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.

the libs got about a 43% primary vote.

alp - 36 ish %

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


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

Also this: -

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.

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


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

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!

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


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=?

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



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

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

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

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

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



LOL on 74.8% of the vote...

Labor lost, deal with it...

Quote:

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

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


Did they? I think its still anyones to take.

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


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???

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


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

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

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


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.

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


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...

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????

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.  

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!

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.  

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


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.