I don’t think there are really too many such people. Most of those I know who vote for Green/Teal candidates are far from being that stupid. They know fighting climate change is going to be a hard road, and essentially impossible from Australia which is a flyspeck in the greater scheme of things.
But what they do want I think is for their conscience to be clear - they want to be able to say “I’ve done my bit”. Which is honourable IMHO.
I think we have very different social media feeds, which is probably a good thing. 
I’ve heard a different take on it - talking to people concerned about climate change here in Canada, their vibe is more: “Canada by itself can’t make a difference - it needs everyone, including Canada.”
So that card is one of the “how to make your vote count!” cards?
I assume it would be more complicated if it also included teal Senate candidates?
+1
So each party/candidate in each electorate for the HoR will have their own HTV cards which now tend to be A4 and include party information.
The Teal candidates only stood for the HoR.
The parties who were standing candidates for the Senate had very similar HTV cards.
For the Senate in NSW where there was a 1m long paper for the 75 candidates you “only” need to number 6 of the 24 party groups “above the line”. This is much reduced from the mad peak of 34 party groups and 200 plus candidates which needed to be printed in 6pt type and consequently booths were equipped with a magnifying sheet.
So the major parties HTVs for the Senate only show their own suggested 6 groups and that you go with the parties preferences flow.
If you want to take the deep dive “below the line” and allocate by preference the 75 candidates, you are on your own. But those political hard nuts who do this probably love the challenge.
For the Senate I ran out of known parties (that I didn’t detest) before I hit the required six. So my last two were pretty much total guesses. Plenty of tiny non-entity parties have highly misleading names so I chose the Marijuana party as one (at least I knew what they stood for!) and one other.
It’s irrelevant anyway because my 5th and 6th choices were never going to count.
Partially because some Labor voters tactically voted for teals first, as I understand it.
I used to do that. I’d start with someone who really annoyed me, like Pauline Hanson or Fred Nile, and make them no 241 or whatever the last spot was on the Senate ballot, and work upwards from there. Did it work? Clearly not, they were still there next time.
One thing I found really pleasing was that billionaire Clive Palmer spent a reported $100 million on bombarding everyone with adverts and stood candidates for his United Australia Party everywhere. Its looking like he got <5% of the vote and could well not pick up a single seat in Reps or Senate. Sweeeeeet.
It depends what you mean by “work”. It made you feel good, right? So it “worked” in a sense.
It’s fake, but it’s still damn satisfying:
LAB primary vote is now up a bit to 32.8%
But that snippett is delusional.
32.8% is the LAB national % of the vote. From 151 electorates.
Teal candidates ran in about 20 seats. Now to be sure, some notional LAB supporters would have voted #1 Teal and #2 LAB. But in 10 of those elections the Teals won. You are not voting tactically when the guy you vote #1 wins. And for those Teal voting LABs whose 2nd preference ended up with LAB in 10 seats, at this stage likely all will lose ('cause the Teals were standing in blue ribbon LIB seats), and consequently the reduction they caused in the national LAB primary vote would minimal.
Late Friday I got an SMS from UAP
“Australia transferring all AU hospital and health to World Health Org immediate.
Stop them.
Vote 1 United Australia Party”
Which sealed last place on my ballot for them, which usually has been a lock for One Nation.
Somehow I have managed to stay off UAP’s SMS list. Shhhh, don’t tell them.
If they spammed me with that shit I’d blow a heart valve.
Well this really is quite hilarious.
And get this quote from the candidate:
He believed his third position on the Queensland Senate ballot paper and the party’s striking marijuana leaf logo also helped secure votes from a constituency disillusioned with the two major parties and unsure of other micro-parties with benign-sounding names but hiding extreme policies. There is nothing ambiguous about Legalise Cannabis, he said.
My emphasis. He’s dead on the money there. Read what I said about my own experience above:
It’s not clear he will get a seat but I really want it to happen, now!
Have they finalized whether Labor have a majority yet?
Last I heard, there was one seat needed and a good chance ALP could get Macnamara, and the majority.
I just checked and the answer is no. This morning the pundits were saying a result was possible today, but no clear result in any of the four final seats.
Things can remain pretty slow for a week or so after the election, because some processes like allocating preferences in the Senate race don’t even start until all the postal ballots have been received. Not sure what the cut-off date is this year.
Postal votes can still arrive and be counted up to Friday 3 June 2022, ie next Friday. So it is possible the last 4 seats won’t be decided until next week.
+1
As I understand it, these results are close but there are no allegations of impropriety.
But if there was any appeal to the Court of Disputed Returns, that won’t happen until after the final tally of votes is known.
All elections this close will be subject to an automatic recount. The recount also won’t be done until after the final tally.
There are usually a couple of these results every election. It’s less usual that they determine whether the government has a working majority. It has been more common in recent electoral cycles. Though with the increasing number of minor/micro/independents who now are drawing 30% of the primary vote, preference flows are much more difficult to assess.
The election is over, Albanese won. We just need patience to learn by how much.
The ABC has given the seat of Mcnamara to the ALP which will mean they have 76 seats for a majority of just one and possibly one more.
Will be interesting to see LAB strategy as to appointing the Speaker. Appoint one of their own and the majority becomes razor thin albeit there is no coherent opposition bloc. They might try to offer the post to a Green or a Teal, but few of them have seniority. Might be just the rarest chance of them talking to a LIB backbencher such as they did in 2011 with Peter Slipper. (though that did end up in an in an unseemly mess)
The final margin in Mcnamara deceives with Josh Burns finishing with 62.3% TPP over LIB’s Colleen Harkin because the Greens finished 2nd on primary votes and if they’d held that ranking then LIB preferences would have probably given them the seat. But the LIBs squeaked into 2nd after minor preferences were allocated and then the 3rd placed Greens preferences flowed strongly to LAB, as expected.
Does the gov’t appoint the Speaker, or is it a free election in the House?
Section 35 of the Constitution states that:
The House of Representatives shall, before proceeding to the despatch of any other business, choose a Member to be the Speaker of the House.
So yes, it is a free vote and the Speaker can be replaced at any time by a simple majority vote. I can’t find an instance of where there were multiple candidates for the role and the Government nomination is usually elected without dissent, though the Opposition may abstain.
The Australian Federal Speaker is “dragged” to the Speakers Chair by their nominator and seconder mirroring the UK parliamentary protocol. However Australian Speaker usually continue to function as members of their party and attend caucus meetings. Also Australia practice is not to follow the UK convention of Speakers not being opposed at subsequent general elections.