iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,438 
|
Post by iain on Aug 2, 2016 12:57:18 GMT
South Australia has finished it's count:
4 Liberal
3 Labor
3 NXT
1 Green
1 Family First
It had looked for most of the count that Bob Day (FF) would lose his seat to Labor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 2, 2016 13:00:52 GMT
If the One Nation candidate is disqualified, his seat should just pass on to second on the list. The Aussie senate is done by STV. Well, yes and no. It's got its own special Aussie form of STV, with the 'above the line' and 'below the line' options for voters. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,438
|
Post by iain on Aug 2, 2016 13:10:40 GMT
So far confirmed in the Senate we have:
Northern Territory
Labor - 1 (-)
Liberal - 1 (-)
ACT
Labor - 1 (-)
Liberal - 1 (-)
South Australia
Liberal - 4 (-1)
Labor - 3 (-)
NXT - 3 (+2)
Green - 1 (-1)
Family First - 1 (-)
Tasmania
Labor - 5 (-)
Liberal - 4 (-)
Green - 2 (-)
Jacquie Lambie Network - 1 (+1)
PUP - 0 (-1)
*Jacquie Lambie was the elected PUP Senator
Western Australia
Liberal - 5 (-1)
Labor - 4 (+1)
Green - 2 (-)
One Nation - 1 (+1)
PUP - 0 (-1)
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,020
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 2, 2016 13:11:12 GMT
The Aussie senate is done by STV. Well, yes and no. It's got its own special Aussie form of STV, with the 'above the line' and 'below the line' options for voters. Exactly. The list is a suggestion of order of candidates from the parties not hard and fast unlike a list system so there's no deferral down the list. Quite frankly the way the Aussies do STV for the senate is completely bonkers and makes it extraordinarily complex. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,438
|
Post by iain on Aug 2, 2016 13:22:27 GMT
Well, yes and no. It's got its own special Aussie form of STV, with the 'above the line' and 'below the line' options for voters. Exactly. The list is a suggestion of order of candidates from the parties not hard and fast unlike a list system so there's no deferral down the list. Quite frankly the way the Aussies do STV for the senate is completely bonkers and makes it extraordinarily complex. Okay, there is technically a recount, but in practice the seat will go to the next down the list |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,020
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 2, 2016 13:31:17 GMT
Exactly. The list is a suggestion of order of candidates from the parties not hard and fast unlike a list system so there's no deferral down the list. Quite frankly the way the Aussies do STV for the senate is completely bonkers and makes it extraordinarily complex. Okay, there is technically a recount, but in practice the seat will go to the next down the list How does that work? Regardless of the existence of the list the vote is for the individual, not the party so the next one on the 'list' should only get the votes when they transfer to them after elimination or election (bearing in mind not all of the votes will transfer from one candidate to the next when people have done their own preferences. There must ba a possibility that the other One Nationer will lose out (was it close?). |
|
|
|
Post by aross on Aug 2, 2016 14:30:04 GMT
No, recounts ("countback") only take place for some state and territorial parliaments. When a federal Senator resigns/dies/is disqualified, a replacement is appointed by the State Parliament. If the previous Senator was a member of a political party when elected, the replacement must come from the same party (this was previously done by convention, but was codified after shenanigans related to it played a role in The Dismissal). Generally, a replacement is recommended by the party and this will be accepted, presumably in this case that would indeed be the number 2 on the One Nation ticket.
Aussie STV is pretty bonkers, yes, but what can you do when you insist on having electorates of up to 7 million and 12 positions to fill (WA had 539(!) counts and the three biggest states will beat that for sure when they come in), it basically can't work as STV "should". It does seem to me the new voting rules have improved things a fair bit and are basically as good as your going to get.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 2, 2016 16:20:38 GMT
The Aussie senate is done by STV. Well, yes and no. It's got its own special Aussie form of STV, with the 'above the line' and 'below the line' options for voters. It's changed - it's now the NSW version where you can preference ATL and don't have to number every candidate BTL. I think South Australia's now the only remaining state with the full fun of "either number every single candidate on a ballot paper too big to fully open in the booth or number just one box and have a party decide for you". |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 2, 2016 16:41:10 GMT
Okay, there is technically a recount, but in practice the seat will go to the next down the list How does that work? Regardless of the existence of the list the vote is for the individual, not the party so the next one on the 'list' should only get the votes when they transfer to them after elimination or election (bearing in mind not all of the votes will transfer from one candidate to the next when people have done their own preferences. There must ba a possibility that the other One Nationer will lose out (was it close?). Not really. Most votes will be cast above the line so they'll either first preference or transfer to the whole One Nation list. The list isn't a mere suggestion but rather the order in which all votes for it will go. The Australian use of STV may seem odd but one of the problems is that the federal constitution effectively states Senators have to be directly elected, making a party list system virtually impossible to implement (and you really don't want Aussie politicians trying to amend one of those - look at the early of ACT assembly elections for a complete clusterfuck). But at the same time the Senate is not the primary election on most people's mind - I think the ACT is the only jurisdiction where either of the major parties focuses airtime on it and Tasmania & an extent South Australia are about the only states where the media give Senate candidates much coverage because they don't have to many House ones to go through. And a lot of voters are voting on party lines. STV just isn't a good system for a strong party system with a large electorate, something its advocates keep failing to grapple with. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,020
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 2, 2016 16:53:50 GMT
How does that work? Regardless of the existence of the list the vote is for the individual, not the party so the next one on the 'list' should only get the votes when they transfer to them after elimination or election (bearing in mind not all of the votes will transfer from one candidate to the next when people have done their own preferences. There must ba a possibility that the other One Nationer will lose out (was it close?). Not really. Most votes will be cast above the line so they'll either first preference or transfer to the whole One Nation list. The list isn't a mere suggestion but rather the order in which all votes for it will go. The Australian use of STV may seem odd but one of the problems is that the federal constitution effectively states Senators have to be directly elected, making a party list system virtually impossible to implement (and you really don't want Aussie politicians trying to amend one of those - look at the early of ACT assembly elections for a complete clusterfrack). But at the same time the Senate is not the primary election on most people's mind - I think the ACT is the only jurisdiction where either of the major parties focuses airtime on it and Tasmania & an extent South Australia are about the only states where the media give Senate candidates much coverage because they don't have to many House ones to go through. And a lot of voters are voting on party lines. STV just isn't a good system for a strong party system with a large electorate, something its advocates keep failing to grapple with. The point I was making is that it is only a suggestion unless you prefer to vote above the line (which I'm aware is what the vast majority of voters do), however, because you can vote below the line and do your own preferences the list is itself irrelevant it is where the vote goes next that matters. The next person on that party's list might be next elected but the fact they're next on the list isn't why they've been elected, it's because that's where the votes are transferring to in sufficient numbers. I'm a big advocate of STV and I don't think you should use electoral areas with any less than three and no more than eight members for that system (in the same way as I don't think FPTP should be used for anything other than single member elections if you have to use it at all). I'm sure they could divide up the Aussie states if need be to keep within those parameters (obviously the territories you can't...) and do away with the ridiculous need to give a full list of preferences (which appears to be purely for the benefit of the electoral authorities rather than the wishes of the elector who should be able to cast their one vote however they please). |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 2, 2016 17:18:53 GMT
...the ridiculous need to give a full list of preferences (which appears to be purely for the benefit of the electoral authorities rather than the wishes of the elector who should be able to cast their one vote however they please). No the full preferencing requirement stems from lower houses where the political desire is to prevent vote splitting by requiring voters to transfer. Over time the side of politics benefiting has changed - so whereas the ALP was once big on FPTP and then optional preferencing as a way to split the right, lately it's been the left who have needed compulsory preferencing the most (hence the recent switch in Queensland). Medium term we'll see how the new Senate rules impact on spoils in the House - NSW is now the one state parliament with optional in the lower house so the upper's rules are less likely to cause spoils below. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Aug 2, 2016 18:39:38 GMT
South Australia has finished it's count: 4 Liberal 3 Labor 3 NXT 1 Green 1 Family First It had looked for most of the count that Bob Day (FF) would lose his seat to Labor. On first preferences the Liberals had 4.24 quotas, Labor 3.55, Xenophon 2.83, Greens 0.76, One Nation 0.39 and Family First 0.37. Family First got ahead of One Nation on Liberal and minor party transfers, and then overtook Labor for the final seat on One Nation transfers. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Aug 2, 2016 21:29:39 GMT
NSW Liberals were very, very foolish not to place Jim Molan much higher up the senate list. An excellent candidate who is head and shoulders above most of the dross in the Liberal ranks.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Aug 2, 2016 22:12:15 GMT
NSW Liberals were very, very foolish not to place Jim Molan much higher up the senate list. An excellent candidate who is head and shoulders above most of the dross in the Liberal ranks. That's not it works in Australia. Candidates are not chosen by local branches, not they are chosen for competence, but for balancing the weight of the different factions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 13:02:24 GMT
The Senate has been confirmed: Coalition 30 ALP 26 Greens 9 One Nation 4 Nick Xenophon Team 3 Liberal Democrats 1 Family First 1 Others 2 (Jacqui Lambie, Derryn Hinch) Hinch is a populist radio host in Victoria, Lambie was formerly PUP and stood on her own ticket in Tasmania. The terms will be backdated to July 1. There is some debate as to how to allocate three and six year terms. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 5, 2016 13:09:39 GMT
The Senate has been confirmed: Coalition 30 ALP 26 Greens 9 One Nation 4 Nick Xenophon Team 3 Liberal Democrats 1 Family First 1 Others 2 (Jacqui Lambie, Derryn Hinch) Hinch is a populist radio host in Victoria, Lambie was formerly PUP and stood on her own ticket in Tasmania. The terms will be backdated to July 1. There is some debate as to how to allocate three and six year terms. The small party and Independent Senators include some very odd people. Malcolm Roberts, one of the One Nation Senators, is an adherent of the 'sovereign citizen', 'freemen on the land' school: www.yumpu.com/document/view/25780781/from-what-i-malcolm-ieuan-roberts-have-seen-galileo-movementDerryn Hinch was given the nickname 'the human headline' for his habit of making statements that attract attention - and likes the nickname. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Aug 5, 2016 22:55:21 GMT
New South Wales: Lib/Nat 5 seats (4.66 quotas), Lab 4 seats (4.07 quotas), Grn 1 seat (0.96 quotas), One Nation 1 seat (0.53 quotas) and Liberal Democrats 1 seat (0.40 quotas) with the Christian Democrats (0.35 quotas) as runner-up.
Victoria: Coalition 5 seats (4.31 quotas), Labor 4 seats (3.995 quotas), Green 2 seats (1.41 quotas), Derryn Hinch elected (0.79 quotas). The final seat was between the fifth Coalition candidate and Family First, who had overtaken the Sex Party, the Xenophon Team, the Liberal Democrats, Animal Justice and One Nation on preferences.
Queensland: Liberal National 5 seats (4.59 quotas), Labor 4 seats (3.43 quotas), One Nation 2 seats (1.19 quotas), Green 1 seat (0.90 quotas). The second One Nation candidate overtook on preferences Glenn Lazarus, Katter, Family First (who were runners-up), Xenophon and the Liberal Democrats, who started with 0.37 quotas.
|
|
|
|
Post by uhurasmazda on Aug 6, 2016 0:17:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Sept 18, 2016 21:23:08 GMT
Nearly 7 hours of election night coverage:
|
|
