Andrew Landeryou reports that the upper house recount for Northern Metropolitan has indeed overturned the shock DLP win and delivered the final seat to Labor’s Nazih Elasmar, putting the upper house numbers at ALP 20, Liberal 15, Nationals 2, Greens 2, DLP 1. However, the roller-coaster ride might not be over yet – Landeryou also reports that the recount in Western Metropolitan, where the provisional result was decided by a 76-vote margin at a vital point in the count, might yet deliver a seat to the Greens’ Colleen Hartland at the expense of Labor’s fourth candidate Henry Barlow. This should be resolved within the hour (for the record, it’s currently 2.46am EST).
UPDATE (4.09am): I’m off to bed, so those seeking the late mail on Western Metropolitan will have to look elsewhere.
UPDATE (12.53pm): I’m awake now, and Colleen Hartland indeed bumped out Henry Barlow after the margin at the key point in the count shifted 100 votes the other way. So the scorecard reads ALP 19, Liberal 15, Greens 3, Nationals 2, DLP 1. Nazih Elasmar’s win notwithstanding, the net effect of the recount is not good for Labor – unless you take the view that what’s good for the Greens is good for Labor (or at least the broader Labor cause), which it seems many do. Before they could have got legislation through with the support of the Greens, the DLP or the Nationals. Now only the Greens or the Nationals can give them more than a blocking majority. Bragging rights go to blogger Aaron Hewett of Urban Creature, who tipped the result perfectly on November 16. I wrongly tipped Liberal 3, Labor 2 in Western Victoria, and Labor 4, Liberal 1 in Western Metropolitan.
Geoff. Your assessment is wrong. In every case the Surplus Transfer under the current “paper” based formula increases the overall value of ballot papers that have a lower value and decreases these that have the highest value proportionally.
Using my previous example
Under the VEC paper based system a candidate that receives 400 full value votes and 2000 votes with a value of 0.25 and an overall surplus of 400 based on a quota of 500. All votes will be transferred at the calculation of 400 divided by 2400 a value of 0.1667. in this case we have full value vote and quarter value votes now being transferred at the same value.
Under a value based calculation (Value of the vote times the surplus divided by the total candidate to be distributed vote) the results would be
400 / 900 (transfer value of 0.444)
400 full value votes at 1 * 0.444 (Each full value vote is now worth 0.444)
2000 votes at a value of 0.25 * 0.444 giving a new transfer value allocated to each of 0.111
The 2000 partical value votes have been significantly increased in value and the full value vote deceased disportionally to their original value.
In every case when there is an averaging out of different value votes the to determine the transfer allocation the value of the vote is seriously distorted and most certainly is not proportional.
Furthermore if you take time to analysis the count sheet you will notice that the integer based transfer system also further distorts the results of the system. All these variances add up and in some cases can represent the equivalent of hundreds of full value votes. It can and does change results. Not in all cases but when an election is close most definitely. with the use of computer aided technology there is no excuse to maintain this distortion of the proportionallity and full value of the of the vote. One vote one value.
Geoff there is already precedence for obtaining the BTL preference data.
Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City of Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)
Steve Tully continues to abuse the system by not providing this information. His conduct of the election overall was appalling. We have submitted an FOI application to Paul Thornton-Smith, VEC information Officer, who to date has failed to respond to previous requests fort thsi information. (We were previously informed that it would be available)
The requirement to have to submit an FOI application to receive this data is shameful and an abuse of the system by VEC.
We have contacted Rob Hull’s Office and submitted a complaint. We will also be writing soon to all members of the newly elected State Parliament and the State Ombudsman requesting a inquiry into the conduct of the election. We have also lined up a number of politicians who have indicated that they will take up the issue in the autumn session 2007.
Nick Economu described the conduct of the election as debacle that was putting it mildly.
The number of inconsistencies, refusal to provide or publish information and the accessing of the e-voting election results prior to the November 25 poll had brought the conduct of the election and Victoria’s reputation into disrepute.
There are many questions that remain unanswered. Tully must share responsibility and resign or be sacked.
Copies of the FOI aopoplication can be found on my blog http://melbournecitycoucnil.blogspot.com.
Rob Hulls Minister responsible for the conduct of the Victiruian Electoral Commision and the FOI act ion his annual reports states.
“The existence of the FOI Act should not mean that the formal process provided under it is the only means of obtaining access to documents or information of an agency.”
In the absesce
Copies of the FOI aopoplication can be found on my blog http://melbournecitycoucnil.blogspot.com.
Rob Hulls Minister responsible for the conduct of the Victiruian Electoral Commision and the FOI act ion his annual reports states.
“The existence of the FOI Act should not mean that the formal process provided under it is the only means of obtaining access to documents or information of an agency.”
In the absesce
Copies of the FOI Application can be found on our blog site http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com
Rob Hulls, Minister responsible for the conduct of the Victorian Electoral Commission and the FOI Act in his FOI annual report states
“The existence of the FOI Act should not mean that the formal process provided under it is the only means of obtaining access to documents or information of an agency. ”
Clearly in the absence of self regulation and commitment to maintaining an open and transparent electoral process the State Government must review and legislate to ensure that all documents and details of the election count and preference data (including detailed provisional and recount results) are published and readily available as a down load via the Electoral Commissions Internet web site.
The greens had only 3 candidates in south eastern met too.
There are ample reasons why some parties go to the trouble to fill all places on the ticket, just as the ALP does, even though they got SFA chance of winning all places.
judging by the number of voters who voted greens 1, 2, 3 BTL then stopped, I calculated they would have got four or five quotas in SEMET had they nominated 5 candidates instead….
be it 3 oct 5 does not matter they were never in for more then one… same goes for all parties. What we need is a count back system then parties running multiple candidates is worth while. Question is with the Greens not being recognised as a Parliamentary Party (they are effective three independents) do they have the right to appoint a replacement should a vacancy in their ranks occur? Any casual vacancy should be filled by the voters and not via party appointment. A recount system is the best way forward.
Melbcity, while the ALP and Libs have that right, all parties should. Look at NSW. Shooters Party MLC got kicked out cos of scandal, party chose his replacement, and they only had one member. I agree countback is better, but we are unlikely to get it anytime soon.
I am just asking the question. One hopes the Greens will begin to address a number of issues (Some which I have already identified). Certainly I will be seeking the ALP, State Government and members of Parliament take action to ensure that future elections are open and transparent and that the Chief Electoral Commissioner not abuse his position, duties and responsibilities and that the detailed results and transfer of preferences are made public according to law and good governance practice
Section 123. (Election information) Of the Victorian Electoral Act 2002
states:-
(1) The number of first preference votes given for
each candidate and the details of distribution of
preference votes must be available from the office
of the Commission.
Question is why has the VEC refused to proved copies of the detailed distribution and allocation of preferences. Including copies of the detailed preference data files. Why is it that we are forced into seeking this information pursuant to the FOI Act/ Will the Minister responsible and the Parliament undertake a review of the conduct of the 2006 State Election and the conduct and actions of the Chief Commissioner who has failed to comply with the provisions of the act?
The scrutineers and parties have that info. It has been made available, but perhpas not on the web. Who has refused to give it to you? Did you send a fax requesting it?
Sean,
Greens had five candidates in all upper house electorates. so if people voted 1-5 then it was a valid vote.
Allegory,
The Greens vote did not move up in Victoria because of the extraordinary attacks on it by Labor, Liberal, The Bretheren, DLP, Saltshakers, Family First, Nationals, The REG (whoever they are), Country Alliance and other assorted right wing groups.
Most of these groups outright lied (pity some Labor MP’s don’t seem to understand the electoral system), While some Labor Mp’s were keen to suggest that Greens were in cohorts with Family First (Bronwyn clearly has no idea, please someone on the Labor party explain to her the preferences system), or with the Liberals. The Liberal’s were keen to talk about how extreme the Greens were (of course water and climate change were also apparently an extreme issue ten years ago). Then you had full page ads by the Bretheren, and Labor as well as TV ads by Family First at prime time.
Considering all this the Greens matched their vote (solidified). We’re quite happy with the result. We got three MP’s elected (should have been four had it not been for Labor’s daliance with the rightwing parties – again).
The other thing to remember is that most people said the Greens would never get above 4% because it’s name suggested a one issue party. We’ve disproved that.
The Greens do best when Labor is on the nose. to achieve 10% when Labor was doing so well is fantastic. I predict that when Labor support wanes the Greens will be the big winners.
In the UK, the reason that Brighton pavilion stays with Labor is the splitting of the vote by the Lib Dems and Greens. Have a look at the council results.
Melb City, How is People Power a Green feeder party? They preferenced the Greens dead last in Western Metro. Their preferences to the DLP got them elected ahead of the Greens in Western. Hmm is that as good a line as the Labor parties during the election? Accoding to Nick Economou there were about four seats that Labor won on Green preferences. (gasp! so they DID preference the Labor Party?)
Greens and other parties ran five to stop their votes exhausting BTL. Surely that is a no-brainer.
When the voters turn agains Labor, unless the Greens make some big campaining mistakes then Melbourne, Richmond and Brunswick are highly likely to elect Greens and there is an outside chance in Northcote too.
The attack on the Greens was extraordinary because they are an extraordinary political party. Some of their views will never be mainstream thinking in any time in any place. Their views in areas like drug control, education and defence are not only unworkable but dangerous.
Now we have reports of one Green MLC being involved in industrial sabotage. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
When the public (eventually) turns against Labor, they will turn back to the Libs and the Greens will still not win these inner city seats. As I said in an earlier discussion, the pattern with minor parties in Australia is NOT that their vote keeps going up at successive elections. It is that they rapidly reach a ceiling and stay there, and then gradually decline as a new minor party comes along. That has been the pattern with the Country Patrty, the DLP and the Democrats.
adam a 0.3% oincvrease in the statewide vote is not significa.
Adam a 0.3% increase in the statewide vote is not significant. Yes I agree I think the Greens will go backward on the next election as they become the focus of greater media attention and public scrutiny. The next federal election will begin to show the true extent of their support. I also predict that in 2010 there will be a proliferation of smaller based political parties/groupings opposed to the Greens. I doubt very much they will recive the preference flow they received this time. The Democrats will not be around beyond next year.
Sean if you have a copy of the BTL prefernec data then please forward it. I have been requesting copies on more then one occassion and as nrecent as yesterday an FOI napplcation was lodged. The VEC has not complied with the section 123 of the act and most ceratinly had not responded to our requests. If they had I would have published the information by now., something the VEC should do. If you have copies then send it. and I am not refering to the summary count sheets.
Those interested in obtaining the detailed results and a copy of the preference data files can try and contact
Paul Thornton-Smith
Senior Information and Research Officer
Communication, Education and Research Branch
Tel (03) 9299 0732
Email paul.thornton-smith@vec.vic.gov.au
Paul Thorn smith is the FOI officer for the VEC. You might like to draw his attention to section 123 of the electoral act and the need to ensure that Victorian elections are open and transparent and subject or public scrutiny and review.
Sean Says:
December 20th, 2006 at 12:45 am
judging by the number of voters who voted greens 1, 2, 3 BTL then stopped, I calculated they would have got four or five quotas in SEMET had they nominated 5 candidates instead….
Sean I think you need to rethink you methodology 🙂 I am more interested in the BTL preference data files that have not been provided. I think this information must be made available and the VEC should publish certified copies of all count sheets and preference data on its web site. As I understand Antony Green does not have a copy of this information. the VEC are trying to avoid accountability and public scrutiny and independent review. Technocrats is the word I think.. Protecting their little chiefdom and patch of knowledge.
Ten years ago the Greens brought out extreme policies such as water conservation and addressing global warming. Now they are putting forward wacky, extreme policies such as pulling troops out of Iraq, insisting David Hicks has a fair go, do away with tax payer funded government advertising, human rights for refugees and, heaven forbids, water conservation and addressing global warming. To get 10% on a shoestring budget in a day and age where more people watch Today Tonight then the 7.30 Report, it’s not a bad bloody effort.
I agree, but the question is whether they can get much beyond 10% now that they have lost their novelty value. I don’t think they can. As I have said, I think the minor party vote has a natural ceiling of 10% or thereabouts, and that the Greens will remain stuck there, as has happened in Germany, New Zealand and other places with strong Greens parties, and has happened to the Democrats before them. Another problem they have is that everyone now agrees that climate change etc is a serious issue, so they will find their policy turf increasingly crowded. They can claim “we were here first” but the voters don’t necessarily reward that.
The Greens are not quite the same as the other minor parties that have sprung up in Australia.
The DLP and the Democrats were created as centrist parties and were destroyed by the single member electoral systems in the lower house and some of the public perceptions of the actions of few people they got into the Senate.
The Country party is still in existance (as the Nats) and is a big winner out of the single member electorate system, but has been undermined by demographics (urbanisation) and being glued at the hip to the Liberal Party especialy with their current free-market policies. They have been around for over 80 years (longer than the Libs).
The Greens are to the Left of the Labor party of today and are getting much of their support because of the Labor parties current political views, its internal problems and the grubiness of both the major parties politics but this suppor is comming to them because of their sound policies.
At the start of last century the Labor party was a minor party. All parties start from somewhere.
In Tasmania the Greens have reached 18% befor and no doubt will again.
In Tasmania the Greens have reached 18% before and no doubt will again.
Well I’m sorry but the examples you cite actually confirm my view. The Country Party / National Party has indeed been around for 80% years, and its vote has been remarkably stable over that whole period. At their first election as a national party, in 1922, they got 12.6% of the vote, and they have polled between 5% and 20% ever since. Labor reached its peak within three elections, polling 49.1% in 1910, and has usually polled 40-50% ever since. Even three severe splits have not changed that. Australia is a country marked by long political cycles and longterm party stability, apart from several name-changes on the non-Labor side. The Greens have found a niche, one previously occupied by the Dems and before that the DLP, but it is a finite niche and they will find it difficult to expand beyond it.
Adam,
the thing with records and trends, they often change. Records are meant to be broken.
The thing with the Democrats is that they never really threatened in lower house seats (except once). Greens are threatening Labor in about 7 state lower house seats and three lower house seats federally.
Also if the Liberals had done marginally better, their preferences would have delivered Melbourne to the Greens.
Lets now focus on NSW and a couple of interesting seats in the lower house there.
Tasmania is the size of a Municipality. Just where do you think the extra growth is going to come from? Come 2010 there will be more parties running to try and win a seat. The DLP will still get their 2.5% and the Greens will be struggling to receive preferences as most minor parties will seek to do deals with other parties ahead to the Greens. I also think that the Greens will to a larger extent be sidelined in the next round of Parliament unless they cosy up to the Liberal Party. The proof is in the taming of the pudding not its appearance. Lets wait and see what transpired at the next Federal election due next year. Bound to be better then the State Election. The AEC is a much more professional outfit then the Mikey mouse crew of the VEC.
I believe the Greens are likely to go well beyond the 10% level at some point in the future, although I make no claims about whether it will be next time or not.
The reason I believe this is simple demographics. The Greens get far more than 10% amongst people born in the 70s and 80s, and far less amongst those born in the 30s, 40s and 50s. As time goes by the balance of these in the population will change.
Of course it is possible that the reason people vote for us is their age, rather than their year of birth. In this case our vote should decline in the context of a generally aging population. However, there is little evidence of this. One of the main reasons the vote is so much higher in Tasmania is that the party was formed much earlier there, and attracts a lot of voters born in the 1950s. They’ve held onto them as time goes on, and that is broadly the pattern for most Green parties around the world.
The attacks on us will increase. At some elections these attacks, combined with the appearance of new parties, revival in old parties, a change of issues on the agenda and slip ups in our own campaigns, will see our vote fall. However, failing a really disastrous split the general trend will be upwards, as it is for most Green parties around the world.
The True Nature of the DLP
Q: Which Victorian government secondary school had the best teaching conditions in the state for three years in a row?
A: The one whose timetabler was a former state official of the DLP.
Q: What happened to those conditions?
A: They got worse as a direct result of the most recent EBA signed by the supposedly militant supposedly left-wing AEU and the state government.
“DLP’s new MP backs gay rights†(headline. The Age, 21/12/2006)
“But the Greens’ actions gave the Government a symbolic win, with the DLP’s Peter Kavanagh siding with Labor to defeat the Liberals and the Nationals 20-17.†(Ellen Whinnett and Ashley Gardiner, “Greens dodge water crisis voteâ€, Herald Sun, 21/12/2006)
I would agree with Adam regarding minor parties – the evidence to me suggests that the Greens have largely hit a ceiling, or in states such as QLD and SA, are approaching that point. Definitely in WA the decline is evident, although it’s more of a rationalisation to a sustainable level than an actual decline.
The Bob Brown (who is now about 62?) factor in Green voting, as well as their stances on key issues such as the war in Iraq, refugees etc together with the collapse of the Democrats have given voters a home away from the ALP. However, my own observations (as a person somewhat independent of the party process) are that the ALP are gaining support in the same groups in which they were losing in the early 2000s.
As a centre-left voter myself I am put off by the Greens’ continual victim mentality – which gets worse the better they do, ironically – and their sense of entitlement. In elections in which I’ve been directly involved, they lack organisational cohesiveness and really do not put out much of a message, expecting the media to contact them instead of the other way around. The sad part is if it wasn’t for the weakness of the party in the above ways, the Greens would actually be quite good – their elected members (especially Bob Brown, but far from limited to him) have been high-calibre and on-the-ball, and they take principled stances on many issues with which I agree.
The gay vote used to live with the Democrats and the ALP, and has shifted towards the Greens and ALP. The level of ALP support within the gay community cannot be denied – in the most gay suburbs in Perth, the ALP vote is much, much stronger than social class would suggest based on ABS stats, and the Greens also do well. These are seats that the Liberal Party used to do well in until the 1970s – in fact, WA’s Liberal premier before Brian Burke was the member for Mount Lawley. However it has become the ultra-safe ALP seat of Maylands (strangely, later to be held by Labor premier Peter Dowding) on the back of primarily the gay vote. The same can be seen in Norwood in Adelaide which has become a marginal ALP/LIB seat but used to be very safe LIB like most of eastern Adelaide and still wears a similar demographic.
Oops, hit too many spaces and tabs! One final note to the gay comment – I know well-heeled gays who viciously attack the ALP and Greens on the sorts of economic arguments you’d expect from someone with a 6 figure income with multiple investments – only to turn around and say “But I have to vote for them, that’s the worst part”. One reckoned to do otherwise would be like a Jew voting for the Nazi party (his words). It’s even worse for them at state level because the Liberal Party here in WA openly supports staged recriminalisation of homosexuality – something even the most conservative European countries aren’t trying to go back to.
Chris the actions by the DLP today shows that they are not a threat to Labour on most issues, except abortion, and issues od right to life. Over time the public will see that the DLP is a sensible moderate party which will side with labour90% of the time. By the next election the DLP vote will double because of their exposure to the public, which was denied by the media at the recent election. Also the Dems and PP will not exist, FF vote will decline as the DLP vote rises, i predict at the next state election The DLP vote will double to 5%, overall, an up to 10% in some seats, the Green vote will stall at 10% or even decline. the govt will again preference the DLP because it is the party cloest to them
Andrew I agree with your comment (December 21st, 2006 at 7:35 pm) except to say that many members of the Gay community also vote Liberal and some DLP. They definitely do not vote on block unless there is a direct attack on civil liberties. I was surprised to read that WA is proposing to recriminalize homosexuality. The Australian greens are far from the European Greens in policy and performance. Next years Federal Election will be the test as to their standing. Will they win a Senate spot? That depends very much on the level of the vote of the major parties and the allocation of their preferences. The Greens will not get there on their own. Just watch the state space and the Greens will become a non event without the power to block legislation. If anything their presence will help keep the Liberal Party in check. No more power games. The first test will be their role in the Parliamentary Electoral review committee next year. I recall When Fraser Brindley was first elected to the City of Melbourne and what was the first thing he did. he referred a Council report to an illegal behind the closed doors. The details of the Council’s internal catering bill and costs associated with the LM car remains hidden away from public review and scrutiny. Previously these cost were published in the budget papers but not now. Shame Frazer Shame.
I have to admit that I only know *one* person who identifies as Liberal who is gay, and he lives in Melbourne. That being said, the vast majority of the community in Melbourne is either Labor or Green from what I’m told. In Perth, I know that one can be ostracised from the community for identifying with non-left parties, and I know one can be removed from Liberal Party membership for being gay or being associated with gay rights.
In response to Andrew Owen’s comments on the Greens, and I don’t wish to confirm your thoughts of a Green’s victim mentality. The Green’s do seek out media exposure as much as the major parties, media had access to multiple press releases every day during the state election. But at the end of the day they decide what they want to print. TV and radio coverage is limited to 15 sec sound grabs from the major parties and thus they are very staged (speedos anyone?) and rarely mention the minor parties.
The print media is the only media that gives any in depth political news. 70% of the print media is owned Murdoch and they are reknowned for their right wing bias. This is not taking on a victim mentality. The Herald Sun were found guilty by the Australian Press Council of lies and distortions when they published 4 pages of anti-Greens “articles” prior to the last federal election. It is a mere coincidence the Greens were against the relaxation of the mediaship laws that have now come to fruition and large media owners have welcomed openly.
The electoral system in Australia is biased against the Greens in all lower houses other than Tasmania. In the Victorian election the Greens got 10.04% of the primary vote for the Legislative Assembly and no seats while the National got around 5% and 9 out of 88 seats. That is niether fair nor fully democratic.
The single member system is a method for the (Libs Labs and Nats) to divide and conquer the will of the voters and the victims all round the mainland states at the moment are the Greens and the Libs (especially in Queensland) while the ALP and Greens are the victims nationally.
If Queensland had had Hare-Clarke for the last half century or more then Joh almost definataly would not have been Premier.
Tom, that all depends on what is meant by “fair” and “fully democratic”. There isn’t just one meaning of these terms.
It’s impossible to know how people would have voted in Qld elections under a Hare-Clark system, as parties’ electoral behaviour depends on the electoral system as does the way people vote.
Are you saying that a coalition of the ALP and QLP would have run Qld for a couple of years? Or that a coalition of the Country, Qld Peoples and QLP would have run Qld? Are you saying the Qld Libs would have supplied the Premier?
(eg see http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/historical/documents/electionsReferendums/Election_results.pdf)
“…while the ALP and Greens are the victims nationally.”
How is the ALP a victim of the system of single member electorates nationally?
The Queensland Libs`s Leader would have been the Premier or Opposition Leader and so the Country Party (/Nats) would have had a lower profile in the Brisbane area so been less able to gain a foot hold there and the Libs would have been able to use a higher profile to take votes and seats in other areas and the Labor Party would have had a larger portion of the Parliament and so been more able to win Government.
The Federal ALP would benifit from less Government representation and more MHRs from Queensland (a Greens MHR is much more likely to support Labor than a Lib or a Nat).
MelbCity (or any of the other people who have made this claim), would you like to give examples of where the Australian Greens have policy differences from European Green parties?
Performance is a more subjective matter, but having campaigned for Green parties here, in England, Scotland and Ireland Ithe Australian Greens policies are generally more “mainstream” than in the other English speaking countries. I’m less familiar with the policies from Germany, France etc, but the only major difference I am aware of is that the German Greens supported sending troops to Afghanistan at a point where the Australian Greens were calling for UN involvement etc.
You should have seen the Greens campaign in Ukraine. What a joke., they were holding Rock Concerts and handing out plastic Balloons and other election non-environment friendly advertising giveaways. I have respect for the greens Senate candidate but do not have much respect for the others. After witnessing Frazer Brindley’s efforts to hold secret illegal meetings of the Council behind closed doors and his refusal to publish details of the Council’s expenses thus avoiding public disclosure and accountability. Total Contrary to the Greens policy of open and transparent governance. Then there was the issue of Fraser getting the City of Melbourne to pay for the expenses related to his position as an executive member of a third party organisation. Again highly questionable as the executive expenses of a third party enviro organization is not related to his role or duties as a Councillor. Not to forget that he consumed 2.6 tons of Co2 gases (Equivalent to more then 0.6 of yearly consumption of the average car usage in Australia) o attend an African safari executive meeting. Why could he have not adopted the ACF policies and used the Internet to participate in the enviro fest executive meeting? Same Frazer Shame!!! IN all fairness he did apologize for the holding of secret meetings and teh withholding of Council reports BUT he has done nothing to try and ensure that this information is readily available. How much does the City of Melbourne spend on the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayors limos and why is thi8sbinformatiion not reported under the City Council’s expense statements. Melbourne a Car free city… Limos only. Not to forget the hidden costs of internal catering and free books. we will have to monitor the new Greens Parliamentary members expenses to make sure they are not getting the Parliament to fund their membership executive expenses of a third party organization. Hypocrisy is their policy. whats next the Parliament pays the costs associated with a Mps executive membership of his golf club because he is entitled to be an ex-officio member of the club and accepted an position on the clubs executive. Does that entitle the member to travel to all international golf events as part of his duties as a Parliamentarian or Councillor? More info
What happened to the missing votes in Western Metropolitan and all seam to come from the ALP allocation. Could votes have been removed from the piles. A quick tally of the number of ballot papers issued in each polling place return , postal, absentee and section votes for the lower and upper house should be able to confirm the accuracy of the count. Something the VEC should have done before pressing the GO button Statistics available here and More information here
Contrary to previous comment, the Greens had 3 candiates in Northern Vic and South Eastern Metro, not 5.
See it here:
http://www.vic.greens.org.au/2006Election/how_to_vote
Also see the vec website where the party preference flows are published.
I saw numerous ballots that exhausted after 2 or 3 on tickets which had only 2 or 3 candidates. Melbcity poses the question why the greens ran 5 candidates on upper house tickets when they had buckley’s of winning all 5 seats. The same reason ALP and Libs did so is one obvious answer.
As for whether the greens will rise over 10%, I am more than happy for ALP hacks to believe that the greens are in decline. Bronny no longer has anything to worry about. The Greens are finished and you should allocate your entire federal election budget to dealing with the Libs and your current nemesis, the DLP. I am sure all of the swinging voters reading your posts are likewise convinced.
Melbcity, If you attack Fraser Brindley(or anyone else) please display some proof other then Terry Lane writting that the Vic Government doesn’t comply with FOI. The article didn’t mention any Green or the Melb Council.
Until you show me proof, I would trust Fraser over you any day.
The ALP(thats you) is know for lying, whilst the Greens(Fraser) are not.
And no, I’m not just defending a fellow Green as I’m not a member, I’m defending a friend from false accusations.
Depending on the extent of the ALP vote and the level of support of the Liberal Party the Greens could end up once again the waisted quota. Democrats will drop to below 1.5% Family First looks like securing 3-4%. The DLP will generate 2.5%. For the Greens to be elected next year in the senate, they will need the Liberal Party to drop below 42%, The ALP above 39% and the Greens Primary above 9%. Both of the major parties are assured of winning 2 seats each. Odds are the party that wins Government wins three season and that leaves the last seat. An even number of seats is harder to win then an odd number. If they Greens continue to targe tALP lower house seats do you think they will win friends?
The reson that the Greens target Labor held seats is that they are the ones that they are most likely to win.
If Doyle had stayed Liberal leader and the Greens had poured resources into Hawthorn and Kew then they may have had a chance there.
All the Greens did was lock themselves in to an opposition role. Come the federal election I expect that the Major Parties once again will place other parties ahead of the Greens and Family First. I think if we are to maintain the ATL voting system them parties should be able to nominate the percentage of vote allocation to each multiple-ticket registered. Do not expect the ALP to embrace the Greens with open arms. The Greens should have concentrated on winning upper-house seats. Had they not ran hard in lower house seats they could have secured 5 maybe six upper-house seats. The results of Western Metro are still questionable with votes gone missing and unaccounted for in the published data. There should be a requirement that is the result changes between a provisional count and a recount and the results is within 0.5% then an automatic subquest recount should be undertaken to ensure they have eno introduced another error. The total number of votes do not appear to match the total number of ballots issued and or returned.
The lower house has more power than the upper house so it is natural for a party wanting to change things for the better is to aim for the lower house not just the upper house. The Victorian upper house no longer having the power to block supply means that having the ballance of power is of lesser power than it used to be.
In the lower house they could, in a close election, get the ballance of power and then have a large influence over the government or even be a coalition partner, which is a lot better and more useful than just a little influence in the the uppper house.