Australian Federal Election- July 2, 2016

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-senate-count-favours-union-bill/news-story/6649054602cf478ca8115da14438b4b9

I'm aware of The Australian's biases, but what's the chance of this actually happening?

It would help if the news article wasn't behind a paywall...

Wasn't when I looked, but it appears to be now. Weird.
Anyway, main story: Turnbull might have a majority (Coalition+One Nation+right-wing micros and indos) to push through the ABCC bill in a joint sitting.

One Nation is pro-union.

[Ebowed]

Coalition (Liberals, Nationals, Family First and One Nation) - 35
Labor & Greens - 36

NXT can join Labor and Greens to block anythang

[Lachi]

I wouldn't add One Nation into the L/NP Coalition, the L/NP don't like them

[jimrtex]

Unlike in Tasmania, there were no secondary candidates. The Liberals had 5.004 quotas, and after distributing of surpluses had 0.987 quotas, almost all behind their 5th candidate.

Almost all the secondary candidates were eliminated before moving onto eliminating the first candidate of any group. The 5th Liberal candidate was soon pushed over the top, but with only an eleven vote surplus. After the distribution of the initial surpluses ALP and Greens together had about one quota, of the four outstanding, with three more to be elected. Because the transfers of the smaller parties were not directed, both a 4th ALP candidate and 2nd Green was elected, along with a One Nation candidate.

With five quotas of first preferences, you should be able to elect six candidates. The Liberals would have been better off with the Nationals in a group. It would actually be desirable for voters to vote below the line for a National Candidate, as long as they followed through with the Liberal candidates. Even if they stuck a few odd other candidates in their list, they would eventually flow back to the Liberals.

Isn't this at least partly to do with the ticket system not balancing the candidates as Irish parties try to do?  After 9 counts the Liberals in WA were left with four candidates elected after reaching quota (which was 105,091), one candidate on 101,888 looking certain to be elected, and their other two candidates way back on 1,202 and 647 and so heading for elimination before there was much chance to pick up transfers.  If they'd tried to get six candidates on around 5/6 of a quota they'd probably all have got elected.

What is surprising is that there was no attempt to do so.

In Tasmania, it appears that there were a couple of dissident senators who had been listed low, and made a personal appeal for votes. While it represented dissent within the party, it was still overall good for the party.

In South Australia, the Liberals had 4.236 quotas on first preferences. After the distribution of surpluses they had four elected and 0.227 quotas left over. This placed them 6th overall with 3 remaining to be elected, and Xenophon and Greens with very healthy bases, so they were 4th overall for the final seat.

Had they split the final two: 0.618 and 0.618 or even 0.718 and 0.518 that would have put them in 3rd and 4th place with 4 remaining to be elected. One Nation and Family First would have been forced out. While they might not have ranked the Liberals high, they wouldn't have materially ranked ALP or the Greens higher.

With 6 remaining it was:

Greens 0.926 quotas (+.147 gained since distribution of initial surpluses)
Xenophon 0.907 (+.142)
ALP 0.619 (+.121)
Family First 0.550 (+.161)
One Nation 0.539 (+.146)
Liberals 0.326 (+0.099)

But split the final two for Liberals and you squeeze out Family First and One Nation which probably puts you clear of ALP.

And even if it doesn't, the eliminated candidate will elect the other candidate on transfers. With the candidates of each party lined up in columns, it is not likely that there would be much failure to not rank all of them high. Even if they stick an ALP candidate up high for some personal reason (he lives across the road, etc.) it is unlikely to be _the_ ALP candidate who remains.

[aross]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-senate-count-favours-union-bill/news-story/6649054602cf478ca8115da14438b4b9

I'm aware of The Australian's biases, but what's the chance of this actually happening?

It would help if the news article wasn't behind a paywall...

Wasn't when I looked, but it appears to be now. Weird.
Anyway, main story: Turnbull might have a majority (Coalition+One Nation+right-wing micros and indos) to push through the ABCC bill in a joint sitting.

One Nation is pro-union.

I'm aware of that, it's what struck me as odd. Anyway, the article claimed Hanson had recently declared support for "the principles" of the legislation. This would be another, less optimistic (for the government) article on the matter.

[Ebowed]

I wouldn't add One Nation into the L/NP Coalition, the L/NP don't like them

It doesn't matter whether they "like" each other.  What matters is that the Turnbull-Hanson agenda is going to be disastrous for this country.

[Vosem]

I wouldn't add One Nation into the L/NP Coalition, the L/NP don't like them

It doesn't matter whether they "like" each other.  What matters is that the Turnbull-Hanson agenda is going to be disastrous for this country.

That's very disingenuous considering nothing can possibly get through the Senate without support from Labor, the Greens, or the NXT, who together hold sufficient votes to block any legislation (such as from, say, the "Turnbull-Hanson" agenda).

Turnbull-Xenophon would probably be more accurate.

[MaxQue]

I wouldn't add One Nation into the L/NP Coalition, the L/NP don't like them

It doesn't matter whether they "like" each other.  What matters is that the Turnbull-Hanson agenda is going to be disastrous for this country.

That's very disingenuous considering nothing can possibly get through the Senate without support from Labor, the Greens, or the NXT, who together hold sufficient votes to block any legislation (such as from, say, the "Turnbull-Hanson" agenda).

Turnbull-Xenophon would probably be more accurate.

Except the union bills, which only require passing the House and a common sitting of both houses.

[Vosem]

I wouldn't add One Nation into the L/NP Coalition, the L/NP don't like them

It doesn't matter whether they "like" each other.  What matters is that the Turnbull-Hanson agenda is going to be disastrous for this country.

That's very disingenuous considering nothing can possibly get through the Senate without support from Labor, the Greens, or the NXT, who together hold sufficient votes to block any legislation (such as from, say, the "Turnbull-Hanson" agenda).

Turnbull-Xenophon would probably be more accurate.

Except the union bills, which only require passing the House and a common sitting of both houses.

114 votes would be needed to pass anything through a joint sitting; the Coalition has 106. One Nation has 4. Let's assume all 110 of those can be relied upon to vote in favor; that's still 110 and requires four more votes from somewhere. Xenophon can provide those votes, or alternatively Turnbull could turn to the crossbench, where Day and Leyonhjelm are probably sympathetic, while Lambie, Katter, and Willkie are all more left-wing on economic matters. If Hinch and McGowan can both be persuaded to come along, that does allow Turnbull to push through the legislation without ALP, Greens, or Xenophon support, but that is a very tight squeeze.

So, yeah, getting Xenophon onboard is still probably the path of least resistance even in the event of a joint sitting (and if Day, Leyonhjelm, Xenophon, and every PHON Senator does support it, it would be simpler to just push it through the regular Senate; if Turnbull does want to go the "appeal to individual independents" route then a joint sitting would have to be convened).

[MaxQue]

I wouldn't add One Nation into the L/NP Coalition, the L/NP don't like them

It doesn't matter whether they "like" each other.  What matters is that the Turnbull-Hanson agenda is going to be disastrous for this country.

That's very disingenuous considering nothing can possibly get through the Senate without support from Labor, the Greens, or the NXT, who together hold sufficient votes to block any legislation (such as from, say, the "Turnbull-Hanson" agenda).

Turnbull-Xenophon would probably be more accurate.

Except the union bills, which only require passing the House and a common sitting of both houses.

114 votes would be needed to pass anything through a joint sitting; the Coalition has 106. One Nation has 4. Let's assume all 110 of those can be relied upon to vote in favor; that's still 110 and requires four more votes from somewhere. Xenophon can provide those votes, or alternatively Turnbull could turn to the crossbench, where Day and Leyonhjelm are probably sympathetic, while Lambie, Katter, and Willkie are all more left-wing on economic matters. If Hinch and McGowan can both be persuaded to come along, that does allow Turnbull to push through the legislation without ALP, Greens, or Xenophon support, but that is a very tight squeeze.

So, yeah, getting Xenophon onboard is still probably the path of least resistance even in the event of a joint sitting (and if Day, Leyonhjelm, Xenophon, and every PHON Senator does support it, it would be simpler to just push it through the regular Senate; if Turnbull does want to go the "appeal to individual independents" route then a joint sitting would have to be convened).

Except than joint sittings can only be used for the bills that were used for the double dissolution, namely the 3 anti-union bills. All other bills need to pass the House and the Senate.

Xenophon already indicated it would only support those union bills if they were amended in ways he liked.

[Vosem]

I wouldn't add One Nation into the L/NP Coalition, the L/NP don't like them

It doesn't matter whether they "like" each other.  What matters is that the Turnbull-Hanson agenda is going to be disastrous for this country.

That's very disingenuous considering nothing can possibly get through the Senate without support from Labor, the Greens, or the NXT, who together hold sufficient votes to block any legislation (such as from, say, the "Turnbull-Hanson" agenda).

Turnbull-Xenophon would probably be more accurate.

Except the union bills, which only require passing the House and a common sitting of both houses.

114 votes would be needed to pass anything through a joint sitting; the Coalition has 106. One Nation has 4. Let's assume all 110 of those can be relied upon to vote in favor; that's still 110 and requires four more votes from somewhere. Xenophon can provide those votes, or alternatively Turnbull could turn to the crossbench, where Day and Leyonhjelm are probably sympathetic, while Lambie, Katter, and Willkie are all more left-wing on economic matters. If Hinch and McGowan can both be persuaded to come along, that does allow Turnbull to push through the legislation without ALP, Greens, or Xenophon support, but that is a very tight squeeze.

So, yeah, getting Xenophon onboard is still probably the path of least resistance even in the event of a joint sitting (and if Day, Leyonhjelm, Xenophon, and every PHON Senator does support it, it would be simpler to just push it through the regular Senate; if Turnbull does want to go the "appeal to individual independents" route then a joint sitting would have to be convened).

Except than joint sittings can only be used for the bills that were used for the double dissolution, namely the 3 anti-union bills. All other bills need to pass the House and the Senate.

Xenophon already indicated it would only support those union bills if they were amended in ways he liked.

If it's permissible to amend those bills in a joint sitting and Xenophon and the Coalition both support, then there are 110 votes, and the path to 114 doesn't seem too difficult. The basic point of my posts have been to point out that Turnbull/Hanson isn't enough to pass any legislation, and that realistically Xenophon almost certainly holds a veto over any government policy that needs to go through the Senate or a joint sitting.

[Intell]

I doubt Hanson will support much of turnbull's economic agenda though, save a few. While both are right-wing, they're very different kinds of right-wing.

[jimrtex]

Isn't this at least partly to do with the ticket system not balancing the candidates as Irish parties try to do?  After 9 counts the Liberals in WA were left with four candidates elected after reaching quota (which was 105,091), one candidate on 101,888 looking certain to be elected, and their other two candidates way back on 1,202 and 647 and so heading for elimination before there was much chance to pick up transfers.  If they'd tried to get six candidates on around 5/6 of a quota they'd probably all have got elected.

Victoria is the first state where a party has had a full slate of 12 candidates, such that a voter could vote below the line entirely within a party column and have the vote considered to be formal. The Greens had 12 candidates, while ALP had eight, and the Coalition seven.

There was surprising amount of leakage among Green voters (around 2/3) but that may just be Green voters being Green. I suspect that both ALP and Coalition voters would be a little more loyal, since they are seeking to be a governing party.

The Coalition has 0.293 quotas after the distribution of the 8 initial surpluses. They could have been in trouble for their 5th seat, except that the party that did the best job of gaining transfers, Family First was in 10th place of those seeking the final 4 seats at 0.150 quotas.

By the time the field had been reduced to 9 candidates seeking the final three seats, ballots were going deeper on preferences, either being exhausted, or voters were tired of ranking minor parties and were just filling out the last parties on their ballot.

So while the Coalition did get 5 seats on 4.3 quotas, they made it harder than they had to.

Victoria ended up with 1.118 exhausted ballots, and the trash can was the #1 choice for the final three exclusions.

[DavidB.]

Why did the Liberals become so much more popular at the end of 2015? I know Turnbull replaced Abbott, but there must have been other reasons, right?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Well Abbott is the major factor, although the removal of Hockey helped. Because the two prominent figureheads of the shambolic government were gone the artificiality of the ALP's lead were exposed. It's not uncommon for mediocre leaders to suddenly sthoot up in the polls after replacing a despised incumbent (Kim Campbell cam attest,)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why did the Liberals become so much more popular at the end of 2015? I know Turnbull replaced Abbott, but there must have been other reasons, right?

Nope, that's enough.

Well it was a combination of relief to see Abbott gone, but also hope about the direction of politics and specific policies. When they realised they haven't gotten the knight in shining armour they wanted (which, given his last stint at party leadership, was utterly misplaced) things returned to Earth and rapidly.

[Ebsy]

https://twitter.com/lanesainty/status/770058269280829443

Looks like gay marriage is headed for the House of Representatives.

[DavidB.]

https://twitter.com/lanesainty/status/770058269280829443

Looks like gay marriage is headed for the House of Representatives.

That's not necessarily good, unfortunately...


Seems like a vote may well lead to a negative outcome since Turnbull may not allow a free vote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Basically, I agree.

The compromise was a desperate attempt by the far-right of the Liberal Party room to avoid a free vote. Now, despite rubbishing the plebiscite idea (correctly) last year, Turnbull chose to decide THAT was not a policy worth changing, despite throwing out or reversing a number of Abbott policies.

I dare say, the only people really happy about this, are clueless people and those far-right politicians, because, as we've seen for the last nearly year (good lord, it's been nearly a year!?) is that if you're relying on Malcolm Turnbull to stand up to the right of the Liberal Party room, you're in for a rude shock.

I'm utterly opposed to a civil right being granted to a minority based on the good will of a majority vote (even then you've got a batch of the Liberal right who won't vote for even IF the plebiscite passes... I imagine even afterwards you'll end up with people saying "well 57% isn't that big of an endorsement... who'll speak for the 43%" etc etc). It's a disgusting, expensive, dangerous and unnecessary process, but Malcolm Turnbull's complete lack of a spine or being willing to stick to what should be core Liberal principles means this probably is the only path that will give them legitimate cover this term. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't like it, but I would be interested to see the resulting map.

[DavidB.]

I don't like it, but I would be interested to see the resulting map.

(normal Atlas)

I'm utterly opposed to a civil right being granted to a minority based on the good will of a majority vote (even then you've got a batch of the Liberal right who won't vote for even IF the plebiscite passes... I imagine even afterwards you'll end up with people saying "well 57% isn't that big of an endorsement... who'll speak for the 43%" etc etc). It's a disgusting, expensive, dangerous and unnecessary process, but Malcolm Turnbull's complete lack of a spine or being willing to stick to what should be core Liberal principles means this probably is the only path that will give them legitimate cover this term.  

I am always opposed to referenda on SSM for the exact same reasons as you, but if it turns out to be the only way in which it can be implemented during this term, then I guess the referendum should happen. Not a good move strategically on the ALP and the Greens to oppose it, even if I totally understand why they did so and sympathize with these reasons.

[Knives]

As a gay man I would rather wait 3 more years for marriage equality than suffer a plebiscite.

[DavidB.]

As a gay man I would rather wait 3 more years for marriage equality than suffer a plebiscite.

Who says the ALP will win in 2019?