Preliminary results of the Australian federal election
25 replies, posted
I thought that their should be a new thread for this, as the OP of the last thread does not contain the results of this election, and they can only be found buried within the discussions of that thread.
[quote=ABC News]Election day is over and we still don't know who won.
Malcolm Turnbull says he has "every confidence" the Coalition will be able to form a majority government.
But no-one can really say with certainty what the outcome will be — not even ABC election analyst Antony Green.[/quote]
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-03/election-result-what-happens-now/7564250[/url]
[b]The current seat count in the House of Representatives as of 10AM AEST:[/b]
Liberal/National Coalition: 66 seats
Labor: 67 seats
Greens: 1 seat
NXT: 1 seat
KAP: 1 seat
Independents: 2 seats
11 seats remain in doubt. Greens may pick up one seat, but the rest will be fought between the Coalition and Labor. 76 seats in the 150 seat House are required to form government.
[editline]3rd July 2016[/editline]
Vote counting may take several days or even weeks, as postal and declaration votes are gradually counted. Senate results will definitely take weeks due to the nature of the single transferable vote system.
[editline]3rd July 2016[/editline]
[b]Senate results as of 10AM AEST:[/b]
New South Wales (12 seats)
- Liberals and Nationals: 4 seats, might win a 5th
- Labor: 4 seats
- Greens: Might win 1 seat
Victoria (12 seats)
- Liberals and Nationals: 4 seats
- Labor: 4 seats
- Greens: 1 seat
- Derryn Hinch's Justice Party: Might win 1 seat
Queensland (12 seats)
- Liberal National Party: 4 seats
- Labor: 3 seats
- One Nation: 1 seat
- Greens: Might win 1 seat
Western Australia (12 seats)
- Liberals: 4 seats, might win a 5th
- Labor: 3 seats, might win a 4th
- Greens: Might win 1 seat
South Australia (12 seats)
- Liberals: 4 seats
- Labor: 3 seats, might win a 4th
- NXT: 2 seats, might win a 3rd
- Greens: Might win 1 seat
Tasmania (12 seats)
- Labor: 4 seats
- Liberals: 4 seats
- Greens: 1 seat
- Jacqui Lambie Network: 1 seat
Australian Capital Territory (2 seats)
- Labor: 1 seat
- Liberals: Might win 1 seat
Northern Territory (2 seats)
- Labor: 1 seat
- Country Liberals: 1 seat
i think minority govt here we come
OP updated with Senate results so far (each state still has several Senate seats in doubt)
Looks like greens are in trouble in senate
greens said last night they had 2 greens in the senate for QLD? Has that changed
[QUOTE=killerteacup;50636173]Looks like greens are in trouble in senate[/QUOTE]
ABC predict the loss of one seat in the Senate. Not that bad really.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;50636173]Looks like greens are in trouble in senate[/QUOTE]
In previous elections, the Greens could rely on preference flows and their relatively close distance to the next electoral quota to get from a ~10% primary vote up to the ~14.28% electoral quota, so they were over-represented.
In this election with a ~7.7% electoral quota in each state, the Greens are guaranteed 1 seat in each state, but their vote is too close to the last-attained quota (only 2-3% towards the next quota, compared with ~10% towards a quota in previous elections) meaning that they will be eliminated earlier in the count at this election, with their vote redistributed to other parties (most likely flowing to the major parties).
-----
To make that easier to understand, say in NSW the Greens get 10% of the primary vote, and the NXT get 6% of the primary vote. Assume the preferences of each candidate would flow to each other.
In previous elections with a ~14.28% electoral quota, NXT would only have 6% towards the next quota, while the Greens would have 10% towards the next quota. The NXT would be eliminated and their preferences flow to the Greens, giving the Greens 16% of the vote and therefore 1 seat.
In this election with a ~7.7% electoral quota, the Greens would win 1 seat, and be 2.3% toward a second quota. The NXT hasn't won a seat, but are 6% toward a quota. The Greens would be eliminated (except for the seat they already won), and their preferences flow to the NXT, giving them 1 seat too. Except in this actual election, the preference flows will be towards the major parties, not other minor parties.
[editline]3rd July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50636187]greens said last night they had 2 greens in the senate for QLD? Has that changed[/QUOTE]
The Greens only have ~7.5% of the primary vote in Queensland. They will pick up one seat, but they would have to double their vote with preference flows from other parties to be able to win a second seat.
Interesting. Greens helped push that new preferencing deal through as well - looks like it backfired on them a bit
God damn it Queensland. Why did you give One Nation a seat?
[QUOTE=killerteacup;50636314]Interesting. Greens helped push that new preferencing deal through as well - looks like it backfired on them a bit[/QUOTE]
they probably expected people to vote greens instead of micro parties not vote micro parties instead of greens
[QUOTE=killerteacup;50636314]Interesting. Greens helped push that new preferencing deal through as well - looks like it backfired on them a bit[/QUOTE]
Kinda funny actually. Because of every other election being a staggered election with only 6 of the 12 Senators up for election at a time, if the Greens win 1 seat in each state at each normal election, they would have 2 Senators in each state. But with all 12 Senators from each state facing re-election in this double dissolution election, the Greens will only win 1 seat in each state. So, theoretically half as many Senate seats.
You could say the Greens are principled at least. The previous Senate electoral system was crap, so they helped reform it even if it meant they lost a few seats this election. But as soon as we get back to normal elections, the Greens will be back.
[editline]3rd July 2016[/editline]
But the Greens lost out not because of the new voting system, but because of the double dissolution.
So why do you guys have a liberal party that is right-wing?
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50636346]So why do you guys have a liberal party that is right-wing?[/QUOTE]
Technically our Liberal party is closer to the original definition of liberal; small government, economic freedom etc. a better question is why our Labor party uses American spelling (as opposed to Labour) or why a party called the Nationals only represents rural constituents.
How does the half Senate voting actually work? Considering that the full 12 for each State has been selected, do the parties nominate who will be up for a vote / what if they're independent?
Is it the last 6 who made quota that get put up for reelection?
[QUOTE=sb27;50636345]Kinda funny actually. Because of every other election being a staggered election with only 6 of the 12 Senators up for election at a time, if the Greens win 1 seat in each state at each normal election, they would have 2 Senators in each state. But with all 12 Senators elected from each state in a single election in this election, the Greens will only have 1 seat in each state. So, theoretically half as many Senate seats.
You could say the Greens are principled at least. The previous Senate electoral system was crap, so they helped reform it even if it means they lost a few seats this election. But as soon as we get back to normal elections, the Greens will be back.[/QUOTE]
oh I absolutely agree. It's a shame but I have no doubt the Greens are on the ascendant still.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50636346]So why do you guys have a liberal party that is right-wing?[/QUOTE]
Its an artifact from history I think?? its confusing but its how australia rolls
I always explain it as the fact that Australia is traditionally more left than other countries which have a left wing liberal party - that our liberal party is probably roughly the same in terms of alignment but that's right wing for our country
but I have no idea if that's true anymore after Tony Abbott and the origin of the name is a mystery to me
[QUOTE=DogGunn;50636356]How does the half Senate voting actually work? Considering that the full 12 for each State has been selected, do the parties nominate who will be up for a vote / what if they're independent?
Is it the last 6 who made quota that get put up for reelection?[/QUOTE]
The system used is Senators elected from 7th to 12th will face re-election after only three years, while Senators 1st to 6th will serve for the full six years.
is this good or bad I forget which is the shitter one in Aus Land Labor or Liberals
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50636536]is this good or bad I forget which is the shitter one in Aus Land Labor or Liberals[/QUOTE]
it is strange how political parties often have nothing to do with what they're called. Canadian Liberal and Aus Liberal are not very similar at all.
[QUOTE=patq911;50636542]it is strange how political parties often have nothing to do with what they're called. Canadian Liberal and Aus Liberal are not very similar at all.[/QUOTE]
Australian liberal is closer to the original definition of the word, which makes sense as the Liberal Party of Australia has been around since 1945, with an ancestor Liberal party as early as 1909. The Liberal Party of Canada has been around for longer, but they had a massive shift from being like the Australian Liberals to where they are now, at around the 30's.
But another point is that Liberal is such a broad term. The Australian Liberals are liberals. The Canadian Liberals are liberals. Literally almost every political party in the developed world is some kind of liberal democratic party.
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50636536]is this good or bad I forget which is the shitter one in Aus Land Labor or Liberals[/QUOTE]
That really depends on whether or not you are right or left wing
Labor is centre left, Liberal is centre right.
Then you have numerous far right parties, a dominant far left party, and a bunch of crazies. Go figure.
In other news, Andrew Wilkie has been contacted by Turnbull apparently seeking a potential deal, which was refused. Minority govt negotiations have potentially begun
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;50636332]God damn it Queensland. Why did you give One Nation a seat?[/QUOTE]
Man we're just as fucking confused as you are
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50636536]is this good or bad I forget which is the shitter one in Aus Land Labor or Liberals[/QUOTE]
On one hand, you have Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Liberals, who is held back by conservative elements within the Liberal Party and their allies in the rural, conservative National Party.
On the other hand, you have Bill Shorten as leader of the Labor Party, who are progressive but who also shot themselves in the foot following the most vicious scare campaign in contemporary Australian history.
[QUOTE=sb27;50636594]On one hand, you have Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Liberals, who is held back by conservative elements within the Liberal party and their allies in the rural, conservative National party.
On the other hand, you have Bill Shorten as leader of the Labor Party, who are progressive but who also shot themselves in the foot following the most vicious scare campaign in contemporary Australian history.[/QUOTE]
I may be showing my bias here, but it's usually right wing parties that use scare tactics. but when the left does it, it backfires at a way higher rate.
[QUOTE=patq911;50636603]I may be showing my bias here, but it's usually right wing parties that use scare tactics. but when the left does it, it backfires at a way higher rate.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, you're right. The Liberals did run a scare campaign saying that people should vote for a majority Liberal government rather than a dysfunctional Labor coalition with the crossbench (although where we are now, it looks like the Liberals would have to form a coalition with the crossbench to win government anyways).
But Labor were on a whole different level by outright lying. They ran a huge scare campaign saying the Liberals would privatise our universal healthcare system, but even the Australian Medical Association said Labor were talking shit. Their has been a swing towards Labor in this election, but I believe that they would have done much better if instead of scare campaigning, that they were positive and actually promoted Labor Party policies (instead, they were too busy saying 'Don't vote for Turnbull, because he'll do this and that!').
[QUOTE=killerteacup;50636568]
In other news, Andrew Wilkie has been contacted by Turnbull apparently seeking a potential deal, which was refused. Minority govt negotiations have potentially begun[/QUOTE]
On ya Wilkie
[QUOTE=sb27;50636594]On one hand, you have Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Liberals, who is held back by conservative elements within the Liberal Party and their allies in the rural, conservative National Party.
On the other hand, you have Bill Shorten as leader of the Labor Party, who are progressive but who also shot themselves in the foot following the most vicious scare campaign in contemporary Australian history.[/QUOTE]
It was an awful scare campaign true, but I think that we need to realise it definitely was not the most vicious in contemporary history
like are our memories are so short to forget the ditch the witch campaign that abbott ran with? That was a way worse campaign that capitalised far more on scare tactics
Really there should be no excuse for scare tactics, but both sides employ it, which is why both sides ended up with such a low primary
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.