It's an interesting relationship between the two parties, for sure. As he says at the end, they kind of hate and depend on each other at the same time.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

O think it's not that they depend on each other but rather they are competing for some of the same voters. So, even more competitive than cooperative. However, that should only matter for elections. Clearly they should be more aligned when governing.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They depend on each other in the sense that Labor needs Greens preferences and Greens voters need an alternative to a Coalition government.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago

Yes, positioning against the alp is mentioned in the analysisa, however, that wouldn't explain the numbers, as there are multiple other minor parties, if the voters felt that the big 2 did not meet their needs.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Clearly they should be more aligned when governing.

God, I'd hope not, not unless The Greens were forming givernment and the ALP were needed.for a majority.

The ALP are toxic as shit as are most of their policies.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yet they seem to share voters. So either the voters are all wrong or your being hyperbolic.

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yet they seem to share voters.

Please clarify how that's relevant, I don't understand the point that's being made here.

People have limited choices of House voting (and in my experience, a huge amount have a limited understanding of parties or policy) so voting for a party cannot be assumed as endorsement of policies. Greens aren't my favorite party and I'd enjoy seeing Labor leaders walk off a wharf, but I've lived in electorates where they were my 1 and 2 respectively.

(Note: "the voters are all wrong" is a hyperbolic statement)

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 5 days ago

If we take the votes as endorsement of policy, then the voters are voting for greens first and overwhelmingly, labor second. It would seem the voters of the greens feel their policies are in line enough for alp to be their second choice, above other parties large and small.

If you think the voters are misinformed and votes are not an endorsement of policy, (at least best policy availabke to vote for) then there is not really a discussion to be had, outside of marketing and politicking.

I don't see a rational explanation as to why that would be the case outside of the article proposing that it's a positioning against lnp. However, even then it doesn't explain it to the extent it occurs.