I’m watching the US election results with particular impatience, as I’ve agreed to do a piece for the Fin on implications for Australia, which are hard to figure out until we actually see the results.
My general desire for an overwhelming Democrat win is in line with personal self-interest. For the last two presidential elections, I’ve had to write three different pieces covering a win for either side or “too close to call by deadline time”. I really don’t want to do that again.
So far things look good for the Democrats. Leaked exit polls, for what they’re worth, show leads in most key races, and the early counting has confirmed some gains in the House, Senate and state governorships.
Update 1:40 I’m going to get in early and call a win for the Dems in the House. They’ve gained around nine seats already (no losses at all so far), and only need to hold onto leads to pick up the six more they need.
Update 3:15 It looks like the Dems will gain about 30 seats, which also means a majority of 30. The odds are still against a win in the Senate, but the size of the loss will make it hard for the Republicans to hang on next time around.
A big winner out of all this is John McCain. The Republican establishment will have their work cut out to stop him getting the nomination now, especially if they put up a member of Team Bush.
John Quiggin 
The major polls have shown for some time that when people are asked their voting intentions, Labor comes out ahead on a 2 party preferred basis. Result would not be a landslide but at least Labor would be in with a chance.
But when asked which party you think will win the next election (note – a different question) the Coalition is way out in front.
I think this could work to Labor’s advantage, if enough voters think they can give Howard a kick up the backside without changing the government it could be enough to carry a few more of the marginals. Enough? Who knows.
Howard is also running out of issues to campaign on. Can’t give tax cuts because of pressure on interest rates. Lower interest rates argument is problematic. Iraq? Sale of Medibank? Climate change? Nuclear power? Values?
He can give tax cuts right before the election. Any effect on interest rates won’t be felt until after the election.
Interest rates are still his biggest trump card, and it will take a more convincing economic team than Lindsay Tanner and, umm, well, Lindsay Tanner to convince voters that Labor won’t botch the economy. But he may lose his second biggest trump card – national security – with the winding down of our involvement in Iraq.
proust I think you’re kidding yourself. The vast majority of people I know, and I mean vast, hate Howard’s guts. We’ve got to be realistic. He can’t keep pulling rabbits out of the hat. He can’t win whatever he does. As I’ve already pointed out today the latest unemployment figures are a big minus for the Libs. Poeple don’t really care about the unemployed – they care about what is happening to them and their families. The younger ones have NEVER experienced a recession. Rising interest rates to them mean that Howard has lost the plot on the economy. They don’t want to know the reason, and they care less. Beazley is like a dripping tap – his nagging messages are making an impression.
We don’t change federal governments very often in this country. When we do – Whitlam excluded – it’s usually because people are bored with the status quo. I can really detect this feeling and it’s growing. It’s unstoppable.
I think John Howard is one of the best PMs we’ve ever had in this country. From a personal point of view I wish he’d handed over to Costello at the beginning of this year. Costello would lose and this would enable the conservatives to regroup under an up and coming leader after say two terms of a disastrous ALP government.
Yes I concede the Hawke-Keating government in its first three terms was probably the best we’ve ever had. But to paraphrase a well-known businessman, you only get one Hawke-Keating Labor government in a lifetime and we’ve had ours!
whyisitso – I doubt many people who hate Howard’s guts vote for him or the coalition, and yet there he is: 3 times winner. So if the vast majority of people you know are Howard haters then your circle of friends/acquaintances must necessarily be a fairly biased sample of the electorate.
I agree people are getting bored with the status quo, although unfairly so given the number of major reforms Howard has pushed through (you should try living in the US for a while – the Australian govt achieves in one week what it takes the US govt three terms to get done). But I don’t see boredom as enough of a reason to vote out a conservative government in the midst of an economic boom.
To change govt people have to be bored and hurting enough to be willing to take a risk on the opposition.
4 times winner, actually. The trouble is, proust, there is no boom in NSW and Victoria, and Howard is shaping to lose big time in those States.
jquiggin Says: November 9th, 2006 at 5:12 am
No. I am betting against the pollsters and with the punters. Pundits are the least authoratitive predictors, as Pr Q would be the first to concede.
The Dems now look like they will take the Senate. If so this is a blow to the punters and market methodology. But it is equally a blow to pollsters and pundits who all predicted the Reps to take the Senate.
So this election seems to be a case of the people thumbing their noses at all so-called oracles. Good luck to them.
Homer asks how is Iemma credible?
Only a personal observation, he does appear to respond properly and quickly on the issues as they arise, unfortunately many of the issues were generated by previous leaders so his cards are marked, so to speak.
Indeed, Iemma seems to have drawn all short straws except for Debnam. But given the string of disasters it’s hard to see even Debnam losing.
On electoral systems, after study I’ve come to the following conclusions for what is usually best in practice (I’m leaving out the underlying thinking here):-
– For most representation, use cumulative voting. That means voters have a number of votes to “spend” and can spread them over candidates as they wish, with multi-member constituencies – the leading candidates (plural) get in. Six votes and three members work well, mathematically. Some form of term limit system makes this better, too. Don’t allow bye-elections, and do allow “none of the above”, a set of dummies that work as votes against any parliamentary bills whatsoever.
– Where the nature of the job needs a single post filled, use ordinary run off so voters can assess lesser evil at a final stage.
– To avoid Arrow’s Theorem problems, use a different system for a consultative and blocking upper house, which is deliberately not so representative of instantaneous effects. Make membership long term, until retirement, without general elections but only bye-elections.
– Do not provide instant ways of resolving deadlocks between houses. You should allow any deadlock to persist past a new lower house election, and only be resolvable by a special majority from a new lower house. That way the public gets to provide a genuine mandate.
Off-topic comment deleted. Please move everything like this to the science wars thread