Senate preferences in Queensland

The mysterious ebbs and flows of Senate preference allocations – officially known as Group Voting Tickets – are now out in the open on the Electoral Commission website.

These often lead to a lot of arguments and accusations between various parties, as well as endless scenarios, based on a myriad of permutations. Before I explore the Queensland Senate preferences in some detail, including explaining the reasoning behind the Queensland Democrats preference ticket, I should emphasise one thing.

Despite all the different scenarios, the one thing above all else that increases my chances is to vote Number 1 for me – so if you want me to get re-elected, encourage people in Queensland to do that. The easiest way is to just put a 1 in the box above the line in Column I.

If you really don’t like the Democrat decisions on where the Senate preferences flow from there, then fill in all the boxes in the order of your preference below the line, from 1 to 65. Even if you make a few mistakes, your vote is still likely to count, as long as it is clear who your first preference is. You can even put a 1 in the box above the line as a back up, in case you make too many mistakes below the line, just to make sure your vote will count.
If you want to see a range of descriptions and opinions of the Senate preference flow in other states, I recommend visiting the Poll Bludger site. UpperHouse Info often also has some useful analysis.

There are twenty-four parties/groups in the Queensland Senate contest, with 65 candidates in total. For the purposes of this explanation, I am assuming (a) that ALP and Liberals will win two each of the first four seats, leaving the final two Senate seats up for grabs, and (b) those final two seats will be fought out between six contenders – the Number 3 candidate on the ALP ticket (Mark Furner), the Number 3 candidate on the Coalition ticket (Ron Boswell), plus Pauline Hanson, Family First (Jeff Buchanan), Greens (Larissa Waters) and the Democrats (me).

This is not to discount the prospect of a smaller party or independent candidate polling better than expected and/or unexpectedly coming up through the field due to a range of leg-ups from other micro-party preferences. It’s just that it gets far too complicated once you get into that many ‘what-ifs’.

I’m reasonably pleased about how the Queensland Senate ticket preferences played out, at least as far as my chances are concerned. My best chance of winning is to poll higher than the Greens (after preferences from smaller parties), so I’m a bit peeved that What Women Want went to the Greens ahead of me (as they did around the country), given the record of the Democrats on WWW’s issues over so many years. However, the negative impact of this is probably balanced out by Climate Change Coalition coming to me ahead of the Greens.

Two of the grouped independents have gone to the Greens, as have the Carers (who then go to Pauline Hanson(!)), whilst Senator On-Line and another grouped Independent are preferencing me ahead of the other main contenders. The Greens and Socialists have also done their usual preference exchange – and despite campaigning mostly on issues like human rights and Indigenous issues, the Socialists still preference the Labor Party ahead of me, I presume on the quaint notion that Labor is the party of the workers/working class.

Family First’s deal with the Coalition was there as expected, as was the deal between Labor and the Greens, which had been pre-announced. The chances of Labor preferences being distributed are not overly high, although if they poll exceptionally well it’s possible. This would make it very hard for me if that happened.

Still, given my claim to a record which shows a much clearer degree of independence from the major parties than either the Greens or Family First, I guess not to have a preference deal with either of them is a good way to show that.

As always, there are a few preference decisions which appear counter-intuitive. The Liberty & Democracy Party (LDP) have put Pauline Hanson ahead of every other main contender, which I find quite odd for a party that espouses economic and social liberalism. I didn’t expect to be overly high on their ticket, although I could have done a preference swap of some sort with them if I’d wished. However, in the end we felt that whilst some of their social and human rights ideas were OK, their pro-nuclear, pro-gun approach made it too hard to justify putting them ahead of the Greens as a progressive party.

Which made it somewhat surprising to see that the Greens preferenced the pro-nuclear, pro-gun, pro-privatisation LDP ahead of the Democrats – presumably in exchange for LDP preferences after Pauline Hanson. The Democrats did the same thing in NSW, presumably for the same reasons.
It was disappointing, although not totally unexpected, to see Family First had done a preference deal with Pauline Hanson. Whilst she is a long way down on Family First’s ticket, she is above of all the other main contenders except for the Coalition. There is also a favourable preference exchange between Family First and the One Nation party. It would seem families don’t come first if they are Muslim, African, Asian or Indigenous.

Another preference decision which is unexpected but which may turn out to my benefit is from Pauline Hanson herself. As mentioned above, she has favourably preferenced Family First. However, the next main contender on her preference ticket is me! ahead of Labor, Coalition and then the Greens. I’m not sure why she chose to do that, as I put her 65 out of 65, but it could be a significant help to me if Hanson polls higher than Family First (as I expect she will), but lower than me (not so sure about that one).

There is a fairly clear left-right or progressive-reactionary split amongst most of the minor parties, although there’s a few that cross this divide. To see every party’s Group Voting Tickets for Queensland (and the other states), click on this link.
In deciding our Senate preference ticket in Queensland, the Democrats used the following general principles as a guide to group the various parties:
• smaller parties and independents who are sufficiently like-minded to justifiably put ahead of the Greens – this group included Climate Change Coalition, Carers Alliance and What Women Want, as well as two grouped Independents – Couper and Alberts;
• smaller parties and independent too philosophically different to be able to justify putting ahead of the Greens, but still OK enough to put ahead of the major parties – this group included the Liberty & Democracy Party (LDP), Socialist Alliance, Senator On-Line, the Fishing & Lifestyle Party and another Independent
• smaller parties and independents who are basically too antithetical to Democrat philosophy to preference ahead of the major parties, given the tiny but real risk that our preferences might end up helping to elect them – there are quite a few of these – Family First ended up here after some debate, along with the DLP, Fishing Party, Shooters, CEC, Fred Nile’s mob, One Nation and then Pauline Hanson last.

Once we’d decided which party fitted into which group, then came the task of deciding what order to put the various parties in. We also had to decide whether to put Labor ahead of the Coalition, or take the traditional Democrat approach of splitting preferences evenly between the two major parties – an approach which reflects the historical fact that Democrat voters as a group did not favour one major party over the other to an overwhelming extent. However, given the importance of ending the current situation where one major party controlled the Senate – and the appalling display of debauching due process which the Coalition had engaged since it gained that Senate control – we decided to put our preferences to Labor ahead of the Coalition.

There is an argument that having any party, no matter how reactionary, win a seat ahead of the Coalition would be justified if it helped end Coalition control of the Senate. However, in the end we felt validating some of the extremist positions taken by many of the smaller parties would be more damaging to the democratic fabric than putting the Coalition ahead of such parties.

Hopefully, all of the above convinces people it is worthwhile trying to decide your own preference by filling in all the squares below the line in the order of your own preference. For those considering doing this, you may be interested to know that your ballot paper will be formal if:
• a first preference is shown by the number marked in the square opposite the name of one, and only one, candidate; and
• not less than 90 per cent of the squares opposite the names of candidates on the ballot paper are numbered as required, or would be if no more than three numbers were changed;
(which basically means you can make two or three numbering mistakes along the way and your vote will still count)

Like & share:


  1. I was surpised by Family First preferencing Pauline Hanson. They talk about teh Christian faith but in reality act quite the opposite in their actions.

    Looking at the GVT, it looks as if Andrew has an up hill battle ahead. The Greens received a good preference flow and would be likely contenders for the 6th seat. In the end it will come down to how well the Climate Change coalition poll. They are high on the ticket so may do well in this election. They may be the saving grace for you Andrew!!

    Pauline preferencing away from Boswell will be the the ALP’s advantage, and could also allow them to jump the Greens.

    One thing is for sure, this system is wrong. The horsetrading behind closed doors undermines democracy and what the people want. It comes down to pragmatic parties being ruthless more than what the popular vote of the people want.


  2. Don’t forget that Hanson comes to me before ALP, Anand. IfI’m already excluded by then, the greens will have my preferences (and Climate Change Coalition’s).

    Still, if my vote is that low, then my vote plus the Greens won’t be enough to get a seat for them ahead of Labor.

    Unless Family First is high, in which case Hanson’s vote will go them, probably putting them above the Coalition and in on their preferences.

    All of which comes back to what my primary vote is, which frankly is difficult to predict – it could be 3 per cent, it could be 6-7 per cent (or aywhere in between). So could Hanson’s. So could Family First’s. Greens could get between 5-8. One can guess, but no one knows, and where each is relative to the other (and the surpluses of the major parties) makes all the difference.

    Frankly, I still think major parties splitting the seats between them is the most likely result in Queensland at present, but the more number 1 votes I get, the lower the chances of that.

  3. All the small parties as parties represent ,ambition,defiance,confusion myriad justifications and attention seeking.Undoubtedly some may see in that statement more value than the other parties already represented.I think the Democrats have shown wisdom in supporting the coalition parties against the newcomers if they embellish their platforms with major untried gibberish, and just hate of the present very doleful lot.Family First are a let-down because of the problem they have created for themselves,in supporting the Hansonites.Her attack on Muslims,Monday,was totally incomprehensible.How could the small number of Australian Muslims,close down businesses etc. including manufacturers!Dual Citizens wether it is a good thing or bad thing outnumber the Muslims,I would guess..and this morning,Tues, in Camden,Sydney, it appears some resistance to a Koranic School..multiple reasons apparently…but they wont be driving B-Doubles to the School.All the smaller Parties other than Hansons,may regard themselves as having less baggage than her,even if they seem contradictory, they could try to exercise their minds around fact and policy.The Nuke and gun lobbies already exists, and dont really smart for power.Theyre some fine people at gun clubs,who support all sorts of matters,and are not necessarily interested in duck shoots.We are still awaiting in N.S.W. the outcome for all of pig shoots in N.S.W.Parks,I hope these candidates in Quueensland show themselves up as fine people,and thus, even if they get nowhere politically,their attitudes at elections maybe noted,and, good will can cross political and interest divisions to ,perhaps, scientifically derivable engagements of skills. Fishing interests are also employable in new ways.Australian oceans are very large,a creative relationship between Universities and Bureaucracy,on these almost used by date stuff.Leave your office open Andrew,if,people approach matters creatively!?

  4. Could I just say Andrew, that as a member of the LDP, we wanted to preference the Democrats highly in both Queensland and Victoria. But we are not without our pride.

    For a preference deal to work, it has to be beneficial to both parties. By preferencing us below the Greens, the Democrat preferences would have effectively been choked off from ever reaching us- the Greens will be staying in the count ’til right near the end. I understand that the Democrats are “once bitten, twice shy” after helping elect Fielding in ’04, but we have far more in common with the Democrats than FF does.

    Us getting a Senator up was a long shot which has been made virtually impossible without Democrat preferences. You had more to gain from the deal than us (you need as many micro preferences as possible to outpoll the Greens), but by offering us a preference below the Greens you were basically insulting our intelligence.

    The reason we decided to preference Pauline was, oddly enough, ideological. By sending our preferences to her they will stop at her. She’ll poll around 7% and stay in the count until the end, but she won’t have the preferences to get over the line. Hopefully our preferences will stay dead for the entire count, sending a message to all major and minor parties that we disagree with them wanting to run our lives.

    We are not pro-gun and pro-nuclear, by the way. We merely think that the government should not make laws banning either.

    On guns we believe the current post-96 laws have provided no benefit and we’re better of returning to a model similar to those used in NZ and France.

    On nuclear, unlike the Liberal Party we would never subsidise nuclear power and personally I believe Australians would never accept nuclear power. Market forces would stop it from ever being viable here.

    I hope that better explains our decisions, though. And I wish you the best of luck.

  5. Andrew, you certainly have a good chance of winning if you can get your primary vote to 5.5% of the vote (everyone vote for Andrew, because with preferences working out as they have, he can win).
    Lyn Allison also has a good chance of getting reelected in Victoria for the Democrats if she can get 4.5% or higher on primaries (she is benefiting from some excellent preference flows, and theres a very real possibility of Victoria splitting 3 ALP, 1 Dem or Green + 2 coalition).

  6. You shouldn’t take it so personally Shem. It’s nothing to do with your intelligence. It’s not as though we were trying to snow you or anything – it’s to do with what we were able to accept philosophically/politically after fuller examination.

    The chances of ‘accidently’ electing you on our preferences were minimal, but past experience has shown you can never be sure what other parties are also doing with preferences, so a minimal chance can become a very real one.

    The LDP decision to preference sounds like it might be better described as tactical rather than philosophical – I understand the rationale you’ve given, but it does involve the gamble that she (a) won’t get enough preferences from elsewhere (which is a bigger risk after Family First’s decision) and (b) won’t get a high enough pimary vote. A slim risk perhaps, but a risk none the less, as Fielding’s election on less 2 percent vote shows.

    I suppose for a party as strongly anti-nuclear as the Democrtas (and Greens), anything that isn’t unequivocally anti-nuke looks pro-nuke – although the position on the LDP website looks pretty pro-nuclear to me. and nuclear policy isn’t just academic at the election.

    Perhaps ‘anti gun control’ is more accurate a description than ‘pro gun’, but the effect is the same – more guns and more gun deaths, which is a big issue for us (and the Greens I thought)

  7. I didn’t take it as a personal affront, Andrew, but it was a disappointing move by the Democrats. In previous elections I’ve voted for the Democrats and I think in some areas we’re closer to you than the Greens (our tax policy is quite in-line with the objectives of yours). But I can understand the move, compromising on “core values” can jeopardise an already waning primary vote.

    For us, apart from our tax and welfare policy it is difficult to say which of our policies are “core”. We are a diverse group from different backgrounds and while I might value social freedoms (hence preferencing the Greens and Democrats), some may value economic freedom (and prefer Liberal). As a party, around the nation we have spread preferences around, we don’t want to be seen as favouring one particular model of the nanny state over another.

    You’re right that the LDP’s decision was largely tactical. Unfortunately I think that’s the reality of the situation. We could have still preferenced the Democrats in Queensland. But it isn’t much of a deal when you get nothing in return. I don’t really like Senate group tickets at all- the whole thing lends itself to “grubby tactics”, but we didn’t set the rules of the game, just trying to use them to our advantage.

  8. Thanks for the discussion of how it went down. It would have been nice to have some sort of LDP-Democrat arrangement — I like Dems more than Hansonites for one.

    I understand where you’re coming from on the nuclear power front, but I’m with Shem. I think the Democrats have misunderstood our position, which is probably unique amongst the parties in being neither pro nor contra.

    Senate preferences are not a problem for me here in the NT, and there’s no Democrat running in Solomon. So I guess it’s a bit moot for me.

  9. I don’t really like Senate group tickets at all- the whole thing lends itself to “grubby tactics”, but we didn’t set the rules of the game, just trying to use them to our advantage.

    More to the point, it amplifies the problem of “strategic voting” when parties set voter preferences. Related to, but not as serious as, How to Vote cards.

  10. Bob Brown, the leader of the party who stands to gain the most from preference deals this election has said he’ll be campaigning for above the line preferential voting come the next parliament.

    I abhor ticket voting and preference deals as they’re a perversion of the democratic process, taking advantage of peoples’ aversion to numbering 50+ boxes on a ballot paper. Above the line preferencing works very well in NSW and gives people the chance to number the parties (which, let’s face it, people vote for in modern Australian politics) or the candidates.

    The sooner we move towards above the line preferences and away from preference deals, the sooner we’ll have a Senate which actually represents the will of the Australian people.

  11. Sam, a Senate that represents the will of all the Australian people won’t have paper ballot tickets at all. When we get our act together and put the whole thing into an electronic format, it will allow people to not only have the Senator that they want representing them and legislating successfully or unsuccessfully in accordance with their electoral mandate, but also allow people who have the time, desire and knowledge to tell politicians to get stuffed as they want to legislate on issues themselves. This is not Senator Online’s wishy washy version which doesn’t outline why Senators wouldn’t become redundant (i.e. their current format does this) – but the heart is there.

    I certainly don’t disagree with you that preferences deals are a little annoying. I only made three “deals” all up – I split my preferences initially between the LDP (1 deal), Secular Party and CCC. Pending doing worse than each, those prefs will end up 1/3 Dems, 1/3 Greens, 1/3 (unfortunately) One Nation. Despite that, I am confident that I will outpoll all of them (yes, even CCC), in which case the next step will be for my prefs to go 2/3 Dems, 1/3 Greens.

    The Dems (3rd deal) were happy to do better than the Greens out of me, and the Greens (2nd deal) were happy to get anything at all from me. Thus both preferenced me ahead of the other.

    My current approximations pretty much all result in Family First in 5th, Democrats in 6th. If I, as one of the micros Andrew alluded to, poll better than expected, I am the best-placed dark horse in this race. I have my target, and no matter what happens, our side will still be represented when all is said and done.

    David Couper
    lead candidate, Group N unendorsed

  12. It is good to read these other candidates in Queensland,Andrew.They seem to have some respect for you,although of a type that is more competitive than negotiable.Went to David s and had a look at what he is offering,and, I guess both of you notice a similarity except for age! Being older than both of you,and, non Queensland,and he, another QUT graduate,and political science graduate.So in a way he is putting his learning to some use,but working in a Restaurant….! Ihave also done that.Frankly,he is right Senator,as a older non University educated person,his shot at the older generations leaves me a bit cold,and he really needs to examine what he actually states more acutely.I dont buy this baby-boomer stuff at all. I was in my twenties when the crisis,of wether there was a future, has condemned me in a manner that his statements cannot seem to grasp.I was shocked,or near shocked before during and after the Whitlam era,being anti-nuke isnt a condition of youth,but understanding. I recently was YouTubing via Uncle Rupees,and, discovered ,that a suggestion, I first sent to a newspaper has been taken up.Yep! The Americans and others are dropping their computers into vegetable oil and removing the fans ,so fast gamers dont have as many problems. A number of sites can be found for that. I am leaving this self-congratulations here, in case it wins a few more votes for yourself,amongst the young etc. in Queensland..not that I dismiss David,but he has got to learn something yet,that only the miserable years can teach,which, may or may not, be an improvement in himself.I admire his confidence,I certainly want yours to survive Politically.Gamers and vegetable oil to the rescue,perhaps!?

  13. I have written to the Australian Electoral Commission that I pursue a BOYCOTT of the purported 24 November 2007 federal election in that there are no 23 clear days between the date of the writs being issued and the poll being held, which should be 1 December 2007!
    Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28 (28 April 1998)
    Dawson J pointed out in Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville when discussing the statutory provision in that case: “substantial compliance with the relevant statutory requirement was not possible. Either there was compliance or there was not.”
    Why hen worry about preferences when there is no valid election at all, as I proved on 19 July 2006 successfully in court about the same regarding the purported 2001 and 2004 federal elections!

  14. David – I admire your confidecne, it must be a trait peculiar to politicians, I was having lunch (among a host of invited others as well)with my local member and a fly in Cabinet Minister last week. I ended up next to the Local Memeber who in my view is staring down the barrell of utter annihalation, and she blithely rabbitted on about her own gurantee of return and the Governments plans for the netx term.

    I wondered if this was put on or just real blind faith! So good luck to you, although I think you’ll need it!!

  15. David, I’m all for citizen initiated referenda, especially after the opposition to such things as the pulp mill, Traveston Dam, action on climate change and the council amalgamations. I see these referenda as strengthening our electoral system rather than replacing parts of it, though, as the government will still be making decisions and the Senate will need to remain as a check on their power.

    After reading Rousseau’s The Social Contract I came to the realisation that a system of direct democracy can only fully replace elected representatives in small populations. Residents of a block of flats, a school P&F and contributors to a software project (like Debian) are sufficiently small to work as a direct democracy. Once you start dealing with the Australian political system, though, there’s a risk that direct democracy will be tainted by populism and people acting in their self interest rather than the interest of the group (and I believe that the public will is more than the sum of the private wills).

    Citizens need greater opportunities to be involved in the decision making, yes, and Charles Sampford spoke at a federalism debate (at which Senator Bartlett was speaking) of the idea of “subsidiarity”, that the decision should be made at the lowest level possible, i.e. as close to the people involved as is practicable. I think CIR and the practice of subsidiarity would go a long way in bringing governance to the people.

  16. I’d say Pauline Hanson and Family First don’t like the Greens.

    If they want to beat Greens and both of the major parties, they have made the right choices in their preference deals.

    I don’t think the Greens will do very well at all. Nearly all Australians are meat eaters.

    I’ve never heard of the LDP before.

  17. Philip, when referring to older generations, this is a generalisation that obviously excludes some of our more thoughful citizens – neither does this exclude people who have not attended university, like you say. Some of the greatest minds in history were autodidacts, people who learnt for themselves. I simply believe that youth are underrepresented in Queensland, and that the Senate is the best place to implement change in that regard, along with correcting the imbalance that currently favours the major party machinery, and now seemingly the conservative right.

    I do applaud you for reading my earlier blogs, as I imagine most people might be working backwards and perhaps not get there. I certainly do not condemn 50+ as being “miserable years”, and they will certainly be great years for me if I and the planet are still around. Meanwhile, I think it is obvious how much I respect Senator Bartlett, and you are also right that I approach that a little competitively. I have pledged many things in my campaign, and one of those things I will continue to pledge is that I will never join a political party (despite recent offers…) – I will most certainly not be pulling a Peter Garrett on any front. I thus have to be competitive. If I do well in the primary (still unlikely), I have a great chance of grabbing the 6th seat; if I end up a non-entity this time, I imagine Andrew will beat the Greens, and continue his good work. I believe either scenario is a win-win. I will continue to learn as you suggest, but better I do so now than in 20 to 30 years time (Andrew was around 33 when he started, not a huge difference at all between us).

  18. Coral, I’m sure you’ve been corrected on this before, so I’m not sure why you keep saying it, but whether or not people are meat eaters has nothing to do with supporting the Greens (or the Democrats). Bob Brown eats steak, as do many Greens (and Democrats)

    If anything, I’ve been critical of environmentalists in general for not doing enough to highlight the huge greenhouse emissions and water usage embedded in meat consumption, but it still doesn’t mean anyone – even a proselytising vegan like me – is advocating compulsory vegetarianism. Some of us are suggesting people need to look at reducing their meat consumption as part of reducing their overall energy consumption.

  19. In ref to comments 10 & 11.
    After the ALP gained government in 1983 the Qld Democrats Senator, Michael Macklin, tried to get the ALP to give up the idea of ‘above the line voting’. I believe he anticipated how the people’s will would be perverted if used.

    His preference was to introduce electronic voting but the he commented that the ALP wanted to see how preferences were panning out and would not countenance electronic voting.

  20. Good luck Andrew,

    I appreciate your comments here, showing just how hard it is to negotiate the preference deals. I can’t believe that the Dems are last on the FF ticket. As a God-botherer myself, I can honestly say that I hate FF. A more hardline, fanatical bunch of right wing whackos I have never seen.

    Nonetheless, you’re a bloody good Senator, one of the best in fact, and I hope the people of Queensland realize before it is too late.

    Best of luck to you,

  21. Reddy, the intention voting tickets was noble (as far as I can tell) namely reducing the number of informal ballots cast but it should’ve been taken further than it was to reduce the influence of party dealings on the outcome.

    Electronic voting doesn’t sit well with me as it’s far too easy to mess with a computer than thousands of pieces of paper in order to rort an election. There are simply too many stages in electronic voting where tampering can take place. The USA have tried machine voting with punch cards, the butterfly ballot, Diebold’s machines and I still think you can’t go past a list of candidates with boxes next to the names. Our ballots are the best designed in the world and are easy to verify.

  22. Omigod! Bob Brown eats steak! I’ll never vote for him again.

    Mind you, being a Queenslander, I’ve ever had the opportunity to vote for him. And I’ve been known to eat the occasional steak.

  23. David,the miserable years I referred to were in fact, the passage of time.I have no doubts about what you feel is important,that is Representation at Senate level for younger generations.Senator Andrew Bartlett would of had to appeal to many people across various age groups to be first elected,even vetted by the party, and then,in the electorate.The passage of time would suggest some of them may have kids your age,and no doubt, this is one of the reasons the Senator takes you in intellectually seriousness.My misery is many fold,I feel my life is on hold,as the world has turned at political levels,further away from some very core notions of being and feeling,of my own senses of fact representative government bores me pretty completely now.Because I have been essentially a alcohol free individual most of my life..I tend to be in thought processes ahead of trends of such.I do not like what Senator Bartlett cops sometimes,thats why I am here. On other matters , the LDP. has got some good candidates on paper at least,and certainly young some of them..that may not mean anything accept, perhaps, they will find that if they think showing up at elections and having policies is how you get elected ..they may find it tougher.Some of the thought streams,will obviously mature as humans do not seem to readily agree, that freedom is a easily defineable achievable goal and requirement.My life suggests to me, that the Free Market is in part a great con,a product of advertising, rather than any one business person.I found that, side of them riddled with holes,which seems a strong point they are making.Someone at Lavartus Prodeo was critical of Lisa Milat! Well, I am not, with that name ,and, having people assessing her as a individual on the matters of merit,as well as a member of a party is tough enough.With apologies and support of the local Democrat candidate.Some LDP members would probably do well ,from some of my thoughts elsewhere,as non political insights&ideas.

  24. David, in response to #11 above, I think you have misunderstood how preferences work.

    If you are eliminated and 1/3 of your preferences go to the LDP, once the LDP is eliminated your original preferences will still flow to the originally intended recipient (in this case the Democrats, then Greens).

    Just because your preferences transfer “through” another party, they still follow the course you originally intended for them. One Nation and Pauline Hanson will not be getting any votes from any of your 3 tickets, so don’t worry!

  25. Andrew – what scenario will need to play out, vote-wise, for you to get up this election?

    I’m very confused by the direction all these smaller party votes are spraying and if you can put in words a 12 year-old could understand, it would be much appreciated. :-)

  26. Linda,

    Everyone needs to vote for the Senator. Everyone!!

    Polly mentions above that if the Senator can get a vote of around 5.5percent he has a good chance of retaining his seat. So it’s a case of putting the word out there, encouraging everyone you know to vote 1 for Andrew, and just hoping that things fall in his favour.

  27. Is Lynda one of those child prodigies, you some times hear about!? So full of questions,for their age group, they wonder on their birthday whose Party they are at! Is Hopgood a name of an Australian Emperor!?

  28. I quite enjoyed the Family First group ticket – it once and for all established where they stand… and it does not have anything to do with family! The main aspect of modern life keeping people from their family is long work hours, but that is clearly not a priority with their preferencing of the Coalition! No, it’s some sort of mystical process whereby judging others somehow makes YOUR family better!

    I love these Senate Group Voting forms. The numbers say more than anything in the newspapers for the last few years on the political state of play in our country. All those nasty little right wing groups preferencing each other. Progressive forces binding to hold off the tide of the political bigotry movement. With those few little changes in the middle.

    I am pleased that the Democrats (and Greens) have not gone with split tickets this year. This makes it a lot easier for me. Last time, when friends voted Democrat/Green, there was always the chance they would help the Howard Government, which most bitterly did NOT want to do. With this years tickets, there is no such bother.

    I looked into the LDP earlier in the week when thinking about how my (below the line) senate vote will look. I find them spot on in many areas, interesting in some areas (the reverse income tax thing) and uncomfortable in others (eg. the gun thing). It appears that while their policies make sense from the ideological basis, that ideology limits full evaluation of situations when formulating policy.

    Great review of the tickets, Andrew.

    Cheers :)

  29. If our livestock industries are cut as a response to “man-made” global warming, the cost of meat, eggs and dairy products will go through the roof.

    Many people (especially the poor) will end up eating only vegan foods, because that will be all they can afford.

    We have already seen substantial price increases in animal products in the last year.

  30. It won’t be Bob Brown missing out on his steak. He probably has up to 10 times the disposable income of many other Australians.

  31. Coral,
    I’ve read that when they had food rationing in the UK, the average health of the population went up, partly because the amount of meat eaten went down. If we end up eating the grains that are currently fed wastefully to cattle now we’d be better off, and so would the nation. I see no hypocrisy in occasionally eating meat while advocating that it is consumed less … the Dalai Lama occasionally eats meat.

  32. We just filled in our postal votes…for the Senate we put Andrew Bartlett (Dems) 1, followed by the three Greens, then the other Dem, then the Labor candidates & so on. Numbered all 65…phew.

    I might add, there is a silly element to the ballot that could stuff things up if people get it wrong…it asks the witness to write down their category & the example given is “Elector”. For many that would be confusing as most would be used to “voter”. How bleedin’ archaic.

  33. I think one major reason that food prices have increased is the rise in transport costs – and to a lesser extent, the price of fertilisers, many of which are based on oil production.

    I don’t know if it’s true but I’ve heard that some produce is grown in north Queensland, trucked to the warehouse in Brisbane, then sent back up to the supermarket. If this is the case, there’s no wonder we’re paying (in more than one way) for our food to be carried around the country in the backs of semi-trailers.

  34. muzz:

    It seems unlikely that multi-national supermarket profiteers would be quite that stupid. They may tell us these things to push prices up.

    Bananas and strawberries sometimes come from a fair distance away.

    Last week, Supa IGA employees told me they had had their hours cut.

    A few days ago, a lifestyle program was discussing price increases. Their survey found that the largest price increases had occurred on non-food items.

    Why push up only food prices, when you can surreptitiously increase the whole lot?

  35. “It would seem families don’t come first if they are Muslim, African, Asian or Indigenous.”

    … or gay??

    What, are we the families who dare not speak our name?

    Andrew, the Dems lost my vote yesterday when a pamphlet landed in my letterbox spruiking policies on everything from health to families to human rights – without mentioning the “g” word or the “l” word.

    You’ve just confirmed my decision.

    I have to assume this omission – and the omission in the quote above – are deliberate. Are you afraid of scaring the conservatives, or do we just not count?

    Either way, it’s not good enough.

  36. Me again. My earlier post was perhaps a little unfair. I know you have done the hard yards for our community, and that you are genuinely on our side.

    My comments came from frustration that the Dems (at least here in NSW) seem to have completely lost their way, and do not stand up for what they believe it – that pamphlet in our letterbox was a prime example. If you have good solid G&L policies, why not promote them? If you believe gay families are as valid as straight ones, why not say so? Yeesh.

    Then for you to blog about the awfulness of “Family FIrst” and Pauline without mentioning one of the key points of horribleness… well, I got cross. Sorry.

    Enough of this election. Are we there yet?

  37. Thats’ fine Kate – its always worth giving a prompt to make sure gay and lesbian equality doesn’t conveniently slip off the screen at election time.

    I actualy was going to add a mention for gay families in my original post, but decided it might be a bit misleading – Family First are clearly anti-gay already regardless of their preference decisions, but I’ve not seen Hanson say anything which could be interpreted that way (and indeed have seen one interview of hers in the Sydney Star Observer which was moderately supportive).

    I can’t speak for the NSW Democrats, although I know they’ve enthusiastically prepared and run a float on the Mardi gras parade for years so I don’t think they’re specifically keeping their equal rights beliefs for GLBTI people in the closet.

    However, we have done a lot on this – publicly – for many years, right up until the very last sitting week in the Senate. I’ve got a specific category on this blog for the issue and it was mentioned in my ‘rights and freedoms’ platform as well

  38. Geez kate you’re a harsh taskmistress – work for years and years in the Senate on GLBT issues, and one not perfect bit of propaganda and they’ve lost you.

  39. Hi Andrew,

    I would like to put forward some energy / environmental fodder for you and your readers.

    In particular, please have a look at the recently launched CARMA database. No industry affiliation – just information on who’s emitting CO2 and who is not – by country, utility and/or power station. A gem of an information source. Personally, this is a huge embarrassment for me (and I’ll assume other). Particularly because many major news services have picked up on the fact that Australia contributes more to CO2 emissions through the generation of electricity than any other country on earth.

    The (principally political) attempt to marginalise the Australian contribution to increasing CO2 levels by emphasising our 1.4% contribution to global emissions is simply not sustainable. For example, as an individual Australian my emissions are 1 in 20 million of 1.4% of total global emissions. If I cut my emissions to nil, it would have no impact on global trends. Why then should I do anything? Similar arguments could be made for any individual person, or industrial facility in the world. This is not an example of positive Australian leadership or ethical environmental stewardship.

    Next, have a look at this post. It does not appear that Australia (or at least Queensland) is currently headed in the right direction. One would hope this would change through the serious commitment to tangible actions.

    All the best for this weekend & thanks for this blog.

Comments are closed.