The Australian brings us a Newspoll result of state voting intention in South Australia for the April-June quarter which shows no change whatsoever on voting intention, with Labor maintaining a 54-46 lead from primary votes of 36% for Labor, 33% for the Liberals, 10% for the Greens and an improbable 21% for all others combined. Jay Weatherill is up two on both approval and disapproval, to 45% and 43% respectively, while Steven Marshall is steady on 41% and up two to 39%. Weatherill has increased his lead as preferred premier from 47-31 to 48-29.
Interesting result – would it be reasonable to read the abnormally-high “Others” result as an indication of voter dislike of all of the established parties?
Or could Xenophon’s party be pulling in 10-15% of the vote?
Is this before or after the “fairness” people adjust the boundaries to ensure a labor win ?
From everyday conversations with people here I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s mainly Xenophon. Pure anecdote of course
I’m no expert but I wouldn’t be surprised if things went far worse for the Liberals should they apply a system of redistribution that didn’t rig things in an attempt to achieve some mythical 50/50 split. Perhaps we should just go along geographical lines with electorates of even numbers following council/suburb boundaries as far as possible
Matt, Xenephon could easily be pulling 10%. Maybe more.
Federally he is gunning for Lib seats.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/subs-backlash-nick-xenophon-sets-sights-on-liberalheld-seats-in-adelaide-20150406-1mez7u.html
And they are worried.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-07/japanese-submarine-contract-would-threaten-federal-seats-in-sa/6599998
ESJ, the problem isn’t so much the boundaries, but mainly the concentration of huge Lib majorities in country seats.
A very small number of votes in a few city seats would have made a big difference to the seat numbers, along with notional Lib seats that went to Independents.
having said that, a 53/47 result should be enough to win, but don’t blame the boundaries.
Plenty of other factors, including Liberal incompetence.
Edwina StJohn @2 That is outrageous, you should be ashamed of yourself. The “fairness” provisions have pretty much only ever been applied one way, to make the Liberals more competitive. That’s why the Liberals demanded them in the first place. ALP marginals constantly get squeezed in redistributions, at least one historically ALP seat that I can think of has been completely split up to effectively hand the libs two more marginal but still relatively safe seats (that they have since held relatively easily), and there were plenty of marginals on the table at the last election. The fact that the Libs were unable to make much ground in those marginals at the last election (and even went backwards in one I think) shows how poorly they did, particularly in Adelaide.
Its true that they have a bunch of very safe seats next to each other in rural South Australia that don’t border any ALP seats to adjust the boundaries with, so they do have a natural hill to climb, but were those seats more competitive the ALP would devote more campaigning resources there and the state-wide vote would probably be a lot closer. Compare the difference between the one non-Adelaide seat that the ALP really put resources to in the last election (Giles) compared to the rest.
Oops, meant @3, not @2
SR
[ESJ, the problem isn’t so much the boundaries, but mainly the concentration of huge Lib majorities in country seats.]
Excellent point. The Libs stockpile huge majorities across rural SA.
If the electoral boundaries were rigged, one could easily re-draw boundaries to advantage the Libs – with fewer seats on high Lib margins, and more seats on reduced Lib margins. (This kind of gerrymandering is rampant in the US, to benefit the Republicans). Thank goodness for an independent electoral commission.
kakuru @10
The point is that you can’t, really. ECSA have gone about as far as you can tweaking boundaries in Adelaide and its fringe to make more ALP seats marginal, and the ALP only has one seat outside of that zone. Which boundaries are you going to change?
I wouldn’t bother with ESJ. He has shown he knows sweet f all about what he’s talking about when discussing this topic.
As for the boundaries issue, that’s the thing. There’s only so much you can do before it just becomes blatant gerrymandering. It should also be noted it doesn’t take independents into account and, at the last election, notionally the Liberals had a majority (you can debate whether or not Brock was right to support Labor separately from this point), so it’s not totally disparate. Also, one has to be mindful they are not punishing marginal MPs for being good, popular members.
Having said that, the Liberals best hope IMO are the seats of Light and Newland, both of which, being on the outer, probably can be tinkered with fairly to make notionally Liberal.
As for this poll, I wonder if this is a sign of a bigger Labor lead in the state, federally. I can imagine there are some voters who want to dump both the incompetent federal government that the state is feeling completely betrayed and hurt by, as well as the 13-year-old, tired state government, who are starting to get a bit error-prone.
On the other hand, I do think, from a South Australian perspective, Jay Weatherill is the real federal Opposition Leader. Like elsewhere, we barely hear a peep from Shorten but Weatherill et al. have been hammering the point day in and day out that the problems the state are facing are due to the Federal Government and do not hesitate to use any news of federal cuts or non-investment to further hammer that point, so it’s possible that that state numbers and federal numbers are close. Either way, if Shorten wins the next election, especially if narrowly and several Lib seats fall in SA, he could probably give Weatherill a little bit of thanks for that.
We could have the state carved up like a pie chart – “Hi, I’m the member for East Torrens and Renmark” haha
Alternatively, instead of whinging that the system wasn’t rigged enough for them, how about the politicians just focus on being really effective local members that represent their community, they might find they garner a few votes that way
I wonder how much of “others” the X team have in this poll.
tomd
[The point is that you can’t, really. ]
You can – (and this goes to CM’s point) if you do indeed resort to blatant gerrymandering. This has become standard practice in the US, with some truly bizarrely shaped districts as the end-product.
It’s a way of exploiting both the high conservative vote across swathes of countryside and the geographically concentrated nature of metro/urban populations: use the former to drive down the latter in as many seats as possible. It’s brazen gerrymandering, but the demographics of many states (in both the US and Australia) make it feasible. If applied to SA, it would make for some truly artistically designed electorates.
On the issue of gerrymandering, the recent split Supreme Court decision re Arizona districts is *very* interesting. In a good way.
[Federally he is gunning for Lib seats.]
I skimmed past this but that is the worry factor for the federal Libs (well the SA branch anyway; I guess 1-3 seats is not something to stress too much over.) because, even if the “X Team” don’t win the seat (I am doubtful they will), their preferences could be deadly to the Liberal members. Even if there’s no recommended HTV preference flow, the possibility of them taking angry Liberal voters (who cannot bring themselves to vote Labor) and just diluting the preferences back to the Liberals ever so slightly, could be enough to change things.
If it weren’t for the fact that it’s really only 1-3 seats that are the issue, this state should be really worrying for the Liberals. However, having said that, there’s also the issue of the Senate and I honestly think (assuming a half senate election) the 3rd Lib seat is quite in danger right now, which would be the bigger loss to Abbott than losing Hindmarsh or Boothby.
I should also mention that there are moves from the SA Greens to make the Green presence here stronger (a la NSW/Vic) – especially in the seat of Adelaide etc. While I will remain sceptical of their ability to flip a House seat, I think (from a purely analytical, not endorsing anybody point of view), it couldn’t hurt, if just to solidify their Senate seats and not be easy prey to Xenophon’s candidates. The disaffected left vote (who see Labor and Liberal as too close) should act as kindling for any such endeavour.
kakuru@10
To be fair, in the US, the incumbent tend to redraw boundaries to favour them regardless of Republican or Democrat. Only a few states avoid doing it, either on principle or by law.
Likewise, the lack of an independent electoral commission here would see either side take massive advantage of it.
kakuru@16
Do you have a link for it, or a name I can search for? Would be interested to read more on this.
CM
I think if the Libs continue to go in that direction, X won’t hesitate at all to give full preference to Labor over the Libs. He will have little to lose in doing so.
Also I doubt the Greens can win any seats in Adelaide, but they could significantly flip seats towards Labor or X.
Carey Moore
[I should also mention that there are moves from the SA Greens to make the Green presence here stronger …]
They need to do something.
According to Newspoll quarterly they were in the same support range as the Greens in Oz overall at the last election [federal 8.7%/SA 8.3%] but whilst the Greens vote has grown in every other state since then by 3-6% and federally by about 4%, in SA the Greens vote has it has remained virtually static at 9%.
Shea, exactly. They can’t rely on being the protest vote anymore, when Xenophon is pushing his brand to be the viable third way alternative. They need to define themselves here as well.
CM
[I skimmed past this]
I am hurt.
Raaraa
Greens did well in Adelaide Hills Council elections. But I dont rate them in Mayo without a high profile candidate. Or even with one.
Simon, I apologise. I didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t worth reading. I meant I didn’t catch it the first time!
Most of the Other vote is clearly X group. X has shown that he can pull a big vote even when not a candiadte. 2014 SA Leg Council vote – Labor 31%, Lib 36% Greens 6.5% and Indepedent Xenophon 13% (electing John Darley who would be lucky to get 1 or 2 % without X backing.
CM
No drama. I was poking fun – mostly at myself.
Raaraa
[To be fair, in the US, the incumbent tend to redraw boundaries to favour them regardless of Republican or Democrat. Only a few states avoid doing it, either on principle or by law.]
True on both accounts. The Republicans did particularly well out of their last re-districting, because they controlled most state legislatures at a time when a re-districting was required (in the wake of the census). But in Illinois (for example) the Dems controlled the legislature, and tweaked the boundaries to their advantage.
Nonetheless, the demographics of many states favour gerrymandering to the advantage of the Republicans. It’s quite easy to bottle up the urban Dem vote in a relatively small number of districts, because here the Dem vote is very high in a concentrated geographical area. The rural bits can then be linked with the metropolitan fringes (including suburbia) to create a whole lot of conservative-leaning seats.
In states like Virginia and Pennsylvania, the number of districts won by the GOP far exceeds what one might expect from the statewide GOP vote. Gerrymandering in action.
28
The Democrats made a big mistake in not legislating for independent redistricting during the 2008-2010 Congress. Then they may have regained the House of Representatives in 2012 (they got more votes than the Republicans). Then they would have been able to get some more through Congress.
11
The current SA system of trying to have the proportionality of MMP (Mixed Member Proportional, such as used in New Zealand) without any actual proportional component. It is a joke.
If I was the SA Liberals, I would be supporting either 2PP MMP*, direct election of the Premier and Deputy Premier or both.
* 2PP MMP is MMP based on the 2PP instead of the primary vote.
Tom, 2PP MMP is a mad proposal.
A statewide 2PP is a mathematical construct, something that you can define as a result but it is not.
The case of the 1998 Queensland election when One Nation finished second in the vote is a classic example. Any 2PP constructed from that election would have had no meaning as you had three groupings contesting the election, Labor, the Coalition and One Nation. Why construct a 2PP between two of the three options presented to voters?
A statewide 2PP count requires the overwhelming majority of seats to finish as a 2PP count or it tells you not very much. If say a third of electorate did not have a traditional 2PP contest, what the hell does the 2PP in the other contests tell you? You’ve got a multi-party result so you should get a multi-party parliament and not construct a 2PP count to get around what the voters decided.
It would be a less-justified version of what they do in Malta and Greece where the party with the largest vote share gets an additional tranch of seats in an attempt to produce one-party government.
At the 2010 SA election, Labor had a majority of the 2PP in Frome, the electorate won by Independent Geoff Brock. If Brock hadn’t been on the ballot paper, the Liberals would undoubtedly have won the seat as Labor has not won the seat since it was created two decades ago. More than three-quarters of voters made a choice between Brock and the Liberal, so why give prominence to an alternative count between Liberal and Labor constructed from the clearly the less important further preferences of Brock voters.
Anyway, the act says nothing about 2PP. It talks about groups, and every election since 1997 has been followed by an argument before the Boundaries Commission about how a ‘group’ of candidates should be defined and therefore how the accumulated statewide vote after preferences should be constructed.
The separate election of Prime Minister was tried in Israel for a decade and led to further fragmentation of the parties in the Knesset and was abandoned. You could end up with political ‘cohabitation’, a Premier elected from one party without a majority in Parliament. Campbell Newman as Lord Mayor of Brisbane leading a Labor Council might have worked given the structure of that administration, but cohabitation would lead to a mess if imposed on a system of parliamentary government.
2PP is a useful book-keeping device for ordering electorates but is a mathematical construct. To have any real meaning it requires an assumption that voters give equal weight and consideration to every preference on their ballot papers. The Frome case is one of many examples that suggest they don’t.
Just go for MMP, but have the constituencies elected by instant-runoff voting rather than FPTP as New Zealand and Germany do.
And I advocate that for both state AND federal parliaments.
Thanks Antony, it frustrated me greatly that the media kept reporting this notional Statewide 2PP after the South Australian election
Tom 1st & best
[The Democrats made a big mistake in not legislating for independent redistricting during the 2008-2010 Congress. ]
Isn’t it a state responsibility?
I don’t understand this concept of a 2PP MMP. Does that mean the house is divided only between the 2 major parties?
@ Raaraa, 35
Yes.
Wouldn’t that be less democratic though? You’re excluding other parties and independents.
31
I did not say I supported it, I said that if I was the SA Liberals I would support it and/or direct election of the Premier.
One Nation only came second if you count the Coalition separately. The Coalition could have organised to be counted as one.
If there was 2PP MMP, most voters would pay more attention to their preferences because they would be of use.
Direct election of the Premier and Deputy Premier would provide the Liberals with a greater chance of winning majority government from a majority of the 2PP by both giving them a couple of extra seats putting political pressure on any cross bench independents to support them both through majoritarian pressure and because not supporting them would bring a new election.
34
It is a state responsibility, however the Congress can make laws about the election of members of Congress that over ride them.
35
Non-2PP parties and independents would still be able to hold the single member seats they win, however they would not get proportional seats.
2PP MMP would also mean that it would be likely that the only proportional seats needed would be overhang mandates.
Another option would be 2CP MMP, where parties than get into the 2CP (probably in two or more seats) or win seats get their statewide vote, after preferences from candidates` whose parties did not pass the 2CP threshold, counted proportionally.
So there’s an added member effect, but the numbers will still unfairly be skewed towards the two major parties.
I’d rather MMP be used in it’s original form, but the threshold needs to be adjusted accordingly.
Sure I understand why the SA Liberals are annoyed, but they have nobody to blame but themselves. As a South Australian voter, I noticed what a shambles their campaign was from start to finish. In my electorate of Newland the Libs tried to parachute in Glenn Docherty, mayor of Playford council which consists of working class Labor heartland around Elizabeth. The local community rejected this, and as a result returned Labor with a negligible swing against them. Tom Kenyon is a decent local member, but more socially conservative than I would prefer
@ Raaraa, 37
That’s the point. It’s a stupid system designed for the purpose of disenfranchising minor party voters and enforcing Duverger’s law.
@ Raaraa, 41
Adjust it to the vote required to win 1 seat.
One of the reasons that the threshold in MMP systems are at the level they are is that voters for parties bellow the threshold get no representation. Under any preferential form of MMP, one of the types of which is 2PP MMP, voters for parties that do not get representation still get representation from candidates that get their preferences.
If SA adopted 2CP MMP, with any party or group that gets into the 2CP in at least 1 district getting representation based on their XPP (Where X= the number of parties or groups qualifying for representation), then the SA Greens, who came second in the 2CP in Heysen in 2014, would get representation in the House of Assembly.
The main risk to this 2CP MMP, for the SA Liberals, is Xenophon`s new party running at state level.
Arrnea Stormbringer@43
Hmmm.. yeah, so minimum threshold = % of quota for one seat, assuming number of quota is = number of seats available (rather than + 1).