Preferences distributed from the ALP to the Greens pushed Jeremy Buckingham (GRN) past Hanson’s initial largest share of the primary round of voting. [ABC News]
Categories: parties and factions
Elections #AusPol 2019 Thread 
Beyond Marching: I Will Not Be Passive #Resist 
Read This OTD: Invent A Phantom Enemy To Advance Your Culture Wars 
QOTD: on the blaming of progressive scolds/shamers for the rise of Trumpists -
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Hoyden About Town 
Very relieved, although I know that the Greens were confident based on their scutineering.
Something I have wondered about over the last few days: is there enough voter education about NSW vs Federal upper house preferencing?
In NSW, many above the line voters would want to consider distributing some preferences. In Federal elections, above the line preferencing will make your vote informal. How many people voted 1 Greens or 1 ALP and assumed like in the Federal election that their vote would flow through to other parties and had their vote exhausted instead? (Obviously it’s hard to distinguish that from people who intended their preferences to be exhausted but sheer numbers might be suggestive.)
It seems likely to be a source of confusion. I watch very little TV though, so perhaps there was mass media education that I missed?
*relief*
The only thing I saw was the Get Up stuff just prior to the election which was through HAT. Nothing on mainstream TV. Otherwise I would have been one of the people who’s vote might have been extinguished.
*breathes sigh of relief*
+1 on this, for the reasons you give, Mary.
Actually, she was beaten into the final spot by a Nationals candidate. To be honest, I’d rather have Pauline Hanson than another coalition number. Although I’d be cringing at the possibility of her being paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars over the eight year term.
@Sam Bauers,
Actually, both the Greens and the Nationals ended up with higher counts after preferences were distributed. But the Greens candidate got more than the Nationals candidate, so the Greens candidate got the 20th seat and the Nationals candidate got the 21st seat, while Hanson got zilch.
A small mercy, thanks be to the FSM.
Thank the spaghetti monster.
I thought that’s what I was saying tigtog 🙂
More importantly, from my experience of him, Jeremy Buckingham is an asset to The Greens in NSW.
Not only is he qualified to be there, he also breaks the illusion of The Greens being disconnected inner-city folk.
I’m very happy about his election.
And in this morning’s news, Ms Hanson says she is going to start (another) new party so that (wait for it…) more independents can enter the NSW parliament. FFS. I’d like to see her sit that damn citizenship test I passed last year, and find out how much of a Real Australian she is. Clearly her knowledge of the voting system wouldn’t help her.
I’m sure I remember hearing a newsgrab that Hanson gave before the election, something to the effect that people who wanted to vote for her would find her.
Now she’s lost, she’s complaining that the system has failed.
Can’t have it both ways!
(There may well be a voter education problem – ie what Mary says above may well apply to people voting for anyone. But if she was so certain that people who wanted to vote for her would find her before the election, well, it seems to me that perhaps just not enough people wanted to vote for her! That’s democracy for you…)
Hanson lost a lot of votes from her voters voting one for her below the line and failing to fill out the minimum 15 preferences. She wouldn’t have that problem if her name was above the line on a group as well, in fact she would have likely gotten in at the expense of the 11th Coalition seat.
Alternatively if she had gone through the motions and registered a party 12 months before the election she would have been open to a more vigorous campaign against her. As it was she gained a small tactical advantage from an element of surprise.