LIVE Federal Election Coverage 2016

[Patrick Bullet]

Wow, it's almost as if people who actually go to the trouble to learn about the real world support the Greens.

But of course that can't be right because it's conservatives who know about the real world.

 

[Dry Rot]

Barry Cassidy made the good point that there are a lot of uncounted Provisional and Absent votes out there.

 

[Demosthenes]

It is actually all about education levels; the higher the level of education an individual has obtained, the more likely they are to vote Green.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, however. In reality the Greens have chosen to target young, affluent, inner-city voters. The fact that this demographic tends to be more highly educated than the broader population can easily be seen as more incidental than anything else.

Personally I think the education demographics of Greens voters is more of an indictment than an endorsement, given how much focus they place on social justice issues. When the demographic you purport to be protecting and supporting isn't buying what you're selling, it gives you a bit of a credibility issue on policy.

 

[ep2018]

Barry Cassidy made the good point that there are a lot of uncounted Provisional and Absent votes out there.

Would be mostly Uni kids on holiday imo as the early DD election was called during the holidays for many 18+ students, so I suspect Labor and greens will get most of these.

 

[Demosthenes]

That's pretty specious reasoning.

 

[ep2018]

That's pretty specious reasoning.

Well it's the only attribute I can think of that would account for the large number (compared to previous elections) of absentee votes. Normally an election date falls on a Saturday during school term.

 

[The Speaker]

It also suggests that the policies of the Greens are more likely to correlate with the political tendencies of those who teach at levels of higher education, who then pass it on to students at that level.

There is often a claim - normally pushed with some caution so as not to sound too silly - that because of the political correlation of those with higher education, they must hold those beliefs because they're smart, and those who oppose them are stupid. It is not a claim that holds up.

 

[volcboy]

Correlation doesn't equal causation, however. In reality the Greens have chosen to target young, affluent, inner-city voters. The fact that this demographic tends to be more highly educated than the broader population can easily be seen as more incidental than anything else.

Personally I think the education demographics of Greens voters is more of an indictment than an endorsement, given how much focus they place on social justice issues. When the demographic you purport to be protecting and supporting isn't buying what you're selling, it gives you a bit of a credibility issue on policy.

Did you read the article I linked to? It doesn't seem so. If you think that being educated is an 'indictment', then you're no better than the extreme right, who demonise academic viewpoints as being elitist.

Interestingly, many Liberal electorates also have a high education index, but it is the type of professions that are also important. Teachers (including academics), sciences, IT and media workers and the Arts strongly support the Greens, while those with degrees in management, business and economics tend to proliferate in Liberal seats.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/04/15/class-voting-and-broad-left-demography/

Your last sentence is just unsupported waffle.

 

[volcboy]

Correlation doesn't equal causation, however. In reality the Greens have chosen to target young, affluent, inner-city voters. The fact that this demographic tends to be more highly educated than the broader population can easily be seen as more incidental than anything else.

What are the Greens going to do? Target a demographic that is not open to their policy platform? They target educated, younger voters with intelligent, ethical policy, which is why they do well in the areas they do. The targeting is not 'incidental' at all, nor is the fact that individuals who have received a higher level of education will have a greater understanding of ethics and tend to view things from a more wholistic viewpoint than an individualistic one (depending also on their area of study).

 

[romeohwho]

Until those 25-40 year olds grow more mature and realise the Greens don't live in the real world and they drift back to both major parties

This is a very antiquated attitude. Catch up. I know so many 'oldies' who vote Greens, and I expect that demographic to increase, not decline.

 

[Lebbo73]

I would not be surprised if some over 60 vote Greens too.
There is also a high number concerned about the environment and AS.

The Greens don't care about the environment. They only care about controlling everyone and making us pay for their delusional plan for some fantasised utopia they wish to create!

 

[romeohwho]

It also suggests that the policies of the Greens are more likely to correlate with the political tendencies of those who teach at levels of higher education, who then pass it on to students at that level.

There is often a claim - normally pushed with some caution so as not to sound too silly - that because of the political correlation of those with higher education, they must hold those beliefs because they're smart, and those who oppose them are stupid. It is not a claim that holds up.

Right, and your measuring the accuracy of your statement 'doesn't hold up' how exactly?

 

[Demosthenes]

Did you read the article I linked to? It doesn't seem so. If you think that being educated is an 'indictment', then you're no better than the extreme right, who demonise academic viewpoints as being elitist.

Not what I said, obviously.

Your last sentence is just unsupported waffle.

Social justice is one of the four pillars of Greens policy, however the most marginalised people in society are also the least likely to support the party. If you don't realise that displays a bit of a problem with their policy platform, I guess that's cool. 'Poor people don't know what's good for them' has been a solid standby excuse for centuries.

 

[Maggie5]

The Greens don't care about the environment. They only care about controlling everyone and making us pay for their delusional plan for some fantasised utopia they wish to create!

Okay, thanks again for your contribution.

 

[Demosthenes]

What are the Greens going to do? Target a demographic that is not open to their policy platform?

Not at all. It makes total sense and is a great strategy. But the education statistics usually get trotted out in the context of implying that supporting the Greens that people vote for the Greens because they are educated, which is not a reasonable conclusion in the slightest.

 

[JackOutback]

The Greens don't care about the environment. They only care about controlling everyone and making us pay for their delusional plan for some fantasised utopia they wish to create!

What an intriguing idea, do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to.

 

[Maggie5]

It also suggests that the policies of the Greens are more likely to correlate with the political tendencies of those who teach at levels of higher education, who then pass it on to students at that level.

Wow, is that from the Liberal book? I am sure I have heard it before.

 

[Run n Spread]

What are the Greens going to do? Target a demographic that is not open to their policy platform? They target educated, younger voters with intelligent, ethical policy, which is why they do well in the areas they do. The targeting is not 'incidental' at all, nor is the fact that individuals who have received a higher level of education will have a greater understanding of ethics and tend to view things from a more wholistic viewpoint than an individualistic one (depending also on their area of study).

Who live in concrete jungles. Their natural base are the country folk who all vote natural. So if they ever got natural power they would be just as hopelessly split as a Liberal Party.

 

[JoseMourinho]

This is a very antiquated attitude. Catch up. I know so many 'oldies' who vote Greens, and I expect that demographic to increase, not decline.

I'd say it is still true. Once they start paying taxes and have to care for a family. The hip pocket takes over the feel goods.

Who live in concrete jungles. Their natural base are the country folk who all vote natural. So if they ever got natural power they would be just as hopelessly split as a Liberal Party.

Agreed, all parties are all factionised. You have wet and drys, unions and the left, regional and inner city.

 

[volcboy]

Who live in concrete jungles. Their natural base are the country folk who all vote natural. So if they ever got natural power they would be just as hopelessly split as a Liberal Party.

Interestingly, the Greens representatives that conservative posters on here have the most problem with (SHY and Christine Milne) both come from lower educated electorates, and are from the more 'traditional' deeper green movement in Gippsland and Tasmania respectively (SHY was raised in Orbost). The newer 'breed' of Greens reps (Di Natale, Bandt, Whish-Wilson) are more moderate and tend towards progressive economic and social reforms more than pure environmentalism. Where you live, by the way, doesn't define what you think or know about the environment.

 

[volcboy]

Not at all. It makes total sense and is a great strategy. But the education statistics usually get trotted out in the context of implying that supporting the Greens that people vote for the Greens because they are educated, which is not a reasonable conclusion in the slightest.

I've backed my suggestions and conclusions up with articles and figures. What have you got?

 

[Run n Spread]

Interestingly, the Greens representatives that conservative posters on here have the most problem with (SHY and Christine Milne) both come from lower educated electorates, and are from the more 'traditional' deeper green movement in Gippsland and Tasmania respectively (SHY was raised in Orbost). The newer 'breed' of Greens reps (Di Natale, Bandt, Whish-Wilson) are more moderate and tend towards progressive economic and social reforms more than pure environmentalism. Where you live, by the way, doesn't define what you think or know about the environment.

True. But me for example......I live in a standard suburb. I also want the environment protected but I'm not dependent on it for my job. And if I am very harsh neither are people like Bandt or DN just reliant on voters to give them a seat.

 

[romeohwho]

I'd say it is still true. Once they start paying taxes and have to care for a family. The hip pocket takes over the feel goods.

Agreed, all parties are hopeless factions pretty much.

lol. I'm not calling young people with families 'oldies'-crikey- oldies have children who have grown up and left home, they have grandchildren who they want a world that looks better for -they will vote for the environmental issues that best help that.
But again, this is a laughable statement. How is voting Greens a vote against the hip pocket?

 

[Demosthenes]

I've backed my suggestions and conclusions up with articles and figures. What have you got?

The burden is not on me to prove a negative. Whether people vote for the Greens because they are educated is of no consequence to me.

I'm merely pointing out that there is no real evidence that is the case, and there are alternative explanations for the demographics.

From all your talk of Greens supporters valuing intellectual rigour, I thought you might be a little more receptive to such things.

 

[JoseMourinho]

lol. I'm not calling young people with families 'oldies'-crikey- oldies have children who have grown up and left home, they have grandchildren who they want a world that looks better for -they will vote for the environmental issues that best help that.
But again, this is a laughable statement. How is voting Greens a vote against the hip pocket?

Well, you'll know when their actual policies are costed and tested, the likely event is that taxes will increase.