I’m part way through my review of the Senate preference tickets, starting with the easy states first. Antony Green will post Senate calculators at the ABC tomorrow, which will make life easier. The lists below show where your above-the-line vote will really go, by stripping away the obfuscations by observing only the candidates that matter (i.e. third on the ticket for the majors, first for everybody else).
South Australia: Nick Xenophon makes this a very hard situation to read. Xenophon himself looks all but certain to win a seat, either off his own bat or after overtaking the Greens and absorbing their preferences. At the state election last February he polled 20.5 per cent, which won his ticket a second seat and could almost do so again if he repeats it this time. However, the Greens are likely to present too big a hurdle after absorbing preferences from Labor, the Climate Change Coalition and the Socialist Alliance. It will then remain to be seen whether Xenophon’s surplus is enough to put the Greens ahead of a major party, and on to a quota with their preferences. That would produce a result of two seats each to Labor and Liberal, plus one to Xenophon and one to the Greens. The other possibility is that right-wing preferences deliver the final seat to the Greens or, more likely, that Greens preferences give it to Labor. There doesn’t seem to be any prospect of a micro party upset, as too much of the micro-party vote will go to the Greens.
ONE NATION: Shooters; Family First; LDP; Lifestyle; Nationals; DLP; CEC; Liberal; CDP; Xenophon; Labor; Greens; Democrats; SA; WWW; CCC
CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Nationals; One Nation; Lifestyle; Family First; Shooters; DLP; Xenophon; Liberal; Labor; CCC; CEC; WWW; LDP; SA; Democrats; Greens
FISHING AND LIFESTYLE: Family First; Shooters; LDP; One Nation; Nationals; Liberal; Labor; CCC; CDP; DLP; WWW; CEC; SA; Xenophon; Democrats; Greens
SHOOTERS: Lifestyle; One Nation; CDP; Family First; Nationals; DLP; Liberal; CCC; CEC; WWW; Labor; LDP; Xenophon; Democrats; Greens
GREENS: CCC; WWW; Democrats; Xenophon; SA; Labor; LDP; Lifestyle; DLP; Nationals; CEC; Shooters; CDP; One Nation; Family First; Liberal
NATIONALS: Family First; Liberal; Xenophon; CDP; DLP; Shooters; Lifestyle; CCC; Greens; WWW; Democrats; Labor; LDP; CEC; SA; One Nation
DLP: Labor; Liberal; CDP; Family First; Nationals; Xenophon; Shooters; Lifestyle; LDP; One Nation; Democrats; CCC; WWW; Greens; CEC; SA
LIBERAL: Family First; Nationals; CDP; Lifestyle; Shooters; Xenophon; Democrats; LDP; DLP; WWW; CCC; Greens; SA; Labor; CEC; One Nation
WHAT WOMEN WANT: Greens; Democrats; SA; Labor; CCC; DLP; CDP; Lifestyle; Shooters; Liberal; Family First; LDP; Xenophon; One Nation; Nationals; CEC
LABOR: Greens; Democrats; Xenophon; Family First; DLP; Shooters; CCC; WWW; Lifestyle; LDP; SA; Nationals; Liberal; CDP; CEC; One Nation
CLIMATE CHANGE COALITION: Greens; Democrats; WWW; SA; Xenophon 1; Labor; DLP; Lifestyle; Liberal; Nationals; One Nation; LDP; Family First; Shooters; Xenophon 2; CDP; CEC
CITIZENS ELECTORAL COUNCIL: Liberal; Nationals; Democrats; CDP; One Nation; Lifestyle; Shooters; Xenophon; Family First; WWW; DLP; SA; Labor; CCC; LDP; Greens
SOCIALIST ALLIANCE: Greens; WWW; Labor; Democrats; CCC; Xenophon; Liberal; Nationals; LDP; DLP; Lifestyle; Shooters; Family First; CDP; CEC; One Nation
DEMOCRATS: CCC; WWW; Greens; half (Xenophon; Liberal; Nationals; Labor), half (Labor; Xenophon Nationals; Liberal); Family First; SA; One Nation; LDP; DLP; Lifestyle; CDP; Shooters; CEC
FAMILY FIRST: Nationals; One Nation; Lifestyle; Shooters; DLP; CDP; CEC; CCC; Xenophon; Liberal; Labor; LDP; WWW; SA; Democrats; Greens
LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY PARTY: One Nation; Lifestyle; Shooters; WWW; CEC; CCC; DLP; Liberal; Nationals; Greens; Democrats; CDP; Family First; Xenophon; Labor; SA
NICK XENOPHON: half (Greens; Democrats; Family First), half (Family First; Greens; Democrats); WWW; CCC; Nationals; DLP; CDP; Lifestyle; half (Labor; Liberal), half (Labor; Liberal); SA; Shooters; LDP; CEC; One Nation.
Tasmania: By far the most likely result in Tasmania is Labor 3, Liberal 2 and Greens 1. One alternative scenario involves the Liberal vote not falling as much as expected (from 46.1 per cent in 2004), so they are able to scrape together three quotas (42.9 per cent) after preferences from the DLP, Citizens Electoral Council and Family First. That would leave Bob Brown and the third Labor candidate squaring off for the final seat, with Brown the overwhelming favourite. The Greens as ever are hopeful of winning a second seat, their number two candidate being the high-profile Andrew Wilkie. The Greens vote in 2004 was 13.3 per cent – this should be a few per cent higher this time due to Bob Brown’s personal vote and the Gunns pulp mill falllout, and will be supplemented by preferences from What Women Want, the Liberty and Democracy Party and three independents. If that pushes them near 20 per cent, they might have enough in excess of a 14.3 per cent quota to get ahead of one of the major parties’ third candidates. However, this requires optimistic assumptions at both ends of the equation, and even if it comes off the remaining major party might win get the final seat off preferences from Family First and the DLP. Family First very nearly managed a boilover at the Greens’ expense in 2004, but this time they don’t have Labor preferences.
WHAT WOMEN WANT: Greens; Labor; DLP; Family First; Liberal; LDP; CEC
GREENS: WWW; LDP; Labor; DLP; CEC; half Family First, half Liberal
LABOR: Greens; LDP; WWW; DLP; Family First; Liberal; CEC
DLP: Family First; Liberal; Labor; LDP; WWW; CEC; Greens
LIBERAL: Family First; DLP; LDP; CEC; WWW; Greens; Labor
LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY PARTY: WWW; DLP; CEC; Family First; Greens; Labor; Liberal
CITIZENS ELECTORAL COUNCIL: Liberal; WWW; DLP; LDP; Family First; Labor; Greens
FAMILY FIRST: DLP; LDP; Liberal; Labor; CEC; WWW; Greens
New South Wales: A few preliminary thoughts here. As discussed by Ben Raue in comments, there are three micro parties that could theoretically harvest enough preferences to overtake the third Coalition candidate and win the seat on their preferences: the Climate Change Coalition, the Carers Alliance and the Fishing Party, probably in that order of likelihood. However, it’s more likely that the assumptions in my earlier overview still hold, and that the issue will be whether the Greens can win a seat by overtaking the third Coalition candidate, Marise Payne.
I noticed in NSW the Carer’s Alliance had 2 tickets and somebody else had 3. How do the preferences work when a party submits more than 1 ticket? Do they divide the preferences by the amount of tickets submitted?
Can you take your own in? I got the impression from somewhere that you couldn’t and could only take in an official HTV card. Given that assumption, I was planning to write a long string of alphabet letters on my hand or something along those lines (I can remember my HOR numbers, there are onlly 6 in my electorate). But maybe Antony can speak to this? Is is alright to take in a personal HTV for the Senate? That will make it much easier …..
On the CCC, in WA they’ve put One Nation, the Christian Democrats (Fred Nile Nutters) and Family First all ahead of not just Labor and the Coaltion, but ahead of the Greens as well. I’m glad we don’t have Hansonites running here.
Given how well Antony says the Christian Democrats garner preferences in WA, you’d have to wonder what the hell they think they’re doing…
I don’t agree with any reading of Queensland which delivers a seat to Pauline Hanson.
Like many here, I have trolled every ticket in my state senate from the AEC and Pauline is too far down at the “business end”. She has some support with the plethora of minors ahead of the “ugly sisters” but I would venture nowhere near enough to quota.
Also, I would seriously dispute recent polls which have her at 7.5%. What did Galxy do? Go down to the Gympie Chook raffle for a quick poll of 600 punters???
Pauline should score 2-4%, this will bulk up FFP, since every indication is that FFP should poll 4-6% at least on primaries. In the early rounds, this would outpoll Greens (who might track at 5-6% Primary, 5.6% in 2004).
The Dems are a wildcard. Andrew has not got the support from micros that he might have expected but might hang on long enough to deliver some fat to GRN in the final rounds. A LOT hinges on the LIB/ALP dynamic. An excess of Labor would certainly favour Larissa (recently fed on Prime Democrat), whilst an excess of Coalition would almost certainly favour Jeff Buchanan (FFP).
I think this is a two-horse race and would probably back Buchanan, simply because Queensland doesn’t ordinarily poll ALP+Left over Coalition. Remember, in 2004 it was the 4th Coalition senator in Queensland that delivered a Coalition senate.
Even the realisation of that mistake won’t send almost 20% of the primary vote the other way.. no matter how “soft” they are.
Jeff Buchanan 60% chance, Larissa Waters 40% chance.
ALP 3
LIB 2
FFP 1
Boswell gone.
🙂
Might go plug it in to Cassandra now and see if it works!!
Hmmm, to put the Pyscho Trots ahead of the Wifebeater party or the LaRouchies…
I can see why they came up with ATL.
Julie, you can take what you like in. I suggest you print out a list of candidates from the ABC or AEC site, do yourself up a list of preferences you want, and take it with you on the day.
Cheers, Antony :):) …. pardon my ignorance in the first place, but it is my first Federal Election and I want to get it right :). NSW Senate tickets in March weren’t nearly so complicated 😉 …. I have my list of alphabet soup all ready 😉
I remember last federal election, being busy as a candidate and not wanting to waste too long in the polling booth, I cut out the page in the Friday SMH and made my own HTV.
I’d recommend self-made HTVs for all below-the-liners.
Another tip: if you have a party you broadly agree with but aren’t completely happy with their preference deal or just want to vote BTL out of principle, but don’t want to mess up and lose your vote for them, you can vote both above and below the line. If your below the line is formal, it counts. If it isn’t, then your above the line vote counts. It’s a safety net to make sure your vote is counted.
Chris, MelbCity et al – I suspect the DLP have preferenced Bilyk above the Libs in Tasmania but before the 1 and 2 Labor candidates because of the close association between her Union, the ASU and the SDA which was Harradine’s union. This is only a guess as I have no real knowledge of where the DLP gets its support base from. As others have indicated it has been a no-show in Tas politics for sometime.
It is actually quite interesting the resurgence of DLP across all States on what appears to be the back of electing 1 candidate as part of a fluke in the recent Vic upper-house elections.
Very impressive when you consider the Democrats have become deregistered in Tasmania and are not running in the Senate in this State.
What I can’t understand is how they could pretend to represent Democratic Labor values when they are prepared to so highly preference the Coalition with its anti-labor agenda across all other States save Victoria.
I suspect that they might pick up 1 or 2 % of the vote in Tasmania for the following reasons:
1. smaller field of groups
2. occasional voter being confused between Labor and Democratic Labor
3. reminiscence for days of Harradine (although as many note his vote declined at each subsequent Senate election and he only got through on preference deals towards the end)
This might be enough to be crucial between a fight for the last seat between Bilyk of the ALP and the Greens or Liberal.
In fact, I’d be prepared to go out on a very long limb and speculate that Bilyk gets up over third Lib on Green and DLP preferences.
The DLP is preferencing the Libs ahead of Labor in SA even though the ALP ticket is headed by Don Farrell, SDA chief and son of a former DLP candidate. Like his dad, he has strong social copnservative values.
DLP have lost all credibility.
And, only just regained some.
AnthonyL,
I don’t think you have to go far out on the limb to predict victory for the third Labor candidate in Tasmania. I didn’t know there was a close association between the ASU and the SDA. I know that the FCU got absorbed into the ASU, but by that stage the DLP leadership had been replaced by Lindsay Tanner’s mob.
The DLP’s victory in Western Victoria was not a fluke, but the result of astute preference negotiations.
The DLP is more concerned about abortion than IR, which gives some insight into its preference allocations.
Phil,
The DLP’s failure to preference Don Farrell surprised me too, though as the No. 1 Labor candidate he will get elected without DLP help – as will Jacinta Collins in Victoria.
Yes Chris
But my point is they should find another better name for what they represent or perhaps just join Family First or the CDP or one of the multiple “moralistic-right wing” parties that already exist.
But that would probably mean the “Liberals” had to have a look at themselves as well…
29 Nostradamus How can the ALP’s campaign be on the slide before it has started?
OK, a full set of election calculators are now available through the ABC’s election site
http://www.abc.net.au/elections
The group ticket votes are up as well
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/groupvotingtickets.htm
First time on, so apologies if this stuff is covered elsewhere.
But one point and a question.
First, most of the these preferences follow broadly left-right splits (excepting the odd CCC or Pauline card). The challenge for the Greens is that Labor are polling so well in most places (outside WA) that they are unlikely to be denied 3 seats. So for the Greens to succeed probably means at TPP Labor vote around 57 (4 quotas) – while very high current polling would make this a possibility in Tas, NSW and SA.
Alternatively, the Liberals don’t seem to have polled much below 36% (even with One Nation). That means they’ll have at least 7% over quota. Outside Qld and SA its hard to see the combined minor right vote getting that high, although maybe CCC, harvesting from both left and right, could do it.
Secondly – On SA – while Mr X has a high profile and got a very high vote in the state election, I;m not convinced this will translate. The higher stakes federally and the more polarised dynamic of the campaign make it seem less likely. Also, Mr X doesn’t have a name above the line – I know he has a high profile vote group ‘S’ campaign – but surely only a small proportion of voters will have heard about this by election day. I’d be astonished if he polled 10%, I’d even think it might be as low as 5% (which would seem to mean he’s eliminated before pickingup FF), but I don’t know much about SA politics, so maybe not. Is there something about this I’m missing?
DLP stands for Dirty Little Perverts.
The comments action is now moving elsewhere – all is explained here.
W Bowe RIP To even be in theb same self loathing room as Christain Kerr
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gorilla-slaughter-sparks-campaign/2007/11/05/1194117949077.html
How awesome is Antony Green’s calculator?
First numbers I plugged got the result I advocated earlier, 3-2-1. Freaky sign? Goes red, blue, red, blue, Mr X, Red.
Problem was, FF was battling Labor for the last spot, so I don’t think that’s right…
This is going to keep me occupied for hours. Kudos to you Mr Green.
I know next to nothing about Senate preferences, but has anyone else noticed Antony’s calculator gives Family First a QLD senate seat (using a variety of numbers)?
I wanted to use a Crikey trial during the LAST week of the campaing! But now I have to use it early if I want to keep pollbludging!
Matt
Yep, I noticed that, it is stunning watching the distribution of prefernces, very similar to what happened in Victoira in 04.
I plugged in labor 39, lib 33, greens 5.5, dems 4.5, Pauline 4, FF 2.5 and a variety for the others.
Thought it fairly reasonalbe for a first go and note that FF is at 2.5.
Result was 2 lab 2 lib 1 Green 1 FF.
Key I think is FF getting Paulines preferences, she gets them from a variety of the others and jumps FF past Bartlett and others. Then in the last count lib prefernces bring FF across the line.
Dems are gone in QLD, no deals to get them in and looks like FF could sneak in again with 2.5% like they did in 04 in Victoria.
Matt: That’s what I’ve found as well.
If FF get in front of Pauline they win, under every scenario I’ve tried.
The key problem for her is they managed to steal One Nation away from her. They’re probably going to get 1%+ which is more than most of the other micros.
In South Australia Mr X really struggles to win his seat in a number of scenarios I’ve tried. Even with 13% he often doesn’t win.
His primary had better live up to expectations because there is no way he can harvest his way to victory.
Ben S
I believe that Nick X is above the line due to his selection of running mate Roger Bryson (see below). You are correct that he is the last box ‘S’ above the line – methinks that will easy to find for the voters on the day, rather than trying to find him in the middle of the ticket. Nick got 20%+ Primary of the vote at the State election, nearly as much as the Liberal Party. Just like The Narrowing that is supposed to come, perhaps X will hold on to the majority of his previous level? He’s not just a one issue candidate. see http://www.nickx.net.au
Roger Bryson – the Manager of Adelaide’s iconic Central Market is Nick Xenophon’s running mate in his Senate bid.
Roger is also an ordained Baptist Church Minister – and was the senior Minister of the Flinders Street Baptist Church from 2001 to 2006. He has also worked at senior levels in the welfare and business sectors. From 1990 to 1997 he was Director of Communications for Mission Australia. Before that he was the Manager of the Industrial Division and the Auctioneer for Colliers International.
The two were introduced to each other five years ago by World Vision CEO Tim Costello, who is a close friend of them both.
Under electoral laws an Independent Senate candidate cannot appear ‘above the line’ without at least one running mate. (And even then only a letter of the alphabet – determined by a draw of candidates on 2 November – will appear next to the allocated box above the line.)
Nick Xenophon said:
“Roger Bryson brings a fantastic wealth of experience from both the business and welfare sectors – I’m privileged that he’s agreed to be my running mate. Anyone who can successfully juggle these two professions is in good stead to handle the Senate.”
Roger Bryson said:
“I look forward to the challenge of running for the Senate with Nick. I really want to get him over the line, and being above the line will certainly help.”
Sorry Ben S – I misread your posting…you were right about just the letter S and not Nick Xenophon’s name…
William, Those of your readers who may have had a Crikey free trial in the past year will not be able to register for another free trial and therefore will not be able to comment in your blog. So sad 🙁
[William, Those of your readers who may have had a Crikey free trial in the past year will not be able to register for another free trial and therefore will not be able to comment in your blog. So sad ]
Woah, I didn’t even try, but that may include me.
I’m sure something can be done about that, RN.
Matt
I will have to correct the previous post, modified the percentages slightly, very slightly and got.
3 labor, 2 libs and 1 democrat. Spoke too soon about dems being gone, my apologies.
But key does appear to be One nation going to Family First, giving them an enormous boost.
However if Pauline stays ahead of FF then FF is eliminated before her and preferences go to lib, not to Pauline.
Funny thing here is that when Pauline is eliminated preferences go to Dems.
Greens get eliminated, Dem gets elected, excess to labor.
So looks like in one scenario if FF want to get in they have to help out at One Nation booths and if Bartlett of the dems wants in he needs to help out at Pualines booths.
Calculator is great and the final result will probably be just as fascinating.
It looks like the AEC has failed to deliver on its promise of providing a csv dataset of registered Senate Ticket preferences. I must admit I find the quaility of the AEC website some what lacking this time around as is the feedback from their wizard service.
Yes I think the move to Crikey is a big mistake. If you needed space on a server I would have been happy to host your site.
#70
William – IMO the move to crikey.com.au is a bad move. If its just a question of a hosting site and big pipes I’m confident I could organize a zero cost solution ASAP. Maybe starting up a new subject/topic dealing with maintaining this site as an independent voice would be appropriate.
Not sure if I should mention this, but you can post at the Crikey site without registering, just go to add comment and enter an email (like here)….so there shouldn’t be a problem for those with previous subscriptions.
It isn’t just that, Davidoff. There are all sorts of reasons why it is folly for one person to maintain a site that gets 1000+ daily comments’ worth of election debate, when I am legally liable for the content of every single one of them. Besides which, it’s only for three weeks.
..and yes Arbie Jay, it seems the final result could get more interesting than expected. As long as Pauline doesn’t get elected…then it goes from interesting to appalling 🙂
#87
Could you do me (and many others here) a favor and open up a new topic on pollbludger.com specifically addressing the future direction. What is happening here in terms of the participation of the electorate in an open and frank discussion is brilliant – and any issues surrounding the viability of an independent voice should be discussed. A large part of this is about open government and aside from technical stuff dealing with hosts and pipes there are solutions to problems such as the liability question that you raised. In my opinion – sustainable solutions to these sort of issues are much more important that any short event that may unfold in the next three weeks.
substitute “short event” with “short-term event”
C’mon cut William some slack. He’s gotta have some time to finish that damn PhD.
Well i guess you can’t please all the people all the time. eh? Twill miss this blog however ….sad but
Not so Matt. I registered late this afternoon and just retried your theory now. It didn’t work. I couldn’t get in for comments unless I logged in. So I did and am back here to let you all know. My other comment in addition is what happens when the 7 days are up. HOW does Crikey know that we are logging in to read your site? When you log in, it takes you back to their main page. Will I get logged back OUT in 8 days time and not let me in any more? thanks 🙂
Also, I read here earlier that William said the comments were posted immediately. My comment on the Bennelong thread went to moderation. Whats going on there?
Since I’ve already had a Crikey free sub this year, I am unable to become a Crikey member and therefore cannot comment at the relocated Pollbludger, so I guess this is farewell from me until after the election. Anyone who wants to communicate with me can do so at the blog at my website.
William, is the issue mainly the liability, or the time taken maintaining?
I’m scratching my head wondering if a google group or two wouldn’t satisfy everyone here. You could write your stuff and simply link to the comments on another site?
Sorry Julie, as I said on the other thread that was my mistake. But you can just create another email address at a place like Hotmail and use it to register…that goes for you also Adam
Afraid I too can’t get into Crikey – I took a free trial about three months ago.
Thanks William, it’s been great.
Good luck to all getting through election night – however well or badly your party does!
And a special mention to Glen – sometimes his comments make me cringe, but he’s rarely, if ever, boring!
Firstly, I am not clear that it is actually the case that you won’t be able to comment if you’ve taken out a subscription this year. Secondly, I’m sure something can be done about it if it is. Thirdly, while the Crikey site tells you your comment is awaiting approval, this is not so – one of the niggles that will have to be fixed.
Also, there are about 15 different reasons why I would have been an idiot not to have accepted Crikey’s offer, however much sentimental value some people might attach to this particular website. Please, no more suggested alternatives.