|
在这个问题上的争论仍然在持续。朱丽雅吉拉德声称全国两党倾向性投票结果就是全国性投票，同时Tony Abbott则说，首选投票更重要。 那么谁说得对呢？ 这个问题的答案就是......吉拉德的说法正确。 我们的选举制度有点像法国等国家的两回合制，在那些国家的第一轮投票中，有很多候选人，但是两周后举行的第二轮投票只有两个候选对象。有时候就像这里一样，第一轮的领跑者，在第二轮同样获胜。 我们的方式与此类似，不过是在同一天举行，在同一张选票上。 所以， 答案是明确的。 Who won the national vote? Mumble Blog | August 24, 2010 The argument over legitimacy continues. Julia Gillard claims the national two party preferred vote is “the” vote, while Tony Abbot says the primary vote is more important. Who’s right? The answer to this question is ... ... easy: it’s Gillard. Our system of preferential voting is conceptually like the two round one in countries like France. There, a first vote is taken between lots of candidates. Then two weeks later another election is held between the only two viable candidates. Sometimes, as here, the runner up in the first vote wins the second one. We do something like that but on the same day, on the same piece of paper. So the answer to which is “the vote” is clear unless you want to pretend we have first past the post like Britain or America. But we actually can’t say for sure yet who has won the two party preferred vote. The AEC currently has Labor ahead 50.7 to 49.3. But these are not final figures, and we won’t know them for weeks. You can get these numbers from this spreadsheet on the AEC’s website by totaling the Labor and Coalition vote columns and converting them to percentages. But total votes currently only come to about 10 million; eventually they will be over 13 million. And several seats have no numbers because the contests were not between the major parties. They are Denison, Kennedy, Lyne, Melbourne, New England and O’Conner. Two of them (Denison and Melbourne) will have strong Labor numbers and four strong Coalition ones. And some of the others may be AEC estimates. Eventually the AEC will include these figures. I plugged rough estimates into those seats and they brought Labor’s national two party preferred down to 50.4 percent. Then there is the continuing counting, of the remaining ordinary votes and declaration votes. In 2007, absent votes came in about the same as ordinary votes, prepoll votes favoured the Coalition somewhat (but this year for the first time most of them were included in Saturday’s count) provisional votes favour Labor, but thanks to the Coalition’s 2006 changes there aren’t many of them anymore. That leaves postal votes, which greatly favour the Coalition, because many of them are rural voters (generally in safe electorates). And there are lots of them. (Note that this doesn’t mean the doubtful seats will necessarily move towards the Coalition.) At the 2007 election, around 700,000 formal postal votes were counted out of 12.9 million total. They went to the Coalition 53.4 to 46.6; the nation as a whole went 52.7 to 47.3 the other way. We can expect a greater proportion this year, but we don’t know to what extent they will display the same political preferences. More people are availing themselves of these alternative forms of voting. And then there are the parties’ postal vote campaigns (a topic in itself). So who knows where the two party preferred vote will settle. In 2004, it moved after election night 0.2 percent Labor’s way. But in 2007 it went 0.7 to the Coalition. Because this was all so puzzling, I phoned Antony Green. He agreed the vote is likely to move towards the Coalition but reckoned Labor will still have the majority. But that’s just guesswork from Antony as well. [Update: I asked Malcolm Mackerras and he reckons it’ll come in at about 50.4 to Labor.] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ ... rg6nf-1225909354043 |
