This morning’s Herald-Sun featured a Galaxy poll of 800 respondents surveying state voting intention in Victoria, which paints a different picture to the 55-45 Labor lead indicated by the Newspoll survey of late August. Galaxy has Labor’s two-party lead at just 51-49, although this seems too narrow given the primary votes: 38 per cent for Labor, 39 per cent for the Coalition and 14 per cent for the Greens, which would normally give Labor a lead of at least 52-48 (UPDATE: Whoops – Carlton Crew in comments notes I have overlooked the 4 per cent for the Nationals, which brings the Coalition up to 43 per cent and makes the two-party figure entirely credible). John Brumby records a satisfaction rating of 48 per cent against 46 per cent dissatisfied, with Ted Baillieu recording 41 per cent and 44 per cent.
Couple of other things:
• David Rood of The Age reports Bronwyn Halfpenny, Trades Hall official and daughter of union legend John Halfpenny, is likely to win Labor preselection for ultra-safe (margin 31.1 per cent) Thomastown, whose incumbent Peter Batchelor announced yesterday he would not contest the election. In the somewhat less safe seat of Bendigo West (margin 10.6 per cent), where another minister in Bob Cameron also announced his intention to retire yesterday, the nod is expected to go to Cameron’s electorate officer Maree Edwards. VexNews reports that the cross-factional stability agreement ensures the outgoing Left faction incumbents will be replaced by members of their own faction. Edwards is said to benefit from the support of Bendigo East MP Jacinta Allan, but may face resistance from federal Bendigo MP Steve Gibbons, who favours his campaign director Bill Murray.
• Hannah Donnellan of the Heidelberg Leader reports “sports science consultant” and personal trainer Carl Ziebell has been endorsed as Liberal candidate for Ivanhoe. There were earlier suggestions the endorsement might go to Jenny Mulholland, a high-profile Banyule councillor and former mayor who ran as an independent in 2006. Ivanhoe was vacated by the resignation of sitting Labor member Craig Langdon in late August, which appeared to be a botched attempt to embarrass the government by initiating a by-election which will not in fact transpire. Langdon had been defeated for preselection last year by Anthony Carbines, Banyule councillor and chief-of-staff to Education Minister Bronwyn Pike.
When Mulholland`s preferences (including the 146 she got from Tan`s 737) where distributed at the 2006 election 1674 went to the Greens, 807 to the ALP and 851 for the Libs. The VEC provides less information than AEC on their website so it is unknown how the 1674 split in the next count when the Greens were eliminated.
William, I know State politics is a bit of a yawn, but surely even you must be surprised about more than three hours till a comment, and then only because it’s half-time in the Victory-Heart derby and I am a bit of a loose end.
The main interest is surely going to be how Baillieu defends preferencing the Greens to get them into the lower house while at the same time damning them and their policies. Peter Ryan may have a bit to say on this matter, as the two parties are supposedly going to be in “coalition” if they win enough seats to govern.
Interest in this election in Chisolm and Deakin (Federal Seats) = about 0.
Working in Latrobe/Aston this weekend so will check the “vibe”.
Tom – “nature abhors a vacuum”!
I meant “at a bit of a loose end” – back to the soccer, to salve the memories of the Saints.
The Coalition primary vote is 43, not 39. It’s 39 for Liberal, 38 Labor, 14 Green, 4 National and 5 other. Thus the tpp split is believable.
Nice try for the HSun journo to give Labor a good run tho 🙂 He’s good at that.
Thanks for pointing that out Carlton Crew – I’ve added a correction.
Rocket Rocket, the fact that I put the post up 15 hours after the poll was published would have a lot to do with it.
I take it that the Coalition parties will not be competing against each other`s sitting MLAs and running joint tickets in the Legislative Council as per their usual agreement? This would make separate primary vote statistics a bit pointless.
5
Being the top thread for only 7 minutes would not have helped but at least the current main thread post is short enough so this thread is visible without scrolling down.
There are 8 Provinces( 5 seats in each) in the Vic Upper House,elected on normal quota prefs. like the senate vote
If the Greens are running at the figure suggested they stand a good chance of winning one seat in each of the five Melb. seats ,with one member in each and probably a good chance in the Western Vic seat based on Geelong and it’s hinterland
At the present they hold seats in 3 Melb provinces
The Geelong based seat has a DLP member who was elected as a resxult of a silly ALP deal which the DLP ahead of Greens
This time there will be one thinks .. no such decision
5 seats in Melbourne and one in the Geelong region will give the Greens 6 seats and the clear balance of power,along with what ever seats they win in the Lower House.
If the polls are accurate they may hold the balance in both Houses.and may seek a Labor-Green coalition like that in Tasmania,for Victoria..and one such would be likely after the next election in the ACT,,,the times are a-changing !!
In a coalition in Melbourne.. the nation’s real intellectual powerhouse.. the Greens will be in a powerful position
8
Only where the Greens get at least 15% on primaries will they be assured of an MLC. In 2006 they achieved this in Northern & Southern Metro where they will do even better this time and Barber and Pennicuik will be re-elected with a quota in their own rights.
In Western Metro the Greens were elected on ALP preferences with the Libs only 2-3% from getting a second MLC so either the Libs don`t get a big enough swing, the swing to the Libs and Greens is big enough to cost the ALP a seat instead or Hartland is out. If the Libs preference the ALP in the Legislative Council again then the Greens chances of retaining the seat in the face of a Liberal swing is drastically reduced because in the battle for the final quota the ALP would get the Lib surplus.
If the Libs preference the ALP in the Legislative Council again then the Greens chances of picking up seats in Northern Victoria, Eastern Victoria, Eastern Metropolitan and South Eastern Metropolitan because there will not be a swing against the Coalition so the Greens only chances in these regions is to take a seat off the ALP and the Lib surpluses are likely to play a crucial role in some or all of these seats. The Nationals may make insist on not preferencing the Greens or running a split ticket on any joint Coalition tickets.
In Western Victoria the DLP are unlikely to pull off another preference fluke because the Coalition vote will likely be higher and so the Greens or Coalition will take the final seat.
Tom
[I take it that the Coalition parties will not be competing against each other`s sitting MLAs]
Incorrect.
In fact, they are departing from usual Coalition practice, where a vacated seat can be contested by both parties.
In Murray Valley, for example, where the current sitting member Ken Jasper is resigning, they are only running a National candidate, rather than – as is usual – a Nat & a Lib.
It led to the very amusing situation of people who were well known to be active in the local Liberal party suddenly emerging as long time members of the Nationals for the purposes of pre selection.
[In Western Victoria the DLP are unlikely to pull off another preference fluke because the Coalition vote will likely be higher and so the Greens or Coalition will take the final seat.]
Tom the first …
The DLP! In Victoria? Still? I thought that particular creature was extinct. How many specimens are extant? Are they allowed to roam free?
I’m afraid in Victoria we’ve recently elected one to the Australian Senate through a similar process, Scringler (in place of Fielding), so it looks like the news of their extinction was a little premature.
Rod Hagen
Where is this fossil deposit located? Is the prehistorian Tom Rich involved? He did some sterling work many years ago at Dinosaur Cove, on the Victorian coast. This work involved chipping the skeletal remains from the living rock, a painstaking process that yielded mixed results.
Seriously. I shakes me head in bewilderment.
Ziebel ran against Carbines in Olympia Ward at the last Council election.
Today`s Age has an article on the Greens chances in the inner city.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/greens-look-set-for-innercity-gains-20101008-16c1l.html
In the hard copy there is a table with the ALP, Green and Liberal 2010 Commonwealth election primaries and who would win the seat for Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick, Northcote, Albert Park, Footscray, Prahran, Hawthorn and Williamstown (the table erroneously describes Footscray and Williamstown as South of the Yarra).
Historically the Greens vote has been higher in state elections than Commonwealth elections and the state polling shows this continuing. The Victorian Government is 9 years older than the Commonwealth Government and Brumby is less popular than Bracks or Gillard so this would indicate that the Greens will likely get a higher vote.
[Where is this fossil deposit located?]
Apparently you only find this particular species of fossil in thick layers of Group Ticket mudstone.
These are huge numbers for the Lib/nats.
Just one thing about lib/nat preferences, their office has been getting irate phone calls form life long National party supporters form the bush. Only trouble their phone numbers were all inner Melb,. Good try ALP but its not going to work, really national party members are hardly not going to vote conservative if the Libs preference the Greens. Who pray tell would they vote for.?
The DLP..which really is the :Right to Life.-Catholic Right.”..got the sixth senate vacancy because the Libs poll was very bad and the DLP got the votes of Fielding,and all the left over votes of Labor/Greens and others who put the Libs last
Actually MGuaren,the Libs senator who was defeated was a fanatical Right to Lifer anyway..and had ditched the Nationals who originally elected him and jumped over to the Libs…he’s no loss !
He was an opportunist ,who then became a hard right wing advocate,from a very right- wing wealthy Gippsland family,whose brother was a Howard minister..so he lost to the DLP…the sixth seat was bound to go to one of the right wing parties,and the DLP guy is probably no worse than McGuaren or Fielding…perhaps not as BAD..
He sounds less stupid then Fielding,!!…and claims to be a “Labor man” and said he didn’t like Work Choices !so he is better than McGauren
His win shows how far the Libs have fallen in Victoria…
It doesn’t really matter though for the Greens will have the complete balance of power in the new Senate…and his vote will be …like Xenophen’s of no account. !
Oh re number of hits, I missed the post until just now. However, there is lots of feeling out here in punter land that the State Election is seeing huge elecorate burn out.
A big risk for the ALP in Victoria would be the general perception that the Libs are no chance to win. They look too well fed and rarely cut through with anything.
I’d expect the ALP will be talking up how close the election will be.
Nice to see the greens doing well – the greens having the balance of power would shake the ALP out of their spin induced policy coma (IMHO).
Sorry to disappoint all you green voters here but the DLP has an excellent chance of returning 3 members of Victorias upperhouse at the coming state election.
Peter Kavanagh is likely to be returned in his seat because of his excellent record of fighting for the underprivlidged the unborn, and aged in our community.
His example resulted in the election of John Madigan in the Senate, with a doubling of the DLP vote since the last Federal election.
Peters brother John Kavanagh, a councillor with Moreland Council will also be standing for the Northern metropolitan seat, and a Councillor from the Dandenong Council will be standing for the south eastern metropolitan seat.
With of course other announcements to come.
I expect the ALP to again give their preferences to the DLP to stop the Greens (the party of death} from holding the balance of power in the upper house.
21
I believe that the theory is that the DLP vote increased this Senate election because they were to the left of the ALP (and so got some people who intended to vote ALP) this election but not last election and so it was not the because of support for the DLP that the DLP got such a large increase in their vote.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateGroupVotingTickets-15508-VIC.htm
http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/SenateStateGroupVotingTickets-13745-VIC.htm
The DLP will face a much harder task in Western Victoria to get the preference snowball they got last time because the Coalition vote is looking like being higher and so the DLP may well not get ahead of them.
You seem to think that just because the DLP has a candidate who is in a Council (whether Legislative, Moreland or Dandenong) that they automatically have a good chance at being elected. This is not the case. At the 2006 election the Greens got 10% of the Legislative Council vote and got 2 4th places (Northern & Southern Metro), 1 5th place (Western Metro) and 5 6th places(3 seats and 5 most popular not electeds) while the DLP got 1.97% and 1 5th place (Western Veictoria), 1 6th place (Northern Metro), And 6 lower positions (think double figures) (only one seat). The DLP is not in a position to get three seats.
Thanks all for the info on the DLP. Unbelievable!
So, do I have this right. It’s not really the “old” DLP, rather a front for Right to Lifers?
Um, as this actually mentions councillors running for things, when Belinda Clarkson of Nillumbik ran in the Federal election for FF, I don’t recall hearing that she left the council – and is still listed as on it. At least her husband didn’t win the recent council by-election, but is she allowed to do that?
Wiggins,
A councillor is entitled to run for and be elected to parliament while remaining a councilor. Ben Chifley was a shire councillor and the PM at the same time. Other local MPs (for the old seat of Greensborough), Monty Vale (Liberal) and Bob Fell (Labor), were also local councillors.
Scringler,
The current DLP is not the same as the original DLP, which disbanded in 1978, though it would be philosophically similar. Ockerguy is right. The ALP wants the DLP, rather than another Green, back in the Legislative Council. I f only it had shown the same attitude when its preferences defeated the original DLP and put Ian Smith into the seat of Warrnambool 40 years ago!
The interest level in the State election in the parts of Aston and Latrobe Federal seats where I have worked this weekend is approximately zero. Will probably remain so until after Melbourne Cup Carnival.
Re – DLP – I think Labor would prefer an Upper House like they nearly got last time – 19 Labor, 2 Green, 2 DLP, 2 National, 2 Liberal. Then they can negotiate with any of three groups if Libs oppose a piece of legislation. That is why they may preference against Greens in certain upper house electorates. I agree the Greens are likely to get more than 2, possibly 6, especially if Baillieu raises their profile generally by preferencing them in inner city lower house seats and thus putting them “into play” in the lower house (it will get them much more media coverage)
25
I don`t believe the High Court has ever ruled on whether or not a Councillor holds an office of profit or trust under the crown so it is a grey area for the Commonwealth Parliament but is allowed at state level in most states (Queensland being the notable exception).
The ALP wanted rid of the DLP and so preferenced to keep them out. Having a DLP MLA and several DLP (electecd as ALP) MLCs in the 1955-58 Parliament did not do what having DLP Senators in the Balance of power in the Senate during the Whitlam Government`s first term which was destroy their vote. If you area talking about the 1967 election then it would not have got rid of the Liberals majority as they had 44 out of 73 after that election.
Had the ALP won the 1961 Commonwealth Election then their decision to preference the Liberals ahead of the DLP would likely have given them exactly the same Senate as there actually was from the 1st of July 1961 with half the Senate and so legislation could be blocked without the DLP`s votes and so they would be harder to blame.
26
There was never any chance of the Liberals getting only 2 MLCs last election.
It was John Mulholland who was the DLP candidate in Northern Metro who was “nearly” elected (at the expense of the ALP) and had this occurred then the infighting in the DLP would have been more public.
The Greens chances of wining seats in the Legislative Council (except in Northern & Southern Metro and Western Victoria) will likely depend heavily on whether the Libs preference the ALP in the Legislative Council (like happened in 2006 but did not actually effect the outcome) because they will be fighting the ALP for the final seat. In Western Victoria they will likely depend on ALP and micro party (including the DLP) preferences.
Tom – just realised – I meant to write 15 Liberal!! And yes, it ended up 3 Green and 1 DLP didn’t it?
29
Yes. 19-1-3-2-15 (ALP-DLP-Greens-Nats-Liberals).
Whatever happened in 1961, or 1967 has no relevence today.
I am a realist and understand the DLP need to lift their vote to around 5% in the 3 seats i mentioned to have a good chance of winning. I believe they can do that.
I believe Mulholland got 5% 4 years ago.
It is in the interest of the libs, nats, and the ALP to preferance the DLP ahead of the Greens, to prevent them from holding the balance of power in the upper house.
I agree with Rocket that the ALP would prefer to achieve the result they almost got last time.
With that result they would be able to get legislation through parliment with the backing of either party, depending on the nature of the legislation.
31
Mulholland got 5% from the 1st position on the ballot paper while the ALP was further along and all this in the ALP`s second strongest region where there are plenty of Labor voters with enough ignorance of politics to think that the DLP was the Labor Party they wanted to vote for. Northern Metro was also the only region that the DLP got more votes than Family First. Had the ALP come before the DLP on the ballot papar then the ALP would likely have got over 50%+ 3 votes (3 quotas) in their own right and then only the enough votes for the 665 votes needed to get Greg Barber over the line for the Greens would have needed distributing.
They may well all preference the DLP ahead of the Greens but they need to stay ahead of them to get the preferences and with the changed situation with the highly probably rise in the Coalition vote (than the combined Liberal and National vote last time) this could be a lot harder this time around. This higher Coalition vote will likely mean that the preference snowball Kavanagh got last time which included the Liberals and the Nationals does not happen this year. The question will be whether the DLP will preference the ALP or the Coalition?
Yes the question of preferences is vital to all parties.
Until we know the preference deals the rest is just conjecture.
The DLP is a labor party and many its supporters are divided on who they preference because of ALP policies which are against DLP principles.
These policies are concerned with basic human rights which are the cornerstone of our cummunity and DLP principles.
The voting record of individual ALP members will have a bearing on how preferences are distributed.
ALP MPs who voted for abortion on demand right up to birth are very unlikely to get DLP preferences.
Ben Raue at the Tally Room is putting together an election guide, like he did for the federal one. He’s got about 20 seats done so far.
http://www.tallyroom.com.au/vic2010
33
Preferences can only decide a seat where the candidate/party has not got the vote by themselves to reach the quota for that seat. This means that (except under Hare-Clark with its ability to actually chose between candidates of the same party in practice) a maximum of only one seat per party is ably to be decides by the preferences of other candidates/parties.
The preferences of other parties will be the make or break in the following candidates are elected; the 2nd ALP in Southern Metro, Northern Victoria, Eastern Victoria, and Eastern Metropolitan, the 3rd ALP in Northern Metro and South Eastern Metropolitan, the 1st Greens in regions other than Northern & Southern Metro, the 2nd Liberal candidate in Northern & Western Metro and and micro party preference snowball.
Preferences of other parties might, depending on vote level, may be crucial for the following candidates; the 3rd ALP in Western Metro, the 2nd Greens in Northern & Southern Metro and the 3rd Coalition in Southern Metro and Western Victoria.
Tom, did that Age article you linked further up the thread look at the federal Green vote elsewhere, or just the inner city? It might be worth looking at how it changed in the suburbs… could give a hint to if they’ll win a seat in E and SE Metro or not.
Also, I like this bit:
[ But they are likely to demand the transport portfolio if they seize the balance of power. ]
So, the Doncaster / Rowville lines (among other things) would actually be forced to happen, eh? Nice.
[ a maximum of only one seat per party is ably to be decides by the preferences of other candidates/parties. ]
Are you sure about that? I’m thinking weird situations like Qld 2004, where there were four seats won with quotas and the other two by preferences – they could’ve gone to any combination of Lib, Nat, Green or Pauline Hanson (probably another couple too). It wouldn’t be too common, but could happen. Example: say if in W Metro Labor didn’t reach 50% and the Libs didn’t get to 33.3%, and no other group got over 16.7%. Then there’d be two seats to Labor, one to Libs, and the last two decided in a complicated mess between Labor #3, Lib #2, Green, FF and DLP.
Well I can fully understand that there is not much interest in this vic thingo but what the heck,. I’ll call it.
Week one , Libs won with a couple of own goals from the ALP. The fib/nats forward line were last seen having coffees out the back somewhere and decided no to take the field, the government have got more dodgy issues that they should. Big Ted is taking his running sheet from Barry oFarrell of NSW who suggests sitting on it until the other lot finally get kicked out. At this stage it looks likely that that will happen in 2018.
36
Just the inner city.
Having those lines built would be high on the Greens lists of priority as would service coordination and replacing the current mess of transport planning and Vicroads with a single efficient agency that is not an institution road lobby.
37
Because of the relatively high quota of 16.7% (compared to the half-Senate quota of 14.3%) it is harder for non-major candidates to get up an thus it would be hard for 2 of them to get up (it has only happened thrice with the 14.3% half-Senate quota since 1990 (Qld 1998, SA 2007 and Victoria 2010)). It is easiest in seats where the Greens get around a quota themselves (Northern Metro 2006 (where at one point it looked like the DLP were going to get a seat at the expense of the Greens), Southern Metro 2006 and Victorian Senate 2010) because they then are not soaking up much of the micro party preferences.
If the ALP get less than 3 quotas in Western Metro then they and they Greens are likely to have which one of them looses a seat to the Libs decided by Liberal and micro preferences.
Tom Re the Western Metro seat preferences. If the ALP do get less than 3 quotas as u say then the DLP preferences will elect the ALP before the Greens.
The only certainty about preferences is, that the DLP will always preference the ALP before the Greens.
Tom Re the Western Metro seat preferences. If the ALP do get less than 3 quotas as u say then the DLP preferences will elect the ALP before the Greens.
The only certainty about preferences is, that the DLP will always preference the ALP before the Greens.
Tom at 40:
[ Because of the relatively high quota of 16.7% (compared to the half-Senate quota of 14.3%) it is harder for non-major candidates to get up an thus it would be hard for 2 of them to get up ]
I’m talking about candidates winning on preferences from other parties, not minor parties – they’re not the same thing. Vic isn’t an example of two candidates winning on preferences, as five senators were elected straight up (2 ALP, 2 Lib, 1 Grn) and there was only one seat left to be decided, which went to the DLP. (Despite being a minor party, the Greens got a quota in their own right; the same applies to SA 2007, where Nick Xenophon got a quota.) Meanwhile, NSW, Qld and SA all featured only four candidates getting in with quotas, so the last two winning on preferences: in all three cases, they were the Greens #1 and the Lib / LNP #3. Once you remove two quotas’ worth of vote from the Libs, it makes less sense to refer to anyone as ‘major’ or ‘minor’.
Ahh, and I just noticed the bit I hadn’t before:
[ a maximum of only one seat per party is ably to be decides by the preferences of other candidates/parties. ]
Gotcha. That makes more sense, then… I’d slightly misunderstood what you said before.
If you’re interested in concrete examples of 5-seat regions, look at WA upper house in the 90’s and 00’s. We now have 6-seat regions, but used to have a weird mix of 5 and 7-seat regions.
Ockerguy: Remember, the DLP can’t both be contenders to be elected (either #5 elected or the last unexcluded candidate) and have their preferences distributed to whichever other party. Pick one. 😉
Tom, seeing as Antony Green is still recovering from the Federal Election, what do you think will happen in the upper house, region by region, compared to the current situation?
I know it’s hard to pick the finer detail, but the broad left/right 3/2 or 2/3 are still probably easier than looking at the lower house now in the absence of much polling data.
Bird, i am considering both possibilities in my posts.
I consider the DLP have a strong chance of being elected in 3 seats, as i have outlined before.
At the last state election they had no representatives in any House in Australia.
This state election they have Peter Kavanagh in a state seat, and John Madigan in the Senate.
Last state election they were not even considered by many voters because they were seen as a party with no hope of being elected.
The situation has now changed. Electors now know they have a real chance of being elected, and more voters will vote for them because of this.
Also at last State election the DLP only ran candidates in the Upper House.
This election they are also running candidates in a number of lower house seats, which will give them more prominance and publicity, and result in an increase in votes across the board.
Having said that, the DLP will of course have their preferences distributed in seats where they are not successful.
These preferences are likely to be shared by ALP, Libs and Nats, according to the voting records of each sitting member. Normally the DLP preferences the Nats before the Libs. The Greens will nearly always be last preference because of their anti life voting record.
Rocket: 4/1 or 1/4 are both options as well. N and W Metro are currently 4-1 to the left, and I wouldn’t be surprised if N Vic went 4-1 to the right. (The similar Agricultural region in WA went 4-1 to the right in 2005, then a head-spinning 5-1 when it got an extra member in 2008.) God knows where the DLP fit on the left-right spectrum.
Are the Libs and Nats running joint tickets in the upper house?
Tom, here you go with a couple of examples of two members elected by preferences in a 5-member region. Both from the 2001 WA election, stats from the WAEC. File name: “Legislative Council Region Profiles and Results”, if you want to look through 76 pages of numbers yourself.
East Metropolitan: 2 ALP 1 Lib elected on 1st count, then 1 ALP 1 Lib.
Mining and Pastoral: 2 ALP 1 Lib elected on 1st count, then 1 ONP 1 Grn.
That Mining and Pastoral result was one of two cases (Agricultural was the other) where the Greens got in on One Nation’s surplus, instead of Liberals, due to the One Nation ticket having all the major parties down the bottom. Therefore the Greens got the balance of power, instead of a Lib+Nat+ONP majority being able to paralyse the new Labor govt. If One Nation had thought what they were doing through a little more, things might have turned out very differently for Geoff Gallop.
The issue isn’t so much the higher quota for five members as opposed to six members, but what happens with the 2nd or 3rd quota.
In 6-member seats major parties get the 2nd quota at 28.6% and reach the third at 42.9%. In 5-member the cut-offs are 33.3% and 50%. In five member seats, both major parties may pass 33% so only one minor party can win. If one major party falls far enough below the second quota to only win one seat, then it is highly likely the other major party will be close to 50%, which still leaves only one seat for minor parties.
It is always better to have an odd number of seats for two reasons. One is that in a situation where the major parties have roughly the same vote at a contest where a minor party has polled a reasonable vote, then a minor party is more likely the final seat in an odd numbered contest than an even numbered contest. Odd numbers are also fairer because it make it possible for a party with a majority of vote to win a majority of seats, something that is very very difficult under an even numbered system.
The Victorian LC arrangemnt is how multi-members seats should be arranged where the West Australians were silly enbough to adopt the Senate even numbered system. Tasmania used even numbered seats up until 1955 when they finally abandoned it because it kept producing tied results despite one party having the clear majority of votes. (Tasmania only had 2 parties in those days.)
45
On a Left (Greens+ALP) versus Right (Coalition) basis I predict:
EM 2-3
EV 2-3
NM 4-1
NV 2-3
ESM 3-2
SM 2/3-2/3
WM 3/4-1/2
WV 3-2
47
Northern Victoria is unlikely to elect 4 Coalition (or its constituent parties) except in a good year producing a Coalition Government. It has 3 seats held by the ALP (Bendigo West (10%), Macedon (8%) and Bendigo East (5%)).