Greens as Abbot-proofing the Senate

In the launch of the Australian Greens’ campaign, leader Christine Milne acknowledged that polls showed that the opposition Coalition, led by Tony Abbot, was likely to defeat Labor and PM Kevin Rudd. Milne called a vote for the Greens one of “Abbot-proofing the Senate” and further elaborated:

‘Voting Greens is double value voting.

‘Not only does it return the Greens but it stops Tony Abbott getting absolute power in the federal parliament.’

It is an interesting case of a smaller party using the possibility of its holding the balance of power to its advantage. The Senate, unlike the House, is elected by a proportional system.

The Greens also have signaled a willingness to work to “improve” Coalition policies, specifically its parental leave program. ‘We have explained how much our paid parental leave policy will cost and how we would pay for it. It’s time for Tony Abbott to do the same’, said Green Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

6 thoughts on “Greens as Abbot-proofing the Senate

  1. Hi there,

    Have you noticed the articles that have pointed out that some micro parties in Australia could win senate seats with as little as 0.12% of the vote. Apparently the No Carbon Tax Climate Skeptics could win by leaping continuously over parties and ultimately harvesting the Greens preferences – no joke, the Greens could elect a party of climate skeptics!

    Check it out – I’m not sure about how accurate some of the calculations are – but the blog posts are being reported by the mainstream media, so perhaps it is true.

  2. Green preferences are highly unlikely to end up flowing to the Climate Sceptics, because the Climate Sceptics are almost certain to be excluded before the Greens everywhere in the country.

    However, in NSW, Greens and Labor preferences could see the Shooters and Fishers elected with Green and Labor preferences over Pauline Hanson. I was astounded to see that the Liberal Democratic Party preferenced One Nation over the Sex Party. I guess that would have to be one of Glen Druery’s moves there.

  3. The Wikileaks Party registered a distribution of preferences so shameless that they imploded within days.

  4. Based on current projections, the 2nd ACT Senate seat will go to preferences based on current projections, with the Liberals edging out the Greens by 173 votes under current numbers. It seems that the Animal Justice’s punishment for the kangaroo cull has been just indeed.

  5. The Greens have succeeded in their request for a Senate recount in WA, where the margin at the critical break point between the Australian Christians and the Shooters and Fishers was just 14 votes.

    The paper says this is the first recount since the beginning of “preferential voting.” Obviously they mean “group voting tickets,” as the Senate has used preferential voting since 1919 if I recall correctly.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/wa-senate-recount-gets-under-way-20131017-2vokp.html

  6. They may actually mean proportional representation, which was introduced in 1948. The method of voting before that, block preferential, usually gave all the senators for a state to the government and governments regularly held every seat in the senate.

    According to >a href=”http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/10/precedents-for-senate-re-counts.html”>Antony Green there was a WA senate recount in 1980, although he says at first he thought there was no precedent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s