Senate preference agreements
I announced a preference agreement today with the Green Party regarding the Queensland Senate contest. You can read some coverage of the announcement on the ABC website and the Courier-Mail site, including some kind comments about me from Pauline Hanson who says that I “have done nothing to represent the people of Queensland, (and) we hardly ever heard anything from him.“
This preference agreement is no great surprise, but I felt it was worth emphasising because (a) people need to pay more specific attention to the Senate contests around the country, and (b) there is a real chance the major parties will win all the Queensland Senate seats (even with this preference agreement), leaving Queenslanders without any alternative representation in the Senate and without a voice in balance of power situations.
The Greens are doing a preference deal to get the Senate preferences of the Labor Party, and Family First will do a preference deal to get the Senate preferences of the Coalition. Of course, in each case, the preferences will only flow to them if the minor party has a primary vote higher than the surplus of the major party, which is far from certain.
It is always nicer to have other parties directing preferences your way, as you can never predict with certainty what order preferences will be distributed in the Senate. However, the chances are Labor preferences won’t be distributed (at least until either myself or the Greens’ candidate has been eliminated), so its main value is likely to be psychological. There are enough people in the media who already assume I have no chance of winning, and there is a worryingly large number of them who don’t understand how the Senate voting system works, so there is a risk that some of them may just assume that Labor giving their Senate preferences to the Greens confirms what they already believe to be my certain defeat, even though Labor preferences may well not be counted.
The combined Democrat-Green vote in Queensland is still likely to fall short of a seat – as it did in 2004 – so anyone who doesn’t want the major parties to win all Qld Senate seats needs to encourage as many people as possible to give their Number 1 vote to me (or to the Greens if they really insist).
The best chance for me to win and the Democrats to retain a Senate presence in Queensland is to outpoll the Greens on primary votes. So anyone who actually wants me to retain my seat should ask every one in Queensland to vote 1 for me (sorry, I just couldn’t think of a suitably subtle way to say that). If I still fall short, then at least their vote will go across to the Greens, maximising the chances of keeping the major parties from winning all seats and also of keeping Pauline Hanson out.
The as yet unknown preference decisions of an as yet unknown number of micro parties running in the Senate may well be critical. Guessing probable outcomes in Qld (and elsewhere) will be easier in a week or so.
ADDENDUM: To explain why Labor Senate preferences are not necessarily likely to be distributed in Queensland:
For Labor Senate preferences to be distributed they would need to have a surplus lower than the primary vote for the Greens (plus any direct preferences the Greens may get from micro parties, which can’t be predicted at this stage, apart from the Socialist Alliance who always preference the Greens first ahead of Labor).
In 2004, Labor had a surplus of about 3 per cent. Assuming a swing to Labor in the Senate of at least 4 per cent, but less than 12 per cent, Labor would still be above the Greens. The 4 per cent figure is based on an assumption the Greens won’t poll above 7 per cent – if they do, Labor’s minimum swing would need to be correspondingly higher to stay above them. Although if the Greens’ primary vote is above 7 per cent, it starts to get difficult for my primary vote to be high enough to be in reach of them in any case.
The Senate always has an element of ‘who knows for sure’ about it, and there’s plenty of things outside my control, so I can only really try to get my primary vote as high as possible, and then see how the cards fall.
As to whether Coalition preferences are likely to end up flowing to Family First, their primary vote in 2004 was 3 per cent. Even if their vote goes up to 5 per cent, (which I think is optimistic), the Coalition surplus would have to be below this, which would require a drop in the Coalition vote from 2004 of about 11 per cent – possible, but not very likely.
EXTRA ADDENDUM: For those who like to go about on Web 2.0, election campaigning in the MySpace era and all that stuff, this preference agreement has probably produced a first in Australian politics, with an unprecedented display of cross-party cuddliness. The Greens Queensland Senate candidate, Larissa Waters (yeah, that’s the one who’s trying to take my Senate seat off me), and I are not only Facebook friends, but as of two hours ago, she’s joined the “Help Re-elect Andrew Bartlett to the Senate” Facebook group and I’ve joined the “Larissa Waters for the Senate” Facebook group. Of course, its possible she’s joined my group to spy on me, whilst I’ve joined hers in an open spirit of progressive cooperation. Then again, maybe I’m the one who’s the spy…….
31 Comments, Comment or Ping
Stuart
Hi Andrew,
I think this is great news and am pleased to see a spirit of co-operation between the Dems and Greens (as you know, it hasn’t always been so). Good luck for the rest of the campaign.
Oct 28th, 2007
al loomis
keep on smiling, mate. anyone who let’s australian politics get serious is a candidate for suicide watch.
you, and a great many others, should be a lot less censorious about pauline. she wouldn’t be there if the middle class were not so cheerful about selling out the battlers. and if she and her supporters are unlovable, they are australians and should have a proportionate voice in running the nation.
Oct 28th, 2007
Alex
Andrew, thankyou for writing this post. The issues of Senate preference deals & the Senate’s voting system are in desperate need of elucidation. All the best with the remaining 4 weeks.
Oct 28th, 2007
philip travers
Al Loomis, you are sounding like a lunatic.There is nothing Pualine can offer Queenslanders or the rest of the nation,except to have the right associated with voting becoming the processes of bile, hatred, confusion and finally,as what they really want..a justifiable civil war.Al you would then have to get off the fence.You either accept the right to vote implies something mote than oneself and others immediately dear and near to self and thus understand the limitation of ones own nature, or accept not to vote,because parties like Hansons exist,and can also be defeated by intentional law breaking,as a forerunner, of how you will as a citizen meet them on every front.I have only contempt for those who give this party a sense of confidence,because their values are simply unAustralian,whilst pretending to be completely that.I am an example of why they are completely wrong.I am offended,personally, the money she has extracted from the taxpayer that could of been me getting through Uni. ,perhaps a civil engineer.
Oct 28th, 2007
Priscilla Brice-Weller
Wonderful post Andrew, and best of luck. Typical comment from Pauline … unfortunately we’ve heard *too much* from her!
Your “extra addendum” is really interesting, hope you don’t mind me blogging about that (more Google juice for you, if nothing else).
Oct 28th, 2007
muzzmonster
I’m thinking Alex, that most Australians don’t even understand preferential voting, so I don’t think we’ve got a great deal of luck with trying to educate people about multi-member proportional.
As to the deal, it’s not really surprising given that the Democrats and Greens have exchanged preferences in most (all?) other elections to my understanding.
Oct 28th, 2007
Pete from Perth
Unfortunately I’m in the wrong state for you, but, I always advocate voting for minor parties first. Some say a vote for a minor party is a wasted vote. I disagree. Voting for a party whose policies you disagree with is a wasted vote.
Personally, I think most of the fun in voting is selecting the one or two parties worth voting for (for me, Greens and Dems) then counting backwards and voting for who I hate the most (Libs, ALP and so on)… Though I do hope we’ll one day see exhaustable ballots, where we don’t have to complete all preferences for a vote to be legit. I shouldn’t have to register any sort of preference vote for parties full of racists like One Nation or the Liberals, or loony witch-burners like Family First.
Oct 28th, 2007
Sarah
I’m in agreement with Pete from Perth- sometimes it’s tough trying to work out which is the worst of all the parties that seem to deserve last spot on the ballot.
Was very glad to hear of the preference deal… in an ideal world it would be both Andrew Bartlett *and* Larissa Waters achieving seats in the senate at this election…
Oct 28th, 2007
CORAL
Andrew:
When I saw you on TV yesterday, I thought it was said that the main aim of the preferences deal with the Greens was to short circuit Pauline Hanson’s run for the Senate.
They said she was currently polling 7.5% of the votes.
I think the Liberals will receive a very swift kick up the backside.
Perhaps there may be more small party candidates getting into the Senate than expected.
I think the Greens are not as popular as some might expect. Very few of the eating/voting public are interested in becoming vegans.
Oct 28th, 2007
Sam Clifford
Oh come off it, CORAL. Besides, Andrew himself is a proud vegan and while both Democrats and Greens in Qld talk about the benefits of veganism, neither party has a platform mandating it as a lifestyle.
Muzzmonster, the Democrats preferenced Family First across the nation in 2004 but I think they’ve come to realise that FF are a dangerous party. Fielding has really shown us what we can expect from the new religious right and this year’s preference swap with the Greens shows that the Democrats want a progressive voice in the Senate.
Senator Bartlett, congratulations on a fantastic preference deal, I don’t doubt that there are people who were looking to support the Greens that you’ve won over by reiterating that the Democrats are a safe, centrist vote to keep the major parties in check.
While it would be great to see both you and Larissa Waters elected to the Senate, I realise that it’s likely to be only one of you. If you win, you’ll have my congratulations and if Larissa wins, you’ll have my thanks. If neither of you win, you’ll both have my condolences.
Oct 29th, 2007
ken
As you say not particualrly unexpected – any analysis of your voting record would indicate almost total agreement with the greens anyway.
Sam – whast so progressive about wanting to retirn to return to a 1970’s social agenda that has already failed so many of todasy youth.
Oct 29th, 2007
Naomi Cartledge
Coral, who cares what Andrew eats? I think it’s still a democratic right to eat what you wish. I don’t blame anyone for not eating meat. It’s a pretty cruel, expensive and environmently unfriendly way of getting protein and iron in the diet.
Any preference deal to keep Pauline Hanson out of the Senate, sounds like a good plan to me. I’m not in Qld, but I’m all in favour of getting rid of the Coalition’s stranglehold on the Senate. Does anyone remember the comment Ron Boswell made, when he told Howard via mobile phone, that B.Joyce was the last elected candidate for the Coalition and they now had a majority? He started to say, “it’s open ..(slather” I reckon) but he stopped himself. The TV footage has been shown since, but conveniently left that bit out. As we know, it has been “open slather” since July 2005. No word about WorstChoices prior to the 2004 election. Now the Coalition Senators are whining about the 3 way deal between the Greens, ALP and Democrats.It’s time they were reminded, that the Parliament belongs to us, and as we pay all members and Senators, we’re entitled to see ‘democracy in action’ not legislation rail roaded through. A virtual dictatorship has been the norm under Howard.
There’s something basically wrong with a government, when Cabinet discusses a $350,000 ‘gift’ for the Queen, but Howard makes an announcement worth $10 billion, about the Murray Darling, without discussion with his colleagues, or costing by Treasury! Fat cats in the Public Service increased by 44%. Managing our economy? What a joke! $2 billion on advertising, and WorstChoices cost $1 billion to bring in! Now, how about those monies being spent on education and health? I think we’d be living in a different country at present, if priorities were given to what’s best for the country and its citizens. Aged care? Can I vote now? Sick of it already!
Oct 29th, 2007
John Tracey
Ken,
Today’s youth have not been failed by what you refer to as a 1970’s social agenda, they have not been exposed to such an agenda, they are discovering it for the first time in issues such as Iraq and climate change.
The reason 70s social agenda stalled is because it was actively repressed and undone by Hawke, Keating and Howard, not through any inherent fault in the radical agenda.
The failures of Hawke, Keating and Howard in areas of poverty, the environment,war, health, education etc. has made a radical agenda – and the Greens – very relevant today.
Oct 29th, 2007
Leonard
It is time to protect multiracial communitys from slanderous vilifying statements from degenerate public figures like Pauline Hanson who villify other communities to serve their racist neo nazi ideological objectives .It is against the United Declarations of Human Rights but yet the Howard goverment and neither any other party has affirmative action in this area. We need a United Australia so things like the Cronulla riots will be a thing of the past . And we can really truly be One Nation
Oct 29th, 2007
Monique Bond
well done Andrew and Larissa.
I really wanted the Democrats and Greens to co-operate – you have so much more in common than in difference !
Larissa, if you get in, you will have a hard act to live up to, especially in the important grass roots area of listening to marginilised groups. But some of my friends are great fans of yours so, I am sure you will work hard.
Andrew, if you get in, we will be looking to you to really push for affordable housing, compensation for Stolen Generations and more work on keeping people OUT of jail, rather than building more jails.
Oct 29th, 2007
nasking
The preference agreement is wonderful news. Wise indeed.
If we are heading toward an economic tsunami (the ever desperate Costello’s words) – i’d rather have a Centre-Left politician & Mandarin speaking diplomat in charge if we had to re-negotiate & adjust trade conditions/agreements w/ China & a 2009 Democratic Party controlled USA…& someone who could garner support from the Labor States for swift economic & social changes if that happened, yes Labor’s Kevin Rudd.
And a flexible, tolerant & intelligent group of Senators…so Pauline Hanson in the Senate could be a disaster for QLD, and Australia in general, particularly if she had the ‘balance of power’. Her outrageous views on other cultures & religions & her past history (it’s all about “perception”) could really affect exports at a time the Aussie dollar is high & drought is biting.
Seems absolutely crazy to me that QLD farmers would vote for her, & in doing so intentionally or inadvertently express xenophobic sentiments, when they desperately need to keep their Asian market options open…& might require pickers from overseas, including China & the Africa if things turn sour.
I’m promoting you as much as I can Andrew. And will be voting Andrew Bartlett (Democrats) (1), Greens (2), Labor (3)…& so on regarding the Senate.
Also put your face on our fence. It survived the big storm. Resilient under pressure, like yourself…:)
Oct 30th, 2007
CORAL
I don’t think Pauline Hanson could do too much damage on her own.
Where health, education and poverty are concerned, I think Howard has been much worse than either Hawke or Keating.
When I was a Cub Scout Leader in the early 1980s, most sole parent children and their mothers lived in dire poverty.
I think Labor helped them to a considerable degree – something which John Howard is rapidly reversing.
Oct 30th, 2007
CORAL
Sam:
Where do you think the idea of reducing the greenhouse gases produced by livestock will lead?
Think about it.
Oct 30th, 2007
ken
“It is time to protect multiracial communitys from slanderous vilifying statements from degenerate public figures like Pauline Hanson who villify other communities to serve their racist neo nazi ideological objectives”
Hmm…sounds like what goes round comes round Leonard, slanderous villification apparently knows no boundaries.
Oct 31st, 2007
Concerned Aussie
A interesting decision from the Democrats and it shows how desperate they are to remain a force in the Australian Senate. Whilst the support has been lost within the party; let’s see how the Greens go in the Senate contest down there in the ACT. Pauline Hanson has put a spanner in the works and it will be interesting to see how the players fair after November 24.
Nov 1st, 2007
CORAL
That’s right, Ken.
Our local Liberal candidate has had most (if not all) of his signs defaced.
On some (such as the one in my street), his face has been painted red. I guess someone out there must understand how capitalism and communism can coexist, and the fine line that runs between them.
Further afield, some signs have swastikas on them.
From all accounts, he’s not a bad sort of guy. It’s a pity he has spent so many years working for John Howard.
I feel like emailing him and saying that his excellent idea of building Australian Technical Colleges (received in the mail today) pales into insignificance when weighed against Welfare to Work, Work Choices and discriminatory Child Support Agency issues – quite a lethal combination for an incumbent to have rammed back down his throat.
Our dance coach would also like him to know that he is sick and tired of having been appointed one of John Howard’s huge team of unpaid tax collectors (against his will), without also being charged for the “privilege”.
If he had known that John Howard would break his word and bring in the GST, our dance coach would have kept his job in advertising, where there was no GST for him to collect.
Nov 2nd, 2007
CORAL
Wait a minute.
I forgot about sole parents with disabilities being forced to pay tax (and fill out the relevant paperwork), while their able-bodied counterparts on similar incomes do not.
So add on Taxation discrimination against the disabled who are below retirement age as well.
Nov 2nd, 2007
Donna
You obviously don’t know Coral, that your ‘not so bad guy’ was one of the masterminds for the ‘Welfare to Work, Work Choices and discriminatory Child Support Agency’ policies.
He’s a rabid ‘mens’ rights’ activitist
I remember you posting that you were all for ‘mens’ rights’.
I suppose it hasn’t occured to you that those sentiments, which are part of contemporary popular culture, would impact on YOU and your family.
Now you recently asked what have I done in regards to volunteering.
Well, I’ve done heaps of lobbying in relation to Liberal policies that impact on women, particularly the likes of yourself.
These policies haven’t impacted on me by the way. I’m sitting pretty.
It’s incredibly ironic that I’ve put so much time into challenging policies that impact on women such as yourself.
Nov 2nd, 2007
Donna
… and, Pauline Hanson reciprocates the same discriminatory attitudes towards women as your electorate member does. Women, such as yourself.
Nov 2nd, 2007
togret
Coral, what is it about the new technical Colleges that isn’t possible at or in conjunction with TAFE? Ask yourself why Howard is setting up a whole new system in compettiion with TAFE? We already have a functioning TAFE system that needs more resources, not billions spent on new buildings and new bureaucracies to atisfy an ideological problem Howard has with TAFE. He wants ot set up a parallel system that can be privatised, after public money has been spent on it.
More resources devoted to training? Yes. More support for the kids who fall through the cracks? Yes. More support for those who need re-training? Yes. All possible by strengthening what we already have? Yes.
Nov 4th, 2007
CORAL
I see you’re on the attack again, Donna.
I’m in agreement with men’s rights, but they should not be greater than the rights of women or children.
You previously objected to a Police Station displaying 2 posters relating to the abuse of men by women – but it does happen.
I could tell you of various ways in which a woman could seriously injure a man – yes, even Arnold Schwarzenegger – but I don’t want to give anyone reading this blog any ideas that might land them in jail.
At the last election, you said you voted for the Liberals. I’ve never voted for John Howard, no matter what he has promised.
The latest news from my teenage son is that all of his father’s clan are voting Labor, no matter what their age or financial circumstances. (A lot of them used to be Liberal voters.) That’s about 15 to 20 votes for Rudd.
I take no responsibility for the attitudes of either Pauline Hanson or the incumbent in my electorate. I’ve never voted for either of them, so I think you should reserve your attacks for someone more deserving.
You voted for this guy at the last election. I did not.
Nov 4th, 2007
muzzmonster
Concerned Aussie obviously hasn’t been reading the previous posts on this topic, nor knows much of Australian politics. As two like-minded parties and in the spirit of cooperation, the Greens and Democrats have exchanged preferences at most (if not all elections).
Pauline Hanson will not win a Senate seat, but the Democrats or Greens probably will.
Nov 4th, 2007
CORAL
muzz:
I wouldn’t put money on that. Pauline has moved up in the polls recently.
I think it is a fair bet that quite a few more seats will go to Labor.
togret:
I used to work in one of the technical colleges before they were renamed TAFE and then changed quite a bit.
I think the Liberals might want to get the technical (trade-based) students out of the high schools, where some cause quite a lot of disruption.
At least that side of it sounds like a good idea.
Like you, I’m not in favour of a privatised system. Perhaps your idea of pumping more money into TAFE is better.
Nov 5th, 2007