The SA Politics Thread

[Waewick]

I think it points to some serious issues in the state of the libs win the popular vote again but don't get into power.

[metro]

Can you trust Marshall?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-12/c ... section=sa

what is so racist about using someone's surname? 'Can you trust Habib?' if she was so offended by people using her last name then maybe she should have changed it, because those 'racist' election posters have her last name and all the other candidate's last names all over the city. There's a thing on my fridge: Pyne Works For You - are they racist too?

[SRW]

I think it points to some serious issues in the state of the libs win the popular vote again but don't get into power.

As much I am reluctant to see the Liberals elected, I have to agree. It's both a quirk of SA's electoral geography and a hangover from the Playmander days (when Labor smashed the popular vote twice without attaining a majority of seats) that we just can't seem to get the balance right. I think we seriously need to look into adopting a proportional system for the lower house (New Zealand's might be a model).

[Waewick]

Can you trust Marshall?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-12/c ... section=sa

what is so racist about using someone's surname? 'Can you trust Habib?' if she was so offended by people using her last name then maybe she should have changed it, because those 'racist' election posters have her last name and all the other candidate's last names all over the city. There's a thing on my fridge: Pyne Works For You - are they racist too?

it is the way it is used in terms of having her surname as the only point of reference (that is why they call it dog whistling)

It probably isn't overtly racist, but it is uncalled for, I bet if there was a similar one about can you trust Koutsantonis, but with taxi in the back ground he'd be going mental as well.

It was just uncalled for IMO, like bringing up assault convictions from 23 years ago, facebook messages from 10 years ago or even DUI and traffic infringements from a decade ago.

it is slimy politics that is all we get from our state parties now.

[Aidan]

I think it points to some serious issues in the state of the libs win the popular vote again but don't get into power.

As much I am reluctant to see the Liberals elected, I have to agree. It's both a quirk of SA's electoral geography and a hangover from the Playmander days (when Labor smashed the popular vote twice without attaining a majority of seats) that we just can't seem to get the balance right.

No it isn't. It's mainly the result of having lots of marginal seats. Seat boundaries are redrawn between elections with the objective of making it likely that the party with the most votes gets the most seats, but it is unpredictable and politicians will always try to play the system.

I think we seriously need to look into adopting a proportional system for the lower house (New Zealand's might be a model).

NZ's system is generally not regarded as a good model. Tasmania's is a bit better, though its critics often label it as the source of that state's woes (wrongly IMO - its geographical isolation and hence high transport costs, and its poor school retention rate are the key factors).

There is the alternative solution of voting for the executive and legislature separately like they do in America.

[rhino]

It's mainly the result of having lots of marginal seats. Seat boundaries are redrawn between elections with the objective of making it likely that the party with the most votes gets the most seats, but it is unpredictable and politicians will always try to play the system.

This. This is what happens.

[SRW]

No it isn't. It's mainly the result of having lots of marginal seats. Seat boundaries are redrawn between elections with the objective of making it likely that the party with the most votes gets the most seats, but it is unpredictable and politicians will always try to play the system.

A system that evolved as a consequence of the things I mention. The obsession with 'fairness' is understandable, but the way we've gone about it so far often has unintended consequences.

NZ's system is generally not regarded as a good model. Tasmania's is a bit better, though its critics often label it as the source of that state's woes (wrongly IMO - its geographical isolation and hence high transport costs, and its poor school retention rate are the key factors).

There is the alternative solution of voting for the executive and legislature separately like they do in America.

There are pros and cons to every model Aidan, but I would suggest that the ones that would be most successful in our situation are the ones that, to the most extent, accord with our current political traditions and practices.

[SRW]

Even Marshall thinks you should vote Labor:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-14/g ... in/5321360

[Waewick]

Even Marshall thinks you should vote Labor:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-14/g ... in/5321360

poor bastard

[monotonehell]

I think it points to some serious issues in the state of the libs win the popular vote again but don't get into power.

I didn't understand what you meant the first time I read this. But if you meant:

I think it points to some serious issues in the state, if the libs win the popular vote again, but don't get into power.

Then no, that's not necessarily a problem with the system.

Any possible gerrymandering, or poorly drawn boundaries aside; we have a preferential system here, not a first past the post system. This recognises that an MP is supposed to be representative of their entire electorate, not just of a majority of the electorate. So a voter's preferences flow toward a different outcome than just a majority wins.

There was a big conference a decade or two ago in this state that examined other proportional systems. IIRC they made a recommendation that we should adopt the Tasmanian system? Nothing ever came of it.

[Aidan]

No it isn't. It's mainly the result of having lots of marginal seats. Seat boundaries are redrawn between elections with the objective of making it likely that the party with the most votes gets the most seats, but it is unpredictable and politicians will always try to play the system.

A system that evolved as a consequence of the things I mention.

Except that it didn't. ’Twas nothing to do with what happened in the Playford era, but rather the last Bannon victory. And while it is a feature of our political geography, it's hardly a quirk as most other places have the same feature.

The obsession with 'fairness' is understandable, but the way we've gone about it so far often has unintended consequences.

We're not obsessed with fairness the way NZ is. Our pollies hardly ever talk about fairness these days.

There is the alternative solution of voting for the executive and legislature separately like they do in America.

There are pros and cons to every model Aidan, but I would suggest that the ones that would be most successful in our situation are the ones that, to the most extent, accord with our current political traditions and practices.

Maybe, but the change isn't that big. And a lower house that rubber stamps the government's agenda like ours usually does is more likely to be part of the problem than part of the solution.

[fabricator]

I think it points to some serious issues in the state of the libs win the popular vote again but don't get into power.

As much I am reluctant to see the Liberals elected, I have to agree. It's both a quirk of SA's electoral geography and a hangover from the Playmander days (when Labor smashed the popular vote twice without attaining a majority of seats) that we just can't seem to get the balance right.

No it isn't. It's mainly the result of having lots of marginal seats. Seat boundaries are redrawn between elections with the objective of making it likely that the party with the most votes gets the most seats, but it is unpredictable and politicians will always try to play the system.

If anything the most marginal seats have become even more marginal as a result of the last boundary redraw.
Yet one poll shows the predicted result for the most most marginal seats, and the Liberal's have actually lost some votes.

The idea of altering seat boundaries to make as make 'safe' seats as possible is bizarre.

If the Liberals cannot win enough seats to win, their own policies are the problem.
Perhaps they could try not having such radical differences in some many areas, that anyone that cares about the environment, public transport or some other major issue, has little choice but to vote Labor.
Their complete lack of budget costings (yet again) is also to blame, just stupid on so many levels.

[Matt]

Latest Newspoll: Libs 53.3, ALP 47.7.

If uniform, which it obviously won't be, swing would deliver a hung parliament with the ALP having two more seats than the Libs (according to Antony Green's calculator).

May not be as big a blow out as was expected.

[Aidan]

For those who want to want to maximize the value of their below the line vote, John Browne is fulfilling the function that Chris Corrigan did in the last
Federal election. Virtually no hope of getting in, though hypothetically not bad if he does. No above the line box so he's likely to be eliminated early, but meanwhile some seat outcomes will be decided, so your vote will retain more of its value longer.

[Waewick]

Latest Newspoll: Libs 53.3, ALP 47.7.

If uniform, which it obviously won't be, swing would deliver a hung parliament with the ALP having two more seats than the Libs (according to Antony Green's calculator).

May not be as big a blow out as was expected.

it was never forecast as a blow out. Why do people keep saying that?