Animal Justice Party ACT

geni_lou 27 August 2013 66

The Animal Justice Party is preferencing liberals Zed Seselja over the Greens Simon Sheikh in the Senate. They are also top of the ballot paper, which means they will get the donkey vote. If you’re voting for the libs anyway, obviously it won’t matter.

If you think you’re voting for animal welfare however, you’re actually sending your vote to the liberals, which actively oppose AJP’s policies.

AJP’s preferences, and their position on the ballot could hand Abbott the Senate – Antony Green has done a blog post on it here: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/08/senate-preferences-act.html.

AJP are deleting comments on their facebook page that highlight what a vote for them actually means.

So the moral of the story is, if you were going to vote for the libs anyway and were thinking AJP, go for it. If the thought of a liberal controlled Senate freaks you out; you think a party that will preference against their values just to spite another party they’re angry they can’t control is bonkers; and/or you think a party deleting comments letting people know where their vote will actually go is unethical, maybe think about swinging your vote another way.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
66 Responses to Animal Justice Party ACT
Filter
Order
Grail Grail 11:23 am 18 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

After further counting it appears Libs will achieve a quota in their own right. So Simon Shiekh supporters can stop hyperventilating.

Nope. Below-the-line preferences are showing that many people in Canberra who wanted to vote AJP are voting below-the-line and putting Greens ahead of Liberal.

Your scrutineers would have been able to tell you this, if you’d been paying attention.

Darkfalz Darkfalz 8:38 am 10 Sep 13

c_c™ said :

Cry wolf enough times and people won’t listen anymore. Looking at the raw AEC figures and the swing away from the Greens, I thought it was practically impossible for Sheikh to make it over the line, so I was shocked to see the CT headline.

Indeed. Record pre and postal voting in this election, which while not completely uniform obliviously, tends to favour liberals by a few percent over polling day. You can look through the results of the 2010 election and see postal voting, on those levels, tended to increase the overall result by up to half a percent swing for the LNP. I suspect Capricornia, Barton and McEwan all go to the lib’s way, or worst case 2 of 3. I think Mirabella is gone, and Palmer is in in Fairfax though.

Darkfalz Darkfalz 8:29 am 10 Sep 13

After further counting it appears Libs will achieve a quota in their own right. So Simon Shiekh supporters can stop hyperventilating.

housebound housebound 9:40 pm 09 Sep 13

Back to the OP.

If the AJP wanted to get the Greens’ attention to their issue, I would have to say it worked. It’s politics. the only things politician really notice is votes, and their fear of losing them.

c_c™ c_c™ 5:19 pm 09 Sep 13

Aeek said :

c_c™ said :

Also, I have to give a special mention to the Canberra TImes for once against screwing up their election coverage. They ran a headline saying Sheikh looked set to get the seat, followed by a headline saying Seslja in a close fight, to headline now that he’s making ground. Can these people stop jumping the gun?

That’s how the media works. Get it right first time and you only have one story.
Get it right on the tenth time and that’s ten stories. Where’s their incentive ?

Cry wolf enough times and people won’t listen anymore. Looking at the raw AEC figures and the swing away from the Greens, I thought it was practically impossible for Sheikh to make it over the line, so I was shocked to see the CT headline.

RedDogInCan RedDogInCan 3:21 pm 09 Sep 13

housebound said :

Below-the-line optional preferential would be less good as it has the potential to make the accusation ‘a vote for a mnor party is a wasted vote’ come true. The 2008 ACT election is a good example of how things can go wrong.

I would prefer that my vote didn’t count rather than go to someone I do not support. The vote should really be ‘pick X number of candidates from this list’ and the X with the most votes get a spot.

Woody Mann-Caruso Woody Mann-Caruso 12:59 pm 09 Sep 13

Fair call my spelling and grammar are terrible. I’ve managed to do ok do far, but truthfully I am trying to improve by reading and writing more.

Good on you pepmeup.

Proud of yourself, Jono? Privilege is awesome when it happens to you, right?

Robertson Robertson 12:37 pm 09 Sep 13

Roundhead89 said :

The Senate voting system urgently needs reform to lock fringe micro-parties out. It is a disgrace that they can clog up the senate and frustrate an elected government. In NSW a party was actually able to use the name of not one but two other parties (Liberal Democrats), hijack the vote, be placed at the top of a ballot paper with 110 candidates and be elected.

What a disgrace.

If only the stupid vote could be 100% directed by Murdoch in favour of whoever is his lackey-of-the-day, without pesky interference from anybody else who devises a means of attracting the stupids.

Darkfalz Darkfalz 12:36 pm 09 Sep 13

Robertson said :

I think Darkfalz’s understanding of politics is hopelessly ill-informed and I think he clings to a nice little black/white view of things because he doesn’t have the brains to assess it properly.

…and that’s why we end up with the likes of Abbott running the country: too many morons voting.

I hope you and the Labor party hold on to this belief. It will ensure a very long stint in opposition.

Aeek Aeek 11:27 am 09 Sep 13

c_c™ said :

Also, I have to give a special mention to the Canberra TImes for once against screwing up their election coverage. They ran a headline saying Sheikh looked set to get the seat, followed by a headline saying Seslja in a close fight, to headline now that he’s making ground. Can these people stop jumping the gun?

That’s how the media works. Get it right first time and you only have one story.
Get it right on the tenth time and that’s ten stories. Where’s their incentive ?

Sandman Sandman 11:10 am 09 Sep 13

chewy14 said :

A_Cog said :

chewy14 said :

So what’s the issue?

If you’re too lazy to find out what a party actually stands for and who they’re preferencing then you get what you deserve.

The issue is that parties such as the AJP are trading on misrepresenting what they stand for, and are secretly set up to deliberately pervert voting. Imagine if some white supremacist group set up a party called “Free the Refugees Party” and fed preferences to the Coalition.

Ah that was my point. The Greens aren’t green, the Liberals aren’t liberal and Labor don’t support labour either. If you’re too silly to find out what they actually stand for then too bad for you.

But it’s not too bad for you (you being the lazy person not realizing what they’re voting for). It’s too bad for the rest of us. If people are too silly to put in the effort to find out what they’re voting for then they’re probably too ignorant to care when it’s all over.
It’s trickery, plain and simple. It’s like telling the retarded kid at school that you’ll give him your special pet rock if he gives you his LCM bars every day.

caf caf 10:05 am 09 Sep 13

Roundhead89 said :

In a political forum online I brought up the issue of the Liberal Democrats saying that the Electoral Act forbids the registration of names which contain the names of other parties, and I asked how the name slipped thru. Someone replied that the other parties needed to object to another party name to get a complaint heard and upheld. Apparently the Liberal Party and Australian Democrats didn’t say anything and as a result the Liberal Democrats were able to stand under that name and as a result now have a senator in NSW.

…and of course there is the similar case of the Democratic Labour Party, which elected a Senator in Victoria at the 2010 election.

I’m somewhat sympathetic to this view – clearly the LDP benefit are attracting some voters thinking that they’re someone they’re not – but is it really fair if one group is allowed to claim exclusive use of generical political brands like “Democratic”, “Liberal”, “Labour” or “Socialist”? The LDP at least have a strong claim that their policies hew much closer to the Classical Liberal position than the Liberal Party of Australia.

Robertson Robertson 7:46 am 09 Sep 13

farout said :

Ha ha. The preferences from the AJP decided the outcome of this one.
Count 13 saw 1,869 (1.18%) votes originally from Animal Justice Party distributed to Liberal (Zed SESELJA) via preference 21.

Had these votes been directed to the Greens instead, Simon would have got 53,696 which would put him over the line.

Moral of the story: Don’t mess with the AJP!

I hope the AJP is suitably ashamed that its officers’ childish and petulant behaviour has directly resulted in one less Greens senator than we otherwise would have.

But then again, they are essentially irrational morons who probably are incapable of the self-awareness necessary to experience shame.

Roundhead89 Roundhead89 2:26 am 09 Sep 13

farout said :

Ha ha. The preferences from the AJP decided the outcome of this one.
Count 13 saw 1,869 (1.18%) votes originally from Animal Justice Party distributed to Liberal (Zed SESELJA) via preference 21.

Had these votes been directed to the Greens instead, Simon would have got 53,696 which would put him over the line.

Moral of the story: Don’t mess with the AJP!

The Senate voting system urgently needs reform to lock fringe micro-parties out. It is a disgrace that they can clog up the senate and frustrate an elected government. In NSW a party was actually able to use the name of not one but two other parties (Liberal Democrats), hijack the vote, be placed at the top of a ballot paper with 110 candidates and be elected. We need a system like the Victorian upper house with multi member electorates and a far stricter criteria for party registration and the naming of parties.

In a political forum online I brought up the issue of the Liberal Democrats saying that the Electoral Act forbids the registration of names which contain the names of other parties, and I asked how the name slipped thru. Someone replied that the other parties needed to object to another party name to get a complaint heard and upheld. Apparently the Liberal Party and Australian Democrats didn’t say anything and as a result the Liberal Democrats were able to stand under that name and as a result now have a senator in NSW.

IrishPete IrishPete 1:24 am 09 Sep 13

farout said :

Ha ha. The preferences from the AJP decided the outcome of this one.
Count 13 saw 1,869 (1.18%) votes originally from Animal Justice Party distributed to Liberal (Zed SESELJA) via preference 21.

Had these votes been directed to the Greens instead, Simon would have got 53,696 which would put him over the line.

Moral of the story: Don’t mess with the AJP!

no, that is a prediction, not yet a fact. the prediction is based on everyone voting above the line, but they did not.

IP

c_c™ c_c™ 12:27 am 09 Sep 13

Also, I have to give a special mention to the Canberra TImes for once against screwing up their election coverage. They ran a headline saying Sheikh looked set to get the seat, followed by a headline saying Seslja in a close fight, to headline now that he’s making ground. Can these people stop jumping the gun?

Darkfalz Darkfalz 11:32 pm 08 Sep 13

You can’t necessary link animal welfare with gay marriage and global warming, so I don’t see where you could automatically assume preferences should go from one to another. I also considered voting them first knowing that, although obviously wouldn’t get a seat, the preference would flow where I ultimately would have preferred it. You can’t assume all voters are idiots and didn’t understand this – particularly when our senate ballot is relatively easy to vote below the link, unlike NSW/VIC. Counting is still under way, so it’s likely Zed will survive, but not guaranteed. I expect Sheikh, like the opportunist he is, to re-join the Labor party after the national slump in the Greens vote.

c_c™ c_c™ 11:03 pm 08 Sep 13

farout said :

Ha ha. The preferences from the AJP decided the outcome of this one.
Count 13 saw 1,869 (1.18%) votes originally from Animal Justice Party distributed to Liberal (Zed SESELJA) via preference 21.

Had these votes been directed to the Greens instead, Simon would have got 53,696 which would put him over the line.

Moral of the story: Don’t mess with the AJP!

People, as it clearly says on the ABC website, their Senate results page shows projections based on votes so far and the ABC’s own algorithms. They are not actual results.

The Canberra and Fraser divisions haven’t updated their Senate numbers since 1am this morning and as far I know, they haven’t finished the first preferences yet.

If you want the real numbers, use the AEC data.

DrKoresh DrKoresh 10:53 pm 08 Sep 13

farout said :

Ha ha. The preferences from the AJP decided the outcome of this one.
Count 13 saw 1,869 (1.18%) votes originally from Animal Justice Party distributed to Liberal (Zed SESELJA) via preference 21.

Had these votes been directed to the Greens instead, Simon would have got 53,696 which would put him over the line.

Moral of the story: Don’t mess with the AJP!

Don’t you mean “Don’t vote for the AJP!”?

housebound housebound 10:05 pm 08 Sep 13

davo101 said :

poetix said :

Deref said :

Isn’t it about time that we abolished above-the-line voting?

I think that would penalise people in States where there are often over a hundred Senate candidates.

Also people with limited literacy skills would be disadvantaged.

By multiplying candidates even more, a group could hope to increase the informal vote, if one had to number each square. This could be manipulated.

Preferential above the line or optional preferential (more detail from Antony Green).

Above-the-line preferential would be a good development.

Below-the-line optional preferential would be less good as it has the potential to make the accusation ‘a vote for a mnor party is a wasted vote’ come true. The 2008 ACT election is a good example of how things can go wrong.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site