Menu lock

Federal Election 2013

Aug 29, 2013

In a spirit of providing a new post every day during the campaign over and above things like the Senate of the Day entries, today I offer the following scattered assortment of bits-and-pieces relating to contentious preference deals.

• The biggest headline-generator has been the Wikileaks Party, whose most contentious choices have involved a New South Wales ticket which places the Greens behind both the quasi-fascist Australia First and, more consequentially, Shooters & Fishers, and a Western Australian ticket which has the Greens behind the Nationals. Responding to an immediate backlash on social media, the decisions were put down to “administrative errors”, which appeared to involve paperwork being lodged by activists with different ideas about strategy from the party executive. Three of the most noteworthy critics of the arrangement have been Julian Assange’s Senate running mate in Victoria, academic and ethicist Leslie Cannold, who resigned complaining that the party’s democratic processes had been bypassed (albeit that this happened too late to affect her inclusion on the ballot paper); Julian Assange’s mother, Christine Assange, who said that if she lived in Western Australian she would vote for Scott Ludlam of the Greens, who has been the strongest parliamentary supporters of her son’s cause; and Julian Assange himself, who apologised for having “over-delegated” such matters to persons evidently less capable than himself. For all that, the preference arrangements have conferred tactical advantage on the party in some cases, such as in Western Australia where it will be fed preferences from Family First, the Katter and Palmer parties, and a lengthy list of smaller concerns.

• Four parties in Victoria remarkably failed to lodge preference tickets, which among other things offered a potent insight into the closeness of the relationship between them. This was further delved into by Andrew Crook at Crikey, who noted the same personages at work behind the Liberal Democratic Party, Stop the Greens, the Smokers Rights Party and the Republican Party. A source quoted by Christian Kerr of The Australian put the non-lodgement of the tickets down to matters having been “thrown into chaos as it became clear Labor would do a deal with the Greens”. This came as bad news to the Sex Party, which had dealt its way into a national arrangement with the parties concerned that also involved One Nation. To those angered to discover that the party had done Pauline Hanson a good turn in her bid for a New South Wales seat, the party weakly responded that “you have to put these lunatic parties somewhere”, while failing to acknowledge that in Hanson’s case “somewhere” was number 10 out of 110, ahead of Labor, the Coalition and the Greens.

• The complex of preference harvesters and opportunists willing to make deals with them has gifted Pauline Hanson with what occasional psephologist Polly Morgan describes as “an incredibly favourable preference flow”. However, Hanson faces the stumbling block that the Coalition have her placed last, so unlike other parties to the arrangement she does not stand to benefit from the surplus after the election of their third Senator, which in the context of the current election could be substantial. Indeed, Hanson’s candidacy may end up doing the left a good turn, as other right-wing candidates with the potential to be elected with help from Coalition preferences could instead get excluded at an earlier stage of the count by virtue of their failure to overtake Hanson. Should Hanson not poll quite so well as that, there are a range of potential scenarios for a seat to go to a micro-party. The most likely contender could be the Liberal Democrats, who have had a lucky break in being drawn as “Group A” on the enormous Senate ballot paper. Experience suggests this will substantially boost the number of votes they get from those confusing them with the Liberal Party, the Coalition ticket being a lot harder to locate (“Group Y” out of a listing the continues all the way out to “Group AR”).

• Labor has made the highly unusual decision to place the Liberals ahead of Andrew Wilkie in Denison. It presumably did so in the expectation that its preferences would not be distributed, the weakness of the Liberals in the electorate meaning the final count will most likely be between Wilkie and the Labor candidate, Jane Austin. However, the weekend’s ReachTEL poll of 563 respondents cast at least some doubt on this, showing the Liberal candidate leading Austin 23.1% to 18.0%. Wilkie’s position nonetheless appears strong enough to ensure his re-election regardless of how preferences are directed.

• Labor has entered a preference arrangement with Katter’s Australian Party in Queensland in which the latter will receive the former’s preferences for the Senate ahead of the Greens, in exchange for which the latter will direct preferences to Labor ahead of the Liberal National Party in Hinkler, Herbert, Flynn, Capricornia, Forde and Petrie. This could well entail the high price of having KAP Senate candidate James Blundell elected ahead of the Greens, a prospect that would be pleasing to an incoming Abbott government. As Steven Scott of the Courier-Mail reports, it has also caused some not unpredictable dissent in the KAP.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

1340 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
democracy@work
Guest

Tim Colebatch TheAge

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/microparties-may-help-family-first-win-seat-20130829-2stmy.html

Correctly highlightes that Family First can out0poll Liberal parties Helen Kroger in Victoria. We determined this last weekend

What he has failed to recognise is that Wikileaks is also in a position to out-poll the Greens in Victoria and more so in Western Australia on a 2-3$ support

Whlst Hanson looks like she could get up in Queensland the fact is the other minor parties diverge before they get to her and their vote is locked up with bigger players. The Clive Palmer and Bob Katter factor play an important roll and will take votes from Pauline Hanson who will not poll above 1.5% let alone anywhere near 4%. if anything Hanson will top up either Palmer or Katter Party The main party to risk losing a seat in Queensland is the Greens

I have not written off Assange in Victoria. Wikileaks is well placed n terms of preferences they just need to peg back the Green vote to be in the race. There is a noticeable media cone of silence surrounding Wikileaks Party. Antony Green ABC in particular has failed to report on Wikileaks policies and chances of Success

In Western Australia Wikileaks chances are the best. With just 2% Wikileaks Party can out poll Senator Luddy to win a seat from the WA Greens Party. The Green vote has slumped in WAS from 15$ to below 9%. If 50% of this vote flows to Wikileaks then Wikileaks can be elected in WA

Simon Baker
Guest

KB – Earlier post, the betting odds reflect the polls which have the Coalition clearly ahead (with the exception of Essential Research). If the polls tighten expect the betting odds to tighten accordingly

democracy@work
Guest

In WA Wikileaks can win with 2-3% of the vote

In Victoria Assange can win if the ALP surplus plus the Greens vote falls below 14%

In NSW Sex Party can out-poll the Greens on preferences

The solution is simple Allow preferential voting above the line.

Increase the Senate deposit to $5,000 per candidate and give a refund of one candidate’s deposit for every 4-5% not the whole group The Greens run six candidates and are pushing to elect just one.

Remove the Droop Quota make it pure proportional not semi-proportional

democracy@work
Guest

Antony Green fails to mention Wikileaks Party chances of success in WA and Victoria. #Bias commentary from His ABC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/preference-deals-could-benefit-micro-parties-at/4920822

In WA Wikileaks can win with 2-3% of the vote

In Victoria Assange can win if the ALP surplus plus the Greens vote falls below 14%

In NSW Sex Party can out-poll the Greens on preferences

The solution is simple Allow preferential voting above the line.

paaptsef
Guest

Natasha missed the part about the Libs spending 2 billion on advertising etc

DisplayName
Guest

david @ 1327 agreed.

Hey Mod, wakey wakey, you can gloat now :P.

Well, it doesn’t necessarily mean Rudd is “dead”, but it removes that avenue of attack. They should stick to pointing out obvious contradictions in Abbott’s various positions rather than this he-said, she-said stuff.

lefty e
Guest

The press don’t understand what happened David.

They did cost it: just not the coalition’s version. Since the coalition didn’t submit any.

No one has checked if the coalitions version is right or wrong.

The budget office is just pointing out the two may have different assumptions. It doesn’t blow anything out of the water.

Except stupid reporters. Lets see the coalitions version and see who’s right! My money’s on PBO

zoidlord
Guest

@Sean/1324

For the 2011-12 financial year, the Low Income Tax Offset created an effective tax-free threshold of $16,000 for resident adult taxpayers. This is the amount of taxable income you would need to earn before you were required to pay any tax.

And it’s now $18,200
http://www.lewistaxation.com.au/tax/rates/personal-income-tax

DisplayName
Guest

IDAUT @ 1330
I was watching in online. No TV involved :D.

I didn’t watch all of it, so not sure.

ItDoesntAddUp Tony
Guest

Is it worth turning the TV on for? I normally don’t bother watching if it’s Tony. I find Emma a very good journo and interviewer. Tony thinks he is.

lefty e
Guest

I can’t believe Abbott is promising to ‘suspend out marine parks’

What a dickhead of a policy.

paaptsef
Guest

[ Over the past seven years Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello have repeatedly cut support to the poor and vulnerable, and spent taxpayers’ money buying votes. This government is the highest-taxing, highest-spending government in our history. Government spending has jumped from 32 to 38 per cent of gross domestic product while it has been in power. But at each budget it has cut services to the poor.
Over the past seven years Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello have repeatedly cut support to the poor and vulnerable, and spent taxpayers’ money buying votes. This government is the highest-taxing, highest-spending government in our history. Government spending has jumped from 32 to 38 per cent of gross domestic product while it has been in power. But at each budget it has cut services to the poor.

This year’s budget is the latest instalment. People earning more than $85,000 are getting tax cuts in the form of the superannuation surcharge changes, and the baby bonus will pay high-income women up to five times as much as low-income women. Yet this government has no reservations about cuts for the disabled and to poor people’s access to medicine.]
is that really the government Abbott keeps harking back to as a blueprint for what he intends for the future? Fark.

davidwh
Guest

Based on what I have just seen on 7.30 and Lateline Labor overplayed the $10 billion claim and it has backfired on them.

Henry
Guest

Tisme, you have been sprung as a liar, give it a rest.

lefty e
Guest

What use is that Newspoll if it isnt broken down into electorates?

Sean Tisme
Guest

zoidlord,

Heres the numbers by the years:
http://www.lewistaxation.com.au/tax/historic-tax/low-income-tax-offset-historical

[For the 2007-08 financial year, adult taxpayers eligible for the full LITO did not pay any tax until their income exceed $11,000.]

Mind you that is 6 years ago now and incomes have increased.

DisplayName
Guest

Andrew Leigh is probably getting a scolding :P.

DisplayName
Guest

Tony.

DisplayName
Guest

Ah, Penny Wong was on 7:30, after. Andrew Leigh before.

wpDiscuz