|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on May 29, 2022 9:52:39 GMT
And meanwhile, Brisbane is called for the Greens. I guessing the counters have better info than the web site as there 15k votes to count with 5k more that could come in. From ABC News: The count in Brisbane will exclude the four lowest polling candidates first. The AEC has conducted a three-candidate preferred count to clarify the order candidates will finish. This has determined that Labor will be passed by the Greens and be excluded. The AEC has begun publish LNP versus Green polling place preference counts. The 2CP shown on this page is an estimate based on the preference flows in the polling places that have reported to date. |
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,840 
|
Post by myth11 on May 29, 2022 10:30:36 GMT
I guessing the counters have better info than the web site as there 15k votes to count with 5k more that could come in. From ABC News: The count in Brisbane will exclude the four lowest polling candidates first. The AEC has conducted a three-candidate preferred count to clarify the order candidates will finish. This has determined that Labor will be passed by the Greens and be excluded. The AEC has begun publish LNP versus Green polling place preference counts. The 2CP shown on this page is an estimate based on the preference flows in the polling places that have reported to date. I am not saying the greens will not beat labor just would it not to better to wait until the math's says labor can not overtake. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on May 29, 2022 10:47:24 GMT
From ABC News: The count in Brisbane will exclude the four lowest polling candidates first. The AEC has conducted a three-candidate preferred count to clarify the order candidates will finish. This has determined that Labor will be passed by the Greens and be excluded. The AEC has begun publish LNP versus Green polling place preference counts. The 2CP shown on this page is an estimate based on the preference flows in the polling places that have reported to date. I am not saying the greens will not beat labor just would it not to better to wait until the math's says labor can not overtake. The quoted text says that the AEC has determined Labor can't overtake. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 29, 2022 11:15:39 GMT
Has David Pocock definitely won a Senate seat in Canberra? Been looking but can't find confirmation He's still in third place on first preferences but given the smaller parties on that ballot paper the transfers are likely to favour him sufficiently to overtake the Liberals hence why the commentators have called that seat for him. The official count won't be for a while yet. |
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,398
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on May 29, 2022 11:31:03 GMT
Brisbane is a classic illustration of what's wrong with a voting system that rewards not who comes first but whoever avoids coming last. Thus the eventual outcome rests on a desperate struggle between Labor and the Greens not to come last.
What is effectively happening here is that there is a Labor/Green bloc which between the two parties commands well over half the vote, and that it does indeed function as a bloc as far as the votes cast are concerned is demonstrated by the preference flow between the two parties. The system ensures that whichever party comes out on top within that bloc will win, and (2) given that the bloc has considerably more votes than the Liberals that seems entirely reasonable. Indeed AIUI AV was originally introducted in Australia to ensure that the bloc formed by the predecessor parties to the current Liberals and Nationals was able to behave in this way without losing out to Labor. If Australia used FPTP then a likely situation would be that the bulk of the voters for the Labor/Green bloc would tactically settle on one of the two parties, very likely Labor as the established party, and then that party would probably have enough to win. I don't see why that is preferable to the way that the election works under AV, where Labor and the Greens should have to make a case for why voters should prefer one of them over the other. There are of course still tactical scenarios (e.g. if you're a right-winger who particularly hates the Greens there's a case you should give your first preference to Labor rather that the Liberals if you think the Liberals can't win) but I don't think they're quite as pervasive. You could argue that the requirement for full preferencing in Australian style AV strengthens these blocs: if you're a Green supporter who really doesn't care for either of the two bigger parties you can't just vote 1. Green 2. Animal Justice (or whatever) and leave everything else blank, you have to put one of Labor or the Liberals above the other. Also, the fact that Australian parties give their voters a suggested ranking of the other parties ("How To Vote" cards) must strengthen the tendency to form blocs. But I suspect that in this case the Liberals are far enough behind Labor + Greens that those things don't matter. - Well, all right. When I said 'last' I meant 'last among candidates with a serious chance of election'.
- I disagree. Well, sort of. I agree that what Labor and the Greens are doing here, in presenting separate candidacies appealing, apparently, to more or less the same voters, is perfectly reasonable behaviour given the AV system. So I'm not condemning them, but I am criticizing the system. I prefer a system that encourages politicians fishing in the same waters to hammer out their disagreements before the election and present an agreed programme and candidate that voters can then choose or reject. Instead the outcome is being determined pretty much, in the circumstances of Brisbane, by something that ought to be irrelevant, namely who (of the serious candidates) can avoid finishing last. Another problem with AV is that it's easy to imagine circumstances (not those applying in Brisbane) where the system can be gamed.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,435
|
Post by iain on May 29, 2022 11:49:01 GMT
I disagree. Well, sort of. I agree that what Labor and the Greens are doing here, in presenting separate candidacies appealing, apparently, to more or less the same voters, is perfectly reasonable behaviour given the AV system. So I'm not condemning them, but I am criticizing the system. I prefer a system that encourages politicians fishing in the same waters to hammer out their disagreements before the election and present an agreed programme and candidate that voters can then choose or reject. Instead the outcome is being determined pretty much, in the circumstances of Brisbane, by something that ought to be irrelevant, namely who (of the serious candidates) can avoid finishing last. Another problem with AV is that it's easy to imagine circumstances (not those applying in Brisbane) where the system can be gamed. In a fringe case like Macnamara you might have a point, but in Brisbane that is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Lab+Grn basically function as a block (as do Liberal and National). This gives voters the chance to choose which part of the block represents them, based on which has more support. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 29, 2022 11:54:30 GMT
I disagree. Well, sort of. I agree that what Labor and the Greens are doing here, in presenting separate candidacies appealing, apparently, to more or less the same voters, is perfectly reasonable behaviour given the AV system. So I'm not condemning them, but I am criticizing the system. I prefer a system that encourages politicians fishing in the same waters to hammer out their disagreements before the election and present an agreed programme and candidate that voters can then choose or reject. Instead the outcome is being determined pretty much, in the circumstances of Brisbane, by something that ought to be irrelevant, namely who (of the serious candidates) can avoid finishing last. Another problem with AV is that it's easy to imagine circumstances (not those applying in Brisbane) where the system can be gamed. In a fringe case like Macnamara you might have a point, but in Brisbane that is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Lab+Grn basically function as a block (as do Liberal and National). This gives voters the chance to choose which part of the block represents them, based on which has more support. Though at least there is some sign that the stranglehold of two parties has been challenged, which always has to be welcomed. Hammering out disagreements leads to lowest-common-denominator and no-one worth voting for, as is the case here at the moment. |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
Member is Online
|
Post by ColinJ on May 30, 2022 6:41:51 GMT
According to ABc, there are three seats still in doubt. At time of posting this, time differences suggest that we may be coming towards the end of the counting for today. In Deakin, with 88.2% counted, the Liberals are leading by 604 on the preference count, a margin of 0.6%. In Gilmore, with 86.7% counted, Labor has just taken the lead on the preference count with a 142 vote lead, a margin of 0.2%. Macnamara, with 83.1% now counted, shows Labor as likely winners still. "AEC three-candidate preferred count data shows that preferences from the five lowest polling candidates are running 17.6% to Labor, 35.4% to the Greens and 47% to Liberal. The count then ends up incredibly close on who will finish third and determine the winner. If during the distribution of preferences the Greens or Liberals finish third, Labor wins. If Labor slips to third then the Greens win. At this stage Labor finishing third looks the least likely outcome but cannot be ruled out. There will be a major count of outstanding declaration votes on Monday 30 May which should clarify the result [my emphasis]." It could be worthwhile double-checking the situation in this seat over the next few hours to see if that 30 May count runs on into the early evening. At time of posting, the last update here was 6.38 am BST. |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on May 30, 2022 7:12:34 GMT
David Littleproud has been elected as the new leader of the National Party
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,908
|
Post by YL on May 30, 2022 7:16:16 GMT
I disagree. Well, sort of. I agree that what Labor and the Greens are doing here, in presenting separate candidacies appealing, apparently, to more or less the same voters, is perfectly reasonable behaviour given the AV system. So I'm not condemning them, but I am criticizing the system. I prefer a system that encourages politicians fishing in the same waters to hammer out their disagreements before the election and present an agreed programme and candidate that voters can then choose or reject. Instead the outcome is being determined pretty much, in the circumstances of Brisbane, by something that ought to be irrelevant, namely who (of the serious candidates) can avoid finishing last. Another problem with AV is that it's easy to imagine circumstances (not those applying in Brisbane) where the system can be gamed. In a fringe case like Macnamara you might have a point, but in Brisbane that is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Lab+Grn basically function as a block (as do Liberal and National). This gives voters the chance to choose which part of the block represents them, based on which has more support. Indeed, and I think that's preferable to a situation where these things are decided in the proverbial smoke filled rooms. As for the remaining uncalled seats, someone already gave a link to Kevin Bonham's blog, where the posts are being regularly updated: - Macnamara. It is still the case that it is unlikely but possible that Labor could be third. If they're not third they will win. - Main page, including Gilmore and Deakin. He's had the Liberals winning Deakin for some time, while Labor now seem to be favoured in Gilmore after today's absentee votes. So a Labor majority looks very likely but not completely certain. See also his Senate post. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on May 30, 2022 9:30:32 GMT
Macnamara now called for Labor. That's the majority.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 30, 2022 9:43:24 GMT
And if they get Gilmore, that is a relatively comfortable 77 seats.
|
|
froome
Green
Posts: 4,549
Member is Online
|
Post by froome on May 30, 2022 9:57:31 GMT
Macnamara now called for Labor. That's the majority. Is this 'called' in the American sense, that it is called by the media well before anyone is certain of the result, or is it called (by the electoral office or the media?) when it has become mathematically impossible for anyone else to win? |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on May 30, 2022 10:01:14 GMT
And if they get Gilmore, that is a relatively comfortable 77 seats. Which, on less than a third of the vote, is a pretty good return! But that's the system they have. If not actually shoving parties toward the centre it penalises parties which manage to alienate substantial parts of the electorate so that they prefer anything but that party. The coalition really worked quite hard at that! |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 30, 2022 10:16:29 GMT
I think media outlets have generally become more cautious about "calling" results since the 2000 debacle in the US.
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,380
|
Post by stb12 on May 30, 2022 10:19:17 GMT
I think media outlets have generally become more cautious about "calling" results since the 2000 debacle in the US. Indeed, they really delayed declaring Trump in 2016 for a while after it was clear he’d won the electoral college |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 30, 2022 10:20:15 GMT
And if anything held back even longer on declaring Biden the winner last time.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on May 30, 2022 10:26:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on May 31, 2022 8:14:25 GMT
Last two seats called, one each for Labor and the Coalition, taking Labor to 77. With a weak main opposition, a significant Green presence and a range of Independents of varying hues (some have Liberal antecedents but with a Green tinge, others not) it shouldn't be hard to get stuff through the Lower House. The Senate presents challenges, as is normal, but the Coalition lost seats there too and there's a comfortable Labor/Green majority (with David Pocock, the ex-Rugby Union star, adding another Greenish and seemingly progressive vote).
Labor has pledged to put the "Climate Wars" to bed. The Coalition seem somewhat chastened by the thumping they have received in suburban areas seemingly largely for their environmental position (its notable that the essentially rural National element of the Coalition held all their seats). There'll be some pain in any radical shift (Labor has proposed an acceleration of carbon reduction, and the Greens want more than that). Some skilful, imaginative work required.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,435
|
Post by iain on May 31, 2022 12:24:41 GMT
The failure to win Gilmore makes this the first election not to see a single Coalition gain since all the way back in 1983.
|
|
