I have an article in the January-February Quadrant that deals with the American election which explains how and why Obama won. It also discusses the implications for the Coalition here in Australia. Its opening para:
The American election was more than just a loss to the Republican candidate. If Barack Obama could win with his track record and his political philosophy and could do so against a candidate who would have won in a landslide twenty years before, then there are implications for parties of the Right everywhere. Obama laid down a template that may not be applicable in every circumstance in each jurisdiction but it will be studied by every party of the Left and copied wherever those lessons can be applied. You can see many of these techniques in operation already.
It was an election I watched very closely and you may be sure the ALP has done the same. The article is mostly about how Obama won and Mitt Romney lost but I add a number of thoughts at the end about the situation here.
So here is the problem facing Tony Abbott as he tries, as did Mitt Romney, to put together a package of proposals that will deal with the actual problems Australia has. In running against a party of the Left, based on Obama’s re-election campaign these are the problems he will need to keep in mind.
They will use some of the most sophisticated analytical and statistical techniques available to uncover every grievance in every sub-constituency. They will then target these groups with promises to fix whatever problems they pick up.
They will run a precisely targeted campaign of fear based on the threat of losing programs or payments that benefit each of these sub-constituencies.
They will label the Coalition as representatives of a tired, old ideology based on principles no longer relevant in the twenty-first century. Misogyny, reproductive rights, religion, along with any number of issues that their analytics team has identified, will be driven whether or not there is any reality behind these fears. Labor being the party of the path of least resistance is almost never under such threats.
They will promise what cannot be afforded and dare the Coalition not to match their supposed generosity. Criticisms about the affordability of such ideas—where’s the money coming from?—will work just as well for the ALP.
They will invent sources of revenue that will never in reality cover the cost of their programs but which are sourced well beyond their own target constituency.
They not only will have but will expect to have, and will be entirely dependent on, virtually the whole of the media being in their corner at every stage of the way who will cover for Labor to the fullest extent they can while ratcheting up the decibel count on any issue that might harm the Coalition.
The Left’s incompetence and bad government are never enough to ensure its defeat. And the more that outdated notions of personal freedom and independence are moved downwards in the scale of collective values the more difficult a party of the Left will be to dislodge. The ALP has not yet lost the next election. Barack Obama, with hardly a success to his name, is still the president. Polls or no polls, who the Australian prime minister will be a year from today is yet to be determined.
I think the Coalition are the favourites to win but it is by no means a certainty and a close loss won’t disappoint the ALP either. A party of no-integrity and dishonest to the core can win if there are enough willing to vote their wishes into office. That is the strategy since the reality of Labor in Government is hardly an incentive to put them back for another three years.
I disagree. The american election was won by electoral fraud in key states/counties.
Many key counties had 99% or 100% of votes going to Obama.
Realistically, the only plausible explanation for such results is fraud.
Alan Grey
31 Jan 13 at 10:55 am
Labor don’t just have the media on side, they have the entire public service, the federal bureaucracy, in their pocket. They have already used Treasury to publically cost and then badmouth LNP policies (which get prepared on an Opposition shoestring budget), and this will continue. It’s the benefits of incumbency used Chicago style – they truly have the entire machinery of government on side in fact and ideologically, and the LNP have (comparitively) very limited resources.
Combine that with the complete protitution of government advertising, and still “governing” (not in the caretaker mode that starts with an election being called) – they will drop a barrage on the LNP from all directions over 7 months the like of which we have never seen before.
Tony M
31 Jan 13 at 11:00 am
Does anyone know and rate Brian Loughnan? Does the coalition have good media advisers?
harrys on the boat
31 Jan 13 at 11:01 am
Class warfare is all labor have left.
What worries me is the damage they can inflict on the middle class from 1 July as they desperately attempt to shore up their mendicant constituency.
The budget will be a useful indicator of where their priorities lie. Expect changes to the CGT regime, more means testing of the private health rebate and a possible repeal of negative gearing, for starters.
It also goes without saying that any changes such as these must be overturned immediately by Abbott after the election.
Rabz
31 Jan 13 at 11:15 am
Don’t forget the war to defend virginas, provide marriage rights to gays and the right to kill unborn babies.
There is a whole lot of hating the left need to express.
Token
31 Jan 13 at 11:21 am
Yes – sorry, tokes, but those vitally imprtant ‘issues’ are sops for the inner city latte sippers…
That’s both of labor’s key constituencies sown up!
Rabz
31 Jan 13 at 11:25 am
That sums things up really well. ALP are targeting the whinging ones very successfully.
If they changed leaders they’d be much more certain of winning but. Ms Gillard is still the stumbling block.
candy
31 Jan 13 at 11:29 am
The big difference here is the huge lies dropped by Labor. Any swing voter who is taken by the candy on offer should get a swift reminder that the candy is a Labor mirage. Quite a few
“there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” ads would probably do the trick. Having said that it will be fascinating (and disturbing) to see the Labor plan here. With absolutely nothing positive to campaign on, what will they do…
Adam Diver
31 Jan 13 at 11:44 am
In the words of the great John Mcenroe “You cannot be serious”
“They not only will have but will expect to have, and will be entirely dependent on, virtually the whole of the media being in their corner at every stage of the way who will cover for Labor to the fullest extent they can while ratcheting up the decibel count on any issue that might harm the Coalition”
Have you not seen a News Limited paper their bias to the LNP is totally 100% and unprecedented. The rest of the MSM is not far behind. The only reason the LNP is even in the race is due to media bias towards them.
MSM bias
31 Jan 13 at 11:52 am
What a load of tosh Steve Kates dribbles out here. His deranged obsession with that Peggy Noonan quote underpins a baseless argument which completely absolves the GOP of any policy blame. It’s very easy to blame the computers, and downplay the policy problems which the Republican Party faces in being the party of old white men in a country growing through young minorities.
The only saving grace in that article is that Steve has withdrawn from the disgracefully misogynist “damaged women” argument of last year. This is a boring rehash of that earlier rant with the most offensive bits excised.
m0nty
31 Jan 13 at 11:54 am
Well theres one bit of lying theyve been able to get away with effectively is “the dole is too low”…
I do agree the normal single person dole is low, but not too low.
But its leading to people on other benefits, particularly single mothers to be lumped in despite the FTB basically doubling the amount received.
So an air of entitlement and “poor me” is being bred up, all ready for exploitation come election time.. And the Libs, by lying doggo on this, have made a rod for their own backs.
thefrollickingmole
31 Jan 13 at 11:56 am
The Liberals are very poor communicators of economic policy and performance. They should be shouting the rates of growth of real incomes and wealth under the Howard government, including the benefits of the then IR system – and contrast that with Labor who are allowed to simply state Australia is doing better than Europe and the US. Abbott will be required to run dead on IR in 2013 but must place it front and centre for the election after that.
I’m still not convinced that, outside a relatively small number of electorates, Australia has a core demographic of deadbeat welfare dependent individuals sufficient to allow an American “free stuff” campaign to get up. Particularly if the Liberals can explain who actually ends up paying for it.
It would also appear that Australian Aboriginals can’t be treated as a “one size fits all” group to return the 95% rates the Magic Negro was able to get out of them Stateside.
H B Bear
31 Jan 13 at 12:00 pm
I hate to break it to Alan Grey but without PROOF of fraud, the only assumption one can make when a particular district votes 99% or higher against your guy is that he’s really unpopular.
Getting a shit vote doesn’t prove the other guy cheated. It only proves you suck.
Dermott
31 Jan 13 at 12:00 pm
Quoth someone who’s not seen The Curious Mail.
lotocoti
31 Jan 13 at 12:08 pm
Steve, you are correct to emphasise the data analytics aspect of the US campaign. There are numerous issues raised by this, not least questions about the possibilities of data mining allowing important insights into the concerns, thought and preferences of all citizens using the internet. Privacy policies will be all the more important in the future, as every click of the mouse reveals something about the clicker, so that the data analysts will know us better than we know ourselves.
This is used for marketing purposes. We should prevent it being used for political marketing.
One thing you miss, though, is the significance of identity politics in a system of voluntary voting. Obama managed to persuade more than 90% of blacks to vote for him (as Ali G would say, ‘Is it because I is black?’), even though their economic position had worsened on Obama’s watch. But he also persuaded them (and Hispanics) to turn out in unprecedented numbers, so many of the projections based on outdated assumptions about turnout wrongly were more favourable to Romney.
The election raises questions about the validity of Downsian approaches to voting behaviour, whereby parties seek to attract the median voter. Obama energised the base that previously would not have turned out, used data analytics to target his message so that he delivered symbolic reassurance at an almost personal level.
MSM Bias: Open your eyes! The Oz supported Rudd in 2007, as I recall. The ‘Murdoch the Evil Genius’ meme is more than a little tiresome, and completely misunderstands the ability of new media to shape preferences. Try looking a the evidence on cognitive dissonance.
Aynsley Kellow
31 Jan 13 at 12:14 pm
Sorry, that should be ‘news media’ not ‘new media’, though new media exacerbate the problem, because consumers of news are now able to choose the news sources they prefer. If you like Fairfax or the ABC, you stick with them.
Aynsley Kellow
31 Jan 13 at 12:16 pm
I agree Dermott. The only conclusion we can draw from some of Saddam Hussein’s election wins is that his opponents were just really unpopular and sore losers to boot.
When some precincts in Philadelphia had Obama winning 99% of the vote, when voter turnout was unusually high, when Republican poll workers were forcibly removed from the polling booths, when poll workers were wearing Obama merchandise, the only possible conclusion any rational person can draw is that Romney was just really unpopular.
When some precincts in Cleveland had Obama winning 500-0 against Romney, and there were reports of voting machine problems with machines coming up for Obama when people tried to vote for Romney, well the only sane conclusion to come to is that Romney was just super super unpopular!
When confronted with these facts, it is best to simply stick your fingers in your ears and say “lalalalala, I’m not listening”.
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 12:28 pm
Main stream media have been one-sided since the 1950s. Only in the 1960s did they become more blatant. Anyone who believes the main stream media have only themselves to blame when they lose their jobs. Of course the compliant unions/media/’public servants’ have jobs for life and only care about the power.
stackja
31 Jan 13 at 12:28 pm
Don’t worry, when they get around to checking voter ID’s they’ll find out how many felons voted.
The Democrats realised what it is worth to them to commit voter fraud when they got Obamcare through with Al Franken’s vote in the Senate.
Token
31 Jan 13 at 12:34 pm
And the more that outdated notions of personal freedom and independence are moved downwards in the scale of collective values the more difficult a party of the Left will be to dislodge.
Perhaps that is the problem, the notions of liberty we have have been inherited from the late eighteenth century and warped by two hundred years of progress and increasingly destructive warfare followed by amazing progress. Generally speaking, at this point in history, the ideas have been victorious in the developed world.
But they have been corrupted by increasingly dependence on one or several collective organizations and the impact of global capitalism on the family. And also the good old fashioned Will To Mind Others’ Business. What does it mean to be free in the 21st century? It’s an important question.
We make a joke out of answering it generally.
Class warfare is all labor have left.
Really? Is that all? Oh nuthin’ to worry about then.
Adrien
31 Jan 13 at 12:35 pm
Electoral fraud is a crime.
If there’s proof – prosecute it.
If there’s not – STFU.
Get over it.
Dermott
31 Jan 13 at 12:58 pm
They could always run on their ‘record’.
Oh, wait…
Rabz
31 Jan 13 at 1:12 pm
They could always run on their ‘record’.
Election slogan on a Union banner: Labor Will Keep The Jobs Coming.
The trouble is things aren’t bad in Australia. They’re not quite as ‘good’ as they were a few years back but there’s no true anxiety. It’ll probably be about identity politics. As in Our Identity. Who can best con the average Aussie Moron into believing s/he’s one of them?
Given the players I expect quite the comedy of manners. And considering the election campaign is now due to last almost as long as a pregnancy perhaps an assassination attempt.
Adrien
31 Jan 13 at 1:18 pm
In the USA Electoral fraud is accepted practice. There is no central authority. Each state is responsible. In Cook County the dead vote often and early. JFK ‘won’ because of voter fraud in LBJ’s Texas and with Mayor Daley in Cook County getting the dead vote for JFK.
stackja
31 Jan 13 at 1:23 pm
Oh my, another lefty fan of shutting up dialog when it doesn’t suit their prejudices.
Dermott, it is a crime and the people who committed the crime and voted did get prosecuted.
The challenge is reforming the electoral system to prevent similar fraud, but the DNC actively opposes that reform.
The greatest victims of the fraud are minority voters in cities controlled by electoral machines, as Artur Davis notes:
Token
31 Jan 13 at 1:24 pm
There is only one answer to these types of policies. Take a leaf out of the Alynski book and LIE. Lie bigger, better and faster than the labour liars and then when in power do what they do, ignore what they said they would do and do what you want to do. Then tell the media to bug off or we’ll introduce legislation to eviscerate you.
The biggest problem the libs have is that they believe the game should be played in a sportsman like behaviour. GO FOR THEIR F’NG THROATS!
Joe
31 Jan 13 at 1:54 pm
” It’ll probably be about identity politics. As in Our Identity. ”
I think that’s a big part of it, and traditional values.
The ALP are trying to mould us into something we may not want.
candy
31 Jan 13 at 1:57 pm
Dermott, it’s a bit rich when leftists spent years complaining about the alleged stolen election in 2000 and many also claimed the 2004 election was stolen. I trust that you were around back then tellling them to either produce the evidence, take legal action, or STFU. If Bush had got 99-100% of the vote in Florida precincts in 2000, you would be telling everyone to get over it, hey. You gotta love lefties, as ungracious in victory as they are in defeat.
FYI, there have been many instances of Democrats being charged over electoral fraud or caught out on camera openly advocating electoral fraud.
“The field director for Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran – his son Patrick Moran – has resigned after being secretly recorded seemingly advising a conservative journalist masquerading as a supporter that utility bills could be used to aid in voter fraud.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57539706/congressmans-son-resigns-after-voter-fraud-video/
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 1:59 pm
Agreed, and by far the biggest electoral fraud is perpetuated by state Republican officials who gerrymander their states to deliver skewed results.
m0nty
31 Jan 13 at 2:05 pm
This is the scale of the voter fraud problem last year. Yet, the DNC blocks the common sense approach of requiring voters to show ID (like they do in most countries in Europe) though it would stop dead the problem:
Token
31 Jan 13 at 2:05 pm
They will run a precisely targeted campaign of fear
lol
Hows Whyalla looking
Tom R
31 Jan 13 at 2:06 pm
It really is a mystery how the self-proclaimed greatest democracy in the history of the world can allow such democratic disasters to happen in their own elections.
m0nty
31 Jan 13 at 2:08 pm
Actually they both do fatboy. It all depends on which party holds the states
It all rubs out in the wash.
You’re such a partisan nothing dickhead
Jc
31 Jan 13 at 2:09 pm
Monty, gerrymandering is not fraud you dickhead. Fraud is when you do something illegal or concealed to gain an advantage. Gerrymandering is influencing the law or policy process to favour one side.
Your argument is like comparing someone lobbying for changes in the tax laws that favour them versus someone simply lying about or concealing their income on their tax returns.
And Democrats gerrymander just as much when they have control of the redistricting process.
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 2:12 pm
The solution is a federal electoral commission applying the same sort of non-partisan mathematical rigour to the process as the AEC. But of course, the stupid Americans with their fear of big government wouldn’t cop to that.
The eventual consequence of this is GOP unaccountability, which means they won’t care so much if they don’t carry the presidency if they can always rely on House control. They will lurch further to the right because there’s no impetus on them to appeal to voters, since they don’t have to do anything more than pay lip service to democratic values. It has already happened with the rise of the Tea Party, and it will only get worse. The Democrats could hold the White House for decades.
m0nty
31 Jan 13 at 2:17 pm
I see Kates writes:
That’s quite clearly bollocks.
On that basis alone Kates ‘conclusions’ are a poor treatment for a misdiagnosis or an incomplete diagnosis.
Romney is an extraordinarily honourable man but he’s not a conservative; at least not by conviction.
Moreover he is politically inexperienced in the trenches.
It showed.
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 2:17 pm
Monty, the reason Democrats often win fewer House districts than Republicans in states where they otherwise do better in other races is simply because of the distribution of voters.
Democrats usually win the inner-city areas by overwhelming margins while they usually lose the suburbs and smaller towns by smaller margins. This means much of the Democrat vote is packed into a few ultra-safe areas, while they lose a larger number of seats by smaller margins.
This is not just a result of gerrymandering. It is simply the result of the natural distribution of voters across different geographical areas.
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 2:20 pm
The Dems have been in control of the House of Reps for all but a few years since the early years of the last century.
The GOP control of the state houses after Nov 2010 saw them gerrymander in favour of the GOP and that’s why they didn’t lose many more seats that the few they did in the 2012 elections
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 2:24 pm
Some perspective on a bipartisan problem in the US which the Cat’s resident wrong-oligist M0nty slates to the republicans:
Of course M0nty endorses this fraud when it benefit’s his team.
Token
31 Jan 13 at 2:29 pm
James, the Republicans did not lose many House districts in 2012 mainly because of the benefits of incumbency and the ‘sophmore surge’ effect (as there were many one-term incumbent Republicans first elected in 2010). The Democrats controlled the House until 1994 mainly because of the continuation of split-ticket voting in the South (many Southern states voted Republican in presidential elections but continued to vote for conservative Democrats in many other races including House districts). In 1994 the Republicans took the House largely because the South started to vote Republican in Congressional races also.
While I don’t doubt that control of state governments and redistricting can have some influence, the overall effect on national results are not likely to be that high as one party does not control all the state governments. While Republicans control more state legislatures, they are disproportionately in states with smaller populations and so return fewer House districts.
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 2:33 pm
“This is not just a result of gerrymandering.”
Not all of it, sure. But when congressional districts look like this, there’s obviously quite a lot of gerrymandering going on. You can’t claim this has no effect.
Jarrah
31 Jan 13 at 2:39 pm
Wikipedia: United States elections, 2012
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 2:45 pm
From what I understand from this study, when Democrats exploit the system in this way, they are more aggressive – ie their gerrymanders are more blatant. However, the greater number of states controlled by the Republicans (that have legislature-drawn districts) means that they gerrymander more seats.
In which case, it’s probably lucky for democratic principles that the Democrats didn’t do better in 2010.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.azavea.com/com.redistrictingthenation/pdfs/Redistricting_The_Nation_Addendum.pdf
Jarrah
31 Jan 13 at 2:50 pm
I saw Penny Wong on lateline last night accusing the coalition of having no policies, uncosted polices and all the other usual talking points. She said something like ‘The coalition are promising lower taxes, more spending and surpluses – it just doesn’t add up’.
Coming from someone from the ALP it just leaves you open-mouthed in disbelief that they could offer such crap. Of course the ABC just gives them an open pass to do so. Just once I’d like to hear a journalist say ‘isn’t that what you just did when you promised a surplus and abandoned it?’
brc
31 Jan 13 at 3:00 pm
“You can’t claim this has no effect.”
Jarrah, I never claimed gerrymandering has no effect at all. I just say the overall effect on national results is not that much, partly because when different parties control redistricting in different states these largely cancel each other out. But also the effects of incumbency and the natural electoral geography play a big part.
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 3:02 pm
You saw Mr Penny Wong, or that Wong chap, Mk50™, on lateline last night.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
31 Jan 13 at 3:07 pm
“partly because when different parties control redistricting in different states these largely cancel each other out”
That’s not true. Read the study I linked to above.
Jarrah
31 Jan 13 at 3:08 pm
Just because one side wins more seats while the other side wins more votes does not prove gerrymandering. Yet whenever an election produces such a result there is invariably cries of ‘we wuz wobbed’.
Such a disparity can occur because one side simply campaigns better or chooses better candidates in marginal seats, or because the electoral geography works out that way. In a system of voluntary voting it can also result from differences in voter turnout (i.e. the Democrats might turn out more voters in safe Democrat districts to help win statewide races. Yet this will not shift more congressional districts to the Democrat column).
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 3:10 pm
The US does not have compulsory vpting and its system is completely different to ours. Therefore, it is little relevance in looking at Asutralian elections. Britain, Canada and NZ are far more relevant.
Labor will lose big time, because the people hate them. Now that Julia has announced the date, we can all go back to ignoring her until the election when we all remember how much we want to kick the ALP out.
Rococo Liberal
31 Jan 13 at 3:12 pm
Monkey’s Uncle: ‘gerrymandering’ is accepted practice in the US.
It’s not illegal.
Quite the contrary.
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 3:13 pm
James, I never suggested gerrymandering is illegal.
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 3:20 pm
Labor will lose big time, because the people hate them. Now that Julia has announced the date, we can all go back to ignoring her until the election when we all remember how much we want to kick the ALP out.
I’ll give you credit for guts Rococo but suggest that recent history indicate we should be very wary of predicting so much in advance. A big storm, a stupid comment(47%), can suddenly change the whole game.
John H.
31 Jan 13 at 3:32 pm
“Just because one side wins more seats while the other side wins more votes does not prove gerrymandering.”
No-one is making that case. A large enough discrepancy might point to manipulation as a possible cause among many, but doesn’t get within cooee of proving anything at all.
That’s why, when discussing gerrymandering, you don’t look at election results, you look at electorate borders.
There’s obviously something very wrong about letting politicians choose their voters rather than the other way around.
Jarrah
31 Jan 13 at 3:34 pm
It was the Wrong-oligist M0nty who called gerrymandering a “fraud”. I picked it up from him.
Token
31 Jan 13 at 3:34 pm
The distortions to districts are also driven by minority politics:
Token
31 Jan 13 at 3:45 pm
Monkey’s Uncle – the reason the Dems controlled the HoR for the overwhelming proportion of the last century is gerrymandering as a result of control of the states’ legislatures.
The Dems won the popular election vote nationally by 1% yet the have only 201 of the 435 seat House.
That’s not a significantly result of the urban/rural divide.
It’s significantly a result of gerrymandering.
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 3:51 pm
I can tell you I would not want Mitt Romney to be my Prime Minister. His solutions involved those on welfare choosing their medicine (totally anti PBS which works in Aus) and fearing being attacked by another country. Anybody looking from the outside at the US would think what drugs are they on being scared of other countries attacking them with the size of their military. Cutting the growth in military spending is one of the good things Obama has achieved.
I hope Abbott is better than a Mitt Romney promised to be.
kelly liddle
31 Jan 13 at 4:03 pm
Keep an eye on Tasmania, it’s a dry run for what will happen to the rest of the country if the Trade Union Party get back in.
Maybe our resident socialists can tell us what they have in store for the currently productive who cease to be so when theye decide it’s not worth it any more.
Obama is stripping their wealth as they leave the US but he can’t strip their productive capacity.
The current exodus from France is a case in point.
Electoral fraud, gerrymandering and media bias will only go so far while people are gainfully employed in producing something of actual value that others want to buy.
Forester
31 Jan 13 at 4:09 pm
That’s dross.
Evidence to back that up please.
Usually registered medical practitioners prescribe medicines.
George Bush famously provided patients with more choice in where the source their medicines within a publicly funded supported prescription drug benefit scheme, called Medicare Part D.
There has been a slow down in the pharmaceutical price inflation since that was introduced in 2006.
It costs the taxpayers plenty though and it was unfunded in the budget.
The same Dems who supported it with their vote decry George Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility.
You are a lefty Kelly not a libertarian.
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 4:15 pm
James, to have one party win the popular vote by 1 percentage point but lose 234-201 in terms of seats is not an overly large discrepancy between votes and seats. I can think of plenty of elections where one side has won the popular vote by a much wider margin but lost on seats, even when there is independent control of redistricting and no suggestion of gerrymandering.
You continue to ignore the fact that the benefits of incumbency are quite high in House districts. Overwhelmingly incumbents are reelected. Because the Republicans made big gains in 2010, there were plenty of Republican districts gained in 2010 where the incumbent is able to build on the previous vote margin. This is the well-documented ‘sophomore surge’ effect. First-term incumbents seeking reelection tend to do better relative to their parties as their previous election result did not include a sitting member advantage and very often included a sitting member advantage for the other side before they won the seat.
When you consider the ‘sophomore surge’ effect combined with the natural geographical bias against Democrats, this would easily account for most of the disparity of -1 versus 234-201. The effects of gerrymandering on this disparity would be minimal. It only requires a minimum understanding of voting patterns and statistical variations to grasp this.
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 4:19 pm
My brother suggested to me that one reason Abbott has an image problem is that he was Howard’s bulldog. The ALP is trying to maintain the image of him as mean and nasty. That still has traction despite the fact that Abbott demonstrates considerable compassion in his behavior, much moreso than many in the ALP.
John H.
31 Jan 13 at 4:46 pm
So 1% spread difference in votes translating to 15% seat discrepancy between parties is not a biggie?
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 4:48 pm
John Howard lost the popular vote in 1998 and his seat margin % was about the same.
Fisky
31 Jan 13 at 4:51 pm
There was a 4.4% swing to the Democrats in 2012 House elections, but they only gained 8 seats out of 435 or 1.8%. 234 of 435 suggests a lead of 3.7%, but the GOP was behind 1.2%. That is a massive discrepancy any way you look at it.
Abbott today called the recent SA election, where the Libs earned a swing of 8.4% and gained 9.5% of seats, a result of “electoral malfeasance”. I’d hate to see what he’d say if he wins the 2PP by 1.2% in September but is behind on the floor of the Reps by 11 seats.
m0nty
31 Jan 13 at 4:54 pm
Hmmm, lessons for McTernan from the US election…..there must be some…..but he keeps coming up against that brick wall……where is he going to find that many African-Americans, Hispanics, welfare recipients, public servants and single women?
James in Melbourne
31 Jan 13 at 4:57 pm
10,000 boat people a year just won’t cut it, particularly as they are not eligible to vote yet.
Fisky
31 Jan 13 at 4:59 pm
1998 Fed Election votes:
Australian Labor Party 4,182,963
Liberal/National (Joint Ticket) 2,452,407
Liberal Party of Australia 1,528,730
National Party of Australia 208,536
House of Representatives preference flows:
The Nationals had candidates in 13 seats where three-cornered-contests existed, with 88.89% of preferences favouring the Liberal Party.
One Nation contested 135 electorates with preferences slightly favouring the Liberal/National Coalition (53.66%)
The Democrats contested 144 electorates with preferences slightly favouring Labor (56.72%)
The Greens contested 120 electorates with preferences strongly favouring Labor (73.28%)
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 5:05 pm
The lesson from the US election is that the republican party needs to break free from the fundies.
I have a lot of libertarian friends in America, and almost all of them voted Obama purely because they are terrified of the religious fundamentalism evidenced in Republican party mongoloids like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum.
It’s no coincidence that Labor tries to run that line on Abbott too. I don’t think it will work, mostly because nobody is really that afraid of the far religious right in Australia. They barely exist.
Yobbo
31 Jan 13 at 5:07 pm
10,000 boat people a year just won’t cut it, particularly as they are not eligible to vote yet.
Wong may have inadvertently telegraphed their intentions last night. Tony Jones kept pressing her about who would be losers in the changes to middle class welfare, a question she kept dodging. They won’t go after lower class welfare, there’s your hispanics, African Americans, and of course the choice of Peris was designed to win aboriginal votes but that has backfired.
John H.
31 Jan 13 at 5:07 pm
“So 1% spread difference in votes translating to 15% seat discrepancy between parties is not a biggie?”
Yes, because single-member constituencies often produce significant disparities between votes and seats. To lose the popular vote by 1% but win 15% more seats is not a big disparity at all.
Just off the top of my head. In Queensland 1995, the Coaltion won over 53% of the two-party vote but lost. In Western Australia 1989, the Coalition won the popular vote (before and after preferences) by 5 percentage points and lost. I don’t think there was any real evidence of gerrymandering in those elections.
James, to win the popular vote by 1 percentage vote is fucking chicken feed. It’s nothing. Anyone reasonably familiar with election results would know this is not a big disparity at all.
Really, just drop it okay. I know some people can never admit they are wrong about anything. But you are starting to look foolish.
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 5:09 pm
Peresumably Yobbo’s “libertarian” maaates in the US the have an empty space between their ears and a large bigoted chip on their shoulders just like their antipodean looney “libertarian” maaate.
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 5:10 pm
I have a lot of libertarian friends in America, and almost all of them voted Obama purely because they are terrified of the religious fundamentalism evidenced in Republican party mongoloids like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum.
Wow, I had no idea the impact was that strong. But I am pleased because it supports my contention that the GOP needs to stop appeasing the fundies.
John H.
31 Jan 13 at 5:10 pm
I’m not complaining MK.
Far from it.
I just maintain that discepancy is as a result of the 2010 elections and the GOP control of states’ legislatures.
It’s the US system.
The Fed GOP have a 34 seat buffer in a 435 seat legislature despite losing the popular vote by 1%.
That is a significant discepancy by any measure.
It is as largely a result of gerrymandering.
Thank God.
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 5:14 pm
Another example off the top of my head. In the 1983 British election the Labour Party only beat the Alliance by 2 percentage points on the popular vote but won about 10 times the seats. Was there a gerrymander? Labour weren’t in power, and they have independent redistricting.
Really James, if you think the US election result is a big disparity you really know fuck all about election results. I have actually studied this stuff for much of my life, and so I kind of have some idea what I am talking about.
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 5:15 pm
Sounds like they are truly Democrat voters. Both parties have obnoxious parts of their coalition.
If someone can only see the fundies, its pretty telling they choose not to look too hard…
Token
31 Jan 13 at 5:20 pm
I repeat:
You keep pratttling on all you wish MU
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 5:21 pm
…and they’re not shit scared of Jeremiah Wright…yeah ok. I smell a rat.
.
31 Jan 13 at 5:22 pm
…and they are just so happy with Charley Rangel and the ethical conduct of the Democrats.
Token
31 Jan 13 at 5:24 pm
The ‘far religious right’ is really a non-existent position. If you’re a religious nut, you generally want greater control over peoples lives, whether it be educational, censorship or whatever else they go on with. A hard-core religious person is far more a socialist than anything else. Most of them certainly don’t want freedom of religion, for example, only freedom for their religion.
I view anyone with suspicion who goes by the life maxim of ‘too many of you, just the right amount of me’.
brc
31 Jan 13 at 5:28 pm
James, you have obviously discovered a smoking gun and it would be a shame to let it go to waste. There may be a book deal in it for you. But this is your big chance to put the system on trial. This could prove to be your Watergate.
Single member constituencies not producing proportional representation outcomes! Who knew? Oh the scandal and iniquity of it all!
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 5:34 pm
Any evidence for these assertions brc?
I mean other than seeing abortion as as the killing of human life and being thus opposed but lawfully?
Or p’haps you mean opposition again legally to SSM.
Being religious is quite unnecessary (whether fundamentalist or not) for either of these positions.
Just knowing right from wrong and concern for the civil society are prerequisites.
That’s numbnut Yobbo out on both counts
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 5:34 pm
Your love of the the strawman is second only to Obummer in silliness MU
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 5:35 pm
“Overwhelmingly incumbents are reelected.”
This is true, and counter-intuitive when Congress has a popularity level below that of lice, cockroaches, and colonoscopies.
“The effects of gerrymandering on this disparity would be minimal.”
You keep making claims of this nature, but I’m yet to see you back them up in any way.
The fact is that the Republicans think gerrymandering helps them a lot. Maybe you know something they don’t?
Jarrah
31 Jan 13 at 5:36 pm
Interesting link, Jarrah. Chilling.
It is amazing how brazenly done and widely accepted it is in America to subvert democratic process.
m0nty
31 Jan 13 at 5:48 pm
It is the democratic process, m0nty.
It’s been overwhelmingly a boon to Dems
What goes around comes around.
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 5:50 pm
Did Jeremiah Wright run 2nd in any Democrat presidential primaries lately?
Yobbo
31 Jan 13 at 5:52 pm
Jarrah, one problem is that California (which has the largest population and therefore the most House districts) theoretically now has an independent re-districting process, but in reality tends to favour Democrats.
That distorts the calculations somewhat as there are a large number of seats from California that are theoretically in the “independent commission” column but in reality are controlled by those who tend to favour Democrats.
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 5:54 pm
Laugh?
i nearly crapped my pants.
You’rea fucking bigotted loon Yobbo.
JamesK
31 Jan 13 at 5:54 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/incumbents-lose-democrats-win-with-california-redistricting-proposal/2011/06/10/AGYXoIPH_blog.html
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 5:56 pm
“That distorts the calculations somewhat”
That’s putting it mildly. More accurately, you rebutted your own argument. Obviously the Democrats just used a technique I shall dub gerrymandering-once-removed.
Jarrah
31 Jan 13 at 6:08 pm
Yobbo
Ron Paul, who I think you supported is quite religious and against abortion, although he wouldn’t make it illegal.
The reasons I didn’t in the last election was because of those newsletters in the early 90′s that were quite disturbing… and other issues not worth talking about here.
Is he a religious crazy you’re referring to?
His son, Rand, is also religious and I would possibly support his candidacy in 16.
Are you?
JC
31 Jan 13 at 6:20 pm
Jarrah, I never suggested that gerrymandering does not occur. I have simply maintained all along that the net benefit to one party or another is not significant as different sides control gerrymandering in different places. You know that, of course, but you are just engaging in sophistry and rhetorical nonsense as you have lost the argument.
Monkey's Uncle
31 Jan 13 at 6:27 pm
Charley Rangel did.
Strange how the “Libertarian” mates believe voting for a party that would put a man like that in church of the key financial committee.
Do they believe it more important to stop the Christian Right who would be part of a Coalition with Libertarians like Ron & Rand Paul in government should be stopped, where as people like Nancy Pelosi should have the reigns of government?
I agree with Dot.
Token
31 Jan 13 at 8:36 pm
I didn’t support Ron Paul. I supported Gary Johnson. Not that it matters who I support.
I’m not saying that the fears of my American friends are rational, but nevertheless they hold those fears. The Republican party has, at the very least, an image problem concerning the religious right. People who agree with them on literally every other policy from economics to immigration to military, will not vote of them because they are scared of religious nutbags.
Yobbo
31 Jan 13 at 10:27 pm
vote for them*
Yobbo
31 Jan 13 at 10:27 pm
That’s ridiculous. They end up with the Kenyan?
JC
31 Jan 13 at 10:31 pm
Yes. These are libertarian guys who are basically swinging voters. They don’t see the gap as that vast between the two. It’s not like Mitt Romney is Barry Goldwater.
Yobbo
31 Jan 13 at 10:33 pm
“Jarrah, I never suggested that gerrymandering does not occur.”
I haven’t accused you of suggesting such an absurdity. That you are trying to imply that I have suggests you are trying to deflect from the paucity of your actual argument:
“I have simply maintained all along that the net benefit to one party or another is not significant as different sides control gerrymandering in different places.”
Yes, and as I’ve shown, this is both empirically false, and also not believed by the people who are currently benefiting the most from their gerrymander strategy. You haven’t even attempted to answer the evidence/arguments of Azavea and the RSLC.
“you are just engaging in sophistry and rhetorical nonsense as you have lost the argument”
Now you’re outdoing Token in ironic statements.
Jarrah
31 Jan 13 at 10:33 pm
“People who agree with them on literally every other policy from economics to immigration to military, will not vote of them because they are scared of religious nutbags.”
Probably because at least you can argue and compromise with leftists. You can’t do that with people who think they are on the side of God.
Jarrah
31 Jan 13 at 10:35 pm
Sure, but he wasn’t the Kenyan either.
It would be really interesting if next time around they choose some with more libertarian overtones like Rand Paul.
Yobbo, I’m not buying what they are saying. The big story about the last election is how little prominence the Christian Right had throughout the election cycle.
Can I ask if you know which state they’re from? If they’re from Cal, don’t believe they’re libertarian as it’s bullshit. That jerk off Bill Mahr refers to himself as a libertarian and he’s the biggest leftwing douche-bag that ever had a TV show.
JC
31 Jan 13 at 10:40 pm
No no no.
Don’t think you necessarily agree with me because of one comment I made, you may not in toto.
Romney was very good in the debates, and hammered Obama on energy.
I think Romney was many times better, and voting for Obama was a terrible decision. Yes Yobbo is right on an objective scale with enough fields they aren’t on paper dissimilar.
Obama is inept and should have been kicked with hobnail boots back into a million dollar home in the projects.
The Libertarian Party has put up good candidates in most years. They deserve more credit, I know they are not perfect. The US two party system just smashes them back into irrelevancy.
If the Tea Party has issues with Dick Lugar, you can see why joining the GOP would be an issue for any libertarians.
Gary Johnson is a fine person and one of the better politicians in America. He ought to be a Senator like Rand Paul.
I hope the GOP pick Ryan and Paul next time around.
.
31 Jan 13 at 10:44 pm
James it was in one of the presidential debates with Romney saying that the board to decide which medicines people could have through medicare was wrong. That is what our PBS does and is successful and if you look on their site they do add and remove medicines based on cost effectiveness. If supporting Australia’s cheaper health and education systems and wanting the Feds out of hospitals and school education makes me a leftie then so be it. If you still don’t believe me then I might find the debate for you to watch.
kelly liddle
31 Jan 13 at 11:02 pm
Probably because at least you can argue and compromise with leftists.
However arguing with a contemporary leftist (neo-socialist?) is meaningless because modern leftism is, by definition, compromise dressed up as ‘balance’ or ‘progressivism’. There are no principles behind it that can make any real advances for society; it’s a zero sum game.
John Mc
31 Jan 13 at 11:10 pm
Actually, I think you’ll find that there’s really no difference between people who think they’re right for the only possible right reason, and people who think they’re right for the only possible right reason.
Fear isn’t rational. Religious hardliners like Rick Santorum are scarier than statist hardliners like Joseph Stalin. Sad fact.
Also people grossly overestimate the real impact of a leader’s belief on the actual legislature. Last of all, there are a bunch of atheists who love the thrill of imagining a vast monolithic Christianity bearing down on them, the bright and defiant spark of rationality and tolerance that refuses to be extinguished by any amount of terror!
FUCK YOU Presbyterian Ladies Auxillary I DON’T WANT A FUCKING SO CALLED CHRISTMAS FASCIST PUDDING FOR YOUR IRRATIONAL CHARITY SO CALLED DRIVE!!! YOU’LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE! I REFUSE TO BE COWED BY YOUR BRUTAL CHORUS OF “that’s nice dear”!
wreckage
31 Jan 13 at 11:17 pm
Religious Right Driving Libertarians from Tea Party
After the tea party helped stake Texas Republicans to huge majorities in the state Legislature last fall, the Republicans had a curious response. They did not immediately take on the state’s $27 billion deficit; instead they considered a series of bills straight from the religious right’s playbook – antiabortion legislation foremost among them.
John H.
31 Jan 13 at 11:23 pm
*shrug* it beats the hell outta me why restricting late-term abortions is considered a terrifying fascist act. I spose in twenty years time Libertarians will be shying away from the GOPs move to restrict infanticide.
wreckage
31 Jan 13 at 11:25 pm
I see your point, Steve, but I’m not sure I agree with you. Obama’s tactics were perfect for the US electoral system, where voting is not proportionate and not compulsory. Elections in Australia don’t work the same way. Particularly, we don’t vote separately for the person at the top.
Gillard can do what she likes, but now that one of her MPs has been formally charged with criminal offences (and LOTS of them), the albatross around her neck just gets heavier and heavier with every day. Whatever she does, things get worse and worse for her and the ALP both. To borrow a chess term, she’s in zugzwang.
perturbed
1 Feb 13 at 12:03 am
Probably because at least you can argue and compromise with leftists.
No, you can’t. They think they are above God.
perturbed
1 Feb 13 at 12:06 am
Is he a religious crazy you’re referring to?
JC it would be very strange to refer to Ron Paul as a religous crazy as he called Rick Santorum a totalitarian (for being a religious crazy).
kelly liddle
1 Feb 13 at 12:17 am
Any evidence for that assertion nimrod?
JamesK
1 Feb 13 at 12:58 am
Strange, most sensible people would disagree as they would try to find a points in common with people of faith.
If someone goes into the negotiaition belittling those people of integrity as “fundies” and “on the side of God” they truly are not being honest in their dialog.
Token
1 Feb 13 at 8:01 am
Notice how Jarrah sophistry and rhetoric does not negate your point.
Token
1 Feb 13 at 8:04 am
Yes, and the republican establishment and especially Boehner is locking horns with the Tea Party caucua around in Washington. They are in Coalition with the other parts of the Republican coalition and they need to stand their ground (like Rand Paul did to Hillary while the establishment squishes let her lie her way through the hearing).
Strange how no-one has done any analysis on the Democrat Party coalition.
Is it because with the decline of the Blue Dogs numbers? People like Joe Machin have shown they will vote for anti-Liberty bills the extreme left put to the floor of congress or the senate.
Token
1 Feb 13 at 8:08 am
So “Libertarians” prefered voting for this guy:
over this guy who was put in place by the Texas Tea Party over the establisment candidate?
Token
1 Feb 13 at 8:45 am
This is all bullshit. The religious right are firmly in the GOP establishment, and were previously embedded in the Democrats. They are complete political harlots.
Bachmann, Palin etc are not part of the religious right.
Seen any televangelists at a Tea Party rally? Nope.
.
1 Feb 13 at 9:05 am
Well up to you if you believe me or not about Ron Paul saying that Santorum is a totalitarian it would take hours for me to find that youtube video. If you mean what is the evidence of Ron Paul thinking Santorum is a religious crazy it is just a guess, what else might he be referring to and can you tell me why Santorum might be called a totalitarian if not that reason?
kelly liddle
1 Feb 13 at 12:27 pm
Facts are not important, rather its all about the way people feel after being told the “truth” by the MSM.
Oh yes, and update on the “truth” & the MSM, MSNBC been caught lying again to callously exploit the death of the children at Sandy Hook.
Token
1 Feb 13 at 12:41 pm