Sunday, 8 September 2013

Kill Your Coalition.

Well not in that sense, at least not yet, but it's been sometime for a while which has personally buggered the ever loving crap out of me and I think it ruins a lot of the democracy within this country. The idea that a major political party is allowed to combine with several minor parties in a deliberate bid to bolster their seats to mean undermines the entire process. If someone wants to vote for a particular party, I'm fine with that, even if some of the reasons for doing so I don't personally agree with (e.g. family preferences, how pretty the candidate is, etc.), however the notion that you voting for a party adds to a different parties tally seems weasely and undemocratic... and I'm aware that I'm probably the minority in this regard.

That being said, we are to believe that the Liberal Party won the Election, more or less. We know there is a coalition, although you rarely hear or see it referred to as such nowadays, and one was probably assume that the other parties don't really do much to account for their success... well you would be wrong. Now of course there are also those that say "Well no shit, the Libs couldn't get elected without all those taggers on!" and you would probably be right again, except that there is a history of the Coalition being defeated several times (including the first time is was officially formed I believe). However in the sake of interest and curiosity lets see just how the numbers would have effected the outcome if the Coalition didn't exist.

We are led to believe that the Liberals beat Labor 86-57, as indeed the Coalition did... but there is an interesting peculiarity in those statistics that I would love to point out. I'm looking at the Virtual Tally Room on the Australian Electoral Commision website (, which tells you who won what seat where per state. Lets break these numbers down

  • NSW = 19
  • VIC = 19
  • QLD = 7
  • WA = 3
  • SA = 5
  • TAS = 1
  • ACT = 2
  • NT =
  • TOTAL = 57
  • NSW = 29
  • VIC = 15
  • QLD = 20
  • WA = 12
  • SA = 6
  • TAS = 3
  • ACT = 0
  • NT = 1
  • TOTAL = 86
Pretty much a forgone conclusion wouldn't you think? HOWEVER they also list the separate parties tallies, so this is what happens when you look at Liberal alone.

  • NSW = 22 (Slightly less then before, but still strong)
  • VIC = 14 (Again, only one less, still very strong)
  • QLD = 0 (Yes, that is a zero, I haven't left a digit off the front)
  • WA = 12 (Yeah, I live in a Liberal state... doesn't feel very liberal)
  • SA = 6 (Equal, same as WA)
  • TAS - 3 (Equal again)
  • ACT = 0 (No change)
  • NT = 0 (okay, only slightly less again but statistically unimportant)
  • TOTAL = 57
Wait, what? That's exactly the same number of seats as the ALP?!? Well it turns out the "Liberal National Party" contributed all 20 seats from QLD and the Nationals Party (the one that joined the Libs to form the Coalition) only scored a total of 8. Keep in mind that to win either side needed 76 seats, although it can be argued that without the Nationals help then they wouldn't have one the election (also please note that 1 seat in the Coalition went to the "Country Liberals (NT)" Party for that are keep a tally).

Now I'm not entirely privy to the politics in the other states (particularly QLD), so I don't know how much of the other side knows who exactly they are voting for when it comes to voting for the other parties that aren't Liberal. It just all seems quite disingenuous, and believe me I'd have the same opinions if it were on the other side as well. The idea that the voting public voting for one party to have it being tallied to another just doesn't seem right, it seems that our morals are being manipulated for someone else's desires.

If the National party wanted to join in with the Liberal party, that's fine I suppose but then it should be one entity, not one version here and another version there, and you do hear people go "I don't like the Liberals, I'm voting National!" and you want to facepalm so badly but you fear you'll crack your skull.


  1. So here is an interesting thought for you: You are not the only one conflicted about this by a long shot.
    Roughly 6% of the people that DID vote lodged an Informal vote. I simply refuse to believe that all - or even the majority - of these are accidental, but a means to avoid a fine and make some kind of statement that none of the bozos on the ballot are worth writing a number next to.
    This 6% (approaching 700K voters) pales in comparison of the THREE MILLION-odd people that just DIDN'T SHOW in the first place! (AEC figures: Enrolment: 14,705,419 Turnout: 77.32%)
    Some (including me) may argue that is their democratic right. The AEC will issue fines regardless.
    The biggest problem for me is that in any election a politician wins. As a result, until the word integrity begins to mean something again, we are stuffed either way.

    1. I disagree, if you truly want to have a say in how this country is being run then you need to vote, regardless. Voluntary voting has proven for the most part to be very ineffective or the very least not truly representative of the people's voice in these regards.

      It tends to lead to that 'MURICA thing of "I shall protest by not voting, therefore making my voice heard by not saying anything, but still complain loudly because my guy didn't win" ... huh!

      If you wish to protest and monkey with the ballot then that's fine too, and if you don't want to turn up then you should be wary of the consequences or at least have a valid reason not to. Give people an excuse not to do anything and they won't, simple as that.

      In all honesty if I was truly disgusted with this I would have deliberately voted for the less viable candidate (I have done so in the past), but I wanted to vote with a clear conscious and regardless of anything I think I did just that.

  2. I get what your saying.
    Now consider those that are entirely disaffected with the system (both logistically (showing up to a polling booth) and the two party system) and/or (more importantly) are genuinely apathetic. If they truly don't care why make them vote? It just means when they bitch about the outcome that their opinion is invalid. That however is the cost of free speech!
    Granted your point on the recurrence of a particular President is entirely valid, however it is merely another situation of voters being stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
    If the alternative was compelling enough he would have got up.

    So, I WAS disgusted with what was on offer and did piddle my vote on a less viable candidate, however with how preferences work it's feeble.

    And that pretty much is the rub: the parties are practical identical now. It's just little differences (less boats, more NBN, or vice versa).
    Neither inspire. Neither lead.
    The only thing they seem to exceed in is slinging mud at their opponent and ridiculing independents. (Some may deserve it but it is not appropriate behaviour)

    TL;DR I'm apathetic but still want to be able to whine without being (entirely) hippocritical.

    TL;DR 2: To the pollies: Can we please have something fresh? The current schtick was old 20 years ago.

    1. Bitch away good sir, but you can't change the world by being apathetic ;)

      I do honestly wish the climate would change away from this 'lesser of two evils' shit, but sadly there is still a tremendous chunk of the populace that are still completely stuck in there ways that it's almost completely useless sometimes unless you live in particular areas which have been known to change.

      You vote will always count even if you piss it away, in the simplest way.. the third parties gain funding if they get amount of quotes regardless of their wins. Whilst this might not seem much sometimes it's the independent seats that came have a dramatic way in which the country is run (e.g. the previous election when the independents choose Gillard over Abbot).