Oh dear god

[noone]

I just realised when I got her card int he the post last week that Im in her electorate now (recent boundary changes) ...I was thinking of Labor but not anymore!!!

there havn't been any boundry changes at a federal level for an election or two. Each state election there is a boundary change however federal is only done every ten years.

[am Bays]

I just realised when I got her card int he the post last week that Im in her electorate now (recent boundary changes) ...I was thinking of Labor but not anymore!!!

There havn't been any boundry changes at a federal level for an election or two. Each state election there is a boundary change however federal is only done every ten years.

WTF!!!!!! Last election there was one huge boundary change the seat of Bonython got "ripped out" of SA and put in Queensland???? In 98 Sue Jeanes lost part of her country conservative areas in Kingston to Downers seat.....

As Red and Black and I debated earlier this each election the electoral commission makes minor changes to prevent a party having to win significantly more than 50% of the nationwide vote to win govt as what happened in 87 and 98 IIRC when the Coalition and Labor (who both had more than 50% of the nationwide vote on a two-party preferred basis (~50.1 - 50.2) but lost the election because their vote was really strong in their safe seats but much weaker in the key margnals)

[mick]

I have never liked the fact that our system can return a government when they fail to achieve a majority nationwide, but manage to hold onto enough marginal seats to win. It is hard to envisage a system where this can be avoided. The great strenghth of our current system is that it is difficult for small parties to win house of Reps seats, lots of small parties in the reps would make for political instability which I think is far worse than the occassional electoral anomaly a la '87 and '98. With regard to Mrs Cornes, it's gone pretty quite mediawise on this front lately sort of coincides with the possible end of the Rudd honeymoon.

[redandblack]

My learned friend 1980TM is correct, the last redistribution in SA was in 2003.

'noone' is not totally incorrect. It isn't done every ten years, but there have only been 11 in SA since 1901.

mick, the Rudd honeymoon has supposed to have been over every week or so, but he's still miles in front.

[am Bays]

My learned friend 1980TM is correct, the last redistribution in SA was in 2003.

'noone' is not totally incorrect. It isn't done every ten years, but there have only been 11 in SA since 1901.

Yes but aren't their minor changes to the electoral boundaries every election which is what I comprehended from noone's post. I agree redistributions are rare but boundary changes to most seats occur after or before every election. I susppose it depeends on what your define as a "redistribution" or "boundary change"

I was only correct because I can comprehend and remember your posts R&B!!!!!

[noone]

if the boundary change was in 2003 and the last election was in 2004, therefore there has not been a new boundary change.

Ie if you were in boothby in 2004 you would still be in boothby in 2007. That as my point.


Regarding the ten years rule, It is actually more on the lines of every ten years OR if enrolment levels in a seat or state drop/raise to +/-10 or 15 of the national average or something. I prolly should of clarified that but well eh

SA dropping below a whole quota in 2003 (and qld having a surplus quota) resulted in a change, if that had not occurred a redistribution would of happened if it came to ten years without one.

pre-edit- i could be wrong here - ten years could be the US electoral college one, maybe we are 7 or 8 years or something. I might go check.

Regarding changes to the act to try and stop parties getting 51% and losing, SA has tried that with our fairness clause, and while there has not been a close enough election yet to test it working, I dont really like it, for one it results in a redistribution every electoral cycle, which so far has only had the effect of punishing well performing local members by cutting their margin.

The only way to prevent it is either have proportional voting: seats = vote%/x, or the next best thing is having one vote one value (which we do) and having an independant electoral commission to ensure no gerry mandering (which we also have). I dont think we can do much more without going down the path of proportional representation.

[noone]

ok yeah the us is 10, we are 7 years, damm confusing electoral systems...

from the AEC

Timing of redistributions

A redistribution is necessary when:

* the number of parliamentary representatives to which a State or Territory is entitled has changed (see population quota);
* the number of electors in more than one third of the divisions in a State or one of the divisions in the ACT deviates from the average divisional enrolment by over 10% in three consecutive months; or
* a period of 7 years has elapsed since the previous redistribution.

[Dutchy]

Im lost....all I know is we used to be in Mayo and now are in Boothby, half of Flagstaff Hill is in Mayo and the other is in Boothby....it all used to be in Mayo...

[Dutchy]

just found out Mrs Stud is having a corner meeting at the end of my street today...thank god Im going out!!!

if she door knocks later today Ill tell her she can have my vote if she gets new toilets behind SNout Hill and reinstates Snout Bar