|
|
Post by blueliberal1 on Mar 7, 2014 20:21:17 GMT
Western Australia will return to the polls in April after the September Senate election was declared null and void. The election was close and a recount had to be had, but 1400 ballot papers went missing- enough to change the result.
The official result was:
Lib 3
ALP 1
Green 1
Sports Party 1
Had a few critical counts went another way, the result would have been
Lib 3
ALP 2
PUP 1
This is the first senate by-election since the 1900s
|
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Mar 30, 2014 20:33:26 GMT
77 candidates this time up from 62 in September.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2014 21:36:17 GMT
Going to be an interesting one, changes in minor party preferences make it harder for the Greens to pick up a seat. Still there's hope that the left vote will rise..
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Apr 1, 2014 21:40:45 GMT
Anyone else getting adverts telling us how easy it is to vote in the WA Senate election? Not sure that's how I'd describe a 77 candidate STV election to be honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 1, 2014 21:50:16 GMT
Anyone else getting adverts telling us how easy it is to vote in the WA Senate election? Not sure that's how I'd describe a 77 candidate STV election to be honest. yes indeed but they are cleverly aiming those ads at people who are likely to be able to figure it out. Even though they don't actually have a vote. It's probably a government target or something. |
|
|
|
Post by swindonlad on Apr 2, 2014 5:17:28 GMT
Does one have to rank for all 77 candidates, unless you vote for a party list? If so, this will deter people for going for their preferred order & go for the party lists, putting more influence in the parties orders
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2014 10:29:05 GMT
Does one have to rank for all 77 candidates, unless you vote for a party list? If so, this will deter people for going for their preferred order & go for the party lists, putting more influence in the parties orders That's exactly how it works. Although ranking the numerous candidates is probably less work than attempting to figure out where your preference will flow after voting for a minor party with all their deals and arrangements.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 12:03:51 GMT
Results starting to come in. Initial results good for Greens & PUP, who may both pick up a senator. With Labor down and Liberals down even more.
|
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Apr 5, 2014 13:36:54 GMT
With 65% of first preferences counted, there is a big swing away from both Labor and Liberals, mostly towards the Palmer United Party then the Greens.
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Apr 5, 2014 13:51:24 GMT
Almost certain now that seats will go Liberals 3 Labour 1 Greens 1 PUP 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 14:12:03 GMT
Almost certain now that seats will go Liberals 3 Labour 1 Greens 1 PUP 1 Seems to be leaning that way, still a chance for 2/2/1/1  |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Apr 5, 2014 19:18:31 GMT
After what happened last time, who knows what we might get out of the preferences!
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Apr 5, 2014 19:35:43 GMT
After what happened last time, who knows what we might get out of the preferences! There is a seat calculator on the abc website , it clearly shows that anything other other 3/1/1/1 is very unlikely |
|
|
|
Post by Anonyman on Apr 11, 2014 22:56:26 GMT
What on earth is a Sports Party, anyway? As far as I can tell it was (temporarily) elected through some kind of hellishly complex minor-party vote transfer coalition.
|
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Apr 12, 2014 9:22:33 GMT
They wanted investment in sports facilities and education with the aim of every Australian being able to enjoy playing sports, apparently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Apr 12, 2014 9:52:07 GMT
They wanted investment in sports facilities and education with the aim of every Australian being able to enjoy playing sports, apparently. Apparently it wasn't even that nuanced in some places- they just used the slogan "Do you prefer sport to politics?" I suspect we'll see them mentioned in years to come in a thread of "parties that have spent the shortest time in a national legislature". |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 12, 2014 10:40:41 GMT
They wanted investment in sports facilities and education with the aim of every Australian being able to enjoy playing sports, apparently. Apparently it wasn't even that nuanced in some places- they just used the slogan "Do you prefer sport to politics?" I suspect we'll see them mentioned in years to come in a thread of "parties that have spent the shortest time in a national legislature". That reminds me that when I was at university, the Athletics union, unhappy with the level of their grant from the student union, stood candidates in one of the termly elections. As the number of people who played football, rugby, badminton, hockey etc, etc far exceeded the usual number of voters they swept the board, got the grant increased and then all resigned. A very effective piece of political action. |
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Apr 12, 2014 10:53:11 GMT
Seems to be pretty much what's happened at Edinburgh University Student Association this year more or less. The annual contest for the EUSA presidency is normally a fight between Labour Students and an assorted far left candidate, usually with a comedy candidate and occasionally a no-chance hipster Tory thrown in for good measure. This year, an American student stood solely on the policy of getting a better deal for international students. She unexpectedly swept the contest, which had a much higher turnout than usual, basically by picking up all the votes of international students who I guess normally mostly don't bother to vote. I suppose it might presumably work out well for international students, but the president-elect hasn't been involved in the student union before at all, so she's going to have an uphill struggle trying to get to grips with it, and who knows what she'll do for day-to-day running decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Apr 12, 2014 11:30:16 GMT
They wanted investment in sports facilities and education with the aim of every Australian being able to enjoy playing sports, apparently. Apparently it wasn't even that nuanced in some places- they just used the slogan "Do you prefer sport to politics?" I suspect we'll see them mentioned in years to come in a thread of "parties that have spent the shortest time in a national legislature". Actually no - the senators whose election was voided weren't due to take office until July. So the Sports Party never reached the Senate. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Apr 12, 2014 12:00:39 GMT
Apparently it wasn't even that nuanced in some places- they just used the slogan "Do you prefer sport to politics?" I suspect we'll see them mentioned in years to come in a thread of "parties that have spent the shortest time in a national legislature". Actually no - the senators whose election was voided weren't due to take office until July. So the Sports Party never reached the Senate. Ah! We'll have another thread then- people who were elected and never took their seat! |
|
