Comments (2)

• Thanks for your comment Lt. Fred. I agree that the Senate voting reform was not the sole cause - or even the major cause - for One Nation's resurgence. But I disagree that it had no impact on the number of seats won.
  The hypothetical case given in the article you cite refers only to the probability of One Nation winning a single seat in Queensland in the absence of a double dissolution and senate voting reform. One Nation with just one Senator - Hanson - is manifestly different to its current voting bloc and its influential position as the largest non-government Senate party after the Greens and Labor.
  I refer to this passage in the article: 'If Hanson were to have polled the same vote in Queensland as she did at a half-Senate election conducted under the old system, she would have been very likely to win anyway. It is true that Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to call a double dissolution has helped One Nation win additional seats, as it has helped other small parties.' Add to this the fact that the voting reform allows voters to dictate their own preference flows, and the major-party alliance to preference One Nation last becomes less effective.
  But I take your larger point that there is significant support for One Nation - the largest in fifteen years or so - and that should be the focus going forward. Additionally, I think any pro-democracy reforms, of the kind done here on preferences, is a positive even if it has a side effect like Malcolm Roberts.
  Posted by Lucas Grainger-Brown

  06 May 2017
• A small note: you make reference to Hanson's comeback asa product of (inter alia) "Malcolm Turnbull’s Senate voting reform". This is entirely false. Hanson would certainly have won the same number of Senators under the previous system, and may indeed have won more.
  
  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/06/senate-reform-did-not-cause-pauline-hanson-to-return-heres-why
  Posted by Lt. Fred

  04 May 2017