Ben Messenger

Dear oh dear, what's with the national park bisecting an electorate?

Ah, it's just on the back of cracking up Hill into 2 notional LNP seats isn't it.

Improved their margin by 1%?How did they manage that?

Normally I'm proud of the independence of our electoral commissions, but there's a little gerrymandering alarm bell going off for me.

I think it's so both actors get one position of prominence.

Presume a viewer is likely to interprets the left side of the image before the right side.

One actor gets their name read first. The other gets their face seen first.

Voters are also actively encouraged to "Just Vote 1" above the line in a GTV system, whereas in SA they are not. The voter can easily direct their preferences and it's only when they fail to follow instructions that the rule steps in.

The difference is that the senate GTV turns an exhausted vote into a vote for possibly the wrong party, while the SA savings provision turns informal votes into valid 1st preference and *then* might pass it on to the wrong next preferences. That's quite different.

Correct. I think it's quite a good savings provision.

Many unintentional informals are have an obvious 1st preference which then allows a great guess to be made about the voter's preferences. It's much better than throwing the whole vote out.

Yep. It's almost as if the main goal of political parties is to meet people where they are at and try to get them to vote based on a subset of opinions they hold that agree with the party, not somehow instantly brainwash all their potential voters to hold only correct opinions.

I would wager 32% is quite unlikely to be "in leftist spaces."

The proportion of people engaged in politics and with coherent politics is much smaller than than people who *are* engaged presume.

So it has to be a *secret* suicide vest with an agent of the inquisition having direct control.

I agree is fraught with danger, but that might be an interesting story.

Is there no exterminatus weapon that can be pre-placed on a planet, with a supply of passwords required to stop it going off?

Leave the population on the planet, defend it to the last and hopefully win, but it it don't then the planet explodes and the hive fleet can't resupply anyway.

There is substitution early in career decision making though.

Tasmania is very far below the enrolment of other states per electorate. They will stay with their constitutionally mandated lower house apportionment minimum of 5.

Tasmania would however get more senators in any expansion of parliament.

Don't we already subsidise flights though?

If you account for the lack of a carbon tax we definitely do (relative to a train journey).

I have read the article yet, because of paywall, but I disagree

Political parties exist for good reasons

The "Teal movement" has many shared goals and co-operating as a party likely has a much higher ceiling than a dozen independents

In particular, the movement should run seriously in the senate

How close is that to the lowest the Coalition has ever polled in a state or federal poll?

With One Nation polling this high can the "Teal movement" form a party or at least some sort of process of having a senate ticket in each state?

I'd much prefer the "right of centre" vote see states elect 1 One Nation, 1 Coalition, and 1 "Teal" senator rather than 2 One Nation and 1 Coalition.

They'd be competitive in rural Legislative Assembly seats as well.

Not voting would help One Nation mathematically in the race to win seats MUCH more than giving them a low preference does.

There have been many examples in Australian elections where somebody has to decide which of ON, KAP, or Palmer's outfits to give their 3rd last and 2nd last preferences.

Coalition on 18% I believe sets a new all time low in polling.

Breaking the record that I believe was set only two weeks ago in the most recent Redbridge poll (19%).

True, but I think it's less likely that the Nats organise that and even if they did the cohort of voters that want to vote right wing but not for the Libs surely are more likely to be enticed by One Nation anyway.

With the caveat that the Liberal vote will probably rise if they stand candidates in regional NSW and Victoria. A possibility not captured by this pollster (yet).

But yes it's very weak.

For example here's Redbridge/Accent that divides up the Coalition. They aren't asking every electorate about every party though, only the parties who ran in 2025 in each particular seat.

Some pollsters always did this and then roll up the results into the "Coalition" for the topline figures.

But you're right that the interest in doing this and not merging them will be increasing.

I would make the even weaker claim that it's a bulwark, it's just not an impregnable bulwark.

One Nation can win, but they need a higher degree of support than they'd require in some systems like FPTP, non-compulsory attendance, etc.

First time I've ever seen the Coalition with a "1" at the front of their primary vote.

Is it the first time ever?

"I bought it with the knowledge"

No, you gambled. For it to be an investment in a usefully functioning economic system the result must be uncertain. If you make a gamble and lose there's nothing too complain about, you chose to risk that money.

Reducing the rent is a moral act though, thank you.

All leadership races are different, of course.

I seem to recall something about Turnbull only narrowly survived being excluded in 3rd in that challenge. Hockey theorised to be the Condorcet candidate, but was eliminated.

Seems like a Condorcet check would be wise for the Libs leadership system.

If it's an investment then it still shouldn't be a guaranteed return.

The paradigm under Howard that housing must always go up and be seen as an investment is the core of the problem. You should buy a house to live there, in which case the future price doesn't matter to you.

Mate, the amount people have to save to buy a house is in a complete different galaxy compared to only 1 generation ago. Rent is also sky high too.

That's why they "can't save."