tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post6264458669149422251..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: If You Care About Gay Rights, Vote Below The Line In The Tas SenateKevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-45997724821753715472013-09-06T18:04:45.784+10:002013-09-06T18:04:45.784+10:00I’m very pleased that you could allot some time ou...I’m very pleased that you could allot some time out of your busy schedule today to give a short potted history of the November Frog (Hooray!), and his High Priest whose habit of penning remarkably enjoyable and topical poems as graffiti in the lavatories around the Sandy Bay campus of Utas was well-known to devotees of the cult.<br /><br />I hope there is some vague awareness that the Senate races in the various states are not cut and dried; along with the possibility of Madden taking the last seat in Tassie, I keep hearing possibilities for PUP or FF in Queensland, and Pauline Hanson in NSW, which I think would possibly be equally regressive for Australian politics. I find myself totally in agreement with Antony Green that the Senate voting as currently organised has become something of a lottery for a nutter party to zoom to a quota for the final seat on the back of above-the-line, unrepresentative GVT preferences, as happened here in Victoria in 2004 and 2010, and may well happen again this time.<br /><br />Hope your election night at the Muckraker goes well, and thanks for the Twitter follow!Xanthehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04280340295698078521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-47299007871868285432013-09-06T17:26:06.190+10:002013-09-06T17:26:06.190+10:00I believe that is the first reference to the Novem...I believe that is the first reference to the November Frog (Hooray!) on this website. Surprised it has taken a six-figure number of pageviews to get there. <br /><br />Very pleased the word is getting out; hopefully people will vote intelligently, though reviewing Labor's Tas how to vote in the paper today it seems quite clear the ALP thinks its voters are a bunch of donkeys. <br /><br />Variants of the same problem apply in different states because micro left parties keep cutting deals with micro right parties, although thus far no micro left party has actually won election by this method.<br /><br />(For the uninitiated, the Cult of the November Frog was a mock religious cult at Utas in the early 1990s - those aware of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH) will know the territory. It suffered some notoriety because one of its symbols was unwittingly identical to one for the National Front, and also because of the appalling quality and even more appalling quantity of sonnets written by its High Priest. The Cult also encountered fierce resistance from the Anti-Batrachian League, Batrachian Jihad, the Happy Aardvark. various Togatus cartoonists and more. The November Frog itself was variously either two or six miles high, though some may have suspected this was also true of its founders.)Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-81259757109569294002013-09-06T17:12:23.125+10:002013-09-06T17:12:23.125+10:00A few people have suggested this and I hope I'...A few people have suggested this and I hope I'll have time to look into it this evening. That said it is hard to tell what vote share to project for them - S+F are more established here.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-60337888909378363952013-09-06T16:51:56.687+10:002013-09-06T16:51:56.687+10:00Hi Kevin, it’s been a very long time since the day...Hi Kevin, it’s been a very long time since the days of the November Frog! Hooray!<br /><br />You may be pleased to know that I arrived here via Facebook, but <i>not</i> owing to Family First; instead, thanks to the Gay Marriage Rights in Australia Facebook group (facebook.com/GMRA1) who are drawing attention to the possibility of Madden claiming the last Senate seat in this race by citing this blog post.<br /><br />I’m registered in the seat of Gellibrand which means I have the joy of numbering up to 97 or so on my tablecloth ballot tomorrow, but we have issues of our own, given that the Liberal/National’s two GVTs have the DLP and Family First alternating at 5th and 7th preferences; my psephological contribution to this election has only been to rave about the Victorian Senate GVTs on my own blog, which usually has a rather different focus, but perhaps is not so far removed from the point of this blog post. Anyway, linky: http://creatinganxiety.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/rise-of-the-nutters/<br /><br />When I say ‘perhaps not so far removed’, since the last time we met I’ve transitioned; therefore I would be one of those whom someone like Madden would prefer to see repressed and socially ostracised. What he stands for, basically, is legislating inhumanity to other citizens.Xanthehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04280340295698078521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-40190938491619328412013-09-05T13:30:24.475+10:002013-09-05T13:30:24.475+10:00It's valid to do both.It's valid to do both. <br /><br />intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-14487844938342168982013-09-05T13:23:12.580+10:002013-09-05T13:23:12.580+10:00Copying the text I sent to someone who also asked ...Copying the text I sent to someone who also asked about this via email:<br /><br />==================<br />There is not much documentation about it on the AEC website, probably because they don't like drawing attention to it as it makes life more confusing for their workers. It is not discussed in the current scrutineers' handbook.<br /><br />Here's an AEC page that mentions it from several years ago: <br />http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/Newsfiles/2004/No_120.htm<br /><br />Same thing again in APH site here:<br /><br />http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=em/elect10/report/chapter7.htm<br /><br />The relevant legislation is S 269 of the Act:<br /><br />http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s269.html<br /><br />... where it is set out in a roundabout fashion, but S269 (1) basically says if you've validly voted ATL your vote can't be informal. Then S 269 (2) says that if you've validly voted BTL and you've also validly voted ATL, your ATL vote does not exist.<br /><br />Discussion about the issue with Antony Green where Antony refers to legal advice and existing practice that this does mean what it says:<br /><br />http://www.csamuel.org/2010/08/04/do-not-vote-above-and-below-the-line-in-the-senate/comment-page-1#comment-64626<br /><br />Hope that covers it. As you may see Antony has arguments about it with someone almost every election.<br />=====================================<br /><br />If anyone is in doubt given all that then just make absolutely sure you have filled in 54 boxes correctly - pre-preparing your vote rather than trying to do it in the ballot box helps with this.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-77769859782616845962013-09-05T11:14:51.460+10:002013-09-05T11:14:51.460+10:00Could you provide a link about the validity of vot...Could you provide a link about the validity of voting both above the line and below the line? I can't find anything on the AEC website or in the Scrutineer's Handbook about this.<br /><br />Thanks.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08236477623325410948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-1504093637079822102013-09-05T11:09:14.831+10:002013-09-05T11:09:14.831+10:00Hi Kevin,
I think the second fishing party is in w...Hi Kevin,<br />I think the second fishing party is in with a greater chance.Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01320298282537834217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-70193364864809229622013-09-02T16:04:52.912+10:002013-09-02T16:04:52.912+10:00If anyone has a link to such a resource I'd ap...If anyone has a link to such a resource I'd appreciate it greatly. The Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Australia is not too bad a starting place for basic info on many of them, but it is Wikipedia (hence a tad unreliable) and some of the entries seem unjustly rosy in favour of the party concerned.<br /><br />I did see a really neat PDF critical guide to right-micros (including moderate right micros) some time ago, but embarrassingly forgot to bookmark it and now cannot find it again. <br /><br />If a party is not upfront about its policies and making them accessible on its website, that's a good reason to demote that party.<br /><br />Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-42623425082918007072013-09-02T15:27:45.621+10:002013-09-02T15:27:45.621+10:00Hi Kevin,
Great article and informative as usual. ...Hi Kevin,<br />Great article and informative as usual. Is there a central place I can go to in order to find out more about these micro-parties and their policies, rather than googling each one and trying to find their homepages and then trying to find the (often hidden) link to their policies?Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06931637841878329187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-81707754141086037492013-09-02T13:15:21.163+10:002013-09-02T13:15:21.163+10:00What I disagree with most in the above is "ke...What I disagree with most in the above is "key matters". If Madden was just another opponent of same-sex marriage who was just a bit more strident and frothy than most Liberals, I would not have written this article. But I think it goes way beyond same-sex marriage because we have here a candidate whose opposition to gay and abortion rights comes across as total. <br /><br />We have already seen from John Madigan on abortion that the problem with these right-micro crossbenchers is that they will put things on the policy agenda that the Coalition would otherwise stay clear of as policy because they are just not worth the political risk. <br /><br />But if the Coalition is put in a position where it has to agree with these micros on moral matters to get other legislation through, it develops an excuse it can sell for swinging further to the right on moral issues. Frankly I would think even a Coalition majority - yes even a majority for a Coalition led by Abbott (whose past record on these kinds of issues is pretty repulsive) - would be a better outcome than a Coalition near-majority held hostage to a bunch of religious-right micros.<br /><br />There is also the question of the added prominence that is given to the views of these people if they have the platform of a Senate spot to speak from. Does Tasmania want to be represented by an active outspoken anti-gay zealot in the Senate for six years?<br /><br />I can understand that the Greens might be worried about losing votes if people vote below the line and some votes are informal. But if that is the case the question must be asked why on earth they preferenced Peter Madden so highly. Has the person responsible for this decision been sacked yet?Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-13901115387027353452013-09-02T12:30:39.901+10:002013-09-02T12:30:39.901+10:00Thanks for the reply Kevin.
I have no problem obv...Thanks for the reply Kevin.<br /><br />I have no problem obviously with people checking the policies of the others, but it's worth noting that the LDP are against the old furphy of late term abortions and also want to abolish any form of affirmative action, not something that meshes with LGBTI rights.<br /><br />I get what you're saying about the Greens surplus eventually flowing to FF, but as you point out with your summary of positions above, the Coalition share exactly the same views as FF on the key matters you're raising here, as do Shooters and Fishers, the other most likely micro-right contender as I understand it. <br /><br />So it would seem to be a matter of personal preference whether a FF homophobe with an active legislative agenda is any worse than a Coalition / S+F homophobe with an active legislative agenda. What we do know is they'll vote the same way in the Senate.<br /><br />I strongly support voting below the line in all circumstances, but I do think it's important that progressives / people who care about LGBTI rights understand that a vote for the Pirates or the Greens will send their preferences to all the progressives before any of the far right, in case they don't feel confident voting below the line.<br /><br />In getting my own ticket ready, I have found belowtheline.org.au excellent Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-52015496928951659462013-09-02T12:01:46.629+10:002013-09-02T12:01:46.629+10:00If you vote Green above the line and they have a s...If you vote Green above the line and they have a surplus, your vote will indeed initially go to Lin Thorp (ALP). But if Thorp is then excluded, and if there is then a contest between Family First and the Liberals for the last position, your vote will then still be live, and will go to Family First instead of the Liberals - albeit at a reduced value. <br /><br />This is not a remote or far-fetched scenario - it is something that is happening again and again and again in simulations. It may not happen in practice; it's possible the Labor vote will be high enough to stay ahead of FF until they are eliminated, but at this moment I would not bet on it. It's also possible the Greens won't have a surplus to start with, but the Senate system works differently to Hare-Clark, and if they are pushed over the line by Labor later then the above-the-line Greens votes are still live and can still go at reduced value to Family First.<br /><br />If you're a Green voter who wants to preference Labor without any part of your vote going to Family First, you can do this below the line putting the parties in the order of your choice. An added note for people worried about voting informally: if you are not sure your vote below the line is formal, you can also vote 1 for your chosen party above the line. That way if your vote below the line is informal because you made too many mistakes, your vote above the line still stands.<br /><br />Concerning your claim about 15 of the parties having "extreme right wing views", I suggest people check this for themselves. To me it sounds like a case of classifying every right-wing party as "extreme", which I do not agree with. On the specific issue of same-sex marriage, AME (http://vote4love.com.au/home.php) rates parties as follows:<br /><br />Support: Green, SOL, Pirate, LDP, Smokers, HEMP, ALP (but with conscience vote)<br /><br />Conscience vote: Stop The Greens, KAP, SPP, No Carbon Tax, Country Alliance, PUP<br /><br />Oppose: DLP, RUA, S+F, AFLP, Aus Christians, FF, Liberal<br /><br />No rating is given for Aus Independents or Aus Republicans. <br /><br />I recommend to assume that a candidate for a party who supports a conscience vote is opposed unless that candidate has said that they are in favour.<br /><br />Unfortunately, AME rates parties as suitable for an above the line vote based on their view on marriage equality without considering the problem of what nasties they have done preference deals with and where that vote really goes.<br /><br />There is a lot of competition for the primary vote between different micros but the important thing here is to look at the preference flow. Some of them pick up lots of preferences and are threats, some of them don't and are not. Simulations keep showing that Madden does not even need much of a primary for his snowball to get going.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-4293239277330873062013-09-02T10:21:49.995+10:002013-09-02T10:21:49.995+10:00The problem we have is of the record 22 parties (a...The problem we have is of the record 22 parties (and one independent) running in the Tas Senate, 15 of them + the independent all have extreme right wing views, including on marriage equality and gay rights.<br /><br />On top of that, the fight for this senate spot is against the Coalition as I understand it, and a vote for an Abetz-approved LNP candidate is hardly a guarantee of a better position on gay rights, in fact it's a vote for no to marriage equality and probably no on abortion as well.<br /><br />No question Madden is very extreme but he's actually got tough competition from other micro-right candidates who are lesser known.<br /><br />The Greens & the Pirates have preferenced all the remotely progressive parties on the ticket before any of the right.<br /><br />Both the Sex Party & ALP have unfortunately mixed far right and progressives in their early preferences.<br /><br />Kevin while I agree Madden is particularly unsavoury, in terms of your points about his threat to equal rights and abortion, I'm not sure how you can justify saying don't support the Greens ticket as their surplus will flow to the ALP in terms of likely electability outcomes and boost Lin Thorp's chances, therefore not electing another conservative, yes? Or am I reading it wrong?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-82305279825408304202013-09-02T09:52:07.794+10:002013-09-02T09:52:07.794+10:00I hadn't seen the BTL breakdowns; useful, thos...I hadn't seen the BTL breakdowns; useful, those. I have no objection to your suggestions, but they just reaffirm what I thought; this is an absolute nightmare to model and code predictively.<br /><br />I suppose the other place to look would be the scrutiny sheets from last election.<br /><br />intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-21822078177755236522013-09-01T16:48:39.787+10:002013-09-01T16:48:39.787+10:00Note to readers: this comment relates to modelling...Note to readers: this comment relates to modelling of the Senate outcome and not to the issue of why people should vote below the line. So don't worry at all if you don't understand it as the article has covered everything you need to know (and then some).<br /><br />OK. Trying to model BTLs is a pain. We know that last time BTLs were 20% in Tasmania (http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/SenateUseOfGvtByState-15508.htm) but they were only 6% in SA with 18 groups and 43 candidates and only 3% in WA with 19 groups and 54 candidates. What will the BTL rate in Tassie be this time? Maybe the familiarity with voting the full ticket in Hare-Clark will make it higher than in WA and SA last time but how much? I think we might still get 8-10% BTL but that's a very wild guess, perhaps too optimistic. For major party voters it will be very low. Some voters probably won't even be aware that there are 54 candidates until they show up to vote.<br /><br />The other thing is that the BTL rate varies by party. Hugely; it will not be anything near proportional to current polling. Looking at last time (eg http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/SenateUseOfGvtByGroup-15508-NSW.htm and click on tabs for different states) it was low for ALP, Lib, DLP, LDP, high for Greens, SOL and Climate Sceptics and fairly high for Sex Party. Micros except for DLP and LDP are generally much "leakier" than the big parties. This especially applies to left micros. Single-issue right micros like Smokers Rights might not follow the pattern. So the best approach seems to be to assume a %age of BTLs for each party out of their primary vote. <br /><br />If trying to model where the BTLs go, I'd ignore within-party leakage and just focus on cross-party preferences against the flow of the party ticket. There I'd expect the best approach is assuming leakage flows to other parties in proportion to current polling (but fiddle the Greens upwards for the Wilkie factor) and also weight it by left/right orientation - prefs from left micros should go disproportionately to Greens and less to Libs and prefs from right micros vice-versa. On average the heaviness of that weighting would probably turn what would otherwise be a 50:50 left-right split into, say, 65-35 to the same side as the source party. (That's a rough estimate, a more accurate one could be found by wading through past preference cutups but it would be quite tedious.)<br /><br />Usually the BTL rate becomes reasonably clear on the night so if there is a close race it will be possible to look at the % of relevant BTLs that the competing candidates win - I remember having a spreadsheet tracking this in post-counting in 2004 when FF had a by-the-calculator win on preferences overturned by BTLs.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-88320485739869658342013-09-01T14:53:01.140+10:002013-09-01T14:53:01.140+10:00A lot will depend on how much the below the line p...A lot will depend on how much the below the line proportion drops with the increased size of the ballot.<br /><br />My modelling doesn't consider below the line, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure how to do so in a reasonable manner. I have no idea how below the line votes typically preference. My only thought is that it will tend to lessen the bias due to ticket preference allocations, regardless of what those are. <br /><br />What do you think of adding say 100 tickets to the ticket list with first preferences proportional to the current polling, with random selection thereafter, and allocating 20% of the vote across those tickets? <br /><br /><br />intuitivereasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444634755480881972noreply@blogger.com