Looks like the NCTCS Party is too good for Australia's political system. Serious parties should not be expected to work with political realities.

I think Green was partly correct it shouldn't have been "Foolish rank amateurism".

Palmer supporter are you hound? Or maybe you don't fancy the preferential system; maybe you like your politics neat like they have in communist nations?

Nothing like a fool to cry foolish.

Antony Green's latest of the WA Senate count.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/11/wa-senate-contest-comes-down-to-just-1-vote-and-its-one-of-the-missing.html

Exactly Poirot; Democracy is messy and the cascade of preferences is meant to squeeze every last significance out of every vote.

No doubt it is a test for calculating where your preferences will go as one of Green's scenarios will mean a Green senator will get in which is not what the NCTCS would have wished for.

At this stage with another election in WA in the balance I can't think of a better alternative; you just have to do your calculations, make your agreements and hope for the best.

Being in WA, I'm fascinated by the by the prospect of being able to vote in the Federal election several months after it has actually taken place.

I wonder.....

Yes Poirot, I second your wondrous thoughts!
Maybe the holy Abbott isn't as tightly rooted to the top job as he thinks?
Well, I can only dream....zzzzzzzz.....

Don't forget girls, vote early and vote often.

A really smart govt would act at the earliest possible opportunity, to usher in optional preferencing, and give Labour's current primary vote, for both houses.
Labour is likely to support such a move, given how much the coalition depends on National party support!
And it's plans for further democratization and broadening the primary support base!
Rhrosty.

Agenda 21?

Tinfoil hats anyone?

By the way, it seems there were only 73 candidates in South Australia for the Senate in 2013 http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/ssa/ so I can't make head nor tail of this preferencing of the ALP from 93 to 98. I expect the rest of the article is similarly accurate.

Agro, the only man/woman/? in Australia who doesn't believe there is an Agenda 21 process from the UN which is up and running in Australia; read the link in the article or read this:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=%22ECOLOGICAL%20SUSTAINABLE%20DEVELOPMENT%20AND%20LOCAL%20AGENDA%2021%22;rec=0;resCount=Default

I mean it's on the parliamentary record; it's on the UN books; you don't need a tinfoil hat Agro, the wind tunnel between your ears is doing a great job.

The 93-98 and beyond refers to the cascade in the preference counts; Leon Ashby was eliminated near the last count. The point is explained in very elementary terms in the article that sometimes you have to see beyond the immediate point to achieve the end game, which in this case was the elimination of the Green candidates.

As it turns out PUP snookered NCTCS. Are you a Palmer supporter Agro, or a Green supporter; in either case you will be pleased.

"I expect the rest of the article is similarly accurate."

Correct. It is accurate. Reader response or failings are not the author's responsibility.

cohenite, I think you need to go back and read Anthony Cox's article again, because you obviously misunderstood it. Specifically this bit:

"Firstly, the ALP was preferenced 93 to 98 by the NCTCS and the Coalition preferences began at 99 with all the other minor parties preferenced before the 2 main parties."

Unless the word preferences has grown a new meaning in the last few days, this bears no resemblance to what you claimed it meant.

You claim in itself is silly. Because Senate counting redistributes votes on the basis of a person reaching a quota or a party being eliminated (for above the line voting) there cannot be 98 rounds of preferences re-distributed with 73 candidates. In any case, how on earth would a party be able to predict how the count would go before the campaign had finished. To claim they could is just a joke.

As for the NCTCS comments about Agenda 21, they are just laughable. Agenda 21 is a UN aspiration all goal agreed to 20 odd years ago at Rio and is largely about development in the developing world. The NCTCS will have a gunman on the grassy knoll and thermite bringing down WTC7 next.

"In any case, how on earth would a party be able to predict how the count would go before the campaign had finished. To claim they could is just a joke."

Yet it was done on the basis of preference deals being adhered to; and on that basis Leon Ashby would have been elected after 35 counts; this relatively simple process was done using Antony Green's own calculator with an assumption about the primary vote received by Leon.

I can't post the calculations which were done as the cascade of preferences eliminated candidates over the 35 counts because it is on excel.

Anyway Agenda 21 is just a harmless UN thought bubble according to your sanguine view. I suppose you could say the same about AGW yet here we are. You have been given links showing the UN source, that the Federal parliament has dealt with it and a list of local councils which have specific reference to Agenda 21 sustainability principles.

Your position on Agenda 21 is disingenuous Agro; and patronising; I'm assuming you don't work in Agenda 21 programs.

It seems that whenever cohenite gets caught out with something clearly wrong, he simply makes stuff up in the hope no one will notice. Here we have the latest effort. Despite Mr Cox writing in his article that it was preferences 93-98, cohenite (intimately related to Mr Cox I might add) tries to claim that it wasn’t preferences that Mr Cox meant, but something else. Now we have the stupidity of an attempt to claim that the NCTCS Party was able to predict the preference distribution rounds on the basis of the preference deals.

Such a claim is clearly the depths of stupidity. For example, a mere 14 votes in the WA Senate was the difference between the Shooters and Fishers and Greens getting elected versus PUP and Labour and no-one could have predicted the result prior to the election.

It is obvious that nothing that cohenite, or his alter ego Mr Cox, writes should be accepted as having any basis in reality.

You're an angry person Agro. I said the prediction was based on a schedule of expected flow of preferences and using Antony Green's formula. You know, just like using an AGW model with the parameters factored in. In any event PUP did not play and Sarah 2 dads got in instead. No doubt you're ecstatic about that.

As for the 93-98 preferences, ok that could have been made clearer; but go away and count the candidates in other states and don't be such a pompous buffoon. As is described plainly in the article preference swapping is an INTER-STATE process.

Why would I have to lie or prevaricate when I'm dealing with you?

cohenite, so finally after denying that the 93-98 preferencing for the ALP claim was wrong, you understand that it was wrong. But it took three attempts of pointing it out to you. So what else is wrong in the articles you write and the comments you make? If it takes you so long to work out that this claim was wrong, why should anyone trust any other claim you make?

This thread is a perfect demonstration that you are just bluster and are ignorant about most of the topics you write about.

You see Agro; you are not an honest commentator; you have an emotional investment in this AGW scam. It makes you act like a child: look you cry, he was wrong about this, that must mean he's wrong about everything!

How old are you?

And the point wasn't incorrect. You assumed I was talking about the number of candidates in SA when I was talking about the number elsewhere. Were there more candidates in any other state then in SA Agro?

In fact you were wrong Agro. But that doesn't mean I think you are wrong about everything, just wrong about AGW.

cohenite, it is not just a case that you were wrong here, but the demonstration that you are frequently wrong. More importantly when shown to be wrong, you reaction is to deny it and bluster.

As to the preference numbers, I immediately realised this had to be from another state, NSW I am guessing but I haven’t checked. However, the numbers came up in reference to Leon Ashby, who was standing in South Australia. This was a demonstration of how careless you are with ‘facts’. You have repeatedly indulged in ‘fact’ substitution. If the real ‘fact’ doesn’t serve your purpose, you put another one in its place, or make one up.

I am pointing out a pattern of behaviour that you indulge in over and over on this forum. It is why I don’t take anything you write seriously – because you can’t be trusted.

Given the way you continuously bully any posters on this site with whom you disagree (your post above is a good example), I don’t think you should be allowed to make up your own version of reality. It is a public service really.

Oh, how noble you are Agro, taking on the great blog bully cohenite!

"As to the preference numbers, I immediately realised this had to be from another state,"

But yet you persisted with the false accusation.

"This was a demonstration of how careless you are with ‘facts’."

No, not careless with the 'facts', but not specifying which state and underestimating my audience, that is you since the rest of the warmers appear to be dolts; but you ignore the fact that the facts [ie 93-98] were correct and the point was right.

"You have repeatedly indulged in ‘fact’ substitution. If the real ‘fact’ doesn’t serve your purpose, you put another one in its place, or make one up."

No I don't; you haven't even proved this example let alone provided other examples.

"I am pointing out a pattern of behaviour that you indulge in over and over on this forum. It is why I don’t take anything you write seriously – because you can’t be trusted."

My pattern of behaviour is to not tolerate warmist BS. Whether you take me seriously or not is beside the point. But you're right, commenting here is an indulgence and there are other things I should be doing. It's like a guilty pleasure talking to warmists and having fun with them especially the more cluey ones like you who still wrap themselves up in the same moral indignation.

"I don’t think you should be allowed to make up your own version of reality. It is a public service really."

So, you are a bureaucrat