Harvest time

101 comments on “Harvest time”

1. Not sure why Antony Green or anyone else thinks Greens have a problem with preferences in NSW. Above the line Greens will get Sex Party, Democrats and Kernot votes plus some very small ones. Since the contest is with Labor for the third left of centre seat – that compares with Labor getting DLP help but not much else. Whichever of Greens and Labor is behind at the end will elect the other.

2. I think Antony is right. Dems and Kernot are double-dipping into a very tiny bowl, Sex won’t poll very well, and the Greens vote will be lower than people are expecting. Lee Rhiannon might well be the last excluded candidate.

3. Democrats have just turned into spoilers over the last couple of elections – flirting with Family First and now Libs in ACT and Labor in SA ahead of Greens.

   Family First in SA and CDP in WA are a chance to take a third seat off Coalition.

   Hard to see Coalition/FF/CDP winning more than 3 seats anywhere on current trends. Labor/Greens have a chance of getting 4 seat in Tas and maybe Victoria but difficult on current trends.

   Don’t see any surprises with outsiders such as Kernot.

4. I think there’s a small chance of Steve Fielding being reelcted in Victoria, surely he’ll do better than 2007 when he got 2% due to his profile if nothing else he may poll say ~5%, if liberals do particularly badly might we see 3 lab, 2 lib, 1 steve fielding. I hope I am wrong although he would probably no longer have power so would be strictly for entertainment purposes.

5. The Greens’ problem is complicated: they wanted the right-wing minor and micro-party vote to consolidate behind one candidate, so it would then flow to the Coalition in one hit when they were eliminated. The third Coalition candidate would then get elected with a big surplus, most of which would then flow to the Greens as Coalition preferences for the Greens ahead of Labor. However, that won’t happen because Family First and the Christian Democrats are sending their preferences straight to the Coalition. Now the Greens have to get ahead of the third Labor candidate on the strength of their own vote and preferences from minor left candidates – certainly not impossible, but harder.

6. Having been involved with doing preference deals over many years for minor parties and independents (having a break this election) I can attest to many things that happen to skew preference deals:
   1. Someone hates someone in another party so won’t tango even if philosophically similar – this is probably behind the Democrats/Greens as a lot of ex-Democrats have gone to the Greens and are bagging the ADs (not that Bob Brown helped with his unseemly celebration of the AD’s demise).
   2. Sometimes you never hear back from another mob, or you can’t contact them.
   3. People lie – “I’ll preference you 2nd, OK” – and you then find out they told EVERYONE that. It happens a lot. Oh, and you end up 35th.
   4. Sometimes deals are done months in advance of the election (this has happened with the Christian parties who were talking months ago).
   5. The Climate Sceptics are mostly conservative Christians – OK, almost exclusively. They are really anti-greens.

   I will do a preference deal study tomorrow night through my own calc of likely results.

7. ?’ve long been impressed with your coverage and relative impatiality. But it’s a bit rich of you to head-line a decision by the Democrats in the ACT and SA that you clearly do not like and you didn’t expect, after giving the Democrats zero coverage for many months/ years – culminating in the recent removal of the Australian Democrats website link from this site !

   ?n any case, it seems that the Democrats have done well from preference negotiations this time; in striking contrast to 2007 when, for example, the ALP preferenced the Shooters ahead of the Democrats.

   Assuming a reasonable vote, the Democrats will get preferences directly from small parties such as the Carers and the Sex Party (each about 1.2%, perhaps). The Democrats will also attract any surplus left vote (Greens-ALP-Socialist-Anarchist) after electing three Senators (likely in Victoria, in particular).

   Depending on the order of elimination, the Democrats may also receive preferences from others, such as (surprisingly) One Nation and the Liberal Democrats. ?n some States, parties favouring the Democrats have the ‘donkey vote’.

   The Democrats receive a good deal from the Coalition (but not Christian parties), although the Coalition would in this scenario be the last group left standing, and thus not count.

   Perhaps it’s wishful thinking but the Democrats may be returned to the Senate in any of the States, particularly in Victoria and Tasmania.

8. I removed the Democrats link for the same reason I removed the One Nation link – they no longer have seats in any parliament. I have given them a degree of coverage in recent years proportionate to their importance.

9. [And whats with the Socialist Equality giving first pref to Greens, ALP and Coalition in Vic? Doesn’t sound very Socialist to me. Although I guess it is equal.]

   They consider all non-SEP parties to be bourgeois and thus equally awful. You’ll note that they also put the Socialist Alliance way down. Just another part of the forever ongoing saga of splinter/amalgamation/splinter in the socialist movement.

10. I suspect the ACT Dems have a tiny membership in 2007 3103 voted Democrats which suggests a membership of less than 20 of which an even smaller portion engage in Senate negotiations, the Democrat rump also seems to be very anti-Green.

11. “Parliamentary cretinism” is, I am led to believe, their analysis of the Greens.

    Warning: Rant follows.

    From their electoral statement:

    While making appeals on certain social questions, the Greens are a thoroughly bourgeois party, organically opposed to socialism. They have long advocated the reactionary nostrums of “sustainable population”, and, on the crucial question of the environment, oppose any challenge to the profit system, advocating instead the same market-based mechanisms favoured by powerful sections of the corporate and financial elite.

    On the opening day of the campaign, the Greens stitched up a sordid preference swap deal with the Labor Party in the hope of securing the balance of power in the Senate for the first time. Greens’ leader Bob Brown has sent an unambiguous message to the ruling elite that he is committed to ensuring “parliamentary stability” and is happy to collaborate with either Gillard or Abbott, including supporting cuts to public spending and other austerity measures, to maintain it. The coalition Labor-Green government recently installed in Tasmania points the way to ever closer relations between Labor, Liberal, and Greens across the country. While claiming to be an alternative to the two major parties, the Greens are an integral part of the political establishment and function as a vital safety valve, keeping voters alienated from Labor and Liberal subordinated to their agenda.

    Having lined up behind Labor’s campaign in 2007, the middle class, pseudo-lefts—Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative, the Socialist Party and others—share direct responsibility for the right-wing measures carried out by the Rudd-Gillard government. In the 2010 election they are again straining to prevent a movement of the working class developing outside of the official parliamentary framework, acting as apologists for the political coup against Rudd, urging support for the Greens and Labor, and desperately striving to maintain any lingering illusions that these parties can be pressured to the left. Should they be called upon by the Australian ruling elite to play a more direct role within the parliamentary political establishment, and even within a coalition government, they will eagerly comply, as their counterparts have done in countries such as Brazil, Italy, and France

12. Hey, who wants to tell Antony Green that he’s wrong about Senator On-line (those whacky e-democracy enthusiasts)? 🙂

13. So Stephen Mayne splits his preferences between Family First and the Greens?

    Please explain? Would you be happy to have Fielding back in Stephen?

14. William,

    Thanks for the info re preference deals. As the “keeper of the flame”, I was angry when I saw what the current users of the DLP name had done. I have sent the following letter to the editor today:

    ‘As a former official of the genuine Democratic Labor Party, which disbanded in 1978, I am appalled that the current campaigners under its name have placed One Nation ahead of mainstream democratic parties on their Senate how-to-vote ticket.

    ‘The original DLP was a compassionate party committed to social justice. It was the first of our parliamentary parties to oppose the White Australia Policy. It advocated land rights for Aborigines, had a Torres Strait Islander candidate for Parliament four decades ago and welcomed refugees into its organisation.

    ‘That the current users of its name can trash its commendable human rights record by an association with One Nation is a disgraceful slur on the men and women who fought for justice under the DLP banner from 1955 to 1978. I urge anyone contemplating a vote for the new DLP to reject its preference deal and vote below the line.

    ‘Yours sincerely.

    ‘Chris Curtis
    (Vice President, Victorian Branch, Democratic Labor Party, 1976-78)’

    Emailed to hsletters@heraldsun.com.au
    letters@theage.com.au
    letters@theaustralian.com.au
    As Where’s my DLP, dude?

15. Odd to see the Communists back in the game.

    I’m going to try and vote for the party that preferences the two majors nearest the bottom but with Labor before the Liberals. Don’t i have a fun night ahead figuring out who that is 🙂

16. 64 Chris C – appreciate comment re One nation. Are you also concerned they are supporting Fred Nile and generally supporting Coalition ahed of Labor – exception NSW and in WA supporting Labor behind nationals but ahead of Liberals?

17. Am I missing something or have the “geniuses” who run SA Labor stuffed up again? They are preferencing Family First second, ahead of everyone except the Greens. Did they not notice Feilding’s voting record? Meanwhile Family First have put Labor and the Greens behind both Liberals and even One Nation. What sort of deal is that??? Meanwhile in Victoria too, Labor have put Family First ahead of the coalition, despite Family First putting the coalition ahead of Labor.

    After the stupidity of Labor’s preference deal with Fielding in Victoria in 2004, I begin to wonder if these decisions are not “errors” but reflect the prejudices of the right wing bloc that control the Labor Party. I cannot fathom why they would put Family First ahead of anyone other than One Nation.

18. Wakefield,

    No, I am not concerned by those other matters. There are four categories of parties – the one I prefer (ALP), others that are OK (DLP, Family First, the Greens – with a caveat that I will come to), ones I do not like but are within the democratic mainstream (Liberals, Nationals) and ones that are nutty or anti-democratic (Socialist Alliance, Citizens Electoral Council). I am not outraged by any preference deal among the first three groups, but if a party in the first three groups preferences a party in the fourth group ahead of the other parties in the first three groups, I am outraged.

    I don’t expect the current DLP to preference the ALP. I do expect it to put One Nation towards the end with parties like the SA and the CEC.

    I don’t know a lot about the Christian Democrats. In Europe, they are rather left-wing, certainly more left-wing than our Liberals and Nationals.

    The caveat with the Greens is that I am so fed up with their sense of entitlement to Labor preferences, their perpetual whinging that Labor dared via preferences to put Steve Fielding into the Senate and Peter Kavanagh into the Victorian Legislative Council and their hypocrisy on preferences – we don’t like them but we have to do a deal for the Senate, while not telling the world that they can have a split-ticket for the Senate – that I expect I will put them even after the Liberals on my Senate vote, though still before the SA, CEC, ON, etc.

19. PS. Neither The Age nor The Australian published my letter. I have yet to see the Herald Sun.

20. Socrates,

    It seems that no matter how often I explain the ALP’s preferencing decisions, the point is not to be understood. But here goes again. Labor’s preferencing decisions are not “errors”, not Steve Fielding in 2004, not Peter Kavanagh in 2006, not the SA FF in 2010. Family First is a legitimate political party, whose senator, I remind you voted against WorksocalledChoices. I admit he is a bit out of his depth, but he is not in the same league as the Socialist Alliance, the Socialist Equity Party, One Nation or the Citizens Electoral Council.

    Labor’s priority is to win government.

    Its second priority is to have a Senate that it can deal with, and that is not one in which the Greens hold the balance of power in their own right, though such a Senate is better than one in which the Coalition has a majority.

    In order to achieve its first priority, Labor has to downgrade its second priority; i.e., to get the Greens preferences it needs to win House seats and thus government, it has to recommend preferences to the Greens in the Senate and thus accept their having the balance of power there, even though it prefers a situation like the Victoria Legislative Council in which the Greens have to share the balance of power with the DLP.

    Last point: the Greens are not Labor’s friends. They are its rivals.

    Here are two previous explanations:

    http://www.pollbludger.com/?p=602&cp=all#comments

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/08/20/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria-2/

21. The rest of the rest in WA are an interesting lot: there’s Anthony Fels (sacked Liberal MLC, unsuccessful Family First candidate); Paddy Embry (former One Nation MLC); and Gerry Georgatos’ latest vanity project, the First Nations Party (confusingly merged with his ESJAP thing). He claimed in one of those Community News rags they had 3000 members… I remember him saying similar about the last party he reckoned he’d founded as well. They’re not registered, just like WA First. Also, Marianne Mackay (mentioned in that article as changing from Brand to Canning) is on the senate ticket instead. Looks like a really well organised party.

    The Georgatos ticket is a bit odd: left and right wing parties all over the place. Out of those who have any chance, it basically goes: Greens – CDP – Dems – Nats – Labor – FF – Libs. Favours the Greens unless they get knocked out of the count (unlikely, I guess?), in which case it swaps to the right wing parties (whoever does best out of CDP and Nats).

    Also, there’s Senator Online, who probably mean well but are completely loopy, and Rosemary Steineck in the ungrouped column. No idea who she is. One of those will probably come last.

22. Chris at 68:

    [ I don’t know a lot about the Christian Democrats. In Europe, they are rather left-wing, certainly more left-wing than our Liberals and Nationals. ]

    *raises eyebrows* You’ve not heard of Fred Nile?

    The CDP here are ultra-conservative christians, about halfway between Family First and One Nation. They ran a campaign in NSW a few years ago with a policy of a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia (read here). They’ve got nothing to do with the various major European parties by that name, same way the party Don Chipp started has nothing to do with the one Barack Obama leads – same name, that’s all. The NSW CDP recently split, and their more left-wing MLC joined Family First… that should give you an idea where they sit on the spectrum.

23. Chris Curtis:

    I take offence at your statement re: referencing One Nation.
    As a Queenslander we relied for many years assistance from independents and minors in Queensland and Rosa Lee Long (One Nation) was one of those.
    She was champion for Indigenous rights and stood against the socially destructed policies of the ALP……. including Homosexual Surrogacy, embryonic research, and many more.
    To be ignorant or a bigot is one thing but to attack the DLP for referencing another minor after the ALP/Liberals have virtually handed control of the Senate to the Greens is just hiding the truth of how low your party has fallen
    The DLP today is the same as the DLP of 1978 and we continue to fight the extremes of the left and the right whether they come from ALP or the Greens.
    In future if you have a question about why preferences were allocated at least have the decency to contact the party before shooting off your mouth with this trash.
    Each preference was carefully chosen something that the ALP and the Coalition failed to do.

24. Chris Curtis Says: PS. Neither The Age nor The Australian published my letter. I have yet to see the Herald Sun.
    

    Do you blame them ?

25. Its second priority is to have a Senate that it can deal with, and that is not one in which the Greens hold the balance of power in their own right, though such a Senate is better than one in which the Coalition has a majority.

    Assuming the ALP cannot control the Senate in their own right, the next best option would be where they could go to the Greens or another small party grouping to get a majority.

    However failing that, the Greens having sole balance of power is better than the ALP needing the Greens and another small party grouping to get a majority, as is currently the case.

    I fully accept that ALP preference deals are made on a pragmatic rather than a principled position, and are based on getting ALP senators elected, worrying only secondarily if at all about other parties and so they are not that kind of ‘mistake’ but it nonetheless remains the case that if the ALP had made a different decision in the 2004 election, they would be in a stronger bargaining position in the Senate now.

26. Chris

    Thanks that is a clear explanation of Labor’s position. Now what you need to understand is that you have artculated why Labor is about to lose government. If you make too many people on the progressive side of politics your enemy, Labor will not get enough votes to beat the conservatives. Labor’s preferencing decisions are not “errors”, they are demonstrations of bad faith.

    Labor’s priority may be to win government, but the priority of most voters is to have a government that represents their interests. If Labor cannot be trusted to deliver some aspects of a progressive agenda without Greens holding a balance of power, and Labor can’t accept this, then we will see the Liberals win. Stupid, but there you go.

    When I was in the Labor party I met a lot of union and party officials who (laughably) called themselves “progressive” but were as narrow and conservative (i.e. unchanging) in their thinking as Tony Abbott. Indeed, if they had been born in different households and brought up with different prejudices, they would have been identical to Tony Abbott.

27. Paul Kavanagh

    The Democrats receive a good deal from the Coalition (but not Christian parties), although the Coalition would in this scenario be the last group left standing, and thus not count.

    The Democrats were asked to vote against this green alliance of the ALP/Greens/Liberal.

    They clearly indicated their agreeance with the orchestrated syndicate and would not committ to placing placing the ALP and Greens below other minors.

    Christian parties discussed the dangers of preference deals like this and offered the Democrats higher preferences.
    The Democrats have clearly shown that they no longer hold any place in todays parliamentry system.

28. As promised (but late), here is my analysis of likely Senate results taking into account expected votes and preference deals. Like the great Antony Green, I am not ascribing BTL votes. Feel free to disagree.

    NSW
    Another tableclothesque ballot paper. The Greens get the donkey vote via the Socialist Alliance.
    Major PVs – ALP 2.6Q; LNP 2.8Q; Grn .7Q
    The ALP have no preference feeders and the Greens do and it will cost them.
    The critical deals here are the LNP/CDP and LNP/FF direct swap. Thanks to the poisoned relationship in NSW between the Niles and a lot of their former party members (and MPs), the conservative Christian CDP & FF parties have not preferenced each other (unlike other states) and effectively cut each other out of winning a seat thus ensuring the likely result will be:
    ALP 2, LNP 3, Green 1

    VIC
    No real surprises here with preference deals. The Socialist Equality Party (everyone is equal apart from those at the top of the ballot paper) get the donkey vote and pass them onto the Greens.
    The main topic of interest to the rest of Australia will be whether Fielding can retain his seat. I don’t think he will thanks to the increased ALP vote.
    Major PVs – ALP 2.8Q; LNP 2.5Q; Green .7Q; FF .3Q;
    ALP 3; LNP 3.

    QLD
    No preference surprises here either unless you count donkey vote winner Senator On-Line preferencing the Democrats first and then a philosophically bizarre meander down the ticket to the ALP then the Coalition and the Greens last. At least they’re unorfadox.
    For the lovers of laughter of politics, Barnaby Joyce is second on the Liberal National ticket so will be safely returned to keep the rest of the country amused.
    Even though Queensland is the spiritual home of the conservative Christian movement in Australia, they do not vote strongly for alike minor party candidates (unless you count One Nation at their peak to a degree).
    This may be because the Nationals there have taken this mantle successfully.
    ALP 2.5Q; LNP 3.0Q; GRN .5Q
    ALP 3 LNP 3

29. Interesting fat-free analysis, IT. I’d bet lots of money that the Greens in Victoria will comfortably outpoll their counterparts in NSW though. Richard di Natale is far more palatable than Lee Rhiannon to certain kinds of voters.

30. Vic and Qld seem pretty finely balanced there. ALP have only SOL, half of carers and (in Vic) Building Australia going to them ahead of both Coalition and Greens.

    It’s a lottery, but I would expect Dems/Sex/Secular/SA/Misc ratbags combined to poll better than SOL/BA/0.5 Carers combined. If so, then these minor preference flows will let the Greens challenge for the 3rd ALP seat, even on the figures you suggest above.

31. Even if the ALP and Greens break even on minor party preferences, the Greens only need to pinch 1.6% from the ALP to get ahead in Victoria, which certainly seems doable. And if the ALP is also bleeding some votes to the coalition it makes it easier.

32. Senate Result Predictions Part 2
    Sorry guys, I accidentally pressed post as opposed to preview – especially dumb for two reasons – 1. I hadn’t finished 2. I hadn’t pressed go on my calculator for Queensland.
    The Queensland result on my calc goes Green ahead of the third ALP, which surprises me, but then again…so did a major political party approving Barnaby Joyce as a candidate for a winnable seat.

    Now to continue…

    WA
    Some interesting machinations with the conservative forces way out west. The CDP have their best chance of winning here, but FF are a chance, as well as the Nationals (on their own in WA).
    Speaking of conservative chances, ex-Liberal MLC, then failed FF candidate, then almost founder of the Anti-Daylight Saving Party, now WA First founder but didn’t get the party registered in time for the Federal Election, Anthony Fels (takes a breath), won the donkey vote. If he doesn’t win, his preferences go to FF.
    The ultra-conservative vote is split but as no one is preferencing the Libs ahead of them, and the ALP surplus will tip the Greens over the line and what is left will I believe tip the CDP over the line of the 3rd Lib. I think. It is a lottery.
    Again, the Greens will sweep up the loony left preferences and the ALP gain too few.
    Major PVs – ALP 2.7Q; Lib 2.7Q; GRN .8Q;
    ALP 2; Lib 2; Grn 1; CDP 1.

    SA
    I did a thorough review on the SA Senate on another thread but actually wrote the wrong result in!
    In SA there is a massively funded campaign by failed Liberal candidate in 07 and new FF poster boy, Bob Day. Combine this with succulent preference deals with other groups including serial SA Upper House donkey vote winning Climate Sceptics (2 out of 2) and the non-appearance of Nick Xenophon or his anointed candidate and Rob a Dob Bob looks very likely. I hope I’m wrong.
    The Liberals are starved of preferences (no Nationals running) and the Greens can only rely on some very minor players – as mentioned by William, the Democrats who will probably poll about .8% have preferenced the ALP ahead of the Greens (probably as a tit for tat for the Greens preferencing ALP ahead of the Democrats at the last two state elections).
    ALP 2.8Q; Lib 2.6Q; Grn .7Q; FF .3Q
    ALP 3; Lib 2; FF 1.

    TAS
    Every time I look at a map of Tasmania it reminds me of Senator Brian Harradine.
    Here I think it is safe to say, the Greens are home and hosed at least for a seat before we start. After that, I doubt there will be any changes to the last results.
    The donkey vote goes to Senator-On Line whose lead candidate, despite being well known in Wynyard, has yet to have her photo or profile uploaded on the SOL website.
    Senator Off Line. Their preferences for what they’re worth will eventually end up with the Greens.
    ALP 2.8Q; Lib 2.6Q; Grn 1.2Q;
    ALP 3; Lib 2; Grn 1.

    ACT
    Why the Greens actually think they’re a chance to knock off Lib Senator Gary Humphries is beyond me. Psephologists are probably aware of ‘candidatitis’ whereby a candidate for an unwinnable seat thinks they will win. In the ACT, the entire Greens Party have it. The Democrats preferencing the Libs ahead of the Greens have certainly also driven a stake (grown from sustainable forest timber) into the heart of the Greens. Strangely, there is only one other independent or micro candidate this time. Well, strange for Canberra.
    The ALP get the donkey vote but of course, there is none of that in the ACT.
    The final result will be like the average game of soccer/football – one all.
    ALP 1.2Q; Lib 1Q; Grn .7@
    ALP 1; Lib 1.

    NT
    Sorry top enders but we know the result already unless either sitting Senator has some serious allegations levelled against them before the election.
    The only interesting point is that there are a lot of new micro parties to distract the voters and the Australian Sex Party have the donkey vote. I DARE Antony Green to list their party abbreviation as ‘Sex’ on election night. Sorry, I had an undergraduate moment then but I think they will poll highest here of any jurisdiction.
    Like the ACT, one all.
    ALP 1.2Q; CLP 1.1Q; Greens .3Q; Sex .1Q
    ALP 1; CLP 1.

    More analysis tonight.

33. 79

    The Victorian Greens get higher votes overall that the NSW Greens and some of this demographics and some might be candidate factors. Politics and Religion in NSW tend to be harder and further right than in Victoria and many other places in Australia but the Greens are probably slightly further to the left but still slightly more hard line.

    The Victorian Greens are likely to poll above 10% in the Senate and will get in some micro-party preferences and any spare major party surplus too and thus get a quota and therefore a seat.

34. dlpguy@77

    [The Democrats were asked to vote against this green alliance of the ALP/Greens/Liberal.

    They clearly indicated their agreeance with the orchestrated syndicate and would not committ to placing placing the ALP and Greens below other minors.

    Christian parties discussed the dangers of preference deals like this and offered the Democrats higher preferences.
    The Democrats have clearly shown that they no longer hold any place in todays parliamentry system.]

    Are you saying the Democrats agreed to be part of this “holy alliance” and then ratted you out?

35. Bird of paradox,

    Yes, I’ve heard of Fred Nile, but I did not know much about his party, it not being significant in Victoria. Thanks for the link. It adds to my knowledge.

36. dlpguy,

    Take as much offence as you like. I won’t sit back and have the name of the party I worked so hard for trashed by people who think it’s OK to preference One Nation. The DLP of today is not the same as the original DLP because the original DLP would not have preferenced One Nation.

    I don’t have a question about why preferences were allocated as they were. I have an opposition to it.

    Newspapers can publish and refuse to publish what they like. The genuine DLP was starved of coverage years ago. The Australian regularly attacks teachers and state governments in the most ridiculous fact-free way and refuses to publish letters of defence. That is the way of the world, as you will surely find out for yourself as you attempt to get coverage for the new DLP.

37. Martin B,

    Labor’s first option would be to control the Senate in its own right. This has not happened since the introduction of PR, and I hope it never happens. The Senate is much better when it is not controlled by a single party.

    Labor’s second option would be a range of partners to choose from. A Senate of 37 ALP, 2 DLP, 2 FF, 2 Greens would be fine as 37+2 = 39, and Labor would not care which group provided the 2.

    Labor’s third option would be one partner with the balance of power; e.g., 37 ALP, 2 Greens, 37 Coalition. It would have to compromise, but in only one direction.

    Labor’s fourth option would be the “herding cats” one; i.e., what it has now, 32 ALP, 1FF, I NX, 5 Greens to get to 39.

    The worst case would be a Coalition-majority Senate.

    You are right in saying that if the ALP had made a different decision in 2004, it would have had a different Senate now, but having one extra Green instead of Steve Fielding would have left the anti-ETS vote exactly the same.

    The preferencing decisions are pragmatic but not unprincipled. There is nothing wrong with preferencing FF in my view, but there would be something wrong in preferencing the CEC, the SA, ON or the SEP.

38. Socrates,

    I don’t agree that Labor is about to lose government. Nor do I think Labor’s preferencing decisions are the cause of its current loss of support. Labor’s loss of support is due to many factors, one of which is the ETS (strange though it is that voters opposed to Labor dropping the ETS have switched to the party that voted against it – but that is the wonderful tapestry of politics). Williamhas asked us to keep this thread on Senate matters, so I won’t go into a full discussion of why Labor has lost support.

    The Greens and Labor are not on the same “progressive” side of politics. They are rival parties competing for voters. The Greens would happily consign Labor to history if they could.

    I do not use the terms “progressive” and “conservative” in the way that you do. I say that the original DLP was progressive – opposition to the White Australia Policy, opposition to capital punishment, support for land rights, support for a guaranteed annual income, etc. In fact, it was so vehement in opposition to Melbourne’s freeway program that it would make the greens look like hoons! Others saw it as conservative, though that was not a word much in use in those days, because it opposed abortion and supported the US alliance.

    I think the key difference between us is which groups we put on the other side of the line of legitimacy. You seem to think that FF is beyond the pale. I don’t, but I do think ON is beyond the pale. Dlpguy doesn’t, but he thinks the Greens are beyond the pale. I don’t.

    You are being harsh on Tony Abbott. He’s hardly unchangeable – no parental leave, the most excessive parental leave in the world (and the most bizarre example of middle class welfare in the nation’s history), a 1.7 per cent tax to fund it, a 1.5 per cent tax to fund it, starting next year, starting the year after, climate change is crap, a program to stop climate change, WorksocalledChoices is wonderful, we won’t do a insybittsy teenyweeny thing to bring it back – and so on.

39. Much about the Senate depends on the fold up, The method used in calculating the Senate results is semi proportional. The method seriously distorts the outline of tech vote. Analysis undertaken in Victoria and QLD 2007 shows that the results of the election was distorted by the system and did not accurately reflect the voters’ intention.

    In Victoria the Greens received a bonus 7,000 votes as a result of the method used to calculate the Surplus Transfer Value.

    In Queensland the Green’s, Larisa Waters, should have won the sixth seat. The reason she did not was due to the segmentation and the dealing from the bottom of the beck distribution of preferences from excluded candidates. If you recount the Queensland 2007 Senate vote excluding all candidates except the last seven standing (3 ALP, 3 LNP and 1 GRN) distributing all votes according to the nominated preferences then Larisa Waters would have been elected to the sixth position

    It is unclear if the distortion in the count will effect the result of the 2010 election

40. Not sure why you’ve got the Christian Democrats preferencing Labor so high in WA, William.

    Perhaps you just saw the ‘Labor’ in DLP.

41. As a DLP supporter for over 50 years i do not have a problem with the DLP giving One Nation it second preference, after the CDP. O N is no longer a Pauline Hanson party, and is probally closest to the National Party. The ON vote in Vic will be less than 1%, and the DLP vote will be about 3%, so in reality no DLP preferences are likely to flow to t O N. The DLP will receive preferences from the CDP and ON which will give them a real chance of gaining a Senate seat.
    Likely results will be thus; ON 1/2%, CDP 2%, Democrats,2%, DLP 3%, FF 3%,
    Preferences will then flow in the following manner;
    ON vote 1/2% to flow to DLP,
    CDP vote 2% to flow to DLP, total with DLP primaries say 5 1/2%, which takes DLP above FF, so FF vote flows to DLP,= total 8 1/2%, Shooters Party preferences will also then flow to DLP, Liberal Democrats, and Climate sceptics will also flow to DLP, whick should put their vote over 10%, then of course it depends on the surplus votes from the coalition, if any.
    The democrats vote may may be vital in helping the Greens to get very near their quota.
    It is all very much like a lottery with so many possibilities, but their is no doubt that the DLP has a very good chance of securing a Senate seat in Victoris.

42. [Not sure why you’ve got the Christian Democrats preferencing Labor so high in WA, William.

    Perhaps you just saw the ‘Labor’ in DLP.]

    The CDP have the third Labor candidate (Wendy Perdon) where I say they have, and she’s the only one that matters as far as preferences are concerned. A more suspicious soul than myself might suggest the CDP have numbered their ticket to make it appear they have put Liberal ahead of Labor, when they have in fact done the opposite.

43. Gotcha.

    Thanks for that.

44. VICTORIA

    Preliminary review of the registered voting cards in Victoria indicates the Greens will win a Senate seat in Victoria. The DLP, One Nation and Family First all flowing to the Liberal/NP which will hold on to 3 Seats with a surplus. The Liberal and ALP also flow to the Greens. Under the current system of calculating the surplus value based on the number of ballot papers as opposed to the value of the vote will also provide an advantage to the Greens. The ALP will only win 2 seats and fall short of a third.

45. Victoria

    Analysis based on the 2007 election results and the 2010 GTV confirm Lib/NP 3 ALP 2 Green 1. 2007 was the ALPs best result. One Nation and the DLP and family First all flow to the Liberal party which in tune flows to the Greens. Antony Green also independently confirmed my previous hypothetical analysis in relation to the distortion in the way in which the AEC calculates the Surplus Transfer value. Assuming that the votes are the same as in 2007 this distortion comes in to play and delivers the Greens their first Senate seat in Victoria.

46. QLD
    Preliminary Analysis of the Queensland GTV also shows Lib/NP 3, ALP 2, Greens 1.

47. [Assuming the ALP cannot control the Senate in their own right, the next best option would be where they could go to the Greens or another small party grouping to get a majority.]

    Yeah just like the Greens supported the ALP on a Carbon tax.

    I think we can expect a full senate election at the Federal election following this one. 100%

48. As Kevin Rudd is now fair game for the journalists in this election I can imagine what their questions to him will be?

    1. Do you agree with Julia Gillard’s assessment that your government had lost its way?
    2. Do you agree with Julia Gillard & Wayne Swan rolling over to the big miners in negotiations on the RSPT?
    3. Do you agree with Julia Gillard moving to the right on asylum seeker issues?
    4. Do you agree that Julia Gillard’s policy in forming a “Citizen’s Assembly” on climate change is good policy?
    5. Do you agree with Julia Gillard’s policy of moving away from a “big Australia”?
    6. Do you agree that Julia Gillard’s policy of “cash for clunkers” is good CO2 abatement policy?

    The list is endless.

49. Fair to say the Liberals still hold a grudge against Stephen Mayne, No?.

    Preference ahead are Family First; Democratic Labor Party; Christian Democratic Party; Democrats; Australian Sex Party;

50. A quick play with the senate calculators in NSW would suggest Antony is correct. With Greens at 11.07, ALP at 42 and Libs at 39, the Greens only improved 12.12 before the last coalition senator was elected in sixth place.

    http://www2b.abc.net.au/Elections/View/SenateCalculator.aspx?e=10&ca=nsw