The exact record will depend on the final results, but it seems likely that this election result will produce more seats than the 90 seats won by Tony Abbott in 2013. There’s a chance Labor could surpass John Howard’s result in 1996, although I don’t think they’ll quite get there. As for Labor results, this is their best result in seat terms since 1943, and I don’t think any other result before that was any better.
For the Coalition, this looks like the worst result for any major party since 1943, even producing a lower seat proportion than Whitlam’s Labor in 1975. Of course the ballooning size of the crossbench means the defeat of the Coalition is a bit more impressive than Labor’s victory – an exaggerated version of the mismatch we saw in 2022.
For this whole campaign we have been looking at the declining major party votes, and what is amazing is that Labor has achieved this enormous victory while barely raising their primary vote.
...
The final point I want to touch on is the Greens’ performance. At the moment it looks like they will scrape by in Melbourne and potentially win other seats like Wills and Ryan. Their result wasn’t particularly impressive, but I want to emphasise how much they are victims of the electoral system. Nationally the Greens vote is steady, just over 12%, and part of the story is that the Greens suffered primary vote swings in many of their best seats while gaining votes elsewhere. The map at the end of this post makes this very clear in cities like Melbourne and Brisbane, although you don’t see it in the same way in Sydney.
But in a number of their seats, their defeat did not primarily come due to a dropping primary vote, but a rearrangement of their opponents. In Brisbane and Griffith, the rising Labor vote pushed the LNP into third, and thus LNP preferences will elect Labor.
It’s a perverse part of our system that the most conservative voters decide who wins in some of the most progressive seats. Elizabeth Watson-Brown likely will survive while Max Chandler-Mather will be defeated because she represents a more conservative seat where the LNP is the main opponent.
And this is a challenge for the Greens because so many of their best seats are now Labor vs Greens contests where Labor will easily win the 2CP on Liberal preferences.
I'm not sure I agree with the authors take on the unfairness to the greens here. The greener electorates manage to elect green MPs. In the seats where they are close, the preferential voting system works as intended. The conservatives can say hey I want the libs in but if they don't make it I would rather labour over the greens.
How else should it be done? As far as I can see switching to a first past the post system would be significantly worse.
I can't be sure but I think the author means it's unfair in the sense that you have a high 'anti-establishment' vote but those voters don't end up with any representation. I don't think they're advocating for first past the post.
Perhaps the introduction of some sort of proportional representative system would make things a little more democratic.
People in the minority of their electorate will always feel a bit salty about the outcome, but that's unsolvable. Having the senate mitigates this already in my opinion, where the greens have roughly proportional representation. There is perhaps an argument to make the senate pool federal rather than state and territory based (looking at you Tasmania).
Moving the lower house to a federal type pool would remove any chance of area localised representation. Not that our current system is great at that with most MPs only caring about the party line, but at last some electorates have members that care about local issues.
For the lower house I was thinking of something more like multi-member proportional voting with some sane thresholds that candidates have to meet to get elected. So for example in seats like Wills the community is represented by the two candidates that the community overwhelmingly favoured and who basically got the same amount of votes.
I think there needs to be a winner, otherwise nothing gets done, and the government system is already very inefficient in this regard. On the far end of this scale, every person votes on every bit of legislation, but in the end it will usually wash out the same only with the added overhead.
It's fun to theory craft. But the stark reality here is it's probably impossible to pass a referendum that changes any of this.
A referendum would be required?
Not if it was a federal pool using the MMP system that they have in Germany and NZ. You get a local member and there's a pool of proportional party members on top of that.