As well as being the first conducted under one-vote one-value electoral boundaries for the lower house, the September 6 Western Australian election will also be the first to have a half-Senate style “six-by-six” arrangement. The six-region system was instituted in 1989, but until now there have been two regions with seven members and four with five. Neither the old nor the new arrangement amounts to “one-vote one-value” – both evenly divide membership between metropolitan and non-metropolitan zones, though the respective enrolment is 935,539 and 258,335. This was the agreement that was reached when the electoral reforms were passed shortly before the May 2005 changeover that gave effect to the February 2005 election result, the lag owing its existence to a quirk of WA’s constitutional arrangements (the results of the September 6 election will similarly not take effect in the upper house until May next year).
Labor’s retiring president of the Legislative Council, Nick Griffiths, complained in May that Attorney-General Jim McGinty had “shut out progressive reform in the Council to get an increased chance of winning in the Legislative Assembly” by instituting a system which, “short of a Labor landslide”, guaranteed a conservative upper house majority. He blamed this on McGinty’s insistence on cutting a deal with the Greens rather than the Liberals, with the former counter-intuitively prompting for the retention of rural vote weighting (I’m told this was on the insistence of senior figure and former Senator Dee Margetts, who declared herself intent on protecting the interests of the Agricultural region she represented). To get the numbers the backing also needed the backing of an outgoing Liberal-turned-independent member, Alan Cadby. However, Griffiths’ argument seems to overlook the point that the then Liberal leader, Matt Birney, had dealt his party out of the game by refusing to negotiate, so that he could boast the purity of the impotent with respect to one-vote one-value to regional constituents, including those in his own seat of Kalgoorlie.
It’s clear that a different seat of Greens MPs would prefer a one-vote one-value deal for the upper house, and such a reform would probably be instituted if the election result gives Labor and the Greens a collective majority. However, the analysis below indicates that the best Labor and the Greens combined can hope for is half the numbers in the new upper house. A creative maneuver by Labor to implement one-vote one-value during the government’s first term without the “absolute majority” required for constitutional amendments was ruled invalid by both the Supreme Court and the High Court in 2002 and 2003, so such a result would plainly be inadequate. In any case, it’s more likely that the upper house result will deliver Labor and the Greens 16 or 17 seats out of 36 against 19 or 20 to various parties of the right. The latter includes the Christian Democratic Party and Family First, who between them are unlikely to emerge empty-handed and might win as many as three seats.
Below is an assessment of the situation for the Legislative Council election, based on some fiddling with Antony Green’s indispensible election calculators. Also outlined below are the upper house preference tickets which reduce the situation to its essentials.
EAST METROPOLITAN
The Christian Democratic Party are a chance of a seat here if the swing against Labor is just the right size. They will get preferences from Family First, One Nation and serial independent John D. Tucak, who between them were worth over 0.5 of a quota in 2005. If that’s repeated this time and the Liberal vote is up from 32.2 per cent to around 35.5 per cent, CDP candidate Dwight Randall will remain ahead of third Liberal Alyssa Hayden and pick up her vote as preferences, which will add up to a quota and deliver Randall the seat. If the Liberal swing is too high, the result will be three Labor and three Liberal; if it’s too low, it will be three Labor, two Liberal and one Greens. Candidates assured of election are Jock Ferguson, Ljiljanna Ravlich and Linda Savage of Labor (only the second of whom is an incumbent), and incumbents Helen Morton and Donna Faragher (East Metropolitan being the exception to the rule of poor female representation in Liberal ranks).
Family First: CDP; Nationals; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
Labor: Greens; Family First; CDP; Liberal; Nationals.
Citizens Electoral Council: Liberal; Nationals; Greens; Labor; Family First; CDP.
Liberal: CDP; Nationals; Family First; Greens; Labor.
Greens: Labor; Family First; Nationals; Libreal; CDP.
Tom Hoyer: Nationals; Greens; CDP; Labor; Liberal; Family First.
One Nation: CDP; Family First; Nationals; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
Richard Nash: Greens; Labor; Nationals; Liberal; Family First; CDP.
John D Tucak: CDP; Family First; Nationals; Labor; Liberal; Greens.
Daylight Saving Party: Greens; Liberal; Family First; CDP: Labor; Nationals.
NORTH METROPOLITAN
North Metropolitan contains the strong Liberal western suburbs, so there’s little prospect of the CDP overtaking their third candidate. Incumbent Peter Collier and newcomers Michael Mischin and Liz Behjat are thus assured of election. The question is who wins the third seat out of Labor number three Tim Daly and Greens incumbent Giz Watson. If there’s anything in the poll figures which have consistently had the Greens in double figures, Watson should be the favourite. Labor’s top two candidates are long-standing members Ken Travers and Ed Dermer.
Brian Peachey: CDP; Family First; Labor; Liberal; Nationals; Greens.
Citizens Electoral Council: Liberal; Nationals; CDP; Family First; Greens; Labor.
Christian Democratic Party: Family First; Labor; Liberal; Nationals; Greens.
Family First: CDP; Nationals; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
John Eyden: Family First; Liberal; Nationals; CDP; Greens; Labor.
Liberal: Nationals; CDP; Family First; Greens; Labor.
Labor: Greens; Family First; CDP; Liberals; Nationals.
Greens: Labor; Family First; Nationals; Liberal. CDP.
Douglas Greypower: Family First; CDP; Greens; Nationals; Liberal; Labor.
Eugene Hands: Greens; Liberal; Nationals; CDP; Family First; Labor.
Wally Morris: Nationals; Family First; CDP; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
Daylight Saving Party: Greens; Liberal; Family First; Labor; CDP; Nationals.
Christopher King: Family First; Greens; CDP; Nationals; Liberal; Labor.
One Nation: CDP; Family First; Nationals; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
Julie Gray: Greens; Labor; Liberal; Nationals; CDP; Family First.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN
It will be a pretty grim evening for Labor if they can’t manage three quotas here (their candidates are incumbents Sue Ellery and Kate Doust and newcomer Fiona Henderson), while the Liberals (whose top two shoo-ins are incumbent Simon O’Brien and newcomer Nick Goiran) aren’t so weak the CDP are likely to get a look-in. The question is who wins the final seat out of Liberal number three Phil Edman and Greens candidate Lynn MacLaren, who was briefly a member after filling a casual vacancy in late 2004. Edman will win the seat if the combined vote for the Liberals, CDP, Family First, One Nation and CEC adds up 42.9 per cent or three quotas. The first three collectively polled 41.0 per cent in 2005 (the CEC didn’t run), so the Greens might find the going tough.
Citizens Electoral Council: Liberal; CDP; Family First; Nationals; Labor; Greens.
Labor: Greens; Family First; CDP; Liberal; Nationals.
Christopher Oughton: Liberal; Greens; CDP; Family First; Nationals; Labor.
Christian Democratic Party: Family First; Liberal; Labor; Nationals; Labor; Greens.
Family First: CDP; Nationals; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
Eric Miller: CDP; Family First; Liberal; Nationals; Labor; Greens.
Liberal: Family First; CDP; Nationals; Greens; Labor.
Greens: Labor; Family First; Nationals; Liberal; CDP.
Nationals: Family First; CDP; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Daylight Saving Party: Greens; Liberals; Family First; CDP; Labor; Nationals.
Steve Walker: Liberal; Labor; Nationals; Greens; Family First; CDP.
One Nation: CDP; Family First; Nationals; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
AGRICULTURAL
The Liberals are guaranteed two seats (Brian Ellis, who filled a casual vacancy in July 2007, and newcomer James Chown), Labor one (who won a seat in South West from number three on the ticket in 2005), and Nationals’ Avon MP Max Trenorden will have little trouble succeeding in his bid to move upstairs. Labor are likely to win a second seat for newcomer Darren West, but could lose it to third Liberal Chris Wilkins if there’s a big enough swing. The last seat is likely to go either to Christian Democratic Party candidate Mac Forsyth or Liberal-turned-Family First member Anthony Fels. Both are ahead of the Liberals on most tickets, including the Greens in Family First’s case. It’s likely to come down to whether Forsyth can either overtake One Nation or outpoll the combined vote for Fels, New Country and independent Shelley Posey. It’s surprisingly hard to construct a scenario where a third Liberal seat comes at the expense of either of these two rather than Labor.
Labor: Greens; Family First; CDP; Nationals; Liberal; One Nation.
Shelly Posey: Family First; CDP; One Nation; Nationals; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Citizens Electoral Council: Liberal; Nationals; Family First; CDP; One Nation; Labor; Greens.
Liberal: Nationals; CDP; Family First; Greens; Labor; One Nation.
Greens: Labor; Family First; Nationals; Liberal; CDP.
Family First: CDP; Nationals; One Nation; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
Christian Democratic Party: Family First; Nationals; One Nation; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Nationals: CDP; Family First; One Nation; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
New Country: Family First; CDP; One Nation; Nationals; Labor; Greens; Liberal.
One Nation: CDP; Family First; Nationals; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
MINING AND PASTORAL
Much depends here on the destination of the 5.9 per cent recorded in 2005 by the independent John Fischer-Graham Campbell ticket. This region is not traditionally strong territory for the Nationals, but they have a dream run on preferences and Wendy Duncan has at least some chance of overtaking third Liberal Mark Lewis and winning a third conservative seat. There is likely to be a parallel contest for a third “left” seat between third Labor candidate Jim Murie and Robin Chapple of the Greens, who was a member here from 2001 to 2005. Certain winners are Labor’s Jon Ford and Helen Bullock, respectively an incumbent and a newcomer, and Liberal incumbents Norman Moore and Ken Baston.
Greens: Labor; Nationals; Family First; One Nation; Liberal; CDP.
Nationals: CDP; Family First; One Nation; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Labor: Greens; Family First; CDP; Nationals; Liberal; One Nation.
Christian Democratic Party: Nationals; Family First; One Nation; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Liberal: Nationals; Family First; CDP; Greens; Labor; One Nation.
Citizens Electoral Council: Liberal; Family First; One Nation; CDP; Nationals; Greens; Labor.
Family First: Nationals; CDPl One Nation; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
One Nation: Nationals; CDP; Family First; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
Daylight Saving Party: Greens; CDP; Liberal; Labor; Nationals; One Nation.
New Country: Family First; CDP; One Nation; Nationals; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
SOUTH WEST
Unless there’s a fairly solid swing against Labor, this should split three-all between left and right. If there’s a third left seat, it will go to either John Mondy of Labor or incumbent Paul Llewellyn of the Greens (Labor incumbents Sally Talbot and Adele Farina are assured of election). If the right win four, three will go to Liberal (incumbents Robyn McSweeney, Nigel Hallett and Barry House, who all won preselection ahead of former leader Paul Omodei, who refused to stand and fight for the lower house seat of Blackwood-Stirling) and one to Liberal-turned-Family First member Dan Sullivan, unless the Nationals perform very strongly in which case their candidate Colin Holt might edge ahead of Sullivan. If they win three, the third seat will be down to Sullivan and third Liberal Barry House.
Nationals: Family First; CDP; One Nation; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Family First: CDP; Nationals; One Nation; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
Labor: Greens; CDP; Nationals; Family First; Liberal; One Nation.
Christian Democratic Party: Family First; Nationals; One Nation; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Elaine Green: Family First; CDP; One Nation; Nationals; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Greens: Labor Family First; Nationals; One Nation; Liberal; CDP.
Citizens Electoral Council: Liberal; Nationals; Family First; CDP; One Nation; Labor; Greens.
Liberal: Family First; CDP; Nationals; Greens; Labor; One Nation.
One Nation: CDP; Family First; Nationals; Liberal; Greens; Labor.
Filip Gugilemana: Family First; CDP; Liberal; Nationals; One Nation; Labor; Greens.
Daylight Saving Party: Greens; Liberal; Family First; Labor; Nationals; One Nation.
New Country: Family First; CDP; One Nation; Nationals; Nationals; Labor; Greens; Liberal.
72 Comments
Before we start, can we please save this thread for discussion of the upper house – please direct general election discussion to the earlier thread.
WRT the South West, the Nationals prefernces delivered this to the greens last time. Without this wouldn’t the CDP also be a challenger? I know Sullivan is a former MLA, but I’m not so sure his support his that high further south of the Mandurah coast. Actually, scratch all that – noticed the preference flows are very strong for Sullivan. Hmmm, could be 4 right, 2 left (no Green).
An interesting one will be what will some of the small parties actually poll? While NCP & the independents wouldn’t normally get over 0.5%, is the Daylight Saving Party running any sort of campaign in the west? Their pref’s go to the Greens, – here I’m especially thinking about East Metro, where the Greens will end up with 2 indi’s (Nash & Hoyer) and the Daylight SP, but will it be enough to get them over the ALP’s 3rd?
If the Daylight Saving Party had a bit more of a profile, they could get quite a bit of votes. But I dont think it will happen.
Do the “Daylight Saving Party” hold their meetings at night?
It looks like the Liberals have all the preferences for the South Met Region apart from Greens, Labor and the Day Light Saving Party.
It looks to be very tough for the greens to pick up the Third Spot.
Jacob, If we had a NO daylight savings party then they would get a lot of votes. The negative one issue parties have a better track record (cf no-pokies). Daylight saving is a sleeper (no pun intended) issue. Many who were in favour of daylight saving, although always the minority in 3 referendums, have turned off it.
The DSP on the other hand don’t want another referendum. See http://daylightsavingwa.com/ . They want it introduced by parliament.
Interestingly the Greens want a referendum as well, so why are they getting DSP preferences? I doubt if the Daylight Savings Party will have any effect on the Legistativel Council elections. Unless of course, as I thought as well at first glance, people think it is a party against daylight saving.
What did the CDP do to annoy the CEC in East metropolitan?
Below the greens on the preferences seems so out of character for the CEC.
Insulted Lyndon LaRouche perhaps.
What happened to the party that Stott-Despoya distroyed
Are they not even contesting this election, or have we decided that they were not worth mentioning?
Yes, Dovif, not one Australian Democrat candidate standing. They are still registered as a party, but so is Libs 4 Forests & Nurses 4 health, so I’m thinking they have given it away in WA for the time being. That said, they are running in Mayo & ACT, so haven’t quite disappeared altogether (plus I note their new President is a 30yo political scientist).
Stewart J
It will depend on which of the FFP and CDP polls the most primary votes on who will be in the running for the sixth seat.
In the 2005 state election FFP outvoted the CDP by nearly 2 to 1 in the Southwest region. It was the only region where the FFP outpolled the CDP.
All other regions the CDP received more primary votes than FFP. In each case they exchange preferences.
The CDP turned the Southwest votes around in their favour in the 2007 Federal election in the seat of Forrest and in the northern parts of Canning which roughly overlap the Southwest region. The CDP have the same candidate (John Lewis) for the Southwest as they had in the federal election for Forrest. Ultimately it may depend on how much of his own personal vote Dan Sullivan can add to the FFP.
Lenwx, not in the metro area. The last 3 referendums have all had a yes vote in the metro area. I would expect another yes vote in Perth and hence good support for the DLS Party if people knew it was out there. 6PR did a poll in March through an independent polling company called “Quick Ideas”, and the metro yes vote was 54% from a sample of 600 people (up from the 1992 referendum).
I’ve voted Labor all my life, but for the first time ever I will not vote for them in the upper house this time, I will have to give my 1st vote to the DLS Party and then fill in all the boxes, so the ALP gets my prefence and not the Libs.
Re #11
I wrote: “northern parts of Canning”. Of course I actually meant “southern parts of Canning” or the northern parts of the Southwest Region.
I’m surprised the Greens didn’t help the Libs4Forests and Dems get some dummy candidates to stand.
As promised, this post has now been expanded.
14 Obelisk: Why would they want to do that? All it would do is split the Green vote, giving a bunch of preferences to the Liberals in the process.
Anyways, I’m in East Metro, so I’ve been following that more than the others. There’s three independents on that list, who I did a bit of googling on:
Tom Hoyer: used to be a councillor on the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. He made it into the Green Left Weekly in 2000, in the dying days of the Court government, protesting against sand mining and the closure of a mental hostel in Mundijong. He’s got the Nats, then Greens on his ticket… the only person preferencing the Nats second, which I guess you’d expect for someone not actually from Perth.
Richard Nash has a fairly common name, which is the best way around of making yourself hard to Google-stalk. Whoever he is, his ticket runs left – right – Christian, so he’s probably more on the socially progressive side of the board. Anyone know who this guy is?
John D Tucak, who William refers to as a serial independent (why?): there’s not much on him, but at least he’s easier to google. He sells used railway sleepers in Burswood, he might have once played bass in Blackfeather (that might’ve been a different guy, though), and he’s preferencing the Christians first, Greens last, and Labor above Liberal. Hmm. I wonder why a wood merchant’s running for parliament…
Birdofparadise@16
I’ll let you into a little secret…in 2001 John D Tucak promised the Greens preferences (number 2’s even), to which the Greens agreed they would preference him after the Democrats. He then proceeded to reneg on the deal and ended up placing the next to Greens last (effectively last as it was after Louise Pratt – ALP #3 – & Norm Kelly – AD #1). I Know…I was there…so you can imagine what I think of John D Tucak…
Re John D Tucak – because he ran last time (and federally in 1993 and 1996), so his vote from then can be used in my calculation.
William
Dee Margetts was the member for Agricultural not Mining and Pastoral. Para 2.
The debate about 1 vote 1 value was a bit more nuanced than just rural-urban issues. I would rather WA had electoral reform referenda than DST referenda.
PR anybody for real 1v1v?
The Nationals putting the Greens after and Labor reduces the chance of rural Green winners. I guess they cut a deal with Labor in the hope for BoP. Any LC Nats are likely to have to share BoP, any way. Maybe not best for LC but may be LA strategic for Nats?
Thanks Disasterboy, corrected the Margetts error.
William,
In South Metropolitan, the CDP preference flow is shown as:
“Christian Democratic Party: Liberal; Greens; CDP; Family First; Nationals; Labor.”
This doesn’t look right to me.
Regards,
Barry
Re the Greens chances in the Upperhouse.
In EM and SM – As long as the ALP + Greens + DSP + some minor indies are greater than 57.1% then the Greens get a spot. More likely than not in EM but tough in both regions.
In SW, M+P and NM – As long as ALP + Greens + DSP + some minor indies are greater than 3 quotas and the ALP are less than 41% of the vote then the Greens will pinch the last spot from the ALP.
In AG the Greens require a miracle.
Hi Disasterboy at 20. The Nats have not done a deal with the ALP because the ALP had nothing to give them. I suspect they have done a deal with the CDP to put the Greens last or alternatively have just decided to get rid of the Greens to reduce the competition for BOP. Curious decision given they need Greens preferences in Moore and Blackwood-Stirling.
Well spotted Barry, now corrected.
Hi Luke at 23
I suspect the BOP theory. I don’t think they will get more than 1 from Ag. They would be better giving Greens ahead of Labor to increase chance of sharing BOP. But hey, they don’t read this.
Typical opportunist and unprincipled Greens behaviour. For supposed idealists they play selfish politics as well as anyone and better than most.
Adam@26
And your remark is in relation to what?
Their preservation of the shameless gerrymandering of the WA Leg Council
Adam@28
And how was this opportunist?
Re Adam at 28,
What are you talking about?
The new model for the Upper House makes life very difficult for the Greens. I fail to see how that is unprincipled and opportunist.
They insisted on the retention of the rural weighting in the upper house as the price of their support for the abolition of the lower house gerrymander.
But how is that opportunist if it makes life more difficult rather than less?
It may be stupid but it is not opportunist.
Adam@31
Actually, it relied on 1 MLC, without whom nothing could be passed. William makes mention of this in his opening piece. However I’m surprised you aren’t pleased with the generosity of the Greens for providing the ALP with another opportunity to govern.
I might add that sometimes principles (allowing MP’s to be able to consider an issue on its merit and not be forced to follow a party ‘line’) can trip up good outcomes. Nonetheless, I would consider electoral reform in WA as ‘work in progress’ – who knows what might be possible after this election…
Kudos to Libs + Lab + Greens for doing some pretty big reforms of the WA system. Not quite 1:1 votes but way better than in the past. My understanding is that the Libs wanted 1:1 but Labor wouldn’t go that far and were able to convince the Greens to come to the table. Actually, considering the Labor government was dealing with an inherited situation with rural communities having more power, it seems to me all three parties had good reasons behind their positions, of which I heartily approve. Hopefully it’s just a step in some ongoing reform.
Selling out the principle of one vote one value in both chambers in the interests of getting more of your own members elected in rural rotten boroughs meets my defintion of opportunism. When the Qld Nats did it they were roundly condemned, but at least they believed in the principle of unequal representation.
Be that as it may, the Greens have no electoral betterment of their position from this. They’re worse off by comparatively weighting rural and more conservative votes over their current base in the cities. It’s definitely not opportunist.
It might have been actually done for the reasons that were given for it.
That said – 1:1 is much better in my books. Bit surprised and disappointed – though it is a work in progress. Sometimes change needs to be gradual – though it might have been a blunder to not get a genuine reform through while Lab/Grn had the chance. Why on earth would Labor be against 1v1v???
But Adam, the Greens didn’t improve their chances of getting members elected by introducing the 6×6 model. In actual fact, they decreased their chances of retaining North Metro and South West which were reduced from seven to six members.
While there are many reasons to criticise the Greens and the 6×6 model, self interest is not one of them. Anyone with an understanding of the Upper House in WA should be able to see that.
Adam, I agree with your antagonists here – in particular Luke’s assessment that “it may be stupid but it is not opportunist”. Any number of one-vote one-value models would have been better for the Greens than this six-by-six arrangement.
*mutters darkly*
@ 29 Stewart J
And how was this opportunist?
The 6×6 upper house system was introduced by the Greens to provide their then sitting MP’s with seats to run for. Robin Chapple would have no chance of winning preselection for a metro-area or south west seat. Dee Margett’s chances would have been slim at best.
Giz Watson supported this scheme (for reasons not clear), Jim Scott and Christine Sharp kept their distance from the issue.
I’m with William. I really don’t know why the Greens agreed to six member regions. They’ve made it harder for themselves to get elected in the two regions they represented on the marginal chance of winning seats in two of the other regions.
Hands Off Venezuala@40
From your comments its clear you don’t know anything of the internal debate within the Greens WA. Chapple would have supported a single state-wide electorate model (or other variants, including those proposed by McGinty), as would Watson & Scott. Sharp initially was prepared to look at all models, but the need to bring Margetts on board required that a compromise be found (which actually lies in the Leg Assembly 1v1v model). Sharp as the GWA spokesperson on Electoral Reform then championed the 6×6 model. And Margetts has always been quite clear that she saw it as a matter of principle (of adequate rural representation & balancing competing – rural & urban – interests) irrespective of her chances of winning her seat back.
Stewart J
Dee Margetts principle is the she wanted another term in parliament. All the stuff about principle and compromise is just smoke and mirrors designed to obscure naked ambition.
Surely Mr “I know it all about the Greens” if 4 out of the 5 MLC supported a certain change to the electoral system why did the other one get their way? Are the 4 just gutless wonders?
It all has a certain seafood smell doesn’t it?
If Christine Sharp was the Greens spokeperson on electoral reform – why was the policy announced to the media by Giz Watson?
Also your attempts to paint Robin Chapple is a straight up and down kind of a guy are charming to say the least!!!!
Hands off Venezuela
Clearly you have some issues with the Green MLC’s. Your statement about Margetts is just plain wrong, which leads me to question your motives in this regard.
As to you comment regarding myself – ‘Mr “I know all about the Greens”‘ – well, thats just being silly. I’ve been a member of the Greens for 18 years, which I haven’t hid from anyone here, and been involved in its core processes for much of that time. The reason why it was important to have Margetts on side was two-fold:
1. The 5 MLC’s had agreed at the beginning of the 2001-05 term that they would work by consensus, and they attempted for all bills;
2. The simple numbers of the Leg Council were that without Margetts the electoral reform bills could not be passed, either in 2002 (with a simple majority) or 2005 (with an absolute majority).
Sharp was the spokesperson on electoral reform in 2001-02 when the Greens position was first discussed internally then made public. I have made no attempts to paint Chapple as being anything other than a person who would have supported a state-wide electorate model.
Stewart J
I’m accepting what you say , but I do not understand why Greens Party (despite or inspite of Margetts required vote) simply called her bluff , because it seems to me th option Margetts has ‘forsed’ on Greens Party would be one of its worst options , and this is now a longterm negative , would hav thought this aspect of longterm electoral damage was worth more than 1 term of Margetts , even if thereafter she was ‘mischivous”
But Ron, surely it was better to get 1v1v through in at least the LA rather than nothing at all.
@46 Luke
Furthermore
Why has Margetts – so out of touch with Green sentiment on this issue been preselected for Agriculture again?
HOV @ 47
I never asserted that Dee had no support on this issue within the party. Obviously it was a vexed issue for the Greens and one which had a number of differing views amongst the Party and the MP’s. I didn’t agree with her stance on this issue but many did.
As to why Dee has been preselected again, the Greens are not a single issue party and support within the party does not turn on one issue alone. Dee was a great Senator and MLC and will continue to be great if elected again.
However, see my comments at 23 as to the viability of AG for the Greens.
Luke @48
I never said that you said she had no support. Just she was out of touch with the sentiment of the party. Also that was StewartJ’s claim not yours, I think.
Your explanation seems to be that no one else wanted it because winning would be a miracle.
Her 2001 election victory is widely considered a miracle.
As for being a great senator – maybe but definitely not as great as the great socialist President Hugo Chavez!!!!!
Here’s something interesting… on the god-bothering side of the spectrum, there’s Gerard Goiran running for East Metro and his wife Madeleine running in Gosnells (lower house), both for the CDP. There’s also a Nick Goiran running in South Metro… except he’s with the Libs, and #2 on their ticket so he’ll most likely get in. He must be their son, going by the lunatic fringe Christian site below. (Trust me, I know they’re crazy… that’s how I got schooled when I was young. I wouldn’t wish it upon anybody.) Looks like the CDP are trying to get someone in parliament on another party’s ticket.
http://www.cpcs.edu.au/national_board.htm
HoV & Ron
As Luke has said, its not that Margetts had no support, but that it was recognised that her vote was important. There is also an issue of personality. Margetts is by training an economist, and is good with the minutae of bills. She also responds to the attentions of her constituents. In 2001-02 those constituents (or at leadt the most vocal of them) were all but pleading with her to not pass the legislation. Now, she might have been swayed by this more (ie; not supported any part of the reforms) excepting that the party spent a long time discussing the issue, attempting to tease out the various issues. Sharp, who previously might have supported 1v1v in both houses then settled on the dual model (1 house with 1v1v, the other not) as an effective compromise and began championing that position. Essentially Margetts then had a position to support. Margetts can be an excellent person to have in parliament, but she can also be a tricky person to deal with.
The problem with this is that, although the party did have a number of options to consider (try bio-regional, which doesn’t work effectively with 1v1v, a separate indigenous list, ala New Zealand, or including ‘representatives’ for non-human interests – advocates for animal interests and the ‘environment’ more generally) alongside straight electoral models, outside of the normal meeting process, and including a couple of general meetings, this position was not put to the party. If it had been I suspect it would have not been supported by the general membership. And trying to force Margetts into another position simply entrenches her position in her own mind. That did happen in one of the general meetings.
As for Dee’s support within the party, well, she did win a preselection ballot to become a Senator, and retained that preselection. There had also been some interest in the Agricultural Region from people outside the party, although I would always have considered it a very long shot (Mining & Pastoral is the same, although Chapple almost doubled his vote between 2001 & 2005)). But yes, Margetts had not been expected to win.
And Ron, hindsight they say is ‘20-20′ vision…
OK bludgers, I have gone away and researched this, and naturally I was right. In 2005 the Greens refused to pass the Labor government’s election reform bill unless the government accepted their terms on the Council. These were (a) the retention of the gross disparity of enrolment between the urban and rural districts, and (b) the creation of six districts each electing six members. The result is an even number of districts electing an even number of members. This means Labor or the Libs/Nats must win 57% of the vote in one district and 43% in the other five to gain a majority, regardless of their statewide vote. In districts this large, that is highly unlikely. As a result, the Greens are virtually guaranteed the balance of power in the Council forever, regardless of how the people vote. They also have two districts with very low enrolments, where they can win a seat with less than 10,000 votes. In other words, they sabotaged the principle of one-vote-one-value in the Council, which they claimed to support, in order to achieve arrangements that will maximise their own power. I call that opportunism. All parties do opportunistic things, but only the Greens combine cynical opportunist actions with pious self-righteous rhetoric denouncing everyone else.
Adam, what you might be overlooking is the high possibility of 4-2 right-left results in Agricultural and South West (indeed, a near certainty in the former case) balanced only by a lower possibility of a 4-2 left-right result in East Metropolitan, thanks to rural vote weighting. This creates a high possibility of 19 or even 20 seats for the right out of 36, and thus no Greens balance of power.
William,
You are right, it is a possibility. However, it is also a possibility that the situation outlined by Adam may occur. I would say that it is more of a possibility under the current system than under the former, meaning that Adam’s analysis is substantially correct.
The surprising thing in Adam’s comment is that he seems surprised that a political party would be guilty of “…opportunist actions with pious self-righteous rhetoric denouncing everyone else.” I would have thought this par for the course.
Adam
You might also have researched what people such as Campbell Sharman and other political scientists had to say about the 6×6 model – that in fact it had a far greater opportunity of resulting in 3-3 splits than for a minor party to get elected – unless they were successful with vote harvesting. Your characterisation of this process simply belies your dislike of the result. The “large district number” seats which you comment on were taken from the Queensland legislation, which I note the Queensland ALP seems perfectly happy with, and was intended to ensure to partly (and I admit very partly) address the issue of elector contact with MP’s. If you think that MP’s should have contact with their electors then they require an effective mechanism for doing so. The report from the Leg Council Legislation Committee which looked at the legislation, chaired by Jon Ford (ALP), does discuss what might be needed, and also included comments on Indigenous seats, but makes no further recommendations. The report is on the WA Parliament website:
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/web/newwebparl.nsf/iframewebpages/Committees+-+Past
On opportunism, far better if the Greens had gone with 5 electorates of 7 (retaining but reducing the rural-urban weighting as 3 would have been city based, and 2 rural) or moved to statewide electorate with a threshold (which was discussed in the negotiations) – these scenario’s would have significantly improved the Greens chances both of balance of power and retention of seats, while also potentially limiting micro-parties ability to preference harvest (like Libs4Forests almost managed). That would have more closely fitted your characterisation of opportunism AND fufliled 1v1v for both houses.
As I said before, hindsight has ‘20-20′ vision.
On the question of improving the Greens chances of winning seats (with a 6 seat model) due to a lowering of the quota, there was some debate about this in the lead up to the bills being introduced, with people such as Harry Phillips, Cambell Sharman and David Black suggesting that an odd number of seats was more likely to deliver a seat to a minor party than even numbers. This would particularly be the case (for 6 seat electorates) in close elections where the ALP & Lib/Nat vote would both be close to 3 quota’s – as evidenced by what occurred in the last Federal election. Greens can poll 10% (as in Vic) and still not win a seat. Odd numbers of seats in electorates (say 7 as was the case in South West & North Metro) was far more likely to deliver seats both from the lower quota and that there would be over-quota votes available for a third party.
I would suggest that this election will not improve the Greens position, and the election is likely to deliver balance of power to parties such as Family First and the CDP. Indeed, the cross benches could be quite interesting with up to 4 minor parties (Greens, Nats, FF & CDP) potentially represented. And I would suggest that the potential for further changes to the electoral system should not be ruled out as it would also be in those parties interests to have, say, a single statewide electorate (maybe with split terms such as in SA & NSW).
Adam and others,
What do you think a good model for the WA upperhouse is???
I am not trying to defend the 6×6 which I think is potentially very bad for the Greens, I am genuinely interested in your views.
Quota preferential voting should always operate with an odd number of seats. With an odd number of seats, if a party receives a majority of the vote, it has the chance to win a majority of seats. That is very very difficult with even numbers, with the exception of rotten boroughs like Agricultural Region. In 7 Federal elections where 6 member Senate elections have been held, there is 1 case in 42 (QLD 2004) of a party achieving a majority of seats. The result at many elections would have been very different with odd numbered elections.
An example of how it works is my local council in Sydney. At the 1999 Marrickville Council elections, the Labor Party was afraid of losing control to the Greens and No Aircraft Noise. So they created three Wards of 4 members, meaning Labor only needed to win 40% of the vote to get half the seats. They won 6 of the 12 vacancies.
In 2004, with Labor thinking its vote had risen, they created 4 wards of 3 members, thinking they could win a majority. Instead, their vote was exactly the same and they only one 1 councillor in each ward, 4 of the 12 councillors. They were defeated by their own gerrymander.
Tasmania used 6 member electorates until the 1950s, when after a run of deadlocked elections, they hit on the idea of electing an odd number of members. Many years ago I read the report of the inquiry that recomended this change, and it stressed the point that if you believe in proportional representation, you also have to believe in a party with the majority of the vote being able to win a majority of seats.
Ireland uses a variant of quota preferential voting to elect the Dail. It uses a mix of 3, 4 and 5 member divisions. There have been various papers over the years illustrating how parties shuffle the seats around, putting odd numbered constituencies in areas where their own vote was likely to reach 50%, and even numbered seats where their opponents might reach 50%.
9 elections since 6 , and my commentthat applies to the Senate as well. If a party receives a majority of the vote, it should be entitled to win a majority of the seats.
There was a ‘one’ that should have been a ‘won’, and two lines of stray junk edit text at the end. Sorry.
And by the way, I think William is entirely right. If Labor has a particularly good election, it and the Greens might have a chance of getting enough seats for a majority together. But the Libs and Nats will almost always get four up in Agricultural, sometimes in South-West, and you wouldn’t discount them winning five in Agricultural. They’ve won four out of five in the past in Agricultural.
But if you’re not aware of how the Greens got the balance of power at the 2001 election Adam, it is very amusing. One Nation stuffed up their preferences. Thinking the Greens wouldn’t win a seat in either region, One Nation decided to show the Libs and Nats a lesson in how independent they were by passing their preferences through the Greens before reaching the Liberals. But One Nation ended up with more than a quota in both regions, their surplus flowed to the Greens and stayed there until the Greens were elected. The two extra Greens took seats the Liberals would otherwise have won, in which case One Nation would have had the balance of power in the Legislative Council, and Labor Plus the Greens would have had only 16 of the 34 seats. That would have given the Gallop government a very tough LC to deal with, and made it impossible to get the electoral reform bill through, unless the Liberals had decided to cut a deal with Labor.
One Nation stuffed up their preferences – that’s right up there with the “Strange Man on Public Transport” headline.
Possum, a former Electoral Commissioner told me some excellent stories on the subject of One Nation and their understanding of preferences.
Speaking of strange boroughs, I’m disappointed that the Greens didn’t nominate for Sydney’s Botany Bay Council. In an election for Mayor and for three wards of two councillors, there were two labor nominations in each ward, Ron Hoenig was the only nominee for Mayor, the whole Council uncontested. I think it will be the only council in Sydney where Labor won’t get a pasting on 13 September.
I could imagine Antony…
Well, actually I probably couldn’t – every time I thought I’d seen it all with that mob, they transcend new depths of confusion.
Like the last Federal election where One Nation WA was running in QLD for the Senate.
I’d be interested to hear your One Nation tales sometime – psephology sitcom on a stick.
Answer to Bird of paradox.
I am very disturbed by your comments on the Christian schools. Which school did you attend? I have been a teacher at one of the CPCS schools for 21 years and I am delighted with the education children receive there. Education is in a mess. Politicians are seeking solutions in the wrong places. We want common sense education and character building for our students.
Antony@63
Well, we might have nominated someone if we had someone willing to be nominated… We managed it in 2004, so maybe next time around.
StewartJ:
You’d think the Greens would stand a fairly good chance of 33% in Botany.
Botnay Bay doesn’t use PR. Two member wards but both elected by majority preferential voting.
As Antony says – you need 50%, and if you get that your votes go back in to elect the second person. This of course means that a ticket of 2 ALP candidates will almost always get elected (assuming people follow the ticket) Wollongong had the same, but the competition was quite different due to the presence of many non-ALP voters in the northern parts of the Illawarra. Botany doesn’t have that.
Based on the Victorian experience it seems like the possibility of winning makes it harder to find Green candidates. One of the good things about Green members is that most of them (naturally with some exceptions) aren’t willing to run for something they might win unless they’re confident they’d actually do a good job.
Of course there are some who would be bloody terrible and are just delusional, but there are even more who have a better understanding of their own weaknesses than those of their opponents. Results, we’ve had some people who’d be at least reasonable councilors pull out because they have heard what it takes to be a great councilor and don’t realise they’d still be doing something good for the local residents if they ran and took the seat off some useless hack. Result, spots we could win going begging.
Wow, Antony, I just checked the Botany Bay website. With one exception every councillor has been there since 1995, and most for much longer. Not exactly a mix of new blood and experience. That voting system is atrocious, and one can see it in the results.
I was home schooled. That experience, and my Christian father, filled me with such a love of all things Christian that I’m not one any more. Imagine Ephesians 6:1 with maximum violence.
By the way, I’m assuming you’re Nick’s mother / CDP candidate in Gosnells… if so, could you explain to me why he’s running for the Liberals in South Metro? He seems a much more natural fit with the CDP… it seems odd.