• 7 Posts
  • 369 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 24th, 2024

help-circle
  • I think what they mean is more that when the Coalition does better, the Greens have a better chance of winning than when they do poorly. In theory, the Greens could lose a seat not because Labor did better, but because the Coalition did worse.

    Imagine at the 2022 election, the Greens win a seat on an election that goes like this:

    • Liberal: 10,000
    • Greens: 9,000
    • Labor: 8,000

    The preference flows from Labor go mostly to the Greens and the final 2PP is something like this:

    • Greens: 15,000 (+6,000)
    • Liberal: 12,000 (+2,000)

    Then, at the 2025 election, the Liberal vote collapses. In order to keep the Greens and Labor counts the same, assume the Liberals all just moved out of the district.

    • Greens: 9,000
    • Labor: 8,000
    • Liberal: 7,000

    In this case, after preference flows, the result looks like this:

    • Labor: 13,000 (+5000)
    • Greens: 11,000 (+2000)

    The only change in the primary vote is that Liberal lost 3,000 supporters, but as a result, Labor wins. That’s how preferences work, but it is at least kind of weird that the right-wing vote collapsing moves the whole district further to the right instead of the left as you might expect. In a single-seat election like this, the ultimate deciding factor is “Who came third?”

    Viewed another way, if your preferred candidate ultimately lands in second, then your vote was effectively not used at all. Your preferences were never taken into consideration because your candidate never got knocked out. Coming in third at least means your vote can still have an impact on the result.

    The proportional representation system is more intuitive in cases like this. A right-wing collapse simply means that more of the left-wing candidates are elected, at the expense of the right wing. Instead of a right-wing collapse moving the district right, it moves to the left.



  • Second-last update of the night, unless the last one suddenly takes a lot longer. No significant changes, still close on primary/not close on preferences.

    EDIT: Actually, I guess we’re done, the tracker updated to show 40 of 40 polling stations reporting without the figures actually budging at all. And we’re out of here.

    12:04 PM AEST
    40 of 40 centres reporting primaries

    Name Party Primary % 2PP
    Ali France Labor 28,352 34.2% 56.5%
    Peter Dutton Liberal National 28,466 34.3% 43.5%






  • Dutton continues to claw back some of the primary vote, but the 2PP refuses to budge thanks to strong showings from Climate 200 independent Ellie Smith and Vinnie Batten from the Greens. I’ll include them both in this update to show why the primary votes are so different from the 2PP.

    9:57 PM AEST
    33 of 40 centres reporting primaries

    Name Party Primary % 2PP
    Ali France Labor 19,254 34.5% 58.7%
    Peter Dutton Liberal National 18,235 32.7% 41.3%
    Ellie Smith Independent 7,161 12.8% N/A
    Vinnie Batten The Greens 4,440 8.0% N/A

    From a four-way perspective, Dutton is thoroughly behind the left/centre-left candidates.













  • My answer is current era regardless, but do we keep our memories and go back, or is it as if we were born in that era? If you went back 500 years with the knowledge that the Super Nintendo and the Internet exist (the two inventions we have that they didn’t have in the 1500s), that would be unpleasant. But if you didn’t know that and were accustomed to getting your entertainment from court jesters and public hangings, I guess that would be slightly less awful.

    Like everybody else has said, there’s a lot of things we have now (by which I mean two) that are better than anything there was 500 years ago, even for monarchs. Regardless of whether I knew about those things in monarch form, the version of me that’s making the decision knows, so … nah.