Horse 3459 - Why Preferential Voting And Instant Run-Off Voting Are The Best

Say what you will about the policies or complete lack thereof of the various political parties, the 2025 Federal Election has returned Albanese's Labor Government with a resounding majority. Even as I write this on Monday morning and the dust is beginning to clear and the dregs of pre-polls start to have their influence on the final tally, Labor will surely hold government in its own right; without needing to rely on the crossbench for supply and confidence. 

There is one thing about this election which none of the newspapers will even dare to look at, as Nine Ent Co and News Corp are even loath to admit that the election even happened; that is that Preferential Voting is not only good but overwhelmingly excellent.

It is only partisan hacks who think that First-Past-The-Post voting is good for anything, because they are motivated by the raw numbers which suggest that their particular football team should have one. In any Tweet, Skeet, or Toot online where the person expresses a preference for First-Past-The-Post voting, it is never based on the fitness of purpose for the system. 

Likewise, there appears to be a cohort of psephologist cheerleading that thinks that Score Voting/STAR voting, is also a good idea. When you boil both of these down, what you actually get is a modified First-Past-The-Post and maybe with an additional run-off which is based upon the existing votes cast. While I understand why people might like this, usually the reasons of fitness of purpose involve some degree of outright lying (which is bad).

What Preferential Voting and Instant Run-Off Voting has done in the 2025 Federal Election which neither First-Past-The-Post nor Score Voting/STAR voting are capable of doing, is that one thing which is essential in an election and that is, determine the level of consent of the governed. 

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

- Declaration of Independence, 4th July 1776

Setting aside the various "He has" statements within that document which are mostly lies, the United States' Declaration of Independence contains occasional nuggets of truth within it. If we assume that the principle that governments deriving their from the consent of the governed because this is just, then it follows that the best method of conducting an election is not to ask "who do you most want to govern?" but rather "who will you eventually agree to govern you?". Neither First-Past-The-Post nor Score Voting/STAR voting are either capable of doing this, nor do their advocates seem to think that this is a goal worth pursuing.

If you just look at the raw numbers of the 2025 Federal Election as a whole, what we see is this:

34.8% - Labour

32.0% - Coalition

11.9% - Greens

 6.2% - One Nation

 1.8% - Trumpet of Patriots

13.3% - All others

First-Past-The-Post and Score Voting/STAR voting will tell you that these blocs exist. They may even tell you which one of these blocks people like. They do not tell you which one of these blocs that the electorate has a visceral hate for. Marking an X or even some kind of Score does not actually give you a value for discrete hatred from a voter. 

It can not be stated enough but the 2025 election was not won by Labor. The result did not swing on the 1s of the roughly 1/3rd of the electorate who put the Greens/One Nation/Trumpet/Others as their top pick. This election mostly swung on the 2s and 3s across a vast number of electorates. This result is far more granular and precise than First-Past-The-Post and Score Voting/STAR voting could ever hope to tell you.

The actual meaning of this result, is that as roughly 9% of the electorate has moved to a more nativist position, and about 14% is quite progressive, the number of Teal Seats within urban areas and the swings to Labor on 2s and 3s in the outer suburbs of cities, tells you that the electorate HATES the coalition more than it hates Labor.

This election was not a clash of two great iconoclastic parties fighting for control of some ideological future. This election was a fight between Winnie The Pooh and Skeletor. That's fine. People are allowed to like Skeletor. What the 2s and 3s have delivered is the result that people hate the idea of Skeletor being in charge of anything. Moreover the result of Peter Dutton losing his own seat of Dickson, was a rejection by his electorate personally; who have collectively decided  that he is not for them any more.

What preferential voting and Instant Run-Off Voting has done, is tell us who the 33.2% of the electorate would eventually agree to, to govern them. They objectively do not like either Labor or the Coalition as their first choice. What they will eventually agree to though, is that they will accept a Labor Government and they will do that time and time again across the country.

The really idiotic thing is that people on the political right in Australia, still complain about media bias despite and in spite of the fact that all of the newspapers, and most of the TV and Radio stations, are either owned by and/or toe a Coalition line. News Corp, Seven West Media, Nine Ent Co, all lined up behind the Coalition and most of the ABC was either too afraid or not concerned enough to properly question them. The people on the other hand, have spoken differently; with some indicating with their vote that the Coalition weren't nativist enough and some indicating with their vote that the Coalition were too far to the right. The hard core seats basically always remain with their respective parties, but it is the great cloud in the middle that has swung this election. 

Ultimately, the Coalition has not been consented to; which given that incumbency is an advantage is probably to be expected but the degree which they were shown disdain, both in the lowest number of 1s in their history and the flow of preferences which went the other way, shows that Preferential Voting and Instant Run-Off Voting have given us a more discrete view of the level of that disdain; which is something that neither Score Voting/STAR voting are capable of doing.

Horse 3458 - Election 2025: Bin Night

 1930

ALP 29

L/NP 26

GRN 0

OTH 6

At half past in the evening, when the first 5% of the vote has been counted, there is already a 9.9% swing against Peter Dutton; which means that not only is he unlikely to be the next Prime Minister but he is in real danger of losing his own seat. 

The 'wedge' of voters who have decided to vote for someone other than the majors is now standing at about 37%; which is the largest since the 1910 election.

2000

ALP 29

L/NP 26

GRN 0

OTH 6

At 8pm there has not been any vast change in the projected seats that the parties are likely to win. 

As for my seat of Chifley, 'Red Ed' Husic is holding a staggering 74% of the primary vote; which means that in all likelihood the seat isn't even going to go to second preferences at all. 

If in fact Eden-Monaro retains its position as the bellwether seat, then at this stage of the count, then the Labor Party retains government but it is still unknown in what capacity.

2030

ALP 76

L/NP 34

GRN 3

OTH 10

At Labor HQ there has been a lot of bouncing about as Antony Green declared that there is no way for the Liberal/National Parties to form government.

The big question at this point is whether or not the Labor Party wins government in its own right, if it can form some kind of coalition of supporters for supply on the floor, or if the Governor General will simply give Anthony Albanese the commission@ for the Premiership despite having only minority government.

Based on only 22% of the vote, while I can not project out the full results, it is reasonable to assume that most of the votes that follow, also follow the same trends.

2100

ALP 77

L/NP 33

GRN 2

OTH 10

This late into the evening it is entirely possible that the swing was so bad, that the wipeout of coalition seats is enough to lose even those already tallied.

Probably the most interesting thing which I did not predict was that the L/NP did not gain ground against the teals and the independents.

If you ignore the swing towards the Greens on primary vote (which is now standing at about 13%) then the swing towards the others generally (which includes One Nation and the Trumpet Of Patriots) is tracking at at least 20% and well on the way towards 25%.

Bob Katter in the seat of Kennedy has such a grip on primaries, that he is likely to waltz in with more than 75% of the vote. 

Ian Goodenough who was disendorsed by the Liberal Party in the Western Australian seat of Moore, might very well win as an independent. With only 7% of the vote counted, it is still not enough to declare anything with any certainty. I would expect though that without the Liberal Party behind him, it will be unlikely that he scores more than about 15% because brand recognition is often stronger than personal reputation.

2130

ALP 78

L/NP 33

GRN 1

OTH 9

At half past nine, Peter Dutton gave a concession speech to the nation and I have to say that if we saw this level of graciousness at any point during the past three years, he may very well won his own seat and led the party to victory.

If Peter Dutton is not in the parliament, then the immediate question is who is going to lead the Liberal Party. Apart from the obvious problem of who actually has a seat to be able to do the job, I do not think that there is an obvious leader. Maybe Dan Tehan is the most senior member? Who knows?

2200

ALP 87

L/NP 39

GRN 1

OTH 9

It has become obvious that in Tasmania there has been a double digit swing towards Labor and that all five seats are likely to be held by them. 

More generally, with Tasmania and Victoria where the Labor Party is not popular at state level, this kind of result is unheard of. This is not so much a Labor win but the worst result for the Liberal Party since its inception in 1944.

This late in the evening, the possibility of there being a minority government has faded. Even if all of the remaining 14 seats still in doubt by my count fall to the Liberals, then Labor still holds government in its own right. 

2230

ALP 87

L/NP 39

GRN 0

OTH 11

By my count through Wikipedia, apart from Stanley Bruce and John Howard, I think that Peter Dutton is the first Opposition Leader to have lost his own seat in 125 years. 

Albanese actually becomes the first Prime Minister since 2004 to have won back to back elections. Admittedly it should be nominally easier to win an election with the benefit of incumbency but the fact that since 2007 we have had knives out all the time, suggests that maybe the idea of doing boring governance might have returned. 

Since I last plugged the AEC data into my spreadsheet, although Sarah Witty is not ahead in Melbourne, she has so many 1s that I can no longer call Greens' MP Adam Bandt as retaining the seat.

I am not Albo's biggest fan by far, but I don't think you can pin this result entirely on the failed campaign of the Coalition. You don't win 80+ seats just because the opposition is useless. Although having said that, Peter Dutton is officially the most damaging leader of the Liberal Party in federal history.

2300

ALP 87

L/NP 40

GRN 0

OTH 12

Perhaps the craziest result in this election was that former Labor Senator Anne Urquhart has been pitted against Mal Hingston for the seat of Braddon. The AEC is currently reporting that this is a 15.1% swing against the Liberal Party.

Broadly speaking, what we have seen is that of the 18 million voters in this country, 12 million have voted for the majors but 6 million have not. Those 6 million are likely to be Gen-Y and Gen-Z, who have long been thrown overboard by the major parties. 

2312

ALP 87 (86)

L/NP 51

GRN 0 (1)

OTH 12

This is how I think that the final count will shake out.

I do not see any new seats flipping to Labor but even so, this is a stonking majority for the Labor Party. Is this a landslide? Maybe.

I have no idea who is likely to attempt to be the Liberal Party leader after this, and it may even be that the immediate Opposition Leader could very well be David Littleproud as the National Party hasn't seemed to be affected at all.

Either way, Albanese has boringly been reinstalled as Prime Minister and the Australian people have decided that it was bin night and have chucked out a potato.

Horse 3457 - In Which I Predict The Winner Of The 2025 Federal Election

The 2025 Australian Federal Election is in theory the hardest to predict the result for, since the 1906 Federal Election. The reason for this is the same though. Before 1910 when the two big massive flocks of political groups starting flying in the same kinds of directions, the Westminster System which is both apathetic and agnostic to the results that it throws up, produced a series of parliaments where the wedge between the two flocks was so big that government was hard to form.

Australia since about the time of Howard, has had an increasing amount of displeasure and distrust in the two big flocks, such that the spread and scope of the wedge has grown. In 2010 when Ms Gillard took Labor to victory, the wedge was smallish but because the two big groups were perfectly poised, it was a crossbench of 4 of 5, which returned the Labor Party to government.

In 1906, the wedge between the Labor Party led by Chris Watson and George Reid's Anti-Socialist Party, was mostly made of former Prime Minister Alfread Deakin's Protectionist Party and former Premier of Western Australia John Forrest who led a party of two. In 2025, the wedge consists of 16 seats. 

I have a spreadsheet which by taking the results of the previous election and the results of the NewsPoll, YouGov, and Morgan polls, assumes a uniform swing across the country to determine what the outcome is. The problem with this kind of methodology in 2025 is that it has as it's base assumption that a Two-Party Preferred (2PP) basis is good enough to calculate uniform swing, and then populate the results downwards across the board. The wedge is now so large, and the expected primary vote for both of the two big flocks, that my spreadsheet is now spitting out #DIV/0 errors in 22 seats. That's larger than the wedge, and larger than any possible sensible set of calculations for the result can handle. 

So in producing my prediction, I have had to override many of the equations which go into the various cells; then use the 2PP basis to calculate the result, even though I know full well that the result is going to be idiotic. This is a "Garbage In, Garbage Out" set of calculations because the the quality of any output is directly determined by the quality of the input. In this case, even though the equations used to generate a uniform swing calculator are perfect because the data is in essence flawed, the results are also flawed. You can not make a silken purse from a sow's ear.

Be that as it may, this is my prediction for the 2025 Australian Federal Election. I have an 80% success rate for picking Australian Federal Election results in broad terms (definitely not numbers); which I put down to the fact that it becomes really obvious late in the piece as to whom is unelectable.

Labor 79 (+2)

L-NP 64 (+6)

Green 1 (-3)

Other 6 (-5)

I think that the Liberal Party in particular will claw back seats from the Greens and the Teals, but I doubt that even a single Labor held seat will flip from red to blue. 27 seats did not even come close to finishing as winnable contests in 2022 and ironically, given that the wedge of votes is getting wider, I think that that hard core unswingable base will only grow on both sides. I think that Bennelong is the seat that will flip back to red and that Eden-Monaro will retain its status as bellwether. Kennedy will remain Bob Katter's seat. Warringah will remain Zali Steggal's seat. Dr Helen Haines will remain as Member for Indi.

If there is going to be any surprise on the night, it will be if Peter Dutton is so on the nose that he loses his seat of Dickson. Nominally it would take a swing of 1.5% to displace him which is less than 1700 votes. He might survive because of name recognition or fall precisely because of that same thing.

What would be really weird is if the wedge proves to be massive and blue at the same time. If the wedge is bigger than 9% across the country, then as many as 43 seats could be in play; which means that government might swing on the basis of 3rd and 4th preferences. There is a remote possibility that Ali France wins the seat of Dickson for Labor but the Labor Party loses. If that happens, then there is a chance that Peter Dutton would be given the commission as Prime Minister but with no seat, and then either win a seat in a by-election or take up a seat in the Senate upon the resignation of a Liberal Party sacrifice.

Always the ticking time bomb in the background is Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026; which currently has a status of "Not Proceeding" and "Lapsed at dissolution" upon 28th Mar 2025. As it was introduced on 25th Mar 2025, then the six months given for the Senate to reject or fail to pass it, ends on 26th Sep 2025.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7327

This means that the weirdest possible timeline of all is a Labor Government, with Peter Dutton as Leader of the Opposition from the Senate, blocking the budget, to send us back to the polls in October or November. 

I think that the most likely scenario is either the Labor Party winning majority with a margin of 3 or less, or having to negotiate with the big wedge, hoping to scrobble about for the 2 or 3 seats necessary for a majority on the floor to secure supply and confidence. 

Ho and Hum.

Horse 3308 - Dunkley By-Election: Labor Retain

https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-29778-210.htm

31,532 - BELYEA, Jodie (ALP)

29,877 - CONROY, Nathan (Lib)

4,997 - BRESKIN, Alex (Grn)

As I write this, the results for the by-election in the division of Dunkley, look very much like the Labor Party will retain the seat; with Jodie Belyea winning 41.02% of the primary vote, versus former Mayor of Frankston Nathan Conroy with 38.87% of the primary vote. This by-election was not the result of a member resigning but by the death of sitting Labor member Peta Murphy who had been battling breast cancer for 13 years. So unlike other elections where the previous member was unpopular and/or left in disgrace, this by-election was held in a fairly neutral environment. 

Jodie Belyea winning 41.02% of the primary vote, which is a swing of 0.05% to Labor is so slight as to be statistically unimportant. It is so small that the by-election actually tells us nothing about Labor's chances of retaining government in 2025. I personally think that there will be an early budget in March; with the election taking place on or about the 17th of May 2025; which would be an ordinary House and Half-Senate election.

Nathan Conroy was in fact a fairly popular Mayor for Frankston; which meant that he could and did run a pretty positive campaign. However, if you had been watching Sky News, reading either The Age or The Herald-Sun, then you would be forgiven for thinking that this would be an absolute walkover for him. The obvious question is 'what went wrong?' and the answer is 'nothing really'.

Except:

https://twitter.com/sussanley/status/1763060889765515496

If you live in Frankston and you’ve got a problem with Victorian women being assaulted by foreign criminals, vote against Labor.

If you do not want to see Australian women being assaulted by foreign criminals, vote against Labor.

Send Labor a message.

- Sussan Ley, 29th Feb 2024, 15:37pm (on X)

Sussan Ley, the Member for Farrer and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, decided to turn this into a racist dog whistle campaign. Trying to stoke the fires of irrational fear by blaming "foreign criminals" when we all know that she really means 'black people' but is too craven to bring her actual racism into the light, is quite frankly despicable.

There probably will be a lot of commentary about 'who really won' the by-election as though this were some gnostic set of runes that nobody can read but the thing about a an election is that it is really ridiculously easy to determine who won. We have the numbers. The person with the most votes after all the instant run-offs, that is the person with more than 50% plus 1 of the votes has won the election. You don't need to clutch pearls, look at bird entrails, read tea leaves or wave burning leaves over your head - the person 'who really won' the election is the person who WON the election.

However in dissecting why the Liberal Party lost the seat when their candidate was actually quite affable and seems like a nice chap, then this moment at thirteen minutes to four in the afternoon, which is time enough for news bulletins to pick up their sound bites, the exact moment that the Liberal Party lost the seat.

At this point, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, made her intentions clear that she intended to court the racist vote for her own political ends, and rather than mere blaming the Labour Party for this or that, turned this into a 'wink wink nudge nudge black people' moment. Sussan Ley as an openly racist knave, tried to dog-whistle and the people of Dunkley responded by telling her party where to go.

If you drill down into the numbers as they stand, the Labor Party retained its primary vote. The Liberal Party can try and pretend that it has had a successful campaign but all that they have in fact done, is pick up votes from the absence of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and the United Australia Party. I do not know how you can pretend that a 6.82% gain is a success when the corresponding loss of 7.70% is from parties who weren't even running. What that actually says is that 0.88% of the population or 709 people, would rather vote for an empty chair than you.

If there is a lesson to be learned here, it is that trying to use American advisors and American strategies to push American-style misinformation in an Australian context, is a road which puts you on a hiding to nothing. Yes, there was a time and a place when demonising asylum seekers and blaming immigrants for the woes of the country did work but that was back in 2001. American advisors which suggest that a winning political strategy which involves energising their base, is in the third decade of the twenty-first strategy, a losing one. 

The take-aways from this election are that the Labor Party has gone nowhere because boring government is good government. The Liberal Party only increased its primary vote because the further-right-wing sections of the political spectrum fielded zero candidates. The Greens having lost 4% of the vote are going AWOL in the public imagination. And weirdly, the fact that we have an Animal Justice, a Libertarian, and a Victorian Socialist who together polled 5.48% of the vote would suggest that the fringes of the electorate are fracturing.

Curiously, I suspect that Ms Ley is either delusional, drunk, or just openly lying to the Australian people:

https://twitter.com/sussanley/status/1763882241892270580

The people of Dunkley have sent Anthony Albanese a strong message and it's not ‘Happy Birthday’, it's 'do something about the cost of living crisis.’ A swing of this size at the next election would see us win 11 seats from Labor. This is a terrible result for the Prime Minister.

- Sussan Ley, 2nd Mar 2024, 20:01pm (on X)

I actually do have a spreadsheet and can calculate this. 

Ms Ley is in fact correct, a swing of this size at the next election would see the coalition win 11 seats at the next election. By my reckoning, they would increase from 55 to 66 seats. Also, a swing of this size at the next election would see Labor pick up two seats, taking them from 77 to 79. The Greens would lose 3, Centre Alliance would lose their only seat, and there would be 7 independents.

I still fail to see how retaining a seat is a "terrible result for the Prime Minister". Perhaps someone can explain that to me.

Horse 3241 - Australia Usually Says "No" To Any Kind Of Progress

When Australians go to the polls in October, it will be over the single question of whether or not to add Chapter IX and Section 129 to the Constitution. The addition of Section 129 is to allow the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Voice to Parliament and to do so via the Constitution, rather than just some mere body which can be added and removed by normal legislation.

Personally, I think that the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Voice to Parliament is in fact the wrong answer to the request as posed from the Uluru Statement From The Heart. However given that the admission that First Peoples always retained original sovereignty, sovereignty which was never ceded, and which should be recognised and afforded statehood by virtual terms at least Six Senators as a result, per Section 121, is never ever going to happen, then this is the best that we can hope for. The reason why that this is the best that we can hope for, is that in essence, Australia since 26th January 1788 has always mostly been a nation of tory knaves. Please note, that I use the word 'tory' in this case in the technical sense. 

tory. n. 1. - robber, highwayman, thief. From the Irish Gaelic 'toraigh' (robber, highwayman, thief).

The word 'tory' is absolutely the best word to describe what happened in Australia. After losing the United States, the British Empire decided that it needed to chuck its convicts and ne'er-do-wells into a giant prison which was out of sight and out of mind. The North Government sent 11 Royal Navy ships and what would instantly become the New South Wales Corps. to take possession of the land, with no regard for first peoples. They then spent the better part of seven decades enforcing that possession through the instruments of land clearances and very deliberate genocide. Very tory. Very knave.

Henry Parkes, the multiple time Premier of New South Wales and so-called "Father of Federation" (who had 19 children; which kind of looks like a self-population project), when asked what was to be done for the Aborigines during the 1888 Centenary of NSW said that nothing was to be done:

"And remind them that we have robbed them?"

The problem then was, having built six colonies out of tory knaves, the new Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 was fashioned out of the same cloth. Edmund Barton's Amazing Technicoloured Dreamcoat actually wasn't all that coloured at all. The only two colours were white and blood stained red. The Constitution to this day does not admit the original sovereignty of first peoples, does not afford any voice in Parliament like the States have in the Senate and any Member of Parliament who happens to be Aboriginal or a Torres Straight Islander, is not there as a first peoples member but as a citizen of the state who dispossessed their own people. 

When we are asked the question in October, we will still not actually be correcting the original terms of the Constitution but rather, asked to tack on an addition which is still only really a subserviant voice to the Crown of the Commonwealth rather than a federated person to it like the Crowns of the Six States are. Given that though, opposition to even that is still very vociferous because the heart of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia is still identical in 2023 to what it was in 1901 or 1788. We are still mostly been a nation of tory knaves. This can be demonstrated by looking at the answers to referenda posed to us in the past and ultimately why I think that the referendum for Chapter IX and Section 129 to the Constitution will also fail.

It must be said that Australia has never been a terribly progressive nation. From the inception of the various colonies which were literally under martial law, to the eventual dispensation of responsible government, to federation which happened as a result of a perceived impending threat from Imperialist Germany, Australia from the outset was always very authoritarian.

This isn't particularly difficult to prove either. A simple survey of the referenda of Australia will tell you what the people of Australia will agree to. 

We have said "No" to referenda put forward by Labor Governments 26 times. Mostly these referenda have been about allowing the Federal Government to take some control over issues like prices, incomes, industry, employment terms, social service, rents et cetera. Referenda put forward by Labor Governments tend to be about curbing the rights of business in Australia to run roughshod over the top of ordinary people.

We have said "No" to referenda put forward by Protectionist, Nationalist, United Australia, and Liberal Governments 10 times. In 8 of those referenda, the questions posed were about tory governments specifically looking to bash their enemies, like unions, communists, and any kind of socialist policy, into the dirt. Even though Australia has mostly been a nation of tory knaves, as evidenced by the governments that we elect and by the questions that we answer "No" to, evidently there are limits to our knavery. 

On the flip side we have said "Yes" to referenda put forward by Protectionist, Nationalist and Liberal Governments 7 times. In all but one of these these have been to do with mechanical aspects of the parliament, the judiciary, and what was to happen with the finances of the nation. 

That one exception when we have said "Yes" to referenda put forward by a Liberal Government was in 1967 and was the referendum on "Aborigines" in which Section 51 was fiddled with and Section 127 which was the explicit refusal to count Aboriginal peoples in the population, which had other implications to to with allocation of Members of the House under Section 24, was repealed.

We have also said "Yes" once and only once to referenda put forward by a Labor Government. This was in 1946 and related to the provision of various kinds of pensions, endowments and what should have been the establishment of the National Health Service but the referendum question itself was gutted and the National Health Service Bill (1948) was killed off; which ensured that even after Australians had given their lives in two world wars, this still wasn't enough to make tory knaves think that Australians were worthy enough to be looked after in terms of health care.

We can basically assume that every single referendum held in or before 1928 was argued out only in the newspapers. We can also  every single referendum held in or before 1951 was argued out only in the newspapers and radio. From 1973 to 1999, the referenda were argued out in the newspapers, on radio and on television. However, this time around, there is no serious argument to be found in the newspapers which are all tory, radio and television are all editorially tory except for the ABC and SBS, and the exception is the internet which is a Thirty Xanatos Pileup Wild West Horrorshow. The "No" case in the media has almost entirely been a bad faith argument and the "Yes" case which is trying to argue on the basis of decency and moral rightness can not make any meaningful rebuttal on those terms. Trying to fight bad faith actors with argument, is a pointless exercise.

When set against the background of 123 years of the Commonwealth of Australia, and 235 years of a history which includes dispossession and genocide, this referendum which barely pushes forward and sadly is the best that we can hope for, the referendum is still likely to fail. Australia has always mostly been a nation of tory knaves and this is demonstrated by repeated referenda. When the question is posed to ask us to be our better selves, I think that the answer is more likely to be "No."

Horse 3240 - The 'Unity' Argument Is Invalid

Unlike the worlds of mathematics, physics, sciences, and logic, we live in a kosmos which is built out of stories. One of the important things about stories is that they are very very powerful. If facts and logic are bones and muscles, then stories are the blood, mucus, and bile of the kosmos. Smash the facts and logic and you have to rebuild the kosmos but spray around blood, mucus, and bile, and all you get is a lot of filthy mess everywhere.

During this referendum on the addition of the First Peoples' Voice to Parliament via the instrument of Chapter IX and Section 129, you are going to hear the 'unity' argument again and again, as though it were some watertight divine principle. On the face of it, it seems sensible. People should be equal before the law. However the idea that unity as a glib principle, and as the reason why equity should be refused to be addressed, contains a very deliberate denial of the truth of reality and a deep contradiction.

The logic statements look something like this for classes N and R.

Not all N are R.

However, all R are N.

This still means that some N are R.

R is a subset of N.

Therefore, N and not R is valid.

The problem with this kind of logic is that it doesn't actually evaluate the validity or propositions of N. In fact, when you probe with any questions about N, you are almost always met with a wall of blood, mucus, and bile of the kosmos and a lot of filthy mess everywhere.

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia itself, just like the constitutions for any corporation because the Commonwealth is Corporation Sole, is a set of replaceable rules which determine the power and scope that that corporation has and the terms and mechanisms by which that power and scope is executed and by which the set of replaceable rules may be replaced or revoked or added to. The idea that the Commonwealth is Corporation Sole is hardly new. The Crown of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth itself are inseparable and as Corporation Sole the Commonwealth is the sole shareholder of itself. The voters and executive, have those abilities and power because the Constitution provides for them.

The instrument of Chapter IX and Section 129 is merely a new replaceable rule being added to the existing rule set. 

It reads:

Chapter IX - Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

s.129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

(i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

(ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

(iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

- proposed Section 129.

This text, very obviously looks like an addition which does not materially change any of the other provisions in the other 127 sections of the Constitution, nor does it directly assign any functions, powers and procedures to the Voice, as these are to the domain of legislation made by the Parliament, as it is pleased to assign them. Section 129 is also very obviously a new replaceable rule which is being proposed to be added to the existing rule set. 

Now the central lie of the 'unity' argument is that the addition of this replaceable rule to the rule set, assigns an unjust privilege to people on the basis of race. On the face of it and provided that you did no reading of the rest of the Constitution at all, I would have to agree. However, there is no story told in a vacuum and the addition of Section 129 as a new replaceable rule still lives within the context of the rest of the existing rule set. Section 129 is not some magic stand alone piece of legislation but rather, is an addition to the set of rules agreed to by the settlers and originators of the Corporation Sole. The central lie of the 'unity' argument, demands that you deny the existence of the Constitution, and the terms by which the Commonwealth of Australia came to be. 

The terms by which the Commonwealth of Australia came to be can be found in the Covering Clauses of the Constitution and specifically as it relates to the parties which settled the term:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/preamble#covering_clauses-definitions

Clause 6.

6. Definitions

The Commonwealth shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State.

- Covering Clause 6, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900)

The States, which were previously the Colonies, by 1900 all had Crowns in their own right, and sovereignty in their own right. The new Commonwealth of Australia as a federation of these States, would simply copy the status of the States, except with powers ceded to it. The States retained plenary powers, except where Commonwealth and State legislation came into conflict; and due to Section 109, Commonwealth legislation would prevail to the extent of the inconsistency bewteen the two pieces of legislation.

The States however, as sovereign powers, referred the referendum question to join the federation to the people of their 'state'. There is however a problem here and it relates to the Preamble of the Constitution:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/preamble

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

- Preamble, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900)

Please note the words "the people" and "have agreed to". The truth being denied with the 'unity' argument and that people should be equal before the law, is that 'the people' in all states which federated together to form the Commonwealth, specifically excluded first peoples. If you specifically excluded first peoples, then there is no way that they "have agreed to" anything. You should also note here that the persons who have settled the terms of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, are not 'the people' as a general collective but rather the Crowns of the Colonies who have been defined as 'The States'. The Crowns of The States, just like the Commonwealth of Australia are also Corporations Sole. This is where things get extremely messy.

Every single State and by extension the territories, since they only exist after the invention of the Commonwealth of Australia, claimed sovereignty upon proclamation of the respective colonies and then immediately set about to enforce that sovereignty through genocide and dispossession. Where I live in western Sydney, there is a road called Davis Road which as best as I can tell was named after Sergeant Jeremiah Davis, of the New South Wales Corps. The road passes through the site of a 1791 massacre of Dharug peoples and as best as I can tell Sergeant Jeremiah Davis was paid 1/3 per head, for every Aborginal person killed in the massacre. This kind of event happened again and again and again, right from the inception of the Colony of New South Wales, via land clearances and battle, where the settlers who took over the land simply assumed that they had the power to do so and they had the backing of the Crown and the use of military force to enforce this.

Until only very recently, there have never been any formal treaty processes between the Crowns and first peoples. Certainly the assumption of lands and the backing of that assumption by military force was never agreed to. You will notice that Clause 6 contains New Zealand as being defined as one of the States. The reason for this is that they were still part of the Constitutional Conventions and could have been part of Australia. Their reasons for not wanting to federate into the Commonwealth of Australia along with the other States, apart from the fact that New Zealand is an ocean away and travel in 1900 was still very very slow, was that the treaty arrangements that the Colony of New Zealand had made with the Maori were active and in force, and that the Constitution at the time specifically excluded first peoples from being counted.

In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.

- s.127, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900) [Repealed by No.55 of 1967, section 3]

Section 127 affected other  parts of the Constitution. For instance Section 24 states that each state is entitled to members in the House of Representatives based on a population quota determined from the "latest statistics of the Commonwealth." The actual responsibility for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was left to the states and this also explains the specific exclusion from 'race powers' contained in Section 51 at the time.

It wasn't until the Nationality Act (1920) that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders born after January 1, 1921 gained the status of British subjects. And it wasn't until the Nationality and Citizenship Act (1948) that they became Australian citizens. However, none of this does anything to change the original terms of the Preamble or the Covering Clauses which explain why and how the Commonwealth came to be.

Perhaps most stark is the statement by the judge Stephen C.J. in the case of the Attorney-General v. Brown (1847):

"The territory of New South Wales, and eventually the whole of the vast island of which it forms a part, have been taken possession of by British subjects in the name of the Sovereign. They belong, therefore, to the British Crown.

The fact of the settlement of New South Wales in that manner, and that it forms a portion of the Queen's Dominions, and is subject to and governed by British laws, may be learned from public colonial records, and from Acts of Parliament. New South Wales is termed in the statute 54 GEO III, c.15, and in the 59 GEO III, c.122, His Majesty's Colony; not the colony of the people, not even the colony of the empire. It was maintained that this supposed property in the Crown was a fiction. Doubtless, in one sense, it was so.

The right of the people of England to their property, does not in fact depend on any royal grant, and the principle that all lands are holden mediately or immediately of the Crown flows from the adoption of the feudal system merely (Co Lit 1, and ibid.191, a, Mr. Butler's note 6; Bac Ab Prerog B.; Vin Ab same title K.A. 19). That principle, however, is universal in the law of England, and we can see no reason why it shall be said not to be equally in operation here. The Sovereign, by that law is (as it is termed) universal occupant."

- Stephen C.J., Attorney-General v. Brown (6) (1847) 

It wasn't until Mabo and Others v Queensland No.2 (1992) that any notion of original sovereignty of first peoples over the land was entertained.

The "No" case and the assertion that we've moved on from that behaviour, or that we can't expect people of today to act like the people of 123 years ago, or 235 years ago, and then literally doing nothing to change the terms, proves by action, that the 'unity' argument is in fact a lie and a very very racist one at that.

Replace N with "No" and R with "Racist"

The logic statements look something like this for classes No and Racist.

Not all No are Racists.

However, all Racists are No.

This still means that some No are Racists.

Racists is a subset of No.

Therefore, No and not Racist is valid.

Except that No is itself a tacitly Racist position because it does nothing to address or change the terms of the Constitution. Voting No because of some glib principle of 'unity' and that 'we are all one' merely serves to protect the existing terms; which were racist.

Horse 3231 - Evaluating The Two Cases Is Actually Pointless

By now the great Australian voting public will have all received their information pamphlet, with both the text of the proposed Chapter IX and Section 129 to be added to the Constitution, and the two sets of arguments for the "Yes Case" and the "No Case". If agreed to in the affirmative by a majority of voters and in a majority of states, then the amendment will be made. In the event that there is a majority of voters but not a majority of states (ie 3:3), then the amendment will not be made. In the event that there is a majority of states (ie 4:2) but not a majority of voters, then the amendment will not be made. 

The fight which is currently being conducted by the overtly right-wing press is to kill the amendment. My prediction is that the referendum will fail; which means that any hope of reconciliation will be set back at least 20 years. This will also mean that the racists will have won.

Admittedly at this point, I have already laid my cards on the table when I say that the words of Chapter IX and Section 129 I think are a poor answer to the problem which lies at the heart of the Constitution, which itself was written by overtly racist people and by the Six States which all acquired their lands by genocide and dispossession but given that this is the best that we're going to get, then this is what we'll have to accept. The choice before the people is slightly better than a token or nothing.

Be that as it may be, the information pamphlet contains the text of the proposed Chapter IX and Section 129; as well as a "Yes Case" in favour and a "No Case" against it. I shall run though each of these and evaluate whether or not I think that the claims therein are true or not. At the end of this, I shall give both sides a score to see what level of truthiness they employed.

The Yes Case.

The "Yes Case" in the booklet starts out by stating what it calls 8 "Key Facts", before providing 8 more reasons. These are as follows:

Fact 1. Idea comes directly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Surprisingly, the then Abbott Government in 2015 set in motion a series of dialogues, forums and discussions with more than 1200 people groups. These dialogues included elders, chiefs as well as heads of family groups; which means that as far as deliberation and discussion goes, this was a very comprehensive process.

These Regional Dialogues culminated in the  First Nations Constitutional Convention at Uluru in 2017, and this the final dialogue which argued out and decided upon the wording of the Uluru Statement From The Heart. The Turnbull Government was to have put a similar referendum to the people at the 2019 election, except for the fact that Mr Turnbull was removed as Prime Minister and the Morrison Government which followed, point blank refused to do anything about it. Thus, even though there was a wide ranging nation-wide deliberative consultation process with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, no action was taken on the Uluru Statement From The Heart until there was a change of government.

As far as the claim that the  Uluru Statement From The Heart and the call for The Voice was backed by over 80% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, this was was true at the time and from every single poll which I have found from 2022 onwards when this was proposed as a constitutional amendment, the lowest approval rating was 84%. Polling always has confirmed that support from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has always been well in excess of a supermajority.

This is accurate.

1/1

Fact 2. Recognises First Peoples In Our Constitution

This is merely a restatement of the proposed text.

"Chapter IX - Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

s.129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:"

I personally find this as inadequate as this is a Chapter and Section which is tacked onto the end of the Constitution, which very much looks like an afterthought; which it is. I do not think that Section 129 adequately addresses the critical flaw at the centre of of the Constitution but if this is the best that we can hope for, then pragmatism says that this will have to do.

This claim that the proposed Section 129 recognises First Peoples in the Constitution, is true in as much as it explicitly ties the creation of the Voice as a consequence of the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia.

This is accurate.

2/2

Fact 3. A Committee of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People.

The text of the proposed Section 129 states that:

"(i) There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;"

Section 129 does not state what that "body" looks like; nor does it explicitly state the composition of that body, leaving that for the Parliament to decide by legislation.

The current Albanese Government has released a set of guidelines which state that the The Voice will be made up of and chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but these guidelines are merely that.

The proposed text of Section 129, does not explicitly state that The Voice is a "A Committee of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People" but given the deliberative process and what it is intended to do, I can not imagine that this is a statement which will be proven wrong, however we just don't know.

This is ultimately unknowable but a claim which sounds like it should be true.

2.5/3

Fact 4. Gives People A Say On Issues Affecting Them.

Again, this is a restatement of actual text of the proposed Section 129:

"(ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;"

Assuming that the The Voice is made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, then if it may make representations to the Parliament and Executive Government then of course it will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a say on government and parliamentary decisions about issues relating to them.

This is a basic comprehension question.

3.5/4

Fact 5. Listening Will Mean Better Results and Better Value For Money

As evidenced by the Northern Territory Intervention, or the imposition of policies such as missions and schools which have resulted in things in the past like the Stolen Generations, I do not honestly see how not asking people and consulting with people directly affected by legislation has helped in the past.

This is a vague and general kind of claim but it would appear that when governments actually listen to the needs, opinions, and wished of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, that this results in better and more targeted programs in areas such as housing, health, education, et cetera. 

This claim appears to be supported by a large body of academic research; which is hardly surprising since this is generally the case when people are consulted about things which concern them. Better results and outcomes sounds like better value for money; which is secondary.

This is a general claim but still correct.

4.5/5

Fact 6. Representatives From All States and Territories, the Torres Strait Islands and Remote Communities.

This is not actually stated within the words of the text of the proposed Section 129. At best this merely reflects the current Albanese government’s published design principles. 

This is ultimately unknowable.

4.5/6

Fact 7. Will include young people and a balance of men and women.

Again, this is not actually stated within the words of the text of the proposed Section 129. At best this merely reflects the current Albanese government’s published design principles. 

This is ultimately unknowable.

4.5/7

Fact 8. Parliament and Government still responsible for laws, programs and funding.

I can see nothing in this amendment which modifies or changes any part of the rest of the Constitution. Laws are still subject to the passage of legislation of the parliament, various programs are are still subject to the running of executive government by the several government ministers, funding is still subject to the passage of money bills of the parliament.

The Voice has no constitutional power to veto parliamentary and government decisions, and the text of Section 129 indicates no ability to administer, deliver, or fund any services.

This is accurate.

5.5/7

Reason 1: This idea came from directly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

This is a restatement of Fact 1. There is nothing new to add here.

5.5/7

Reason 2: Constitution Recognition for concrete results.

This is a restatement of Fact 5. There is nothing new to add here.

5.5/7

Reason 3: Ensure people have a better life.

This is also a restatement of Fact 5. There is nothing new to add here.

5.5/7

Reason 4: Bring our country together.

While voting "yes" does mean that the country is reconciled to its past to some degree, there are clearly those people who do not wish to be reconciled. Aboriginal and First Peoples who feel hurt will see this as inadequate. The racists will just point blank refuse to be reconciled or accept any responsiblity to a past, which quite frankly they do not care about and are fine with. 

This is untrue.

5.5/8

Reason 5: Save money.

This is also a restatement of Fact 5. There is nothing new to add here.

5.5/8

Reason 6: The time is now.

Given that the Howard Government refused to say "sorry" to the Stolen Generations, and that despite the process of the Uluru Statement From The Heart passing over the table of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Government, and with the current Dutton Opposition being very opposed to the change, then we can very safely assume that that side politics is very unlikely to have brought this about. 

This claim, given that this was part of a political manifesto of one side of politics and if it fails is unlikely to occur again for a generation,  holds up.

This is accurate.

6.5/9

Reason 7: Practical advice that works.

This is a restatement of Fact 4. There is nothing new to add here.

6.5/9

Reason 8: Making government work better.

This is also a restatement of Fact 5. There is nothing new to add here.

6.5/9

Now:

6.5/9 = 72.22%

The "Yes Case" is not watertight; nor is it a Distinction or Credit, but it is a very good pass.

The NO Case

1. THIS VOICE IS LEGALLY RISKY

The argument which follows and which states that there is no comparable constitutional body is a straight up lie. The Maori Seats in the New Zealand Parliament, often meet and hold parliamentary select committees on matters which affect Maori.

Furthermore, the Australian Law Council has stated that the overwhelming majority of legal opinion is that the proposal for the Voice is both constitutionally and legally sound.

This is a lie.

0/1

2. THERE ARE NO DETAILS

This is a straight up lie. The full text of the constitutional amendment is printed in the pamphlet. 26 pages of explanatory notes to the Uluru Statement from the Heart were published in 2017. The government's explanatory memorandum was presented to parliament in March 2023. A joint parliamentary committee report on the amendment was published in May 2023. The solicitor-general’s white paper of legal advice published in April 2023. The minutes, communiques and advice of the Referendum Working Group and Constitutional Expert Group, who did their work across 2022-23 was published in May 2023.

This is so much a lie that it should be given minus points and the knave who dared to have this published in an official pamphlet should be made to sit in a chair and be pointed at and publicly ridiculed. The problem is that there is no law against lying.

Granted that we do no know about the specific operation of the Voice and its membership, but to suggest that we know nothing is to be dog ignorant, and it is both misleading and deceptive to sat that there no information about how these details will be determined, as significant details are provided in the government’s publicly released design principles; when very clearly they have been.

This is a lie.

0/2

3. IT DIVIDES US

This is an interesting claim because although this proposes a new body which is for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island peoples, this assertion is that that the addition of The Voice is racially exclusionary to those people who are not indigenous. From an absolutist perspective, this is course true. This is the beauty of this lie. In order to effectively tell a lie, it is incredibly useful to start with truth but in bad faith. The beauty of the "no" case's lie is that in stating this as hard fact, it then deliberately whitewashes over the already existing truth that the current constitutional position, already includes a different treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including a power to make special laws based on race in Section 25 as well as Section 51.

The statement that all Australians are equal before the law, is also a straight up lie because at the centre of the Constitution is the fact that all Six States and the Commonwealth gained their lands through genocide and dispossession and  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have never had any channel of equity through treaty process and absolutely nothing by means of representation had they been admitted as an original state.

This is a sneaky lie.

0/3

4. IT WON’T HELP INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS

This is just a straight up lie which deliberately ignores that significant research supports the view that greater input from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into government policies and laws that affect them will result in better outcomes for them, and better use of public funding.

This is a lie.

0/4

5. NO ISSUE IS BEYOND ITS SCOPE

The words of the text as published state that:

(ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations about matters "relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". 

Where is the text which suggests that its power and scope are plenary? There aren't any.

This is a lie.

0/5

6. IT RISKS DELAYS AND DYSFUNCTION

The statement that The Voice could appeal to the Court if there is a decision that it is not satisfied with, kind of ignores the fact that anyone already can appeal to the Court on matters in which they have standing. All Argument 6 is, is a statement of the rights which currently exist for all citizens as it is.

This is misleading.

0/6

7. IT OPENS THE DOOR FOR ACTIVISTS

How?

I genuinely do not understand how this claim even remotely relates to the text at hand. This is an interesting piece of rhetoric but it is irrelevant, immaterial and illogical. You can not just assert a thing which is not directly connected to the text at hand.

This is misleading.

0/7

8. IT WILL BE COSTLY AND BUREAUCRATIC

This claim is a scare campaign which is both unbudgeted and uncosted within the scope of the document. Surely The Voice's budget would be part of any ordinary and democratic budgetary process, as part of Appropriation Bill No.1.

This is misleading.

0/8

9. THIS VOICE WILL BE PERMANENT

I do not understand how on one hand you can state that there are no details; yet on the other hand claim to already have details. 

As it is, this text is pretty vague but legislation can and does pass through the parliament and can and does get changed subject to normal democratic process. As for the statement that it is permanent, the Australian people can abolish the Voice through a referendum just as they can set it up in the first place.

This is misleading.

0/9

10. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS FORWARD

I do not see this as being demonstrated in the real world. No proposals were put forward to address the issues that the Voice is directed at. No attempts were made to address the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

This is misleading.

0/10

Now:

0/10 = 0%.

The "No Case" has made no attempt to lay out a genuine case but perhaps it does not need to.

The Balance.

The differences between the "Yes Case" and the "No Case" are stark. Although having said that, if one were to give relative weight to the amount of truth contained in the two sets of arguments, then one side always wins here because the other makes no attempt to engage with the truth. Why should it? It has no need to.

Without opening any of the detail, this whole issue looks very similar to Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Theory Of Stupidity. When even the idea of doing what is just, can be excused away with the repetition of slogans and assertions which appear to have no basis in fact, as well as a basic denial of history, then even laying out any kind of argument is pointless.

Truth, facts, logic, and empathy, only work if the person to whom you are speaking to has some kind of commitment to those things. If they do not, then all of the truth, facts, logic, and empathy, matters not a jot. You may as well be presenting your arguments to a brick. 

Personally I think this is a 72-0 victory in terms of the value of argument presented but if the truth does not matter, if empathy does not matter, and if addressing justice does not matter, then those things must lose.

The Outcome.

My suspicion is that the referendum will fail because Australia is weirdly a conservative country. When things change they change all at once but when they don't they really do not. Political inertia, that is that people and the country is lazy, in that it likes to keep on doing what it is already doing unless acted upon by a seismic force, is very much the stock and trade of Australian politics.

The underlying injustice at the heart of the constitution of Australia is that the Crowns acquired the land through genocide and dispossession. My suspicion is that the referendum will fail because Australia as a nation is in fact tacitly fine with that, because the vast majority of people simply do not care.

Horse 3229 - Simply Let Your "Yes" Be "Yes" And Your "No" Be "No"

The announcement has been made that Australians will be going to the polls on October 14, to decide the fate of the single question of whether or not they want first people's "Voice" to be added to the Constitution of Australia Act 1900, through the mechanism of a new Section 129 being added. 

An information booklet has been sent out to everyone on the electoral roll, with the details of both the question in question and the case for both answers to that question "Yes" or "No"; so you would expect that the hideously toxic conversation around the Voice should shift from merely two sides yelling indiscriminately at each other, to the two sides yelling indiscriminately at each other about pros and cons. If you expected that, as I expected that, then you and I have grossly misunderstood the sheer level of stupidity in this country.

Stupidity is distinct from mere intelligence in that stupidity is when someone makes a deliberate choice to do something foolish, or act cruelly, or meanly, or say something illogical and not rooted in fact. Stupidity takes all of the available rational materiel from which a decision is made and then deliberately chooses the bad one. 

The stupidity which has surrounded the first week of the Voice referendum campaign, has had to do with deliberately choosing to undermine people's faith in the process and accuse the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) of deliberately rigging the election. In particular, the "No Case" has accused the AEC of rigging the election, by daring to apply the law surrounding the mechanics of referenda and then advising that it will follow the law. Shock; horror!

What you need to know in order to make your vote count, is very simple. "Yes" is a valid vote. "No" is a valid vote. The No Case's accusation is that the AEC in applying the law, is likely to accept a tick but not accept a cross. Meanwhile the AEC's instructions has always been perfectly clear from the outset that what a voter should be is mark "Yes" or "No" on their ballot paper, and that way it will be guaranteed that their vote will be counted.

It's not like this is a strange or new phenomenon either. The last time that Australians were sent to the poll for a referendum question, was to do with the subject of whether or not Australia should become a republic. The ballot paper in that 1999 referendum question, looked like this:

I think that it is pretty obvious, that if you ask one question which only has a "Yes" or "No" answer, then you should expect to write "Yes" or "No" on the ballot paper. The "No Case" however, does not. The AEC has been forced to get out in front and run a social media campaign, which is downright ludicrous; simply because "No Case" has been throwing up confusion, even to the point of accusing the AEC of causing that confusion. I find it amusing that the AEC, slyly has put the "No Case" in its place somewhat.

https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/

Completing a Referendum ballot paper

To vote, write either 'yes' or 'no' - in full - in the box provided on the ballot paper. You can even practice ahead of time.

- from the AEC website, as at 30th Aug 2023.

I think that it says an awful lot about the "No Case" if they genuinely think that the people who are likely to vote "No" are that incapable of writing "No" in a box. Just how much contempt do you have to have for the people on your own side of the political question, that you've accused them of literally being not intelligent enough to answer a simply "Yes" or "No" question with a "Yes" or "No" answer.

As you would expect, this issue which is deeply rooted in both xenophobia and outright racism in large sections of the "No Case", have tried to make the argument that recent migrants to Australia might not be able to understand the question put to them and would therefore be unable to write "Yes" or "No" in the available space. This conveniently dodges the fact that very recent migrants to Australia wouldn't be entitled to vote in the first place, and that practically every migrant who has come to Australia has an even greater degree of civic pride than then rest of the population who was born here.

However, let's play the Devil's Advocate for a second because apparently the Devil doesn't already own all of the lawyers and is so bereft of legal assistance that not even Legal Aid will provide with with adequate legal representation. Go on, if you don't understand that you should put a simple "Yes" or "No" answer then the space provided to answer a "Yes" or "No" question, then just put "X". Make your vote as deliberately ambiguous as possible so that the scrutineers will be tempted, nay forced, to put your vote into the informal pile and not count it. I do not understand why the "No Case" if they genuinely want people to vote "No", aren't going around trying to make absolutely sure that people put "No" in the box; instead of sewing the seeds of confusion.

Or rather, I do understand and its the same kind of motives which are used in the United States to try and undermine people's confidence in the electoral system; so that way people won't vote at all. The difference though, is that voting in Australia is compulsory; so that kind of nonsense simply doesn't fly here.

Look, if you want to vote "Yes" then write "Yes". If you want to vote "No" then write "No". It's not hard. You've got 44 days to think about the answer. The AEC has made the instruction so very obvious that every Billy Brown from Sydney Town and Maria Ngatha from Karratha can answer the question. They tell you on the top of the form to write either "Yes" or "No" and immediately under the box will be another instruction to write either "Yes" or "No". Do not let the "No Case" be proven right in their demonstrated contempt for you by getting a simple instruction wrong.

Horse 3019 - What Do We Make Of The 2022 Election Results?

The 2022 Federal Election which has seen an Albanese Labor Government installed, was both entirely predictable and very much needed salve for a long-suffering electorate which has endured possibly the worst government in the nation's history. During the last three years we had a Prime Minister who ran away to Hawaii while the biggest bushfire in the history of the world raged and then did literally nothing about the recovery effort, he refused to act on repeated demands for an anti-corruption commission, excused rape both inside the parliament building and historical cases by the members of his own party, in addition to running so many barrels of pork that they ran out of barrels. 

Quite simply, the Morrison Government had to go. This long period of Liberal Government which started with Tony Abbott, who was then knifed by Malcolm Turnbull, who was then in turn knifed by Peter Dutton but who couldn't make the landing stick, finally settled upon Scott Morrison as a triage Prime Minister who wasn't so much asleep at the wheel as never behind the wheel in the first place.

Before I look at what the election result actually means, the biggest take-home from the election is that preferential voting is one of the most vital and important inventions in Australian electoral history. An article in Monday's Australian by one of their spokesborgs (and which I shall not link to because I do not want News Corp to get the ad revenue) states that the Labor Party has no mandate to govern because they only got 31% of 1st preference votes. This quietly and dishonestly hides the fact that the political football team that they cheer for, only got 34% of 1st preference votes and even less when you consider that the Liberal Party never rules in its own right but is in coalition with the National Party, the Queensland LNP (which is actually the remnant of the old Queensland National Party) and the Country Liberals in the Northern Territory. Using their own logic, that would mean that 64% of the electorate also thinks that the coalition has no mandate to govern.

What preferential voting does is excellent for two very very important reasons:

1 - Preferential Voting signals to both the parties and the public at large, what kind of government that the electorate wants. Preferential Voting allows a voter in the ballot box to vote for the raft of policies and people that they would like to make the laws which will be in place. In a democracy, and indeed in any situation, knowing what people want is important. 

2 - Preferential Voting allows the mechanism for people to say what they will consent to. The issue of consent, was one the Morrison Government did its level best to supress. It makes sense that a government which was very much devoid of conscience and which proved to be repeatedly morally bankrupt,  would finally be removed when the electorate no longer gave its consent to being trated like that.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

- US Declaration of Independence, 4th July 1776

The consent of the governed is a different concept to the will of the people. The will of the people is what the people want or do not want. The concept of the consent of the governed contains the idea that all of the offices of government are ultimately owned by the people in commonwealth and that the right to operate the machinery and assets of government, is owned by and should in fact be held by the people in commonwealth. The person of The Crown is corporation sole, where the shareholders who own a share by virtue of being citizens of the commonwealth also hold voting rights in a general meeting. The CEO, the board, and the executive officers are only servants of the people in commonwealth and should justly be recalled and/or expelled from the offices that they hold when consent is withdrawn.

The only way that you arrive at asking the electorate at large as to who they will consent to governing them, is by asking everyone. For this reason, compulsory voting as one of only a few duties that the citizens of the nation have towards each other, is an essential component of this. How do you get the consent of the governed unless you ask everyone? 

Also, the House of Representatives is a representative parliament. Every single member who is elected to the House of Representatives gets there because they have the consent (maybe begrudgingly) of at least 50% + 1 of the voters in their electorate. 

Work through the logic of this in both directions.

If I can not have have Alice, then I will have Bob. If I can not have have Bob, then I will have Chloe. If I can not have have Chloe, then my preferences are expressed until we arrive at some Norman.

I absolutely hate Zack but I will accept Yvonne slightly more. I still hate Yvonne but I will accept Xavier slightly more. I still hate Xavier but my preferences are expressed until we arrive at some Norman.

Preferential Voting can be counted in both directions; from the top down to see who the public likes the most and from the bottom up to find out who will be begrudgingly acceptable. 

None of this information is available to anyone with a first past the post system. If we have the Division of West Banana where first preferences are thus:

24 - BURN ALL THE ANIMALS

23 - We Love Kitties

22 - We Love Puppies

21 - We Love Bunnies

10 - We like Hamsters

With a first past the post system, we have elected a policy of BURNING all the animals despite it being unacceptable to more than 75% of the people of West Banana. This is not remotely sensible.

Given that preferential voting is more vital as an instrument of consent than it would first appear, what do the results of the election actually tell us? Labor having a possible majority of seats, tells us that the electorate consents to a Labor Government. As the 151 electorates are as equal in size as is feasibly possible, with not a lot of variation of over and under egging the pudding, then that level of consent has been achieved on a nationwide basis.

However within that first preference count, a highly complex story emerges upon closer inspection.

The rise of the teal independents and the greens in the inner cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, tells us that there is a level of income and assets which people reach where they can no longer be swayed, merely by their own selfish interests. At some point, it is hard to satisfy people's material wants if they already have everything that they could want and need.

This says that the election of the teal independents is an expression by mostly richest people in society is on the basis of some other desire. Whether that's a rejection of the cruelty exacted by the government over the last nine years, or progressive people who now feel that they have the luxury and permission to be heard, or maybe an expression that the Liberal Party which has been following the directives of the enmeshed media has driven itself too far to the economic right and the authoritarian north and they don't like it.

The Liberal Party aught to listen to the people that have told it, in very strong terms, that something needs to change. As this result is unlike anything that I have seen in my lifetime, then that also says that the status quo can hold no longer. The electorate has changed since the Liberal Party decided that it wanted to mould itself into the party of Howard. This result is as monumental and as stark as in 1972 when the electorate told the Liberal Party that it had changed since it started as party of Menzies.

The fact that the Labor Party has now achieved its lowest 1st Preference vote since the invention of preferential voting in 1921, aught to tell the Labor Party that the electorate has changed. Admittedly the labour movement has been knobbled over the last 20 years and a cynical Royal Commission into the unions found nothing of import but the question has to be asked of what kind of relevance that unions have.

Both of the majors should be on notice that not only has the electorate changed but that half of the electorate are women. This should have been reasonably apparent for at least a century but I am convinced that this is not the case. One of the unexpected moral victors of this election was former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. When she was elected as Prime Minister in 2010, the share of first preference votes by the major parties was 81%. Today in 2022 it is only 68% and it has been on the slide for four election cycles. Again, women in particular feel perhaps for the first time that they have the luxury and permission to be heard.

It is telling that the United Australia Party despite running candidates in every electorate and spending more than $100m, did no better than the Legalise Cannabis Party. That says that the people of Australia aren't as easily hoodwinked as maybe once thought. Even despite a very very vocal minority of upside-down flag wavers, Australians appear to understand that temporary freedom of movement curtailed, was worth it to keep the most vulnerable people alive. Yelling "Freedom, Freedom, Freedom" makes about as much sense as yelling "Flavour, Flavour, Flavour. Maggi. Maggi. Maggi!"

The UAP and One Nation, did no better than 5% of first preference votes each. Together they make up about 10% of the electorate; which says that craziness and wingnuttery although vocal, are not large enough to make that much of an impact on policy. In contrast, the Greens who also scored about 10% of first preferences, will perhaps send as many as 4 MPs to the House of Reps and maybe be part of a significant wedge in the Senate which holds the balance of power.

On that note it should be said that the balance of power can only exist in the light of the rest of the parliament. The notion that there even is a balance of power is a consequence of political parties forming to try and win power but there is zero mention of political parties in the Constitution, nor is there any mention of the Prime Minister for that matter.

This election should tell the parties is that the people of Australia can and will elect members which reflect what they look like. This will be the most diverse parliament in terms of family background and culture and Anthony Albanese will in fact be the first Prime Minister who does not have an Anglo-Celtic name. There will be people from a massive number of backgrounds; including first peoples in both the House and Senate. The incoming Albanese Labor Government should itself reflect on the fact that even a former Premier of NSW can not be merely parachuted into a seat, if the people of that electorate will not consent to that. Dai Le as a independent for the seat of Fowler, has excellently reminded us that all politics are national and that all politics are also local. If you walk around Fairfield, you will find a different looking community to the people of Mosman.

The other thing that the people have told the parliament, is that the people of Australia want to address the existential issues of climate change and what the response to that looks like, the issue relating to finally addressing justice for and with first peoples and what kind of constitutional response that might demand, as well as the more nebulous question of what a fairer society looks like. That last note is a broad demographic issue; which is being made acute in the aftermath of nearly three decades of deliberate policy to reengineer where the rewards of society flow.

I am glad that this election cycle is over. I am glad that the Morrison Government is over. My grand wish would be that the Liberal Party never achieves government again until 2122 but even then that will be too soon. It is going to take several generations to flush out this amount of poison.

Horse 3018 - Vote 1 Micah: Micah Explains Elections

Hewaw.

My name is Micah and I am wonderful.

I have learned that da peoples of da country are going to do elections on Saturday and say who day think will be da best at doing yellings and making da rules. I no can do elections. I can do yellings though. I am good at doing yellings. I am good at doing yellings at dark-time when my peoples are asleep and they should no be asleep any more and need to give me breakfast. I am good at doing yellings in da backyard when other cats visit. I am good at doing yellings for no reason at all, when I walk into a room and it is not filled with my yellings. I like da sound of my yellings. My yellings are good yellings.

When da people who make da rules do their yellings on da tebevisions, they look silly. I no can tell and I no care which group of peoples are on what team of yelling. I know that there are two teams of yellings, with one team yelling this way and the other team yelling that way. I no have any idea how da rules are made but it all looks very silly and very fun. I think that da people like yellings as much as I do. The yellings in rooms where da rules are made are different to da yellings in da big backyards on da tebevisions when da peoples kick a ball around.

There are two rooms of yellings on da tebevisions. There is a loud room of yelling where lots of peoples yell all da time and there is a quiet room where only a bit of yellings happens.

In da loud room of yellings da people who sits on the big chair up front yells "Order" a lot and then da people in da room do more yellings to decide what they'd like to order. I think they like cheeseburgers and ham and bacon. They very very much like pork. They like pork so much that they like to yell about barrels of pork. I have no seen a pork barrel. I have only seen cans of tuna and cans of meats. Da people in da yelling room need a whole barrel of pork because there is lots of them and they all need breakfast because they are so angry and cranky all da time.

In da quiet room of yellings da people do a lot of "hmm" and "aaah" and I have seen some of da peoples have a nap in this room. Da quiet room of yellings must be where da people who have been in da loud room of yellings go when it is nap time. This is how da rules are made. Do yellings in one room, then do more yellings in another room and have a nap. It is very important to have a nap so that you are not angry and cranky all da time. My sister Nana is angry and cranky all da time because she is full of old and when you are full of old, you need more naps.

In the rooms full of yellings, da peoples do yellings about different things. Sometimes they do yellings about getting more sticks and keeping everyone away. When you want to keep other peoples away, then you build a big thing made of sticks and metals and you call it "Da Fence". Sometimes they do yellings about da small peoples and about doing book learnings. Small peoples need to know how to do book learnings, or do mad skillz, so that when they is big they can bring home nums and hams and chikkin. Sometimes they do yellings about helf. Helf has something to do with da hospitals. My daddy peoples went to da hospitals and came back with a broken leg and smelled of chemicals. It was no fun. Sometimes da peoples do yellings about houses. We live in a house. We're good. Da thing that da peoples in da rooms do da most yellings about is money. I do not know what money is but it must be very bad if it makes da peoples angry and grumpy all the time. 

When you go to do elections and choose which peoples that you want to do your yellings for you, you have to decide what kind of yellings that you want and what is going to help you. My man people often asks me "Are you helping?" and I say "Nay, nay, nay. I am not helping." Cats never help. Helping is silly. Helping is not getting what you want now. Not getting what you want now is bad. You should do da elections to get your peoples who will make da rules to give you what you want. If everyone gets what they want then everyone will be happy and can have a nap.

But no no no.

Some peoples want chikkins. Some peoples want hams. Some peoples want no chikkins or hams but want plants. Some peoples want houses so that they no have to live outside in da cold. Some peoples want more gardenuing. Some peoples big gardenuing with cows and hams and chikkins. All da peoples wanting different things all the time is angry and cranky making. You should do your elections for da group of peoples who can do your yellings for you. When peoples get what they want, they have a party.

If you like doing works, then do you elections for da Labors Party. If you like doing da business and think that peoples should mind their own business, then then do you elections for da Liberals Party. If you like plants, then do you elections for da Greens (they do not have de word "party" after their name because they are grumpy). If you like doing da gardenings and da farms, you would think that you would do your elections for the Farmers Party but because they live in da country, they used to be called da Country Party but now because there are peoples in da city too, they are da National Party. If you like doing yellings of "Freedom Freedom Freedom" or "Flavour Flavour Flavour", then do you elections for da United Australia Party. All of these peoples no like each other but like to do yellings. 

If I was a peoples, then I would very much like to be in da room with the loud yellings. I am good at doing yellings. I would do yellings for good reasons and for no reason at all. To get a seat in the room of yellings, first you need lots of peoples to do their elections and write 1 next to your name, which says that you are da best. I am the best. I am so much da best that I would not need to join a party. I am a party. I am da Surprise Party. My peoples can be minding their own business and I will enter the room and do my yellings and then they have to mind my business. Surprise! I would put up posters on poles which say Vote 1 Micah because I am the best at yellings, ever. If I get what I want then everyone will be happy and can have a nap. Except that I would forget to do da paperwork to get on da elections. I would already be taking a nap. There will no be a poster with Vote 1 Micah but there should be. 

Horse 3017 - Only Attack Teal

If you have been reading the pages of News Corp newspapers over the past month or so, you would probably get the impression that Australia is under siege from evil forces who are seeking to undermine the country. The really strange thing about this kind of reportage is that if we accept this narrative as 100% reliable then we find that even according to News Corp newspapers, these evil forces are playing an unfair game by speaking louder than anyone else with their strange and disruptive propaganda. "It's just not fair," says the private corporation with the largest voice in terms of readership in the country. 

How is a multi-national and multi-billion dollar corporation like News Corp, with its network of 70% off all the newspapers sold in the country and a national television news network like Sky News Australia, possibly expected to compete against people who operate out of single Post Office Boxes, maybe single offices, have a staff of single digits, and a shoestring budget? It's an outrage!

This election like never before, the played out assumption by News Corp's newspapers and Sky News Australia is that the people of Australia are so unbelievably stupid that they have no idea of what happened yesterday, much less what happened over the past three years. I'd like to say that thus is a new phenomenon but sadly it is not.

http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1945/1945-labour-manifesto.shtml

In the years that followed, the "hard-faced men" and their political friends kept control of the Government. They controlled the banks, the mines, the big industries, largely the press and the cinema. They controlled the means by which the people got their living. They controlled the ways by which most of the people learned about the world outside. This happened in all the big industrialised countries.

...

Similar forces are at work today. 

- 1945 British Labour Party Manifesto

Admittedly this is from the 1945 British Labour Party Manifesto; which was written for another country in another time but the problem is that this could have been written yesterday and in Sydney. The written word very often outlives those people who wrote it and owing to the fact that human nature never changes, what was true 70 years ago, 700 years ago or 7000 years ago, is also very likely to have been true 7 days ago.

I would like to say that in the 76 years which followed the Second World War that we've somehow escaped the mentality which was responsible for the destruction of a hundred million people in two world wars, or the apathy which caused billions of people to die in the 1918-20 flu pandemic, or wipe out trillions of dollars and millions of jobs in the Great Depression but sadly, we have not. 

The people who control the banks, the press, the mines, the means by which the people get their living and the ways by which most of people learn about the world outside, look absolutely identical. In a lot of cases, they are the same families. 

The plan therefore, is to kick back against anyone who even as much as speaks out against what is done. Even when we have actual cases of rape and sexual harassment going on within the parliament building itself (which shouldn't even need to be stated and restated as crimes against the person), this is painted as nothing more than hysteria that would have been at home in the 1820s. Do you see the problem yet?

It is telling that the only candidates which News Corp has chosen to attack in this manner have all been women. Now I don't know if this is a deliberate policy of misogyny by News Corp but given their history of attacking people on the basis of race, gender and religion in the past, I can only assume that it is. This all the more strange when you consider that the  political editor for News Corp Australia is Samantha Maiden. I do not know what kind of political control she has over News Corp and their newspapers but if you know what institutional misogyny looks like in modern Australia, then you only need to read a News Corp paper. The attacks have been relentless. One time might be ignorable. Twice is suspicious. Day after day for months, looks like editorial policy. 

I also wonder what kind of journalism and basic research training is going on at News Corp. If you look at the "How To Vote" cards for Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo), Dr Sophie Scamps (Mackellar), Helen Haines (Indi), Kylea Tink (North Sydney),  Allegra Spender (Wentworth), Zoe Daniel (Goldstein), Zali Steggall (Warringah), and Dr Monique Ryan (Kooyong), then in all eight cases the candidate asks you to put a 1 in the box next to their name and then asks the voter to number the rest of the boxes according to their own preference. If I can do that simple level of research, then how come none of the interns at News Corp have been able to? If they have been able to, then why hasn't the newspaper group ever published this?

Asking the voters to fill in their own preferences? What a truly revolutionary idea. Who would have thought of daring asking the voters for their opinions? That's dangerous; we can't have that! If we asked the voters what they thought and then made decisions and enacted policy on what the voters wanted, then we face the very real prospect of democracy breaking out. That's unheard of.

I suspect that in the eyes of News Corp, then giving women both an education and the vote was a mistake. The problem with giving people an education is that sooner or later they'll understand what is being done to them and won't stand for it any longer. The problem with giving people the vote is that they have some means, however limited, of changing the law so that it doesn't happen any more. 

The unwritten truth that News Corp is afraid of (and which they dare not print because even uttering it is poison), is that an Independent candidate, can not in principle say who they would form government because that means having to game out a scenario which doesn't even yet exist.

If the Independents wanted to truly reflect the opinion of their constituents in the even of a hung parliament, then the best thing to do would be to wait until after the election to find out how the preferences flowed. If the voters happened to vote for someone else, then those votes reflect who they want to govern the country. That information doesn't become available until after the election has happened and the votes counted.

By nominating who the Independents would form government with now, undermines any bargaining power they they might have with both sides in the event of a hung parliament. If I was an independent candidate, I would challenge the journalists from the baying media pack and ask them what they would offer in support for my endorsement of their government and then I'd accuse them dictating policy to the parties who are obviously their puppets.

If there is one thing that is more obvious in this election than in any other that we do not have an independent media any more and that News Corp has just decided that they will determine what people think. 

The only reason that political parties even exist because the franchise was extended to normal people. 200 years ago, when only a few select landowners had the vote, formal political parties didn't need to exist. There have always been factions all jostling for popularity and power since the beginning of time.

What is relatively new is that the machinery which is needed to convince people to vote for what those factions want, including when this means that people vote against their own interests. A formal system for delivering the relevant propaganda, only needed to exist after normal people pushed their way into and fought for the right to be heard.

In some parts of Australia, women have had the vote for 127 years. We didn't get a woman as a Minister until after the Second World War and a woman didn't occupy the position of Prime Minister until just 12 years ago. I am not in any way saying that women are a giant uniform voting bloc, rather that their existence is being treated as one by News Corp. News Corp would like to control the ways by which most of the people learn about the world outside and as far as they are concern, Australia is under siege from evil forces who are seeking to undermine the country. 

The "hard-faced men" and their political friends want to retain control of the Government. This is not 1895, 1915, or 1945. Similar forces are at work today. 

Aside:

The term 'hung parliament' refers to an undecided parliament in the same way that a 'hung jury' refers to one which has not made its final decision. That it no way means that the parliament nor the electorate has failed but rather that there isn't an obvious majority on the floor of the House of Representatives who can control confidence and supply.

If we game this out and are left with two sides of 72, then Bob Katter will side with the Liberal/National Coalition and this leaves the balance of power in the hands of 6 Independents. 

If such a scenario were to occur, the News Corp newspapers who have all the tact of a sledgehammer hitting an egg, will likely try to infantilise the women who would be Independents. There will absolutely be a "good girl" narrative played out in the News Corp newspapers and across Sky News Australia. A 'good girl" will be seen as someone who joins the Liberal/National Coalition on matters of confidence and supply and any demands that they might have, including asking for the postion of a Cabinet Minister will be laughed off. I find it sickening.

Colt 3017.1: Yellow And Not Teal

In all honesty, I understand the rhetoric that the United Australia Party is running because they are hoping to pick up the disaffected members of the electorate who have been dropped off by the hard-economic right of the Liberal Party but are still to xenophobic and racist to vote for the Labor Party. These are the people who would have been picked up by a Trump in Australia had we had one and who ultimately would have also been disappointed when he turned out also to ignore them. News Corp's scrutiny of the United Australia Party doesn't exist for the simple reason that they are unlikely to pick up even a single seat in the House of Representatives and therefore, aren't actually a political obstacle. The answer is that these people will probably vote Liberal 2 or 3 and be counted on preferences if it ever goes that far.

If you look through the list of preferences per the How To Vote cards of the other parties, then the UAP is the most common No.2 pick. We can basically assume that Liberal/National Party preferences will never be distributed as they will get their first choice pick of a Liberal or National Party member. If the UAP gets down ballot preferences from One Nation, Informed Medical, and Lib Dem Voters, then there might be a UAP Senator elected but if there is not, then UAP How To Vote cards send preferences towards parties which may have already had exhausted ballots. As much as 5% of this wildly differing authoritarian to libertarian rightist collection of minor party votes, is likely to end nowhere and inadvertently open up seats for candidates on the progressive and libertarian left. I do not think there are any authoritarian leftist political parties in Australia.