Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
25,840
12,737
I was actually making a point about Spooks post and the Greens. Some may not like the Greens and the power they now have but they got the votes to achieve their position. Their numbers now in Canberra are roughly representative of the support they have
That the Nats have a greater representation than the support they have is true as well

I agree Sin... I'd even go further and say they are underrepresented.
 

spook

Tiger Legend
Jun 18, 2007
19,200
19,416
Melbourne
You could argue the Greens are underrepresented in the House of Reps compared to their primary vote, but that's the way our preferential system works. Agree with Sin that their numbers in the Senate are about right.
 

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
15,569
10,048
Camberwell
You could argue the Greens are underrepresented in the House of Reps compared to their primary vote, but that's the way our preferential system works. Agree with Sin that their numbers in the Senate are about right.
Yes correct. The context of the discussion was about proportional and preferential voting systems.

FWIW I agree with the sentiment of your views on the Greens. The thing I don’t like is that sometimes they need to be pragmatic and there seems to be a lack of willingness to compromise at all. Many of their views on non environmental issues fall into the same space, they may have some appeal as ideals but they aren’t practical or implementable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

spook

Tiger Legend
Jun 18, 2007
19,200
19,416
Melbourne
Yes correct. The context of the discussion was about proportional and preferential voting systems.

FWIW I agree with the sentiment of your views on the Greens. The thing I don’t like is that sometimes they need to be pragmatic and there seems to be a lack of willingness to compromise at all. Many of their views on non environmental issues fall into the same space, they may have some appeal as ideals but they aren’t practical or implementable.
They're a protest party. They get to make popular, unachievable policies/demands that they'll never have to take responsibility for making work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

MB78

I can have my cake and eat it too
Sep 8, 2009
7,809
1,780
Four senior ALP state ministers quitting parliament. James Merlino, Martin Pakula, Lisa Neville and Martin Foley.

Merlino and Pakula are Dan Andrews two best ministers.

Also could leave a bit of a power vacuum in the State ALP ranks.

I thought when Merlino was in charge things went smoothly, and I think he was a better media performer than Andrews.

Who within the ALP is going to stand up to Dan Andrews?

This November election is even more so going to be about one man. Has Andrews the popularity to get elected without some of his best ministers backing him up?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 user

TigerForce

Tiger Legend
Apr 26, 2004
61,566
12,370
56
Four senior ALP state ministers quitting parliament. James Merlino, Martin Pakula, Lisa Neville and Martin Foley.

Merlino and Pakula are Dan Andrews two best ministers.

Also could leave a bit of a power vacuum in the State ALP ranks.

I thought when Merlino was in charge things went smoothly, and I think he was a better media performer than Andrews.

Who within the ALP is going to stand up to Dan Andrews?

This November election is even more so going to be about one man. Has Andrews the popularity to get elected without some of his best ministers backing him up?
Along with others who have left Andrews in the last 2 years, I wonder why these 4 decided to go.
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
25,840
12,737
They're a protest party. They get to make popular, unachievable policies/demands that they'll never have to take responsibility for making work.

Labor needs their support to pass bills in the senate, so let's see how pragmatic they turn out to be.
 

IanG

Tiger Legend
Sep 27, 2004
17,574
2,359
Melbourne
Four senior ALP state ministers quitting parliament. James Merlino, Martin Pakula, Lisa Neville and Martin Foley.

Merlino and Pakula are Dan Andrews two best ministers.

The timing is definitely interesting considering Merlino would be the next leader of the Vic ALP. As a Minister he's not one of the best though, the education department is not run very well and he's apparently hard to deal with.
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
25,840
12,737
it's as simple as people being burned out after dealing with Covid the last few years I reckon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

TT33

Yellow & Black Member
Feb 17, 2004
5,824
3,634
Melbourne
I'd be the trade consul thingy to New York for 500K per year, you could almost afford to live there for that


He wouldn't have to pay for much. Accommodation, food, electricity, gas etc etc. No tax, travel etc all covered. Pretty good I'd say.

Typical rort. $500k equals about $1.2/1.3m when all those things are taken into account.

I'd take it, even if it meant sucking up to shmucky dheads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
8,886
13,671
Melbourne
Have crunched some numbers on the Senate now and it is an interesting outcome. A lot of us will be lamenting that the UAP somehow managed to get the last seat in Victoria, but when you look at all of the votes and the proportion of seats won on a national scale it isn't so bad.

Here's what I found:

2022 Senate national outcome.jpg

Clearly the biggest outlier is David Pocock with 0.4% of the primary vote and 2.5% of the seats won. That said, he won in a territory which is much harder as there are only 2 seats on offer.

The major party combined vote is, predictably, lower than for the House, only 64.33%.

Also worth noting is that the combined primary vote of all the parties and the independent who won a seat adds up to 85.35% of the votes, so there are 15% of votes which went to losing candidates but likely contributed via preferences to others getting elected.

Even more striking is that the major parties were below 60% in both Tasmania and the ACT, which explains how both those electorates ended up electing candidates specific to them (Jackie Lambie Network in Tassie and David Pocock in ACT).

Pocock and Lambie only ran in one electorate each, so their share of the national vote is minimal.

One factor in the election of the UAP candidate in Victoria was exhausted votes. An exhausted vote cannot happen in the House as preferencing all the way down the ballot paper is compulsory. In the Senate you can vote for as few as 6 tickets, and your vote may go nowhere if you don't preference far enough down the ballot paper. In effect, this is a wasted vote as all of your preferred candidates were excluded before the last 2 candidates were competing for the last (6th in states) seat. In Victoria there were 261,000 exhausted votes, the last 2 candidates were a LNP candidate and a UAP candidate. The UAP candidate won by around 75,000 votes. This is why I said to preference as far as the LNP if you prefer to have an LNP Senator as opposed to who knows what we will get with the UAP Senator. Still, if you look at the country as a whole the UAP got just under 3.5% of the vote and 2.5% of the seats on offer . . . but did it have to be Victoria?

Of course, each state gets the same number of Senators, as a result a quota (votes needed to get elected) was 685,000 in NSW as opposed to 51,000 in Tasmania. Even though the Territories only get 2 Senators each the quota in NT was 31,000 (but a higher proportion of the vote as you need one third + 1 votes as opposed to one seventh + 1 votes in a state).

The Senate is complicated but what we have ended up with is:
ALP: 26
LNP: 32
Greens: 12
One Nation: 2
Lambie: 2
UAP: 1
Independent: 1

Remember, of the 74 Senators, 35 were elected in 2019 (half of the Senators for each state, but not for the Territories).

So, to pass a bill you need 37 votes as the President (equivalent to the Speaker of the House) only gets a casting vote. Assuming the ALP provides the President they can pass a bill with the Greens support and don't need anyone else.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
15,128
6,614
emember, of the 74 Senators, 35 were elected in 2019 (half of the Senators for each state, but not for the Territories).

So, to pass a bill you need 37 votes as the President (equivalent to the Speaker of the House) only gets a casting vote. Assuming the ALP provides the President they can pass a bill with the Greens support and don't need anyone else.
there re 76 senators, 36 of whom were elected in 2019.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
8,886
13,671
Melbourne
so you'd imagine they'd need Labor, Greens, Pocock and one more?

Should be just Labor, Greens and one more. 76 Senators, but only 75 vote on any bill as the President doesn't vote, so they need 38 votes to pass a bill.

Pity they just pissed off the cross bench by reducing their staffing. I know the ALP Government is trying to find savings anywhere they can hoping a lot of smaller savings will add up, but this also reeks a bit of the major parties trying to head off any challenge to their 2 party oligopoly. Bad decision, should be reversed immediately.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user