Skip to comments.Poll says Labor is facing its worst primary vote since 1934 (Australian election - held tomorrow)
Posted on 09/05/2013 9:48:06 PM PDT by naturalman1975
TONY Abbott is set tomorrow to repeat the 1996 election landslide that swept Paul Keating from office and ushered in 11 years of conservative rule.
The final election-eve Galaxy Poll commissioned by The Daily Telegraph has revealed that Kevin Rudd has failed to make any headway in the final week of the campaign with Labor now stuck well behind the Coalition on a 47/53 two party preferred basis.
It also revealed a primary vote unchanged from last week of just 35 per cent, which if repeated in tomorrow's poll would be the worst primary vote result for Labor since 1934.
The 3.1 per cent swing on a two party preferred basis, if uniform across the country, would result in the loss of at least 10 seats for Labor.
However, with swings of up to eight per cent in some Sydney marginal seats, the expected result could see the Coalition win as many as 20 to 25 seats.
Such a result could reduce Labor to similar results of 1996, when it was left with 49 seats in the house of representatives, despite a smaller overall swing.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailytelegraph.com.au ...
Just keep it up and Get-Out-The-Vote my friend and you will succeed (I am convinced)!
HERE’S TO A LIBERAL GOVT. (from me in the USA) :-)!
I have the early shift at a local polling place tomorrow. In the evening as the count begins, I hope to be involved in a live thread here - as I was in 2004, 2007, and 2010. One good night. Two pretty rotten ones.
So which Australian party equates to our(US) liberals?
Be ready for anything.
When the left is on the ropes, a Breivik election may follow.
Labor are the main Australian left wing party.
The Liberal Party and National Party (who generally work in coalition and so are often referred to as ‘the Coalition’) are both conservative parties.
Thanks and good luck!
Thanks. I had recalled that one of the parties was opposite of what Americans would expect from their name. Liberal Party.
We have a preferential voting system - which I quite like.
When we vote for a Member of Parliament (or more specifically a Member of the House of Representatives - the Senate voting system is ridiculously complex and quite different), we are required to number the candidates on the ballot paper from 1 to whatever.
is a sample ballot.
The 'primary vote' is who people are voting for as their first preference - who they will put number one on the ballot. If a person gets more than fifty percent (+ 1 more vote), they are elected.
But more often than not, no single candidate gets 50% of the primary vote - in that case the candidate who got the least number of votes is eliminated, and their '2' votes are distributed to the remaining candidates, and if they get 50%+1 of the new total, they are elected. If not, the 2 votes of the second lowest scoring candidate are then distrbuted... and so on, and then we go onto 'Third preferences. Eventually somebody will have a majority of vote (theoretically there can be a tie, in which case a coin toss or other random method would break the tie).
Let me give a simple example of how it works. Imagine a campaign in which there are three candidates.
John Smith of the Somewhat Conservative Party
Peter Parker of the Very Conservative Party
Dianna Dim of the Socialist Revolutionary Party
You would like Peter Parker to win, but you would prefer John Smith to Dianna Dim, so when you went into vote, you would vote:
2 - John Smith
1 - Peter Parker
3 - Dianna Dim
The votes are counted (1000 voters), and after the first preferences are counted, the numbers are:
John Smith 350 votes
Peter Parker 250 votes
Dinna Dim 400 votes
OK - Peter wasn't elected. Unfortunate, but Dianna didn't get a majority, so now Peter Parkers 250 votes will be taken and examined for their 2nd vote (which includes your second vote).
It turns out that of the 250 people who voted for Peter Parker, 200, voted for John Smith as number 2 - and only 50 for Dianna Dim.
So the new vote is:
John Smith 550 votes
Dianna Dim 450 votes
John Smith has a majority and is duly elected. And while you didn't get your first choice, at least you got your second.
The strength of the system is it allows people to vote for minor party candidates without wasting their vote - you don't have to vote strategically.
But what it means is that the 'primary vote' is less important in determining who forms government. In most electorates, the choice will eventually come down to one of the two majors - either Labor or the Liberal/National Coalition. For this reason, political polls always give the 'Two Party Preferred Result' which tells you, after preferences are considered, who is actually likely to win. We are currently, on latest polls winning that by about 53-47 - and that's what really matters, more than the primary vote.
Labor's primary vote is very low, but they will do somewhat better in the Two Party Preferred, because they are expected to get a lot of preferences from the Greens (who, though still a minor party unable to form government in their own right are now large enough to have some real influence). The conservatives should get preferences from some of the other minor parties as well, which should take us over the line from our 46% primary vote, to more like 53.
Yes, the name refers to an older, classical, definition of Liberal - more or less one that believes in a large degree of freedom and liberty - rather than the newer definitions that have twisted those ideas in many ways.
What happened in the 1993 election?
Labour lost last time, but they managed ti eek out a coalition with the weirdos to keep power. They’ll do it again.
they have a primary and runoff at the same time
We can only pray.
Good Lord, what happened to ticking one box?
We haven't done that here since 1918. It was originally introduced because the conservative vote was being split, meaning Labor candidates were winning office on votes that were as low as 35% - because the two major conservative parties had split 60% support in half so each only got 30%.
As I say, I like our system.
Yes, the election is tomorrow - by this time tomorrow, east coast polling stations (much of the country) will be nearing closing time.
If you are going to be in Sydney, you have to see the Harbour - and it will be hard to avoid seeing it. But it’s worth taking a Harbour cruise of some sort. If you are fit, there are climbing tours of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which leads to some spectacular views from the top.
If you have an interest in history, you should visit the Rocks, which is just next to Circular Quay, which originally was Sydney Cove, where European settlement of Australia began. The Rocks is the oldest district of Sydney (and of Australia) that is still relatively intact in close to its original form - there’s plenty of places in Australia where you can see the history from the 1850s or so onwards, the Rocks is one of the few areas where you can see things from the really early days - the oldest buildings still intact are from about 30 years after European settlement.
Taronga Zoo is a zoo (obviously) but not surprisingly a great place to see Australian native animals.
A lot depends on what you are really interested in - Sydney really is a big city with a huge amount of things to see - and how much out of Sydney you will be able to get, if at all.
The National Rugby League Grand Final will be held in Sydney on 6th October - I don’t suggest you see it (mainly because tickets will be as rare as hens teeth), but you will see signs of it around the city.
DO you need photo id to vote in Australia? What ID papers do you bring to election booth?
No ID required. They simply check your name off the electoral roll.
Thank you for the explanation.
Your voting system is superior to the US, UK and Canadian "first past the post" system, which causes alternating two-party rule. No one wants to waste their vote on a minor party, so they, as you say, engage in "strategic voting". Freepers did that when they voted for Romney.
The Australian system is also superior to European proportionate voting systems that result in unstable governments formed by shifting coalitions, ie Italy.
One refinement might be to allocate a certain number of "floater" seats to parties that got a certain minimum proportion of total primary votes, say 10%, so at least they could have some representation in Parliament. In the UK, for example, this might give the UK Independence Party a few floater seats.
That's part of our Senate voting system works in Australia - each state has twelve Senators, six of whom are elected at a time - and parties that get 1/7 of the Senate vote automatically elect a Senator (two if they get 2/7, etc). After the 'quotas' are allocated, any remaining Senate seats go to whoever is left who has the most votes out of people who haven't already got in.
I was going to ask “How’s the election going?”, but then realized its like 08:15 o’clock in the morning.
So how did it go? I’ve seen reports of generalities of success....