Penbo was wrong. He should apologise along the following lines:
“I was wrong to suggest that the Greens chose to direct preferences to One Nation. They did not direct preferences at all. By taking this “principled” stance instead of preferencing Labor we have scored an unintended own goal. Steve Fielding would be laughing.”
That doesn’t make any sense. First, it is likely that the Greens will beat Hanson for that last seat. Second, if Hanson were to get up it would be on the back of the people who voted for her and chose to preference her – not the Greens, and not their voters. Third, If she gets up now it will be on the back of Labor preferences.
If Penbo’s point was legitimate he wouldn’t have had to lie about it.
I can’t imagine too many Greens voters would preference Hanson, even without direction from the Party I’m pretty sure most would put Labor or an Independent second and One Nation would be somewhere close to the bottom of the list.
That’s not the same as electing her. It’s not the same as, say, tricking your voters into having their preferences directed without their knowledge to, say, Steve Fielding.
It’s not the Greens’ job to tell their voters how to preference. It’s not the Greens’ fault if right-wing voters choose to vote for or preference Hanson.
Yes I’m not sure what the confusion here is. Those who voted for or preference Hanson, are responsible for her getting in. Surely that is pretty basic? I get the idea that others didn’t ‘keep her out’ but that is a far cry from ‘putting her in’.
We don’t have an upper house up here in Queensland, so forgive this northerner for his confusion. The how-to-vote card on the linked article shows that Greens voters should vote above the line, which presumably a lot of people did since below the line upper house voting is such a pain.
Doesn’t that mean that the preferences/quotas/whatever will be distributed below the line according to the party’s registered schedule for that group?
If someone can show that the Greens’ registered group preferences put the Hanson column ahead of Labor, then this story may have some legs. A bit of a stretch though. The Greens were bagging Hanson throughout the campaign from the archives on their web site.
Anyone have a copy of the group preferences, or some other information on where the left-over Greens quotas would go? Assuming there are any actually left over.
We really need above-the-line preferences for upper houses.
I gather that there aren’t tickets in NSW. Above the line just means it goes to that group. But I’m happy to be corrected by a NSW voter if I’ve got that wrong.
Moved On 
Penbo was wrong. He should apologise along the following lines:
“I was wrong to suggest that the Greens chose to direct preferences to One Nation. They did not direct preferences at all. By taking this “principled” stance instead of preferencing Labor we have scored an unintended own goal. Steve Fielding would be laughing.”
That doesn’t make any sense. First, it is likely that the Greens will beat Hanson for that last seat. Second, if Hanson were to get up it would be on the back of the people who voted for her and chose to preference her – not the Greens, and not their voters. Third, If she gets up now it will be on the back of Labor preferences.
If Penbo’s point was legitimate he wouldn’t have had to lie about it.
I can’t imagine too many Greens voters would preference Hanson, even without direction from the Party I’m pretty sure most would put Labor or an Independent second and One Nation would be somewhere close to the bottom of the list.
I thought the problem was that many Green preferences died when they could have been directed in a way that made election harder for Hanson.
That’s not the same as electing her. It’s not the same as, say, tricking your voters into having their preferences directed without their knowledge to, say, Steve Fielding.
It’s not the Greens’ job to tell their voters how to preference. It’s not the Greens’ fault if right-wing voters choose to vote for or preference Hanson.
Yes I’m not sure what the confusion here is. Those who voted for or preference Hanson, are responsible for her getting in. Surely that is pretty basic? I get the idea that others didn’t ‘keep her out’ but that is a far cry from ‘putting her in’.
We don’t have an upper house up here in Queensland, so forgive this northerner for his confusion. The how-to-vote card on the linked article shows that Greens voters should vote above the line, which presumably a lot of people did since below the line upper house voting is such a pain.
Doesn’t that mean that the preferences/quotas/whatever will be distributed below the line according to the party’s registered schedule for that group?
If someone can show that the Greens’ registered group preferences put the Hanson column ahead of Labor, then this story may have some legs. A bit of a stretch though. The Greens were bagging Hanson throughout the campaign from the archives on their web site.
Anyone have a copy of the group preferences, or some other information on where the left-over Greens quotas would go? Assuming there are any actually left over.
We really need above-the-line preferences for upper houses.
I gather that there aren’t tickets in NSW. Above the line just means it goes to that group. But I’m happy to be corrected by a NSW voter if I’ve got that wrong.