I will use this post to provide ongoing commentary of late counting in doubtful seats over the coming days/weeks.
UPDATE (27/3/07): Christian Kerr points to a slow count in today’s Crikey:
The ever-protracted count for the NSW Legislative Council election is likely to be even slower this time, with the Australian Electoral Commission refusing to authorise any more overtime for the AEC staff engaged for the count. There have been unprecedented levels of cooperation between the AEC and the NSW electoral authorities this election, but after just two days of preparing for the Upper House count over the weekend, the AEC has gone into a panic about the likely level of overtime, and has literally ordered its workers to take a “rest”. Counting will now finish each day at 5pm, with no approval for overtime to complete the count. With Easter imminent, this delay is likely to push back the announcement of the Upper House results substantially. The NSW Electoral Commission is understood to have expected the AEC to finish the Legislative Council count by Wednesday. The AEC told staff that the Electoral Commissioner has been informed that he will have to adjust his timetable. No amended timeframe for the conclusion of the count was suggested. A major outcry from furious Government, opposition and minor parties about the delay in finalising the count for the Upper House count in 2003, marred by slow counting and a total meltdown in the computer software used for calculating the results, saw new procedures adopted for the 2007 election. Efficiency was supposed to have been increased by the use of AEC staff in the count.
Legislative Council
| Roy Smith (Shooters) | 83,320 | 0.61 |
| Trevor Khan (Nationals) | 57,727 | 0.43 |
| Arthur Chesterfield-Evans (Democrats) | 50,335 | 0.37 |
| Janey Woodger (AAFI) | 46,332 | 0.34 |
| Robert Smith (Fishing) | 45,460 | 0.34 |
Sunday 3pm. I’m not doing too well here – I now realise the Legislative Council Summary figures I was just getting excited about have been little changed in the past week. They tell us of 3.3 million votes out of roughly 4 million in total, including 293,240 "other" votes that include (I believe) both informals and below-the-lines. The progressive totals figures show us the destination of 13,566 out of a probable total of about 80,000 below-the-line votes; from these the Democrats have polled 5.6 per cent and the Coalition 17.2 per cent, bearing in mind that not all of these votes will stay within the party ticket. Using these figures to extrapolate the as-yet-uncounted votes, I have the Democrats with a fractional lead over the Nationals’ Trevor Khan, but the margin is far too close (and the method far too crude) for anything to be stated with confidence.
Saturday 11pm. Okay, turns out all that effort on the previous entry was wasted. Because as well as the daily PDF file update, the NSWEC also has on its main page a different count with 3,278,467 votes. This includes 293,240 "other" votes, which probably means about 200,000 informals plus yet-to-be-counted below-the-line votes. There would be about 700,000 further to come. These figures show that the Shooters Party are home, while the gap between the Coalition and the Democrats has narrowed considerably. If the Coalition’s share continues to decline at the same rate as it did between the 1.9 million count and the 3.3 million count, the outcome will be very close indeed.
Saturday 10pm. A further 765,023 votes have been added, bringing the total to 1,938,396 out of a likely 4 million. This has resulted in a significant shift in the aggregate vote from the Coalition (down from 35.4 per cent to 34.4 per cent) to Labor (up from 40.4 per cent to 41.4 per cent). If there was reason to think that trend would continue, Labor’s number 10 candidate Barry Calvert might still be out of the hunt. However, aggregate lower house figures (Labor 39.0 per cent, Coalition 37.0 per cent) suggest that won’t be the case, even when taking into account the Coalition’s traditionally lower vote in the upper house (33.0 per cent against 35.0 per cent in 2003). In the meantime, the drop in the Coalition vote has reduced their surplus over the seventh quota from 0.78 to 0.56, almost enough to return the Nationals’ Trevor Khan to twenty-first place, with the Shooters Party up from 0.53 to 0.55.
Friday 8pm. The NSWEC has published a group and candidate votes report, based on the results of 1,168,246 group votes and 5,127 below-the-lines. The totals in 2003 were 3,721,457 and a bit over 70,000. Ben Raue says the two combined suggest the Nationals’ Trevor Khan has moved up a spot from 20 to 21; if this continues, the final spot looms as a race between the Shooters Party (0.53 quotas), Unity (0.35), the Democrats (0.35) and AAFI (0.30), with the Fishing Party slowly but surely headed for the exit (don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out, Bob Smith).
Friday 3pm. Props to Upperhouse.info for pointing out the following message from the NSWEC: "Legislative Council progressive totals will be provided daily in this directory from the evening of Friday 30 March 2007".
Sunday 5pm. The raw numbers at present look straightforward enough: Labor 9, Coalition 8, Greens 2, CDP 1, Shooters Party 1. However, Stephen L in comments cautiously offers that the Democrats (and perhaps also AAFI and the Fishing Party) might do well enough on below-the-lines and preferences to stay in the hunt against the Nationals’ Trevor Khan, eighth Coalition candidate and Poll Bludger fan.
| Greg Piper | 12,913 | 30.3 | 18,656 | 50.1 | ||||
| Jeff Hunter | 17,294 | 40.6 | 18,550 | 49.9 |
Wednesday 2am. One more change of lead in the final strait has given Greg Piper a 106-vote win after the full distribution of preferences.
Monday 2.30pm. Another 940 absent votes have produced yet another change of lead, Jeff Hunter now ahead by 65 votes. Antony Green notes in comments that the closest outcome in modern times was the Liberals’ eight-vote win in Coogee in 1973; this was overturned on a legal challenge, and Labor won the ensuing by-election by 54 votes.
Monday 1.30pm. The lead changes again after the addition of 496 further absent votes, which have put Greg Piper 44 votes in front.
Friday 5pm. In an exciting late-count development, Greg Piper has done very poorly from the addition of 1,988 absent votes (23.7 per cent compared with 30.7 per cent overall), which have turned Labor incumbent Jeff Hunter’s 272-vote deficit into a 22-vote lead.
Thursday 10pm. More than 3000 postal votes and about 700 further pre-polls added; still no absent votes. Greg Piper’s lead has changed little, from 263 to 272.
Wednesday 9pm. Excellent account of today’s slow progress from Sally McEwan in comments, along with informed talk of deep Labor pessimism.
Tuesday 4.30pm. Very good call yesterday from Sally McEwan – the second batch of pre-polls has been very similar to the first, barring a slightly higher primary vote for the Liberals. This boosted Greg Piper’s lead by 243 votes; however, 122 "Dec Inst" votes have reeled him in slightly, going 59-15 in Labor’s favour. Piper’s lead is now 263, but with well over 5000 postal and absent votes pending, it’s still too close to call.
Monday 11.30pm. Sally McEwan corrects my previous description of Carey Bay as a conservative area: "Carey Bay pre-poll is different from Carey Bay conservative lakeside waterfront booth … The remainder of the pre-poll votes will favour Piper in the same proportion or greater".
Monday 10pm. Partial pre-poll results have been posted, 999 votes out of what scrutineer Sally McEwan says is about 2000. These votes are "a mix of Cooranbong and Carey Bay", which is to say they include the much touted Seventh Day Adventist community, along with another conservative area. As expected, these votes have strongly favoured Greg Piper, whose 158-vote deficit has turned into a lead of 64. This sounds a little disappointing from Piper’s perspective, because the remainder of the pre-polls will presumably be strong for Labor. Next comes about 3000 absent votes and 2250 postals – these differed only slightly from the polling booth results in 2003, though Labor’s vote was notably a little lower and the "others" a little higher.
Monday 2.30pm. Looks like those Dora Creek votes for Piper stayed missing – his tally there has gone from 533 to 508. No word yet on pre-polls.
Monday 4am. A scrutineer at the count, Sally McEwan, says in comments she can "confirm the expected advantage to Independent Piper from the pre-poll votes from Cooranbong". These votes "will be counted and distributed tomorrow". McEwan also reports that "24 or so Piper votes" from the Dora Creek booth are "missing", "leading to extra State Electoral officers being called from Sydney for a reconstruction of the Dora Creek booth tomorrow".
Sunday 5pm. Labor incumbent Jeff Hunter leads independent Greg Piper by 158 votes. That would normally be difficult to close, given Labor’s organisational efficiency with respect to pre-poll and postal voting. However, Lake Macquarie has the quirk of the Seventh Day Adventist community at Cooranbong, which produces a big flow of mostly conservative pre-poll votes due to its observation of the Sabbath on Saturday. In 2003, Labor polled 795 votes (34.2 per cent) to the Liberals’ 1173 (52.4 per cent) on pre-polls, compared with overall totals of 54.9 per cent and 30.7 per cent. Pre-polls accounted for 5.1 per cent of the total vote; also still to come are the less quirky absent (7.3 per cent) and postal (5.3 per cent) votes. The latter might go a little better for Labor than last time, as consciousness of their danger might have resulted in a better organised postal vote campaign.
| Craig Baumann | 17,894 | 42.5 | 19,375 | 50.1 | ||||
| Jim Arneman | 17,544 | 41.7 | 19,311 | 49.9 |
Wednesday 2am. The margin widened to 64 votes after completion of the full preference distribution.
Friday 3pm. The notional preference count has been completed, and it points to a 19-vote Liberal victory. However, a "proper" preference count will now follow, and these can turn up anomalies. For example, the primary vote recount cut Chris Baumann’s vote by five votes and Jim Arneman’s by six (UPDATE: And more pertinently, as Geoff Lambert points out in comments, there were variations of up to five votes at individual booths).
Thursday 10pm. Absent and postal votes are now coming in at a fair clip, and while it’s still extremely close, the trend has been with the Liberals. Antony Green‘s regular updates show how Labor candidate Jim Arneman’s lead narrowed and then disappeared in late afternoon counting, with the Liberals’ Chris Baumann currently ahead by 56 votes.
Tuesday 8pm. Not much progress today: polling booth re-check completed and 213 "Dec Inst" votes added, increasing the Labor lead from 76 to 86.
Monday 10pm. Either Port Stephens has had an extraordinarily high number of section votes, or the pre-polls have been entered on the wrong line – I will assume the latter. There are 1,244 of them and they have tipped the see-saw back towards the Liberals, whose deficit has narrowed from 153 votes to 76. However, the 2003 figures suggest Labor should do better on absent and postal votes. Slow progress on the polling booth re-check for some reason.
Monday 4am. The Daily Telegraph reports confident noises from a Liberal scrutineer, as "many votes were exhausting because of a decision by the Greens not to preference Labor". Conversely, the Australian Financial Review reports that "Labor strategists are sounding increasingly confident".
Sunday 5pm. Labor’s Jim Arneman was 153 votes behind the Liberals’ Chris Baumann at the close of counting last night, but is now 111 votes ahead. Pre-poll and postal figures from 2003 are probably no guide, as the seat was less fiercely contested last time.
| Jodi McKay | 12,951 | 31.2 | 13,793 | 50.7 | ||||
| John Tate | 10,003 | 24.1 | 13,430 | 49.3 | ||||
| Bryce Gaudry | 8,774 | 21.1 |
Friday 9.30pm. Those two-candidate figures quoted in the Herald have now been posted on the NSWEC site.
Thursday 10pm. Yesterday, the Newcastle Herald told us that "an Electoral Commission notional distribution showed Ms McKay on 13,793 votes and Cr Tate on 13,430". Today it reported that "preliminary counts show that Cr Tate would gain more than 2000 votes on McKay once preferences are distributed". On present indications, that would leave him about 700 votes in arrears.
Tuesday 2am. The NSWEC reveals nothing of the two-candidate preferred count that has evidently been conducted between Jodi McKay and John Tate, but the Sydney Morning Herald reports Tate conceding he is 700 votes behind. Morris Iemma is claiming victory.
Monday 4am. Yesterday’s recheck of first preferences from polling booths has increased Tate’s tally by 18 and reduced McKay’s by 12. The aforementioned Anthony Llewellyn says: "having reviewed the results in total now, my guess is a McKay win over Tate by around 500 … Gaudry will not pull ahead of Tate (of this I am now very confident)". The Sydney Morning Herald reports Labor "has become more confident".
Sunday 5pm. Still anybody’s guess as far as I can see. There is a 2.6 per cent gap between John Tate (24.1 per cent) and Bryce Gaudry (21.5 per cent), which might be closed with preferences from the Greens (11.2 per cent), who directed to Gaudry. Last night’s NSWEC notional preference count assumed Gaudry rather than Tate would finish second; if that is so, Labor’s Jodi McKay will win quite comfortably. If not, the race between McKay and Tate will come down to unpredictable preference flows. Last night, reader Anthony Llewellyn provided a preference breakdown from a booth at which he was scrutineering: if this is applied consistently, Tate emerges ahead with 12,792 votes to 12,327 (not counting preferences from the CDP and three other independents, who collectively account for 915 votes). However, Llewellyn also spoke of better preference flows for Labor at other less conservative booths.
| Pru Goward | 16,994 | 39.9 | 18,632 | 51.3 | ||||
| Paul Stephenson | 10,544 | 25.3 | 17,657 | 48.7 |
Thursday 8pm. Paul Stephenson has conceded defeat after being buried by absent and postal votes, widening the lead to 975. This entry, and the figures above, will not be further updated.
Tuesday 2pm. A further 670 pre-polls have gone rather better for Goward than the previous two batches, increasing her lead by 10 votes. Even better for her are the 154 "Dec Inst Votes" (declaration and/or institution?), which have run 70-31 in her favour.
Monday 10pm. I was mistaken to say all the pre-polls were in – it was in fact only about half. The newly added second batch was not quite as bad for Goward as the first, but it still cost her another 40 votes or so.
Monday 2.30pm. Pre-polls are in (all of them, or almost all), and they are surprisingly poor for Goward – she has polled 35.7 per cent compared with her 39.8 per cent of ordinary votes, while Paul Stephenson has 30.6 per cent compared with 25.1 per cent. If preferences follow the same pattern, this will narrow the gap by 134 votes to a little over 300. In 2003, pre-polls were 5.6 per cent of the total – still to come are absents (8.8 per cent), postals (5.6 per cent) and a few others (0.7 per cent).
Monday 4am. Yesterday’s recheck of first preferences from polling booths appears to have unearthed 38 extra votes for Stephenson and only one for Goward. It appears that Goward is better placed than it seemed on election night due to an across-the-board increase in "plumped" voting (numbering one box and then exhausting) at this election.
Sunday 5pm. An updated count (polling booths only) has seen Pru Goward’s lead after preferences increase from 311 votes last night to a fairly handy 455. Talk of the Labor candidate beating Paul Stephenson into second place on preferences has faded.
| Frank Terenzini | 14,819 | 39.7 | 16,741 | 50.9 | |||
| Peter Blackmore | 10,093 | 27.1 | 16,157 | 49.1 |
Friday 9.30pm. The NSWEC has finally unveiled its notional Labor-versus-independent two-candidate preferred, which shows Frank Terenzini a comfortable 584 votes ahead. That wraps it up for my coverage of this seat.
Thursday 10pm. This count has stayed on ice for some reason, at least as far as the NSWEC website is concerned, but the ABC reports Labor is more than 1,000 votes ahead.
Tuesday 2pm. Very slow progress in the count, but Morris Iemma has claimed victory for Labor.
Monday 4am. The Sydney Morning Herald reports Labor "has become more confident".
Sunday 5pm. As with Newcastle, this is one that will depend on preference flows we don’t know about yet because the notional count was Labor-versus-Liberal, rather than Labor-versus-Peter Blackmore. For what it’s worth, the primary vote figures (Blackmore 27.1 per cent, Labor 39.8 per cent, Liberal 20.1 per cent) are similar to those Pru Goward faces in Goulburn (Paul Stephenson 25.0 per cent, Liberal 39.9 per cent, Labor 22.4 per cent). The difference being that Blackmore will need a strong flow of preferences from the Liberals, while Stephenson will need them from Labor. Can anyone suggest if supporters of one party or the other are more dutiful with respect to how-to-vote instructions?
| Dawn Fardell | 17,158 | 41.9 | 19,270 | 50.9 | ||
| Greg Matthews | 17,518 | 42.8 | 18,590 | 49.1 |
Wednesday 8pm. With most postals and about 600 absent votes now in, any remaining doubt is now gone. Fardell’s lead has now widened to 680 votes, or 0.9 per cent. No further updates will be added to this entry.
Tuesday 4.30pm. Pre-poll figures are now up at the NSWEC site, and they tell a different story to the Financial Review – 2318 for Dawn Fardell and 2177 for the Nationals, widening Fardell’s lead to a surely unassailable 521.
Tuesday 2am. It falls to the Australian Financial Review to inform us that "two-thirds of the pre-poll votes have been counted, according to the returning officer. The results have favoured Nationals challenger Greg Matthews, who garnered 1495 of the pre-poll votes on offer while 1453 went to incumbent independent Dawn Fardell". These results are yet to appear on the NSWEC site. However, this makes only a modest dent in what had been a 401-vote lead.
Monday 2.30pm. Re-checking of polling booth first preferences has now been completed, giving a 42-vote boost to Dawn Fardell. Most notably, 37 votes have been deducted from the Nationals at the Forbes booth.
Sunday 5pm. Independent candidate Dawn Fardell leads Nationals candidate Greg Matthews by 401 votes. The precedent of 2003, when then-independent member Tony McGrane did somewhat less well on non-ordinary than polling booth votes (from a near identical vote total to Fardell’s), suggests this could yet narrow.
Further on Green preferences:
I’m not sure Ben’s theory that the preference flows had as much to do with the demographics of the seat as the Green ticket actually holds. I haven’t been systematic about this, but tried to look at seats I think are probably similar where we did preference the ALP and we didn’t. For example
Kiera v Kiama (I understand they have more in common than similar names – a local please correct me if I am wrong). Lismore vs Ballina (on stronger grounds there). Looks to me like there is a pretty big difference in those seats in what our voters did, and I’d imagine the party recommendation has to be the main explanation.
I wouldn’t say Keira and Kiama are that similar other than being staunchy Labor. I used to live in Keira and it’s got an interesting mix – lots of older voters and lots of Uni of Wollongong students. It won’t ever budge from Labor ever. Kiama I would guess has many more young families and would be more volatile electorally under “normal” circumstances (i.e. not crap opposition).
I’m sure I just misread.. a National defending a Green against Labor.
Wonders never cease.
Stephen:
Thanks, yes my analysis was flawed.
In general it does tell me that in seats with less than a 100 vote margin greens preference decisions do make a difference.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to say that demographics were the main reason. I just mean that it probably exagerrates the difference caused by HTVs.
How-to-votes are still the main reason for the difference in the flow of Greens preferences, but demographics of those groups probably exagerrates that difference.
Murray-Darling looked doubtful from the 2004 federal election when Labor did poorly in Broken Hill due to state issues, but when you consider there was a swing to Labor in Murrembidgee it was a bad performance by Black. Labor has held Armidale/Northern Tablelands in 1953, 1978, 1981 and 1984 it is a seat Labor has given up on. Labor vs. Green in Vaucluse Whitlamite baby boomers vs their children? Paul Gibson: triumph for rank and file preselection in 1988 unfortunately when he organised Richmond branch against Faye Lo’Po.
Oh boo hoo Dr Carr.
You love to dish out the abuse but you run squealing when anyone actually shines the bright light of the truth upon your own squalid dealings.
The biased, ill-informed drivel and lies you pass off as fact on Wikipedia says so much about you. There you are, an active member of the ALP, churning out biographies on Coalition MPs that are nothing more than leftist abuse and opinion dressed up as factual information.
Isabella, I challenge you to find one piece of “leftist abuse” I have ever written about any Coalition MP in any article at Wikipedia, and produce it here. (Wikipedia Talk pages don’t count, since they are forums for opinion.) Every edit at Wikipedia can be traced to a particular editor, and all my edits have been made under my own name. I will accept the judgement of other contributors here as to whether any edit of mine is “leftist abuse.” If you don’t come up with something by the end of Easter, I will ask William to have you banned from this site as the lying, slanderous slag that you are.
To help you with your research, here is a complete record of my Wikipedia contributions in the period I edited at Wikipedia (I have now withdrawn because it has become infested with people like you):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Adam_Carr
Happy trawling
Dr Carr, you hit the fence last winter when Lincoln Wright cast an eye over your meanderings on the dreadful Wikipedia. The Herald Sun skewered you. Not opinion, fact. F-A-C-T. June 2006 from memory. The Herald Sun is a newspaper that deserves plenty of praise for many reasons – its exposure of your intellectually dishonest behaviour is simply another reason it is a top journal worthy of our support.
All over Adam and it’s just clicked over to Good Friday.
All too easy.
Lincoln Wright’s article dealt with articles about Labor MPs, not Coalition ones, and even in that regard he got nearly everything wrong. He did not cite a single example of any edit I had made to an article about a Coalition MP, which is what I asked you to do. Do I take it from your reply that you are declining to take up my challenge?
Sheesh—and I was going to be sensible–but far be it for me to step in the way of a bun-fight or hand-bags at 10 paces or whatever the choice of weapon is —
BUT GEOFF R – Labor has held Armidale/Northern Tablelands in 1953, 1978, 1981 and 1984 it is a seat Labor has given up on.
Labor would I suspect hope that Independent Torbay would rejoin the Party – although having offered him the Speakership I guess he doesn’t need to anymore. Just a thought.
“The Herald Sun is a newspaper that deserves plenty of praise for many reasons – its exposure of your intellectually dishonest behaviour is simply another reason it is a top journal worthy of our support.”
Is-a-not-bella: April 1st is over dear.
… Herald Sun is a newspaper that deserves plenty of praise for many reasons …
I did have to pick my jaw up off the floor after that one, thanks for the laugh Isabella!
Trevor Khan, can I just second ‘Not to be taken seriously’ and say that I hope you do not withdraw from commenting. I’m also one that that is diametrically opposed to you politically but I hope you stick around.
“Charlie Says:
April 6th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Trevor Khan, can I just second ‘Not to be taken seriously’ and say that I hope you do not withdraw from commenting. I’m also one that that is diametrically opposed to you politically but I hope you stick around.”
I haven’t taken my bat and ball and gone home. There is however nothing particularly attractive about a catfight on a site such as this…hence my decision to restrict my posts.
I should complement Ben on his assessment of where the LC count is up to. I generally agree with his figures excepting that, by my maths the ALP has 8.78 quotas compared to the Coaliton with 7.77. In other words, I have the ALP in position no. 19, the Coaliton (me!!!) in possie 20 and The Shooters in 21 (with .603 of a quota).
By my rough reckoning the Coalition is about 26,000 votes ahead of the Shooters and over 64,000 anhead of the Democrats in position 22.
Ben et al, I would appreciate your comments.
It is all becoming a little academic now. I am told that the button will be pressed on Tuesady at 11.00am to distribute the preferences.
Rest assured, I am not going away, just being a little circumspect in my posts.
As I have indicated before, this is a quality site.
Trev
Based on yesterday’s figure, I have the following:
CDP 0.94
GRN 0.92
ALP 0.68
NAT 0.68
ShP 0.61
DEM 0.38
AAFI 0.35
FISH 0.33
So as far as I can tell, I don’t see any change happening. I guess a strong preference flow could put AAFI or Fishing over the Dems (I guess plenty of Fishers may have then gone #2 AAFI considering their ballot position), but still not enough to get them elected.
It’s worth noting the Greens vote has jumped a bit. On Monday we were on 1.85 quotas, and on Thursday it’s up to 1.92
I’m not sure what you’re doing differently, Trev, to get those figures, but I can’t see you losing. You might fall behind Shooters (although you could equally likely go further ahead, or Labor might fall behind Shooters and/or you) but still I can’t see Dems or AAFI or Fishing winning.
Getting back to politics, perhaps Trevor can say whether the Nats have yet chosen candidates for Richmond and New England? If so, who are they? If not, when will they be chosen?
Adam, I can’t tell you about Richmond, I’ll (I’ll get back to you). For New England the answer is no. Everything was on hold for the State Election.
Obviously I stood last time, but having been seriously mauled by Tony Windsor, was not really enthusiastic to go round again. I should add, even if I had wanted to, there were some who felt I didn’t do enough so I was in no way assured of preselection a second time round….I think you could say that was a view I didn’t share so there was, how would you put it?….an agreement to disagree.
Trev
Yes, not many candidates get a second go after seeing a 20% drop in their party’s vote. But I doubt anyone could really blame you for that – popular independents in country seats are almost impossible to beat (unless they’re Russell Savage, but in that case there was a big local issue he was on the wrong side of.) Being an independent is all self-publicity and no responsibility.
Here is another question for Trevor. I am currently looking at the demographics of federal electorates. I note that country seats, despite their low income levels as measured by median weekly family income, have quite high proportions of people in professional occupations, much higher than many suburban electorates. To take your own area, New England has a median weekly family income of $737, but 30.2% of its workforce are in professional occupations. This is the same level as Deakin in Melbourne, but Deakin has a median weekly family income of $1,051. My questions is: who are all these professionals in country areas, and why are they apparently earning much less than their urban equivalents? I know New England is atypical because it has a university, but the same pattern applies to most rural seats. (I’m aware this is off-thread-topic, but this is where Trevor is)
Adam Says:
April 6th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Yes, not many candidates get a second go after seeing a 20% drop in their party’s vote. But I doubt anyone could really blame you for that – popular independents in country seats are almost impossible to beat (unless they’re Russell Savage, but in that case there was a big local issue he was on the wrong side of.) Being an independent is all self-publicity and no responsibility.
Geez, thanks for those kind words….I didn’t want to get into the numbers…it took me about two months to start reading newspapers again, so there are still a few raw nerves.
I’ll get back to the issue of Tony Windsor in a separate post, but rest assured he is a consummate politician, you can’t take that away from him.
Trev
Adam Says:
April 6th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Here is another question for Trevor. I am currently looking at the demographics of federal electorates. I note that country seats, despite their low income levels as measured by median weekly family income, have quite high proportions of people in professional occupations, much higher than many suburban electorates.
I will say a couple of things:
1) There are very few rural seats (as such) left now in Australia. I think the new Calare is probably the only one in NSW. Otherwise most are seats with large amounts of empty space with one or two population centes…it reflects, if you like the “urbanisation” of regional Australia.
2) Look at New England. The vast majority of the population is in the southern half of the seat, with the close to 40% of the population in Tamworth (population about 50,000 if you inclue the surrounding satelite towns).
3) The change in demographics has been the challenge for the Nationals… it’s not just the sea changer phenomenum (which is an issue on the coast), it is the change in ‘west of the ranges) seats as well. despite the perception from the capital ceities, you increasingly have a sophisticated urban middle class that do not perceive themselves as “in the bush”.
4) Wage and salary levels are quite different from in the cities however. If you look at slaries and incomes, of, say, lawyers, they are markedly lower than for their city cousins. I think that reflects a number of factors, but some of those are ‘what the markey will stand” coupled with lifestyle choices. For pweople like me, who choose to live here, we want to spend time with our kids, we want to be involved in running the local hockey club or footbal team. We like to go play with our toys. In short, whether its a doctor or a lawyer, a dentist or a banker, time spent at work is likely to be far less than in the city.
5) Let me say, for what it is worth, the lower salary levels means that talk, for instance of cutting the hifghest rate of marginal tax probably has a different impact here than it does in other conservative seats in eastern Sydney….it probably doesn’t cause too many to go out and celebrate.
6) On the other hand, the costs of living are quite different as well. House prices are much lower, so home interest rates are probably less of an issue.
7) Finally, I don’t think I can answer why there are more “professionals” in New England than in particular city seats, but what I can say is that it is pretty clear that in a seat like New England more voters work in, say, the health sector, than earn thier income directly from agriculture. That trend has been going on for many years but it has a telling impact upon the way people vote.
Trev
Thanks for those comments.
NSW seats showing % working in agriculture (new boundaries)
Calare 20.2
Parkes 19.9
New England 16.7
Farrer 16.7
Riverina 16.0
Hume 10.8
Adam,
I don’t think even the raw numbers tells the story.
If you look at Calare I reckon you will find that the agricultural workforce is largely related to what you could say is the tradtional wheat/sheep/beef pursuits.
I think in the new Parkes it will be quite different. Here you will see those industruies but also quite a lot of wine industry, particulalrly around Mudgee, and cooton around Moree and Narrabri and parts of the Liverpool Plain.
Issues of water security, for instance will play a big part in parts of the seat. You can’t get away from the fact however that now Parkes has Dubbo at the southern end with about 40% of the population….interesting….
I’m not sure how that plays out, but I think they are quite different seats, despite the percentages being pretty close.
Trev
Actually I misrepresented Trevor’s performance in New England. The Nat vote did drop 20%, but half of that was caused by a Liberal who polled 10%. So the actual drop in the coalition vote was only 10%.
Only?????
Five months of solid campaigning to achieve a fall in the vote of “only” ten percent!!!!!
Trev
I didn’t realise there were more results from Good Friday, but here we go.
The total vote is now up to almost 3.7 million.
GRN 0.95
CDP 0.95
ALP 0.65
NAT 0.63
ShP 0.61
DEM 0.38
AAFI 0.35
FISH 0.33
Notice the Greens vote has risen. It’s now up to 8.88%, and gone up 0.1 of a quota since Monday.
Just a question: now Labor, Nats and Shooters are all around 0.6-0.65 of a quota. Does anyone think one of them might fall below one of the ones just below (Dems, AAFI, Fishing)?
Ben with the Greens on the above figures what does that mean for the upper house?
The changes in regional demographics in NSW. and their effects, are complicated.
Without boring you too much, take, as example, average incomes. You have to ask why average incomes are lower. If you look at the pattern across NSW, the poorest areas are the Northern coastal strip. With the exception of the far west, average inland incomes are higher, in some cases higher than some of the Sydney regions.
In each case, average incomes are affected by demographic structure. Older people who receive lower incomes are a higher proportion of the population in both the coastal strip and inland. But just because you are retired need not affect your traditional voting pattern.
As another example, look at the decline in the farm population. This is not new.
Even when the Progressives (the original name for the Country Party in NSW) ran for the first time, the majority of the population in most electorates actually lived in towns and villages. So the Progressives targeted the non-rural vote from the beginning.
Further, the decline in the pastoral/farm sector has arguably hurt the ALP more than the Nats.
One hundred years ago there were a number of workers for each farmer/grazier. While many of these did in fact vote Progressive/Country Party, they also represented the core Labor vote. That vote has largely gone, leaving the ALP without a natural base in many areas.
Bill, the Greens are on track to get 2 MLCs elected, for a total of 4, up from 3 during the last term. This has never been in any doubt during the count. But our vote has increased over the last week, so that now we actually are sitting on 9.1%, which should mean we have a few preferences to distribute. I’ll post today’s figures in a few minutes.
Today we have a further offering from the SEC on the LC count.
Entitled Summary of First Preference and Group Counts for each Candidate the results are…drum roll:
Group A 0.6807
Group B 1.5307 The Fishing Party
Group C 1.6369 AAFI
Group D 0.120
Group E 34.2189 Liberal/ Nationals
Group F 0.4985
Group G 1.7840 The Australian Democrats
Group H 0.0825
Group I 9.1190 The Greens
Group J 1.2083 Unity Party
Group K 4.4223 Christian Democrats
Group L 0.9241 Restore The Workers Rights Party
Group M 0.0909
Group N 2.7947 The Shooters Party
Group O 39.1399 Labor
Group P 0.5659 Horse Riders/Outdoor Recreation Party
Group Q 0.3973 Socialist Alliance
Group R 0.3136 Save Our Suburbs
Group S 0.4401 Human Rights Party
I intend to load all this into the upperhouse.info calculator and see where we end up. I will report back.
Trev
So today’s figures (available at http://vtr.elections.nsw.gov.au/LCProgressiveTotals/) seem to be the final figures. They add up to 4.05 million votes, including informals, which would mean a turnout of 92.8%, which seems fairly reasonable.
On these figures, I get the following leaderboard. The Greens have now reached 2.01 quotas, meaning I’ve removed them from the list. This is up from 1.85 quotas last Monday. But if this is the final figures, we really won’t have any preferences to help anyone.
So here are the figures, remembering that the top 4 get in:
CDP 0.97
ALP 0.61
ShP 0.61
NAT 0.53
DEM 0.39
AAFI 0.36
FISH 0.34
So this actually puts the Nationals within the sights of the Democrats, AAFI and Fishing.
The result form the upperhouse.info site is as follows:
Elected: Coalition 7 Seats
Elected: The Greens 2 Seats
Elected: Labor 8 Seats
4 Remain to be filled.
Elected: CDP with 4.42 Pct
Elected: Shooters Party with 2.79 Pct
Elected: Labor with 2.78 Pct
Elected: Coalition with 2.4 Pct
All vacancies filled.
Remaining percentages:
0.68 Group A
1.53 The Fishing Party
1.64 AAFI
0.01 Group D
0.5 Group F
1.78 Democrats
0.08 Group H
0.03 The Greens
1.21 Unity
0.92 Restore Workers Rights
0.09 Group M
0.57 Horse Riders/Outdoor Recreation
0.4 Socialist Alliance
0.31 Save Our Suburbs
0.44 Human Rights Party
This gives the last spot to the Coalition (me!) with a not too comfortable margin over The Australian Democrats…..now for the distribution of prefrences!!!!!
Ben, you are right, the prefrences from the Fishing Party and Outdoor Recreation/Horseriders may come into play.
I am told both groups preferenced the Coalition however if some of the Fishing Party voters “donkey vote” then it could boost the AAFI.
Thoughts?
Trev
It’s an interesting question. It puts Trevor 0.14 quotas ahead of ACE, and 0.17 ahead of AAFI.
Now, I expect more Fishing preferences to flow to AAFI than vice versa, since Fishing was Group B and AAFI was Group C. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Fishing getting knocked out would increase AAFI’s vote ahead of the Democrats. I wouldn’t be surprised if they got to, say, 0.45, with their support, and who knows if other preferences could make the difference.
Ben,
I thought I would have a look at how the vote went in 2003. It seems to me that increases in the vote above .1 of quota (when prefernces are distributed) are unlikely (although of course the data available is limited).
I went to the “font of all knowledge”, Antony Green. His analysis (on the ABC site) shows that between Count one and count 280 (when the count was complete) the following increase in vote (as a proportion of a quota) occurred:
Greens: 0.1015
Christian Democrat: 0.0488
Labor: 0.0994
Shooters Party: 0.0454
Pauline Hanson: 0.0155
Australian Democrats: 0.0342
One Nation: 0.0113
Liberal/National: 0.0382
What I draw from all that is that it seems hard to increase the vote beyond .1 of a quota. In the case of the Democrats they only achieved a lift of about a third of that (about the same as the Coalition).
Certainly it may well be possible, but based on 2003, it looks like a pretty big ask.
What do you reckon?
Trev
Oh yeah, I reckon it will be difficult, but not anywhere near as hard as it looked a few days ago.
Trevor you have won a seat in the upper house??? for the Nats?
Bill,
My final comment for the night….no Upper House candidate wins the seat when they are on a party ticket…the party wins the seat.
What does that mean…it means that my obligation is to those (fine people) that preselected me…in my case the NSW Central Council of The Nats.
My job however is to represent the whole of the State, not just one sector.
Perhaps on another occassion I will expand on that view.
Trev
Trevor
Ok but you will be in parliament representing the party/ members and voters?
If so congratulations. Wrong party and side of politics but good on ya! Ive met great conservative pollies, havent met a good ALP one yet. ADAM please note!
You are living the dream
Congratulations Trev.
I hope you have a productive and trouble-free parliamentary career.
Any ambitions for high office? Could we see “The Hon. Trev Khan MLC”
in the first O’Farrell Ministry? (now just 205 weeks away!).
Congratulations, Trevor, if you are elected. If you are elected, I trust you will do the best job you possibly can.
Congratulations Trevor.
Thanks to you all, but it is still a little premature. Let’s wait and see how the numbers fall.
A scrutineer tells me that he believes that there have been more preferences this time round than in 2003, so, whilst hopeful, he is not handing out the cigars yet.
Trev
I hear tell they are pressing the button first thing this morning? Back in 1999, the count took about 11 hours…but that was with the Tablecloth and tickets. It goes blindingly fast by comparison these days (they say).
The gap between 21st and 22nd is about 0.05Q and there are about 0.34Q in the RATL and RBTLs.
Mathematically it is therefore possible for 21st and 22nd to swap places in the cut-up…and it has happened before… but is is politically unlikely.
Hearty congratulations to Trevor! The official candidate sequence just arrived on the VTR website, so the suspense is finished.
Yes, congrats Trevor.
The distribution of preferences completed. On the primary counts, 8 Labor, 7 Coalition and 1 Green were elected. The 2nd Green had to wait until Count 313 and the arrival of the final Green BTL votes at the top of the ticket.
From that point on, no preferences flowed. At the end of Count 329, the Christian Democrats were on 0.99 quotas, Labor 0.68, Shooters 0.65, Coalition 0.57, Australian Democrats 0.44, Australians Against Further Immigration 0.41. 1.26 quotas had exhausted by this point.
On the exclusion of AAFI, 76% of preferences exhausted. The Christian Democrats achieved a quota, and the Labor, National and Shooters Party candidates were declared elected. The Democrats were 28,123 votes behinf the last candidate elected from the Coalition.
Anthony, are you going to have a holiday away from voting totals and processes now?