The Greens

[bfff]

The point is that there are myriad of reasons that people might direct preferences one way or the other. The Greens pretend that attacking the ALP has no impact other than to drag ALP voters to the Greens.

What that preference flow demonstrates is that nobody really exists on this imaginary Greens-ALP-LNP-ON/Nats spectrum.

So yes, attacking the ALP could direct Greens preferences away from the ALP to the Nats or LNP.

Fair enough. I believe that the effect is over emphasised by the LNP in order to damage both parties. Their messaging is far more relevant than The Greens’ own messaging about themselves.

Work with Labor - “Labor is in bed with The Greens! Who knows what they will do?”

Don’t work with Labor - “The Greens condemn Labor’s climate policy”

 

[Mateyman]

Bass is a good electoral example of the problem with the Greens saying the ALP is as bad as the LNP.

The distribution of preferences shows that while most Greens preferences went to the ALP, about 20% went to the LNP. If that number was 10%, the ALP wins Bass.

Bass, TAS - AEC Tally Room

Bass, TAS

results.aec.gov.au

Some Greens voters would rather vote Liberal than Labor. Without the Greens they likely keep the same preference order between the majors with a first preference for someone else. Greens don't say ALP and Liberals are equally bad, they usually suggest that they would support a Labor minority government.

 

[Saint]

13% went to the LNP.
You are assuming that the reason some of The Greens voters preferenced Libs was because of campaigning against the ALP. Why is this chosen as the deciding factor? It seems to me that you have made an arbitrary choice which fits the narrative of The Greens misbehaving. Could there have been other mitigating factors in this seat?

If half of them had gone to the ALP, they would have won. The Greens campaigning against the ALP can't have helped.

 

[Gralin]

easy solution on preferences, put them down yourself in the order you want them

 

[Ned_Flanders]

easy solution on preferences, put them down yourself in the order you want them

if this is done, you need to scrap the rule requiring all boxes be ticked off

even with HTV cards, a surprising number of invalid votes are due to people not filling out all the digits

 

[Mateyman]

Labor claims their 43% emissions reductions target is not to be negotiated under any circumstances with the Greens...

bUt teH gReEnS dOnT NeGoTiAtE

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Labor claims their 43% emissions reductions target is not to be negotiated under any circumstances with the Greens...

bUt teH gReEnS dOnT NeGoTiAtE

they have to say that (unfortunately) for one simple reason

the libs will claim the alp will have a secret deal to do the greens number and increase taxes to ridiculous levels otherwise. its stupid, but its a tactic they used in recent elections successfully

 

[Northalives]

I’m sorry I don’t get your point. Is it that the ALP must win first preference counts in order to win seats? That they can’t rely on preference flows to win? I agree that they can’t rely on receiving 100% of preferences from The Greens. But that is not unique to this election or Labor, The Greens, LNP, UAP.

What I am implying is that first preference votes away from the ALP means that it's harder for the ALP to get close enough or be in front of the Liberal/National Party to give them the best opportunity to win seats.

The more first preference votes the ALP can get, the far better the chance to have an ALP government which is far, far better than any sort of LNP Government.

In the Senate, no problems with people voting Greens first, I don't personally have a problem with people voting for the Greens in the Reps either, but the reality of our voting system is that the more first preference votes that one of the two parties that can actually form government can get, that is, the ALP or LNP, then the greater chance of them occupying the treasury benches.

 

[Northalives]

Labor claims their 43% emissions reductions target is not to be negotiated under any circumstances with the Greens...

bUt teH gReEnS dOnT NeGoTiAtE

Ned_Flanders has answered that question for you - it's all about perception in politics. Tactically, it is the only option open to the ALP

 

[CM86]

Oh, and as I said, 10 years ago I was a Greens member, attended meetings for about 6 months and handed out HTV cards, never been a member of another party. And the holier-than-thou attitude is ingrained in the fibre of the party.

Don't you think that most people who become members of the Greens would do, or would have done it, for similar reasons to you?

I think the "holier-than-thou attitude" is placed on them, rather than being core to them.

 

[Mateyman]

they have to say that (unfortunately) for one simple reason

the libs will claim the alp will have a secret deal to do the greens number and increase taxes to ridiculous levels otherwise. its stupid, but its a tactic they used in recent elections successfully

Yeah it's kind of like the negotiations different parties enter into are to do with the extent to which they can compromise without losing voters...

 

[Mateyman]

Ned_Flanders has answered that question for you - it's all about perception in politics. Tactically, it is the only option open to the ALP

Yes indeed, much like perception is important to the Greens because if they look like pushovers like the Democrats did they'll also lose votes. I don't really see why it's different when the ALP do it. No problem with it, but there's no point pretending that the Greens are completely unreasonable and the ALP would be willing to compromise if not for the pesky Greens.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Yeah it's kind of like the negotiations different parties enter into are to do with the extent to which they can compromise without losing voters...

And there is your kicker.

This is a short term issue for Labor, because scomo has successfully wedged them as being bitches to the greens who will raise taxes.

Green voters however for decades have been absolutist in their views (ie one her wants a green dictatorship)

 

[CM86]

Yes indeed, much like perception is important to the Greens because if they look like pushovers like the Democrats did they'll also lose votes. I don't really see why it's different when the ALP do it. No problem with it, but there's no point pretending that the Greens are completely unreasonable and the ALP would be willing to compromise if not for the pesky Greens.

I think it is different though. Because without the ALP, the Greens have very little power. It's not fair, but it's not unreasonable.
ALP have to win the election, for the Greens to have any input in policy, direction etc.

In our current climate, the ALP have to signal some distance and disagreement with the Greens.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I think it is different though. Because without the ALP, the Greens have very little power. It's not fair, but it's not unreasonable.
ALP have to win the election, for the Greens to have any input in policy, direction etc.

In our current climate, the ALP have to signal some distance and disagreement with the Greens.

In fairness, I should also say this issue isn't confined to minor parties or the left.

US governing has been in gridlock for a generation thanks to both the GOP and Dems having absolutist positions on bills (thanks to the populist wings of both their parties dominating).

Labor's split between the progressive left and the blue collar arms (which is a genuine risk of splitting the party) is helping it so far, only because it's having to compromise just to get internal sign off.

For the libs, even when they were systematically destroying the wets, they still would negotiate on policy (ie Howard and the gst with the Dems). With Morrison waging war with Victoria, and now declaring it will only fund the second sydney airport if the NSW govt remains liberal, it appears this may be changing

This is a major worry for me, because if an alp split occurs, and the Evans secure power in the libs, I can see us facing this same problem in both our major parties.

 

[Northalives]

Yes indeed, much like perception is important to the Greens because if they look like pushovers like the Democrats did they'll also lose votes. I don't really see why it's different when the ALP do it. No problem with it, but there's no point pretending that the Greens are completely unreasonable and the ALP would be willing to compromise if not for the pesky Greens.

Oh no no no, this conversation started off being about a bad political decision in the eyes of many people by the Greens blocking the Carbon Tax in the Senate in 2007/08.

It is absolutely not unreasonable for the Greens to play politics, they are much better at it now then they were then, in my opinion and they must be seen to be true to their convictions otherwise, as you rightly point out, they'll go the way of the Democrats.

The point I think here is for the Greens not to overplay their hand politically and drive votes away from the ALP in the Reps because it's the ALP and only the ALP that can deliver meaningful outcomes to address climate change by the mere fact, that they need to occupy the Treasury benches for anything at all to happen.

The Greens need the ALP to form Government so they can be front and center in implementing change through the Senate and just like the Greens need the ALP in the House of Reps, the ALP needs the Greens in the Senate. It's up to both the Greens and the ALP to not overplay their hand and be bloody minded with their criticism of each other because it does neither party any good and gives "wiggle room" to the filthy Morrison to bash both.

Let's just f**k off Morrison and his turds and then the ALP and The Greens can get down to work constructively for the good of the nation.

 

[Northalives]

In fairness, I should also say this issue isn't confined to minor parties or the left.

US governing has been in gridlock for a generation thanks to both the GOP and Dems having absolutist positions on bills (thanks to the populist wings of both their parties dominating).

Labor's split between the progressive left and the blue collar arms (which is a genuine risk of splitting the party) is helping it so far, only because it's having to compromise just to get internal sign off.

For the libs, even when they were systematically destroying the wets, they still would negotiate on policy (ie Howard and the gst with the Dems). With Morrison waging war with Victoria, and now declaring it will only fund the second sydney airport if the NSW govt remains liberal, it appears this may be changing

This is a major worry for me, because if an alp split occurs, and the Evans secure power in the libs, I can see us facing this same problem in both our major parties.

This election is critical.

 

[SSwans2011]

I don't reckon it's fact free. Maybe it's unpalatable to those who have invested their hope in the Greens but for real greenies like me, the Greens political Party are like the Democrats were: representatives of the chattering classes.

Sorry mate but when my friends in mining and forestry towns are being threatened by extinction due to the lunacy of moronic Green "policies" which, when decoded, say nothing more than "bad luck, die you c***s", then they are no more "Green" or left wing than Morrison's Robo-debt was.

Lidia is a great women whose fight for Indigenous rights and climate action is well known to those who care to look beyond the spin and bashing of the right wing but please, please, don't think that the Greens are the only way forward, not the Australian Greens that's for sure.

"Real Greenies" don't tend to find much common ground with conservatives, but you sure did with this post.

 

[SSwans2011]

Also can we stop with the misinformation about Greens votes hurting Labor.

Name one electorate in any election ever where Greens votes cost Labor and won the LNP a seat.

It just doesn't happen. If an electorate receives enough Greens first preference votes for them to have a crack, the 2PP is almost guaranteed to be between the Greens and ALP.

 

[Gralin]

Also can we stop with the misinformation about Greens votes hurting Labor.

Name one electorate in any election ever where Greens votes cost Labor and won the LNP a seat.

People that don't understand preferential voting say that.
People that don't want you to understand preferential voting also say that

Never mind the cash from the AEC if you get at least 4% of the primary vote that ALP don't want the greens getting

 

[Kram]

 

[Gralin]

The chaser, you sir get a like

 

[Northalives]

"Real Greenies" don't tend to find much common ground with conservatives, but you sure did with this post.

Common ground with the conservatives? You're having a laugh aren't ya?

I love the ideals of the Greens but their "execution" and their politics stank and that's why, aided by the disgusting rat Rudd and the gutless elders of the ALP, we have had 8 years, going on 9, of medieval governance and f**k all advancement in mitigating the ravages of climate change.

Them's the facts unfortunately and no amount of shilly-shallying will absolve the Greens from their critical role in Australia's de-evolution as a forward looking country.

 

[Kram]

The chaser, you sir get a like

Favourite is definitely the inner city trendy that's never had to deal with any real issues.

 

[SSwans2011]

Common ground with the conservatives? You're having a laugh aren't ya?

I love the ideals of the Greens but their "execution" and their politics stank and that's why, aided by the disgusting rat Rudd and the gutless elders of the ALP, we have had 8 years, going on 9, of medieval governance and f**k all advancement in mitigating the ravages of climate change.

Them's the facts unfortunately and no amount of shilly-shallying will absolve the Greens from their critical role in Australia's de-evolution as a forward looking country.

Their execution is "awful" because Labor have to be dragged kicking and screaming to pass virtually any actually "progressive" policy ever.

And when I say "progressive" policies, I mean actually progressive. Not policies that are more or less the status quo for most OECD nations (see: marriage equality).