Will the Liberals' preference decision hurt the Greens? Don't count on it
Date
August 14, 2013
Will the Liberals' decision to give preferences to Labor put an end to the Greens' chances of winning seats at this election? Don't count on it.
Don't be surprised if Adam Bandt, their only lower house MP, retains his seat of Melbourne. Don't be surprised if they return to the Senate with as many senators as they have now, and possibly more.
For if Liberal voters direct preferences as they did in the 2010 state election – the last time the Liberals told their supporters to put Labor ahead of the Greens – Bandt could hold his seat if he can win a swing of just 4.2 per cent from Labor.
And in the Senate, the Greens have won 14 Senate contests since they began, but only one through Coalition preferences – ironically, when former communist Lee Rhiannon won in NSW in 2010.
Why don't Coalition preferences have a bigger impact? Three reasons.
First, there are only two seats where they are likely to be distributed – Melbourne, and the inner Hobart seat of Denison, held by independent Andrew Wilkie.
In 2010 the Greens came close to taking Grayndler from Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, or Sydney from Health Minister Tanya Plibersek. But the rising Liberal vote in NSW is almost certain to consign the Greens to finish third in both seats this time. Liberal preferences will not be distributed.
Second, inner city voters are independent types. A study by the Victorian Electoral Commission of voting in four inner city and four country seats at the 2006 election found that fewer than 50 per cent of voters followed their party's how to vote card.
Inner city Liberals are even more individualistic. Most of them don't like head office telling them what to do; they make up their own minds. Moreover, one in five votes in Melbourne in 2010 was cast not at a polling booth, but in pre-poll, postal or absentee voting, where voters don't have how-to-vote cards to tell them what to do.
In 2006, only 39 per cent of inner city Liberal voters followed the party ticket in allocating preferences – including just 30 per cent in the state seat of Melbourne. That is why the Greens narrowly lost the seat: 26 per cent of Liberals ignored the party ticket and gave their preferences to Labor.
Even in 2010, when Bandt won the federal seat, 22 per cent of Liberal voters directed preferences to Labor. At the state election, Liberal head office switched sides and directed preferences to Labor. But 35 per cent of Liberal voters in the seats of Melbourne and Richmond ignored the direction, and gave their preferences to the Greens.
You have to assume a similar distribution this time. If so, Labor would win the seat, based on 2010 voting, but with a majority of just 6000 votes, or 4.2 per cent. It's still a marginal seat, and it's quite possible that, with no other Lower House seats it can realistically win, the Greens could focus their resources on Melbourne and make up that margin.
The Greens are more worried about the impact of Liberal preferences favouring Labor in the Senate. Traditionally, the six Senate seats contested in each state split three-all between left and right, so that Labor and the Greens fight out the left's final seat.
You would think that Liberal preferences would have a big impact in that contest. After all, 96 per cent of us vote for the party box in Senate contests, and only 4 per cent of us distribute our own Senate preferences.
Yet history shows Coalition preferences rarely make a difference. Of the 14 Senate seats the Greens have won since 1996, only one was decided by Liberal preferences.
In 2010, for example, the Greens won their Senate seats in Victoria and Tasmania on first preferences, and in Queensland, WA and SA at relatively early stages of the count, when the Coalition was still fighting for its final seat.
To win three seats in any state, the Coalition will need to win 43 per cent of the vote. If it wins 45 per cent, for example – and in a crowded Senate contest, that will be difficult – it would be able to distribute just 2 per cent of votes as preferences.
Past experience suggests they are more likely to end up with a smaller party of the right than with either Labor or the Greens.
The senators we elect on September 7 will replace those elected in 2007, when the Greens won only three seats – in WA, SA and Tasmania. The Greens are polling about the same as in 2007, but Labor's vote is down. Don't be surprised if the Greens win more seats this time, with or without Liberal preferences.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/will-the-liberals-preference-decision-hurt-the-greens-dont-count-on-it-20130814-2rwdp.html#ixzz2bzHtOzTh
Forum
Pages: 1 
