The Victorian Electoral Commission will press the button on Legislative Council counts for each region in alphabetical order from 10am today, over what is expected to be 90 minutes with each taking 10 to 20 minutes to run. As explained below, Labor seems certain of 15 seats, down from 18 in 2018; the Liberals will win between 11 and 13, up from 10, with the Nationals up from one to two; the Greens will win two to four, up from one; Legalise Cannabis will win two or three; the Democratic Labor Party will win one or two; Shooters and Animal Justice will remain on one seat each, with One Nation also to win a seat for the first time; and the Liberal Democrats and Transport Matters, who respectively won two and one in 2018, to win either zero or one. The left, if taken to include Labor, the Greens, Legalise Cannabis and Animal Justice, will have 21 out of 40 seats, increasing to 22 if the Greens edge out Transport Matters in North-Eastern Metropolitan.
UPDATE: The final result is Labor 15, Liberal 12 and Nationals two, Greens four, Legalise Cannabis two, and one each for Liberal Democrats, Animal Justice, Shooters, DLP and One Nation.
Eastern Victoria. A clear result of two Labor, one Liberal, one Nationals and one Shooters.
North-Eastern Metropolitan. Labor and Liberal have two seats apiece, and while the ABC projects (UPDATE: Antony Green objects to this characterisation in comments) Transport Matters to win the final seat, the Greens will presumably close a narrow 16.71% to 16.52% gap through below-the-line votes. UPDATE: So it has proved.
Northern Metropolitan. The first four seats will go two Labor, one Liberal and one Greens, and there seems little doubt the fifth will go to Adem Somyurek, running for the DLP. The ABC projects Somyurek to land well clear of a 16.67% quota with 18.31%, which would have to erode substantially for the alternative scenario to play out in which Fiona Patten of the Reason Party retains her seat. UPDATE: Which indeed did not occur.
Northern Victoria. This looks like a clear result in which Labor, Liberal, the Nationals, One Nation and Animal Justice each win a seat, although Kevin Bonham is keeping open the possibility that the second Labor candidate edges out One Nation for reasons I can’t wrap my head around. UPDATE: Didn’t happen.
South-Eastern Metropolitan. Labor wins two, the Liberals one and Legalise Cannabis one, with the Liberal Democrats projected to win the final seat with a margin of 17.00% to 16.33% over the second Liberal, who seems likely to prevail on below-the-line votes. UPDATE: Apparently not – the Liberal Democrats retains the seat, leaving a Legalise Cannabis gain from Labor the only change on 2018.
Southern Metropolitan. A clear result of Labor two, Liberal two and Greens one.
Western Metropolitan. This looks like two Labor, one Liberal and one Legalise Cannabis, with the last seat a race between the second Liberal, projected by the ABC to win with 17.08%, and Bernie Finn of the DLP, projected to 16.25%. However, Kevin Bonham observes that below-the-line votes will reduce the size of the transfer of Legalise Cannabis and Labor preferences to the Liberals when the former are excluded at the second last count. UPDATE: But not by enough to cost them the seat.
Western Victoria. Labor and Liberal will win two each, with the last seat a race between Legalise Cannabis and the Greens, with Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party perhaps an outside chance. The ABC projects a comfortable win for Legalise Cannabis at the last count over Justice, but this comes after they narrowly survive exclusion at the previous count with 9.73% to the Greens’ 9.43%. If they were to drop out here, the projection would have the Greens winning the last seat with about 16.9% to Justice’s 16.4%. UPDATE: The Greens get the seat rather than Legalise Cannabis.
The VEC has also published two-party preferred totals from the fourteen seats where the two-candidate preferred candidates were not between Labor and the Coalition, which by my reckoning produces a statewide result of Labor 1,992,489 (54.97%) to Coalition 1,632,103 (45.03%).
You didn’t state which Liberal won in eastern Victoria? I refuse to believe the nonsense that Heath won. She didnt. Controversial candidates almost always never win.
Whaaat? Bernie Finn still in with a chance in Western metropolitan? Say it ain’t so. Somyurek being returned is appalling enough
This “ABC projects” stuff is starting to annoy me.
A computer program that assumes 100% of votes are ticket votes calculates Rod Barton wins. Without the program’s projections it would be difficult to work out what’s going on, but it’s just a computer program.
On the same page about North-Eastern Metropolitan Region I clearly state on behalf of the ABC the following –
“The calculator output below lists Rod Barton (Transport Matters Party) as winning the final seat. This is a calculation based on assuming all votes are above-the-line ticket votes. Outside of the calculator the real rate of above-the-line voting for each group is known and indicates that Rod Barton cannot win as he is excluded very early in the count.”
Every other “ABC projects” in the above commentary also quotes a computer program and ignores the written analysis of the result on the same page.
I don’t know why I bother poring over results and writing commentary if people are just going to ignore it and quote a computer program as “ABC projects”. Every one of the “ABC Projects” quoted above includes commentary explaining that the result is not that clear cut and gives reasons why.
Congratulations to all the Legalise Cannabis candidates who have had the guts to stand up for what they believe is right and subsequently to be elected. 🙂
I project Antony’s pet cat will be spending the rest of the day hiding under the couch
Thankyou William for the brilliant Vic coverage over the last month. 🙂
Antony Green,
I’ve been reading your analysis on the LC results pages, and they’re much appreciated. In particular, the notes on why Labor is still an outside chance for a second seat in Northern Vic is informative.
Both (or possibly all) the seats won by Legalise Cannabis will be won due to Labor giving them preferences ahead of the Greens. So for that, Labor deserves the kudos or … whatever the opposite of kudos is, depending on your point of view.
You’d think legalise cannabis will get quite a few wins given they were preferenced favourably by Labor.
The hemp industry could be worth a look if you’re an investor.
EightES
Definitely a kudos.
Cannabis prohibition is an assault on people’s freedom. People should be free to make their own choices. We are not children.
freedumb silliness aside, cannabis prohibition is just dumb politics. It costs a lot of money to maintain for no benefit. Sure, there are things that need to be considered, when going through the steps to normlization, and some of those things are not as easy as some would have you believe (like how breath testing while driving works). But legalization is going to happen. It’s inevitable. Work out how to direct the train or get run over by it.
PS: thanks for the clarification on the ABC commentary Monsieur Green.
Third upper house seat for the Greens now confirmed.
Just goes to show that even in a backward electoral system like the Victoria Leg Council, actual votes can sometimes prevail over the whispered preferences of unelected hacks.
Final results, thanks to Antony Green-
Eastern Victoria – 2 Labor, 1 Liberal, 1 National, 1 SFF. No change on 2018 party composition.
North-Eastern Metropolitan – 2 Labor, 2 Liberal, 1 Green. Green gain at the expense of the Transport Matters Party.
Northern Metropolitan – 2 Labor, 1 Liberal, 1 Green, 1 DLP. DLP gain from Fiona Patten’s Reason Party.
Northern Victoria – 1 Labor, Liberal, 1 National, 1 One Nation, 1 Animal Justice. The Nationals, One Nation and Animal Justice gain seats, Labor, the Liberal Democrats and Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party lose seats.
South-Eastern Metropolitan – 2 Labor, 1 Liberal, 1 Liberal Democrat, 1 Legalise Cannabis. Labor loses a seat to Legalise Canabis.
Southern Metropolitan – 2 Labor, 2 Liberal, 1 Greens. Green gain at the expense of Sustainable Australia.
Western Metropolitan – 2 Labor, 2 Liberal, 1 Legalise Cannabis. Labor lose one seat and Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party turned Independent turned Angry Victorian Catherine Cumming defeated. Legalise Cannabis and Liberals gain a seat.
Western Victoria – 2 Labor, 2 Liberal, 1 Green. Liberals and Greens gain seats at the expense of Animal Justice and Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/vic/2022/guide/lc-results
Make that 4 for the Greens. Western VIC!
Catherine Cumming of the Angry Victorians Party, who was calling for someone to turn Premier Dan Andrews into ‘red mist’ has lost her seat.
Will she and her party now be even angrier? It seems they had much less support than they believed.
The composition of the new Legislative Council looks to be roughly along the lines of how people actually voted, in stark contrast to the previous incarnation. I hope this doesn’t relieve the pressure for change next time.
I wonder haw much Animal Justice’s treachery affected the result. I suspect it was quite a lot, but I’m far too lazy to check the zillions of critical exclusion points to find out.
22 seats for the Labor/Greens/Cannabis block.
Nice !
Great morning for the Greens, and also a pretty decent one for Labor.
Labor need 6 votes, as expected before the buttons were pushed. And Green + LC have 6 votes and represent Labor’s Plan A for passing legislation.
But the 4:2 split of Green:LC is better for Labor in cobbling together a plan B than 3:3 would have been.
Previously, Labor plan B would have been one of Green or LC, and 3 of 5 others – Lib dem, AJP, SFF, ON, DLP.
Now, Labor’s plan B is Greens and 2 of the other 5. That means they only need AJP and 1 of 4 right wing minors, a much easier task than AJP and 2 of the 4 right wing minors.
It also makes it much easier to pass one specific piece of legislation – changing how the LC works. I assume the Coalition is in favor of the current situation – a bunch of right wing minors is less of a headache for the coalition than Labor. The 4 right wing minors and legalise cannabis probably like the status quo also.
I assume AJP want GVT gone. I think their hijinx this election will see them left out in the cold in future by Drury. The Greens presumably want it gone also as they are the party that does worst out of the system.
So, if Labor push against it, they only need to move a single vote, down from the 2 votes they would have needed if LC got 3.
Rex Douglas @ #17 Wednesday, December 14th, 2022 – 11:53 am
add AJP to make 22 seats.
Antony Green’s contribution is a summary of media
And we are all the poorer
By way of example, home mortgage loans are repayable by monthly principal plus interest instalments over 25 years
The post GFC accommodative settings for interest rates was never going to last for 25 years – and the longer they maintain (so 15 years and counting) the closer the time when neutral rate settings (and above) will reflect in the cycle
If borrowers and lenders have not factored this into the servicing equation, more fool them
For all the media carry on, ahead of the GFC the 10 Year AUD Bond Yield was at 7.26%, driven by inflation at that time
The same quote today is at 3.37%, driven by inflation
Get real media
And what is their agenda exactly?
The uneducated telling their fellow uneducated what they do not know
I’ve been waiting until almost the end of the Victorian vote count before I give my biggest thanks on this forum. Forgive me William for not thanking you long before now for your extensive coverage of this election and all the others you have covered via your forum. I can honestly say I would be lost without checking into Pollbluder every day for your input and the input of everyone else who takes time out to submit a comment – no matter their political persuasion. Please keep up the good work, William.
So in sum: the Greens doubled their representation in the VIC Parliament this election, up from 4 to 8.
Not bad at all….
@lefty_e, correct, though they did also have eight members of the Vic parliament just before the 2018 election. That was before the Druery alliance came out in force, of course, so the upper house results aren’t really comparable.
I think you would have to say the result is a pretty fair representation of the communities views.
A religious farther, a women that has had a relationship with both brothers, anti vaxers. Strange people but ambushing policeman? What is that about?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/14/queensland-shooting-stacey-train-left-first-husband-nathaniel-for-brother-gareth-wieambilla
Well done to William, Antony Green/ABC and Kevin Bonham providing excellent information to understand the LC count and outcome.
We generally all know that the predictor based on assuming all votes are 1 ATL is not going to always be right. But an excellent guide. And expose of the Drurey lottery of small party manipulation. Might have been seen for last time??
Do we know that LCV will generally vote in a progressive way, rather than going all ultra libertarian? I had an admittedly quick look at their policies, and couldn’t find much beyond cannabis related policy.
Yes, thanks a lot William. The results page and ongoing updates have been great, as has the availability of a forum for people to make comments and ask questions.
One lives in hope that this is the end of GTV in Victoria but its demise has been predicted before without success. At least now given there are easily enough votes on the crossbench that support reform, Labor no longer has any excuse for avoiding it. The problem is that the best reform would be a more proportional system than 8×5 but thanks to the extreme foolishness of the Bracks government in entrenching 8×5, that appears to require a referendum.
I’m not a lawyer but …
Everything I’ve read on the subject (which isn’t much, I admit) leads me to the following view.
A parliament can’t bind its successors. Full stop. No ifs or buts. The entrenchment of the makeup of the upper house, and the constitution of Victoria in general, doesn’t stand a snowflake’s chance in a blast furnace of surviving a court challenge.
If it had been passed by a referendum in the first place, that may be different on the basis that the parliament represents the people, so the people can bind the parliament. But even that’s not certain. There’s a minority view that if Australia’s constitution were ever to come head-to-head with parliamentary sovereignty in court, the constitution might lose.
The major problem with changing the constitution without a referendum is that it would be a PR disaster, especially if the change were perceived to favour the government making the change.
It seems like there’s a bunch of ways around the 8×5 rule.
1) Referendum
2) It’s a simple majority in both houses to change the rules, such that the Constitution Act can be changed by a simple majority.
3) Hybrid model of voting. 40 eligible upper house members are identified via summing up the statewide proportional/preferential vote. Regional breakdown of votes is then used to allocate those 40 people into the 8 electorates. Would be a bit of administrative complexity in deciding who goes where. I would suggest whichever region has the highest quota for a single candidate, gets to select that candidate and has that quota removed. Then continue to elect candidates that way. Parties would be able to allocate above the line votes to that party’s candidates in the order chosen by the party, and could have a separate ticket per region. So, they could direct all North Metro ATL votes to that party’s candidates that live in that region. The regions are still each electing 5 members that represent them. Whoever wrote the Constitution trying to fix the situation cut a lot of corners.
@EightES
I’m a lawyer, albeit not a constitutional one.
It’s a very complicated question.
“There’s a minority view that if Australia’s constitution were ever to come head-to-head with parliamentary sovereignty in court, the constitution might lose.” That’s just wrong, wrong, wrong – bordering on the sort of stuff the cookers peddle. The federal Constitution clearly trumps the sovereignty of federal Parliament. Put another way, the federal Parliament is only sovereign to the extent that sovereignty has not been circumscribed by the federal Constitution: the obvious example being that the federal Parliament can only legislate in respect of:
– those matters which are expressly set out in section 51 (and some others); and
– other matters which arise as an implication from the federal Constitution itself (look up the ‘implied nationhood’ power).
Another obvious example is that the federal Parliament can’t change the federal Constitution on its own, it can only be changed after a referendum in favour under section 128.
Practically, though, that means the federal Parliament cannot entrench legislation and thus bind future federal Parliaments. Part of the justification for this is indeed that the federal Constitution was adopted by referendum in each of the former colonies.
The States are in a different position. On the one hand, their parliaments have ‘plenary’ power: by contrast with the federal Parliament, it’s not limited to certain subject-matters. On the other, their sovereignty is circumscribed by section 109 of the federal Constitution: if a federal law is valid it overrides any state law on the same topic.
More importantly, though, State Parliaments are direct descendants of Westminster. On the one hand, they are sovereign in the sense that Westminster is. On the other, they were created by Westminster with the ability to entrench a *limited* range of legislation and thus bind future State Parliaments. That ability was acknowledged in section 6 of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth), which was the culmination of the process by which Australia became totally independent of the UK.
Section 6 effectively preserves the ability of State Parliaments to entrench legislation “respecting the
constitution, powers or procedure of the Parliament of the State [if] it is made in such manner and form as may from time to time be required by a law made by that Parliament”. (Which almost certainly renders of a lot of what is entrenched in the Victorian Constitution a dead letter because it goes well beyond that description. Same goes for the idea of entrenching the new State Electricity Commission.)
The High Court has upheld State entrenching provisions before: eg when in the Marquet case it struck down the Carpenter (I think) government’s attempt to enforce one-vote-one-value in Western Australia because it wasn’t passed by the special majority required by that state’s Electoral Act.
The interesting question is, indeed, whether a State Parliament can entrench legislation without first putting it through the entrenchment method. For example, providing that legislation can only be repealed or amended after a referendum in favour without first putting that to a referendum – as happened with the Bracks government’s reforms to the make-up of Victoria’s Legislative Council. Orthodox notions of parliamentary sovereignty – and plain common sense – suggest no, they shouldn’t be able to. Unfortunately, there are cases – the leading one being Trethowan’s case – which suggest they can.
Trethowan’s case was decided in 1931 and thwarted the attempt by Jack Lang’s government to abolish the New South Wales Legislative Council without first putting that to the required referendum – even though that requirement hadn’t been put to a referendum. There are definitely law scholars who would say it was wrongly decided and thus the High Court ought to overturn it (the High Court doesn’t have to follow its own precedents). Frankly, it also smells of being a political decision: Lang having been seen as a dangerous left-winger.
So, the upshot of all that is that any attempt to replace the 8×5 model of Victoria’s Legislative Council without the referendum required by the Victorian Constitution is almost certain to end up in the High Court, which may:
– see sense and say the referendum requirement is null and void because it was never put to a referendum itself (which would require the Victorian Government to effectively concede that all of its big-ticket Constitutional entrenchments are dead letters); or
– as the High Court so often does when it’s asked to deal with matters electoral, ignore common sense and uphold Trethowan’s case and leave Victoria stuck with the consequences of the Bracks government’s short-sightedness – they even entrenched by referendum the precise number of members of each house of the Parliament!
@Voice Endeavour
Your option 2 doesn’t work – it runs straight into the very problem we’re talking about, that the Victorian Constitution provides that certain bits of it *can’t* be amended or repealed by ordinary majorities in both Houses and the law allows it to do this to at least some degree.
EightES,
You should investigate Trethowan’s 1931 case that went all the way to the Law Lords in London. It concerned the entrenchment of the NSW Legislative Council in the NSW constitution. The 1927-30 Parliament bound future parliaments by specifying that a future parliament could not abolish the Legislative Council unless the proposed law first passed at a referendum. Similar methods have been used to entrench optional preferential voting amongst other matters.
Trethowan’s case determined that future parliaments could be bound, but there is a lack of case law on how far that binding can go. It is a complex area of law. Anne Twomey has argued that some entrenchments are not truly entrenched. Not enough cases and rulings to be certain.
@EightES
My summary of the effect of Trethowan’s case is a very potted one. It was a lot more nuanced. So nuanced that it could even be said not to have actually decided the question of whether an entrenchment is only valid if it is put through the method of entrenchment (something which I’ve seen described as ‘symmetric entrenchment’). On the one hand, that makes it easier for the High Court because it wouldn’t necessarily have to overturn it. On the other, that makes it easier for the High Court to avoid answering the question altogether – as it so often does.
I also agree with what Antony has just posted.
@Toby -the thing you identify as a problem is simply not a problem.
The clause “The LC will be 8×5 and only a referendum can change this” is not legally valid and will be struck down by the HC if ever challenged.
An Act that splits it into two clauses may be found to be valid (but useless), i.e.
1) The LC will be 8×5
2) Clause 1 may only be changed via referendum.
But of course, in that case Clause 2 can be changed via simply majority. And then, Clause 1 can be changed by simple majority.
@Voice Endeavour
No, you’re totally wrong.
1) Read my explanation – and Antony’s comment too.
2) The entrenchment protects against repeal OR amendment of the relevant provisions. The 8×5 model for the Legislative Council is provided for in sections 26 and 27, which are in Part 2, Division 5, Subdivision 1. Section 18(1B)(b) provides that “It shall not be lawful to present to the Governor for Her Majesty’s assent any Bill by which— … Subdivision 1 of Division 5 of Part II … may be repealed, altered or varied unless the Bill has been passed by the Assembly and the Council and approved by the majority of the electors voting at a referendum.”
No lawyer will say that the High Court will definitely not uphold that. I don’t think it should – given that it was not put to a referendum in the first place – but I know better than to say “the High Court will so hold”, especially when all constitutional law scholars agree it’s not a settled question.
@Voice Endeavour
Perhaps we’re at cross-purposes. Section 18(1B) provides that “It shall not be lawful to present to the Governor for Her Majesty’s assent any Bill by which—(a) this subsection [(which covers *all* of paragraph (1B), *including* subparagraph (b) as quoted above)] … may be repealed, altered or varied unless the Bill has been passed by the Assembly and the Council and approved by the majority of the electors voting at a referendum.” That is, the provision which prescribes the way in which the Constitution can be amended also can’t itself be amended or repealed except by referendum. (I’ve seen that referred to as ‘double entrenchment’. You seem to be assuming there’s only single entrenchment, which can be got ’round in the way you suggest.)
@Voice Endeavour
In essence, you’re missing the third element:
“1) The LC will be 8×5.
2) Clause 1 may only be changed via referendum.”
3) Clause 2 *and this clause 3* may only be changed via referendum.
Hmm, I seem to have sparked quite a discussion. Thanks everyone for the informed opinions. They’re appreciated.
One small thing I will note is that, however many clauses you have, you always have to have a self-referencing one at the end.
n) Clauses n-1, n-2, … 1 and this clause n may only be changed by referendum.
And the entrenchment will only work if that self-reference is found to be valid. Unless I’m missing something?
In my opinion, I think step 1 of reform would simply be to abolish group ticket voting. Even if the system remains as 8×5, at least that voting system can be said to be fair, and the voters themselves in each region can make their preferences known, even if many votes exhaust.
The following step should ideally take place at a referendum, where the decision to either keep the 8×5 regions or go to a statewide model like NSW, SA and WA is put to the voters. That way the final decision can be “Well, this is what the people chose.”
Also, I find it somewhat interesting that Victoria doesn’t seem to have had a state referendum since 1899, which was the one for Federation. All the other states have had many referendums since then.
It seems ridiculous that a vote of parliament can not be undone by another vote of parliament. Entrenching a referendum should only be possible via a referendum.
EightES says:
Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 4:04 pm
Hmm, I seem to have sparked quite a discussion. Thanks everyone for the informed opinions. They’re appreciated.
One small thing I will note is that, however many clauses you have, you always have to have a self-referencing one at the end.
n) Clauses n-1, n-2, … 1 and this clause n may only be changed by referendum.
And the entrenchment will only work if that self-reference is found to be valid. Unless I’m missing something?
*********
If you were to insist on going down that rabbit hole, you would end up removing the entrenchment power, and the N+1 beyond that is the state constitution.
You can see the high political price for that.
It seems a high price to change the LC from 8 seats with 5 members to 7 seats with 6, or whatever.
@EightES
Yes, I think you’re basically right. But, legally, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with having such a self-reference.
@Kirsdarke
I wholeheartedly agree. I can see Labor trying to kick abolishing GTV into the long grass by making it conditional on a change to the make-up of the Council that they don’t have the stomach to fight for in the High Court (sorry guys, too hard!). I can’t see The Greens falling for that, though. And this time they have no plausible path to a Council majority without The (4) Greens. In the previous Council, they could get around Samantha Ratnam, the lone Green, by doing deals with Rod Barton of Transport Matters or Clifford Hayes of Sustainable Australia or the 2 members from Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party who were left after Catherine Cumming flounced off because they quickly saw how batshit crazy she was and wouldn’t make her leader (in that order of likelihood, and leaving aside the Coalition and assorted right-wingers)
@Spence
Again, I wholeheartedly agree – subject also to there being limits as to the sorts of things you can entrench, as found in section 6 of the Australia Act: you wouldn’t want a temporarily wildly popular government to entrench all of its policy choices by winning referenda while it’s still at the height of its popularity. That would be the common sense answer to this issue. Unfortunately, the law and common sense only sometimes intersect.
If there were to be limits as to what can be entrenched, spelled out in an act, that act would itself have to be entrenched. Otherwise what could be entrenched could be changed by a simple amendment to the act.
Or maybe another act could entrench the first act. Which would itself have to be entrenched, etc. etc. etc.
Or maybe entrenchment is simply not valid and that’s that.
@EightES
Indeed. There’s also an argument that section 6 of the Australia Act is itself invalid because it effectively amounts to the Commonwealth amending the States’ constitutions. It’s something of a rabbit warren. As I said, though, this issue doesn’t arise at the Commonwealth level. Which just shows that there’s a place for entrenchment: would we really want the Commonwealth Constitution to be amendable by an ordinary majority of Parliament?
Toby Esterhase,
In my view, no sensible person would want a constitution that can be amended by a simple majority of the parliament. There wouldn’t be much of a point in having a constitution in that case.
There are, however, plenty of John Howards and Tony Abbotts in the world who are quick to whinge about unelected judges frustrating the actions of the people’s duly elected representatives. And sadly, there are people who listen to them.
I shan’t comment on the constitutional issues regarding the Victorian Legislative Council and the requirements needed to abolish the GVT scam.
However, would the introduction of a minimum voting %, as required in many European Parliaments, help to resolve the issue of Councilors being elected on less than 1% of the vote?
Even with our statewide upper house electoral system we can still end up with Mark Latham, sitting for eight years in our Legislative Council.
At least your Councilors only sit for the term of the Legislative Assembly, not double.
As for the Justice Party, as someone from NSW, I can’t understand the appeal of Derryn Hinch.
There was an attempt to foist him onto NSW audiences – radio & television – during the mid-80s and due to his obnoxious manner, he was an overwhelming failure. We had our ample share of obnoxious disc jockeys, we probably didn’t need a blow in from Victoria, too.
It could be a Vic versus NSW thing.
Another thing – like Hinch, what is the attraction for the Victorian Socialists?
Is it a Victorian thing, too.
Or are these the people who don’t like or play sport and so while away the cold, bleak Victorian winter huddled, like teenage Rasputins, in dark cafes plotting the end of capitalism and saving the world.
I was absolutely amazed when the voting tally for this party was released for the recent Victorian election.
In NSW their combined vote wouldn’t qualify for an election candidates refund.
@Macca RB
Every time I hear about the Victorian Socialists I think of ruddy-faced white men with flowing beards.