« profile & posts archive

This author has written 619 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

40 responses to “A Senate preference deal to celebrate”

  1. Sam Clifford

    It’s definitely a smart move, especially so considering the Democrats have more in common with the Greens than they do with Family First (I think Fielding showed his true colours this parliament). I think the ALP knows that if they preferenced FF ahead of the Greens across the nation, there would be a lot of pissed off lefties that might end up voting Green in the Senate. This is especially the case given Rudd’s continued shadowing of Howard through his policies on IR and gay marriage.

    If the ALP preference the Greens across the nation, we’ll probably see Larissa Waters, Richard Di Natale and maybe even Andrew Wilkie elected along with Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle. This would almost definitely give the Greens the balance of power in the Senate unless all new Green Senators come at the expense of ALP Senators.

  2. Andrew Bartlett

    Noting that I have a tiny vested interest in the matter, I would make the following comments:

    – this preference agreement is no great surprise, but is worth emphasising because (a) people need to pay more specific attention to the Senate contests around the country (including the Queensland one, which is probably one of the hardest to predict);
    (b) there is a real chance the major parties will win all the Queensland Senate seats (even with this Dems-Greens preference agreement), leaving Queenslanders without any alternative representation in the Senate and without a voice in balance of power situations.

    – the combined Democrat-Green vote in Queensland is still likely to fall short of a seat, so anyone who doesn’t want the major parties to win all Qld Senate seats needs to encourage as many people to give their Number 1 vote to the Democrats (or the Greens if they prefer)

    – Labor Senate preferences are unlikely to be counted, at least until of the Democrat or Green candidates has been excluded, so the Labor-Green preference deal is not likely to have an impact (unless the swing to Labor in their Queensland Senate vote is less than about 4% or more than 12% – both of which are possible but not overly likely). Having said that, its always nicer to have preferences than not, because these things can never be fully predicted, so I should unleash a Family First style torrent of abuse about grubby Labor-Green preference deals. I’m sure I’ve seen similar rants from a range of quarters in the past. But I shan’t.

    – The Coalition and Family First will do a preference deal of their own, so Coalition Senate preferences will go to Family First first (assuming FF poll higher than the Coalition surplus, which is far from a sure thing). Of course, unlike other preference deals, this preference deal is as pure as angel’s breath and has nothing grubby about it all. Indeed as Senator Fielding indicates, they are so pure in their preference deals that they “were willing to deal with both major parties” – it doesn’t get much purer than that.

    – The best chance for the Democrat in Queensland to win (who is me by the way, in case anyone doesn’t realise) is to outpoll the Greens on primary votes. So anyone who actually wants me to retain my seat should every one in Queensland to vote 1 for me (sorry, I just couldn’t think of a suitably subtle way to say that). If I still fall short, then at least their vote will go across to the Greens, maximising the chances of keeping the major parties from winning all seats and also of keeping Pauline Hanson out.

    – Speaking of Ms Hanson, who very kindly today said I had “done nothing to represent the people of Queensland, we hardly ever heard anything from him,” the possible preference flows from right-wing smaller parties does give her an outside chance. She polled a little over 4% in 2004 but received a range of preferences to keep her in the race until she was the very last candidate excluded. The latest Morgan Senate poll has her on 7%, so I don’t think people can rule her out.

    – The as yet unknown preference decisions of an as yet unknown number of micro parties running in the Senate may well be critical. Guessing probable outcomes in Qld (and elsewhere) will be clearer in a week or so.

  3. Rod

    More power to the Greens and Dems in the Senate everywhere I say (and to you, Andrew Bartlett, especially, given your principled and intelligent stance on the so called NT “Intervention”!).

    Goodness knows what the real “core” and “non core” promises are from Rudd, but, assuming he wins government I’ll feel a whole lot better if the progressive minor parties are the ones that control the Senate!

    Cheers

    Rod

  4. The Worst of Perth

    Senate and lower house control does seem to go to one’s head, so perhaps Kev is better off not having both anyway.

  5. zoot

    Senate and lower house control does seem to go to one’s head, so perhaps Kev is better off not having both anyway.

    Yeah, imagine what those union bosses would do if he did.

  6. Robert Merkel

    As discussed previously, there is no chance of Labor winning an outright majority in the Senate.

    It’s either the Libs retaining a majority, some combination of small parties holding the balance of power.

    I know which outcome I’d prefer; furthermore, I would strongly prefer that those seats not go to Fundies First or Pauline “I run for the Senate to collect the campaign dosh” Hanson. If too many of those types get into office, Labor might be able to get legislation through by making deals with them rather than Democrats snd Greens.

    Personally, in Queensland I do hope Andrew gets up again, because he’s a nice bloke, has a very good grasp of the issues, and it seems to me that he works very hard as a representative (ihas anybody noticed what time his blog posts tend to go up?)

  7. Tyro Rex

    I am an ALP member, I’m voting below the line with the No.1 spot going to Andrew Bartlett, the No.2 to the ALP and Hanson absolutely dead bloody last, damn and blast her to hell.

  8. Katz

    To inject a pragmatic note here.

    Were the ALP to win a majority in the Reps, what are the likely range of issues that the Greens/Dems would be likely to line up with the Libs/Nats to defeat the Govt in the Senate?

    I’m not arguing against a hung Senate here. Australia needs more review and critical assessment of legislation. I bet the Rodent is in a permanent rictus of private rage over his decision to crash through with WorkChoices. Poor Mr Howard, the one time he put his vision for the future of the nation ahead of the imperative to challenge St Robert Menzies (blessed be His Name) as the Household god of the Libs and it’s sunk him deeper than the SEIV X.

    I suppose the Greens/Dems could play a spoiler role on something like environmental legislation or amendments to WorkChoices wherein they could argue that the amendments don’t go far enough, teaming up with the Libs/Nats who would argue that the amendments go too far.

    But when the moment to vote arrives, it’d be a brave/cynical Green/Dem who’d vote on these issues in such a way as to ensure that the Libs/Nats get what they want: i.e., the status quo ante.

  9. Liam

    I should unleash a Family First style torrent of abuse about grubby Labor-Green preference deals. I’m sure I’ve seen similar rants from a range of quarters in the past. But I shan’t.

    Well said AB. I’ve always admired the Democrats for, if nothing else, their grace when locked out of preference deals. It’s a superhuman talent that I know would be beyond me, and almost all the Labor people I know.
    Were the Greens to be the victims of a reverse Labor-Democrat deal, it’d be Travis Bickle time in QLD.

  10. Sam Clifford

    Katz, probably FOI legislation, inquiries, etc. The Greens and the Lib/Nats have very little in common. You’re right that they could both act to block Labor legislation on the basis of it being too weak/ambitious (depending on which party you’re in) but the ALP would have to compromise with the Greens and Democrats to get bills through so they would have to be open to amendments. On the flipside, I can’t see the Libs getting the ALP to water down their legislation to get it passed.

    It’s a political reality that the ALP need the Greens to get past the Coalition. Family First and the other right of centre parties and independents won’t get enough seats to allow the ALP to negotiate with them rather than the Greens. Brown’s a sure thing and Nettle’s chances are good; the Greens might even pick up in Victoria and Qld. Family First will be even more politically irrelevant in the near future.

  11. Katz

    Katz, probably FOI legislation, inquiries, etc.

    Sam, I take your point about enquiries. Once the ALP govt honeymoon period passes, the Greens/Dems and the Libs/Nats will be natural allies in their desire to kick over ALP rocks to see what nasties crawl out.

    I’m less convinced about actual legislation. Let us say that the ALP govt passes a cautious FOI liberalisation bill through the Reps. Then there will be a period of stonewalling and negotiation with the Greens/Dems. Some amendments may be wrested out of the ALP govt, but in the end the Greens/Dems will vote for whatever minor liberalisation the govt determines to be its bottom line.

    BTW, I’d be fascinated to see what a Rudd govt would do with a Greens/Dems sponsored private member’s bill that seeks to unravel an appreciable part of Howard’s draconian anti-terrorism, anti-sedition legislation.

    Civil rights is missing from the campaign ATM.

  12. Ben Raue

    You should be careful when ruling out the possibility of cooperation between the Greens and the Coalition.

    There’s usually very little when the Coalition is in power, but when they are in opposition it’s often in their interest to curb the power of the Labor government, so we’ve often seen the Greens vote with the Coalition in NSW, Victoria, WA, to hold inquiries and generally not let Labor get away with anything. I’d expect the same thing to happen federally. Without Howard at the helm and out of power the Coalition will be a lot less scary to work with.

  13. Angharad

    The Democrats held the balance of power for most the Hawke/Keating governments and did it quite successfully. It’s potentially an easier base to start negotiating from that a Coalition government.

    But, you know, it’s actually not about just saying no all the time. The Senate is a useful place to negotiate, to hold inquiries and to seek to a consensus betterment of legislation as Sam says.

    The Democrats approach is to constructively negotiate, often behind the scenes, to suggest sensible legislative amendments and often before it gets to the Senate floor. Quite alot of those amendments are to bills you might never have heard of because they aren’t played out in the media – but they are still important to someone because of their impacts. And you can always get agreement to an inquiry with the opposition – even if you are both hoping to get different issues aired.

    It’s the process of inquiry, seeking external advice and opinion, that is the strength of a Senate that is not ‘owned’ by the government of the day and the envy of many other democracies. Lots of legislation gets changed, often in smalls ways, because of this process of inquiry. Inquiries with time and resources to properly investigate, have been sadly missing in the last 2 1/2 years.

  14. Juz

    I’m with Katz and Ben, if NSW is any guide expect Green-Lib alliances on things to do with accountability mostly, and very rarely on legislation. Expect lots of divisions with the Greens alone (or with Dems if AB gets back in) against Lab-Lib (more of these than any other combination in divisions, although of course 90% of stuff will go through without divisions).

    Probably the most significant effect of minor party BOP will be the return of committees and legislation-specific inquiries, which have historically been very important for improving legislation. Even without ideological changes, it’s amazing how badly a lot of gov’t leg is written. This is something the Dems never got enough credit for, IMHO.

    Rudd, or rather the Lab leader in the Senate, will oppose Greens private members bills on Your Rights at Work, Climate Change, civil libs, etc, stressing the gov’ts prudence and balanced policy etc.

    Oh, and returning to topic, good luck to both Andrew and Larissa!

  15. Nabakov

    I like FXH’s evil-minded suggestion for the most entertaining (if not productive) outcome – a hung parliament, Howard losing Bennelong after a drawn out recount and the Greens, Democrats and Family First holding the balance in the Senate but only if they work together.

  16. Andrew E

    It still doesn’t make sense that the way to punish one party for abusing its control over both houses of parliament is to give the other party exactly the same chance for power to corrupt it absolutely.

    If the ALP preference the Greens across the nation, we’ll probably see

    … the Greens develop the same relationship with Labor that the Nationals have with the Liberals. Well done the Greens for dodging that bullet.

    The Greens can show the Dems how to pull a stunt (a skill they’ve lost since NSD left) and the Dems can show the Greens how to be effective in Parliament.

  17. Jeremy

    Are the Dems and Greens going to preference swap elsewhere than Queensland as well?

  18. Sam Clifford

    Andrew E, I don’t know if that’s quite true. The Nationals represent the rural communities in the House of Reps whereas the Greens represent progressives across the state in the Senate. As the Greens are unlikely to win any seats in the Lower House any time soon let alone enough to be major players in the HoR, you won’t see the same blind following of the ALP as the Nats do of the Libs.

    The only way I could see a Labor-Green coalition is if the ALP actively encouraged people to vote Green in the inner city seats like Sydney, Melbourne and Grayndler while focussing their energies on the suburban (Blaxland, Paramatta, Griffith) and regional semi-rural seats (Capricornia). The SDP in Germany under Schroeder actively sought a coalition with Alliance 90/The Greens but they’ve got List-PR.

    As much as the Libs and FF like to paint the fearful image of a Red-Green coalition (and I’m sure there are many lefty ALP kids who are in love with the idea, too), it’s not going to happen. If we got Green MHRs, they’d probably support Labor but not join with them in a formal coalition.

  19. Andrew E

    Sam, the Liberals stand in rural areas and (in Queensland anyway), the Nationals contest urban seats. Yet, they realise that they’re stuck with one another and that their best bet is to work something out.

    The scenario you describe will probably happen when Labor next lose office.

  20. Sacha

    The only way I could see a Labor-Green coalition is if the ALP actively encouraged people to vote Green in the inner city seats like Sydney, Melbourne and Grayndler while focussing their energies on the suburban (Blaxland, Paramatta, Griffith) and regional semi-rural seats (Capricornia).

    I don’t think that this is going to happen anytime soon. Any major political party needs to try to represent lots of different people and communities – if the ALP left inner-city seats to the Greens, it’s not at all unlikely that the ALP would find it very hard to win those seats again. The Greens are major competitor to the ALP in Sydney, Grayndler and Melbourne at the moment anyway – I can’t imagine the ALP would want to lose a few seats.

  21. Graham Bell

    Tigtog, Andrew Bartlett and All:

    Still celebrating!

    If there was an outbreak of democracy in Queensland, I’m sure the Australian Democrats and The Greens would find plenty of issues over which to disagree in the new parliament. Until that happy day, let’sall put our votes where our mouths are …. and encourage everyone we know to do likewise.

    Don’t be too ready to dismiss either Hanson or Family First.

    Despite all the hard work by Andrew Bartlett standing up for the neglected, the dispossessed, the betrayed and those who have suffered injustice in Australian society over several years, it is Pauline Hanson who is still seen as the only politician with the guts to speak up for marginalized and maligned native-born Australians, both black and white.

    Family First has both the organization and the determination to increase their number in the new parliament. They just might get a Senate seat in Queensland.

  22. Graham Bell

    Angharad:

    “Quite a lot of those amendments are to bills you might never have heard of because they aren’t played out in the media – but they are still important to someone because of their impacts”.

    I’m starting to get the idea that the mainstream news media is as hostile to democracy in Australia as are armed militia groups and military forces to democracy in some of those countries we are so fond of despising. Journalists don’t imprison demonstrators in Australia, of course, we are all too nice, but some of the actual outcomes are a bit too similar.

  23. Angharad

    I don’t know that I would go so far as to say they are hostile to democracy Graham. But I’ve got no doubt they like a stoush and it’s easier to write sensationalist stories about difference than it is to write about collaboration. Or even to notice subtle changes that make good initiatives work better.

  24. Sam Clifford

    Sacha, you’re right, it won’t happen. The ALP would never dream of giving inner city seats to the Greens unless they were in a formal coalition and the Greens became a serious threat in more than one or two electorates. Given that our single member STV system ensures major party dominance (or popular local independents) of any given seat.

    Andrew E raises the possibility of the ALP teaming up with the Greens after the ALP next loses government but I don’t think we’ll see it unless we get PR in the lower house. The ALP are happy to denigrate the Greens until the cows come home and won’t offer them an inch unless it will guarantee an ALP government.

  25. tigtog

    I. Am. So. Loving. The. Exploding. Heads. Over. The. GetUp. Ad.

    The three-party advertisement, which starts in the ACT tonight, was brokered by independent activist organisation GetUp. Greens leader Senator Bob Brown, Democrats leader Lyn Allison and ACT Labor Senator Kate Lundy feature in the ad.

    Switching between the three, they say: “We’ve never done this before, but this election, whether you vote for her party, or his party, or her party, make sure you vote to end the Coalition’s absolute control of the Senate … we can’t do the great job we need to and make laws better while one side calls all the shots.”

    (SMH story)

    Heehee. The blustering from the Government is extraordinary. How dare the leftist parties form any sort of joint campaign when the LibNats have had the advantage of Coalition preference deals etc etc all these years?

    Government Senate leader Nick Minchin asserted the alliance would impose a “frightening reality” on the country’s policy agenda, raising the spectre of legalised euthanasia and heroin injecting rooms.

    It would be the first time in Australia that a radical left-wing party was poised to gain such unprecedented power, he warned yesterday. It would act “in cahoots” with Labor’s Left to block or abolish key reforms.

    A vote for Labor in the Senate was a vote for the Greens, which would “damage the fabric of our society and our economic prosperity”, he said.

    Hysteria reigns! Steve Fielding is probably the most entertaining: losing it totally.

    Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile kicked off the hysteria on Friday by asserting that parents should fear Labor would secretly agree to support the Greens’ policy of relaxing regulations on X-rated videos. Family First Senator Steve Fielding – facing defeat without Labor preferences – screamed louder, slamming the “grubby deal” that would deliver “drug shooting galleries in your street”.

    Stoking up fears about the Greens being extremist won’t help the Coalition, as holding the balance of power is not at all the same as having control, and most people realise that. The average punter certainly realises all too well that giving the Senate to the Coalition in 2004 was a big mistake, and they are not going to do it again. At least one expert argues that the Senate is the major reason that the polls have essentially been stable against the Government since February.

  26. Peterc

    Family First has both the organization and the determination to increase their number in the new parliament. They just might get a Senate seat in Queensland.

    Family First’s reputation may suffer a bit of a setback due to the revelation that one of their candidates is involved with pornography. [link] [link]
    Whether this affects their preference negotiations remains to be seen.

  27. Ben Raue

    As far as I can tell, there is only a deal between the Greens and the Democrats in Queensland. But after seeing Lyn Allison effectively endorse the Greens and Labor as preferred allies how could they then go and do anything differently on their tickets?

  28. Sam Clifford

    I think with the Qld Dem-Green deal, we’re beginning to see the end of the hostilities between the two. The Dems must know they’re coming from behind this election with the retirement of Murray and Stott Despoja, Bartlett and Allison would probably much prefer the Coalition lose control of the Senate even if it means giving it to a party they’ve had a rough relationship with at times. I think it’s a very sensible move and will unite the supporters of the two parties in the common goal of ensuring no one party controls the Senate.

  29. tigtog

    BTW, the GetUp ad can be viewed here https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ThreePartyAd&id=183 and folks who care to can also donate money there to fund the purchase of ad slots on the teevee and steam powered radio.

  30. Rod

    Sam wrote: “I think with the Qld Dem-Green deal, we’re beginning to see the end of the hostilities between the two. The Dems must know they’re coming from behind this election”

    Personally I reckon the sooner the Greens and the Dems (minus any Meg Lees characters) get together , the better for all. Their platforms, for the most part, are closer together than the Labour Left (remember them?) from the NSW Right or even, perhaps than Howard and Turnbull.

    Seems silly to have them arguing about who gets third place. Better to be aiming jointly for the bigger prize in the long term. Hey, if this election goes the way its looking the Libs may well explode sufficiently, and Rudd may “me too” himself sufficiently, for that “second spot” to be up for grabs!

  31. Sam Clifford

    I recall Stott Despoja saying she’d like to come back to politics post-childrearing but I don’t know if she’d have a party to come back to. She’s definitely one of the most “Green” Democrats the party have had, as is Bartlett, and I’m sure she’d be welcomed with open arms.

  32. Andrew Bartlett

    How Senate balance of power is used under a Labor government will be determined as much by the Liberal’s attitude as anything else.

    There will almost always be balance of power type opportunities on setting on Inquiries, demanding tabling of documents, and the general holding government to account type of things, as Oppositions usually support cross-bench efforts in this area if for not other reason than to irritate the Government.

    However, balance of power opportunities on legislation may be much more difficult to predict. If the Libs adapt oppositional tactics, then there will be lots of balance of power opportunities, where Labor will be forced to accept cross-bench amendments as the price for getting laws through. If the Libs adopt a ‘we don’t like it much but you’re the government’ approach most of the time, then there will be few balance of power opportunities on legislation.

    To use one example, when the first Native Title legislation was put forward, for reasons best known to themselves the Liberals under Dr Hewson (who now likes to style himself as something of a genuine liberal) decided to oppose the whole thing outright, rather than try to amend it to reflect something more suited to their views. This gave the Democrats and the 2 WA Green Senators balance of power on the legislation, thus enabling them to amend it to something which better reflected their views (and even less suited to the views of the Liberals, whose tactics perversely produced a law they liked even less than the original).

    The same thing can happen on almost any issue, but it is often hard to predict in advance which ones they will be. But it is a reminder that balance of power on legislation will not always mean cross-bench combining with Libs to force an amendment on a Labor government. It is just as likely to be cross-bench telling Labor government they ill join with Lib Opposition to block a Bill unless/until Government agrees to certain amendment, even though the amendment may be something the Libs like even less than the original.

    Or to use the very current Workchoices example, if the Libs lose and decide they’ll let Labor claim a ‘mandate’ on workplace laws and support it basically unamended, the cross-bench becomes powerless. But if instead the Libs decide to maintain the rage and rhetoric against the ‘union bosses’, etc and oppose everything, it will place the final say very much with the cross-bench – and some potentially interesting decisions about how much to insist on (not to mention some possibly quite different views amongst Green, Democrat and Family First Senators which may need to be reconciled, depending on how many cross-bench votes Labor will need to get legislation through)

  33. FDB

    Bit late to the party here (oh god no pun intended) but this is excellent news.

    A long-term alliance (coalition?) between the Greens and Dems has always struck me as a good idea, and the last 12 months or so it looks better and better. I wonder what Andrew’s thoughts would be on that – a bitter pill after being number 3 for so long, or not? Would there even be a need for some formal arrangement, or a case-by-case realignment on each issue?

    If as hoped the Libs implode, something along these lines is required IMHO to prevent a politics dominated by a monolithic Labor sliding further and further to the lazy social right, and dragging its feet on the environment.

  34. Andrew E

    Andrew E raises the possibility of the ALP teaming up with the Greens after the ALP next loses government but I don’t think we’ll see it unless we get PR in the lower house. The ALP are happy to denigrate the Greens until the cows come home and won’t offer them an inch unless it will guarantee an ALP government.

    You seem to be implying that the Greens have to come cap-in-hand to Labor. I’d suggest that next time Labor go into opposition they will be bound by the Beggars Can’t Be Choosers Act.

    I recall Stott Despoja saying she’d like to come back to politics post-childrearing but I don’t know if she’d have a party to come back to.

    GetUp seem to be doing the organising that the Democrats and moderate liberals can’t/won’t.

    If the Libs adapt oppositional tactics, then there will be lots of balance of power opportunities, where Labor will be forced to accept cross-bench amendments as the price for getting laws through. If the Libs adopt a ‘we don’t like it much but you’re the government’ approach most of the time, then there will be few balance of power opportunities on legislation.

    This implies that the Liberals willl be sufficiently disciplined to follow a clear line in opposition: I’m not sure this will be the case. Liberal oppositions tend to b a rabble, as a rule.

  35. Junelle Rhodes

    I am interested in your opinions on how the micro parties (feels like a nasty word!) will impact upon senate seats?

    Of course I’m interested as a newcomer to this scene and a Victorian Senate Candidate for the Carers Alliance!

    Your expertise and knowledge far outweighs mine! So I would appreciate your input!

  36. tigtog

    There will be an impact from preference flows from micro-parties, Junelle. It’s a chance to get your issues out there, but I doubt that there’s the numbers for a micro-party to get up with the exception of Nick Xenophon in South Australia, who is that rare beast with a high recognition and personal popularity factor. Dr Karl Kruszelnicki should poll well in NSW, but I don’t think he has quite the same charisma as Xenophon, and I’d be surprised if he gets a seat.

    Perhaps assessing which non-major party candidate has the best policy for carers, pledging them your preferences and doing a couple of joint appearances is the best shot for highlighting your cause?

  37. Junelle Rhodes

    Thanks TigTog for your reply.

    Of course the Victorian team are looking at which parties will place carers and the people they support in the best position. But everyone promises everything, why is it that we suspect once seats are won things may change? Do you get it in writing! lol They all promise to consult and gain a better understanding of the issues.

    Thanks
    Junelle Rhodes
    Victoria Senate Candidate
    Carers Alliance

  38. Juz

    I presume everyone is now aware that the Greens/Dems deal is nation-wide (despite a brief bout of argy-bargy in NSW).

    Weren’t all Senate preference deals to be lodged by last night? Anyone know where we can look them up – I can’t see it on the AEC or ABC websites.

  39. Mark

    No, I think it’s Monday, Juz.

  40. Juz

    Thanks Mark, I just established they have to be lodged by noon tomorrow (Sat 3/11). Not sure when they will be public, possibly straight away.

    In NSW, I think the only significant unknown is who the Climate Change Coalition will preference, assuming FF and the Coalition do tie up a national deal (which FF needs to have any hope). Now that will be a test of their (CCC) credibility, given ‘clean coal’ is ‘Goebbels-style propaganda’ but they were reportedly preferencing the ALP in some seats in the state election.

    In SA, there’s the X Factor – where he sits in prefs from Dems and Greens, and vice versa, could well affect who gets up (esp. if he goes and wins 20% again!).

    And Hanson’s preferences in Qld could be a factor if she polls poorly enough to drop out early.

    Any other states where the pref deals of significant minors is in doubt?

    I presume LP will have a post with all the details shortly, at any rate!