Prev
Next

Abbott losing his own election referendum

David Donovan

by David Donovan

24 Aug 05:30am

Must Reads

Corby to be released - but does anyone still care? - this is a caption

Corby to be released - but does anyone still care?

69

Washington reacts to news of the Thomson saga - this is a caption

Washington reacts to news of the Thomson saga

38

You’d think she was a plant to destroy Facebook - this is a caption

You’d think she was a plant to destroy Facebook

87

Filed under: Australian Electoral Commission, Election 2010, Hung Parliament, Tony Abbott

29 comments

If the election was a referendum on the Government then the Coalition has lost.

Tony Abbott in the final 72 hours on the trail. Photo: Brad Hunter

Opposition leader Tony Abbott may have fond memories of referendums because of 1999, but his statement at 1.56 am on election night that the 2010 Federal ”…election has been a referendum on the political execution of a Prime Minister” could come back to bite him. If the Independents take his advice he’ll probably remain in Opposition for the foreseeable future.

The media and the Opposition are suggesting that the country rejected the current Government: “a humiliating rebuff” was the way ABC Radio National’s breakfast presenter Fran Kelly framed it in her interview with Federal minister Tony Burke on Monday morning.

The truth is more complicated, since Labor actually saw a swing towards them in several states and only a significant swing away from them in Queensland and New South Wales.

As Professor George Williams said in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, there are centuries of convention out of Britain about who should form Government when there’s a hung parliament. Far from being an aberration, hung parliaments happens often—we just haven’t seen one recently at a Federal level.

The basic rule is that the Government has first option to try to form Government. If they fail, then the opposition has a go. If they then can’t get the numbers, well then the country goes back to the polls. Total vote numbers and plurality of seats don’t really come into it, except insofar as they may be factors used by the individuals who need to make a choice.

Currently, the ones needing to make a decision are the Independents. Abbott’s notion that the election was a referendum on the current Government might be a way for them to adjudge the mood of the nation. In fact, statements made by Independent Tony Windsor before the election appear to confirm that they will look at these sorts of factors:

“Considerations that I’d take into account was who won the most seats? Who got the greatest vote? What would people in this electorate want? What are some of the significant issues in terms of regional Australia? And, most importantly, [who would provide] stability of governance for the rest of Australia.”

So, if this election was a referendum on whether the current Government should continue, then what was the result?

The template for referenda is set out in the Australian Constitution. There, the basic formula is that a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ proposition would require assent of a majority of voters in total and in a majority of the states (not territories).

Since our system enforces compulsory preferential voting, so that the final count in each electorate is usually between the two major parties, it is quite simple to use the two-party preferred (2PP) vote nationally, and in each state, to apply this to Abbott’s idea.

Using Abbott’s words, the proposal might be “Do you want to overthrow the current Government because of the way it treated ex-PM Kevin Rudd”. A vote for the Coalition would be a ‘Yes’, a vote for the Government a ‘No’.

Bearing in mind that vote-counting is still continuing, I am going to use the figures on the AEC website as of 10.40am Monday morning, after almost 75% of the total votes had been counted, to work out a provisional result:

AEC figures as at 10.40am yesterday

As you can see, Coalition referendum to overturn the Government would fail on both measures.

Firstly, it would only receive 49.34% of the total vote. Despite the media reporting that the Coalition had won the popular vote, reference to the AEC website even on election night showed the Labor Party always ahead on this measure.

The Coalition also would not achieve a majority of the voters in a majority of states. It would end up 3 for Labor, 3 for the Coalition. If the territories were included, which is strictly unconstitutional, thuugh indicative, then the result favours Labor a resounding 5-3.

Only in Queensland and WA is Labor relatively unpopular. In NSW, it is just below parity and in NT slightly better than par. Labor is strongly popular in Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT.

Frankly, it is hard to see the argument for the Coalition to take Government based on these figures. If the Independents decide to use this methodology, Abbott may rue an indiscriminate comment after about three days without sleep.

Most commented

353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
309Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
248Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
242They must pay for one's bitter disappointments
230South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
230Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
224The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld

29 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Marcus says:

      07:09am | 24/08/10

      I think you’re getting badly confused on two fronts:

      * I think Antony Green’s data showing a Coalition 2PP win is based on projections of what the normally Liberal-leaning postal votes will do. The current AEC numbers are raw booth data and no postals have been counted yet. We won’t know who “won” the 2PP until all postals are in.

      * You’re also taking the Constitution way too literally about the “first go” thing. You’re implying that the cross-benchers must deal with Gillard and only Gillard first, and only if they can’t work something out does Abbott get a look in. This is wrong; both sides can talk and deal at the same time. If the Indy’s woke up today and backed Abbott, Gillard can’t demand “well you must talk to me first!”

      Reply

    • David Donovan says:

      09:51am | 24/08/10

      Marcus, I’m not confused at all. Anthony Green hinself said that his projections were based on last elections projections for postal votes. But since the Coalition was in power at the last election, and postals normally favour the incumbents, these projections should have been adjusted. He has plenty of time to do this between elections, why didn’t he. It is clear that Labor will won the 2PP vote.

      Secondly, you’re confused on the 2nd point. Actually, the Constitution makes no provision for deciding a hung Parliament. I was referring to George Williams who was talking about “Convention” in this cases. Naturally. convention isn’t worth the paper it is written on, but it is conventional.

      To evenryone else who talks about the 2PP vote being meaningless, and the election going to the Coalition because of primary votes. This is a silly argument because we have a preferential, and not a first past the post, system in this country. To suggest we should look the primary vote to arbiter is sheer spin.

    • Brian says:

      10:41am | 24/08/10

      I voted Liberal. I’d prefer Abbott to become the next PM (although I think it’s a case of lesser evil, and we’d be better off going to the polls again in about 12 months, after giving the Coalition a short go to show relative competence). So, with that context ascertained, why on earth are people claiming primary vote means anything? Sure, the Liberals got the higher primary vote, but if our system was first-past-the-post a significant portion of Greens voters would have gone Labor anyway. There’s no equivalent party on the right wing (the closest is family first) that would have their preferences go to the Liberals to compensate to anywhere the same level.

      For that matter, more people voted for the Australian Labor Party than any other single party - should we break up the coalition? Two party preferred is the most appropriate measure, and although I still hold out hope of a win there for the coalition or for the coalition to be able to form a government without it, the ‘impartial’ view would be that on current count, the ALP should form government. Sigh.

    • Ads says:

      10:43am | 24/08/10

      I disagree that the primary vote is just spin.

      On the contrary, how many people actually put a ‘1’ next to their party’s name determines how much each party has in support.  The 2PP merely reflects the vote of a fellow political party - the people’s votes should be the ones determining preference

    • Brian says:

      11:20am | 24/08/10

      In the Senate, votes above the line are those of the party. Below the line and for the Reps, the votes are those of the voter. How to vote cards are all well and good, but the voter still decides whether to follow them. So far I’ve yet to take a single how to vote card in my 5 elections (although one was forced into my hands rather rudely once by a greens staffer - no matter, they weren’t getting my vote anyway), so claiming my second preferences are ‘the vote of a fellow political party’ is incorrect, and a good portion of others will be the same.

      The support a party has is best indicated by how many people put them LAST - that’s how many people actively don’t support them. Primary vote may not be entirely spin, but it’s less of a representation than 2PP. Imagine a hypothetical situation in which the Greens get 30%, Labor get 30% and the coalition get 40% - do you really think that is a win for the conservative side of politics?

    • Marcus says:

      11:41am | 24/08/10

      David,

      Postals and prepolls etc trend to the Coalition so the gap will close, the only question is by how much.

      It could be weaker for the Liberals due to more sitting Labor MPs, or stronger due to the fact that it was a worse election for Labor. Plus there’s also seats where the 2CP is not between major parties.

      Antony himself last night said the raw 2PP data from the AEC is not indicative of the final result and we’ll need to wait for several weeks at least.

    • Phil says:

      08:00am | 24/08/10

      David you need to build a bridge and get over it !!!

      You lost the republican referendum 11 years ago. When the old duck kickes the bucket I suggest you bring it out again. Till then get over it.

      You cant seriously think that the electorate sent Julia a message that they loved her do you?

      Tony Abbott has done what most 9 months ago thought impossible. He was headed to lose 20 seats according to the sheeple, media et al. He has managed to despatch the most popular PM in our history from the highs of popularity to being knifed by his own party. The blood on the floor of the ALP after this result regardless of the ultimate outcome will be riveting to watch.

      As for results, the Libs got about 500,000 more votes than labor.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:22pm | 24/08/10

      No, the Republicans lost a bullshit vote on the least preferred model - which is exactly why ‘Honest’ John let it go to the polls.

    • Super D says:

      08:02am | 24/08/10

      As continual drags on the rest of the nation South Australia and Tasmania don’t deserve recognition as states.

      Reply

    • Tony says:

      04:38pm | 24/08/10

      Lol so true

    • d for dill says:

      04:57pm | 24/08/10

      As homes of corruption Qld and NSW don’t either, ditto re NSW as a home of ethic violence, Victoria has too much gangland violence, WA whingers,...

      Wow mass generalising really narrows things down and makes this election easier to count for election workers.

    • Joan says:

      08:10am | 24/08/10

      Labor- 2007 surplus gone, Australia into debt, bought its vote now costing Australia $100million per day. Tasmania still in after glow of an NBN just costing $75 per month for package deal which includes free local and national calls and free modem.  Who is paying for this unsustainable cheap cost of this NBN luxury in Tasmania.? - the taxpayer. Liberals the clear winners, the voters vote not having been bought .

      Reply

    • Amy says:

      09:01am | 24/08/10

      And this is the problem with the two party preferred system.  It’s incredibly misleading because of preference deals.  I guarantee you that the vast majority of voters who went Green or Independent in this election didn’t want their vote to count for either party.  If you exclude the Greens and Independents and use the raw data instead, the Coalition has this in the bag.  You can’t just pretend that this election was a two horse race the whole time when it wasn’t.  Just ask the nine Coalition candidates who lost the election, despite winning the primary vote, because of Green preferences.

      Reply

    • D says:

      09:06am | 24/08/10

      The “Libs” didn’t get a majority of first preference votes.  The Coalition did.
      Or have you all forgotten that the Liberals can’t obtain a majority on their own?

      The Liberals are already in a “power sharing” arrangement, have been for years, because they don’t have the capacity to obtain the majority of seats in Federal parliament without it.  Oddly enough, this is ok but a minority government with an arrangement is a bad thing and unworkable.

      Three of the incumbent independants are former menbers of the Coalition.  If those three hadn’t walked, there woudl be a much clearer result right now.  It’s fairly clear that a Coalition government on a thin margin of seats in the lower house would be at the mercy of the Nationals in the same way that a minority governement will be at the mercy of the cross bench players.  And yet, that situation doesn’t raise any concerns with the electorate, and in fact people forget the Nationals even exist and claim a victory for the Liberals.  I suggest you go look at the Liberal vote without the Nationals to see how a Liberal government isn’t viable.  The Nationals are happy to contest Liberal seats (Wilson Tucky’s seat is an example this election), so they’re hardly team players across the board. 

      All this kerfuffle about a minority government that needs the support of a section of cross benchers, when we had 12 years of Coalition government that is a power sharing arrangement of two parties.  And if the current independants had left the Nationals at a time whent he Coalition held the government by a majority of 2 seats, then that government would have become a minority government. 

      It’s odd how one is seen as perfectly functional, and the other is seen as a major risk.

      Reply

    • Not so odd says:

      07:26pm | 24/08/10

      Maybe that’s because one is a voluntary, strategic coalition based on general alignment and has been working together - including handling the inevitable differences - for quite a few years, while the other would be forced together ad hoc just because there doesn’t seem to be much choice.

    • Daryl says:

      09:11am | 24/08/10

      Lies damn lies and statistics. For starters, if you look at the total number of people who voted LNP vs ALP, the coalition received more votes. In other words, more people wanted the coalition than wanted Labor! Simple! You’re relying on dodgy preference dealing to produce these numbers. Can you please provide these figures on a primary vote basis. Second, in each of the three seats that went to independents, the coalition pulled a higher percentage of the vote. In New England only 8% of people voted ALP, in Lyne only 13% voted ALP. If Windsor and Oakeshott become Labor ministers, thereby representing 10% or less of their electorates, they both deserve to lose their seats at the next election! Labor lost a 17 seat majority at the election and fell across the line in electorates only because of green preferences. If they form government, they will not have a mandate for anything since they represent only about 38% of our population.

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      10:59am | 24/08/10

      Except that in no electorate did the “coalition’ appear on the ballot paper. People voted for either National or Liberal (or Liberal National in QLD).

      As for “dodgy preference dealing”, call it what you will but people allocated their preferences by their own free will in the full knowledge that we have something called “exhaustive preferential voting”. Or would you prefer to disregard all the CDP and family first preferences the coalition recieved? Your argument that “more people wanted a coalition governemnt” could just as easily be rephrased as “more people wanted a centre-left government.”

      I agree that more people voted for either national or liberal than labor but since we do not have first past the post or proportional representation your argument is entirely irrelevant.

    • Daryl says:

      03:14pm | 24/08/10

      Tom, a vote for CDP and family first is no more a vote for the LNP than a vote for greens is a vote for Labor!

      In any case, the main point I am making is that the primary vote should be very important for these independents. I think they would be silly to back Labor when only 8% or 13% of their electorates primary vote went that way. They alienate more of their electorate by doing so. The point I make is that primary votes in that situation are very relevant because Windsor and Oakeshott could lose their seats over any deal they do. Should a vote for Windsor be a vote for Labor when 92% of his electorate don’t want that? I guess in the current situation, the mandate question will be open for discussion no matter who gets to form government.

      I also think this argument that the loony left in the senate will make things easier for Labor is nonsense. They wont approve Labor’s ETS, they wont approve Labor’s corporate tax rate changes, they wont approve Labor’s carbon tax, they wont approve Labor’s border protection legislation. Both Labor and the Coalition will need to work together in order to get either party’s legislation through the senate in spite of the greens no matter who forms government.

    • astrosodi says:

      04:21pm | 24/08/10

      Except if they support Labour, they won’t only be representing the 8% who voted Labor, they’ll be representing the 8% who voted Labor and the X% who voted for them.

      If we presume an electorate voted 10% Labor, 35% Lib, 5% Green and 50% Independent, the Independent supporting Labor to form a minority govt actually represents 60% of the electorate, and, if you argue the Greens=Labor, then 65% of the electorate. If they side with Libs, then they represent 85%. either way, next time they’ll still have the ‘majority’ (i.e. more than 50% of the voters in their electorate) on side. Depending on the deals the relevant party makes, it might even be that some of the partisan voters might swap sides (e.g. if Labor drop the MRRT, or the coalition adopt the NBN).

      The people who voted Independent want the candidate to side with whoever is offerring them the best outcome, otherwise they would have voted for the relevant party.

    • Davo says:

      09:40am | 24/08/10

      None of the discussions about moral authority, convention or the like matter really.

      It comes down to who the independents choose and that will be largely shaped by who they believe their electorate would want them to side with. I’d be willing to bet that none of the three independents would want to go to the next election with a Lib/Nat oponent campaigining with the slogan “A vote for Oakshott / Windsor / Katter” is a vote for Labor”. All politics is local and all three of them are representing a broadly conservative electorate.

      Who they choose to side with will be largely influenced by who they judge their constituencieswould support. You can argur that’s all about self interest in getting re-elected, but that’s the way it is.

      Reply

    • Front Line says:

      10:59am | 24/08/10

      Abbott should be praying PM Gillard gets stuck with a minority government.
      We’re talking nightmare stuff here.  Interest rates going up in the next quarter, China right at its speed limit, international education market kaput, manufacturing just the shell of a sheltered workshop.  Australians are likely to end up as the taxi-drivers in the new world order if we don’t start thinking hard now.
      Australian federal politics will most likely blow-up inside 12 months and we could have a sensible re-alignment of politics to reflect the increasing changes - including marginalistion of unions.
      Let’s face it, union membership is sliding away and traditional Government-underwritten farmers are dying off or their kids heading out to work in the mines of the cities.
      There could soon be a far more distinct divide between the left and right of politics, and perhaps a more formal allliance between the “rural” protectionist vote and the Labor Party’s more conservative wing.  The hard left of the union movement is already heading over with the Greens.
      Just think:  The Libs aim to firmly become the party of small to medium business, non-inner city women and Australia’s indigenous peoples.  Tony Abbott has already started off in that direction.
      The demographic change in regional Australia is surely such that people living outside the cities but who do not necessarily subscribe to the “farmers’ unions” view of the world would be a solid base.
      Out there? Sure. But what are the other long-term alternatives?

      Reply

    • Daniel Harvison says:

      11:10am | 24/08/10

      I’ve been watching all three independents talk about what they want on the ABC. Oakshott seems pretty serious about political reform, Katter and the other one, can’t recall his name, seem to take broadband as a big factor, but Katter is pretty big about the survival of the bush, as he puts it. They may be conservative types, but Katter is furious with the Nationals as far as I’ve seen, and he isn’t the type to make decisions like, “well I used to be a Nat, so it’s Tony Abbott for PM”, he’s more likely to say with the others, “this or that or the other is what is best for the country, long term” or some such.

      Labor didn’t win this election, but the Coalition sure as hell didn’t win anything either, despite all of Abbott’s trumpeting and self-congratulations.

      Reply

    • Davo says:

      12:00pm | 24/08/10

      As I said above, each of the three independents will be seeking to represent their constituents because their future (ie their job after next election) depends on it. None of them represents a constituency that is likely to forgive their local member entering into an agreement with the Labor Party to form government.

    • Daniel Harvison says:

      12:43pm | 24/08/10

      What about working with the conservatives? They’re independent MP’s for the very reason that the parties they used to be with pretty much didn’t want to know about their concerns. The perception that I’m aware of there is that neither side cares, neither side understands, so bugger them both. The people in those areas voted independent. Not Labor, not conservative, but independent. Can’t say for sure who gets the leadership gong right now. As it stands, I’d say either or, or both.

      Reply

    • Ash says:

      01:58pm | 24/08/10

      Despite having just voted for an Independent in the Federal election, I do believe that there is a now a real opportunity for three years of productive government, Abbott as PM with cooperation by Independents. As a former Labor voter, my memory is of past internal instability within senior Labor ranks when faced with electoral defeat. It was my observation of this prolonged and vengeful disorder that, so far, has lost Labor my vote.

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      03:24pm | 24/08/10

      Past internal instability in the opposition for the ALP?? What about the Libs? Have you forgotten Howard/Peacock for an entire decade? Does 4 leaders in 2 years most recently not mean anything either? It has been exactly the same with the Libs in WA where I’m from.

    • Ash says:

      04:38pm | 24/08/10

      No longer faceless, Arbib must be de-fanged. Even before the election, he was reviled by many NSW and most non-NSW Labor alike. He and his kind are now the ugly face of Labor that spooks the Australian public.

      Reply

    • Jay says:

      04:44pm | 24/08/10

      I am waiting for Lindsay Tanner to write a book or for the ABC to make a Labor in Power for the Rudd/Gillard term. It would be great watching as they all blame each other.!

      Reply

    • acai berry pills says:

      08:21am | 17/10/10

      Majority Bottom,there world usual few appear budget wood farmer meal confirm score under scheme dark origin hard close skill gather high technique obvious dress that here experience operate slip resource trouble capacity key quite gold hope liability examine chief year focus beginning nearly tomorrow arrange have win environment sky refer argue when horse park state occasion address study gold visit half however system society radio suggestion politics even believe particularly mile brother throw catch reject recover important later step welfare solution enter planning membership love private

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 May 12 12:54PM

@MickNeven the game is called rugby league not rugby. Just like it's cricket not croquet! Sorry I can't catch ya show.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 23 May 12 12:16PM

@KevCorduroy @ceda_news Cheers, couldn't get on to them but Redmond's office helped out in the end!

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 23 May 12 12:12PM

Does half the population really want to close the borders?? http://t.co/cNmpV2qH

Paul Colgan

Colgo 23 May 12 12:08PM

In which Schapelle Corby is Photoshopped as Joan of Arc http://t.co/08UWH6yq

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Schapelle has done her time

by Daniel Piotrowski

67

Schapelle has done her time

Schapelle Corby has served more than seven years in Kerobokan prison for attempting to import 4.2 kilos…

Do women need to know when to walk away?

by The Punch Team

20

Do women need to know when to walk away?

Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond has sparked controversy over her advice that young women should sometimes…

Who murdered the Arts degree?

by Lucy Kippist

192

Who murdered the Arts degree?

Have we murdered the liberal arts education? That was the final question on Monday night’s Q&A…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed