Yup exactly. The Greens’ loss was mostly because the earlier Greens wins came on the back of Labor finishing 3rd and preferences going to the Greens. If the LNP finishes 3rd, preferences go to Labor and Labor wins. There was also a redistribution in Melbourne that favoured Labor pretty strongly. It’s one of the weird quirks of IRV and exposes a reason proportional systems like MMP (used in Germany and NZ) are better.
Comment on France to sue Australian platform Kick for 'negligence' after livestream death
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks agoThe greens got more votes in the last election than the one prior, and their overall percentage remained unchanged. The greens lost out because the liberals preferenced Labor over them, and so a large amount of the swing away from the liberals ended up in Labor’s lap both directly and through preferences
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
sqgl@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Isn’t that a contradiction? Was it increased or was it unchanged?
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Just loose wording from me. What I was trying to say is that their vote count was actually higher this time around, not lower, but the increase was so small it was a rounding error on their overall percentage. The point being, their voterbase didn’t go anywhere, but nor did they attract new folk.
sqgl@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Gerrymandering in Melbourne also worked against Greens.
princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Are you meaning this in a negative way? The seat was reapportioned and as is the Electoral Commission’s guidance on the matter, it was pushed towards as even of a split as possible.