Group voting tickets for the Senate have now been unveiled by the Australian Electoral Commission. I’ll get stuck into these after I’ve finished a few errands.
341 comments on “Senate tickets revealed”
Comments are closed.
Analysis and discussion of elections and opinion polls in Australia
Group voting tickets for the Senate have now been unveiled by the Australian Electoral Commission. I’ll get stuck into these after I’ve finished a few errands.
Comments are closed.
Chris @298 ah ok.. off by one as usual.
Ok so that makes it 3 senate spots that have to change.
Perhaps the Democrats are preparing for an ALP win in the lower house and being consistent in the idea that a rubber-stamp Senate is a bad idea regardless of who is wielding the stamp?
287
Gippslander Says:
November 4th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
228
Adam Says:
November 4th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I thought Mahler was German, not Irish. Maybe he’s thinking of O’Mara.
Czech, actually. I would have said Austrian. If he’d died after 1938, it would all be the same!
but he’s more likely thinking of Mahoney, or Maloney
For all you admirers(-to-be) of Mahler, here are some words on the subject by the man himself:
“I am thrice homeless, as a native of Bohemia in Austria, as an Austrian among Germans, and as a Jew throughout all the world. Everywhere an intruder, never welcomed.” http://www.cjh.org/education/essays.php?action=show&id=28
Antony G. has pointed out that FF scored around 4% in the Victorian State election. This surprised me at the time, I thought that they would do no better than the 2004 Federal election (2.4% in Victoria, and as high as 4.3% in SA). I based that on my sense that Senator Fielding appeared to be making it up as he goes along – which is an inevitable consequence of a Party consisting of one elected Member.
What I now think I overlooked is FF’s ability to staff polling booths, which gives them a considerable advantage in comparison to all but the three biggest Parties (Greens and the two majors). I doubt that they’ll get a Senate seat this time (opined without having had any detailed look at preferences), but they are the small party most likely, because they will stay in the count for a long time.
Mad cow, if the LNP loses one senate seat, it will have 38 and be able to block anything alone and carry anything with FF support. If it loses two seats, it and FF will be able to block anything but not be able to carry anything. If it loses three seats, even it and FF will not be able to block anything. Two loses are enough to tear a few pages out of WorknowcalledagainChoices as FF opposes it too. All this assumes that the lost seats go to parties that will support Labor policy.
Mad cow, read my Senate article:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/commentary3.shtml
The Coalition must lose three seats.
MelbCity, I absolutely disagree with you, but I won’t pursue the issue here.
Paul Kavanagh, aren’t you willing to defend the Dems’ ticket-splitting either?
Chris @305 – ok that basically answers my question as yes, we need 3 coalition senate seats to be converted to labor or green.
So then the question is, given that we take the ACT for granted.
Whats the next two most likely states?
Morgan shows Pearce here in the west at 50/50 tpp,if that is in anyway accurate then the big swing is on in W.A. as well. You beauty!
Adam, thats where I got the figure in my head from 🙂
mad cow,
I don’t take the ACT for granted. I think it is unlikely four seats in any state other than Tasmania will be shared by Labor and the Greens, but Nick Zenophon may get a seat from the LNP in SA with Labor taking three. The Greens’ winning seats does nothing to change the balance of power unless they win them from the LNP.
TPP in Tassie was mid-50’s last time. It will increase so has to be close to 60. Surely thats worth a senate seat.
What will be suprising, given the TPP figures is if the coalition, does maintain control of the senate.
Chris @310, the nice thing about the ACT is the quota is 33.3% not the usual 14.3% Agreed, anything can happen, but if it doesn’t happen in the ACT, I don’t fancy the chances of the coalition losing a senate seat in each of 3 states.
Timbo, that move is not recent. Happened earlier in the day.
[ if Xenophon takes a Liberal seat in SA and is counted as anti-Coalition (and I don’t know that he is, on all issues), ]
At this particular election he is closer to Labor. He even consulted with Rann and the state Attorney General before announcing as a candidate.
Also, he is being very vocal in his opposition to WorkChoices, which is the first time I’ve heard him say anything about I.R.
Chris @310, I guess thats the big question about SA.. where is Mr X going to pull his votes from. I cant see it not cutting into labor’s votes there and if he gets 15+ % then labor is likely to slip under its 3rd quota. Hey, its just my gut feeling. Bite me if you like 🙂
[Chris @310, I guess thats the big question about SA.. where is Mr X going to pull his votes from. ]
At the state election nearly all his vote came from the Liberals and the Democrats.
ShowsOn @317, Ok coolies. Still, it makes you wonder what would happen if labor were forced to have to negotiate with him.
No Pokies anywhere? Hmm.. I can live with that 🙂
Then how about no horse racing? Anyone? (hides in bunker).
mad cow,
Mr X’s SA Legislative Council victory was accompanied by Labor’s getting more seats than the Liberals, so I am not convinced that his Senate candidacy will cost Labor its third Senate seat.
The most likely workable Senate outcome is one in which the Labor Government will need support from all of the Greens, FF and Senator X to get legislation through. This is inherently unstable.
Adam, I think your analysis is a bit skewed here :-). In Victoria, the ALP have been consistently polling at nearly 3 quotas in their own right in the senate in senate-based polls (sure, they’re not too accurate, but that’s the data available). The best chance to get rid of a coalition senator in Victoria is to have a high combined Greens/Dems primary vote. Then the following scenario becomes possible – 3 ALP, 2 Liberals and 1 between the Greens or the Democrats.
Our primary vote needs to be significantly larger than it was in 2004 for this to happen. If you look at the numbers from 2004, we took a big hit to our senate primary vote when our voters switched back to the major parties, and in particular the liberals. There are lots of small-l liberal, socially progressive voters in Victoria, who are really unhappy with Howard, but who don’t trust the ALP on many issues, and especially on IR. Rudd’s pereceived me-tooism on social and environmental issues also concerns them. If we can attract those voters back to us in the senate, it not only increases our primary vote, but it also lowers the Coalitions primary vote, and makes it much less likely they’ll get the final spot in Victoria on FF and DLP preferences. In almost every scenario, our preferences will remain locked up with the Greens if we’re not in a winnable position ourselves, and will not affect any outcome between Liberal and Labor. Why should we take a hit to our primary vote by going to the ALP when it won’t actually help them at all, and make it harder for either ourselves or the Greens to get elected to the final spot in Victoria – especially as the ALP has actually put as low on their ticket as they think they can get away with? (behind the DLP and just above FF).
William has taken his angry pills again in a new senate thread… watch out Patrice…
I have now uploaded all the House of Reps and Senate candidates in ballot paper orrder at my website, with photos where I have them though are more photos going up at party websites all the time so I don’t have nearly all of them yet.
Polly, all Senate polls are bunk.
Peter K, there is no such thing as 2PP in a Senate election.
Bye for now.
Adam, in response to your question;
“…the Democrats, having campaigned all year to “restore the balance” in the Senate, are now giving half their preferences to the Coalition, thus helping them keep control of the Senate, perhaps you can (explain)”.
The Democrats are a political party, not a faction of another party or a pressure group. We’re a sensible, progressive party which is needed in Australia more than ever. Therefore, it’s supremely balanced to preference both major parties of government equally, after the Greens.
Not every Democrats supporter also supports Labor. It can be argued that to transfer the votes of progressive Liberals to the ALP through the Democrats is deceptive, and this HTV technique represents the main objection to the preferencial voting system. Individual Democrats voters who prefer Labor (or Liberals) can still vote that way themselves, and most of them understand that.
I certainly hope the Coalition is removed from Government, and I’ll be voting that way with my preferences. However, except for Iraq, IR and John Howard, I really can’t see much difference between them. Can you ?
If Labor does dominate this election, Australians may soon want the Democrats back in Balance of Power (needing Coalition support), just as many people have wanted the Democrats to hold Balance of Power under Howard.
I wish the ALP had shown balance by including the Democrats in their preferences. The ALP may wish that too when the Greens refuse to negotiate.
The Senate voting system forces decisions that are not ideal but the Democrats have been fair, transperent and balanced.
the irony of ljh picking a mahler related horse is the fact that pjk was a mahler devotee – the pm’s race is run and the horse for the course befuddles him yet again – janette the jockey has a donkey for a mount
Adam, whether you think senate polls or bunk doesn’t change the issue at all – why should the Dems take a hit on our primary vote for the ALP, and make it much more difficult for either ourselves or the Greens to get elected, when if we don’t get in to a winnable position, then our preferences will stay locked up with the Greens? The ALP has put the Shooters Party and the DLP ahead of us on their senate ticket in Victoria. How lovely of them. Why should we take a hit to our primary vote for a symbolic gesture that won’t actually help the ALP (and that may cost us or the Greens a senate seat), when they’ve actually done nothing for us?
But by splitting preferences 50/50, you’re only doing the reverse.
According to AEC’s HoR figures, 58.3% of Democrats voters favoured the ALP in 2004. So the Democrats preference allocation in the Senate effectively shifts votes from the Labor column to the Liberal column.
Some notes on the Sunshine state and the Senate tickets:
1. Pauline Hanson, as predicted, has landed a swag of bottom preferences and the Greens likewise from most micros.
2. CCC with some interesting (and aforementioned) choices, understandable only in terms of political strategy not commitment to the environment per se.
3. FFP as predicted with a lot of middle-high middle positions (10-30) which may well be crucial in the count.
The final spot will be interesting. Or, very dull. Insofar as a tight race between ALP and Coalition should just yield 3:3, whereas a coalition overspill is most likely to benefit Jeff Buchanan from Family First, since they have high positions in many micros and will “bulk up” ahead of Greens before the business-end of the count.
Conversely, if the ALP spills over three quotas (unlikely but possible if these polls actually hold) then the Greens may get over, stepping on Andrew Bartlett’s neck to do it (apparently Andrew is unbuttoning his shirt as we speak!).
Being a Melbourne Cup week I’ll hazard a wager on:
3 ALP
2 Coalition (no Boswell)
1 FFP : Jeff Buchanan
Simply given the traditional bias Queensland has for conservatives in the Senate.
🙂
Family First in Queensland (quite possibly their strongest state, perhaps after SA) have gone to Pauline Hanson after the Coalition (out of the likely contenders anyway). If the Coalition vote crashes as much as some polls suggest, and Hanson is at half a quota to start with (as in the last Morgan), she is in with a chance. While she isn’t getting preferences from either major or the Dems or Greens, she is getting them ahead of ALP/Dem/Green from Shooters, LDP(!), Fishing, One Nation, Fishing & Lifestyle, CEC, CDP, Non-custodial Parents and an ex-National Party Independent. The Carers Party have also put Hanson next after the Greens, and Climate Change Coalition have put her after Dems & Greens.
(these all assume that the only probable contenders in Qld are the two majors, plus Greens, Democrats, Family First and Hanson – I haven’t done a close enough look to see if there’s a probability of someone bouncing their way up through the field on less than 1% primary)
I note the Greens have put the pro-nuclear, pro-gun, pro-privatisation LDP ahead of the Democrats in Qld – maybe it was to balance out putting the Socialist Alliance before the Dems too.
Someone tell me if I’m missing something here: each State elects 6 senators, but the quota is 14.3%, which when multiplied by six only adds up to 85.8 — where does the other 14.3% go? Why isn’t a quota 16.7%?
My take is that the polls aren’t wrong. The minors are being squeezed because of the effect where voters, thinking it will be close, tend to head directly to the majors.
My shirt’s still buttoned Generic O. The Greens did slightly better than Dems in preferences from micro parties, but not by heaps. In broad terms, I will need to outpoll the Greens to have a reasonable chance, although there’s a few other permutations which would work for me if the Democrats can get over 5% or so primary vote in the Qld Senate.
The big risk in Queensland is still that the majors will split things 3-3 (although the Hanson scenario I describe above can’t be ruled out). The combined Democrat-Green vote is unlikely to get to 14 per cent, and a lot of the other minor and micro parties in Qld are very much to the right of the spectrum.
I haven’t had a close enough look at other states to broaden this statement, but it seems more and more like the micro/minor parties are dividing on a rough left-right basis, which means as preferences start flowing, neither side feeds the other very much – which is to the benefit of the majors.
Leinad @330, Thats one I keep wondering myself, and I’m glad you asked it because Antony doesn’t want to talk to me (sob).
Take two. You can delete the previous post William…
The same place the 49.9% goes that doesn’t elect a marginal seat MP.
If the quota was 16.7% then 83.3% would elect five members.
That means the sixth position would be won by whoever gets at least half of the remaining 16.7%. That’s 8.4%. The final Senator would be elected with a much smaller share of the vote than the other five.
Ah! Thanks David
Got it. Cheers, David.
Andrew,
Since you are posting here, good luck in the Queensland Senate. Your consistent position opposing WorkChoices and the injustice of our immigration policy deserves respect.
As for the Greens, I though the Democrats and Greens had agreed some form of deal in this election? I agree their preference strategy in Qld is cynical, and may be self-defeating. What is it about the Queensland Greens? I still remember their preferencing against Labor in favor of the national Party (!) in the 1995 State election, even though Labor were proposing the Cape York national park. Sheer hypocracy. This will inspire people like moi to not give the Greens a preference.
Socrates, you give the Dems too much credit. The Dems are preferencing the LDP ahead of the Greens in the senate in NSW.
As for the 1995 QLD state election, the Greens preferenced Labor in all marginal seats except 3 seats where Labor was trashing the environment with some motorway construction. I reckon it would have been a much better option if the greens had recommended an exhaust in those 3 seats instead, but it looks like the QLD Greens have learnt the lesson judging by the preference flow to Labor in subsequent elections.
I still remember the Democrats preferencing the Coalition ahead of Labor in 10 marginal seats in the 2001 federal election.
Socrates
We can debate this ad infinitum, but as far as I’m aware the Greens and Democrats do have a deal, which I would expect to include the major parties and larger minors (like FFP/CDP etc). Regarding the LDP or SA – do we really consider them a chance here? The horse trading that accompanies the GVT leads to lots of oddities – just like the Dems and FFP last time. But hopefully we’ve all learnt from that example. I also hope that the next JSCEM report covering this election recommends an end to the GVT, and a move to compulsory preferential (at least) ATL & BTL.
So is Helen Kroger’s election a fait accompli? I have not seen one piece of election material for her and yet I don’t want to vote for her and I live in a blue chip Liberal electorate.
How did a lady who left her marriage with nothing except her (very expensive) house, who then worked for a not for profit, manage to then (7 years later) take on the Victorian Liberal Presidency without a salary. Yes – of course she’s in Micheal’s pocket! She is his conduit.