The Australian reports the latest Victorian state Newspoll has Labor with a two-party lead of 52-48, a return to reality after the 55-45 lead they recorded in the July-August survey. However, the headline-grabber is the 19 per cent Greens vote (up two), dragging Labor down three points to 35 per cent with the Coalition up four to 40 per cent. John Brumby’s personal ratings are 45 per cent approval and 42 per cent disapproval, down three and up one on last time, while Ted Baillieu is on 39 per cent (steady) and 42 per cent (up one). Brumby’s preferred premier lead has narrowed from 52-27 to 49-31.
Thanks to the magic of the internet, we can now draw seat projections from Antony Green’s state election calculator, which asks of us two-party scores for both Labor-Coalition, which Newspoll gives us, and Labor-Greens, which it doesn’t. However, Newspoll does paint a beautifully straightforward picture of the Greens gaining 9 per cent on the primary vote since the 2006 election and Labor losing 8 per cent, with the Coalition treading water – making it a fairly simple matter of crediting the Greens with a two-party swing of 8 to 9 per cent. This puts Labor on 47 seats out of 88 and has the Greens right on the cusp of winning Northcote, to add to the lower hanging fruit of Melbourne, Richmond and Brunswick (and pushing them into second place in a brace of Melbourne Liberal seats). Assuming three seats as a more realistic scenario, and taking the re-election of independent Craig Ingram in Gippsland East as a given, hung parliament scenarios begin to occupy a big chunk of the two-party bandwidth: from 50.8 per cent for Labor at the top end (where the calculator gives Labor 44 seats out of 88 in scenarios where the Greens win three) to 48.0 per cent at the bottom. And that’s leaving aside the possibility of major party applecarts being further upset by the emergence of new independents.
However, all of this rests upon the assumption that the Greens will continue to receive Liberal preferences, and a growing chorus of voices can be heard within conservatism urging them not to. This was joined yesterday by John Howard, who said his party had “nothing to gain” from assisting a party that was “worse than Labor” – not that he was ever observably squeamish about the practice in his own time. Mixed with any genuine concern about a Greens threat to the fabric of society is frustration that the Liberals get nothing in return for their generosity, either in the form of preference deals or a realistic prospect of parliamentary support in the event of a hung parliament. Exercising their preference muscle, the Liberals would hope, would help keep Greens minds focused during such negotiations in future.
The threat certainly gives the Greens a lot to think about, providing Bob Brown with further cause for distaste about the preference negotiation merry-go-round. Adam Bandt’s victory in Melbourne rested heavily on the Liberals playing their normal preference game: Labor’s Cath Bowtell had a narrow lead when their candidate was excluded at the second last count, but obedient Liberal voters then proceeded to break 80-20 Bandt’s way on preferences. Without these preferences flows, seats in the lower house would become a distant prospect indeed – and they would also find life that little bit harder when competing with Labor for final seats on their more familiar upper house turf.
UPDATE: Now we have a small sample Morgan phone poll which concurs with Newspoll’s 52-48, but gets there from very different primary vote figures: 40 per cent for Labor, 42.5 per cent for the Coalition and 13 per cent for the Greens. Preferred premier is similar to Newspoll, with Brumby leading 47.5-32.5, but both leaders’ personal ratings are much worse: Brumby is on 36.5 per cent approval and 49 per cent disapproval, with Baillieu on 33 per cent and 46 per cent. The poll was conducted in two stages over the previous fortnight with a sample of 415 and a margin of error of about 5 per cent.
I loved Howard’s line about the Greens – “I don’t support them” – well knock me down with a feather! His Liberal Party, however, do support them despite their protestations but they are absolute political neophytes if they don’t demand something in return for lower house seats (that’s right, they have got SEATS not preferences to bargain with!). Their best net is to demand “split” Above-The-Line preference flows in Upper House Regions – this would also help placate the Nationals who are feeling a bit of heat because of the LIberals’ desire to keep helping the Greens Party make “historical gains” in lower houses.
The Liberals are exactly the “Useful Idiots” that the Greens Party needs.
With 19% of the vote I hope the Greens have the following adds ready to go.
“Libs preferences to the ALP now formalises the ALP/LIB/Big business coalition.”
“Greens now the Official and only opposition’
“Bails joins Brumby to form anti-Greens government.”
Etc.
Rocket Rocket,you don’t realise how much your “Useful Idiots” comment true. If the Libs preference the ALP, its the biggest breakthrough the Greens will ever have, its not about Nov the 27th its about the perception/reality that the Coles/Woolworth ticket will be official.
Oh, re poll, take 19% to reflect the eventual Upper house vote,(this is what happened federally) therefore subtract 2% for the most optimistic Lower house result.
Last time I voted Green, Not this time
Missing from the polll is the undecidced.
The Greens can only win if the Liberal Party Prefernce the Greens. The Greens are no in a position to direct preferences in the lower-house.
A tough choice for Ted and his Liberals: preference the Greens and maybe get a hung parliament and possibly government, but then have to live with having discarded policy principles for opportunism, or don’t and put Labor back into power. For the moment they can sit and watch Labor spend money fighting on two fronts until they make their decision.
Anthony Green’s “Calculator” is nothing more then the updated electoral pendulum which under a three way concept is useless.
The Greens, Greg Barber in Jon Faine today was misleading. The Liberal Party is within striking range of winning control of the both houses of parliament. They are expected to increase in vote in the Eastern Southern suburbs.
Whilst the Greens can not direct preferences in the lower house they can effect the outcome of the upper-house vote and in the process deliver control of both houses to the LNP.
This is not an election where you can take the state wide vote and extrapolate that across the state. The swing will not be even. Labor’s vote is concentrated in the West and most seats are on a knifes edge within 3% a Three way contest makes it that much harder to predict. The Upper-house voting system is not proportional and like the senate the method of counting the vote is seriously flawed. This is magnified by the fact that Victoria has a “dodgy” optional preferential voting system. Whilst most voters vote above the line 3% opt to vote below the line. Under the Victorian Rules a voter only needs to number the first 5 candidates. It is unclear if this will enable the Greens to not direct preferences beyond its own party. If this is the case then the Upper House system will become a defacto first-past-the-post voting system.
Ha Ha Ha , the Libs/ Nats are looking at a Green tidal Wave on the horizon and with no where to hide. Democracy at work , Ha Ha Ha.
Democracy at work, I think your views on optional preferential are a bit cynical and misinformed. Yes, it’s more complicated to count, but I also think it’s much more democratic, with less possibility for nasty surprises. Not sure what you mean by flawed counting. I can vote below the line, (e.g. Greens 1 2 3 4 5, ALP 6 7 8 9 10) and not be worried that my vote is ever going to end up electing a Family First or DLP candidate (as we’ve seen at federal level, from major party preferences).
I also think that optional preferential might encourage more people to vote below the line, as it’s much easier than having to number every box. I admit that different systems at State and Federal level probably scare many people away. The less important preference deals become, in my opinion, the better for democracy.
Brumby in his interview stated a do nothing policy for Local government.
He has ruled out a review of Local Council boundaries and most important is a review of the city of Melbourne’s external boundaries. Inner Melbourne is due for statutory review of its internal representation model. Melbourne should be increased in size and should encompass and include the federal seats of Melbourne and Melbourne Ports. The former city of Prahran should be part of Melbourne with the rest of Stonnington transferred to Boroondara/Kew. Brumby’s DO NOTHING approach is not the answer to issues confronting Inner City Regions. This will be in issue that may swing teh results in inner Melbourne.
Nick of mcEwan
optional preferential in itself is misleading > i gives the impression that all you need to do is vote for 5 candidates and your vote will count. this is a lie. The Greens will nominate 5 Candidates in the upper-house (even though they can in no more then one or two at an outside chance in Northern Metro) A 5 preference optional vote will be wasted. If the major parties began to advocate a 5 preference vote then the system becomes a first-past-the-post voting system by default. The Greens can not direct preferences in the lower house but they can effect the upper house vote thanks to above the line voting. We will need to watch this space much more closely over the next 10 days.
You also need to consider in the fact that the Upper House voting system delivers a “bonus” vote to major party tickets increasing the ticket vote value disproportionately to their actual vote and at the expense of minor parties. The surplus transfer value is calculated on the number of ballot papers received not the value of the vote.
In 2007 this Bonus vote came close to defeating ALPs David Feeney and electing a Green Senator. In 2010 NSW the LNP Senate ticket received a minus value of over 14,000 votes above the true value of their vote at the expense of minor party candidates. This will be an issue in The Victorian State Election.
In 2006 Victroian state Election – 500 votes went missing from the count between count A and count B. (data-files were deleted. No back up copies made) which denied the State Parliament from undertaking a proper review of the Western metropolitan Count. The results of the election changed between Count A and Count B with the Greens winning the seat by 127 votes. As the data-files pertaining to Count A had been deleted no one could explain where the change occured. Even to this day.
Either the commission double counted votes or votes went missing.
Baillieu will preference the Greens – its the most strategic thing they can do for the reasons listed by Rocket and Barking above.
Helen Kroger (writing in the Hun today) whose husband leads the opposing Vic Liberal faction deplores the possibility – meaning the Kroger-Ronaldson faction is locked out from contributing from the preference decision. You lose.
As for Howard hating the Greens – what an endorsement to the Green party.
Brumby just can not seal the deal with Victorians – he’s been trying for 17 years and people are only ever mildly positive on him. He must be desperate to win this vote as to lose means Victorians never elected him premier.
Dr Strange,, yes but at what cost? The Greens can only deliver preferences in the upper-house. They can not influence the outcome of the lower-house other then winning two or three inner city electorates. I have not seen the Greens deliver much in the Victorian State Parliament. The ALP would be better off preferencing the DLP and the Greens. whilst most of the media attention is focused on the Greens the fact is the combined support of other minor parties has much greater influence.
DemocracyATwork – I would call a hung parliament ‘influencing the outcome of the lower house’. Plus the Libs could benefit in marginals if the Greens decided to run an open ticket (which would further increase the possibility of a hung parliament).
It’s quite simple – The Greens preference the party which is closest to them idealogically – the ALP, who really aren’t that close to them but are the best of a bad bunch
The ALP and the Coalition work out what the best thing to do with their preferences, which usually means preferencing each other last. If the Coalition used the Greens idealogical approach then they would preference the ALP ahead of a lot of other parties, but they preference for political gain rather than for idealogical reasons.
It is pretty funny that they preference the Greens, hate themselves for doing it and whinge about the fact that they get nothing back for it 🙂
Rocket Rocket @ 1
Wrong, the Liberals do not support the good, they are just the lesser of 2 evils.
Phase in another way…. the enemy of your enemy, eventhrough they are your enemy, might in certain occasions be your friend
For example, by preferencing the Greens in Melbourne, we get to witness in Federal politics, Julia Gillard trying to pass legislation with the Greens and country independants from Conservative seats, one of whom have offered to walk backwards from Bourke to Chartered Towers, if a certain group of people live in his electorate …. it will be fun for the next 3 years
Could the Greens get two people elected in any of the Upper House regions?
If their statewide vote is 19%, it must be higher in Melbourne. With the quota at 16.7%, they will obviously clear this hurdle on their own in the 5 city regions. To get two candidates up they would essentially have to outpoll the Liberals, both getting say in the mid 20s – then wouldn’t it be amusing if the Liberal preference flows ended up electing a second Green say over a third Labor candidate.
Looking at Antony Green’s site I’d say Northern Metro is a chance.
In 2006 Labor got 49%, Liberals 23%, Greens 17%. [ Labor 3, Liberal 1, Greens 1 ]
Take say 10% off Labor and give it to the Greens, with the Liberals “running dead” in some of the enclosed Lower House Seats say this knocks 3 points off them, and you get
Labor 40%, Liberal 20%, Greens 27%
– pretty fertile ground for a Labor 2, Greens 2, Liberal 1 result.
1
The Greens are not going to preference the Liberals/Coalition with ATLs or HTVs because they don`t want the Libs in and the ALP would scream “Green-Liberal preference deal” very loudly and the Green vote would go down (in the LC their ATL vote would go down and their BTL up by less).
11
Voting 1-5 for the candidates of the Greens, ALP or Liberals cannot be entirely wasted because the Greens will either win a seat (using the vast majority of the vote) or be runner up (no distribution and therefore no exhaustion) (or maybe even both in Northern & Southern Metro) and the ALP and Liberals will elect 1-3 in each region (using the majority of each of their votes).
Last time I voted Green not this time
19% statewide is a furphy. In any event the swing is not evenly spread across the state. I suggest you take another look at the Senate vote in Victoria. The Greens are set to win a seat in each of the 5 urban upper house regions. They will not have sufficient votes to win a second seat, but they will influence the outcome of a contest between labor/Liberal or even another third party securing the last fifth position.
The Greens can not direct preferences in the Lower house – only in the upper house thanks to the registered ticket system Green voters will direct preferences according to the deal struck between the Greens and the LNP. The liberal party will try and trade their preferences in inner city seats in exchange for support in the upper house.
We will know if the Greens have sold out principle for votes when the preference deals are declared. Just watch the greens are captive to the LNP without their support they have no chance of winning any lower house seats. The Greens will hand control of the Legislative Council to the LNP. Your naive if you think they have not canvassed these issues. the greens are not the solution. now I am critical of the Brumby Government. They are a beige government devoid of fresh ideas, talent and inspiration and have done very little other then maintain a financial surplus. they have failed in accountability and local government reform. They have failed to address concerns the way in which elections are conducted in Victoria. Millions of dollars wasted in duplicating services. In making my assessment of the Brumby Government there is only a handful of candidates that are worthy of support. VEen fewer in the LNP and none in the Greens. In the end the ALP is , sadly, the better/only choice.
[Voting 1-5 for the candidates of the Greens, ALP or Liberals cannot be entirely wasted]
You do not know how the system works. Voting 105 Green only will deliver control of the Upper House to the LNP and will definitely be a wasted vote, particularly if the Greens have a surplus. groups such as tech Sex Party, DLP and Family First will have to think very carefully about their preferences in the upper house. Preferencing the Greens could be a complete disaster, If they preference the LNO they may find that they in effect support the Greens as they will be inflating the LNO ticket vote value at the expense
Correction
[1 to 5 Green only]
Tim @ 19
yes you are right in that the Parties will scream Vote against the Greens. BUT the Greens have nothing else to offer the Liberal Party in exchange for their support. The Greens can only win the election in Melbourne/Richmond with LNP preferences. The only reason they are in with a chance is that the Liberal Inner city vote has collapsed. The libs are also under attack as Hawthorn my be forced to preferences and could go the way Burwood did. Part of the LNP/Green deal will be both parties campaigning light in certain seats. The Greens are political prostitutes just like the rest. It is only the price that is under discussion.
The vote allocation will not differ much from that recorded in August Federal Poll. +/- 2% only
The Greens can submit “split ticket” preference flows in Upper House Regions – so that their ATL prefs would be equally distributed to Labor and Liberal. They can then say that they advise their supporters to vote BTL however they like (as many do) – this would avoid “A vote for the Greens is a vote for the Liberals” stories.
I am pretty sure the Liberals will preference the Greens in those inner Melbourne seats, but the Greens are SO desperate for these prefs the Libs would have to be crazy to give them away – they should play hard ball for these Upper House “split” tickets. I agree the Greens are never going to give HTV Lower House prefs to Libs, but that would be meaningless anyway as their supporters would not follow them and the Libs know it.
What the Libs want and need, and I think plan to get, are these “neutral impact” Upper House ATL preference cards submitted to the VEC. When that happens, we will know that the deal has been done, and that the Liberal HTV cards on polling day will be sending the Greens into the Lower House for the first time.
18
The Greens are likely to have not insignificant surpluses in Northern & Southern Metro (they polled near quota last time and got 4th elected). They would need to get ahead of the ALP after minor party preferences to take a seat off them in either seat and the Liberals not get enough to get another seat.
10% is probably a bit much to knock off the ALP vote in Northern Metro (especially as it was reduced last time by people accidentally voting DLP because the had the 1st position on the ballot paper). The Liberals will not be running dead in any seat that they were not running dead in last time. The Liberals only real chances are Ivanhoe and Yan Yean but they will be trying to get enough votes across the seat to win a second MLC.
Hawthorn is an interesting seat. it is sometimes ignored because it is on the otherside of the Yarra but if we look at the last federal election the Green vote increased strongly. In many booths by up to six percent.
There is still a gap of just under 10 points between the ALP and the Greens and a lot depends on the Liberal primary vote. I know we are discussing state politics but the last Federal Election saw the worst Liberal Primary vote since before the days of Menzies.
Yep, Brumby’s tying himself in knots, trying desperately to turn Libs votes into Labor prefs, while claiming the standard boring nonsense ‘a vote for Greens is a vote for the Libs’.
Which now makes it all pretty straightforward for the voter:
a vote for the Libs is a vote for Libs
a vote for the Greens is also vote for the Libs
and finally, a vote for Libs is a vote for Labor.
Anyone else think the weird DLP resurgence may continue? 😛
[The Greens can submit “split ticket”]
That would mean that the Greens are effectively voting for the LNP and their voters wastng their vote.
I would not right off the DLP. You need to combine FF, DLP and Fred Christians which ever one is on top will have over half a quota, they will play a decisive roll in the upper house outcome. There is an outside chance the Greens could win two seats in Northern more than likely they will be the wasted Quota. They could elect a third LNP Candidate in Southern metro and influence the last position in Eastern Metro. Retain one in Western Metro (Assuming votes will not go missing this time during the count) Again you need to look more closely at the Senate vote. They will miss out in South Eastern and in the three rural seats. The key to the results will be the value of the LNP surplus. any defered Major Party candidate elcted will have their ticket vote inflated disproportionaly by the flaw in the way the Upper house vote is counted. If the Greens adopt a split ticket you ight as well not vote beyond 5. Or not vote at all. Only 3% of all voters vote below the line. And many of them are not Green supporters. Agian look at the Senate vote moer closley. The 19% is a furophy and will not be evenly distributed accross the State.
Morgan Poll
Victorian State Politics
Primaries: ALP 40% LIB 40% NAT 2.5% GRN 13% FF 1.5% OTH 3%
2PP: ALP 52% LNP 48%
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2010/4595/
D@W 29
[The Greens can submit “split ticket”]
I think this is what the Greens are going to do, at least in some regions. It will not mean their votes are flowing to the LNP, it will mean that their votes are equally split between the LNP and Labor.
They will then say that this clearly shows they are not favouring one side or the other (they will make a virtue of it while Labor and Liberal argue about the whole issue!), and like their mates in Tasmania, they will be prepared to deal with either side in the event of a hung parliament. Then their HTV cards for their supporters will just have BTL Greens 1-5.
22
If the Greens have a surplus then a vote that is 1-5 Greens cannot be entirely wasted because in said situation most of each of such votes would stay with the first Green candidate and only if the second Green candidate is eliminated (only certain outside Northern & Southern Metro) would such a vote be PARTLY wasted.
You seem to think that any vote that is not for the 1 ALP ATL is wasted.
It’s a strange look both Labor and the Liberal attacking the Greens for being the stooges of the other.
[D@W 29
The Greens can submit “split ticket”
I think this is what the Greens are going to do, at least in some regions. It will not mean their votes are flowing to the LNP, it will mean that their votes are equally split between the LNP and Labor. ]
This is the pay back deal.
A split ticket is the same as just voting 1-5 Green. Each ticket will cancel out the other. It will mean that the LNP will elect three in Southern Metro secure three in Eastern metro.
[Last time I vote Green. Not this time – Vote ALP and make your vote count]
If the Greens issue a split ticket then the ALP should consider doing like wise, and we will all end up with a First-past-the-post voting system. They could just stop preferencing after the ALP. We might as well do away with preferences altogether and adopt a party list voting system. It just goes to show you how disastrous voting Green is. They are not about Policy just power. It would certainly have repercussions in Canberra and in Tasmania.
The rise of the Greens undoubtedly has fastened the move of Labor to the centre.
Given how rare it is for a party to control both houses of parliament, when the Liberals are next in power, they will be negotiating with a more centrist Labor party. I expect there will be cases where their legislation is less watered down or even passed more often. Isn’t this a better outcome for the Liberal party than having a broad “leftïst” Labour church.
LAST TIME I VOTED GREEN, NOT THIS TIME – VOTE ALP
Morgan poll.
[Despite the closeness between the two major parties, a clear majority of electors (62.5%) think the ALP ‘will win’ next month’s State election compared to 22% who expect the Liberal & National Parties to win the election.]
Complacentcy and the sense that it is safe to place a protest vote is what caused Kennett to lose back in 1999.
Morgan has what i think is a more realistic vote outcome.
[ALP 40.0%
LNP 42.5%
GRN 13.0%
FF 1.5%
Others 3%
]
This means that the Greens will need ALP preferences if they are to win a seat in the upper-house. (The results are similar to that recorded in the Victorian Senate iin August) Issue a split ticket and the Greens lose out.
“Last time I vote Green. Not this time – Vote ALP and make your vote count”
All this hysteria over the Greens.
Perhaps a vote for the Greens is fast becoming a vote that counts.
[If the Greens issue a split ticket then the ALP should consider doing like wise, and we will all end up with a First-past-the-post voting system. They could just stop preferencing after the ALP. We might as well do away with preferences altogether and adopt a party list voting system. It just goes to show you how disastrous voting Green is. They are not about Policy just power. It would certainly have repercussions in Canberra and in Tasmania.]
??????????????????????????????????
I’ve seen random stuff being presented as argument on Poll Bludger before but there has to be some sort of prize for this.
I think the Greens will poll more than 15% statewide, and Labor 35-37.
I know many Libs who feel that if they don’t win the election they would love to see Labor “suffer” in minority government, but I think they may eventually then realise they have created a Labor-Green government further to the “left” than just a Labor government.
If the Coalition are REALLY close to winning, say LNP 43, Ingram 1, Greens 5, Labor 39 – would the Libs deal the Greens in to form government, like Cameron and the Lib-Dems in the UK, as a “blue-green algae coalition”?
Rocket Rocket, the electorate is moving to the left while the Liberals are moving to the right. The Greens are picking up the Left flank as Labor ( being reasonable political strategists) push the Liberals further into the corner they have chosen.
Yes you can attempt to manipulate the system, but in the end it’s the Liberal parties stupidity that has got them where they are.
fredn 39
[Perhaps a vote for the Greens is fast becoming a vote that counts.]
The Greens will deserve every seat they win at this election. I think they will win Upper House seats in their own right in every metro region, and 2 in Northern Metro for six total. And I think they will win at least 3 and maybe 5 seats in the Lower House on the back of Liberal preferences (and maybe Labor ones if they get up in Prahran)
Whatever deals they make to advantage themselves ( like every other party ) – that is politics.
They will probably have the “balance of power” in both houses, but the reality is that this was also true of the Country Party for many years in the Upper House (and also in the lower house at some stages in Victorian history where they supported Labor minority governments).
The Greens have a chance to win two seats in inner Melbourne
[Bronwyn Pike losing is not going to be a big loss. No real tallent there – Dick Wynn has lost that edge he once had – He has no agenda for much need refrom of local government – Brumby has ruled out any review of Muncipal boundaries]
The Greens can only win seats with Liberal Preferences, if they cut a deal with the Liberals exchanging lower house seats for upperhouse seats, (Its all the Greens have to offer) then they run the risk of losing support and handing control of both houses to the Liberal Party. I expect we could see the National Party also lose votes in Rural Victoria as a result of the LNP/Greens sweet heart preference deals.
DemocracyATwork – Your contributions clearly show you have never voted Green. The people posting on this site are far too insightful to just read your repeated slogan and go ‘oh seeing as that duder keeps saying they voted Green but not this time, I too won’t vote Green’.
Given the mindless repetition of a slogan – my guess is an ALP staffer/electorate officer.
Some thoughts:
I doubt very much the Greens will get a second member in North Metro, for the same reason as in Denison in Tasmania (another 5 member electorate): the inner suburbs could be greener than Bob Brown’s backyard, but in the outer suburbs (Broadmeadows or Glenorchy), they get 10% or less. That said, some very unlikely suburbs in the lower-class bogan dust of Perth gave the Greens a decent vote at the last WA election, so maybe it’ll improve there too.
As for the rest of the upper house: The Libs oughta get a third seat in South Metro by getting three quotas (so, a 3-1-1 result); they weren’t too far off last time and their vote will improve compared to last time. Nothing to do with Green surplus. In SE Metro, I’ll tip 2-2-1, because if the two major parties have similar votes, the Greens can sneak up between their #3 candidates and win on either ALP or Lib preferences as long as they have something like 0.7 of a quota or more.
East Metro, I’m not sure about; it’s currently 3-2 to the Libs, with the Libs on 2.69 quotas in 2006. I imagine the Liberal vote would go well up in the three lower house seats they won last time, but then the Greens would be a fairly good chance for a seat, which they would win from the Libs (unless Labor really take a bath). Damn that weird non-monotonicity. (In WA or the Senate, both East and South Metro seats would be 3-2-1 to the Libs – it’s more proportional in this case of one major party getting much more vote than the other.)
North and West Metro, I’m reluctant to tip because they feature two things I’ve only a hazy understanding of: 5 seat regions and the DLP.
Conutry Victoria, I have absolutely no idea about. All I know is Damian Drum oughta be a better MP than he was a football coach. I cheer for the Dockers, y’see. 😉
Lower house: beyond the four obvious ones, which seats does anybody reckon would be in play for the Greens? I’d list Albert Park and Prahran; Footscray’s more likely to go to Cumming if she gets a similar vote to the Greens, for the reasons Kevin Bonham explained about Wilkie in Denison before the federal election.
Well said Dr,
Indeed the level of student uni type comments here by both the libs and alp staffers are much more suited to vexnews type outlets and please, leave our old poll bludger to the vote nuts not some pathetic attempt to influence the preferences.
The ALp and the Fibs will do whatever they like, the reality is that the electorate are moving in a very cynical fashion and spin is a great turn off.
24
You assume that a Green Liberal deal will be done but it is unlikely because it would be political poison for the Greens.
If there is a big swing to the Liberals in the inner-city (back to 1999 levels) then with the higher Green vote these days (mid-30s plus) and where the increase in the Liberal vote is likely to come from (the ALP`s vote) the Greens may well not be the ones overtaken by the Liberals and then the Green would sail home of preferences from the ALP.
Hawthorn is not at risk for the Liberals this election because there is a swing to the Liberals this election and they got 56.1% primary last time. The Greens could overtake the ALP to get 2nd place though.
The Greens having chances only in the LC in most of the state rely on campaigning region wide to get their vote high enough so they will not do deals to reduce campaigning anywhere.
Compared to the Commonwealth Election, the ALP vote will be down over 2% in most seats and the Green and Coalition vote up by over 2% each in many seats.
44
If the Greens win Prahran it will be on ALP preferences. There is virtually not chance of the Greens doing a deal with the Libs on either LA preference advice or LC ATL preferences.
Check the polls nationally guys – the only thing standing between us and wall to wall ALP-GRN govts are the election dates.
Well, that and the non-proportional nature of our single members district systems.
Oh, and the possibility of Lab-Lib cartel deals. As Brumby has realised.
Bring it on, I say.