Andrew, Democrat preferences were key in electing Fielding, if you look at the STEP 3 in this analysis.

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.

But one also can’t ignore the reality that who one puts third-last rather than second-last can make a difference.

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.

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.

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/

Yeah the importance of Workchoices cannot be understated.

If that were the case, Labor would be in the dog-house too.

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

6 figure salary with a Sydney Harbour view? ROFLMAO. More like the Bogan Belt, sweetie.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

[cough]
Guilty, m’lud. Then again, it was the need to nail ideological ambiguities what made me do it.

Mark, Iâ??d be interested to see how an attempt by the blogosphere to â??avoid being sucked into the Greens vs. Labor stoushesâ?? would translate in reality. Wouldnâ??t it risk being dangerously uncritical of the ALP?

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.