tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post8998087240499634192..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Majors Stitch Up Senate Term Lengths, Film At 11Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-53268173936588952462016-08-22T08:41:01.720+10:002016-08-22T08:41:01.720+10:00I've now uploaded my tabulation of the NSW Sen...I've now uploaded my tabulation of the NSW Senate election preference distribution - all 151 counts of it. (The other states will follow.) The most interesting aspect is how random much of it is. Very few of the minor parties managed to deliver even 20% of their preferences to their preferred candidate. Without automatic preference allocation, and at most booths without a how-to-vote card to help them, most minor-party voters allocated their preferences more-or-less at random, often to the nearest parties on the ballot paper, regardless of ideology. This shows that, under the new Senate election system, parties which don't have enough people to staff all the booths, all day, will not be able either to be elected themselves or to help anyone else get elected. That will be even more the case at the next half-Senate election, when the quota will be 14.3%, not 7.7% as at a double dissolution. Once this fact sinks in, I think we will see a lot fewer minor parties at the next election.<br />http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2016/2016senatensw.txtAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13123271067640069925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-75397013083695402462016-08-21T20:31:34.088+10:002016-08-21T20:31:34.088+10:00Yes, as Matt said, the argument as to why the Sect...Yes, as Matt said, the argument as to why the Section 282 is fairer and more representative is simple and clear. <br /><br />That's why I said repeatedly before the election that this is the method that should be used. I presume it is also why both Labor & Liberal also voted for motions in the Senate on two separate occasions in previous years stating this is the best method to use <br /><br />Such motions have no impact after the election has been held of course (other than to show the hypocrisy of party that will vote in support of a basic principle before an election and then against it after the election when self-interest demands it. AndrewBartletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04660786328994344180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-79798492644391799032016-08-18T18:07:07.300+10:002016-08-18T18:07:07.300+10:00Well yes, any method will have winners and losers,...Well yes, any method will have winners and losers, but we generally aim for whichever method best reflects the will of the voters. Quota based STV systems are designed to select a certain number of candidates, and the order elected is not representative of the proportion of the electorate that supports a candidate. It overweights first preferences, and dilutes the preferences of those who voted for a micro party first.<br /><br />To make the maths simple, in a DD, 12/13ths of the votes contribute to electing a senator. In deciding who gets six year terms, 6/7ths of the votes impact the result in the 282 method, but a few as 6/13ths impact the result in the order of election method.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10183751682362249635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-37036213112422616342016-08-18T17:32:56.108+10:002016-08-18T17:32:56.108+10:00I've heard nothing. They still have a few wee...I've heard nothing. They still have a few weeks to decide.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-288401484438118552016-08-17T23:08:34.969+10:002016-08-17T23:08:34.969+10:00Hi Kevin,
Is there any news as to whether there w...Hi Kevin,<br /><br />Is there any news as to whether there will be a court challenge to the Herbert result? The media seems to have gone quiet on this.anonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15457900538889075947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-36107143182528079062016-08-17T14:15:22.210+10:002016-08-17T14:15:22.210+10:00This is an argument about nothing. Neither method ...This is an argument about nothing. Neither method is intrinsically better than the other, and any conceivable method will produce winners and losers. We've had six DDs in 115 years so it's not like it's going to be an issue very often. Of course Andrew Bartlett supports the other method because in this case it would have gained the Greens an extra six-year seat. (Although since the beneficiary would have been Senator Rhiannon, who has done so much damage the Greens brand in NSW, perhaps he should be careful what he wishes for). ACAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13123271067640069925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-45831914842749206542016-08-15T21:23:20.396+10:002016-08-15T21:23:20.396+10:00I don't see it as a huge issue. There likely w...I don't see it as a huge issue. There likely wont be another DD for a long time (20 years?).<br /><br />Perhaps it could be part of a suite of voting changes for a referendum over that time frame.Unachimbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04873952842828774048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-36269711159097787442016-08-15T15:15:53.825+10:002016-08-15T15:15:53.825+10:00It's not the biggest issue in the world, and I...It's not the biggest issue in the world, and I'd have to agree that holding a referendum on this issue would be absurd, but I think ANY system with the perverse incentives of this post-hoc decision making that effectively forces politicians into self-serving and dishonest behaviour is a problem. After they justify that self-interest and why they are more deserving than their political opponents to themselves mentally, it becomes that little bit easier next time to justify a bit of gerrymandering here, a bit of holding inquiries into opposition parties there, a spot of favoring donors in policy decisions on the side... <br /><br />The next best choice would be to publicly insist each party take a pre-election position to favoring one mechanism or the other, such that it would be too embarrassing to pretend the other one is better afterwards, but I don't think it would make a difference to the behavioural incentives and it's hardly a sexy media topic during an election campaign.<br /><br />Without any changes, I'd just appreciate a little more honesty from the politicians: "We chose this system because it gives us another seat in 3 years time. Obviously it wouldn't be fair to just split the 6 year terms with the [coalition/labor party] so we haven't done that, but given that we don't think one mechanism is inherently fairer or less fair with respect to section 282 or first elected, so we've made the choice that gives us more seats." Then they could at least have my respect.Rowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16940089068502559209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-58897920845437707712016-08-14T21:42:38.381+10:002016-08-14T21:42:38.381+10:00Unfortunately the only way to stop post-hoc decisi...Unfortunately the only way to stop post-hoc decisions about who will serve 6-year vs 3-year terms is to change the Constitution. It would be good to do this if a chance arose, but it probably won't unless someone abuses the system in an especially scandalous way. I agree with Rowan above that the fact that a decision between systems is being made and justified post hoc is the worst thing here. Parties don't know where they stand in advance.<br /><br />There has been some media interest in the fact that scaremongering about Senate reform was proved wrong - especially Adam Morton here: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/election-2016-why-democracy-won-in-the-senate--even-if-you-dont-like-one-nation-20160809-gqobfc.html <br /><br />There have also been some journalists who while not writing on the subject have at least helped share articles about it on social media. Overall though little of the post-election discussion of reform has risen above he-said-she-said reporting of the comments of politicians.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-1377968132992866022016-08-14T21:00:08.202+10:002016-08-14T21:00:08.202+10:00All of which is a key reason why the mechanism to ...All of which is a key reason why the mechanism to be used needs to be agreed in advance, as no one knows for sure until after each election who will benefit from which mechanism. but given the wording of the Constitution, I guess there is no way this can be done. <br /><br />The farcical attacks on the changes to hugely improve the democratic system have now been shown to be totally false, but this seems to be of zero interest even to journos who are paid to inform people about politics, some of who now seem just as happy to retail attacks from the same people complaining about a result that is the exact opposite of their earlier, equally non-founded scare campaign. <br /><br />To expect them to comprehend or care about a post-election deal by the same people to negate the more democratic outcome would be a clear example of putting hope before experience. <br /><br />It's only about who ends up being the people who decide on the laws that impact on every person in the country, so I guess it doesn't matter much. AndrewBartletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04660786328994344180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-29658773672472245402016-08-14T19:55:17.769+10:002016-08-14T19:55:17.769+10:00Whether it favours one or the other depends a lot ...Whether it favours one or the other depends a lot on the kinds of votes seen at the election. In 1987 OOE favoured the Democrats who got two extra six-year-terms at the expense of the Coalition. I think it's specifically the current combination of high total minor/micro party vote and relatively even minor party preferences that makes S 282 favour the minors/micros in the current case. A minor party candidate can have 0.4 of a quota in the recount and not be caught, which would have been impossible when major party shares were higher.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-55611508518418373262016-08-14T19:23:09.618+10:002016-08-14T19:23:09.618+10:00Thanks Kevin. Does this indicate that the OOE meth...Thanks Kevin. Does this indicate that the OOE method favours the majors and section 282 favours the minors or is that just coincidence?Krelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08873894636820011322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-68112552233385495362016-08-14T11:58:40.290+10:002016-08-14T11:58:40.290+10:00It's just the two cases mentioned. In NSW Deb...It's just the two cases mentioned. In NSW Deborah O'Neill (ALP) gets the six year term under the order-of-election method while Lee Rhiannon (Greens) gets it under the Section 282 method. In Victoria Scott Ryan (Lib) gets the six year term under the order-of-election method while Derryn Hinch gets it under the Section 282 method. All the others stay the same.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-46527106914053699322016-08-14T09:40:17.148+10:002016-08-14T09:40:17.148+10:00It would be interesting to see a list of who (and ...It would be interesting to see a list of who (and which party) would get a 6 year term under one of the two main options but a 3 year term under the other.Krelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08873894636820011322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-47459951259681152522016-08-14T01:39:22.941+10:002016-08-14T01:39:22.941+10:00It seems clear to me that the fairest/most democra...It seems clear to me that the fairest/most democratic way to determine which of the Senators elected should get the 6 year term are those that would have got elected if it had been an election for half the number of places. <br /><br />Technical arguments about how this should be most accurately assessed under the new vastly more democratic voting system are important, but they shouldn't obscure the importance of that fundamental principle. <br /><br />Although one could be forgiven for wondering whether it's worth the bother - the two times it has been clear what the most democratic option has been, simple party political self-interest has applied anyway. AndrewBartletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04660786328994344180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-5157315815716764232016-08-13T23:44:40.519+10:002016-08-13T23:44:40.519+10:00Thanks; I've identified a source of double-cou...Thanks; I've identified a source of double-counting in my estimate so I've adopted your figure.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-70791876441835766282016-08-13T23:13:59.848+10:002016-08-13T23:13:59.848+10:00"In South Australia, where five different par..."In South Australia, where five different parties won at least one seat each, about 54% of above-the-line votes included at least four of the winning parties in their top six."<br /><br />I can't reproduce this; I get about 30.5%.<br /><br />Lib & ALP & NXT & Grn: 17.23%<br />Lib & ALP & NXT & FF: 12.62%<br />Lib & ALP & Grn & FF: 10.50%<br />Lib & NXT & Grn & FF: 10.40%<br />ALP & NXT & Grn & FF: 12.83%<br /><br />That sums to 63.58%. But each of those five components is including votes with all 5 preferenced in the first 6.<br /><br />Lib & ALP & NXT & Grn & FF: 8.28%<br /><br />To avoid double-counting, four times that 8.28% should be subtracted off, giving 63.58% - 4*8.58% = 30.46% of ATL votes preferencing at least four of the winning parties in the first six. (Plus or minus some round-off error.)David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-34137240549278233252016-08-13T20:59:46.054+10:002016-08-13T20:59:46.054+10:00Very bad new for the Greens in the Senate. The DD ...Very bad new for the Greens in the Senate. The DD meant that this election was at best about drawing even in the Senate and more likely conceding a spot in SA. Looks like next election will also be about drawing even with no opportunity to get ahead in NSW, QLD or SA as they would with a six year term.<br />Unachimbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04873952842828774048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-63535377447563772542016-08-13T18:08:58.705+10:002016-08-13T18:08:58.705+10:00Oops, Xeno got 2.8, and his first 2 got long terms...Oops, Xeno got 2.8, and his first 2 got long terms. Seems fairish, if not perfectly fair, to me... Jack Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210027164177789357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-26060983031785327232016-08-13T17:44:24.693+10:002016-08-13T17:44:24.693+10:00Can't say I can get terribly excited about thi...Can't say I can get terribly excited about this issue. The s 282 method may be maaarginally fairer (attempt at Hawkie's pronunication there) but as you say there are problems in trying to apply it. And the quota's almost twice as easy to achieve in a DD (easier by 13:7 to be pedantic). Lambie and Hanson got quotas and Xeno got 3, and Hinch and H-Y didn't. So they get a chance to get re-elected in 3 years. Not really a lot to see here folks... (Personally I think we should amend the Const so they all get 3-year terms - keep them answerable I say!)Jack Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210027164177789357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-88226524323596987912016-08-13T10:28:30.345+10:002016-08-13T10:28:30.345+10:00Some misinformation in this article in The Austral...Some misinformation in <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/alplnp-deal-to-force-senators-back-to-poll-in-three-years/news-story/f04dae3cfa3f26ae8b28e5c13c232b60" rel="nofollow">this article</a> in The Australian today. Claims regarding s282: "it is based only on the votes for the 12 elected senators and ignores the preferences of people who voted for other candidates". The last bit being complete nonsense of course.Alarichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17187841259314152786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-50404369833305332902016-08-13T00:59:11.370+10:002016-08-13T00:59:11.370+10:00The prospects for improvement are indeed grim. Re...The prospects for improvement are indeed grim. Really a referendum is required, but it's hardly something that would be taken to a referendum by itself. So it would have to be tacked onto another referendum, and even then public understanding of the issue is so low that a lot of people would just reflexively vote no.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-66036616886331248392016-08-13T00:47:17.973+10:002016-08-13T00:47:17.973+10:00Whether or not one system is 'fairer' than...Whether or not one system is 'fairer' than the other is debatable (and an interesting debate that I thank for you exploring).<br /><br />Allowing everyone to see what the results would be under a variety of systems and THEN choose which to use just makes for another unedifying spectacle of each and every party once again falling over themselves trying to post-hoc justify following their naked self-interest.<br /><br />It's an absolute disgrace, and having that choice obviously favors the major parties heavily, so I don't imagine we'll have any hope of seeing it changed. Shameful.Rowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16940089068502559209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-40644974608836107532016-08-13T00:22:46.967+10:002016-08-13T00:22:46.967+10:00I don't know the official margin but it would ...I don't know the official margin but it would be close to Grahame Bowland's simulations (and I didn't realise how much detail there was there til I looked for the answer to this point, so another free plug for https://angrygoats.net).<br /><br />Hanson-Young came in seventh in the SA simulation but over 58,000 votes behind Griff. Waters also seventh but with a margin of about 26,000 votes. <br /><br />I greatly doubt that fuller instructions to voters would have affected either of these results. If anything they would have increased the margins as Greens voters are more knowledgeable about election systems and hence more likely to vote through.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-62924685942822113152016-08-13T00:15:16.240+10:002016-08-13T00:15:16.240+10:00Do we know how far off Larissa Waters and Sarah Ha...Do we know how far off Larissa Waters and Sarah Hanson-Young were from getting longterm places under 282?<br /><br />Would preference instructions (written and verbal) adivising voters that they could vote beyond 1-6 ATL or 1-12 BTL have changed that?T0000000000001https://www.blogger.com/profile/05135088419363685867noreply@blogger.com