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.
I have another question…
When do the votes become declared / confirmed? I just find it curious that Iemma swore in his Gov’t today whilst the votes were still being counted . . .
The Climate Change Conspiracy were well represented in the Sydney electorate stealing 700 votes from the Greens. Their stooges were obviously instructed to get close to Green signs and workers to pretend they were one and the same. Some of the workers said their ATL preferances would go to the Greens, creating confusion amongst voters. I wounder if lying about preferences distribution is a prosecutable offence?
Psephophile, I wondered the same thing.
Psephophile said: When do the votes become declared / confirmed? I just find it curious that Iemma swore in his Gov’t today whilst the votes were still being counted . .
Well, it’s whatever Marie wants, on the advice of Maurice. NSW is run by the Executive Council:
Constitution says:
35E Appointment of Ministers
(1) The Premier and other Ministers of the Crown for the State shall be appointed by the Governor from among the members of the Executive Council.
(2) The Premier and other Ministers of the Crown shall hold office during the Governor’s pleasure.
and
35C Members of the Executive Council
(1) The Executive Council shall consist of such persons as may be appointed by the Governor, from time to time, as members of the Executive Council.
(2) The members of the Executive Council shall hold office during the Governor’s pleasure.
In theory, members of the Executive Council could be anybody, and there seems to be no requirement that they have been formally elected via the return of a writ to the Governor. The convention is that the EC is formed of Ministers, who are supposed to be elected members of either house.
It’s all very flexible…. although there is mention of a creature called the “Premier” in the Constitution, for instance, what sort of creature that might be, or where it might be found, is not explicitly defined.
Surely the Governor is able to swear in a new government as soon as she can see that they have a majority in the Legislative Assembly.
William said there was a debate about dead-heats going on, and my name was invoked as an electoral law nob. I suspect you folk know more about such intricacies than me! In the event of a tie or a single vote margin, very likely both sides could find a couple of disputed ballots to support a petition, and hence either a fresh election or a judicial award of the scrutiny to one side or the other. NZ specifies that if the result is still tied after judicial ruling, a lot is used.
It’s v.inappropriate to have a casting vote.
In theory there is no need for legislation on the topic. The writ can be returned with no-one elected and leave it to the parties to petition, or the Governor/Speaker to move for a fresh election. But it is much preferable to have some clear rule, lest the Speaker/Governor move precipitously to claim the election ‘failed’ – possibly on politicised advice to avoid a judicial scrutiny that might award the seat to the non-governing party. In such a case there could be a clash between court and executive, as to who should defer to the other.
Generally now the R.O. only has power to split dead-heats during the preference-exclusion stage – sometimes this is resolved by a count-back – and in the absence of any method being laid down I’m sure a court would insist the only proper process is a random one.
Personally I prefer the idea of a ‘golden point’ period of extra time…
Going around the grounds:
* Automatic Court of Disputed Returns – W.A. (EC must petition); S.A.
* Result declared tied, up to parties or Commission to petition
* Nothing specified: Tas; NSW; Commonwealth; NT; Qld; ACT. Depending on automaticity of ‘failed election’ rule, in some jurisdictions, as Antony says, this suggests an automatic fresh election, but compare my point that this leaves potential for clash between new writ and petition.
Thanks for clearing that up for me Geoff. I assume that if Iemma, for argument’s sake, didn’t end up having a majority, he would be defeated in a motion of no-confidence at the first sitting of the next parliament? In which case the Governor would ask the Leader of the Opposition to form Government? Is this what happened in SA in 2002 when Kerin refused to quit despite Labor stiching up a deal with the Independents?
D’uh. Victoria is the place where the result is declared tied and it is explicitly up to parties or Commission to petition. The time to petition is cut back from 40 to 14 days. The Vic, or the WA/SA approaches are preferable.
Thanks for clearing that up for me Geoff. I assume that if Iemma, for argument’s sake, didn’t end up having a majority, he would be defeated in a motion of no-confidence at the first sitting of the next parliament?
Yes. I don’t think it explicitly says so anywhere, but the Governor or Governor General commissions the person whom the Guv thinks will have “the confidence of the house”. Given that a “want of confidence” is demonstrated by a no-confidencer motion, always along party lines, this implicitly locks-in the convention that Government goes to the majority party.
Preference counts
They are going Hell-for-leather on this. Counts are underway in 58 seats and completed for 23, as at lunch-time.
It seems as though the GRN –> ALP preference flow is about 35%-40%. This would probably support Arbib’s contention about how many seats which the ALP won on GRN prefs. I hope he won’t do a Richo and immodestly and falsely claim it was all his idea.
Geoff.
Do you happen to have a handle on how are the CDP prefs going. My gut feeling is that they are more disciplined but I could be wrong.
Geoff: Do you have any figures on the difference in preference flow between seats where the Greens preferenced the ALP and those where they didnt ?
At 4 pm (not formally “declared”, but counting finished)
State of the House (Declared)
2003 2007
ALP 55 26
COAL 31 21
IND 7 1
GRN 0 0
UNDEC 0 26
CDP prefs?…. seem to be about 45-50% to LIB
GRN? don’t know, don’t have a list of where tickets were issued. In Manly, with a 1,2 ticket to IND, the flow was 45%; I suspect barely above what would have happened “naturally”)
The “Undeclared” above is obviously wrong, it must be 93-26-21-1=47
Err…45?
What is the take out from this? That people like being able to make a single mark on a ballot paper with optional preferential? I note that the informal vote in most western Sydney seats which was scandalously high at the last Federal election was quite low in the recent stat election.
You can find out where and how GRN prefs were directed/exhausted at http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/materials/leaflets/A4%20Absentee%20Booklet.pdf
Port Stephens status has been changed from “Election Night” (which it was set back to yesterday I believe) back to being listed green again – margin is now 17 votes. I assume that this notional distribution will have the same votes ruled in and out as full distribution, so the final margin should be within a couples of votes of this figure?
Geoff, where are you getting this data from? When I click the preference distribution button on the commission website for the seats where they claim to have done the distributions I get a page saying 0% and 100%, which is not very helpful. Is the data up somewhere else, or is this some problem with the computer I am accessing from?
Piper win by 106 in Lake Macquarie.
Has anyone noticed that in Balmain the number of exhausted votes is exactly the same as the number of Liberal votes? Such discipline…
SMH is reporting Port Stephens taken by Libs by 67 votes. Where are the actual results of preference distribution on the SEO website?
I also note that in Barwon the ALP vote exhausted rather than help Tim Horan beat the Nationals. Does anyone know why this was?
Distribution of preferences postponed until Tuesday 3 April 2007.
From SEO website.
The distribution of preferences for each of the 93 Legislative Assembly
Districts has been postponed until 9 am Tuesday, 3 April 2007. The distribution of preferences was initially scheduled to take place on Monday, 2 April.
A larger than expected number of postal votes have been received which need to be processed.
Returning Officers have advised candidates of the change in arrangements.
Perhaps another postponement and night of anxiety for candidates and psephophiles?
Comments by Andy and Sam Ricketson have been belatedly liberated from moderation.
ADAM says
I also note that in Barwon the ALP vote exhausted rather than help Tim Horan beat the Nationals. Does anyone know why this was?
The reason for the Labor vote exhausting has a number of reasons-
1. Voters have become accustomed to just voting 1
2. Country Labor people dislike being told by Head Office how to allocate their preferences- and they get liitle if no funding from head office so why should they do as they are told
3. Country Labor members – some that is – actually tell voters to only vote 1 – they are aware of the Labor/Independent “alliance ” and do not agree with it
4. Country Labor conference in 2004 I think it was was very critical of the way the ALP supported Independent candidates but would not support Country Labor candidates- the same has happened again this time – ALP Ministers visiting seats and visiting Independent candidates – but not going near Country labor candidates
5. Barwon Country labor members are true believers and won’t engage in tactics which keep Country Labor out of a chance of ever winning the seat
“Adam Says:
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I also note that in Barwon the ALP vote exhausted rather than help Tim Horan beat the Nationals. Does anyone know why this was?”
Adam, one theory might be that the electorate knew what they were doing and decided to elect the best candidate.
Remember it was labor that introduced optional preferential voting.
In the case of Barwon, Labor voters supported Meryl Dillon and some decided to place a second preference for other candidates, including the Independent, Tim Horan. That was their democratic right, and good luck to them.
Surely your not suggesting the voters’ decisions were not a considered and thoughtful execution of the democratic process?
Trev
Stephen asked: Geoff, where are you getting this data from?
The ftp site. I don’t know if its address is a secret or not….. I got it by phoning the NSWEC and the receptionist shouted something to someone in a back room and a man in the backroom shouted the address back to her. The site was actually referenced on the web-site for a while. By AEC standards, an election ftp site should be “Public”. I’ve got into trouble before from blabbing about it. Maybe Antony can make a ruling???. You could probably find it via Google.
Anyway, while I was walking home, all but 4 electorates were decided. It seems that the variation between notional and actual TCP margins in Port Stephens and Lake Macquarie really was quite large (49 and 171, a reversal- surely not?)… would such a big difference induce a party to ask for it to be done again?
I will try to answer the other questions raised here later.
William, the bug is back. I can’t post anything longer than a line.
It’s at ftp://ftp.elections.nsw.gov.au/Results/EMA/LA/
These were the files the NSW EC were proposing the media use until we all kicked up a fuss about their manifest inadequacy as an election night media feed. Amongst other problems, the EMA file had no candidate totals by district, which required the media to store all the booths, add them all up, and in doing this, figure out what stage of the count had been completed so we could figure out which totals to use. In the end, we insisted the MediaFeed files be produced in which the totals that the NSW EC considered to be correct would be provided.
The EMA files are used to generate the NSW EC website. As those preference counts have not been published, I can’t tell you whether they are final or not. The mystery of trying to work out whether something was final or not was why we were never keen to use this file in the first place. As it is, the data is published in this file, but its status is a mystery.
So where have these final figures for Lake Macquarie etc been posted?
I haven’t had any luck with the ftp server. Word from those at the count at newie is mckay has won by 766.
GRN flow to ALP
I should get a medal for this, I had to multiply 5 matrices together….. anyway..
The flow is 37.8% across the 75 electorates where such flows were possible and/or have been done. This is a weighted average, giving greater weight to the seats where the GRN vote was higher.
Now all I need is for the original questioner to supply me with a list of where GRN issued HtVs preferencing ALP. I suppose it’s on the Greens web-site?
Would you like to know what the ALP flow to GRN was?- it happened in North Shore, Pittwater and Vaucluse… GRN outpolled ALP
As Antony says, the EMA files are a minor nightmare, not the least of all because candidates and booths are only identified by name; the candidate names appear in alphabetical order not ballot paper order and; the names are sometimes misspelt (see Morris Lemma” in one of my previous posts). There were many other peculiarities.
The schema for the EMA (“the vessel with the pestle…..?”) (SEO.XSD) does have a list of the various “status” descriptions. Most, but not all, that have completed a distribution today are now shown as “Distribution complete”. But there are 3 more stages to go… “Recount”, “Recount complete” and “Publish”….. the latter will presumably be the real McCoy.
You can open these files in Excel or use an XML parser. It only takes about 6 weeks to learn how to decode what you see. The NSWEC even supplies an application to build your own Virtual Tally Room from the EMA.
Newcastle
McKay was ahead by 1646 when they stopped counting (or at least stopped posting the results to the server at 1811 tonight). There are 11485 Gaudry ballots to cut-up.
Maybe I will wait for William or Antony to post the results at their respective sites 🙂
Vaucluse and North Shore.
I was being flippant but, when I looked, it turned out that in these seats the TCP was (or will be- Vaucluse is not yet cut-up) between LIB and GRN…. add them to Balmain and Marrickville as seats that are now non-traditional TPP seats. In Manly, at the penultimate cut-up GRN and ALP were dead-heated. If there be no IND in 2011, Manly might join the list. Ditto Pittwater (remember Nat Young)?
One Line Test
Two Line Test
Three Line Test
I’ve never had any problem posting. Except for that time I had a ‘less than’ symbol in my post.
Both the NSWEC and ABC websites still show Labor winning Lake Macquarie. Can someone post the actual 2-party result?
“Now all I need is for the original questioner to supply me with a list of where GRN issued HtVs preferencing ALP”
Seats where GRN directed prefs to ALP at 3 or better:
Albury 3
Balmain
Barwon 3
Baulkham Hills
Burrinjuck
Cabramatta
Camden
Cambelltown
Canterbury
Castle Hill
Charlestown
Coffs
Drummoyne
East Hills
Epping
Goulburn
Granville
Hawkesbury 3
Heathcote
Heffron
Kiama
Kogarah 3
Lake macquarie 3 after Piper
Lane Cove 3
Lismore 3
Liverpool 3
Londonderry
M Fields
Maitland
Menai
Miranda
Mulgoa
Myall Lakes
Oxley 3
P’mtta 3
P Stephens
Riverstone
Rockdale 3
Smithfield
S. Coast
Strathfield 3
Tamworth 3
Toonga Bay 3
Vaucluse
Wallsend
W’dilly
“it happened in North Shore, Pittwater and Vaucluse… GRN outpolled ALP”
In the Upper House GRN outpolled ALP in Vaucluse and P’water so they must’ve meant it in the lower house too.
Of course the Green vote is maxxxxxxxxxxxxed out as we all know.
Another little thing of interest is that CDP polled their highest vote in Auburn where they heavily pushed their AAFI clone policies.
http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf
Sould we not be speaking out against this stuff?
Where’s the falmin edit button. My suggestion that CDP had done well in auburn was based on a doc on their site which I note has now been taken down. Sorry.
So Labor has lost both Port Stephens and Lake Macquarie?
It seems so.
http://www.theherald.com.au/articles/2007/04/03/1175366243731.html
The new pensulum:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/states/nsw/nsw20073.txt
or “pendulum” as we say in English
I have finally updated Port Stephens and Lake Macquarie, using figures from the FTP site. Adam, I have removed my spam filters – I can’t think else what it might be.
Trevor, in belated response to your question of a few days ago. The only aspect of the NSWEC’s election operations I’m in a position to comment on is their publication of the results. This was by and large handled well, but I am puzzled by a decision that seems to have been made last week to cease publishing updated results in certain seats. In a comment above, Sally McEwan says: “SEO in Newcastle has announced it will not release any more updates on the count from this seat, as it is so close, if that makes any logical sense.” I can only say that it does not. New notional preference counts for Newcastle and Maitland were conducted on Monday and/or Tuesday as it had become apparent that the wrong candidates had been picked for the election night count, and the progress of this count was widely reported on the press. However, the figures were only posted on the website on Friday. I’m not sure on what basis it was thought this served the public interest.
Personally I think we have the right to find out ourselves directly from the SEO without having to rely on reports from Newspapers or other media as to who has won e.g. primary source verification.
This may not seem such a big thing in Australia but one only has to look at what has occured in the US in previous Presidential elections.
I note that Iemma is in the safest Labor Seat, while O’Ferrell is in the safest Liberal Seat, I have no idea what conclusion I can drawn from this
A swing of 5% could led to a change of government, lets hope this keep the Iemma government working for NSW and not themselve over the next 4 years
Re: CDP is ‘AAFI-style’
Fred Nile does not advocate ‘White Australia’ or ‘no further immigration’.
In regard to suspending Muslim immigration he would replace that with immigrants of persecuted Christians from Muslim nations i.e. replace immigration of, say, Algerian Muslims to Australia with Algerian Christians.