Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Buying off the plan?
View our developments

Election count – Where we’re at

By johnboy 23 October 2008 47

Over on yesterday’s story Jimbocool has produced an analysis of where the crucial Molonglo count is up to today:

    “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

All you psephologists it’s your time to shine!

UPDATED: The ABC says the Liberals are still favoured for the final seat according to Antony Green

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
47 Responses to
Election count – Where we’re at
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
caf 6:27 pm 23 Oct 08

Oh, and just to add – you could get the same effect if the above the line vote in the Senate meant a vote for the candidates in that column, in random order. That would 1) Allow above-the-line voting for people who don’t care about who in that party is elected, but also 2) take the power to decide who is elected from each party away from the party officials and give it to the electors who voted for that party.

caf 6:25 pm 23 Oct 08

verbalkint: The election last weekend right here had several instructive examples of incumbents (eg. Pratt) being turfed out in favour of newcomers from their own party.

Dante 6:12 pm 23 Oct 08

Thanks sepi & caf! That’s all I needed for the proverbial penny to drop.

jakez 6:08 pm 23 Oct 08

Not at all johnboy. I already said ‘sure’ to fnaah’s moral assertion. I was merely providing what I believe is the reason behind why the major parties don’t go out and talk about below the line voting.

If I have however misunderstood, I apologise and please point out my mistake (I’m not particularly well versed in Rawls).

johnboy 4:49 pm 23 Oct 08

verbalkint said :

The fact is that the people speak with their pencils every federal election and vote above the line because they want the parliament to be controlled by people who represent their values, and other than political leaders, they don’t care about the person who fills the suit that votes in the chamber for those values.

They do it because they’re lazy and stupid and the unnecessary requirement to completely number the ballot nudges them to be ever more so.

It’s not something to be encouraged.

Also to Jakez:

jakez said :

Sure. However a very important rule in politics is ‘don’t make it hard for people to vote for you’. If I were to be preselected as the Liberal candidate for the ACT senate, and went out with a convoluted pitch that included voting below the line, I’d lose the election.

…I’d probably lose the election anyway but I wouldn’t be helping matters. ;-P

Meaning you’re rather failing the veil of ignorance test no?

sepi 4:48 pm 23 Oct 08

Yes but that can lead to dodgy preference deals and even fake parties.

Eg – the Motorists Party, or the Support Logging Party could be registered as a party, and their preferences could go straight to the Liberals.

They would never get their candidate in, and the people voting for that ‘idea’ have no concept that their vote is just a straight out vote for the liberal party.

verbalkint 4:46 pm 23 Oct 08

johnboy said :

A noble defence of a corrupt system Verbalkint.

Convenience is a poor substitute for democracy.

The practice of the current system, rather than whatever justification you drag up for it, is that the composition of a house of parliament, and a house of review no less, is determined by the party executives rather than the electorates.

Very handy for party executives, notso hotso for the rest of us.

The people of Australia can vote below the line and change the people without changing the government, but most don’t care. If you look at the big vote grabbers, they are people that are known the electorate – Stanhop, Gallagher, Zed and previously Big Bill.

The effect is just the same as if we had above the line voting – they look for the people or party they know and put a 1 in it. It isnt anymore thought out, genuine or democratic, because they do it for a persons name rather than a party name.

The fact is that the people speak with their pencils every federal election and vote above the line because they want the parliament to be controlled by people who represent their values, and other than political leaders, they don’t care about the person who fills the suit that votes in the chamber for those values.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site