Shouts from the desert

The effect I think you are referring to is where in an election with a small margin between the major parties, and using a "first past the post" system, a candidate who is nearer to one than the other of the parties can split their vote and actually help the other side.

The effect I am referring to, which is fairly complex so that I don't have time to explain it fully until the second half of June, is one that is unique to preferential systems like Australia has, and especially in the Federal system where the allocation of preferences is mandatory. In such a system - and in simple terms - the allocation of the first preference to a less favoured party in a safe seat like Bennelong, helps to eliminate independent centrist candidates, forcing a run-off between the incumbent safe candidate and an alternative who remains "the opposite" viewpoint to a majority of the electors. The result is that the dominant party in the safe seat wins. In such cases, it is often the case that the independent centrist candidate could have won against the dominant party.

This is well known in political circles, although rarely adequately explained (and no, my paragraph above isn't adequate either - I plan on giving a much better explanation next month).

As I told Andrew Wilkie, on a personal level he would have been able to walk this election in if he had run as an independent. He is a very strong candidate, who has impressively demonstrated his integrity. However I don't believe there is any possibility of him winning as a Green because the Greens are perceived as too far left to get traditional Liberal votes, which are needed to win Bennelong. He obviously disagrees, and of course said so.