Australian Federal Election- July 2, 2016

[YL]

Hi.  Someone will have to explain how the Senate elections work in Australia.  It seems they are for 6 year terms with half each up every 3 years.  But it seems that every-time there is a general election for the House half the Senate is up for re-election as well.  I get this time it is a double dissolution where everyone in the Senate is up for election.  But traditionally how do they square the fact that it it not clear that every House election occurs every 3 years but the Senate term is 6 years.  I think that the way it works is that every other House election half the Senators are up for re-election.  Did I get that right ?

I imagine that if they were to get out of sync, than the Senate elections would still happen separately.

Yes.  That would make sense and match how they doing things in Japan where there is an Upper House election every 3 years no matter what.  The problem is I cannot find an example of an Australian Senate election being held by itself without involving the House. 

There were three between 1964 and 1970.

[YL]

The button has also been pressed in Western Australia; the result is 5 Liberal, 4 Labor, 2 Greens, and 1 One Nation, with all those elected having made it over the quota fairly comfortably and only one unsuccessful candidate mustering up even half a quota (Kado Muir of the Nationals). Amusingly the final Labor Senator made it over the hump on preferences from Shooters candidate Andrew Skerritt (and One Nation and the Greens both made it off the elimination of the Nationals).

There seem to be questions about the eligibility of the elected One Nation Senator Rod Culleton connected to a larceny incident; if he were deemed ineligible, the party would be able to recommend a replacement. #2 on the WA ballot, and the likely replacement, is a certain Peter Georgiou, the brother-in-law of the elected Senator.

In terms of term length, either of the two discussed methods seems to give 3 Liberal, 2 Labor, and 1 Green longer, six-year terms while 2 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Green, and One Nation get three-year terms.

Unlike in Tasmania, there were no secondary candidates. The Liberals had 5.004 quotas, and after distributing of surpluses had 0.987 quotas, almost all behind their 5th candidate.

Almost all the secondary candidates were eliminated before moving onto eliminating the first candidate of any group. The 5th Liberal candidate was soon pushed over the top, but with only an eleven vote surplus. After the distribution of the initial surpluses ALP and Greens together had about one quota, of the four outstanding, with three more to be elected. Because the transfers of the smaller parties were not directed, both a 4th ALP candidate and 2nd Green was elected, along with a One Nation candidate.

With five quotas of first preferences, you should be able to elect six candidates. The Liberals would have been better off with the Nationals in a group. It would actually be desirable for voters to vote below the line for a National Candidate, as long as they followed through with the Liberal candidates. Even if they stuck a few odd other candidates in their list, they would eventually flow back to the Liberals.

Isn't this at least partly to do with the ticket system not balancing the candidates as Irish parties try to do?  After 9 counts the Liberals in WA were left with four candidates elected after reaching quota (which was 105,091), one candidate on 101,888 looking certain to be elected, and their other two candidates way back on 1,202 and 647 and so heading for elimination before there was much chance to pick up transfers.  If they'd tried to get six candidates on around 5/6 of a quota they'd probably all have got elected.