mightychurch.com

How did this notion that the independents must back the party with the most vote come to gain traction? (however you determine that anyway - Bob Brown has pointed out the 2pp is nonsense as they pulled from the calculations the seats that didn’t fit their paradigm) The independents can legally support whoever they wish to, and should be free to do so.  And they shouldn’t need to decide until parliament resumes and it’s tested in the house.  If only someone could gag these politicians until the final result is fully declared. 
I would expect the three to back the coalition, eventually, but they need to find some way of preserving their independent status in the eyes of their electorates. 
Wilkie looks like a loose cannon.

How did this notion that the independents must back the party with the most vote come to gain traction?

There is no “must” - however, what has been said is that, in this case, the 3 ‘independents’ should take note of the wishes of their constituents.

Interestingly only yesterday, there was discussion on the airwaves about the fact that the 4 lowest electorates with #1 preference votes for Labor throughout Australia were the seats of the ‘3 amigos’ and Tony Crook ( the ‘independent thinking’ candidate who stood in the WA seat of O’Connor for “THE NATIONALS” ).

Here is the list ( and I have also added the Greens #1’s for interest ) :

Bob Kattor     Kennedy       20.02%  ALP           Greens 4.17%

Tony Windsor   New England     8.03%  Country Labor       Greens 3.337%

Rob Oakeshott   Lyne           13.2%    Labor           Greens   3.84%

Tony Crook     O’Connor       17.17%%    Labor       Greens   8.85%

So what MANY are saying is that these four electorates are so OVERWHELMINGLY “anti-Labor” in their voting patterns, and that they have stated their clear preference for a conservative government as opposed to a Labor one. And that the elected ‘independents’ should take note of that clear distinction during their deliberations.

I sure hope that we can have a clear decision within a week - especially as we enter Footy Finals month !

Regarding Andrew Wilkie, he is more than a loose cannon - he is really off the planet with his outlandish shopping wish list of 22 demands. See them here at :

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/wilkie-demands-pensions-rise-vote-on-gay-nuptials/story-fn59niix-1225911857170

On the National Press Club just broadcast, Julia Gillard again talked of returning to a budget surplus in 2013, so obviously she has no intention of giving Wilkie the BILLIONS of $‘s that he is talking about. ( BTW, will Wilkie be submitting his list to Treasury for costing ? )

Interestingly, Wilkie only received 21.28% of first preference votes in Denison -  whereas the ALP scored 35.88%,  Liberals 22.64% and Greens 18.88%. Just shows what can happen when second preferences are set in motion.

OK so ‘must’ was a bit strong, but the general push is more than a mere ‘should’.  And the *case* for backing the party with the most votes Australia-wide (which is what the article quoted at #175 is about) is a different issue to the other one you brought up, Kevin -

however, what has been said is that, in this case, the 3 ‘independents’ should take note of the wishes of their constituents

- how they ought to represent the wishes of their respective electorates.
 
I think they will go conservative, which is fair enough all things considered, but the clearest message from the electorate is that neither party is fit to govern.  So the indies need to work out how they can make a meaningful contribution, while the majors are trying to manipulate them to be rubber stamps, or at least to give the least concessions possible. 
 
 
I’d been wondering about Denison, so thanks for posting those figures.  I suppose the Green preferences went mostly to Wilkie, then the Liberals’ preferences also.  Maybe that’s what happens when liberals put labor last (or labor, liberal last I suppose) without thinking about who the rest of the competition really is.

Interestingly, Wilkie only received 21.28% of first preference votes in Denison -  whereas the ALP scored 35.88%,  Liberals 22.64% and Greens 18.88%. Just shows what can happen when second preferences are set in motion.

What triggers it Kevin? I’m a bit fuzzy on when preferences come in to play.

Preferencing for a House of Rep’s seats only comes in to play when one candidate fails to win an absolute majority - that is 50% plus one vote.

There is a short AEC video at :  http://aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/vid_hor.htm  which sets out the process. It mainly involves :

Firstly, they sort all votes into piles of #1 preferences - then they ‘exclude’ candidates ONE at a time - based on who got the least votes at each stage - and ‘redistribute’ these votes by giving that candidate’s votes to the second preference on those papers. Looking at those Denison figures, there was a fifth candidate ( Socialist Alliance 1.32% ).
[ see the count at     http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-194.htm    ]
He would have been excluded first - and then the Greens candidate - whose preferences ( I am assuming ) went to either Independent Wilkie or to Labor - therefore leaving the Liberal in third place - and next to be excluded. So, if I am right so far, then it was the Liberals’ votes which preferenced Wilkie over Labor -  thus delivering Andrew the position that he now holds.

It may be a bit more complicated with 3rd preferences etc coming into play at some stage - but you would need some more expert advice, none of which I could find in printed form - at least with a quick glance.

Ah, sweet democracy - and mathematics. No wonder everybody wants it ;)

That’s simple compared with the calculations for the Senate preferences, which is based on getting a *quota*.  I looked it up last election (because I vote below the line), satisfied myself that it made sense, then promptly forgot the details, it’s so convoluted.

BREAKING NEWS - “Insight” will be missing the 3 amigos from tonight’s edition on hung parliaments :

Independent MPs cancel TV appearance

From:AAP   August 31, 2010   3:55PM

THREE rural independent MPs have cancelled an appearance on a television panel show to attend meetings with the Government.

Tony Windsor, Bob Katter and Rob Oakeshott were due to appear on the SBS Insight program tonight.

But they have told the public broadcaster they would be attending meetings with the Government at the time of the scheduled live broadcast, SBS said.

Lower house Greens MP Adam Bandt and newly-elected Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie will be on the program about the history of hung parliaments.

Former Queensland Nationals premier Rob Borbidge, who led a minority government from 1996 to 1998, will also appear.

Ros, those Senate preferences are indeed convoluted and complicated - and the counting can take a month or so to finalise !  If they made a video clip about it, it would probably turn into a mini series ;) 

I took pity on the AEC workers and just voted above the line ;)

Basically with the senate, a “quota” is 100% / number of senators to elect + 1. For the states that means a quota is a bit over 14% and for the territories 33.3%. The parties with enough votes for a quota get a senator, and then in a similar way to the house of reps the lowest candidate is removed and the votes are transferred according to the voters’ preferences until a new candidate has a quota.

From what I remember there was a bit more to it than that.
Particularly in distributing the preferences from the candidates that get more than one quota.  The ‘bits’ over, get distributed by preference, but as not all of the vote for this candidate are redistributed, and the second preferences don’t all go the same way, there needs to be a way to determine how to do this.

AEC also has this short video about “Counting the Votes for the Senate” :

http://aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/vid_senate.htm

Although the video example has only 6 candidates below the line, it doesn’t mirror a Senate Voting paper with 84 candidates !

Dr John Coulter, one of the CSIRO pioneers who discovered the health effects of DDT, head of the Democrats for a while, and currently leader of Sustainable Population Australia suggests our election system isn’t fair. He’d reduce the number of voting districts to 25 across Australia, have multiple members from each electorate able to stand, a proportional system of representation, and see what happens! It’s similar to my prefered alternative constitution which has reduced seats (40) but about 5 women and 5 men from each seat, which is 400 Parliamentarians… and no Senate!

It’s about forming coalitions in one great big parliament and then getting stuff done!

It might be weeks before we have a new Federal Government, and in the end it could come down to a handful of independents. So will Australia’s electoral system deliver a fair result, reflecting the wishes of voters? What are the flaws in the system and could it be improved?
Professor Marian Sawer
School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

Michael Lavarch
Former Federal Attorney-General in the Keating government

Dr Joo-Cheong Tham
Senior Lecturer, Melbourne Law School, Univeristy of Melbourne

John Coulter
Former Leader Australian Democrats

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/stories/2010/2990925.htm

I find the current political game being played by the Independents as quite comical.

If they are asking to look at the plans and books, shouldnt the issue of gross wastage of public money be on their radar? The fact that Australia’s books were a $20Billion surplus under Howard, and two and a bit years later, a $60billion defecit, with not much to show for it.
(apparantly the ‘World recession only lasted about 2 months, and mainly affected North Atlantic countries, and not Australia directly. And still they spend on it. It is suggested by the Libs, that spending was much needed, but not to the extent of Labor, and much more wisely to boot)

And not to mention that these ‘independents’ were formerly from the National Party, and were recognised by most people who voted for them as being of a similar political view. Those voters were not Labor in their views at all.

I see their dilemma. If they go with Labor, they will not win their seats next time they stand. They will be pariahs to their electorates.

If they go with the Coalition (and really there are two coalitions happening from now on) they may not be there for long, as the Senate will vote everything down when the time is right, to force another election.

They will be damned if they do, or damned if they dont!! I foresee another election within a year personally.

I foresee a referendum on big changes to the constitution… but not putting a timeline to it. ;-)

Proportional representation would have sorted this out.

When does ‘negotiation’ become “blackmail” ? 

Also, why shouldn’t the other 145 politicians ( despite their party affiliations ) start jumping up and down on behalf of their own constituents - and make extravagant claims or else threaten to go and play cricket with the guys in the other team across the street ?

Politics ? Morality ?  Two worlds apart surely.

Think I’ll just ponder our wonderful upright NSW State Labor government -  which after today’s latest ‘scandal’ has had 217 ministerial changes since they were elected back in 1995. Boy, those guys who print letterhead and business cards are doing a brisk business.

Now we know why the front doors at Macquarie Street have been replaced with a revolving door ;)    Can hardly wait until March 26 !!!!

Proportional representation would have sorted this out.

There are other options in wide use elsewhere. Quite a few would vote for “first past the post”.

Jeremy Halcrow on a Syd Ang forum last week posted this tally from a first past the post count after a few days counting :    Lib-Nat 78     Labor 69     Ind 3         That would have had all this sorted over a week ago.

Which is why most modern democracies (formed after WW2) went with the fairer Proportional representation. You know, pigmie economies guys like Japan and Germany.

Yes - but one hunts whales and the other never smiles ( or mentions ze war )  .....      ;)

I think that preferences are the best way. If we were voting for someone at any meeting, the preferential method is used.

Preferential voting doesnt let in someone whom the majority may not support.

Proportional representation would have sorted this out.

Jeremy Halcrow on a Syd Ang forum last week posted this tally from a first past the post count after a few days counting :  Lib-Nat 78   Labor 69   Ind 3       That would have had all this sorted over a week ago.

You can’t just say, if our system was different, this is the result we would have had.
If we’d had 1st past the post, or proportional, people would have known that, and voted accordingly.
     
I don’t like the idea of proportional, because very few people would understand how it works.  It would be a preference system like the Senate, I suppose.  Has anyone figured that out yet?  (I haven’t had time to look at the AEC video.) And I’ve heard recently there’s an outside chance Fielding will keep his seat?
       
It looked to me, that in the last weeks before the election, the media and the polls were actually pushing people towards this situation we have now.  And then we’re surprised when it happens.
 
If they can’t handle a few independents, what would happen with 3 or more parties, none with a majority?  We’re not used to it.  The mind boggles.

I don’t like the idea of proportional, because very few people would understand how it works.

Works well enough in most of the countries it is in. Sadly everyone quotes the hard-line minorities in Israel that have way too much power, but dozens and dozens of other countries have proportional. Just look up the wiki!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

If they can’t handle a few independents, what would happen with 3 or more parties, none with a majority?  We’re not used to it.  The mind boggles.

The mind boggles? What, we’ve never seen a ‘coalition’ before? ;-)

17 Greens would have got together with Labor and formed government.

Good economic managers hey? he he he

Treasury blows $11b hole in Coalition costings
Hole in costings: Tony Abbott with his finance tean Andrew Robb and Joe Hockey (AAP: Dean Lewins)

A key independent MP says Opposition Leader Tony Abbott needs to explain why Treasury analysis has identified a hole of up to $11 billion in the Coalition’s election promise costings.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/3000068.htm

Thanks for the sheer honesty during the election campaign Tony, we can really trust ya now!

Kevin and Ken, they’re all the same. And I totally agree with the critiques of Labor’s ‘stimulus package’ where they gave us money to go buy Japanese manufactured plasma screens. Yeah, that really prepared Australia for the rough trip ahead. Peak oil? Trucks onto trains and all that? Ahhh, forget it.

I love this bit…

“There was a difference of opinion with Treasury. But it doesn’t necessarily represent a mistake - it’s a difference of opinion.”

Hey, if I side with the Lib’s will they give me 1% of that ‘difference of opinion’? Just 1%... I’m not that greedy. ;-)

Surprise, surprise… Andrew Wilkie has announced that he is giving his nod to Julia Gillard. That makes it Labor 74 Liberals 73 and the 3 independents who are yet to decide.

The tension is palpable !!

The boredom is snoring.

Have Dave, does that mean that your interest has “peaked”  ?