Talk:Bjelkemander

I've quickly written this article, which essentially is a summary of the chapter in Hugh Lunn's 1978 biography of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, along with some additional material I've snarfed up from the Web. I'm not going to pretend that it's terribly complete, but it is intended to show that the Bjelkemander was actually a more democratic refinement of the 1949 Labor malapportionment, using the figures given by Lunn.

There is certainly great scope for pulling in figures from more official sources.

This is my first article for Wikipedia, written in haste, and I shall refine and revise it as I get time. Skyring 23:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And a good job first up although suggesting the Bjelkemander is an improvement in terms of democratic refinement is like saying Stalin was more democratic than Hitler since he held elections. There probably should be more on the late 70s early 80s as Joh kept reshaping boundaries so the Nationals could rule alone. Also there could be more details on how it all worked. Joh also gerrymandered on occasion. Also some stuff on how boundaries were changed. Yeah a lot I know and given some time I'll make some additions myself!! 20:26 1 Nov 06 (Tigerman2005)

Confusion
There seems to be details that are only present in either this article or Queensland Legislative Assembly (e.g. the details of the three, later four, zones aren't here). Also some of the explanation feels a little POV or just unclear (perhaps to an international perspective):

From 1910 to 1949, Queensland had a one voter-one vote-one value electoral system.

What exactly does this mean? Generally "electoral system" tends to be used for the mechanism by which representatives are elected rather than the distribution of voters. Also "one vote-one value" is a term I'm not terribly familiar with - does it mean seats had equal sizes? Even then surely population drift and, pre compulsory voting, differential turnout can both distort the outcome. And exactly what is the "value"? Much is made by critics of single member systems of the way that a voter in a crucial marginal has "more voting power" than a voter in a solid safe seat (whether supporting that party or not), and a voter for a party with support spread out and not consolidated in seats arguably has no value. (In the 1972 election did a DLP vote have any value?)

the effect was to give a huge advantage to the Labor Party, which at that time drew its voting strength from rural areas, a consequence of the party's formation in the outback Queensland town of Barcaldine half a century earlier.

And yet Queensland Legislative Assembly suggests the ALP's main strength was based in the provincial cities.

At the 1956 election the change from the previous one vote-one value system was dramatic.

But surely the 1950 election was the first on the new system? The figures suggest a less dramatic change at first.

By this index, Bjelke-Petersen's 1972 revision was actually a step towards democracy,

"Democracy" is a rather vaguer term than its use sometimes implies. There are so many variations of meaning that it gets somewhat subjective to make judgements on details, especially across time and when the motivation (or alleged motivation) is for other factors.

However, the effect was that Bjelke-Petersen was Premier of the state with just 20% of the votes.

Surely 42.2% is the relevant figure for the Coalition? The Country Party alone did not win a majority under the system.

However, if the above figures are used with proportional representation, in effect treating the entire State as one multi-member electorate and removing any effects of gerrymander or malapportionment, the results would have been ALP 39, Coalition 36, DLP 5, and Independents 2.

"Proportional representation" is another term being used as if it has a single meaning. There are numerous voting systems asserting to be proportional - additional member systems, single transferable vote, several different types of party list allocations and so forth. And the results can vary - in a tight situation this can be crucial. In these figures the DLP got 7.7% of the vote but 7.7% of 82 is 6.314 - at least 6 seats on most mechanisms.

Liberal and especially Labor voters were usually found in identifiable "clumps" within Brisbane and the regional cities, a reflection of the income levels available to workers and the middle class dividing them between desirable and less desirable suburbs.

Was this necessarily gerrymandering? A lot of parliamentary boundary commissions around the world use the concept of "natural communities" as the basis for drawing boundaries and socio-economics is often one such factor in identifying a "natural community".

Is anone with greater knowledge and references able to refine this article? Timrollpickering 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)