I ended my previously post with the possibility that Rudd could call a Double Dissolutions election in his first term. I decided to do the numbers, based on the incomplete counts from the recent senate election I calculated the outcome had it been a full senate election:
After I did this calculations did I discover that Senator Andrew Bartlett also did the same calculations. We agreed on the outcome which was a relief as I had made a number of assumptions in my calculations.
After June ’08 the Senate numbers will be 32-37-5-1-1-0 (ALP-Lib/Nat-Greens-X-FF) if we compare this to the numbers above from the hypothetical Double Dissolutions 31-32-8-2-2-1 we see that the ALP would lose a seat, Lib/Nats lose 5 seats and the Greens gain 3. Even though the ALP loss one seat this would be a more friendly Senate for them, as they would only need the support of the Greens, rather than the Greens, Nick Xenophon and Family First, to pass legislation.
Of course if a Double Dissolutions were held the numbers would not exactly match these, but it seems that they would be more ALP friendly than the post June ’08. This is unless the act of the ALP calling a Double Dissolutions was very unpopular and they loss a significant percentage of the vote. At a Double Dissolutions it would seen almost certain the the Greens would increase their number of seat, winning one in every mainland state, two in Tasmania and may be a second seat in one or two mainland state or even the ACT.
Some other thoughts and comments
- Without a Double Dissolution, Family First will lose their seat at the ’10 election.
- At a Double Dissolution the Christian Democratic Party may win a seat. On my calculation they came close to winning the 12th seat in WA and NSW (at the expense of the Climate Change Coalition).
- A Double Dissolution is the only way I can see Andrew Bartlett’s party, the Australian Democrats, being in the Senate again any time soon.