Australia 2007

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

My opinion on Rudd going to a strip club is pretty much summed up by the Tasmanian Green Senator, Bob Brown:

"Four years ago Kevin Rudd got drunk and took himself into a strip club. Four years ago John Howard, sober, took Australia into the Iraq war. I think the electorate can judge which one did the more harm," he said.

Ditto, same opinion here.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well a newspoll out tomorrow has Labor returning to it's heights 59-41 (TPP), and Rudd has a 10 point lead over Howard as preferred PM.

This is less than 4 weeks out from an election being called. This is VERY VERY bad for the coalition.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is less than 4 weeks out from an election being called. This is VERY VERY bad for the coalition.

So they need the polls to swing about five points in their direction in a couple of months? That's not fair off from being dead in the water...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I've spoken to a few people and they are genuinely shocked by these numbers. Many people, including me, didn't believe that Labor could maintain this level of momentum, they "slipped" back to a 55-45 position, and I thought the Libs could drag in a 53-47 pre-election position and pull in just enough to leapfrog them, just like they did 2004. But Rudd is lot Latham, and people now are willing to take a risk on Labor. At the moment the coalition Primary vote is 37% and Labor is on 51%. The coaltition need to be somewhere around 43-44% to win.

Plus people are expecting a Oct. 27 or Nov. 3 election, that would mean the earliest an election would be called is Sept. 21. Howard will not want a November 10 election since there will be an interest rate decision announced on Nov. 6 - so the latest he should be calling it would be Sept. 28. So if he hasn't called by then - he's going to look really really bad.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

When was the last time the ALP took a majority of primary votes? The '40's?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

In  1943, 1946, 1972 and 1983 Labor just missed 50% but between 0.03 and 0.6. But the last time Labor got 50% was in 1914, with 50.89%

I don't actually believe that Labor will do THAT well in the end. I would say Labor has a primary vote ceiling of about 48% - but after preferences would probably still be a 55-45% landslide. Put it this way the 1996 landslide was 53.6 - 46.4 and that was a 29 seat loss to Labor (the swing was about 5%) Given that Labor needs to win 16 and not lose one - if even those numbers hold up it looks bad for Johnny. 

Theres an article out today which called APEC the beginning of the end for the Howard Government.

[Verily]

I find it highly unlikely that Labor will manage to surpass the 50% mark in first preferences. Once it becomes clear that Labor is headed for a massive majority, much of the left, reassured as to Howard's defeat, will start parking their first preferences with the Greens, who could easily manage 10-12% in first preferences and quite a few second-place finishes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I find it highly unlikely that Labor will manage to surpass the 50% mark in first preferences. Once it becomes clear that Labor is headed for a massive majority, much of the left, reassured as to Howard's defeat, will start parking their first preferences with the Greens, who could easily manage 10-12% in first preferences and quite a few second-place finishes.

My belief is that the Greens primary vote will not surpass 2004. I think Labor will be making the point, and I assume many commentators too, that Labor will have to bring down some sizeable margins to win, since there are very few genuinely marginal coalition seats, so Labor has to look at 3,4,5%+ margins - including seats like Bennelong (Howard), Wentworth (Turnbull - which would be a pity since he's one of the few high profile Libs I have time for) etc etc. So to bring down those margins uniformly across the country - Labor must make an effort on getting as much of the primary vote as possible, and not relying on Green preferences.

Wentworth is quite an interesting case - a small but useful voting bloc is the sizeable Jewish community. They are on the whole quite left-wing socially, but like strong economic management. What they did in 2004 - was to give 1st pref to the Greens (over the Iraq war and the environment), but give the 2nd preference to the Libs.

The thing that I find strange - is even if Rudd surpasses Howard's performance in 1996 - the Labor majority will likely still be under 20 seats.

[Verily]

I find it highly unlikely that Labor will manage to surpass the 50% mark in first preferences. Once it becomes clear that Labor is headed for a massive majority, much of the left, reassured as to Howard's defeat, will start parking their first preferences with the Greens, who could easily manage 10-12% in first preferences and quite a few second-place finishes.

My belief is that the Greens primary vote will not surpass 2004. I think Labor will be making the point, and I assume many commentators too, that Labor will have to bring down some sizeable margins to win, since there are very few genuinely marginal coalition seats, so Labor has to look at 3,4,5%+ margins - including seats like Bennelong (Howard), Wentworth (Turnbull - which would be a pity since he's one of the few high profile Libs I have time for) etc etc. So to bring down those margins uniformly across the country - Labor must make an effort on getting as much of the primary vote as possible, and not relying on Green preferences.

Wentworth is quite an interesting case - a small but useful voting bloc is the sizeable Jewish community. They are on the whole quite left-wing socially, but like strong economic management. What they did in 2004 - was to give 1st pref to the Greens (over the Iraq war and the environment), but give the 2nd preference to the Libs.

The thing that I find strange - is even if Rudd surpasses Howard's performance in 1996 - the Labor majority will likely still be under 20 seats.

Could be. I don't claim to be really informed about Australian politics.

[StateBoiler]

Can someone explain to me how the transferred voting works and if a voter transfers his vote once, is he allowed to transfer again?

[ag]

Can someone explain to me how the transferred voting works and if a voter transfers his vote once, is he allowed to transfer again?

A voter ranks all candidates.  First the first preferences are counted (ie, at the first count each ballot is counted for the candidate that had "1" marked next to his name).  If somebody gets over 50% of the vote s/he is elected at this point, otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated and his/her votes get redistributed by looking at whom the voters marked as their number 2 choice. Again, if at that point somebody gets over 50% of the vote the counting is over, otherwise the next outsider is chosen for elimination and the process continues.  In the end only two candidates remain and one of them is bound to get the majority. I believe, there is no official legal way to deliberately  "exhaust"  the votes (ie just express a partial preference), though I might be wrong here, as this varies in some state-level elections.

Of course, if a voter's top choices are all candidates from minor parties, it is likely that his vote is going to be transferred many times. Thus, if a voter ranked

1. John Doe (Independent)
2. Jane Roe (Independent)
3. Mike Noname (Family First)
4. Mary Forgothername (Australian Democrat)
5. Woody Tree (Green)
6. Jack Outback (National)
7. Hon. Michael Abbot-and-Costello (Liberal)
8. Kim Challenger (Labor)

what is, really, most likely to matter is that he put the A&C above the Challenger. The rest of his effort is, mainly, about self-expression and complicating the job of vote counters.  But, perhaps, Mr. Outback gets Mr. A&C eliminated, in which case the vote would, in the end, count for him. Or else, Mr. Challenger gets eliminated first - in which case, once again, the vote counts for the Outback. In the House election it's extremely unlikely that anything else happens, though, on occasion, independents do win.

[StateBoiler]

Can someone explain to me how the transferred voting works and if a voter transfers his vote once, is he allowed to transfer again?

A voter ranks all candidates.  First the first preferences are counted (ie, at the first count each ballot is counted for the candidate that had "1" marked next to his name).  If somebody gets over 50% of the vote s/he is elected at this point, otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated and his/her votes get redistributed by looking at whom the voters marked as their number 2 choice. Again, if at that point somebody gets over 50% of the vote the counting is over, otherwise the next outsider is chosen for elimination and the process continues.  In the end only two candidates remain and one of them is bound to get the majority. I believe, there is no official legal way to deliberately  "exhaust"  the votes (ie just express a partial preference), though I might be wrong here, as this varies in some state-level elections.

Of course, if a voter's top choices are all candidates from minor parties, it is likely that his vote is going to be transferred many times. Thus, if a voter ranked

1. John Doe (Independent)
2. Jane Roe (Independent)
3. Mike Noname (Family First)
4. Mary Forgothername (Australian Democrat)
5. Woody Tree (Green)
6. Jack Outback (National)
7. Hon. Michael Abbot-and-Costello (Liberal)
8. Kim Challenger (Labor)

what is, really, most likely to matter is that he put the A&C above the Challenger. The rest of his effort is, mainly, about self-expression and complicating the job of vote counters.  But, perhaps, Mr. Outback gets Mr. A&C eliminated, in which case the vote would, in the end, count for him. Or else, Mr. Challenger gets eliminated first - in which case, once again, the vote counts for the Outback. In the House election it's extremely unlikely that anything else happens, though, on occasion, independents do win.

Thanks.

Do Australians like this system or do the two major parties want to get rid of it?

The arguments against IRV in the U.S. is that we are too stupid to do it. I'm a third party guy of sorts so I don't buy that. But I have personally seen the NAACP say that the state government trying to get my city to practice IRV as a test case was racist cause it would disenfranchise blacks (city is split 50-50).

[ag]

It is generally accepted in Australia. They've used it (in a miriad variations, as the system differs at the state and federal levels, as well as in electing the upper and lower houses)  for so long that extremely few, if any, Australians now alive would remember anything else.   

You should realize, that, at least in the version used for the House elections, individual preferences towards minor parties rarely matter at all. The only thing that matters is, to whom of the major two candidates you asign the relative preference.  The main practical impact of the electoral system has been to allow continued semi-separate existence of the National Party as the junior coalition partner of the Liberals (as long as the Coalition voters put both the Lib and the Nat above the Lab, both Coalition candidates may be on the ballot simultaneously, witout making the parties fear that this would split the vote; sometimes a Nat wins).  This outcome could have been achieved with a simple two-round election, as in France. The reason that Australia's minor parties still exist in practice is the (vastly more complicated) electoral system used for electing the Senate. In the House they usually suffer the same fate as in the U.S. (though they might have some impact in coordinating and directing preferences towards major parties).

The main practical disadvantage of the Australian system has more to do with the time it takes to actually complete the counts. Even the full computerization would only help to an extent: until all ballots in a constituency are entered into the system, you can't even formally start doing the second count (there may be a tie for the last spot, in wich case you don't know whom to eliminate).  So, in close elections, it may take days for the outcome to be computed. As the U.S. districts are larger, it would be even slower: imagine not being able to start the count of preferences until all the precincts and postal votes report.  Furthermore, the more counting has to be done, the likelier it is that something would depend on the "hanging chads" (at least theoretically it is possible that the eventual winner is determined by who comes 4th or 5th).

There may be multiple ways for getting out of the "illiterate voter" conundrum. A whole bunch are used in various Australian elections (though never all simultaneously). For instance, one could allow minor errors (e.g., if one marks 1,2,4,5 count it through or abort the count after 2, etc., etc.). Or else, one can allow parties to provide "how to vote cards" - little "cheat-sheats" the voters could copy in the booth. Or else, one can do what is done in a (rather complicated) election to the Australian Senate: let the parties (or even other groups) register their preferred orders of preference and allow voters simply to mark such a partisan "recomendation" (in the Australian Senate case, the voters are also free to make up their own preference ranking if they so choose).

Overall, this system has been used in Australia for something like 90 years and a more complicated version of it has been used both for electing the Australian Senate and for elections in Ireland at all levels. Neither Australia, nor Ireland are full of Ph.D.'s. A simplified version has been even used in Papua/New Guinea - not a particularly well-educated country.  The main problem would not be dealing with "stupid voters" - it would be dealing with complicated vote counts.  But, on the other hand, it is not very clear what this system would ahieve that cannot be achieved in a simpler fashion.

[Platypus]

Most Australians like that they are able to put an independent or third party as their first preference, although the majority still vote for the Liberals/Nationals or ALP first, at least in the House. Generally, the House of Reps is all coalition or Labor, with some independents and the very occasional minor party representatives, but the senate is where it gets interesting-dozens of candidates for 6 positions, two ways of voting, backroom preference deals...and usually a minor party balance of power. This parliament's senate BoP is officially with the National Party; last senate it was the democrats and greens; the one before that the democrats. Generally, people like having the government held to account in the senate by a third party-or at least enough people do for them to be elected to the position.

BTW, i'm feeling rudd-tastic.

Oh, and after reading ag's post, i'd say that despite its complexities, compulsory preferential voting is the best system in use in the world at a national level at the moment. It gaurantees that to win an electorate you need (at least in theory) 50%+1 of all voter's support, or at least opposition to the other final-round candidate.

[ag]

It gaurantees that to win an electorate you need (at least in theory) 50%+1 of all voter's support, or at least opposition to the other final-round candidate.

The French two-round system does the same in this respect.

[minionofmidas]

It gaurantees that to win an electorate you need (at least in theory) 50%+1 of all voter's support, or at least opposition to the other final-round candidate.

The French two-round system does the same in this respect.

They don't have compulsory voting, so no.

[ag]

It gaurantees that to win an electorate you need (at least in theory) 50%+1 of all voter's support, or at least opposition to the other final-round candidate.

The French two-round system does the same in this respect.

They don't have compulsory voting, so no.

But that has nothing to do w/ the voting system - it's part of the electoral system in general, but entirely independent of the voting system used.  Both the preferential voting and the more common run-off can be adopted without regard to compulsury voting.  In fact, preferential voting is just a more complicated to administer version of the instant run-off (one could mimick the French system by asking everyone to submit a preference, then in one swoop eliminating all but the two top candidates and transfering their votes to the top two).

Actually, to be pedantic, even in Australia normal turnouts are about 90%-95%, never 100%. So, in a close election the winning candidate rarely gets much above 47% of the total voting population

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Right - A few things.

1. Rumours are flying about that Howard will call at the end of this week. Essentially biting the bullet and going for it.

2. I did a simulation of what kind of TPP result is necessary for Labor to win a majority.

Labor - 50.5 Coal - 49.5 - Coalition Maj of 2

Labor - 51.5 Coal - 48.5 - Hung Parliament

Labor - 52.5 Coal - 47.5 - Labor Maj of 3

Labor - 53.5 Coal - 46.5 - Labor Maj of 9 (6.24% swing)
.....

If the latest Newpoll were correct... and we doubt it.

Labor 59 Coal. 41 - Labor maj of 44. Coaltion down to 31 seats.

[ag]

New Poll. This time it's ABC Nielsen, and it is within the margin of error of the Newspoll:

Primary vote: Lab 49%, Coalition 39%
two-party vote after redistribution Lab 57%, Coalition 43%

"MPs rally behind Howard," sez The Age. Should I read it as "if the SOB doesn't resign NOW we rebell within a week?"

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

In 1983 - the Labor leader, Bill Hayden was replaced by Bob Hawke AFTER the election was called - and they still destroyed them. But this is a very different situation.

The biggest problem is that, yes Howard is an electoral liability, but Costello is at present, an even bigger one. The point to me is, Howard should have stepped down a year ago, he didn't and now he and the party will pay the price. I think there are two parties on the get rid of Howard side - a) It's a risk, but we're going to get destroyed anyway b) getting rid of him looks like complete desperation and may cost us even more.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Update.

- Howard has clearly stated that Parliament will run for the full two-week sitting, ending on the 20th, leading to an election being called on Friday 21st, and a likely election on Oct. 27.

- Foreign Min. Downer essentially admitted that there were serious discussions last week - and a decision was made that they had to stick with Howard.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Sadly to all you people that wanted John Howard to have resigned or be dumped, your dreams haven't come true. He will see the Liberal party into the 2007 Federal Election. This morning he wasn't challenged for the leadership and the caucus are unanimously supporting there leader into Election 2007.

Though I have said in this thread many times before that John Howard will be re-elected, I'm starting to think that this won't be the case and Kevin Rudd will be Prime Minister by years end. And I'm not a Liberal Party supporter! I believe the ALP will win the 16 seats it needs to win back Government, this considering in the latest opinion polls the ALP is leading 60-40 on 2-Party Prefered.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sadly to all you people that wanted John Howard to have resigned or be dumped, your dreams haven't come true. He will see the Liberal party into the 2007 Federal Election. This morning he wasn't challenged for the leadership and the caucus are unanimously supporting there leader into Election 2007.

Though I have said in this thread many times before that John Howard will be re-elected, I'm starting to think that this won't be the case and Kevin Rudd will be Prime Minister by years end. And I'm not a Liberal Party supporter! I believe the ALP will win the 16 seats it needs to win back Government, this considering in the latest opinion polls the ALP is leading 60-40 on 2-Party Prefered.

Don't call it the caucus to a Party member.

Anyway - I was actually impressed by Howard on the 7:30 Report tonight. I have always been of the view that when Howard didn't retire last year, they couldn't risk a leadership change this year. He SHOULD have retired last year.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Sadly to all you people that wanted John Howard to have resigned or be dumped, your dreams haven't come true. He will see the Liberal party into the 2007 Federal Election. This morning he wasn't challenged for the leadership and the caucus are unanimously supporting there leader into Election 2007.

Though I have said in this thread many times before that John Howard will be re-elected, I'm starting to think that this won't be the case and Kevin Rudd will be Prime Minister by years end. And I'm not a Liberal Party supporter! I believe the ALP will win the 16 seats it needs to win back Government, this considering in the latest opinion polls the ALP is leading 60-40 on 2-Party Prefered.

Don't call it the caucus to a Party member.

Thanks for telling me PolNut. Well Prime Minister John Howard has said that if he is re-elected in 2007, he'll retire midterm and hand the leadership over to Peter Costello. No Peter No!

[Democratic Hawk]

Isn't the very term Liberal Party something of a misnomer?

Dave