With New South Wales election nominations closed and ballot paper positions drawn, I have now added full candidate lists to my election guide – always one of my favourite things to do. A couple of noteworthy details:
• Antony Green has tallied up 537 candidates for the lower house, down from 661 in 2003, and a record 333 for the upper house. However, this will not lead to a repeat of the notorious 1999 "tablecloth" ballot paper, which featured 81 different groups with above-the-line voting options. The implementation of optional preferential above-the-line voting at the 2003 election removed the incentive for establishing dummy parties to harvest preferences, and also required that parties with group voting tickets have 15 candidates. The first change reduced the size of the ballot paper, while the second resulted in a smaller number of parties running a greater number of candidates.
• Independent candidates whose nominations were news to me include Debra Wales in Gosford and Ron Page in Murray-Darling. Wales was the Liberal candidate in 1999 and 2003 but was defeated for preselection this time; Page was mayor of Broken Hill until the government dismissed the council in January. Candidates in Keira include the persistent Marcus Aussie-Stone, whose electoral adventures go back to his run against then-Prime Minister Billy McMahon in Lowe in 1972.
• Swimming legend Dawn Fraser, who held the seat of Balmain from 1988 to 1991, is a surprise late entry in the upper house. However, she will be running as an ungrouped candidate, so that anyone wishing to vote for her will be required to number 15 boxes below the line. Of the seven ungrouped candidates in 2003, none polled so much as 1000 votes.
• One Nation is not contesting the election. There is however a remarkably large field of 56 Australians Against Further Immigration candidates for the lower house. The party fielded 62 candidates in 1999 and did not contest in 2003 (UPDATE: Turns out I’m wrong on the latter count – thanks to Charles Richardson for pointing this out). By Upperhouse.info’s count, there are 57 lower house candidates for the Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group). The Greens are contesting every seat.
74 Comments
William I love your forum.
Just as interest here is a statistics report on the operation of optional below-the-line preference. Clearly many voters opted to just preference 5 candidates. Obviously the main parties will soon advocate only number one to five below the line effectively reducing the outcome of the election to a party list system.
I am not sure where the other states are at but presumably they will soon follow the same rules. Also analysis of the below the line votes most definitely shows a difference in the result depending on if you use a value based surplus transfer or a paper based transfer calculation. Up to the value of 200 votes which could make a difference. With the use of computer based technology we do not need to separate the remainders from the votes nor do we need to implement the current method of segmentation both which also effect the possible outcome of an election.
Southern Metropolitan BTL Statistics
Informal – 11420
Max Pref – Votes
5 – 12121
6 – 621
7 – 580
8 – 612
9 – 241
10 – 1270
11 – 239
12 – 335
13 – 644
14 – 115
15 – 428
16 – 177
17 – 64
18 – 206
19 – 48
20 – 100
21 – 75
22 – 22
23 – 53
24 – 60
25 – 25
26 – 196
27 – 39
28 – 198
29 – 6339
I saw on ABCTV news last night that the Labor candidate for Newcastle drew the top position on the ballot paper.
I received a very glossy brochure yesterday from Martin Levine, the independent candidate for Epping. He obviously isn’t lacking in resources or campaign funds. Epping might be a seat to watch on March 24, and judging by the greater than usual Liberal campaigning here, I think they know it.
Melb city said: Just as interest here is a statistics report on the operation of optional below-the-line preference.
But, we lead a simpler life here in NSW. The abolition of Registered Ticket voting and making a “1″ Above the Line equivalent only to a 1 to N vote for the Group (and notwithstanding possible Across the Top voting) has vastly simplified the preference distribution process, narrowed the voters’ options and maximised Above the Line. (Antony gave details to the 2003 Election Committee).
Blind Freddy can predict the results in the LC now. He simply totals up all the integral quotas, allocates those seats, ranks the fractional parts and allocates the remaining N seats to the 1 to N ranks. It is highly unlikely that the small BTL vote will affect anything (it didn’t in 2003) and the need (and the ability) to simulate the cut-up has vanished.
A bit boring really.
Abolition of ticket voting is a positive, no question. But optional preferential above the line is surely a boon for the major parties. It’s like what Beattie reaped the dividends from in the lower house – lots of non-major vote, but it exhausted and had no effect on the outcome. In a lower house, I don’t think it’s that much of a deal. In a house of review, I think it’s not so good. I’d prefer that voters had to nominate a certain proportion above the line – say, three – people will have been bombarded with lots of stuff saying “Just vote 1 above the line for XXX” and some might even think that’s all they can do.
Though I imagine it keeps the informal vote down which is good.
Actually, it’s 333 LC candidates. My first XSL pass last night missed the ungrouped candidates.
By my count Marcus Aussie-Stone holds the record for unsuccessful federal candidacies: he has stood 16 times (15 for the Reps and once for the Senate), contesting 13 different Reps seats. I don’t recall him running at state level before.
I’m wondering if AAFI and One Nation made an agreement not to split the anti-immigration vote ?
In ON still a registered party in NSW?
Sure is. They are the only registered party not to contest the Upper House. Registered party list at:
http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/state_government_elections/registered_political_parties/state_registered_political_parties
Adam said: By my count Marcus Aussie-Stone holds the record for unsuccessful federal candidacies
Where do Peter Consandine and Ivor F. stand on this ladder?
Consandine has stood 14 times: he ranks third behind Aussie-Stone (16) and the veteran Communist Ralph Gibson (15). Ivor F has stood 4 times and F Ivor has stood 5 times.
Joseph Cordner has the record for unsuccessful candidacies in the same seat – he stood for Lyne 11 times in a row.
Debra Wales’ candidacy, I presume, means that the Libs can no longer win Gosford? Maybe they’d written it off anyway.
On one view OPV favours the major parties. However, under OPV, three-cornered contests of any description seem to be even greater poison for the major parties than they were previously. That is to say, it’s arguable that independents:
a) have more substantial power in NSW than Federally, in that they can really stuff up a major-party candidate from ‘their side of politics’ with a relatively limited primary vote (by some of their supporters simply exhausting), but
b) need substantial primary vote to actually win the seat– the old plan of just finishing 2nd on primaries, way behind the #1 major party candidate, and then sailing to victories on the preferences of the #3 major party candidate, won’t work.
The exhaust rate in Gosford in 2003 was seemingly a whopping 53.5% (2515 out of 4698 minor-party votes). Even in independent-held Manly, where the ALP and other candidates would no doubt have been strongly urging preferences on their voters, it was almost 45%. I don’t know if there’s a state-wide exhaust rate; but if those percentages vaguely hold true generally, then the person leading on first prefs is handed a massive advantage by the OPV system. So my question to Antony/Adam/William/whomever is: Has anyone ever done modelling, based on statistically-anticipated preference flows, of seats that would have been decided differently if NSW didn’t have OPV?
Not me. I’m to old to be a model.
Yes, I’ve done it in a couple of papers for the NSW Parliament. OPV almost always favours the party with the highest primary vote. You have to assume something about how the exhausted preferences would have flowed. The most appropriate method I argue is to assume they would have split in the same ratio as those that did direct preferences. On that basis, the seat that most clearly was affected by exhausted preferences was Clarence in 1999, when Labor’s Harry Woods had no right to win based on his primary vote and the combined vote of the National and Liberal candidates.
The maths is a bit complex, but you basically compare the assumed rate of preference flows to the ratio of primary votes for the two leading candidates. Because exauhsted preferences cut the votes remaining in the count, shrinking the total vote in the numerator for a percentage calculation, every exhausted preference adds a fraction of a percentage vote to the leading candidate. Unles the % preference flow to the leading candidate is greater than the ratio of the first candidate’s primary vote to the second candidate’s primary vote, then the first candidate is always advantaged.
Say the primary votes of the two leading candidates are in the ration 55:45. That is if their combined % primary Vote was 80%, No.1 candidate would have 44%, candidate 2 36%. Every exhausted preferences cuts the numerator in the calculation of percentages. Effectively, it is like adding .55 of a vote to the leading candidate and .45 to the secopnd candidate. Unless exhausted votes were flowing to the lead candidate in this case at a rate greater then 55%, then the leading candidate will be advantaged.
Oh, which means the bigger the gap between the first and second candidate, the harder it is to catch up. If cand 1 is 45% and cand 2 is 30%, Cand 2 would need 80% of the preferences from the 25% of other primary votes. But every exhausted preference splits .6 to Cand1 and .4 to Cand2. If of those 25%, one-third exhausted, a total of 8.3%, the Cand1 reaches 50% just on exhausted preferences, even if every other preference flowed to Cand2.
William your profile of Cronulla calls Malcolm Kerr Michael Kerr.
Looking at the ballot for the seat of Hawkesbury, I notice the No 1 spot goes to a Gregg Pringle from (AAFI), what is everyones thoughts on how the votes will split from Stephen Pringle (ex Liberal now Ind) and the Liberal Baulkham Hills Councillor Ray Williams the new Liberal candidate, obviously the two pringles will confuse the over 55 vote, traditional liberal supporters and probable loyalists to Stephen pringle
Is there a Pringles joke in there somewhere?
Is it likely that OPV will affect the overall result?
From all accounts people want to give Labor a boot but don’t want to risk electing the Libs. Possibly the ‘protest’ votes will splinter among independents/minor parties and exhaust, in which case the Libs could generate an on-paper swing will almost no lift in their own vote. I’m thinking of 1999 where Labor’s vote stayed the same but got a large 2PP swing and seat gain because the Lib/Nat vote split among ON and independents.
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 – and even worse win easily.â€
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.
Someone should start a book on how many of the 333 LC candidates will receive no votes.
In 2003 there were 284 candidates. Two candidates received zero votes. Two other received one. In all, 85 candidates received less than 10 votes, 144 received less than 20, 205 received less than 50 and 228 candidates received less than 100. Only 15 candidates received mored than 1,000 votes, and all of those were the lead candidates in the 15 columns on the ballot paper.
What do people think of the Patrice Newell Group F (Leg Council) ticket? I was looking through it finding an odd assortment of people, from Genia McCaffery (North Sydney Mayor, John MacInerney (Sydney Deputy Mayor), Matt Noffs, who works for Ted Noffs… and on through an assortment of architects, composers to marketers and professors (of marketting). And not forgetting Patrice herself as They are on record as saying they will have a presence on every polling booth, but don’t seem to be doing any ore than high profile stunts (bringing Erin Brockovich to Sydney). I was left wondering if they were serious about being a ‘Climate Coalition’ or were turning into a front for an ‘Independents Coalition’ (although I haven’t seen any evidence of this as yet) or more sinisterly vote splitter for one of the major parties (might be useful to split the Green vote…)?
The Group says on their website that they are focussed solely on climate change:
“Because our mandate is to focus on climate change we will give our elected MPs a conscience vote on all other matters that come before the Parliament.” This will mean that electors will have no real idea of what they will get from their MP (although the cynical/realists may have a view on that too…).
And of course, what do people think their real chance is? Personally I would have thought they would be struggling to get the 2% they will need to begin to have a chance, especially as they will be largely unknow outside of inner-Sydney or in the Hunter.
Antony what is your prediction for hawksbury?
Oh, and on the “how many times have people stood” comments, I understand from the ‘horses mouth’ that Peter Consandine is contesting his last election, and intends to retire from running. Mind you, he said that last Federal Election, but I think he means last State Election. So Marcus Aussie-Stone will remain ahead!
Scott, I don’t think Antony does predictions. Very, very sensible man.
Quiz questions: No candidate in a federal election has ever polled zero votes. Which candidate in which contest in which federal election polled both the smallest number of votes AND the lowest percentage of the vote ever recorded in a federal election? (hint: it was quite recent)
Simon said…”Even in independent-held Manly, where the ALP and other candidates would no doubt have been strongly urging preferences on their voters, it was almost 45%.
AND
” the person leading on first prefs is handed a massive advantage by the OPV system
For the tiddlers exhaust was 60% and more. GRN was 41%, ALP 38.5%. Flows to IND were 45%GRN 55%ALP (at the cut-up, not notional, i.e. includes tiddlers).
A current polling rumour has LIB on 34%, IND on 31%. With preference flows like 2003, IND can’t lose on this primary (53.3% TCP). That is, a primaries lead in OPV doesn’t necessarily mean a TCP win.
But the rumour is not to be trusted.
No, I don’t do predictions. Especially after my last one about the Pittwater by-election “it’s just a comment for a story” was turned into a Manly Daily front page screaming headline “Guru tips Libs”. They have been quite miffed that I refused to speak to the paper again since. I’ll stick to doing election night models which I’m good at, and leave the astrology side of psephology to those who enjoy it.
The problem with Group F is who will know who they are. Pauline Hanson got 2% and has a huge public profile. The Christian Democrats, with no publicity but 30 years of building a newsletter network, can get 3%. On that giant ballot paper, with people reading left to right, who’s going to know who group F are, if they get that far. Bank on 80-90,000 votes to have a chance of getting elected.
I do think Australians Against Further Immigration will do well. Positioned at Group C, i’d say very strongly positioned to get at least 1%. Get that to 2%, I’d reckon they’d be in.
Adam,
After a quick look at your site. Has anyone got a lower percentage than Joe Stewart? 6 out of nearly 3,800,000 in the 2001 NSW Senate
I’m just trying to earn a living – what’s wrong with that?
Close Oakeshott, but not quite
interesting bit of entertainment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkfL6PcKA98
I have updated my statistics for teh Victorian Upper Houue vote based on teh allcoation of first preference votes. It whos the donnkwy vote in teh upper house is very small indeed. But it does have an impact ion single member electorates. http://melbcity.topcities.com/vseVoteStats_1.htm and http://melbcity.topcities.com/vseVoteStats_2.htm
Tully’s Tally does not Tally. (Update)
Hi. Just to let you know that we have managed to secure some data files results from the Victorian Electoral Commission. It has taken over 3 months and a lot of effort with the Victorian Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully, trying his hardest to avoid disclosure.
Why you may ask? Well we are at a loss.
It is fundamental to good governance that public elections are open and transparent. Steve Tully’s conduct of the State Election had little to desire.
Missing still are the polling place return results for the Legislative Council(Which are normally published but the VEC does not want this information made public)
We lodged an FOI application to the Victorian Electoral Commission back in December in order to obtain copies of the data files and details of the results of the November State election.
Sue Lang, the Officer responsible, has just responded to our FOI application and request for an Internal review undertaken by Steve Tully We have decided to published her reply sent on behalf of Steve Tully.
On reading the VEC’s reply One can be forgiven in asking the question “has the VEC acted in good faith?” You be the Judge.
We have written to ALL members of the State Parliament and the Victorian State Ombudsman requesting a Review. If one is not forthcoming we will lodge an appeal in VCAT in order to ensure that the detailed results of the election are made public.
If Interested you can obtain copies of the what information the VEC has provided on our web site.
http://melbcity.topcities.com/vse.htm
William. I am not that familiar with the optional preferential above the line. By this are you saying that voters can preference 1,2,3 above the line like voting for individuals in a single member electorate but instead voting for parties/groups. I like the idea but I would have preferred it being full preferential above the lie but optional below the line… With the introduction we run the risk of adopting by default a party list system. Does the ATL still have a registered preference ticket option as in Victoria or the Senate? If you can outlime more on the detail and mechanics of the vote I would be very much interested.
Thanks again.
MelbCity, there is a registered ticket, but it only applies to the party you vote for. There are no, none, nil between party preferences under the group ticket voting option on NSW. The only preferences in the count are those filled in by the voter themselves, by filling in at least 15 preferences below the line, or by voting for more than one group above the line. All parties are required to lodge an official second prefernce to another party, but this can only come into play if the party loses a candidate to death or disqualification and therefore has less than 15 candidates.
All this comes about because the procedures for the LC count are entrenched in the constitution and can only be amended by referendum. So, random sampling for preferences is entrenched. There is no provision for what to do on the death of a candidate, hence the odd second preference stuck in the electoral act as a work around. A minimum 15 preferences is also entrenched, hence why the new group ticket voting option forces all parties to stand 15 candidate if they want to make use of the GTV system. None of these provisions can be changed without a referendum.
In effect the system works as a form of List PR with a highest remainder algorithm to elect the last members. Seeing NSW is electing 21 members, it still ends up a proportional outcome, and does away with the pervisions of the system that took place in 1999. Electing 21 members, I think they would get a better result using D’Hondt or one of the variations on the PR divisior systems. If the system is going to work as a list PR system, you might as well use a divisor system than a quota system, as divisor systems produce a fairer outcome.
For details of the system, see the following papers
The results of the 2003 LC election
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/0B6A6C32165CF914CA256ECF000C918B
A description of how the new system would work
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/48938DAD890A6A27CA256ECF000C7F10
Quiz question answered: The lowest vote ever polled by a candidate in a federal election was 4, polled first by Theo Hetterscheid, an independent NSW Senate candidate in 1996, and secondly by Ramon Kennedy, an independent WA Senate candidate in 2001. Hetterscheid holds the record for the lowest proportion of the vote. His 4 votes out of 3.6 million represented just over one millionth, or 0.00011%. The lowest vote ever polled by a House of Representatives candidate was 5, polled by Frederick Thompson, an independent candidate in Northern Territory in 1922.
Adam Says:March 10th, 2007 at 12:03 pm Quiz question answered: T….
It would probably be fair to acknowledge Adam Carr’s Psephos web-site for all these amazing facts. I assume that’s where most are coming from?
I assume most people know that. It’s my website after all.
Adam, does your website have a database behind all that data ? Or is it all static text files ?
The latter.
I dunno about “exhausted preferences” but after reading AG’s dissertation, I’m bushed.
“The latter.”
Adam doesn’t get out much.
# Adam Says: The latter.
Doh….
Sorry. I thought you were the bloke with the apple.
The Greens are preferencing Labor in 20 marginal lower house seats(presumably some of these are Coalition ones?).
“Adam doesn’t get out much.”
What is that supposed to mean?
Adam if you want to make it more dynamic.
Andrew Landeryou takes up the issue of Tully’s Tally does not Tally and the need to ensure that our public elections remain open and transparent.
http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/search/label/victorian%20electoral%20commission
Adam
“static text files” + loadsa data = a lot of time in front of a PC = reduced time for social activities
Don’t get me wrong the site is a gem and thank you for a terrific effort.
I’ll send you a postcard from Paris next month.
Speaking of websites, it it just me, or is there something wrong with the NSW Liberal website (http://www.peterdebnam.com.au/main_content/main_content/nsw_liberal_candidates_-_contact_details.html) that makes it impossible to scroll down?
I can scroll down the page just fine.
My complaint would be the lack of cell padding. It gives the table a rather awkward feel.
Yes, now it’s working.
I count eight Liberal lower house candidates with Lebanese surnames. I take this is the first fruit of the Clarke faction’s branch-stacking takeover of the NSW Liberal Party. If they don’t watch out they’ll finish up like the Victorian ALP, and then they’ll be REALLY sorry.
William, your updated pages for the state election are good.
But you have a problem on the Shellharbour page. You keep referring to the AWU as a left wing union. This is shocking.
I suspect you mean the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, which is definitely left wing.
What sort of crap is that about the Lebanese surnames…
I don’t see how your allegation has any basis in fact, but unfortunately it is this sort of general smear on candidates based purely on their ethnicity.
With OPV, my personal preference is for limited-optional preferential (i’m not sure if I made that up), ie. you need to fill in 5 boxes. Obviously if there’s less than 5 candidates than it is compulsory preferential. That’s out of my experience in Werriwa where the informal vote was massive with 16 candidates, primarily due to compulsory preferential voting, yet the valid arguments against OPV.
I made no smear against the candidates. I said there are eight candidates with Lebanese surnames (Sarkis, Massoud etc). It is a well-known fact that Clarke’s faction have been busily branchstacking in Sydney using the Maronite community as stack-fodder.
Adam: What’s the problem in the Victorian ALP (for those of us in other states) ?
Comedic episode from Glenmore Park (Mulgoa) today. Diane Beamer and entourage (including Penrith City Councillors Susan Page & former mayor Greg Davies (permanently glued to a mobile phone)) were working the afternoon croud at Glenmore Park shops. Bright orange and black “Your Rights at Work” colour scheme T-Shirts sporting “Diane Beamer”. . .no ALP or Labor. Even her corflutes have the tiny ALP logo obscured with “Your Rights at Work” stickers. You’d think she was an Independent!
After awhile, some Liberals from the Karen Chijoff camp arrived in their ute. They unfurled a hand-painted banner reading “Labor pain! 12 years of neglect”. Shoppers found it pretty amusing – not so Diane Beamer and company. Another local ALP Councillor was summoned for reinforcements – former mayor and 2-time Federal loser/challenger to Jackie Kelly David Bradbury. After a short while Diane Beamer and ALP apparatchiks left the scene. The State member for Mulgoa, and Minister for Western Sydney & Fair Trading, 3 Councillors including 2 former mayors and a Federal Labor candidate were upstaged by 4 Liberals with a bed-sheet banner. You had to be there. . . it looked like cockroaches scurrying away when under the spotlight! What a laugh.
The Victorian ALP is riddled with ethnic branch-stacking. The Left started it with the Turks in the northern suburbs, and now everyone does it. It’s the main reason I won’t join a faction although I support the Right in a political sense. Hence Tony Abbott’s infamous comment: “Aren’t there any AUSTRALIANS in the Australian Labor Party?” But the NSW Libs are rapidly heading down the same path. Read some of William’s descriptions of the preselection shenanigans in seats like Hawkesbury, with dozens of Lebanese being shunted in and out of branches.
According to Anne Davies in today’s SMH: the Liberals are increasingly pessimistic about winning back Pittwater from the Independent, and the Nats aren’t hopeful about regaining Tamworth.
Commercial radio in Sydney today says that Debnam has already given up!
Sorry Adam the Left start with the Greeks in the 1970s in the north (Northcote Thomastown) plus the Right start with the Macedonians in north about sametime and the Turks have always been with the right. Just the Jews in ports
There’s a nasty (for the Libs) momentum building in this election. Until recently I was concerned that the “protest vote gone wrong” could still do for Labor, but the Libs seem to be doing evderything they can to ensure that won’t happen. The main election issue is now very much the competence (or otherwise) of the Opposition, and in particular Peter Debnam, rather than the myriad of flaws of a 12-year-old ALP government. Labor has successfully made their opponents the issue (which can be seen quite clearly in the ALP’s ads, which are almost exclusively about Debnam), which is a masterstroke of campaign tactics, if not so good for the health of democracy in NSW (and I say that as an ALP partisan).
At the moment, it looks like there might even see a further swing to the ALP, which would put even the 2011 election just about beyond reach for the Libs. Having said that, long-term Labor governments are not so unusual in NSW, with the 24 years 1941-1965 coming to mind (and Labor looks to building a long-term State hegemony in Queensland and Victoria as well).
Looks like queensland all over again
Ah, Adam, I think you better re-read what you wrote.
Sarkis (just as an example) is a representative of a Local Council – albeit elected as an independant Liberal in 2004.
Suggesting that somehow the Candidates are firstfruits of the Clarke work, is actually a reflection (if not a slur) on the candidates, some of whom have long histories within the Liberal Party, and were definately preselected in their own right because of their ability.
Millwood-Brown…. who are THEY???
I’ve just done a phone survey on state-wide and electoral-specific voting intentions for the NSW election, run by a mob calling themselves Millwood Brown. Google seems to think they are a UK-based Market Research mob. They are not in the Sydney White or Yellow pages, but it was a local phone call. From the undue number of questions about the local ALP candidate, I suspect this is one of those “internal ALP polls”
Anybody know?
From all indications, Labor have given up on Penrith. The direct mail and spam letterbox guff has all but dried up. Instead, they are pumpng money and resources into Mulgoa and Londonderry. Poor old Robert Paluzzano, complete in Penrith City Council clothes (even though wife and sitting member Karyn Paluzzano recently described him as a ‘builder’) looked quite sad and forlorn at pre-poll on High Street. His ‘comrades’ on Penrith Council despise him, and he’s getting bugger all help from the local branch network. Too bad. Karyn can always return to radiography work as she once famously said in an edition of the Penrith Press.
I am always interested to read comments about other candidates, political parties and my own political campaigning. This particular “Poll Bludger” blog page debate covers largely the results of candidates surnames, polling statistics, branch stacking and political competencies. Overall its a reasonable enough debate but seems to lack the underlying understandings necessary to put forward, the best informed viewpoints , on different Independent’s candidacies.
If Independents are largely beaten then it follws that they would have to have a good reason, and objectives, for standing.
In my case there is always a good reason why I have stood.
So comments, such as appear above in this Blog, that say I have been “unsuccessful” , and am a serial loser, would seem to look only at the surface of the ocean, and not all that is underneath, where you will find swimming around details of my resaons for standing, and my successes arising out of being a Candidate..
Howevere firstly let me join in the spirit of “Anthony Green”, “Adam”, ” Geoff Lambert” and Stewart J’s” analytical comments on this Blog.
Candidate Aussie-Stone holds the following Political and Electoral records which are soon, undoubtedly, ( how many uniqe factors do they need) , to appear in the “Guiness Book of Records” in their Political Records Section.
And please let us forget Bob Hawke’s fastest time for drinking a yard of beer. Minute and inconsequential when put up against my far more serious Political Candidacy historical record. It is agreed however that Bob Hawke was one of Australia’s longest and most popular PM’s. Here is Aussie-Stone’s political record.
AUSSIE_STONE IS:
1. The living, Australian, candidate who has contested the most number of Federal political seats. I say “living” since in Billy Hughes 23 candidacies case, he has stood more times Federally than any other living candidate. He is closing on his record. Aussie-Stone 16 , could be 17 ???
2. Has stood against more sitting Prime Ministers than any other candidate, 6. MacMahon, Whitlam, Faser, Hawke, Keating and Howard
3. Has stood in more seats concurrently (at the same election) than any other candidate, 8. ( 4 1% swing seats in Melbourne and 4 in Sydney)
( The Electoral Commisssion heard he had 30 Federal seats signed up complete with all required nominators, for each of 30 NSW different Electorates, to support his next Federal Candidacy campaign, and they changed the Electoral Act Law to stop this from happening)
4. Only Candidate to stand in the House of Reps and Senate Elections concurrently. Sydney and NSW.
5. The only Candidate to have had the Electoral Act changed on 3 different occasions to block his candidacy initiatives. VIZ to block the “donkey vote”, “concurrent candidacies in the same election” , “self nomination for Candidacy”
6. The only candidate to be appear personally before a Full Bench of the High Court convened specially in Sydney to consider whether he had been legally correctly disallowed to “nominate himself’ as one of the required “nominators” to allow a Candidacy. He argued that if you weren’t prepared to first nominate yourself how could you ask anyone else to nominate you.
7. Only Candidate to successfully argue that his profession was being an “Australian”, and then later “Progressing Rural Australia” , both designates which appeared later on his ballot paper.
8. Only Federal Candidate to be invited, in two succeeding Elections, by “Andrew Ollie” to be the last Candidate heard on the National ABC breakfast radio program, before the election media blackout came down.
9. Only Federal Candidate to follow the USA conceived “Battle of the Candidates” format, within Australian Federal election campaigning, and introduce this in the Bass By Election with a local “Battle of the Candidates” forum in a local Hotel . Newspaper headlines read “Bigger Fish Than Bass”.
10. Only Independent to turn the table on the host (Willisee) of a national commercial TV show, by agreeing to appear, with many other colourful, Independent Candidates, but then refusing to speak ( say one word) when he appeared on on the ” Willisee” Show. Instead he, when asked a second time to speak, expediently produced from his briefcase a “Vote 1 Aussie-Stone, Independent”, printed card and held it before the camera, gaining him instant national TV coverage, and then left the Show. This subsequently had card after card be held up in other TV Political shows where Candidates hope to catch the eye of the media camera.
11. Only Australian Candidate to join together all Independents, notwithstanding the emormous diversity and contradictions in beliefs they held, to have each one help each other in the same Electorate in the Federal campaign for Parramatta.
12. The only Federal political candidate to have contested 3 different By Elections in 2 Australian States, NSW and Tasmania, Bass, Werriwa and Parramatta.
Now let us now look at the issues that have concerned Aussie-Stone and that this Blogs fellow commentators may be so bold as to have suggested that Aussie-Stone had been “unsuccessful’, and as one said a ’serial loser’. Ah! the naiveity of such youthful memories..
See firstly.
http://www.aussiestone.com/inpolitics.html
Then review what Aussie-Stone’s successive Federal campaigns, and willingness to take repeated electoral thrashings, have succeeded in achieveing to date.
When you look at these results, you need to take into acount, that in between his electioneering , as a Federal Candidate, to bring important community issues to the fore, He has also appeared before two major Federal Government hearings, discribing new ways to develop Australia’s rich inland tourism product, to attract increased overseas visitors for longer staying inland australia stays, and to argue for increased Aboriginal Employment through greater successes in Aboriginal SME Business developments. See
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/atsia/indigenousemployment/subs/sub041.pdf -
and see http://www.pigswillfly.com.au/?cat=8
and see http://www.pigswillfly.com.au/?cat=3
Besides his Keira campaigning, and the above current stated objectives, to get the NSW DOSRD working together with private industry, to see the Aboriginal and Outback Experiences Highway, be established, to help sustain drought shattered rural economies and Aboriginal and outback SME in regional NSW he has also achieved many other industry progressing successes.
See http://www.aussiestone.com/innovation.html
Have Aussie-Stone been successful ?
Is he a serial political loser and an unsuccessful political candidate ?
You be the judge.
And my special thanks to the “Poll Bludger” Forum. Hardly. it is very hard work.
Sorry I forgot to close with one last comment. Australia is unquestionably , or has been, “the greatest nation on Earth” but if you don’t stay in the race you will be left behind.
And this is what is happening when our major political parties have so often failed to get in behind private Australian Industry innovations.
There can be no finer moment than Australians developing Australia for their fellow Australians. However sadly I have to report when such apparently fine Political figures as the Honourable Dr Carmen Lawrence, Peter Garret and Wilson Tuckey allow you to make a presentation and then “nothing”.
I believe this is a very sad state of affairs that they do not, even with all their taxpayer funded, staff and resources, even drop you a follow up comments on their thoughts or results, or non results, of your presentations. Treating serious committed Australian people , spending their own time and precious self earnt monies, to make the effort on behalf of all fellow Australians, with such disdain, I don’t think it is very nice at all.
It is beginning to look like I am becoming a serial blogger. My apology for inserting the two links to “Pigs Will fly” web site above as they take you into hundreds of unrelated submissions. But rather google “aboriginal highway” and click on the “pigswillfly” references that come up that relate to making the Aboriginal Highway an election issue. This will take you straight to the Pigs Will Fly , Keira State Elections detailed explanations. Sorry again. Cheers Marc.
Marc Aussie-Stone: Welcome to pollbludger. You are a kind-of “psephological celebrity” and it’s great to see you here.
Why don’t you stick around ?
Dear “The Speaker’.
At first I thought “psephological” was a spelling error. However it would seem that is a derivative from the Greek “psephos” which translates as “pebble” which the Greeks used as ballots. Coincidental in that my birth name being “Stone”.
There have been reasons for my emergence on the Political Blogs with recent postings.
In reply to your appreciated recent post, and since I do respond to response, I put two questions.
I am seeking to find within all our elected MP’s Federal or State one strong and genuine person who is committed to the economic and social development of Australia and particularly inland Rural NSW. Do you know of such a person ? I have just lobbied every NSW MP on both sides with no result emerging thus far. There may be one there who may eventually surface. In fact I have hopes for the current NSW Premier but it is early days yet. I am not talking about someone who listens but then, where it does make sense, never locks on, and contributes, to make further progress.
I can see a great deal of work has gone into the setting and maintenance of this Blog.
I would like to do as you ask and contribute further . I have details of diiferent past electoral initiatives and outcomes and three which resulted in changes to the Electoral Act. Where on this Blog would you suggest that I make that post since the Poll Bludger Blog would appear to have different topical sections ?
Cheers Marc.