Have you ever wondered how Bob Brown got elected

[AlmostBob]

I THOUGHT THIS WAS VERY INTERESTING AS I DID NOT KNOW THE NUMBERS
Have you ever wondered how Bob Brown got elected?
Well, here in broad terms is how:
He is a Senator from Tasmania
Senate voting is NOT first past the post. It is "Proportional Representation"
There are 12 senators from each state (and a few more from the territories)
Senators are elected for 6 year terms, so 6 from each state are elected at each 3 yearly House of Reps election
A "quota" of votes must be obtained to be elected. The quota depends on the number of formal votes cast in the election
The quota varies between the states and is based on the votes within each state.
For example, the populations of each state are as follows:

NSW - 7 million
Vic - 5.3m
Qld - 4.3m
WA - 2.1m
SA - 1.6m
Tas - 0.5m​

Total population 20.8m
Approximately half of those populations vote at an election.
The quota, where 6 senators are to be elected, is ONE SEVENTH of the votes.
So, the following quotas apply for the states:

NSW - 500,000
Vic - 370,000
Qld - 300,000
WA - 220,000
SA - 114,000
Tas - 36,000​

It is easier for "fringe element" politicians such as Bob Brown to be elected as Senator than as a member of the House of Reps (majority vote required, not quota), since, the votes for all the Senate candidates who do not achieve quota are handed off to second preferences. Usually, if a fringe candidate drops out, his/her preferences go to another fringe candidate. So, Bob Brown gets elected in Tasmania with 36,000 votes, many of which come from second preferences of such formidable organisations as What Women Want Party, Liberty & Democracy Party, Senator on Line Party, and so on.
In Queensland, a Senator had to get the nod from over 300,000 voters. In NSW, to be elected, a senator required over 500,000 votes ...
[size=+1]Bob Brown speaks for less than 36,000 voters, yet holds Australia to ransom with this pittance of a vote![/size]
So, what we have is Australia being subjected to the idiocies of Bob Brown and his gang of air headed, theorists, on a fraction of the votes.
It is also interesting to note that the three smallest states, Tas, SA, and WA, each have TWO green senators, whereas the main states only have ONE each. We are being dictated to by a group who represent less than 10% of voters.
**expletive** em

 

[Ideo]

So, you're fine with libs getting elected in a similar manner?

 

[JWR]

Yeah its quite funny - in Eco class we used to talk about how easy it was to become a pollie in Tas due to tiny population.

If he was in any other state he'd have no chance!

 

[datto]

onya Bob - speaks his mind and doesnt give a rats

 

[Aaron_C]

onya Bob - speaks his mind and doesnt give a rats

which Bob are we talking about?

 

[evand]

Some people have too much spare time methinks.

 

[lizzie]

Yeah its quite funny - in Eco class we used to talk about how easy it was to become a pollie in Tas due to tiny population.

If he was in any other state he'd have no chance!

I think the point was (Evand) was that he would've got in - and is practically leading the country - on probably around 20,000 primary votes ... whereas in other states they need around 200,000 in NSW (10x as many).

So, we have a pseudo leader on Australia elected on a minority vote.

 

[evand]

I got his point, he's having a whinge. The point is as well is that the same system applies to members of either party. As ideo pointed out. Its not a Labor or Greens thing, its just the system.

Ok, next item on the agenda to complain about?

I think the point was (Evand) was that he would've got in - and is practically leading the country - on probably around 20,000 primary votes ... whereas in other states they need around 200,000 in NSW (10x as many).

So, we have a pseudo leader on Australia elected on a minority vote.

 

[AlmostBob]

So, you're fine with libs getting elected in a similar manner?

not fine with any person BSing their way into power

green, implies mouldy

 

[Peter Parker]

I got his point, he's having a whinge. The point is as well is that the same system applies to members of either party. As ideo pointed out. Its not a Labor or Greens thing, its just the system.

Yes and no.

Having the same numbers of senators from each state regardless of population dates from the constitution. If this provision wasn't in it is unlikely that Federation would have been supported by the smaller states (who feared domination by NSW & Vic).

The number of senators must be about 1/2 that of the house of reps.

So if the house of reps is increased in size then the senate must increase in step.

For reasons that have little to do with common sense, the Labor government of the day (in 1984) increased the number of reps seats from 125 to 148. This increased governing costs given the extra politicians, staffers etc. It also increased pressure to enlarge the ministry from a larger back bench. Which indeed happened and this further increased costs and administrative burden.

Of relevance to this discussion was that senator numbers had to increase from 10 to 12 per state. The effect of this is that the number of votes required to fulfil a senate quota, and thus become elected, fell.

So by increasing the number of reps (for which we can legitimately blame the Hawke government), senate numbers also rise and thus the numbers of people needed to elect each one falls. Though since then, due to population growth, the numbers required to elect each one generally rises. However due to Tasmania's slower population growth, the disparity in voting power between Tas and the other states has increased.

 

[Dan_p]

I got his point, he's having a whinge. The point is as well is that the same system applies to members of either party. As ideo pointed out. Its not a Labor or Greens thing, its just the system.

Ok, next item on the agenda to complain about?

Whinging is frowned upon by socialist leaders.

 

[evand]

And encouraged by conservative leaders. And right wing forum members.

Whinging is frowned upon by socialist leaders.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Some people have too much spare time methinks.

Yeah. Bob Brown!

 

[lizzie]

And encouraged by conservative leaders. And right wing forum members.

But being uncomfortable with the status quo is the first step in change.

 

[evand]

Whingeing doesn't produce much change.

You have to actually do something. (whether its popular or not) Which the left is good at and the right isn't.

Mr NO NO NO Tony Abbott is the most obvious example and most of this forum in a conga line behind him.

But being uncomfortable with the status quo is the first step in change.

 

[Dazz]

[size=+1]Bob Brown speaks for less than 36,000 voters, yet holds Australia to ransom with this pittance of a vote![/size]

Cheer up AlmostBob, it's not for too much longer.

This is what you get when the majority of the public want a two way bet and can't decide collectively who they want to govern outright.

They've had a taste of what the Green agenda is and they clearly don't like it. They don't like Labor being dictated to by the Greens and they have come to realise the Greens themselves are a very dangerous, ill thought through organisation who are financial suicide for the country.

Next cab off the rank is Qld, and she's gonna be another whitewash back to the conservatives, just like NSW, Victoria and WA were.

The Greens were effectively shut out of the elections (both major parties now know how to do this - they both woke up after the 2010 Federal Melbourne seat preferences disaster) and I'm sure they'll employ the same tactic again.

We'll look back on this 'Green' thing with the same irrelevancy as we do now with the Democrats (remember them) and One Nation. Both major parties easily colluded together to get rid of them. The Greens will be the same. It's just that 15% of the population refuse to vote for either major party....just depends on who fills the gap.

The greatest shame is that we have gone the way of the Yanks - yet again - and turned politics into a Leader takes all, presidential style forum rather than look at the details of the policies. The (Nelson / Turnbull / Abbott) revolving door, along with the (Rudd / Gillard / next) revolving door has done little to change policy.

I've just been reading about the late 80's / early 90's revolving door with the Liberals. After Fraser lost the Jan '83 election and stood down, the Libs had (Peacock / Howard / Peacock / Hewson / Downer / Howard) as opposition leaders. They seem to change 'em out like old socks.

We also see this on the world stage as well.....the journo's always make a big who-haa about the fall of the Greek PM and the Italian PM and congratulate themselves for bringing them down....but it hasn't changed the fundamentally underlying problem both countries face. You need to change the direction the bus is heading, not just swap out the driver and continue on down the road.

Journo's love to make a huge deal about a change of leaders, especially if they are in Govt at the time.....but truly, has anything changed with Gillard at the helm ?? In the words of the Labor party - "we'd lost our way" - has anything really changed ??


To get back to your original complaint though, that's unfortunately how Senators are elected. Due to it being so easy, the flip side is that it is very very difficult to get yourself up the top of the ticket in the first place.

Brian Harradine (another Tas senator, although independent) held enormous sway in previous parliaments, as does someone like Nick Xenophon nowadays....the big 'but' of course is that they are stuck in the upper house, not where all the action is down in the lower house. After a while, it obviously gets a tad boring in the Senate....have a look at examples like Bronwyn Bishop et al who after years in the Senate, crave to get a seat in the lower house so they can be part of the real action.

If you think the Fed parliament is hamstrung by the Greens, take a look at the Labor Govt in Tasmania itself......they are stuffed and can't do a thing without the Green's blessing. One can afford to have that view in Tasmania when they are leaching off the other states, getting something like 120% of their GST refunded.

The merry-go-round circus of having to negotiate with the minor parties and independents shall continue until the Australian public gives a clear sign at a Federal general election, which of the major parties it wishes to govern in it's own right, without having to kowtow and water down their policies to get legislation through.

Not too long to wait now.....although with Labor spending $ 100 million per day more than what they are gathering in tax receipts, as they have been for over 4 years now....I just wish it were sooner rather than later.

 

[willair]

Next cab off the rank is Qld, and she's gonna be another whitewash back to the conservatives, just like NSW, Victoria and WA were.

That's the way i see it also,just a matter of time in QLD,once we had a reputation for financial and economic stability,political integrity,and a high credit rating by Leaders in overseas investing countries,and what Labor high end does not understand is people do not trust them 1%..

 

[Dazz]

That's the way i see it also

Hi willair,

For some educated commentary, see the ABC's excellent political analyst Antony Green's written opinion on where the Qld election is likely to leave the Labor Party.

He's saying that Labor might get stripped back from it's current 51 seats waaay down to 13 seats. Ouch !!

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...spects-based-on-federal-election-results.html

As the years and decades roll on, I believe the Australian population are slowly becoming more and more financially literate, and as they do, they are realising that the traditional Labor / union viewpoint is becoming less and less viable.

They are starting to realise that the primary objective of all Govts, at all levels, is to prudently manage the finances, such that they can provide the services and infrastructure that the community needs. Without the first step being taken care of, the social benefits cannot flow.

If you ignore that principle, you simply get what we have with Labor, services and infrastructure happily supplied with a mountain of debt, blissfully hoping for someone else to come along and clean up the mess afterwards. After a while, the population wake up an realise it's a disaster.

 

[lizzie]

If you ignore that principle, you simply get what we have with Labor, services and infrastructure happily supplied with a mountain of debt,

At three times the price, and four times the timeframe, that it would cost the private sector to build the same infrastructure ... and a goodly percentage of that infrastructure is NOT what is required.

Two perfect examples are nearly $1mil BER money spent last year on four schools in the Hunter Valley, which will close this year due to lack of students ... and Liberal NSW State Government requesting federal funds that were allocated for a (vote buying NSW Labor Governemnt) rail link, and not viable - be reallocated to an urgent rail link and being declined. So the money is allocated for a project that won't go ahead, while a necessary project lies idle.

 

[pennyk]

despite the flaws in our system, I'd much rather it than the US system, where they are electing the person who is going to stand for a year before the actual election..
such a waste of time and money.