Victoria has been noteworthy in providing the Senate with both of the micro-party candidates to win election since the era of six-seat half-Senate elections commenced in 1990, electing Steve Fielding of Family First in 2004 and John Madigan of the Democratic Labour Party in 2010. The first of these results was a consequence of preference deals which Labor and the Democrats entered into with Family First in the unrealised hope of being their beneficiary. When Fielding emerged ahead of them in the count with help from One Nation and Liberals for Forests preferences, there occurred a transfer of preferences from the left to the right in the shape of the Democrats vote and Labor’s surplus after the election of its second candidate. The effect was to freeze out the Greens, who despite their strength in the state would have to wait until 2010 to win a seat. The intervening election in 2007 saw the Labor vote up 5.6% to 41.7%, which despite a strong Greens vote of 10.1% left their candidate well short of the 13.1% surplus left to the third Labor candidate.
Richard di Natale finally achieved the Greens’ breakthrough in 2010 in comfortable fashion, scoring a quota in his own right with 14.64% of the vote. Labor’s Senate vote slipped by nearly 4% to 37.75%, precluding the possibility of them winning a third seat in addition to the Greens. The other watershed of 2010 was that it marked the first six-seat election where the Coalition failed to win seats, the third right seat instead going to John Madigan. This was down to the Coalition recording its weakest result in Victoria since the Second World War, leaving them with a surplus of only 5.8% after the election of their second candidate. That Madigan rather than Steve Fielding was the beneficiary was largely down to preferences from the Liberal Democratic Party (a typically substantial 1.84%, some presumably from voters confusing them with the Liberal Party) and smaller amounts from One Nation and the Christian Democrats. The combined vote for these parties was 4.93% including the DLP’s base of 2.33%, well clear of the 2.64% vote for Family First. Family First preferences in turned flowed to the DLP ahead of the Coalition, whose only substantial source of preferences was the 1.39% vote for Shooters and Fishers. That put Madigan ahead of the number three Coalition candidate, Julian McGauran, a former Nationals Senator who had defected to the Liberal Party, whose preferences comfortably pushed Madigan to a quota ahead of Labor’s third candidate.
The outlook for the coming election looks on the surface to be straightforward, with an increase in the Coalition vote likely preclude another win by a micro-party of the right, and the Greens’ strength in Victoria suggesting they should be safe to take the third seat on the left rather than Labor. However, the Greens face the wild card of Julian Assange, bringing his enormous name recognition to bear at the top of the Wikileaks Party ticket. The party has suffered a serious blow from the negative publicity surrounding its preference tickets in other states, with prominent academic and ethicist Leslie Cannold resigning as his running mate (albeit too late late to affect her inclusion on the ballot paper) complaining that the party’s democratic processes had been bypassed. Nonetheless, Assange’s capacity to drain anti-establishment votes away from the Greens remains an imponderable that opinion polling is not well placed to measure, and he could potentially draw preferences from the Sex Party, the Pirate Party, two drug law reform parties and, less intuitively, Family First.
Labor’s ticket is headed by Gavin Marshall, who entered parliament from the number two position on the ticket at the 2001 election, which he maintained at the 2007 election. He has been promoted to top position this time, despite having failed to win promotion from the back bench. Marshall is an associate of Left faction powerbroker Senator Kim Carr, and like him was a principal of the move for Julia Gillard to be dumped in favour of Kevin Rudd. In second position is Jacinta Collins, whose background is with the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) and its attendant socially conservative Catholic tendency. Collins first entered the Senate in 1995 when she filled the casual vacancy created by the death of Olive Zahkarov, who was killed after being struck by a car in St Kilda. Collins was re-elected from the third position on the ticket in 1998, before being squeezed out by Steve Fielding’s election in 2004. She returned after securing the top position on the ticket at the 2007 election, from which she has now been knocked down a peg in an exchange of positions with Marshall.
It long appeared that Right faction powerbroker David Feeney would remain with the number three position from which he was elected in 2007, which on all analyses was unlikely to get him re-elected. Feeney had been obliged to settle for number three in 2007 after the top position, which had been vacated with the retirement of Robert Ray, was secured by Jacinta Collins, the number two position being reserved for the Left. Collins emerged the winner on that occasion after a turf war between her SDA faction and the Right sub-faction associated with Bill Shorten. His failure to rise further up the ranks followed a split in the Right which left him on the wrong side of a stability pact his factional colleagues Bill Shorten and Stephen Conroy forged with the bulk of the Socialist Left faction. With a lower house berth appearing unavailable, it had reportedly been arranged that Feeney would be accommodated if a by-election was held in a safe seat in the wake of an anticipated election defeat, Julia Gillard’s seat of Lalor being an obvious possibility. However, Martin Ferguson’s retirement announcement in the wake of Kevin Rudd’s abortive leadership pitch in March had him successfully contesting preselection for his seat of Batman.
That in turn required a new preselection for the number three Senate position which was won by Mehmet Tillem, a Turkish-born electorate officer to Right powerbroker Senator Stephen Conroy. Tillem won 37 votes in the public office selection committee preselection against 25 for Kimberley Kitching, a former Melbourne City councillor, current Health Services Union No. 1 branch acting general manager, and the wife of controversial former VexNews blogger Andrew Landeryou. The result was another rebuff for Kitching and her backer Bill Shorten, who had become estranged from his long-term ally Conroy after his defection to the Rudd camp. Kitching had also been an unsuccessful contestant for preselections to fill the vacancies of Nicola Roxon in Gellibrand and Julia Gillard in Lalor. The Socialist Left abstained from the vote on the grounds that the Shorten-Conroy split meant the Right had failed to fill its end of the stability pact between the two factions. Tillem will at the very least serve out the remainder of Feeney’s Senate term, which expires in the middle of next year.
The Coalition runs joint tickets in Victoria by a long-standing arrangement in which the Nationals take the second and fourth position at alternating elections. This election gives the Nationals fourth place, meaning only Liberal candidates can be regarded as serious contenders. The ticket is headed by Mitch Fifield, who has held the outer shadow ministry portfolio of disabilities and carers since the 2010 election. Fifield has been in the Senate since March 2004, when he filled the casual vacancy created by the retirement of Howard government minister Richard Alston. He was previously an adviser to Peter Costello, and was closely associated with his never-to-be-realised leadership ambitions. Two further incumbents, Scott Ryan and Helen Kroger, occupy the second and third positions on the ticket, a reversal of the order from 2007 which followed a spirited preselection contest.
Key to Ryan’s promotion ahead of Kroger was his attainment of the position of shadow parliamentary secretary for small business and fair competition after the 2010 election, which on some readings of party convention entitled him to the higher position. According to one account, Ryan had used to his advantage new rules to democratise preselections by cultivating support in divisional branches with low membership, turning the tables on a Kroger camp whose power base was at higher levels in the party organisation. Like Fifield, Ryan and Kroger had both been associated with the Michael Kroger-Peter Costello axis in the Victorian Liberal Party, Helen Kroger being Michael’s ex-wife, but this tie had been weakened by the disengagement of each from factional politics and their eventual falling out. It was reported at one point that Fifield might be drawn into the fray, with Kroger’s supporters accusing him of engineering Ryan’s manoeuvre and considering keeping her afloat with a challenge to Fifield’s position at the top of the ticket. In the event, Fifield easily won the first round preselection with 251 votes against 92 for Ryan and 71, before Ryan won by 276 to 139 on the second round.
The Greens’ lead candidate for the election is Janet Rice, a former mayor of Maribyrnong and staffer to state upper house MP Colleen Hartland, who has most recently worked as a transport planner for the City of Hume. Rice held the second position on the party’s Senate ticket at the 2010 election behind Richard di Natale. She emerged the winner of a presleection vote in February 2012 with a final round vote of 355 against 327 for Brian Walters, a barrister and former president of Liberty Victoria who ran unsuccessfully for the state seat of Melbourne at the 2010 state election.
27 comments on “Senate of the day: Victoria”
Do you know I come from the finest of finest poll pedigree? I was born in the bellwether seat of Eden Monaro, that has shown the swings and results in polls federal since 1972. I was born before this a lil but as to how many candles I have I must maintain a modicum of mystique. I have lived in the other bellwether seat of Lindsay since 1980. It is the only seat to reflect swings and results federally since 1984 I think, soon after creation. I am a NSW boy thru and thru and since 1963 NSW has been a bellwether state on fed polls. A Wikipedia article follows —
In Australian federal elections, the electoral division of Eden-Monaro in New South Wales has elected its Member of Parliament from the party which won government at every federal election since 1972. The Division of Robertson in NSW has voted for the party winning government at every federal election since 1983. The Division of Lindsay in NSW, and the Division of Makin in South Australia have elected their members of parliament from the party which won government in every Federal election since their creation in 1984. They are the only existing divisions in the country to have such a bellwether title. However in terms of nationwide two party preferred vote, Eden-Monaro, Lindsay, Robertson and Makin have bucked the bellwether trend in the past by voting Liberal at the 1998 federal election. The state of New South Wales could also be considered a bellwether, as the party which wins government has won the majority of House of Representatives seats in that state at every election since 1963. Unlike many bellwethers, these are cited by analysts solely for their record and are not usually attributed to demographic factors that reflect the median of Australia.
… In conclusion, I feel I am well placed to predict an outcome at this federal poll, and although I know it unpopular here the result will be a landslide to the coalition I am sure. Maybe I Am a mystic, or psychic dear friends? But I claim no psychic powers. Just happy to bask in the glory of influence as it may be here. The mood is strong for real change in bellwether territory dear friends. It is looking obamaesque in reverse, the coalition doing hopeless on federal polls but great in individual electorate polls. We’ll see soon.
Long live la bellwetherers.
Furthermore to my NSW analysis on the previous page, here are the results of my 1000-run Monte Carlo simulation. The “range” upon which to apply random variation in each simulation is consistent with my approach in all states: variation inversely proportional to vote size that increases as parties get smaller. Applying the latest bludger track swing figures, adjusted for Victoria, I assume LNP=39+/-6%, ALP=33+/-5%, GRN=11+/-2%. For a very large ballot 83% major party voting is reasonable.
Barring something incredible, Victoria will be 3-3 split left-right. But my model only calculates a 1% chance of a 3-3 ALP/LNP split with no minor parties.
On the left side of things, the Greens stand a 90% chance of election, given they will get Labor’s surplus. (If Greens poll at the lower end of the feasible range, they will just elect the 3rd ALP candidate). However, a 1 in 1000 scenario elects a Democrat. No Wikileaks or s-x party gets elected with the numbers I have used (WIKI: 0.5-1.5%, S-x 1.4-2.6%)
On the right, I’m calculating 3 liberals elected with 45% probability and Family First with 53% probability, assuming FF poll between 1.4 and 2.6%. The remaining 2% election probability comprises very small likelihoods of KAP (primaries: 0.5-1.5%), No Carbon Tax (0.25-0.75%), Country Alliance (0.5-1.5%), or DLP (1.4-2.6%).
So, in summary, the likely 6 senators to be elected from Victoria are (left-right):
Approximately equal chance of a 3rd liberal and one Family First
For the doubting Thomases, I have cross tested my inputs with Antony Green’s calculator and I achieve the same outputs.
Regarding wikileaks, does anyone have any reliable polling for how they will go? If so, I’ll feed it back into my model.
The registered Victorian Senate Tickets seem to tell an interesting story of the wheels falling off the Druery machine. Four groups failed (or decided not to) lodge a Ticket. These all seem to be from the group of Groups who were being advised by Druery on behalf of one of them. Lots of talk of skullduggery
In most states Patricia Petersen’s Australian Independents come up tops- but this doesn’t seem to be happening in Victoria.
I have run some wikileaks scenarios – with 5% primary vote, Assange has a 10% chance or an 25% chance of election, depending on whether his vote comes from all candidates or just labor/greens respectively.
As for the Australian independents, a vote of 1% will give them an approximate likelihood of election of 50%. If elected, they replace the likelihood of FF being elected. But I don’t think they’ll get near 1% so consider it unlikely that they’ll get there.
I think it pretty unlikely Wikileaks will manage 5% of the primary. My absolute stab in the dark would be less than 2%.
A Plan for psephological heaven …
Dear Messieur bludgers, and especially Monsieur William,
I have been perusing this blog for about 3 years now, and thank’s William for the insights. It’s been great to get a real feel and understanding of these polls scientifically. Have learnt much. This has been great for my fiscal strategy too. I have had my own fiscal policies fully costed and funded, and have implemented them recently. I have delivered on all my policy promises and await strong economic returns soon, on Sep 7 actually! I stand to clean up the bookies to the tune of several thousand $$$ if my picks come home. More than bets or guesstimates my long shots and not so long shots. I got the coalition @ $1.38 for the win. Seems sure now and the odds are at even lower odds than Black Caviar @ $1.05 and shrinking presently. Took many long odds positions too, and am anticipating a windfall.
But I have not followed this blog to become a professional poll punter. I keep coming back because the info is very educational, and very frequently updated, even late night or early morn oft. And although the bludgers on here are quite oft rude and crude, especially when she heads south for them, they update poll info and a lil news as it haps. A very lively blog, but also very informative. Kudos to the poll bludger extraordinaire and master Monsieur William Bowe. Well done.
I await my own personal fiscal heaven, as the coalition and ALP & co. bring home the bacon for me on the big day now. And it couldn’t come sooner as the bank account is on a steady course south. It has been a marriage made in heaven my time here, soon to become economic heaven. Enough talk bout money though.
What do I wish to write to all?
Well William, it seems these polls are quite erratic and unreliable to say the least. Hence the need for psephos like yourself. Having got some insight into the subject which has been further rounded off by yourself and others here I thought I would pen my thoughts for a near perfect polling strategy that could be implemented by you and maybe with your other psepho gurus, or pollies, and it may interest all the bludgers here? If you did it would only cost your own time and no other costs really. Cheap on $$$ which makes it viable, and you would have potentially the greatest poll in the land. It is a rough blueprint of ideas, the concept is the important thing. Others can take care of the lesser details if they please. If none pick it up perhaps a neutral impartial unbiased govt office eg Govt Polling Bureau could be established to fulfil the dream, the Dream Poll. And we shall call it “ The Dream Poll “. So here is the idea in rough layout for you and all. Hope you like it, one and all?
The Dream Poll
A conceptual idea for psepholgical paradise…
From what I gather the real difficulty with these polls is the systems and methodology used to choose candidates and get the weighting right. It seems to me what is needed is to create a genuine microcosm sample in each electorate that is a 100 % total copy of the macrocosm in the electorate. To do this you need to change the philosophy and strategy in the polling process. I suggest choosing a sample from each electorate and asking them how they voted at the last election. It would be best to have high numbers in each electorate of 100 or several 100 or more if poss. If you have fairly reliable voting data and a sample of voters covering the broad spectrum of the total demographic in said electorate this is a must. You can weight the numbers as required if the sample is not an exact replica of the voter totality last poll day as per the true vote. The weighting can change per poll due to absence of contributors not doing the poll survey too. A nice little algorithm could be composed to auto calculate and implement the weighting. The weighting of all electorates could have an algorithm to auto calculate that too.
The hard part is getting the poll started then it is relatively easy and little work for the election cycle, til next official poll day as per the poll survey being monitored. If you start with samples as close and reliably reflective of the actual last vote then you can poll these people every fortnight say up til the next election day be it 3 or 4 yrs or whatever. So while it is a big task to get started your sitting pretty for years of great data with little effort thereafter, until the next election is held. And so the process starts again.
You get a very accurate snapshot of the changes in the electorates this way. You see the trends unfolding intimately with every poll. It is not guaranteed to be 100 % accurate as even if people have a bad hair day they may fluff that fortnights poll. But it gives a great overall feel for the political situation all through the election cycle. You always know how people are or are not changing since their last vote throughout the whole election cycle, and with very accurate weightings you can’t get much better IMHO. It is the weightings that must be very accurate.
With this the demographics must be correctly defined and chosen as accurately as poss to reflect the true demographic and vote for the last poll day in the electorate. With demographics psephos no doubt have your categories and they no doubt help. You need, perhaps, to break up old age pensioner votes of men and women to reflect the true vote much more accurately though eg A closer look may find that in that particular electorate 72 % men voted coalition and the rest in varied ways. The women may have voted 56 % coalition and the rest in varied ways. The sample needs weighting that gets right into the nitty gritty of all the demographics and to have correct weighting. Most emphasis in producing the demographics needs to be breaking it up into specific voting bloc type categories as you cannot allow for each individuals personal demographic, which is needed for a true 100 % accuracy. But not poss of course. So as much detail demographically speaking breaking up the voters into blocs is required.
If there are specific peculiarities in an electorate this needs looking at. For example if the Ford factory holds a bloc of voters that turn on a party due to closing them down then this electoral demographic needs attention to reflect the overall vote changes that may occur in that electorate. If certain industries or groups of people constitute a large part of a demographic in an electorate it needs special attention. The more diverse the demographic in the electorate the less need to try and reflect blocs like this.
The way to get the public to participate enmasse in this is to really get the word out in whatever ways you can and get them to do internet questionnaires to determine their demographic and location. They can be polled fortnightly and they do so free of charge. They can do the polls online or on their mobile. The psephos would contact them via email to instigate the fortnightly poll. They might get 2 days to do it. If they miss it the algorithm weights the result accordingly.
It is a lot of work to set up but you’re relatively on easy street once done until the next election when you start again. It would obviously need a database, apt algorithms, and a bit of techy time to set up, and work to keep it going. But it is very cheap after that, all things considered. It depends how much you can and do yourselves.
Once done first of course you have a great database of people to ask if they will participate in the next election cycle poll. You just get them to reapply. It costs next to nothing to do mass emailings. There is no reason why you cannot keep applications open for new participants permanently and just update the relevant weightings. You could continually build it up to massive poll. Work to start but once stared it would be relatively easy sailing. If you get a poll troll you might not want to inform them they’re off the results so you could just change the results to exclude them.
This format makes it poss to take advantage of the extremely cheap or free user pays hi-tech means available to pollsters today. The participants pay and volunteer their time to be polled. Questions specific to an electorate or general area, state or federal issues could be targeted to specific candidates in those categories. This would provide very detailed accurate data for analysis on the varied issues as well as voting intentions and trends for all houses of parliament.
Those are my ideas in brief. If any did want to know more as I have not explained it fully just shoot. Happy to chat. Just talk no novus psepho so I understand you, as I Am a poll layman. Hope you like the concept dear friends.
Re : points on demographics added to last post above
I realised I should put in my 2 cents on this as it is vital to further the use of demographics to make this work dear friends. This is not complete and I am no expert but I will offer some guidance based on my ideas. If it helps others fine, if not also fine. Hope it helps.
Since we are studying voters we look to those over 18 yo at the last election being studied and base the beginnings of the polling cycle as a microcosm of the actual macrocosm of the real vote at the last election being considered. Some brief points follow on suggested categories and blocs to create the voting demographics dear friends. Not sure what is already done though.
Age groups could be 18 to 24, 25-39, 40-54, 55+. I suggest obviously breaking it into male and female. Break it up by current vocation at time of actual vote. Suggested categories are : unemployed, student, retail worker, factory worker, manager, business owner, public servant, trades person, house wife / husband, self-employed, self-funded retiree, old age pensioner, office worker, and any other specific vocations where it is easily able to ascertain the numbers and create blocs of relevant significance. You can have sub categories for major vocation types too to get more specific.
As well based on the prior stats details of income brackets, home ownership, renting, amount of cash and assets in specific $ brackets need to be applied.
Education level if you like. Where born or ethnic origins if you want.
The prior real vote must reflect the total results at that election. Correct weighting is needed. You just have to get the most accurate vote data and sample you can. You just do your best and keep improving as much as you can ongoing. On the subject of the actual vote and voting intentions in the course of the polling during the election cycle it needs mentioning that people need to point out they did, and will ( if this is still the case or is at present ) vote informally. If you get no or few informal voters which may be likely then weight them into the fray on the basis of the last election result.
You need to get very specific demographic results. For instance with old age pensioners, male, age 55+ : you need to know the %’s of their votes for each party / ies or if they voted informally. If you don’t have a sufficient sample to mix in with the overall numbers then weighting will suffice to fix this. I expect there is not much data that can be used to get a starting point for the trad demographics but if there is this is great. If not, large internet surveys along with known data and a little insight and intuition from experts like psethologists will really help. It would be an art that needs perfecting and correcting ongoing.
Where I mention a specific bloc peculiar to one electorate or zone such as Ford Motor Company workers this can be specific to that specific electorate / area. The way to learn of such a situation peculiar to each electorate is some good general knowledge. But specific general surveys fishing for such potential significant blocs effecting the poll could be done via email surveys to the candidates being polled.
As to the length of time to do the poll I think you would need to check what works out there in the broad community for something like this, but maybe 5 mins to do would be good for an avge person. If couples or families of voters wish to participate they must be treated completely as individuals and apply individually and be polled individually.
Hope this helps dear friends. Just me ideas. Ask q’s if you want.
a few points further re demographics.
Thought I should just clarify these. I did not put an opt for marital status because marriage is largely universal and irrelevant in determining polls of this type. Whether your married or not does not influence your vote, other factors do. I left out religion as you must not talk about politics or religion, so why talk about both when even one is forbidden? It is irrelevant data here also. I did not mention income — irrelevant too. You can get stats elsewhere based on other data. Always best to insult others minimally with least intrusive curiosities. An option where applicable for some categories like total cash and assets or net assets could be ” N/A ” so people are not offended.
The Greens could lose a seat to Assange in Victoria should the ALP surplus and the Greens primary vote fall below 14% however the odds are in favour of the Greens winning in Victoria on the back of ALP preferences.
Wikileaks needs around 3-4%
In a surprised turn of events Family First is in the running to win seats in Victoria taking a seat from Liberal Party’s Helen Kroger
Wikileaks and Family First are well placed to take advantage of above the line group voting tickets
The Greens are desperate to try and discredit Wikileaks that they are going around pushing false statement and claims that a vote for Wikileaks is a vote for Tony Abbott, This is not the case as Wikileaks preferences will not be distributed. If anything they (or less likely the Greens) could become the wasted quota. The should have campaigned to remove the Droop quota but this gave them an extra Melbourne City Council seat in 2012. The Droop quota unfairly distorts the proportionally of the count.
In the Senate, in the states, no vote can be said to be not going to be distributed. Only 1st preferences of winning (on preferences) and runner-uping minor parties do not get distributed and there are so many incalculable variables that we do not know which ones, if any, they will be.
I agree with your previously stated (in a more long winded, complicated and repetitive way) view, that the Inclusive Gregory preference transfer system should be replaced with Weighted Inclusive Gregory. But abandoning the Droop Quota?
Droop distorts the proportionality of the vote and end up locking up whats referred to as the wasted Quota. There is no overidding justification for it. Instead of dividing the vote by seven and throwing away a slice we should be dividing the cake by six.
Droop aside we need to also remove the system of segmentation distribution. This is best done by introducing a reiterative count where the vote is reset and restarted on each exclusion. The ballot p-apers being redistributed as if the candidate excluded had not stood.
In the past a reiterative count was prohibitive under a manual counting system. With computer aided counting this is no longer an issue. Surpluses only are distributed on each iteration the number of iterations equals the number of candidates minus vacancies or until all positions filled.
The system of segmented distribution also distorts the proportionality of the vote., This cost the Greens a senate seat in QLD in 2007 (A good thing but better if it is accurate)
Parties should also be able to nominate different orders within their own group if they issue split ATL tickets
KAP+PUP should get around 4% which means a good chance of a small right party taking a senate seat. In this case FFP seems most likely but as always there are many factors such as LNP overflow. Greens should get a seat.
It would be surprising if Wikileaks got more then 2%.
“However, a 1 in 1000 scenario elects a Democrat. ”
That chance is much too high for comfort.
More like a one in a million. Most people who remember the Democrats are over 60
A Palmer/Katter vote estimated at a combined vote of 2-3% not 4%, would definitely give FFP a win against Liberals third Candidate Helen Kroger. She is most likely going to lose out in ten mic of it all.
The LNP/Krogerites may wish to start making representations and request that copies of the BTL preference data be provided to scrutineers to assist in monitoring the count. Likewise Family first, Wikileaks and the Greens
If the ALP falls to 27% to 29% and the Greens down to less than 10% then Assange is brought int play and the possibility of a constitutional challenge. I love a good constitutional challenge, It adds interest to what has otherwise been a rather boring campaign.
I expect Wikileaks could pick up 3% even 4% as prospects of an expanded US lead war in the Middle East begins to dominate the last week of the campaign. I would not right of Wikileaks just yet.
Victoria’s Senate Seat substantial preference flow
Group Name,Preference Flow
RISE UP AUSTRALIA PARTY , DLP , FFP , LPNP , DEM , ALP , WKP , ASXP , GRN
SENATOR ONLINE (INTERNET VOTING BILLS/ISSUES) , FFP , ASXP , WKP , DEM , DLP , GRN , ALP , LPNP
LIBERAL/THE NATIONALS , LPNP , FFP , DLP , ASXP , DEM , ALP , WKP , GRN
LIBERAL/THE NATIONALS , LPNP , DLP , FFP , ASXP , DEM , ALP , WKP , GRN
HELP END MARIJUANA PROHIBITION (HEMP) PARTY , DEM , ASXP , WKP , GRN , ALP , FFP , DLP , LPNP
HELP END MARIJUANA PROHIBITION (HEMP) PARTY , DEM , ASXP , WKP , ALP , GRN , FFP , DLP , LPNP
HELP END MARIJUANA PROHIBITION (HEMP) PARTY , DEM , ASXP , WKP , ALP , GRN , FFP , DLP , LPNP
FAMILY FIRST , FFP , DEM , DLP , WKP , LPNP , ALP , GRN , ASXP
COUNTRY ALLIANCE , ASXP , DLP , LPNP , ALP , FFP , DEM , WKP , GRN
SECULAR PARTY OF AUSTRALIA , DEM , ASXP , WKP , GRN , ALP , LPNP , DLP , FFP
NO CARBON TAX CLIMATE SCEPTICS , DLP , FFP , ASXP , WKP , DEM , ALP , LPNP , GRN
BANK REFORM PARTY , FFP , ASXP , DEM , WKP , DLP , ALP , LPNP , GRN
STABLE POPULATION PARTY , DEM , FFP , ASXP , WKP , GRN , ALP , LPNP , DLP
STABLE POPULATION PARTY , DEM , FFP , ASXP , WKP , ALP , LPNP , GRN , DLP
STABLE POPULATION PARTY , DEM , FFP , ASXP , WKP , LPNP , GRN , ALP , DLP
AUSTRALIAN FISHING AND LIFESTYLE PARTY , FFP , ASXP , DLP , DEM , LPNP , ALP , WKP , GRN
SHOOTERS AND FISHERS , FFP , ASXP , DLP , DEM , LPNP , ALP , WKP , GRN
BUILDING AUSTRALIA PARTY , DEM , FFP , WKP , ASXP , DLP , LPNP , ALP , GRN
AUSTRALIAN VOICE PARTY , ASXP , WKP , FFP , DEM , DLP , LPNP , ALP , GRN
AUSTRALIAN INDEPENDENTS , DEM , FFP , DLP , ASXP , WKP , GRN , LPNP , ALP
THE GREENS , GRN , WKP , ASXP , DEM , ALP , FFP , LPNP , DLP
, WKP , GRN , ALP , DEM , ASXP , LPNP , DLP , FFP
STOP CSG , DEM , ASXP , FFP , WKP , GRN , ALP , LPNP , DLP
KATTER’S AUSTRALIAN PARTY , DLP , FFP , WKP , LPNP , ALP , DEM , GRN , ASXP
PALMER UNITED PARTY , FFP , DEM , GRN , LPNP , WKP , ASXP , ALP , DLP
ANIMAL JUSTICE PARTY , DEM , WKP , ASXP , FFP , DLP , GRN , ALP , LPNP
AUSTRALIAN MOTORING ENTHUSIAST PARTY , FFP , ASXP , DEM , WKP , DLP , LPNP , ALP , GRN
AUSTRALIAN MOTORING ENTHUSIAST PARTY , FFP , ASXP , DEM , WKP , DLP , ALP , LPNP , GRN
THE WIKILEAKS PARTY , WKP , ASXP , DEM , GRN , ALP , LPNP , FFP , DLP
AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS , DEM , ASXP , FFP , WKP , GRN , ALP , LPNP , DLP
AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS , DEM , ASXP , FFP , WKP , GRN , LPNP , ALP , DLP
SEX PARTY , ASXP , WKP , DEM , ALP , GRN , LPNP , DLP , FFP
AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY , ALP , GRN , ASXP , DEM , WKP , DLP , FFP , LPNP
DRUG LAW REFORM , DEM , ASXP , WKP , GRN , ALP , LPNP , FFP , DLP
DRUG LAW REFORM , DEM , ASXP , WKP , GRN , LPNP , ALP , FFP , DLP
BULLET TRAIN FOR AUSTRALIA , DEM , ASXP , FFP , DLP , WKP , ALP , GRN , LPNP
AUSTRALIAN CHRISTIANS , FFP , DLP , LPNP , ALP , DEM , WKP , GRN , ASXP
CITIZENS ELECTORAL COUNCIL , FFP , DLP , WKP , DEM , ALP , LPNP , GRN , ASXP
CITIZENS ELECTORAL COUNCIL , FFP , DLP , WKP , LPNP , DEM , ALP , GRN , ASXP
, DLP , WKP , GRN , DEM , ALP , ASXP , LPNP , FFP
SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY , LPNP , FFP , GRN , WKP , DEM , ASXP , ALP , DLP
SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY , ALP , DLP , LPNP , FFP , GRN , WKP , DEM , ASXP
SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY , GRN , WKP , DEM , ASXP , ALP , DLP , LPNP , FFP
PIRATE PARTY , DEM , WKP , GRN , ASXP , DLP , ALP , LPNP , FFP
DLP DEMOCRATIC LABOUR , DLP , FFP , LPNP , ALP , DEM , WKP , ASXP , GRN
POLL BLUDGER: HIGGINS is my electorate
I have to ask you a dumb question-please.
I’ve sorted out my Senate prefs down to the twelfth remove. And I realise that there is only 50% of the Senate up for election. Even so, the size of the ballot paper is much larger than 12. What do I do with all those empty boxes; go the donkey vote from 13 onwards?
I apologise for being dumb on this point. Although I have been to ‘Below the Line’ so I’m going on their info.
Hello truthseeker – did you notice your comment here was used by the Sydney Morning Herald?
“One industrious electoral addict writing on The Poll Bludger website as ‘the truth seeker’ recounted that he had carried out 1000 computer simulations of the possible result in Victoria, using slightly different preferences each time. In 53 per cent of them, Mr Fenn won the right’s final seat, in 45 per cent Senator Kroger won, and the other 2 per cent went to a range of small parties.”
YES! I almost fell off my chair when I read it a couple of hours ago. I am glad I got some publicity for this excellent blog and the forum that Will has created.
I think the journalist has done a great job of distilling my statistical mumbo-jumbo into something readable for regular punters. To be precise, my spreadsheet does not use slightly different preferences, it uses slightly different primaries – the preferences for each party as per the registered tickets remain the same.
I spoke with Tim earlier in the week. he left a few things out namely Wikileaks chances of winning in WA and in Victoria (Less likely)
You really must take into consideration th3 distortion in
SCRUTINY OF THE COMPUERSIED COUNT
Why is the AEC refusing to make available progressively copies of the BTL preference data-entry data-file to scrutineers?
Without access to this data it is impossible to scrutinise the data-entry computer count.
There is no reason or justifcation why this data is not published progressively as the Senate count progresses.
Not providing a copy of this data is akin to shopping in a supermarket and not provided with a receipt and a running total as your goods are being scanned.
It is fundamental that the conduct of computerised election counts are open and transparent.
To deny access to this data brings the AEC and the election itself into disrepute. There is no legal or technical reason why this data can not be published and updated on a regular basis.
Instead of undertaking a more thorough analysis here,
I have provided this additional information elsewhere. I encourage those with an interest in senate prediction to read my new blog, and I’ll be happy to engage in conversation about my methods, calculations and estimates.
@Kevin Bonham – the greens ARE a small chance of winning a seat – the sum of their probabilities is 22%! And this is assuming their primary vote is approx 0.5% nationwide
This is my regular “above the line” guide for voting in the senate. It shows you where your vote is likely to end up if you vote above the line, based on a limited set of candidates who have a chance of winning.
Thanks to truth seeker for the info on which parties are in with a chance (and please contact to me to discuss some ideas I have). Thanks also to the AEC for issuing the tickets in csv form.
Whoops typo above. Realised that I meant to say
“… the DEMS ARE a small chance…””
Truth Seeker, thanks for your work regarding the Democrats’ chances. However İ personally wouldn’t really call a 22% chance a ‘small chance’.
Other commentators and bloggers had been guessing ‘one chance in a thousand’ or no chance at all.
The Democrats will poll more than 0.5 per cent that you’ve based your figures on.
Disenchantment with The Greens (the ill-fated pact with Labor) and the ALP (refugees and Gillard’s treatment), concern about social policy under Abbott-The Nationals, impressive centre İndependents such as Wilkie, a better campaign and some media coverage.
I agree with TheSpeaker
KAP+PUP should get around 4% which means a good chance of a small right party taking a senate seat. In this case FFP seems most likely but as always there are many factors such as LNP overflow. Greens should get a seat.
Wikileaks has far better chances than the DEM. DEM will poll less than 0.8%
Wikileaks will come from the Greens. If the ALP vote drops close to Quota and the Greens fall below 9% Wiki at 3% then the Greens become the wasted quota.
It’s all about the order of exclusion and who ends up stuck in the Wasted Droop Zone.
If Wikileaks can man the booths their vote will go up and if they peg back the greens and secure 3% they can be elected. They have better chances in WA than in Victoria.
Sex Party could provide interesting. I have them at 3.5% sex sells
Most of the Green vote is not bonded to the Greens, I recall a poll that said 40% of their support was primarily due to a choice of a bad lot not policy or quality of candidates, this 40% could just as easy support another minor party.
The Greens no longer enjoy minor party status. This is evidence by the fact that all other minor parties have placed them lower.
The large field of candidates and groups will work in the majors favour and also benefit those that are well known, Branding begins to cut in and Wikileaks is a brand that is well known.
Stephen Mayne in Melbourne Municipal was elected on a brand recognition. He had no support base or local input. the Greens in Melbourne Municipal polled 14% yet elected two councillors, due to the Droop quota system. Had Droop not been employed Doyle’s 8% surplus that was locked up in teh wasted quota would have elected a community based candidate.
It is for this reason I believe you are best to talk percentage allocation not likelihood of success and then apply that allocation to the ABC Senate calculator to determine Max and Min thresholds required to survive the count. then You could summarize the likelihood of that group reaching the required threshold.
the obnly group that can outpoll teh Greens is wikileaks. If they do not get 3% then the Greens are elected.
The LNP run the risk of losing their third seat to Family First.
So yes I agree with the Speaker..
Based on updated BludgerTrack data, I have revised my forecast. Instead of repeating myself, feel free to check my numbers at my blog.
Basically, revised data is giving FF more chance of election.
Thanks I agree FF has a good chance of winning a seat of Helen Kroger. I can not see the Greens losing in Victoria as I think that Wikileaks campaign has not been on the ground and the media and the Greens have done a good nobbling Assange and Wikileaks. Come Saturday night/Sunday we will see what is what. With large number of groups/candidates we could see consolidation with the three main parties.
Update; Last week of the campaign has seen, as expected a consolidation of the vote supporting major parties.
Wikileaks was in a good position but failed to woe voters away from the Greens. Liberal Party has consolidated its vote Clive Palmer coming in fourth with 4-6%
no change. LNP 3 seats, ALP 2 Seats and the Greens