Victorian upper house tickets: Libs put Greens last

The announcement today of the parties’ registered preference tickets for above-the-line upper house votes has, to say the least, proved more than usually interesting. With their cards now on the table, the Coalition has indeed come good on its talk of putting the Greens last. Twitter is also alive with talk that the policy of putting the Greens last extends to every seat in the lower house (UPDATE: Now confirmed in an AAP report). Suffice to say that this is momentous news.

As usual, I have made the effort to simplify the upper house tickets by ignoring where the parties have placed candidates who don’t matter, either because they are certain to be elected or certain not to be (note that I’m ignoring most independents here). No party has lodged a split ticket, and only the DLP could be found playing complicated games with their ordering. With very few exceptions, preferences have been allocated in such a way as to create neat left-right divides, in which each bloc will win either three or two seats and divide the spoils between them. The only flies in this ointment are Northern Metropolitan, where preferences to and from Stephen Mayne are all over the shop, and Northern Victoria, where the Country Alliance seem to have charmed all and sundry, including the Sex Party.

EASTERN METROPOLITAN

Democratic Labor Party: Family First; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Labor: Greens; DLP; Family First; Liberal.
Family First:: DLP; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Greens: Labor; DLP; Family First; Liberal.
Liberal: Family First; DLP; Labor; Greens.

EASTERN VICTORIA

Family First: DLP; Country Alliance; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
DLP: Country Alliance; Family First; Coalition; Labor; Greens.
Coalition: Country Alliance; Family First; DLP; Labor; Greens.
Labor: Country Alliance; Greens; DLP; Family First; Coalition.
Country Alliance: DLP; Family First; Coalition; Labor; Greens.
Greens: Labor; DLP; Family First; Coalition; Country Alliance.

NORTHERN METROPOLITAN

Group A (Carers): Stephen Mayne; Greens; DLP; Sex Party; Family First; Christian Party; Country Alliance; Labor; Liberal.
Christian Party: DLP; Family First; Country Alliance; Liberal; Stephen Mayne; Carers; Labor; Greens; Sex Party.
Stephen Mayne: Carers; Sex Party; DLP; Greens; Family First; Christian Party; Liberal; Labor; Country Alliance.
Family First: Stephen Mayne; Christian Party; Carers; Country Alliance; DLP; Liberal; Labor; Sex Party; Greens.
Country Alliance: Sex Party; DLP; Labor; Liberal; Carers; Family First; Christian Party; Stephen Mayne; Greens.
Greens: Stephen Mayne; Carers; Sex Party; Labor; DLP; Family First; Christian Party; Liberal; Country Alliance.
Sex Party: Carers; Stephen Mayne; Greens; Country Alliance; Labor; Liberal; Family First; Christian Party.
DLP: Christian Party; Carers; Stephen Mayne; Country Alliance; Family First; Liberal; Labor; Sex Party; Greens.
Labor: Sex Party; Greens; Carers; Country Alliance; DLP; Stephen Mayne; Family First; Liberal; Christian Party.
Liberal: Sex Party; Family First; DLP; Country Alliance; Christian Party; Carers; Stephen Mayne; Labor; Greens.

NORTHERN VICTORIA

Country Alliance: DLP; Family First; Coalition; CDP; Labor; Sex Party; Greens.
Christian Democratic Party: DLP; Family First; Coalition; Country Alliance; Labor; Greens; Sex Party.
Family First: CDP; DLP; Country Alliance; Coalition; Labor; Sex Party; Greens.
Greens: Labor; Sex Party; DLP; Family First; CDP; Coalition; Country Alliance;
Coalition: Country Alliance; Family First; DLP; CDP; Sex Party; Labor; Greens.
Labor: Country Alliance; Greens; Sex Party; DLP; Family First; Coalition; CDP.
Sex Party: Country Alliance; Greens; Labor; Coalition; CDP; Family First; DLP.
DLP: Country Alliance; CDP; Family First; Coalition; Labor; Sex Party; Greens.

SOUTH-EASTERN METROPOLITAN

Liberal: DLP; Family First; Christian Party; Labor; Greens.
Labor: Greens; DLP; Family First; Liberal; Christian Party.
DLP: Christian Party; Family First; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Christian Party: DLP; Family First; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Family First: Christian Party; DLP; Liberal; Labor; Greens.
Greens: Labor; DLP; Family First; Christian Party; Liberal.

SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN

Sex Party: Greens; Liberal; Labor; Family First; DLP; Christan Party.
DLP: Christian Party; Family First; Liberal; Labor; Sex Party; Greens.
Family First: Christian Party; DLP; Liberal; Labor; Sex Party; Greens.
Christian Party: DLP; Family First; Liberal; Labor; Greens; Sex Party.
Greens: Sex Party; Labor; DLP; Family First; Christian Party; Liberal.
Liberal: Family First; DLP; Christian Party; Sex Party; Labor; Greens.
Labor: Greens; Sex Party; DLP; Family First; Liberal; Christian Party.

WESTERN METROPOLITAN

Sex Party: Greens; Labor; Liberal; Family First; DLP.
Labor: Greens; Sex Party; DLP; Family First; Liberal.
Family First: DLP; Liberal; Labor; Sex Party; Greens.
DLP: Family First; Liberal; Labor; Sex Party; Greens.
Greens: Sex Party; Labor; DLP; Family First; Liberal.
Liberal: Family First; DLP; Sex Party; Labor; Greens.

WESTERN VICTORIA

Coalition: DLP; Family First; Country Alliance; Labor; Greens.
Family First: Country Alliance; DLP; Coalition; Labor; Greens.
Labor: Greens; Country Alliance; DLP; Family First; Coalition.
Greens: Labor; DLP; Family First; Coalition; Country Alliance.
Country Alliance: DLP; Family First; Coalition; Labor; Greens.

UPDATE: It might be helpful to reprint the calculations I did a few weeks ago of Labor-versus-Greens two-party results in the four electorates likely contested between the two, projecting the likely results for the Greens both with and without Liberal preferences. This was derived from results of both the 2006 and 2010 federal elections, and indications of Liberal voters’ fealty to how-to-vote cards based on a Victorian Electoral Commission ballot paper study. I was persuaded that this was likely to prove slightly unflattering to the Greens, as the rate of Liberal rebellion from the how-to-vote card might increase if the party changed its preference policy.

GRN 2PP
ALP GRN LIB LIB PREF NO PREF
2006 STATE
Melbourne 45% 27% 22% 48% 40%
Richmond 46% 25% 20% 46% 39%
Brunswick 48% 30% 17% 45% 40%
Northcote 53% 27% 15% 42% 37%
2010 FEDERAL
Melbourne 36% 37% 22% 57% 49%
Richmond 39% 37% 20% 55% 48%
Brunswick 46% 31% 19% 48% 41%
Northcote 46% 33% 17% 49% 42%

Author: William Bowe

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

224 comments on “Victorian upper house tickets: Libs put Greens last”

Comments Page 3 of 5
1 2 3 4 5
  1. I am neither a lawyer nor a Green, Ron.

    I am simply someone who sees value in both Green and Labor policies and principles, and who thinks that the amount of time which is spent by some here trying to pick fights with the other is highly damaging to the cause of the left generally and simply plays into the hands of the conservatives.

  2. Rod: “Labor and the Greens will NOW be so focused on beating each other to death ”

    Rod “All I’ve said is that this decision by the Libs will harm both Labor and the Greens.”

    You is deluding everyone here suggesting only NOW will Greens be so fcoussed in attacking Labor to get those 4 Seats It started long before Liberal annoucement today

    your claims of no Green belie your defence of almost any critisism of Greens , nuanced as it is

    (BTW Liberals think they can win swing voters by this , and perhaps electon …thats what Abbott got by suggest Labor and extremist Greens polisys is one and same)

  3. And Fiona Patten (I know you pop in on occasion) what’s the story with Southern Metro preferences. Shame on you, I fed your staff baberque shapes at the federal election. We were all full of good cheer, a little left block with the ALP, Greens and Sex Party and the independent. What happened??

  4. [the DLP could be found playing complicated games with their ordering.]

    The Christians (Fred Nile) have also played tricksters with their order of preferences by going to ALP candidates that will be elected but diverging to the Liberal Party at the crucial juncture.

    The ALP and the Greens do not pickup many preferences of signficance Greens more so in Northern Metro

    There appears to be an absence of support groups other then possibly in Northern Metro turning. You can effectively lump the Christian alliance into one group. The party that gets the least votes tops up the other which in turn is the consolidation point. They do not look like staying alive in the count.

    At first glance there only appears to be Labor. Liberal/National Party and the Greens in the hunt to in seats. The Liberal Party is best placed. Outside chance they could win two in Western Victoria. The Greens would have to fall below quota. Northern Metro is the most uncertain at this stage. The flaw in the Senate/Upper house counting system only comes into play in seats where there is a deferral election in the middle of the pack.

    Antony Greens analysis appers to be based on the 2006 results should bve reasses using the Senate count and should also show the margin thresholds that cold bring about a change. It will be intersting to see what values he seeds his caluclator.

    I do not see the below the line vote making a significant difference in any election.

    This is one decided on the primaries and fold up of the ticket vote.

  5. With regard to the Greens, maybe Liberal HQ have been thinking the same as me lately.

    There is a model in game theory “The two ice cream sellers on the beach” – they will both tend to gravitate to the middle of the beach to maximise their custom to 50% of available people.

    http://ingrimayne.com/econ/International/Hotelling.html

    Recent US elections have been historically close by US standards – is this because (as we hear) the electorate is terribly divided/polarised? Or has the electorate always been divided/polarised, but the “ice-cream sellers” (parties) weren’t selling in the middle of the beach (electorate) so we got very one-sided elections.

    If so, was their malpositioning because they wanted to be there (the link suggests Goldwater and McGovern) or was it a lack of detailed knowledge about WHERE the middle of the beach was? (Democrats 1952,1956?) So rather than a “incredibly divided” electorate are we just witnessing very clever party machines who through polling and the dreaded focus groups know EXACTLY where that centre is and go for it – both of them?

    Of course the Hotelling model is a two-seller model.

    Then in Australia the Greens come along, and start selling eco-friendly ice-cream (it’s very late, I can have a laugh) up one end of the beach (Labor’s end). What do Labor do? The Greens can’t possibly get a 50% share up there, but Labor’s share is reduced if they don’t move. So Labor move to the Right (figuratively) to try and make up for some of their lost ground. And then the Coalition can’t be left in the middle of the beach either because then Labor gets a bigger share than them, so they move right also, ending up side-by-side again further up the “non-Greens” side of the beach. But the end result is the market-responsive Labor and the “we’re staying up this end” Greens end up with greater than 50% of the market.

    So maybe the Liberal “hard heads” have thought like this, and decided to put an end to that third “ice cream” seller.

  6. GG

    i’ve heard of closet Greens , but then diging a hole in th Greens closet also as Rod does ,
    seems Greens outing is a step to far

    Balleau promised on TV tonite to incr police no’s , his Party had cut them , labor incr them , and he said it quite sincere Hope there is a f/up Labor add on prev Police Stats

  7. Melbourne Inner City Seats.

    Its clear that without Liberal party support the Greens can not win any seat.

    Pike may pike it. A marginal chance at Melbourne (No great loss there)

    I do not think they can win without Liberal preferences in Richmond, Brunswick or Northcote. All in all a two to three win to the Greens in the upper-house Libs ill come close to winning control of the Legislative Council and are in for a chance in the Assembly. It will be tight. Brumby had a good track record of doing little but doing it well in terms of economic management. no one has policies on local government reform (Something that Brumby should have address long ago) Melbourne remains a donut in the center government. Not even the Greens are advocating a greater Melbourne Council which should include the State seats of Albert Park, Melbourne, Prahran, and Richmond

  8. One could dream and hope for a miracle. If the Green vote collapse and they fall below quota in all but Northern Metro. Now that would be bliss. Brumby’s fire a shot across the bow looks like it worked. The problem with the greens preference deal that could not direct preferences where it counts. In the lower house. Pleased that the warning on a split ticket had the desired effect.

  9. Frank I do not think so. There was real angst in the Liberal Party membership. When push came to shop there was no advantage. The Greens had nothing to offer. Brumby and others knew this was the case.

  10. Well the Age is on decline. Hardly ever read it anymore. Its so boring. I think Vexnews is right., Its days are numbered. Creditors should put them on a tight 20 day or less payment option.

  11. Some recycled crud from newsltd

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/foreign-investors-make-a-grab-for-australian-farming-land/story-e6frf7l6-1225953455903

    What is the implication?

    They are going to not farm this land and starve Australians? (though many including me could probably do with less food!)
    They are going to send all this food overseas? (shock horror, like 60% of our produce already)
    Plain old Xenophobia? (I see Appalling Hanson is in the news again, after deciding not to be one of those terrible immigrants so afllicting the UK)

  12. Rocket

    “So maybe the Liberal “hard heads” have thought like this, and decided to put an end to that (Greens) third “ice cream” seller.”

    they were selling ice crems full of fluff anyway

    107
    Rocket Rocket
    Posted Monday, November 15, 2010 at 12:23 am | Permalink

    “Libs shutting out the Greens is the “bombshell” headline in “The Age” – waiting for Herald-Sun, 8 minutes away.”

    I posted 3 days ago Liberals should d this for there own benefit , and quoted Labor pref to Liberals against One Nation , delivered Blair to a Lib for eg

    as there brand was going to get trashed once Howard , Helen Kroger , Brumby & othrs came out public against Libs giving greens pref

    prev Libs got away with this as it was not a public issue They made rite move for thems , and that Age Headline helps them , this makes Labor more associat with Greens polisys and Liberals 100% opposed publicly to them , and 86% of voters do not like Greens polisys

    but I never expect Liberals wuld do it , sometimes they is smart , not often

    (it helps Labor in 4 seats that it should never be wasting time on , but also helps Libs long term as abov

    BTW , why do NOT Greens go after Liberal seats ?

  13. [PollsterPosted Monday, November 15, 2010 at 12:30 am | PermalinkFrank I do not think so. There was real angst in the Liberal Party membership. When push came to shop there was no advantage. The Greens had nothing to offer. Brumby and others knew this was the case.
    ]

    I still reckon the Fed Green-ALP alliance has also had a bearing.

  14. gus,

    The Greens have got all the trouble they need atm. They’re now reduced to the “No, we can’t” election mantra.

  15. And this is what I always love
    [Some of Australia’s best-known farm brands – including Golden Circle, SPC, Dairy Farmers, CSR Sugar, SunRice and AWB – have fallen into foreign hands]
    Fallen? What, in a war? An accident?

    Or was it actually a commercial transaction, and some Australian (traitor) SOLD their land to those nasty foreigners.

    I’ve just realised the worst-case scenario – they are going to take that land overseas to their own country!!

    Stop the Boats! They are going to use them to take away our country to use for their own awful purposes!

  16. I could not find one Liberal member who supported the notion of referencing the Greens. Bailout realised he was better off without them. Now he will find his position that much easier to sell without the dead weight hanging around his neck. The Greens are a liability to Labor not an asset. This could end up 1999 in reverse. Sure Brumby does not deserve to be re-elected but he does not deserve to lose either. They polls are not showing the level of doubtful but I would think if in doubt dont throw them out. With two weeks to go I suspect Labor will work on the negative that a Bailout government has to offer. A liberal government at state level would not be good for the Feds. If Bailout wins we will have a Federal election sometime in the next 12 months.

  17. [BTW , why do NOT Greens go after Liberal seats ?]

    They left thr run to short. Hawthorn was a possibility of not for the Greens a well placed Independent.

  18. GG

    Cmon

    your the fred astaire of PB

    also i think the scales are atad too finely balanced to piss off green voters

    the dynamic of fed interplay is too intertwined with state politics to ignore

    its not like its the wild west

  19. Apart from Southern Metro. There is still hope and light at the end of the tunnel. A reduce Green representation is a positive. A sigh of relief there. Luntz look a bit cocky today walking out of the VEC office. I guess he is not laughing now. The best the greens can do is try and win as much public funding dollars as they can.

  20. gus,

    “its not like its the wild west”

    With kind regards, stick your meaningless peace pipery nonsense. The Greens want to take Labor seats. They can’t have em.

  21. 130

    Who can have seats is up to the voters. A slim majority of voters may still decide to back the Greens in Melbourne, Richmond and/or Brunswick. Northcote is out of reach.

  22. Gus

    GG is rite You see Greens on a big painting as ‘colleagues’ for now aginst Libs , but you not see overlay tapistry Lindsay Tanner summed it up well earlier in yr

    Federol Denison & Melbourne were Fed Labor Seats anyway so there is no loss to Libs in sets at all Let Greens em go after Liberal Seats !

    ie if Greens intersted in Liberals being there no 1 enemy , but alas its Labor seta they target & liberls laugh

  23. Ron

    but if the greens have a sniff, shouldnt they have a go?

    isnt politics the art of the possible ?

    also having an alternative to parking a protest vote (ie green as against lib) seems to be politics 101

  24. 135

    The Greens target seats held by the ALP because they are the ones who contain the Left-Wing and Progressive voters attracted to the Greens.

  25. gus,

    This new landscape just needs the Green weeds removed. The only way to be left in the backwaters is to embrace the Greens.

  26. [Tom the first and bestPosted Monday, November 15, 2010 at 12:56 am | Permalink135
    The Greens target seats held by the ALP because they are the ones who contain the Left-Wing and Progressive voters attracted to the Greens.
    ]

    I can think of several small L Liberal seats in WA at least which could easily be won by The Greens.

  27. GG

    I said no ginger!

    I am being serious here- take a helicopter view of the political landscape

    now tell me where could the greens take a lib seat?

    and also where will there vote act as a bulwark against a lib swing

    overlay that on the last fed election

    then tell me lab would have won without the greens!

  28. gus,

    The Greens are a passing fad. After today’s announcement I reckon the Greens vote will collapse as the hangers on realise they’ve been conned by the Greens Management team.

  29. Gusface 145

    If the Greens “didn’t exist” I am sure Labor would still have won the federal election. But new parties arise to fill a vacuum – thus the Democrats arose from moderate Liberal who felt “shut out” of the Liberal camp, the DLP arose from Labor people who felt under threat from the “Reds”. I suppose the Greens arose a bit differently to those two examples, but they attract voters who obviously feel Labor is not progressive enough.

  30. [Rocket RocketPosted Monday, November 15, 2010 at 1:01 am | PermalinkFrank 142
    were those the ones that those two Libs left the party and still held them as “Liberals for forests”?
    ]

    Well Janet Woolard is one who stood for Liberal for Forests and is still an independent, plus Education Minister Liz Constable who is also an Independent – If the Libs put in as much effort in those seats than they sdo in ALP ones they could at least get Alfred Cove (Wollard) and maybe Constable in Churchlands – though her seat covers Mesma’s seat of Curtin.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 3 of 5
1 2 3 4 5