One Little Seat
I'm not very lucky.
Neither are a huge number of people in this country. In fact, more than half of them are not very lucky.
The people who are lucky live in places like Queanbeyan, Townsville, Launceston, Parramatta and Bathurst. But not me.
The lucky people live in marginal seats.
According to the Australian Electoral Commission, a "marginal" seat is defined as one division of the House of Representatives, of which there are 150, that the sitting member holds by a 'margin' of less than six percent. Because we have the "instant runoff", or "preferential" system, in most cases the winning candidate is Liberal or Labor, and everybody else's preferences flow to one of those two. So to win the seat, the opposing candidate needs to achieve a "swing" of up to six per cent - six per cent (or less) of all the votes must eventually flow to that candidate.
Marginals seats decide elections. They always have, and they always will. Even in proportional systems there are still "safe" and "marginal" seats - the person first on the party list is going to get in, so the battle is for the sixth spot. Because they decide elections, marginal seats get pork. Oh, boy, do they get pork. Billions of dollars is committed by both sides during every election campaign promising to build this, that and the other, and always in marginal seats. Why? Because in order to win, they don't need 50% +1 of all people to vote for them. 50%+1 of all people in a few key areas is enough.
Which is why living in Canberra can suck. Don't get me wrong - Canberra rocks, but it is very disappointing to live in a safe seat like this one, where there is never any pork. But, more than that, it means nobody tries to win it.
My local MP is Labor's Annette Ellis, who has represented Canberra since 1998. She's actually been my local MP since 1996, since in 1996 we had three seats in the ACT, but in 1998 we went back down to two. Before that, she represented Namadgi, which was also a safe Labor seat. The seat of Canberra itself is most of the ACT - the densely populated bits north of the lake are the even safer division of Fraser.
Canberra has existed since 1974 as an electoral division. Before that, the entire ACT was one seat, and it was held by Labor for almost the entirety of its existence - held by Independent Lewis Nott from 1949 - 1951, the seat went to Labor in the form of the legendary Jim Fraser 1951-1970 and then Whitlam minister Kep Enderby until 1974, who also represented Canberra until 1975. Only twice, from 1975-1980 and 1995-1996, has Canberra had a Liberal as its local member. Both Liberals, John Haslem and Brendan Smyth, were elected as a result of huge "protest" swings against the Whitlam and Keating governments respectively. Both candidates were defeated by Labor once things settled down (though Haslem did well to win re-election). Fraser, by the way, has never been held by a Liberal.
The point of me telling you all this is that the candidates for the 2007 election have now been finalised, and their positions on the ballot papers drawn from a hat. Bennelong, in Sydney, is the Prime Minister's seat and has the most candidates of any seat this election - thirteen, including Howard and Maxine McKew. It has thirteen because it's a high-profile seat and it's highly marginal, which means its volatile. Other seats are similar.
Canberra has four.
Just four.
Four people and four people only have put up their hand to stand to represent my city (well, half of it) in federal Parliament. I think this is bloody awful. Are they seriously suggesting only four people out of the 122,000-odd electors (the second-most in the country - Fraser has the most) want to be the local member? Well, actually, yes they are suggesting that. Because we're a Labor seat. And Kevin Rudd's gonna win. Probably. And because everybody knows that and everybody's going to vote Labor (well, sorta), only three candidates nominated to stand against Labor. All of them know they're going to lose.
The four candidates in my seat are (in order of their appearance on the ballot paper):
Amanda Bresnan (Greens)
Bresnan isn't the ACT Green you should be watching. That's Kerrie Tucker, their Senate candidate. According to the party's website, Bresnan has lived here since 2002 and has done a lot of volunteer work. She's the Secretary of the ACT Greens and works for the Mental Health Council of Australia. A public servant, in other words. She's also an Environmental Scientist by background, but since she's a Green that's hardly surprising.
Natalie Colbert (Liberal)
Colbert is an Air Force officer who works in the Logistics field. She has her own website (www.nataliecolbert.com.au), featuring lots of pictures of her pointing (pointing! Why do candidates always point at things? Did nobody tell them it's rude?). She has apparently lived here for "several" years and is outdoorsy. She's also a Liberal, which tells you everything else you need to know about her (rich, selfish and untrustworthy).
Annette Ellis (Labor)
I have actually met Annette Ellis. She's personable enough, if a bit distant. Sixty-ish, Ellis was a member of the ACT Assembly before she was elected to the House, so she's got a good background in politics. Before that I think she was some sort of public servant. Back when I was in the ALP, Annette was part of my sub-branch and attended meetings semi-regularly. She's not much of a public speaker, and in all honesty she's not much of a local member. She's not exactly highly visible, though she does go to a lot of fetes. I wouldn't expect her to do anything important, like be a minister or lobby for Rudd to live in the Lodge. She's basically a time-server, and I expect she won't stand at the next election. She's the perfect advertisement for Rudd Labor - bland, uninteresting, uninspiring, but there.
John Holder (Citizens Electoral Council)
Now, this guy is someone I'd consider voting for. Not because I agree with his party's policies, but exactly because I don't. The CEC are the kookiest of kooks, and just once I'd like to see a local member who wears his underpants on his head. Other than Wilson Tuckey, of course. A Google search reveals nothing about this guy other than his party and a brief blurb on Stateline about how the "world economy" is "bankrupt" or some nonsense. The CEC are serious nutbags. These are people who follow American King of the Fruit Loops Lyndon LaRouche, who among other things believes the Queen controls the world though a secretive cabal financed by drug dealing. This is tinfoil hat stuff. They also believe that global warming is a scam, and that all the world's problems were caused by the "bestial, anti-human rock-sex-drug counterculture" of the 1960s. According to their (scary) website (www.cecaust.com.au), the CEC is "committed, as is Mr. LaRouche, to urgently re-establishing a new Golden Renaissance, based upon the Classical tradition in art and philosophy, where the creative powers of each individual are fostered, to the benefit of both the individual, and of the entire society."
...
Riiiiiggghhhtt...
And that's it. Nobody else. Ellis is gonna win, no chance of any of the others winning, so nobody tries.
Sad, isn't it? Depressing, even.
Which one am I going to vote for? Probably Bresnan, though the idea of voting for a loopy conspiracy nut just once does have a certain perverted appeal.
Why do I keep asking questions and then answering? Well, if Kevin 07 can do it, why can't I?
What do I think anyway? That. What am I just saying? This. And I'd like to make this point as well...