I'd be interested to see what party won on a first past the post basis

IE who won before the preferences came into effect??

The way we vote is an absolute sham, tell me one comppany or organisation that elects its CEO on a preference system?? NOT ONE

Now we have the ridiculous assumption by Gillard that she should win because she got a higher 2PP vote and Abbott saying he should win cause libs got 500 000 votes more than labor.


Get rid of preferences and have a who get the most seats wins system.

laborfornever wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 4:28pm:

I'd be interested to see what party won on a first past the post basis IE who won before the preferences came into effect?? The way we vote is an absolute sham, tell me one comppany or organisation that elects its CEO on a preference system?? NOT ONE Now we have the ridiculous assumption by Gillard that she should win because she got a higher 2PP vote and Abbott saying he should win cause libs got 500 000 votes more than labor. Get rid of preferences and have a who get the most seats wins system.

while understanding your frustration with a system that frequently delivers victory to the candidiate that finishes second, I might point out that no company elects its CEO other than from a board vote of probably6-10 people. there is no comparison.

the libs got about a 43% primary vote.

alp - 36 ish %

laborfornever wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 4:28pm:

I'd be interested to see what party won on a first past the post basis IE who won before the preferences came into effect?? The way we vote is an absolute sham, tell me one comppany or organisation that elects its CEO on a preference system?? NOT ONE Now we have the ridiculous assumption by Gillard that she should win because she got a higher 2PP vote and Abbott saying he should win cause libs got 500 000 votes more than labor. Get rid of preferences and have a who get the most seats wins system.

Actually, companies DO use a form of preference vote...

On the first vote for a CEO, every board member can be nominated.....then the 2 or 3 with the biggest vote go on to the 2nd round....so the nominees with the 'lowest' vote pass their preferences to one of the remaining nominees..

Same system as 2PP...

laborfornever wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 4:28pm:

I'd be interested to see what party won on a first past the post basis IE who won before the preferences came into effect?? The way we vote is an absolute sham, tell me one comppany or organisation that elects its CEO on a preference system?? NOT ONE Now we have the ridiculous assumption by Gillard that she should win because she got a higher 2PP vote and Abbott saying he should win cause libs got 500 000 votes more than labor. Get rid of preferences and have a who get the most seats wins system.

I heard the British may adopt our system because it
gives minor parties - who still represent millions
of people - a greater say.

From the AEC web-site: -

---

Also this: -

---

Equitist wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:07pm:

Also this: -

Out of curiousity.....is the Liberal Nation Party of Queensland a part of the Federal Coalition???

Interesting numbers Equitist, so if we go by what the Lib supporters have been saying all day, Labor should get to form gov.
The biggest primary vote.
The biggest TPP.

skippy. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:13pm:

Interesting numbers Equitist, so if we go by what the Lib supporters have been saying all day, Labor should get to form gov. The biggest primary vote. The biggest TPP.

hw dumb are you??  the coalition got 43.16% which by even leftard maths is still greater than 38%

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:11pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:07pm: Also this: - Out of curiousity.....is the Liberal Nation Party of Queensland a part of the Federal Coalition???

yes they are. the libs and nationals in QLD merged into one party.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:17pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:13pm: Interesting numbers Equitist, so if we go by what the Lib supporters have been saying all day, Labor should get to form gov. The biggest primary vote. The biggest TPP. hw dumb are you??  the coalition got 43.16% which by even leftard maths is still greater than 38%

Look at the numbers, more people voted for Labor than the Lib/Nats.

The coalition scored the highest primary vote Skip, meaning 'preferences and shoddy under-bench' deals aside, more Australians voted for Tony Abbott than they did Julia Gillard.

I think it is clear, if Julia Gillard wins the election on the basis of 'preferences'  we are no longer a democracy.

Will become a communist Labia republic bank-rolled by Jews.

Australians didn't vote for this!

skippy. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:17pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:13pm: Interesting numbers Equitist, so if we go by what the Lib supporters have been saying all day, Labor should get to form gov. The biggest primary vote. The biggest TPP. hw dumb are you??  the coalition got 43.16% which by even leftard maths is still greater than 38% Look at the numbers, more people voted for Labor than the Lib/Nats.

You claim to be a political science student if I remember rightly. Obviously the lessons arent' taking'. try and get a REAL education on our political system you leftard moron. The coalition got 500,000 more votes than labor and no intelligent person says otherwise.

Your sore-loser attitude is pretty lame.

mellie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:22pm:

The coalition scored the highest primary vote Skip, meaning 'preferences and shoddy under-bench' deals aside, more Australians voted for Tony Abbott than they did Julia Gillard. I think it is clear, if Julia Gillard wins the election on the basis of 'preferences'  we are no longer a democracy. Will become a communist Labia republic bank-rolled by Jews. Australians didn't vote for this!

TPP Labor 50.67
Coalition 43.30

First pref Labor 3 996328
Lib 3 145441
Nat 401 776

Do you know what 3 145 441+ 401 776=?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:29pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:17pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:13pm: Interesting numbers Equitist, so if we go by what the Lib supporters have been saying all day, Labor should get to form gov. The biggest primary vote. The biggest TPP. hw dumb are you??  the coalition got 43.16% which by even leftard maths is still greater than 38% Look at the numbers, more people voted for Labor than the Lib/Nats. You claim to be a political science student if I remember rightly. Obviously the lessons arent' taking'. try and get a REAL education on our political system you leftard moron. The coalition got 500,000 more votes than labor and no intelligent person says otherwise. Your sore-loser attitude is pretty lame.

Cant you count either dipshit?

skippy. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:17pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:13pm: Interesting numbers Equitist, so if we go by what the Lib supporters have been saying all day, Labor should get to form gov. The biggest primary vote. The biggest TPP. hw dumb are you??  the coalition got 43.16% which by even leftard maths is still greater than 38% Look at the numbers, more people voted for Labor than the Lib/Nats.

Sorry to disappoint skippy, but if you factor in the LNP of QLD...then the Coaliltion got almost 500, 000 MORE votes than Labor

Best way to go here would be to chose the side where the majority of your constituents preference before the other.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:31pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:17pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:13pm: Interesting numbers Equitist, so if we go by what the Lib supporters have been saying all day, Labor should get to form gov. The biggest primary vote. The biggest TPP. hw dumb are you??  the coalition got 43.16% which by even leftard maths is still greater than 38% Look at the numbers, more people voted for Labor than the Lib/Nats. Sorry to disappoint skippy, but if you factor in the LNP of QLD...then the Coaliltion got almost 500, 000 MORE votes than Labor

Fair enough, I thought they'd have the combined Nat vote.You're right.
But Labor still won the TPP

skippy. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:30pm:

mellie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:22pm: The coalition scored the highest primary vote Skip, meaning 'preferences and shoddy under-bench' deals aside, more Australians voted for Tony Abbott than they did Julia Gillard. I think it is clear, if Julia Gillard wins the election on the basis of 'preferences'  we are no longer a democracy. Will become a communist Labia republic bank-rolled by Jews. Australians didn't vote for this! TPP Labor 50.67 Coalition 43.30 First pref Labor 3 996328 Lib 3 145441 Nat 401 776 Do you know what 3 145 441+ 401 776=?

Now add the 933,514 for the Liberal Nation Party of QLD...

Sorry no wonder you got pissed off ,TPP Labor 50.67
                                                        Coalition 49.33

skippy. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:31pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:17pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:13pm: Interesting numbers Equitist, so if we go by what the Lib supporters have been saying all day, Labor should get to form gov. The biggest primary vote. The biggest TPP. hw dumb are you??  the coalition got 43.16% which by even leftard maths is still greater than 38% Look at the numbers, more people voted for Labor than the Lib/Nats. Sorry to disappoint skippy, but if you factor in the LNP of QLD...then the Coaliltion got almost 500, 000 MORE votes than Labor Fair enough, I thought they'd have the combined Nat vote.You're right. But Labor still won the TPP

Are you sure skippy??

The 'Two parties' are Labor and the Coalition...
The Coalition is composed of Liberals, Nationals AND the Liberal National Party of Queensland...

So Libs, Nats and LNPQ are ONE party...

skippy. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:37pm:

Sorry no wonder you got pissed off ,TPP Labor 50.67                                                         Coalition 49.33

LOL on 74.8% of the vote...

Labor lost, deal with it...

Equitist wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:02pm:

From the AEC web-site: -

Gotta turn a light on, have a look at equitists first post its the AEC website, thats where I got the TPP.

Quote:

So Libs, Nats and LNPQ are ONE party...

Think it may also include the country liberal party of the NT.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:38pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:37pm: Sorry no wonder you got pissed off ,TPP Labor 50.67                                                         Coalition 49.33 LOL on 74.8% of the vote... Labor lost, deal with it...

No, they cant deal with it, lol

::)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:38pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:37pm: Sorry no wonder you got pissed off ,TPP Labor 50.67                                                         Coalition 49.33 LOL on 74.8% of the vote... Labor lost, deal with it...

Did they? I think its still anyones to take.

Bye Tuckey, I hope your past catches up with you one dark night.

And therewith goes a coalition seat. The incoming WA Nationals member has said he will vote as an independent.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/feral-crook-bludgeons-ironbar-20100822-13akd.html

skippy. wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:30pm:

mellie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:22pm: The coalition scored the highest primary vote Skip, meaning 'preferences and shoddy under-bench' deals aside, more Australians voted for Tony Abbott than they did Julia Gillard. I think it is clear, if Julia Gillard wins the election on the basis of 'preferences'  we are no longer a democracy. Will become a communist Labia republic bank-rolled by Jews. Australians didn't vote for this! TPP Labor 50.67 Coalition 43.30 First pref Labor 3 996328 Lib 3 145441 Nat 401 776 Do you know what 3 145 441+ 401 776=?

do you know that you missed out the LNP in QLD with 931514 votes?

that makes the coalition total vote 4,478,701. a margin of 482373 votes.

seriously, what ARE they teaching you in that course???

Millie, neither party have won the right to govern in their own right.
The people have spoken, they didn't trust either labor or L/NP to have a majority government.

Quit claiming this as a liberal win. It is not. However it may well be a win for our Nation.
What is clear is L/NP and Labor have lost the trust of the people.

Please delete wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:43pm:

Bye Tuckey, I hope your past catches up with you one dark night. And therewith goes a coalition seat. The incoming WA Nationals member has said he will vote as an independent. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/feral-crook-bludgeons-ironbar-20100822-13akd.html

Which doesn't really mean much....he STILL counts as a Nationals win...which means he's 1 more seat for the Coalition...

Giz, tuckey needed to go. Someone better is in there now, no matter who they are with.

Iron Bar Tuckey was awesome. I wish we had more southrons in the government and fewer whingey, beta male types.

The 2PP measurment is a convenience and not a absolute measure of which party was the most popular.

Firstly,it is based on the  absurd assumption that everyone's second preference is actually their genuine sewcond preference and that everyone even HAS a second preference - which most do not. the vast majority of voters vote with their first preference only and cast a second preference because they are required to.

Secondly, if you want to make some humungous assessment (that labor was more popular) based on 0.7% of a mathematically constructed measurement then you are desperate to prove a point that no one believes.

Thirdly, it sounds like the sports fan trying to calim some kind of moral victory after the siren because their team had injuries or some other garbage.

Labor was flogged at this election and that is not in dispute except by people who are unable to read the will of the people.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:48pm:

Millie, neither party have won the right to govern in their own right. The people have spoken, they didn't trust either labor or L/NP to have a majority government. Quit claiming this as a liberal win. It is not. However it may well be a win for our Nation. What is clear is L/NP and Labor have lost the trust of the people.

Thats not at all true. In any two-person race with one runner coming from well behind running far better, there wil be one point in time when they are equal on the track. If you measured only that point in time you would say they were equal athletes and equally deserving of winning the race. and you would be dead wrong.

Abbot started this race 16% behind and finished slightly ahead. By any understanding of the term 'race' Abbott is the better performer and deserving winner.

"Which doesn't really mean much....he STILL counts as a Nationals win...which means he's 1 more seat for the Coalition... "

Wrong.

"The WA Nationals are a separate party from their federal counterparts, with a different structure.

With both major parties having to negotiate with a Greens member and three, possibly four, independents in order to form government, Mr Crook's position further complicates the situation.

The former farmer and pastoral consultant declared he would be just as prepared to talk with the Labor party as he would be with the Liberals."

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 5:55pm:

The 2PP measurment is a convenience and not a absolute measure of which party was the most popular. Firstly,it is based on the  absurd assumption that everyone's second preference is actually their genuine sewcond preference and that everyone even HAS a second preference - which most do not. the vast majority of voters vote with their first preference only and cast a second preference because they are required to. Secondly, if you want to make some humungous assessment (that labor was more popular) based on 0.7% of a mathematically constructed measurement then you are desperate to prove a point that no one believes. Thirdly, it sounds like the sports fan trying to calim some kind of moral victory after the siren because their team had injuries or some other garbage. Labor was flogged at this election and that is not in dispute except by people who are unable to read the will of the people.

As a commentator observed earlier today, the two majors are simply adopting politically convenient positions - because the 2PP suits one and the primary vote suits the other...

Meantime, the Libs are conveniently ignoring the fact that they only soaked up about 1/3 of the primary vote leakage from the Labs - the bulk of the primary vote lost by the Labs actually went to the Greens...

Clearly, the Libs are not popular amongst the swinging voters of Australia who determine the outcome of our elections - not to mention the huge number of voters who didn't support either of the LibLabs and voted informally...

Equitist wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 6:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 5:55pm: The 2PP measurment is a convenience and not a absolute measure of which party was the most popular. Firstly,it is based on the  absurd assumption that everyone's second preference is actually their genuine sewcond preference and that everyone even HAS a second preference - which most do not. the vast majority of voters vote with their first preference only and cast a second preference because they are required to. Secondly, if you want to make some humungous assessment (that labor was more popular) based on 0.7% of a mathematically constructed measurement then you are desperate to prove a point that no one believes. Thirdly, it sounds like the sports fan trying to calim some kind of moral victory after the siren because their team had injuries or some other garbage. Labor was flogged at this election and that is not in dispute except by people who are unable to read the will of the people. As a commentator observed earlier today, the two majors are simply adopting politically convenient positions - because the 2PP suits one and the primary vote suits the other... Meantime, the Libs are conveniently ignoring the fact that they only soaked up about 1/3 of the primary vote leakage from the Labs - the bulk of the primary vote lost by the Labs actually went to the Greens... Clearly, the Libs are not popular amongst the swinging voters of Australia who determine the outcome of our elections - not to mention the huge number of voters who didn't support either of the LibLabs and voted informally...

You are desperate to try and confect some kind of victory out of the ashes of terrible defeat. You sound just like the ALP itself which still doesnt get why they were defeated. It is that kind of attitude which will already condemn them to another defeat in 3 years time.

Not interested in the number of votes per party as a whole, but who one each seat before preferences.

For example.


Wayne Swann won his seat after preferences, however the lib candidate polled 10000 more votes, so in my book that would be a lib win, swann only won because of preferences.


Who won the most seats before preferences IE first past the post????

but we are not first past the post.
We can choose to send a message that we are not happy by voting others before the main parties. Many of us choose to do this.
If you don't like the way it is, get elected and change it!

Most of you are carrying on like a bunch of bitches at a menstruation convention - "Your pain-killing pill is not as good as my pill" because your pill didn't work for me.  ;D

The fact of the matter is that we have an hung parliament and that NO PARTY has won enough seats to govern in their own right. So it's a DRAW! :P

And for those who profess that the system doesn't work - it's the only one we have, and both sides of politics accept the reality of "that's the mechanisation of how it is done today"; and ALL of us have to accept that.

As for the independents - lets give them the respect they deserve to make a judgement for the betterment of Australia as a whole, and not speculate on which way they will go.

They ARE intelligent people who are quite capable of weighing up the consequences of either a good or bad decision, which is more than I can say about some of the comments from some of the people here.  ::)

Deborahmac09 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 6:28pm:

but we are not first past the post. We can choose to send a message that we are not happy by voting others before the main parties. Many of us choose to do this. If you don't like the way it is, get elected and change it!

He can`t get elected because of that pesky preferential system, silly.  :-* :-*

laborfornever wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 4:28pm:

Get rid of preferences and have a who get the most seats wins system.

Don't you realise that you ANYONE has the opportunity to change the preferences by simply changing the numbers.

So please give some respect to those who did what the "How to vote" card (as supplied by ALL parties) expected of them, and respect that - that is the outcome they wanted.

Everyone had the opportunity to change the voting structure - You're just pissed off that they didn't do it as you would like it too be.

Sayonara wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2010 at 9:06pm:

laborfornever wrote on Aug 22nd, 2010 at 4:28pm: Get rid of preferences and have a who get the most seats wins system. Don't you realise that you ANYONE has the opportunity to change the preferences by simply changing the numbers. So please give some respect to those who did what the "How to vote" card (as supplied by ALL parties) expected of them, and respect that - that is the outcome they wanted. Everyone had the opportunity to change the voting structure - You're just pissed off that they didn't do it as you would like it too be.

That is just SO naive I can hardly beleive it.