Goodness, does Andrew Bolt mean to imply what many of his commenters infer from this post?
Coalition must win five more seats
Goodness, but the Australian Electoral Commission’s redistribution of boundaries has helped Labor
For starters, even the information he quotes from Antony Green’s blog on the redistribution shows the claim that it “has helped Labor” is flawed:
- On the old boundaries, if Labor lost 9 seats on a swing of 1.5%, Labor would lose its majority.
- On the new boundaries, Labor can now afford to loss 14 seats. but the swing changes only slightly to 1.7%.
A change in the swing required of 0.2% can hardly be considered a substantial gain. What’s more, anyone who bothered to read Green’s post and his responses to comments would see that the notional change in the number of seats shouldn’t give the government much comfort:
On the new boundaries, and assuming a uniform swing, Labor can record a majority of the nationwide 2-party preferred vote and still lose the election.
While the changes in seats looks dramatic, all the redistributions has done is remove the sitting member advantage received by the Coalition at the 2007 election. In 2007, the Coalition won eight seats on margins of less than 1% compared to only four for Labor, sitting Liberal MPs scraping back into parliament on postal votes. The new boundaries randomise this sitting member advantage and now Labor notionally hold nine seats on margins of less than 1% compared to only six for the Coalition.
…
Labor notionally gains five seats, but four of them are seats on margins of less than 0.4%. That’s about the margin of error in my calculations, and in all four seats, the sitting member could have been re-elected had they contested the areas added to the electorate. Those margins are a few hundred votes in electorates of 90,000 electors and they don’t take into account sitting member factors.
…
Read my response to the previous post. You are getting hung up on seats with margins of 0.1 or 0.2%. The sitting members will still have all the advantages of incumbency.
But not only do many of Bolt’s readers seem to swallow his view of the redistribution, some also rush headlong into its sinister implication:
Err, gerrymander much?
I expect MSM outrage, and headline news. Oh wait, it’s helped the ALP, nevermind, I’m sure this will get almost no coverage at all.
…
AEC: Against Electing Coalition.
…
Surprise, surprise.
As with most of the public service the AEC has become politicised.
Hasn’t anyone noticed over the years how so many seats with a Coalition majority are suddenly – after redistribution – notionally Labor?
They “done over” John Howard, chipping away at his majority at each redistributuin until finally his seat was unwinable.
The AEC is at it with Malcolm Turnbull. Check the next redristribution. He will be out on a limb. Electorally speaking.…
The whole system is rigged, lets see if we can still beat them even with their tricks
…
Gee, what a surprise.
Not.
I believe the AEC has been politicised, and not just for observations like this. Just note the blind eye it turns to election rigging at that hands of the ALP, which is rife.
…
It makes one wonder how long and far reaching the tentacles of the Left. Our democracy is run by a handful of faceless people. So much for the wishes of the voters and a fair Australia.
Plenty more commenters ask how the process works — questions that could have been answered for them through the arduous process of clicking the link to actually read the source content Bolt’s post was based on:
The redistribution committee is made up of a Judge, the Electoral Commissioner, the Auditor general and the Surveyor General.
…
The first criteria is projected enrolment, and all seats must be within 3.5% of the predicted quota for three and a half years time. Second is current enrolment, all seats must be within 10% of the current enrolment. Once the numeric requirements are met, the Commissioners pay attention in order to broadly defined community of interest, means of communication, physical features and currewnt boundaries. More detail here http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Redistributions.htm#_Toc186005751 …
Of course, Andrew Bolt didn’t say that he thinks the Australian Electoral Commission intentionally performed the redistribution to improve Labor’s chances of being reelected. He merely gave an incomplete account of the facts to his readers and allowed them to derive that implication all by themselves — a bringing together of willful ignorance with partisan conspiracy theories that seems to be the hallmark of his work.
22 Comments
There are quite a lot of rrrs in that Gerrrymander.
I’m just saying …
Yet another definition to add to the Wingnut Bingo card.
I think Bolt is the jack of all nonsense and master of much of it.
You must be desperate for topics to write about if you are reduced to whining about what Andrew’s readers have to say in the comments of his blog. Someone could have a feild day with the contents of comments here.
Really Tobias you can do better than this
He’s been learning from the masters – O’Reilly, Hannity and all the other clowns at Fox. You never quite say anything that’s actionable but but you lead your viewers/readers down a certain path.
It’s really quite clever. {Removed that final sentiment, sorry – Tobby}
Iain @4
We’re talking about a man’s dog whistle. It’s appropriate to point toward the barking dogs.
Meanwhile – my fave lyrics of the evening:
I wish the waifs’d come back to CBR again. They really are fantastic live.
Look at those pathetic grubs over at Blot’s Blog, praying that Abbott gets in and so ruins their grandkids’ lives with SerfChoices.
Um, Iain, did you actually read Tobias’ post?
Iain Hall @4 Good work! Like you I’m not going to read the article and comment anyway. It’s the best way to bring a debate forward. Unless you have a reason why Bolt would say something like that if not to stir the pot.
I blame Ken Henry.
Mathew
As I suggested in my previous comment, what is the point of Tobias’ post if not to rouse a chorus of howling from the canine chorus here?
The issue of what constitutes a “fair redistribution” of electoral boundaries is an important one and obviously the topic of Andrew’s post. But does Toby’s post go to the issue? well only in passing as he puts fingers to his lips and blows, hoping the usual suspects will rant and rave at the evil of Andrew’s commentators.
Dogs are being called for sure but it is here as much as any where else.
RS @10
What did John Henry ever do to you?
Oh. Sorry. Ken
Ken Henry is a Tax Refomin’ Man …
IH @11
“what is the point of Tobias’ post if not to rouse a chorus of howling from the canine chorus here”
An excellent question
“The issue of what constitutes a “fair redistribution” of electoral boundaries is an important one and obviously the topic of Andrew’s post.”
But no, it isn’t. All andrew says is that it has “helped labor”. He doesn’t talk about ANY of the reasons why the AEC manages the boundaries or what it takes into account. His post, in a nutshell, said “The AEC just did something that helped labor”. But it’s excellent hit-bait, and the responses show that an awful lot of the respondents don’t have the wit or curiosity to find out the rest of the story. I think it’s germane.
“But does Toby’s post go to the issue?”
Well, yes. I think he does. At least as far as pointing out that (a) the simple “helped labor” response is an inadequate way to summarize green’s article and (b) there is an established, open process for redrawing district boundaries.
I wonder if this will be the latest conspiracy he trots out on Insiders. I hope he does and that he does it on a panel with Mega George or someone else who knows what they are talking about, who will put him back in his box quick smart.
Iain, I agree with you, why would anyone care about the boring, predictable, ideological claptrap Andrew Bolt sprays on a daily basis. Iain you’re scornful of the authors of this site for pointing out the many flaws in Andrew Bolts arguments, but are you equally critical of Bolt, or like other Bolt followers you lap up anything the man writes.
Bolt spends his life scouring the internet for obscure links to join together so he can present his mindless, childish rubbish to an audience which seem demented at best. It’s a real conga line of suck holes over at that place. Bolt makes Darrell Somers seem like the most entertaining person in Australia. I’ve more interesting things to do, like stare at a blank sheet of paper, than read Andrew Bolt. Have a good day people. Bye.
That’s a remarkable mind you have there Iain.
It’s such a great conspiracy that it requires an extra ‘r’.
Confessions, one of the things I’ve noted is that Bolt tends to adjust his issues and arguments to suit his audience — the while the evils of the great global warming scam, Islam and Labor make the crossover, things like the appearance of female politicians and some of the more far-fetched conspiracies (such as Rudd honouring David Petraeus because the General will become President in 2012) seem to be strictly for his people. I’d imagine this one will fall into the latter group.
It’s the invitation to infantile rather than canine behaviour which is the problem. Shouldn’t he have written the article fourteen months or so ago before submissions to the AEC on electoral redistribution were due, encouraging people to participate in the democratic process as citizens? Oh, then they wouldn’t be whining and ranting, I can see his problem . . .
Toby’s whistle seems to work on Ian.
Lauren Bacall pulling down the blinds, if only.
Of course, it seems obvious to me that electoral boundaries are being quietly changed to accomodate the gradual green gaying Islamisation of Australia in a violent leftist effort to destroy civilisation as we know it and replace the meat pie with the kebab. You just wait and see … I bet each of those electorates have more kebab shops than pie shops.
And if this keeps up, all our womenfolk will soon be forced to wear a burger on their head by decree of the socialist left. I’ll be goddamned in Hades if I’m going to stand idly by to watch our decent Aussie women go farting around the shopping centres of this great country of ours with beetroot juice dripping all over their faces.
It’s a bloody outrage!
Tobby: surely you aren’t suggesting he has one set of views he trots out for his frothers, and another set for more erudite folk?
One thing you can say for Piers: what you see is what you get, whether he’s on his blog or whether he’s on an ABC couch.
Well we’re never in doubt about which pack of dogs being whistled (or so he claims) Ian belongs in…but he has that extra X factor of being foolish enough to be bothered to comment on what he perceives as petty ‘whining’. If it’s so irrelevant then a smart person would STFU in the smug knowledge it’s of no consequence.
Point is, Ian wants to school us about what is whining while he does the same…. {removed the final part – Tobby}
@Ross Sharp I can hear the banter now- “If you don’t shut-up you’ll be wearing the bloody burger!”