Wheel of fortune: episode two

I am finally extracting the digit with respect to the Senate tickets, and will add extra states to this entry as I complete them. Acknowledgements are due to Antony Green’s easy-to-use group voting tickets and most excellent Senate calculator. In other Senate news, Malcolm Mackerras makes his bold predictions for the Senate in an articule from The Australian which I can’t find online. He predicts the Greens will take an Australian Capital Territory seat from the Liberals, 3-2-1 results favouring Labor in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, 3-2-1 favouring Liberal in Western Australia, 3-2 favouring Labor plus one for Nick Xenophon in South Australia, and three-all in Queensland.

Queensland: The People’s Front of Judea-style schisms among the right should scatter the micro party vote, preventing any chance of an upset. That extends to Pauline Hanson, who has no chance at all despite media reports she has been “boosted” by preferences. The real significance of Hanson is that her preferences will, eventually, end up with Labor’s third candidate ahead of the Greens and the Coalition’s number three, Nationals Senator Ron Boswell. The remaining preferences will split in an orderly fashion – religious, populist and recreation parties go to the Coalition, while the Democrats, Climate Change Coalition, Socialist Alliance and What Women Want (along with the Carers Alliance) go to the Greens. Once those three blocs are added together, it will be a question of which out of Labor, the Coalition and the Greens misses out on one of the final two seats.

Preference tickets can be summarised as follows:

WHAT WOMEN WANT: Greens; Democrats; SA; Labor; DLP; Carers; CCC; SOL; LDP; Fishing; Coalition; CDP; Shooters; Lifestyle; One Nation; Pauline Hanson; Family First; NCPP; CEC.

LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY PARTY: Fishing; Shooters; One Nation WA; Lifestyle; NCPP; DLP; SOL; Carers; Pauline Hanson; CCC; CEC; WWW; Greens; Family First; CDP; Labor; Democrats; Coalition; Greens; SA.

CLIMATE CHANGE COALITION: Democrats; Greens; Pauline Hanson; Labor; Family First; NCPP; Shooters; Lifestyle; Fishing; SA; Carers; LDP; Labor; SOL; WWW; DLP; One Nation WA; Coalition; CDP; CEC.

CARERS: Greens; Pauline Hanson; Family First; SA; Democrats; WWW; CDP; Lifestyle; CEC; NCPP; DLP; CCC; Fishing; LDP; SOL; Shooters; One Nation; Coalition; Labor.

SENATOR ON-LINE: Carers; CCC; WWW; LDP; Fishing; NCPP; Democrats; Labor; Greens; Coalition; DLP; Family First; Lifestyle; SA; One Nation; Pauline Hanson; CEC; CDP; Shooters.

SOCIALIST ALLIANCE: Greens; WWW; Labor; Democrats; Carers; CCC; SOL; Coalition; LDP; NCPP; Fishing; Lifestyle; DLP; Shooters; Family First; CDP; CEC; One Nation; Pauline Hanson.

FISHING PARTY: Coalition 3; LDP 9; CDP 10; NCPP 11; Carers 12; Family First 13; Shooters 14; SOL 15; CCC 16; WWW 17; One Nation WA 19; SA 20; CEC 24; Pauline Hanson 30; DLP 31; Lifestyle 38; Labor 59; Democrats 61; Greens 63;

FAMILY FIRST: Lifestyle; Carers; CDP; One Nation; DLP; CCC; Fishing; Shooters; NCPP; Coalition; SOL; Pauline Hanson; LDP; WWW; SA: CEC; Labor; Greens; Democrats.

DEMOCRATS: CCC; Carers; WWW; Greens; SA; LDP; SOL; Lifestyle; Labor; Coalition; Fishing; DLP; Family First; NCPP; Shooters; CEC; CDP; One Nation; Pauline Hanson.

COALITION: Family First; Lifestyle; Fishing; CDP; NCPP; Shooters; Carers; LDP; WWW; CCC; SOL; CEC; SA; Democrats; Greens; Labor; Pauline Hanson; One Nation.

SHOOTERS: Lifestyle; Pauline Hanson; CDP; Family First; Coalition; One Nation; DLP; NCPP; CEC; Carers; CCC; SOL; WWW; LDP; Fishing; Labor; Democrats; Greens.

GREENS: Carers; WWW; CCC; SA; LDP; SOL; Democrats; Labor; DLP; Fishing; Lifestyle; CEC; NCPP; Shooters; One Nation; CDP; Family First; Coalition; Pauline Hanson.

LABOR: Greens; Democrats; SOL; CCC; Lifestyle; WWW; Carers; Shooters; SA; DLP; CDP; Family First; LDP; Fishing; NCPP; Coalition; CEC; One Nation; Pauline Hanson.

AUSTRALIAN FISHING AND LIFESTYLE PARTY: Family First; Coalition; Shooters; Pauline Hanson; Fishing: Labor; CDP; One Nation; NCPP; LDP; Carers; DLP; SOL; CCC; WWW; CEC; SA; Greens; Democrats.

ONE NATION: Family First; Fishing Party; CEC; Carers; WWW; Shooters; SA; CDP; NCPP; Lifestyle; DLP; SOL; LDP; CCC; Coalition; Pauline Hanson; Democrats; Greens; Labor.

PAULINE’S UNITED AUSTRALIA: One Nation; CCC; Carers; Shooters; Lifestyle; CDP; NCPP; Fishing; CEC; WWW; Family First; LDP; SOL; Democrats; DLP; Labor; Coalition; SA; Greens.

CEC: Coalition; Democrats; CDP; One Nation; Pauline Hanson; Fishing; Shooters; Carers; NCPP; SOL; WWW; Family First; Lifestyle; DLP; SA; Labor; LDP; CCC; Greens.

CDP: Coalition; DLP; Family First; NCPP; Carers; Shooters; Lifestyle; Fishing; Pauline Hanson; One Nation; LDP; CEC; CCC; SOL; Democrats; WWW; SA; Labor; Greens.

NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS PARTY: Pauline Hanson; Carers; half (Family First; Fishing; One Nation; CDP), half (Fishing; CDP; Family First; One Nation); CCC; SOL; CEC; Shooters; DLP; LDP; Lifestyle; Coalition; Labor; Democrats; SA; WWW; Greens.

DLP: CDP; Coalition; Family First; Shooters; Fishing; NCPP; Labor; Lifestyle; LDP; Democrats; Pauline Hanson; One Nation; SOL; Carers; CCC; Greens; CEC; WWW; SA.

Western Australia: The Greens seem to have emerged a loser from the Western Australian Senate preference tickets, owing to extremely tight preferencing for the Christian Democratic Party from every right-of-centre player in the league: One Nation, Family First, the DLP, the Citizens Electoral Council, the Non-Custodial Parents Party, Conservatives for Climate and Environment, the Liberty and Democracy Party and even the Nationals (ahead of the Liberals), plus the curiously anti-left Carers Alliance. The CDP will also get any Coalition surplus, although this would be a small-change leftover after the Coalition wins a third seat. This raises the possibility that the Greens will be excluded after falling behind the CDP, at which point their preferences would secure a third seat for Labor. The other difficulty facing the Greens is that Labor’s vote will be much higher than its 32.5 per cent from 2004. Labor’s third candidate will thus inherit a bigger surplus over the 28.7 per cent needed for the first two seats, presenting a bigger hurdle for the Greens to clear. If they fail, it will be WA’s first minor party lockout since 1980 (which was the last five-seat half-Senate election).

NATIONALS: CDP; Liberal; Greens; Family First; DLP; Democrats; One Nation; Carers Alliance: NCPP; CCE; CCC; LDP; SOL; WWW; Campbell; SA; Labor; CEC.

CITIZENS ELECTORAL COUNCIL : Liberal; CDP; Campbell; One Nation; NCPP; Carers; WWW; LDP; SOL; DLP; Democrats; Nationals; SA; CCC; CCE; Family First; Labor; Greens.

CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Carers; DLP; CEC; Family First; CCE; One Nation; Campbell; NCPP; Liberal; Nationals; CCC; SOL; WWW; SA; Labor; Greens; Democrats.

NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS: Family First; Campbell; One Nation; CDP; SOL; DLP; CCC; CCE; Democrats; LDP; SA; Carers; CEC; WWW; Nationals; Liberal; Labor; Greens.

DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY: CDP; Family First; Liberal; Nationals; Carers; NCPP; Campbell; One Nation; CEC; LDP; SOL; WWW; CCE: CCC; Labor; SA; Democrats; Greens.

LIBERAL: Nationals; CDP; Family First; DLP; LDP; Campbell; Carers; CCE; NCPP; Democrats; Greens; WWW; SOL; CCC; CEC; Labor; SA; One Nation.

DEMOCRATS: Carers; CCC; WWW; CCE; Greens; half (Labor; Nationals; Liberal), half (Nationals, Liberal, Labor); SA; Independent; Family First; SOL; NCPP; CEC; Campbell; LDP; One Nation; DLP; CDP.

ONE NATION: NCPP; CEC; Family First; CDP; Campbell; SOL; WWW; LDP; DLP; Carers; SA; CCE; CCC; Nationals; Liberal; Democrats; Greens; Labor.

FAMILY FIRST: LDP; NCPP; Carers; CCE; CCC; SOL; DLP; CDP; One Nation; Liberal; Nationals; Campbell; Labor; Democrats; CEC; SA; WWW; Greens.

SENATOR ON-LINE: Carers; CCE; CCC; WWW; LDP; NCPP; Democrats; Greens; Labor; Liberal; Nationals; DLP; Family First; SA; CDP; One Nation; CEC; Campbell.

CARERS ALLIANCE: Democrats; CDP; WWW; One Nation; CEC; LDP; NCPP; CCE; Campbell; SA; SOL; CCC; DLP; Nationals; Liberal; Family First; Greens; Labor.

LABOR: Greens; Democrats; CCC; SOL; LDP; DLP; WWW; SA; Carers; Nationals; CDP; Family First; CCE; Liberal; NCPP; CEC; One Nation.

CLIMATE CHANGE COALITION: WWW; Democrats; CCE; Family First; Carers; Campbell; SA; NCPP; DLP; One Nation; SOL; CDP; LDP; Greens; CEC; Nationals; half (Liberal; Labor), half (Labor; Liberal).

SOCIALIST ALLIANCE: Greens; WWW; Labor; Carers; CCC; Democrats; CCE; SOL; Liberal; Nationals; LDP; DLP; NCPP; Family First; CDP; CEC; Campbell; One Nation.

CAMPBELL: CDP; NCPP; One Nation; CEC; Carers; Family First; DLP; Nationals; Liberal; Labor; Democrats; SOL; WWW; LDP; CCE; CCC; SA; Greens.

WHAT WOMEN WANT: Greens; SA; Labor; Democrats; SOL; Carers; CCC; DLP; Campbell; CCE; Liberal; CDP; Family First; One Nation; LDP; Nationals; CEC; NCPP.

CONSERVATIVES FOR CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT: SOL; CCC; Carers; Democrats; Family First; WWW; CDP; One Nation; NCPP; DLP; LDP; Liberal; Nationals; Greens; Labor; CEC; Campbell; SA.

LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY PARTY: CCE; NCPP; CEC; DLP; Carers; WWW; SOL; CCC; Family First; One Nation; CDP; Campbell; SA; Democrats; Nationals; Labor; Liberal; Greens.

GREENS: WWW; SA; Carers; CCC; SOL; Democrats; Labor; CCE; Nationals; CEC; One Nation; NCPP; DLP; CDP; Family First; Campbell; Liberal.

NOTE: Feel free to use this thread for general discussion.

COMMUNITY SERVICE NOTICE: Larvatus Prodeo is operating at a new address while technical problems are ironed out.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

154 comments on “Wheel of fortune: episode two”

Comments Page 3 of 4
1 2 3 4
  1. So, Ben – you’re saying that the Greens believe that Family First being elected is better than the Libs controlling the senate, but what was the thinking behind putting Fred Nile’s CDP ahead of the Libs in NSW?

  2. Alan Kohler had an interesting interest rates item on the ABC news tonight.

    Apparently, when the economy vandalising, union bossed {BOO} Laborites are running the joint our mortage rates has been, on average, a massive 20% higher than the OECD average for the same periods.

    OTOH, under Liberal economic geniuses, interest rates have been only a miniscule 20% higher, on average!

    Another load of old cobblers bites the dust.

    That’s not egg on Howard’s dial – it’s horse shite.

    Anyone know if rodents are susceptible to the horse flu? 😉

  3. Seeing how the leaders don’t comment on polls I wonder if they would answer the following question, “If there is only one poll that matters, maybe you would share with us how much your party has spent on polls and what they are showing you.”
    Questions about polls are one of the few q’s that cause both rudd and the rodent to look at their right foot.
    Did anyone else see Downer, what an apt name. I’m surprised he didn’t say at one stage, ‘Tony if you ask me that question one more time I’m going to get Condie onto you.”

  4. MM @ 96. I was stunned too and dashed off a few emails to P Adams and CCC. P Adams insisted I was wrong, P Newell then explained. But before Patrice explained Antony Green cleared it up for me in Part 1.

    I’m still annoyed though with CCC.

    Antony Green Says:
    November 5th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
    Climate Change Coalition preference go to Hanson’s Party and One Nation before Labor and the Coaltion. HOWEVER, it won’t matter, as they go through the Democrats, Fishing Party, the Greens and Family First before they get to Hanson et al. Preferences would almost certainly be sidetracked by one of those parties which means Hanson and One Nation would already have been excluded. Still, it’s an ordering you think you’d avoid if you don’t want to have an argument over the meaning

  5. I couldn’t go to bed without commenting on Downer on lateline. Does someone say right we’ll have to bring out the baffoon. “But surely there must be someone else?” “sorry everyone else is busy”
    In rolls the Baffoon. I can see every liberal party member cringeing and looking through fingers.
    How the hell did this man ever make it to parliament. How did this man ever get a job? EVER?

    I am glad he won’t lose his seat purely for the commedy!

  6. Adam,
    you are seriously underestimating the Green Senate vote this election.
    I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their opinion but your blinkered dislike of the Labor Left is clouding the reality.

    This election…for numerous reasons…there will be a marked difference between the Green HoR vote and their Senate vote.

  7. A double dissolution will double the number of Greens senators. They will get at least one from each state, and two in some states. Can’t see the coalition punting for a double dissolution. I suspect the ALP will probably be quite prepared to put workchoices to the test by remitting its repeal to the senate twice, and daring the coalition to reject. If the coalition had to chose between getting rid of workchoices and having 9 or 10 Green senators which do you think they would rather?

  8. We are into trends here, The Green vote has increased at every federal and state election, bar one, in the last ten years, Global warming is an issue and Green voters fill the most educated demographic and are considered rusted on. Why is there this fantasy that their vote will drop. Stop listening to the Newspoll, they are always wrong on the Green vote.
    Having said that, logically their vote will have a huge influence in the HOR and the Senate, That is why Labor jumped into bed with them,.

  9. I think we are all missing the big question.

    The Coalition is preferencing One Nation last. Labor is prefencing Pauline Hanson last, as are the Greens. The mind boggles. Why is this so?

  10. I think Downer invented a new phrase “household consumerables”

    His logic was flawless, to paraphrase: people shouldn’t worry about the transition from Howard to Costello because we all know what Costello is about. Ergo people shouldn’t worry about the installation of god knows who as Treasurer because we don’t even know who it’ll be yet!?

    Who can take that man seriously?

  11. Downer just doesn’t come across as being relevant to the future of the country.

    How will the interest rate rise play out? Surely government by Crosby Textor for most of 2007 (if not before) has not helped to keep inflation in check.

  12. Thanks William. Though that post was including the independents in the equation, it looks like if it were 75-all the game would go into overtime.

  13. Sorry to change the thread but the Downer thing has got to me. He and the State Transport Minister, Pat Conlon are facing off about a debate. Conlon is reported to have sent Dolly a letter referring to The Things That Matter, and he can come dressed as he likes.
    That aside, I wonder if any Coalition member will dare to claim bias against the ABC, it seems to me Lateline and the 7.30 Report have given the government much more time than the opposition.
    Am I deluded?

  14. Adam @ 76:

    In NSW, Vic and Qld you have three possible scenarios:
    *Labor polls well but not too well: Labor 3, Coalition 3.
    *Labor polls very well and gives surplus to Greens: Labor 3, Coalition 2, Greens 1
    *Labor polls extremely well, and Greens are eliminated: Labor 4, Coalition 2

    There’s a surprising fourth scenario in Qld – FF AND Greens elected. That’s much more likely than 4 Labor. Maybe more likely than 3-2-1. I think Senator Boswell is in serious serious trouble.


  15. One thing is clear, THE GREENING OF AUSTRALIA is on.

    Despite the hostile coverage by the media to the Greens,
    voters have displayed commitment and understanding by supporting the Greens in consistantly increasing numbers.

    The Greens are now a force in Australian (and world) governments which are providing answers and solutions.

    The growth of the Green vote is at the expence of the dying Liberal (neo-con) voters.

  16. Tucker got 16% of the vote in 2004, with a strong Getup! campaign behind her this time, and a general anti-Liberal mood I can’t see her going backwards. All she needs is to tread water and have the ALP steal a few percent off Humphries and she’s in.

    Rudd’s razor gang remarks will be enough to ensure that the ALP doesn’t completely monopolise disenchanted Lib voters.

  17. It appears that some people have had a tinker with Antony Green’s Senate Calculator while others appear to have done substantially less than this..

    This is evident with assertions probably based on “gut feelings” than data. I have put in about 6 hours of work into the calculator for Queensland, and tried averaging senate polling since 2005 for QLD, then adjusting for actual figures in 2004 election and the 2006 election, focussing on the six parties: ALP, LIB, NAT, GRN, FFP and DEMS.

    My results were:

    1. Nothing showing a Greens result. In fact I had to tweak Greens over 10% to even get a seat showing. Their result was 5.6% in the last Federal and they are polling flatline 4-5% (though, for reasons amply stated in PB this can’t be relied on).
    2. Every result showed Jeff Buchanan from Family First being the sixth (or in two cases, the fifth! Senator elected).
    3. In no case with real data (done individually on polls and then elections and then polls combined, then all combined) does Andrew Bartlett retain his seat for the DEMS.
    4. Now, with purely hypothetical tweaks, with Greens at 10% and FFP 5% (an unlikely but interesting scenario), both Larissa Waters (GRN) and Jeff Buchanan (FFP) got up.
    5. In no scenario, even the latest outlier with Pauline at 7.5% does she get up. It still came up 2 Lib, 3 ALP and 1 FFP.

    Then, of course, there is some random nonsense abounding about WWW and CCC (what is with the triple letters??) achieving 2-2.5%, which I’d love to see polling on. If the Dems can’t manage 2.5% consistently since 2004 I fail to see how brand new micros with overlapping issues with the majors can even come close to this.

    In short, Queensland looks pretty certain for 2 Lib, 3 ALP, 1 FFP or, if the coalition fortunes get marginally better, 3 Lib, 2 ALP, 1 FFP.

  18. OK, it’s time, i’m going to venture a prediction for the Senate, Antony’s calculator & William’s analysis certainly makes it all a bit clearer! Many thanks, fellas.

    ACT: ALP 1, Greens 1 (I’ve played around with the calculator, and my ideal – and actually possible – outcome is Humphries sitting on .97 of a quota all night with only the LDP to comfort him while Kerrie Tucker flies past)

    NSW: My $ on a Mackerras outcome, 3-2-1 favouring Labor. Want to see Kerry Nettle get back up – 3-3 is very possible, but would be a loss.

    WA: 3-2-G favouring Libs

    QLD: 3 ALP – 2 Lib – 1 FFP (this is said with much pain)

    SA: The tricksiest state. 3-2-X favouring Labor, but a 2-2-1-X upset with either Family First or the Greens is possible. Dems’ strongest state will not elect a Democrat.

    VIC: 3-2-1 50%, 3-3 50%. First scenario requires Labor surplus over three quotas plus slight rise in Green vote – reckon it will happen, the Greens have got so much exposure in Vic lately (even if much negative). However a minor party lockout is possible.

    TAS: 3-2-1 favouring Labor all but certain. As much as I want to see a 2-2-2 outcome (and it is technically possible given Morgan senate polls, all caveats taken into account), it’s extremely unlikely. Requires large numbers of ex-Libs to suddenly vote Green. Possible at state level (see Tony Whish-Wilson at Tasmanian Times), perhaps, but not in the Rudd election.

    NT: Both majors easily returned, with slight rise in minor vote from protests over intervention.

  19. At most optimistic, that sees 6 Greens (total 8), along with 19 ALP, for a return to a crossbench Senate. Worst case scenario (sounding a bit like good ol’ Nostrils, now!) result that I can see is FFP + Coalition conservative majority, thanks to Queensland preferencing and FFP’s strength there.

    The tension for us minor party fans will last a bit longer than election night – though i’ll relax rather substantially following Howard’s concession speech.

    Rudd on 81 seats. Goldstein the bolter, Howard to keep Bennelong (come on, prove me wrong!) and Turnbull to fall in Wentworth. Greens to take 2nd in Melbourne, Sydney, Grayndler, but nowhere near victory.

  20. G’day William,

    Just an observation about your summary of preference flows for WA.

    You have the Nats going to the Libs then CDP but the reality of the situation is that the Nats go to Lib numbers 1 and 2 first, then to the CDP next. As Lib 1 and 2 will alread be elected off a primary it is essentially a vote straight to the CDP.

    I wonder if the Nats expect direct preferences in O’Connor in return? The Nats candidate in O’Connor is paying $21 at the moment. It could be worth a punt.

  21. Thank you Luke – it actually said “Liberal; CDP; Liberal”, which is … er, not right, obviously. I have now deleted the first Liberal. It was also remiss of me to exclude the Nationals from the list of right-of-centre parties preferencing the CDP, and this too is now corrected.

  22. On my calculations, if the Libs slip under three quotas in WA, the CDP can jump in ahead of them and pinch the last spot.

    Resulting in 2 Lab, 2 Lib, 1 Grn and 1 CDP.

    I think you may be a bit pessimistic about the Greens chances William.

  23. Generic Oracle (125),

    It’s nice to see you posting again.

    Family First has decided to preference in favour of pro-abortion Liberals and against anti-abortion Labor candidates for the Senate. If press reports are correct, it is doing the same for the House. FF, despite voting against WorkcalledChoicesagain, is working to return the government which gave us that foul legislation. If that government is returned, there is no prospect of repealing the legislation, irrespective of the composition of the Senate. Do you think this decision by FF means that its vote will drop or that more FF voters will ignore its preference recommendations? I understand it wanted a deal with the ALP, but it was not prepared to offer enough, but the consequence of its decision is to move it closer to the religious right category of the US, which is nothing but a way of siphoning Christian votes to candidates who want to cut taxes on the rich. I have defended FF here from such categorisation in the past, but I will be less able to do so in the future.

    With all the micros in the equation, such as the Climate Changers and the Women who Want to be Women, how does anyone determine what vote to start them with in the Senate calculator? What did you do in your Queensland exercises? This matters because a small difference in votes changes the order of exclusion and thus the result – the good old fractal butterfly again!

  24. Chris

    Yes, thanks very much, I am posting a little. I have been reading but not offering much lately! 🙂

    Thanks for your comments, interesting as always!

    1. I think discussions of preferencing largely falls into “principled” or “practical” decisions. Therefore, a great number of parties will analyse other parties preferences and you can always find some “weakness”.

    Now a “practical” or politically strategic weakness is really NOT interesting, so it doesn’t get commentary or media coverage… who cares if a party is stupid??

    However, a weakness on “principles” IS newsworthy and generates a “How COULD you??!!” story. All six major parties could have one this election!!

    Andrew Bartlett got his “how could you story” posted in the Australian, with “Family First Preferences Pauline Hanson!!”. Umm, yeah, at 47!!! (of 65 candidates). How OUTRAGEOUS!! … but fails to mention that the Democrats in NSW preferenced her BEFORE Family First!!!

    So it’s a bit of a silly game and I commend FFP for not bothering to get into the whole game of preferencing post-mortems. They are strategic & pragmatic as a party and can do more good in the senate than on their senate ticket.

    2. The Abortion issue plays to the points above and maybe just shows how much of a minor issue it is compared with other platforms of FFP lately. No private members bills on this one.

    3. Chris, I’d be surprised if FFP lost ANY net votes on this preference arrangement. Firstly, Joe Punter is barely aware of the senate and what a senate ticket preference is even all about. Secondly, with 65 boxes, I don’t think the BTL voting will increase at all. Finally, ANY preference is a compromise, or you’d be in THAT party.

    For the new micros, like you, I was in a little quandry and fiddled with percentages between 0.1 and 1.0 to determine the effect. It didn’t matter here, because the new players swing left anyway. It’s borrowing from Peter to pay Paul in QLD. Have a go yourself, you’ll see what I mean.

  25. Generic oracle,

    This is fun. I’ve played around with Victoria. On most settings, I end up with 3 ALP and 3 Liberal, but if I increase the Green vote to 9.5 per cent at the expense of the ALP, I get a Green elected via a Liberal surplus (!) and only 2 ALP.

  26. A question. What numbers are people using for the ALP and Coalition senate primary in Qld and why? If the Coalition gets below 37% ALP below 41% and FF get over 5% then I keep seeing Green and FF both elected on Coalition preferences. Those numbers don’t seem completely unreasonable to me. It’s a huge swing away from the Coalition, but we’re expecting a huge swing and it’s on par with their 1987 result.

    I agree with Generic Oracle about the micro parties in Qld. So long as FF and the Greens stay in the count, everything goes to one of them (except Senator Online and the Fishing Party I think).


  27. I have had a play with Tasmania. I mostly get 3 Liberal, 2 ALP and 1 Green, but if I push the ALP primary a couple of per cent ahead of the Liberals, I get the third ALP candidate elected by a few hundred votes ahead of the third Liberal on DLP preferences.

  28. One nation should be put ast because they are racists.

    Pauline hanson should be second last because she is just as bad.

    FF should be 3rd last because they don’t have concrete principles, their stance ALWAYS depend on the popular view, they always alter view.

    Shooters should be 4th last because they promote guns

    Fishing party should be at the bottom because of their appaling and negative stance and polciies on the environment.

    —— They are the logical preferences everyone should follow suit with. The rest of the parties depend upon personal taste ——

    For my liking The Coalition should be towards the bottom so they don’t control the senate like they did last time.

    Climate Change Coalition
    What Women Want

    are the alphabetically ordered common sense parties.

  29. Darryl:

    My numbers here:

    The Greens win in most of my scenarios by receiving Labor preferences.

    I’ve used a wide variety of numbers and I get FF winning as long as the coalition is 41% or below and FF manage to get ahead of Pauline on One Nation preferences.

    FF win via FF + Pauline + Coalition + Micros > 14%
    or… via FF + Pauline + ALP & Greens overflow (Coalition becomes waste quota).

    Maybe the others are assuming the ALP will get 43% or more ? I can’t really see Labor getting a 10% senate vote increase, especially with Pauline in the race.

  30. Chris

    Yes, someone should do a pHD on senate mathematics!

    Victoria is going to be either REALLY dull or another “miracle for a minor party”


    the Lib/ALP range: I looked at averages for the last few senate polls back to 2005 I think but even on the (rather distorted) Newspoll for September I get the same result precisely of ALP 3, LIB 2 and FFP 1.

    Now this is with the Dems at 4.5% (wildly unlikely!), Greens at 6% (quite believable, last fed at 5.6%, polling at 4-5% now) and with FFP a lowly 3% (below 3.5% in last Fed and 7% at seats contested in state).

    The preference arrangements in QLD have turned out quite remarkable actually. This situation has made a real buffer against changes in either Lib, Labor or Greens primaries.

    Strategically, however, I expect history to be rather unkind to the ALP for the Greens preference deal. Antony’s calculator makes it quite clear in Victoria and NSW in particular that it may elevate/retain a Greens Senator at the expense of the ALP. This will not go down well.

    By contrast, a preference deal with FFP for key marginals only and a Senate swap as apparently offered, would have retained/grown Labor senate seats, might have seen 1 or at the most, 2 FFP elected and most likely handed up to 6 marginals to Labor on FFP preferences. OuCh!!

    Now, FFP looks to be getting up in QLD anyway, Labor is struggling in some Queensland marginals (while romping in with other QLD marginals) and may drop 1 perhaps 2 senators. How will they feel if they lose by a seat which FFP could have delivered??

    It is most certainly a fascinating game but ALP strategists need to re-sit Preferences 101

  31. G_Oracle, you may have a point about the preferencing maths, given that most Green voters will preference against Howard at this election despite any potentially disaffected Libs-turned-Greens, but i think the ALP strategists might be a bit leery of FFP deals after Fielding – that deal was supposed to create the effect you just described, but instead made it harder for a centrist/progressive Senate to be elected and ensured grumbling in the ranks of the party.

    Plus, if they had done that at this election, a ‘how COULD you!’ story (thanks for the term!) would have been not much harder than: “hey! Labor rats on their principles again! Me-too! They don’t really mind VSU! Whoooo!” – and I admit i would have enjoyed watching them get out of that one, in the post-‘that’s not my member’ environment of general FFP derision.

    PLUS, i think the ALP may actually like Greens in the Senate, admittedly the ALP would be scrutinised from the left a little more, but they may prefer that to dealing with Lib-by-proxy-plus-a-little-less-open-minded Mr Fielding (and possibly Mr Buchanan).

    Still betting on more than 2 Greens, leading to an overall increase.

  32. I have used today’s Newspoll figures as a starting point for the Senate calculator. If you vote LNP, ALP, Greens, Family First or Democrats, there is a reasonable chance that you will have a local candidate to vote for. If you vote for the Senate micro-parties, you will probably not have a local candidate to vote for and so will be voting differently in the two Houses. For my first run-through, I have reduced the LNP and the ALP votes by 2 per cent each from respectively 47 and 41 Newspoll to create some more votes for the micro-parties in the Senate. I have left the Greens on 7 per cent even though some ALP voters will put them first in the Senate in the mistaken belief that this will help them get the balance of power (when it is LNP voters who have to do this) as some Greens voters may go for the other Climate parties. My basis for doing so can be subject to all sorts of arguments – which is fine by me. On my first run, I used the following figures:

    Primary vote

    Party % Vote

    Group A: Climate Change Coalition .3

    Group B: One Nation .1

    Group C: Australian Democrats 2.0

    Group D: What Women Want .1

    Group E: Senator On-Line .1

    Group F: Australian Labor Party 45.0

    Group G: Australian Shooters Party .1

    Group H: Liberal/National Coalition 39.0

    Group I: Group I Independents .1

    Group J: Socialist Equality Party .1

    Group K: Family First 3.0

    Group L: Liberty and Democracy Party .1

    Group M: Conservatives for Climate and Environment .1

    Group N: D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party 2.0

    Group O: Christian Democratic Party .2

    Group P: Group P Independents .1

    Group Q: Citizens Electoral Council .1

    Group R: Non-Custodial Parents Party .1

    Group S: Socialist Alliance .1

    Group T: Group T Independents .1

    Group U: Australian Greens 7.0

    Group V: Group V Independents .1

    Group W: Carers Alliance .1

    Ungrouped Candidates (no ticket submitted)
    TOTAL 100.0

    The result was 3 ALP and 3 Liberal.

    I next switched votes between the ALP and the Greens and left everyone else unchanged. It took an increase in the Greens vote to 9.9 per cent and a cut in the ALP vote to 42.1 per cent for the Greens to win a seat at the expense of the ALP.

    I next switched votes between the Greens and the LNP and left everyone else unchanged.
    It took an increase to 9.2 per cent in the Greens vote and a decrease to 36.8 per cent in the LNP vote to elect a third Green at the expense of the Liberal Party.

    I next switched votes between Family First and the LNP and left everyone else unchanged. It took an increase in the FF vote to 5.5 per cent and a decrease in the LNP vote to 36.5 per cent for Family First to take the last seat at the expense of the Liberals.

    I next switched votes between Family First and the ALP and left everyone else unchanged. Even with FF at 6 per cent, the result remained 3 ALP and 3 Liberal. I saw no point in increasing the FF vote any further.

    I next did a four-way switch, increasing both the Greens and Family First at the expense of both the LNP and the ALP. With the ALP at 42, the LNP at 36.9, the Greens at 9 and FF at 6.1, I get 3 ALP, 2 Liberal and 1 FF. With the ALP at 42, the LNP at 37, the Greens at 10 and FF at 5, I get 2 ALP, 3 Liberal and 1 Green.

    There are trillions of permutations possible, so I have not pursued them all. I think the realistic possibilities in Victoria are 3-2 ALP, 2-3 Liberal and 0-1 Green, with a Greens victory being more likely to be at the expense of the ALP than of the LNP and thus contributing nothing to the Greens gaining the balance of power for reasons already explained. Family First is very unlikely to win in Victoria, though if it did it would most likely contribute to the LNP losing control of the Senate.

  33. You will note that in some of my calculations, I have a total non-major party vote of over 20 per cent. Unrealistic much! It’s not 1970.

  34. For old time’s sake, I looked at what vote distribution would lead to the DLP’s winning a seat in Victoria. Conceptually speaking, the micros (including the CDP) have to put the DLP in front of Family First, then Family First has to put it in front of the LNP, and finally the LNP has to put it in front of the Greens. I stress this is an exercise, not a prediction, but, even with a DLP vote of 2.8 per cent, a little tweaking will produce a 3 ALP, 2 Liberal and 1 DLP result. I used the following figures:

    Primary vote

    Party % Vote

    Group A: Climate Change Coalition .2

    Group B: One Nation .2

    Group C: Australian Democrats 1.4

    Group D: What Women Want .1

    Group E: Senator On-Line .1

    Group F: Australian Labor Party 42.9

    Group G: Australian Shooters Party .2

    Group H: Liberal/National Coalition 37.0

    Group I: Group I Independents .1

    Group J: Socialist Equality Party .1

    Group K: Family First 3.4

    Group L: Liberty and Democracy Party .1

    Group M: Conservatives for Climate and Environment .2

    Group N: D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party 2.8

    Group O: Christian Democratic Party 1.4

    Group P: Group P Independents .1

    Group Q: Citizens Electoral Council .1

    Group R: Non-Custodial Parents Party .3

    Group S: Socialist Alliance .1

    Group T: Group T Independents .2

    Group U: Australian Greens 8.7

    Group V: Group V Independents .1

    Group W: Carers Alliance .2

    Ungrouped Candidates (no ticket submitted)
    TOTAL 100.0

    At count 25, the DLP was only 2 votes in front of Family First. At count 26, it was only 142 votes in front of the LNP. I don’t expect the DLP to win a seat or even to win 2.8 per cent of the primary votes, but the exercise shows how a change of as little as one in a thousand votes can change the results. In this example, three people out of two and a half million voting below the line could have changed the result.

  35. doubt the ALP or LIB in the senate will poll so high – voters will be going for minor parties a lot more.

    I’m predicting, based on Senate polls and past trends:

    Group A: Climate Change Coalition 1.2%

    Group B: One Nation 0.1%

    Group C: Australian Democrats 2.2%

    Group D: What Women Want 0.7% (though it deserves to be higher and hopefully is!! like 2-3%!)

    Group E: Senator On-Line 0.2%

    Group F: Australian Labor Party 39.5%

    Group G: Australian Shooters Party 0.05%

    Group H: Liberal/National Coalition 39.0%

    Group I: Group I Independents 0.11%

    Group J: Socialist Equality Party 0.05%

    Group K: Family First 2.6%

    Group L: Liberty and Democracy Party 0.15%

    Group M: Conservatives for Climate and Environment 0.45%

    Group N: D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party 1.11%

    Group O: Christian Democratic Party 0.22%

    Group P: Group P Independents .1

    Group Q: Citizens Electoral Council 0.75%

    Group R: Non-Custodial Parents Party 0.11%

    Group S: Socialist Alliance 0.25%

    Group T: Group T Independents 0.08%

    Group U: Australian Greens 10.02%

    Group V: Group V Independents 0.1%

    Group W: Carers Alliance 0.4%

    NB: Figures may not add up to 100%

  36. I don’t believe the non-major party vote will be anywhere near 21.5 per cent, which is double what the opinion polls are showing, even for the Senate.

  37. maybe it will be a little less, but with all these parties to choose from, as well as the situations we’re facing, not to mention more talk around the communities, there will be serious reductions in major party votes.

  38. Chris

    A detailed analysis and thanks, certainly for sharing your findings. I am not sure, however, that we are talking the same state!! My comments, and William’s thread was initially on QLD and WA in this instalment.

    That being said, I stand by observations I have been making now since early August that in QLD the most likely outcome is Andrew Bartlett down at centrelink and Jeff Buchanan booking suites early at the Canberra Motor Lodge for his first sitting week mid 2008.

    If you just hit “calculate” on Antony’s site (with data, though incomplete from the 2004 Fed defaulted by Antony) it shows 2:2:1:1 (LNP:ALP:FF:GRN) and, incidently, Larissa Waters, the Green candidate is the sixth, not Jeff Buchanan.

    Now, this is with Family first on 3.58% and Greens at 5.6% as they were in November 2004.

    Your figures, like all our figures, don’t and can’t reflect what the state of play is today because we can never know in the senate until even the corflutes are down and packed away, the polls are meaningless and last election is no better guide. However, here are some points I did find, that I would certainly dispute in QLD:

    1. There is no way on earth that One Nation will poll at 0.1. At their peak, they were 100 times this, the Nationals have never recovered since and there are no fewer than 3 splinter groups of One Nation, who all poll over 1%. They are not dead, just on a respirator.

    2. The DLP never scores anywhere near 2% here and the CDP never as low as .2
    3. Shooters, fishing parties (there are now 2) and the role of independents has been largely ignored by your figures and that is why you have the robustness in major party seats in your results. No offence, Chris, but you are thinking like a southerner. The further you go south in Australia in the senate, the more reliable the results tend to be and the lower the impact of micros. In QLD, they rule the roost. They also swing 2:1 Conservative:Progressive in the senate.

    So, the results we both get are different, but you need to think like a Queenslander to understand. Pauline HAD to happen out of Queensland after Joh’s demise and she would never have come from a southern state. They are conservative here but not generally Liberal lovers. If they can vote conservative and avoid the libs, all the better.

    For this reason, FFP’s political positioning, steady growth, credibility in the senate, but above all, being conservative (albeit, centrist/Centre-right) makes the micros amenable to them as the First party of note in preferences. Early bulking will keep them afloat and the Greens should poll nowhere near 10% and won’t stop Buchanan anyway.

    Now Victoria is a completely different story!! 🙂

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 3 of 4
1 2 3 4