Peter Brent

Correct.

You are assuming a particular purpose. If otoh it was to prolong Bibi’s premiership and entice Trump to bring America into a Middle East hot war, well those things might happen

Watch the numbers change around if they do get involved. (Not just an American thing.)

Can you point out where it is stated that was the reason?

That was stale, mate.

Young US Americans now spend much more time alone than they did fifteen years ago. I'd expect this to be part of the explanation as to why we've seen a sharp increase in depression and poor mental health. Source: buff.ly/YR0rR24

Blimey, the results overall are pretty stunning.

A not-so- crap Senate for the govt as last time, but still limiting.
They can get a majority with Greens or Coalition, that’s it.

7 v 8 candidates matters because someone who follows Senate instructions, about numbering 6, will have formal vote if there are 7 candidates, but not if there are 8.
Pretty stark numbers in the table.
(Have assumed, not necessarily correctly, that all AEC polling place ids apply between years.)

So, like, I took leafoutof @benraue.com's book, checking out relationship b/w change in no. of candidates& change in informal vote, but splitting seats into all variety of being part of one seat in 2022 & another in 2025.
Subset: changes from 7 cands to 8, & vice versa.

www.tallyroom.com.au/60644

I think it's close to 100% Senate confusion.

@benraue.com Is it still the case that polling place ids do not reliably mean the same actual polling place across different (recent) years?

It's always easy to blame this on incompetence, one person failing to do their job, or people's stupidity, and it definitely sounds like a big stuff-up by the local AEC workers, but we need to acknowledge that having such strict formality rules makes this stuff much more of a problem.

Very poor show.

Anti-preferencers still being seen whinging about Labor getting 62.7% of seats off 34.6% of primary votes when under the system they support UK Labour 2024 got 63.2% of seats off 33.7% of votes.

Now you are justifying taxing those unrealised gains (as it’s really tax and estate planning) which is fair enough.

It’s not “EARNINGS only”, it’s also on-paper capital gains, which is what so much of the fuss is about! (I’m not against it.)

I shall take that with pinches of salt, as Trump impacted those favourabilities.

Ah. And what do you reckon about Berowra special hospital team 1's very high informal in 2025 with robust 250 turnout? 🤔

The candidate numbers 2022 v 2025 is particularly terrific, but maybe you don't need to add seat parts together (eg to get 7.8 for 2022 Bradfield); instead each portion (with, say, >2000 voters) separately. So for Bradfield you would have 2 data points. Would be statistically stronger innit?

@benraue.com It is highly excellent, but what about Berowra special hospital, a standout across 2004-2025 with its meaningfully large turnout?

Me on the orange, bloated election ingredient that dare not speak its name.
t.co/IyU125q1SX

Trump: "I'm not happy with what Putin is doing. He's killing a lot of people and I don't know what the hell happened to Putin. I've known him a long time ... we're in the middle of talking and he's shooting rockets into Kyiv and other cities. I don't like it at all. I'm surprised."

All federal elections 1910 (2pty system) to 2025* in decreasing order of winner % of HoR seats.

1975 a much bigger win than 2025, but similar % of seats for losing side. No crossbench back then.

* 2025 counting not final.
(Some incl in party totals early last century arguable)

Kapterian to the live count lead

tbh Ming would be rather unsettled by some of the names on the ballot of his namesake.

Oh right, I stand corrected. That’s pretty trivial.

Europe's Capital Cities ranked by size (area that is).

Nuclear, yes, one of four policy demands.

It’s pretty simple. The blurb mentions Westminster and 2party system, and western democracies, most of which don’t have Westminster arrangements.