Well, the Newspoll numbers are out and they aren’t good news for the Howardistas. Labor on 59% 2PP. Can we just have the election already? Listen to Evil Willow, Mr PM! (You might be able to find her on those intertubes you’re now an aficionado of…) – Bored now.
Elsewhere: Lots of interesting commentary on the Poll Bludger thread, as usual. And context at Oz Politics.
Update: [by Kim] There’s a very comprehensive analytical post at Possums Pollytics:
The headline numbers will undoubtedly have the politicians, commentators and pollyjunkies running around like headless chooks in varying states of euphoria or complete panic, depending on ones political bent.
But underneath these headline figures it is nothing more than business as usual.
Nothing has actually changed since March. The nature of polling series is such that they wander a few points around their true level simply because of the probabilistic nature of sampling that occurs with opinion polls.
But so saying, break out the popcorn because the fallout is going to be worth watching
I’m breakin’ out the port.
Crank up the shredders, Team Rodent!
The last chopper to the Brisbane Lord mayor’s office is leaving the roof, right about now.
Wooooo, mama. The mother of all electoral storms cometh.
Those baseball bats woz a tea partee….
Sid Marris at the GG.
Wot an asskicking on PPM
Where’s Shanahan? Schmoozing at the Kirribilli APEC fringe festival or something?
Yep Mark…….last days.
I suspect he’s besoffen on schnapps, shagging some Partei untersekretariat in the Gazeditorial bunker.
The Ruddians are at the Steglitz gates.
I hope they’re playing “Ride of the Valkyries” at the APEC piss ups. Appropriate last days in the bunker götterdämmerung soundtrack.
That’s a great photo of Evil Willow, btw.
I was going to say, Kim have you been hanging on to that pic and just looking for an excuse to post it.
I liked Evil Willow more than Good Willow. She was much more interesting.
Check the primary! 51 – 37.
Don’t want to get cocky. Can’t handle another 2004. Good to see Evil Willow again. That is all.
Shamaham speaks.
Would any of youse scholars here hazard a guess at what the old blow-soft (who would never of got these numbers) is blathering on about here.
Like what’s the take home supposed to be for mug-punters like me? Is he with us or against us?
He’s practicing for his new gig as Australian ambassador to the US, I dare say, wbb.
Says Denis Shanahan. I hope so. I need my dividends for some Xmas shopping in good time.
Well spotted, Mark! And here was me thinking he was just chewing the fat to no purpose as usual.
I’m sure the big fella has sneaked a back room pass into the APEC VIP tent on some sort of pretext, wbb!
That column by Shanahan is nonsense.
It’s a bit of an outrider poll but, like Bryan at Ozpolitics said, the Libs should be worried that such big outriders are possible this close to the election.
Bryan’s said about all you need to say. One way the “owners” of Newspoll get it wrong is over-analysis. I mean, consider this gibberish from Shanahan:
And there’s that awful word “contestable” again – meaning “competitive” or “making it a contest”. I think Beazley started it. A boondoggle! A scam, a sham and a shambles!
Lexy was having a bit of a hissy spit on lateline tonight. How dare Kevin 07 go round telling people he’s gonna win the election. May GWB just go home, no point one lame duck talking to another lame duck.
But wait. With these figures JWH will be hanging out for a January election.
Loved the photo.
Oh, maybe all this is a fantasy.
I daren’t hope.
I loved his historical reference to the Preferred PM fiasco back in July.
I support everybody, especially ALPistas, keeping it real, paring back the excitement, and avoiding over confidence etc.
But I personally will take a raincheck on it: Howard’s well gone. He’s got Buckleys of turning this around.
The long Rodent duree is coming to an end.
And its gonna be a mawling.
Well, for all those who see no hope for the Libs of getting into any type of contestable position b/w here and election day, the bookies are still willing to give you are 50% return on your investment. Tax free.
Honestly, as stupid as it sounds, I think this is all down to the stripper story. The reaction from every guy I spoke to when that story came out was big grins and a sudden propensity to talk about Rudd like he was an old friend from school days. It seemed to subtly shifted the perception of him from being just a politician to someone they could relate to. Even alot of women had a similar reaction. Nothing else in the last month had a big enough political impact to explain a move this big.
Stick a fork in, this one is over.
Oh, and the change in preferred PM is enormous. Strippergate seems to be the logical explaination for that.
Btw, what happened to that newfangled Ass-nation thingo? Two turns round the fishbowl and its like, soooo 10 minutes ago.
Its just one rubbish stunt after another with these clowns. How did they stay in government so long? Its a national embarrasment. My GOd, how long was I sleeping? Suddenly, they’re such abject losers. The ALP mst have been truly rubbish all this time. There’s no other possible explanation.
To wit, whats Beazer doing poking his head up about Drover’s Dogs?
Man should be in hiding.
a. it has now become a tradition for ex-Labor Opposition leaders to either
i) talk about drover’s dog.
ii)publish their diaries thus guaranteeing expulsion.
(whatever did happen to Latham?)
b) Rudd impressed the boys with Strippergate because he proved he had blood and Bundy in his veins.
He impressed the women because he told his missus straight away.
He impressed the Xtans because he admitted up front that he shouldn’t have gone to the strip club because he was married.
And he impressed everybody else because he didn’t stay too long.
But how would he go in the polls if he did it again?
Oh, let me live til Howard goes!
Heh!
Someone obviously had a lot of fun putting that video together too…
Btw, beware over-analysis, as Mark says. Strippergate may already have been largely forgotten by the time the poll was taken. And it probably is an outlier. I think things are where they’ve been for most of the undeclared election campaign – 56-44 or 55-45. In other words a landslide awaiting its consummation.
Kim,
I reckon it’s Equine Flu and the lack of racing for the punters, plus all the parents of upset “Saddle Club” kids who were unable to go horseriding when the horse lockdown occoured.
Well, who knows Frank? In reality there may have been a .5% or a 1% movement towards Labor, when you take into account sampling error possibilities and the usual margin of error. But there’s sure as hell no Coalition comeback, and they’re not looking very “contestable”.
Kim,
Yeah, I reckon another factor is Rudd’s Health & IR launches – sound policies which don’t scare the horses (pardon the pun).
Here is the GG Newspoll graphic.
I reckon the fact that the Greens are at 3% suggests something has gone awry with the sample.
Kim – not a fan of Manson’s work. If the Willowish goodness was put together with The Living End’s version of “Tainted Love” I’d rate it…
Back to the topic at hand. I really do think that not much should be read into this poll, the only thing that can be reliably said is that the Government hasn’t managed to close the gap on Rudd’s Labor.
Wo ist Wenck?!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Wenck
That’s the wrong Evil Willow.
It’s pretty obvious Howard is angling to get some sort of “Sydney Protocol” on climate change out of this APEC shindig, although it will probably be a more “aspirational” “Sydney Statement” which will waffle a lot.
Predictions on how lame it will be, anyone?
Pretty lame. A commitment to further talks I bet…
I will accept that Labor can win when Antony Green calls it on election night (hopefully around 7:25pm).
Numbers like this; this close to the election really test one’s mettle to not get cocky though.
The rest of us can amuse ourselves with ‘une mission ephemere’.
One practical outcome of this poll is that $mirker will be using Treasury Department bureaucratic assistance to update his CV to smoothe his transition into the private sector.
Or, at least, $mirker should be doing that, because he’ll never be elected Leader of the (Much Depleted) Opposition.
So, an early vale to the best PM Australia never had.
Sorry irrelevant, but if there was an Evil Willow does that mean there was a good Willow?
If $mirker doesn’t get the opposition leadership, who does? It’s an impossible one to nut out this.
Newspoll estimates the Green vote at 3%. This continues to be at odds with every other indicator of what the Green vote is likely to be.
* The other polls (Morgan, AC Neilsen, Galaxy) all estimate a Green vote in the range 7-9%.
* In the most recent round of State and Territory elections, 8.91% of Australian voters voted for the Greens.
* The 2004 Australian Election Study reported that 7.2% of respondents were strongly attached to the Greens.
* And, as I reported here, Newspoll has a consistent trend of, in Dubya’s words, misunderestimating the Green vote.
The money quote from Marris
“this weekend’s result puts Labor much further ahead than John Howard was when he beat Labor prime minister Paul Keating in 1996.”
It’s not quite over, but Amanda Vanstone is clearing his tonsils.
Sorry, that should of course be, her tonsils.
I’m a bit sad about the Greens vote:-(
“I’m a bit sad about the Greens vote:-(”
I’m not.
Even if they get their usual 7-8%, Leader-for-life Bob Brown should step down after the election. He has become a bore.
Zarquon’s right. That’s not Evil Willow—that’s Emo Willow, a much more terrifying prospect.
I’m with Mr Lefty and Chris Mayer, I’ll believe Labor’s won it when I’m drunk and crowing, about 2am after polling day, but until then, pessimism of the intellect, fatalism of the will.
It’s a fork in the road for the Libs.
Turnbull is the consensus candidate, but his seat is dodgy.
Abbott, if the Right continue to hang tough.
The “small-L” wing of the Libs are so depleted they have no credible candidates. The campaign to drive the rightist nutters out of the Liberal Party hierarchy has to start at the grass roots, so it could take some time for a progressive Liberal movement to build a power base to fend off the mad dogs within the party.
nice work Spiro
As for the poll, I want to believe the baseball bats are out there.
Alex … “I’m a bit sad about the Greens vote”
I also am sympathetic to green views, but I’ve never seen the point in voting for them in the lower house. (1) They’re not going to get in (2) I’m not sure I want them there anyway – the lower house is all about compromises and practicalities whereas the greens are essentially a lobby group. On the other hand I think it makes excellent sense to have some greens in the house of review where they can use their extreme position to provide effective environmental checks and balances. I am a huge supporter of Peter Garrett, but I must confess I’m not enjoying his obvious discomfort in the shadow ministry.
So, my view is that the green’s lower house polling is irrelevant. What matters is how many will vote for them for the Senate and that should be the focus of their campaigning.
P.S. How do you do the quote thingy?
His tonsils??????
I know we were paying for Amanda’s Italian lessons but don’t tell we have foot the bill for a gender re-assignment operation. That would be too much.
And does her husband know about this?
Then again, Spiros, there is an argument that a boring leader and public face is an asset for a party with radical policies – although it’s not necessarily one which I agree with.
Libs will have to see who survives the night of the long poll-axe.
CK, der General Wenck is currently posing as an Wehrmacht private, trying to smuggle “das bounce” and other Assnazi secret weapons to the Yanks before the Ruddians reach Unter den Linden.
Katz: this comment from Charles at Poll Bludger says it all about the Liberals:
The problem with Bob Brown is not his boring demeanour, it is that he hasn’t had an original thought in 10 years.
Anyways, back to the polls: it could be that the Rudd momentum is pulling in voters from the left of Labor as well as from it’s right, not for any good policy reasons, but because people simply want to get on board with a perceived winner. The Greens vote might well be reduced to its core – people like Paul Norton – with the affluent suburbans who previously voted Green, this time getting with the strength and voting Labor.
I thought being an unmitigated bore was part of the leadership job description, Spiro
Jenny, I’m also cringing at Garrett’s obvious discomfort, BUT am really counting on him showing his true Green credentials as Environment Minister. Either that, or my 25 year collection of Midnight Oil Albums/CD’s are going to be
ceremonially burntrecycled.SWIO: …”big grins and a sudden propensity to talk about Rudd like he was an old friend from school days”…
What makes you think Kev has any old friends from school days? You mean like him and Wayne are nambour high mates? The line about keeping close to friends, but closer to enemies, more like methinks.
It’s all red cordial. Get ready for a dose of Mr Ruddock’s castor oil.
Just out of curiousity, for the psephophiles: what’s the current record for wrongedness in polls prediction v eventual reality? Newspoll’s 10% Hewson primary lead Feb ‘93?
There’ll be a poll/media industries cosy echo-chamber hysteria inflation factor at play. Can today’s 14% primary gap be equivalent to 1993’s 10% one? I guess in statistics terms, what confidence limit would you have to invoke to equate them?
Primary votes are worth somewhere between a dollar and two each. This money helps cover the cost of the election campaign.
“Newspoll’s 10% Hewson primary lead Feb ‘93?”
it was never that big, though it is true that Newspoll did not cover itself in glory back in ‘93.
Since then, Newspoll has accurately predicted the federal election result.
But, the point is fair: if Rudd brings out a hugely radical and risky polict manifesto like Fightback!, or starts displaying Hewson’s demeanour during that campaign, then the Liberals might claw back a fair chunk of Labor’s lead.
SWIO: …”big grins and a sudden propensity to talk about Rudd like he was an old friend from school days”…
What makes you think Kev has any old friends from school days? You mean like him and Wayne are nambour high mates? The line about keeping close to friends, but closer to enemies, more like methinks. Howard/Costello revisited? If they could only find an economics literate labor MP for treasurer, not fired with burning ambition, and possessed of uncommon common sense.. Tanner I hear you say?
It’s all red cordial. Get ready for a dose of Mr Ruddock’s castor oil.
Just out of curiousity, for the psephophiles: what’s the current record for wrongedness in polls prediction v eventual reality? Newspoll’s 10% Hewson primary lead Feb ‘93?
There’ll be a poll/media industries cosy echo-chamber hysteria inflation factor at play. Can today’s 14% primary gap be equivalent to 1993’s 10% one? I guess in statistics terms, what confidence limit would you have to invoke to equate them?
Good point Spiro.
It’s worth reminding ourselves which party is behaving like a pack of tossers, hysterics, dirtbags, and outright fauntleroys, just at the minute.
Uggggh!
Malcolm McKerras really sunk the slipper into Howard this morning on ABC radio in Melbourne.
He said that Howard was going to lose because of his radical IR Workchoices legislation that he had no mandate for. Only 10% of Howard’s IR agenda was disclosed during the 2004 election, so he conned the Australian public.
He also said Howard missed the chance to re-present legislation through the Senate as the conservative (not so radical) Menzies did / would have done, and went for the radical ram through option.
He said Howard would lose his seat too. It was a remarkably strident attack on Howard and his legacy.
Regarding voting Greens in the lower house – when major parties lose significant votes to others such as the Greens it pushes seats towards marginal status – or at least heightens the importance of preferences. Major parties eventually respond to this pressure with policy adjustments – but usually only where relevant to marginal seats.
The Greens have underdog status for Melbourne and Sydney lower house seats – so voting for them there may result in a big upset. If the election is very close and the Greens win one or two lower house seats then a coalition goverment (Labor & Greens) similar to the German government is also a possibility, though this is remote.
And Labor can’t win the Senate, so if the Liberal/National/Family First block retains control of it there will be a lot of thwarting going on, so Greens in the Senate will be important to restore some sense and balance.
No, it doesn’t. Marginal status is calculated on two-party preferred votes, not the primary vote.
What are the chances that the Liberal/National/Family First bloc will retain control of the Senate, Peter? Did Malcolm Mackerras mention this?
I have now read and heard it all. Liberal Party Leninists on a blog devoted to polling. Perfectly put by the small ‘l’ liberal and politically astute. It will take a long time for the struggle between the faux provincial neocons in the Liberal Party to be purged, in favour of conservative nationalist/Small ‘l’ liberal leadership in a new reworked version of the coalition.
Nothing like an unpopular war together with a brazen program of class war from above. ‘Regime suicide’ barely covers what the fools in the think tanks persuaded their hapless and clueless political representatives to do. The next interesting set of numbers will be the turnout in the US Presidential polls. Here I predict a similar result for the ‘PNAC’ crowd, whose coalition with economic libertarians aka, Wall Street carpet baggers, will destroy the hopes and dreams of both parties to this wild and crazy romance, which was so exciting while the stars were in alignment, the Kings were on their thrones, and the Dow Jones was better than a good night in Vegas.
Liam, if both major parties go below 50% of primary votes, the seat is no longer “safe” as it will be decided by preferences, to this would be a trend towards marginal. But I agree, if the 2PP is still greater that 55/45 then the seat is not marginal.
GregM, Mackerras didn’t mention this. My comments started with “Regarding voting Greens …”. However, the numbers indicate that there is no way Labor will get a majority in the Senate.
If the Dems collapse (as appears likely) and the Greens don’t do well (2 or more) in the Senate then control by the Liberal/National/FF bloc would prevail. So Rudd would have Government with a hostile Senate that would block most of his attempts at major reform or repealing the Indigenous Racist Act, WorkChoices etc.
ALP has to be a show at 4 seats in a state or two, on these numbers, surely?
Having said that, I have no idea. Senate psephology bewilders and scares me. I note the big guns of psephblogdom get a bit skittish, and tend to change the topic.
It seems Labor’s poll numbers increase with every new Mini-Howard announcement. I am not sure how flattered Howard would be though. In the future, when students are asked to write History essays about “continuity and change” during this time, they will be very hard pressed to pad the essay out when it comes to the “change” part.
Maybe Howard would prefer to do an orderly handover to Rudd rather than to Costello?
Peterc, whether a seat is safe or marginal has *nothing* to do with primary vote percentage. It doesn’t matter if the winning candidate wins it on 40% or 90%, marginality is a measurement of the change in vote that would be required for the seat to change hands between the Parties between whom 2PP is measured—that’s why it’s called a margin.
If you have a look at the Newspoll graph, there appears to be a relationship between the ALP primary and the Green primary. Taking into account Paul’s arguments about the under-estimation of the Green vote, it suggests that when the ALP vote moves up, the Greens vote moves down, suggesting there’s a fair bit of churn between the two.
“they will be very hard pressed to pad the essay out when it comes to the “changeâ€? part.”
Yes and no.
The policy differences between Howard and Rudd are not massive, it must be said. Same for Costello and Swan.
The differences between Kevin Andrews and Julia Gillard are rather bigger. Once elected, Deputy Prime Minister Gillard will be in an authoritative position to run her own race, and she will. Rudd will have limited ability to control her and may be not even try.
Conroy will do whatever takes his fancy as minister for communications – he doesn’t take instruction from anybody. And so on.
And it’ll be a free-for-all when it comes to reversing Howard’s cultural agenda. Rudd will be much too busy on the big picture stuff to concern himself about the content of history curricula and the like.
Btw, I think Bob Brown does the most succinct and quotable soundbites of any leader.
Spiros
Ah, the naivety of youth. La Gillard’s race, like that of Hitlary Clinton, will make Margaret Thatcher look like Rosa Luxemberg.
Spiros, I couldn’t disagree more with that analysis. If Rudd wins, he will have immense authority. And he’s a micro-managing control freak – the content of history curricula is precisely the sort of thing he’ll be interested in. Forget the Goss Government at your peril! Goss’ office appointed all the ministerial staffers and established lines of reporting to the Premier not to each Minister. Goss and Rudd tightly controlled the Cabinet agenda, and Ministers complained that their meeting with the Premiers’ Department secretary before Cabinet was where the real action was. Backbenchers could hardly get an appointment with Goss. Rudd was personally in charge of reaching into Ministers’ offices and the bureaucracy to ensure Goss’ will was done.
If these numbers are (a) a correct estimate (see my previous comment re underestimating the Greens vote) and (b) hold true for the Senate as well, it is probable that in a couple of states Labor would almost be on 4 quotas (57 per cent of the vote) in its own right. However we know that there is a percentage of voters who like to “ticket split”, i.e. vote for a major party in the House of Reps and a minor party in the Senate. The non-rusted on voters who have come to Labor in the past year are more likely than most to fall into this category.
Lefty E, yes indeed, Senate psephology is a nightmare. Largely because the final result depends on the order in which the smallest parties and independents get knocked off. It can be the luck of the draw that decides the final make-up.
Yes, it is feasible on the current numbers that Labor could take 4 in one or two states. But I don’t see it happening. I’d support Paul’s point about ticket splitting. The word out there is that a lot of people are going to vote ALP in the House and Green or Dem in the Senate.
The thing is, for the Senate control to shift, the ALP / Greens / Dems together need to pick up a net 2 seats. We need 2 States to go 4/2 to the left. I think that’s achievable. I think Tassie will go 3ALP, 2Lib, 1GRN, and I think Victoria could do the same. Of course, if the ALP decide to preference Family First in Victoria again, boldly thinking they could win 4 seats all on their own, they’ll shoot their Senate down in flames…
And then there’s the wildcard of the ACT. If Gary Humphries (v unpopular) sees his vote go below quota (33.3% in a Territory), the ACT will elect either 2ALP or 1ALP and 1GRN.
John, you are wrong. Gillard is the leader of her faction, and will be Deputy PM. She isn’t just going to sit back and watch the government she is number 2 in, become Howard lite. It’s not her style. Just wait and see.
Kim, the comparison with the Goss government doesn’t stack up. The factions, the fiefdoms and the war lords in the federal labor party have not gone away. They are merely dormant. Conroy, Carr and all the rest of them will have a field day.
Of course, if Rudd wins, he will have immsense authority. Everyone will salute the Rudd flag at the appropriate time. But there are only so many things even a workaholic, micro managing PM can attend to in a 24 hour day.
That’s what staffers are for, Spiros. And a strong central policy office in the PM’s department. Just as Howard had Max Wilton-Moore, Rudd will find his own Rudd.
It’s pretty obvious Howard is angling to get some sort of “Sydney Protocol� on climate change out of this APEC shindig, although it will probably be a more “aspirational� “Sydney Statement� which will waffle a lot.
I think if the Libs are expecting to get any votes out of APEC, it shows how out of touch they are with how unpopular GWB is (not just among Americans) and how deeply cynical a lot of people are about Bush and climate change and by extension, Howard and climate change. My impression is that cosying up to Bush will work against Howard.
As for the Greens vote, I’ve heard two leftwing voters in a marginal (Lib) electorate say that they’ll be voting Labor instead of Greens this time, out of pure desperation.
I had a similar experience working on a polling booth for the Greens in 1993 – people who’d normally vote Green saying to me “but I’ve got to vote Labor this time because this time it’s got to count!”
This indicates that a non-trivial proportion of voters don’t understand compulsory preferential voting, which in turn is an indictment of many of our schools and many of our parents. When I was about 10 I understood that a vote which went 1 DLP 2 Liberal was effectively the same as a vote which went 1 Liberal, and that this was why the Coalition had won the 1969 Federal election despite Labor winning more of the primary vote.
Spiros will you stop that. Your worst fears are making a Rudd government look more attractive and I don’t want to have high expectations and be disappointed.
“why the Coalition had won the 1969 Federal election despite Labor winning more of the primary vote.”
Indeed, Labor won more of the 2PP vote in 1969.
“This indicates that a non-trivial proportion of voters don’t understand compulsory preferential voting.”
Newsflash: New Idea outsells New Statesman by a large margin. Most people don’t give a fat rat’s clacker about psephological trivia. It would a worry if they did.
But understanding how different voting systems work is hardly trivial. In the US in 2000 it mattered a great deal that a vote for Nader would be a non-vote for Gore, and it mattered a great deal that people knew this – as did my American students who would have preferred to have voted for Nader but finished up voting for Gore because they understood their electoral system, and had a much better grounding in the civics of their country than did my Australian-born students in the same class.
Kim wrote:
But I think Spiro’s point stands in regard to reversing Howard’s cultural agenda. Although I suspect you’re right, Kim, in that much of this change will be over seen by Rudd. Rest assured though, the Blainey’s, Windshuttle’s and Donnelly’s will be frozen out of the agenda.
“But understanding how different voting systems work is hardly trivial”
Paul, you are a political activist. Do you know how details of how the Senate vote is counted?
Update: [by Kim] There’s a very comprehensive analytical post at Possums Pollytics:
“the Blainey’s, Windshuttle’s and Donnelly’s will be frozen out of the agenda.”
Exactly right. And in their place will come John Greenfield’s dreaded luvvies. Out of their bunkers in the ABC and the arts faculities they will come, with a vengeance. Rudd will give them everything they want on cultural stuff to distract their attention from his neo-Howardian agenda on the economy, foreign affairs and climate change.
The (deconstructed) look on Greenfield’s face, alone, should be worth the price of admission.
Oh, sure, maybe I didn’t make myself understood well. But Rudd will have his own stamp on cultural politics, and it won’t necessarily be to the taste of a lot of us. I’m not saying Ministers won’t have some leeway, and Spiros is right that there will be other power dynamics than Rudd downwards, but we should expect that he’ll keep a pretty tight rein on things. Which is interesting – Hawke was a “chairperson” style of PM and Keating swung from being interventionist to disinterested. But I think it’ll be a different governing style for federal Labor.
Well said, Paul. If someone doesn’t understand the basics of preferential voting, they’re unlikely to properly articulate their political choice.
Spiros, voting knowledge is very different to the kind of speculative psephology that goes on in the comments fields of blogs, and the Senate counting is surprisingly simple. The golden rule is that you should vote for the Party or candidate you want to receive your vote, not try to game the system voting for who you ‘think’ would best use it.
Spiros, I’ve been both a returning officer and a scrutineer in elections utilising STV proportional representation as set out by the Proportional Representation Society of Australia. I understand that there is a slight difference between how surpluses of votes are distributed in Senate counts and how they are distributed in the PR Society’s rules> The difference (I believe) is that if a Senate quota is (say) 857,493 votes, and a candidate polls 957,493 primary votes, under PR society rules a transfer value for all 957,493 ballot papers is calculated by dividing 100,000 by 957,493 and distributing all 957,493 papers according to second preferences, whereas in the actual Senate count 100,000 papers are selected at random and distributed at full value. This is what I was told once and I stand to be corrected.
UPDATE: I do stand corrected by Liam’s authoritative link.
“and the Senate counting is surprisingly simple.” So true.
But above all, do not trust, The Labor, “How to Vote Paper”.
Or you may end up with, “the whip”..
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/senators.asp?id=e4r
OK, Senate voting experts, answer me this. Suppose you really like the No 3 candidate on your party’s list, but it is an iffy proposition whether they will be elected (as it always is for labor senate candidates). I’ve heard that it is a big mistake to give them your number one vote (and then number every square after that), because the way the counting is done, it’s a wasted vote.
True, or urban myth?
Urban myth.
PR is designed specifically to stop votes being ‘wasted’. The only way to make sure your vote is not counted according to your directions is to vote informally.
A voter who voted below the line for “death seat” and lower candidates at the bottom of their Party’s ticket, or even better, exclusively for unelectable, unknown, crank candidates might think they had cast a wasted vote, but by any sensible definition of ballot counting, their vote would do exactly what they had intended.
OK Tim, ta for that summary.
We need 4 non-coalition/ non-FF spots in two states people! (or one state plus a surprise sweep in the ACT)
I for one would prefer the Greens/ Bartlett to hold the BOP. And anyway, that seems to be the only way it’ll happen.
So, fair warning: If the VIC ALP roots this up again we’s gonna form a posse!
Just heard news that Labor has done a deal with Family First in Queensland.
Spiros, Liam’s right that it’s an urban myth that your vote would be wasted. However, it may not achieve the aim. If you cast you below the line vote giving 1 to the 3rd candidate, then 2 to candidate 1, 3 to candidate 2, 4 to candidate 4, and however you like after that, the most likely result is that it will have exactly the same impact as 1, 2, 3 in order. If enough people vote like you, it could boost candidate 3 above candidate 2, but, given the numbers in question, you’d need 100,000 or so friends, I’d hazard a guess.
I’ll check that out, Mona. Such a move might make some sense, from the standpoint of conservative Labor technocrats who want to have a wider range of options than having to deal with the Greens all the time, if the choice was between the Greens holding the BOP in their own right versus the BOP being shared between the Greens and minor centre-right or right parties, with no prospect of a Coalition majority with or without other centre-right groups. However, given the prospect of such a deal delivering a “broad right” Senate majority once again, it is dumb politics.
As the saying goes, “don’t preference what you don’t want”.
Dare I start this all over again…..:
Abolish ATL voting!!!
Optional BLT prefs now!!
Where did you hear the news, Mona? Do you have a link?
I can’t find anything via Google news.
Yes, but tim, you’re not aiming to boost #3 above #2, you’re aiming to boost #3 above the next-best candidate who’d be elected otherwise, presumably #3 on another major Party ticket or #1 on a minor Party ticket.
And yes, the numbers are of the scale that no matter what your aim, it doesn’t make any sense to try to game the system, except for the satisfaction of knowing where your own vote has gone.
Mona: show, don’t tell.
Hacks out! Punters in!
You kinow, Im going to get my old 87 “Johbusters” t-shirt out of napthalene, cross out “Joh” and write “Hack” – with a picture of some ferret-like Kaiser or Sheezel figure.
“Hackbusters”: give the Senate back, hack.
What Left E said.
Yeah, but where did Mona hear it? With respect, there’s nothing yet to suggest that it’s actually true.
Liam, I am not entirely convinced. The more vote 1’s that go to the # 3 candidate, the smaller the surplus of the no 1 candidate, and the smaller the transfer value of the # 1 candiates’s votes. Might that not mean that the #2 candidate will only just get elected, with few transferable votes of his own, and so the # 3 candidate misses out, or has les chance than if you just vote the party ticket?
The only ‘wasted votes’ are those that end up with the last candidate to be excluded. But there’s not much that can be done about that, someone has to lose
I thought we’d resolved this.
Abolish list voting.
Optional ATL preferential voting please.
Hmm, didnt we decide that might disadvantage independents? Lets not do a republican movement now!
We need a broad unity principle: Unelected hacks out of preference distribution!!
No.
If all votes are list votes (or equivalent) then there will be zero difference between
a) 1 first pref vote for #3 and x-1 surplus votes from #2; and
b) 0 first pref vote for #3 and x surplus votes from #2.
If some votes are leaking preferences or exhausting between #2 and #3 then you slightly improve #3s chance by giving them a 1st preference rather than a (less than 100%) share of the surplus. But it all has to be rather finely balanced and hence improbable for this to have any effect.
I just like to give the electoral staff more work to do
Heard 2 weeks ago that the ALP had [past tense] preferenced FF.
I understood that it referred to one of the states [definitely not Qld, ie it does not exclude Qld as a possible extra].
Oh what the hell…it applied to SA.
Horses mouth…well maybe in the ear or nose region.
Seemed to me the informant was hoping the information would surface publicly.
Liam, how many 2pp marginal seats are held by incumbents who polled over 50% primary? Not many I suggest. If you look at Corio (5% swing required) the incumbent Gavan O’Connor polled 46.68% in 2004.
My point is there is a strong correlation between marginal status and no candidate for the seat getting over 50% at the previous election.
But I take your point, what really matters is the swing required for the seat to be lost. And for this election with a swing to Labor, it will really only be the Liberal marginals that are in play. Unless some local factors (like the Gunns pulpmill) or a dud candidate count against Labor in one of their marginals.
The system would need to be redesigned so that independents could be numbered ATL or BTL, yes.
But that’s just a design issue surely…
I agree with Lefty E about abolishing above-the-line voting. Drop it!
In Victoria, I believe that large numbers of ALP voters who voted ATL were amazed to discover that a portion of their Senate preferences had been quietly “allocated” by (ALP) Head Office, to Mr Fielding, later Senator Fielding. The voters had never heard of him. They were understanably upset.
Can bloggers please play a role in exposing PREFERENCE DEALS (especially the grubby, astounding sort) before the poll please? Afterwards, it’s a little late.
Kim: thank you for emphasising over and over again that SAMPLING error is a factor, and is rarely mentioned in newspaper stories. Typical inherent errors of 2 to 3% in every large party primary vote?
Then “support” of 47% might really be as high as 50% or as low as 44%. And a “jump” from (say) 43% to 47%, might be entirely a statistical blip. [The 43% might have been an underestimate of the true figure: 45%; with the 47% being a poor measurement of 45%. No change at all, but enormous commentarial effort put into waffle about the "rise" of 4%.]
As several posters have pointed out, looking at averages over many months, reduces the inherent uncertainties.
++++++++++++++
OK, here’s some “analysis” from the Neerim South Institute, a privately-funded Think Prank.
Mr Rudd has recently gained a whopping 48% of the Bogan Vote (which currently stands at 11% nationally, though it varies enormously from electorate to electorate, Kerry, and the Computer is saying, hang on that’s the wrong graphic, ah it’s coming up now…) by his New York antics.
The Bogan Vote had him marked down as a girly swot, previously. In this they were correct. They are temporarily mistaken. He will have to pull a rabbit out of a hat or a kangaroo out of a spotlight, to retain their votes.
cheerio
If Labor have done another grubby deal with Family First, they haven’t done their homework.
According to Table 24 of the recent Victorian Electoral Commission analysis of the 2006 state election, Family First voters are among the least likely voters to follow their party’s how to vote card.
While 49% of ALP voters followed their party’s ticket, only 20.8% of family first voters followed the FF ticket. Greens voters on the other hand followed the Greens How to Vote card 31% of the time.
The argument by those in the ALP Right that there might not be many Family First voters but their preferences are important because they follow the ticket seems to be only half right, no one disputes that there arent many Family First voters wth most polls putting them on 1-2 per cent.
Analysis of the Greens vote in the 2004 shows that in the seats where the Greens issued open tickets rather than directing preferences to the Alp the flow of Green preferences fell by 7 per cent. Decisions by the greens to direct preferences can move up to 700 votes in some marginal seats.
Those in the ALP who have been relying on the argument that there might not be many FF voters but they are all sheep had better start thinking up a new reason to argue against the ALP doing a nice simple preference deal with the Greens.
Table 24 of the VEC reoport can be found at [link] (PDF)
I think Labor are playing footsie with FF to nail down a better deal with the Greens. As far as I know, there are no finalised preference deals from Labor, and I’d be really surprised if that’s changed today.
Seriously, its the next major round of democratic reform in this country. I’m thinking of starting a movement. This is more important that proportional representation.
I think it relies entirely on ignorance. The average would be appalled if they suddenly worked out that some unelected, bean-counting Noidinger from the party HQ was determining where their “ATL easyvote” went; under the guise of convenience.
A short education campaign and its legitimacy would collapse like a house of cards.
Well, Lefty E., good point. But it certainly did get a little burst of publicity in the daily press, in Victoria at least, when Senator Fielding fell over the line.
But then, what proportion of voters read plitical stories in the press? Would it ever be as high as 10% of voters??
Mark
My info, re SA, is different.
Just sayin’.
Is there a way we can confirm one way or the other?
As in a direct question, repeatedly if necessary, to those ‘in the know’?
Put the appropriate person[s] on the spot until a specific direct unambiguous answer is given eg yes or no?
Ambigulous, I reckon we’d still be baying at the moon if we waited for the majority to make history.
Join me: Hackbusters…. let’s roll!!
hannah’s dad, I might be being hopeful. Unfortunately the apparatchiks are very cagey about commenting on preference allocations.
Lefty E, I’m with you there! How do we start?
Oh, and the Labor apparatchiks are going gangbusters against the Greens in the two Vic byelections in Williamstown and Albert Park (the Liberals aren’t running) with full on attacks – and a smear campaign – that the Greens are with the Liberals – strange but true.
This could be job for Hackbusters too.
I cannot believe they would give the god botherers another Senate seat, like they did in 2004 and for the DLP (there erstwhile sworn enemies) in 2006 in Vic. These preference dudes are recidivists. Labor rank and file assures that “this won’t happen again”, but it looks like it may . . .
Wouldn’t it be funny (not) if it cost Labor the election, and/or a friendly Senate . . .
Well, Hackbusters of the world, Im open to suggestions. But initial ideas may include
- establishing a linkable online Hackbuster presence, outlinging key principles of necessary democratic reform in Oz.
- Handing out HTVs (“Hacks take votes!”) at polling stations; educating the public on how their ATL vote gets subcontracted to unelected, unaccountable hacks.
Give the senate back, hack!
Oh, for old times sake, wasn’t it just lovely to see the DLP rise again?
You thought John Howard pined for 1950’s white picket fences? Well, secretly, so did the Victorian ALP: DLP back, can we please also have Frank McManus, Vince Gair, BA Santamaria ???… and exhume Vladimir Petrov for good measure.
But not Doc Evatt, please not the Doc. Scarier than Mark Latham.
Fellow bloggers, since this seems to be the closest thing to an election thread we have at the moment, would like to share my most recent campaign experience. Somebody out there on the right is taking this campaign pretty seriously. In a relatively small town like Armidfale I’m well known for my socialist politics because I write almost weekly letters to one of the local papers, mostly n response to a local right wing troglydite, with whom I* otherwise get on very well. Saaid newspaper does NOT publish my address or phone number, naturally enough. However, last night, about 11.30-midnight I got an anonymous phone call from some-one (a bloke) whose voice I didn’t recognise, telling me they were ‘a true Australian’ and I was ‘a piece of Socialist scum who didn’t appreciate Australia.’ Naturall, I hung up on him.
Shades of 1975.
Just thought I’d let you know.
Paul, I’m known to be a Green and my phone number has been publicly available for some time. I’ve received a number of similarly abusive calls in recent weeks. Never happened before except when, back when I was at Greenpeace, I got a pile of calls after our action on the HMAS Sydney leaving the harbour.
Deeply disturbing.
By the way, the line du jour from the Govt has appeared: Rudd’s telling business that he’s home ad hosed. He’s getting cocky.
So far, Howard, Downer and Costello have used it.
How would you like to wake up one morning and find the family cat’s head hanging from the front door knob with the body below?
It happened to friends of mine.
Yes, I saw Dolly run that on Lateline last night. It had the “how dare that nasty man?” tone to it all, which I suspect doesn’t help the Libs’ cause. I wonder how much Dolly reinforces the perception of arrogance and being out of touch every time he appears on the news?
The Mad Monk is in denial over Newspoll Yet Again.
New ALP Ad (YouTube)
Bahaha!
Yep, APEC going swimmingly for Team Rodent.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/04/2023958.htm
As for the Greens vote, I’ve heard two leftwing voters in a marginal (Lib) electorate say that they’ll be voting Labor instead of Greens this time, out of pure desperation.
I had a similar experience working on a polling booth for the Greens in 1993 – people who’d normally vote Green saying to me “but I’ve got to vote Labor this time because this time it’s got to count!â€?
This indicates that a non-trivial proportion of voters don’t understand compulsory preferential voting.
Paul, maybe – but I think there’s something more to it than that. I think the two people I cited do understand preferential voting. It strikes me as partly almost superstitious – that unless they actually vote for the Labor candidate, they can’t feel that they helped the Labor candidate to win. And partly it’s that, tossing u between making a point to the ALP and making a point to the Libs, in a crucial election, they’ll opt for making a point to the Libs. And if they feel that the ALP has a strong chance of winning (in the seat and in the elction as a whole), they’d like to feel they were a part of that. (That last point is how I feel this time.)
In the past when I felt Labor were being led by incompetents, I didn’t want to reward them with my primary vote. I think a lot of the Green vote was from people who were politically closer to Labor, but too annoyed at the party to vote for them.
Also, for some people, it feels good just to be on a bandwagon. Now Labor are in the lead, it’s a morale kick just to be on their side. Optimism is in the air, and radical alternatives seem less pressing.
Dolly Downer is gone…and by that I mean he has either lost his seat or lost his mind or both.
He has a very strong Labor candidate running against him this time and she has been seen everywhere of late – and getting lots of good responses. I’m sure this hasn’t been lost on him, hence his recent startled rabbit expression whenever he’s been out and about in the electorate (and that has been scarily frequently of late) and he sees her. He is clearly rattled by her increasing profile and the fact that she’s actually out there campaigning in his seat. I mean, how dare she!
The last time Downer was seriously challenged in Mayo was when John Schumann ran against him and the already large Democrat demographic was enhanced by Green and Labor voters who jumped ship and very nearly caused an upset victory. Don’t be surprised to see something similar happen this time; she will garner both the soft Liberal vote and a portion of the Democrat/Green vote. She is the sort of Labor candidate who doesn’t scare the horses – having met her I can tell you she is friendly, personable and non-threatening; just the sort of person Downer needs running against him.
And I suspect that’s the thing that’s worrying him the most. The Labor party have actually picked the right candidate this time…
As a Mayo voter myself, I am seriously hoping this wishful thinking comes to pass. The safe Liberal seats are already swinging the largest, apparently, so combined with that and a strong candidate (and Democrat/Green preferences) might just put Mary over the line…
Downer won’t lose his seat.
Wishful thinking is one thing, but that is pure delusionism.
Received a “to the elector” letter in the box yesterday. Major headline:
Followed by:
there followed screed on Abortion, Sex Change Operations, Gay Marriage and Abandoning Christian Australia, including the exquisite:
Gotta get me some of that pornography from non-Christian countries.
It finishes with:
So – the Exclusive Brethren?
There was no “authorised by blah blah blah etc …” Is this actually legal? Not that I expect the AEC would be able to do anything about it …
Sorry about the long comment. Anyone else copped this sort of thing?
So jack strocchi has a newsletter delivered in post boxes now? Sounds very culturally dry to me…
E.B. ’s would be unlikely to give the game away with… “we don’t even vote”.
haiku, the bit about U.N. is a hint that it might be this mob…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
There are quite a few of these weirdo folks around in oz, too.
Thanks to all who re-assured me anonoymous phone calls from the Right are normal behaviour in an election they think they’re going to lose.
I think most people give the Greens thier first preference 1))because they’re Green
2) because the Greens are a left wing party or perceived as such
3) because they’re disillusioned with the Democrats
4) because they’re disillusioned with the ALP
5) because they’re not sure who they’ll be voting for if they vote Socialist Alliance
6) because they’re disillusioned with society’s direction, and want to protest.
Still, it might just be The Labour (sic) Party.
Trying to scrounge a few early votes for the Senate.
regarding the talk of Labor doing a preference deal with Family First:
(a) while they may be leaning this way, especially in certain states, it would be very unlikely for this to be locked in stone until after the election is called (usually close to when Senate preferences have to be lodged)
(b) Labor’s decisions on this will have little to do with who they would prefer to have in the Senate. It will be mostly driven by an assessment of what they believe will maximise their chances of winning House of Reps seats (and thus government).
Obviously I have a personal interest in hoping Labor doesn’t do a Senate preference deal with Family First, but those who would slag off at Labor for making such a deal but who also fervently hope for a Labor win would do well to remember that maximising their chances of winning government is Labor’s primary motivation.
People who desparately want Howard to lose need to ask the question – would they rather risk another Family First Senator and have Howard out, or no Family First Senator and Howard still there?
I’m certainly not arguing for Labor to preference Family First, and am not convinced it would be in their electoral interest to do so, but I also think one shouldn’t be too selective in one’s outrage.
Andrew – I guess you won’t want to be drawn into any speculation about this, but do you think that another motivation for Labor to do a preference deal with FF is that they are unlikely to get a majority in the senate?
Labor has zero chance of getting a majority in the Senate, mick.
The move to get rid of Howard will come on 15th. Abbott will be the chief among those stabbing him in back.
Mark – I was about to say “der” but I see your point I think. it doesn’t make any sense for Labor to worry about the FF vote in the senate because they won’t have enough votes regardless?
Many people, including Bob Brown, think that he is Leader of the Greens. In fact, consistent with their commitment to democracy, they don’t have a formal Leader position. All Green Senators are equals.
Order of preferences in the Reps don’t really matter (except in odd seats where independents have got up) but what is really important is to put the Liberal candidate last on your voting slip. I will vote Green 1, ALP 2, then others, and Liberals last, in the expectation that the Labor candidate will win. I am in Stirling WA which is a marginal Lib seat.
With the Senate, preference deals between the parties only come into play if you vote above the line. If you don’t like the preference allocation of your party of choice, vote below the line and fill in every box in the order you want.
Finally, I am sure everyone posting here is aware of the new rules for closing off the electoral roll. Just in case anyone doesn’t know, enrolment will be closed off at 8pm the day the election is called. If you are not on the roll by then it is no vote for you.
Likewise, if you are on the roll but you have changed address or your name, you have 3 days after the election is called to update your details
So if you know anyone who has turned 18 since the last election (or will turn 18 shortly and can pre-enrol) or who has changed address recently, remind them to enrol or update their details if necessary. Enrolment records can be checked on the AEC website.
It would be really tragic if Howard got back because enough people who would have voted against him find themselves disenfranchised – which was of course the point of changing the enrolment rules!
Not exactly, mick, because although I don’t think they’ll come anywhere near a quota, if they score 3 or 4% they could be in a position to win in some states depending on the other competition for fifth and sixth seats and preference flows and who gets knocked out of the count when. I think Andrew had a post about possible scenarios in Qld on his blog recently – might be worth having a search.
Mick – I think the point Mark is making is, that in a half Senate election, Labor cannot win enough seats to gain a majority. There are 76 Senators total and half plus 4 are up for election this time round. The Coalition won so many last election (who will continue) that something truly remarkable and unprecedented would have to happen for Labor to end up with a majority.
mick – my point is really that Labor’s motivation has very little to do with the potential Senate outcome. It is about maximising their chances of getting into government (i.e. winning House of Reps seats) – which is a totally rational aim for them to have (and one which I sense most commenters on this site support), even if many may not like some of the ways they are trying to go about it.
Labor (in general) may prefer to have people other than Family First in the Senate, but not as much as Labor would prefer to be in government than in opposition. Labor’s potential Senate outcome doesn’t affect this. Even if it did, it would still be driven largely by maximising winning seats in the Senate too. Remember that a candidate’s/party’s preferences only get counted once that candidate/party is out of the contest.
I am not suggesting there are no other factors taken into account at all, but maximising the chances of winning seats is normally the key consideration. Of course, it is not uncommon for what would be seen as a principled decision to coincide with self-interest.
Personally, I wish there was much more media focus on the fact that voters ultimately decide preferences, not political parties – the continual commentary that parties are ‘giving’ their preferences to another party just reinforces a very common misconception. However, I know that discussion has been had many times over.
Isn’t it a horrible thought to think that Labor, in “maximising their chances of winning government”, may cause Steve Fielding, to Whip, someone other than himself? Thanks for the interesting insight, Andrew Bartlett.
Seriously.
OK – thanks Andrew and Mark!
I’m all for “below the line” voting and will be doing so at this election.
Err… hate to admit that i know this but “Bored now” wasn’t Evil Willow with the black cracked visage but Vampire Willow from about mid saga. The arch bitch (forgotten her name) wished that Buffy had never existed and a vengeance demon granted her wish so Sunningdale was awash with vampires.
Jeez, I’m so glad that i can’t remember the various names, I thought they’d been imprinted at a cellular level.
I was sure it was Evil Willow when Warren was blathering on just before she killed him. It’s more than possible given the way the show was written that it came up more than once.
I’m supported in that recollection by the Wikipedia ep guide!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villains_%28Buffy_episode%29
Mark,
The phrase ‘bored now’ was first uttered by vampire Willow in the episode titledThe Wish. This does predate Evil Willow as The Wish was season 3 and Evil Willow was season 6.
Now that ladies and gentlemen, is a display of true nerdliness. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
Sure, Sean, but I think what amphibious was saying was that was the only time it was used… Nerd stoush!
We know Newspoll is crap cos we own it!!
Shanahan loses it completely.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/dennisshanahan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/polling_accuracy_a_matter_of_opinion/
Lefty E,
I was just about to post that link- Shamaham has no clue whatsoever regarding the Do Not Call Register, political parties and Market Researchers like Newspoll are EXEMPT from the laws, along with Charities and religious groups.
And no matter how crap these polls are (eg Newspoll asks voters if they’ll vote ALP or Lib – that’s why Greens come in so low – you have to insert the option yourself) – the numbers are so far outside of sampling error, design error etc – that Shanahan is grasping at straws.
LOL that has to be one of the worst bits of writing I have ever seen. Full of truisms, cliches, bullshit reasoning, Quotes Government ministers as though they are non-partisan authorities. ANYTHING to make the election “contestable”.
What the hell does that mean?
These are some of the other useful things Costello contributed:
And when you still run out of ideas, just repeat yourself!
Oh dear, another meltdown. I wouldn’t want to be near Shanahan on election night. Too many zombies lured by the brain explosion.
Ironically, as those who saw Monday’s Crikey would know, in this instance he’s got his talking points from none other than Professor David Flint. That should speak for itself.
Yeah but my fave part is he changes his mind on it half way through!
The stuff from O’Shaughnessy is pretty odd too.
If he thinks the statistical techniques he uses are inflating Labor’s results, why doesn’t he adjust them? It’s all just too weird.
Anyway, if the mobile phone only “households” are predominantly those in the 18-29 age bracket, isn’t this precisely the demographic that has swung heavily against the Coalition? Unless you made the very unsafe assumption that those “households” were more likely to be Coalition voters… Anyway, the whole thing is bullshit. If he knows his business, he should still be able to get a good sample. It’s just a sample. You don’t need to call every 18-29 year old. If the sampling techniques are valid anyway, it shouldn’t matter.
But what would I know? I’m just a humble social scientist (“cloistered academic”, “failed journalist”, etc, etc). They own the poll and he manages it.
I might do a post on this. It’s too good not to have one.
Has he got nothing better to write about?
Mark, you are such an elitist. Why don’t you go back to your latte etc.
Clearly there must be a correlation between being a Liberal voter and having a mobile but no landline. It’s Shamaham’s Razor – whatever analysis mitigates Labor crushing lead must be valid.
And I don’t even drink latte, mick!
Here’s the post:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/05/media-poll-owners-dont-believe-polls-media-reveals/
David, that’s about right I’d say.
Except that way back in the day when I was a humble footsoldier in a polling company’s call centre doing some research prior to the 1990 election, we’d always try and get every voter in the household to do the poll. Lots of those mobile only Gen Y voters would still be living with their parents. It isn’t rocket science…
Dennis is on a serious six figure salary and I presume based in Canberra, and/or lhas a place with a harbour view in Sydney. And spends his working days among politicians, other highly paid media people and the big end of town. In short, part of the chattering elite.
I doubt he really has his finger on the pulse of the great Australian suburbs. True it’s not so much public anger out there, more a persistant pain and grumble about how we used to work to live, now we live to work. Why?
He’d have to be. He’s got ten kids, hasn’t he?
Here is Lindsay Tanner’s contribution – letter in Today’s Age:
Tanner’s opponent in Melbourne is Adam Bandt (Greens). So he is now running the line that Family First are better than the Liberals, which is quite revealing. He conveniently ignores the fact that Greens preferences in the Senate have always gone to Labor well before they go the Liberals/Nationals. . . .
In 2004, Tanners attacks on “extreme Greens” were recycled by Howard, Anderson and just about every Coalition minister and used extrensively in their “extreme Greens” campaign!!!!
Welcome to the world of propaganda and misinformation. Edifiying isn’t it? This indicates Labor is seriously considerting getting into bed with the god botherers yet again. Tanner is a disgrace.
Peterc – believe me, i am seriously not interested in getting into a stoush about who preferences who, but where is the falsehood in what Lindsay Tanner has written? It doesn’t mater if the Greens always put Labor ahead of the Liberals, if Labor is out of the count by the time Greens preferences are distributed, then who is above whom further down the list becomes very relevant. (I’d note as an aside that the Greens are explicitly threatening not to put Labor ahead of Liberals in a number of House of Reps seats this time around – I am not attacking this approach, the Democrats do it as a mater of course. I am just noting it in the context of the point that has been made.)
No doubt Tanner is trying to pump out a premptive smokescreen or diversionary attack to cover for the possibility that Labor may preference Family First ahead of the Greens and Democrats, but his basic statement is still true. If someone preferences the Liberals above Family First (or say, Pauline Hanson above FF, as occured in Queensland last time), then there is a possibility that your preferences may elect the Liberals (or Hanson), rather than Family First. I accept in Victoria that is unlikely to happen in regards to the Greens becuase of the sort of primary vote they are likely to get, but as 2004 showed everyone – in Victoria in particular – unlikely things can happen.
People (including the Greens) have won Senate seats because they received preferences second last, ahead of the other party who was still in the count who were last on the preference allocation. These things can count. By all means point to the negative consequences of Labor preferencing Family First, but don’t pretend that preference decisions made by the Greens or others can have no impact.
Before the Greens and their acolytes get too worked up about Labor’s preferences, a little forensic examination of how Green members of pariament have gotten themselves elected in the past may be in order. Might it be true that some of them have gotten up on the preferences of various rat bag right wingers?
Just asking.
I am not saying they don’t count – obviously they do. Lower down the Senate ticket there are always dilemmas – do you put Family First at the bottom, or The Shooters Party, or One Nation?
In 2006 the Liberals put the Greens last on 6 of 8 upper house regions in Victoria, and 2nd last in the other two (above the Socialist Alliance).
If it comes down to Liberal vs Family First I think that the Liberals are a better option – at least they are honest about their radical conservative bent. Family First don’t tell you that their definition of Family is, and spend most of their campaign attacking the Greens and act as preference scoop for Howard (or Labor if the do a deal again) catching uninformed middle ground voters or Hillsong/Assembly of God/Catch the Fire directed voters. FF are anti gay, anti abortion, anti same sex marriage, anti green etc.
The points I make about Tanner is that he is clearly keeping Labor’s options open to do deal a Family First, as you also point out. They are keen to dance with the devil again – in direct conflict with about 98% of Labor party members. The Greens won’t deal with Family First. Full stop.
He is also seeking to cast aspertions about a non existent “Liberal Greens alliance” to shore up his Labor primary vote. Talk about looking after your own bacon.
On open HTVs for lower house seats are good for democracy, even if the informal votes rise a bit. I think a good reason is needed for a party to make a LH preference recommendation.
PS, I was equally unimpressed with the Democrats preference deal with FF in 2004 too – without this Fielding would not have been elected.
Andrew, hold your horses. Peterc never said Tanner uttered any ‘falsehoods’. He just said the letter is a disgrace. Nothing in your response counters that position.
I am not saying they don’t count – obviously they do. Lower down the Senate ticket there are always dilemmas – do you put Family First at the bottom, or The Shooters Party, or One Nation?
If it comes down to Liberal vs Family First I think that the Liberals are a better option – at least they are honest about their radical conservative bent. Family First don’t tell you that their definition of Family is, and spend most of their campaign attacking the Greens and act as preference scoop for Howard (or Labor if the do a deal again) catching uninformed middle ground voters or Hillsong/Assembly of God/Catch the Fire directed voters. FF are anti gay, anti abortion, anti same sex marriage, anti green, anti VSU etc.
Tanner is clearly keeping Labor’s options open to do deal a Family First, as you also point out. They are keen to dance with the devil again – in direct conflict with about 98% of Labor party members. The Greens won’t deal with Family First. Full stop.
He is also seeking to cast aspertions about a non existent “Liberal Greens alliance” to shore up his Labor primary vote. Talk about looking after your own bacon. In 2006 the Liberals put the Greens last on 6 of 8 upper house regions in Victoria, and 2nd last in the other two (above the Socialist Alliance).
On open HTVs for lower house seats are good for democracy, even if the informal votes rise a bit. I think a good reason is needed for a party to make a LH preference recommendation.
PS, I was equally unimpressed with the Democrats preference deal with FF in 2004 too – without this Fielding would not have been elected.
The letter is not a lie but it is highly misleading. It focuses on one very unlikely scenario and ignores the other far more likely ones.
For the Greens to have significant preferences to deliver one would have to assume that they have not had a candidate elected. If they have, their surplus will be quite small. (Noone expects the Greens to poll significantly over a quota.)
Moreover, for them to be excluded first in that threeway race, they need to have less than 0.66 of a quota – else one of the other two must be less than them.
So this scenario is based on the Greens only getting about 0.6 of a quota, Family First outpolling them with the Liberals surplus also being above 0.6.
Highly unlikely.
Obviously Senate outcomes can be, and have been, affected by the decisions parties make about which of their most hated adversaries they preference last and second last. Thus in 2001 One Nation preferenced the Greens last and Democrats second last in WA (thereby electing Andrew Murray), but preferenced the Democrats last and Greens second last in NSW (thereby electing Kerry Nettle).
Having said that, getting oneself preferenced second last rather than last by a right-wing nutjob outfit hardly signifies collusion or complicity with said nutjobs.
Looking at the issue from the other end, it is not hard to imagine reasons why the Victorian Greens might want to preference FF lower than the Libs, and it is not hard to imagine reasons why they might want to preference the Libs lower than FF. IR obviously counts as a reason for the former position, but I would assume (without having had direct discussions with Vic Greens recently) that after all the reasons were weighed up FF were considered to be, on balance, a greater evil than the Libs. Green-leaning unionists concerned about the difference between Fielding and the Libs on IR always have the option of advocating a BTL vote.
I have long held Lindsay Tanner in high regard and I am not going to criticise him personally for saying something which, given the position he is in in the forthcoming election, he has to say. I close by calling on Greens and ALP progressives not to believe the bullshit we feel obliged to shoot at each other and will continue to feel obliged to shoot at each other in the coming weeks.
To take another angle on this, suppose we have three unpleasant anti-democratic extremist parties running in a Senate election. One advocates vile misogynist policies, another advocates vile policies of religious discrimination, a third advocates vile racist policies. Progressive parties will preference these outfits in the last three positions, but still (under compulsory preferential voting) have to decide which of them to place last, second last and third last. It may then transpire that one of them wins a Senate seat over the other two on the third last preferences of a progressive party. No serious political analyst would suggest that the progressive party deserved moral censure because their third-last preferences elected one toad rather than another. Yet one imagines such a barb being thrown around for partisan purposes.
But who is Tanner going to preference: the Libs of Family First?
It won’t be his decision and it’s completely irrelevant because he will top the primary and his preferences won’t be distributed.
I’m inclined to agree partially with Andrew by the way, though I’d hate to see a situation where FF are elected again because of ALP preferences and I think the ALP should do everything to avoid that. But this whole theme of “if you preference someone you endorse them” seems to have started with the “don’t preference Pauline or you condone her” – which itself was an argument made by the Qld ALP to its own political advantage at the time. There’s nothing surprising in parties allocating preferences to maximise their own electoral chances, and it shouldn’t attract some sort of moral stigma.
I’m also with Paul – if we humble footsoldiers could avoid being sucked into the Greens vs. Labor stoushes, that would be all for the better for those of us who primarily want to see the Coalition out.
Gawd, let’s eradicate all this backroom nonsense with some sensible democratic reform.
Join the “one hack, zero vote” platform.
Optional BTL now.
Everything to do with ATL – the process, the culture, the non-transparency, the baffling super-enfranchisement of backroom hacks, the random generation of final senate seats, and the constant bullshit surrounding pref deals is truly the most embarrassing, backward and risible feature of Australian democracy.
Its the Tommy in the attic of Oz politics.
We dont talk about Tommy.
He’s very special, you know.
Look at all Tommy’s pretty preferences.
Yngaaaaaaaa!
I think the Labor Party would rather have another Family First senator than another Liberal, for reasons that have nothing to do with the relative vileness of FF versus the Liberals.
The reason is that if Labor wants to get an important piece of legislation through the Senate, it could cut a deal with a FF. senator It could never cut a deal an individual Liberal senator, because he or she would be obliged to sit tight with their party.
The question then becomes, what sort of deal would need to be done with FF? It may be the price is worth paying, or it may not. For instance, suppose that Fielding’s vote is needed to repeal Workchoices, but the price he demands is increased spending on net porn filtering devices.That wold be worth it, in my opinion., because he would be asking for a meaningless gesture. But if Fielding’s price is a permanent stay on moves to give same sex partners access to superannuation, then it would not be.
Of course, Labor left supporters would rather the deal cutting gets done with the Greens.
Like Lefty E said. Optional preferential in both LH & Senate and no ATL. Why should everyone’s vote in the LH have to go to either Labor and Liberal? And why should anyone’s vote in the Senate end up with a party they would never vote for through ATL & party hacks doing back room deals?
Mark, I don’t think this is about preferencing = endorsing. I think it’s about determining whether an individual / party your preferences are likely to elect would act in your interest or against your interest.
Last election, by preferencing FF, Labor helped hand over control of the Senate to the conservatives. Unless you subscribe to the view that Labor deliberately gave the Govt total control as a rope to hang themselves, that was explicitly against their own interests.
The question is, will they do that again? Will they allow the Senate to remain in conservative hands or will they work towards giving it back to progressives?
Oh, and lastly, let’s not portray it as solely a Greens / Labor stoush. The Dems have weighed in recently with a very heavy attack on the Greens.
You want to to know why the Greens are wary of Labor? Watch Peter Garrett right now at the Press Club…
“Unless you subscribe to the view that Labor deliberately gave the Govt total control as a rope to hang themselves”
Which is exactly what happened.
No senate majority = no workchoices = Johnny H cruising to victory #5.
Yes, it’s what happened, but was it deliberate??? I doubt it…
Yeah the importance of Workchoices cannot be understated. Seriously, the baseball bats are out. Broadsheets like the Australian don’t notice because it’s out among the ‘ordinary’ people they have probably never spoken to. There is genuine outrage in the community about these laws.
I have a friend who works on the Workchoices hotline. Every day she gets calls abusing John Howard and “that blonde bitch” off the ad. Everybody phones because they “just want to know where I stand” (they all say that straight off the ad!). Then they get told their actual (lack of rights) and feel very deceived.
Tim, if you care enough to be concerned about where your preferences will go, you should vote below-the-line. If it’s the votes of others who elect people from parties you don’t like you’re concerned about, well, I’m afraid that’s the crying shame of the secret ballot.
I’d say the voters who put their #1 next to one of the Coalition parties on their upper house ballot paper, thereby electing a majority of Coalition Senators, handed over control of the Senate to conservatives, but you know. I understand if you want to give all the agency to Labor. Stick it to ‘em. Yeah.
Izquierdista, the level of preference deal bullshit isn’t directly related to the voting system. Let’s go with optional BTL all the way, but don’t think it’s going to prevent or even reduce the level of phoney perpetual sooking.
Some of us, you know, kind of like it.
Oh, and here’s some Ken Parish goodness from the post-polling after-binge hangover, 2004:
Also read Mark’s comment:
Aheh. heh. yeah. That’s happened. Heh.
You’ve got to give it to Australia’s boss class: they’ve got the blind faith in their cause of foreign Stalinists in the time of the non-aggression pact.
Dear Haiku,
I noticed your post concerning “KEEP AUSTRALIA CHRISTIAN
Don’t vote Labour (sic)/Green Coalition” in your letter box. Is there any chance that I could get a copy of this. Also, can you tell me what State you are from?
Regards
Alison McClymont
Four Corners
ABC Television
(T) 02 8333 4869
My money’s on Howard resigning after APEC, thus depriving us of a concession speech that most of us have been waiting 11 years for.
It wont be any less humiliating for him if he does resign at this point; plus he’ll get the coward tag – so I reckon he’ll push on toward defeat.
The fools hope of megalomaniacs will blind him until the concession speech itself.
My money instead is on him saying “its too close to call” on the night, despite being behind in 40 marginal seats by 930pm.
He really is that sort of pillock.
Liam, I always vote below the line, and you’ll note I said the ALP ‘helped’ hand over control of the Senate. Of course, voters did a chunk of the work themselves, but without the backroom deal by Stephen Newnham of the VIC ALP, there can be little doubt that Stephen Fielding would not be gracing the Senate today.
As others have put far more eloquently than me on this and other threads, it’s not the fault of the secret ballot, it’s the fault of the preferencing system which encourages secretive and deliberately obscure negotiations.
Did anyone watch Peter Garrett mouthe sweet nothings to the Press Club?
Paul said “No serious political analyst would suggest that the progressive party deserved moral censure because their third-last preferences elected one toad rather than another.”
Well, I certainly didn’t suggest that. I’m not suggesting putting someone third-last necessarly represents an endorsement. In a compulsory preferential system, you’ve got to put people somewhere.
But one also can’t ignore the reality that who one puts third-last rather than second-last can make a difference. If one chooses to put Family First ahead of the Liberals, however low down the ticket, it can make a difference. As Paul Norton mentioned, One Nation’s decisions on these matters made a pivotal difference in 2001.
One can obviously make a case for putting the Libs ahead of Family First, but others are free to criticise such a stance if they disagree. Tanner obviously does disagree, which is why he is making the comments he is, even if he is not surprisingly being somewhat selective in the process.
Personally, I think it would be better to have a Family First Senator rather than another Liberal, simply because of the need to maximise the chances of the Senate being taken out of the control of the Coalition. Almost anyone other than overt proactive racists like Hanson would be preferable for this reason. It is hard to overstate how much damage has been done to our systems of governance by enabling the party in government to also have control over the Senate. Certainly for those who give a high priority to changing workchoices, Family First would be a better bet than the Liberals (although obviously nowhere near as good as the Democrats or Greens).
Tim said: “Last election, by preferencing FF, Labor helped hand over control of the Senate to the conservatives.”
This is not correct. Even if you count Family First as being part of “the conservatives”, the Coalition gained control of the Senate in their own right without needing Family First except on the few occasions when Barnaby Joyce wouldn’t ‘behave’.
Tim also said:”Oh, and lastly, let’s not portray it as solely a Greens / Labor stoush. The Dems have weighed in recently with a very heavy attack on the Greens.”
Yes, I’ve always admired the way The Greens don’t publicly attack, undermine or misrepresent the views and positions of other parties. To be subjected to so many repeated unfair attacks from others over the years, whilst never doing any attacking yourself is a truly honourable position.
PeterC said: “I was equally unimpressed with the Democrats preference deal with FF in 2004 too – without this Fielding would not have been elected.”
This is not correct. The Democrat decision regarding Family First was a mistake in my view, but Fielding would have been elected regardless. The number of Democrat preferences were too small to make a difference either way.
PeterC also said: “On open HTVs for lower house seats are good for democracy, even if the informal votes rise a bit. I think a good reason is needed for a party to make a LH preference recommendation.”
I agree with this approach as the preferred default option. But it should be acknowledged that such an approach improves the chances of John Howard retaining government.
Andrew, you’re very defensive. I have never said the Greens don’t engage in attacks. Of course we do. I actually find it very strange that people seem to think it would be right for the Greens and Labor to stop campaigning against each other – we are different parties with very very different agendas.
All I was saying is that it’s not just the Greens and Labor fighting. You guys are equally in there, fighting tooth and nail for political survival, and good luck to you.
It is, I think, an unfortunate by-product of the Senate system that it encourages quite nasty campaigning between the smaller parties fighting for representation. In order to try to ensure that we get ALP prefs above FF, we need to attack them. In order to try to ensure you get prefs above us, you need to attack us. That’s the way of it while this system prevails, I fear.
Mark, I’d be interested to see how an attempt by the blogosphere to “avoid being sucked into the Greens vs. Labor stoushes” would translate in reality. Wouldn’t it risk being dangerously uncritical of the ALP?
I don’t think its the Senate system per se that encourages nasty campaigning, although it may add an extra avenue of attack.
I don’t think the Democrats need to attack the Greens or anyone else to get ALP Senate preferences (or anyone else’s), and I’m not convinced anyone else needs to follow that strategy either. That’s not what will influence the ALP when they decide what they’re doing.
However, people are all campaigning for votes against each other, so they will inevitably be criticising others, even if mainly by way of differentiating.
The main thing I try to encourage, even if only in myself, is to try to keep criticisms reasonably accurate and grounded in reality. Which I might add is probably as best as can be hoped for in seeking to meet Mark’s desire of blogs avoiding being sucked into Greens vs Labor stoushes – you won’t avaoid such things entirley, but if they can be kept on a factual level, it should at least generate some enlightenment, rather than just heat (just being naive again for a moment there)
Mark – wot Shaun said, I was just too embarrassed to be even mentioning this nerd-knowledge on such a serious thread so I didn’t finish the thought.
(If someone establishes a Buffster blog I’m there.)
You’re correct of course re the slow-mo bullet worming into Warren’s chest but the Vampire Willow was one appealing character – until then she’d been sickeningly sweet & innocuously bland – before she discovered her inner Sappho.
I really grew bored with the running down story, never so glad to see the end of an otherwise enjoyable series. And the Angel spin-off just made my teeth ache.
I’m glad that many above have covered the Above/Below the line problem in the Senate but equally important in the Transferable Peference in the Reps.
I’ve been a scutineer and know how worked up the majors’ watchers get when the first, & many subsequent, go anywhere other than their paymasters.
The AEC (in the 80s – don’t know about these drear days) used to publish as special compilation of the spoiled ballots – quite expensive, because many of the eternal 5% were not unintentional but pox-on-both-your-houses.
Please do NOT even consider the exhausted preference as it just favours the majors, or worse.
amphibious, there has to be a Facebook group for solidarity among unashamed Buffy nerds (and the more *refined* Firefly nerds!)… don’t be afraid of coming out!
tim, I think the thing is that it was incompetence by the apparatchiks (never underestimate head office hack incompetence) – they didn’t think that FF would be elected.
As to the second question, I think Andrew is right – they’re not focussed on it – and secondly, don’t underestimate either the desparation to win and the lack of nerve that they will actually win.
Also, there are certainly powerful elements in the ALP who’d rather an FF senator. See my previous post about how wrong it is to rope the ALP right in with “the left” or progressives generally.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/03/on-left-and-right-in-current-partisan-discourse/
Well, tim, maybe that’s me being on the fence a bit – having strong ties historically and tribally I guess to the ALP, but not being prepared to vote for them when they go too far to the right (Beazley’s stand on Tampa led me to voting for the Dems in the HoR in 01, and I’ll be voting for the Greens in the HoR and Andrew B in the Senate this year). But I really do think that we could at least try to take the angst and aggro out of competition among parties all seeking to defeat the Coalition (I’m no longer including the ALP as a “left” or a “progressive” party though large bits of it are…) – I’m sure that could be done without effacing differences – though the electoral system does encourage them compared to an MMP set up where you know you’ll have to deal after the polls close.
I think we’ve already had the conversation where I argued that the Greens might be better off putting more resources into suburban rather than inner city seats to maximise their Senate vote. I know some Queensland Greens agree with me. It’s actually a better strategy I think for electing a Senator than an all for nothing push on lower house inner city competition. Maybe in practice that does advantage the ALP, but in larger federal electorates as opposed to smaller state ones, there are very few seats where the Greens stand a ghost of a chance of outpolling the Libs and vaulting in. Even outpolling the Libs by itself won’t do it, if the Labor primary is high enough. A lot of aggro is created where there are really no lower house prospects for the Greens outside of (perhaps and on the most favourable view) a couple of seats in Melbourne and Sydney apiece. There aren’t any seats in other capitals I’m aware of federally where there’d be any hope.
I’m not giving the ALP a free pass for the “Greens=Liberals” stuff either – though again, clearly, it’s partly a response to determined Greens tilts at their inner city seats. And there are a minority of very immature people in both parties who lose sight of the main game and seem to positively get their jollies from these sort of spats.
My sources tell me the dominant quasi-faction of the NSW Greens are of a mind with their Northern neighbours, Mark. In spite of myself, I hope they go one secure Senator plus decent surplus in every Eastern State.
[cough]
Guilty, m’lud. Then again, it was the need to nail ideological ambiguities what made me do it.
Yup, mark, we’ve had that conversation, and there’s plenty within the greens and outside who’d agree. We’ll see how things transpire…
Unfortunately, much though I’d like to believe that, I don’t for one second. Stephen Newnham, who negotiated prefs for the ALP last time in VIC, and is doing so again, is a right wing christian who is perfectly happy to have FF in the Senate and who hates the Greens with a fervour that is hard to overstate.
Nabakov
6 figure salary with a Sydney Harbour view? ROFLMAO. More like the Bogan Belt, sweetie.
David
If that were the case, Labor would be in the dog-house too.
Someone has gone to the trouble of setting up a site dedicated to getting Newnham to stop being on whatever it is he is on.
Never has one person done so much harm to so many others for such low purposes as this hack in giving howard the senate.
And they leave him in the job? What dirt does he have over who in Victoria, I can’t see any other explanation for such great incompetence being rewarded.
Or, else the cross party Christian mafia wing did as mark suggested, set it up so JWH would have plenty of rope for this one.
Cunning, very cunning, divinely inspired perhaps?
The superbly self explanatorially named site, with a slot to newnham’s email box, is
http://www.pleaselabordontpreferencefamilyfirst.com/
Andrew, Democrat preferences were key in electing Fielding, if you look at the STEP 3 in this analysis. Dancing with devil entails some risk you may get burnt.
Ditto for Labor. Fielding had earlier stood for Labor preselection, so they were fairly comfortable with him over the Greens. The whole deal was done by Labor to protect anti-abortion Jacinta Collins’ number 3 position on their ticket. They thought they would get her up with their FF deal, but they were also fully aware of the consequences of Fielding getting up, which he did on less than 2% primary vote . Pity about the way he has voted since . . . Labor repeated this folly and their preferences elected the DLP over the Greens in Western Victoria region too in 2006.
Newnham’s crusade against the Greens is both ill-advised and ill-informed, but his actions are sanctioned by Labor and now endorsed federally by Tanner. I think unfortunately Labor will always react this way when their inner city seats are threatened by anyone. For them, the end justifies the means. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick.
Its curious how the Labor right (and elements of their left like Tanner) are now so close to Howard’s line on the Greens in 2004. The gloves are off and the biffo won’t stop. The stakes are high though. To win government they need every skerrick of advantage available. I don’t think his sort of sideshow is improving their overall situation much. Perhaps they think it is?
I think the only way this will stop is if the electoral system is changed (as per Lefty E’s suggestions) to disempower the back room boys and properly reflect voter’s intentions. Sooner rather than later would be my preference.
Of course, but such analyses have to be assessed relative to the probability of them occurring.
With list voting being as it is we know that some very unlikely scenarios can occur, so these decisions do have consequences, and people should be accountable for those decisions.
But it is entirely reasonable for people to prioritise potentially good outcomes from likely scenarios over potentially bad outcomes from unlikely scenarios.
No, they were irrelevant.
Even if the Dems preferences had flowed to the Greens, it would not have come close to giving the Greens quota and would not have stopped ALP preferences from electing FF.
I was far from a TV when Firefly screened, apparently briefly. Anything with that gal in it had to be a winner – is it on DVD or a site somewhere?