What price principle? About $20,000

Err. that last one didn’t come out right, the AEC results are here.

Yes, and “splitting the left vote” is particularly inapt in our 2-member Senate electorate – the total “left” vote at the 2004 electorate (being, for the sake of this argument, the total of ALP and Greens) was 1.72 quotas, making two Liberal Senators an impossibility. The worst possible outcome for the “left” here is this vote being split 50:50 – since we’re talking worst-case scenarios let’s allow for some loss of votes too, say 0.7 quotas each. That still only leaves a maximum of 0.6 quotas remaining on the “right” after electing Gaz, so all the remaining “right” candidates will be eliminated before either of the “left” candidates, resulting in one of them taking the second spot.

Some good references – Antony Green’s site at the ABC for the 2004 election and AEC’s results for the ACT from that election.

I never said the Libs weren’t voted in (and I agree that at least part of the senate schemozzle comes down to the insane Labor preferencing deal that gave Family First a seat with less than 2% of the vote).

I merely made the point that had John Howard told Australian voters the extent of his IR law plans, they might have thought twice.

Comments like Evil’s that a vote for a minor is a wasted vote and Ralph that it splits the left vote just go to show what an effective job both of the old parties have done spinning this lie to the community. It is a lie designed to entrench the two-party preferred situation that serves those two parties so well and allows them to just take turns.

The truth is that if your first preference goes to a candidate from Liberal or Labour, that’s it – almost certain that your vote ends there – unless enough people pay attention to the next bit…

If instead your first preference goes to a minor or independent, and they don’t get up, then you effectively get a second go with your preference going to one or the other of the old parties (remembering that Howard has outlawed the method that allowed you to stop your preference going to anyone else if you so desired – the so-called Albert Langer method to remember the bloke who was sent to jail for the heinous crime of telling us how to do this).

Of course there is a chance the minor candidate might get enough to get enough votes to put them in second place, and then enough of the preferences of the lowest of the old party candidates might flow to them and get them over the line. It’s a bit more complicated in the Senate but basically the same.

So a vote for a minor is not wasted – in fact most often you get two bites at the cherry.
And the left vote is not often split as many left voters would see Labour as the lesser of two evils rather than worth voting for straight off (based on the proven pathetic record of the Federal Liberals in most fields of concern to society). It is unfortunate that they put more stock in covetting Green preferences instead of covetting better policies in their own right.

And yes – removing the balance of power from the Liberals straight away would be a good thing. No government should have an absolute majority.

Rudd doesn’t need any more votes to win an election, he needs his party to stay out of trouble, while the Liberals keep frothing at the mouth and falling over themselves with idiotic policy.

So, you judge the Libs and Labour based on the donation they accepted from the KKK and Al Quaida?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIM5CGGYLMM

There’s nothing scandalous about the donation to the Greens. It was disclosed on their website… done! Get over it.
There is also nothing wrong in including everyone in the political process. Just because Howard doesn’t talk to anyone left of Pauline for ideological reasons it doesn’t mean that the Greens shouldn’t involve other stakeholders.

As for democracy: Ralph is right. The vote has been cast. But also the primary vote for the Greens was 7.2%. Anyway, I support Greens and Democrats as the only real opposition to John Rudd and Kevin Howard and their interchangeable parties. Keep the bastards honest!

Yes they were. Workplace relations reform was always on this Government’s agenda.

Workchoices isn’t unpopular you know.

“The people of Australia have elected a majority in the Senate. Respect that.”

The people of Australia weren’t told that they were voting for WorstChoices at the time Ralph.

I’m still trusting that Rudd is just trying to avoid Howard’s particularly successful wedge strategies of past elections with his me-too-ism – I’d really rather someone a whole lot better than Johnny than only just.

A vote for Tucker is a wasted vote, in my humble opinion.

And as for Howard, well obviously Rudd thinks he’s doing a good job: he’s been supporting and/or adopting a lot of Howard’s policies since he won leadership of Labor!

Basically, we’re screwed either way! 🙂

Sure Bourke, some of the policies are decidedly sane (e.g. equal recognition for same sex couples, taxation review, etc), but the fact remains that the ACT Greens environment policy includes the goals of: “strengthening, monitoring and enforcing restrictions on the clearing of native vegitation”, and “strengthening, greater implementation and enforcement of tree protection legislation”… why then is Tucker taking money from people who would see every tree in Tasmania chopped down if it meant loggers (their brean ‘n’ butter members) got to keep their jobs? By taking their money she is giving tacit approval to what they stand for, and what they stand for is exactly the opposite of what her party does…I think Mr Gaz is right to ask just what on earth she was thinking!

There are actually quite a lot of us who think that the Lib’s policies are LOONY.

Take a look at the Greens’ policies at http://greens.org.au/about/policy/ and you may be surprised at their unlooniness.

The polls don’t tell the whole story. I think the federal election will be close, but I don’t think Howard is boned just yet.

I hope the CFMEU collapse – organisations such as these actively prevent Australian prosperity.

The people of Australia have elected a majority in the Senate. Respect that.

That is an ugly site – both visually and ethically. It’s like Fox decided to go down market.

I don’t have a problem with many Green’s policies – particularly as they seem to send those on the right into frothing palpitations about greens under the bed.

Tucker won’t win a senate seat in the ACT. Fact. If anything she actually is splitting the left vote and boosting the chaces of the libs getting a second seat.

As for the rest of the left wing loonies posting here, don’t count your chickens RE Howard losing.

Keep up the good work Gary.

The Greens with a balance of power in the Senate is a frightening prospect.

It puts them in the position of being able to hold legislation to ransom unless there is agreement to some of their loony policies which are detailed here

http://greenswatch.com./

Am I the only one who sees the irony in a Liberal Senator citing the CFMEU’s support of John Howard as a demonstration of their moral foibles?

It was also nice of RA user Senator Gaz to fix up the real Senator’s spelling mistakes. Good capitalists that they are have gone with ‘principal’ in the press release on the Canberra Libs site.

To those worried about loony Greens policies should they be holding the balance in the Senate, while they might negotiate some a few minor loony concessions from the party in power, they would not actually be the ones forming government.

She would hold the balance of power only til July 08 when the States’ senators take their seats. To be honest, given the very contentious legislation that is being passed without even being read at the mo, I’d rather put up with Green’s rubbish for 6 months for the benefit of having a serious house of review.

What to do? The Howard government is appalling, and should go. But I couldn’t in good conscience vote for Kerrie Tucker, knowing she might actually get in and hold the balance of power. Setting aside the CFMEU donation hypocrisy, Kerrie’s policies are mad. Do you really want to vote for someone who would be happy if Canberra was smaller? I like the fact that we’re finally growing into a city, while keeping the best aspects of a relaxed lifestyle here too.

Even Barnett (husband of Pru Goward, “liberal MLA for NSW) in todays Canberra Times had a go at the silliness of the religious right taking control of the Liberal Party. Gazza is a member of the above. Gazza’s government brought in the anti abortion “talks” that any one wanting to have an abortion in the ACT would have to listen too.

Need I say more?

Actually, on further investigation, I see that the Senator’s position is established as strongly anti-abortion, meaning that the sizable donation makes a lot of sense.

Of course, the question as to why someone with such an unequivocal position on the matter was made chair of the senate committee to investigate RU486 but that’s another matter.

I withdraw the charge of rank hypocrisy on this matter.

Yeah, this is far worse than receiving a $30000 donation from opponents of RU486, Right to Life, in 2005/2006 Gazbag.

More sad, shrill bleating from a party in decline.

(Of course, if the CFMEU had kept their donation under the new donation declaration threshold of $10000, up from $1500, I guess noone would have known at all)

Yeah the donation from the CFMEU is definitely sus, no doubt about it.

But it would be great to see the Senate become a genuine house of review, whichever of the major parties wins the House of Representatives, so I’ll be thinking seriously about voting for the Greens.

And it would be very interesting to look at some of the companies donating money to the Liberal party.

But no getting away from it, the donation is a bit hypocritical. That’s if the allegation is true.

Isn’t the CFMEU running ads at the moment bagging the Howard government’s stance on climate change?

I would rather vore for Kerrie and put up with her looney policies than to vote for a party that has troops fighting Bushs’ war on terror and locks-up innocents or puts them under control orders.

Oh I am still a youngish man and I would like to see a young man (or chicita) with vision and charisma (Obama sigh)leading our country, rather than some old fart of 70.

So Gazza I think you have some serious questions to answer about what you support.

I’m all for Howard losing his Senate majority at the earliest opportunity.

But is electing this individual the only way of accomplishing the task?

Her party’s policies are anathema to me. It would be a close run decision to decide the greater evil.

If Tucker gets in, the Govt loses its majority in the Senate at once (instead of July 2008) and the Senate immediately becomes what it should be, a house of review.

For that reason alone, irrespective of party politics, I hope she’s elected.

Sorry, should have said delivered an address sponsored by the CFMEU at the folk festival…

Kerrie Tucker’s association with the CFMEU goes back quite a way – she delivered an address at a National Folk Festival I think back in about 1995, and I expect they’ve been funding her in various ways ever since. She’s suss.