Comments on: Macro and micro

By: Stewart

Stewart — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:43:32 +0000

I have a feeling that the opinion poll to be released next week along with Liberal internal party polling will reveal what most realistic people seem to be assuming; that the election loss will be devastating for the Coalition, and far worse than one would expect when faced with a tired, old government.

My suspicions are aroused by a number of factors (including party rumblings) and the complete lack of confidence displayed by both the Opposition Leader and Deputy. I refer to the opening phrase of Peter Debnam’s Blog for Friday 9th:

Quote:
“As the election approaches, Morris Iemma and Labor are becoming increasingly cocky by the day. Just imagine what Labor will be like if they win this election â€“ and even worse win easily.”

Debnam is not just hinting at an election victory to the ALP, but to one that will embarrass the Liberal Party to the core. Sure, it’s fairly unfounded inductive reasoning, but I’d put my money on a result of that nature, as oppose to one that includes a swing to the Coalition.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:32:10 +0000

Melbcity, this is a NSW election thread, can you please keep your obsessing on the unrelated Victorian election to a minimum? Thankyou.

By: Melbcity

Melbcity — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:49:22 +0000

One of the issues that the will befall Victorian voters in the next federal Election is the confusion that might arise from voters voting below the line who will be mistaken into thinking that the rules have changed and that they no longer have to number every square (except the last square). We can expect that the number of informal votes in Victoria will go up. This is a challenge for the AEC to correct any misunderstanding that exist between the two systems.

By: Melb city

Melb city — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:35:32 +0000

It is not just the informal vote the VEC scrubs. It also removes any preferences that are out of sequence above the minimum required.

By: Melbcity

Melbcity — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:33:06 +0000

Unfortuneatly unlike the AEC (which is far more professional) the VEC scrubs the data and only published preferences that are valid. As a result it is impossible to scrutinise or analysis the informal vote. It would be far preferable if the VEC adopted the AEC approach and faithfully reproduced the recorded preferences.

By: Melb city

Melb city — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:26:03 +0000

The Victorian upper-house preference data shows that most people voting below the line voted one to five for the party of their choice or next came the donkey vote. The donkey vote was the highest polling vote where all boxes were filled following the registered above-the-line-ticket vote. In terms of the overall election it was not significant but in a close election every vote counts As I mentioned above in a single member electorate it is considerable.

By: Melbcity

Melbcity — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:13:39 +0000

Disaster Boy./ I think the donkey vote is real particular where voters vote below the line or in a full preferential ballot. Analysis of the Victorian Upper house below-the-line ballot papers definitely shows a series of donkey voters. (Copies available on my web site http://melbcity.com/vec01.htm). Many vote for their nominated party of choice then proceed to allocate votes down the page. A lessor number reverse donkey vote. I estimate it to be anything between 1 to 2%. In a tight election every vote counts. Be it a donkey or an ass. The introduction of above the line voting and optional preferential voting has reduced the percentage of donkey votes in upper-house electorates but it is still prevalent in the single member electorates.

By: Melb city

Melb city — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:07:06 +0000

It is far easier for a third party candidate to win a so called safe seat that is notionally around 60% Then it is to win a marginal seat. The reason is simple mathematics. It a candidate can manage to attract 26% of the vote and peg back their main opponents to below 50%, negotiate good preferences with other opposing candidates chances are they will be reflected. The odds of achieving such an upset are odds on in favour of the challenging candidate in a by-election and less odds on in a full election.

The other issue of interest is if there was to be a by-election in Queensland would the Prime-minister call a fresh election.

Holding a federal election now would be out of the question as the federal Government are not doing so well in the polls and more time is required to sear down the “honey manners” limelight. the other factor that bears consideration in John Howard’s thinking is the Liberal Parties control of the Senate. An election before July would reduce the Liberal Party’s control of the senate by one year should the electorate seek to punish the Liberal Party and remove its mandate in the Senate. A Liberal Party pegged back to winning two seats in each state would severely impeded the liberal Parties control of the upper house in the event they lost government

By: Queenslander

Queenslander — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:33:44 +0000

on donkey votes i think that most people who go to the effort of coming all the way down to vote at least think they may as well make a choice.

on the gst the democrats were doing the right thing , taking the harsh edges off government legislation, thats called being a sensible centre party (and broad based flat consumption taxes are better than progressive income taxes and selective tariffs and duties)

By: edward o

edward o — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:26:09 +0000

And Jack, I’m willing to take you up on your 100 votes bet. Contact the Bludger if you want my email address.

I’m a touch skeptical about the donkey vote too, but I can tell you that the candidates who will draw significant primary votes all wanted to be higher than the others judging by their expressions. It was kind of fun.