won. Does this make Bass a possible Labor gain?
That is the case in a lot of electorates that the ALP didnt campaign in last time. Although the same ca be said for the Liberals.
The new Upper House system will mean that the unwinnable electorates will receive more attention than they have in the past.
On Saturday the Liberals were handing out in Preston. They have never handed out material there before except on election day
Peter Mitchell. Your assessment is right. with public funding all parties will be seeking to maximise their vote. There is no advantage for the Liberal Party strategically to hold back their vote to help the Greens. Democratic shifts in population do not help the Greens, it might help family first.
If you look closer at the 2004 Victorian senate distribution its worth noting that the DLP and the democratic all placed Family First ahead of the Greens in their registered preference allocation. You do not hear the Greens on this issue. The fact is that the preference deal of the ALP Victorian senate was sound. The only problem was that the ALP polled less then 39% had they received an additional 1-2% the result would have been different.
The same goes for the Greens. They underperformed and fell below 9%.
The Greens Party electoral analysis has not been the best. I discussed the statdning fo the polls and the likely result with David Risstrom following the publication of teh parties registered above-the-line preference allocation. The Greens expected they would just drift across the line under the belief that they attract the middle non-aligned vote. The script was cast 12 weeks before the 2004 state election and the outcome was most certianly known before the results came in. Again the ALP and teh greens fell below expectations and teh Liberal Party above. That is how the system works.
Reality is far from the truth. With the decline of the Democrats this so called middle ground is not floating to the Greens. Any increase in votes only comes at the expense of another. The Greens will not rise above 10-11% statewide. They will not pick up from the democrats who will sill command 1-2% of the vote. People Power hope they could fill the vacancy created by the democrats but they have failed to capture the imagination and support of the voters.
I wait with interest the next two to three rounds of polls in the lead-up to the election.
Hopefully the pollsters will produce a break-down into the Upper-house electorates. This would be of interest and value. So any media barons and power shakers out there here is your chance to have your poll stand out from the rest….
I just took a closer look at the analysis the editor refers to in the leading post http://deggles.csoft.net/post.php?postid=593. I strongly disagree with both the data-analysis and the assumptions made in this post. Having erred in the statistics errors in the commentary followed. Even on 2002 results (And the data-set is incomplete and vastly different circumstances apply this year then in 2002) The ALP would not secure an absolute majority. The Liberal Party have a higher chance of securing a majority then the ALP. With the Pendulum swing they most certainly will not have control. I also find it amusing thatte media and there’s claim the will half the balance of power. The statement of balance of power assumes that the ALP and the Liberal Party will not act responsibly and agree with each other on issues that serve the best interest of the State. The Green vote only come into play when the main parties divide and power games games rule as opposed to common sense. THE ALP will most certainly not form a coalition with the Greens preferring instead to govern in a minority controlled upper-house. John Lenders is more then capable to steer government policy though a diverse upper-house without a clear majority. The fact that one single party will not dominate the upper-house will provide for better governance and accountability be control held by the Greens, Opposition or some other party/representative.
Your assuming that the ALP and Libs will put the state interests above politics. This never (or at least rarely) happening before suggests your assumption is wrong.
Your other assumtion is that the Greens wont do whats best for the state. It’s obvious that you hate the Greens Melbcity, but your not even trying to provide a balanced account.
I tip that Kirstie Marshall will lose Forest Hill.
There will be a big swing gainst her.
A lot of people are saying that she never does anything and she is a free-loader.
She has lost her popularity
Dave. I do not hate the Greens I just do not blindly support them. Truth be known I supported David Risstrom’s election and voted below-the-line to allocate him a high preference in the 2004 election. (David is someone of high integrity) I watched the Melbourne City Council Green’s candidate, to my shock and horror, advocate the holding of illegal secret meetings of Council behind closed door meetings to consider issues related to Council expenditure and governance. Issues that should nhaav ebeen discussed in public. instead of advocvating for teh public right of access to information Fraser Brindley sucked up to teh administration and denied access to this information I don’t know about you but I believe in open and transparent governance. (His pay-off was the Council paying for the executove costs of a third party international environment organisation. Why he had to fly to south Africa and could not attand executive meetings via teh internet I do not know.) Take a closer look and you will think twice before blindly supporting “The Greens”. I consider myself an environmentalist overall, always have been. I no longer own a car, I ride a motor scooter and catch public transport prefering to walk if at all possible. It’s an individual lifestyle and economic choice. I think there is a lot we need to do and can do to help the environment. Conservation is the key and way forward.
I do not support the BS idea of isolating Melbourne City and applying a selective ill-considered car/congestion tax. It’s akin to creating an economic gated community.
Anyway my concerns here are not aimed at the Greens but more to do with the electoral outcomes. The Greens will not attract vacating votes from the Democrats. Family First and People power will echg get around 1.5 to 1%. The Greens will struggle to get above 10% statewide. It not a shoe in. As to the ALP/Liberal governments not working together… yes there are issues but hey we have had governments for many years that did not control both houses. Overall it produces good governance. Of course there will always be issues that are purely political and not based on the best outcomes. Local Government reform is one such example.
I hope that the media barons will produce an efective and detailed poll on upper-house voting intentions.
Comments are closed.