Saturday, September 11
As you may have noticed, I have kind of dropped the ball on following the late Senate count – normally a richly absorbing pastime in the post-election dead zone, but in the past three weeks there have been bigger fish to fry than the precise make-up of a Senate that will clearly have the Greens holding the balance of power. The AEC has pushed the button on the counts in Queensland (three LNP, two Labor, one Greens) and the ACT (one Labor, one Liberal), with the others presumably to follow shortly. There has never been any doubt about New South Wales (two Liberal and one National, two Labor, one Greens), Western Australia (three Liberal, two Labor, one Greens), Tasmania (three Labor, two Liberal, one Greens) and the Northern Territory (one Labor, one Country Liberal Party). Doubt has also faded about the remainder:
Victoria. What at first appeared the quirky prospect of win for DLP candidate John Madigan has firmed. I personally anticipated the resources of incumbency might mean Family First would perform strongly on declaration votes, but they have actually gone backwards: according to the ABC projection, a 0.12 per cent deficit against the DLP at the revelant point in the count on election night has actually widened to 0.22 per cent. The Coalition have also failed to make up the ground needed to overtake the DLP at the penultimate count, with the gap now at an unassailable 0.72 per cent. That leaves us looking at a result of two Labor, one Liberal and one Nationals, one Greens and one DLP.
South Australia. There was briefly the prospect a week ago of an upset win by Bob Day of Family First at the expense of third Liberal candidate David Fawcett, but we now appear to be looking at a vanilla-flavoured three Liberal, two Labor and one Greens result. At the second last count, the ABC computer projects Fawcett to be on 8.89 per cent against 8.16 per cent for Day. With Day excluded, Family First and other right-wing preferences put Fawcett well ahead of the third Labor candidate.
There is thus little doubt that the newly elected Senators will include 18 from the Coalition, (12 Liberal, two Nationals, three Liberal National Party and one Country Liberal Party), 15 from Labor, six from the Greens and one DLP. These will join the state Senators whose terms began following the 2007 election – 16 Labor, 16 Coalition (14 Liberals and two Nationals), three Greens and Nick Xenophon – for a total result of 34 Coalition (26 Liberal, four Nationals, another three from the Liberal National Party including two who will sit with the Liberals and one who will sit with the Nationals, and one Country Liberal Party who sits with the Nationals), 31 Labor, nine Greens, one DLP and Nick Xenophon.
Monday, August 23
Kevin Bonham and GhostWhoVotes in comments note my assessment of Tasmania was mistaken, as it wrongly allocated Liberal preferences to the Greens over Labor like they normally would. There is in fact little doubt the final result will be three Labor, two Liberal and one Greens, meaning the defeat of Liberal incumbent Guy Barnett by Labor’s Lisa Singh, a former state government minister who lost her seat in Denison at the March state election.
Saturday, August 21
A brief and bleary summary of the Senate situation, based on a quick and dirty review of Antony Green’s projections. This will be progressively updated as further results come to hand. The Greens look good for a Senate seat from each state and will hold an unassailable balance-of-power position in the Senate. The best shot for a quirky result is Victoria where the Democratic Labor Party are currently in the hunt – as is incumbent Steve Fielding, despite reports to the contrary.
New South Wales. This looks like a reasonably straightforward result of three Coalition and two Labor, with Lee Rhiannon of the Greens on a 2.5 per cent lead over the third Labor candidate for the final place.
Victoria. It is widely being reported that Steve Fielding has lost his seat, based on assessments of Antony Green’s projection that went no deeper than the predicted final result. The remarkable fact of said projection is the win for the Democratic Labor Party, who would be advised not to count their chickens. Four counts earlier, the DLP emerge ahead of Steve Fielding by the narrowest of margins, resulting in the former receiving the latter’s preferences and vice-versa. The DLP then emerges ahead of the third Coalition candidate and wins the seat on their third preferences, but it could just as easily be fielding who does this. Alternatively, neither could win – Fielding or the DLP could fail to get ahead of the third Coalition candidate, who might end up taking the seat instead. Or they could get ahead, but then fall short of overtaking Labor in the final count, so that Labor wins the seat.
Queensland. Three Liberal National, two Labor, one Greens.
Western Australia. A delightfully straightforward result, with the Liberals just over three quotas, Labor just over two (a remarkably low 29.8 per cent) and the Greens almost bang on one.
South Australia. Bob Day of Family First looks like he’s come close to overtaking the third Liberal candidate, but is currently 0.4 per cent behind and likely to lose ground in late counting. That being so, the final seat looks set go to the third Liberal, who looks about 3 per cent ahead of third Labor. Result: three Liberal, two Labor, one Greens.
Tasmania. Not only has Christine Milne been easily re-elected for the Greens, the current ABC projection has their second candidate just 1 per cent short of overtaking the Liberals at the second last count, and then winning the seat at the expense of a third Labor candidate. The exclusion of the second Green instead delivers the latter a narrow win over the third Liberal candidate. However, the unusually high number of below-the-line votes in Tasmania might makes things unpredictable. Realistically, the contest is between Labor and the Liberals to take a third seat, with the former slightly ahead.
The territories. Liberal Gary Humphries has only just cleared a quota (one third) in the ACT, but will be made comfortable by Democrats preference and a high rate of leakage. Equally, Labor wasn’t too far over a quota in the Northern Territory.
A pox on all their houses.
In Tasmania, the reason that the ABC is saying the final seat is a narrow ALP win by 0.57% of the vote is the computer is wrongly distributing the Greens vote to the Liberals, not Labor.
The Greens vote should be distributed before Lisa Singh is declared provisionally elected and removed from the count, not after.
Way to early to count the Senate (Particular in Victoria) The Below the Line votes pre poll, absentee and section votes are not yet recorded. Nor are the polling place votes been published.
The system of segmentation (ala Queensland 2007) and the distortion in the way the Surplus transfer value are calculated (Victoria 2007) also comes into play.
The Green calculator does not accurately reflect the counting system. (For one it divides the split the tickets before they split)
In Victoria the ALP could secure a third seat if the Greens surplus increases and flows on to the ALP ahead of the DLP. The Below the line will play a decision line and Greens, Democrats vote Below the line.
Woot, me and lot of my friends voted below the line in the senate. I know of at least 10 people that put Conroy@60. My top few prefs went all over the place – will be fascinating if BTLs matter. bwhahahaha
great point coconaut, the anti-conroy BTL will be significant in victoria. Hmm, I feel like a BLT now.
[Tasmania. Not only has Christine Milne been easily re-elected for the Greens, the current ABC projection has their second candidate just 1 per cent short of overtaking the Liberals at the second last count, and then winning the seat at the expense of a third Labor candidate.]
Not correct as in Tasmania the Liberal preferences go to Labor ahead of the Greens with the Greens last on the Tasmanian Liberal above the lines (http://www.aec.gov.au/election/files/e2010-gvt-tas.pdf) so even if the Greens overhaul the Liberal they still lose.
Tasmania is all over, 3-2-1 Labor, with Lisa Singh replacing Guy Barnett in the middle of next year.
Conroy@60 LOL that is a useless vote. Might make you feel good. thats all.
The reason Hy the Greens vote ended up on the Liberals is: one that the ALP candidate was elected and there was no remaining ALP candidate still in the count. The surplus then remains with the Liberal Candidate who retains the wasted quota. The system of segmentation is seriously flawed in concept and execution. There should be no segmentation and all votes should be distributed proportionally based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers. One single transaction per candidate with remainders being retained with the value of the vote Pure proportional representation not semi proportional distorted results.
what will be interesting once the BTL preferences are recorded is to process the data using Meek and Wright systems. Meek being a non-linear counting system and Wright being a reiterative counting system where Candidate surpluses are distributed and the count is reset and reprocessed on every exclusion. The iterations repeating until all vacant positions are filling in a single iteration distributing only surplus votes. Pure proportional.
Victoria looks like the only really close contest for last place at this stage – Labor, DLP, FF and perhaps L/NP all in with a chance.
SA also a chance for FF versus Libs for last spot but unlikely given usual lift in Lib vote with postal, absent.
Gary Humphries is just under a quota on 33.03%, but yes The Democrats will deliver them the seat unless late counting is particularly skewed away from the coalition.
Last election the ACT Democrats had a BTL rate of 34.87%. If late counting favours the non-Libs then the Greens could win with help from the Democrat BTLs.
It is hard to know who would be the least worst out of the options for the final Victorian seat: Steve Fielding from Family First, ex-Nat turned Lib Julian McGuaran (who if he had stayed a Nationals candidate would have been re-elected as number 2on the ticket) or the DLP’s John Madigan. Based on what I know, I’d lean towards Madigan being the least worst – only because the only think I know about him is that he is in the DLP.
Thankfully it will make no difference to the Senate balance of power. With the Libs not only facing the inevitable loss in Queensland of Russell Trood (who is a high quality Senator), but also Guy Barnett in Tasmania, they cannot be higher than 35 seats. If they lose McGuaran to DLP or Fielding (and even if Family First’s Bob Day manages to make an unlikely late surge to win in SA) they will come straight off the Liberal’s tally anyway, so it will have no balance of power impact.
From memory Fielding was actually outpolled by the DLP on primary votes back in 2004 when he won, so there would be some poetic justice in him outpolling the DLP on primaries this time but losing to them.
As for the ACT, the BTL votes for the Democrats would need to be well over half before it could give any hope to the Greens – not least because at least some BTLs for the ALP would probabyl go the Libs ahead of the Greens. The Democrats decision to preference straight to the Liberals in the Senate in the ACT is likely to be the direct cause if Steve Fielding still being able to wield significant Senate influence for another 10 months – which could be utterly crucial if we end with an Abbott Prime Minister. Easily the most unprincipled disgraceful and unjustifiable decision in the Democrats otherwise mostly very proud history.
Sorry Andrew the Dems have form. You may not have remembered but they also gave preferences to Steve Fielding in 2004 as part of the deal. I could go on, there were a number of occasions in their demise where they preferenced against the Greens, often I thought out of spite. But then again as my other half always reminds me they were born of the Liberal party and still clearly see themselves closer to the Liberal Party than the Greens. Sad but true. He does go on to suggest that Cheryl Kernot was the beginning of the end, however the consensus in the house is that when some of the democrat senators start thinking that people were voting for them and not the party that was the end. I’d be interessted in your thoughts as to what ideological group made the ACT decision.
Hi William,
I presume in Tas “There is in fact little doubt the final result will be three Labor, two Liberal and one Labor,” is a typo and you mean “There is in fact little doubt the final result will be three Labor, two Liberal and one Green”
That’s right Lukas – I should probably get some sleep …
Yes. I’ve been amazed at the times on some of your posts.
GhostWhoVotes – your comment is not right. The preferences of the Democrats, Secular Party and Senator On-Line are distributed before the Greens preferences because the minor party votes are full value while the Greens preferences are at reduced transfer value. Votes are distributed in bundles of equal transfer value in descending order of transfer value.
The minor party preferences elect the third Labor candidate so no Labor candidate remains in the count to receive Green preferences. What in fact would happen at this point is that the count would stop and the Green preferences would not be distributed.
Barking, the “born out of the Liberal Party” thing is a very thin slogan which some on the Left used for many years to justify ignoring or discounting every positive achievement of the Democrats (of which there were many). To suggest the Democrats ever saw themselves as closer to the Liberals than the Greens is a statement derived from prejudice, with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Never once at any federal election in any state or territory from the time the Greens first existed have the Democrats preferenced either major party before the Greens in the Senate until this decision by the ACT Democrats. (and also worth noting that the Democrats in SA preferenced the ALP ahead of the Greens in the Senate this time too, which could also have been pivotal had the Greens not polled such highly – which both disproves your “born out of the Liberal Party” nonsense, and shows that anti-Green resentment has now outweighed any desire to assist in ensuring progressive ideals are advanced in the Parliament).
I very much remember the Family First preference decision in 2004 – I was party leader at the time and part of the decision. As you may also recall it was the Labor Party who was the pivotal factor in enabling Steve Fielding to win – not sure what that does to your “born out of the Liberal Party” theory, unless you want to suggest the ALP was too. In any case, whilst it was distasteful, and in hindsight an error (I must say the fact that they were so willing to directly preference the Democrats’ strong gay rights activist Brian Grieg in WA made me think they might not be the stridently anti-gay bigots that many of them quickly proved themselves to be), the Democrats decision to preference Family First in the Senate in 2004 ahead of the Greens still put the Greens ahead of both major parties, and was explainable in a pragmatic sense as at least securing preferences in return. (As was the ALP deal with Family First I should say).
By contrast, the Democrats decision to preference straight to the Libs in the ACT did not involve any deal – whether it be preferences or policy promises. It was just straight out anti-Green malice aforethought which has had the (very predictable) affect of maintaining Steve Fielding’s balance of power role for 10 months longer than was needed. (Same motivation for the Dems decision in SA too, although it was far less likely that it would make a key difference). I think it would stretching things a bit to call such a mindset an “ideological group” – almost all their public statements on policy still mirror the traditional progressive Greens/Democrats view, but in their efforts to try to differentiate the Democrats, they frequently resort to bagging (a caricature of) the Greens. Given that there are already a myriad of far right parties who spend a large bulk of their time defining themselves as being the opposite of whatever they imagine the Greens to be, I’m not sure there’s much space left in that part of the political marketplace – even were one of a mind to want to inhabit such an intellectually moribund and soulless place.
The Democrat vote collapsed. All past parties suffered in this election. The Democrat vote halved so pro rata I guess they are irrelevant. A feeder party only.
Victoria.
Still way to early to determine the outcome. Close to a 1/4 of the vote to still be counted.
Those interested might be interested in playing around with the results.
Open STV provides a number of Counting models. Meek being the most accurate.
Here is the blt file
60 6
2284 1 2 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 0
2283 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
2283 1 2 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 0
2527 3 4 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 31 32 33 51 52 1 2 17 18 53 54 57 58 59 60 22 23 26 27 28 46 47 48 49 50 24 25 36 37 29 30 19 20 21 34 35 44 45 40 41 42 43 38 39 55 56 10 9 8 7 0
65914 6 7 8 9 10 44 45 29 30 53 54 19 20 21 57 58 24 25 17 18 38 39 40 41 42 43 46 47 48 49 50 59 60 36 37 55 56 3 4 5 1 2 31 32 33 22 23 34 35 51 52 26 27 28 11 12 13 14 15 0
352570 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 23 26 27 28 3 4 5 51 52 57 58 31 32 33 46 48 49 50 47 53 54 40 41 42 43 59 60 1 2 17 18 36 37 21 20 19 55 56 24 25 44 45 6 7 8 9 10 38 39 29 30 34 0
1985 17 18 22 23 53 54 55 56 36 37 29 30 34 35 6 7 26 27 28 57 58 8 19 20 21 44 45 51 52 1 2 38 39 31 32 33 9 10 24 25 59 60 3 4 5 46 47 48 49 50 40 41 42 43 11 12 13 14 15 0
54845 19 20 21 44 45 24 25 53 38 36 29 6 42 59 37 54 39 30 7 8 9 10 48 57 58 40 41 43 22 23 60 17 18 46 47 49 50 11 12 13 14 15 16 34 35 3 4 5 1 2 31 32 33 55 56 26 27 28 51 0
11774 22 23 53 54 51 52 26 27 28 11 12 13 14 15 16 46 47 48 49 50 17 18 57 58 31 32 33 40 41 42 43 3 4 5 19 20 21 6 7 8 9 10 36 37 59 60 24 25 29 30 55 56 1 2 44 45 34 35 38 0
32761 24 25 42 6 19 47 40 44 45 48 41 43 46 49 50 29 30 20 21 7 8 9 10 38 39 53 54 23 22 56 55 37 36 60 59 18 17 5 4 3 58 57 52 51 28 27 26 35 34 2 1 33 32 31 16 15 14 13 12 0
54738 26 27 28 51 52 22 23 55 56 53 54 17 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 57 58 46 48 49 50 47 40 41 42 43 3 4 5 60 59 31 32 33 24 25 2 1 30 29 37 36 21 20 19 35 34 39 38 45 44 10 9 8 7 0
3545 29 30 6 7 8 9 10 19 20 21 38 39 55 56 44 45 17 18 24 25 53 54 34 35 40 41 42 43 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 22 23 3 4 5 36 37 31 32 33 59 60 57 58 1 2 26 27 28 11 12 13 14 15 0
2301 31 32 33 3 4 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 26 27 28 46 47 48 49 50 1 2 51 52 22 23 53 54 17 18 57 58 40 41 42 43 55 56 19 20 21 29 30 24 25 6 7 8 9 10 44 45 59 60 36 37 34 35 38 0
1707 34 35 6 7 8 9 10 17 18 29 30 3 4 5 59 60 36 37 51 52 26 27 28 53 54 44 45 38 39 57 58 24 25 1 2 55 56 40 41 42 43 19 20 21 31 32 33 22 23 46 47 48 49 50 11 12 13 14 15 0
3470 36 37 19 55 53 54 22 23 17 18 24 25 56 20 21 6 7 8 9 10 46 47 48 49 50 44 45 40 41 42 43 29 30 11 12 13 14 15 16 57 58 59 60 3 4 5 1 2 31 32 33 38 39 51 52 26 27 28 34 0
8804 38 39 19 20 21 29 30 24 25 36 37 57 58 53 54 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 18 22 23 44 45 31 32 33 55 56 34 35 1 2 26 27 28 40 41 42 43 51 52 59 60 46 47 48 49 50 11 12 13 14 15 0
842005 40 41 42 43 6 7 8 9 10 19 20 21 44 45 24 25 22 23 53 54 55 56 29 30 51 52 17 18 36 37 26 27 28 57 58 59 60 11 12 13 14 15 16 46 47 48 49 50 1 2 31 32 33 3 4 5 38 39 34 0
9252 44 45 19 20 21 6 7 8 9 10 29 30 42 40 41 43 24 25 53 54 36 37 57 58 55 56 34 35 38 39 17 18 46 47 48 49 50 3 4 5 51 52 22 23 31 32 33 1 2 59 60 11 12 13 14 15 16 26 27 0
949256 46 47 48 49 50 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 23 17 18 53 54 51 52 26 27 28 31 32 33 1 2 57 58 55 56 24 25 19 20 21 59 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 36 37 60 40 41 42 43 44 45 29 30 34 35 38 0
2450 51 52 22 23 26 27 28 11 12 13 14 15 16 53 54 57 58 46 47 48 49 50 40 41 42 43 3 4 5 17 18 31 32 33 1 2 24 25 59 60 55 56 36 37 34 35 38 39 29 30 19 20 21 6 7 8 9 10 44 0
1771 53 54 57 58 22 23 17 18 46 47 48 49 50 40 41 42 43 11 12 13 14 15 16 3 4 5 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 44 45 38 39 31 32 33 29 30 36 37 34 35 51 52 55 56 59 0
1770 53 54 57 58 22 23 17 18 40 41 42 43 46 47 48 49 50 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 3 4 5 26 27 28 29 30 36 37 44 45 38 39 31 32 33 1 2 24 25 6 7 8 9 10 59 60 34 35 51 52 55 0
40524 55 56 26 27 28 17 18 29 30 19 20 21 36 37 38 39 3 4 5 53 54 57 58 59 60 24 25 22 23 51 52 34 35 6 7 8 9 10 40 46 49 41 50 42 48 43 47 45 44 11 12 13 14 15 16 31 32 33 1 0
1865 57 58 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 53 54 19 20 21 22 23 44 45 26 27 28 31 32 33 17 18 24 25 1 2 55 56 51 52 59 60 36 37 41 43 40 42 46 47 48 49 50 3 4 5 29 30 34 35 38 0
1864 57 58 11 12 13 14 15 16 6 7 8 9 10 53 54 19 20 21 22 23 44 45 26 27 28 31 32 33 17 18 24 25 1 2 55 56 51 52 59 60 36 37 46 47 48 49 50 41 43 40 42 3 4 5 29 30 34 35 38 0
0
“O’CONNOR, Patrick”
“VONGVIXAY, Keo”
“TOSCANO, Joseph”
“WARFE, Jenny”
“SADAUSKAS, Andrew”
“FIELDING, Steven”
“PLUMRIDGE, Gary”
“BOWN SEELEY, Ann Edith”
“GOH, Yuli”
“KHOO, Joyce”
“DI NATALE, Richard”
“RICE, Janet”
“BUI, Nam”
“HARGRAVE, Jen”
“RIVENDELL, Julie”
“SHNOOKAL, Liezl”
“SARGENT, Glenn R”
“WARDLE, Emma Louise”
“MADIGAN, John”
“GONSALVEZ, Geraldine”
“KAVANAGH, John”
“HOWE, Roger”
“WESTGARTH, Rick”
“KELLY, Peter Maxwell”
“KRSTIC, Alex”
“PATTEN, Fiona”
“WILSON, Emma”
“BLAKEY, Katie”
“DAWSON, Chris”
“HOLMES, Lee”
“WINDISCH, Margarita”
“FIREBRACE, Sharon”
“GUY, Ron”
“MITCHELL, Doug”
“ISHERWOOD, Katherine”
“EVANS, Darren”
“WHITE, Sam”
“TOWNSEND, Rosalyn”
“TOWNSEND, Phillip”
“RONALDSON, Michael”
“McKENZIE, Bridget”
“McGAURAN, Julian”
“JENNISON, Susan”
“JANSON, Vickie”
“EDDY-VEITZ, Ben”
“CARR, Kim John”
“CONROY, Stephen Michael”
“THOW, Antony”
“LEWIS, Marg”
“FREEMAN, Shelly”
“PERKINS, John Leslie”
“SCEATS, Rosemary Elizabeth”
“MONTEAGLE, Christopher”
“PEACOCK, Wendy”
“CURRIE, Ross”
“KLASS, Graeme Michael”
“MAYNE, Stephen”
“PICCININI, Paula”
“BEALE, Grant”
“SHEA, Glenn”
“Australian Senate Victoria 2010”
Having done more analysis on the Victorian Senate result.
A majority of minor parties placed FF and DLP ahead of the majors.
The Liberal Party and ALP primary vote being below 39% and the Green just above quota means that there is little chance of any change in the Victorian Senate result.
The DLP will most likely win the sixth Senate Seat on the back of the Liberal Party ticket vote with the ALP being 30,000 votes behind. The contest between FF and the DLP was close within 2,000 votes but the DLP appears to be the stringer. I doubt that the Below the Line Vote will change this situation.
This is not a situation where the distortion and flaw in the way the Senate is counted influenced the outcome as the case in Queensland 2007 or Victoria 2007
Democracy, any chance this could change with postals?
20 by Antony GREEN,
Thanks for that Antony, I understand now.
Thank You Andrew for taking the time to answer re 2004.
I suppose the wound is still raw when I consider that David Risstrom, a man of huge talent, who would have brought so much to the Senate was infact beaten by a Man and a Party that has shown no policy depth or integrity still hurts.
Whilst accepting that the Dems were the face of progressive politics for many years, the fact that they were born of Don Chipp’s leaving the Libs is unquestionable. The GST was the moment when their centrist position collided with their ideological image. The entrails of the Democrats demise can be turned and squirmed forever, but there are clearly important lessons to be learn’t by the Greens. (Congrats re Saturday’s result).
The fact that the Greens actively encourage members to participate in Local, State and of course the Federal parliament hopefully creates a pyramid of membership that has a broader base. There was a perception that the Dem’s ended being run out of Senators offices and the rank and file were reduced to handing out how to votes at election time?
The great challenge for the Greens will be the balance between ensuring stable and responsisble governance yet not being seen to have compromised too much from policy.
In regard to this I find it interesting that the Major Parties carry their pragmatism and bastrady as badges of honour? One of the more interesting insults as a Green is being called a do-gooder, something I’m sure the Dems experienced also.
Interesting times!
Andrew@15
Without wishing to understate the bloody-minded idiocy of the Dem’s preferencing decision in the ACT, according to the back of my envelope, even if the Liberalss will technically be forced to preferences, he’s far too close to a quota (about 500 votes as of the current AEC count) for anyone’s preferencing deals to come into play. At this point, all Humphries needs is one-quarter of Tony Glynn’s (the ungrouped independent) preferences to walk into another three-year term; even if all Glynn’s votes went to Labor via the Greens, if the Democrats had done their old Greens-then-a-split-ticket method, Humphries would still get in on the Liberal half of the Democrat ticket once the Green candidate was eliminated from the count.
NumberEveryBox Wrote.
“if the Democrats had done their old Greens-then-a-split-ticket method, Humphries would still get in on the Liberal half of the Democrat ticket once the Green candidate was eliminated from the count.”
The point is that the Greens wouldn’t be eliminated and therefore the votes wouldn’t get passed on.
Anyway, its more the principle. One Dem source said words to the effect that the Lib Senator was a small L liberal progressive. Huh what do they think the Greens candidate is?
The Greens only just have two-thirds of a quota—they *would* get eliminated, even if every minor candidate’s preferences went their way. The question is whether or not the *Greens* preferences, among everyone else’s, would be enough to get a second Laborite over the line, and the answer doesn’t look very much like yes. 😉
Of course the principle is the most obnoxious thing here. Steven Fielding was a freak accident, nobody actually thought he or any other Christian conservative could possibly *get* elected, least of all the Labor and Dem hacks who preferenced him last go-round. The symbolism alone was enough to put one last nail in the Democrat coffin. This is just the undead remnant of the party, a grotesque parody of its former self. If it went out into the sun it’d probably catch fire. Or, worse, sparkle.
. . . okay, disregard that. Labor’s surplus is less than the Green primary. Who’da thunk there might have been a couple of mistakes on the back of my envelope?
Nonetheless, the main point stands, just with the progressive preferences flowing the other way. The Libs are simply too close to a quota for *anybody* else’s ticket to keep them from getting in.
I can not see the piostrals making any differnce. The LNP 3rd Candidate is well below the DLP. The ALP and Greens would have to increase their percentage well above the Ordinary Polling. A big ask to make up the difference. I would say it is final. 2 ALp 2 LNP 1 Grn 1 DLP.
The only change that could occur in Victoria is Family First out polling the DLP in which case FF will be elected. But that is also unlikely.
Mismatch Data
Not to be outdone by the VEC the AEC data published shows more votes returned then issued
Issued
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/GeneralDecVotesIssuedByState-15508.htm
Received back to date
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/GeneralDecVotesReceivedByState-15508.htm
Queensland, WA, South Australia and Tasmania are all reporting more received back then issued.
This data is important information but it does not reconcile
Something id like to mention:
If Lisa Singh does win the final senate seat in Tasmania (which she almost certainly will), she will become the first ever person of South Asian background to be elected to the Australian federal parliament.
The Tasmanian Senate results indicate that if they were repeated at a DD then the ALP+Greens would be in with a good chance at retaining 8 of the 12 Senators (the DD quota for that being 61.54%) and if his happens then it would cut the Coalitions chances of a favourable Senate from a DD.
The Greens would be a Good chance for a 3rd seat if Saturday`s Tasmanian Senate result were repeated at a DD with them getting 20.19% of the 23.08% that makes 3 quotas and the ALP got 41.98% witch is a bit over the 38.46% of 5 quotas while the Libs got 32.61% which is between the 30.7 needed for 4 quotas and the 38.46% of 5 quotas.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-15508-TAS.htm
36 You have to say that all the arguing between Labor and Greens in Tasmania does seem to have sidelined the Libs a bit. Having a good stoush is not the worst thing if it gets your supporters fired up.
Barking @27
I can understand why the Vic 2004 situation would still be a raw wound for those in the Greens who were directly involved at the time. To be technical, the Dems decision regarding Family First in Victoria didn’t affect the final outcome, as FF would have been above Labor at the relevant exclusion anyway (which isn’t to excuse, just to note the Greens still would have lost anyway due to Labor’s preference decision). It was none the less a lesson for me, (although I must still note that exploring the possible pragmatic electoral benefits of Senate preference deals with parties/groups who are philosophically distasteful is something which I *know* is done very widely, including by those who complain bitterly about others doing it).
Noting how eternally pissed off you, David Risstrom and others from 2004 would be that he fell short despite getting 8.7% in Victoria, it gives me a chance to vent my spleen once again about Jim Downey losing out for the Democrats back in 1998 (also in Victoria) after polling 9.8% because the Unity (anti-Hanson) party preferenced Labor ahead of Democrats – which had the perverse impact of not only stopping the Democrats winning the seat, but actually giving the last seat to the Liberals – Labor also won a 3rd seat, but they would have won it anyway. (Jim Downey may still be more peeved than I am about all that – although I haven’t seen him lately and maybe he’s more balanced than I am and has just let all that stuff go)
And to fully acknowledge perverse impacts and 2004 consequences, the Democrats putting Family First before the Greens ended up giving Labor a Senate seat in South Australia that the Greens would otherwise have won – even though the Democrats put the Greens ahead of Labor/Lib in the Senate there (and across all states and territories at that election – unlike this one). From memory the Greens Senate person in SA in 2004 was Mark Parnell, who is now in the SA state Upper House – it meant he didn’t have to endure having a front row seat to a Howard controlled Senate, so perhaps it did him a favour.
The point being, slipping other parties who you think won’t matter or need preferences in ahead of the people you openly support, in exchange for hail mary deals is a risky business – and Victoria 2004 provided the definitive example that you can’t know what all the others will do with preferences or predict all the potential quirks in preference flows.
But it’s one thing to do a Senate preference deal with people you aren’t so keen on based on a rationale that if you get preferences back you increase your chance of winning a seat (after all, winning seats is a key goal of all this election stuff).
It’s another thing entirely to channel your preferences to a party/person who is a million miles from your party’s policies solely to shaft a party with a policy platform and record with a 90% overlap to your own.
And the Victorian Senate contest this time is very fascinating.
Clearly 2 ALP, 2 LNP, 1 Greens. But the last seat is very much up in the air.
At the moment it seems a 3-way contest between the ‘Lib’/ex-NP McGuaran, the DLP and Family First. Although if remaining postals, pre-polls and absentees pan out appropriately, there is also a very outside chance (as of this moment) that Labor might even scrape it in.
Anyway, all shall be revealed soon enough
It looks to me that the only contests where there is any real doubt about the outcome are the final seats in Victoria, NSW and ACT.
I think the ACT contest is 99.9% certain Gary Humphries will win. He hovering just above or below a quota as the count progresses. I suspect one all the postals and pre-polls are added he will just over a quota, even though absentees will probably go against him a bit. Even if he is just below a quota, the Democrats unprincipled decision to preference straight to him will ensure he wins. There will be a lot of below the line votes, but even 1% above the line Democrat votes will almost certainly be enough to win it for Humphries, even if all of the below the line votes went against. The main interest in this seeing whether or not it turns out that the Democrats have been directly responsible for maintaining Steve Fielding’s level of influence through until July, or whether Humphries scrapes together enough primaries to win in his own right.
In the NSW contest, I’d say Lee Rhiannon is about 85% sure of taking the last seat. There are still a large number of votes to count, and there is an outside chance Labor could make up the roughly 1.2% extra they need to drag off the Greens at the final exclusion – who looks certain to be Glenn Druery from the LDP (why people keep funneling their preferences to that guy is beyond me – he must have run for at least 4 different parties in various state and federal Upper House contests and seems to keep convincing micro and minor parties from across the spectrum to funnel their preferences his way).
As mentioned above, Victorian contest is the real unknown. One would think both Labor and Liberal will improve their votes relative to the DLP and Family First as pre-poll, absentees and postals are counted. Whilst the DLP comes out the winner under the current count, with less than 77% currently counted, that could very easily change.
At the moment, I think the Liberals are most likely to win, but Labor isn’t out of the hunt yet either. It only needs a relatively small boost in the vote share for Labor, Greens and the Sex Party for Labor to be right in the mix too.
Thanks for the great analysis, Andrew.
i must say that as a Greens voter who always votes below the line in the Senate I sometimes wonder what havoc people like me might be causing with those tricky “who do I hate most” last dozen or so preferences!
Choosing who to put last of Family First , One Nation, the DLP, Nile’s mob, and the shooters and fishers etc always takes me far longer than the top end of the order!
I think we need a “quarter-quota” rule. After the surpluses from elected candidates are distributed, all candidates with less than a quarter of a quota (3.57%) would be eliminated and their preferences distributed. That would prevent micro-parties with no real support preference-surfing their way to a quota.
Thanks Rod – there were so many dodgy and dubious candidates amongst the 60 of them in the Qld Senate contest this time that I think I placed most of the major party candidates in my top 30. (This proliferation of far right candidates/groups is starting to present a problem for the Greens Senate prospects, as almost all of the them put the Greens last, so even if they all also put Labor second last, they can end up channeling quite a lot to Labor. The Greens’ primaries were so high this time that it didn’t matter (except perhaps in NSW), but if the Libs ever shift to regularly preferencing the Greens after Labor (as they did in Tassie this time), then the Greens will need to keep polling well above 10% to have a reasonable chance of continuing to win seats.
Psephos, I think some sort of threshold like that would be worth considering (I know New Zealand has one – I think it’s 5% – although they don’t have preferences, so the impact is different.) Personally I prefer something like the NSW system, or enabling people to fill in all the boxes above the line.
Tighter rules to ensure that registered political parties are actually functional, valid parties would be good too (although I think most of the current far right parties would still pass muster on that count).
Psephos and Andrew
Senate Count
How about doing a reverse count on under quota parties and remainders. The least preferred rather than the least number of votes being excluded first. I think that would better express the voters intent.
As well as making valid above the line preferences so you can order the groups rather than just the candidates. The intent is clear and its insulting to see those ballots sent down the Group Voting Ticket line.
Tasmania
There is a full quota below the line in Tas as far as I’m aware. On the history of a large proportion going in the Green direction could a second Green get elected there?
I’d also greatly increase the deposit – say to $100,000 per candidate. If your ticket polled 1% of the primary vote you’d get half of it back, if you polled 2% you’d get it all back. That wouldn’t deter real parties but it would deter nuisance candidates and preference-bots.
I don’t like creating barriers to enty into the political system for newbies. The perrenial ballot space wasters are another thing. Maybe if you don’t get your deposit back it doubles the next time and so on.
The preference-bots worry me. Maybe they are for real but some micro parties and independent groups do look suspect to me. Hard to know how to prevent them.
[Tasmania
There is a full quota below the line in Tas as far as I’m aware. On the history of a large proportion going in the Green direction could a second Green get elected there?]
No.
Firstly, all the below-the-lines are included in the party total on counting night – they are just not sorted into above and below the line until later. (Richard Herr got this wrong last election and on that basis wrongly gave Andrew Wilkie a chance of being elected as #2 Green that time.) So the Greens’ history of getting a large proportion of their votes as BTLs does not improve their vote tally as the count continues. If anything, having a higher proportion of their votes as BTLs just makes their votes slightly more prone to leak out of the party.
Secondly, just because there is a lot of below-the-line that *could* leak, doesn’t mean a lot of what is below-the-line *will* leak to other parties. For instance last election when the surpluses of Nick Sherry (ALP) and Richard Colbeck (Lib), who were the endorsed #1s, were distributed, 95% of Sherry’s and 97% of Colbeck’s went to another candidate in the party. Normally those Tasmanians who vote below the line still want to vote for a particular party but have different views to their party about its order of ATL preferencing.
Differences in BTL preferencing between parties in Tasmania can make hundreds of votes of difference or in rare cases one or two thousand but the Greens are currently out of it by nearly twenty thousand. They have absolutely no chance of getting two at all. They didn’t have any chance last time either.
[How about doing a reverse count on under quota parties and remainders. The least preferred rather than the least number of votes being excluded first. I think that would better express the voters intent.]
I came up with a system like that once (mine counted a vote as being worth +1 from the top end and -1 from the bottom end simultaneously) but a trial using election results and Senate group tickets delivered a Senate with a two-thirds majority of Australian Democrats, so I abandoned it.
Adam no wonder the party has lost its way if that is your advice.
STOP trying to rigg the system by imposing such BS rules and minimal quotas.
Sure a higher deposit has merit BUT there is not need for a minimum quopta or quater quota.
Australia uses a preferential voting system. It is not a party list system. In the same way that a party can be elected to to the House of represneatives on the basis of 50% or more after preferences so should members of the Senate. If your concerned at the leap frogging then abolish “Above” the line voting.
BETTER STILL FIX THE WAY THEY COUNT THE SYSTEM. MAKE IT MORE ACCUATE AND REFLECTIVE OF THE VOTERS INTENTIONS. ABOLISH THE SYSTEM WHERE PARTY TICKET VOTES INCREASE IN VALUE DISPORTIONALLY TO THEIR VALUE.
WHEN A CANDIDATE IS EXCLUDED FROM THE COUNT – RESET AND RESTART THE COUNT AS IF THAT CANIDATE DID NOT STAND, DISTRIBUTING THE PREFERENCES AS YOU WOULD IN THE LOER HOUSE.
IT IS NOT THAT HARD OF A CONCEPT TO GRASP. IT IS FAIRER AND MUCH MORE ACCUARATE.
STOP TRYING TO RIGG IT.
BARTLETT
FAMILY FIRST ONLY WON IN 2004 THE SEAT BECAUSE LABOR, UNDER LATHAM, FELL BELOW 39%.
THE DEMOCRATES MOST CERTAINLY DID ASSIST IN FAMILY FIRST BEING ELECTED. THEY PREFERNCED FF AHEAD OF LABOR AS DID EVERY OTHER MINOR PARTY.
RISSTROM LOST BECAUSE THE ALP VOTE WAS TOO LOW AND THE GREENS HAD ONLY 9%. (THAT’S BELOW the 14.5% QUOTA). GAME OVER.
The Preference deal struck by the ALP was a good preference deal and had the ALP received 1% more votes or the support of the Democrats then YES the ALP would have outpolled FF.
The MOST stupid policy of the Democrats was it’s two way ticket. Now it is seen as just a feeder group to the Greens. Keeping the bastards dishonest.
Nice try.
Kevin Bonham
the other option of course is MEEK. But the exhaustive counting system applies the same rules for a single member seat as it would for a Senate seat. The KISS principle works best
You could adopt William Bowie’s suggestion and implement a Party List System for the Senate or the US winner takes all.. But I would not advocate either as being Democratic.
Where below the line votes will count is in a close election or at a double dissolution. Once they finish counting the senate vote we should be able to analysis in more detail the effect of various electoral system on the outcome. Back in 2007 only to Senate seats showed up any real issue. Queensland (due to the system of distributing excluded candidates preferences and (Hypothetically) Victoria here David Feeney would have lost (Had one nation preferenced the LNP before the ALP the Greens would have received a 7,000 bonus vote from One Nation, FF and the DLP via the LNP as the LNP ticket vote was inflated as a result of the way in which the AEC calculate the Surplus Transfer Value.)