No one votes for the Greens. Or something.

[Gozu]

"They may have one seat, but it’s a seat that represents more than 1.4 million Australians":

One other line that Miranda indulges in in that column is this week’s favourite News Ltd line on the Greens: they have only one seat in the House of Representatives! Why should they have any power at all! As Bolt puts it:

Third, to please the Greens extremists who hold just one of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives, rather than appeal to the voters who chose the other 149, not one of which campaigned for her tax.

How dare the Greens use that one vote! That one vote that represents the 11.76% of Australians who voted for them.

You might have noticed that 1/150 is not 11.76%. In fact, it’s two thirds of one percent. If we had a genuine representative democracy, on those votes the Greens would have seventeen (17) seats in the House of Representatives. But, because of the single member electorate system that ignores voters if they’re not concentrated geographically, they only have one. Where did the other sixteen seats’ worth of Greens votes go? They went to the major parties in preferences.

Which highlights the deception in the second half of that sentence. Many of the voters represented by those 149 non-Green MPs – more than 1.4 million Australians, all the Greens voters who didn’t live in Adam Bandt’s electorate (like me, as it happens) – actually did vote for the Greens.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2 ... stralians/

[scoob]

Nature of the beast unfortunately - if each vote counted wouldn't we have a coalition government????

http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website ... 08-NAT.htm

[overloaded]

Nature of the beast unfortunately - if each vote counted wouldn't we have a coalition government????

http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website ... 08-NAT.htm

fair point scoob

[redandblack]

Nature of the beast unfortunately - if each vote counted wouldn't we have a coalition government????

http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website ... 08-NAT.htm

Not a fair point at all.

Those official figures show the ALP's 2 party preferred vote was 50.12% to the LNP's 49.88%.

Under any method, that doesn't relate to an LNP coalition government.

[cripple]

preferential voting always throws up weird statistical anomalies. Lets never forget little johnny winning in '98 with 49% of the primary vote compared with beazleys 51%

[dedja]

Nature of the beast unfortunately - if each vote counted wouldn't we have a coalition government????

http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website ... 08-NAT.htm

And the Greens would have a shitload more seats than the Nationals ...

[scoob]

Nature of the beast unfortunately - if each vote counted wouldn't we have a coalition government????

http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website ... 08-NAT.htm

Not a fair point at all.

Those official figures show the ALP's 2 party preferred vote was 50.12% to the LNP's 49.88%.

Under any method, that doesn't relate to an LNP coalition government.

Yeah sure - I only went by the first preference vote, would it be fair to say the majority of australia dont vote with preferences in mind??? Genuine question...still I think the point stands that it is the nature of the beast... saying the greens deserve more seats because they got more 1st preference votes is not really a relevant arguement with our system...

[Psyber]

Yeah sure - I only went by the first preference vote, would it be fair to say the majority of australia dont vote with preferences in mind??? Genuine question...still I think the point stands that it is the nature of the beast... saying the greens deserve more seats because they got more 1st preference votes is not really a relevant arguement with our system...

I do vote with preferences in mind - at least in the lower house.
I used to in the upper house too, but there are just too many of them these days, and not enough information around on what all the minor players are about.