I still feel sad at the idea of a party "giving" their preferences to another party. Such a thing is only possible when a large proportion of voters tick a single box on their ballot paper for a party "ticket", instead of numbering all the boxes to show their own personal preference. But so few people actually understand the voting system...
I don't follow these things closely, but I think Senator Spott Destroyer announced her resignation from politics a few months ago, citing the desire to have a life (not in those exact words of course, but "family" was mentioned). Perhaps dalmeny or someone can fill us in on the details.
I believe that independent Nick Xenophon has a reasonable chance of winning one of SA's senate seats.
In my case, the Greens' preferences closely mirror my own order I would assign, so in the absense of a will to fill out 90 little boxes (although NSW has a different numbering system where I don't need to number them all, I think), I will just go with what the Greens said.
Apparently 95% of (mainland) Australian voters vote "above the line" for the Senate. I conclude only 5% of voters can count to 60 (or whatever the number is in your state).
It's understandable though. I can't dream up a plausible situation where someone's 40th preference, or 4th, is looked at, never mind is relevant to the outcome of the vote.
I'm having trouble parsing that right now. What I'm struggling with is the way the least popular candidates (based on first preferences) are the ones who, by being eliminated early, have their lower preferences used first... thus benefitting the also-rans who almost, but not quite, have a plurality, but not yet a quota or a majority.
The example at Wikipedia's Australian electoral system is interesting, showing how the ALP candidate in Richmond got elected over both the National party sitting member (and leader on first preferences) and Helen Caldicott, based on the details of the fifth-highest primary vote getter. (Sorry, that's a long german sentence.)
Comments 8
I don't follow these things closely, but I think Senator Spott Destroyer announced her resignation from politics a few months ago, citing the desire to have a life (not in those exact words of course, but "family" was mentioned). Perhaps dalmeny or someone can fill us in on the details.
I believe that independent Nick Xenophon has a reasonable chance of winning one of SA's senate seats.
Reply
Reply
Thanks for linking to the Senate list. I will google my way through it in the next few days.
Reply
It's understandable though. I can't dream up a plausible situation where someone's 40th preference, or 4th, is looked at, never mind is relevant to the outcome of the vote.
Reply
I've always understood the benefit of preferential voting as "the elected representatives are the candidates that the majority hates least".
Which I think is a good thing. I don't think that's the way most people think about it though.
Reply
The example at Wikipedia's Australian electoral system is interesting, showing how the ALP candidate in Richmond got elected over both the National party sitting member (and leader on first preferences) and Helen Caldicott, based on the details of the fifth-highest primary vote getter. (Sorry, that's a long german sentence.)
Reply
Leave a comment