Preference votes. Just how critical they are

[finga]

With the passing of the Tasmanian election we are reminded just how critical it is to consider preference votes.
Those poor buggers in Tasmania were sick to death of Labor and had a 12.39% swing against them.
The Liberals had a 7.17% swing towards them and had the majority of votes (124,000 to Labor's 118,000) but, by the looks, will not gain power due to preferences of the Greens.
Now the Greens only received 69,000 votes but have the balance of power on who governs Tasmania.

What it brings home is...please be careful who you vote for and also consider who is in their hip pocket.
A clear majority of people in Tasmania want the Liberal party to government but they will not. Purely because of preferences.
The Greens will most probably do the same in QLD at the next elections.
How sad is that??
For more information on the Tasmanian results have a look at the link.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/03/tasmanian-election-final-summary-of-the-results.html#more

Please think your vote through. Don't let the Greens win. They may not get ultimate power but they will win.

Sorry, I may not have put that very well but others who can write better, more clearing and can precisely explain things will add on.

[finga]

As an add on:
Do the Green's have to disclose who they are going to give their preference votes too before an election??
From what I read I don't think so. But I'm known to be wrong. Really wrong.
Thanks then
Scott

[gr hilly]

if you want to waste your vote then vote green its a joke they will never be a gov,just a thorn in some ones side with a hand full of policy's that hold water like your landing net.

hilly

[Chris Ryan]

Preference flows have to be disclosed to the AEC prior to the election. This allows time for the printing of the ballot papers and the "how to vote cards" from the parties. As for making them public knowledge, well they like to leak information to the media all the time.

From the AEC handbook for candidates.

Within 48 hours after the close of nominations, a Senate group may lodge with the AEO for the state or territory a written statement setting out a preference order of all candidates in the election. This is referred to as a group voting ticket.
The preference ordering must be a fully formal vote—all candidates must be numbered. In addition, the candidates in the group lodging the statement must be ordered ahead of any other candidate.

The statement must be signed:

by the registered officer of the party, where all the members of the group have been endorsed by the same registered political party; or
by the registered officers of all relevant parties, where the members of the group have been endorsed by different registered political parties; or
by the candidate whose name first appears in the group on the ballot paper, in a case not covered by either of the above; or
by a person authorised by all the members of the group to sign such a statement on behalf of the group.


The preference ordering may be specified in the form of a how-to-vote card.

A group may lodge up to three group voting tickets, provided that the preference order shown places the candidates in the group lodging the statement ahead of any other candidate, and gives the same order of preference for the members of the group on each ticket. When a group lodges one or more group voting tickets, a square will be printed above-the-line on the Senate ballot paper. Voters wishing to vote according to the group voting ticket simply fill in that square with the number ‘1’ and their preferences will be allocated according to the group voting ticket during the scrutiny process. Where two tickets are lodged, half of the votes are allocated to each of the preference orders. Where three tickets are lodged, one-third of the votes are allocated to each of the preference orders. Booklets setting out copies of all group voting tickets that have been lodged in a state or territory are available at every polling place on election day. Early voting centres and interstate voting centres will also have copies of group voting tickets for all states and territories and they will be published on the AEC website.

Incumbent Senator voting tickets
An incumbent Senator may lodge a written statement setting out up to three preference orders of all candidates in the election. The statement must be signed by the candidate and lodged with the appropriate AEO, and must show a first preference for the incumbent Senator. The preference ordering may be specified in the form of a how-to-vote card.

Chris

[FNQCairns]

It is scary! further elections will show (IMHO) heightened footholds across the nation, the 2 majors everywhere all come across as basket cases.

The AFLP preferences helped to stem the tide in QLD last time/s by physically taking seats away from green bums but the wave has built since...oh well we get what we deserve, as Tasmania has glaringly pointed out.

Balance of power! I do agree with a lot of what the greens say regarding social conscience issues although the tendrils to radical NGOs and the like turns my stomach.

cheers fnq

[PinHead]

Ban the how to vote cards and then let's see how these preferences will go.
I, for one, do not take how to vote cards from anyone...I can work out for myself where I want my preferences to go but alas it is obvious that a lot cannot do that. PLUS..these cards are just a bloody waste..printed for one day and then discarded. Why don't they just put each parties card in each booth.

[Chris Ryan]

From South Australia this story comes and highlights that single issue parties do have a place in Government and this is history in the making.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/south-australia-state-parliament-gets-first-disabled-politician/story-fn2sdwup-1225851392569

The community rallied around this party and the preferences got the candidate through.

[STUIE63]

Why don't they just put each parties card in each booth.
this would be too intelligent and pollies make laws Greg . it is actually against the law I was told
Stuie

[Chris Ryan]

Stuie you are right..........that is why the how to vote people have to be a certain distance from the polling booth as they want to reduce the level of influence on the voter..........

[STUIE63]

gees and all the sheeple do is carry the how to vote cards and most carry three or four into the booth . the commonsense thing to do would be to put one of each in every booth and how many trees would that save let alone getting hassled when you go to vote .

[charleville]

Why don't they just put each parties card in each booth.



A damn good idea!


I like preferential voting as many times I have used the preference system to register a protest vote.

That is, if I don't like what either major party is doing, I will give my primary vote to an absolute "also ran" who has absolutely no chance of getting elected and then give my preference vote to whichever main party I am inclined to favour.


I always reckon that very minor parties such as shooters, fishos, dog lovers, brass band enthusiasts or any other groups who want to try to leverage a hobby into a political career, and who subsequently get excited by their primary vote, sometimes ought to take a cold shower and remind themselves of voters like me who just use their presence on the voting slip to register a protest vote whilst at the same time directing the vote that counts to whatever multi-issue major party that we don't like the least.



.

[Lucky_Phill]

Holy moly Greg, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

yep, agree, great idea.

How many ' one day wonder ' cards to the Greens publish ?... did i say that ?

LP.
.
.
.
.

[Bowser]

Just be glad you don't live in Tassie. They have the god damn awfullest voting system. On top of being preferential it is also proportional, more like the Senate voting in the federal arena then our MLA and MP's are elected with in Queensland.

[Mike Delisser]

A clear majority of people in Tasmania want the Liberal party to government but they will not.

Clear majority ????? I thought it was 38% or something like that, and Finga I'm not sure if the Tassie election result exemplifies you argument.


Chris & Finga, Tassie works under the Hare Clark proportional representation system of voting, sort of resembles the Senate in a slight way (very slight) and uses the Fed boundaries as well. Some info on it here-
http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/pages/ElectoralInformation/HareClark.html
They have a quota of votes needed to get elected, once a candidate reaches that quota the rest of their votes flow onto 2nd on their ticket and so on down the line. With 5 or 6 candidates standing on each party's ticket in each of the 5 electorates the overflows should be absorbed within each party. That's why the spoils were divided 2/2/1 between ALP, LIB & Greens in each electorate. In this election the only real difference preferences and overflows made to the 1st preference choice of the Tassie voters was in Denison where Liberal candidate Alise Archer won the last seat over 4 other candidates (ALP/Green/Ind & a fellow Lib) who outpolled her on 1st preferences.
The full results for each electorate with 1st preferences and allocated preferences are here.
http://www.electoral.tas.gov.au/pages/HouseOfAssembly/HoA2010/Results/Bass/BassFirst.html

I also found it interesting that historically Green voters in Tassie have preference Labor over the Liberals about 3:1 but in this election in the seat of Denison, 3 out of 4 Green voters preferenced LIBs ahead of Labor candidates because of the LIBs strong pro climate change commitments. I wonder if Tony A knew about that?
Cheers

[finga]

Clear majority ????? I thought it was 38% or something like that, and Finga I'm not sure if the Tassie election result exemplifies you argument.

Sorry for the confusion. My apologies.
I should have said that clearly most of the formal voters want the Libs in power and if you consider just the two major parties (two party preference as I hear on the news all the time) then it was a political majority.
Libs:- 38.99%
Lab:- 36.88%
Greens:- 21.61%

And could you explain why the Tasmanian Election does not show that a party may not win most of the primary votes (ie most of the voters wants that particular party in power) may end up in power due to preferences of the minor parties....and the party who most people want (because they voted for them) don't end up governing their state.
In Tasmania there was a huge swing from Labor (12.39%) and they only came 2nd in the primary votes race but they will be in power due to the preferences of the Greens who only achieved 21.61% of the primary vote.
So in short in my simple mind...it does not matter who the most voters in an election wants to government their state it's who's in who's pocket that wins an election. And to add salt to the wound there were 12.39% of the people who had earlier voted for Labor who now consider them not good enough and voted against them....and Labor still end up in power...
Why don't they just amalgamate if they have to depend on each other to that degree??

You could imagine the talk between the Greens and Labor.
Green's: Oi, we got you into power. Pull your head in and do what we want you too..or else....next time we're going to be Liberals.
Labor: Bugger. OK then.

So in reality (well in this simpleton's mind) the party that came 3rd in the race wins power.

Maybe Hare Clark needs a rethink as politics has changed a bit since 1896 I think.

[FNQCairns]

Does the Tasmanian situation seem really grubby to them? Agree with Finga from my lowly level of understanding.

Lib/Lab I don't actually care personally but finga's figures above show a clear 2% in it, just how much personality did the governor bring to his decision.

cheers fnq

[Stuart]

I was stunned when Labor was put back in power in Tasmania but dumfounded when the greens got up and said they support labor. Now the greens were up in arms over labors approval of the guns pulp mill but yet they support them at the next election? It smacks of a power grab at any cost rather than any real political stance they always sprout on about. As the saying goes, a vote for the greens is a vote for labor. I just can’t get my head around this one.

Stu

[Charlie]

Does the Tasmanian situation seem really grubby to them? Agree with Finga from my lowly level of understanding.

Lib/Lab I don't actually care personally but finga's figures above show a clear 2% in it, just how much personality did the governor bring to his decision.

cheers fnq

It's rather reminiscent of Kim Beazley who won a Labour election in terms of votes but didn't get a majority of seats, just had to cop it on the chin, if you can't survive a no confident motion you can't lead parliament.

[Mike Delisser]

Sorry for the confusion. My apologies.
I should have said that clearly most of the formal voters want the Libs in power and if you consider just the two major parties (two party preference as I hear on the news all the time) then it was a political majority.
Libs:- 38.99%
Lab:- 36.88%
Greens:- 21.61%
You can't dismiss 21% Finga, in Tassie the Greens are a real player.

And could you explain why the Tasmanian Election does not show that a party may not win most of the primary votes (ie most of the voters wants that particular party in power)
You need to win seats not %, that's the same here in Qld.
Libs won 10, Labor won 10 & Greens won 5, doesn't matter what the % is. If Labor was 45% and the Libs 30% it would probably still be 10 - 10 - 5.
The Tassie public voted for a hung parliament (again) and that's what they got.

may end up in power due to preferences of the minor parties....and the party who most people want (because they voted for them) don't end up governing their state.
Mate the only gain anyone made on preferences in the Tassie election was the LIBs who picked up 1 extra seat in Denison (Alise Archer) where the bulk of Green preferences went to the LIBs

In Tasmania there was a huge swing from Labor (12.39%) and they only came 2nd in the primary votes race but they will be in power due to the preferences of the Greens who only achieved 21.61% of the primary vote.
No, preferences had nothing to do with it.

So in short in my simple mind...it does not matter who the most voters in an election wants to government their state it's who's in who's pocket that wins an election. And to add salt to the wound there were 12.39% of the people who had earlier voted for Labor who now consider them not good enough and voted against them....and Labor still end up in power...
You could imagine the talk between the Greens and Labor.
Green's: Oi, we got you into power. Pull your head in and do what we want you too..or else....next time we're going to be Liberals.
Labor: Bugger. OK then.
So in reality (well in this simpleton's mind) the party that came 3rd in the race wins power.
Actually Labor told the LIBs & Greens to go form a Gov because the Libs beat them on %, the LIBs said ok but the Greens said they wouldn't agree to not using a no confidence motion on the floor at some stage agianst a LIB Premier. The Governor of Tassie said this was unworkable and ordered Labor to attempt to form a Gov with the Greens. Labor held out for a guarantee of confidence on the floor of Parliament from the Greens and got it in the end. Now that the election is over and in this situation the Greens have painted themselves into a corner and must back Labor but Labor isn't under the same obligation. Labor won't be too happy though as Governing without a clear majority of seats in Tassie is usually a poison chalice, hence their initial reluctance to align with the Greens and form a Government.

Why don't they just amalgamate if they have to depend on each other to that degree??
Gunns Pulp Mill for one, the Labor Gov were for it.

Maybe Hare Clark needs a rethink as politics has changed a bit since 1896 I think. I certainly agree with you there mate but as a Queenslander I guess it's none of my business. With the strong Greens in Tassie this system makes it easy to get a hung parliament and they've had a few over the years, in fact the last time the LIBs were in power in Tassie it was because they formed a coalition with the Greens after the voters returned a hung result, I think it was in 96.





The links I posted on page 1 of this thread show how the crazy system works down there and also how the only diff preferences made was helping 1 LIB candidate win her seat.
Cheers

[Ozwald]

I've occasionally considered voting for one of the single issue parties but get a little put off by some of the preference choices. Happy to vote for the particular issue but not happy to see preferences flow to an equivalent of Family First or similar.
I seem to recall a discussion about this issue and the fishing party at the last Qld election on the board but cant remember the outcome. I think a single issue party might be better off not declaring any preferences on occasion.
Oz

[Chris Ryan]

Just remember you can vote for your own preferences in your own order - you don't have to vote with a 1 above the line on the Senate forms.

If you vote below the line you can number 1 the AFLP, 2 Labor, 3 Liberal/Nat......etc.

That is one of the beauties of our system, you can vote the way you want to but a lot of people don't understand that.