Some interesting analysis, imv, particularly when it comes to the rise of Gen Z and the diversity within that generation. For example,
Every year, the electorate that made the old duopoly possible shrinks, and the electorate in which the Greens poll in the 30s grows. Over time, this should aid the Greens in the seats where progressive Gen Z concentrates, which is to say the inner urban seats they already contest and a widening ring of middle suburban seats with heavy renter and student populations. The generational tide is the strongest structural argument that the Greens’ long plateau eventually breaks upwards.
But even here, a qualifier is required, and it is an important one.
Gen Z is not only the most left-leaning generation in Australian history. It is also the most diverse. A very large share of this cohort are the children of migrants, or migrants themselves, and through migration alone that share will keep growing. The overseas born and second-generation component of Gen Z behaves differently from its Anglo and established counterpart. It leans left, but it leans Labor.
I don’t understand the use of the world “tactical” to describe former Greens voters switching to Labor in response to the threat of One Nation. In how many seats were The Greens so competitive on primary votes that they threatened to dislodge Labor? Even if this phenomenon was theoretically possible, it would have occurred at a time when One Nation was not seen as the major threat they are now. One Nation had a +1.44 swing at the last election, they were still largely irrelevant at that time and could not be the cause of this Greens vote plateau.
Yeah, also, unless the voters don’t understand the voting system, why would a ideological greens voter put Labor first, when they can just preference them second?
Tactical voting isn’t really much of a thing in Australia, in my opinion and unless someone has strong evidence that people are doing this, it’s very a tall claim to say people are leaving the Greens for Labor to protect against One Nation.
Presumably because they think The Greens will receive more primary votes than Labor, but will then lose on preferences to a centre-right or right wing candidate (since a left Greens candidate is less likely to receive a consistent preference flow from the rest of the electorate than a more centrist Labor candidate). So the thought would be to primary the mainstream appeal Labor candidate with the hope that this ensures the seat does not fall to an even worse option. Antony Green explains it in more depth here, using the example of Labor voters voting for teal independents to take down Coalition seats.
As I said, I’m not sure there’s evidence of Greens voters actually being in a position to do this in a seat that would simultaneously have a realistic threat from One Nation. If such a phenomenon exists, it’s not “tactical” voting at all but just, as you say, people not understanding the voting system.
90% of the time its people steeped in us politics forgetting how preferential voting works