tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post3942364202523256963..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Tasmanian Federal Candidates Announced And Ballot DrawsKevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-89876503796817787592013-09-02T11:28:19.412+10:002013-09-02T11:28:19.412+10:00Unfortunately this is the way the law is, and has ...Unfortunately this is the way the law is, and has been since the mid-1980s. Attempts by sensible people to convince politicians to change it have failed. However:<br /><br />(i) If you miss, or double, a number in the sequence (other than 1), your vote is not entirely wasted. Rather, what happens is that your vote works until it gets to the point where you made the error, and at that point it exhausts, meaning that it does not pass on any further. You are allowed to make 3 mistakes of this kind before your vote becomes informal. But if you leave a large number of boxes blank, your vote will not count. (You can leave up to the last five boxes blank in Tasmania if you haven't made any other mistakes.)<br /><br />(ii) There is also a useful trick called the "saving provision". If you are not sure your vote below the line vote is valid, vote 1 above the line for your preferred party as well. Your below the line vote takes priority if it is valid, but if your vote below the line is not valid, your vote above the line is used instead. (That means it might end up somewhere silly, but it's better than your vote not counting.)Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-29549102203691092422013-09-02T09:43:15.017+10:002013-09-02T09:43:15.017+10:00Why do we have to vote for ALL the candidates if w...Why do we have to vote for ALL the candidates if we vote BELOW the LINE ?<br />Why not have a percentage say 50% of total number.<br />I think I could find 27 I wouldn't mind giving a number to - but having to put a number to each of them ?? Strewth the chances of wasting my vote by missing out a number ...........<br />But NO WAY can I vote above the line cos none of them reflect the way I want to order the parties.Helen from Hobarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03628963168654748707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-65647286849285426392013-08-21T12:13:44.079+10:002013-08-21T12:13:44.079+10:00I wasn't sure how to model the thing quickly s...I wasn't sure how to model the thing quickly so just allocated percentages to each party and did a distribution at the party level based on the tickets.<br /><br />I made the basic assumption that the three majors had ~ half a quota left over to take them out of consideration.<br /><br />I have no real feel of how well KAP and PUP are going to do, which makes it all a bit dicey. I expect that Katter will do better as he has made more effort personally. <br /><br />I may get around to doing a monte carlo with this, but that requires more time to set up.<br /><br />But yes, it all depends on how much is left in the kitty when the full quotas are excluded. If its 2.9 2.9 0.9 0.3 then we probably end up 3-3. If it is 2.5 2.5 0.8 1.2 then 2-2-1-1 becomes more likely. <br /><br />With the higher number of alternatives and the general dissatisfaction with all major parties, an unusually high 'other' vote wouldn't surprise me at all.<br /><br />intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-2332992328424870532013-08-21T00:49:41.818+10:002013-08-21T00:49:41.818+10:00Nice work; the Tas Senate micro possibility thing ...Nice work; the Tas Senate micro possibility thing is extremely difficult to model this year. <br /><br />FF do have a good run assuming they get a decent primary vote. I've taken the most serious right-micro chances as being PUP, KAP, DLP, S+F and FF, though there are also some unknown quantities like Smokers Rights, Country Alliance and Stop The Greens. I include the DLP as they polled about half a % last time but are probably better resourced now and certainly making more noise.<br /><br />Anyway of those five, FF gets by my count preferences from five micros with the chance of also getting Lib preferences should the Libs be just over 3Q (but not too far over). If they're ahead of PUP and KAP they get both of those too. Problem with the Liberal surplus idea is that that entails them vying for the 4th right seat and that requires ALP+Green<3Q which looks very unlikely at the moment.<br /><br />S+F get three micros and the DLP also get three while PUP and KAP don't get much at all. S+F pool to the DLP but I don't think the DLP will beat them. The DLP themselves pool to KAP and then S+F. <br /><br />The big thing for S+F is the possibility of Labor preferences but that's in a 2 ALP 1 Green scenario where they're fighting with the Libs. Seems to require assuming a really large Others vote.<br /><br />The FF snowball preference scenario is really quite plausible - pool just about every right micro to over half a quota and then jump the last Lib on Labor prefs, ie 2-2-1-1.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-18641747546802693232013-08-20T00:58:02.149+10:002013-08-20T00:58:02.149+10:00It will be interesting to see how this rolls up. ...It will be interesting to see how this rolls up. A lot depends on how much ends up in the 'Other' columns. <br /><br />Lowest average preferences go to AIP, but I suspect a low primary may cruel them. Second lowest is FF.<br /><br />An interesting outcome is clumping Lib, Lab, and Grn together as the 'majors' and finding the minimum preference from each other party. Comparing this to FF, DLP, SNF and KAP, only the Pirates (to GRN) and the HEMP smokers (to ALP) leak to the 'majors' in all cases. <br /><br />For FF, only CTA (to LIB) and SEX (to ALP) also leak. For DLP, only the PUPs (to GRN) and SEX leak. About half leak for the Shooters & Fishers, and a third for Katter's mob. Unless my guesses of relative proportion are out by a good margin (and they could be), we'll see FF emerge as 'Other'. <br /><br />Assuming that the Libs have 2 locked away and Labor has as well, that leaves 3 quota distributed between Lib, Lab, Green and FF. <br /><br />The Greens will only get Pirate Party votes flowing early in the count, plus whatever below the line leakage comes there way.<br /><br />Labor will pick up Hemp early and Sex Party votes a little later.<br /><br />Libs will pick up Country Alliance early.<br /><br />Everything else will accumulate with FF until / unless one of the four majors drops out or reaches quota.<br /><br />So.. Lib 2, Lab 2, (Lib or FF) 1 (Lab or Grn) 1 assuming 4.0 > [Lab + Grn + Hemp + PP + Sex] > 3.0.<br /><br /><br /><br />intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-24897944484729575742013-08-17T14:38:17.398+10:002013-08-17T14:38:17.398+10:00My somewhat illformed thoughts on the proliferatio...My somewhat illformed thoughts on the proliferation issue is that mini parties are ok, micro not so much, especially for the senate.<br /><br />A requirement for a party to achieve a minimum proportion of eligible voters (say 1 in 2000) as members, within the state they are nominating for in order to appear on the senate ballot is not an unreasonable requirement, and basically eliminates time wasters. Several of the minor parties noted above may well choose to join forces without much loss of diversity, and thus meet the nomination requirements.<br /><br />I too dislike the idea of raising the cost of admission.<br /><br /><br /><br />intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-8064410001273182892013-08-17T10:11:20.817+10:002013-08-17T10:11:20.817+10:00I just re-read your second-last paragraph, I misse...I just re-read your second-last paragraph, I missed that you'd already made the suggestion of preferential above-the-line.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17011823357390549019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-4922566403794235572013-08-17T10:08:10.767+10:002013-08-17T10:08:10.767+10:00If above-the-line is scrapped in favour of optiona...If above-the-line is scrapped in favour of optional preferential, could the increase in exhausted ballots hurt minor parties, too?<br /><br />I dislike above-the-line voting for the same reason you do, and also because it allows the top one or two ballot positions of the larger parties to be treated as safe seats. Safe seats exist in the lower house as well, but those MPs still need to engage with their electorate, they cannot hide behind the "Vote 1 (party)" option as some lower-profile Senate candidates can.<br /><br />That may be another reason the major parties would resist change. Perhaps they'd be more open to a change that keeps above-the-line voting, such as a requirement to number all boxes above-the-line, too (leaving each party/group to decide preference flow only within their group).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17011823357390549019noreply@blogger.com