Welcome to episode two in the slower-than-anticipated Post-Match Report round-up of federal electorate results, which today brings us to South Australia.
Of the three seats that were highly marginal for the Liberals going into the election, Kingston emerged with the smallest Labor margin following a relatively subdued 4.5 per cent swing. The swing was reasonably consistent throughout the electorate, though slightly heavier at Morphett Vale and the Liberal-voting suburbs to the north than along the coast. Makin produced the third biggest swing in the state, perhaps boosted by the retirement of sitting member Trish Draper, with the 0.9 per cent margin obliterated by an evenly distributed 8.6 per cent shift to Labor. In Wakefield the swing was 7.3 per cent, which was markedly lower than in the small towns in the north of the electorate than in the low-income outer Adelaide centres of Elizabeth and Salisbury.
Only at four of Boothby‘s 42 booths did Nicole Cornes achieve a swing greater than the 5.4 per cent needed to win the seat. All were in strong Liberal areas, including the coast around Brighton and the Adelaide Hills suburb of Flagstaff Hill. Labor’s worst results came in the area closest to the city, with swings to the Liberals recorded at Mitcham, Myrtle Bank, Kingswood and Hawthorn West. The Greens’ vote picked up 3.1 per cent, perhaps benefiting from embarrassment surrounding Cornes’s performance. In Sturt the Labor candidate Mia Handshin picked up a close-but-no-cigar swing of 5.9 per cent that was concentrated in the heavily mortgaged northern end of the electorate, with swings near or above 10 per cent at Dernancourt, Gilles Plains and Windsor Gardens. Pyne now sits on an uncomfortable margin of 0.9 per cent.
The 7.2 per cent swing in Adelaide was slightly higher than the state average of 6.8 per cent, and was driven in remarkable degree by the stronger Labor areas to the north and north-west of the city. The swings in many of these booths cracked double figures, whereas the strong Liberal booths to the north-east and south-east of the city mostly came in at well under half that. Labor’s Hindmarsh MP Steve Georganas also had a much more relaxing election night this time around after prevailing by 108 votes in 2004, picking up a 5.0 per cent swing that was fairly evenly distributed throughout the electorate.
Labor’s biggest swing in South Australia was wasted in the safe Liberal rural seat of Barker, where Liberal member Patrick Secker went to preferences for the first time since 1998 after his primary vote fell from 53.2 per cent to 46.8 per cent. Labor was up 8.6 per cent on the primary vote and 10.4 per cent on two-party preferred. Swings were larger in the bigger centres than the small rural booths: all five Mount Gambier booths produced above average swings, peaking at a remarkable 21.4 per cent at Mount Gambier North. Talk of a swing in Grey big enough to endanger the Liberals was partly borne out by double-digit swings in the seat’s traditional Labor centres of Whyalla, Port August and Port Lincoln. Swings were much more gentle in the many smaller rural and remote booths, dampening the overall shift down to an insufficient but still severe 9.4 per cent.
Alexander Downer’s seat of Mayo followed the statewide trend in swinging to Labor by 6.5 per cent. Particularly heavy swings were recorded at the southern coastal towns of Victor Harbor and Goolwa. Nine years after coming within an ace of winning the seat, the Australian Democrats can now manage only 1.5 per cent. The Greens did well to increase 3.4 per cent to 11.0 per cent, partly assisted by the donkey vote. Another good seat for the Greens was Port Adelaide, where they picked up 3.3 per cent and boosted Labor from a 3.7 per cent increase on the primary vote to 6.8 per cent on two-party preferred. Remarkably, all but one of the 10 booths in Paralowie, Salisbury and Parafield to the east of Port Wakefield Road produced a double digit swing, a trend which carried over into neighbouring Makin. Swings in booths further west varied around the 4 per cent mark.
Ferny –
good for you.
(Have you read The God Delusion?).
Wakefield and co. You really do not know what your talking about. You should learn how to count and know how the system works. Then maybe you will understand and be in a better position to make an informed decision and comment. The AEC calculates is surplus transfer value by dividing the surplus by the number of ballot papers. Te Liberal Ticket has obver 1.2 Mil;lion Ballot p[apers but they are worth in total no m,ore then 60-70% of the suplus. But they are transfgreed at a higher proportional value at raround 90% of the surplus usinsg a system desigen dto faciliate a manual count. A good 15 years or more out of date. It most ceratlainly can and does produced a change in the outcome of the election. Not all the time but it can.
The current system distorts the value of the vote adding up to 11,000 additional votes to the Greens disproportional to their support. The hypothetically I presented clearly demonstrates this fact. In fact if you just change the preference order using One nation votes and delivering them to the Liberal party then the ALP before the greens under the AEC system the Greens Candidate is eletced yet proportionally the ALP should have been elected.
In short the system is not proportional and the Greens would have been elected unjustly.
But I guess the Green supporters do not care about democratic values or fair elections. Just as long as they get elected. Sorry but I do care and will continue to argue for the system to be updated and to ensure the one vote one value principle is fulfilled. Just as I strongly advocated for reform of the Victroiian Upper-house now I want to see the system remove the outdated bais that still exisits. Its unwarranted and unnessassary.
Yes Jen, I know of Dawkins book…and several others…though I confess I haven’t read all of Dawkins.
To William and all the Poll Bludgers…I’ve enjoyed reading your posts and I would like to wish you all a happy Xmas and a prosperous new year.
So much work to be done to repair the damage and pave the way for the future generations.
I’ll be heading up to Kingfisher Bay on Fraser Island for a well deserved rest.
Ferny –
just interested in light of your negative church experiences. As a committed Ex-catholic I reallky enjoyed his take on organised religiopn.
Vic senate watch/ melb city: to say that the Greens are not interested in democracy and fair elections is patently ridiculous.
I think you need help with your obsessive disorder.
To Senate Watch- Over 1 Million Australians voted for the Greens in the Senate. I dont think I need to say any more! Yes, Greens are very interested in democracy. Let’s get rid of the voting system that allows the House of Unrepresentatives to thrive. Just back from New Zealand . Great to be taken on a tour of Parliament House in Wellington and actually stand in a political chamber that truly reflects the votes of the people. Australia is in the Dark Ages in so many ways.
Happy Xmas to all the Poll Bludgers and especially William.
Below is a little song i sang (appallingly) at a post-election bash,
To the tune of that old country oater Jolene. My partner tells me it raised a few smiles so here goes:
MAXINE
(With profound apologies to Dolly Parton)
Maxine, Maxine, Maxine McKew,
I’m begging you please don’t take my seat,
Maxine, Maxine, Maxine McKew,
How could the man called Rodent face defeat?
You’re youthful with your pert blonde hair,
My morning walks just don’t compare,
You speak of hope while I just vent my spleen.
Jeanette and I just cannot sleep
Oh Kirribilli can’t we keep?
Wollstonecraft; it’s not the same, Maxine.
And now I just can’t understand;
Ryde, Eastwood, Epping dumped their man,
And even Gladesville turned to you, Maxine.
Maxine, Maxine, Maxine McKew,
I’m begging of you please don’t take Bennelong.
Maxine, Maxine, Maxine McKew
How did all those Asian voters get it wrong?
You could have Joe Hockey’s seat
He would have been an easy beat,
Whatever happened to my mystique, Maxine?
From King Cocky to a goose,
And now I’m just like Stanley Bruce,
The Tories Greatest Loser; Oh Maxine!
Maxine, Maxine, Maxine McKew,
I’m begging of you please don’t claim victory.
Maxine, Maxine, Maxine McKew
For I can’t face a lifetime of Hyacinth and me.
Did you stand in the Legislative Council chamber Brenton? I guess that reflects what the NZ people think of politics and politicians.
Thanks, I’d rather have our current system than the gaggle of unstable coalitions that are now compulsary in NZ.
Is the swing in Melbourne the largest of the election?
I think that’s enough rain for now, Kevin.
Too much concern with rain around here!
There’s been a little talk of headwinds of late, (does everyone remember Cossie’s U-turn from the finely tuned racing engine economy, to the one about to suffer a buffeting storm?) and none bigger than the downdraft from the US and its self-inflicted wound in the credit markets.
I know it’s but one voice, but I’m very partial to opinions of one Bill Gross, the head of a giant US bond fund manager PIMCO, as he talks straight and isn’t a Wall Street reptile. He reckons the US may have slipped into recession this month, and even if he’s left the block before the gun, it won’t be by much. Gross is not one to make flippant remarks on such stuff, and he proves his canny reading of the US market by having gotten out of mortgage backed secuities six months ago. Smart bloke.
So, be ready, the downdraft is comin’.
Like most of us who watch / post to this site I am both a political activist and a psephology ‘tragic’.
The ‘pseph’ in me has looked at what Senate Watch is arguing, and I believe it has merit. However, I think many of the responses are focusing on the partisan perspective of how the alternative – and I believe fairer – counting process would’ve affected the 2007 result. (Of course, in Victoria at least, there probably wouldn’t have been any change to the final outcome, however The Greens wouldn’t have been as close to the Quota as they did under the AEC formula.)
I believe the ‘bottom line’ is that political parties wouldn’t stand for the AEC formula being used for internal party elections because of the distortions it creates. (And I say that as a 30 year member of the ALP.)
To my mind that is the ultimate measure of whether or not the AEC formula is fair dinkum. In effect, the politicians have imposed a voting system on the population that they aren’t prepared to swallow within their own party structures.
However, I don’t believe that Senate Watch has done his argument any favours by casting aspersions at The Greens. And lets be honest, NO party will argue for change to a counting formula that advantages them. So the ‘minor’ parties probably won’t want to move away from the current formula, just as the ‘majors’ won’t don’t support multi member electorates or a state wide House of Reps multi member system, as per the McKinlay (apols if spelt incorrectly) proposal.
William,
As a ‘pseph’ I would love to see a thread devoted to teasing out the issues associated with this issue. As psephs we would all improve our understanding, and in the process raise the debate on a crucial issue. Compared with ‘1st past the post’ our mixture of H of R preferential voting and Senate Proportional Representation is one of the best in the world. However this is not to say that it doesn’t have flaws which need addressing or can’t be improved.
Given the possibility that the Senate majority could again become the cats paw of a government in future years, we should at least ensure that the manner in which votes are counted is genuinely proportional.
[THINKS: Did the current formula get either Fielding or Joyce ‘across the line’ in 2004? 🙁 If so, this is certainly an issue that needs review. How tragic if Coward’s Senate majority resulted from a weighted counting system. Was this what made SerfChoices etc possible?!! ]
How about a thread William, it would give us something to THINK about and the opportunity to debate and assess the facts of the matter, rather than posters merely sniping at Gov’t / Opposition actions / policies. While that may have been understandable in the context of the campaign, I am sure that genuine pseph discussion would be a ‘higher value’ use of your band width in ‘non-election’ years.
‘Merry New Year’ all.
Oh, Maxine. Case 1352. A red and green tattoo. Eyes cold steel blue.
Old Tom.
I do not considered the arguments I am making to be “partisan” far from it it. I have been expressing concern on this issue for some time ever since I saw the effect of it in analysis of local government elections. It is only then that I realised the principle behind the system used is wrong. It could work against the ALP or in the Alp’s favour. (Although it does not directly effect the major parties it does effect the outcome of teh elections and the value of their preferences. Thjoses that try to discuss the issue by claiming it is personal or partisan only do so out of ignorance or in a partisan assessment. The Victorian Senate result is only useful in that it does provide a realistic hypothetical where the result of the election could change as a result fo a flaw in the system and not the voters choice. The same was the case when they use to have random sampling of the preference distribution.
All this dates back to the old days of typewriters and manual counts. It was seen as a trade off of proportionality to ease of accounting. Today we have computers and we are more than likely going to have a form of e-voting in the not too distant future. Now is the time to consider a truly proportional; system. we have the technology and the mans to make it happen. IN teh process we can get rid of segmentation (Which was designed to limit teh effects of the distortion (In a rather crude way) Last burndell as used in Tasmania is the same, a bit fairer but still flawed ion principle and execution.
Now is the time to consider these issues before the next election. It is only a matter of time, not a question of if but when, the outcome of a proportional election will be determined on the quick of the system and not the decision or choice of voters.
To Answer your question on Fielding/FFP No this issue did not effect the outcome of that election. It is a rare occurance and even rareer with above the line votng BUT in local government eletcons it is by far more likely.
The debate of single member versus multi-meber and the dividon of the states is a seperate issue (Happy to debate it) But the argument presented and canversed by Brenton (156) means zilch. I doubt the Greens will support this proposal as it has the potential to effect them more then the major parties The Greens have the most to lose I guess because their vote will always go down but other Minor Parties votes will regain their value.
Old Tom@162: “In effect, the politicians have imposed a voting system on the population that they aren’t prepared to swallow within their own party structures.”
The senate election system used in Australia is far superior to that used by the Greens, Nats, Labor and the Libs in their own party structures. At least in the federal election, every member (ie holders of the franchise) gets a vote. In the four major parties the members are almost completely marginalised. All important votes are done by parliamentarians or at heavily controlled conferences. For example, was it only 6 people that voted in the most recent leader of the QLD Libs?
Make no mistake, if the parties could chose an electoral system without penalty, they would get rid of voters in a second.
Yes the current system needs reform, but I would probably argue parties need more reform than the electoral system, not the other way round as you were suggesting 🙂
Rainfall will always be lower under a Liberal government.
I want to know just what have they been putting in the water of the Canadian Prime Minister lately?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/071221/odds/odd_harper_dalailama_odd_dc
It’s a bit rich to say the Greens want to reduce democracy in this country. They stand for an independent speaker, recinding the recent law changes re electoral enrolments on the calling of an election and the introduction of public funding of elections to eliminate private funding.
Most importantly, the Greens want to get rid of the greatest undemocratic aspect of our government. They want Australia to be a republic. They have the strongest policies of all parties regarding increasing democracy in this country. To say they support anything less than better democratic processes is ignorance.
On a related issue, lets hope Kev07 reinstalls independence to those once independent public institutions such as the federal police, the CSIRO, asio and others.
For a look at how Costello kept critics at bay check this out.
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2007/12/summer-reading-could-john-howard-have.html
Two points on the debate above regarding the current formulae for distributing surplus votes at Senate elections.
(1) It is misleading to refer to what is currently done as the “AEC formula” or “AEC rules”, as if the AEC makes the system up as it goes along: the AEC is simply following the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Any candidate who thought the AEC had misapplied the law could take the issue to Court straight away.
(2) There are grounds for suspicion whenever someone starts saying that a particular technical aspect of a single transferable vote PR formula is correct, while another aspect is flawed in principle. There are many different forms of proportional representation, including list systems with different quotas; and while they vary in many respects, including overall proportionality, few analysts would be so unsophisticated as to assert that one is right and another is wrong. Anyone who wants to explore some of these issues further should tear himself/herself away from this blog, and read Michel L. Balinski and H. Peyton Young, “Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote”, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1982.
I just finished a one sitting read of Mungo MacCallum’s book “Poll Dancing”.
The description of Howard in the opening chapter as “unspeakage and unflushable” gives you at good guide on the angle he takes.
On Howard’s treatment of hicks:
“history will forever record him as the prime minister who betrayed and abandoned one of his own citizens to arbitary imprisonment and maltreatment by a foreign power”
On the Lindasy Leaflet:
“It was satisfying that the dog of racism, so assiduously whistled up by the Dear Leader, had at last come back to bite him on the bum”
And finally on the concession and victory speech:
“… desending into senile ramblings, during which he compared his wife Hyacinth to cement. And on that note. he slid smoothly around the S-bend of history”
“Kevin made a gun-ho speech more suited to the start of the campain than the finish that demonstrated that one of his first jobs should be to hire a new speech writer”
Its probably best read by people happy to see Rudd in power or Libs with a very good sense of humor. To me it felt like reading my own thoughts on the year only better written and funnier.
Old Tom @ 162. I thoroughly agree. Melb City/Senate Watch has a least taken the trouble to understand how the senate surplus vote transfers work. Most of those who respond to him have not. Partly this is his own fault because he is his own worst enemy when it comes to arguing his case. For those who are interested I think Antony Green may have posted a reference on a previous thread to a paper that is relevant. It was by Farrell & McAllister in the Aust J of Pol Science vol 39 #3 Nov 2003 pp479-92.
Diogenes Says:
In that case a certain recent convert might be worth backing for the next go round of the papal conclave in the Sistine at what would be long odds at the moment.
It seems that the Scouse Liverbird, Cherie, has finally prevailed on Tone to forsake “the old cause that gave us our freedom, religion and laws” and he has “turned Papist himself”. I wonder if he thinks he looks good in red socks?
The mad Tory crone, Ann Widdecombe, herself a convert to Catholicism has questioned the validity of Blair’s complete and unalloyed acceptance of Romish teachings.
A more orthodox view on why Howard lsot the election. Seems like a few competing theories are beginning to surface.
http://www.southsearepublic.org/article/1085/read/the_fall_on_the_sword_narrative
Steve @ 168 – As Peter Martin notes, there seems to be a degree of rewriting history going on and nearly all of it is coming from the conservatives.
While I have not a single doubt that Cossie is the thug depicted, I think its drawing a long bow to suggest the Rodent nobly sacrificed both his primeministership and historical reputation to save us from the thug’s untender mercies.
Cossie’s behavior was not that different to the rest of the cabinet. Hell, Dolly, weeks before the election, publicly dismissed those who didn’t vote for him in Mayo as ferals and leftist agitators who weren’t worth consideration. And Rodent himself was quite capable of cutting anyone who crossed him off at the knees, as any of the press gallery will testify. Nor should we forget all the people they did abuse to retain power, Aboriginal Australians, the refugees they brutally tortured both physically and psychologically, Hicks, the people of Iraq, Muslims, Haneef, Vivian Alvarez Solon, Cornelia Rau…….
This was a government of power addicted thugs who would do anything and anyone to maintain their fix. Cossie was no worse than the others.
Peter Martin’s speculation on Howard sacrificing himself to keep Costello out of the PM’s chair is inconsistent with the story that Howard told his colleagues post-APEC to roll him. Admittedly the latter story would have resulted in an outcome which Howard had resisted for a decade but it would have been in the full knowledge that Costello would have only been PM for a few months until being thrashed at the election, preserving Howard’s legend and seeing Costello drink from the poisoned challice.
The actual outcome was possibly the best possible for two nasty individuals.
The AEC is Tye one responsible for reviewing the processes and initiating change. yes politicians can do so also but n reality iotis the AEC that has the biggest say. The above -the-line voting system was supported and advocated by the AEC who rejected calls to allow preferential voting above the line – Reason is that it complicated the count.
The problem with all the various “proportional systems “And I have read them all is that they are designed to facilitate a manual count, means of achieving a semi proportional system with tradeoff to ease the counting process. last Bundle is one such example as used in the Hare-Clarke tasmanian system. segmentation was introduced a as means of limiting teh distortion in the “ballot paper” based formula. prior to the the computerisation of counting the election I use to advocate teh PR societies last bundle system and its FIFO segmentation rules BUT I know can no longer advocate this model. Whilst it is better then many of the other outdated system that fact remains that it is not truly proportional.
The time is right to change the system. get rid of segmentation and adopt a purely proportional count based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers.
That is what I am advocating the “Wright” System. Jack Wright was the author of a book called the Mirror of a Nations mind. It is worth reading for those who want an overview of teh various system. With the computerised counting of the ballot there is no longer need to trade-off proportionality for ease of manual counting. a Reiterative counting system is also not out question.
My extensive experience in advocating electoral reform has shown that if you can get the AEC to adopt the right system then all others State, Local Government and even political parties follow. I believe the parliament may already be supportive of the recommended change, Question is will the AEC also support bring teh system up to date and adopt a more proportional and fairer system or will they adopt a do nothing no change attitude that they have done so in the past. I would also very much advocate the ALP to adopt the system internally also. There is no merit in using the current inherited flawed system in a computerised count. They are building in and perpetuating a error in the calculation that no longer is justified or warranted.
Again…
* One transaction per candidate (No need for segmentation of the vote – all votes transferred in a single transaction)
* Surplus transfer value to be based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers.
* remainders to remain with the vote.
* Possible adoption fo a reiterative count should optional preferential ballots be adopted.
* The Commission to publishes the preferential data files used to calculate the results of the election.
Simple, proportional and much fairer then what we have today.
Have you lot finished counting yet?
Sturt – i quite like Mia Handshin and think she could usefully come over here and make a useful addition to UK politics.
You can have Sarah Teather (UK LD)
thankyou William for this wonderful site and thanks to the bloggers who’ve given this old dear hours of pleasurable reading and lurking, thankyou kevin for the wonderful downpour of the last couple of days– my roses rejoice, with a contented sigh i wish you all a great xmas and a wonderful labor new year, my only problem i have in the new year is what to train my dog Charis to do next her snarling bark everytime Howard was shown on telly was a wonder to behold.
Way off topic in one sense, but way on message in another, is this quirky little bit of news about the first ever recorded outbreak of a tropical disease in Europe.
Folks, the warming has begun, and the unexpected is occuring:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/europe/23virus.html?em&ex=1198472400&en=dfb6ef2417167f5b&ei=5087
…related to Dengue fever, it is a virus carried by a newly arrived mosquito.
And to think, about a year ago John Howard (remember him?), was dissing Al Gore and still not committed to the science of climate change.
The Rodent is gone, and not a moment too soon.
If the Eslake-Martin allegations about the behaviour of the ANZ CEO John McFarlane are true then this raises a number of important questions for both the people of Australia and ANZ shareholders.
Firstly it seems extraordinary that McFarlane should have reacted the way in which he did. The ANZ management presumably relies on the fact that the advice and analysis of their in house experts is independent and not influenced by anything other than a desire to be accurate. Surely it was not in the best interests of the bank for a staff member (albeit senior) to be urgently contacted by the chief executive and told that the bank had been threatened by a politician. My experience and observation of such things is that the appropriate management behaviour at such times is for the management to protect and shield staff. McFarlane must have been in a right panic. Eslake was still on the road travelling back to Melbourne when he was contacted. A prudent executive would surely have pondered the situation and the best course of action to take for some while.
This then brings up the question of the circumstances and appropriateness of Mrs Costello’s appointment to a lucrative position on the ANZ’s staff. As Crilkey opined at the time:
Midnorthcoast@158,
“Thanks, I’d rather have our current system than the gaggle of unstable coalitions that are now compulsary in NZ.”
You’re entitled to your opinion but as a NZer I hardly think the NZ system in practice is “a gaggle of unstable coalitions”. I would hardly call having the same Prime Minister (Helen Clark) and Treasurer (Michael Cullen) – and virtually the same senior Ministers in a Labour-led government – for 8 years, unstable.
Indeed there is nothing inherently unstable about NZ’s (and Germany’s) Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system. If the MMP system was applied to the recent federal House of Representatives election results (assuming 80 electorate seats and 70 list seats – the latter to ensure proportionality) Labor would have won 70/150 seats (with 43.38% of the vote), the Liberals 59/150 (with 36.28% of the vote), the Nationals 9/150 (with 5.49% of the vote) and the Greens with 12/150 seats (with 7.79% of the vote). None of the other smaller parties, as they have less than 5% support nationally would have won any list seats. Most probably neither one of the two Independents would have won their electorate seats as electorate seat boundaries under MMP would be different – ie. cover a larger population/geographical area).
On those numbers a Labor-Green coalition (70+12 seats) would have a combined 82 seats and a Liberal-National opposition (58+9 seats) would have 68 seats. That would give Labor and the Greens a 14-seat majority, hardly what I’d call an unstable coalition.
Ooops that should be “(59+9 seats)” NOT “(58+9 seats)”
Hi Senate Watch, your rantings against the Greens are so amusing! Why dont you attend the Global Greens conference in Sao Paulo in Brazil next year between May 1-4. It might be a good opportunity to chat to Greens from around the world about the electoral systems in various countries. Dont worry, the Greens are going to be around for a LONG time yet!
And Mid-North Coast, yes New Zealand abolished their Legislative Council , just like our state of Queensland did as well. I dont have any problem with the abolition of upper houses, as long as their is proportional representation in the remaining Chamber of Parliament.
As far as unstable coalitions in New Zealand? I think from my observations that New Zealand is a successfully functioning democracy and by the way what about about our Australian ‘gaggle of unstable coalitions’ between the Liberal and National Parties??? It alll depends on personal interpretation of what is successful government??? I find that people who rubbish proportional representation are usually staunch Liberal and Labor Party people(they are used to having SO much power) Both old and new political movements should have the opportunities to be represented in our parliaments. I like the New Zealand system because politicians of all parties have to work hard for EVERY vote! Also, if new parties are not up to scratch, they will very quickly be dumped. In fact the next New Zealand election will probably deliver a National Party government in their own right, so coalitions are not always to be expected with that system. Also, most of the countries in Europe have similar political systems and PLEASE dont tell me that they are not successful, thriving, dynamic societies.
Kiwipundit- Thanks for your comments about the New Zealand system of government. New Zealand is a wonderful country and is LIGHT YEARS ahead of Australia in so many areas, especially social justice.
Brenton, thanks for your comments too – especially in reply to Senate Watch and Mid-North Coast.
Perhaps with Rudd as your new PM Australia may make progress on social justice issues which languished for 11 years under Howard.
I think the correct collective noun for conservative coalitions is “giggle” not gaggle.
Full distributions of preferences info is now available from the AEC:
at last.
There are many interesting things to see.
Eg, Lindsay Tanner would have lost his seat (Melbourne) if more of the Liberals, FF and other minor party voters had followed their how to vote cards. But 16% of the Libs put Tanner above the Green and helped save him.
Greensborough Growler, your comment is very witty! Unfortunately, with most conservative coalitions there is usually ‘nothing, to giggle about’. I have a vision of Phillip Ruddock in my mind!!!!!
Another interesting fact from the preference distributions.
In O’Connor in WA, Wilson Tuckey possibly only survived by 600 votes (despite the final tally looking good).
Eg, when the Green’s candidate was excluded there were only 3 candidates left in the race: Tuckey(Lib), Rose(ALP) and Gardiner(NP who campaigned strongly on doing something about climate change). Now some 900 Green preferences went straight to Tuckey instead of Gardiner or Rose. If about 600 of those had instead gone to Gardiner then he would have overtaken Rose to be in second place. When Rose was eliminated then most of his prefs would have gone to Gardiner and were enough to defeat Tuckey.
Also available now from the AEC, details of preference flows.
Eg, on average Greens’ prefs go 80% to ALP.
But this ranged from only 54% in Fowler(NSW) to about 92% in Batman(Vic).
They have not done the full distributions for everyone. They have not done Higgins. Also I am a bit confused. I voted below the line in the Victorian senate. Was my vote counted? Do they stop counting once all the quotas are filled?
Higgins was won outright by Costello getting more than 53% of the primary vote so there is no need for a full distribution of preferences.
However, the AEC does look at all the votes in every seat to do a two candidate preferred flow analysis. For Higgins it is at
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionTcpFlow-13745-215.htm
It shows, for example, that 83% of Green votes pref’d ALP in Higgins.
Brenton @ 189,
Ruddock is more your Dorian Grey character in reverse. The public figure beacme so ugly as he compromised all those things that drew him to make a life in public.
I am sure there is a painting somewhere of Ruddock as an idealistic human being who believes in human rights and the fair go for all.
If anyone other than me is interested in foreign elections, the New Mandala website is blogging live on the Thai election results as they come in this evening. The polls close at 7pm AEDST (ie at 3pm in Thailand, presumably so everyone can get an early night), so figures will start to appear some time later. There will be some quite well-informed people participating so if you want to learn more about Thai politics this would be a good way to do so. Under the new constitution they have gone over to German-style MMP, with 400 MPs elected from 157 multi-member constituencies, and 80 elected by PR from eight 10-member constituencies, so everyone gets to vote for both a local MP and a party list. The coverage is here:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2007/12/23/new-mandalas-live-election-coverage/
Scaper impersonator comment deleted, along with subsequent discussion thereof.
For all the talk about New Zealand’s voting process, I’m told by a New Zealander that the Country is poorly run, basically the only way to get ahead in NZ is to move to Australia, basically the Government is all about slogans and nice pictures.
The Thai election cartoons.
http://www.2bangkok.com/elections2007b.shtml
181
Albert Ross Says:
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 am
If the Eslake-Martin allegations about the behaviour of the ANZ CEO John McFarlane are true then this raises a number of important questions for both the people of Australia and ANZ shareholders.
Firstly it seems extraordinary that McFarlane should have reacted the way in which he did. The ANZ management presumably relies on the fact that the advice and analysis of their in house experts is independent and not influenced by anything other than a desire to be accurate. Surely it was not in the best interests of the bank for a staff member (albeit senior) to be urgently contacted by the chief executive and told that the bank had been threatened by a politician. My experience and observation of such things is that the appropriate management behaviour at such times is for the management to protect and shield staff. McFarlane must have been in a right panic. Eslake was still on the road travelling back to Melbourne when he was contacted. A prudent executive would surely have pondered the situation and the best course of action to take for some while.
This then brings up the question of the circumstances and appropriateness of Mrs Costello’s appointment to a lucrative position on the ANZ’s staff. As Crilkey opined at the time:
…it’s not a good look for Tanya Costello to go from being a suburban solicitior to a better-paying job at the ANZ….
Albert, very interesting indeed.
What you also have to take into account are inter-ANZ politics …. literally. ANZ’s Chairman was (and sadly still is) one Charles Goode; Melb establishment figure (ex JB Were) and one of the Lib party’s chief fundraisers heading the Cormack Foundation.
McFarlane deserves much credit for the regeneration of ANZ but is still still looked upon somewhat askance by some in establishment circles. The McFarlane – Goode relationship ……… Perhaps the most appropriate assessment to make is to observe Goode’s influence in appointment of the new CEO.
Perhaps this shed some different light on this incident. We are also not privy to the Costello/McFarlane exchange.
It is even more interesting given the word on the street is that Costello has knocked back an offer to the ANZ. $4mill is the package being sought. Macquarrie Bank may bite just to have an ex Federal Treasurer on their Board.