Sunday 26/10. Final result: Labor 7, Liberal 6, Greens 4.
The count has now been finalised and the Greens have indeed won a fourth seat in Molonglo, their candidate leading 9457 to the third Liberal’s 8536 at the key point in the count. As I should have noted in the previous entry, there was also a close race between the second and third Greens candidates which has in fact been won by Caroline Le Couteur, who overtook Elena Kirschbaum late in the count. Kirschbaum had 4203 votes at the point where she was excluded to Le Couteur’s 4285.
Saturday 25/10
In Molonglo, we now have a preference count for 62,577 out of 88,291, and Antony Green’s assessment is that “the Greens are starting to be favourite for the final spot”. On the present projection, second Greens candidate Elena Kirshbaum leads third Liberal candidate Giulia Jones 6660 to 6166 at the relevant count. The Liberals are likely to close the gap in what remains of the count – the primary votes that have been admitted to the preference count have gone 31.3 per cent Liberal and 18.5 per cent Greens compared with 31.4 per cent and 18.2 per cent from the total – but my back-of-envelope calculation tells me they will only be able to close the gap by perhaps 200 votes.
Tuesday 21/10
The count in Molonglo is getting progressively more interesting, with second Greens candidate Caroline Le Couteur just 49 votes behind third Liberal Jeremy Hanson at the crucial point in the count. Le Couteur herself leads the third Greens candidate, Elena Kirschbaum, by 49 votes at the relevant earlier point of the count. So the result could yet be Labor 7, Liberal 6, Greens 4, rather than 7-7-3.
Sunday 19/10
This post will be updated progressively with details of late counting in the ACT election. Two results remain in play: in Molonglo, which could either go Labor 3, Liberal 3, Greens 1 or Labor 3, Liberal 2, Greens 2, and in Ginninderra, which could either go Labor 2, Liberal 2, Greens 1 or Labor 3, Liberal 1, Greens 1. The most likely results will produce an outcome of Labor 7, Liberal 7, Greens 3, but other possibilities are for the Liberals to win as few as five, Labor to win eight or the Greens to win four.
In Molonglo, the Liberals are on 2.48 quotas on the primary vote and the Greens are on 1.48, so whoever does better on preferences will win the final seat. The problem for the Greens is the 2.7 per cent recorded by Liberal-turned-independent Richard Mulcahy, which based on pre-poll votes looks likely to go about 35 per cent to the Liberals and maybe 10 per cent to the Greens. Against that is that the Greens can hope for a strong rate of preference leakage from Labor. There is also an outside chance that independent Frank Pangallo could sneak through and take the seat if he receives enough preferences from minor candidates, but it would have to be rated a long shot.
In Ginninderra, Labor are on 2.41 quotas and the Liberals are on 1.64, the risk for the Liberals being that Greens preferences after the election of their candidate will push them ahead. However, the gap is probably wide enough to get endangered Liberal incumbent Vicki Dunne home.
People prefer above the line voting, when given the chance to vote above the line, a huge… i mean huge… portion of people choose to use it.
This surely is the simplest, easiest, most clear, straight forward way of ending this argument.
If people want to vote as they are forced to at the moment, let them, no one is stopping anyone from numbering candidates in whatever order they see fit – bottom up, across columns, whatever floats their boat.
But once people have the chance to vote above the line, you watch them vote with their pencils and vote above the line in MASSIVE numbers.
The vast majority of people choose to vote above the line because to vote above the line, in the Senate, because if you vote below the line then you have to number all the boxes (well at least 90% where there are more that 10 candidates) with often over 50 candidates while above the line you only need a single 1 and most how to vote cards say to vote above the line.
Read this history of Senate electoral law http://www.prsa.org.au/qn/1998d.html#section2
Of course ppl prefer ATL voting – it’s a lot easier than numbering 90% of the BTL boxes (which you need to do to record a formal vote).
The issue is that on face value you are voting for your party of choice. That’s true as far as your 1st prefs are concerned. But in reality, you are voting for the preference deal that your party has made. And thus is born Senator Steve Fielding – who most assuredly was NOT the person who most ALP voters wanted to see get in. Other posters have commented on the strategy of preference harvesting and it is a real blot on the process.
A far better way to proceed would be to preference all parties ATL, with each party’s candidates being given the flow of prefs according to their party’s registered listing. This way a voter gets to simply determine the parties they wish to see elected in order of preference. Simple, transparent, democratic. (Puts crash hat on waits, for response). And free of backroom party deals. To illustrate:
Say the four following parties are listed on the ballot paper with X candidates listed BTL
Party A (6 candidates)
Party B (4 candidates)
Party C (6 candidates)
Party D (2 candidates)
Total: 18 candidates
Then say I vote ATL
Party A 1st pref (Candidates get BTL prefs 1-6, in Party A’s stated order)
Party B 3rd pref (Candidates get BTL prefs 9-12, in Party B’s stated order)
Party C 4th pref (Candidates get BTL prefs 13-18, in Party C’s stated order)
Pary D 2nd pref (Candidates get BTL prefs 7-8, in Party D’s stated order)
I’ve simply and easily chosen exactly the parties I want. Mind you, it’s a bugger for the Ungrouped. I really don’t like ATL voting.
Or, we could have the system that we have, where you know that not just the parties, but the candidates themselves, have popular support.
I think it’s a definite plus for this system that we’re able to throw someone out who’s pretty hopeless (Mick Gentleman coming to mind as one example in this election – lovely bloke, useless MP), and replace them with a new candidate who actually has popular support – instead of the preferred system of folks like Adam, whereby he’d get straight back in because he has the standing with the party hacks.
First Areaperson: The balance for politicians between populism (doing whatever you think the people will approve of regardless of whether it’s right or wrong) and elitism (doing what you think is right regardless of whether the people agree or have even been asked) is obviously not an easy one to strike. Politicians who are both skilled and principled try to explain to the people why certain policies are right, and to lead the people to support them. “Democratic leadership” thus has two components – democracy as in respect for the will of the people, and leadership as in trying to persuade the people why certain things are right and necessary.
Rebecca: One thing any democratic system needs is people who are willing to give large amounts of their time and money to make political parties and election campaigns work. No doubt you do this for the Greens, as I and others try to do for Labor, and others do for other parties. I’m sure you don’t like being dismissed as a “party hack” for your pains. Well neither do I.
looks almost certain the Greens (Elena KIRSCHBAUM) will win the Molonglo final seat in the ACT election, taking it from a Lib. Make up will be 7 ALP, 6 Lib 4 Green.
Friday PM, Kirschbaum still gets elected, though on the current count, the Liberal vote is below its eventual primary tally and the Green vote is above. The Greens issued a formal ticket of preferences listing Kirschbaum as 3 behind le Couteur, but because Rattenbury hasn’t reached a quota, the preferences of anyone following the ticket won’t count. I think the Greens are starting to be favourite for the final spot, but who is the second Green that will be elected?
I’d think le Couteur, as she’s ahead by 21 votes in the sample, but 80 in the full count. On step 89 where she gets knocked out she’s down by only 2.
Oh my frickin’ gawd! It’s all over – the greens get the final spot! Antony, I have no idea which one it is, Le Coteur is generally 15-20 FPs ahead in each remaining booth, but that doesn’t mean anything. I’ve lost my cool – I’m too excited to think straight, so someone please slap me, but by my count there’s 4401 FPs to go to the Libs, 2982 to the Greens in the remaining booths (including Red Hill, which isn’t on the list, but as I understand the alphabet comes before Reid, which has been counted). the Libs votes need to get TWO elected, whereas the Greens only ONE – so lets split it evenly between Hanson and Jones 2200 each. Jones is 494 votes behind Kirshbaum tonight. So, very roughly, Kirshbaum gets the residual of 2982 -say 2500 – plus the 494 she’s ahead, meaning that Hanson has to end up with 3,000 of these last booth votes to win – and these booths heavily favour Hanson. Other random preferences cancel each other out. I can’t see Jones making up the gap.
Antony – the Greens have no discipline, how could you expect them to follow “formal ticket of preferences”!
Well it doesn’t really matter who it is, except to them. If the Greens win a fourth seat, they will have bragging rights from this election, since they will have taken seats from both major parties. It will also remove any claim the Libs may have to have had a good result, since they will have gone backwards in votes and seats, and make it much more difficult for the Greens to support a Zedista government – not that I think they would anyway.
And by Zed’s own logic from election night, the Liberals should support a Green government.
Hah.
Having had a look – Elena’s only two (!) votes ahead of Caroline at exclusion – I think Caroline gets well ahead (at least 20) on the remaining booths.
Adam – I think four greens makes things less certain, not more. Six Libs joining with four greens (for argument) makes for a legitimate coalition government – a guaranteed 10 out of 17 votes on the floor of the Assembly is not something we’ve seen before.
On that logic an ALP-Lib coalition (13 or 14 seats) would be even better. Or maybe an ALp-Lib-Green coalition (17 seats).
well an ALP-Lib-Green coalition would be divine, Adam, but who’d make the tea?
The Nationals.
Well it would have to be Nerada then – couldn’t have any of that foreign stuff. Sadly we don’t have any Nats in the ACT, although we did have some One Nation types for a while, one of whom amusingly resurfaced as the lead Australian Motorist Party Candidate in our recent election.
Hey Antony, I’m glad you’ve come around! 😉 I’m pleased to claim that on election evening I said that there was a ‘very good chance’ the Greens would get the last seat and on Tuesday I said I would bet on the Greens getting it.
The Greens are over-represented relative to the Liberals in tonight’s distribution by over 250 votes compared with their share of the primary vote overall in the election. This is the first time it has happened in the interim distributions to date. But that obviously doesn’t explain the 494 vote difference between Kirschbaum and Jones at the crucial point in the count. I think it’s likely that Caroline Le Couteur will come in as the final MLA for Molonglo.
Anyone want to take the bet – your odds will not be as good as they could have been on Tuesday!
+1 Canberra boy! I’ll pay you and I’ll pay me too as I reckon my projections of Lib preferences favouring Hanson over Jones are part of the result. So much for Antony Green and his Turing machine – it is no match for Hare Clark and a couple of lucky dilettantes 🙂
I better stock up on meat then, before the ferals get to ban it.
“Antony – the Greens have no discipline, how could you expect them to follow “formal ticket of preferences”!”
It’s called free thinking. Greens voters think for themselves when they preference.
Unlike the AMP voters who simply forgot to preference.
Well played.
Ben,
Or is it, if the Greens preference the Libs they’d be crucified by their voters? Every one knows that if the Greens preference Labor the flow is 80%, if they have an open ticket it’s 70% and if they preferenced the Libs then the Green vote declines.
It’s survival mate, not principle.
I dunno, somehow I like the idea that the best approach electorally is also the best principled stance. It’s true that preferencing the liberals (except in extreme cases) would hurt us, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t remain a principled decision. It’s just serendipitous that the two coincide.
Ben,
I am an ALP sceptic, but,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9hMXnUty6s
Adam: Can you please knock off the conspiratorial rambling about the Greens supposed plans? Ban meat? Heck, if that’s the sort of thing you genuinely believe, if you go any further you’ll be starting to sound like your ol’ mate Lyndon.
No I don’t really think the Greens will ban meat. I am however going to stock up on shoes for when they ban leather.
“3.1.4 Ending the captivity and killing of animals for the cosmetic and fashion industries, including the use of fur and skin.” (http://www.vic.greens.org.au/about/policy/policy-documents/Animals300606)
Adam:
Like i said, it’s “sacred wilderness” / “Mother Earth” extremism
Adam
When saying cosmetic and fashion, it is talking about unnecessary add ons. Not basics.
And you know that. Your just being sensationalist
RE: ATL, “convenience” is no justification for a system which effectively hands voter prefs to unelected party hacks.
Jeez, why dont we just give your proxy to someone else, and you can stay home? Thats extra convenient.
If you’re worried about voter convenience: optional BTL.
Problem solved: easy for voters, and actually an exercise in democratic choice – not some hackocratic farce, which leads, eg, to Fielding being elected on the unknowing prefs of people who hate everything he stands for.
As for ACT – hohoho!!! Libs actually lost ground?? In this climate? Thats a priceless indictment of how hopeless their state/territory orgs are.
Jimbo (#168) in my case it is all logic, spreadsheets and calculators: no luck, although I could correctly be called a dilettante. I didn’t know Antony employed a Turing machine! 😉
Adam
169: Don’t bother! Us ferals will use the ALP’s convenient Anti-terrorism laws to hunt you down, root out your meat and thaw it into oblivion before composting it. 🙂
176: Don’t confuse the clothes that pollbludgers wear with the fashion industry! I’m sure your death-wear is safe in Victoria. Maybe the policy means that the animals can be killed for skins, for use in fashion. if they have a chance to get away. So much more sporting. To be fair its a goal. So until there is something more suitable to hide your feet with, you should be fine.
Now is there a final result in the ACT yet!
[When saying cosmetic and fashion, it is talking about unnecessary add ons. Not basics. And you know that. Your just being sensationalist.]
I’m sorry Dave, but that’s not what the policy says. It calls for ending the use of animal skins in the fashion industry. If that doesn’t mean banning leather shoes, leather belts and leather jackets, what does it mean? Who decides which clothing items are “fashion” and which are not? Leather shoes and jackets are usually marketed as being fashionable. If they are banned in leather, they will presumably be sold in something else – like that very envirocompatible petrochemical by-product known as plastic. Or are you going to ban shoes altogether? (Just curious.)
Adam:
If animal/green extremists got too agressive/violent against people or property what do you think would happen – they would become “unfortunate victims of stray bullets” maybe?
also I’m just curious – do you know why Bob Brown (the Green) never served in Vietnam?
I presume the same reason most people at the time didn’t? He didn’t want too?
Mary, if anyone gets violent or aggressive against people or property in this country, they get arrested by the police.
I don’t know why Bob Brown didn’t serve in Vietnam, probably because he didn’t approve of the war.
Adam:
i had in my mind the image of the scene from Red Dwarf where the “hippie” goes into a battle with the “protection” of peace and love only to be shot five times (“There is a grievous fault with thine weapon; it keepeth shooting people!)
I don’t have much time for animal or green extremists
Mary 183
Bonus Points if Bob Brown was a conscientious objector! He was born 27th December. Not sure if his birthday came up in the ballot. He was 20 in 1964 when the Act was introduced for Conscription. I suspect as a Medicine Student he may have been excluded from the Draft even if his birthday was balloted?
Adam 182
Not that it matters but there are natural rubbers, oiled fabrics and non-petroleum biodegradable plastics that can be used to make shoes. There is a long tradition of metal and wooden shoes: clogs. (not all those wonderous pointed Dutch types either). Hey I wear leather shoes and I’m vegetarian. So figure that out. 🙂 I don’t care if there are leather shoes or not.
Anyway ACT: is it A Government of Territory Unity: Ministers: 4 Labor, 3 Liberal, 2 Green? I suspect Territoreans probably wouldn’t mind if they performed well. The old party factions probably couldn’t stomach it though.
I wonder if those forestry workers who destroyed a protestor’s car on film will be charged?
Bob Brown was a doctor in the late 60s early 70s. So, saving lives rather than ending them was kinda his thing.
In fact, in was he who signed Jimi Hendrix’s death certificate – he was by chance on duty in the UK when Hendrix died.
And Mary, so you’re saying some protestors should be shot? That’s um… kinda psychotic.
tounge was firmly in cheek lefty
Confirm Molongolo – Le Couteur wins in Molongolo – thats 4 Greens, 6 Libs & 7 ALP – still counting in Brindabella & Ginninderra, but no change.
Plenty of doctors serve in the military, particularly in the reserves. There are lots of lives to be saved on battlefields. I know a surgeon in his 40s who has done two tours in Timor and one in Afghanistan.
I don’t know what Brown’s politics were in the 60s and 70s, but I’d be surprised if he was a Vietnam War supporter. In any case the military wasn’t very welcoming of gay men then so that may have been a factor too.
Excellent result in the ACT. Greens in government! (probably with support of that other major party, known as the ‘ALP’).
Seriously – first Green ministers in AU likely.
It means there won’t be a Liberal/Greens government, not that I ever thought there was much prospect of that!
The question is: can Stanhope cooperate with the Greens? If not, Labor might replace him?
They might have to! Its not in their hands alone.
And yes, I do like the aspect that ALP has first bite at forming a govt by convention. Extra demoralising for the LNP.
Incidentally: props to the Patterson poll after all.
I don’t see how it changes the chances of a Liberal/Greens Government. There’s nothing that states the Government needs to be the party with the most seats. The Chief Minister is selected by a vote of the chamber, which means if the Greens vote for a Liberal Chief Minister the Liberals can form government.
I still think the Greens should go with whoever offers them the best policy position and then threaten them with causing a vote of no confidence if they don’t buckle to their demands on key issues.
Patterson came close in terms of seats, since Labor came fairly close to three seats in Ginninderra, but their vote predictions overstated the Green vote in all three seats.
Patterson predictions:
Brindabella: ALP 40, Lib 37, AG 14
Ginninderra: ALP 41, Lib 26, AG 20
Molonglo: ALP 34, Lib 31, AG 23
Actual vote
Brindabella: ALP 36.5, Lib 35.3, AG 13.6
Ginninderra: ALP 40.1, Lib 27.8, AG 14.0
Molonglo: ALP 36.1, Lib 31.5, AG 18.2
lefty e, the concept of ‘first attempt to form a government’ doesn’t apply. A monarch, or a Governor-General, or a Governor, or an Administrator, can invite somebody to form a government, and if that person can’t, another person can be invited. But that’s not how the ACT system works. There is no invitation. The decision is made by the Legislative Assembly when it meets and must, by law, elect a Chief Minister. Under the rules of another jurisdiction Stanhope might get an invitation to form a government, then talk with the Greens, and then either form a government or admit inability, after which Seselja might get an invitation to have a go. If Stanhope got the first invitation, it would create a conventional presumption that he had the right to first talks with the Greens. In fact there’s no way to enforce that convention, but under the ACT system even that presumption doesn’t exist. Neither Stanhope nor Seselja will get an invitation, the Greens can, if they want to and Stanhope and Seselja are accommodating, talk with both concurrently, and then the Assembly will meet and we will see how the Greens cast their votes, which should settle the matter.
The ACT has a republican form of government while hosting the capital city of a constitutional monarchy!
You’re right, J-D – I’m drawing on a Westminster convention that doesn’t exist there in the ACT. I wonder if it does in the NT though? Don’t they have a “government administrator” – or is that gone now with self-govt?
Still, it does shift the weight to ALP symbolically. What will be interesting is if the Libs had the greater plurality, but not majority – I’m sure it will happen one day