Greens Preferences in the NSW State Election
A poll came out today suggesting that the ALP will win in the upcoming NSW state election. However, the poll also showed a drop in the ALP's primary vote. This means that the ALP are even more so reliant on the Greens (and independents) to maintain the position in Government. Indeed, the title of the SMH article is, "Preferences key to ALP election win".
As far as I am concerned the ALP has a lot to do to win Greens preferences around the state.
Now before someone starts saying that its a foregone conclusion that the ALP will get the Greens preferences, I would like to remind you that the NSW State election has an optional preferential system of voting. This means that electors voting in the Legislative Assembly must place a 1 in the box for the most preferred candidate and then it is optional whether you place any more numbers.* Thus, any voter can decide not to distribute their vote past their first preference. For example, a voter who may be disgusted with both Labor and Liberals may decide to place a 1 next to the Greens on the Legislative Assembly ballot and thats it. Read more from the SEO.
The Hawkesbury Greens local group has the power to decide the Greens preference strategy in the Londonderry and Hawkesbury electorates. It is likely that the Greens preference strategy will be the deciding factor in both electorates.
The Hawkesbury Greens has yet to make its decision on preferences for either Londonderry or Hawkesbury. So this is a clear message to those candidates in these electorates: the Hawkesbury Greens will be keeping an eye on the performance of all of the candidates and party policies. In particular, we will pay particular attention to you and your party's stances on climate change, water and public services.
* I would like to emphasise that what was explained only applied to the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council is different. To read how Legislative Council voting works read here.
posted by Joel MacRae @ 7:30 pm
12 comments
12 Comments:
This point can't be emphasised enough! There's nothing like the threat of an open ticket to get the Labor candidate promising to do good things for the environment.
But even more important is informing people about the preferential system. People uninterested in politics hear all this talk about "Greens directing preferences" without realising that the voter retains full control. (In both houses in NSW. Only voting above the line in the Federal Senate relinquishes preference distribution to the party. I do wish the AEC would bring in above the line preferences for the Senate, like the NSW LC has! It might even help to reduce those back-door deals that let parties like Family First take seats.)
Apparently this is a common misconception. I remember a woman at Springwood during the 2004 campaign admonishing The Greens for having put Carr back in power. When I politely (and empoweringly?) explained how the system actually works she sounded quite happy to vote Green in the future. After that experience I always referred to how-to-votes as "our recommendations".
So if a voter can now elect to not have their vote registered beyond their first preference, I take it that means situations can arise when no candidates have more than 50% of the (non-informal) vote?
What happens then? I assume the candidate with the highest (post-preferences) vote is elected, regardless of the oft-spoken 50%+1 rule.
I just checked out the NSWEC site and it seems what I said above is correct: at each redistribution round in the counting, the ‘first preference only’ votes for the eliminated candidate get discarded, thus reducing the total number of votes in counting (which is the number upon which the 50%+1 rule is based).
In that case, wouldn't you just be better off picking the best ALP/Lib candidate to preference (after the Greens, of course!), since they'll be voted in anyway? Is it merely symbolic or is there a tangible benefit there that I'm missing?
Just seems to me that you're taking away some of your democratic right if you don't register preferences...like you're just letting everyone else decide. Might as well preference the least worst of the remaining candidates, no?
As an individual, you can and probably should.
What is at issue though is the Greens preference strategy in trying to achieve some influence over those in parliament.
The Greens, I believe, do not want to be indirectly guilty for putting in a Government that will, for example, ruin humanity's chance to overcome climate change. In this case, exhausting Greens votes is an option.
The problem we face is that for most people, whatever the reality, Labor will be seen as better on climate change, on water, and on a range of social justice questions including WorkChoices and racism. In this context it can be quite dangerous for us to be seen to be neutral between Iemma and Debnam.
I agree, Joel, that it might look bad for the Greens to support a party that, for example, wants to see Anvil Hill mined.
But I also agree with the anonymous contributor that staying neutral between the Libs & Labor is not only unproductive, but dangerous.
As bad as the ALP is, all you need to do is look at Debnam to see how much worse things could be. I really think the Greens are better off having a say rather than letting everyone else decide.
I'm sure many of the Greens' voters think Labor aren't all that bad, but I doubt many of them feel the same about the Libs.
I don't know Wade, there are many that have such an emotional response when it comes to their outrage (or is it disappointment) when it comes to the ALP. Sometimes that emotion overrides their feelings for the Libs (perhaps because it comes as no surprise?)
These are all interesting issues that will, and have been in past preference meetings, be considered.
I have deliberately attempted to avoid stating what my personal feelings are on the issue because it would be inappropriate to do so publicly before the decision is made.
The local group is wise and will make the correct assessment of all candidates stances.
Anonymous makes a good point. The Greens have to indicate who they think the lesser of two evils are (even when that may not be the best preference strategy for them), while also highlighting that people have the power to make their own decisions on the issue. In the end there really should be more invested in voter education. Perhaps a class in school is needed? A Kath and Kim commercial or two?
A Kath and Kim commercial is a great idea!
Hippies, ex-communists and Labor's disgruntled Left do not represent enough votes to win lower-house seats. The Greens need to assume the "keep the bastards honest" mantle now that the Democrats are out of the picture. That is the sort of cachet we need to pick up the Kath and Kim vote. There's plenty of voters out there that don't think much about parties, more about the parties but do resent what Carr and Iemma have done.
On the other hand, last federal election there was the doctors' wives phenomenon, traditional Liberal voters who were disgusted by Howard but couldn't vote Labor. Certainly we can never preference the Libs, but guaranteeing Labor our prefs every time would just make us an external left wing of their rightist party.
Speaking of Kath and Kim, did you see the one in which the two women in the bourgeois kitchen shop, Pru and Trude, are drooling over Tony Abbott?
"Who would you rather sleep with - Tony Abbot, Peter Costello or Alexander Downer?"
"Ooo, you don't make it easy Pru. You know, I don't think we'd get around to the sex, the conversation would just be so interesting!"
I just have to add, to Joel's point about emotion, the sad story my dad heard after the last state election. The cleaner at his school was a traditional Labor voter but had been treated very badly by Carr's privatisation of the school's cleaning crews. She couldn't vote Liberal, so she threw away her ballot. (He gently suggested to her that she vote Green next time around.)
These are the first group that the Greens need to attract - people who are merely unaware of the alternatives.
I definitely agree with Nick. There are so many people, who believe that they do have to vote either Labour or Liberal to have their vote count. People really need to understand how the preferential system works. Unless you take commerce in high school, it is never explicitly taught. You cant make people vote through a system that they don't understand!
I have been surprised to find lately when speaking to people that many people see the Greens as being "in bed" with Labour. They view the greens simply as an extension of the Labour Party, which is potentially disastrous if there are a significant amount of people who are of a similar opinion.
We need to capitalise on the fact that people are not satisfied with either party at the moment and let people know where we stand in relation to both of the major parties policies.
For the record, The Greens NSW State Election Campaign Committee (SECC), which has the power to decide Greens preferences in areas where the local group has handed over the authority, is also (as of 12FEB07) undecided on preference allocation. They made it clear to me that not extending Greens preferences to either of the majors was still considered a very viable alternative.
Post a Comment
<< Home