23% counted, 49 votes in the final Molonglo seat

Fine by me, JB.

How about you both take a deep breath and leave each other alone?

Oh, please …. Poor hard done by you. I’m not running the FUD thing – you are.

Granny said :

Crap! You’ve been pushing this barrow ever since you first posted.

What barrow?! If you’re going to jump on me every time I post something, Granny, I’ll just keep my questions and opinions to myself – or is that what you want? And I thought this was a place for discussion of the election regardless of one’s views…. Apparently not!

Crap! You’ve been pushing this barrow ever since you first posted.

Granny said :

I would just like to know your personal interest. If all hold the same views, why single out just the one?

I didn’t single anyone out. I was replying to (and quoted) what Deadmandrinking said about Giulia Jones, and I think we’ve all been discussing her because the subject of this post is the seventh Molonglo seat which she’s tipped to win. What’s wrong with that? Maybe you should have a go at some of the people who’ve been calling her a “crazy fundo” and things like that – why are YOU singling ME out, Granny? I mentioned Zed and Vicki Dunne and Alistair Coe because that’s what I’ve heard (and read right here on the RiotACT). I don’t know if they all hold the same views – that’s why I said “if all her counterparts agree with her”. If you know more, please enlighten me so I can stop speculating!

As for my personal interest, I’m just curious about what sort of government we’ll end up with. I don’t belong to any party, and I didn’t vote for any of those in the running for the seventh seat.

PM said :

Even Phred’s a moderate Liberal? I thought all he wanted were his guns back 🙂

Phred had guns?

That is not good news.

Even Phred’s a moderate Liberal? I thought all he wanted were his guns back 🙂

They’re in the Pot Belly.

“where on earth did all the moderate Liberals go?”

They’re around. Ask Jakez!

Paging, Jakez ….

*chuckle*

Granny said :

I would just like to know your personal interest. If all hold the same views, why single out just the one?

Good question Granny. I think because it intially started with a Le Couteur vs Jones discussion for the seventh seat in Molonglo and it snowballed from there.

I’m not going to deny that I think they’re all crazy fundos. Like someone already asked, where on earth did all the moderate Liberals go?

politikos said :

Deadmandrinking said :

That only makes sense if the other MLA’s don’t hold the same views as Giulia. I gather that Zed and Vicki Dunne are both Catholic… and that Alistair Coe is on the right-wing Christian end of things. If all her counterparts agree with her, then she won’t be over-ruled.

There’s personal views and there’s views that win votes. I don’t think many politicians see their personal views become policy. Even in the greens. A friend of my mother’s was a local Green MLA a long time ago, she had to make many compromises to her own beliefs to meet the overall party line.

I would just like to know your personal interest. If all hold the same views, why single out just the one?

Deadmandrinking said :

JB, Just because a particular politician holds extremist views (common sense can often be interpreted as extreme left wing views 😉 – hence Peter Garrett), it does not mean they will immediately see it imposed once they are elected into a seat. The party reigns over all. If Gulia immediately tried to get us all wearing locked iron underpants until we put the ring on someone’s finger, I assure you, she’d be over-ruled by the party and most likely brought into line by whatever mysterious disciplining that goes on behind the closed doors of caucus meetings. I’m pretty sure the lib’s collective mind would understand that trying to enforce extreme right-wing Christianity on people is likely to lose you votes in this country.

That only makes sense if the other MLA’s don’t hold the same views as Giulia. I gather that Zed and Vicki Dunne are both Catholic… and that Alistair Coe is on the right-wing Christian end of things. If all her counterparts agree with her, then she won’t be over-ruled.

I second PM.

Thanks, Thumper. (I think – sarcasm is hard to spot on RA)

JB, Just because a particular politician holds extremist views (common sense can often be interpreted as extreme left wing views 😉 – hence Peter Garrett), it does not mean they will immediately see it imposed once they are elected into a seat. The party reigns over all. If Gulia immediately tried to get us all wearing locked iron underpants until we put the ring on someone’s finger, I assure you, she’d be over-ruled by the party and most likely brought into line by whatever mysterious disciplining that goes on behind the closed doors of caucus meetings. I’m pretty sure the lib’s collective mind would understand that trying to enforce extreme right-wing Christianity on people is likely to lose you votes in this country.

“To qualify for the tagline something needs to be able to stand on its own without the context of the thread.”

Thanks; I was trying to make that very point 🙂

As usual, JB, your ability to skillfully navigate through the flotsam and jetsam of this site and steer us in the right direction leaves me in awe.

To qualify for the tagline something needs to be able to stand on its own without the context of the thread.

Actually being funny helps too.

TAGLINE – “TAGLINE” – comment by Maelinar October 2008

TAGLINE – Good anti-contraception christians should consider that in this they’re presenting the same argument the devil would – comment by Johnboy October 2008

TAGLINE – Giulia with a G is not really a catholic she is part of the nutter side of christianity, I am from the progressive end of the church not the cut your arm off and lets have a stoning end – comment by maryhow October 2008

Jimbo, I’m still not really understanding why you’re concerned about when the third green gets knocked out. Is it just controlling leakage within the greens? Surely any Pangello preference that was going to one of the greens will go to to any other still in.

Ok – a productive morning has been spent doing some analysis. Now a big caveat here is that the interim distribution of preferences is still too early for my projections to be reliable, but for fun here they are:

1)On the current preference flows the greens will end up with 1.743 quotas and the Libs 2.788 – indicating that the final seat is down to 0.045 quotas, roughly 490 votes. this also means that the winner of the final seat will not actually get a quota.

2)At an individual level the fate of Caroline Le Couteur is determined by whether or not Elena stays ahead of Pangallo. If she doesn’t – most likely – then Caroline ends up on 0.653 quotas -7115 votes. If she does stay ahead of Pangallo – less likely – then Caroline ends up on 0.772 quotas – 8407 votes which is probably enough to outlast Jones

3) I can’t do a remotely reliable projection of where Jones ends up on this distribution as Hanson is neither elected nor excluded. A very rough figure is 0.424 quotas -4616 votes- which is obviously wrong but perhaps indicates she’s behind

What’s interesting about the current interim distribution of preferences is that Jones and Hanson are both elected, despite neither quite making it to a quota (oh, and also that Elena Kirschbaum has overtaken Caroline Le Couteur to be the second placed Green).

politikos said :

maryhow said :

I don’t know which website you are lookiung at but here is the latest

Hanson 1000 ahead of Jones.

I’m looking at the Canberra Times and the AEC’s interim distribution of preferences tables. What you’re looking at is only first preferences, I believe.

That’s true, but that interim distribution of preferences still greatly under represents Hanson’s first preference lead.

The question is will other voters in booths that had high Hanson first preferences be more likely to preference him over Jones or will she continue to grab a larger slice of the later prefs. If she can maintain the level she’s currently getting then they can split the 1.5 quotas evenly and keep ahead of the second green, if not she’s toast.

You talking about nasty tricks makes me laugh. Take a look in the mirror.

whistle said :

Looks like Corbell is in trouble. In the Tuesday night count he was over 400 votes clear of the second Green 2692 v 2271.

Last night’s count with several more suburbs added has that gap closing in half to 3678 v 3475. Never a good look when a Minister loses their seat. I thought Barr might be the one most at risk, but Corbell doesn’t have many fans either.

Ha, thanks for the token Liberal point of view. Firstly he’s still ahead of both the remaining Libs in the race, secondly the ALP is currenly under represeneted by 1.5% compared to the full poll, so when you factor these in that’s another 500 votes in the labor column.

Granny said :

maryhow said :

… Attilia the Hun was more moderate.

Now there’s a sane, rational and demonstrably proven statement from a well-balanced individual.

Granny, maybe you should ask some of her fellow candidates what they think of her and waht nasty little tricks she came up with during the campaign.

maryhow said :

I don’t know which website you are lookiung at but here is the latest

Hanson 1000 ahead of Jones.

I’m looking at the Canberra Times and the AEC’s interim distribution of preferences tables. What you’re looking at is only first preferences, I believe.

johnboy said :

Maryhow, there are a awful lot of Catholics in this town.

Yes there are johnboy and I am one of them. I am from the progressive end of the church not the cut your arm off and lets have a stoning end.

Giulia with a G is not really a catholic she is part of the nutter side of christianity, you know who they are and what they stand for.

maryhow said :

… Attilia the Hun was more moderate.

Now there’s a sane, rational and demonstrably proven statement from a well-balanced individual.

johnboy said :

There’s an ever growing arse-hat branch of the Liberal party that, having driven the human beings out of their own organisation are trying to apply the same rules to every one else.

I don’t claim to know exactly what you’re talking about, Johnboy, but I do think that candidates need to be consistent in their beliefs/behaviour. It’s difficult to respect someone’s Christian beliefs about abortion, for example, if they’re acting in a very unchristian manner to their party colleagues, etc..

maryhow said :

I don’t know which website you are lookiung at but here is the latest

Hanson 1000 ahead of Jones.

Let me say that I warned all of you about Jones in the leadup to the election.

She is a right wing nutter, Attilia the Hun was more moderate.

Just shows how stupid Canberra people are when they vote for a slogan Giulia with a G.

What will they make her a minister of or shadow minister of.

Minister for Purity, no sex before marriage, anti abortion, no choice for women, no choice to die, no ru486, anti wowsers. (Molonglo you idiots)

Alistair Coe another slogan – Go for Coe or my version (How far right can you go)

These nutters need to be careful or they will destroy the liberal party and next time they will win 4 seats.

Where are the Moderates within the liberal party.

You hit the nail on the head. did they hide the moderates so they could push the right wing nutters.

I bet there will be heads on the chopping block at Liberal Party HQ.

Who should go?(Jonathon Reynolds could help us here)

Whoever ran the campaign. All of them, they could not run a pissup in a Brewery. At least when Gary Kent (not that I like the little fellow)was President his campaigns didn’t go backwards with a Government on the nose.

The Liberal Party needs a clean out from the Top down and if they don’t do it, they are in the wilderness for years.

Maryhow, there are a awful lot of Catholics in this town.

I don’t know which website you are lookiung at but here is the latest

Hanson 1000 ahead of Jones.

Let me say that I warned all of you about Jones in the leadup to the election.

She is a right wing nutter, Attilia the Hun was more moderate.

Just shows how stupid Canberra people are when they vote for a slogan Giulia with a G.

What will they make her a minister of or shadow minister of.

Minister for Purity, no sex before marriage, anti abortion, no choice for women, no choice to die, no ru486, anti wowsers. (Molonglo you idiots)

Alistair Coe another slogan – Go for Coe or my version (How far right can you go)

These nutters need to be careful or they will destroy the liberal party and next time they will win 4 seats.

Where are the Moderates within the liberal party.

Candidate Votes Percent Quotas
A Pangallo Independents
LOMBARDO, Luciano 337 0.4% 0.0
PANGALLO, Frank 3494 4.0% 0.3
THOMPSON, Phil 394 0.5% 0.0
Group Total 4225 4.9% 0.4
B Australian Labor Party
BARR, Andrew 5419 6.2% 0.5
BATES, Eleanor 1617 1.9% 0.1
CORBELL, Simon 4503 5.2% 0.4
CROSSMAN, Louise 1368 1.6% 0.1
GALLAGHER, Katy 13708 15.8% 1.3
HETTINGER, Mike 2779 3.2% 0.3
MATHEWS, David 2029 2.3% 0.2
Group Total 31423 36.1% 2.9
C Community Alliance
HOPPER, Alvin 133 0.2% 0.0
SADDLER, Owen 155 0.2% 0.0
SCHERGER, Nancy-Louise 131 0.2% 0.0
VOGT, Norvan 577 0.7% 0.1
Group Total 996 1.1% 0.1
D Richard Mulcahy Canberra Party
ALLEN, Joanne 134 0.2% 0.0
MULCAHY, Richard 2047 2.4% 0.2
O’NEILL, Ben 142 0.2% 0.0
Group Total 2323 2.7% 0.2
E Australian Motorist Party
CUMBERS, David 482 0.6% 0.0
EVANS, Kim 349 0.4% 0.0
GREEN, Stuart 371 0.4% 0.0
LABURN, Angus 242 0.3% 0.0
O’NEIL, Darren 308 0.4% 0.0
ROWLAND, Stephen 322 0.4% 0.0
SEDDON, Anthony 356 0.4% 0.0
Group Total 2430 2.8% 0.2
F Liberal Democratic Party
McALARY, David 403 0.5% 0.0
PINKERTON, David 378 0.4% 0.0
Group Total 781 0.9% 0.1
G The Greens
KIRSCHBAUM, Elena 3136 3.6% 0.3
Le COUTEUR, Caroline 3251 3.7% 0.3
RATTENBURY, Shane 9434 10.8% 0.9
Group Total 15821 18.2% 1.5
H Canberra Liberals
BARNIER, Belinda 1229 1.4% 0.1
BURKE, Jacqui 1509 1.7% 0.1
HANSON, Jeremy 3219 3.7% 0.3
JONES, Giulia 2229 2.6% 0.2
KENT, Gary 1652 1.9% 0.2
SESELJA, Zed 16521 19.0% 1.5
WHITE, Clinton 1038 1.2% 0.1
Group Total 27397 31.5% 2.5
Ungrouped
CROSS, Helen 1111 1.3% 0.1
FARRELL, Tony 173 0.2% 0.0
TANNAHILL, Greg 198 0.2% 0.0
TARANTO, Kerri 152 0.2% 0.0
Group Total 1634 1.9% 0.2
Formal Votes 87030 96.8%
Informal Votes 2901 3.2%
Total Votes 89931 86.7%
Quota 10879
Electorate Enrolment 103719

Now the CT is saying Elena Kirschbaum is ahead of Caroline Le Couteur, as is Giulia Jones of Jeremy Hanson. Must admit I’m totally confused… and that I’m not very impressed with my first ever experience of Hare-Clark.

No look I’m sorry.

There’s an ever growing arse-hat branch of the Liberal party that, having driven the human beings out of their own organisation are trying to apply the same rules to every one else.

These are the likes of Erica Betz in the Senate squealing about anti-liberal bias whenever the ABC gets an audience of normal community members on TV.

Being mad crazy and wrong (not referring to anyone in particular) might mean you’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to anyone’s respect for it.

Good anti-contraception christians should consider that in this they’re presenting the same argument the devil would.

ns said :

a pity they can’t afford me the same respect.

If you want something sometimes you have to give. Especially to those to which it is hardest to give

Looks like Corbell is in trouble. In the Tuesday night count he was over 400 votes clear of the second Green 2692 v 2271.

Last night’s count with several more suburbs added has that gap closing in half to 3678 v 3475. Never a good look when a Minister loses their seat. I thought Barr might be the one most at risk, but Corbell doesn’t have many fans either.

Areaman – Hanson should stay ahead of Jones for the rest of the count now. I don’t mean on primaries, i mean at step 103, we’re not there yet, but I assume well get there in the next day or two.

thetruth let’s take abortion out of the equation for now. What about her view’s on contraception? How can you seriously respect someone in this day and age being anti-contraception?

This is the problem with these crazy fundos. The reality is if we educated people about contraception and everyone used contraceptives responsibly, you wouldn’t have a need for abortions. Sure maybe it wouldn’t eliminate abortions 100%, but it would go a long way towards reducing them. But they don’t want to use contraceptives either.

And respecting Giulia’s opposing views does not mean I can’t still call her a crazy fundo. I think all fundos are crazy and it’s my right to call them that. Atleast I respect the nutters so that they are able to choose not to use contraceptions or have abortions. It’s a pity they can’t afford me the same respect.

Primal said :

Whatever happened to the wacky notion that parliamentarians should represent the opinion of the electorate rather than their own personal opinion?

…I know, I know. Crazy talk. I’ll be quiet now.

We elect them to be our representative. Our electing them is our expression of opinion.

If we had a method of determining the ‘electorates’ opinion on every matter, we wouldn’t need representatives anyway.

…if you go for that ‘tyranny of the majority’ thing anyway.

I respect other people’s opinions of what to do with their own bodies – their body – their Choice.

I don’t want Guilia telling me what to do with mine.

Aeek said :

thetruth: big difference, RTLs tend to say that others should conform to their ideals.
POs don’t go around saying that everyone should abort.

But if you deride everyone as a crazy fundemental you too have become a crazy fundemental. Pro-choice mean you MUST respect someone elses opposing view – or else you are just pro-abortion.

Areaman – Hanson should stay ahead of Jones for the rest of the count now. At the critical point I make it Pangallo 60 ahead of Le Couteur. If both Le Couteur and Kirshbaum get ahead of Pangallo,things will get very interesting indeed – remembering that their best booths are yet to come.

I’ll do a prefs calculation tomorrow.

thetruth: big difference, RTLs tend to say that others should conform to their ideals.
POs don’t go around saying that everyone should abort.

Whatever happened to the wacky notion that parliamentarians should represent the opinion of the electorate rather than their own personal opinion?

…I know, I know. Crazy talk. I’ll be quiet now.

So with the new update the liberal margin at the key point is up to about 100 votes, but that’s with the Lib being Hanson rather than Jones. Never the less I’m thinking it’s more likely to be a Liberal win than I did yesterday because they seems to be splitting the vote more evenly at the all important step 103. It’s closer to one lib on .8 of a quota and one on .7 rather than the .9 and .6 they had yesterday. Hanson’s big win on the night hasn’t fully come through yet so when it does that may push the ratio back up again.

areaman said :

But the RiotACT is about discussion and opinion, Right to Life isn’t. It’s about one thing, forcing your views on to others.

A fundamentalist is somone that has a deep and total commitment to —- you can be a pro-abortion fundementalist as much as a RtL. By calling some one “crazy or nutter” for holding a certain view denies them the right to a legimate point of view.

The subject matter is vexed and should always be debated. Folks from both sides should defend their views on the arguement not by name calling or violence.

I am sick an tired for having these types of debates which turn into tribal football games rather than intelligent people having a robust debate about hard moral issues.

johnboy said :

Doesn’t work that way, especially with smaller parties.

Preferences are only allocated based on how each voter numbered their ballot.

True, because i numbered all and put Patton 2nd last, only ahead of Stanhope.

Trouble with celebrities even D list ones, you have people who like you and people who dislike you enough to goto the trouble of number 26 odd boxes just to make a point.

johnboy: Count 89 is where the relevant action is (from the AEC’s table 2) – at this point one of Caroline Le Couteur (1270), Frank Pangallo (1254) and Elena Kirschbaum (1221) are next to be eliminated, but it’s a pretty close run thing.

Haha, I hope no one I know is reading this because I have been using the term “crazy fundos” for years.

Being nice certainly isn’t a qualification to be a good MLA. I should add that I campaigned next to Giulia too, and she seemed nice to me as well but so what? Doesn’t make her any less a fundo with weird beliefs.

I have to say though that I didn’t know she didn’t believe in contraception either. She’s crazier than I thought. Not supporting contraception in this day and age is simply irresponsible and just criminally stupid. It’s a good thing this isn’t a Federal election or next thing you know she’d be one of those pollies lobbying to limit aid funding to organisations that teach family planning (which is desperately needed in developing countries).

Reminds me of Palin. There’s a thought. We have our own Sarah Palin now if she gets up. *shudder*

my opinion on all this is pretty simple; guilia was quite open throughout the campaign about her beliefs and she is still likely to be elected; which suggests to me that enough people either didn’t care or agreed with theses beleifs meaning she has as much right to press these views as any other candidate who got elected on the back of more progressive opinions. that said this is canberra and she wont get elected twice if she pushes that particular envelope very far.

to be honest i wont be devastated if she doesn’t get up, not because of her beliefs but because of the way she conducted herself through out the campaign, but still the relationship between her and another liberal MLA elect would be entertaining to watch for the next 4 years.

(oh and trying to read results of so little of the vote is pointless, you could gut a goat, look at the entrails and get more detail)

He was the best. Here’s another one, relevant to this discussion even…

“You know, and even amongst my friends – we’re all highly intelligent – they’re totally divided on the issue of abortion. Totally divided. Some of my friends think these pro-life people are just annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil f***s. How are we gonna have a consensus? I’m torn. I try and take the broad view and think of them as evil, annoying f***s.”

Dammit. I didn’t think it’d be that quick!

Yeah, 3-post nutbag, ha ha. It’s almost as funny as offal.

’ve never clicked with a comedian more than I have Bill Hicks.

‘I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your f-kin’ mouth.’

‘I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is f-king IMPOSSIBLE. “Hey, buddy!” “Hey, what?” “Ummmmmmm….” End of argument.’

‘I don’t mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that’s how it comes out.’

‘We all pay for life with death, so everything in between should be free.’

And many many more…

Sorry mods, ignore the last one, I fixed it.

jakez said :

None of these issues rather. Jake talk special talk.

I’ve never clicked with a comedian more than I have Bill Hicks.

‘I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your f-kin’ mouth.’

‘I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking IMPOSSIBLE. “Hey, buddy!” “Hey, what?” “Ummmmmmm….” End of argument.’

‘I don’t mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that’s how it comes out.’

‘We all pay for life with death, so everything in between should be free.’

And many many more…

None of these issues rather. Jake talk special talk.

> At this stage I’d just like to point out, that if you all listened to me and embraced a pluralistic and tolerant liberal society, we could all do what we wanted as long as we didn’t aggress against another.

Ahhh, what a world that would be! I could quote Hicks again here: “What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I f**k, what I take into my body – as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?”

At this stage I’d just like to point out, that if you all listened to me and embraced a pluralistic and tolerant liberal society, we could all do what we wanted as long as we didn’t aggress against another. Known of these issues would be a problem as people would be free to persuade, but not to force.

Also, Bill Hicks rules. Justbands, your stock just went up in my book.

jimbocool said :

PM, it’s not a matter of bringing in laws. Imagine if you will that the Libs are in Government and Mrs Jones is Health Minister. Across her desk comes the latest funding submission from the AIDS Action Council – seeking funds for safe sex programs, distributing condoms, providing condoms and safe sex gear to Canberra’s brothels and such – do you really think she is going to put aside her beliefs that contraception is evil and approve the funding?

She may take the stance of the party overall into account. Do you really think Peter Garrett believes in half the sh-t he does?

I take the attitude that these issues are a matter of conscience. After all, I don’t think any party expects their members to “toe the line” on these sort of issues. I suppose if you feel strongly about it, then you shouldn’t vote for someone who has views that oppose your own. Whether you like it or not, at least 2000 or so people in Molonglo have voted for Giulia Jones and whatever she stands for, and that has to be respected… though whether that tiny percentage should earn her a seat is another matter (on which I have already commented earlier).

jimbcool, that would depend on the person.

I, for one, am personally against abortion (that is, if it was my decision I’d not be able to go through with it myself), but I also believe government shouldn’t make it criminal, and I don’t judge others on their personal beliefs.

If I was the Minister in your scenario, I’d make a decision based on a recommendation by the public service or in line with guiidelines which I’d have prepared earlier to make myself publicly accountable ie evidence-based. As a public servant I have to make evidence-based, not personal, decisions all the time.

What type of Minister would Mrs Jones be? I have no bloody idea. I’m happy for her to be challenged on what type of Minister or MLA she’d be, but I don’t think we should blindly accept that she’s a crazy fundo (at least not at this stage).

Do you believe in an anarchist society? No.

What is the difference between the things that you would like to see Government enforce on us and the things that Giulia wants to? That’s way too big a question to be answered in this forum I reckon.

If it is because she (supposedly) has come to her position from faith, would it be different if a person through rational examination, came to the position that abortion was murder? Yes, it would be different. That doesn’t mean to say I’d agree, but I’d at least give some time to their arguments. I have very little time for the “this is what god would want” argument….which is about as flawed as an argument can get. Even if a god did exist, who would we be then to decide what his/her/it’s views are on any given issue?

What is the difference between the things that you would like to see Government enforce on us and the things that Giulia wants to?

Apart from the fact that the vast majority of the ACT disagrees, and that it come from her belife that “Jesus is Magic”?

PM, it’s not a matter of bringing in laws. Imagine if you will that the Libs are in Government and Mrs Jones is Health Minister. Across her desk comes the latest funding submission from the AIDS Action Council – seeking funds for safe sex programs, distributing condoms, providing condoms and safe sex gear to Canberra’s brothels and such – do you really think she is going to put aside her beliefs that contraception is evil and approve the funding?

justbands said :

> It’s not that she’s true to her faith it’s that she wants to force it on everyone else (see abortion, contraception, right to die and funding of faith based eduction) that’s the problem.

Exactly.

Do you believe in an anarchist society?

What is the difference between the things that you would like to see Government enforce on us and the things that Giulia wants to?

If it is because she (supposedly) has come to her position from faith, would it be different if a person through rational examination, came to the position that abortion was murder?

Are you still a fundo if you are aware that abortion is murder, but are ok with that because it represents a sensible choice by the person who is ultimately responsible for making the decisions for that unborn child – and presumably will be engaging in the full-time care of aforementioned child ?

I love the diversity of opinion. All I’m saying is that until Mrs Jones actually attempts or promises to bring in laws to fit her personal views on these subjects we can’t really accuse her of much apart from having an opinion.

“If they are so pro-life, why aren’t they out there picketing cemetaries?” – Hehe, couldn’t resist posting that Bill Hicks quote.

soc84 said :

She’s just passionately pro-life.

Or to put it more accurately, she’s for forced-birth.

I think it’s a reasonable view to hold that abortion is bad – I happen to think that it’s not but I respect the right of people to hold a differing view. Contraception is a different matter – there are significant public health issues raised by denying access to contraception, particularly condoms. While people are entitled to hold loopy views such as “condoms are dangerous”, I’d rather people with those views not be in charge of our local public health programs. No doubt Mrs Jones is also opposed to IVF, Zed certainly is, – so I’d rather not have her near any public health programs that fund or provide access to IVF either.

There are any number of public services in the ACT that I’d rather not have crazy fundos in charge of, so if one is standing for public office it is actually completely fair to challenge her over ‘her faith’.

But the RiotACT is about discussion and opinion, Right to Life isn’t. It’s about one thing, forcing your views on to others.

> Yeah, well I’m a Premium Member of the RiotACT and I don’t agree with half the sh!t that’s posted here…

Sorry PM, you’ve lost me?

Yeah, well I’m a Premium Member of the RiotACT and I don’t agree with half the sh!t that’s posted here…

Where have we heard she wants to be elected just so the ACT Government can impose her views on everyone?

I could be mistaken but I thought she was a member of RtL, who are all about putting pressure on the government to re-criminalise abortion (for example).

> OK – can we agree that IF she seeks to impose all her personal views on the electorate after she’s elected that she’s a crazy fundo, but until then she’s merely a fundo?

Hehe, you’re asking the wrong person PM. My personal opinion is that all religious people are crazy, just to varying extents. If she’s really “true to her faith”, then of course she’ll try to impose her views on the rest of us..it’s what they do.

OK – can we agree that IF she seeks to impose all her personal views on the electorate after she’s elected that she’s a crazy fundo, but until then she’s merely a fundo?

> Sorry… Where have we heard she wants to be elected just so the ACT Government can impose her views on everyone? Isn’t that a bit of a leap at this stage?

That’s the problem with these nutters PM, they never seem content to simply have their own views. They have some intrinsic need to enforce those views on everyone else via legislation. I find crazy fundos (my new favourite term) quite frightening personally.

Agree that it takes more than being nice to be a good MLA. I simply reckon she’s nice and not crazy.

“It’s not that she’s true to her faith it’s that she wants to force it on everyone else (see abortion, contraception, right to die and funding of faith based eduction) that’s the problem.”

Sorry… Where have we heard she wants to be elected just so the ACT Government can impose her views on everyone? Isn’t that a bit of a leap at this stage?

> It’s not that she’s true to her faith it’s that she wants to force it on everyone else (see abortion, contraception, right to die and funding of faith based eduction) that’s the problem.

Exactly.

> I’d say a position that abortion is murder is fundamentalist, but not necessarily crazy

Fundamentalist = crazy.

While being a “nice person” is great, and you’re right she’s very personable, it’s not what I want or need from my elected representatives.

She shouldn’t be criticised so personally for being true to her faith

It’s not that she’s true to her faith it’s that she wants to force it on everyone else (see abortion, contraception, right to die and funding of faith based eduction) that’s the problem.

I’d say a position that abortion is murder is fundamentalist, but not necessarily crazy.

Granny said :

Why don’t you find out? You’re the one with the obsession.

Because I don’t have an obsession, perhaps? Because I’ve done an internet search on both Le Couteur and Jones in the interests of knowing a bit more about the possible seventh MLA and I don’t intend to do any more than that? I didn’t realise that taking an interest in our candidates constituted obsession – gosh, all of us on RiotACT must be obsessed then!

I guess we’ll all find out a lot more when the result is finalised….

> and short lifespan these days. contraception doesn’t just prevent babies, it stops the clap…

She’s a happily married conservative though (which usually means her hubby spends a lot of money at some of the less reputable local establishments).

Note: That’s a joke, I’m not accusing her husband of anything.

I’ve met Mrs Jones. Whilst I’m not 100% in agreement with the views she supposedly holds on, for example, contraception, etc, I think she’s a really nice person. She shouldn’t be criticised so personally for being true to her faith. Besides, there are more important matters for the ACT to deal with.

justbands said :

> abortion is murder and doesn’t believe in things like contraception doesn’t make her crazy

I’ve never met her, although from what you’ve just said…she’s the very definition of a crazy fundo. Doesn’t *believe* in contraception? Abortion is murder? Absolute nutter.

and short lifespan these days. contraception doesn’t just prevent babies, it stops the clap…

For example???

I can’t remember the details, it’s been a while. I just remember being appalled (though less surprised when I found out who she worked for). A more correct sentence would have been

“But plenty of her other beliefs freaked me out too.”

Why don’t you find out? You’re the one with the obsession.

Granny said :

I’m sorry, I missed where the MLA course was being advertised at uni … or would that be TAFE?

Wouldn’t be a bad idea! But, seriously, community involvement rates with me, as does some sort of professional experience. What is Jones’s experience of her local community apart from her campaigning?

areaman said :

But plenty of her other beliefs freak me out too.

For example???

I’m sorry, I missed where the MLA course was being advertised at uni … or would that be TAFE?

“She’s just passionately(Crazy) pro-life(Fundo)“

Tom-may-toe, tom-mart-toe

“lots of people think this!”

Not so much in the ACT.

But plenty of her other beliefs freak me out too.

Granny said :

What’s wrong with being a wife and a mother? Are you saying that this makes a woman less intelligent than another candidate? Less able to represent a community?

Nothing wrong at all, Granny! I’m a wife and mother too. But being intelligent or representative doesn’t necessarily give one the experience and skills required to govern the ACT. I’d never go for a job and expect to be given it on the basis of being a wife and mother. Even something I’m an expert in – rearing children – requires a degree/certificate. All I’m pointing out is that Le Couteur (who’s also a woman and a mother) has a heck of a lot more experience in the Canberra community and business world.

> abortion is murder and doesn’t believe in things like contraception doesn’t make her crazy

I’ve never met her, although from what you’ve just said…she’s the very definition of a crazy fundo. Doesn’t *believe* in contraception? Abortion is murder? Absolute nutter.

politikos said :

Soolin said :

Your original question… glad you asked 🙂 I’d say a big NO! Rather the fruitcake than the crazy fundo any day.

I think Jones would make a much better MLA. She doesn’t strike me a a crazy fundo.

Don’t know about the “crazy fundo” claim, but would you really prefer someone who’s only credentials are that she’s a wife and mother who’s recently moved to Canberra – at least, that’s all she’s telling us in her ads, website and Canberra Libs page – to someone who was born here, is a director of Australian Ethical Investment, and has been very involved in the community?

I’d prefer the candidate that most closely aligns with my beliefs…but I’m old fashioned like that.

areaman said :

I know her personally and she is indeed a “crazy fundo”. The only thing we can be glad for is that it’s not her husband Bernard, who’s even worse.

I know her too and she’s not a crazy fundo. Just because she believes abortion is murder and doesn’t believe in things like contraception doesn’t make her crazy – lots of people think this! She’s just passionately pro-life.

…yeah probably should remember to add the name of the criterion BEFORE I press post.

…those who favour ‘The Condorcet criterion’ make. I’m not sure if there is a multi member system that satisfies it though.

I know her personally and she is indeed a “crazy fundo”. The only thing we can be glad for is that it’s not her husband Bernard, who’s even worse.

What’s wrong with being a wife and a mother? Are you saying that this makes a woman less intelligent than another candidate? Less able to represent a community?

fhakk said :

Here’s a thing though. It’s not about how many votes you receive from the flow-through of preferences, but when the preferences get redistributed. Looking at Table 2 in Molonglo, it shows that Corbell’s prefernces are distributed after Le Couteur’s, which then allows Giulia Jones to get seat number 6. If it was the other way around, with Corbell’s votes being distributed beforehand, then I’m sure the Greens would pick up more votes.

Indeed, this is the point that those who favour

As for the complaints against Hare-Clark, I don’t think someone should get in on eg, 30% of the vote when 70% preferred two other candidates to the original.

As for above quote preference flows, that is to stop people who have voted for someone already with a quote, from having wasted their vote. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. It’s not like they get 2 full votes for the price of one.

Soolin said :

Your original question… glad you asked 🙂 I’d say a big NO! Rather the fruitcake than the crazy fundo any day.

I think Jones would make a much better MLA. She doesn’t strike me a a crazy fundo.

Don’t know about the “crazy fundo” claim, but would you really prefer someone who’s only credentials are that she’s a wife and mother who’s recently moved to Canberra – at least, that’s all she’s telling us in her ads, website and Canberra Libs page – to someone who was born here, is a director of Australian Ethical Investment, and has been very involved in the community?

If it was the other way around, with Corbell’s votes being distributed beforehand, then I’m sure the Greens would pick up more votes.

It’s possible, Corbell’s excess would be so small as to not make a big difference, but it looks so close that a small bump might be all that’s needed.

Actually Phil Green the Electoral Commissioner seemed to be saying the total opposite – ie: Green voters are younger and therefore much more likely to use electronic prepoll, while Lib voters are older and more of them prefer a paper ballot.

I’m guessing this was before the election as normally that is the case. But on saturday we had the results from the prepoll and electronic and that had the greens 1% less, the ALP 1.5% less and the Libs 2.5% more than the total the full electorate (from memory, you can check it by looking by polling place on the ACTEC website).

Here’s a thing though. It’s not about how many votes you receive from the flow-through of preferences, but when the preferences get redistributed. Looking at Table 2 in Molonglo, it shows that Corbell’s prefernces are distributed after Le Couteur’s, which then allows Giulia Jones to get seat number 6. If it was the other way around, with Corbell’s votes being distributed beforehand, then I’m sure the Greens would pick up more votes.

This would all become a moot point if Le Couteur gets more votes than Jones to begin with. The Greens will have to rely on Lyneham, Turner, Watson, Civic and O’Conner (where they scored above the average), and hope this cancels out the gains made by the Libs in Gungahlin.

Soolin said :

And yet in first preferences, Le Couteur got 3251 versus Jones’s 2229. Doesn’t seem fair to me that someone who got less than 70% of another candidate’s votes should win.

But Mike Hettinger and Frank Pangallo picked up more votes than Jones as well. It’s Hare-Clark for you…

I’m not a fan of Hare-Clark. The re-use of votes that have already had their first preference elected means that some voters get their first and second preferences (and perhaps third, etc.) elected, while other voters don’t get any of their higher preferences elected. I don’t vote for either of them, but my sense of fair play feels affronted.

“pre-poll and electronic vote, which as we know over represents the Libs and under represents the Greens and the ALP”

Actually Phil Green the Electoral Commissioner seemed to be saying the total opposite – ie: Green voters are younger and therefore much more likely to use electronic prepoll, while Lib voters are older and more of them prefer a paper ballot.

Your original question… glad you asked 🙂 I’d say a big NO! Rather the fruitcake than the crazy fundo any day.

I think Jones would make a much better MLA. She doesn’t strike me a a crazy fundo.

politikos said :

Soolin said :

politikos said :

ns said :

Le Couteur however seems another loopy fruitcake. I spent a bit of time campaigning next to her and while she was very nice, she’s completely not good MLA material IMO.

But would you prefer Giulia Jones?! That’s the question.

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yet in first preferences, Le Couteur got 3251 versus Jones’s 2229. Doesn’t seem fair to me that someone who got less than 70% of another candidate’s votes should win.

Yeah but that’s life under the ACT’s electoral system. Same with that bloody Family First Steve Fielding that got in. Unfortunately none of our electoral systems are fair. We try and make them as accurate as possible, and political parties try and figures out ways of making them work that none of us could have imagined.

Your original question… glad you asked 🙂 I’d say a big NO! Rather the fruitcake than the crazy fundo any day.

And yet in first preferences, Le Couteur got 3251 versus Jones’s 2229. Doesn’t seem fair to me that someone who got less than 70% of another candidate’s votes should win.

But Mike Hettinger and Frank Pangallo picked up more votes than Jones as well. It’s Hare-Clark for you…

Soolin said :

politikos said :

ns said :

Le Couteur however seems another loopy fruitcake. I spent a bit of time campaigning next to her and while she was very nice, she’s completely not good MLA material IMO.

But would you prefer Giulia Jones?! That’s the question.

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yet in first preferences, Le Couteur got 3251 versus Jones’s 2229. Doesn’t seem fair to me that someone who got less than 70% of another candidate’s votes should win.

politikos said :

ns said :

Le Couteur however seems another loopy fruitcake. I spent a bit of time campaigning next to her and while she was very nice, she’s completely not good MLA material IMO.

But would you prefer Giulia Jones?! That’s the question.

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ns said :

Le Couteur however seems another loopy fruitcake. I spent a bit of time campaigning next to her and while she was very nice, she’s completely not good MLA material IMO.

But would you prefer Giulia Jones?! That’s the question.

Just doing a bit more maths. In the current sample (Electronic, Amaroo, Ainslie North, Aranda Abasentee) the Greens are under weight 0.73% and the Libs are overweight 1.24%. When you factor that into the crucial point where the second green is knocked out the lib is 3 votes ahead! Of course if the third lib changes from Hanson to Jones that means the maths may be different.

17.1% Lib vote in Ainslie North, v 31.4% Green vote = a very wide gap. Don’t just look at the Green vote for Ainslie in isolation or the Lib vote in Amaroo in Ainslie. By my rough calculation these two suburbs skew the preference distribution sample 94 votes in the Greens favour, above what would be representative for the whole electorate.

Except that Amaroo is a couple of hundred votes bigger than Ainslie North, so when you factor that in it goes down to about 32 votes. Of course that difference gets eaten by the much larger pre-poll and electronic vote, which as we know over represents the Libs and under represents the Greens and the ALP (at least in Molongolo).

So yes the greens haven’t closed the gap as much as it seems due to the booths they’ve done, but even if you weigh it they’ve still closed the gap a significant amount and there a lot more polling places to go.

I wasn’t looking at Ainslie North, just Ainslie which is 22.2% Lib to 24.2% Green. Nonetheless, looking at individual booths is only useful if you are trying to calculate preference flows ahead of the official count.

Typo in the above. Ignore the second occurance of “in Ainslie”

Sorry guys you’re only looking at half the stats. The issue in each suburb is the gap between Lib and Green vote versus the average for the whole electorate.

eg: 17.1% Lib vote in Ainslie North, v 31.4% Green vote = a very wide gap. Don’t just look at the Green vote for Ainslie in isolation or the Lib vote in Amaroo in Ainslie. By my rough calculation these two suburbs skew the preference distribution sample 94 votes in the Greens favour, above what would be representative for the whole electorate.

And again this year Areaman, by a considerable margin.

Looking here:

http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/states/act/actmapsindex2004.shtml

in 2004 Amaroo was more liberal than Ainslie was green.

That said if it ends up 7 all then his claim of winning could be challenged.

Don’t get me wrong – I am not Stanhope fan but…

There has been only one majority government in ACT history and then they did not get 50% and they WON;
In 2001 Stanhope won 8 seats and had 41% of the vote and they WON;
Kate Carnell / Humpharies held government for 6 years on 7 seats on between 38% and 40% and they WON.

Sorry on a historical comparison – if this transpires – Stanhope won the election, the Canberra people voted for Stanhope this time as much as they voted for Kate Carnell over two elections. The tribe has spoken, they were not unsatisfied enough with his performance to remove him from the job – just a little peeved.

For the Stanhope Govt to have “won” the election they would need either 9 seats or 50% of the vote. They are two seats short, with no prospect of an eighth.

They have less than 40% primary and after-preference would be 43% in Molonglo and only slightly above 33% in the other two seats (depending on whether they get the 5th seat they could squeak more).

The “will of the electorate” will be reflected when the Greens pick someone to side with and add their votes to another party to form a combined majority.

The good thing about this (if it occurs) is that it totally removes any lingering doubt (if only very small anyway) that the Stanhope labor government won the election and is the totally legimate government

caf said :

ns: Malcolm Mackerras had this to say before the election:

On the record for the ACT I say seven Labor, six Liberals and four for the Greens.

Pretty sure the Crimes predicted 4 greens as well.

Is this where I admit I only read RA and discounted all the predictions here cos most of them were crazy 🙂

Giulia lives in Amaroo so regardless of party allegiances I’d expect her to have a good showing there.

Hmmmm, just went and had a squiz at Le Couteur’s bio on the Greens website and she sounds ok. Maybe she’ll be a great MLA if she gets up and I’ll be proved wrong.

Then again, Foskey’s bio probably sounds ok too. I think I’ll stick to my personal impressions.

Ainslie would have to be extremely green and skew the result. Amaroo would be a little Liberal.

Aranda aint in Molonglo, but they would include Molonglo residents who voted in Aranda (and there would be a few given they are so close). Aranda is also good territory for the Greens, so exaggerates the strength of their position.

ns: Malcolm Mackerras had this to say before the election:

On the record for the ACT I say seven Labor, six Liberals and four for the Greens.

Pretty sure the Crimes predicted 4 greens as well.

If the Greens get more than 3 seats I think you can definitely call this a Black Swan.

I’m in two minds whether this is good or bad. I like the Greens and Rattenbury and Hunter are good candidates (unlike Foskey). Bresnan seems okay – I just don’t know much about her. Le Couteur however seems another loopy fruitcake. I spent a bit of time campaigning next to her and while she was very nice, she’s completely not good MLA material IMO.

I miss Kerry Tucker. I really have to wonder if the Greens would have done half as well if Foskey was on the ticket.

Caf, that means there’s a huge swag of green preferences still to be unleashed if/when the second green in the count is eliminated?

Already accounted for – Kirschbaum is 49 votes behind Le Couteur when the former is eliminated from the count.

slaxwarez said :

I believe that Mark Patron almost ran with the CAP in Ginnenderra. I wonder if he realizes that if he had of run with the CAP that he would have to won the fifth Seat on count back. I think his 6.3% would have been added to by the CAP 3.2% and he would be across the line ahead of the greens?

Doesn’t work that way, especially with smaller parties.

Preferences are only allocated based on how each voter numbered their ballot.

And you can’t say for sure that CAP alignment wouldn’t have dragged his vote down.

Aranda is not in Molonglo so it’s a mute point.

Ainslie sure, but Aranda is a reasonably ritzy suburb.

Is there a correlation between wealth and political affiliation in the ACT? Be interesting (but probably difficult) to run the numbers.

I believe that Mark Patron almost ran with the CAP in Ginnenderra. I wonder if he realizes that if he had of run with the CAP that he would have to won the fifth Seat on count back. I think his 6.3% would have been added to by the CAP 3.2% and he would be across the line ahead of the greens?

Caf, that means there’s a huge swag of green preferences still to be unleashed if/when the second green in the count is eliminated?

Or is that already accounted for in the way they’re counting?

Poll Bludger adds the information that Elena Kirschbaum (the other Green) is herself only 49 votes behind Le Couteur – so she’s certainly still in the running too.

Oh yeah – and the booth count will be very exciting as the Greens 2nd and 3rd best booths are Turner and Watson, while the Libs have two good booths in Weston and Yarralumla. However these last two aren’t so good for Jones…

I’m not sure that the CT has it right (surprise, surprise) – the count released last night is a bit deceptive because it is only the electronic votes and those votes counted and fully inputted into the computer. Jeremy Hanson is in no danger and will be elected ahead of Giulia Jones because of his significantly higher first preference vote – however the released count suggest that Jones will be elected ahead of him.

Too early to call, but it is definitely Jones vs Le Couteur for the seventh seat with nothing in it…

I still think he looks like Bobby Kennedy.

Ainslie sure, but Aranda is a reasonably ritzy suburb.

Stanhope seems to be taking a more conciliatory approach to the Greens now. And could the CT have found a less flattery image of Rattenbury?