Actually it's not. Voting for the senate was quite easy, all people had to do was put a one or a tick in one box above the line. (as you said) But there were thousands of people who put in a few ones or numbered all the boxes, or just obviously had no clue what they were doing.phlogiston said:That's actually a really good idea Ceydn. This time around I actually thought the Libs offered my *area* more, but I thought the ALP offered the country more. But now I think about it, I'm not sure if that would work. It's worth the thought exercise though.
No, but it used to happen in the 70s all the time when Labor would win more seats than the Libs, but the Nationals would get the Libs into office. Fraser would have never been PM beyond one term but for the "Coalition". It should be outlawed.Mark said:It happened last time, no?
That couldn't work, as large portions of Australia would be ignored. In effect, Sydney and Melbourne would control the country.ceydn said:The thing I don't like is... theoretically, Labour can have the most votes overall, and therefore be the party that more people want running the country... but still not become government.
Actually, I think it did happen last time. Not buy lots, mind you, but I'm sure that Labor got something like 51-53% of the votes, but the Coalition won the most seats. I think it was because there was a swing to Labor, but the swing was biggest in the seats that were already Labor and there wasn't a big enough swing against the coalition in their seats to make them lose them.ceydn said:The thing I don't like is... theoretically, Labour can have the most votes overall, and therefore be the party that more people want running the country... but still not become government.
It didn't happen, but I'm saying it could.