NSW State Election Contests: The Legislative Council

The outcome of the upcoming NSW State Election seems to be done and dusted. You might think that for a politics-watcher and self-confessed election geek there might be nothing in it for me. But you'd be wrong. There's a number of contests that will shape the course of politics in the state, some for the next 4 years and others further down the track. Over the next 10 days I'll be previewing three important contests:

• The Legislative Council
• The side contests - Greens and Independents in the Legislative Assembly
• The swing - how big and who to

This week I'll be looking at the Legislative Council (LC) - otherwise known as the NSW Senate. Before I get into the election preview I'll examine the role of the LC and how it gets elected.

The Role of the Legislative Council

NSW has had a bicameral (two houses) parliament since 1856 with the upper house originally intended as a house of review - with all members apointed by the Governor. The LC has undergone many reforms, including several attempts to abolish it, and became directly elected in 1978.

It still has a strong review role with a series of committees which scrutinise Government Ministers and business, conducts inquiries and forces the Government to produce state papers. It also plays a strong role in amending legislation, through it rarely defeats bills.

Electing the Legislative Council

The LC has 42 members who have 8 year terms, half (21) being elected at each State election. The council is elected by proportional representation with the whole state being treated as a single electorate.

To be elected to the LC a candidate needs to achieve 4.55% of the vote or roughly 180,000 votes. Anything less than a full quota will be redistributed through preferences. Voting for the LC is similar to the Federal Senate with large ballot papers featuring a series of 'groups' above the line and each individual candidate below the line.

However this is where the similarity ends - for the Senate ballot paper a voter can determine the preferences for all candidates by numbering all the squares below the line or by voting above the line and letting the party they vote for determine the flow of preferences. For the Senate all formal votes count and will be used to determine preference flow. Voting in NSW uses optional preferential voting. The ballot paper looks similar but there are more options to vote formally.

You can vote above the line by placing a number one and then (if you wish) numbering as many other candidates in order of preference as you like.

Or you can vote below the line by numbering at least 15 candidates in order of your preference.

This system has a couple of advantages; it makes it easier to vote formally, particularly if you vote below the line; political parties don't determine preference flow to other parties if you vote above the line; and you don't have to vote for a candidate you don't like.

But there is one drawback. About 80% of people just vote 1 above the line, and don't number any others. This may be because they're lazy, or because they think its like voting in a federal election for the senate. Either way a large number of votes exhaust, which means that a relatively small group of voters determines who will pick up the scraps in a LC contest. According to the ABC's election guru Antony Green any candidate picking up 2.5% of the vote has strong chance. The Shooters won with 2.1% in 2003 or about 76,000 first preference votes. Incidentally this seat is one of the ones up for election.

So if you want to be one of those voters make sure you fill in the blanks.

The 2011 Election

Now onto the 2011 election. Of the 21 continuing MLCs there are:
Labor/Country Labor - 9
Liberal/Nationals - 8
The Greens - 2
Christian Democrats (Fred Nile Group) - 1
Shooters and Fishers - 1

It is the continuing members that make the upper house a more interesting contest. On the left side of politics you have 11 continuing members and on the right side 10. The effect of any swing is thus diminished by the existing membership of the LC. In order to secure a full majority in the upper house the LNP would need to secure about 60% of the vote - a swing of 27%, something you won't see outside of a by-election.

No, one of two things will happen in the LC. The balance of power will be held by either the Greens or the conservative minor parties and independents. This will direct the power-plays in NSW politics over the next 4 and 8 years.

Under either circumstance the LNP may be forced to work with Labor to pass legislation, when Greens or conservatives are playing hardball. Although there's plenty of bipartisan legislation, the contentious stuff will end up being decided by either a group of conservative parties and independents or the Greens. The conservatives could extract amendments (or other concessions) dragging a piece of legislation towards the right, whilst the Greens could drag it back towards the centre.

Current polling suggests that the LNP will pick up 11 seats giving it a total of 19. Labor will pick up at least 5, the Greens at least 2 with another seat swinging between them. Based on past voting patterns it is reasonable to suspect that the Shooters and Fishers will pick up 1 and Family First (the candidate a former Christian Democrat) and the Christian Democrats are fighting over a further 1 seat.

There are two maverick independents: Pauline Hanson and John Hatton, both of whom have an outside chance of picking up enough votes for a quota.

Let's deal with Ms Hanson first. The last time she had a tilt at the LC in NSW was in 2003 when she managed to pick up 1.9% of the vote on her own, with One Nation (their candidate then is now #2 on her ticket) getting 1.5%. That's a total of 3.4% of the vote that could well go to Hanson potentially delivering her a seat.

On the other hand in the last election the most similar party was Australians Against Further Immigration, who are not running in 2011. They only picked up 1.64% of the vote, with a swing of 0.74%. Even if that swing were to continue that's only about 2.4% of the vote, and probably not enough for seat. On the other hand Hanson could split the vote that is otherwise going to the CDP and Family First, muddying that contest considerably.

Now onto John Hatton the anti-corruption advocate who was one of the forces behind the establishment of the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption. He was also the local member for South Coast between 1973 and 1995. He's campaigning on an anti-corruption and anti-part3A platform. In the current political climate and with enough publicity this could resonate with enough voters to get him enough votes for a quota. Given his platform and the role of the LC its a pretty damn good fit. Unfortunately there's not much in the way of good data to judge his chances. There is some alignment with the Save our State party (aka Save our Suburbs) who picked up 0.3% of the vote at the last election, suggesting his chances aren't great.

Now here's where things get interesting. Using Antony Green's example Labor could wind up with about 5.5 quotas and The Greens 3.3. Labor has a chance of picking up another seat, but only if Greens voters preference them. If most of the Greens votes exhaust, then this seat that the Greens could have given Labor will likely be lost a party on the right (most likely the LNP).

If, like me, you believe that a 'hostile' senate is good for democracy then you should make sure you preference above the line, back through to the major party on the side of politics you think will be in opposition. In the example above, if you vote Green you should then preference Labor, to ensure that your vote gets counted in the fight over partial quotas. Otherwise your vote exhausts and you could help a candidate on the right win.

So number more than 1 - vote for as many preferences as you feel necessary.

Next time - the side contests.

Why Men Lead and Women Follow - 10 Wrong Reasons

Spuds posted a link on Yehooid to this article written by a dancer named Lloyd on his blog. It claims 10 'good' reasons why men should lead and women should follow in partnered social dance. He doesn't refer specifically Lindy Hop much but it's definitely relevant to the Lindy scene.

Enough preamble - here's why he's wrong:

1. Someone has to lead
This is no more a justification for men to lead than for women, or space monkeys, or cats.....

2. Men are taller than women
I've 5'5", which is about the average height of Australian women - does that mean I should restrict myself to following? I disagree with the 'simple fact' that taller follows are harder to lead, I've never found that in my experience. I'd say that, if anything, taller leads find it harder to lead (particularly when they're learning) as they need to match the size of their movements to the range of movement of their, sometimes much, shorter partner. This is a skill that some may associate more with following than leading.

He also says something about the leader needing to be closer to a tall follow in order to turn her with his hand above her head. A big height difference can create opportunities for cool moves, such as jumping when you lead this sort of turn. No uncomfortable contortions required.

In any case - there only needs to be one counterpoint to this argument - Shorty George. Enough said.

3. Men are stronger than women
Lloyd argues that there are many moves (particularly in 'Jitterbug') that involve the lead taking the follow's weight including aerials. You could apply this argument to performances or competitions, but how many moves like this do you actually see on the social dance floor apart from established couples (who should know better than to pull crazy aerials on the social floor anyway).

There's plenty of moves where the follow supports the leads weight. Moves that involve one of the partnership taking the 'weight' of the other are much more about timing, balance and counterbalance and making the physics work for you than they are about brute strength.

He goes on to say that followers need to trust their leaders to support them and that men are unlikely to trust women, particularly if they are a stranger. Lloyd should consider that the reverse of this might be as valid. It's a damn good argument for not pulling crazy stuff on strangers. More importantly trust in a dance partnership needs to be mutual for these sort of moves to work and be safe and fun.

4. It avoids arguments
Yes, I know Lindy Hoppers aren't renowned for this, but the only thing that avoids arguments is communication. It only takes a couple of words to establish who's leading and following and if this exchange were a convention it would be even easier. In fact you can ask it in the same question as asking the person to dance. For example the conversation:
"Would you like to dance balboa with me?"
"Sorry, I don't dance bal - would you like to lindy instead?"
"Sure - let's dance"

becomes:
"Would you like to dance as a lead with me?"
"Sorry, I don't lead - would you like to lead instead?"
"Sure - let's dance"

5. Each sex can specialise
The argument presented is that a new dancer should pick one part and stick with it. Whilst Lloyd uses this to support the established gender roles it's not really an argument for it per se. Nevertheless it's still wrong.

Think of all the best dancers you know. You'd have trouble naming any who can't both lead and follow. Knowing the other part makes you a better dancer.

It may be advisable for a beginner to pick what role they're going to start out with and stick with that whilst they're learning. Once they decide to pick up the other part they will be able to do so quicker as they  already have fundamentals such as pulse, balance, frame, connection etc. It will never take twice as long to learn both parts and ultimately learning the other part improves your dancing.

Having said that I think there is a case for teaching both parts from the get go and I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has ever learnt or taught both parts more or less at the same time. The first ever blues class I did had a huge excess of guys, so some of us followed as well as led. Whilst it probably helps that I was already a lindy hopper and blues isn't really a left or right handed dance I managed both parts fairly easily. I actually ended up having a couple of insights during that class that helped me pick up the basics well.

6. Sex is part of the fun

Here I will refer to number 10: You need to get out more and post some videos

Dawn Hampton dancing with Steven Mitchell, Virginie Jensen, and Frida Segerdahl

Thomas Blacharz and Max Pitruzzella

Max again, this time with Alain Wong

7. Men prefer it
8. Women prefer it
I'll group these together as it's basically the same argument and makes the common fallacies of appeal to popularity, appeal to tradition and appeal to common practice. I'm sure there's plenty of men who like to follow and plenty of follows who like to lead all to a greater or lesser degree. And you will find plenty of people who prefer to exclusively dance in their traditional gender role. Reasons for preference probably have more to do entrenched socio-cultural norms than pop evolutionary psychology (which isn't really a science) explanations.

9. It isn't command and obey 
This is about the only point that's on its own is correct. Many dancers have discussed the partnership in great detail, for example here , here and here. However it still doesn't refute the argument that in partnered social dancing generally and Lindy Hop specifically there is a strong current of sexually conservative gender norms and to a greater or lesser extent more obvious sexism.

10. You need to get out more

Basically this entire argument is an appeal to common practice, a common fallacy. Just because something is a common practice or a tradition, doesn't make it right. And the truth is that there is a lot of sexism (much of it not intended and little of it malicious) in the lindy hop community. Others have posted about this at length, for example this excellent posting by Sarah.

Whilst most of us do have fun within this construct of gender roles I believe that we could have more fun by breaking them down. We're also excluding many members of our society who could enrich the community we are a part of. I don't think this will really change until more men start learning to follow, but more about that another time...

Links of the week

Today is International Women's Day. Here's a few articles from women that consider a range of issues about the status of women (and men) in contemporary society. There are still many challenges facing women around the world - but few men seem to be writing about them. The closest I could find to an opinion piece written by a man for International Women's Day was 007 in drag and this article in The Guardian about the gender pay gap in the UK. Come on gents - we need to do better than this.

• Annabel Crabb argues on The Drum "that the main reason women are under-represented in the senior echelons of just about any professional field is that they hardly ever have wives".

• Also on The Drum, Julie Cowdroy notes that whilst women in the West enjoy many more freedoms than they did 100 years ago, this is not true across the rest of the world. In The Australian Ida Lichter catalogues the challenges facing Muslim feminism and argues that the west should do more to help.

• Even in the west some hard-won rights are in danger of being eroded. Amanda Marcotte on doubleX shows the absurdity of attacks by the religious right in the US on Planned Parenthood.

• Finally Daniel Craig and Dame Judi Dench feature in this advertisement specially commissioned for International Women's Day

Elsewhere on the interewebz:

• As the carbon tax debate in parliament heats up Andrew Dyer on Unleashed offers a much more reasoned critique on the Government's proposed carbon tax. The short answer: it won't work on its own.

• Rodney Smith argues in the Australian that it's about time for the NSW Liberals to start outlining policy. They've probably won this election, so now's the time to set the agenda and start thinking about winning the next one.

• Spurred on by The Pope's new book Dick Gross in the National Times takes a look at what the Bible says about who killed Jesus. Turns out it was the Romans all along.

Links of the week

Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

Rhea, Dionne and the rings of Saturn

Election guru Antony Green explains on his blog how you could be throwing your vote away if you don't fill in as many preferences as you can at the next NSW State election.

As the Compton Cricket Club visit Australia, Brian Palmer explains on Slate.com why American's don't play cricket. The same probably also goes for Canadians, though presumably if you could invent a version of the game that was played on ice they'd go for it.


Nobel prize-winning biologist Christian de Duve argues that we have evolved traits that will lead to humanity's extinction but Tim Flannery's new book Here on Earth argues for hope.

Ross Gittins explains in the National Times how even though drugs on the PBS are relatively cheap here in Australia, Big Pharma is still ripping off the government and the taxpayer.

Another amazing photo - as the space shuttle Discovery makes its last ever flight, check out this shot of Discovery and the International Space Station. This photo was taken using a hand guided telescope - wow!

And Nick Williams explains the other side of being a Lindy Hop Rockstar - you're always on the road, never at home and you have to deal with promoters, gossip and jet-lag. Aside from not making a great deal of money its much like the real thing. Thankfully they love what they do and help make Lindy Hop the great community it is - so next time you're at a workshop, don't forget to thank your instructors.

Swing dancing on Australian screens

I found a video today through Yehoodi of some jitterbug dancers in 1961. The poster expressed a bit of surprise to find footage of swing dancing in the 1960's. This got me thinking about the history of lindy hop in Australia - something I have an interest in but have never had the time, and still don't, to go research properly.

I thought I'd turn to the intertubz to see what I could find...

Although there's record of Lindy Hop making it's way to Australia before World War II (The Big Apple was being taught in Sydney in early 1938 and Frankie Manning and a troupe of Harlem dancers performed in Australia in 1938 and 1939) it seems that it wasn't caught on film until 1940.

I've done some searching on the National Film and Sound Archive website and come up with a list of clips that I'd be interested in checking out. Unfortunately the majority of the holdings of the NFSA are very difficult to access and impossible to reproduce without permission from the copyright holder. I'll put this on the list of longer term projects and see what I can come up with...


The British Pathé does have a few clips available. This one features a couple of young swing dancers and a bunch of kids joining in - reminds me of Groovie Movie


1943: This clip details the R&R experience of an American serviceman in Australia. It's not clear where this was shot, but it certainly shows a rather different view of the War in the Pacific.

1944: This film show footage from a Jitterbug contest in July of 1944. It's difficult to say where this was shot, contests were occurring in Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, even Papua New Guinea.
The Australian Jitterbug Championships, which saw contestants from all over the country compete, were first held in the early 40s (probably 1940 or 41) and continued until at least 1954



Here's a few more modern videos charting some of the Lindy Hop revival. There's not a lot of information out there about how the revival got going in Australia. The prevailing assumption is that it first got going through groups of Rock and Roll dancers (who danced rock and roll back in the 60s when it was very popular) where it is still danced today - it's also how I first started dancing. I need to go and do some more research and talk to some folk to learn more.

1995?: The early days of the revival in Australia

1997: Frankie Manning returns to Australia

2001: Competition Lindy Hop in Sydney

2003: The Today Show and ABC's Stateline featured the return of the Australian Jitterbug Championships:

I've also tracked down the first group email newsletter from Swing Patrol in Sydney 

There's plenty of other recent footage out there on the intertubz, but if anyone else knows of anything older, particularly vintage footage or clips from the 90s please let me know. I'm going to keep updating this post; it will be linked on my Lindy History page.