Winners and losers

Day 829, 03:30 • Published in Australia Australia • by Frida Odinsdottir

The electoral regions of eAustralia.

So, then was the big day of elections over for this time… We at Flamman (The Flame) has been investigating what's behind the numbers and the candidates.
Let´s start with the easy thing:

Results:

Australian Military Party (AMP): 15 seats

Australian National Party (ANP): 9 seats

Australian Independents Party (AIP) 7 seats

Australian Communist Party (ACP): 6 seats

Procreate and Populate Party (PaPP): 3 seats

Sir_c0nstant of the ANP got most votes (35) and Calbe of the AMP got least votes of the elected senators (3). The one with most votes, who didn’t get in was Darth Spader of the ANP (7). Being from the rural parts can be good sometimes!

I f you should make a comment it is quite obvious that the AMP has done a tremendous job. A great election, with a lot of seats. On the other side you see the PaPP that didn´t had any success at all. The ACP makes a glorious comeback with 6 seats, well done, indeed!

But let’s dig further into the numbers, how well did the parties do regarding how many members they haven, and so on?



Mobilisation league:

AMP: 96,4% (166 members and 160 votes all together)
ACP: 74,7% (91 members and 68 votes)
AIP: 66,4% (146 members and 97 votes)
ANP: 62,6% (262 members and 164 votes)
PaPP: 43,3% (171 members and 74 votes)



Efficiency league:
The “cost “ of every senate seat for each party.

AMP: 10,7 votes/senator
ACP: 11,3 votes/senator
AIP: 13,9 votes/senator
ANP: 18,2 votes/senator
PaPP: 24,7 votes/senator

Comment: When you put out these numbers it is easier to see how the parties really has succeded with their work.
The easiest thing to say is that the real losers of this election is the PaPP:
- Least amount of senators
- Lowest % of the members where voting
- Those who DID vote, failed to focus their votes where it was most needed.

The ANP shouldn´t be to happy either. They are –by a huge marginal- the biggest party in eAustralia. However, they didn´t get the most seats, they vasted quite some votes on non-electable candidates and they failed to get their members to vote. Bad organization?

Over to the winners. Number one is off course the AMP with huge 15 senators, but the most impressing number is that almost all of their members where voting! This could be explained if it will show that some other party (ADSP?) has put their candidates on their lists. As a new paper in eAustralia we do not have the competence to see that… However, AMP also didn´t waste any votes. The price per senator was very low for them, only around 10 votes needed for each seat. The other winners where the ACP. New on the top-5 they managed to get more votes than PaPP and almost as many senators as AI. They also had good mobilization and efficiency.

The AI? Well, they did a fairly descent election, nothing great or bad about it…


One of the winners of the election.