State Government
- Thread starter Rosy
- Start date
wow, congratsjoegarra said:
i know many people who live in the Werribee/Tarneit region and a few (including my brother) voted for the Liberals for the first time in their lives... because they believe Labor neglects its traditional heartland, and wants their seat to become more marginal in the hope of getting a bit more love from the government. And i think they have a valid point. Andrews has clearly focused on the east and south east as the main battle ground.
FYI, you can access the resulrs on this page:
https://www.theage.com.au/victorian-election-2018-results
Fiona Patten not preferencing the Socialists had nothing to do with her result.
What she didn't do was to go with all the other minor parties and their deals, the Socialists weren't involved in that either.
What happened was that the minor parties got in by cross preferencing and what really got them over the line was that Labor and the Greens were preferencing minor parties before each other. In my upper house region the Greens got about 0.75 of a quota and were beaten for the last spot by a candidate with a fraction of their vote - why? Because the Greens got no preferences so never got to a quota.
What I also noticed this election is that, if you add up the votes of Labor, Libs and Greens in my region you get over 5 quotas (5 to be elected in each region in the Victorian upper house), yet 4 seats came from these votes because nothing went to the Greens. This is problematic.
In contrast, when all the wailing was going on about the Senate preferences at one recent election (the last election? can't remember), you add up Labor, Libs and Greens in some states (I think Vic but a while ago so can't remember) and you got just under 5 quotas (6 to be elected in a half Senate election) which is when I just think we're being bullsh!tted, because clearly they did not deserve to get all 6 seats between them. One minor party should get a seat in that scenario. Unfortunately, since most people don't have the time or inclination to understand proportional rep voting they get away with misleading commentary.
That said, being able to direct preferences above the line makes a lot of sense, I will be surprised if this isn't introduced in Victoria before the next election.
As for Joe above, yep, making your seat marginal has a lot of upside if you can do it - safe seats get ignored. I live in a safe seat and my daughter's high school had older class rooms than the school I went to decades earlier. It took a campaign which deliberately used parents from a nearby marginal seat to get anything.
DS
What she didn't do was to go with all the other minor parties and their deals, the Socialists weren't involved in that either.
What happened was that the minor parties got in by cross preferencing and what really got them over the line was that Labor and the Greens were preferencing minor parties before each other. In my upper house region the Greens got about 0.75 of a quota and were beaten for the last spot by a candidate with a fraction of their vote - why? Because the Greens got no preferences so never got to a quota.
What I also noticed this election is that, if you add up the votes of Labor, Libs and Greens in my region you get over 5 quotas (5 to be elected in each region in the Victorian upper house), yet 4 seats came from these votes because nothing went to the Greens. This is problematic.
In contrast, when all the wailing was going on about the Senate preferences at one recent election (the last election? can't remember), you add up Labor, Libs and Greens in some states (I think Vic but a while ago so can't remember) and you got just under 5 quotas (6 to be elected in a half Senate election) which is when I just think we're being bullsh!tted, because clearly they did not deserve to get all 6 seats between them. One minor party should get a seat in that scenario. Unfortunately, since most people don't have the time or inclination to understand proportional rep voting they get away with misleading commentary.
That said, being able to direct preferences above the line makes a lot of sense, I will be surprised if this isn't introduced in Victoria before the next election.
As for Joe above, yep, making your seat marginal has a lot of upside if you can do it - safe seats get ignored. I live in a safe seat and my daughter's high school had older class rooms than the school I went to decades earlier. It took a campaign which deliberately used parents from a nearby marginal seat to get anything.
DS
it is a fair point about the preference deals possibly cost Patten's party.DavidSSS said:
i disagree though the quotas from Labor, the Libs and the Greens should be lumped together to see what a fair amount of seats for them, and a fair amount for minor parties are. the minor parties obviously represent a large cross section of views, and a vote for 1 should not be a vote for all.
i am sure there are some people who vote for a minor party purely to not vote for a major party, and dont care who gets in. but when i vote, and I would hope many people, i vote for the parties in order of preference. this usually means 1 vote for some minor parties, then a major then some minor, then major then the extreme minors last. i would rather labor and the libs share all the seats than some of the minor parties get one.
im not sure what the answer is, but the proliferation of minor parties in upper house elections in recent years is not helping 'democracy'.
Adding up the quotas is just a mathematical way of giving some perspective. Mainly to illustrate the differences not being reported between the outcome of the Victorian and Senate elections.
I think there are certainly serious issues with the outcomes from above the line voting, I think you should be allowed to preference above the line but not just mark a 1 in a single box above the line - the voter needs to control the preference flow not the parties, major or minor.
DS
I think there are certainly serious issues with the outcomes from above the line voting, I think you should be allowed to preference above the line but not just mark a 1 in a single box above the line - the voter needs to control the preference flow not the parties, major or minor.
DS
I agree but the reason it was brought in was that the upper house voting at both state and federal level had got ridiculous and the donkey vote and people filling out the ballot papers incorrectly ballooned. I think the catalyst was a couple of elections ago with an enormous monster ballot paper.joegarra said:
nothing is perfect I guess but we appear to have replaced one problem with another
so you're saying the Libs have done so much damage in their 11 years in power Labour hasnt been able to repair it in their 25?tigertim said:
I do, but so many people can't be bothered and why not give an easy way to control preferences, why make it harder than it needs to be?Michael said:
I remember doing a Senate recount back in the stone age when above the line didn't exist, and a double dissolution to boot. Wow that was one hell of a big ballot paper and you had to number every box for it to be a valid vote. Above the line has merit but it is being abused, just allow above or below the line with the voter marking the preferences, would help to reduce the influence of the preference deal makers.
Also, when above the line voting was first introduced it was compulsory for a poster to be in every polling booth showing where the preferences go, that should come back.
Unfortunately I can't see them getting rid of the option to only mark one square above the line, it works too well for the major parties so they won't change it.
DS
Is there a way to only allocate preferences from "below the line" voters? The way the parties do deals seems like gaming the system. Seems anti-democratic to me.Sintiger said:
Yep, i recall the preference posters, theyve been replaced by books!!!DavidSSS said:
The way we vote is controlled by a pairlamentary committee, this committee receives input from all parties involoved in the election process. Ultimately its the politicians that have the final say. I wouldnt be surprised to see some reforms with group voting .
The thing about a formal vote on a region paper, if you vote below the line, you have to number at least 5 preferences. You dont have to fill in the whole paper.
Or what about No preferences? Say if i want to vote for one candidate and no one else. Under the current system my vote would be informal.KnightersRevenge said:
The whole system selects the one candidate all voters dont want rather than the one the majority of voters want first. We will see this unfold in seats like Hawthorn, Caulfield, Sandringham.
In 2014 in Prahran the liberal candidate got rolled with well over 40% of first preferences
Of course, if there are 80 candidates then number them 1-80. That’s the old system and it has a great logic but people were just not doing it.KnightersRevenge said:
I totally agree with you btw. It does seem undemocratic
The funny thing is that the number of informal (stuffed up) votes before above the line voting wasn't that high. Given the complexity of voting that was pretty amazing. Most just followed a how to vote card though.
I like that we have optional preferential in the upper house in Victoria, you only have to number 5 boxes and can go as far as you like. I didn't bother numbering them all. But I really would like to see preferencing above the line.
I understand the angst when a candidate gets 40% of the vote but loses in the lower house, but it does make sense if you have a candidate who gets 40% of the vote, but is opposed by 2 candidates who get 60% between them and are from a similar political position which is opposed to the candidate who got 40%. That said, I would prefer optional preferential although worry a bit about weakening preferential voting. Preferential voting craps on first past the post, so much better.
We would need, in fact we do need, more voter education. I lost count decades ago of the number of times I get asked what value my preferences have when they are distributed: a full vote of course (lower house). Upper house (proportional rep with multi-member) is harder to explain but it does make sense and again, vote goes through at full value unless part of it was used to elect a member.
DS
I like that we have optional preferential in the upper house in Victoria, you only have to number 5 boxes and can go as far as you like. I didn't bother numbering them all. But I really would like to see preferencing above the line.
I understand the angst when a candidate gets 40% of the vote but loses in the lower house, but it does make sense if you have a candidate who gets 40% of the vote, but is opposed by 2 candidates who get 60% between them and are from a similar political position which is opposed to the candidate who got 40%. That said, I would prefer optional preferential although worry a bit about weakening preferential voting. Preferential voting craps on first past the post, so much better.
We would need, in fact we do need, more voter education. I lost count decades ago of the number of times I get asked what value my preferences have when they are distributed: a full vote of course (lower house). Upper house (proportional rep with multi-member) is harder to explain but it does make sense and again, vote goes through at full value unless part of it was used to elect a member.
DS
Is Bernie Finn an intellectual pygmy or was he just taking the ****?
He blames Labor and the Greens for the shortage of females being elected for the Liberals. If they hadn't opposed the liberal women standing for election the women would have stood a better chance.
He blames Labor and the Greens for the shortage of females being elected for the Liberals. If they hadn't opposed the liberal women standing for election the women would have stood a better chance.