The Poll Bludger’s lower house predictions left a bit to be desired – I underestimated the Nationals, failed to spot Labor’s troubles in Gippsland, missed Russell Savage’s defeat in Mildura, punted on some roughies that failed to come home (Eltham and South West Coast) and got suckered in by some faulty conventional wisdom (South Barwon and Melbourne). However, I can claim to have salvaged some pride with my upper house predictions, all of which are looking good except my call of three Liberal and two Labor in Western Victoria, which will likely be the other way round (UPDATE: See below). Given that my prediction was for a total of 20 seats for Labor, the Western Victoria bonus would give them the magic 21 seats and an absolute majority in the 40-seat chamber. Bearing in mind that the VEC still only has results in from 1744 out of 2416 voting centres, the picture appears as follows in the eight regions listed in rough order of interest (if any).
1. David Davis (Liberal)
2. John Lenders (Labor)
3. Andrea Coote (Liberal)
4. Sue Pennicuik (Greens)
5. Evan Thornley (Labor) leads David Southwick (Liberal)
Labor is coming perilously close to having its star candidate Evan Thornley lose to the third Liberal. The Greens have a quota without much room to spare after preferences from the Democrats boost them from 15.64 per cent to 17.31 per cent, above the magic number of 16.67 per cent. Similarly, Evan Thornley starts out with Labor’s 14.98 per cent surplus over the first quota and just gets there with preferences from independent Rita Bentley (0.38 per cent) and People Power (1.37 per cent), boosting him to 16.73 per cent. He will further get the Greens surplus if he needs it, which on current figures will boost him 0.60 per cent to a total of 17.33 per cent. That gives him an uncomfortable lead of 0.66 per cent; if this lead evaporates, Family First preferences will put the Liberals’ David Southwick over the line. It is interesting that Rita Bentley is giving Thornley such a valuable boost, as her preference ticket singles him out for special treatment – Thornley is in third place behind Bentley’s running mate Geoff Taylor, while the other Labor candidates are behind the Liberals.
1. Jaala Pulford (Labor)
2. John Vogels (Liberal)
3. Gayle Tierney (Labor)
4. David Koch (Liberal)
5. Elaine Carbines (Labor) leads Peter Kavanagh (DLP)
With Labor and Liberal winning two seats each, the final seat has emerged as a contest between Labor and the Greens with the tide continuing to flow to Labor. At the critical point of the count, Labor leads 9.13 per cent to the Greens’ 8.46 per cent (their 8.17 per cent primary vote plus preferences from the Socialist Alliance). Whichever of the two emerges in front will get to a quota on the preferences of the other, leapfrogging either the Nationals or the DLP. (UPDATE: The previous statement was based on the erroneous assumption that Labor preferences would go to the Greens rather than the DLP. In fact, if Labor falls behind the Greens – which is reckoned to be at least possible by those in the know – their preferences will deliver the seat to the DLP).
1. Justin Madden (Labor)
2. Khalil Eideh (Labor)
3. Martin Pakula (Labor)
4. Bernie Finn (Liberal)
5. Henry Barlow (Labor) leads Colleen Hartland (Greens)
After the first four seats go three Labor and one Liberal, Labor is leading the Greens in the race for the fifth seat. Labor has 9.31 per cent over the third quota against the Greens’ total of 9.14 per cent. Labor is then boosted by preferences from People Power (1.24 per cent) and the DLP (0.99 per cent), while the Greens get preferences from the Democrats (0.94 per cent) – leaving Labor with a lead of 11.54 per cent to 10.08 per cent at the critical point of the count. Whichever of the two ends up behind here will propel the other over the second Liberal candidate (7.80 per cent boosted to 11.72 per cent after Family First preferences).
1. Richard Dalla Riva (Liberal)
2. Shaun Leane (Labor)
3. Bruce Atkinson (Liberal)
4. Brian Tee (Labor)
5. Jan Kronberg (Liberal) leads Bill Pemberton (Greens)
After the election of two Liberal and two Labor candidates, the fifth place emerges as a close contest between Liberal and the Greens. The Greens appeared to have the edge earlier in the count, but the tide has continued to flow in the Liberals’ direction. The Liberals are currently on 11.72 per cent above their second quota, with the Greens on 10.30 per cent. With the Liberals further boosted by 4.36 per cent from the strongly performing Family First, the current result at the final count is Liberal 17.48 per cent and the Greens 15.86 per cent – surely an unbridgeable gap.
1. Theo Theophanous (Labor)
2. Jenny Mikakos (Labor)
3. Matthew Guy (Liberal)
4. Nazih Elasmar (Labor)
5. Greg Barber (Greens)
The remarkable thing about the DLP’s near-miss was that it was not entirely down to the strength of their preference arrangements, which were inferior to those of People Power and the Democrats. Their vote of 4.85 per cent may well have been boosted by their position on the far left of the ballot paper, echoing their strong 2.3 per cent Senate vote when they were similarly placed in 2001. It was suggested on that occasion that they had benefited from confused Labor voters. However, the miracle ultimately failed to eventuate because the Greens vote has steadily increased to 16.09 per cent as counting has progressed, lifting them above a 16.67 per cent quota with the addition of 1.13 per cent from the Democrats as preferences.
1. Candy Broad (Labor)
2. Wendy Lovell (Liberal)
3. Damian Drum (Nationals)
4. Donna Petrovich (Liberal)
5. Kaye Darveniza (Labor)
The collective Coalition vote was 50.54 per cent, or a clear three quotas. With the Liberal vote on 28.65 per cent (11.98 above the first quota) and the Nationals on 21.89 per cent (5.22 per cent), these seats went two Liberal and one Nationals. Labor polled 30.05 per cent (13.38 per cent over a quota) to the Greens’ 6.86 per cent; to that the Greens could add only a tiny Coalition surplus plus further preferences from some surprising sources, with the Christian Democratic Party and the DLP both putting the Greens ahead of Labor. That still left them well short of a quota, with Labor coasting home on preferences from Family First (3.66 per cent) and the Country Alliance (2.32 per cent).
1. Philip Davis (Liberal)
2. Matt Viney (Labor)
3. Edward O’Donohue (Liberal)
4. Peter Hall (Nationals)
5. Johan Scheffer (Labor)
A straightforward result with a clear two quotas to Labor (35.36 per cent) and three for the Coalition after the addition of Family First preferences. The Nationals polled 9.70 per cent against the 4.65 per cent Liberal surplus over the second quota, and thus emerged with the third Coalition seat.
1. Gavin Jennings (Labor)
2. Adem Somyurek (Labor)
3. Gordon Rich-Phillips (Liberal)
4. Bob Smith (Labor)
5. Inga Peulich (Liberal)
Another refreshingly straightforward outcome with Labor on just over three quotas (50.72 per cent) and the Liberals just over two (33.50 per cent).
There would have to be a major correctioin to the only the night throw. over a 1000 votes. But hey we are talking about the VEc who don’t even klnow how many postal votes were issue.. of if they do they are not telling anyone… I have had numerous compliants about that one..
There were earlier reports that teh ALP preferences go to the Greens before the DLP I have checked the VEC published HTV toickets and the DLP is on 10 and the Greens 15.. Did the VEC publcih the wrong data?? Can you veryify???
perhaps we should all just wait until the VEC finish their count. i spent today scutineering and they really are being very meticulous.
Not sure if my last post got on. I still can’t see how from an initial count of Labor on 9.03% beyond the second quota, and the Greens on 8.42 including the Socilialist Alliance, how you manage to get the Greens ahead of Labor at the key point that would elect the DLP. That requires 2,100 BTL votes, when if you exclude ALP, LIB and GRN BTLs, there are only a total of about 3,800.
Hold on.. Did you find teh data-entry error in the VEc group name…
I am still pointing to the Medialite file which I have updated I can repoint it ot the verbose file… both are the same date…
I’m just taking the data off the website. And I got the same result today when I used the xml files.
Hmmm The Greens below the line vote is not as strong as first indicated. It is close..
Antony do you have the lower house data for the regions. How many votes does the VEc have in otal of the lower house?
Melb City: can you explain this DLP data entry problem ? I have access to the VEC website as well and I get the same result as Antony (ALP slightly ahead).
How do you know it’s a data problem and how do you fix it ?
All my errors so far have resolved themselves as my own programming problems. Everytime I loaded the VEC data on Sunday, which I did three times, Labor won the last Western Victoria seat. I loaded the data once today, and typed it from the website tonight and still had Labor winning. One the results on the VEC website, I just can’t see on those votes how you get the Greens ahead of Labor.
There is a VEC dataentry msinatch in their medialite data in the DLP name.
I had to change their entry from
group_fullname
D.L.P.- DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY
changed to
group_fullname
D.L.P. – DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY
This error is still there…
It is a close race and yes I think the ALP will beat the Greens. This is tyhe key to the outcome…
I don’t use the group name, I pull all the data out by ballot position and whack it into my database, then accumulate it by group.
Do we have any information where the J-Independeants votes go??
Are all the postals counted yet? Very frustrating not know which data is in and which is out…. WHY the VEC did not publish the booths results I fail to understand or agree with…
Why is the VEC still reporting that not all booths are in and which ones are still outstanding…. All te lower hosue booths were in on the night…
I can. Their IT people were horrified at the extra work load it involved when I chatted to them. The Victorian files are all quite neat compared to the vast volumes of data the NSW Electoral Commission propose to chuck at the media on election night after having decided to go down the booth by booth path.
Antony I will do liwise and rebuild my dataset based only on the meda verbose ata file. .. but I am still seeing that data-entry/data quaility issue with the DLP name. Missing space…
There are 1,744 upper house counted and about 672 to go. There were around 1,700 polling places at the election, plus another 600 or so E-Centre booths. All these E-Centre votes had to be tallied and sent back to the returning officers for the home district. It looks to me like they’ve put in all the lower house e-centre votes. These e-centre votes are only a tiny number in total despite there being hundreds of booths involved. The turnout figure in each region suggests only the declaration votes are to come, and the big gap in booth numbers is explained by the e-centres. As usual, the order of counting and data entry has been lower hous primaries, lower house preferences, then upper house.
The e-centerd votes is an issue and the system should have been deisgned to show these votes up seperately. Where can we get hold of the e-voting ceneter data?
Where is there a list of all the polling places recorded and why is it that all the lowerhouse polling place data is in bit not all of the upper-house polling places. Is there a strement of record on the number of absentee votes and postal votes issued. This is not difficult data and should have been tallied by now… This election is notable more for what data is missing then what has been reported. It would have to be one of teh worst managed elections I have seen… The AEC certainly does better and is more open and transparent.
Do we have any data on the absentee votes recieved/issued. Same for Postals I know they have not been counted as yet but the number of ballot envelopes should have been counted amnd this data made available bvefore they proceeded to opening the ballot papers. Without this data you have no way of knowing what has been counted and what is outstanding. I know the Chief Commissoner is from SA and his experiance in running larger electuins is limited BUT… this is basic infromation that should and in the past was available… Why is it not availble now…
As I understand it that teh e-voiting center data is considered as an ordinary vote or a prepoll/absentee vote. Its hard to say becase it is not seperatly categorised. Another issue…
Go to bed, Melbcity. Trust in the Great Braxy, and all will be well in the morning.
Antony you are reporting pretty vague figuras there and it seams that you are having to make a lot of assumptions. I know I am having to second guess a lot of missing information.
The VEC should have published on its website all of this data.
The result should have contained polling booth data. The number of postal votes issued, absentee and pre-polling votes issued per district should have also been available, progressive tallys if nessassary, well before these votes are opened and counted.
The issuing of postal votes closed on Thursday and pre-polling on the Friday night.
They should have known the number of ballot papers issued prior to the election on Saturday, there is no excuse. Why was this information not available on the web site and not available to candidates, scrutineers, campaign managers and the public?
The conduct of this count is unsatisfactory is akin to the pea under the shell game where the game master lifts up one shell and shoes you that the ball is not under the one chosen but he failed to show you what’s under the other shells. Its like trying to drive around Australia with a world map with no distance or scale indicators.
Without a doubt this is one of the worst managed and unaccountable counts in recent time. I will certainly be highlighting all these issues in a submission to the Parliament following the declaration along with my concerns that the VEC had accessed and pre-counted e-voting ballot prior to Saturday’s poll and without scrutineers present or the publication of the vote data file. Highly questionable and definitely inappropriate.
What is clear about Western Victoria is that the fifth spot is either going to the DLP or the ALP. If the Green vote out pols the ALP the DLP are elected on ALP preferences. If the ALP out pols the Greens the ALP is elected on Green preferences. The only other close conjunction is the LP with Family First which if Family First out-poll the DLP plus minor preferences then the National Party could be elected… and whats worst we have no idea what is in and what is outstanding in terms of location or types o the vote. No idea of the number of postal votes issued, pre-polling votes issued or absentee votes issued. We do know whats been counted but not from where. An auditors night mare. Does the VEC use the same auditors as the Liberal Party?
Its only 5PM too early to sleep
The Greens vote is lower then expeceted and Yes are present they are behind the ALP buit then there are more booths anmd ostal vptes to be counted. the Greens are shgowing a strong below the line vote. It is difficult to know where that goes but you can assume that it will stay within the group. No one thought the DLP would be the last standing (Other then the Speaker) and there is a lot of missing data and a number of votes outstanding and knowone knows how many postal votes had been issued before Staturday… It is close and too many unkown variables. the VEc has left us in teh dark and the system is not open and transparent. candidates, scrutineers and the media don’t know this information. information that should be published an readily available. an auditors nightmare.
Whilst I have not got any information on whats in and wait waiting to be recorded. I assume that they are still waiting to some of the remote rural votes? I am surprised that they have not recorded this data given that all of the lower house polling place data is in… if the votes to be counted are from the rural section and absentees these should favour the Lib/NP and DLP… FF are falling below the earlier 4% mark. The Green vote is dropping and the ALP is now ahead of the Greens Earlier they were behind. This sort of change is expect but again without knowing whats in and what’s still waiting &*^&*^%
I would love to know who was the idiot that decided not to publish the polling booth data. Previous elections including the Senate all this data was available…
If the data load was too much for the ABC then the VEC should have produced two separate data files.
The VEC has an obligation that goes beyond information the media. It is about openness and transparency
Will the polling booth data be readily available after the event or do we have to FOI them again?
It just BS, in future I trust those in the loop will recommended full disclose in the interest of maintaining of an open an transparent election process and that includes producing data on the number of postal votes, pre-poll ballots issued along with electronic votes being separated from the rest of the count.
The issue of the VEC accessing the e-voting data before the close of the poll raises a number of issues of ongoing concern about the secretary of the system of electronic voting that’s been implemented. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the results are true and accurate and subject to effective and proper scrutiny? The world was told that Florida’s elections were a true and accurate account, but there was no way to verify the fact.
The recent mid term elections in the USA also highlight a number of issues. Our system is a little different. We have a a preferential voting system, one of the worlds best and most democratic. With preferential voting the need to provide the preference data used to calculate the results is crucial. Even more so when it involves a third party data-entry process. I have looked at the system and whilst there are some mechanisms in place to limit some data=entry problems it still is open and susceptible to errors.
In previous election counts the VEC would not do a preliminary manual throw of preferences preferring to jump in and start the data-entry.
The VEC refusal to do a manual first pass throw was a nightmare as it made it extremely difficult to monitor the accuracy of the computerised data-entry count. Another check digit removed. A preliminary throw of the BTL votes not only helps with analyzing the outcome of the election but it also assists in the data-entry and scrutiny of the ballot. Scrutineers can decide which votes are of interest and devote resources accordinally. (We had the absurd situation where if there was 20 candidates and 20 data-entry personal up to 400 scrutineers would have been required to scrutinise the data-entry process) Without a preliminary manual distribution scrutineers were denied the right to effectively monitor the various processes.
Unlike the VEC the AEC also provided information on the informal vote which was included in the data-set they provided. This was very interesting and useful as votes of interest could be identified, pulled out and rechecked.
In providing copies of the data-set, Scrutineers are afforded the opportunity of undertaking independent analysis of the data as the count unfolds. Various queries that would not normally be undertaken by the electoral office can be ran against the data highlighting votes of interest that could then be subject to a secondary glance and review.
Most of the issues discussed above diminish if and when we remove the third-party data-entry process altogether and voters record their vote directly but new additional issues of concern begin to rise with votes being recorded in real time. Issues such as the electorate office undertaking a preliminary count of the vote prior to the close of the poll. (As appears to have been the case in this election)
Electronic voting machines MUST be fitted with write once read only recording devices so that we can be confident that the data has not been hacked into from a central location out in cyberspace. Copies of this data and the backup disk must be made available to scrutineers at the close of the poll. Each unit must also be stand alone and not be reliant on a central data connection. The last thing you want is someone with access to this data recording information, unknown to others misusing that data by either changing a few preferences or selling the information to interested parties (Political and commercial). At the conclusion of the count a certified and digitally signed data copy of all votes and preferences MUST be published as part of the declaration procedures.
The issues that have been identified in America are the same here and world wide. The more elections move into e-Space the greater the significance in the provision of data in order to ensure that the election process remains open and transparent and is subject to independent public scrutiny. Without this information, as has been evident in this count, the public and scrutineers are left in the dark.
Previous elections polling booth and the number of ballot papers issued were available and should have been in this election.
Does anyone knwo what booths are still to come in.. This is like walking around in a London fogg. Tne number of politicans and their camaoign managers from all sides complaining about issues related to the poll is at an all time high. Somehow I think Tully’s contract will not be renewed… Its a bt like having a flopp on breadway on your opening night. people never forget the main stars.
Reports at hand “The VEC has said they won’t provide electronic files to scrutineers” Chief Commissioner Steve Tully does not intend to be held accountable or maintain an open and transparent election system,. Looks like we will have to go down the FOI track again to get information to get hold of information that should have been provided in the first place. This is a direct abuse of his duties and obligations. We will also petition Parliament to intervene and to ensure that the detailed election results are published. Shameful really. If Mr Tully can not provide an open and transparent electoral system then Parlament should consider sacking him.
We will write to the Speaker of the Lower House and the The President with copies to Rob Hulls, Minister responsible for the Electoral Office to express our concerns and our ongoing complaints.
Right, here’s the info you are after MelbCity. It’s actually not hard to get if you ask the VEC. All the booths are counted. The outstanding booths are simply the e-centres, which they are recording as separate booths in each district. (I think they should be bundled into a single total persoanlly, but that is the VEC’s appraoch.) That is why the count is above 80% with all booths not reporting. The E-centres are a tiny number of votes. Most of the postals and early votes will be entered today. They’ve been counted, but the entry has been delayed by work on sorting out the lower house. The Absent votes will probably start being counted late today or tomorrow. It always takes time for Absent votes to be returned to their home district for counting.
The VEC will be publishing the final details by booth, though it is more likely it will be made available in Excel spreadsheets than in book form.
Many of the e-centre booths have zero votes, but they have yet to be flagged as having reported. Think about it. How many electronic votes for Gippsland South or Nepean are going to be recorded at the Shepparton E-Centre.
Ok guys so who won the last seat in Western?
as for the lower house Tammy at Gembrook has got over 200 extra but the guy is asking for a recount, wishful thinking Simon. NMaxine in mount waverley will hold on by 130 votes but I guess a recount will happen there too.
Morwell I think to the nats
I have just received advise from scrutineers and others that Steve Tully is refusing to make available relevant data files for independent analysis.
This information is not confidential and is a public document. If need be we will make an application under FOI immediately following the declaration to the poll.
We will also be following up with a petition to the Parliament early 2007.
Mr Tully’s refusal to provide this information is an abuse of process and continues to bring the conduct of the 2006 State Election into disrepute.
– copy of our first letter was sent off today to all parties, media and candidates.
We ask for your support in ensuring that this action and future elections are open and transparent and that detailed information and election results are published accordinally.
The Speaker and President and members of the Victorian State Parliament
Good Governance.
Request for urgent action and review to ensure Victoria’s elections remain open and transparent and that detailed election results are placed on the public record.
I have just received advice from scrutineers and other interested persons that the Victorian Chief Electoral Commissioner, Mr Steve Tully, has refused to make available detailed election results and relevant computer data for scrutiny and impendent review.
It is fundamental and essential to good governance that our public elections are open and transparent and that all available information is placed on the public record.
Mr Tully’s refusal to provide this information has brought the Victorian Electoral Office and the conduct of the State Election into disrepute.
.
This information is a public document and is available under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and was previously available in past State and Municipal elections.
If need be an FOI application will be made in order to secure this information but this should not be necessary and if required would be an abuse of process on behalf of the Victorian Electoral Commission. There is no legal limitations or requirements that prevents this information being published and made available to members of the public.
Whilst Mr Tully currently has no direct statutory obligation to provide this information it is clearly in the public interest that this information is published and readily available to members of the public.
I hereby request that the Parliament take appropriate steps to ensure that Victoria Victoria’s elections are open and transparent and that all relevant detailed computerised election results are published in electronic form accordingly.
The information required should include (where appropriate for both the upper and lower-houses of Parliament and Municipal Council’s)
1. all voting centre/polling booth returns, candidates primary and above-the-line data and any electronic data-file containing detailed voters preference allocations.
2. the number of ballot papers that were issued prior to the election and the number return.
If necessary to avoid a repeat of this disgraceful situation where access to election results are denied to scrutineers and the public that the State Parliament legislate to so as to make it mandatory for the Victorian Electorate to provide access to this information during and as part of the procedures for the declaration of the poll. This information must be provided in a timely fashion and readily made available on request and/or published on the Electoral Commission’s Internet site.
I seek you urgent attention and action on the above issue in the interest of good governance, and the conduct of open and transparent elections.
Should you require further information I can be contacted via return email
Yours sincerely
Anthony van Der Craats
http;//melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com
cc media, candidates and other interested persons
Current figures are showing Labor is ahead of the Greens in Western Victoria and as such Labor will most likely be elected BUT much depends on the flow of below-the-line preferences.
there are also other close function points between Family First and the DLP the DLP and the National Party with a number of polling places still outstanding it can not be stated for sure who will win. We have to wait and see. Its a bit like the con mans trick of three shells and a ball. You select on shell and he shows you the ball is not under it but refuses to lift up the remaining shells or show you where the ball is located.
We may never know where and how those preferences were allocated as the Chief Commissioner is refusing to make this information available to scrutineers or the public…
Anthony that is not the advice we have received and I am more interested in the below-the-line preference data which should and must be made available to scrutineers in the first instance and a certified digitally signed copy published on the VEC web site. I have been informed that Mr Steve Tully has indicted that this information will not be available. I have contacted the relevant Ministers and members of parliament who are looking into this issue. Many who are puzzled as to why Mr Tully will not make this information available. There is already legal precedence on this issue. I will drag out the link to the 1999 VCAT hearing which clearly stated that this is a public documenta and must be available to the public.
Mr Tully’s refusal to provide this information continues to bring the conduct of this election into disrepute. there are also a host of other complaints that have been forwarded to me and we are looking into them. non of which effect the result but go to the heart of maintaining an open and transparent election process.
E-viting should have been flaged down as separate voting type in the same way as they treat postal. pre-poll and absentee votes. We have asked for this informatino and Mr Tully has refused to provide it. we also asked for the number of postal votes that had been issued and the VEC was unable to provide this basic infornmation.
Centaur,
I agree with your assessment on Gembrook. The trend since Saturday and the end of booth counting has been towards Tammy Lobato – margin 285 and going away.
Mount Waverley is the only seat where new figures have been added in the recent updates, and Maxine Morand has turned a 130 deficit into a 106 lead. Depending on whether this sets a trend or volatility of late votes continues, she looks in a good position to hold. We’re still sweating on further figures in Ferntree Gully and Kilsyth.
Antony has the Government only losing 4 seats which is less then the media is reporting. I must admit it is better the my estimates. There was a clear firming up of voter intentions in the last week possible the last day.
Anyone wondering about the legality of publishing the detailed elections results including the voter preference data here is VCAT ruling.
It was heard by senior VACT member Mr McNamara who ruled in my favour without reserving his decision or the need for me to give my right of reply to to the City of Melbourne’s false arguments. the City of Melbourne acting on instruction from Alison Lyons, legal Officer, spent over $60,000.00 trying to avoid disclosure of the Council’s election results. It would have cost them less then $1.00 for the price of a floppy disk or nothing if they emailed it. It was a disgrace and something that should never be allowed to happen again. An abuse of process. Looks like Tully is heading down the same track. I might need to talk to PILCH this time instead of representing myself.
VACT Ref: (You can find it on the Internet via Google)
Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City of Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)
ferntree gully gone and so is Kilsyth. I had narracan and morwell down on my predictions. I only got Gembrook wrong and had Bass swinging back.
The nearly DLP in upper is most annoying. I will be voting below the line in future, they are family first with a different name.
As for the recreational group REG it smells of dummy to me 1 2 thornley 3. Hmm a small investment from a rich man to ensure the seat.
Centaur,
I don’t concur with your view that Ferntree Gully and Kilsyth are gone, any more than I consider Mount Waverley is held, given the current margins and the outstanding votes.
I do agree that the most likely outcomes are Mount Waverley to Labor, and the other two to be Liberal gains. While I now class Gembrook as a Labor hold, I think the other three should probably still be regarded as “in doubt”.
I always vote below the line and above just to make sure…
I have just noticed that the VEC has published limited information on the polling place place results for each of the districts. Missing is the upper-house and 2CP assessment for each polling place.
Why this information was not available on the night and why there is not data on the upper-house per polling place I fail to understand or accept.
There are a lot of people asking a lot of questions and the post-mortem is not favourable other then the result of course. Well for some…
As I said earlier, Toorak Ted needed a minimum of ten gains to claim a respectable result. As it is, he only has three – Evelyn, Hastings and Narracan, plus Morwell for the Nats. He will probaby also get Kilsyth and Ferntree Gully, and he might get Mt waverley and Gembrook. Even if he gets all of them that’s only seven for the Libs – a poor result by any standard. I spent the day on the booth at East St Kilda, and I can report that working-class voters were totally unimpressed by the Two Toffs from Toorak – Ted and Clem Newton-Brown – with their balloons and tee-shirts and gimmicks. Dumb and patronising, they said.
Adam,
You missed Bayswater in your list of Liberal gains, but I think you’re on the money with your assessment. The Libs will certainly need to make good use of the (limited) new blood which they now have; a four-year term before another shot at the title must be a dispiriting prospect and may well lead to a continuation of the faction-fighting which has hampered the Victorian Liberals since 1999 (not an unknown experience for Labor in Opposition).
In this morning’s Age Tim Colebatch has an interesting comparison between the Baillieu Liberals in 2006 and Brumby Labor in 1996. Brumby’s quite effectiveness in carving out territory for Labor before handing over to Bracks was critical to what has happened since.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/tim-colebatch/the-ghosts-of-polls-past/2006/11/27/1164476130441.html
evelyn, hastings, kilsyth, bayswater, ferntree gully, narracan and morwell to the nats. I make it 7.
Yes not really good enough with big swings in the held seats. Labor has to deliver on the promises because mark my words inactivety will see them booted out at 2010. If people don’t see the schools improved and the water situation adressed then at the next election Prahran, Mt.waverley, gembrook, Burwood, Mordialloc, Frankston and a swag of country seats will go
Oops I missed Bayswater, so that makes 7 probable gains. I agree with Centaur’s views on the risk for Labor in a third term unless the government delivers, particularly on the fix-the-schools policy and the water crisis.
The Coalition (when they join up, not if) are now in a completely comparable situation to Labor in 1996, except for the amount of potential gains in country Victoria.
Tuesday 28, 11:37AM Western Victoria Update:
The conjunction point between FF and the DLP is very close and a drift of preferences way from the DLP could see Family First rise above the DLP at present Family First (3.92%) and the DLP (4.06%) at the conjunction.
That’s close.
The ALP is comfortably ahead of the Greens at this point. But it is difficult to know A) what’s missing in the data and B) what the below the line preferences are doing.
This is the first optional preferential ballot in Victoria and many of the Green and other parties below the line votes could exhaust.
The other conjunction point between the National Party and the DLP is just as close with the DLP (8.0%) and the NP (7.9%). The DLP relies on preferences from the minor parties whose BTL vote could also exhaust.
Its a question of who is voting for who below the line… The combined ALP (9.04%) and Green (8.41%) at the third conjunction vote should see the Alp overt the line but again it depends on the BTL voting pattern. With optional preferential voting we could see things either stay the same or a dramatically altered position.
This is new territory and like mushrooms we are left in the dark and feed…
Antony Green has the Liberal and one ind winning only 4 seats. The liberals had a slight swing against them in the last week not sure what happened there maybe they reacted to the gimmicky publicity stunts.
It most definitely is not a good win for the Liberal Party. Third terms are always the hardest. The fourth term could become like a comfortable slipper. Maybe voters felt that labor is doing OK, no major controversy and given that John Howard has complete control in Canberra its best to stick to the Government we have and provide a check and balance. But that assumes the electorate is an thinking and intelligent entity. After all, all on this blog are election junkies.
The electorate think with their pockets and, 10% overall but over 50% in some areas have necks that are red raw and there’s not much upstairs.
A federal change from Beazeley will see a labor win but we have to act quickly. The dream team was mentioned in the age and I believe it will strike a cord, Rudd looks like a young Howard but is also very smart.
Of course we all know that they will be keeping the seat warm for Baron Bill….the next labor prime minister unless bomber goes early.
WE CAN’T AFFORD TO VOTE FOR THE COALITION(foreign debt, highest taxing government, international reputation, 36th ranked health system OECD, xenophobia, race wars, iraq war, AWB kickback etc etc…)