The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Independents aren't.
For a split second, my mind filled in the blank with 'Blair.'KuSTaV wrote:
TONY TONY TONY TONY
.... I think everyone is pissed.
Thats so Australian.
o.O
I would rather Brendan Abbott as prime minister over Tony.
What an election. Hung parliament will be the go. I think the independents were pissed off at the libs. Actually they are all ex nats from memory. Maybe Gillard has a chance after all. If the libs did get in , I cant see them getting much through a Green dominated senate.
This may be good for aussie politics. I am actually getting a bit excited about the whole thing. Labor did deserve a big kick up the ass though, consider it done!
PS. How much of an election god is Anthony Green. That guy seriously knows his shit!
This may be good for aussie politics. I am actually getting a bit excited about the whole thing. Labor did deserve a big kick up the ass though, consider it done!
PS. How much of an election god is Anthony Green. That guy seriously knows his shit!
Last edited by Burwhale (2010-08-22 02:48:30)
Indeps look really angry at the Nats and the libs especially. Whilst none of them are instinctive ALP supporters, Katter definitely hinted that he felt the ALP had done more for his electorate.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yeah, theres a lot of bad blood there. He mentioned last night that in the 12 years of the Howard Govt, the bush just started deteriorated. He wsant saying positive things about labor either though. He does seem very keen on the NBN . As I understand it, Fielding is out! hope thats true!!
Fielding is very out. He wasn't entirely negative about the ALP, he did mention they did more on water and a National Energy Grid. He wasn't glowing in their praise but he was pretty clear that he's not going to rule them out because they don't traditionally fall on "his side".
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It does sound like the Nats hate his guts though. The coalition will have some butt kissing to do their if they want to win . My bet is a gillard hung parliament....
The green will vote with labor, the tassy independent (ex green) will too. It sounds like the 3 ex national independents may also move towards labor if Katter is any indication.
The green will vote with labor, the tassy independent (ex green) will too. It sounds like the 3 ex national independents may also move towards labor if Katter is any indication.
A minority Labor government with a Green controlled Senate is probably the most workable solution. The Libs will still have a lot of say in what happens and Labor can't get anything through without support from the Independants and the Green MP. Labor will have to make policy that more than one side of the fence agree upon. Sounds like good democracy to me.
I can't remember which one it was but earlier tonight on the radio one of the Independants said he's not going to side with either major as he feels that this election has been about rejecting both parties and so to be true to his electorate he won't support either side. Could be pretty interesting if that leaves only 3 Independants, or maybe even 2 left...Burwhale wrote:
It sounds like the 3 ex national independents may also move towards labor if Katter is any indication.
?Jaekus wrote:
I can't remember which one it was but earlier tonight on the radio one of the Independants said he's not going to side with either major as he feels that this election has been about rejecting both parties and so to be true to his electorate he won't support either side. Could be pretty interesting if that leaves only 3 Independants, or maybe even 2 left...Burwhale wrote:
It sounds like the 3 ex national independents may also move towards labor if Katter is any indication.
I thought they were pretty clear that they would side with whoever gave the best outcome for them.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
So did I, until I heard him talking on ABC radio about 2 hours ago.
I didn't see the interview between Kerry O'Brien and the 3 Independents earlier tonight but this is an interesting blurb on it:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/Kerry O'Brien is interviewing independents Tony Windsor, Bob Katter and Rob Oakeshott. Mr Oakeshott says it makes good procedural sense for the trio to act as a bloc in negotiating with the major parties to form government. Mr Windsor says The Nationals are a dying party and Mr Katter says it would take two hours for him to explain why he left The Nationals to become an independent. Mr Windsor has just called Nats deputy leader Barnaby Joyce "a fool" and "an embarrassment". Mr Katter says he will work with whoever he needs to to get a good outcome for his constituency, noting he's worked with people he loathes and detests in the past. He also says Tony Abbott must have been grinding his teeth listening to Nats leader Warren Truss personally attack Mr Katter and Senator Joyce having a go at Mr Windsor on national TV on election night. Mr Oakeshott's more conciliatory, saying everyone needs to consider everyone else's interests. He's shaping as the 'good cop' in this 'good cop, bad cop, bad cop' negotiating routine.
And the post below highlights just how close this election really is:
Just popping back up to bring you a couple of observations before retiring for the night ... Our elections guru Antony Green is telling a special edition of The 7.30 Report the election result is likely to hinge on who wins the WA seat of Hasluk. And at the moment it's too close to call. This is his reasoning: Antony says at the moment Labor and the Coalition have 72 "definite" seats. There are three definite independents - Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Bob Katter - and one Green has been elected - Adam Bandt.
That leaves two seats in play: Denison and Hasluk. In Denison, Antony is tipping a win by independent Andrew Wilkie, but Labor still has a chance there. If Antony is right, then the election hinges on Hasluk. If Labor wins, they can reach 76 seats - the number required to govern - with the help of the Windsor, Oakeshott and Katter. Likewise for the Coalition. And at the moment, Liberal Ken Wyatt holds a lead of fewer than 400 votes over his Labor adversary, the incumbent Sharryn Jackson.
I'm not really buying the whole "oh whoever wins Hasluck wins government". Even if the Libs DO win Hasluck that still makes it 73-all effectively as Brandt has already sided with Labor.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Oh of course, but if Labor somehow pickup both Denison and Hasluck then we have the situation where Libs are on about 72 to Labor's 74, then with Brandt they really only need one more seat to form government. I do think it's unlikely Labor will pickup both seats, but then this whole election has turned out in a way noone could really predict.
On a side note, I did notice today that Wilson Tuckey lost his seat after having held it for 30 years
On a side note, I did notice today that Wilson Tuckey lost his seat after having held it for 30 years
No more Iron bar tuckey. That cant be a bad thing. Funny that he was beaten by a National though. I thought they would have had agreements against that.
This is like no other election I have ever seen. The UK govt seems to run well in a hung parliament, who knows, democracy may be better served this way.
This is like no other election I have ever seen. The UK govt seems to run well in a hung parliament, who knows, democracy may be better served this way.
I feel democracy will be better served this way. If one major holds both houses they get anything they want through, if one holds the lower and their opponent the other then it's a stalemate. I think this way everyone has more of a voice, and those voices need to be heard for policy to be implemented. There's a lot more on the table for negotiations between differing political spectrums, which can only be a good thing IMO.
What the hell... Why don't you guys just have a simple IRV system for all of your legislature? I can't help but think that the convoluted nature of this voting is against the interests of your electorate. Fielding seems to be a confirmation of this.Spark wrote:
An individual senate seat is contested at every second election, hence why normal general elections (not double dissolutions) are called half-senate elections.Turquoise wrote:
You'll have to explain this a bit further... How does this primary differ from being up for re-election? In the American system, a primary is only applicable within a single party before an election. It sounds like your primaries are almost the same as an actual election...Spark wrote:
Bear in mind Turq that 1. Fielding was elected in 2004, he didn't face reelection in 2007. In that election, he got a primary (so i.e. a "1" above or below the line) vote of 1.88%. So technically only 1.9% of Victorians actually voted for him. However preference flows (either from each individual below-the-line vote or above-the-line preferences decided by each party) gave him the 14.3% after-preferences needed to reach the Senate quota.In the senate things work differently. Once all the votes are counted, any "redundant" votes that take a candidate over the quota but not enough to reach the next quota have their preferences distributed. I think. It is quite complicated.Also, Instant Runoff Voting (something that may eventually make it to the American system) is basically the same as what you call preference voting -- so far as I understand it anyway. So, I thought that preferences just meant that you could vote for a third party guy like Fielding but that he'd just have his votes ultimately go to one of the bigger parties (whichever party was most voted for as a second choice under Fielding).
With the way you've described it, it sounds almost like the opposite situation.There is literally a line on the voting card for the senate. Above the line you can only put one vote for a single party (you can't put second or third preferences) and then the party you voted for basically decides where the the preferences go.I guess I'm trying to figure out what below the line and above the line preferences are. It sounds rather complicated.
In the House of Reps life is much simpler, there it does work like a stock-standard preferences system.
Below the line you direct your preferences to each individual candidate yourself.
Because in the Senate you're voting for 6 people not 1. Also the votes are state based not electorate based.Turquoise wrote:
What the hell... Why don't you guys just have a simple IRV system for all of your legislature? I can't help but think that the convoluted nature of this voting is against the interests of your electorate. Fielding seems to be a confirmation of this.Spark wrote:
An individual senate seat is contested at every second election, hence why normal general elections (not double dissolutions) are called half-senate elections.Turquoise wrote:
You'll have to explain this a bit further... How does this primary differ from being up for re-election? In the American system, a primary is only applicable within a single party before an election. It sounds like your primaries are almost the same as an actual election...In the senate things work differently. Once all the votes are counted, any "redundant" votes that take a candidate over the quota but not enough to reach the next quota have their preferences distributed. I think. It is quite complicated.Also, Instant Runoff Voting (something that may eventually make it to the American system) is basically the same as what you call preference voting -- so far as I understand it anyway. So, I thought that preferences just meant that you could vote for a third party guy like Fielding but that he'd just have his votes ultimately go to one of the bigger parties (whichever party was most voted for as a second choice under Fielding).
With the way you've described it, it sounds almost like the opposite situation.There is literally a line on the voting card for the senate. Above the line you can only put one vote for a single party (you can't put second or third preferences) and then the party you voted for basically decides where the the preferences go.I guess I'm trying to figure out what below the line and above the line preferences are. It sounds rather complicated.
In the House of Reps life is much simpler, there it does work like a stock-standard preferences system.
Below the line you direct your preferences to each individual candidate yourself.
I'll try and briefly explain how the preference and quota thing works. Because in each state 6 senators are elected (2 for territories) a candidate only needs 16.7% of the (formal) votes to be elected. Thus the candidates which gets more then 16.7% are 'elected' and all the excess votes are handed on to their preferences. Then the process starts of eliminating the members with the least votes and distributing them according to preference. Until you are left with 6 people all with 16.7% of the votes each.
It's really not convoluted once you know how it works. The real problem exists because mostly (I've heard 90-95%) of people are lazy and vote above the line and leave preferenceing up to the parties. I suppose placing "1" in a single box beats filling out 84.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2010-08-22 09:34:55)
Whoa, whoa... wait a minute. That's not the same as IRV then. The system you're explaining greatly inflates the significance of second choices. No wonder Fielding got elected. You're much more likely to get a wingnut in there if you just hand over a bunch of votes to the second choice past an arbitrary quota. That distorts the vote considerably.DrunkFace wrote:
Thus the candidates which gets more then 16.7% are 'elected' and all the excess votes are handed on to their preferences.
Not if people bothered to choose their own preferences and not leave it up to party politics.Turquoise wrote:
Whoa, whoa... wait a minute. That's not the same as IRV then. The system you're explaining greatly inflates the significance of second choices. No wonder Fielding got elected. You're much more likely to get a wingnut in there if you just hand over a bunch of votes to the second choice past an arbitrary quota. That distorts the vote considerably.DrunkFace wrote:
Thus the candidates which gets more then 16.7% are 'elected' and all the excess votes are handed on to their preferences.
Normal preference voting wouldn't work because of the above/below the line way we vote. Below the line voting would work fine, but we both know expecting people to fill out a ballot like this but with many more candidates (there was 84 in NSW this election) accurately is just not going to happen.
Not to even mention the time it would take to count.
In "above the line" people are usually voting for a party which is putting up multiple candidates. So the "quota" is used to enable the votes to be distributed through out the party. For example, if the Liberals get 43% of the primary vote (above the line) then its top candidate will get 16% and be elected, its second candidate will get the same and its third candidate will get the remaining 11%.
Oh, the O'Connor situation with Tuckey makes much more sense now.
The WA Nationals are not part of the Coalition.
The WA Nationals are not part of the Coalition.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Bob Katter seems like a pleasant and reasonable fellow, I'm sure it will all work out.
Fuck Israel