The first two Senate results were determined today, for Tasmania and the Northern Territory. No further results will be decided until at least next week, with the possibility of some having to wait until a week subsequently. This post will review the results as they emerge.
Western Australia (October 2)
The one we’ve all been waiting for: it’s Louise Pratt and PUP, rather than Scott Ludlam and Sports, possibly pending an unprecedented Senate recount. 1. David Johnston (Liberal); 2. Joe Bullock (Labor); 3. Michaelia Cash (Liberal); 4. Linda Reynolds (Liberal); 5. Zhenya Wang (PUP); 6. Louise Pratt (Labor).
The result was decided by a difference of just 14 votes, that being the margin at the key point of the count between Shooters & Fishers (23,515) and Australian Christians (23,501). Going on the ABC computer projection, the margin at that point in the count was 23,395 for Shooters & Fishers against 22,967 for Australian Christians. So below-the-line votes cost van Burgel 534 vote and Bow 120 – not quite enough to make the difference. Had Shooters & Fishers dropped out, their preferences would have gone to the Australian Sports Party, sustaining them at a point in the count where they would otherwise have been excluded. There would then have come a later point in the count where the Palmer United Party would have been excluded on account of being behind the Sports Party, and their preferences would have flowed to the Greens giving Ludlam the seat at the expense of Pratt.
New South Wales (October 2)
As anticipated, 1. Marise Payne (Liberal), 2. Bob Carr (Labor), 3. John Williams (Nationals), 4. Doug Cameron (Labor), 5. David Leyonhjelm (LDP); 6. Arthur Sinodinos (Liberal).
Queensland (October 2)
No surprises here either, except that it’s come sooner than anticipated. 1. Ian Macdonald (LNP), 2. Chris Ketter (Labor), 3. James McGrath (LNP), 4. Claire Moore (Labor), 5. Glenn Lazarus (PUP) & 6. Matt Canavan (LNP).
Victoria (October 1)
1. Mitch Fifield (Liberal), 2. Gavin Marshall (Labor), 3. Scott Ryan (Liberal), 4. Jacinta Collins (Labor), 5. Janet Rice (Greens); 6. Ricky Muir (Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party).
Also confirmed today, and also in line with what all models were projecting.
South Australia (October 1)
1. Cory Bernardi (Liberal); 2. Nick Xenophon; 3. Penny Wong (Labor); 4. Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens); 5. Bob Day (Family First); 6. Simon Birmingham (Liberal).
Confirmed today, with no surprises. More to follow.
Australian Capital Territory (October 1)
1. Kate Lundy (Labor); 2. Zed Seselja (Liberal).
Confirmed this morning. No surprises here.
Tasmania
1. Richard Colbeck (Liberal); 2. Carol Brown (Labor); 3. David Bushby (Liberal); 4. Catryna Bilyk (Labor); 5. Peter Whish-Wilson (Greens); 6. Jacqui Lambie (Palmer United).
Liberal and Labor both scored a clean two quotas off the primary vote (2.63 and 2.30 respectively), with Labor’s surplus enough to ensure election for Peter Whish-Wilson (0.82) after the exclusion of the third Labor candidate, Lin Thorp. The race for the final seat ended up a three-way contest between the ultimately successful Jacqui Lambie of the Palmer United Party, third Liberal candidate Sally Chandler, and Robbie Swan of the Sex Party. The ABC calculator had been giving it to Swan because a strong performance on preferences, including from some unlikely sources, would have helped him stay ahead of Lin Thorp by 15,145 to 14,449 at a key point of the count. However, many of those preferences were perversely to come from conservative parties (Shooters and Fishers, Country Alliance, Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party) whose supporters were not of a mind to direct preferences to the Sex Party consciously (UPDATE: Kevin Bonham in comments points out the Sex Party in fact got more below-the-line preferences than Labor from Shooters and Fishers voters – however, on the ABC calculator projection they were getting all of them). That caused 653 below-the-line votes for those parties to leak away, while below-the-line votes gave Thorp a net gain of 287. The closure of the gap meant the exclusion of Swan, followed by the exclusion of Thorp and the election of Whish-Wilson. At this stage, Jacqui Lambie emerged with a 31,142-29,866 vote lead over the Liberal Democrats, whose exclusion unlocked the flood of preferences which elected her. Had Lambie failed to stay ahead of the Liberal Democrats, her own preferences would have decided the result in favour of Chandler.
Northern Territory
1. Nigel Scullion (Country Liberal); 2. Nova Peris (Labor).
Labor finished just short of a quota with 0.9824, but would presumably have got over the line on below-the-line preferences on any scenario. Even if it were otherwise, the combinations that might have put Nova Peris in jeopardy were not in place. The one party with the potential to absorb the entire non-Labor vote was First Nations, but the combined vote for it and its immediate preference feeders amounted to only 2.18%, giving its candidate no chance of overtaking Australian Independents or Shooters and Fishers as required to keep the snowball rolling. Peris made it to a quota when Sex Party preferences were distributed, and stood to receive the 8.7% Greens vote if the count had proceeded further.
Western Australian Senate Count
Based on the ABC Senate Calculator results
Liberal Party Group Voting ticket increase in Value
Count 4 Liberal party Group Ticket surplus
Count 27 Liberal party Group Ticket increases in value absorbing value of votes from minor parties
Count 28 Transferred to the ALP
The National Party vote when distributed as part of the Liberal Surplus
Count 27: Linda REYNOLDS (Liberal) elected #4
Is then filtered through Palmer United and transferred at a higher value
Count 29: Zhenya WANG (Palmer United Party) elected #5
Who said the Senate system was one vote one value?
This is the Senate method of calculating the Surplus Transfer value at work
The system of segmentation is just as bad but harder to identify
democracy@work keeps talking about “one vote, one value” in the context of his complaints about the Senate voting system. The term “one vote, one value” historically was a call for the elimination of malapportionment, for electorates to be of the same size. So the Senate clearly doesn’t provide one vote one value, because all original States have the same number of senators, regardless of population. But God only knows what the term is supposed to mean when applied to a discussion of transfer values.
pedant@52
One of the issues is that in the current system (Inclusive Gregory) a person’s vote can become worth more, or less, than one vote. This happens because when a vote is distributed as part of a surplus, a part of its value remains with the elected candidate forever, while the other part carries on. In systems like Hare-Clark, a vote is always worth one vote total, though it may be that in practice .7 of it is always with one candidate, .2 of it with another, .1 of it moving from candidate to candidate and so on. It’s still worth a vote.
But in Inclusive Gregory it’s possible, for instance, that .8 of a vote is left with an elected candidate, but the remainder of the vote that is being passed on to other candidates becomes worth .3 or .05 instead of .2. So although it’s different to the application of one vote one value to district size reform, a similar principle is involved: one voter’s vote should not be worth more in determining an outcome than another’s.
The ABC Calculator is misleading in it shows the label “Votes” when in fact it should read the total vote under consideration it also shows the number of ballot papers. when the AEC calculates the transfer value it takes the total value of votes allocated to the elected candidate and then subtracts the quota the remaining value is the surplus.
The distortion occurs when they divided the surplus by the number of ballot papers. In the examples above the a large number of ballot papers were received by the candidate whose surplus is being distributed had a fraction of a value when received but when transferred out it is transferred at the same value as votes/Papers that were received with a full value.
If you calculate the Surplus / Total votes ratio and then multiple the ratio by the value of each vote being redistributed you maintain a one vote one value. as I tried to highlight above the Liberal party and National Party group ticket vote increases in value as the count progresses.
In the case of the National party this represents an increase value equivalent to 609 votes. A value that can and does make a difference., The Liberal Party ticket vote increase in value is even higher as there are 512,115 ballot papers. It all adds up.. and in a close election it makes the difference.
In Victoria 2007 ALP David Feeney came close to losing his seat because of this distortion in value which added up to over 70,000 votes
So yes it is a serious issue and flaw in the flawa the vote is counted.
Segmentation also distorts the value of the vote and the outcome of the election
Try counting the Queensland 2007 Ballot excluding all candidates except the last seven standing (3 ALP, 3LNP and 1 Grn) This simulates a reiterative exclusion count. Count the vote again distributing the votes as if the excluded candidates had not stood and you will see the extent and impact of the distortion arising form segmentation distribution.
Two wrongs trying to make a right. Both Segmentation and the non-weighted surplus needs to be removed.
Kevin Bonham @ 53: Thanks, that’s an interesting perspective. I hope you won’t think I’m being flippant when I say your analogy reminds me of the Goon Show episode “The Lost Gold Mine of Charlotte”, where the map showing the location of the hidden treasure is slowly but surely distributed among the characters in ever smaller pieces: “So that listeners are not confused by the number of map portions now in existence, here’s an exact tally of the present distribution: Captain Hercules Grytpype-Thynne – one half; Major Bloodnok – one quarter less one eight given to Count Moriarty; Neddie Seagoon – one quarter less one eighth given to Moriarty; Moriarty – one quarter. Henry Crun – nil.”
Since it would appear that in the eyes of some, every STV system ever used in Australia has been wrong (or at any rate not Wright) in one way or another, maybe we would be better off ditching the current Senate system entirely, and replacing it with approval voting, which would (probably) be semi-proportional, easy for the voters, dead easy to count, and able to be comprehended by people who aren’t necessarily specialists in electoral systems.
Just tell us who is going to win, please.
Psephos @ 56: There are no winners in any of this, only losers.
Is anyone doing any work on what exactly is happening in the Federal Greens? http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/milne-survives-push-to-axe-her-as-greens-leader-20130926-2uh2c.html
Was Ben Oquist the Simon Crean figure who had to walk the plank for an failed coup attempt?
The Greens vote is a clear indication of their decline. contrary to their claims they do not hold the balance of power. They do not hold the balance of power. In opposition the Greens will be marginaised and become more and more irrelevant.
I find it amusing that the Greens “leaders” stand up and claim that they have been re-elected unopposed as if this is an endorsement of their policies and leadership.
The voters clearly did not endorse them. It’s not as if the Greens had many members to nominate as leader. Now that Luddy looks like losing his seat their is no real talent in the Greens that hold office.
It has been reported on many occasions that the Greens, like its feeder party the Democrats. were a catch glove for those who did not want to vote or either of the major parties. A case of a better pick of a bad lot.
This election there were a number of alternative parties for the disillusion to support and many now saw the Greens as part of the problem not the solution. The fact that all the micro parties preferenced them at the bottom of the list is telling.
In all seats the Greens relied on the ALP surpluses to be elected to the Senate.
I expect the Green vote will decline even more and the media will have to rethink the level of exposure they give the Greens.
If there was a double dissolution the Greens would lose seats in Tasmania and in Victoria.
The amount of money they will receive in public funding will be significantly less then before. I would not be surprised if they are declared bankrupt. A close look at their finances and electoral returns would be telling.
The media have yet to place the spot light on the Greens internal management and decision making process. Their conferences are removed from media/public scrutiny. There are obvious disagreements in the directions the Greens are taking.
Within a short period of time we will see the Greens compost and return to the soil they came from.
The gap between Pratt and Ludlam as shown by the calculator at the final count continues to narrow. It is now under 3000, down from about 8000 at the start of the week. If there are another two days of counting, at this rate the calculator will show it as line ball.
So Ludlam’s chances are firming considerably. He has multiple paths to victory. If one of the lower contest flips, Dropulich is elected and PUP excluded then he wins easily. But if PUP is elected, he still has a good chance of overtaking Pratt and getting the last seat anyway.
53
If someone looses a seat because of some votes increasing and others decreasing, because of Inclusive Gregory, they could try challenging Inclusive Gregory on the Grounds that the Constitution says that “in the choosing of senators each elector shall vote only once”.
While this is mainly for preventing people being eligible to vote in more than one state or more than once in a state, it could be interpreted as requiring all the votes to be equal in value.
If I understand Kevin’s latest update correctly, SHY has romped home in SA with a big surplus, yet before the election she was thought to be in a lot of trouble and unlikely to hold her seat. The forecasts went very awry somewhere.
triton@62 No less a figure than Antony Green commented before the election re SHY that “I cannot see any way in which she can win”.
It just shows how hard it is to predict what is going to happen in the Senate
WA
The close tie in WA is between PUP and Liberal Demo0cracts.
Even if you weight the Surplus Transfer the result is still the same right. The gap has been widening not narrowing.
If you could challenge type result on the basis of the way they count the vote then you could also challenge it on the issue of segmentation.
WA
TICKET VOTES 1247079
Unapproportioned 12045
BTL 45726
Total Formal 1304850
BTL locked in
ALP: 7582
LNP: 5757
GRN: 13119
Which Groups BTL do you think will want to put the Greens ahead of the ALP that has not already placed the Greens in front? That will bridge th3 3000 vote gap?
I think everyone through that the Greens would not get a seat. The greens as expected did not even get 1/2 a quota.
The reason that SHY got elected was thanks to Xenophon (the irony). Most people did not expect the ALP to end up on 1.58 quota either. Everyone through that the ALP would be at 2 quota or just under 2 quota, so that eventually when the Greens are excluded, they will help elect the 2nd ALP senator.
Luckyly for SHY, Xenophon took so much votes from the ALP that they end up with just 1 quota, and end up getting eliminated, the 2nd Left seat was expected to go to the ALP, but instead it went to the Greens
Triton: SHY was elected on the back of ALP preferences. I would not say she romped it home.
It would be much easier to follow the Senate count if the AEC maintained an open and transparent system and published the Below-the-line preference data file,
The AEC’s refusal to provide scrutineers progressive copies of the BTL data files seriously diminishes the integrity of the count.
If this data was available, as is the case with the House of representatives than Anthony Greens Calulactor would be accurate.
BUT the AEC does not want scrutineers or the public to know the results. (The data file could be tweeked for all anyone knows) A few preferences changed here and there, A missing bundle of votes substituted,
I am not say this is the case BUT given their refusal to provide copies and as this is the weakest link in the system you have to ask why are they refusing to publish the data as it is being recorded?
The data is published but three months after the election.
The closes point now is between PUP and Liberal Democracts. And the unknown distribution of Bob Farmer (ON)’s primaries which are not included in the ABC calculations
dovif, thanks for the explanation. I can’t tell what happened from the impenetrable AEC data on their website.
democracy@work, Kevin has got SHY on 1.4464 quotas. Yes, that includes a lot of preferences, but we have a preferential system so in the end she romped home.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/sa/
At the key point in the count 28 and 31, the vote of the PUP and No-Carbon Tax skeptics went to the Greens, thus moving the Greens in front of the ALP, thus allowing the Greens to leapfrog the ALP for the 2nd left seat on ALP preferences
The ALP and Green’s prefereences then elect BoB Day of FF and indirectly the 2nd Liberal candidate
Yes but it would be more reflective it it did not have the Droop quota and included a weighted surplus and reiterative (No segmentation) distribution.
If the ALP did not preference the Greens and instead preferenced Xen. Then SHY would not be elected.
I give Christine Milne until July at which time she will be replaced. She must be pushing what 70…
Topic of Discussion
Should Australia implement an Australia Card?
This is one of those things that the Democracts when they held the balance o9f power opposed. Had an Australia Card been introduced we could have regulated and controlled its use.
As it stands we have less control and less privacy then if we had of adopted the Australia Card.
We already have a Medicare Card, A tax file number, a Helthcare Card, A passport and a host of other ID systems including our mobile phone, email address etc.
Now is the time to rethink the idea.
Anyone know why the ALP preferenced the Liberal Party before Xenophon’s running mate Stirling Griff in South Australia?
Very unusual and from what I can see the Liberals won due to this decision.
The ALP preferenced the Greens Which elected SHY. Big Mistake.
d@w
[I give Christine Milne until July at which time she will be replaced. She must be pushing what 70… ]
She got high praise from some Bludgers, including me, during the campaign for putting the case against Tony Abbott much better than the Labor Party did. She is far and away the Greens’ best debater and most capable parliamentarian (listen to her questions and follow-up questions in the committee stages of bills in the Senate). If you ignore show biz factors she is their obvious leader, but it’s sadly possible that the inferior Adam Bandt is more attractive to the electorate for superficial reasons. How Milne’s star has fallen in a matter of weeks for no good reason.
pedant@55
The thing is that is actually what happens – bits of a person’s vote are credited in fractions to different people. For manual distributions the ballot paper itself rests with only one candidate at any one time, but for computer distributions the ballot paper becomes an electronic concept.
Now take your analogy, and imagine what would happen if the pieces of the map kept changing in size, so that you think Moriarty has a quarter, then he has a third, then he has a sixth, and what you thought was a map isn’t just a map in pieces but is actually 1.3 maps in pieces or 0.7 maps in pieces. That’s what can happen in the Senate.
I don’t think we need to take d@W’s enthusiasm for issues that are well down the priority list as any indicator of anything. d@W’s views are perfectionist, when they’re not just plain arbitrary (eg Hare quota), and there’s a saying that the perfect is the enemy of the good. What we have is a very bad system. The most important thing is to make it into a good one.
How would “approval voting” work?
The Greens are irrelevant. In opposition they will be marginalized reduced to a mossy buzzing around in a hot summer night. They are a legend in their own coffee chop meetings. Come July, if there is not a double Dissolution the new members take office and the “leadership” will be once again on the table. There is no talent in the Greens, SHY is the worst, Larisa Waters has no idea. And the Victorian Senators are absent form any debate. The ALP will court them when they wish to block some legislation. The Greens are no friends to the ALP, if anything they are a liability. They will not grow beyond 8%., They overspent on the election expecting public funding to pay the bills. They have fallen short of expected income. Won seats in three states only. Game over.
triton@62
Truth Seeker thought SHY was reasonably likely to hold before the day.
Senate forecasting before the day is difficult (and hard enough after sometimes!). So many unknowns. I didn’t get around to revising mine in the final day but probably wouldn’t have projected PUP high enough to give them more than an outside chance anyway.
I think the problem with SA is that people did not generally think the Nick X vote would be so high as to prevent his preferences being distributed.
Reading DEM@Work I wonder if he is also Centre in disguise
_______________________
His attacks on the Greens and his wishful thinking re their early demise, which is disguised(very scantily) as analysis is growing very tedious
In fact the Greens like some overseas groups of the same stripe tend to be affected by poll movements to the right and left…and the effects of other minor parties on the overall vote,,as happened this election
The recent German elections are an intresting study in this regard
There the Social Dems are going to be in a wasteland until they can combine with the Left and The Greens…which seems unlikely for the present given their animostity to both the two minor left parties……..
but Dem@work allows his anomosity to the Greens to obscure things of value he might have to say
Why does a certain kind of right-wing ALP supporter seem so obsessed with their hatred of the Greens …without whose reliable prefs the ALP would have been reduced to a shell
The ALPs lack of support is I suspect a more relavant object of study post -2013 for us all
I speak as a former long-term ALP voter.(.and candidate)who along with many others I know, now votes Green on all occasions
Christine Milne is the Greens’ version of Janet Powell/John Coulter from the Australian. She’s not likeable. She always seems to have a mean scowling face. Bob Brown gave off a certain warmth even when being negative.
I meant Australian Democrats
Kevin Bonham @ 74: Under approval voting, the voter marks all of the candidates of whom he or she approves. That may be just one, or all but one. In a single vacancy election, whichever candidate receives the most such approvals wins. The system has been much examined in the literature, including in a book by Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn. There are various ways in which it can be extended to cover a multiple vacancy situation, some of which are discussed in a paper co-authored by Brams, at http://www2.eco.uva.es/presad/SSEAC/documents/Tilburg09-Brams-Kilgour.pdf.
Funny you say that ltep. On my blog:
http://originaltruthseeker.blogspot.com.au/
I have recently analysed the outcome that would occur if the 7/9/13 Senate results would be replicated in a Full Senate Double Dissolution election.
Obviously, it’s likely we’d have some electoral reform. Not quite sure we’d get the full monty that D@W espouses, but hopefully something resembling the NSW system would be nice!
SA – I was predicting a 65% chance of SHY getting elected. Not sure how others could think she was gone!
To post here, for posterity, I estimate the following outcomes under a full Senate election:
(first three in each state are ALP/LNP/GRN)
NSW: 4/5/1 + LDP + ONP
VIC: 4/5/2 + FF
QLD: 4/5/1 + PUP + AFLP
WA: 3/5/1 + PUP + SFP + HEMP
SA: 3/3/1 + 3 XEN + FF + No Carbon Tax
TAS: 4/5/1 + PUP + LDP
ACT: 1/1
NT: 1/1
Totals:
ALP: 24 (Change: -2 compared to 1/7/14 Senate)
LNP: 30 (-3)
GRN: 7 (-2)
PUP: 3 (0)
LDP: 2 (+1)
XEN: 3 (+2)
FF: 2 (+1)
ONP, SFP, NCT, AFLP, HEMP: 1 each (currently zero each)
DLP, AMEP: 0 each (currently one each)
WA
I can not see the Green bridging the gap. They would need to pull over 10% of the Group ALP preferred BTL vote. Its a big ask
Here is a distribution table based on today’s published data
It shows the Ticket vote and the BTL vote for each ticket and which Party the ticket favors.
AlphaCode Group Name GroupPref 1 2 3 4 5 Ticket BTL Unknown Gtoup Total ALP GRN
A Smokers Rights ALP LDP PUP LP ALP GRN 8069 599 16 8684 599
B Liberal Democrats ALP LDP PUP LP ALP GRN 44191 600 102 44893 600
C Australian Christians ALP PUP LP ALP LDP GRN 19608 1801 45 21454 1801
D Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party GRN LDP GRN ALP PUP LP 12658 1214 20 13892 1214
E Socialist Equality Party GRN GRN ALP LP LDP PUP 331 53 0 384 53
E Socialist Equality Party ALP ALP LP LDP PUP GRN 331 53 0 384 53
E Socialist Equality Party GRN LP LDP PUP GRN ALP 331 53 0 384 53
F Palmer United Party GRN PUP LDP GRN LP ALP 62604 2621 181 65406 2621
G Shooters and Fishers ALP LDP PUP LP ALP GRN 12565 1019 26 13610 1019
H Australian Voice Party ALP PUP LDP LP ALP GRN 1075 55 5 1135 55
I Sex Party GRN LDP GRN ALP LP PUP 17783 1660 53 19496 1660
J Secular Party of Australia GRN GRN LDP ALP LP PUP 995 482 3 1480 482
K Australian Independents GRN LDP PUP GRN LP ALP 3664 351 11 4026 351
L The Wikileaks Party GRN GRN LDP ALP LP PUP 8121 1624 22 9767 1624
M Katter’s Australian Party GRN PUP LP LDP GRN ALP 3487 396 7 3890 396
N Family First Party ALP LDP PUP LP ALP GRN 8270 472 26 8768 472
O No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics ALP LDP PUP LP ALP GRN 1397 90 5 1492 90
P Stable Population Party GRN PUP LDP GRN ALP LP 351 104 1 456 104
P Stable Population Party ALP PUP LDP ALP GRN LP 351 104 1 456 104
P Stable Population Party GRN PUP LDP LP GRN ALP 351 104 1 456 104
Q Stop The Greens ALP LDP PUP LP ALP GRN 2094 139 3 2236 139
R Australian Democrats GRN LDP GRN PUP ALP LP 1625 287 4 1916 287
R Australian Democrats GRN LDP GRN PUP LP ALP 1625 287 4 1916 287
S The Greens (WA) GRN GRN ALP PUP LP LDP 109734 14255 193 124182 14255
T Animal Justice Party GRN GRN PUP LDP ALP LP 8942 710 29 9681 710
U The Nationals ALP LP LDP PUP ALP GRN 61755 4339 77 66171 4339
V Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party ALP LDP PUP LP ALP GRN 5498 211 14 5723 211
W Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party ALP LDP PUP ALP LP GRN 3645 205 11 3861 205
W Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party ALP LDP PUP LP ALP GRN 3645 205 11 3861 205
X Australian Sports Party GRN PUP LDP LP GRN ALP 2852 127 8 2987 127
Y Rise Up Australia Party ALP LP PUP ALP LDP GRN 3436 382 18 3836 382
Z Australian Labor Party ALP ALP GRN PUP LDP LP 339148 8183 992 348323
AA Liberal ALP LP PUP LDP ALP GRN 507353 6206 1063 514622 6206
16480 24328
WA
Double Dissolution (12)
Based on ticket vote distribution (And same canidates running)
Elected ID Candidate Group
1 56 JOHNSTON Liberal
2 52 BULLOCK Australian Labor Party
3 37 LUDLAM The Greens (WA)
4 57 CASH Liberal
5 53 PRATT Australian Labor Party
6 58 REYNOLDS Liberal
7 54 FOSTER Australian Labor Party
8 59 BROCKMAN Liberal
9 60 THOMAS Liberal
10 13 BOW Shooters and Fishers
11 11 WANG Palmer United Party
12 7 BALDERSTONE Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party
SA
Double Dissolution (12)
Based on ticket vote distribution (And same candidates running)
Elected ID Candidate Group
1 68 BERNARDI, Cory Liberal
2 14 XENOPHON, Nick Nick Xenophon Group
3 57 WONG, Penny Australian Labor Party
4 69 BIRMINGHAM, Simon Liberal
5 15 GRIFF, Stirling Nick Xenophon Group
6 58 FARRELL, Don Australian Labor Party
7 70 WEBB, Cathie Liberal
8 59 PISONI, Simon Australian Labor Party
9 32 HANSON-YOUNG, Sarah Australian Greens
10 16 STACEY, James National Party
11 3 DAY, Bob Family First
12 37 ASHBY, Leon No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics
TAS
Double Dissolution (12)
Based on ticket vote distribution (And same candidates running)
Elected ID Candidate Group
1 11 Liberal Liberal
2 5 Australian Labor Party Australian Labor Party
3 23 Australian Greens Australian Greens
4 12 Liberal Liberal
5 6 Australian Labor Party Australian Labor Party
6 13 Liberal Liberal
7 7 Australian Labor Party Australian Labor Party
8 14 Liberal Liberal
9 8 Australian Labor Party Australian Labor Party
10 48 Family First Family First
11 15 Palmer United Party Palmer United Party
12 24 Australian Greens Australian Greens
Sorry left out the Candidates names in the TAS DD
VIC
Double Dissolution (12)
Based on ticket vote distribution (And same candidates running)
Elected ID Candidate Group
1 9 FIFIELD, Mitch Liberal
2 71 MARSHALL, Gavin Australian Labor Party
3 39 RICE, Janet The Greens
4 10 RYAN, Scott Liberal
5 72 COLLINS, Jacinta Australian Labor Party
6 11 KROGER, Helen Liberal
7 73 TILLEM, Mehmet Australian Labor Party
8 12 CORBOY, Martin Louis Liberal
9 74 PSAILA, Lynn Australian Labor Party
10 15 FENN, Ashley Family First
11 94 FARRELL, Mark DLP Democratic Labour
12 40 McCARTHY, Trent Mark The Greens
D@W: Can you please provide the link to your blog?
democracy@work 75
Maybe The Greens disappearing into obscurity is what you wish for, but just because they lost the vote they’d gained at the preceeding election, doesn’t mean that the reasons they’ve been around for more than 20 years have gone away. They may be irrelevant to you, but they are relevant for the the thousans of members and hundreds of thousands of voters. Hard to imagine them disappearing inan Australian Democrats blaze of irrelevancy.
QLD
Double Dissolution (12)
Based on ticket vote distribution (And same candidates running)
Elected ID Candidate Group
1 3 MACDONALD, Ian Liberal National Party of Queensland
2 17 KETTER, Chris Australian Labor Party
3 74 LAZARUS, Glenn Patrick Palmer United Party
4 4 McGRATH, James Liberal National Party of Queensland
5 18 MOORE, Claire Australian Labor Party
6 5 CANAVAN, Matthew Liberal National Party of Queensland
7 19 FURNER, Mark Lionel Australian Labor Party
8 6 GOODWIN, David Liberal National Party of Queensland
9 7 CRAIG, Theresa Liberal National Party of Queensland
10 11 PETERSEN, Patricia Australian Independents
11 72 McCARTHY, Daniel Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party
12 39 STONE, Adam The Greens
Th Greens have not been around for 20 years unless you counting the Time they were known as the Nuclear Disarmament Party
The First Green elected to public office was in 1999 David Risstrom if I recall
D@W
The modern Green party was formed in 1992 so it has been around for 20 years. It’s earliest clear predecessor party was the United Tasmania Group which ran in the 1972 Tasmanian elections (and, Kevin Bonham can correct me if I am wrong, almost won a seat on the back of the Lake Pedder dam issue). So it’s really about 40 years old by at least one reckoning.
WA
If you weight the above distribution table for WA @ post 83
Then the value of the Notional ALP BTL is 2992 Ludlum would need over 90 of the BTL vote that is not already attributed to him.
In short I do not think Ludlum can be elected unless there is a change in order of exclusions
The only change I see taking place is a possibility of Liberal Democrats being elected ahead of Palmer United Party.
I think we can say safely that the Greens lose out in WA
So Xenophon would be a big winner in a DD election. I hope he keeps that in mind when weighing up whether to block the repeal of the carbon price.
And the same goes for the LDP and FF coming in on 1/7/2014. They have a vested interest in daring Abbott to call a DD.
There is
not enough value in the BTL votes to allow for the Greens to be elected.
The Greens would have to poll over 50% of the notional ALP BTL
preference allocations Most of which have past through the the Liberal
Party and are at a lower value
This is a seat where the potential for for a different outcome could
have been influenced by system of Surplus Transfer Value calculation and
the Segmentation distribution of excluded candidates.
I preferred method of counting the vote would be to use weighted
transfer calculation and implement a reiterative distribution count,
where the vote is reset and restarted on each exclusion. One singe
transaction, surplus distributions only per iteration.
I expect the out come to be
Liberals 3
ALP 2
and either Palmer United or Liberal Democrats
If the AEC provided scrutineers copies of the BTL preference data
filea we would know exactly the outcome. the fact that the AEC has not
subjected copies of the BTL preference files to independent scrutiny has
and continues to bring the election into disrepute.
Posted by:
democracyATwork | September 28, 2013 at 08:32 AM
I think that people should try and stick to their areas of expertise.
People who clearly don’t anything about The Greens shouldn’t attempt to educate others about The Greens.
On the other hand, experts on shrinking cakes and how results would be different if the rules were different can go ahead and continue to educate us all about shrinking cakes and how the results would be different if the rules were different.
Truth Seeker 81:
I didn’t comment on your blog at the time of your SA Senate forecast, but I remember thinking that you had the Liberal Party vote much too low. I figured that relative to 2007, XEN (1 quota) and GRN (0.5 quotas) would stay about the same, and there’d be a swing from ALP to LIB, leaving them on just over 2 and a bit under 3 quotas respectively. So LIB 3 ALP 2 XEN 1 looked most likely to me.
As wildly wrong predictions go, I still think it was a pretty reasonable thought process! I’ll be paying your forecasts more attention next time though….
Thanks David! My analysis this time was somewhat speculative, but I think the methodology passed reasonable sanity tests. My model foreshadowed Senate Chaos, but the limitation was that no-one accurately predicted the vote of the minor parties. If there is a next time, I’ll spend a lot more time running regressions to forecast all parties’ vote. But hopefully there is no next time as I’d love to see genuine Senate reform in the interim. There are always a number of state houses that use proportional representation which will be interesting to model. Also, next time I plan on applying statistical techniques to the lower house, but not exactly sure yet…
@SgtThursday When I started posting lengthy predictions here, I made the decision to get my own blog. If I am providing significant content which requires significant explanation, I think it fair that I do it in my own location, although I’ll provide pointers to my blog when the content is related and relevant. This ensures this board can be used for quick discussions, questions and collaborations without being overrun by masses of data dumped in an unfriendly user format.
I get concerned when people have vested interests and long standing views (eg Greens won’t win anything and are gone) that leads to their judgement being clouded. I like my numerical analysis “vanilla”, without bugbears and without trying to influence people’s voting patterns. Credibility is the first victim of bias. Sure I voted for someone, but I’m not a member of any party and I hope that my personal views on policies have not clouded my judgement.
I would prefer leave policy to the policy experts, dog whistling to the dog whistlers and cake to the cake experts (and the Tas Senate race to the #1 Tas Senate expert!). My contribution is applying financial and statistical techniques to electoral matters, which I plan on continuing even once the Senate has been declared.
(apols for the long post)