It is not annoying complex at all. You literally put each candidate in order of your choosing based on who you want to represent you. It make sure your preference is know without having multiple run off elections every two weeks to decide close contest. It also means you can't waste your vote as you second or third preference is usually likely to get up.
@@sebastiandevida4685 assuming you're talking about it being split into electorates and a single seat per electorate, yes and no. It's less representative than proportional voting (which is why having the upper house have that system is good) but having a local mp (if they do their job properly) can help get more local concerns government attention they may need, even if it doesn't make it to the news. There's ups and downs.
maybe it is confusing to English people who are used to putting one tick? (for reference I am British Citizen, now dual citizen who just voted in their first election) Also it took me a (embarrassing) long time to work out what above and below the line voting was, its not complicated just obtuse
Preferential voting is GOOD for small parties, it eliminates the spoiler effect so people can feel free to vote how they like rather than having to vote tactically.
some criticisms: 1. The coalition actually did very poorly during the pandemic. most of the successes were actually the result of state government actions and the federal government mostly did nothing, which repeatedly caused problems 2. you forgot to mention the extra 2 (possible 3) seats that the greens won in the house of representatives, which is by far their most succesful election ever, but i understand there's only so much time per video. 3. it was actually 7 teal independents not 5. 4. a very important piece of Australian Politics that simply _must_ be mentioned in discussions of it is our media. It's not state owned aside from two independent public broadcasters, but most media in Australia is concetrated into the hand of only two conglomerates: news corp. and fairfax-nine (though fairfax-nine is more moderate). Both of these groups favour the coalition and therefore skew every election. there's a growing movement for a royal commission into media diversity because of this.
So the media in Australia is owned by right wing entities… that doesn’t happen only in Australia, trust me. Everyone knows how powerful the media is in a democracy, yet no one bothers to look who owns our media. Right wing billionaires like Murdoch have more political power than any voter or politician unfortunately.
On the subject of the media's influence on the recent election, I feel it needs to be pointed out that they suppressed the reports that the smaller parties were doing well in the early polling period until after the polls had closed, indirectly reducing the number of votes for smaller parties and independents due to the perceived need for tactical voting. Edit: Upon double checking my sources, they did not report on the exit polling from early voting centres. Exit polling is not representative but this can have an effect.
To clarify, the “teal” independents are kind of a half way point between the big Liberal and Labor parties. They retain the fiscally conservative views, hence why they targeted mainly Liberal heartland seats in Eastern Melbourne (Kooyong, Goldstein) and Inner Sydney (Warringah, Wentworth), but are also significantly more socially progressive on issues such as climate change and corruption (Greens-ish), hence the ‘teal’ analogy.
The first sentence isn’t really true at all. They’re more like a combination of the greens and the liberals. Very socially progressive and strong on climate but as you said fiscally conservative
@@MoodyGooseCow Nah there not Greens or Labor. There moderate small l Liberals. Who are annoyed at the party not doing enough on climate change women corruption amongst other issues.
@@philoslother4602 except Libertarians usually believe a lot of other things, as it is an entire ideology, so can’t really be broken down on simplistic terms like “conservative” or “liberal” I’m sure they are aware of Libertarianism, despite it being literally the least popular ideology, and I’m sure they have their reasons for not identifying themselves that way. Perhaps even they maintain a knowledge of what the word Libertarian actual has mean throughout all over history until the 1970s, left-wing anarchism. Perhaps they aren’t obsessed with drinking unpasteurized milk or using right wing politics as a cover for their Christian nationalism, and so chose to market themselves in a different way as to not attract “Libertarians”. I can tell you that “Libertarians” are not going to like the climate change angle of the Teals, so….yeah. Not really “libertarian” in any sense. the simplistic inverse, center-left on economics and center-right on social issue is much more common btw, and would usually be called “Christian Democratic”, at least in Europe.
Australia's preferential (AKA "rank-choice voting") system is far more amenable to the emergence of new parties than the 1st-past-the-post nonsense that blights the UK. In the state of Tasmania, where the lower house has multi-member (5) electorates, there's still a 2-party contest, with the Green party picking up the odd balance-of-power, occasionally. Point being the 2-party dominance is cultural, not cemented by the voting system. This however is changing. Labor won the election with less than 1/3 of the total popular vote, winning many of its seats by allocation of preferences - often from Green voters. Both Labor's and Liberal-National primary vote share is shrinking year-on-year, and we may be seeing the entrenchment of either the Greens, or green-minded independents, holding the balance of power for years to come.
I asume he's comparing it to a simple voting system based on the popular vote: Everyone gets one vote, every party gets seats in accordance to the percentage they get.
If the UK had STV for national elections, we'd likely have a multi-party system by the time things settled over a few cycles. The parties are already there plus the 2 main parties would likely facture or see their support reduced. We already use it for regional assemblies and local council elections in Scotland and N Ireland. Those often feature coalition governments. My local council is SNP-Labour coalition although Conservatives won the most seats for a single party.
prefential voting is okay for medium sized parties, but undemocratic and unfair to small parties compared to proportional representation. that was the point being made here
You guys missed a significant amount of nuance in this video. You also completely misrepresented our electoral system as bad for the minor parties. The only reason Minor parties get that much of the primary vote is because people aren't worried about wasting their vote, like they would be in a "first past the post" system, leading to minor parties actually gaining seats. Prime example being the Teal independents and the Greens winning so many seats in the recent election.
Also left out the fact there were literally hundreds of Chinese "donators" and "supporters" with sh1t eating grins across their faces knowing they just conquered Australia without a single shot being fired simply by paying off and buying real estate and cars with laundered money from China.
Agreed most of my 20s I voted green because I wanted labour to move more to the left. But if I had to choose FPTP would have gone labour. The greens have been a powerful force for progressives. And preferential voting empowers voters to send a message without wasting their vote.
Why is the comparison always to FPTP instead of proportional representation? Labor got less than 1/3 of the primary vote and will have more than 1/2 of the seats where as the Greens got 12+% of the primary vote and at best 2.5% of the seats. The system IS bad for minor parties
@@TzarLatok Ok I understand where you are coming from however it is hardly inhernetly unfair. Firstly the senate exists specifically as a house to provide a representative chamber for entire states; now while it is true the six seats per state rule (this might warrant being increased) does limit minors to require practically 10% of the vote to have a chance (after preferences get distributed) for a seat overall if you look at the senate there is a relatively close representation of federal votes in the senate's composition. (e.g. the greens got 12/76 seats which is actually an overrepresentation and allows them to be the deciding factor in legislation). In regards to the house of representatives it isnt fair to compare that to proportional representation results as the house of representatives operates fundamentally as a collection of local representatives. I have gripes with the system for sure however to say that proportional is simply superior is unfair since at least this system means you can have smaller electorates to ensure as many areas as possible have a local representative (which is elected by preferential voting so will be the most preferred candidate of a majority of the electorate). I also understand some proportional systems assign local areas with multiple representatives on a council however that is hardly much superior as I'm going to presume in that system even if the minor party got a seat they would still be unable to do anything for the region since they are a small minority and depending on the number of council positions would still need to meet a large threshold.
@@TzarLatok Because the only reason the greens got 12% of the vote to begin with is because people felt like they had the option to vote for the greens without wasting their vote, otherwise most of that 12% probably would have begrudgingly voted labor as their only option. This is the same reason labor won so many seats with only 1/3rd the vote, because all of the people who would have begrudgingly voted labor didn't have to. They could vote greens and be guaranteed their vote went to labor if the greens didn't get in. It works for both the liberals, like last election where the UAP preferences scraped them over the line to a majority government, and labor like in this current election. It guarantees people get their say regardless of their views. And it also secures minor parties more funding for the next election if they get a certain percentage of the vote.
STV is far better than FPTP, as it allows a better version of a major party to easily replace the major party candidate without splitting the vote. (Which is exactly why the teals were so successful). It ensures that the candidate wanted by the Majority of people is elected. It's a very good thing for minor parties. It's not that complicated.
Which is why so many countries resist using it. I think it was invented in the UK and we only use it for local elections in Scotland and N Ireland. I think N.I uses it for their assembly elections. Meanwhile our general elections are still single member district first past the post.
STV is the term used for elections in multi-member districts, eg. Australian Senate and is a form of proportional representation. The teal independents won in the House of Reps which uses Instant-runoff (single member districts) and is only slightly better than FPTP. There are proportional representation systems that can be used while maintaining single-member districts for the House like MMP used in New Zealand
Proportional Representation is the actual good system for smaller parties, that's what the video was commenting. STV is better for medium sized parties.
@@MartinOlminkhof Dude what's weirdest is that people keep bringing up FPTP just because the presenter is british. He never mentioned FPTP... STV might be marginally better than FPTP, but PR is way more democratic than either, and is the gold standard for electoral systems in Europe. So maybe the video worded things weirdly, but it's definitely the commenters bringing up FPTP out of nowhere who are the weirdest.
You know, I started watching this channel because you gave an excellent high-level overview of how the Dutch electoral system worked. To turn around and explain the Australian system so poorly is mystifying and makes me wonder what kind of behind-the-scenes changes have happened with your writers.
Not sure if it’s “the end” for the right but voters certainly wanted a recalibration with more moderate representation. Oh, and as an Aussie, I don’t think it’s “annoyingly complicated” @1:21. On the contrary, I think “first past the post” is annoyingly simplistic.
You kinda need a voting system that _doesn't_ produce a two-party system, though. What's the point of all that complexity if it produces the same bad result?
@@Tzizenorec due to the number and power of minor parties as well as our system having two houses, control of both is very rare. We have two main parties, but minor parties have quite a bit of legislative power.
STV doesn't really disadvantage smaller parties, it actually encourages them to run, as none of their votes ever get wasted like under a FPTP system. Also these smaller parties thrive in the Senate election, which is why we get so many contesting parties
The single-winner system is still relatively bad for small parties, but yes, hearing a brit saying that when their system is oh so much worse is... weird.
@@matejlieskovsky9625 Yeah it was kind of weird, even as a brit knowing that literally any proportional voting system is better than what we have, but maybe they're just advocating for STV as the voting system for all electoral bodies, which I personally would very much agree with
Their upper chamber using STV is awesome. The lower chamber is still just single member constituencies. The fact those use ranked choice voting is better than first past the post as it avoids plurality winners within that district. It's only a marginal improvement though. You need to go all the way and use multi-member districts with it to really get a more proportional result.
We had a referendum on IRV and we rejected it sadly. We use STV for local elections in Scotland, assembly elections in N Ireland. England and Welsh councils can adopt STV if they wish now. Scottish, Welsh and London assemblies use MMP. The House of Lords uses IRV to elect some of their own peers. The former European Parliament elections used regional party list. It's just the most important general election remains first past the post. It's sad as we used some multi-member districts in the past but they got abolished. Even single member IRV would still shift some seats away from the dominant party. That could be a stepping stone to using STV if a coalition partner got enough leverage. It wouldn't be a big jump if they already used IRV.
The problem with Mr Morrison is, he talked more than acted. State, not federal government, took all the responsibilities. And moreover, he didn't know a damn about dealing in foreign policies.
You kinda phrase the teals as more left wing then labour, when they're just Liberals (hence teal, somewhat off blue) that are more environmentally conscious and anti-misogynist. IIRC I'm just a Kiwi who learnt all of this in the last week.
The teals are centre left. One of the candidates opposes offshore processing (Monique Ryan) which is to the left of Labor. They will oppost leftist taxation policies to be in line with their rich voters i accept that. But the background of them are centre left (abc journo, former alp member etc). Only Zali Steggall can genuinely say shes an ex Liberal, maybe Sophie Scamps (dont know too much about her).
@@Ineluki_Myonrashi my aunt says they are just liberals with an environmentalist label, so she didn’t vote for them. She voted for labour instead. And I voted for James Bond and Mr Anderson for the lols.
The idea that preferential voting disadvantages small parties is BS when compared to first-past-the-post used in the UK and many other places. Certainly it's not as advantageous as proportion voting, but it sounds a bit rich coming out of the mouth of a Brit
Out of the mouth of a Brit on a channel covering global politics where proportional representation is actually quite common, especially in Europe and South America.
The only British people who don't dislike the voting system in Britain are conservatives and the few hundred Labour MPs who'd be out a job if we changed to a fairer system
Nice to see our election covered. Hopefully, if you do a follow up, you take on board some of the comments of others below who have eloquently pointed out some of the nuances and inaccuracies. With a little extra research this could have been a brilliant video.
What I found most interesting about this election was how much changed from just ordinary people genuinely wanting better for their country. Voters rejected even many senior members who and candidates who were parachuted into “safe seats.” And The Teal independents aren’t some rich group of people trying to sway political opinion but normal members of their communities who want to see better and more transparent government. I’m so surprised this isn’t the same sort of thing happening in other modernized nations. Instead of flocking to leaders who want to divide, Australians looked to grassroots leaders who have nothing to gain but to make sure the government is held to account and actually takes action, especially on the climate. The decisions of the Australian electorate should be seen as a model of what we as the public should looking to do. Put the establishment on their toes and don’t let them expect anything as a given.
As others have mentioned, preferential voting is actually good for minor parties. It means if 2 progressive parties run against 1 Conservative party, they don’t ‘split the vote’ (this would also happen if you had 2 conservative parties against 1 progressive party). In the UK’s FPTP system, if the Greens had 29%, Labor had 31% and the Conservatives had 40%, the conservatives would win despite the population clearly wanting a more progressive candidate. If the same senecio occurred in Australia’s preferential voting system, Labor would win as most of the Greens votes would likely preference Labor where they would win >50% of the vote after preferences. At the recent Australian election, the Greens have actually won at least one seat from the Liberals (Conservatives) because Labor votes preferenced them enough to get them to >50% of the vote. So preferential voting is good for minor parties, but what is bad for minor parties is single member districts which both the UK and Australia uses in the lower house. If a minor party had 20% of the vote across every seat in the country, they would likely win 0 seats, but if you had 5 members in each district/electorate, that minor party would win 1 member in every district/electorate which would provide more proportionate representation. The other issue with single member districts is that once it is considered a ‘safe seat’ no one usually pays any attention to it as the party that holds it thinks they can’t lose it and other parties think they can’t win it. Under a multi-member system a change in votes by a few % means a party may win or lose a seat, this means every electorate matters at election time. I think this is an important point, however it is worth mentioning that the recent Australian election has definitely proven that ‘safe seats’ can be taken even in single member systems, and that’s when they start getting more attention paid to it. This is great for those seats that have a high quality challenger, but having multi-member districts would make these electorates important even when a high quality challenger is not present. Anyway, multi-member districts could work well, but I am happy that I live in a country (Australia) that at least uses preferential voting!
Wasn't very accurate I think. Made a few good points but clearly doesn't understand what the teal independents actually are or how preferential voting is more representative than fptp.
This election is unprecedented for Australia, it's the biggest shift in Aussie politics in 50 years, and here is why: Yes, Labor have won government from opposition, only the 4th time since WII. BUT the primary vote of the major parties was the lowest in A CENTURY. The Greens have now become by far the most successful third party SINCE WW2 (essentially, since the two party system began to form). The teals winning is also unprecedented - we've NEVER had 6 independents enter parliament all at once, and this is the largest lower house crossbench EVER. The previous record was 6, we now have 15 or so crossbenchers. Also the seats the teals and greens won ... were mostly won from the coalition. They were not the kind of "flip floppy" seats that typically change hands between Labor and the Coalition. These were heartland Liberal seats, many of which had been Liberal for decades, in one case it had been Liberal for 110 years, almost since the creation of Australia. Also regarding the Greens, their primary vote is now so high in many seats that without preferences from the Greens, Labor simply would not have won at all. Labor would have 40 seats instead of 70-something. This also means internally, the moderate faction of the Liberal Party have been nearly wiped out. The only remaining factions with weight, are the hard right, and conservative christians. And of course there is the Nationals. The Liberal Party is now facing a fundamental identity crisis - does it try to somehow win back seats from the teals (unlikely to work, independents in Australia are usually very hard to unseat) or does it go further right wing ... and become unelectable for a long, long time? Basically, it looks like Australia's two party system has broken. This is easily the biggest shift in Australian politics in many decades. Also, as someone else said - the teals are socially progressive but fiscally conservative. They would have been moderate Liberals. Except the Liberal Party was viewed as hostile to women and climate issues. So they ran as independents.
Ahh yes "hostile to women". Totally not suspicious at all. Why do I always find stuff like that hard to believe? Something that I've never understood btw is this. How in the world has Liberal shifted right to any significant degree? And would you say that Labor has shifted left?
@@tylerbozinovski427 I would say Labor shifted from the left to the center. In 2019 they were promising more reform, this election they promised less. The Coalition was 70% male MPs. During their time in government we had 3 different ministers all cheating on their wives. One of those (Alan Tudge) has been accused of hitting his mistress. Another one (Barnaby Joyce) got his staffer pregnant. There was also photos of a Liberal staffer wanking on a female MPs desk. And a young woman Liberal staffer (Brittany Higgins) was allegedly raped in Parliament House. Oh and Christian Porter was accused of rape and resigned. Oh and a Liberal staffer Frank Zumbo got an AVO against him for touching young women staffers. And there was 4 Coalition MPs and staffers, who had a male prostitute in the Parliament prayer room.
This is spot on, there are 7 independents who have probably taken seats from the coalition for decades and they're planning to elect a less likeable and further right candidate, not sure how they can come back from this, especially once a federal ICAC has been set up to investigate any corruption in their 9 years in power
4:58 CORRECTION: The "Teal" candidates are to the right of Labor. They fill the gap left by the Liberals moving further to the right. The Teal candidates are generally economically conservative, socially progressive, and generally pro-environment.
They’re almost what the Democrats used to be (For those that don’t know/don’t remember: Australia used to have a 4th significant party called the Democrats who were basically centre-centre. But this was in a time when the Greens were WAY more Left, and Labor and Liberals were truly centre-left and centre-right)
Some extra info regarding the Senate election that has only been brushed upon here; regardless whether or not Labor can get a majority in the House of Reps. they are definitely going to need the support of the Greens and other independents if they are going to pass laws through the Senate.
You said its harder for 3rd parties with preferential voting but I would say its easier than first past the post cause greens have managed to win based on being 2nd in the first prefernce then win in 2nd preference flow on? It also means even if you know your smaller party that cant win you can at least give them your first preference and 2nd preference the major party you'd rather have over the other. It also sends a message to your 2nd preference that you'd rather that minor party.
Teal independents aren't quite left of labour, they often lean right-wing on economics and sometimes social issues, but they tend to agree with the Greens when it comes to climate policy and sometimes other social issues. (Hence the teal, between the blue of the coalition and the green of the greens.) I personally don't like them, but it's important to point it out. Basically, Labour is centrist through not really having a strong stance on anything, Teal independents end up in the centre due to holding a mix of positions that are considered left and right.
@@lordpolish2727 I'm not familiar with Albanese himself, early may is the first time I'd ever heard of him, but I am familiar with Labour doing jack shit the last time they were in charge, and they've even taken some anti-union actions in the past. Not to mention every actual leftist party also has better social policy than they do.
@@000Dragon50000 Labor made huge strides last time they were in power. They literally managed the economy so perfectly we completely avoided the GFC. They also introduced the NDIS and NBN both of which were immediately gutted by abbot and turnbulls govs.
So that people know, in Australia we faired so well in the heights of the Pandemic because the Federal Government under Scott Morrison abdicated all of their responsibilities to the states (even though it is consistently federal responsibility), and they were dragged kicking and screaming to do the wage subsidies, which was a Union Leader and Anthony Albanese’s idea - but Scott Morrison and the Treasurer added 0 transparency and gave over $40B away to companies that became more profitable during the pandemic and was some of their biggest donors. Good riddance that mob has been kicked out.
As an Aussie, I somewhat disagree with the Coalition being labelled as "Centre-right", at least in this election where their policies aligned much more closely with "Right-Wing" hence the surge of votes away from the Coalition towards much more progressive candidates.
@@joaquinescotoaleman4320 Yes, tax cuts for rich, opposed increase of minimum wage, business subsides, social funding cuts, pro religious discrimination, targets minorities(gay marriage, efugee, trans, Sudanese), pushing for war against China.
And the lesson they are apparently learning (I use that word liberally) from this election is that because they lost a bunch of 'moderates' to Greens, Teals, and Reds, they need to go even further right (starting with electing The Potato to Liberal leadership). The beatings will continue until morale improves.
@@joaquinescotoaleman4320 No because the lockdowns were controlled by the state premiers and not the federal government. Also tbh when I was in lockdown in Sydney, it was actually kinda chill. Free to explore and do whatever, as long as you were at least double vaccinated and wearing a mask.
We can do fuck all about it. The only solution for australia is to move from coal exports to uranium exports and base our energy on nuclear, but that’s incredibly unpopular amongst the greens, 10% of labor’s vote.
@@luck3yp0rk93 or MAYBE just learn what South Australia has done and successfully achieve high usage of solar power. We even got to 100% solar power for a few days. Now the clown posse is out of power we have a chance to undo what their coal industry bribes have brought upon us.
@@PugkinSoup you have 8 years. Nuclear power plants for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane are basically essential if you want to meet 2030 targets. After all, the Americans were saying we only have 12 years to live 3 years ago
Watching as an Australian with criticisms I'll edit in if any| Edit: The Coalition did nothing in the Pandemic, other than hand it to the states and make things worse by giving billions to companies that didnt need it. Edit 2: Gaffes aren't important, on either side. Veeeery scummy media tactics that are not important at all. Edit 3: Our system, as people are getting more educated in it, is predicted to lessen the major parties' power by the next few elections. Not to the level of Europe, but much more than the USA. Everyone seeing this, watch some of Friendlyjordies' videos. He is Labor biased, but he exposes a lot of corruption. If you want less bias, read some Independent Australia or Michael West Media. Have a good one everyone.
I’m glad the two party system is weakening, 2 party systems and federations seem to not mix well. Only problem is it gives power to racists like the one nation party or ore-jackers like the uap, which are both glorified satellite parties to the liberals
You should have mention how the Coalition got blown out of all-but-one of their heartland inner city seat, and that remainder hung on by his fingernails.
The preferential system gives minor parties more of a chance, it’s the whole reason we have it. It’s not complex at all, you rank the person you want the most to represent you to the person the least. So the people have to rank a person who best suits them so if a majority like a candidate to represent their area (especially that’s not from the major party)- independents and minor parties. You have a much better chance running as an independent or minor party than first past the post
2 additional things about this electoral system: parties suffer when they win too big a majority and the honorable members lose discipline; and theoretically, if they are bad enough, they can lose all of their seats while only losing a small % of their vote.
@@theuglykwan since there are only 2 senators per Territory, it was probably so that multiple parties can win a seat, rather than making them like a regular house of reps seat. As for why it's only 2, largely because the states were very unhappy with any senate seats at all, and so it was a bit of a compromise.
Im a dyed in the wool centre right voter but glad our democracy is somewhat civil and our AEC makes it very easy to vote unlike some jurisdictions. We all hate our pollies but i believe most of them on both sides are genuinely good and qualified people. We can disagree on policies but most of the time we are governed well and there is unity on important issues such as vaccines, defence, gun laws, foreign policy etc unlike say UK US where many things are politicised for its own sake.
Because Scott Morrison was more interested in trying to provoke a war with China than fixing problems within Australia. Solomon Islands' political realignment was a wakeup call.
" "'Entirely inappropriate': Albanese government 'rejects' all of Beijing's demands" -right after Albanese meets with The Quad. Whoops, there goes your narrative. It's business as usual. The Alexei Sayle rule of democratic change.
Yeah, definitely. The last thing we need is for a PM to open that can of worms again. We don't want to get in the middle of some US-China squabble. (though unfortunately Albanese's first move is going to the quad where several larger countries are going to tell him to do just that)
@@zerokelvinkeyboard1012 We don't have the power or industry to do any different. The US provides weapons, intel, training, logistics... all of which we could never afford. Also ugurs are basically in another holocaust, do we not have a moral responsibility to call it out?
It ain’t a celebration. Kind of have to hope labor aren’t going to be retarded and they start getting ready for the economic crisis that seems imminent rather than increasing spending to get their policy going.
One may say that Preferential voting disadvantages smaller parties. But it's nowhere near bad as First Past the Post in the UK, US, and Canada where voting for smaller parties and independents will actually give the advantage to the party that you don't want in parliament. There's no such thing as wasted votes or tactical voting in Australia.
I subscribed to Nebula because I want to support any worker-owned enterprise. However, I end up watching you on YT, where I block ads. Nebula lacks comments, and the exclusive content is still a bit lackluster. I was very interested in the courses, but I discovered I need to pay extra for those.
The Australian House of Representatives is the Executive Chamber because it is where the Government is formed & unlike the Senate can introduce executive Bills like budgets & declare War like a president.
Frankly, Australia has had me worried these last few years. I saw more and more authoritarian/illiberal measures taken and a decisive bias in favour of corporate wealth. We will see if anything changes for the better.
@@rhyshain7629I mean he didn't do all of these alone but was primarily responsible for most, so here are some examples: - allowing the sale of the port of Darwin to a Chinese state-owned company, then turning around and claiming their holdings in Australia makes China a national security risk - Slashing funding for fire services, then going on holiday once the country burns - dropping Australia down to the worst climate policy of any developed nation - falling from skandinavian levels of corruption to South American ones. - 40 billion in covid bailouts for corporations that simply did not need it - Porkbarreling natural disaster victims - Refusing to distance himself from Hilsong Church after it became public that they covered up sexual abuse in their institutions - allowing staffers and MPs to hire prostitutes and have intercourse with them in the parliament building, including the prayer room - not investigating sexual harassment of parliament staff until it became public, then also persecuting the whistleblower - persecuting whistleblowers in general - refusing to make sure Julian Assange gets treated fairly by UK and US courts, let alone freed despite him being an Australian citizen - campaigning against establishing an ICAC while slashing funding for existing corruption watchdogs - campaigning against a royal commission into NewsCorp and their direct ties to the government - campaigning for invasive surveillance laws and limits on freedom of speech/criticism by pretending it's needed to protect against online trolling Those are just the examples I can immediately think off. Not really the kind of track record I'd vote for bot to each their own.
I think for most Aussies it’s to do with the ‘Pendulum Swing’ moving the country back to the Centre after having a Centre Right government for a Decade
LNP as a governing coalition haven't been "centre right" if you actually put their polices on the political axis, they're quite to the right. ALP is properly centrist, barely even leftist. Greens are far, far left.
It’s happens every decade. We’re a liberal country (liberal as in the American definition, because that’s what the LNP says it is) we stick with the libs for a long while, then we give labor a shot, usually there’s a bunch of scandals and then we go back to the government that says it won’t raise taxes (but does anyways lmao)
The federal government made a mess of vaccine purchasing, quarantine and aged care (the bulk of deaths occurred in aged care facilities). You can't blame the states when they implemented lockdowns often against the wishes of the federal government. In fact, the swing against the LNP in WA is a direct result of attempted federal interference in their quarantine arrangements.
Youre saying that because youre young. Coalitions covid management was better than most governments. Nsw libs had a let it rip approach while Vic was a lot more tougher on covid - yet both had similar lockdown times when Delta hit. Bushfires are a natural disaster which cant be blamed on ScoMo. I accept his hands of approach re vaccines was a mistake as well as not building quarantine facilities. They shouldve been more ambitious on climate policy too.
Yikes, you've really botched some of these explanations. You presented two party preferred data which assumes preference distributions of the overall vote and doesn't ask about minor parties, then assumed that made minor parties negligible. It doesn't. Of the 76 Senators, 9 were already Greens, which was substantial representation and roughly matches their overall 12% vote share nationwide. This election has increased that to most likely 12 seats. Overall, there were 15/76 Senators and 8/151 MPs who were not from the major parties. Like most European democracies, this effectively means final say on the laws in Australia is achieved through negotiations between parties. The Teal Independents are MPs, what's expected now looks like 4 Greens MPs, up from 1, 6 new Teal Independents, another local Independent on the Centre Left, and the rest gains for Labor, with a total of 20 seats changing hands so far and 3 still too close to call. So far at least 16/151 MPs are from minor parties in the Lower House. In the Senate, the most likely outcome is 31 LNP (Coalition), 28 Labor , 12 Greens, 2 One Nation and 3 relative Independents ( 2 Jacqui Lambie Network, 1 David Pocock ). Jacqui Lambie is a minor party of her own now after winning a Senate seat based on Tasmanian preferences and earning a reputation for representing lower class ordinary Australians. You correctly identified most Australians vote against Scott Morrison (ScoMo), not for Anthony Albanese (Albo). The other key factor you missed is the massive postal vote, which meant the leadup week to the election was meaningless to millions of Australian voters and those votes have skewed progressive as another form of protest against a Conservative government. They avoided pitches from both ScoMo and Albo. In the words of one former Conservative Executive member "We stuffed up, we forgot that we can't turn people Conservative when they don't have anything to conserve." referring to policies targeting first home buyers which failed utterly with younger voters. No, Labor won't change the Coal mining industry much, the mining lobby donates massively to both sides of politics. Labor is the party of the Unions and that means the CFMEU - Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. Instead, look for Australia to close coal fired power plants and push to build more solar and renewables while still exporting Coal, Natural Gas, and Uranium. Possibly an expansion of the national science institute CSIRO to particularly focus on developing new renewable tech.
As someone from Australia's neighbour on its north it might be going to very refreshing to see new party rule the country. But still its going to make us jitters because its been well known by us that if a 'not so sane' person elected as PM, he/she can easily torn down all the signed agreements and existed policies in one swoop and causing unessecary tension between Australia and its gigantic neighbour.
So far the labor government has done pretty well by most Australians. A small pay rise to help with inflation. Most people I know of don’t mind small tax increases if it means that dental will be added to medi-care (free health care).
Honestly labour outplayed the coalition very hard this election, opinions aside it’s just a fact. The coalition was fighting a 3 front war against a more popular party, they never stood a chance
Totally wrong. The "Coal ition" and Rupert Murdoch did every thig possible to stop labour. The protest vote was split three ways making it more difficult for Labour.
Please do more videos on Australian politics, it's incredibly interesting stuff One of the strangest things about this election is how the Coalition lost so many seats, mostly to more moderate candidates due to an unlikable leader and they're about to elect a new leader who is less likeable and more conservative
Thanks for the video! It’s quite informative and manages to cover all the basics. It is worth noting that preferential voting is comparatively less majoritarian than first-past-the post though
Very true; it fixes the issue of votes being "lost" as is often seen in FPTP, but it does nevertheless still end up concentrating many of these votes in favour of the larger parties. Not perfect but certainly an improvement.
My main actual criticism with preferences is that barely anyone truly understands how revolutionary it is. People who pick the party they think will win as 1st preference is wasting their vote. Also our education system doesn't even teach us how our political system works which I believe would be a great way to deconstruct this problem, hopefully meaning less apathetic voters, which is also a major problem.
@@captain-chair It's not that simple. You can vote green hoping to steer labour to the left right up until oops, your green guy gets elected and it was a bit more than you intended. You have to have a fairly good understanding of how close the race might be before using it as a steering mechanism.
2:57 Does not favor smaller parties? It's exactly systems like this that make it more likely for a small party to suceed because people can actually vote how they feel without having the fear that their votre will be a spoiler vote.
There system is basically like AV, it's not as good for smaller parties as PR would be not by a long way, but it is slightly easier for smaller parties to win seats under AV than under FPtP as it allows for honest voting. Also, you don't rank all the candidates, you rank all but one since it doesn't matter who you rank last, they could never get that vote.
You should have covered the almost total rejection of the fringe right wing parties, such as United Australia & One Nation. The Coalition suffered an unprecedented collapse in heartland territories and because of preferential voting, voters could send a warning to Labor not to be complacent, while still electing them. Anyone interested in learning more about the system should check our Auspol Explained channel, the presenter can be a bit annoying, but he knows his stuff & presents it in an easily understandable manner.
This system is a really good thing for smaller parties that have the potential to actually have a majority in a constituency, but would otherwise struggle to gain traction for fear of vote splitting. It's just that Australians historically haven't understood how it works.
Australia’s two party system is more to do with the media and culture than the electoral process. The electoral process is actually much fairer to minor parties than the uk and us systems.
We had three of the coldest summers on record in NSW and almost an entire year without a day reaching 30C in Sydney, which hasn’t happened for almost 100 years. How are we suffering heatwaves?
Also, the fact that Pauline Hanson nearly lost her Senate seat to a candidate from the Legalise Cannabis party is hilarious to me (no, seriously, legalise it).
Aussie system gives Minor Parties a great chance of influencing govt policies, there is nothing preventing a future party replacing either major party. Our system is far from complex and unlike in UK your vote is never wasted if vote for independent or minor party, Greens and Labor often have agreement to put each other as number 2 on voting card.
STV and preferential voting is so much better than FPTP and its not difficult to understand. The only reason any countries have fptp still is because the pollies in power are scared they'd have competition from people who actually represent their electorate
A big point is that the Senate is split, so that the Labor party need the Greens and an ecologically minded independent Senator to pass legislation. That will mean a stronger push to climate action.
Slight improvement tip, you should crop the image a little bit closer, it's slightly annoying to see the hands move in and out of the frame all the time. Otherwise, keep up the awesome work TLDR!
this was SO ridiculously light when it came to a proper description of the 2 main party leaders. You also didn't talk about the conservatives, the religious discrimination bill, the transphobic Liberal candidate (who somehow made a connection with the holocaust... I just.. yeah). Morrison himself is a pentecostal Christan, which is... err, not something we're particularly used to. Certainly not in a Prime Minister (Abbott was Catholic, not pentecostal, and yeah he was batshit crazy too). We're just not really a hyper-religious country (especially in the progressive urban areas, like Melbourne for example (where I live). Scott Morrison also known as 'Scomo' also known as 'Scott from marketing' (seriously, it's such a good nickname) put his unexpected previous election win down to a miracle (seriously a miracle, no water into wine stuff, he just won an election... he clearly has a low bar on miracles). Most Australian's aren't used to a tight relationship between religion and politics. I don't particularly like Albo, but far-out Labor is better than the tories. I consider myself a centrist (prob one of the few left of my generation) and see bullshit on the left and bullshit on the right. My only issue with the teal candidates is that Dutton will now be the leader of the conservatives which is... just not good for rational thinking (already in low supply). The liberals will move further to the left. The moderates of the libs will be left out and maybe the teal's will become a permanent thing? I think that would be a good think. I don't like minority governments, but I like the 2 major parties thinking they have to really deliver to earn the vote of us aussies. Anyway, that's my take.
I love all the STV fanboys in the comments saying its better than FPTP. They're strawmanning TLDR who are clearly more in favor of proportional representation systems. PR is actually fair to small parties, unlike STV which only helps medium sized parties in FPTP.
Mate while I appreciate the video, it’s clear you’ve only grazed the bare minimum of surface knowledge, of which has been obscured by biased media conglomerates
Just the tip of the iceberg. You've got to wonder if he ever listened to his PR team (or maybe they were just incompetent). It's no wonder he got the moniker Scotty from Marketing.
Important to know that Scott Morrison was extremely unpopular in the populous cities, which helped labor win as the populous cities have a lot of seats. Also the preferential system is not that complicated, you literally explained the whole thing.
I have a subscription to Nebula, but I don't watch there because I can't click a like button nor can I start a discussion or contribute to one. It's also difficult to find new stuff on there so I often forget to use it..
Same, I ended up giving up and cancelling. None of the 'extra' content over there needed to be exclusive to avoid demonetisation for any channels I watched, despite LegalEagle's claims of such.
I am very sorry as I love watching your vids, but this is probably the most mistakes filled video I seen from you Which is very sad as the only major news outlets in Australia are incredibly bias against the Labor Party and have strong influence over the nation
It is not annoying complex at all. You literally put each candidate in order of your choosing based on who you want to represent you. It make sure your preference is know without having multiple run off elections every two weeks to decide close contest. It also means you can't waste your vote as you second or third preference is usually likely to get up.
Yeah but the seats parts is dumb
Came here to say the same thing. A ranked ballot neither sounds, nor is, especially complicated IMO.
@@sebastiandevida4685 assuming you're talking about it being split into electorates and a single seat per electorate, yes and no. It's less representative than proportional voting (which is why having the upper house have that system is good) but having a local mp (if they do their job properly) can help get more local concerns government attention they may need, even if it doesn't make it to the news. There's ups and downs.
maybe it is confusing to English people who are used to putting one tick? (for reference I am British Citizen, now dual citizen who just voted in their first election)
Also it took me a (embarrassing) long time to work out what above and below the line voting was, its not complicated just obtuse
The voting and election process isn't complex. Its the governance and way the government operates with respect to the senate that's complicated
Preferential voting is GOOD for small parties, it eliminates the spoiler effect so people can feel free to vote how they like rather than having to vote tactically.
Job god
some criticisms:
1. The coalition actually did very poorly during the pandemic. most of the successes were actually the result of state government actions and the federal government mostly did nothing, which repeatedly caused problems
2. you forgot to mention the extra 2 (possible 3) seats that the greens won in the house of representatives, which is by far their most succesful election ever, but i understand there's only so much time per video.
3. it was actually 7 teal independents not 5.
4. a very important piece of Australian Politics that simply _must_ be mentioned in discussions of it is our media. It's not state owned aside from two independent public broadcasters, but most media in Australia is concetrated into the hand of only two conglomerates: news corp. and fairfax-nine (though fairfax-nine is more moderate). Both of these groups favour the coalition and therefore skew every election. there's a growing movement for a royal commission into media diversity because of this.
Was just about to type the same thing, thanks brother.
So the media in Australia is owned by right wing entities… that doesn’t happen only in Australia, trust me. Everyone knows how powerful the media is in a democracy, yet no one bothers to look who owns our media. Right wing billionaires like Murdoch have more political power than any voter or politician unfortunately.
On the subject of the media's influence on the recent election, I feel it needs to be pointed out that they suppressed the reports that the smaller parties were doing well in the early polling period until after the polls had closed, indirectly reducing the number of votes for smaller parties and independents due to the perceived need for tactical voting.
Edit: Upon double checking my sources, they did not report on the exit polling from early voting centres. Exit polling is not representative but this can have an effect.
As an Aussie I agree with everything this man has to say
Interesting, Australian media is dominated by right wing owners while American media is dominated by left wing owners. UK is the best.
To clarify, the “teal” independents are kind of a half way point between the big Liberal and Labor parties. They retain the fiscally conservative views, hence why they targeted mainly Liberal heartland seats in Eastern Melbourne (Kooyong, Goldstein) and Inner Sydney (Warringah, Wentworth), but are also significantly more socially progressive on issues such as climate change and corruption (Greens-ish), hence the ‘teal’ analogy.
The first sentence isn’t really true at all. They’re more like a combination of the greens and the liberals. Very socially progressive and strong on climate but as you said fiscally conservative
That's called being a
Libertarian
They are usually Yellow in colour
@@MoodyGooseCow Nah there not Greens or Labor. There moderate small l Liberals. Who are annoyed at the party not doing enough on climate change women corruption amongst other issues.
@@philoslother4602 no they're just boomers from rural areas.
@@philoslother4602 except Libertarians usually believe a lot of other things, as it is an entire ideology, so can’t really be broken down on simplistic terms like “conservative” or “liberal”
I’m sure they are aware of Libertarianism, despite it being literally the least popular ideology, and I’m sure they have their reasons for not identifying themselves that way. Perhaps even they maintain a knowledge of what the word Libertarian actual has mean throughout all over history until the 1970s, left-wing anarchism.
Perhaps they aren’t obsessed with drinking unpasteurized milk or using right wing politics as a cover for their Christian nationalism, and so chose to market themselves in a different way as to not attract “Libertarians”.
I can tell you that “Libertarians” are not going to like the climate change angle of the Teals, so….yeah. Not really “libertarian” in any sense.
the simplistic inverse, center-left on economics and center-right on social issue is much more common btw, and would usually be called “Christian Democratic”, at least in Europe.
Australia's preferential (AKA "rank-choice voting") system is far more amenable to the emergence of new parties than the 1st-past-the-post nonsense that blights the UK. In the state of Tasmania, where the lower house has multi-member (5) electorates, there's still a 2-party contest, with the Green party picking up the odd balance-of-power, occasionally. Point being the 2-party dominance is cultural, not cemented by the voting system.
This however is changing. Labor won the election with less than 1/3 of the total popular vote, winning many of its seats by allocation of preferences - often from Green voters. Both Labor's and Liberal-National primary vote share is shrinking year-on-year, and we may be seeing the entrenchment of either the Greens, or green-minded independents, holding the balance of power for years to come.
Yes, I agree it's not considerable just like a simple majoritarian system: in my opinion it should allow the formation of a multy-party system
I asume he's comparing it to a simple voting system based on the popular vote: Everyone gets one vote, every party gets seats in accordance to the percentage they get.
The preference system is extremely powerful. And empowering to minor parties. Our democracy is better for it.
If the UK had STV for national elections, we'd likely have a multi-party system by the time things settled over a few cycles. The parties are already there plus the 2 main parties would likely facture or see their support reduced.
We already use it for regional assemblies and local council elections in Scotland and N Ireland. Those often feature coalition governments. My local council is SNP-Labour coalition although Conservatives won the most seats for a single party.
prefential voting is okay for medium sized parties, but undemocratic and unfair to small parties compared to proportional representation. that was the point being made here
You guys missed a significant amount of nuance in this video. You also completely misrepresented our electoral system as bad for the minor parties. The only reason Minor parties get that much of the primary vote is because people aren't worried about wasting their vote, like they would be in a "first past the post" system, leading to minor parties actually gaining seats. Prime example being the Teal independents and the Greens winning so many seats in the recent election.
Also left out the fact there were literally hundreds of Chinese "donators" and "supporters" with sh1t eating grins across their faces knowing they just conquered Australia without a single shot being fired simply by paying off and buying real estate and cars with laundered money from China.
Agreed most of my 20s I voted green because I wanted labour to move more to the left. But if I had to choose FPTP would have gone labour. The greens have been a powerful force for progressives. And preferential voting empowers voters to send a message without wasting their vote.
Why is the comparison always to FPTP instead of proportional representation? Labor got less than 1/3 of the primary vote and will have more than 1/2 of the seats where as the Greens got 12+% of the primary vote and at best 2.5% of the seats. The system IS bad for minor parties
@@TzarLatok Ok I understand where you are coming from however it is hardly inhernetly unfair.
Firstly the senate exists specifically as a house to provide a representative chamber for entire states; now while it is true the six seats per state rule (this might warrant being increased) does limit minors to require practically 10% of the vote to have a chance (after preferences get distributed) for a seat overall if you look at the senate there is a relatively close representation of federal votes in the senate's composition. (e.g. the greens got 12/76 seats which is actually an overrepresentation and allows them to be the deciding factor in legislation).
In regards to the house of representatives it isnt fair to compare that to proportional representation results as the house of representatives operates fundamentally as a collection of local representatives. I have gripes with the system for sure however to say that proportional is simply superior is unfair since at least this system means you can have smaller electorates to ensure as many areas as possible have a local representative (which is elected by preferential voting so will be the most preferred candidate of a majority of the electorate).
I also understand some proportional systems assign local areas with multiple representatives on a council however that is hardly much superior as I'm going to presume in that system even if the minor party got a seat they would still be unable to do anything for the region since they are a small minority and depending on the number of council positions would still need to meet a large threshold.
@@TzarLatok Because the only reason the greens got 12% of the vote to begin with is because people felt like they had the option to vote for the greens without wasting their vote, otherwise most of that 12% probably would have begrudgingly voted labor as their only option.
This is the same reason labor won so many seats with only 1/3rd the vote, because all of the people who would have begrudgingly voted labor didn't have to. They could vote greens and be guaranteed their vote went to labor if the greens didn't get in.
It works for both the liberals, like last election where the UAP preferences scraped them over the line to a majority government, and labor like in this current election.
It guarantees people get their say regardless of their views. And it also secures minor parties more funding for the next election if they get a certain percentage of the vote.
STV is far better than FPTP, as it allows a better version of a major party to easily replace the major party candidate without splitting the vote. (Which is exactly why the teals were so successful). It ensures that the candidate wanted by the Majority of people is elected.
It's a very good thing for minor parties.
It's not that complicated.
Which is why so many countries resist using it. I think it was invented in the UK and we only use it for local elections in Scotland and N Ireland. I think N.I uses it for their assembly elections. Meanwhile our general elections are still single member district first past the post.
STV is the term used for elections in multi-member districts, eg. Australian Senate and is a form of proportional representation. The teal independents won in the House of Reps which uses Instant-runoff (single member districts) and is only slightly better than FPTP. There are proportional representation systems that can be used while maintaining single-member districts for the House like MMP used in New Zealand
Proportional Representation is the actual good system for smaller parties, that's what the video was commenting. STV is better for medium sized parties.
@@Masaru_kun Still better than FPTP which made the comment a bit weird
@@MartinOlminkhof Dude what's weirdest is that people keep bringing up FPTP just because the presenter is british. He never mentioned FPTP... STV might be marginally better than FPTP, but PR is way more democratic than either, and is the gold standard for electoral systems in Europe. So maybe the video worded things weirdly, but it's definitely the commenters bringing up FPTP out of nowhere who are the weirdest.
You know, I started watching this channel because you gave an excellent high-level overview of how the Dutch electoral system worked. To turn around and explain the Australian system so poorly is mystifying and makes me wonder what kind of behind-the-scenes changes have happened with your writers.
I think their headass take on stv might lead to an unsub
Not sure if it’s “the end” for the right but voters certainly wanted a recalibration with more moderate representation.
Oh, and as an Aussie, I don’t think it’s “annoyingly complicated” @1:21. On the contrary, I think “first past the post” is annoyingly simplistic.
Annoyingly simplistic or remarkably undemocratic or probably more accurately both
You kinda need a voting system that _doesn't_ produce a two-party system, though. What's the point of all that complexity if it produces the same bad result?
Agreed
@@Tzizenorec due to the number and power of minor parties as well as our system having two houses, control of both is very rare.
We have two main parties, but minor parties have quite a bit of legislative power.
The end of this the end of that. I really hate those headlines.
STV doesn't really disadvantage smaller parties, it actually encourages them to run, as none of their votes ever get wasted like under a FPTP system. Also these smaller parties thrive in the Senate election, which is why we get so many contesting parties
The single-winner system is still relatively bad for small parties, but yes, hearing a brit saying that when their system is oh so much worse is... weird.
@@matejlieskovsky9625 Yeah it was kind of weird, even as a brit knowing that literally any proportional voting system is better than what we have, but maybe they're just advocating for STV as the voting system for all electoral bodies, which I personally would very much agree with
Their upper chamber using STV is awesome. The lower chamber is still just single member constituencies. The fact those use ranked choice voting is better than first past the post as it avoids plurality winners within that district. It's only a marginal improvement though. You need to go all the way and use multi-member districts with it to really get a more proportional result.
Why is Tux hanging himself?
When someone says "worse", it's important to ask "worse than what".
Mind you, Australia's use of IRV for elections is still fairer than FPTP as used in the UK, as there's no concept of a wasted vote.
We had a referendum on IRV and we rejected it sadly. We use STV for local elections in Scotland, assembly elections in N Ireland. England and Welsh councils can adopt STV if they wish now. Scottish, Welsh and London assemblies use MMP. The House of Lords uses IRV to elect some of their own peers. The former European Parliament elections used regional party list.
It's just the most important general election remains first past the post. It's sad as we used some multi-member districts in the past but they got abolished.
Even single member IRV would still shift some seats away from the dominant party. That could be a stepping stone to using STV if a coalition partner got enough leverage. It wouldn't be a big jump if they already used IRV.
The problem with Mr Morrison is, he talked more than acted. State, not federal government, took all the responsibilities. And moreover, he didn't know a damn about dealing in foreign policies.
It's great to wake up each morning to no longer hear another announcement that you knew would never be acted upon.
You kinda phrase the teals as more left wing then labour, when they're just Liberals (hence teal, somewhat off blue) that are more environmentally conscious and anti-misogynist. IIRC I'm just a Kiwi who learnt all of this in the last week.
The teals are also in the richest seats in the country.
I feel the best comparison would be the UK Liberal Democrats winning seats in safe Tory seats.
Greens = Everyone on the electric bus. Teals : Poor people on the electric buy while I drive my Tesla ;-)
The teals are centre left. One of the candidates opposes offshore processing (Monique Ryan) which is to the left of Labor. They will oppost leftist taxation policies to be in line with their rich voters i accept that. But the background of them are centre left (abc journo, former alp member etc). Only Zali Steggall can genuinely say shes an ex Liberal, maybe Sophie Scamps (dont know too much about her).
@@Ineluki_Myonrashi my aunt says they are just liberals with an environmentalist label, so she didn’t vote for them. She voted for labour instead. And I voted for James Bond and Mr Anderson for the lols.
The idea that preferential voting disadvantages small parties is BS when compared to first-past-the-post used in the UK and many other places. Certainly it's not as advantageous as proportion voting, but it sounds a bit rich coming out of the mouth of a Brit
Out of the mouth of a Brit on a channel covering global politics where proportional representation is actually quite common, especially in Europe and South America.
The only British people who don't dislike the voting system in Britain are conservatives and the few hundred Labour MPs who'd be out a job if we changed to a fairer system
Key: "When compared to first past the post"
They have also been critical of first past the post for doing this. Both can be bad at it.
Nice to see our election covered. Hopefully, if you do a follow up, you take on board some of the comments of others below who have eloquently pointed out some of the nuances and inaccuracies. With a little extra research this could have been a brilliant video.
What I found most interesting about this election was how much changed from just ordinary people genuinely wanting better for their country. Voters rejected even many senior members who and candidates who were parachuted into “safe seats.” And The Teal independents aren’t some rich group of people trying to sway political opinion but normal members of their communities who want to see better and more transparent government.
I’m so surprised this isn’t the same sort of thing happening in other modernized nations. Instead of flocking to leaders who want to divide, Australians looked to grassroots leaders who have nothing to gain but to make sure the government is held to account and actually takes action, especially on the climate. The decisions of the Australian electorate should be seen as a model of what we as the public should looking to do. Put the establishment on their toes and don’t let them expect anything as a given.
As others have mentioned, preferential voting is actually good for minor parties. It means if 2 progressive parties run against 1 Conservative party, they don’t ‘split the vote’ (this would also happen if you had 2 conservative parties against 1 progressive party). In the UK’s FPTP system, if the Greens had 29%, Labor had 31% and the Conservatives had 40%, the conservatives would win despite the population clearly wanting a more progressive candidate. If the same senecio occurred in Australia’s preferential voting system, Labor would win as most of the Greens votes would likely preference Labor where they would win >50% of the vote after preferences. At the recent Australian election, the Greens have actually won at least one seat from the Liberals (Conservatives) because Labor votes preferenced them enough to get them to >50% of the vote.
So preferential voting is good for minor parties, but what is bad for minor parties is single member districts which both the UK and Australia uses in the lower house. If a minor party had 20% of the vote across every seat in the country, they would likely win 0 seats, but if you had 5 members in each district/electorate, that minor party would win 1 member in every district/electorate which would provide more proportionate representation.
The other issue with single member districts is that once it is considered a ‘safe seat’ no one usually pays any attention to it as the party that holds it thinks they can’t lose it and other parties think they can’t win it. Under a multi-member system a change in votes by a few % means a party may win or lose a seat, this means every electorate matters at election time. I think this is an important point, however it is worth mentioning that the recent Australian election has definitely proven that ‘safe seats’ can be taken even in single member systems, and that’s when they start getting more attention paid to it. This is great for those seats that have a high quality challenger, but having multi-member districts would make these electorates important even when a high quality challenger is not present.
Anyway, multi-member districts could work well, but I am happy that I live in a country (Australia) that at least uses preferential voting!
You know someone has no idea what they're talking about when they use terms like "left" and "right" for Australia. Or anything in general.
On point 👌
As someone who loves watching tldr news and is really into aus politics, this was a strange watch
Wasn't very accurate I think. Made a few good points but clearly doesn't understand what the teal independents actually are or how preferential voting is more representative than fptp.
@@jasparcowley-grimmond91 Expecting a Brit to understand non-FPTP voting is like asking them to remain sober for a year.
This election is unprecedented for Australia, it's the biggest shift in Aussie politics in 50 years, and here is why:
Yes, Labor have won government from opposition, only the 4th time since WII. BUT the primary vote of the major parties was the lowest in A CENTURY. The Greens have now become by far the most successful third party SINCE WW2 (essentially, since the two party system began to form). The teals winning is also unprecedented - we've NEVER had 6 independents enter parliament all at once, and this is the largest lower house crossbench EVER. The previous record was 6, we now have 15 or so crossbenchers. Also the seats the teals and greens won ... were mostly won from the coalition. They were not the kind of "flip floppy" seats that typically change hands between Labor and the Coalition. These were heartland Liberal seats, many of which had been Liberal for decades, in one case it had been Liberal for 110 years, almost since the creation of Australia.
Also regarding the Greens, their primary vote is now so high in many seats that without preferences from the Greens, Labor simply would not have won at all. Labor would have 40 seats instead of 70-something.
This also means internally, the moderate faction of the Liberal Party have been nearly wiped out. The only remaining factions with weight, are the hard right, and conservative christians. And of course there is the Nationals. The Liberal Party is now facing a fundamental identity crisis - does it try to somehow win back seats from the teals (unlikely to work, independents in Australia are usually very hard to unseat) or does it go further right wing ... and become unelectable for a long, long time?
Basically, it looks like Australia's two party system has broken.
This is easily the biggest shift in Australian politics in many decades.
Also, as someone else said - the teals are socially progressive but fiscally conservative. They would have been moderate Liberals. Except the Liberal Party was viewed as hostile to women and climate issues. So they ran as independents.
Ahh yes "hostile to women". Totally not suspicious at all. Why do I always find stuff like that hard to believe?
Something that I've never understood btw is this. How in the world has Liberal shifted right to any significant degree? And would you say that Labor has shifted left?
@@tylerbozinovski427 I would say Labor shifted from the left to the center. In 2019 they were promising more reform, this election they promised less.
The Coalition was 70% male MPs. During their time in government we had 3 different ministers all cheating on their wives. One of those (Alan Tudge) has been accused of hitting his mistress. Another one (Barnaby Joyce) got his staffer pregnant. There was also photos of a Liberal staffer wanking on a female MPs desk. And a young woman Liberal staffer (Brittany Higgins) was allegedly raped in Parliament House. Oh and Christian Porter was accused of rape and resigned. Oh and a Liberal staffer Frank Zumbo got an AVO against him for touching young women staffers. And there was 4 Coalition MPs and staffers, who had a male prostitute in the Parliament prayer room.
This is spot on, there are 7 independents who have probably taken seats from the coalition for decades and they're planning to elect a less likeable and further right candidate, not sure how they can come back from this, especially once a federal ICAC has been set up to investigate any corruption in their 9 years in power
Labor had the highest primary vote with at least 67 seats (not 40). Coalition with 65. Would have been a minority government with FPTP.
@@garyking508 No. The coalition got more primary votes (albeit by not that much). Labor just got a bunch of votes from the Greens.
4:58 CORRECTION: The "Teal" candidates are to the right of Labor. They fill the gap left by the Liberals moving further to the right. The Teal candidates are generally economically conservative, socially progressive, and generally pro-environment.
they're just moderate liberals who aren't captured by conservatives
@@bucket6386 Exactly
They’re almost what the Democrats used to be
(For those that don’t know/don’t remember: Australia used to have a 4th significant party called the Democrats who were basically centre-centre. But this was in a time when the Greens were WAY more Left, and Labor and Liberals were truly centre-left and centre-right)
liberals have moved much further to the left I recent times. they definitely not moved to the right in recent times
@@deaconmacdonald2570 I would say the advent of the Teals says otherwise.
Some extra info regarding the Senate election that has only been brushed upon here; regardless whether or not Labor can get a majority in the House of Reps. they are definitely going to need the support of the Greens and other independents if they are going to pass laws through the Senate.
You said its harder for 3rd parties with preferential voting but I would say its easier than first past the post cause greens have managed to win based on being 2nd in the first prefernce then win in 2nd preference flow on? It also means even if you know your smaller party that cant win you can at least give them your first preference and 2nd preference the major party you'd rather have over the other. It also sends a message to your 2nd preference that you'd rather that minor party.
Teal independents aren't quite left of labour, they often lean right-wing on economics and sometimes social issues, but they tend to agree with the Greens when it comes to climate policy and sometimes other social issues. (Hence the teal, between the blue of the coalition and the green of the greens.) I personally don't like them, but it's important to point it out.
Basically, Labour is centrist through not really having a strong stance on anything, Teal independents end up in the centre due to holding a mix of positions that are considered left and right.
Spiral dynamics/ integral theory? I'm losing my mind with everyone reinventing the wheel and saying the wheel isn't real.
Labor is centre left not centrist, especially under Albanese, although some Labor members are more centrists
@@lordpolish2727 I'm not familiar with Albanese himself, early may is the first time I'd ever heard of him, but I am familiar with Labour doing jack shit the last time they were in charge, and they've even taken some anti-union actions in the past. Not to mention every actual leftist party also has better social policy than they do.
@@000Dragon50000 Labor are supported by the ACTU, they are 100% at least centre left
@@000Dragon50000 Labor made huge strides last time they were in power. They literally managed the economy so perfectly we completely avoided the GFC. They also introduced the NDIS and NBN both of which were immediately gutted by abbot and turnbulls govs.
So that people know, in Australia we faired so well in the heights of the Pandemic because the Federal Government under Scott Morrison abdicated all of their responsibilities to the states (even though it is consistently federal responsibility), and they were dragged kicking and screaming to do the wage subsidies, which was a Union Leader and Anthony Albanese’s idea - but Scott Morrison and the Treasurer added 0 transparency and gave over $40B away to companies that became more profitable during the pandemic and was some of their biggest donors. Good riddance that mob has been kicked out.
THIS
Yup, Scott "I don't hold a hose" Morrison.
It also looks like the coalition have learned absolutely nothing choosing lord voldermort as their leader
As an Aussie, I somewhat disagree with the Coalition being labelled as "Centre-right", at least in this election where their policies aligned much more closely with "Right-Wing" hence the surge of votes away from the Coalition towards much more progressive candidates.
Yeah. If the Coalition was actually centre right they might not have lost their heartland.
Australia looked like a prison during Covid lockdowns. Can Morrison be consider a real right wing politician after that?
@@joaquinescotoaleman4320 Yes, tax cuts for rich, opposed increase of minimum wage, business subsides, social funding cuts, pro religious discrimination, targets minorities(gay marriage, efugee, trans, Sudanese), pushing for war against China.
And the lesson they are apparently learning (I use that word liberally) from this election is that because they lost a bunch of 'moderates' to Greens, Teals, and Reds, they need to go even further right (starting with electing The Potato to Liberal leadership).
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
@@joaquinescotoaleman4320 No because the lockdowns were controlled by the state premiers and not the federal government. Also tbh when I was in lockdown in Sydney, it was actually kinda chill. Free to explore and do whatever, as long as you were at least double vaccinated and wearing a mask.
Climate change affects Australia a lot more than other countries, I think ppl were sick of the gov not caring
We can do fuck all about it. The only solution for australia is to move from coal exports to uranium exports and base our energy on nuclear, but that’s incredibly unpopular amongst the greens, 10% of labor’s vote.
@@luck3yp0rk93 or MAYBE just learn what South Australia has done and successfully achieve high usage of solar power. We even got to 100% solar power for a few days. Now the clown posse is out of power we have a chance to undo what their coal industry bribes have brought upon us.
@@luck3yp0rk93 well the Greens in Germany seem to be becoming a little more sensible on the matter, maybe the same will happen here.
@@PugkinSoup you have 8 years. Nuclear power plants for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane are basically essential if you want to meet 2030 targets.
After all, the Americans were saying we only have 12 years to live 3 years ago
@@somethinglikethat2176 that sentiment needs to be spread worldwide within the next couple years of we want to limit warming to less than 2°
Watching as an Australian with criticisms I'll edit in if any|
Edit: The Coalition did nothing in the Pandemic, other than hand it to the states and make things worse by giving billions to companies that didnt need it.
Edit 2: Gaffes aren't important, on either side. Veeeery scummy media tactics that are not important at all.
Edit 3: Our system, as people are getting more educated in it, is predicted to lessen the major parties' power by the next few elections. Not to the level of Europe, but much more than the USA.
Everyone seeing this, watch some of Friendlyjordies' videos. He is Labor biased, but he exposes a lot of corruption. If you want less bias, read some Independent Australia or Michael West Media. Have a good one everyone.
I wouldnt say friendlyjordies is Labor bias but he is anti Liberal, he has critiqued the Labor government in the past albeit less than the Libs.
As an aussie I 100% agree with this comment.
@@netzaltali the man IMO just parrots labor talking points.
“He is Labor biased” has to go down as one of the understatements of the century
I’m glad the two party system is weakening, 2 party systems and federations seem to not mix well. Only problem is it gives power to racists like the one nation party or ore-jackers like the uap, which are both glorified satellite parties to the liberals
You should have mention how the Coalition got blown out of all-but-one of their heartland inner city seat, and that remainder hung on by his fingernails.
Thanks for video on Australia!
Finally! The Thejuicemedia videos have had a real effect
The preferential system gives minor parties more of a chance, it’s the whole reason we have it. It’s not complex at all, you rank the person you want the most to represent you to the person the least. So the people have to rank a person who best suits them so if a majority like a candidate to represent their area (especially that’s not from the major party)- independents and minor parties. You have a much better chance running as an independent or minor party than first past the post
2 additional things about this electoral system: parties suffer when they win too big a majority and the honorable members lose discipline; and theoretically, if they are bad enough, they can lose all of their seats while only losing a small % of their vote.
3:19 correction, the state senate seats are 6 year terms, the 2 seats per Territory (act and nt) are 3 year terms
Why are the territory seats only 3 years?
@@theuglykwan
Because the coalition didn’t want the left to get to much power
@@theuglykwan since there are only 2 senators per Territory, it was probably so that multiple parties can win a seat, rather than making them like a regular house of reps seat. As for why it's only 2, largely because the states were very unhappy with any senate seats at all, and so it was a bit of a compromise.
@@archiereilly3137 no. The Territory senate seats were introduced under the Whitlam Labor government
@@JohnDoe-vt3vz The government that made modern Australia. Bloody legends.
Im a dyed in the wool centre right voter but glad our democracy is somewhat civil and our AEC makes it very easy to vote unlike some jurisdictions. We all hate our pollies but i believe most of them on both sides are genuinely good and qualified people. We can disagree on policies but most of the time we are governed well and there is unity on important issues such as vaccines, defence, gun laws, foreign policy etc unlike say UK US where many things are politicised for its own sake.
YES
Because Scott Morrison was more interested in trying to provoke a war with China than fixing problems within Australia. Solomon Islands' political realignment was a wakeup call.
"
"'Entirely inappropriate': Albanese government 'rejects' all of Beijing's demands"
-right after Albanese meets with The Quad.
Whoops, there goes your narrative. It's business as usual. The Alexei Sayle rule of democratic change.
Yeah, definitely.
The last thing we need is for a PM to open that can of worms again. We don't want to get in the middle of some US-China squabble.
(though unfortunately Albanese's first move is going to the quad where several larger countries are going to tell him to do just that)
How did he try to provoke a war?. All he did was ask for an inquiry into how covid started.
@@zerokelvinkeyboard1012 We don't have the power or industry to do any different. The US provides weapons, intel, training, logistics... all of which we could never afford.
Also ugurs are basically in another holocaust, do we not have a moral responsibility to call it out?
Wumao bot here
We need some more people overseas to learn more about Australian politics, good show TLDR!
We did it fellow Aussies!
Cheers to new PM Albo!
It ain’t a celebration. Kind of have to hope labor aren’t going to be retarded and they start getting ready for the economic crisis that seems imminent rather than increasing spending to get their policy going.
I was hoping for a video on this.
One may say that Preferential voting disadvantages smaller parties. But it's nowhere near bad as First Past the Post in the UK, US, and Canada where voting for smaller parties and independents will actually give the advantage to the party that you don't want in parliament. There's no such thing as wasted votes or tactical voting in Australia.
*cough cough one nation and uap*
@@PugkinSoup those are terrible parties but the informal vote count is higher than their vote counts in most electorates.
I subscribed to Nebula because I want to support any worker-owned enterprise.
However, I end up watching you on YT, where I block ads.
Nebula lacks comments, and the exclusive content is still a bit lackluster.
I was very interested in the courses, but I discovered I need to pay extra for those.
The Australian House of Representatives is the Executive Chamber because it is where the Government is formed & unlike the Senate can introduce executive Bills like budgets & declare War like a president.
Senators can also be members of the government.
10 Billion in subsidies
*fiscally conservative*
Yes, that makes total sense…
Just like Rupert Murdoch other puppets, Trump and Bozo Johnston.
Frankly, Australia has had me worried these last few years.
I saw more and more authoritarian/illiberal measures taken and a decisive bias in favour of corporate wealth.
We will see if anything changes for the better.
Oh cause the labour part in Western Australia locking out the rest of the country wasn’t authoritarian…
@@rhyshain7629 the main problem is because Scott Morrison has done many bad things.
@@1mol831 except for the times he did nothing at all...
@@1mol831 like?
@@rhyshain7629I mean he didn't do all of these alone but was primarily responsible for most, so here are some examples:
- allowing the sale of the port of Darwin to a Chinese state-owned company, then turning around and claiming their holdings in Australia makes China a national security risk
- Slashing funding for fire services, then going on holiday once the country burns
- dropping Australia down to the worst climate policy of any developed nation
- falling from skandinavian levels of corruption to South American ones.
- 40 billion in covid bailouts for corporations that simply did not need it
- Porkbarreling natural disaster victims
- Refusing to distance himself from Hilsong Church after it became public that they covered up sexual abuse in their institutions
- allowing staffers and MPs to hire prostitutes and have intercourse with them in the parliament building, including the prayer room
- not investigating sexual harassment of parliament staff until it became public, then also persecuting the whistleblower
- persecuting whistleblowers in general
- refusing to make sure Julian Assange gets treated fairly by UK and US courts, let alone freed despite him being an Australian citizen
- campaigning against establishing an ICAC while slashing funding for existing corruption watchdogs
- campaigning against a royal commission into NewsCorp and their direct ties to the government
- campaigning for invasive surveillance laws and limits on freedom of speech/criticism by pretending it's needed to protect against online trolling
Those are just the examples I can immediately think off. Not really the kind of track record I'd vote for bot to each their own.
I think for most Aussies it’s to do with the ‘Pendulum Swing’ moving the country back to the Centre after having a Centre Right government for a Decade
LNP as a governing coalition haven't been "centre right" if you actually put their polices on the political axis, they're quite to the right. ALP is properly centrist, barely even leftist. Greens are far, far left.
We could use a bit of that in the UK too. Well done if it works.
It’s happens every decade. We’re a liberal country (liberal as in the American definition, because that’s what the LNP says it is) we stick with the libs for a long while, then we give labor a shot, usually there’s a bunch of scandals and then we go back to the government that says it won’t raise taxes (but does anyways lmao)
A centre right govt that had moved further and further right.
id tend to agree. end of the day no one stays in government forever and eventually your time comes
Lol, never thought I'd hear someone say preferential voting disadvantages small parties... where on earth did you hear that?
scott morrison said it wasn't his job, and now it isn't :'(
The state governments were in charge of the COVID response not the federal government and that's why it wasn't terrible over all of Australia
The boarders are a federal responsibility however and those policies probably did a lot to limit covid in the first couple of years.
The federal government made a mess of vaccine purchasing, quarantine and aged care (the bulk of deaths occurred in aged care facilities).
You can't blame the states when they implemented lockdowns often against the wishes of the federal government.
In fact, the swing against the LNP in WA is a direct result of attempted federal interference in their quarantine arrangements.
So glad to have used my first vote as an adult to vote for Albo and labor. Scomo and the coalition was a disaster.
Hello fellow first time voter
I’m a first time voter too
Youre saying that because youre young. Coalitions covid management was better than most governments. Nsw libs had a let it rip approach while Vic was a lot more tougher on covid - yet both had similar lockdown times when Delta hit. Bushfires are a natural disaster which cant be blamed on ScoMo. I accept his hands of approach re vaccines was a mistake as well as not building quarantine facilities. They shouldve been more ambitious on climate policy too.
Good on ya mate. Hopefully Albo will do well.
@@rohanindra6401 nsw libs let it rip like it was ripped open about their premiers money scandals
YES thank you TLDR news for the Australia video, we are back on the world stage
Hate to say you butchered the new PM's name, Anthony (soft th) and Albanese (the first A like the first a in annal)
Yikes, you've really botched some of these explanations.
You presented two party preferred data which assumes preference distributions of the overall vote and doesn't ask about minor parties, then assumed that made minor parties negligible. It doesn't. Of the 76 Senators, 9 were already Greens, which was substantial representation and roughly matches their overall 12% vote share nationwide. This election has increased that to most likely 12 seats. Overall, there were 15/76 Senators and 8/151 MPs who were not from the major parties. Like most European democracies, this effectively means final say on the laws in Australia is achieved through negotiations between parties.
The Teal Independents are MPs, what's expected now looks like 4 Greens MPs, up from 1, 6 new Teal Independents, another local Independent on the Centre Left, and the rest gains for Labor, with a total of 20 seats changing hands so far and 3 still too close to call.
So far at least 16/151 MPs are from minor parties in the Lower House. In the Senate, the most likely outcome is 31 LNP (Coalition), 28 Labor , 12 Greens, 2 One Nation and 3 relative Independents ( 2 Jacqui Lambie Network, 1 David Pocock ). Jacqui Lambie is a minor party of her own now after winning a Senate seat based on Tasmanian preferences and earning a reputation for representing lower class ordinary Australians.
You correctly identified most Australians vote against Scott Morrison (ScoMo), not for Anthony Albanese (Albo).
The other key factor you missed is the massive postal vote, which meant the leadup week to the election was meaningless to millions of Australian voters and those votes have skewed progressive as another form of protest against a Conservative government. They avoided pitches from both ScoMo and Albo.
In the words of one former Conservative Executive member "We stuffed up, we forgot that we can't turn people Conservative when they don't have anything to conserve." referring to policies targeting first home buyers which failed utterly with younger voters.
No, Labor won't change the Coal mining industry much, the mining lobby donates massively to both sides of politics. Labor is the party of the Unions and that means the CFMEU - Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. Instead, look for Australia to close coal fired power plants and push to build more solar and renewables while still exporting Coal, Natural Gas, and Uranium. Possibly an expansion of the national science institute CSIRO to particularly focus on developing new renewable tech.
I'm Australian and I have to say, we don't do 'left' or 'right' that's petty to the core.
Its more like business or workers. Much different
We do use left and right.
As someone from Australia's neighbour on its north it might be going to very refreshing to see new party rule the country. But still its going to make us jitters because its been well known by us that if a 'not so sane' person elected as PM, he/she can easily torn down all the signed agreements and existed policies in one swoop and causing unessecary tension between Australia and its gigantic neighbour.
which neighbour? indonesia?
What's with the euphemism? You from Indonesia or china?
So far the labor government has done pretty well by most Australians. A small pay rise to help with inflation. Most people I know of don’t mind small tax increases if it means that dental will be added to medi-care (free health care).
Just a heads up RE Albo's name and it's pronunciation. It's Anthony (AN-thu-KNEE) Albanese (AL-buh-KNEE-SEE).
I feel like Curiosity Stream is not doing well. They keep lowering their prices and seem like they’re begging people to sign up.
TLDR you failed here, you need to do more research this is a very simplistic analysis of our election and electoral system
Fiscal rectitude my arse. These clowns have taken the countries debt from $200 billion to $1 trillion in ten years without a single balanced budget.
Scott Morrison: I'm gaff prone.
Boris Johnson: Hold my crate of prosecco.
3:05 That's why there's a senate, senate seats are elected on a state wide basis to catch "diffuse" choices.
I had been wondering if and when you would do a video covering this election. I myself have been observing Aussie politics
Thanks for the timer on your ad
Honestly labour outplayed the coalition very hard this election, opinions aside it’s just a fact. The coalition was fighting a 3 front war against a more popular party, they never stood a chance
Totally wrong. The "Coal ition" and Rupert Murdoch did every thig possible to stop labour. The protest vote was split three ways making it more difficult for Labour.
labor won less votes than in 2019
I just realized there's a wave thing that shows which parts were replayed the most and the dude knocking down that kid sticks out by a margin, LMAO xD
@friendlyjordies definitely made people more aware of "the liberal government" and how corrupt they were
Please do more videos on Australian politics, it's incredibly interesting stuff
One of the strangest things about this election is how the Coalition lost so many seats, mostly to more moderate candidates due to an unlikable leader and they're about to elect a new leader who is less likeable and more conservative
That's because the party's factional nature means that the MPs left aren't prepared to actually elect a good leader.
thank you so much for finally doing a video about this election!
@TLDR STV or Preferenial Voting is only complicated if your calculating it, its easier if your voting in it.
Glad the Aussies got rid of ScoMo.
Guys you need more sound dampening in the recording office, the echo is kinda strong :)
Thanks for the video! It’s quite informative and manages to cover all the basics. It is worth noting that preferential voting is comparatively less majoritarian than first-past-the post though
Very true; it fixes the issue of votes being "lost" as is often seen in FPTP, but it does nevertheless still end up concentrating many of these votes in favour of the larger parties. Not perfect but certainly an improvement.
with a profile picture like that i wouldn't even open my mouth
We've got a quite nice system between the differences in the upper & lower house.
My main actual criticism with preferences is that barely anyone truly understands how revolutionary it is.
People who pick the party they think will win as 1st preference is wasting their vote.
Also our education system doesn't even teach us how our political system works which I believe would be a great way to deconstruct this problem, hopefully meaning less apathetic voters, which is also a major problem.
@@captain-chair It's not that simple. You can vote green hoping to steer labour to the left right up until oops, your green guy gets elected and it was a bit more than you intended. You have to have a fairly good understanding of how close the race might be before using it as a steering mechanism.
Right. The Nebula price would be in USD… my poor brain always assuming CAD.
2:57 Does not favor smaller parties? It's exactly systems like this that make it more likely for a small party to suceed because people can actually vote how they feel without having the fear that their votre will be a spoiler vote.
There system is basically like AV, it's not as good for smaller parties as PR would be not by a long way, but it is slightly easier for smaller parties to win seats under AV than under FPtP as it allows for honest voting.
Also, you don't rank all the candidates, you rank all but one since it doesn't matter who you rank last, they could never get that vote.
Please do something about the echo in the recording area!!!
You should have covered the almost total rejection of the fringe right wing parties, such as United Australia & One Nation. The Coalition suffered an unprecedented collapse in heartland territories and because of preferential voting, voters could send a warning to Labor not to be complacent, while still electing them. Anyone interested in learning more about the system should check our Auspol Explained channel, the presenter can be a bit annoying, but he knows his stuff & presents it in an easily understandable manner.
I'm going now!
It's a great laugh that the legalise pot party was close to beating Pauline to a seat, and for all his money and bullshit Clive got nothing of note
This system is a really good thing for smaller parties that have the potential to actually have a majority in a constituency, but would otherwise struggle to gain traction for fear of vote splitting. It's just that Australians historically haven't understood how it works.
Australia’s two party system is more to do with the media and culture than the electoral process. The electoral process is actually much fairer to minor parties than the uk and us systems.
We had three of the coldest summers on record in NSW and almost an entire year without a day reaching 30C in Sydney, which hasn’t happened for almost 100 years. How are we suffering heatwaves?
Also, the fact that Pauline Hanson nearly lost her Senate seat to a candidate from the Legalise Cannabis party is hilarious to me (no, seriously, legalise it).
if that happened... fk me dead how good would that have been,
Blame clive palmer for that for dividing the right wing vote
The benches in the House of Representatives look way more comfortable than those in the House of Commons
Love your guys stuff and love when you talk about my country
Aussie system gives Minor Parties a great chance of influencing govt policies, there is nothing preventing a future party replacing either major party.
Our system is far from complex and unlike in UK your vote is never wasted if vote for independent or minor party, Greens and Labor often have agreement to put each other as number 2 on voting card.
STV and preferential voting is so much better than FPTP and its not difficult to understand.
The only reason any countries have fptp still is because the pollies in power are scared they'd have competition from people who actually represent their electorate
A big point is that the Senate is split, so that the Labor party need the Greens and an ecologically minded independent Senator to pass legislation. That will mean a stronger push to climate action.
Slight improvement tip, you should crop the image a little bit closer, it's slightly annoying to see the hands move in and out of the frame all the time. Otherwise, keep up the awesome work TLDR!
this was SO ridiculously light when it came to a proper description of the 2 main party leaders. You also didn't talk about the conservatives, the religious discrimination bill, the transphobic Liberal candidate (who somehow made a connection with the holocaust... I just.. yeah). Morrison himself is a pentecostal Christan, which is... err, not something we're particularly used to. Certainly not in a Prime Minister (Abbott was Catholic, not pentecostal, and yeah he was batshit crazy too). We're just not really a hyper-religious country (especially in the progressive urban areas, like Melbourne for example (where I live). Scott Morrison also known as 'Scomo' also known as 'Scott from marketing' (seriously, it's such a good nickname) put his unexpected previous election win down to a miracle (seriously a miracle, no water into wine stuff, he just won an election... he clearly has a low bar on miracles). Most Australian's aren't used to a tight relationship between religion and politics. I don't particularly like Albo, but far-out Labor is better than the tories. I consider myself a centrist (prob one of the few left of my generation) and see bullshit on the left and bullshit on the right. My only issue with the teal candidates is that Dutton will now be the leader of the conservatives which is... just not good for rational thinking (already in low supply). The liberals will move further to the left. The moderates of the libs will be left out and maybe the teal's will become a permanent thing? I think that would be a good think. I don't like minority governments, but I like the 2 major parties thinking they have to really deliver to earn the vote of us aussies. Anyway, that's my take.
Forget all the others, Slow-Mo is the most apt nickname that was given to him. Slow in everything.
Great video - very happy in Australia to have a fresh government.
Never saw it coming. That said, as a liberal I'm cheering.
I love all the STV fanboys in the comments saying its better than FPTP. They're strawmanning TLDR who are clearly more in favor of proportional representation systems. PR is actually fair to small parties, unlike STV which only helps medium sized parties in FPTP.
Mate while I appreciate the video, it’s clear you’ve only grazed the bare minimum of surface knowledge, of which has been obscured by biased media conglomerates
You've summarised Murdoch's view of the election well.
Dude. Just call it alternative vote or ranked choice voting and no it isn't bad for minor parties. Its better than fptp actually.
Scott Morrison also got the public off side when he went on a holiday to Hawaii during the worst bush fires Australia has ever had.
Just the tip of the iceberg. You've got to wonder if he ever listened to his PR team (or maybe they were just incompetent). It's no wonder he got the moniker Scotty from Marketing.
Important to know that Scott Morrison was extremely unpopular in the populous cities, which helped labor win as the populous cities have a lot of seats. Also the preferential system is not that complicated, you literally explained the whole thing.
Please export this system of government to America because they seem to need it to curb the power of the presidents.
Well we copied your homework with the Senate, so it's only fair that you can copy ours. 👍
I have a subscription to Nebula, but I don't watch there because I can't click a like button nor can I start a discussion or contribute to one. It's also difficult to find new stuff on there so I often forget to use it..
Same, I ended up giving up and cancelling. None of the 'extra' content over there needed to be exclusive to avoid demonetisation for any channels I watched, despite LegalEagle's claims of such.
I am very sorry as I love watching your vids, but this is probably the most mistakes filled video I seen from you
Which is very sad as the only major news outlets in Australia are incredibly bias against the Labor Party and have strong influence over the nation