Australian Federal Election 2010

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Who will you vote for?

Labor
0
No votes
Liberal/National
1
2%
Greens, preferencing Labor
24
46%
Greens, preferencing Liberal/National
3
6%
Other, preferencing Labor
4
8%
Other, preferencing Liberal/National
0
No votes
I am enrolled but will vote informally or will pay the fine for not voting
1
2%
I am not enrolled/not eligible
19
37%
 
Total votes: 52

User avatar
TheSkyMovesSideways
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:36 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby TheSkyMovesSideways » Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:39 am UTC

I had all kinds of plans in case of a zombie attack.
I just figured I'd be on the other side.
~ASW

User avatar
webby
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby webby » Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:30 am UTC

The High Court has overturned the law that closed the electoral roll on the day the writs are issued. This means about 100 000 extra people will be able to vote.

Sounds like a good decision - of course ideal would be what NSW is doing in automatically enrolling people when they turn 18.

User avatar
trebor
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 5:39 am UTC

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby trebor » Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:24 am UTC

The High Court has overturned the law that closed the electoral roll on the day the writs are issued. This means about 100 000 extra people will be able to vote.

Sounds like a good decision - of course ideal would be what NSW is doing in automatically enrolling people when they turn 18


Ridiculous decision, people can enrol as soon as they turn 18. Damn lazy people leaving it to the last minute. I have family that works for the electoral commission and they think this is ridiculous, they now have to try and contact people telling them they can vote knowing full well most wont be able to be contacted.

P.S if any voting counts are even slightly close there is a strong case to call revotes.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Hawknc » Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:28 am UTC

trebor wrote:
The High Court has overturned the law that closed the electoral roll on the day the writs are issued. This means about 100 000 extra people will be able to vote.

Sounds like a good decision - of course ideal would be what NSW is doing in automatically enrolling people when they turn 18


Ridiculous decision, people can enrol as soon as they turn 18. Damn lazy people leaving it to the last minute. I have family that works for the electoral commission and they think this is ridiculous, they now have to try and contact people telling them they can vote knowing full well most wont be able to be contacted.

P.S if any voting counts are even slightly close there is a strong case to call revotes.

It wasn't ridiculous until it was changed by Howard. I feel sorry for the AEC employees who have a lot of work on their hands, but all this decision is doing is reversing an unconstitutional change to the enrolment process. It makes a strong case for automatic enrolment, though, that this is even necessary.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby jestingrabbit » Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:51 am UTC

trebor wrote:Damn lazy people leaving it to the last minute.


A lot of people move around a lot, especially when they're young and renting. Also, a lot of people just aren't engaged with politics most of the time. So saying that they left it to the last minute isn't realistic. Its not like it was decided months ago when this election would be. It happened quite suddenly.

In my opinion, the fact that the law was altered to make it hard for people to exercise their right to vote is the ridiculous thing, and this ruling is the sensible one.

As for your long suffering relatives, they're getting paid, yeah?
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

Azshade
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:47 am UTC

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Azshade » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

What happened to the left in Australia? At the moment we have a centre right (labour) and a slightly further right (liberal). And, whilst I quite like the Greens (I'm voting Greens pref Labour), lets be real they'll never be in control (maybe balance of power).

Regardless, what angers me is that both parties seem to, from what I see, ignore most Australians.

For instance global warming seems to be of concern to most Australians, and we have Abbott who doesn't believe in it, and Julia who's going to get 150 of her bestest friends to have a chat about it. (aside, Oppenheimer back in March did a great 'wrap up' of the evidence for global warming on big ideas. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/03/08/2839591.htm).

Or the boats. Oh those boat people! Those terrible terrible boat people. That have (in most cases) escaped worn torn countries or starvation or risk of life and limb, travelled across countries through who knows how many hardships to be told by Australia "piss off". I would love to ask Abbott and Gillard if they know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee (there is a difference, and most boat people are asylum seekers).

Mining tax, where we asked big businessess making massive profits (Rio Tinto just made the largest profit ever) to pay higher taxes on the limited resources they are plundering, but no, they can't afford it and would just pass it on apparently.

And let's not forget to "stop the waste" that is Labour's spending, which has left Australia as the best western economic country in the world at the moment, and, to quote. "You were lucky to have, probably, the best designed stimulus package of any of the countries, advanced industrial countries, both in size and in design, timing and how it was spent - and I think it served Australia well," Nobel Prize Laurette, Professor Stiglitz. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/06/2975865.htm

But I don't mean to sound like a labour lover here. Gillard announced a "no school no play" policy which, granted I haven't seen the detail but sounds like if you don't go to school you can't play sport. When my father died when I was 15, and I became homeless at 16, I didn't go to school much. But I always played rugby. School bored me because it seemed so unimportant, and all the 'kids' annoyed me. I still did my school work, I just didn't do it at school. (I got 88.5 UAI). Rugby though was my release, my passion, and helped keep me sane. I just hope that there is some compassion in this plan of hers.

And I didn't even touch internet filter, gay marriage, chappels in schools (from an atheist prime minister no less).
-----
Sigh.

I just want a party that's middle left. A party that isn't afraid to show compassion to asylum seekers and refugees, that will fight child pornography but not by making a cartoon of bart simpson having sex with lisa simpson a child porn incident. A party that, no matter how much advertising big companies do, aren't afraid to tax properly. A party that will stop supplementing coal mining which makes more greener energy methods uncompetable. Who the hell am I suppose to vote for? Greens I guess, but it just goes to labour anyway.

Preferences suck.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Sharlos » Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:25 pm UTC

Preferences are excellect, and are the only way Australia is going to be able to break this socially constructed two-party system that we have.

If it wasn't for the preferences system parties like the Greens, Democrats, Australian Sex Party, and a many others would never have existed. Thank's to the preferences the Greens party will hold the balance of power. In Tasmania the greens party is in a coalition with labor to form government.

You complain about not having any good choice and then say the thing that gives you more than just two choices suck. If you don't want your vote going to labor, don't give it to them.

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby JayDee » Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:30 pm UTC

Azshade wrote:And, whilst I quite like the Greens (I'm voting Greens pref Labour), lets be real they'll never be in control (maybe balance of power).
Balance of power is a type of control. Less than complete control, but better than nothing. My hope (and I don't think it's a particularly unlikely hope, over the span of a couple election-cycles) if for, at some point, the "major parties" to have shrunk enough that Labor forms a government in coalition with the Greens. Seems a possible way in which the two-partyness will be shaken up.

On preferences, I think we would be better off with compulsory voting but optional preferences. If I can only stomach two candidates out of the five running, let me vote '1' and '2' for those and rest assured my vote isn't going to someone I hate.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I believe that everything can and must be joked about.
Hawknc wrote:I like to think that he hasn't left, he's just finally completed his foe list.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:31 am UTC

JayDee wrote:On preferences, I think we would be better off with compulsory voting but optional preferences. If I can only stomach two candidates out of the five running, let me vote '1' and '2' for those and rest assured my vote isn't going to someone I hate.


If you skip or repeat a number on your senate ballot paper your vote stops being reassigned after the people you voted for correctly are elected/eliminated. So you can kinda do that for your senate vote. For your house of reps vote, if you don't correctly give all candidates a number your vote is invalid, so you can't do it there.

@Azshade: I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I've gotta have hope that something good will come out of this election, and the greens having balance of power would be a good thing no matter which of the two big parties win.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby phlip » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:39 am UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:If you skip or repeat a number on your senate ballot paper your vote stops being reassigned after the people you voted for correctly are elected/eliminated. So you can kinda do that for your senate vote. For your house of reps vote, if you don't correctly give all candidates a number your vote is invalid, so you can't do it there.

As I understand it, it's an invalid vote for either, but chances are that it won't be noticed until they try to look for the number 17 and can't find it. So for the senate, with its millions of boxes below the line, it's easier to hide a duplicated or skipped number, than a house ballot which only has 4 or 5 candidates.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:21 am UTC

phlip wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:If you skip or repeat a number on your senate ballot paper your vote stops being reassigned after the people you voted for correctly are elected/eliminated. So you can kinda do that for your senate vote. For your house of reps vote, if you don't correctly give all candidates a number your vote is invalid, so you can't do it there.

As I understand it, it's an invalid vote for either, but chances are that it won't be noticed until they try to look for the number 17 and can't find it. So for the senate, with its millions of boxes below the line, it's easier to hide a duplicated or skipped number, than a house ballot which only has 4 or 5 candidates.


The AEC provides guidance on this matter. http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vot ... Senate.htm

Informal votes

An informal ballot paper is one that has been incorrectly completed or not filled in at all. Informal votes are not counted towards any candidate but are set aside.
A Senate ballot paper is informal if:

* it is unmarked,
* it has not received the official mark of the presiding officer and is not considered authentic,
* it has writing on it which identifies the voter, or
* the voter's intention is not clear.

A vote above the line will be informal if:

* it has no first preference mark, or
* there is more than one first preference mark.

A vote below the line is informal if:

* it has no first preference mark,
* a tick or cross has been used as a first preference mark,
* there is more than one first preference mark,
* there are 10 or more candidates and 90% or more of the squares opposite the names of candidates are not numbered as required or more than three numbers would need to be changed for a correct numeric sequencing to occur.
o This means, for example that where there are twenty candidates, a ballot paper would be informal if it did not have on it either the numbers 1 to 18 (90% of 20) without repetitions or omissions, or numbers which, if up to three of them were changed, would be the numbers 1 to 18 without repetitions or omissions, or
* there are less than 10 candidates and not all of the squares next to the candidate's names, or all but one of those squares (which is left blank), form a sequence of consecutive numbers beginning with the number 1, or no more than two numbers would need to be changed for a correct numbering sequence to occur.
o This means, for example that where there are nine candidates, a ballot paper would be informal if it did not have on it either the numbers from 1 to at least 8 without repetitions or omissions, or numbers which, if up to two of them were changed, would be the numbers from 1 to at least 8 without repetitions or omissions.

Note: The numbers on a ballot paper are never actually changed to ensure formality. In addition, a formal vote will only be counted until the point at which the voter's intention becomes unclear, for instance to the point of the numbering sequence where it is no longer sequential.


So basically, if you make a slip up in your below the line senate vote, your vote counts until your intention is unclear. So if you duplicate one number, your vote is formal until they come to that duplication. You can't make a mistake like "woops, I labeled every candidate but one as -1", but a single "mistake" won't invalidate your vote.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Sharlos » Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:47 am UTC

Is there any reason voting for the senate is so much more forgiving? I can't think of why the parties would see have a problem with making it less complicated voting below the line... oh wait. Nevermind.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:00 am UTC

Azshade wrote:What happened to the left in Australia? At the moment we have a centre right (labour) and a slightly further right (liberal). And, whilst I quite like the Greens (I'm voting Greens pref Labour), lets be real they'll never be in control (maybe balance of power).

Funny. I have a friend who ran for the Democrats, worked for an independent, and now works for the Liberals. According to him, there is not a major conservative party in Australia. And, you know, for an American or even a Canadian, the Australian Liberal Party can look pretty damn left-wing at times, so it really escapes me why you would describe Labor as centre right.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby JayDee » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:11 am UTC

Sharlos wrote:Is there any reason voting for the senate is so much more forgiving?
Senate voting is only more forgiving because there are (metric) shitloads of boxes, and consequently higher chances of being able to make an honest or accidental mistake.

Exhausting one's vote is a non-intentional feature of the system. It's possible in the senate now (due to that forgiveness) and it used to be in the house of reps - before they closed the loophole (you could vote 1 2 2 2 and have your first preference count but not the rest, until they fixed it.)

The house of reps is what I was thinking about. I'm curious about the senate, though. My guess is that most people vote above the line, that in fact if all below the line votes were counted as informal that would change the outcome. That's just a guess, though, and I have no statistics to back it up (although I'd be curious to see them.)
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I believe that everything can and must be joked about.
Hawknc wrote:I like to think that he hasn't left, he's just finally completed his foe list.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Sharlos » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:16 am UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:
Azshade wrote:What happened to the left in Australia? At the moment we have a centre right (labour) and a slightly further right (liberal). And, whilst I quite like the Greens (I'm voting Greens pref Labour), lets be real they'll never be in control (maybe balance of power).

Funny. I have a friend who ran for the Democrats, worked for an independent, and now works for the Liberals. According to him, there is not a major conservative party in Australia. And, you know, for an American or even a Canadian, the Australian Liberal Party can look pretty damn left-wing at times, so it really escapes me why you would describe Labor as centre right.

In Australian politics they are centre-right. Comparing them to American politics isn't fair, American politics is batshit crazy.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:14 pm UTC

Sharlos wrote:In Australian politics they are centre-right. Comparing them to American politics isn't fair, American politics is batshit crazy.

Nice hyperbole, but although American politics are atypical they are not the most right-wing.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Hawknc » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:26 pm UTC

I've never really thought Australian parties mapped terribly well to the American political landscape anyway. American divisions are so often down social lines, where we seem to be split mostly by economic policies (I mean, a mining tax helped to bring about the removal of a PM mid-term. Really? A freaking tax on companies making billion-dollar profits?). Socially speaking, I'm not sure how Australia's major parties can get more conservative without declaring a Christian nation and building a three-metre-high wire fence around the country.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Hawknc » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:32 am UTC

Apologies for the double post, but I'd be interested on peoples' opinions on Gillard's appearance on Q&A this week if they saw it. It was incredibly refreshing to see her outside of scripted dialogue and tired policy slogans, and she seems to be reaping the results in the polls. I will be eagerly watching Abbott on there next week under similar circumstances.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Gelsamel » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:38 am UTC

Hopefully this has not been linked yet;
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Sharlos » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:59 am UTC

Man, I'd really like to see in a future election for neither Labor or Liberals to get a controlling majority in the Lower house and give a boost to the acceptance of the other smaller parties. More competition in our government would be much better than the two near-identical Labor and Liberal parties.

User avatar
webby
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby webby » Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:58 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:Apologies for the double post, but I'd be interested on peoples' opinions on Gillard's appearance on Q&A this week if they saw it. It was incredibly refreshing to see her outside of scripted dialogue and tired policy slogans, and she seems to be reaping the results in the polls. I will be eagerly watching Abbott on there next week under similar circumstances.


I thought she was great, particularly in comparison to Tony Abbott the next evening on the 7:30 report. For example - that question where she was saying that the coalition's tax on big business would drive up grocery prices and someone asked her whether that meant that Labor's mining tax would increase the price of electricity. She came up with an extremely coherent and intelligent answer on the details of how the way the prices of commodities were set differed from the prices of groceries, then was able to sum up the detailed explanation with something easily understandable to everyone - 'you can't go and shop for groceries in Paris'. Compare that with Abbott the next night stumbling over what his broadband plan actually meant, what they were actually offering. Gillard sounded like an intelligent leader who was well across a wide range of topics.

When the debate moves to policy and the leaders are forced to come out from behind their slogans, Gillard will beat Abbott every time.

I didn't get to watch the Rooty Hill forum last night, but the SMH informs me that there's an inquiry into whether the audience was stacked with Liberal voters. It was supposed to be undecided voters, but at least one of the questioners was a member of the Young Liberals and Abbott apparently had a bunch of Dorothy Dixers.

EDIT: This article suggests the selection of undecided voters wasn't anything sinister, it just resulted from the use of a simple undecided screen. However, apparently there were some extra people who got media invites from Sky and News Limited (both Murdoch), which sort of throws off the idea of a forum of undecided voters.

In regards to Australian vs American politics, I think US politics is very unusual in the developed world - eg the lack of universal health care, the lack of gun control, they still have the death penalty, large percentages of people not believing in evolution or climate change. So I don't think the US is a fair comparison, because any of those views would be widely ridiculed in pretty much any other developed country. I would also note that in Australia, with compulsory and preferential voting and no primary system, parties don't have to pander to their base, which moves both parties towards the centre.

With the exception of a few issues such as gay rights, it's clear that Australian politics has moved a fair way to the right since the 1970s (eg Malcolm Fraser as a Labor party supporter?) but this seems to be the case in place like the UK as well - under Tony Blair's Labor and the 'third way'.

masher
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:07 pm UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby masher » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:51 am UTC

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I've just gone through https://www.belowtheline.org.au/ and had a go at doing my Senate vote.

Essentially, I ended up getting the Greens "how to vote" bit and twerking it a little.

User avatar
webby
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby webby » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:56 am UTC

Looks like it's basically all over given the betting markets and the polls, even if the media is doing their usual 'it's going to be such a close race' thing. I suspect there will be very little change in the number of seats from the 83 they won last time - Labor's losses in Queensland will be cancelled out by their gains in Victoria. Overall if you count the loss of seats which are notionally theirs, but held by a Liberal MP, it will probably be a loss of about 5 seats. I don't think there will be any massive surprises - I pick the Greens slightly more likely than not to win Melbourne. Outside chance of a surprise is Denison in Tasmania with a win for the Greens or Andrew Wilkie, but that seems unlikely given Liberal voters in Tasmania tend to preference Labor over Greens.

masher wrote:I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I've just gone through https://www.belowtheline.org.au/ and had a go at doing my Senate vote.

Essentially, I ended up getting the Greens "how to vote" bit and twerking it a little.


https://www.belowtheline.org.au/editor. ... pq012PQJOR

This is how I intend to vote. Basically just the Greens' ticket varied slightly.

User avatar
dubsola
Posts: 2325
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:55 am UTC
Location: Sunny Snakeville

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby dubsola » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:27 pm UTC

webby wrote:Looks like it's basically all over given the betting markets and the polls, even if the media is doing their usual 'it's going to be such a close race' thing.

Is there somewhere online that shows this? It's hard to get a vibe when I am in London, I haven't found any particular news articles yet that provide the betting market / polls information.

User avatar
webby
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby webby » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:49 pm UTC

dubsola wrote:
webby wrote:Looks like it's basically all over given the betting markets and the polls, even if the media is doing their usual 'it's going to be such a close race' thing.

Is there somewhere online that shows this? It's hard to get a vibe when I am in London, I haven't found any particular news articles yet that provide the betting market / polls information.


http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/20 ... t-tuesday/ - Latest betting odds put Labor at 75% chance of winning. Note this is better than at this time last campaign, and they were considered a pretty sure thing by this stage then. :P
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/ ... mega-poll/ - poll of marginal seats suggests they're up 79 seats to 68 (marginal seat polls over the weekend suggested somewhere in the region 75-80)

More importantly, the latest national poll trend:
Image

The lines give the 2PP vote for Labor.
No government has ever lost an election with more than 50% of the 2PP national vote.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Hawknc » Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:03 pm UTC

Not so - the ALP lost the 1998 election despite having 51% of the two-party preferred vote.

User avatar
webby
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby webby » Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:28 pm UTC

Hawknc wrote:Not so - the ALP lost the 1998 election despite having 51% of the two-party preferred vote.


Yes, but they weren't the government then. That's not so unusual - historically governments can win re-election with less than 50% of the vote, thought to because incumbency allows them to run a strong campaign in marginal seats. (see also the South Australian election earlier this year) But no opposition has won with less than 50% and that's what I was trying to say.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Hawknc » Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:26 am UTC

Ah, my misunderstanding, sorry. Latest poll looks like the ALP will sneak in with a four-seat majority anyway, though that is a big stack of seats that the coalition will pick up.

User avatar
dubsola
Posts: 2325
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:55 am UTC
Location: Sunny Snakeville

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby dubsola » Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:50 am UTC

Well, I did my part last night at Australia House on the Strand. The Electoral Commission staff were nice enough to provide free cake afterwards. That's pretty good.

webby - thanks for that. I hope the predictions turn out to be correct, I really don't like the idea of Tony Abbot as our PM, even though Labour has not endeared me to them particularly these last four years.

Azshade
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:47 am UTC

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Azshade » Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:15 pm UTC

JayDee wrote:
Sharlos wrote:Is there any reason voting for the senate is so much more forgiving?
Senate voting is only more forgiving because there are (metric) shitloads of boxes


Is there some sort of conversion website or table or formula so our American brothers and sisters can convert metric shitloads into imperial shitloads?

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Sharlos » Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:21 pm UTC

Azshade wrote:
JayDee wrote:
Sharlos wrote:Is there any reason voting for the senate is so much more forgiving?
Senate voting is only more forgiving because there are (metric) shitloads of boxes


Is there some sort of conversion website or table or formula so our American brothers and sisters can convert metric shitloads into imperial shitloads?

http://pharmboy.org/convert/

Happy to help. Although I forgot about the unit of assloads.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby jestingrabbit » Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:22 am UTC

Well, tomorrow's the big day. Remember to vote.

There was at least some policy difference that got elucidated towards the end, with broadband being the most memorable one for me.

I kinda feel like the press is overdoing the whole "Oh me yarm so close" thing. The betting markets are giving it to Labor at about 3 to 1 (even after the last minute odds shortening).
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby Sharlos » Fri Aug 20, 2010 1:36 pm UTC

Well a horse race where the outcome is pretty obvious isn't going to generate much add revenue.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby jestingrabbit » Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:59 pm UTC

Sharlos wrote:Well a horse race where the outcome is pretty obvious isn't going to generate much add revenue.


Now explain the ABC's coverage.

But actually, on lateline tonight there was a pretty honest wrap up from the political editor of the SMH, Peter Hartcher. From the transcript:

Peter Hartcher wrote: I don't have the detail of the Newspoll obviously, except I could simply observe this, if you look at all the evidence assembled in front of us which, I think, is the smart way to do it, there have now been 10 telephone polls in 10 days.

If you set Newspoll aside for a moment those 10 polls, including the Nielsen poll in tomorrow's papers, including the Morgan poll out tonight and including the Galaxy Poll in the News Limited tabloids today, all 10 of those polls have come down with Labor between 51 and 53 per cent of the two party preferred vote. So the Nielsen poll is right in the middle.

Now we have 10 saying 51 to 53 gives you, I think, a fairly strong clue and a fairly steady range to say that on the national vote share at least Labor goes into this with a slight advantage.

I think also the betting markets, the evidence there is pointing to the same sort of outcome, which is Labor scraping back with a much reduced majority. But the most likely outcome is, I would submit on the evidence that we have to hand, a narrow Labor victory.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
webby
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby webby » Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:27 am UTC

Just went to vote. My booth is a bit of an anomaly - in an electorate that went 65-35 Liberal last time, the primary votes for our booth were 34% Greens, 27% Labor, 26% Liberal, 10% Climate Change Coalition. The only person handing out HTV cards today was an enthusiastic Greens woman. Took forever voting below the line (also put a 1 above the line for the Greens in case i epic failed below the line).

I still pick Labor to win with around 79-80 seats, although nowhere near as confident as I was a week ago. The Daily Telegraph yesterday had the first five pages saying why to vote Liberal, the Herald Sun is using dirty tricks like this, I avoid The Australian, but it wouldn't surprise me if they're doing similar. In the last days, the media did turn against the Labor Party a little bit.

Should still be good enough for Labor to win, but I'd say 80% chance, nothing like the probability I thought there was last time, or Nate Silver's 2008 US election prediction that Obama was 98.4% chance of being elected. :P

Latest Polls (from pollytics):
Image

User avatar
TheSkyMovesSideways
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:36 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby TheSkyMovesSideways » Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:45 am UTC

webby wrote:(also put a 1 above the line for the Greens in case i epic failed below the line)

Wait... Can you do that? AEC doesn't mention it as either informal or legit... :?

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vot ... Senate.htm
I had all kinds of plans in case of a zombie attack.
I just figured I'd be on the other side.
~ASW

User avatar
webby
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby webby » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:40 am UTC

TheSkyMovesSideways wrote:
webby wrote:(also put a 1 above the line for the Greens in case i epic failed below the line)

Wait... Can you do that? AEC doesn't mention it as either informal or legit... :?

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vot ... Senate.htm


I believe Antony Green on this matter, he's very knowledgeable on the Electoral Act.

Antony Green wrote:What happens if I vote both above and below the line?

A below the line takes precedence over an above the line vote. However, an advantage of voting above and below the line is that if your below the line vote works out to be informal, then your above the line vote will stand instead. If you are unsure of your ability to number dozens of preference in a correct sequence, you might find this a useful option to ensure your vote counts.


EDIT: Found the actual legislation:
Commonwealth Electoral Act wrote: (2) If a ballot paper in a Senate election:

(a) has been marked in accordance with subsection 239(2); and

(b) has been marked in accordance with paragraph 239(1)(a) so that, if it were not marked in accordance with subsection 239(2), it would not be informal by virtue of paragraph 268(1)(b);

the ballot paper shall, for the purposes of sections 272 and 273, be deemed not to have been marked in accordance with subsection 239(2).

Section 239(2) talks about above the line, 239(1) talks about below the line, so it's saying if you do both, then it will be counted as if you'd only voted below the line.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby phlip » Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:47 am UTC

So the How To Vote cards for both the ALP and the Libs put the one independent candidate I thought was good way down in the preferences, and the Complete Douchebags Party (CDP) candidate right near the top (Libs put him second, ALP third). I mean, it's all academic, there's no way the 2PP is going to be anything other than ALP vs Libs, and the HTV card could just say "put us first, and number the rest at random" and it would have the same effect, but still...

At least there was a good independent candidate this election... last election, we had the ALP/Lib/Green, and then a CDP, a Family First, a One Nation, and a CEC... This time we still have the full CDP/FF/ONP offering, but also some independents to fill out the list.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
webby
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby webby » Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:24 am UTC

I spent the afternoon handing out HTV cards for the Greens in Epping (in Bennelong). Only got called a watermelon once. :P The Liberal Party were handing out a leaflet which looked like it was from the Greens, but actually tried to convince Greens voters to preference the Liberals. It only had a very small mention at the bottom that it was actually from the Liberals, but apparently that's enough for it to be legal.

Looks like the Greens vote has gone up, the overall election is too close to call, but not looking great for Labor.

EDIT: I picked Denison as the big surprise of the night! Wasn't exactly right on the easy Labor win though :P

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Australian Federal Election 2010

Postby phlip » Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:26 am UTC

VIC Senate results wrote:Count 5: Stephen Michael CONROY (Australian Labor Party) elected #4
:(
VIC Senate results wrote:Count 24: Steven FIELDING (Family First) excluded
:)

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests