Comments on: Super Saturday live

By: David Walsh

David Walsh — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:37:49 +0000

There is surely no chance that the government will get a majority again…

There’s plenty of chance when all the Coalition need do is repeat its 2001 election result. (Which wasn’t a thumping win by any means.)

And I love this six year commitment stuff. As if senators never give the game away mid-term.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:58:20 +0000

Bah. She’ll run

Curious about her predictions regarding the Senate though. I never really considered that. There is surely no chance that the government will get a majority again… if the backlash is powerful enough the Labor could strip the government of its power all over again.

Alarming thought. SHOULD the two mentioned Democrats not run, they are pretty much done and dusted, which means FF or the Greens will take the balance of power. Anyone else see problems with this?

By: Politics_Obsessed

Politics_Obsessed — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:52:07 +0000

Breaking news… [as from ninemsn.com.au]…

It looks like Natasha Stott Despoja and Andrew Murray are considering not running for the 2007 election for the Democrats. This definetly is a blow to the party! And further the article mentioned Natasha not running for the leadership again.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=92507

By: Politics_Obsessed

Politics_Obsessed — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:33:42 +0000

That’s ok Cameron – just not more alcohol next time before you post a comment. But to comment… I would like to see how Labor comes close in Unley, Stuart and Mitchell [I'm impatient I want to know who wins it now!] but more interestingly will be what happens at the 2010 election… esp. Mitchell… if it remains in Kris’s hands as an independant it could well end Labor dominance on the seat or unless it’s one of these one term independants that buck the trend. To Stuart… if Labor does win it this time – it’ll be interesting to see how much Mike Rann’s popularity holds up in 2010 as Stuart has been a Liberal seat for a long time and even if Labor does win it – it’ll probably fall back into liberal hands – unless Rannkeeps to his promises and Mr Jervis gets in touch with the electorate…….. as for Unley – although it was held with a 9% margin before the election… I’m pretty sure it will stay Liberal…. although it would be an unexpected and utter surprise if Labor wins it.

By: Cameron Smith

Cameron Smith — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:22:50 +0000

ahhhh…

I just realised ur talking about the tassy election… wheres that delete post function.

By: Cameron Smith

Cameron Smith — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:18:17 +0000

So labor are going to lose 15 seats on declaration votes? That would make X’s 2.5 quota look normal!

While its unlikely that labor will win unley and stuart once all the declaration votes have gone through, i cant see the liberals making up the difference.

Hartley 1.5k (last election liberals made up 450 in DV)
Norwood 1.2k
Mawson 900
Light 800

its just not going to happen, espically given that the advantage the liberals tend to have with DV would be reduced by the general swing to labor.

By: Politics_Obsessed

Politics_Obsessed — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:04:17 +0000

I’d hate to be obvious and break the ice here but…
Labor hasn’t fully secured a majority yet and looking at some of the results for the seats [updated 4pm today] it looks like they could be in some trouble… I would say 13 if they’re lucky… yet all the media is going on about a majority government like it’s a given! So why is that so? Is everyone really confident they get a majority?

By: Cheyne

Cheyne — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:35:20 +0000

I see the ‘Tiser claim FF did particularly well in Hartley when it was out polled by the Greens and had a swing against it.

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:19:57 +0000

If Rann proposed introducing PR in the lower house, I’d expect you’d get the support of at least the Greens, Democrats and probably Family First (who would do well in South Australia under such a system). But I can’t see the ALP doing such a thing.

As far as the quota being too low, it’s true that under ticket voting it would cause the same problems we have in NSW, where the quota was 4.5%. But if you get rid of ticket voting, the effects of “preference harvesting” are mostly eliminated, and you see parties needing far more votes to win.

By: Cameron Smith

Cameron Smith — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:21:31 +0000

reducing the quota to 4.15%ish (which is what would happen if the terms were halved) would have one really bad side effect. A party could get voted in with as low as 1% of the vote.

if the upper house is reduced to 4 year terms, multi member electorates should be created to require atleast a reasonable level of support for a party to get elected, and not a good set of preference deals.

either that or reduce it to 16 members or something to keep the quota reasonable.