Australia - Liberal Party And Morrison Out

[Hermit]

The anomaly of the Australian voting where a majority of votes is not needed to get a majority in the House of representatives to form government.

That is bullshit. Preferential voting ensures that the party with the most votes gets the most seats in both houses. The system is certainly fairer than the First-Past-The-Post setup.

 

[Hermit]

Many have expressed the view that Libs were somehow illegitimate because they only got about 37% of the 1st preference vote in 2019.

Citation needed.

Also, in 2019 the L/NP coalition finished up with 41.44% of the primary vote, like so:

Liberal	27.99%
Liberal National Party	8.67%
The Nationals	4.51%
Country Liberals (NT)	0.27%

In view of the fact that Labor trailed the coalition by 8.1 percentage points your assertion looks like a figment of a fevered imagination.

 

[Tigers!]

The anomaly of the Australian voting where a majority of votes is not needed to get a majority in the House of representatives to form government.

That is bullshit. Preferential voting ensures that the party with the most votes gets the most seats in both houses. The system is certainly fairer than the First-Past-The-Post setup.

You can get the most votes and still not get a majority of votes. But better than FPTP.

As is their right. Unless you think that the 'Teals' should somehow be beyond criticism (or slamming as you call it)?

Not what I said, and it is certainly not what Devine, Credlin etc will be doing.

Yes I edited our your bit. My apologies.

Slamming vs criticism is often dependent upon your location on the political spectrum. One person will say criticism, another will call it slamming.
I do not favour ad-hominem attacks (play the ball not the man) but scrutiny of actions and words is justified and necessary.

 

[Tigers!]

Many have expressed the view that Libs were somehow illegitimate because they only got about 37% of the 1st preference vote in 2019.

Citation needed.

Also, in 2019 the L/NP coalition finished up with 41.44% of the primary vote, like so:

Liberal	27.99%
Liberal National Party	8.67%
The Nationals	4.51%
Country Liberals (NT)	0.27%

In view of the fact that Labor trailed the coalition by 8.1 percentage points your assertion looks like a figment of a fevered imagination.

Since the Labor % or other parties/candidates % is not shown I cannot comment.

 

[Metaphor]

The anomaly of the Australian voting where a majority of votes is not needed to get a majority in the House of representatives to form government.

That is bullshit. Preferential voting ensures that the party with the most votes gets the most seats in both houses. The system is certainly fairer than the First-Past-The-Post setup.

That is not necessarily true.

Australia has 151 electorates, of roughly (but by no means exactly equal) size. If party A got 51% of the vote in 76 electorates, and 0% of the vote in the other 75 electorates, it would form majority government but have nothing like the party with the most votes.

 

[Metaphor]

In the 2022 election, the LNP coalition did, in fact, get more first preference votes than Labor, 4.2m vs 3.9m

 

[Hermit]

Many have expressed the view that Libs were somehow illegitimate because they only got about 37% of the 1st preference vote in 2019.

Citation needed.

Also, in 2019 the L/NP coalition finished up with 41.44% of the primary vote, like so:

Liberal	27.99%
Liberal National Party	8.67%
The Nationals	4.51%
Country Liberals (NT)	0.27%

In view of the fact that Labor trailed the coalition by 8.1 percentage points your assertion looks like a figment of a fevered imagination.

Since the Labor % or other parties/candidates % is not shown I cannot comment.

So, where did you get "37% of the 1st preference vote in 2019" from? Your fevered imagination?

Have you heard of Google?

The relevant data, conveniently cited in the box on the top right hand corner of one page, courtesy of Wikipedia, are here.

 

[Derec]

Scott Morrison is out. Labor is in. There's of the Teals. What does it all mean? A spot of sanity on planet Earth?

Hardly. Most likely the new PM will allow mass migrant boats back.

 

[Patooka]

Called it.

 

[Hermit]

The anomaly of the Australian voting where a majority of votes is not needed to get a majority in the House of representatives to form government.

That is bullshit. Preferential voting ensures that the party with the most votes gets the most seats in both houses. The system is certainly fairer than the First-Past-The-Post setup.

That is not necessarily true.

Australia has 151 electorates, of roughly (but by no means exactly equal) size. If party A got 51% of the vote in 76 electorates, and 0% of the vote in the other 75 electorates, it would form majority government but have nothing like the party with the most votes.

Now, that would be anomalous.

There actually have been two occasions in the past 18 elections where the government was formed by whoever trailed in terms of distributed votes, but the margin was fairly low. In 1990 Labor formed remained in the driver's seat despite trailing by 0.2 percentage points. In 1998 the conservative coalition did likewise despite trailing by 1.96 percentage points. (Link to data)

In the 2022 election, the LNP coalition did, in fact, get more first preference votes than Labor, 4.2m vs 3.9m

As you agreed, preferential voting is preferable. Winning the most primary votes does not determine which party gets to form the next government, nor should it. The party with the most two-party-preferred votes does, and rightly so.

 

[bilby]

The anomaly of the Australian voting where a majority of votes is not needed to get a majority in the House of representatives to form government.

That is bullshit. Preferential voting ensures that the party with the most votes gets the most seats in both houses. The system is certainly fairer than the First-Past-The-Post setup.

That is not necessarily true.

Australia has 151 electorates, of roughly (but by no means exactly equal) size. If party A got 51% of the vote in 76 electorates, and 0% of the vote in the other 75 electorates, it would form majority government but have nothing like the party with the most votes.

Now, that would be anomalous.

There actually have been two occasions in the past 18 elections where the government was formed by whoever trailed in terms of distributed votes, but the margin was fairly low. In 1990 Labor formed remained in the driver's seat despite trailing by 0.2 percentage points. In 1998 the conservative coalition did likewise despite trailing by 1.96 percentage points. (Link to data)

In the 2022 election, the LNP coalition did, in fact, get more first preference votes than Labor, 4.2m vs 3.9m

As you agreed, preferential voting is preferable. Winning the most primary votes does not determine which party gets to form the next government, nor should it. The party with the most two-party-preferred votes does, and rightly so.

It’s an instant runoff vote; No member of the house of representatives can be elected without obtaining at least half of the votes cast in their division.

If Joe Blogs gets to 50%+1 vote on the back of a ballot paper that has Joe Blogs as eighth preference and his nearest rival Sam Spade as ninth preference, then he earned that vote; The voter who cast that ballot put 1-7 against candidates who were eliminated due to getting too few votes to win.

Primary votes are pretty much meaningless in an IRV system; The pundits and press love to care about them, but voting 8 Joe Blogs and 9 Sam Spade isn’t distinguishable from voting 1 Joe and 3 Sam.

The ballot paper asks for preferences. By definition, it asks which of the last two candidates standing you prefer, and give that candidate your vote. So every winner in every division got voted for by more than half of the people who cast formal ballots.

 

[Patooka]

Man, I hope angelo (remember him?) is okay in WA. SKY News doesn't appear to be taking this well:

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Bring in the ALP drop bears!