Australia Federal 2022 Election

[ibfc]

www.tallyroom.com.au/47851
Good post showing how badly the Coalition did in the inner cities.

[myth11]

One rule I just learned about this election is that you have to vote for everyone with the key line of
Every candidate must be numbered, otherwise the vote becomes "informal" (spoiled) and does not count.

[Andrew_S]

May 27, 2022 16:21:17 GMT myth11 said:

One rule I just learned about this election is that you have to vote for everyone with the key line of
Every candidate must be numbered, otherwise the vote becomes "informal" (spoiled) and does not count.

It always amazes me that more votes aren't spoilt when you consider that if there are 10 candidates the voter only needs to make a slight mistake and the vote would be invalidated. But they must be used to it in Australia since it's been going for about 100 years.

[Georg Ebner]

May 27, 2022 16:33:11 GMT Andrew_S said:

May 27, 2022 16:21:17 GMT myth11 said:

One rule I just learned about this election is that you have to vote for everyone with the key line of
Every candidate must be numbered, otherwise the vote becomes "informal" (spoiled) and does not count.

It always amazes me that more votes aren't spoilt when you consider that if there are 10 candidates the voter only needs to make a slight mistake and the vote would be invalidated. But they must be used to it in Australia since it's been going for about 100 years.

Most simply give it up and choose "above the line", i e. the preFerences get distributed automatically by their favorite party's order.

[European Lefty]

Not in house elections

[YL]

May 27, 2022 8:48:50 GMT islington said:

May 27, 2022 8:04:20 GMT YL said:

The AEC has done "three candidate preferred" (i.e. redistributing preferences of everyone except Labor, the Liberals and the Greens) counts in Brisbane and Macnamara: www.aec.gov.au/news/results-3cp.htm

In Brisbane, the Greens appear to be ahead of Labor, so will win the seat; Macnamara is close three-way, but Labor are in the lead and should win on transfers unless they come third. Labor only need one of these for a majority.

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.

As already pointed out neither is going 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 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.

[Georg Ebner]

May 27, 2022 15:08:04 GMT ibfc said:

www.tallyroom.com.au/47851
Good post showing how badly the Coalition did in the inner cities.

They have provided also another article on the obvious corRelation of Coal.-losses and Chinese.

[YL]

May 27, 2022 17:53:33 GMT European Lefty said:

Not in house elections

Not even in the Senate any more, thankfully. The "above the line" option now consists of ordering the party lists.

[European Lefty]

May 27, 2022 17:53:45 GMT YL said:

May 27, 2022 8:48:50 GMT islington said:

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.

As already pointed out neither is going 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 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.

I've often thought that this must actually weaken minor parties. If Labour in the UK lose enough left-wing voters to the Greens it hands seats to the Tories so we have to make at least some effort to win them over. If Australian Labor lose those votes, they eventually get them back anyway because the vast majority will still preference them over the Coalition. 

Unless of course the Greens get enough votes to actually get a couple of MPs elected but even at this election they're only going to get 4 or 5 out of 150

[iain]

May 27, 2022 18:02:18 GMT European Lefty said:

May 27, 2022 17:53:45 GMT YL said:

I've often thought that this must actually weaken minor parties. If Labour in the UK lose enough left-wing voters to the Greens it hands seats to the Tories so we have to make at least some effort to win them over. If Australian Labor lose those votes, they eventually get them back anyway because the vast majority will still preference them over the Coalition. 

Unless of course the Greens get enough votes to actually get a couple of MPs elected but even at this election they're only going to get 4 or 5 out of 150

I think this is half correct - the AV helps minor parties to make the initial breakthrough to challenge, but possibly hurts them when it comes to actually winning a seat (though in a UK context it'd likely help the Lib Dems of course). The compulsory preferencing almost definitely hurts them, firstly for the reason you state, but also because of LNP preferences favouring Labor. With optional preferencing most of those votes would probably exhaust (in fact they might marginally help the Greens), but in a compulsory situation most Liberal voters just follow the How to Vote card. This used to help the Greens (and was how they first won Melbourne) but since the Liberals switched their recommendation, it's made it all but impossible for the Greens to get over the top in Inner City Labor seats - indeed, the one case where they have managed it in the last few years was South Brisbane in the Queensland state election, when the Liberals reversed their usual HTV to take out a Labor Minister.

[boogieeck]

Are you factoring in the fact that Green parties have become more left-wing than they once were, which both attracts and repels votes and preferences?

[timrollpickering]

May 27, 2022 17:53:45 GMT YL said:

May 27, 2022 8:48:50 GMT islington said:

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.

As already pointed out neither is going to come last.

Not last overall but last of those three parties.

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 given that the bloc has considerably more votes than the Liberals that seems entirely reasonable.

There is also a bloc of voters that prefer Labor to the Greens but can only get that outcome if the votes fall in the right order. And in some past elections with maverick independents there was almost a game of scissors-paper-stone in which each of the three last two combinations would produce a different winner.

This is the whole "why do only some voters get their second preferences counted?" question from our referendum that many couldn't get their heads round. In this situation AV means that Labor/Green and Green/Labor voters can get the other if they can't get their first preference elected but LNP/Labor voters don't get their second choice unless Labor can get into the last two either by overtaking the Greens or by the LNP falling back. And here it's even more perverse as Labor are currently in second place on first preferences but seem likely to get pushed into third on smaller party preferences.

[johnloony]

May 27, 2022 17:51:43 GMT Georg Ebner said:

May 27, 2022 16:33:11 GMT Andrew_S said:

It always amazes me that more votes aren't spoilt when you consider that if there are 10 candidates the voter only needs to make a slight mistake and the vote would be invalidated. But they must be used to it in Australia since it's been going for about 100 years.

Most simply give it up and choose "above the line", i e. the preFerences get distributed automatically by their favorite party's order.

q.v. “How to ruin STV” (also applicable to AV in this instance) www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE12/P7.HTM

[Georg Ebner]

May 27, 2022 22:55:54 GMT johnloony said:

May 27, 2022 17:51:43 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Most simply give it up and choose "above the line", i e. the preFerences get distributed automatically by their favorite party's order.

q.v. “How to ruin STV” (also applicable to AV in this instance) www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE12/P7.HTM

I like STV because of delivering us, how the transfers were flowing; and hate STV - apart from the endless countingProcess - because of appearing "perfect" and "totally fair" to all those, who have not had a closer look at it.

[YL]

May 27, 2022 21:47:28 GMT timrollpickering said:

May 27, 2022 17:53:45 GMT YL said:

As already pointed out neither is going to come last.

Not last overall but last of those three parties.

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 given that the bloc has considerably more votes than the Liberals that seems entirely reasonable.

There is also a bloc of voters that prefer Labor to the Greens but can only get that outcome if the votes fall in the right order.

You mean the ones I mentioned in the part of my post that you snipped? Please don't try to portray me as an AV fanatic who thinks it's a perfect system; I happen to think it is mildly preferable to FPTP, but I am aware that odd things can happen around order of elimination.

And in some past elections with maverick independents there was almost a game of scissors-paper-stone in which each of the three last two combinations would produce a different winner.

Please give an example.

This is the whole "why do only some voters get their second preferences counted?" question from our referendum that many couldn't get their heads round. In this situation AV means that Labor/Green and Green/Labor voters can get the other if they can't get their first preference elected but LNP/Labor voters don't get their second choice unless Labor can get into the last two either by overtaking the Greens or by the LNP falling back.

Again, if you read my post clearly you will see that I am aware of this. But I don't think LNP/Labor (or LNP/Greens) functions as a "bloc" in the way I intended it: parties should not be assumed to be equidistant from each other, and here Labor and the Greens are clearly closer to each other than either is to the LNP; likewise, elsewhere in Australia, the Nationals and Liberals are much closer to each other than either is to Labor. FPTP ignores this, or rather encourages massive tactical voting.

And here it's even more perverse as Labor are currently in second place on first preferences but seem likely to get pushed into third on smaller party preferences.

Why is that perverse? It's exactly what would happen (modulo the effect of forced preferencing I suppose, but I'm not going to defend that aspect of the Australian system, because I don't like it) if those parties hadn't stood in the first place. One of the main advantages of AV is that it removes the lazy "it's a wasted vote" argument for not voting for your real first preference party.

[jamesdoyle]

And meanwhile, Brisbane is called for the Greens.

[greenhert]

May 28, 2022 7:50:10 GMT jamesdoyle said:

And meanwhile, Brisbane is called for the Greens.

Which begs the question, how often has a candidate who finished third on 1st preference votes been able to win on the 2-candidate preferred vote in an Australian election?

[iainbhx]

May 28, 2022 8:05:46 GMT greenhert said:

May 28, 2022 7:50:10 GMT jamesdoyle said:

And meanwhile, Brisbane is called for the Greens.

Which begs the question, how often has a candidate who finished third on 1st preference votes been able to win on the 2-candidate preferred vote in an Australian election?

Andrew Wilkie won Denison, TAS in 2010 from third. Green preferences put him above the Libs and Lib preferences swamped the ALP. He's been in first place in every contest in Denison and its successor Clark since.

[iain]

The Greens have won Prahran in the Victorian Parliament from third twice IIRC (though may only be once).

[greenhert]

May 28, 2022 9:31:43 GMT iain said:

The Greens have won Prahran in the Victorian Parliament twice IIRC (though may only be once).

Definitely twice, and Sam Hibbins was indeed third on 1st preference votes in both 2014 and 2018. It is the wealthier part of the federal Macnamara (fka Melbourne Ports) electoral division.