joegarra said:Hi everyone! I was asked for an update. I'm still second with some counting to go. My t shirts were black and yellow. I managed to shave 12 off the treasurers primary vote. He's the only cabinet member to suffer a swing against. Hopefully it's a wake up call for him and some money flows our way. If I stay second during preference distribution there is a good chance the seat may become marginal. Huge effort from the team.
DavidSSS said: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
Brodders17 said:it is a fair point about the preference deals possibly cost Patten's party.
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'.
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:Just get rid of above the line voting.
If you want to control your preferences then why not vote below the line?DavidSSS said: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
Interestingly, since 1982, Labor have been in power for 25 of the 36 years (Libs 11).MD Jazz said:I did note in interviews after the election Dan was talking about reform. About getting things done. About fixing problems with schools, hospitals and public transport. Given labour have been in charge 19 of the last 23 years why are there so many issues? Why don't we have better infrastructure? Did the libs stuff it all up in their 4 years in power?
tigertim said:Interestingly, since 1982, Labor have been in power for 25 of the 36 years (Libs 11).
Exact words.....Brodders17 said: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?
Michael said:If you want to control your preferences then why not vote below the line?
Sintiger said: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.
nothing is perfect I guess but we appear to have replaced one problem with another
DavidSSS 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?
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
KnightersRevenge said: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.
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: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.
YinnarTiger said:Is Bernie Finn an intellectual pygmy or was he just taking the p!ss?
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.