Comments on: Are The Greens Kosher?

By: Ittay

Ittay — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:03:30 +0000

Hi Ariel and David,
The results for the pre poll votes in Melbourne Ports are not up on the aec site yet.
When they are, they will be available at this link:
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-15508-30221.htm

By: David Werdiger

David Werdiger — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:11:02 +0000

It’s impossible to know whether Greens voters (whether in Melbourne Ports, Melbourne or anywhere else) were voting for the Greens or as a protest against Labor.

We won’t see the pre-poll votes for Melbourne Ports for at least another week because the seat has already been called for Labor. Would be interesting to see the breakdown … not sure if the AEC site shows that.

By: ariel

ariel — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:03:40 +0000

Ittay,
How many Jews voted in pre-polling because of Shabbat and would not have been counted in any of these lists yet?

By: Ittay

Ittay — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:46:03 +0000

Hi Caulfield Shule Goer,
the link on the aec website to Melbourne Ports clearly lists the results of every both in Melbourne Ports.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPollingPlaces-15508-230.htm
If you click on any of the boths where a high number of percentage of jews live(Caulfield, Stkilda, Elsternwick etc), you will see that there is a swing in the greens in almost all of them.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 01:11:34 +0000

Caulfield Shulgoer

Am am no expert in political strategy but it appears plain to me that Liberals did not prostitute themselves in th seat of Melbourne but expecting an extremely tight result overall had to make a strategic decision to try and unseat any incumbent Labor MPs.

By: frosh

frosh — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:21:16 +0000

Caulfield Shulgoer,

Will you also restrict your comments to actual fact?

Or do you only propose this restriction for Ittay?

By: ariel

ariel — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:12:21 +0000

Regarding the seat of Melbourne, the Greens member-elect has said that two of his demands for supporting a Gillard government (he has already ruled out supporting Abbott) are:

1. gay marriage; and
2. solar panels on the MCG roof.

#1 has been discussed at length, so let’s leave it for now.

#2 proves Caufiled Shulegoer’s point about who the Greens appeal to and what they stand for. this new member has absolutely ZERO understanding of the constitutional responsibilites of federal parliament.
does he really think we’re that stupid as to think federal parliament is even capable (let alone responisible!!) of installing a solar panel at the MCG?!

if this is what he stands for, they should make him speaker of the house. that way he won’t get a vote on anything and we can leave the important decisions up to the more mature members…

By: Caulfield Shulgoer

Caulfield Shulgoer — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:43:34 +0000

So the Greens won the seat of Melbourne. They only won it because the Liberals prostituted themselves and directed their preferences to the Greens. If they had not done so, then Labor would have won the seat easily.

The Greens increased their vote in my opinion based on two factors. Firstly, their policies, such as they are, appeal appeal to mindless 18, 21 idiots out their who haven’t learnt how to think yet and don’t understand that policies can only be implemented by the House of Representatives. All that the greens in the Senate have been good at, is blocking Government initiatives.

Secondly, there is no doubt that most of the votes the Greens got, were from dissatisfied Labor voters. I am sure that these Labor voters, having voted for the Greens, then put their second preference straight into the Labor box. Bruce Hawker on Sky a who works for the Labor party as their main political strategist, said that an an extraordinary number of Green preferences were going to Labor in many seats, and that this ensured that what should have been a complete decimation of Labor, did not occur.

Finally, Unless Ittay, you can provide proof of your statement “that more and more members of my tribe” etc. i.e. that Jews have voted for the Greens in numbers never seen before, I respectfully suggest that you restrict your comments to actual fact. Unfortunately, your previous posts are evidence that you find such a proposition impossible.

By: David Werdiger

David Werdiger — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:10:43 +0000

But on a two-party preferred basis, this made virtually no difference. The net swing has gone in Danby’s favour!

Candidate Party Votes This Election (%) Last Election (%) Swing (%)
EKENDAHL, Kevin Liberal 26,253 41.37 42.85 -1.48
DANBY, Michael David Australian Labor Party 37,200 58.63 57.15 +1.48

The swing to Greens could either be a rejection of the major parties in general (or of Labor for voters who couldn’t bring themselves to actually vote Liberal) or a vote for Green.

Bottom line – they are certainly the winners this election, with a lower house seat and far more influence in the Senate.

By: Ittay

Ittay — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:41:14 +0000

Results are in from Melbourne Ports. The Greens massivley increased their vote from the last election recoding a +6.18 swing. This is proof that more and more members of my tribe are rejecting the fear campaigns spread in the AJN by Barry Cohen and others and are choosing to vote for a party that is standing for our environemnt and demanding justice for the weakest members of our society.
Overall this election, the swing to the greens was larger than that to the coalition.

Latest Results –
Candidate Party Votes % Swing (%)
EKENDAHL, Kevin Liberal 23,391 36.86 -2.82
PLOWRIGHT, Sue Australian Greens 13,460 21.21 +6.18
DANBY, Michael David Australian Labor Party 24,568 38.72 -3.75
VEGA, Christian Australian Sex Party 1,363 2.15 +2.15
STORER, Gregory Secular Party of Australia 264 0.42 +0.42
EMMERSON, Daniel Family First 408 0.64 -0.21
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-230.htm