Note: This story was published in Crikey today and is cross posted at Currumbin2Cook.
Elsewhere: More commentary on preference strategies at The Poll Bludger.
Much of Labor’s electoral success outside Brisbane from 1998 was built on the back of exploiting conservative disunity through Queensland’s optional preferential voting system. With One Nation and other right wing parties and independents splitting the conservative vote, the Labor message of “Just Vote One” turned many regional and rural seats into effective first past the post contests. The fact that this strategy reinforced the theme of conservatives as a squabbling rabble was an added extra.
Because Queensland uses optional preferential, calculations of the vote based on a notional 2PP are misleading. Unfortunately the polling firms who have been surveying opinion have used very confused methodologies to measure preferences. In many seats it will be far more important whether voters direct preferences than to whom.
Surprisingly for an election in which voters are tiring of Beattie but the Opposition presents an unacceptable alternative, minor parties have struggled to attract either support or coverage for their campaigns. So both the Greens and Family First have made much of their preference announcements.
Bizarrely, the Coalition failed to respond to a request from FF for a meeting in August to discuss preferences. Labor courted them. FF are preferencing the ALP in five seats, the Coalition in seven and Independent Dolly Pratt in Nanango. In other seats where they are running, they are advising voters to vote FF one and “number the remaining boxes”. FF will do more damage to the Coalition than Labor, as their preferences may aid the ALP in key seats, but are allocated to the Libs and Nats in largely safe Labor and Coalition seats. But realistically, the allocations are largely moot. The “Just Vote Oneâ€? culture is now so entrenched in Queensland that the effect of a significant FF vote will be to dilute conservative strength.
Bizarrely, though in keeping with a campaign so far devoid of much political logic, the Nats will be contributing to their own electoral demise by discouraging the allocation of preferences.
While Greens voters are the most likely of any to preference, the Greens will not be able to repeat the leverage they gained over Labor in 1995 when their preference decisions contributed to Goss’s defeat. The Nats, desperate for funding, have signalled open slather for development, while water is an environmental issue that plays Labor’s way except in seats affected by controversial proposed new dams.
Like most other factors in this campaign, the combination of the voting system and minor parties’ inability to control their preferences will work in the ALP’s favour.
Family First has proven itself a bit disorganised in this election Campaign and a limiter of free choice so why are they standing candidates in this election?
If the stated aim is to give Christians a say in politics then where is the point in giving a preference to one Christian over the well known Christian, Kerry Shine, in Toowoomba North?
Are some brands of Christianity coming with more sex appeal in Family First’s view than other breeds? Or is Family First just setting itself up as some warped gatekeeper of what our candidates can believe in?
A similar circumstance seems to occur where the seat of Nanango seems to be a bunfight about which breed of Christian Dolly Pratt’s or John Bionkers-Petersen has a better God according to the dictates of Family First.
Obviously the God of Dolly Pratt is superior to the Bionkers – Petersen God for some reason in Family First’s view of the world.
We will soon find out if the mark of this Family First beast is something to help a candidate or a millstone around their neck.
Despite the religious views of the candidates the Independents are in a far stronger position to deliver Government services to people in the Bush than their Coalition challengers. Coalition Candidates would be the ones who are expert in knifing each other.
So given all this what is Family First really doing in this election apart from hoping to earn a bit of cash as One Nation did in past elections?
It seems to me that optional preferential voting, as used in Queensland, is the ‘best’ system, particularly if you have an educated electorate.
It overcomes the moral objection of those who say ‘I don’t want to give a ‘tick’ under any circumstances to X because he/she is totally repugnant, which they must do under the federal system which demands that preferences MUST be allocated to record a valid vote. That is, a compulsory preference system. You must tick every box.
Also, it improves on ‘first past the post’ which is ’simplistic’ in the extreme.
Queensland has experimented with a variety of systems sine voting became compulsory in 1915 , but in my opinion, optional preferential is the ‘best’.
Any thoughts?
I agree with wpd, optional preferential is superior to plain old preferential voting. It increases your ability to choose candidates significantly. It does hurt statisticians brains though, then again I never really liked my stats lecturers.
I imagine that the Nationals would have been a little ‘gun shy’ (joke) back in August, given the Coalition’s historical ‘blond moments’ when it came to dealing with One Nation.
One of the National’s problems is that local branches can decide preference allocation. It contributed significantly to Borgidge’s decision to walk.
This dysfunctional arrangements will undoubtedly be cited by Lawerence when he also walks in the not too distant future.
Not ‘This’ but ‘These dysfunctional’ if you want to be correct. Also BorBidge. Sorry can’t type and can’t spell.
Never forget that the Queensland Nationals first preference is to hand over all members and assets to the Libs at no cost to the Libs. If only the Feds didn’t see through the merger in three days.
The preferred preference of the Queensland Libs is to become a single issue Party.
Asking parliamentary questions without notice exclusively about health and leaving some ministers to answer one or two questions per year as the Liberals twisted view of the world became more insane. Yes there is more to Queensland than a health system as I’m sure we will all discover on September 9.
It seems the FF weirdos are attractive to Beatie as they are to everyother weasel faced alp drone who no longer has principle from which to negotiate preferences. Is god a big factor in Queensland – surely not, he is dead aint he?
Queensland invented evangelical church involvement in politics. The Logos Foundation in Toowoomba in 1989 was a front for channelling funding to the Nats, who obligingly ran tv ads about the gay and lesbian mardi gras moving to Brisbane (we wish) and the general moral decay that a Goss Labor government would involve. Of course, corruption wasn’t a moral issue. And Joh had for a very long time prided himself on the fact that we were a God-fearing state compared to sinful Southerners.