Which party has "the right" to govern?

[Sojourner]

If Labor do form a government with the Greens, I think the fly in the ointment could be how they fund all of their own promises in addition to the various things that the Greens will require put through the parliament and changes implemented. What I think is a possibility is some of their promises made such as the Southern Expressway Duplication being put on hold until a more stable government is formed. One might think the Greens priority would be improved public transport for the South and not a new road.

[Psyber]

I think Sojourner is correct in his post above.
I wonder whether the Greens have considered in their plans the cost of security and cleaning staff for the improved public transport.
It would be a shame to spend money improving it only to discover that only the people who have no choice use it out of safety concerns, and because the vehicles are grubby.
Then there is convenience. I have a Seniors Card and therefore am entitled to free public transport from my home in the hills.
However, I rarely use it because it takes an hour to get to the city, whereas I can be there in 15 minutes by car.

[bulldogproud2]

If we have a 'coalition' government I think we will be back to the polls again within 12 months. Unfortunately, there is bad blood between various elements of the National Party and the Independents. The Liberal Party have taken note of this and not allowed any National member to talk to the Independents. Additionally the National Party is fighting within itself with those in the west wanting to have nothing to do with those on the east coast, particularly Barnaby Joyce and Warren Truss. A very unstable situation which was hidden to many outside of WA before the election. Despite the obvious internal instability, the Labor Party is actually far more stable than the Coalition at present.
Cheers

[CK]

The seats are most important.

Two party preferred is next.

Primary vote is a long, long last.

In that case, then it should be very clear.

The ALP has won 70 seats to this point.

The Liberal Party has won 43.

The Liberal National Party of Queensland has won 21.

The Nationals Party won 7 seats, with Greens 1 and Country Liberal 1.

Leaving aside the issue of Independents and existing coalitions between parties, at present, one party was the clear choice in 70 seats. The next largest representation from a single party - which is the essence of the question - is 43 seats.

As far as having the "right" to govern, one party has been a clear choice. Sorry if this sounds like I'm oversimplifying things, but surely that should come into account - which single party was the majority choice of the electorate?

[Wedgie]

I assume Julia thinks state parties didn't have the right to govern when they had less than 50% of the 2 party preferred vote too?
God I hope there is another election and they bring back Rudd.
At least I'll have someone to vote for then.

[bulldogproud2]

Wedgie, the two-party preferred aspect only comes into it when neither party has a clear majority of seats (eg. neither party has 76 seats in the Federal Parliament).
It is possible to win government with 26% of the vote (even on a two-party preferred count). If you received 50.1% of the vote in each of 76 seats but no votes in the other 74 you would still win government clearly in your own right.
Uncle Joh in Queensland often won government with less than 40% of the two-party preferred count.
Cheers

[Jimmy_041]

Neither.

R&B and I are having an agreeable day today.
Nobody has the right to govern until they can drum up the numbers to form a functional coalition [note the small "c"].
We need a "Neither" option in this poll.

Yikes - that's 3 combatants agreeing..................

Let the real political games begin

and Julia - citizen assembly We are not that stupid. Where's the Peter Lewis agreement with SA Labor now?

[redandblack]

The seats are most important.

Two party preferred is next.

Primary vote is a long, long last.

Just to confirm this

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/ ... onal_vote/

[Jimmy_041]

You blokes crack me up - you bag The Australian until they write something that supports your argument and then I'm suppose to treat it as an oracle

Face it - it's 50/50 - no-one has a mandate unless they have 1 more seat than the other people.

So - they have to now work hard to govern - this is, NOW, democracy at work

THIS is how it should work and we, the people, will be the winner

[Squawk]

I just wish we could do away with party-nominated preferences and require voters to nominate their own preferences. Say, 1-6 in order of personal preference for the Senate, for example. Then there could be a clearer indication of what the majority of the people want. Lets face it, we don't have a preference system for the Brownlow or Magarey Medals

[Q.]

Face it - it's 50/50 - no-one has a mandate unless they have 1 more seat than the other people.

So - they have to now work hard to govern - this is, NOW, democracy at work

THIS is how it should work and we, the people, will be the winner

This result has rescued me from the dark depths of disenchantment

[bulldogproud2]

I just wish we could do away with party-nominated preferences and require voters to nominate their own preferences. Say, 1-6 in order of personal preference for the Senate, for example. Then there could be a clearer indication of what the majority of the people want. Lets face it, we don't have a preference system for the Brownlow or Magarey Medals

Squawk, we do have a system where voters nominate their own preferences. No one has to follow a 'How-to-vote' card. You make your own preferences. This is also the case in the Senate if you vote below the line. It is foolhardy to vote above the line unless you have studied the way the party would allocate preferences. It would probably be a good idea to do away with above-the-line voting.
Cheers

[redandblack]

You blokes crack me up - you bag The Australian until they write something that supports your argument and then I'm suppose to treat it as an oracle

Face it - it's 50/50 - no-one has a mandate unless they have 1 more seat than the other people.

So - they have to now work hard to govern - this is, NOW, democracy at work

THIS is how it should work and we, the people, will be the winner

1 Mumble is a long-time independent, just recently swallowed up by Rupert.

2 I thought you would only respect a right-wing rag point of view, mate.

3 We all totally agree that the number of seats determines the result, so there's never been an argument there. This was merely in answer to the argument about primary and preferred votes.

[Psyber]

As far as having the "right" to govern, one party has been a clear choice. Sorry if this sounds like I'm oversimplifying things, but surely that should come into account - which single party was the majority choice of the electorate?

The Liberal Party and the Nationals [formerly the Country Party] have been functionally one party, as the Coalition, since Bob Menzies' day
So, that is a somewhat fallacious case you make. Nothing matters but mustering the 76 seats, and whoever does it will form the government.

If I were Abbot I'd be sending Malcolm Turnbull to talk to the Greens - gaining power is what it is all about for all parties.
Even the Greens will start to modify their principles if it looks like doing so to attract more mainstream voters will give them the numbers to have real power.

[Psyber]

Squawk, we do have a system where voters nominate their own preferences. No one has to follow a 'How-to-vote' card. You make your own preferences. This is also the case in the Senate if you vote below the line. It is foolhardy to vote above the line unless you have studied the way the party would allocate preferences. It would probably be a good idea to do away with above-the-line voting.
Cheers

I used to always vote below the line, but now there are so many of them, and so many groups I have never heard of, that it is difficult to know where to put the numbers after the first 10 or so.
Perhaps the AEC should put detailed information up in a notice inside the booths to assist, but of course that would slow the whole thing down..

[redandblack]

My best analysis ATm is this:

The most important factor is the number of seats won. Here, I think the LNP have a slight advantage. Of the seats in doubt, they lead in all but one - Corangamite. They are reducing the gap in that seat quickly through postal votes, so it will be close. If Labor lose that seat, they're in a weak position.

The two seats that are still a chance for Labor are Brisbane and Hasluck. In each case they are behind, but have a chance. If they hold Corangamite and win one of these, IMO they will form a minority government, but this is a less than 50% chance.

If all seats maintain the current situation, ALP/Green will have 73, LNP 73, Ind's 4.

If Labor lose Corangamite, it will be 72/74 and I think Abbott will form a gov't.

If Labor hold C'mite and win one of Hasluck or Brisbane, it would be 74/72.

aB, CK, does this look correct?

[am Bays]

If all seats maintain the current situation, ALP/Green will have 73, LNP 73, Ind's 4.

If Labor lose Corangamite, it will be 72/74 and I think Abbott will form a gov't.

If Labor hold C'mite and win one of Hasluck or Brisbane, it would be 74/72.

aB, CK, does this look correct?

I concur R&B, my feeling is that your statement I've bolded will be the most likely outcome.

[JohnnyG]

If all seats maintain the current situation, ALP/Green will have 73, LNP 73, Ind's 4.

If Labor lose Corangamite, it will be 72/74 and I think Abbott will form a gov't.

If Labor hold C'mite and win one of Hasluck or Brisbane, it would be 74/72.

aB, CK, does this look correct?

I concur R&B, my feeling is that your statement I've bolded will be the most likely outcome.

Are you sure the above is correct (and i realize that these figures above are the ones being sprouted in the media today), however, whem i look on the AEC site the latest figures as i read them are:

ALP: 70
Greens: 1
Wilkie: 1
LNP Coal: 72
"Country" Independents 3
Doubtful: 3 (being Corangamite, Hasluck, Dunkley)

Consequenty, on my reckoning if Corangamite goes to Labor and Hasluck, Dunkley to Libs, then state of play is:
ALP 71
Greens 1
Wilkie 1
LIbs 74
Indep C"P" 3

ie In variance to your figures , i make it ALP/Green 72 LNP 74 Ind 4
Have i missed something? - the AEC site itself is a bit confusing because it shows 3 seats as "doubtful" but then does not list which 3 seats they are (they do list 2 "close" seats only)

[PhilH]

My thoughts

If when it is sorted the ALP or Coalition has more seats ie 74-72
then have a degree of mandate to get 1st chance to form a govt.


If it is 73-73 then back to the polls.

I'd prefer this than an unstable deal with independents that cover extermities of the political spectrum (ie from Bob Katter in Nth Qld to Greens in Melb / former Green Wilke in Hobart )

[am Bays]

My thoughts

If when it is sorted the ALP or Coalition has more seats ie 74-72
then have a degree of mandate to get 1st chance to form a govt.


If it is 73-73 then back to the polls.

I'd prefer this than an unstable deal with independents that cover extermities of the political spectrum (ie from Bob Katter in Nth Qld to Greens in Melb / former Green Wilke in Hobart )

The convention is that the parliament be given a chance to sit and "work". If it is demonstrable that it can't work - the government's bills aren't being passed, the GG has the ability to request that the PM call for a double dissolution - new elections.