6 ms·

Is Australia's lower house “gerrymandered”?

16 points by djrobstep 4y ago

ggm 4y ago
Provocative headline which hides a real conversation about preference voting. Optional preferential is one idea that the Lib/Nat side have toyed with. I think their hope is that it would permit more wins for them.
- defrost 4y ago
  Yeah, there's a real bit of sleight of hand stage magic and so to a glass and a half of milk is called gerrymandering [1] going on toward the close. By resisting electoral change, these parties are engaged in the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries with the intent to create undue advantage. This is called gerrymandering. ie. What was once moving boundaries to create an advantage (classic gerrymandering) has become resisting our great new ideas (no boundaries and|or multiple members per division). We'll call this "gerrymandering" now 'cause it's a well known term that everybody knows is wrong. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwBceIbh5qc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwBceIbh5qc
ororroro 4y ago
The primary votes are just an artifact of Lib/Nat being further right than Labour is left due to the existence of the very left Greens. That and a low number of preferences from Independents picking up center right votes from people disillusioned by Lib/Nat blatant inability to smoothly handle any major event.
- bobnamob 4y ago
  Nitpick: “Labor” not “Labour” in Australia
  - ororroro 4y ago
    Nitpick: you are correct about the party name but in Australia in general they use the English spelling.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - skissane 4y ago
      I didn't interpret their nitpick as saying anything about the spelling of the word in general – also "British spelling" is the usual term, I've never heard anyone call it "English spelling" before. In Australia, we use British spelling for most things, including the word "labour" in most contexts, but the party name is intentionally spelled the American way, due to US influence in its early history. The initial capital is a sign they were talking about the party name as opposed to the common noun
abigail95 4y ago
Best part of that result is Labor lost primary votes but gained seats and have a razor thin margin. Not much of a mandate, to win government by losing votes. Here's hoping if they break their promise on income tax they'll be tossed soon enough.
- monkeydreams 4y ago
  All voting systems are subject to gaming. Preferential systems are primarily subject to "Least Favourite Candidate Loses". The Labor party may have lost votes but they were preferred over the Coalition by a considerable margin. > Here's hoping if they break their promise on income tax they'll be tossed soon enough. The economic realities suggest this promise should be dropped. This does not hurt Labor's voters terribly, and does not impact the more left-leaning voters much at all. I expect this will be dropped and this will not hurt Labor at all, but will build them a reputation as economic pragmatists. Personally I will be impacted by a "Stage 3" cut and yet I hope they are dropped. Even in this political climate, and with a mortgage to pay, I don't really see that this tax cut will help me more than a functioning public health system. Or help the country, as a whole, better than an actual welfare system. Here's hoping the Coalition will continue their rightward march and another, actually conservative, party will grow from the wreck of the Teals and blue-ribbon seats they Libs lost.
monkeydreams 4y ago
So having a non-political organisation drawing electoral maps with near to identical numbers of people within these zones who vote preferentially sp that their least popular candidate loses is gerrymandering?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
h11h 4y ago
No it isn't according to the definition everyone else uses for "gerrymandering" (drawing specific electorate boundaries with partisan goals). What he's complaining about (that the system of one representative from each electorate biases against candidates who could never win in one electorate but have a modest amount of support in the entire population) is worth contemplating, but isn't gerrymandering. New Zealand addresses this problem by giving everyone two votes, an electorate vote and a party vote, and members are chosen from electorates and party lists. New Zealand only has one chamber. Australia has two. Australia's Upper House is elected at a state level with multiple members from each state, so this is where minor party candidates get elected.
- roenxi 4y ago
  It also bears mentioning that in the election, the Liberals (Australian right wing for anyone watching US politics) lost Wentworth. To give an idea about how right-wing Wentworth, is, that a was the seat of a recent Liberal prime minister. Lost Kooyong, seat of a prospective candidate for Liberal leadership. Lost a bunch of other seats that broadly support right-wing policy. There is a revolt underway on the right of Australian politics as various factions battle to decide what exactly the right wing is going to stand for. That contributed a lot more to their election defeat than the concerns this gentleman raises. There were significant swings against both major parties, although the Labor party just lost a few votes while the Liberals were eviscerated. That isn't gerrymandering, that is losing lots of votes leading to the loss of an election.
- skissane 4y ago
  I think his argument is that it is "gerrymandering" in the sense that the system is maintained the way it is, because that serves the political self-interest of the major parties. The boundaries themselves aren't gerrymandered, but the system according to which they exist is. By that definition, one might say that Australia has a single layer of gerrymandering – gerrymandered at the systemic level but not at the district level – while the US has two layers of gerrymandering – gerrymandered districts in a gerrymandered system.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
rayiner 4y ago
Since 1990, a party has won a majority of seats without getting the most votes four times. In the US House it’s happened just once.
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
  This is false. Australia uses an "instant runoff" preferential voting system. You're comparing it to a single vote first past the post system.
elecush 4y ago
Australia's Parliament is one of the worst perpetual gridlock clusterfucks I have seen in the reasonably developed world.
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
This guy claims that proportional representation is undemocratic and uses primary votes (first past the post, a truly undemocratic system that favors bigger parties) to prove his point. He then calls it gerrymandering against all known definitions of the word (boundaries are set by an independent commission). He goes on to say an unconventional approach (no electoral boundaries) is better and the politicians are guilty of not adopting it out of self interest, even though no one has seriously proposed or considered it, and in Australia this would have essentially no support in the electorate (Australians having no problem with their system). Anyone can make outrageous claims to promote their blog, why is this getting any attention.

16 points by djrobstep 4y ago

ggm 4y ago

Provocative headline which hides a real conversation about preference voting. Optional preferential is one idea that the Lib/Nat side have toyed with. I think their hope is that it would permit more wins for them.

defrost 4y ago
Yeah, there's a real bit of sleight of hand stage magic and so to a glass and a half of milk is called gerrymandering [1] going on toward the close. By resisting electoral change, these parties are engaged in the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries with the intent to create undue advantage. This is called gerrymandering. ie. What was once moving boundaries to create an advantage (classic gerrymandering) has become resisting our great new ideas (no boundaries and|or multiple members per division). We'll call this "gerrymandering" now 'cause it's a well known term that everybody knows is wrong. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwBceIbh5qc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwBceIbh5qc

ororroro 4y ago

The primary votes are just an artifact of Lib/Nat being further right than Labour is left due to the existence of the very left Greens. That and a low number of preferences from Independents picking up center right votes from people disillusioned by Lib/Nat blatant inability to smoothly handle any major event.

bobnamob 4y ago
Nitpick: “Labor” not “Labour” in Australia
- ororroro 4y ago
  Nitpick: you are correct about the party name but in Australia in general they use the English spelling.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - skissane 4y ago
    I didn't interpret their nitpick as saying anything about the spelling of the word in general – also "British spelling" is the usual term, I've never heard anyone call it "English spelling" before. In Australia, we use British spelling for most things, including the word "labour" in most contexts, but the party name is intentionally spelled the American way, due to US influence in its early history. The initial capital is a sign they were talking about the party name as opposed to the common noun

abigail95 4y ago

Best part of that result is Labor lost primary votes but gained seats and have a razor thin margin. Not much of a mandate, to win government by losing votes. Here's hoping if they break their promise on income tax they'll be tossed soon enough.

monkeydreams 4y ago
All voting systems are subject to gaming. Preferential systems are primarily subject to "Least Favourite Candidate Loses". The Labor party may have lost votes but they were preferred over the Coalition by a considerable margin. > Here's hoping if they break their promise on income tax they'll be tossed soon enough. The economic realities suggest this promise should be dropped. This does not hurt Labor's voters terribly, and does not impact the more left-leaning voters much at all. I expect this will be dropped and this will not hurt Labor at all, but will build them a reputation as economic pragmatists. Personally I will be impacted by a "Stage 3" cut and yet I hope they are dropped. Even in this political climate, and with a mortgage to pay, I don't really see that this tax cut will help me more than a functioning public health system. Or help the country, as a whole, better than an actual welfare system. Here's hoping the Coalition will continue their rightward march and another, actually conservative, party will grow from the wreck of the Teals and blue-ribbon seats they Libs lost.

monkeydreams 4y ago

So having a non-political organisation drawing electoral maps with near to identical numbers of people within these zones who vote preferentially sp that their least popular candidate loses is gerrymandering?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

h11h 4y ago

No it isn't according to the definition everyone else uses for "gerrymandering" (drawing specific electorate boundaries with partisan goals). What he's complaining about (that the system of one representative from each electorate biases against candidates who could never win in one electorate but have a modest amount of support in the entire population) is worth contemplating, but isn't gerrymandering. New Zealand addresses this problem by giving everyone two votes, an electorate vote and a party vote, and members are chosen from electorates and party lists. New Zealand only has one chamber. Australia has two. Australia's Upper House is elected at a state level with multiple members from each state, so this is where minor party candidates get elected.

roenxi 4y ago
It also bears mentioning that in the election, the Liberals (Australian right wing for anyone watching US politics) lost Wentworth. To give an idea about how right-wing Wentworth, is, that a was the seat of a recent Liberal prime minister. Lost Kooyong, seat of a prospective candidate for Liberal leadership. Lost a bunch of other seats that broadly support right-wing policy. There is a revolt underway on the right of Australian politics as various factions battle to decide what exactly the right wing is going to stand for. That contributed a lot more to their election defeat than the concerns this gentleman raises. There were significant swings against both major parties, although the Labor party just lost a few votes while the Liberals were eviscerated. That isn't gerrymandering, that is losing lots of votes leading to the loss of an election.
skissane 4y ago
I think his argument is that it is "gerrymandering" in the sense that the system is maintained the way it is, because that serves the political self-interest of the major parties. The boundaries themselves aren't gerrymandered, but the system according to which they exist is. By that definition, one might say that Australia has a single layer of gerrymandering – gerrymandered at the systemic level but not at the district level – while the US has two layers of gerrymandering – gerrymandered districts in a gerrymandered system.
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

Since 1990, a party has won a majority of seats without getting the most votes four times. In the US House it’s happened just once.

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
This is false. Australia uses an "instant runoff" preferential voting system. You're comparing it to a single vote first past the post system.

elecush 4y ago

Australia's Parliament is one of the worst perpetual gridlock clusterfucks I have seen in the reasonably developed world.

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

This guy claims that proportional representation is undemocratic and uses primary votes (first past the post, a truly undemocratic system that favors bigger parties) to prove his point. He then calls it gerrymandering against all known definitions of the word (boundaries are set by an independent commission). He goes on to say an unconventional approach (no electoral boundaries) is better and the politicians are guilty of not adopting it out of self interest, even though no one has seriously proposed or considered it, and in Australia this would have essentially no support in the electorate (Australians having no problem with their system). Anyone can make outrageous claims to promote their blog, why is this getting any attention.