Labor wins S.A. election

[rgmwa]

What I'm saying is that Democracy gives people a choice of which party they prefer, even if it's a choice between bad or worse. The result for One Nation after 30 years has been pretty dismal which suggests they have very little support in the community. You can make a case for alternative systems of voting, but ours is probably as fair as any.

 

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

No it's not fair because any vote that doesn't help to win a seat, loses all it's value and counts for nothing, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

[rgmwa]

9 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

No it's not fair because any vote that doesn't help to win a seat, loses all it's value and counts for nothing, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

No, it is fair. That's how democracy works. Each vote counts because that's how they work out who won. Therefore each vote has value.

[octave]

15 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

No it's not fair because any vote that doesn't help to win a seat, loses all it's value and counts for nothing, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Not everyone's vote will or can result in a win.  About half the population will always be disappointed.  Anyway you look at this election the conservatives lost.

 

I do not see a vote that doesn't result in a seat in parliament as being wasted.  The Libs will be analysing the results in order to do better next time. I would not be surprised if the Libs move towards the right in order to get back their voters who have gone towards the right and voted One Nation. After an election all parties sniff the wind to decide where they lost votes and what they need to do to get them back.  There is a concept called the "Overton Window" which is useful to understand.  Even votes that don't win a seat can shift the political discourse.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

"No, it is fair. That's how democracy works. Each vote counts because that's how they work out who won. Therefore each vote has value." 

 

So, by that logic, a vote only has value when it's in a scrutineer's hand, and the value drops to zero after that and not deserving of any representation even under a mandatory voting system ... is that what you've deduced?

Edited 2 hours ago by Grumpy Old Nasho

[willedoo]

The latest ABC poll results using an ABC estimate of preferences has One Nation as a likely win in Ngadjuri, a comfortable lead in Hammond, and a small lead in Narunnga and MacKillop. Apparently they can't use the electoral commission preference estimate as it was calculated on the Liberals getting a larger vote than One Nation and not the other way around which is what happened. I think the official preference distribution happens next weekend. Some are saying the postal votes are expected to favour the Liberals over One Nation.

[octave]

2 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

So, by that logic, a vote only has value when it's in a scrutineer's hand, and the value drops to zero after that and not deserving of any representation even under a mandatory voting system ... is that what you've deduced?

Nope. To put it more clearly the Libs if they are not to become totally irrelevant must shift in order to win back those who moves to One Nation. Thus will most likely result in the Libs adopting One Nation policies. In effect a centre right party is likely to move more to the right.

Likewise if Labor were to lose a high number of votes to the Greens you can bet that they will nudge a little to the left.  This is how even votes that don't result in a win still have some effect in the political discourse 

This is not some crazy idea I just pulled out of my a$$, it is a well understood phenomina.

 

[rgmwa]

12 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

"No, it is fair. That's how democracy works. Each vote counts because that's how they work out who won. Therefore each vote has value." 

 

So, by that logic, a vote only has value when it's in a scrutineer's hand, and the value drops to zero after that and not deserving of any representation even under a mandatory voting system ... is that what you've deduced?

No, the value remains as a record of the choice a person made when voting. So what would you like to see happen with a vote lodged for a party or person that didn't win a majority. 

Edited 2 hours ago by rgmwa

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

18 minutes ago, octave said:

Not everyone's vote will or can result in a win.  About half the population will always be disappointed.  Anyway you look at this election the conservatives lost.

 Yeah, half the population - Great!

 

This is why we need Proportional Representation. A place in the Lower House for all candidates who win a quota so that all votes will end up having value.

Edited 2 hours ago by Grumpy Old Nasho

[willedoo]

2 minutes ago, octave said:

This is not some crazy idea I just pulled out of my a$$, it is a well understood phenomina.

octave, you can see that in action now with Labor acting tough on ISIS brides and jumping straight in with support for Trump over Iran. If there wasn't so much backlash from the right and the community in general over Bondi, I think they wouldn't have needed to do that little wiggle to the right.

[octave]

1 minute ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Lower House for all candidates who win a quota so that all votes will end up having value.

All votes will have a value? You seem to only believe a vote has value if it results in a seat.  If a candidate got 1 vote does that mean they are elected or should that vote not have any value?

I imagine we would not be having this conversation if the situation were reversed and One Nation were elected and Labor only got a few seats

 

 

[willedoo]

There was a fair bit of talk last night during the election broadcasts about the federal effect of One Nation getting a high primary vote even if they don't get seats. Much talk of it influencing both Labor and the Coalition. Labor are not stupid and they know they are losing votes to ON as well, just not as many as the other side is. The job for Labor is to estimate what percentage they will lose and what their response should be. If they lose votes to the Greens, they will recover a lot in preferences, but if they lose votes to ON, those preferences might not come back their way. So in that regard, even though ON might not get a SA lower house seat, the large state wide primary vote they received will have a big flow on effect on politics in the immediate future.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

I said a quota of votes.

 

If One Nation had won, I'd be still advocating for Proportional Representation. It would temper any extreme policies of governing parties.

[rgmwa]

18 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

This is why we need Proportional Representation. A place in the Lower House for all candidates who win a quota so that all votes will end up having value.

What about those who voted for the candidates who didn't win a quota? By your logic their vote had zero value, which is what you're complaining about.

 

[facthunter]

Hello Hello ? Are you still there GON.?  Nev

[willedoo]

1 hour ago, Litespeed said:

You are a fool GON.

 

Take you're bat and ball and live in America

Litey, I hope you're not saying he's a fool for favouring proportional representation. If that was the logic, then there's hundreds of millions of fools around the world. New Zealand, most of South and Central America, a big slab of Europe, a heap of African countries, Turkey, Indonesia, Cambodia, Iceland, pacific Island nations, Sri Lanka, Tasmania, Ireland - that would add up to a lot of fools.

[octave]

19 minutes ago, willedoo said:

Litey, I hope you're not saying he's a fool for favouring proportional representation.

I won't speak for Litey, and I probably wouldn't have used the "foolish" word, but my beef is not with the idea of proportional representation. I think it is probably a good idea. I think that the notion that only votes that put a member in parliament are useful votes, and all others are a waste of time. This seems like a naive understanding of how things work.  i seldom vote for one of the 2 major parties. I usually vote for a minor party that could never win. Is this a wasted vote? No, because my preferences go to the least worst party. My electorate is a safe Labor seat; however, parties are strongly attuned to swings against them.  If a smaller party on the left gets many first preferences and the Labor party gets by on second preferences, they are liable to want to adjust their policies the next time to turn those second preferences into primary votes, and the same applies on the right.

 

I do believe it would have been better if a stronger opposition had been elected; however, the voters by and large,  understand the system as it is and voted accordingly.  

 

[willedoo]

I don't know enough about proportional representation systems to make any judgement on them. Preferential voting and first past the post are easy to understand but the various PR systems can be a bit complicated and need a bit of research to understand fully I would think.

[octave]

1 minute ago, willedoo said:

I don't know enough about proportional representation systems to make any judgement on them

I cant say I knew exactly how it works. My son lives in NZ and has explained it to me many times, although I often don't retain the information.  

Here is an abbreviated description of the differences between NZ and Aus.  It does seem to me that each system has its pros and cons.

 

🗳️ The big picture

• Australia → uses preferential voting in single-member electorates (plus proportional voting for the Senate)
• New Zealand → uses a mixed-member proportional system (MMP)

That one difference changes a lot about how governments are formed.

---

🇦🇺 Australia’s system

Australia has two houses:

House of Representatives (lower house)

• Uses preferential voting (also called instant runoff)
• You vote for candidates in your local electorate
• If no one gets 50%, preferences are redistributed until someone does
• Outcome: each electorate elects one MP, and the party with the majority forms government

👉 This tends to favour major parties like Australian Labor Party and Liberal Party of Australia

---

Senate (upper house)

• Uses proportional representation (Single Transferable Vote)
• Each state elects multiple senators
• Smaller parties have a better chance here

---

🇳🇿 New Zealand’s system

New Zealand uses MMP (Mixed-Member Proportional)

Each voter gets two votes:

1. Electorate vote

• Like Australia: vote for a local MP

2. Party vote (this is the key one)

• Determines the overall proportion of seats in Parliament

---

How seats are allocated

• Parliament has ~120 seats
• Some are electorate MPs
• The rest are “list MPs” added to make each party’s total match their share of the party vote

👉 Example:

• If a party gets 30% of the vote → they should have ~30% of seats
• If they win fewer electorates, they get extra list MPs to make up the difference

---

⚖️ Key differences that matter

1. Proportionality

• NZ: Highly proportional—parliament reflects the vote closely
• Australia: Less proportional—especially in the House of Representatives

---

2. Governments

• NZ: Coalition governments are the norm
  • e.g. New Zealand Labour Party often governs with partners like New Zealand Green Party
• Australia: Usually majority single-party governments (or stable coalitions like Liberal–National)

---

3. Power of smaller parties

• NZ: Smaller parties often hold real power (kingmakers)
• Australia: Smaller parties matter more in the Senate than in the House

---

4. Voting experience

• NZ: Two votes (local MP + party)
• Australia: Rank candidates in order of preference (House), and more complex ballot for Senate

---

5. Strategic effects

• NZ: Encourages voting for the party you actually like (less “wasted vote”)
• Australia: Preferences help, but major parties still dominate outcomes

---

🧠 Simple way to think about it

• Australia: “Who wins each seat?” → determines government
• New Zealand: “What share of votes did each party get?” → determines government

[facthunter]

Some of the Protest vote in SA could well have been to vote for Phon Knowing Labor would get in anyhow, That's not just My Opinion. I don't see 1/5th of the vote being a Lay down Misere. Their Policies are Trump Imitating and I'm not sure that is very clever. Every vote for Hanson gives the Party Money.  All parties get it. It's supposed to be to cover expenditure. Nev

Edited 1 hour ago by facthunter
clarity

[Litespeed]

GON is a fool because he believes you should pay tax if your vote doesn't get the results you want.

[willedoo]

12 minutes ago, Litespeed said:

GON is a fool because he believes you should pay tax if your vote doesn't get the results you want.

I think you meant to write shouldn't pay tax.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

My internet has slowed right up, got to fix things here.