Simon Sheikh concedes to Zed the Silent

IrishPete said :

shauno said :

Good the last thing we needed was another Green in the Senate. On another note I see the LNP turned back the first boat today well done guys. Instead of HMAS Ballarat being used as a Taxi they handed over the Illegals to the Indonesians. Funny how Labor could never manage to do that.

If this is a joke, it’s a bad one. Two boats have arrived since the government was sworn in. http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/residents-report-asylum-seeker-boat-arrival-on-christmas-island-20130926-2ugnr.html

The incident you describe is not being described as a “turn back” even by the Australian government. It’s being described a a rescue, in Indonesian waters. Now maybe they are playing diplomacy, suddenly and belatedly, but I don’t think that’s the whole story.

I think there have been three rescues this week, the most recent (after you posted) with significant loss of life. As I heard about it on the radio this morning, I wondered about three boats in one week incapable of making the journey – that’s actually not far off what lots of people predicted would happen when “turn back the boats” came in – boats would be disabled or scuttled.

Perhaps the smugglers are actually not willing to risk a “good” boat and are instead sending dodgy ones, but so far they haven’t got out of Indonesian waters so they haven’t yet been able to test the Australia Government’s bravado.

IP

What is signifacant about this is the fact the Indonesians picked them up instead of the Navy acting like a Taxi service it shows some negotiations have been going well. The couple of Indo politicians making noise the last few days were doing it for their own constituents it had nothing to do with the main issues. The real work is behind the scenes at high government level and the LNP has always worked well with the Indonesians as well as the rest of the countries in the region.

” . . . or if we get our third House of Reps seat back.” Surely we have the population for this by now.

Diggety said :

It takes a very dependant and immature human to vote for a Socialist, therefore IMO it’s best we get a Lib doing nothing than a Green doing anything.

*BUT* the Libs promised more freedom of speech, movement, liberty, opportunity and a roll back of the Nanny State – one of the reasons I voted for the them. Don’t like the Libs or TA? Good – this is what you do – hold them to these sets of principles and promises and see if they can live up to their stated ideals.

If not, I’ll gladly join the retarded (Left) chorus of getting them out of office.

This has to be on of the least intelligent posts I have ever read. Use of the word “retarded” as an insult just caps if off.

Incidentally, I can’t recall any of the promises you say the Liberals made – freedom of speech? really? Shall I mention Wikileaks just as one example? Freedom of movement? Not for asylum seekers seeking safety. Liberty? I can’t think what “promising liberty” might mean given we already live in a free democracy, though their opposition to marriage equality, and human rights generally, doesn’t sound like much of a commitment to liberty. Opportunity? You must be joking – jobs for the boys, and subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy including corporates. Rollback of the nanny state? Does that include middle class welfare? They pioneered it and have no intention of getting rid of it, because it is subsidies for the well off.

I think you may have confused the Liberal Party (who you may not have noticed cannot govern on their own, they have to be in coalition with the Nationals) with the Tea Party. It’s an easy mistake to make, admittedly.

IP

p.s. I apologise to all other readers for my rare departure from playing the ball rather than the wo/man – but in my defence, Your Honour, I was provoked.

Diggety said :

It takes a very dependant and immature human to vote for a Socialist, therefore IMO it’s best we get a Lib doing nothing than a Green doing anything.

*BUT* the Libs promised more freedom of speech, movement, liberty, opportunity and a roll back of the Nanny State – one of the reasons I voted for the them. Don’t like the Libs or TA? Good – this is what you do – hold them to these sets of principles and promises and see if they can live up to their stated ideals.

If not, I’ll gladly join the retarded (Left) chorus of getting them out of office.

Except for the fact that the Liberals actually went to the election with their own “socialist” policies. No party wants to end the entitlement gravy train.

shauno said :

Good the last thing we needed was another Green in the Senate. On another note I see the LNP turned back the first boat today well done guys. Instead of HMAS Ballarat being used as a Taxi they handed over the Illegals to the Indonesians. Funny how Labor could never manage to do that.

If this is a joke, it’s a bad one. Two boats have arrived since the government was sworn in. http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/residents-report-asylum-seeker-boat-arrival-on-christmas-island-20130926-2ugnr.html

The incident you describe is not being described as a “turn back” even by the Australian government. It’s being described a a rescue, in Indonesian waters. Now maybe they are playing diplomacy, suddenly and belatedly, but I don’t think that’s the whole story.

I think there have been three rescues this week, the most recent (after you posted) with significant loss of life. As I heard about it on the radio this morning, I wondered about three boats in one week incapable of making the journey – that’s actually not far off what lots of people predicted would happen when “turn back the boats” came in – boats would be disabled or scuttled.

Perhaps the smugglers are actually not willing to risk a “good” boat and are instead sending dodgy ones, but so far they haven’t got out of Indonesian waters so they haven’t yet been able to test the Australia Government’s bravado.

IP

It takes a very dependant and immature human to vote for a Socialist, therefore IMO it’s best we get a Lib doing nothing than a Green doing anything.

*BUT* the Libs promised more freedom of speech, movement, liberty, opportunity and a roll back of the Nanny State – one of the reasons I voted for the them. Don’t like the Libs or TA? Good – this is what you do – hold them to these sets of principles and promises and see if they can live up to their stated ideals.

If not, I’ll gladly join the retarded (Left) chorus of getting them out of office.

Aeek said :

LSWCHP said :

Not to mention LaTex for mind bogglingly high quality document

Damn…this is making me feel like an old bastard…

I remember reading a chunk of Knuth on Programming vol 1.
He wrote LaTex so he could get it printed.

Yay! Old Bardstards.

No surprise, remembered things wrong. He wrote “The Art of Computer Programing” and created TeX which underlies LaTeX.

LSWCHP said :

Not to mention LaTex for mind bogglingly high quality document

Damn…this is making me feel like an old bastard…

I remember reading a chunk of Knuth on Programming vol 1.
He wrote LaTex so he could get it printed.

Yay! Old Bardstards.

Can this thread please be awarded the ” Most boring as batshit” award of all time? Please give c_c a motel voucher so he/she can get a room with the protagonist of his or her choice.

Good the last thing we needed was another Green in the Senate. On another note I see the LNP turned back the first boat today well done guys. Instead of HMAS Ballarat being used as a Taxi they handed over the Illegals to the Indonesians. Funny how Labor could never manage to do that.

Garfield said :

Does anyone have any thoughts on the Libs federal numbers for 2013 compared to the local numbers for 2012? Locally the Libs went from 31.6% in 2008 to 38.9% in 2012. Federally they ended up with 34.62% in the reps and 33.08% in the Senate (with swings of -0.19% & -0.27% respectively from 2010).

Breaking it down by electorates Brindabella was 46.4% (+11.1%), Molonglo 37.4% (+5.9%) & Ginninderra 33.7% (+5.9%) while Canberra was 37.87% and Fraser 31.63% in the reps and 35.47% & 30.83% in the senate. Looking at this there must have been a lot of people who voted Liberal in Brindabella last year who didn’t vote Liberal federally, with smaller numbers doing the same in Molongo and Ginninderra.

It always seems to me that when there are state elections one side always says there will be some federal influences at play while the other says the voters are only looking at state issues. With that in mind can we read anything into the large swing against the Libs from the 2012 local to 2013 federal election?

Well the liberal party actually ran a campaign in the 2012 local election, also the zed factor, he went fom a locl challenger looking to help Canberra to a self serving ladder climber in 9 months. I think these two factors were the most significant.

What will be very interesting is 2016 when we should have a local and federal election with in months of each other.

howeph said :

IrishPete said :

I LOVE SPSS – it’s my favourite computer program.

IP

Wow. Now that is what I call mature software. Version one released in 1968 (same year as my car was built)!

Latest stable release v22.0 August 2013.

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

Aah jeez…I don’t want to turn this into an SPSS love fest, but that is a fantastic piece of software. I used it at the ANU back in the day. Not to mention LaTex for mind bogglingly high quality document production. And Scribe before that.

Damn…this is making me feel like an old bastard…

howeph said :

IrishPete said :

I LOVE SPSS – it’s my favourite computer program.

IP

Wow. Now that is what I call mature software. Version one released in 1968 (same year as my car was built)!

Latest stable release v22.0 August 2013.

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

IBM owned it for a while and called it PASW. just to confuse everyone.

IP

IrishPete said :

I LOVE SPSS – it’s my favourite computer program.

IP

Wow. Now that is what I call mature software. Version one released in 1968 (same year as my car was built)!

Latest stable release v22.0 August 2013.

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

Does anyone have any thoughts on the Libs federal numbers for 2013 compared to the local numbers for 2012? Locally the Libs went from 31.6% in 2008 to 38.9% in 2012. Federally they ended up with 34.62% in the reps and 33.08% in the Senate (with swings of -0.19% & -0.27% respectively from 2010).

Breaking it down by electorates Brindabella was 46.4% (+11.1%), Molonglo 37.4% (+5.9%) & Ginninderra 33.7% (+5.9%) while Canberra was 37.87% and Fraser 31.63% in the reps and 35.47% & 30.83% in the senate. Looking at this there must have been a lot of people who voted Liberal in Brindabella last year who didn’t vote Liberal federally, with smaller numbers doing the same in Molongo and Ginninderra.

It always seems to me that when there are state elections one side always says there will be some federal influences at play while the other says the voters are only looking at state issues. With that in mind can we read anything into the large swing against the Libs from the 2012 local to 2013 federal election?

c_c™ said :

I think the real explanation is people get squeamish dealing with a lot of numbers so they tend to seek the quickest, shortest solution. I think some people here would turn to jelly if they had to go near sets or SPSS and the like. If people want to ignore the beginning and the middle of a story and skip straight to the end, owing to some strange logic that using the two numbers is a question of either/or, meh. Enough people struggle with electoral maths as it is, a few more won’t hurt.

Yes but in the scheme of things for the senate it is based on quotas so if your first preference grows, but grows less than the quota well its a negative to the party. Probably what saved Seselja was the swing away from the Greens as well. There have definitely been over the past 2 elections a push for labor voters to push preferences towards the greens to try and unseat the liberal senator as well.

I’d argue support for Liberals is pretty high in Canberra right now despite the job cuts issue and yet they just managed to scrape in a seat that probably should never have been in doubt.

c_c™ said :

I think the real explanation is people get squeamish dealing with a lot of numbers so they tend to seek the quickest, shortest solution. I think some people here would turn to jelly if they had to go near sets or SPSS and the like. If people want to ignore the beginning and the middle of a story and skip straight to the end, owing to some strange logic that using the two numbers is a question of either/or, meh. Enough people struggle with electoral maths as it is, a few more won’t hurt.

I LOVE SPSS – it’s my favourite computer program.

IP

c_c™ said :

I think the real explanation is people get squeamish dealing with a lot of numbers so they tend to seek the quickest, shortest solution. I think some people here would turn to jelly if they had to go near sets or SPSS and the like. If people want to ignore the beginning and the middle of a story and skip straight to the end, owing to some strange logic that using the two numbers is a question of either/or, meh. Enough people struggle with electoral maths as it is, a few more won’t hurt.

No, it has nothing to do with any kind of “squeamishness”. It’s the fact that a change in the raw vote numbers is meaningless because it does not take into account the change in the total number of votes cast. It is an irrelevancy.

I think the real explanation is people get squeamish dealing with a lot of numbers so they tend to seek the quickest, shortest solution. I think some people here would turn to jelly if they had to go near sets or SPSS and the like. If people want to ignore the beginning and the middle of a story and skip straight to the end, owing to some strange logic that using the two numbers is a question of either/or, meh. Enough people struggle with electoral maths as it is, a few more won’t hurt.

I’m going to join in the chorus and agree that looking at absolute vote numbers is meaningless. The fact that you can get a decline in percentage vote and an increase in absolute vote just tells you that the number of voters (well, really the number of formal votes) has increased in the interim.

It’s the percentage of the population you can convince that matters.

I’m with the percentages mob here.

Looking at quotas in all recent elections:
Lib: 1.0290 (2001) –> 1.1361 –> 1.0260 –> 1.0005 –> 0.9923 (2013)
ALP: 1.2605 (2001) –> 1.2331 –> 1.2251 –> 1.2252 –> 1.0331 (2013)
GRN: 0.2164 (2001) –> 0.4909 –> 0.6442 –> 0.6875 –> 0.5782 (2013)

If anything, the Libs decline was slightly less than the others. Not one of the three major parties could capitalise on the loss of any of the others. All those Greens and Labor votes went to the minors.

But this is only first preferences – valuable to political parties wanting our taxpayer money.

If those minor party first preference votes went straight back to ALP or Greens, because some voters understood the preferential system of voting, then the 3PP vote might not have changed that much at all. We’ll find out next week. Below the line preferences will be interesting.

johnboy said :

c_c I’m going to rule against you here.

Voting is about percentages of the electorate, not hard numbers.

It’s about both, if you try and conflate the two or just focus on the former, you end up with a simpleton view of things.

Liberal ticket vote grew, Liberal candidate vote decreased, which means the group first preference recorded an overall gain. Now add to that the figures on the electorate and number of candidates and what does that tell you.

1. Liberal candidate vote suffered because of issues earlier in the year with preselection

2. Liberal ticket vote was not negatively affected by preselection problems but it may have retarded growth

3. That the combination of the growth of the electorate and the growth of the minors seems to favour the left longer term, and so a retardation in the growth of the Liberal vote means a trend decline in their vote longer term and that will have implications for the percentages.

Now consider what a lower quota/percentage alone tells you

1. The Liberals managed a lower percentage… wow, informative, particularly as all three main parties in the race had declines in their quota. It tells you squat by itself.

Also your line about voting being about percentages and not hard numbers, as if that’s some golden all encompassing rule, is just so silly, looking more broadly at electoral maths. Just imagine if you wrote that in 98 and then a little while later, Howard wins an election on 49.02% of the 2PP vote to Labor’s 50.98%. Yep, you’d have to dig down to the raw numbers to figure that one out. Shocking.

johnboy said :

c_c I’m going to rule against you here.

Voting is about percentages of the electorate, not hard numbers.

getting a 5% swing in an electorate that’s declined by 10% is still an improved vote.

I kinda like c_c logic. So in 1901 the ALP got 79 736 votes, in the last election they got about 4.3 million votes; therefore the ALP is 54 times more popular than they were are the turn of the 20th century…awesome.

Robertson said :

housebound said :

Here’s the last few elections’ results:
1.029 (2001) –> 1.1361 (2004) –> 1.0260 (2007) –> 1.0005 (2010) –> 0.9923 (2013)

Apparently, according to c_c, due to …gobbledigook…confusion…nonsense…, the decrease in the Lib vote from 1.0005 to .9923 of a quota is actually an increase.

Liberal first preference votes by group (2013 vs 2010): 81,613 – 76,463 = + 5150

Labor first preference votes by group (2013 vs 2010): 84,947 – 93,639 = – 8692

Greens first preference votes by group (2013 vs 2010): 47,553 – 52,546 = – 4993

ACT total Enrolment: 265,160 – 247,941 = +17,219

Number of groups (2013 vs 2010): 14 – 5 = + 9

The Lib vote did increase, end of story.

It didn’t increase enough to offset to capitalise on a larger number of votes in the electorate in a much more competitive field to achieve a higher proportion of the quota, but that’s a measure of proportion, not a measure of votes.

If that’s too complex, do us all a favour and disenfranchise yourself.

housebound said :

Here’s the last few elections’ results:
1.029 (2001) –> 1.1361 (2004) –> 1.0260 (2007) –> 1.0005 (2010) –> 0.9923 (2013)

Apparently, according to c_c, due to …gobbledigook…confusion…nonsense…, the decrease in the Lib vote from 1.0005 to .9923 of a quota is actually an increase.

“Militant Vegans and believers in crap pseudoscience – sounds like the core demographic of the Greens! All the more interesting that they preferenced the Libs (although the Coalition have their own believers in crap pseudoscience). I guess it is kind of like a hippy version of the nasty factional battles in the ALP – sometimes the nastiest fights are between those with nominally the same politics.”

And your source for this is?

His source is that anyone who didn’t vote for Rise Up Australia like he did is obviously a hippie, and probably a satan worshipping witch.

drfelonious said :

lostinbias said :

Deref said :

I’m going to go and eat some animals in retribution.

While I’m not going to go and eat any animals, the AJP is ridiculous. I just had an enjoyable read of their Facebook page and most of their supporters are either Vegetarian Bogans (they do exist it seems), Militant Vegans, believers in crap pseudoscience, or a combination of any of these. I left them a Facebook comment to this effect.

A couple of the supporters seemed like several young dickheads I’ve met on Facebook or loitering in Civic who call you “buddy” all the time and self-righteously act as if they know everything, including the solutions to all the world’s problems.

Militant Vegans and believers in crap pseudoscience – sounds like the core demographic of the Greens! All the more interesting that they preferenced the Libs (although the Coalition have their own believers in crap pseudoscience). I guess it is kind of like a hippy version of the nasty factional battles in the ALP – sometimes the nastiest fights are between those with nominally the same politics.

I was amazed at how many votes there were for the AJP, but I guess there wasn’t much to choose from.

Well, I’m not a Greens supporter, I’m actually quite right-wing on a few issues. I did, however, preference the Greens rather highly in the senate because I thought that anyone who is more socially progressive than the current incarnation of the Liberal Party would help keep them in check

As for the three groups I mentioned above being their core supporters, I don’t think so. I have many friends who are Greens supporters from various parts of the country and very few of them fit within these categories. I’m sure that some within such elements support the Greens, but I suspect the majority of them are more along the lines of “the political system’s screwed, man! I don’t vote because we need a revolution, dude!”, or are AJP nutjobs.

CraigT said :

Good golly, the innumerates are out. Seeing as the quota achieved by the Libs is *lower* than last time, do you understand that in real terms, the Libs vote has gone down?

Here’s the last few elections’ results:
1.029 (2001) –> 1.1361 (2004) –> 1.0260 (2007) –> 1.0005 (2010) –> 0.9923 (2013)

The biggest decline in that short history was from 2004 to 2007. No prizes for guessing why.

CraigT said :

chewy14 said :

Robertson said :

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

How is it anti Greens propaganda?

The Greens and Labor will have a swing against them in the ACT senate race as well because of the increase in candidates diluting the vote

Robertson said :

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

Let’s dig into this a bit more, using the latest available figures from the AEC.

Humphries in 2010 vs Seselja in 2013, the first preference personal vote declined by 5772 for Zed, so obviously he couldn’t draw in nearly as many personal votes as his predecessor.

However the number of Liberal first preference ticket votes grew by over 10,160 votes.

The group total rose by 5150 first preference votes in 2013.

Good golly, the innumerates are out.

Seeing as the quota achieved by the Libs is *lower* than last time, do you understand that in real terms, the Libs vote has gone down?

Are you thick? Seriously.

Firstly you’re comparing final quotas and provisional quota. The final quota in 2010 was 76 425, the provisional quota so far announced by the AEC is 82 248.

Given the change in size of quotas, and the change in the field of candidates, of course the quota results are going to change.

What can be compared absolutely is the first preference raw numbers for candidate, ticket, and group, and they are what I wrote. And I wrote them accurately.

Now stop talking crap, including using the foolish term propaganda.

So the “anyone but Zed” factor wasn’t quite enough to get Simon over the line. Looking at the latest first preference votes:

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefs-17496-ACT.htm

it says something about the strength of that factor, and the wonders and mysteries of the preferential voting system, that Simon even got close.

Lostinbias’ comments suggest the AJP may be to the Greens what (in the eyes of some) the Greens are to the “old parties” – if so, there would be a certain poetry to what has happened. Anyway, the Life of Brian teaches us that there will always be wonderful new alternatives for those who are dissatisfied with the status quo.

CraigT said :

chewy14 said :

Robertson said :

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

How is it anti Greens propaganda?

The Greens and Labor will have a swing against them in the ACT senate race as well because of the increase in candidates diluting the vote

Robertson said :

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

Let’s dig into this a bit more, using the latest available figures from the AEC.

Humphries in 2010 vs Seselja in 2013, the first preference personal vote declined by 5772 for Zed, so obviously he couldn’t draw in nearly as many personal votes as his predecessor.

However the number of Liberal first preference ticket votes grew by over 10,160 votes.

The group total rose by 5150 first preference votes in 2013.

Good golly, the innumerates are out.

Seeing as the quota achieved by the Libs is *lower* than last time, do you understand that in real terms, the Libs vote has gone down?

And that has what to do with my comment?

Yes, the Lib vote went down as did Labors and the Greens due to a larger amount of smaller parties getting a higher proportion of the vote.

I simply didn’t see how the other comment could be construed as anti Green propaganda.

drfelonious said :

Militant Vegans and believers in crap pseudoscience – sounds like the core demographic of the Greens! All the more interesting that they preferenced the Libs (although the Coalition have their own believers in crap pseudoscience). I guess it is kind of like a hippy version of the nasty factional battles in the ALP – sometimes the nastiest fights are between those with nominally the same politics.

I was amazed at how many votes there were for the AJP, but I guess there wasn’t much to choose from.

Most Greens I know are omnivores, including myself.

Very few are hippies.

Most have university degrees, I currently have four. For pseudoscience try Tony Abbott’s “climate change is crap” Party, as you suggest.

IP

Deref said :

I’m going to go and eat some animals in retribution.

Just kick the dog, No need to eat anything.

IP

pepmeup said :

They did give it a reasonable shake this time

Nice pun.

IP

breda said :

I wonder how long Simon’s “deep commitment to Canberra” will last? Does anyone know the length of his wife’s contract (if any) at the ANU?

Christine Milne has seven staff vacancies – I’m sure Simon can take his pick and stay in Canberra!

chewy14 said :

Robertson said :

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

How is it anti Greens propaganda?

The Greens and Labor will have a swing against them in the ACT senate race as well because of the increase in candidates diluting the vote

Robertson said :

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

Let’s dig into this a bit more, using the latest available figures from the AEC.

Humphries in 2010 vs Seselja in 2013, the first preference personal vote declined by 5772 for Zed, so obviously he couldn’t draw in nearly as many personal votes as his predecessor.

However the number of Liberal first preference ticket votes grew by over 10,160 votes.

The group total rose by 5150 first preference votes in 2013.

Good golly, the innumerates are out.

Seeing as the quota achieved by the Libs is *lower* than last time, do you understand that in real terms, the Libs vote has gone down?

Roundhead89 said :

Sheikh can go back to GetUp! and get lost. Looks like voters took the advice of that graffiti on his posters and Leb-proofed the Senate.

You’re an idiot.
Voters came closer to Lib-proofing the ACT Senate seats than ever before.
And, you’re an idiot. Did I mention that?

It was not “on the back of the Animal Justice Party” or “donkey vote” preferences. Preferences from Rise Up Australia alone got them to 1.0091 quotas. I’d have preferred Gary to Zed personally but Sheikh is the very definition of a carpet bagging opportunistic and I’m very glad he wasn’t successful, particularly running soley on an entirely negative smear campaign against the now PM.

Roundhead89 said :

Sheikh can go back to GetUp! and get lost. Looks like voters took the advice of that graffiti on his posters and Leb-proofed the Senate.

Cool. Thanks for being a racist! Maybe your user name should be hole_in_the_head89. That’d be more honest. Or maybe noclue89, racist89, intellectually_challenged89?

Ad hominem over.

Why exactly do we need to make sure that no Australians of Lebanese descent don’t enter the senate? And ytf your comment is published is beyond me.

I wonder how long Simon’s “deep commitment to Canberra” will last? Does anyone know the length of his wife’s contract (if any) at the ANU?

No-one could claim that Zed has been elected with overwhelming endorsement.

I only hope that Zed realises the importance of the task ahead and that it’s not all about him – he has to champion the people of Canberra and not his personal aspirations.

Roundhead89 said :

Sheikh can go back to GetUp! and get lost. Looks like voters took the advice of that graffiti on his posters and Leb-proofed the Senate.

You really are a dirtbag pos.

lostinbias said :

Deref said :

I’m going to go and eat some animals in retribution.

While I’m not going to go and eat any animals, the AJP is ridiculous. I just had an enjoyable read of their Facebook page and most of their supporters are either Vegetarian Bogans (they do exist it seems), Militant Vegans, believers in crap pseudoscience, or a combination of any of these. I left them a Facebook comment to this effect.

A couple of the supporters seemed like several young dickheads I’ve met on Facebook or loitering in Civic who call you “buddy” all the time and self-righteously act as if they know everything, including the solutions to all the world’s problems.

Militant Vegans and believers in crap pseudoscience – sounds like the core demographic of the Greens! All the more interesting that they preferenced the Libs (although the Coalition have their own believers in crap pseudoscience). I guess it is kind of like a hippy version of the nasty factional battles in the ALP – sometimes the nastiest fights are between those with nominally the same politics.

I was amazed at how many votes there were for the AJP, but I guess there wasn’t much to choose from.

Robertson said :

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

Fair enough, I was going off memory on the 2010 campaign (there were three parties combining forces, too, but I couldn’t think of who the third was), and I didn’t pay that much attention to earlier federal elections. Your stats do show a general decline in the Libs 1st preference vote: 1.14 to 1.03 to 1.01 to 0.99, with the biggest drop in 2004-2007 (probably part of the Howard regime’s slow death). It could be this slow decline that got the Greens and the ALP (and the other group) excited about unseating the Libs in the first place. Zed should probably be worried if he sticks around for next time.

Anti-libs propaganda aside, the fall in support for the ALP and the Green is of interest, especially given the rock solid support for the ALP in the reps. Our failure to swing even managed an article in one of the dailies.

I repeat, it would be really nice to see where the minor parties’ below-the-line preferences go. The 3PP vote from below-the-line voters could also be interesting, and probably quite surprising.

And for all those critical of the AJP – it will probably do more to change the local Green to work for the AJP goals than anything else they could have done. It possibly has already had an effect (caged chook and pigs bans). As long as they don’t get into the habit of backing the ones they hate …

Robertson said :

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

How is it anti Greens propaganda?

The Greens and Labor will have a swing against them in the ACT senate race as well because of the increase in candidates diluting the vote

Robertson said :

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

Let’s dig into this a bit more, using the latest available figures from the AEC.

Humphries in 2010 vs Seselja in 2013, the first preference personal vote declined by 5772 for Zed, so obviously he couldn’t draw in nearly as many personal votes as his predecessor.

However the number of Liberal first preference ticket votes grew by over 10,160 votes.

The group total rose by 5150 first preference votes in 2013.

So the Liberal party did grow their first preference Senate vote at this election.

Now what about the Greens.

HD (2010) vs Sheikh (2013); personal first preference votes declined 1836 for Seselja, so it seems both leading candidates, despite their name recognition, couldn’t attract the same personal support as those in the past.

But importantly, for first preference ticket votes, the Greens declined, by just under 2000 votes.

And the group first preferences declined by 4993 votes in total from 2010.

lostinbias said :

Deref said :

I’m going to go and eat some animals in retribution.

While I’m not going to go and eat any animals, the AJP is ridiculous. I just had an enjoyable read of their Facebook page and most of their supporters are either Vegetarian Bogans (they do exist it seems), Militant Vegans, believers in crap pseudoscience, or a combination of any of these. I left them a Facebook comment to this effect.

A couple of the supporters seemed like several young dickheads I’ve met on Facebook or loitering in Civic who call you “buddy” all the time and self-righteously act as if they know everything, including the solutions to all the world’s problems.

^ That.

Once I saw their preferencing I made sure that my kids, who probably would have voted for them, knew about it. They were horrified.

Sheikh can go back to GetUp! and get lost. Looks like voters took the advice of that graffiti on his posters and Leb-proofed the Senate.

Deref said :

I’m going to go and eat some animals in retribution.

While I’m not going to go and eat any animals, the AJP is ridiculous. I just had an enjoyable read of their Facebook page and most of their supporters are either Vegetarian Bogans (they do exist it seems), Militant Vegans, believers in crap pseudoscience, or a combination of any of these. I left them a Facebook comment to this effect.

A couple of the supporters seemed like several young dickheads I’ve met on Facebook or loitering in Civic who call you “buddy” all the time and self-righteously act as if they know everything, including the solutions to all the world’s problems.

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

pepmeup said :

It is interesting to see such a large number of below the line votes for the liberal no2 candidate Nash. I guess this is due to Liberals not wanting to Vote 1 Zed..

I am a party member and Gazza supporter. I voted below the just to but Nash as first preference above Zed.

Garfield said :

Zed the Silent says it all. This is the lowest first preference vote the Liberals have achieved in the Senate for many years, and its happened at the same time that the ALP have achieved their lowest first preference vote across the nation in 100 years. There was a Taverner poll in February that showed a 3% (Seselja) to 5% (Humphries) swing to the Libs. How did that turn into a slight swing against and less than a quota on first preferences?

No idea, but it was probably personal and a direct result of the nasty preselection fight. But Lundy also saw a swing against the ALP (41% in 2010 to 34% this year), as did the Greens (23% to around 20%).

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote. The other difference is that the field was much bigger this time around. That has to have had an effect of ‘diluting’ first preference votes.

What would be really interesting is to know where the below-the-line votes end up after the minor parties get excluded. Some people use their first preference as a protest vote (it also makes sure no one gets any money for your vote if you pick a small enough party). For those people, the ‘no 1’ is irrelevant: it is the relative order of the big three that really tells you something.

pajs said :

Zed did pop up today to issue a Tweet congratulating Clonakill’a Tim Kirk on winning the Winemaker of the Year award, so he’s not completely silent.

That should have been “Clonakilla’s”.

Zed did pop up today to issue a Tweet congratulating Clonakill’a Tim Kirk on winning the Winemaker of the Year award, so he’s not completely silent.

This is a real shame – it was a real chance to change the representation paradign in Canberra. Next time around Zed will be campaigning with the advantage of incumbency.

What started as a tanty over the unrelated local kangaroo cull has helped elect someone decided *not* supportive of animal justice. The backpedalling on the AJP’s Facebook page in the days after the election was something to see. There was so much anger directed at them from voters who didn’t question their above-the-line vote.

It boils down to Sheikh vs Seselja? Gawd, this really is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff.

A swing against Zed in the senate while the rest of Australia had such a strong swing towards them should send a message to the Canberra Liberals, but it probably wont.

I have said all along it was closed to mathematically impossible for the greens to win a senate spot in Canberra. They did give it a reasonable shake this time, but I think this was their best and only chance. Next election the Canberra libs may have replaced Zed, in the fashion he saw fit for Gary. Or Canberrans will have forgotten what happened this time around. It is interesting to see such a large number of below the line votes for the liberal no2 candidate Nash. I guess this is due to Liberals not wanting to Vote 1 Zed.

It should be mentioned that the liberals ran a very poor campaign this time and seemed not to really put much effort in. Such a close result for the second spot is the result. I would imagine that all those involved in this poor effort will have moved on before the next election.

I’m going to go and eat some animals in retribution.

chewy14 said :

farout said :

“Zed Seselja has not achieved the ‘quota’ he needed to win the seat in his own right, and instead will need to rely on preferences to win.”

Significantly less preferences than Simon would have relied on, had he scraped over the line.
The Libs got more first preference votes than the Greens.

Yeah Simon relying on Katter and PUP preferences would have been heaps better than Zed relying on AJP. Haha.

So who is willing to bet that he steps back into his GetUp role within days?

Zed the Silent says it all. This is the lowest first preference vote the Liberals have achieved in the Senate for many years, and its happened at the same time that the ALP have achieved their lowest first preference vote across the nation in 100 years. There was a Taverner poll in February that showed a 3% (Seselja) to 5% (Humphries) swing to the Libs. How did that turn into a slight swing against and less than a quota on first preferences?

farout said :

“Zed Seselja has not achieved the ‘quota’ he needed to win the seat in his own right, and instead will need to rely on preferences to win.”

Significantly less preferences than Simon would have relied on, had he scraped over the line.
The Libs got more first preference votes than the Greens.

Yeah Simon relying on Katter and PUP preferences would have been heaps better than Zed relying on AJP. Haha.

“Zed Seselja has not achieved the ‘quota’ he needed to win the seat in his own right, and instead will need to rely on preferences to win.”

Significantly less preferences than Simon would have relied on, had he scraped over the line.
The Libs got more first preference votes than the Greens.