I'll simplify it for you kid. The Independent, social conservative that just sided with the Liberal party before voting was finished can be counted on the same side as the Liberals. Too simple? His socialist background has formed a more Protectionist ideology over his political career which is very similar to the Nationals ideology. If you can't count OneNation on the same side as the Liberals but you can count the Greens on the same side as Labor then I can't help you.

Either way, your mates, the Labor party, are losing relevance.

My mates???? Pull your head in. Go and add in whoever you want. Their vote counts as a share of national vote were not really relevant to my point.

I'm not trying to argue the left or right got more votes. Just that comparing the coalition vote share to the ALP is somewhat misleading because it ignores the greens vote, which breaks 80-85% to the ALP.

I don't get what you are actually whingeing about. I included the link to the source data for everyone to see for themselves.

Steve Price.:lol:

The irony of the Mediscare campaign is even though Labor lost the Liberals cant touch Medicare now for fear of political suicide.
Even picking of the fringe elements to privatize will seem like a betrayal.

Just have to go back to forcing through co-payments through THAT senate.

obviously ignorance and arrogance are two attributes you are proud of, not to mention your condescending attitude

Batty, I'm condescending to you because I've known your forum personality (you may be different in real life) long enough. You only ever come in here when you perceive that the Liberal party have some positive headline, despite your claims that you're not biased you clearly are. I'm biased too but I'm upfront about it.

If my suggestion that your claim about low primary vote is actually pretty meaningless and to think otherwise would suggest that you don't understand the voting system or that your stubborn adherence to this claim meaning something is not worth continuing to argue over, is "ignorance or arrogance" to you then I'll wear those badges. You did nothing to refute my rebuttal, you just continued on with "lies and deceit", "cat piss" and other dumb language.

People can make up their own minds but my opinion on who is arrogant and ignorant is quite different =;

So I don't 100% understand the whole hung parliament thing and what it means etc but my very brief understanding is a hung parliament is if either party manages less than 76 seats, yeah?

So Liberal confirming they made it to 76 seats means it's not a hung parliament, yeah?

Did you end up betting a large amount of money on it notor?

Speaking of the election.. I was talking to a friend yesterday and she makes $42 an hour as a vote counter for all the elections and has been doing it for years & years. Talk about a budget emergency :lol:

Yeah the people who get employed directly through the AEC don't make much (like $400 for the day and it's from early morning until night) but then they also seem to hire people through labour hire companies that make way more.

Similar to how some governments that like to bash public servants as waste so they sack a whole bunch of them and rehire others on contracts at a way higher rate :roll:

I'm not having a whinge. I'm just pointing out that your comparison is redundant.

Exactly what I said at the end of election night. Brilliant.

I take it she's not a fan of the electronic voting system :d

you talk in circles and never respond to questions......you would make a great politician ....talk heaps but say nothing meaningful, so you are telling me that the lies about medicare are acceptable to you during an election???

do you also deny the local issues such as westconnex and council amalgamations had no impact on the marginal NSW seat in western sydney????

well you got both attributes in spades pal....your poor wife......communist riff raff

outsourcing is not privatising

Semantics. If they tamper with it they will get a blow back.

I'm on record as saying I didn't agree with how the campaign was worded, however the Liberal party are no friends of medicare and will do whatever they can to dismantle it. If you care about Medicare you certainly should not be voting for them. If that's not answering your question and going around in circles to you then I don't know how you get on in life.

Your original question though was that it was an effective campaign, polls didn't change dramatically in the last couple of weeks when the campaign was running (if anything they went the other way) so I'm not certain that it was that big a part of it. I think there were a number of other factors including the Liberal party being all talk about "Jobs and Growth" but not having any plan for it apart from big business tax cuts. The other major party actually had a few more policies and got a positive swing towards them so good for them.

As for local state issues, maybe? Sometimes they do so I'll take your word for that.

Edited by mcjules: 12/7/2016 03:19:32 PM

Unless it just happens to make the system better.

Better for whom? Any kind of co-payment or any cost to the public will be disastrous.

Except its not. My whole point was two-fold:
- About the fragmentation of votes away from the major parties;
- That ALP having its second lowest primary vote count in history is not particularly relevant, primarily because of the high Green vote and their 80-85% preference flow to the ALP

Those points are completely relevant, and nothing you have said has made them redundant.

I presented a factual point, and that factual point stands.

What you are presenting is an opinion. The ALP and Greens do not have a coalition and do not share policies. The Greens are taking away votes from the ALP which is taking away valuable Federal funding and reducing the power of the Union movement.

In the past, first preferences from the Greens have flow up to 40% to Liberal 60% to Labor (given that first preferences to the Greens comprised a much smaller percentage than it does today). Today, in some electorates, 30% of first preferences from the Greens flow through to the Liberal party mainly because the Greens do not have a strong association with the Union movement and this is attracts some Libertarian voters.

Regardless of preferences, the Greens and the ALP along with the Coalition and all the minor parties complete for resources. You can compare Left verse Right or party vs party but you can't lump the Leftist movement to one side and compare it to a single branch of a political party on the other. It doesn't prove anything.

They've taken one seat though so far (I expect more in the future), while campaign funding has reduced their power hasn't really been reduced politically. Interestingly, unions only supply about 30% of Labor's political donations. While they are influential within the party, the way people go on you'd expect them to be donating a much higher proportion.

Which electorates?

My original point which Azza was trying to back was that Labor have been losing votes to the Greens (principally). Thats why he was bringing the 2 together. It's happened to a lesser extent to the Liberals this election and I'm hoping it'll grow as diversity of views is good in my opinion. If you want to add them all the One nation's, LDP's and other nominally conservative parties together and attribute them to the "right side of the ledger" that's fine. Ultimately you can just look at the national 2PP figures though and you can see Labor and Liberal are pretty close to 50/50.

Precisely - thanks McJules.

For those of you interested in hard numbers, this article shows the preference flows for all the minor parties from 1996 to 2013. Can't find anything on 2016 though.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/07/preference-flows-at-federal-elections-1996-2013.html

In 2013, Greens votes went 83% to the ALP.

So clearly a significant amount of Greens voters prefer the ALP to the Libs. Given that the Greens hold only 1 lower house seat, that is incredibly relevant when looking at the ALP's low first preference vote.

As McJules stated, the 2PP breakdown is the ultimate indicator of who people prefer - at present there is about 50,000 votes difference from over 10 million votes total.

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-20499.htm

Thanks for the link. Confirms points made by both of us. I see the point you are trying to make and I know the Greens helped Labor get over the line in a number of electorates. I take issue with you counting them as one side of politics but I have made my point and it doesn't need to be elaborated further.

For those interested some charts on political party donations.

Serious question:

How much does it cost to register and put a political party on a ballot paper? The recent election looked like a 'free for all', especially for voting at the senate

However, a poor voter can only choose 6 (or 12) out of 40 or so, or even put down 1 on the senate ballot paper and that would be good enough

Some parties should just not bother, a better policy to political success for those guys is to join the right or left wing faction of the LNP or ALP instead? :-k

Fits the narrative. Unions account for a third of the ALP (if anything i'm surprised it's not more) and business support the LNP.

All the info for creating a party are on the AEC website.

It's not prohibitively expensive, but you do need 500 members to be registered as a party.


That would be good enough for an informal vote after the senate changes prior to the most recent election.

Edited by notorganic: 12/7/2016 07:51:09 PM

Nah it was counted, just immediately exhausted if your vote didnt form part of a quota.