posted 11/27/12 22:06:22 GMT
It's clear then that no one actually unrddstanes what they're talking about regarding AV. It's a improvement but not a revolution.One Nation did not exist until the mid-90s. One Nation did win a swag of seats at the QLD state election in '98 but those seats were mainly at the expense of the conservative rural National Party which was in Government. Labor was then able to form government with the support of an independent. One Nation's preferencing policy was to preference against incumbent members more than anything else.When One Nation's leader ran for a federal seat (she was elected as a Lib but her seat was abolished and redistributed), everyone preferenced against her (compulsory preferencing) and put One Nation last. She had a higher primary vote and under FPTP would have won. In this scenario, One Nation lost because of AV. It is another demonstration that the issue of preferences is about context.I'll give one final example about who preferencing benefits being more about the political landspace at the time. Preferencing was used for nearly half a century by the anti-Labor parties (DLP, Nationals and Liberals). They were the ones who introduced it. However, over the past decade or so, particularly with the rise of the Greens, it has benefitted Labor. Antony Green has a good post looking at it and how it has changed.Parts of the Greens are socialistic (they tend to be ex-Labor members) but they get more support because of the advocacy on socially liberal issues rather than being socialistic. You can just see how the Greens candidate for the seat of Balmain for the upcoming NSW election is positioning himself as a blue' Green.