Election day in Australia
Hi folks,
Australia is holding an election now. Rumor has it (or should I say
"rumour has it") that these are the best places to track the
Australian election results:
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal-election-2025
- https://results.aec.gov.au/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Australian_federal_election
Anyone got other reliable sites to track in real-time? If (by the
time you read this), the important elections have all been decided,
I'm curious to know if you have an opinion on the results (especially
an informed opinion). The math on this one should be interesting...
Rob
The "Leader of the Opposition" (the leader of the parliamentary Liberal
Party, Peter Dutton ) has conceded defeat. So the Labor federal
government stays in power and the current Prime Minister keeps his job.
I was compelled to vote today, and if I wanted to have my vote counted
(and possibly affect the result) I had to strictly rank all seven
candidates for the single-member district I live in (in the state of
South Australia) for a seat in the House of Representatives.
I dislike compulsory preferences, but I don't notice anyone else
complaining about them. I consider them are far lesser evil than any
limitation on the number of candidates a voter can rank, as happens in
some parts of the world that use some version of Hare/IRV.
The GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) effect of compulsory full-ranking is
much lower with Hare than it would be with a Condorcet method or Borda.
And the days when most of the voters had an FPP mindset and the way you
vote for party X is to blindly follow X's "how-to-vote card" handed to
you by a volunteer as you enter the polling station are mostly over (or
at least have receded a lot). So is there is less of the effect of
transferring some power from voters to small parties whose candidates
get eliminated.
As well I voted among 39 candidates to fill six vacancies for the
Senate, using STV-PR (semi-corrupted into a sort of fixed List PR). The
candidates were in 16 party groups plus one "Ungrouped" group. Each
group had a least two candidates and at most four (but I assume five and
six are allowed). I could either ignore the groups and number at least
12 candidates, or I could ignore the individual candidates and vote
"above the line" and number at least 6 groups.
Australia has a "Westminster" style parliamentary system and the house
of parliament on which the government is based is elected using
single-member districts. The election campaigns tend to be
quasi-presidential with a lot of focus on which leader of one of the two
major parties voters want to be Prime Minister and much less on
individual local candidates.
One way I think this can be undemocratic is if the leader of the winning
party fails to keep his seat. Peter Dutton I gather is not completely
safe in his seat. It could have happened that a majority of voters voted
Liberal because they wanted Peter Dutton to be Prime Minister but were
denied just because the voters in his district rejected him. So then the
PM would be a Liberal MP elected by the Liberal MPs to be the new leader
of the parliamentary Liberal party, someone the majority of voters may
dislike or know little or nothing about.
The leader of a major party is obviously far less likely to lose his
seat in a multi-member district using PR. And that problem can't exist
in a system where the head of the government is directly elected.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal-election-2025
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-03/peter-dutton-losing-dickson-coalition-leadership/105247916
In short:
Peter Dutton will become the first federal leader of an opposition to
lose his own seat.
Mr Dutton has conceded he has lost Dickson.
What's next?
The Liberal Party will have to search for a new leader.
"I think we've seen across the country independents doing well … some
who haven't quite won a seat but have made a seat marginal for the
first time, and I think that's more and more people wanting a
different kind of politics in Australia," Mr Pocock said.
Chris B.
On 3/05/2025 11:38 am, Rob Lanphier via Election-Methods wrote:
Hi folks,
Australia is holding an election now. Rumor has it (or should I say
"rumour has it") that these are the best places to track the
Australian election results:
*https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal-election-2025
*https://results.aec.gov.au/
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Australian_federal_election
Anyone got other reliable sites to track in real-time? If (by the
time you read this), the important elections have all been decided,
I'm curious to know if you have an opinion on the results (especially
an informed opinion). The math on this one should be interesting...
Rob
Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em for list info
A bit of a bother, especially the 12 on the Senate side. Showing my
ignorance here, but what issue would there be in allowing voters (who, in
this particular case, have to show up on pains of a fine) to rank as many
of as few as they like, and show approval by proxy that way? Exhausted
votes? So what?
On Sat, 3 May 2025, 11:33 pm Chris Benham via Election-Methods, <
election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote:
The "Leader of the Opposition" (the leader of the parliamentary Liberal
Party, Peter Dutton ) has conceded defeat. So the Labor federal government
stays in power and the current Prime Minister keeps his job.
I was compelled to vote today, and if I wanted to have my vote counted
(and possibly affect the result) I had to strictly rank all seven
candidates for the single-member district I live in (in the state of South
Australia) for a seat in the House of Representatives.
I dislike compulsory preferences, but I don't notice anyone else
complaining about them. I consider them are far lesser evil than any
limitation on the number of candidates a voter can rank, as happens in some
parts of the world that use some version of Hare/IRV.
The GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) effect of compulsory full-ranking is
much lower with Hare than it would be with a Condorcet method or Borda.
And the days when most of the voters had an FPP mindset and the way you
vote for party X is to blindly follow X's "how-to-vote card" handed to you
by a volunteer as you enter the polling station are mostly over (or at
least have receded a lot). So is there is less of the effect of
transferring some power from voters to small parties whose candidates get
eliminated.
As well I voted among 39 candidates to fill six vacancies for the Senate,
using STV-PR (semi-corrupted into a sort of fixed List PR). The candidates
were in 16 party groups plus one "Ungrouped" group. Each group had a least
two candidates and at most four (but I assume five and six are allowed).
I could either ignore the groups and number at least 12 candidates, or I
could ignore the individual candidates and vote "above the line" and
number at least 6 groups.
Australia has a "Westminster" style parliamentary system and the house of
parliament on which the government is based is elected using single-member
districts. The election campaigns tend to be quasi-presidential with a lot
of focus on which leader of one of the two major parties voters want to be
Prime Minister and much less on individual local candidates.
One way I think this can be undemocratic is if the leader of the winning
party fails to keep his seat. Peter Dutton I gather is not completely safe
in his seat. It could have happened that a majority of voters voted Liberal
because they wanted Peter Dutton to be Prime Minister but were denied just
because the voters in his district rejected him. So then the PM would be a
Liberal MP elected by the Liberal MPs to be the new leader of the
parliamentary Liberal party, someone the majority of voters may dislike or
know little or nothing about.
The leader of a major party is obviously far less likely to lose his seat
in a multi-member district using PR. And that problem can't exist in a
system where the head of the government is directly elected.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal-election-2025
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-03/peter-dutton-losing-dickson-coalition-leadership/105247916
In short:
Peter Dutton will become the first federal leader of an opposition to lose
his own seat.
Mr Dutton has conceded he has lost Dickson.
What's next?
The Liberal Party will have to search for a new leader.
"I think we've seen across the country independents doing well … some who
haven't quite won a seat but have made a seat marginal for the first time,
and I think that's more and more people wanting a different kind of
politics in Australia," Mr Pocock said.
Chris B.
On 3/05/2025 11:38 am, Rob Lanphier via Election-Methods wrote:
Hi folks,
Australia is holding an election now. Rumor has it (or should I say
"rumour has it") that these are the best places to track the
Australian election results:
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal-election-2025
- https://results.aec.gov.au/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Australian_federal_election
Anyone got other reliable sites to track in real-time? If (by the
time you read this), the important elections have all been decided,
I'm curious to know if you have an opinion on the results (especially
an informed opinion). The math on this one should be interesting...
Rob
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Your message got me wondering — has a party leader ever lost their seat
while winning the election?
The answer appears to be yes, at least twice — Mackenzie King was defeated
in both 1925 and 1945 while Labour won in Canada. Both times other MPs
resigned immediately to allow him to rejoin Parliament via by-election and
reclaim the premiership. If anyone has additional examples, please send
them — I find this fascinating.
On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 9:39 AM Etjon Basha via Election-Methods <
election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote:
A bit of a bother, especially the 12 on the Senate side. Showing my
ignorance here, but what issue would there be in allowing voters (who, in
this particular case, have to show up on pains of a fine) to rank as many
of as few as they like, and show approval by proxy that way? Exhausted
votes? So what?
On Sat, 3 May 2025, 11:33 pm Chris Benham via Election-Methods, <
election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote:
The "Leader of the Opposition" (the leader of the parliamentary Liberal
Party, Peter Dutton ) has conceded defeat. So the Labor federal government
stays in power and the current Prime Minister keeps his job.
I was compelled to vote today, and if I wanted to have my vote counted
(and possibly affect the result) I had to strictly rank all seven
candidates for the single-member district I live in (in the state of South
Australia) for a seat in the House of Representatives.
I dislike compulsory preferences, but I don't notice anyone else
complaining about them. I consider them are far lesser evil than any
limitation on the number of candidates a voter can rank, as happens in some
parts of the world that use some version of Hare/IRV.
The GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) effect of compulsory full-ranking is
much lower with Hare than it would be with a Condorcet method or Borda.
And the days when most of the voters had an FPP mindset and the way you
vote for party X is to blindly follow X's "how-to-vote card" handed to you
by a volunteer as you enter the polling station are mostly over (or at
least have receded a lot). So is there is less of the effect of
transferring some power from voters to small parties whose candidates get
eliminated.
As well I voted among 39 candidates to fill six vacancies for the Senate,
using STV-PR (semi-corrupted into a sort of fixed List PR). The candidates
were in 16 party groups plus one "Ungrouped" group. Each group had a least
two candidates and at most four (but I assume five and six are allowed).
I could either ignore the groups and number at least 12 candidates, or I
could ignore the individual candidates and vote "above the line" and
number at least 6 groups.
Australia has a "Westminster" style parliamentary system and the house of
parliament on which the government is based is elected using single-member
districts. The election campaigns tend to be quasi-presidential with a lot
of focus on which leader of one of the two major parties voters want to be
Prime Minister and much less on individual local candidates.
One way I think this can be undemocratic is if the leader of the winning
party fails to keep his seat. Peter Dutton I gather is not completely safe
in his seat. It could have happened that a majority of voters voted Liberal
because they wanted Peter Dutton to be Prime Minister but were denied just
because the voters in his district rejected him. So then the PM would be a
Liberal MP elected by the Liberal MPs to be the new leader of the
parliamentary Liberal party, someone the majority of voters may dislike or
know little or nothing about.
The leader of a major party is obviously far less likely to lose his seat
in a multi-member district using PR. And that problem can't exist in a
system where the head of the government is directly elected.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal-election-2025
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-03/peter-dutton-losing-dickson-coalition-leadership/105247916
In short:
Peter Dutton will become the first federal leader of an opposition to
lose his own seat.
Mr Dutton has conceded he has lost Dickson.
What's next?
The Liberal Party will have to search for a new leader.
"I think we've seen across the country independents doing well … some who
haven't quite won a seat but have made a seat marginal for the first time,
and I think that's more and more people wanting a different kind of
politics in Australia," Mr Pocock said.
Chris B.
On 3/05/2025 11:38 am, Rob Lanphier via Election-Methods wrote:
Hi folks,
Australia is holding an election now. Rumor has it (or should I say
"rumour has it") that these are the best places to track the
Australian election results:
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal-election-2025
- https://results.aec.gov.au/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Australian_federal_election
Anyone got other reliable sites to track in real-time? If (by the
time you read this), the important elections have all been decided,
I'm curious to know if you have an opinion on the results (especially
an informed opinion). The math on this one should be interesting...
Rob
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
FWIW, that just happened to leaders of three of the five opposition
parties in Canada, too. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9ve4l13x19o
- Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN USA
On 5/3/2025 8:32 AM, Chris Benham via Election-Methods wrote:
In short:
Peter Dutton will become the first federal leader of an opposition to
lose his own seat.
Mr Dutton has conceded he has lost Dickson.
Etjon,
There is no concept of "approval" in STV. But from my point of view, no
problem allowing voters to rank or truncate as much as they like
(especially in the single-winner case).
But I think the official thinking is that compulsory preferences are in
the "spirit" of compulsory voting. Since everyone has to obey the laws
passed by the legislators and the government will (very likely)be formed
by one or another major party, then the government is more legitimate if
everyone is coerced/cajoled into expressing a preference for one of the
major parties over another. If people could show up and just
bullet-vote for "nobody", what is the point of them voting? And if
there is no point in them voting then how can we justify forcing them to
vote? (Still possible in my opinion but maybe more difficult.)
What I consulted to help decide how I would vote:
https://www.buildaballot.org.au/electorates/sturt
On 3/05/2025 11:09 pm, Etjon Basha wrote:
A bit of a bother, especially the 12 on the Senate side. Showing my
ignorance here, but what issue would there be in allowing voters (who,
in this particular case, have to show up on pains of a fine) to rank
as many of as few as they like, and show approval by proxy that way?
Exhausted votes? So what?
On Sat, 3 May 2025, 11:33 pm Chris Benham via Election-Methods,
election-methods@lists.electorama.com wrote:
The "Leader of the Opposition" (the leader of the parliamentary
Liberal Party, Peter Dutton ) has conceded defeat. So the Labor
federal government stays in power and the current Prime Minister
keeps his job.
I was compelled to vote today, and if I wanted to have my vote
counted (and possibly affect the result) I had to strictly rank
all seven candidates for the single-member district I live in (in
the state of South Australia) for a seat in the House of
Representatives.
I dislike compulsory preferences, but I don't notice anyone else
complaining about them. I consider them are far lesser evil than
any limitation on the number of candidates a voter can rank, as
happens in some parts of the world that use some version of Hare/IRV.
The GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) effect of compulsory
full-ranking is much lower with Hare than it would be with a
Condorcet method or Borda. And the days when most of the voters
had an FPP mindset and the way you vote for party X is to blindly
follow X's "how-to-vote card" handed to you by a volunteer as you
enter the polling station are mostly over (or at least have
receded a lot). So is there is less of the effect of transferring
some power from voters to small parties whose candidates get
eliminated.
As well I voted among 39 candidates to fill six vacancies for the
Senate, using STV-PR (semi-corrupted into a sort of fixed List
PR). The candidates were in 16 party groups plus one "Ungrouped"
group. Each group had a least two candidates and at most four
(but I assume five and six are allowed). I could either ignore
the groups and number at least 12 candidates, or I could ignore
the individual candidates and vote "above the line" and number at
least 6 groups.
Australia has a "Westminster" style parliamentary system and the
house of parliament on which the government is based is elected
using single-member districts. The election campaigns tend to be
quasi-presidential with a lot of focus on which leader of one of
the two major parties voters want to be Prime Minister and much
less on individual local candidates.
One way I think this can be undemocratic is if the leader of the
winning party fails to keep his seat. Peter Dutton I gather is not
completely safe in his seat. It could have happened that a
majority of voters voted Liberal because they wanted Peter Dutton
to be Prime Minister but were denied just because the voters in
his district rejected him. So then the PM would be a Liberal MP
elected by the Liberal MPs to be the new leader of the
parliamentary Liberal party, someone the majority of voters may
dislike or know little or nothing about.
The leader of a major party is obviously far less likely to lose
his seat in a multi-member district using PR. And that problem
can't exist in a system where the head of the government is
directly elected.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal-election-2025
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-03/peter-dutton-losing-dickson-coalition-leadership/105247916
In short:
Peter Dutton will become the first federal leader of an
opposition to lose his own seat.
Mr Dutton has conceded he has lost Dickson.
What's next?
The Liberal Party will have to search for a new leader.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-03/act-election-results-senate-house-of-representatives-2025/105244060
"I think we've seen across the country independents doing well …
some who haven't quite won a seat but have made a seat marginal
for the first time, and I think that's more and more people
wanting a different kind of politics in Australia," Mr Pocock said.
Chris B.
On 3/05/2025 11:38 am, Rob Lanphier via Election-Methods wrote:
Hi folks,
Australia is holding an election now. Rumor has it (or should I say
"rumour has it") that these are the best places to track the
Australian election results:
*https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal-election-2025
*https://results.aec.gov.au/
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Australian_federal_election
Anyone got other reliable sites to track in real-time? If (by the
time you read this), the important elections have all been decided,
I'm curious to know if you have an opinion on the results (especially
an informed opinion). The math on this one should be interesting...
Rob
----
Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
list info
Thanks Chris,
Makes sense from that point of view, though I wonder what would happen if
one showed up, got the ballots and then shredded them if full view of
everyone. Would one still get the fine eventually, he did show up after
all. One can just as easily spoil his ballot whilst in the booth. Anyways.
Conscious that there is no explicit approval in IRV/STV but allowing
truncation would make the data shared with the parties after the fact much
more meaningful.
Regards,
On Sun, 4 May 2025, 12:25 am Chris Benham, cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Etjon,
There is no concept of "approval" in STV. But from my point of view, no
problem allowing voters to rank or truncate as much as they like
(especially in the single-winner case).
But I think the official thinking is that compulsory preferences are in
the "spirit" of compulsory voting. Since everyone has to obey the laws
passed by the legislators and the government will (very likely)be formed by
one or another major party, then the government is more legitimate if
everyone is coerced/cajoled into expressing a preference for one of the
major parties over another. If people could show up and just bullet-vote
for "nobody", what is the point of them voting? And if there is no point
in them voting then how can we justify forcing them to vote? (Still
possible in my opinion but maybe more difficult.)
What I consulted to help decide how I would vote:
https://www.buildaballot.org.au/electorates/sturt
On 3/05/2025 11:09 pm, Etjon Basha wrote:
A bit of a bother, especially the 12 on the Senate side. Showing my
ignorance here, but what issue would there be in allowing voters (who, in
this particular case, have to show up on pains of a fine) to rank as many
of as few as they like, and show approval by proxy that way? Exhausted
votes? So what?
On Sat, 3 May 2025, 11:33 pm Chris Benham via Election-Methods, <
election-methods@lists.electorama.com> wrote:
The "Leader of the Opposition" (the leader of the parliamentary Liberal
Party, Peter Dutton ) has conceded defeat. So the Labor federal government
stays in power and the current Prime Minister keeps his job.
I was compelled to vote today, and if I wanted to have my vote counted
(and possibly affect the result) I had to strictly rank all seven
candidates for the single-member district I live in (in the state of South
Australia) for a seat in the House of Representatives.
I dislike compulsory preferences, but I don't notice anyone else
complaining about them. I consider them are far lesser evil than any
limitation on the number of candidates a voter can rank, as happens in some
parts of the world that use some version of Hare/IRV.
The GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) effect of compulsory full-ranking is
much lower with Hare than it would be with a Condorcet method or Borda.
And the days when most of the voters had an FPP mindset and the way you
vote for party X is to blindly follow X's "how-to-vote card" handed to you
by a volunteer as you enter the polling station are mostly over (or at
least have receded a lot). So is there is less of the effect of
transferring some power from voters to small parties whose candidates get
eliminated.
As well I voted among 39 candidates to fill six vacancies for the Senate,
using STV-PR (semi-corrupted into a sort of fixed List PR). The candidates
were in 16 party groups plus one "Ungrouped" group. Each group had a least
two candidates and at most four (but I assume five and six are allowed).
I could either ignore the groups and number at least 12 candidates, or I
could ignore the individual candidates and vote "above the line" and
number at least 6 groups.
Australia has a "Westminster" style parliamentary system and the house of
parliament on which the government is based is elected using single-member
districts. The election campaigns tend to be quasi-presidential with a lot
of focus on which leader of one of the two major parties voters want to be
Prime Minister and much less on individual local candidates.
One way I think this can be undemocratic is if the leader of the winning
party fails to keep his seat. Peter Dutton I gather is not completely safe
in his seat. It could have happened that a majority of voters voted Liberal
because they wanted Peter Dutton to be Prime Minister but were denied just
because the voters in his district rejected him. So then the PM would be a
Liberal MP elected by the Liberal MPs to be the new leader of the
parliamentary Liberal party, someone the majority of voters may dislike or
know little or nothing about.
The leader of a major party is obviously far less likely to lose his seat
in a multi-member district using PR. And that problem can't exist in a
system where the head of the government is directly elected.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal-election-2025
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-03/peter-dutton-losing-dickson-coalition-leadership/105247916
In short:
Peter Dutton will become the first federal leader of an opposition to
lose his own seat.
Mr Dutton has conceded he has lost Dickson.
What's next?
The Liberal Party will have to search for a new leader.
"I think we've seen across the country independents doing well … some who
haven't quite won a seat but have made a seat marginal for the first time,
and I think that's more and more people wanting a different kind of
politics in Australia," Mr Pocock said.
Chris B.
On 3/05/2025 11:38 am, Rob Lanphier via Election-Methods wrote:
Hi folks,
Australia is holding an election now. Rumor has it (or should I say
"rumour has it") that these are the best places to track the
Australian election results:
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal-election-2025
- https://results.aec.gov.au/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Australian_federal_election
Anyone got other reliable sites to track in real-time? If (by the
time you read this), the important elections have all been decided,
I'm curious to know if you have an opinion on the results (especially
an informed opinion). The math on this one should be interesting...
Rob
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info