How’s this for some electoral maths.
There’s just one seat between Labor and the Liberals in South Australia — 22 to the Libs; 23 to Labor but short of a majority. Two independents can give either side government, but one of them, Bob Such, falls sick and may never return to Parliament. As William Bowe writes, the agonising question for independent MP Geoff Brock was thus:
“… Such’s health issues left the Liberals high and dry, as Labor would have commanded a majority on the floor regardless of whether the Speaker’s chair was filled by a Liberal or by Brock.
“Consequently, the alternatives facing Brock were a Labor minority government, or parliamentary deadlock and a fresh election. Much as opponents of Labor and/or minority government in general might complain that the latter is the preferable option, they have no reason to suppose the result of a second election would be any different from the first.”
Good luck with that. Brock’s decision — to accept a cabinet post and award Labor a fourth term in government — was perhaps the only viable one. A legitimate deal was done and Labor Premier Jay Weatherill wins fair and square.
But the people of South Australia — a large majority of whom voted Weatherill out — will feel cheated all the same.
Legitimacy will be Weatherill’s biggest challenge over the next four years — not in the eyes of the Parliament, but in the eyes of the people.
And 54.9% of stalled South Australian voters didn’t “Holler for a Marshall!”.
Regardless of what you think, they got 23 seats. More than anyone else including the NP/Liberal alliance. WTF is wrong with you mob at Crikey? Is your legitimacy in question as well?
Didn’t I read that the electoral borders were adjusted after the previous election to make it ‘fairer’ for the conservatives? And they still didn’t win? Does it say something about class and population distribution in SA?
Quite right, drmick! It is all very well to criticise, but what exactly do you want Weatherill and Brock to do? Another election could well end up with the same result.
The current system was introduced in the early 1990’s at the request of the Coalition parties, and agreed to by Labor. Now the former want it changed again because they can’t win. For 27 years, until 1965, the Liberal premier, Tom Playford ruled SA using an outrageous ‘gerrymander’. During that time, the Labor party won up to 55% of the PRIMARY vote at some elections, but remained in opposition for all those years. I don’t ever remember the Coalition parties complaining about that!
Suck it up, princesses!!
We don’t vote for Premier, or Prime Minister for that matter, in Australia. You vote for your local member. The ‘popular’ vote doesn’t come into the equation — and certainly doesn’t come into the equation on the basis of two party preferred.
How did the ‘popular’ vote get counted? Did either side get more than 50% of first preference (not that it matters). This is the system. This is how it works.
Can’t we just be grateful that the LNP doesn’t hold every state? 🙂