A dedicated thread for WA Senate election discussion appears in order. First, some random chatter.
Troy Bramston on Twitter a few minutes ago:
I’m told @LiberalsWA polling has given Coalition confidence it will win 3 seats #wavotes ALP in danger of not winning 2. Greens likely 1.
Samantha Maiden on Twitter a few minutes before that:
Liberals in WA pessimistic of chances of snaring three out of six Senate spots with likely outcome 2 Lib, 2Lab, 1Green, 1 Clive Plamer PUP
Me in comments a bit earlier:
Big win for Scott Ludlam, maybe with a full quota in his own right.
Labor in the low 20s – maybe the very low 20s – but still more likely than not to scrape home for a second seat, thanks to left preferences staying left this time around. Very low turnout could thwart them though.
Palmer United to poll very strongly, but the danger to them is that they finish stranded in seventh place as both Liberal and Labor-Greens do just enough to make it to three quotas each.
The Liberals, nonetheless, in big danger of losing a third seat to Palmer.
A path to victory remains open for HEMP if the Labor vote falls low enough that they can’t cobble together a second quota. One possible scenario is Liberal 2, Labor 1, Greens 1, Palmer United 1, HEMP 1.
Lenore Taylor at The Guardian:
Labor’s lead candidate says voters can’t trust his party, the Palmer United party (PUP) candidates have gone missing, the Greens candidate is DJing, 75 people get to vote twice and the whole thing is an unprecedented rerun because the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) messed up last time. Oh, and it could have a critical impact on how the government gets its legislation through the upper house. The West Australian Senate poll would have jumped the shark, if the state wasn’t culling them.
All right, punters let’s get punting.
145 comments on “WA Senate election minus one day”
@ Psephos 48
That’s interesting. I wonder then if the Government of Western Australia could not simply pass a bill to appoint Senators to fill the gap until an election can be held and confirmed. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but is it not up to the states to determine (by legislation) the method of Senate election?
Er, I obviously meant to direct my last post to Psephos’ 49, not 48…
Damn phone keyboards.
[The Droop quota distorts the proportionality of the Count. It’s continued use has no merit, It was introduced to facilitate a manual count and avoid the need to distributed all ballot papers. Other issues that distort the proportionality if the paper based calculation of the Surplus transfer value and the distribution of excluded candidate preferences. All these issues need to be reconsidered. With computerized counting they can no longer be justified]
Obviously some “Shows-On” and “Pshephos” don’t give a FORK AND SHIT about the count being an accurate reflection of the voters intentions.
If I vote for a minor candidate and my second preference goes to a the ALP or LNP 1 then whey should my vote skip my second choice candidate when my fist choice candidate is excluded from the count?.
[The guiding principle should be that when a candidate is excluded then my vote should be distributed as if the excluded candidate had never stood.]
This becomes even more crucial under an optional preferential voting system.
As to the Droop quota there is no justification under a computerised counting system to calculate the quota on the basis of x + 1 (6 + 1) and denying 1/7th of the electorate representation in a proportional count.
If we do not remove the distortion in the count then, as William Bowie rightly said, we might as well have a party list system.
As much as I do not support the Greens this does not justify any distortions in the proportionality of the count.
An accurate count also works in the ALP favor not that that should be the defining principle.
I for one will continue to advocate for a pure proportional non-distorted count.
Section 9 gives the Commonwealth the power to make uniform laws for the election of Senators but gives the individual states wriggle room within those laws and also allows the states to pick the time and place of election.
Of more importance Section 7 states that the senators must be elected by the people of the state. The first drafts of the constitution allowed for indirect election of the senators by the State parliaments which was the method in use by the USA in 1901 and still used for casual vacancies.
In strikes me that section 11 which allows for the Senate to be valid despite the lack of a state delegation was composed when the indirect election was being considered more than for the unusual circumstances we are discussing here. In either case it is worth remembering that the American Civil War was within the living memory of many of the delegates to the constitutional conventions. They would not want the parliament to be effectively destroyed by for example Tasmania withdrawing from the federation over one or other perceived slight.
If you do not want to vote for the ALP or a major party then vote for Wikileaks and put the Greens last. A vote for Wikileaks is the best chance to deny the Greens a seat.
If Wikileaks can secure 3% of the vote and the Greens fall below 11% Wikileaks can be elected.
Does Section 7 require that the Senators be elected /directly/, or is indirect election permitted?
[The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform for all the States. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State may make laws prescribing the method of choosing the senators for that State.]
Not much wriggle room if the law states otherwise.
7 The Senate
The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.
Section 7 sates:
[The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.]
McKenzie v Commonwealth  HCA 75; (1984) 59 ALJR 190; 57 ALR 747 (27 November 1984)
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Yes the electoral act is so thorough in describing the election method that I would think the states could only tinker at the edges.
It appears the American states have much greater input into the election methods as seen by the Jim Crow type laws that some of the Republican states are trying to bring in.
[Somebody asked where the Greens are getting their money from.
My understanding is that they are the only one of the 3 main parties who have membership growth.]
As a general rule, party membership fees don’t make parties much money. (I’ve been told that the lowest payment on the ALP’s scale, which is that paid by the bulk of members, doesn’t cover their costs).
…and ALP membership has been growing over the last year or so, which is the usual trend when Labor isn’t in government.
The Greens main source of funding is the payment they get from the AEC etc based on primary votes.
Hmmm…. then we would be in quite the jam indeed if another election rerun had to be held due to AEC incompetence.
[Hmmm…. then we would be in quite the jam indeed if another election rerun had to be held due to AEC incompetence.]
Since when has competence been a requirement for governance rerun
I don’t really think it is a problem the Senate could validly meet and pass legislation until the WA senators eventually turned up. It would make some but not a lot of difference to the balance of power. TA would still have to negotiate his bills through.
Regular readers would be aware of my Monte Carlo model to forecast election outcomes. If you want me to run my model with your primaries, just visit my blog and leave a comment specifying your estimated primaries and I’ll publish my model output based on your estimated primaries.
This “higher PUP, lower ALP” is causing the most open outcomes since I started modelling this election a few weeks ago.
I hope West Australians remember this disgrace.
Liberals showing their true position on NDIS. Photo of the empty LNP benches when NDIS was formally announced in Parliament.
Actions speak louder than words
Perhaps we should be considering how prudent it is to have the prospect of a $20 million re-election being thrown out and a third election held because somebody opened a lid, without the remotest suggestion that they did so in bad faith. The AEC recommended to the parliamentary inquiry into the 2010 election that a savings provision be included for this sort of circumstance, but our parliamentarians concluded that the matter should be dealt with by having no one make any mistakes in future.
[Big win for Scott Ludlam, maybe with a full quota in his own right.]
The Greens…all huff and puff and no fire.
We’ll see, time will tell 😛
I don’t think Bullock did you any favours. I expect a few progressives will vote Green instead of Labor.
[All right, punters – let’s get punting.]
I’ve backed the Bunnies for tonight. Id nearly give up the winnings to see the Greens vote fall 😈
Well Murdoch readers must really like the Greens, Perth Now has a survey of who you are going to vote for
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/deja-vote-who-gets-your-vote-in-the-wa-senate-election-rerun/story-fnhocxo3-1226874687102 …… 36% are voting Green.
Shows how invaluable these online surveys are.
Yes, setback. But no excuses if the Full Mooners do OK.
This assumes that there is actually any point in electing the Wikileaks Party in the Greens’ place. From what I can tell it combines pretty much any policy vice that someone so disposed might hold against the Greens with a significantly greater sense of internal shambles and chicanery.
Abbott on the WA Senate election;
“You can’t say one thing in Perth and do the opposite in Canberra.
Remember his statements during the election campaign about the GST carve up and WA share. He promised more
Then look at how that share has been slashed.
Any update from WA election?
No, apparently you can say one thing in Tasmania and say something different in Perth, that’s allowed.
It’s only 11am here. What exactly were you thinking there’d be to update, zoid?
[I emailed them a couple of days ago to find out positions on Carbon Price and MRRT.
They wont vote to repeal the Carbon Price, and didn’t say anything about the MRRT. From the tone of email and language around sustainability they sound like stoned Greens to me. 🙂
I’ll certainly preference them fairly high, but behind Pratt and Ludlam.]
Good to know. Sounds like it would be nightmare for Abbott if they got in instead of the third Lib or PUP. Here’s hoping.
Maybe Abbott will become so desperate to pass legislation that he legalizes pot! 😆
[Any update from WA election?]
Not much Labor presence at West Greenwood Primary School.
Hmmm… Would imply a higher level of OTH or confused vote if parties can’t get out enough HTV cards?
Ludlam is a valuable member of the Greens parliamentary team. I think he would make a good leader, in the future (I do not think that he would challenge Milne). Removing Ludlam would be of disbenefit to the Greens. And there is divide and conquer to concider (especially with the Senate as it is now). Not to mention defeating him would give the Green haters joy at defeating a Green.
@ Tom 84
Agreed. Ludlam has campaigned very well this election, articulating a clear and positive message for the state, and the country as a whole.
It’s hard not to conclude that the WA 2.0 suite of policies represents the clearest possible future for the state among those offered by the major parties, even if you don’t agree with the policies it contains.
Have just returned from the morning stint on a polling booth for lunch, before heading out for the arvo shift.
Wish that i had the contract to supply the Fibs with core-flute. 🙁 Saw a couple of corflutes i at first thought were PUP adds. Turns out they were Fiberal attack PUP adds.
Think the majors and Greens are doing ok from peoples attitudes, but i now think PUP will do better than i would have thought yesterday.
Anyhow, Libs seems to have gone very heavy on the polling place adverts and gotten in early for postioning. They had people, but not huge numbers where i was this morning. Much more in the way of Greens presence than either of the majors.
AA @77 Bollocks. Stop making shit up. Abbott has never promised to change the GST distribution. He has expressed an opinion but never made a commitment to change.
Bullock is good argument for Robson Rotation in the Senate.
Robson Rotation is not incompatible with ATL voting because ATL votes can be distributed around their party in the Robinson Rotated order shown on the ballot paper.
[ [If you do not want to vote for the ALP or a major party then vote for Wikileaks and put the Greens last. A vote for Wikileaks is the best chance to deny the Greens a seat.
If Wikileaks can secure 3% of the vote and the Greens fall below 11% Wikileaks can be elected.]
This assumes that there is actually any point in electing the Wikileaks Party in the Greens’ place. From what I can tell it combines pretty much any policy vice that someone so disposed might hold against the Greens with a significantly greater sense of internal shambles and chicanery.]
Yes this is an interesting point.
But in all honesty I can not see the Green vote increasing more than 2% points on the September allocation If they remain below 11% then they will need better then good preference flows from the other minor parties. Much will depend on the ALP percentage. The ALP are better placed this time around and should secure two seats. I can not see the LNP failing below 3 seats. I also expect PUP to get no more than 5% Minor candidates fewer then last year. There will not be a Sports Party outcome. ATL Preferences do not flow in their direction.
PUP may be the surprise in the bon bon. They certainly have spent a lot of money on this campaign. five hours to go until close of the polls. We should have a clear indication once the above the line votes are counted,
There are no national absentee votes to wait for. Not sure what the deadline for postals is. But prepoll will change the polling place comparison stats a bit
just back from my stint at the booth. greens are doing well with people mentioning the you tube video as a factor. Labor doing ok . none of the anger disgust from the last election. no pup staff just a lib anti pup banner that I think reminds you to vote pup!
Two ALP, 1 Green, 2 Libs and one lady selling cakes.
That is not my prediction for the outcome. Just who were standing outside at City Beach North booth (Kapinara Primary School).
Fingers crossed the lady selling cakes gets a Senate seat!
a pupcake perhaps!
Seems that Pratt should have made a similar speech in Senate on last day.
Worked for Ludlam. Excellent outstunting of Abbott
I think ludlams speech worked partly because of delivery (calm measured assassin), played the parochial WA card and as a green he didn’t bag labor. it was a progressive rant against Abbotts policies that hurt wa- almost mainstream appeal for the greens. it will get younger voters voting for them like never before not just taking voters off labor.
I believe PUP’s performance will be an indication of the shallowness of the voter.
If PUP does well I am going to have to establish a new party to contest next time.
Vote for “Lady Selling Cakes” party.
We will swap preferences with “Guy cooking Snags” party.
We will have every significant polling place with representatives.
Over on the other post I noted about 10 souls all up doing HTV cards at the local school in leafy green area.
One Green, 1 Lib, 1 Labor? and the rest odds and sods.
Very quiet, very low key and short queues.
Over the road neighbours, are not voting at all – Labor supporters unfortunately, and they don’t really care.
Mind you, people know they have all day to do this and they also recognise the outcome, one way or the other, is not going to make much difference.
I don’t sense Labor is on the nose. I don’t sense there is any enthusiasm for Abbott. I don’t sense any kind of excitement for Palmer.
Just voted in Palmyra, part of Fremantle electorate. Greens win on number of staff, Lib and Lab similar with volume of plastic but only 1-2 staff each. One DLP volunteer and nobody for PUP, only PUP signage is the anti-PUP poster from the LIBs.
Pretty disappointed in the lack of creativity shown on ALP signs. Even more disappointed at their complete lack of cojones in handing out HTVs with names and pictures of Melissa Parke and Simone McGurk (aged and state MPs) and no mention at all of their Senate candidates. Disappointed and perhaps disgusted.
Fed and state MPs. Damn auto-correct.
I believe the Libs would require you to supply both core and non-core flute.