tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post6100102188181549333..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Another Unsound Attack On Proposed Senate ReformsKevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-21066309238281100272015-11-16T13:47:38.878+11:002015-11-16T13:47:38.878+11:00From a savings-provision perspective, I support th...From a savings-provision perspective, I support the limited GVT.<br /><br />People are very much used to just voting 1. Having a limited GVT should greatly increase the chances of micro preferences having an impact on the final seat.<br /><br />The aim and implementation of any limited GVT should be that every JV1 ATL voter lists as many candidates as a BTL voter would be required to. This actually means only two other parties need be listed (five in a DD).<br /><br />Regarding micros, I expect there will be at least two rough groupings come the next election. Progressive left (centred on the Futurists) and libertarian right (centred on Leyonhjelm).Aldoniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07541886412222573676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-58469700647619847232015-11-15T19:58:47.164+11:002015-11-15T19:58:47.164+11:00Thankyou for adding these points. I also expect l...Thankyou for adding these points. I also expect likeminded parties would be forced to find more innovative ways of arranging preference flow under the new system, and that these would increase the preferencing rate. That link of Antony's is an excellent read on how card design can affect voting rates. There's also the voter education aspect: some voters think that just voting 1 in NSW results in a full preference being distributed, since that's how it works in the Senate. If they're told it no longer works that way anywhere, some of them will learn. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-72747532330508458602015-11-15T18:52:45.661+11:002015-11-15T18:52:45.661+11:00A very good article. It demolishes most of Breen`...A very good article. It demolishes most of Breen`s article.<br /><br />However there is one significant error in Breen`s claim that has been overlooked. That is his claim that 85% of non-"big three" votes will not elect anyone because only 15% of voters preference.<br /><br />Firstly, he rounds down from 15.3 to 15% and then counts the votes he rounded away as not being for who they were for, rather than saying "Over 84% will exahust". Admittedly, this is a minor offence.<br /><br />Secondly, he uses only the RATL figure, despite a proportion of the BTL votes preferencing between groups. Although in his defence, more detailed research is required to find out where BTL votes go. Although, he could have used the SATL figure, which is almost all the exhausting votes just as easily.<br /><br />Thirdly, and most erroneously, he is using the figure that includes the preferences of the "big three", the largest 2 of whom on average preference at a lower rate than the overall total and represent over 73% of votes (significantly dragging down the overall figure). Most of the non-"big three" preference at a significantly higher rate than 15%. However a proportion of non"big three" RATL votes would be preferencing other non-"big three" groups.<br /><br />Fourthly, preferencing advice and behaviour would likely differ in the Senate, with its lower quota.<br /><br />http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2015/06/implications-for-the-senate-from-the-2015-nsw-legislative-council-election.html<br />T0000000000001https://www.blogger.com/profile/05135088419363685867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-29322351275755637692015-11-15T17:55:59.304+11:002015-11-15T17:55:59.304+11:00The new system would not have defeated Bob Brown i...The new system would not have defeated Bob Brown in 2001 (I suspect he would still have won then even had he not been an incumbent Senator) but would indeed likely have defeated all the other four Greens winners prior to 2004, if the same votes had been cast in an election under it. That said, one of those wins (NSW 2001) was a fluke result on One Nation preferences, as Antony notes. Cases like Tasmania 1996 and WA 1993 show that under the proposed system, if likeminded minor parties competed with each other they would risk giving seats to major parties. So if anyone is concerned about this, then they might well have reason to support a limited form of group ticketing rather than abolishing it altogether. I'm fine with that if so, because that would be a large improvement that would be less vulnerable to scare campaigns.<br /><br />However, because systems determine party strategy, I think the way these contests would have played out under the proposed new system would have been different, and that the rise of the Greens would have happened one way or other anyway. The Greens and Democrats may well have adapted to this situation in the same way the Liberals and Nationals presently minimise three-cornered Reps contests. They might agree that one would run hard in one state and dead in the other, and vice versa. It's also possible the supplanting of the Democrats by the Greens would have taken a radically different course, such as more and more "Greens" joining the party and steering it in an increasingly green direction. Because of the level of member control over policy, the Dems would have been easy to take over by force of numbers. I suspect we'd still have ended up in pretty much the same place in terms of the policies of the party most supported by left-environmentalists. We might have got there with a lot less nastiness between Greens and Democrats too.<br /><br />Some parties can draw the distinction between what helped them make it to where they are now and what might help them stay there, and some (meaning most of the current crossbench) can't. Nick Xenophon was originally elected to the SA parliament via preference harvesting, but has realised that it doesn't help him anymore. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-76598994423539158682015-11-15T16:37:36.393+11:002015-11-15T16:37:36.393+11:00I would have agreed with you until I saw Antony Gr...I would have agreed with you until I saw Antony Green's analysis of how he thinks past elections could have gone under this system. That it would have basically defeated (or very plausibly defeated) every Green Senate candidate prior to 2004 (and thus would have killed the Greens in utero), raises questions about why the Greens support it now, even though their support levels are such that it benefits them now. It also would seem to drastically slash the chances of a switch such as the Greens replacing the Democrats ever happening again, short of a sudden surge that even the Greens historically couldn't pull off.<br /><br />I still kinda support in the sense that the current system is obviously flawed, and New South Wales is working, but that Green article did give me serious pause.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04105527061986066269noreply@blogger.com