Display:
... based on the preference flows if all first preference votes were votes "above the line" for a single party list, with preferences flowing as directed by the party.

In that case, the results would be:

PartyContinuingNewTotal
Liberal/National Coalition191837
Australian Labor Party141832
The Greens235
Family First101
Others011

This suggests, with Family First normally aligning with the Liberal/National Coalition, that the newly elected independent Senator Nick XENOPHON from South Australia might hold the balance of power if he aligns with the Coalution.

However, in many issues, it seems that Nick would be more likely to line up with the ALP ... from the Wikipedia entry, with text that seems to have been written around the time of his announcing his run for the Australian Senate:

His platform will consist of anti-gambling, pro-consumer protection, attention to the water crisis, ratifying Kyoto, opposition against what he calls a decrease in state rights, and opposition to WorkChoices.

The presiding officer of the Senate is chosen from amongst the Senators, who retains his or her right to vote and participate in debates (but rarely participates in debate except on questions affecting the Senate itself) ... and when votes in the Australian Senate are evenly divided, the matter in question is not agreed to ... there is no casting or deciding vote.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Nov 24th, 2007 at 03:23:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So how would they decide on the senate President or presiding officer if the vote in the senate will almost always be a tied one? Is there still enough preference votes to change the balance in the senate? It seems that the senate can easily be the Liberal's means of stalling all legislation, especially the controversial initiatives ie blocking the mandate that was given to the new government.
by fls on Sat Nov 24th, 2007 at 03:33:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Coalition in the Senate is almost certainly not going to block supply, so the labor policies on Education and broadband infrastructure, which are more spending initiatives than changes in legislation, are unlikely to be blocked. Having been elected on a platform of ratifying Kyoto, it seems likely that the Senate will confirm that ... at the very least, Family First may get the impression from the Greens that being in the game for preference swaps in the next election may require support for Kyoto, and since the Independent is on the record as supporting Kyoto, that would be a majority ...

... that leaves rolling back the most extreme of the IR law reforms under the last Coalition government, when it held the balance of power.

On that, after the "Work Choices" system being a big part of the defeat of the Coalition, I reckon its likely that at least some of the Coalition Senators will demand token concessions and then pass the Labor program. In particular, some of the National Senators may be eager to demonstrate the continuing relevance of their party, and some headline concessions for primary producers in rural areas might be sufficient to get two or three Nationals Senators on board.

One of the stories in this election is the confirmation of the final electoral collapse of the Australian Democrats, which started a process of steep decline from holding the balance of power in the Senate with its support for the enactment of Howard's GST, which was then accelerated by its inability to find a coherent position to stand between the Coalition and the ALP as the ALP positioned itself closer to the electoral middle of the road.

One more election like this, and the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Nov 24th, 2007 at 04:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series