Roy Morgan’s latest face-to-face survey of 1799 voters has Labor’s lead up to 57-43 from 55-45 a fortnight ago. Labor is up 1.5 per cent on the primary vote to 47 per cent, and the Coalition down 2 per cent to 37.5 per cent.
Other stuff:
• I appeared yesterday before the Perth hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters’ inquiry into the federal election, where I argued the increasingly problematic STV Senate system should be replaced by good old-fashioned list system PR with seats allocated using the New Zealand-style Sainte-Laguë formula. Not a chance in hell of this happening of course, but as Homer Simpson would say, at least I’m out there doin’ stuff. Perhaps I would have done better to have fallen in behind the Greens’ Commonwealth Electoral (Above-the-Line Voting) Amendment Bill 2008, which I hadn’t given due consideration as I wrongly believed it required full numbering of above-the-line preferences. When told it was optional preferential, I instead argued it would amount to a New South Wales-style de facto “largest remainder” system, with the potential to produce disproportional results: for example, parties which get 1.5 and 0.6 quotas on the primary vote could win one seat each despite the former party having won well over twice as many votes (as Antony Green puts it, methods like Sainte-Laguë ensure that “each MP represents roughly the same number of voters”). However, I now see it requires that a minimum of four boxes be numbered, which might solve or at least alleviate this difficulty – although there remains the likely problem of a higher informal vote. I remain open to persuasion on any of these points, and might yet make a supplementary submission.
• The Electoral Commission of Queensland has finalised its boundaries for the state redistribution. The new electorates which were named Macrossan, Samsonvale and Dalby in the original proposal will instead be named Dalrymple, Pine Rivers and Condamine.
• Christian Kerr of The Australian reckons blogs, and “polling blogs” in particular, contain “paranoia about certain journalists, certain newspapers (and) certain pollsters”. What a thing to say …
339 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 7 » Show All
ooooooh. left this bit out
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The district of Condamine doesn’t even contain the town of Condamine.
What was wrong with the name Dalby? (or for that matter, Darling Downs)
Crikey Whitey @ 98 -
And, I am seriously annoyed with Kevin. Thanks for nuthin. The Coorong, you know.
Nothing wrong with the Coorong that just opening the barrages wouldn’t almost instantly fix.
I’ve been reading about Charles Sturt’s trip down the Murray. Interesting fact – most know he was the first European to see the Murray Mouth, but what most don’t realise is that he never got close to what we call the mouth. He did explore the lakes and Coorong but to him they were as much part of the sea as the wet bit off Glenelg. His ‘mouth’ was about where Wellington is. Everything below he considered to be ocean.
Not to mention the drinking water.
All the water we get here in the Hills comes directly from Mannum, so I guess I should be even more annoyed than folks down on the plain, but, frankly, for quite some time the liquid that’s been coming out of the taps has only born a passing resemblance to water. Anyone foolish enough to drink the stuff deserves the lingering pitiful death that would probably result.
Dennis is under my skin; I itch and itch but I can’t get rid of him.
Dennis is in my walls, under my floor and in my ceiling.
Dennis is everywhere.
Dennis is watching me… and you.
Obama VP gossip
MSNBC claims Bayh and Kaine “Not It”
That leaves Biden, Clinton, Richardson and Sebelius.
NBC: Bayh, Kaine out of Obama’s veep race
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26336195/
Parkes doesn’t include the town of Parkes.
Werriwa is named after Lake George, which hasn’t been in the seat since 1906.
MayoFeral @ 103
Spot on about opening the barrages. The pollies are maintaining the worst of all worlds at the moment just to keep a few interested parties in palliative care for a while.
Very interesting stuff about Sturt – did the accounts mention whether the MDB was in drought at the time?
#105, If Obama really wants to be the POTUS, then he will have to pick Hillary. If not, he can pick anyone he likes, it does not matter as it will be then a 50-50 with McCain.
Finns
It’s looking a lot like Biden. He’d be good with oodles of foreign policy experience. I don’t think the rest of the world would be unhappy with him as VP. McCain looks stuck with Romney as Obama is so far ahead in Minnesota that choosing Pawlenty wouldn’t help.
Finns
CNN says Hillary has been told “No”.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama has ruled out Senator Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate, a senior Democratic official told CNN on Friday night.
Clinton — Obama’s main rival during the primary season — has been informed by Obama’s campaign that she is not his choice to be his vice presidential candidate, the source said.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/22/source-clinton-has-been-told-shes-not-the-vp-pick/
I am surprised at the size of the Australians readership, they are actually irrelevant. Has anyone any idea about the number of hits on these blog sites that they rightly fear so much.
When you look 5-10 years down the road, the crickey model is bound to grow, and if marketers get their head around the tightness of many of the demographics you could have a ready made income stream william. I would suggest that if I ran readings/dymocks bookstore, I’d be interested in advertising costellos upcoming book in a side banner. Who know william you could become the next William Hearst. Go for it I say, don’t let the rich bastards do what they normally do and thats watch for innovation then copy and steal it. Get the rewards for your efforts.
FTP, William has already been the victim of intellectual property theft once!
Finns, Yes pride cometh before a fall – dumb move passing on Hilary.
The size of the readership may not actually be that important. I suggest that The Australian is like AM. Its power is that it helps set and frame the agenda. As a corollary, the size of the Possum/Bowe blog readership was not all that important. I have no idea of its size. But what was important about the blogs was that it was able to undermine the credibility of the Australian’s interpretation of polling statistics, and hence call into question The Australian’s preferred way of framing the agenda. Given that this was fundamentally about the death of Howard/Costello Government, the stakes were high.
I haven’t articulated this before, but I will now. I feel profoundly grateful for Possum’s and William’s contribution to democracy in Australia.
Dio @ 109,
Good to see the US Secret Service is so good at keeping secrets that they’ve just let the VP secret out of the bag!
Finns @ 108,
What you say is possibly true.
However I suspect Obama thinks it’s not worth having the job if that means he has to have the Clintons as VP.
He’s right, too.
Tiptoe for Veep, he’s had oodles of experience at it.
Diogenes at 110 i know its off topic but Obama has chosen joe biden
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/23/biden.democrat.vp.candidate/index.html
Boerwar Says: @ 113,
{I feel profoundly grateful for Possum’s and William’s contribution to democracy in Australia.}
Whole heartedly agree with that observation Boerwar.
The opportunity to put forward individual analysis of current and past events and they they interact with the political decision making processes and potential ramifications for the populace and future direction of the country is I agree, a very important contribution to keeping democracy and accountability alive in Australia.
Appreciation should be extended to the informed and thoughtful posters who make this process so worthwhile. It’s great to often be confronted with soundly based opinions which sometimes result in a reappraisal of one’s own feelings and assumptions on various matters which can often broaden our own opinion.
There are of course, any number of similar sites which fulfill a similar function and allow a wider span of subject matter and issues to be discussed than are possible on an individual blog site and I would suggest that is why the MSM seem to be responding to a perceived but very real threat to their relevance in the world of information analysis and dissemination.
The country and it’s concerned citizenry are benefiting by the the MSM being held accountable by people such as yourself, Bushfire etc who are articulate, intelligent and well informed and able to put forward competent analysis and dissection of much of the misinformation and spin issuing forth from the MSM.
Boerwar @ 107 –
did the accounts mention whether the MDB was in drought at the time?
No, but it could have been. The reason Sturt never saw the real mouth is that he was blocked by sand bars and what he describes as “quicksands” though I’ve not heard of recent experiences of the latter. It was by now means the first time during the journey that the party spent more time dragging the boat than rowing it.
However, he wrote about a year after the expedition down the Darling-Murray:
To the extent this view was coloured by his experiences at the lower lakes, it may suggest he regarded conditions as being normal. Of course as the first white man to the area he had nothing to compare it with.
People can argue about the financial implications of flooding the lower lakes with seawater all they like. It will damage agriculture, and especially viticulture, for a long time. But the hand wringing about it “killing” the lakes and Coorong is utter nonsense. The complete opposite of the truth.
It is the forced freshwater regime of the last 68 years that is unnatural. If the eco system is allowed to ‘die’ because of the bleatings of ignorant then it’s they who will have done the deed and not the farmers upstream getting the blame. Not that the latter don’t have cases to answer for many other of the ills of the rivers. As do many others.
{and they they interact }
and the way they interact! Dammn…..
Agree with others’ comments about the beauty of sites such as this keeping the MSM on its toes.
The great thing about PB is, even though I can go through a day’s worth and find that I disagree with 90% of the comments, they make you think. Not much in the MSM does that.
OK Ron, GG and Finns
With Biden the official Obama running mate, it’s time to vent some spleen about Hillary being squelched under the bus by Obi.
MayoFeral @ 119
Thank you. Again, interesting. I heard from a CSIRO water person that if we look at the inland waterways today and assume that that is roughly what they looked like 200 years ago, we would almost certainly be significantly wrong. The point he was making to me was the inland rivers used to be much broader than they are now, more slow moving and were far more likely to be flowing through large reed beds.
The new stream beds are narrower, the banks steeper and the beds more likely to be silted by sand slugs mobilized by clearing and overgrazing. (They are more like a combination of irrigation ditch and open drain). Interestingly, salinity would have been also have been highly variable in the olden days but generally lower because coming off a lighter salt base load.
The CSIRO chap’s description of the older streams sounds fairly consistent with what Sturt was saying, and it is certainly consistent with having to drag the boats a fair way, (probably even in good years). I suspect that this would also have meant that even in good years the mouths were unnavigable for much of the time, except when flood peaks hit the beaches. These floods were also part of the dynamics which ripped open new watercourses for the rivers. The old courses then tended to become sets of billabongs, with water in them only after big floodes. These archetypical Australian billabongs of the inland water ways are now silting up and are not being replaced by new floods because the water is tightly controlled. They will soon live only in folk songs like Waltzing Matilda.
As for the commercial interests around the lower lakes, my view is that governments are going to have to bite some bullets and people are going to have to be helped to make transitions. There are real choices about what and where, but no choice about if.
My preference would be that this is done in an orderly basis, but the fact that governments allowed a crisis to develop to the extent it has means that some groups of people will suffer disproportionately. I would like to see a Royal Commission into the big Australian water management bugger-up but I am not hopeful.
Excellent decision by Obama in not selecting Hillary. Picking Hillary would have been like Rudd picking Latham lol.
Obama is a strong candidate and is his own man. He dosen’t need Hillary.
Biden is a good choice I reckon.
121 Dyno – not that I want you to go anywhere else but have you tried “the blog that shall remain nameless”? You may find you can agree with 100% of that.
William
“I remain open to persuasion on any of these points , and might yet make a supplementary submission.”
I’d like to persuade you to maintain two key beneficial elements of Sainte-Laguë but as amended per my proposal, whilst recognizing our major Politcal Parties will not take that whole system as is , in place of a preference based voting system
It is suggested as a multi level concept to hav a 5% threshold for electability , a ‘quota’ system , a compulsory above line ticking of ALL boxes , an initial exclusion of th allocation of preferences from Parties gaining less than 5% of vote , a selective use of Sainte-Laguë system to break gridlock where a Party meets a ‘leanings of people’ threshold from preferencing , a propertionality aspect over preferencing aspect at that ‘leanings threshold , and lastly final allocation of preferences from ‘minor majority Parties’(defined as getting less than 5% Primary) as final resort process , should all other preceding steps fail to create a full quota
I will start off trying to justify threshold for electability , then Greens submission which think is fataly flawed , then optional pref voting system’s disadvantage general , then my favoured compulsory pref method , then proportionality benefits , and then I’m going to try to put abov concepts all into some sort of order of allocating votes for Senate , as am thinking many variations ar possible
THRESHHOLD generally , as a prefase to supporting inclusion of th Sainte-Laguë 5% threshhold factor , I would argue that as we already include a total ‘compulsory voting’element already into our ‘oz’ voting system , we therefore already hav one of most “representative democratic” voting systems in world regarding participation Therefore including a threshold is only a minor drawback to deny below 5 % partys from electability from that compulsory voting system is minor , comparative to non compulsory voting systems elsewhere
I support threshold principal (example NZ 5% base) to exclude a “minor minority” Party (defined as winning less than 5 % Primary vote) from being capable of winning a Senate seat (which IS presently possible) over a “major minority” Party (defined as winning over 5% Primary vote)
One has to draw line in sand somewhere and if that means a “minor minority” Party winning getting less than that 5 % (say gets 4.9%Primary) is excluded from being capable of winning a Senate seat , whereas a “major minority” Party (say getting 5.1%) then so beit
(In a DD perhaps this 5% could be reduced to 3.5% , perhaps not , open to points plus & minus there)
Th above incorporates Sainte Lague threshold principal and its benefits of uncluttering system of small party preferences and also adverse possiblity consequence of such Party getting a Senator elected
Different METHODS of preference voting systems I’d assess
OPTIONAL PREF voting methods first I elieve any form of optional prefs voting is flawed and will create unnecessary informal votes I think Greens Party hav cleverley come up with an Greens format of optional pref voting with requirement to tick 4 boxes rather than one box to camouflage th consequential effect that there still be increased informal votes under there optional prefs system proposal Whilst I believe this Greens proposal will maximise there “quota’s” at expense of other Partys particularlly Labor , there is no queston this Greens Part proposal method will increase ‘informal votes’ compared to compulsory ticking all boxes , and so there proposal should be oposed
Furthermore , any form of optional prefs voting even with 4 boxes , still allows ‘manipulaton’ of system by State and/or by geographgic area in a State via issuing vs not issuing HTV’s , or issuing differing HTV’s in different States or in geographic areas as occurred in NSW electon Such HTV ‘misuse’ of optional pref voting system is an ‘abuse against democratic principals’ that should not be allowed
Furthermore multi varied HTV usage with optional pref method even with 4 boxes ticked , would still produce by State and/or by geographic area area an absolute mess of conflicting voting patterns by same Partys supporters between electorates or regions with a State , as occurred in NSW 2006 Electon This would get replicated by State or by Region within a State in a Senate Electon , in addition to producing th higher informal votes adverse effect
Greens Party submmission , whilst it is clearly designed for there politcal advantage , has objectively abov flaws and potential ‘abuses’
COMPULSORY PREF voting methods Our system of compulsorily requiring all above line boxes is both fair and representative enabling a true preferense flow of voters intentions to be reflected , and so I support curent compulsion of all boxes to be ticked above th line This principal has a sounder democratic base than supporters of any optional preference voting systems arguments that there system forces Partys to ‘work’ for there preferences or that it dimishs Partys doing ‘pref deals’ So what , higher voter ‘representation’ via compulsion of all above line boxes being ticked clearly outweighs those arguments/issues on ‘democratic representation principals grounds
PROCESS of order of preferencing allocation , and use of “Quota’s” :
One , any Party member gaining a full ‘quota’ from primary votes has that member automatically elected to Senate , as now
Second , allocation of any preferences from any “minor minority” Party (defined as winning less than 5 % Primary vote) will be initially excluded altogether and left to th ‘last step’ listed , and then only allocated if “needed” as th final option to make up a full ‘quota’
Third , preferences by ‘major minority’ Parties (defined as winning more than 5 % Primary vote) to any ‘minor minority’ Party ar not (never) counted at all
Four , all prefs from ‘major majority‘ Partys , defined as getting more than 5% Primery vote ( ie excluding all “minor minority” Partys defined as getting less than 5% primary vote) get allocated* progressively as now , and using existing ‘quota’ system , and then as a Party gains a full ‘quota’ that Party’s member gets elected to th Senate
*( presume one includes both above line and below line , but one may or may not exclude votes from “major minority” Parties (gaining over 5% primary vote) who voted below th line)
If as a result of these 4 steps , all Senate seats in a State hav been ‘allocated’ , then following steps ar not required
Five , IF however as a result of points 1/ to 4/ , all State Senate spots hav NOT been created or filled , meaning there ar parts of a quota still shared between Partys which collectively add up to th last Senate seat , THEN a variation of Sainte-Laguë system kicks in
Six , th Party who is th most under represented in Senate seats under calculations using Sainte-Laguë system for that State is ‘allocated’ remaining Senate seat
(a) One could argue make this be a fixed rule that automatically applys , irrespective of what % of a ‘quota’ that Party had by then gained from allocation of preferences , OR my favored option of
(b) instead requires that such Party to hav had to hav gained a specified minimum % of a ‘quotas say 0.75% BEFORE they gain benefit of getting that last seat under of Sainte-Laguë system , which is favoured because it guarantees th ‘leaning’ of most voters under preference principals)
Seven , IF however , more than one Party is equally under prepresented after step 4/ (when looking at making Sainte-Laguë calculations in step 6) , then in that improbable circumstanse ONLY , th Sainte-Laguë system usage for last Senate seat becomes inoperable , and instead then either:
(a) actually commence allocation of “minor minority” Partys (defined as winning less than 5% Primary vote) vote preferences (which todate hav NOT been allocated ) , which of course will result in a Party getting a full “Quota” if all previous options hav not achieved this result , OR alternitively
(b) Do NOT at all allocate any “minor minority” Partys (gaining less than 5% Primary) vote preferences at all , and instead simply ‘allocate remaining Senate seat to th Party who had th highest % of th remaining unfilled ‘quota’(at end of step 4/ ie from prefs fully allocated from major minority” Partys (defined as winning over 5% Primary vote )
…ie as a resort should step 7 Sainte-Laguë method not resolve a full ‘quota’
Summary , there is no simple voting system that also delivers fairness Multi level concepts to get fairness mean soe complexity I’ve tried to accept political reality meaning a form of prefs system remains What has resulted is a selective form of Preference system is maintained here , benefits of full ticking compulsion ar maintained , and also supplys th equity of recognising that a Senator does reflect ‘political leanings’ via prefferencing usage , but at point also reflects Sainte-Laguë principal of proportionality as well , whilst removing under 5% Partys because as our ‘oz’ method is compulsory voting its already more democratic than other countrys , and above proposal also minimises informal vote levels
GB,
Nah … happy here, thanks.
Ron @ 126
Looks OK to me, as long as your aim is to have two parties taking turns at hugging the ‘centre’.
No Boewar , Senate result would be similar to now , with balance of power likely to be other than Libs/Nats or Labor
It is no point proposing to make Senate either another HoR , nor proposing something that Partys will never accept
The Biden pick is an admission of Obama’s weaknesses. He’s far better qualified to be president than Obama is (not hard), and would have been a serious candidate if he weren’t so dull. He’s a political pro who can help prevent Obama saying too many dumb things, and will be careful not to upstage the candidate (as Clinton would have done). He can find the Caucasus on a map. He has some appeal to traditional Dems (white male from a Border state, solid liberal on domestic issues, hawkish on security issues). On the other hand his maleness will leave the hardcore Clinton women unappeased.
Diog & Dyno, I hope and wish that Obama can win. But i have my doubt as events, so far, have proven that Obama is not feeling their pain and the elephant is still in the room. Happy to be proven wrong.
My favourite Joe Biden quotes (expect to read these many times between now and November):
“We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”
“We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”
Obama and Biden and Iraq
That like Kevin rudd selecting Howard as deputy PM to manage dismantaling of Work Choices
Iraq s most fundamentel US FA policy , ranks no 1 or 2 with voters
Obama wants out in 16 months , whereas Biden supports Mccain policy to ’stay th course
Another example of Obama’s phoney policy convictions There ar numerous qualified senor Democrats who DO favor out of Iraq ASAP (including nut not only Clinton
‘conviction’ on anything polcy , and Obama ar opposites
Finns
Obama has made a lot of concessions to the Clintons re the convention. I hope Hillary’s speech includes a fairly concrete idea of how she would be part of an Obama team, eg as Secretary for Health.
Off topic (again), I just read that it was Kurt Vonnegut’s brother, Bernard, who invented cloud seeding to produce rain. Kurt later used the same phenomenon, called nucleation, in his book Cat’s Cradle in which Ice-9 is released and freezes all the water in the world.
Well Ron he’s trying to win an election, you know, and he’s realised that he’s not an electable product himself, so he’s trying to shore himself up by picking a running-mate who actually is an electable product, but who won’t show him up too badly.
No matter what else he achieves in life, I will forever associate Joe Biden with his plagiarism of a Neil Kinnock speech during his campaign for the nomination in 1988, and the following passage from PJ O’Rourke:
BTW everybody, I’m getting real close to exceeding my monthly bandwidth limit, so apologies if I go offline for a while overnight.
Are you in need of funds again Wm?
Well that’s just great. I was watching Fox News earlier and they were saying that Biden voted against going to war in Iraq and he supports the foreign policies of Obama?
And I haven’t had anything to drink yet!
William
Plagiarism is probably forgiveable but Neil Kinnock is way beyond the pale.
Mostly I’m in need of greater vigilance regarding where I’m at with my bandwidth usage. They used to send me warning emails but they don’t seem to do it anymore. That said, I have just had to pay $25 to tide me over till the end of the month due to increased traffic from the WA election. If that tugs at anyone’s heart strings, then by all means throw some money in the tin.
No, Biden voted in favour of going into Iraq.
William, can you email me with your postal address so I can send you some, and if Obama wins I’ll send you another serving.
Ron @ 129
Just testing. Happy to take your word for it. Too complicated for me.
think you summed it up perfectly Adam , and your first phrase of “Well Ron he’s trying to win an election” sums up my perseption of this phoney , win at any cost with any policy and with zero convicton and committement….meaning hi Presidency would be just as expedient
Always an OUTSIDE danger of a Obama pollie with no “ticker” AND no “conviction” is they can unwittingly lead you into a terrible war , especialy with a thugish Empire hungry poker player like Putin
Obama picking Biden for VP is very like Latham appointing Beazley as shadow defence minister in 2004. “I know I’m incompetent in this area but if you vote for me I’ll put this competent guy in charge.” It didn’t work for Latham.
I’m in favour of war with Putin, and the sooner the better, before he annexes the Sudetenland, if you catch my drift.
Well, if Obama was already President instead of Dubya the whole Iraq catastrophe would have been avoided.
What kind of an idiot truly believed that Hussein was such a threat that Hans Blix could not be given another couple of weeks to finish his job and prove Hussein disarmed?
In my opinion, the US new there were no WMD’s and if they did not act when they did, they would have lost their chance.
They got it so wrong that Obama is far more qualified to be President than anybody who voted to go to war!
If the presidential election is about foreign policy, then Obama wins hands down.
You can’t send your country to war on a mistake. Those who voted in favour of the Iraq war have proved their incompetence and should have resigned, let alone be presidential candidates.
That’l be a nuclear war, AiC
Adam in Canberra @ 146 -
I’m in favour of war with Putin,
And will you be lined up outside the recruiting office the day after it breaks out? Assuming there is a day after!
While I agree that he needs to be reigned in before he rebuilds the Soviet Union, this isn’t going to be easy. The West can hardly argue from the moral high ground given its complicity and/or acquiescence on Iraq and its willingness to create new states for disgruntled minorities who choose to secede. Then there is the ’small’ matter of Putin having much of Western Europe’s nuts firmly grasped because of their reliance on Russian oil and gas. And with winter fast approaching!
.
Centre @ 148 –
You can’t send your country to war on a mistake.
There is growing evidence that McCain’s belligerence, both overt and covert, had much to do with sending another country, Georgia, to war.
As I recently posted in another thread, now might be a good time to price nuke shelters!
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 7 » Show All