WA Senate election live

Live coverage of results as they come in for Western Australia’s Senate election.

Sunday, April 13

This is probably my final update, since the result is well and truly beyond doubt. On the raw votes, the ABC calculator produces a result at the final count of 194,282 (14.86%) to Linda Reynolds and 179,150 (13.71%) to Louise Pratt, and my own projection is hardly different (14.91% to 13.66%). As Antony Green points out on Twitter, Labor below-the-line votes are producing the very unusual result of the second candidate, Pratt, outpolling the first, Joe Bullock, the current numbers being 1285 to 1039 with a great many more still to be apportioned, although it seems unlikely Pratt’s lead will be overturned. A precedent for this noted by GhostWhoVotes is that Barnaby Joyce outpolled George Brandis as the respective second and first candidates of the Liberal National Party Senate ticket in Queensland in 2010, the circumstance here being that Nationals loyalists who opposed to the LNP merger expressed their displeasure below the line.

Friday morning

Antony Green and Kevin Bonham are both calling it for Linda Reynolds, and I’m not going to argue. Yesterday saw the addition of another 13,530 postals and 2034 absent votes from Brand (on top of the 1653 that had been counted there already, these being the only absent, pre-polls or provisional votes entered into the count so far), together with more rechecking. My projection now has Reynolds’ lead over Louise Pratt at the final count at 190,430 (14.57%) to 183,002 (14.00%), or 7428 votes, which is lower than yesterday because of some tinkering I’ve done with the model. Putting the raw vote into the ABC calculator, Reynolds now leads 189,988 (14.54%) to Pratt’s 183,443 (14.04%), increasing the margin to 6545 from 3407 yesterday. The postal results have been consistent with the contention that the Joe Bullock story breaking the day before the election caused a shift in support from Labor to the Greens, Labor’s postal vote (24.64%) being higher than its ordinary vote (21.83%), while the Greens are much, much lower (6.98% compared with 15.78%).

Thursday morning

The addition of 11,138 out of what should be at least 90,000 postal votes has blown a hole in Labor’s hope that votes cast earlier in the piece will be relatively favourable for them, making a Louise Pratt victory look increasingly unlikely. With numbers reported from Brand, Curtin, Durack, Hasluck and Perth, the results respectively show the Liberal vote 11.1%, 11.1%, 10.3%, 13.4% and 9.6% higher than the ordinary vote, equalling or exceeding the similarly large differentials in September. Putting the raw votes into the ABC calculator previously showed Pratt in the lead, but now Linda Reynolds holds a lead of 3407 votes (0.26), or 188,421 (14.42%) to 185,014 (14.16%).

On the model I’m using to fill the gaps in the count, Reynolds finishes 8499 (0.65%) clear with a lead of 190,963 (14.61%) to 182,474 (13.96%). For pre-polls, postals and provisionals, the model assumes parties’ vote shares will differ from ordinary votes to the same extent that they did in September, producing percentage figures which are applied to estimated totals based on declaration vote data published by the AEC (1653 absent votes were added today from Brand, but as absent votes tends to bounce around depending on where they were cast, I will continue using the aforesaid method until a large number of votes are in). For postals, the party vote shares recorded so far for each of the five electorates for which votes have been counted are extrapolated to an estimated total, likewise based on the AEC data. For electorates where results have not yet been reported, the method is the same as for pre-polls, postals and provisionals.

The Liberal margin will come down by perhaps around 3000 if Palmer United’s position improves to the extent that it doesn’t need HEMP preferences to get elected, in which case HEMP votes will be passed on to Labor at their full value rather than a much-reduced transfer value. However, the improvement in PUP’s position needed for that to happen is a not insubstantial 0.3% going on the modelled figures.

Wednesday morning

I’m not going to do serious number crunching until we start seeing pre-polls, absents and postals, but the Liberals gained at least 1500 votes on yesterday’s re-checking and the addition of special hospital results as such, Kevin Bonham putting their lead at 2504 based on the current numbers. Kevin also observes that Labor’s position might improve by “thousands of votes” depending on the arbitrary fact of whether Palmer United reaches a quota after Liberal Democrats preferences are distributed, or whether the job still needs to be finished with the subsequent exclusion of Help End Marijuana Prohibition. In the latter case, HEMP will go into the mix of votes to be distributed as the Palmer United surplus at a fraction of their value. Otherwise, their preferences will transfer at full value to their next party of preference, namely Labor. However, the odds are in favour of the Liberals on either scenario.

Tuesday morning

Rechecking and perhaps a few delayed booth results yesterday added 2161 votes in Durack, 1076 in Forrest and 152 in Hasluck, to the extremely slight advantage of Labor. The West Australian reports counting of postal votes “may get under way today”.

Monday morning

Nothing new on the counting front yesterday, which the AEC presumably devoted to very carefully transporting votes to the divisional offices where the primary vote totals will be rechecked over the coming days. Ben Raue at The Tally Room observes that “the numbers of absent, provisional and pre-poll votes have dropped to 20-33% of the 2013 levels, while the number of postal votes has increased” – which would seem to bode ill for Labor, given how heavily postal votes traditionally favour the Liberals (47.6% in September compared with 38.8% on ordinary votes).

Sunday morning

For those of you who have just joined us, the WA Senate election result looks to be two seats for the Liberals, one each for Labor, the Greens and Palmer United, and with the last seat a tussle between the third Liberal, Linda Reynolds, and number two on the Labor ticket, Senator Louise Pratt. Both major parties were well down on the primary vote to make way for a surge to the Greens and Palmer United. Scott Ludlam was handsomely re-elected off a quota in his own right, while Palmer United’s Zhenya Wang will get there with preferences from a range of sources, the most handy of which are HEMP, Shooters & Fishers and Family First. The following quick summary of the results shows the raw percentages, and how I’m projecting them to look after pre-polls, absents and postals are added. There follows projections of the race for last place as derived by plugging both raw and projected results into Antony Green’s Senate election calculator.

As I write, 38 booths out of 814 are still to report results. The only electorate where all booths have reported is Moore, where 69,323 ordinary vote have been cast compared with 72,507. This makes turnout difficult to calculate, but it seems to me to have not been as bad as some were suggesting. The number of ordinary vote cast in Moore amounts to 70.14% of enrolled voters, compared with 74.59% at the election last September. In Brand and Fremantle, which in each case have had all booths report but one, the totals are 70.6% and 69.8%, compared with 77.7% and 75.1% at the election.

Saturday

11.39pm. Back from my ice cream break to find the count at 937,396 (63.3%), with 62 out of 814 booths still to report. The latest projection puts the Liberals on 33.8% and the Nationals on 3.2%, Labor on 21.3%, the Greens on 16.0% and PUP on 12.2%. On the ABC computer, third Liberal Linda Reynolds’ lead over second Labor Louse Pratt at the final count has narrowed to 14.84% to 13.73%.

10.05pm. Count up to 661,954 (44.7%). My statewide projections are the same as Antony Green’s, so I’ll drop the metropolitan model and work off those instead from now on. I’m projecting 39.2% for Liberal, 3.4% for the Nationals, 21.1% for Labor, 16.1% for the Greens and 12.2% for Palmer United. Plugging that into the ABC calculator has third Liberal Linda Reynolds beating second Labor Louise Pratt at the last exclusion 15.1% (1.0553 quotas) to 13.49% (0.9446 quotas). Kevin Bonham and Truth Seeker think Labor are doing a little better than that: I’ve no idea about their methods, but I suspect it’s because they’re going off the raw vote totals, whereas I’m going off swings.

9.36pm. Count up to 526,235 (35.6%), Liberal projection down a shade to 2.93, Labor up to 1.57. But Labor’s position in the race for the final seat hasn’t improved since my 9.00pm update, because the Greens vote has come down slightly and reduced the size of the surplus available to Labor.

9.24pm. To explain all that in vote terms, the Greens vote is variously projected at 17% or 18%; Labor’s at a bit below 21%; Liberal at 34.5% plus Nationals at 3-4%; PUP at around 12%.

9.15pm. I have two models on the go here: the one I’ve been quoting, which extrapolates metropolitan swings across the rest of the state, and one which looks at the swings of all electorates, the problem with which is that non-metropolitan electorates should improve for Labor later in the night as bigger booths from regional cities report. But with the count now up to 367,945 (24.9%), the difference between the two seats of figures is diminishing – apart from the Greens, who are on 1.24 quota in the statewide model and 1.34 in the metropolitan-only model, and PUP are a bit higher in the former (1.18) than the latter (1.12). But both pretty much have the Coalition about 0.03 short of a third quota, and Labor on about 1.55.

9.00pm. With the same caveats applied in my 8.43pm comment, I’m now having Labor narrow the gap a little: Liberal 2.94 quotas, Labor 1.55, Greens 1.36, PUP 1.13. With the Greens surplus pretty much all going to Labor and PUP pretty much all going to Labor, the score at the final count would have Liberal winning 1.07 to 0.91, but with the numbers still certain to keep shifting around as the count progresses, and perhaps still the outside chance of both losing out to a micro-party boilover.

8.55pm. Antony observes current numbers in fact find that final vote going to Voluntary Euthanasia, but the statistical chance of that sticking would be low. Nonetheless, it should be emphasised that the final seat which I’ve been representing as a race between third Liberal and second Labor could be less predictable than that.

8.43pm. The picture isn’t getting any better for Labor as the count moves up to 121,082 (8.2%). My present projection based on metropolitan area swings has the Liberals on 2.96 quotas, Labor on 1.51, Greens on 1.36 and PUP on 1.14. That would easily get the Liberals to a third seat when the PUP surplus was distributed. Still plenty of room for caution though: the swing may be quite different outside Perth, and the swings I am calculating are derived not from booth-matching, but by extrapolating from the current electorate totals from metropolitan seats with their results from last September.

8.33pm. “Most of my modelling is based on the Perth vote”, suggets Antony, indicating my belated idea to run off the metropolitan swings gels with what he’s doing. With over 5% counted, very big transfer from Labor to Greens looking sticky.

8.23pm. Count up to 47,611, or 3.2%. Metropolitan swing projections: Coalition down 7.1%, Labor down 5.7%, Greens up 8.6%, Palmer United up 6.3%. Applying metropolitan swings to 2013 statewide results is the best rough guide I can come up with, because metropolitan booths do not have the issue with regional ones that a relationship exists between their size and their partisan tendency (i.e. these booths that are reporting early from O’Connor, Durack and Forrest and very conservative rural booths). Doing so confirms the picture noted previously, with a very close race between third Liberal and second Labor for the last seat.

8.11pm. Sam Dastyari concurring with my assessment that it’s likely Liberal 2, Labor 1, Greens 1, PUP 1, with the last seat a battle between a third Liberal and a second Labor.

8.08pm. Antony Green projecting a perilously low Labor vote, but the data available to him isn’t as good as usual and there’s still on 2.2% counted. My crude early projections for the metropolitan area are a 5.4% swing against Labor, 7.0% swing against Liberal, 6.2% towards Palmer, 9.3% towards Greens.

7.57pm. My early indications are of a 7.0% Palmer United swing in the metropolitan area, and all on the ABC News 24 are talking of a Scott Ludlam win as an accomplished fact. So you might start punting on a 2-2-1-1 result, unless Labor ends up doing badly enough that it comes in at Liberal 3, Labor 1, Greens 1, PUP 1.

7.34pm. With the count up to 5718, my PUP swing projection is now at 6.7%, which is a winning score for them. I’ll be interested to see what Antony’s next projection for them says. The lower micro-party vote is making a HEMP win look unlikely.

7.26pm. Antony Green’s data-matching off the earliest fraction of the vote – which is still a lot cruder than what he’s usually able to do – concurs with a drop in the micro-party vote.

7.18pm. Count now up to 2459. We’re at least getting evidence of a lower micro-party vote: I’m crudely projecting solid drops for parties such as the Liberal Democrats, Australian Christians and Fishing & Lifestyle.

7.11pm. To illustrate that point, an increase in the vote count to 1586 has been enough to push my PUP swing projection up to 4.0%.

7.07pm. Vote count up to 1216. The least useless of my projection figures based on the available data is the Palmer United swing, which I have at a less-than-expected 2.9%. Still pretty useless though.

7.03pm. Keep in mind that big unwieldy Senate ballot papers are slower to count than than lower house papers, so it’s to be expected progress will be slower than we’re used to.

6.56pm. Five small booths in from O’Connor, which would not even be representative of that electorate never mind the rest of the state, since they offer no insight on the larger towns. Also a booth from Pearce, for a grand total of 355 votes counted. Much talk from political operatives about a drop in turnout of about 15%, putting it in the high seventies.

6pm. Polls have closed in Western Australia’s Senate election. Absent any media commitments, I’ll be closely following the results as they come in on this post. I’m still unclear as to whether the AEC will be publishing booth results, but at the very least will be able to analyse the figures based on crude matching of reported results at the division level to the 2013 figures. Antony Green will be covering the results on ABC News 24, but I’m not exactly clear what format that will take.

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.

1,024 comments on “WA Senate election live”

Comments Page 14 of 21
1 13 14 15 21
  1. [This is because you think through the lens of Labor.]

    No, this is coming from talking to people in my community and from attending various community meetings. ‘Save Ludlam’ was a strong sentiment I heard.

  2. [635…zoomster]

    Rather than recruiting widely to find capable, energetic, articulate people capable of leading renewal, WA Labor has a habit of rewarding its relics and retirees with seats in Upper Houses. Their main quality, at the end of the day, is their loyalty alone. This is just not enough, is a terrible waste of opportunity and resources and has been going on for a very long time.

    But this is not the only problem Labor has. The ranks of Labor activists are woefully depleted, which means that it simply cannot campaign well enough to connect with voters, renew its networks of support, marshal new recruits, foster its ideas and attract new votes. Labor is withering away. It is in structural organisational decline.

    It is painfully obvious that Labor hardly resonates at all with the young. I think we’d be lucky to get 15% of the vote among young, urban students and workers. Among these cohorts, we are outplayed by the Greens, the LNP and opportunistic raiders such as PUP.

  3. There’s about 600 votes in it on Antony’s latest distribution.

    ifonly@#601:

    Labor will be doing it hard because postal etc will probably add .25% to the libs and -.25% from Lab.

    Most pre-polls were counted on the night, no? Are snail postals + sundries really worth a shift of 0.25% in the final quota count. An what about all those below-the-lines … more of them than postals, I suspect. In September below-the-lines went about 20,000 to 10,000 Labor+Green : Liberal+Nat. Should be enough to see Pratt elected.

  4. Astrobleme
    Posted Sunday, April 6, 2014 at 9:30 am | PERMALINK
    Geoffrey the Greens ATL votes will end up with Pratt. And probably most BTL. Can’t see many Greens voting for the Libs ahead of Pratt.—
    ———-and that distribution has already occurred with votes counted. sorry if i sound backward in such things

  5. [Astrobleme
    Posted Sunday, April 6, 2014 at 9:36 am | PERMALINK
    Everything

    Given Tony’s Catholicism he won’t try anything remotely progressive.

    His agenda is to maintain the dominance of older white men in power. Nothing more.]

    Old white christian men, yes you are right.

    He might try it if he is confident it won’t get through (wouldn’t get through the House for example if the Libs don’t allow a conscience vote) but would cause ALP havoc.

  6. briefly

    not arguing with any of that.

    My point is that we shouldn’t read too much into this particular result — just as we wouldn’t read too much into a regular, Lower House by election.

  7. I would factor in a declaration vote that is slightly worse for the LNP than previous results.

    This appears to be what happened in South Australia, and makes sense, I guess, if more people are using the declaration vote option, it would become closer to the overall vote.

  8. [638
    Everything

    Absolutely unbelievable that they found the Black Box ping so quickly.

    If I was a cynic I might think the Chinese had some insider information about where to look!]

    Is it confirmed? Do they have a recording? Has the ping recurred and if so can they locate its source?

    I am tempted to only believe this is real if someone reliable – like the NZ Navy – confirm it…

  9. Nothing confirmed yet…..just a Chinese reporter on a Chinese boat reporting it, not official Chinese sources.

    There is not much else that would be causing a ping around those parts….unless some other big plane or boat has gone down in the last month which I don’t remember. Boat pings are different to plane pings too apparently.

  10. Confessions

    “No, this is coming from talking to people in my community and from attending various community meetings. ‘Save Ludlam’ was a strong sentiment I heard.”

    Do you think their ambition to ‘save Ludlum’ was because he had good ideas? He was a principle author of the WA 2.0 vision. Sooo… Maybe it’s a chicken and the egg thing

  11. confessions

    [ ‘Save Ludlum’ was a strong sentiment I heard]
    Yes, I frequently heard comments from non Green people expressing their wish for Ludlum to keep his seat.

  12. Joe Bullock was a factor before his speech was reported. just look at the ATL preferences for the greens and other left parties.

  13. The message is that they don’t appear to want to ‘save the ALP’.

    That is the message that you and zoomster are missing.

  14. [Do you think their ambition to ‘save Ludlum’ was because he had good ideas?]

    Who knows. Quite a few remarked that it was important for Abbott not to ‘gain control’ of the senate.

    But the Greens did run a good campaign from what I saw.

  15. I actually think that is one of the major paradigm shifts of this generation:

    Old white christian men are no longer in charge and they don’t like it.

  16. Dont underestimate the power of Ludlum’s Senate atttack on Abbott, which went viral.

    He’s a formidable campaigner, and one of the Senate’s best minds.

    [What would happen if Bullock followed his heart and went back to the Libs?]

    I suspect the LNP will be working on him to do a Colston. Maybe the ALP could add “acts in the general party interest” to the selection criteria for senatorial candidates? Just a thought.

  17. Swings against a government in a by-election?

    HUH? You have to be joking…..is it too late to change the Headlines on the weekend papers…..this is absolutely unheard of.

    Then again, an ALP vote in the 20s is so passé now.

  18. [“acts in the general party interest”]

    “likes the party” might be worth including in the application form as well! 😀

  19. Interesting result in WA, but the best bit for me was to see Centre’s predictions and hopes about the Greens absolutely smashed. 🙂

    I’m starting to wonder whether Shorten is the right leader for the ALP, though I personally like him. He doesn’t seem to be resonating with the voters.

    So who was it who said the Greens were finished? 😉

  20. Nice try at deflection on the ALP but that doesn’t wash.

    Regardless, Abbott still looses out, because Greens are that of the left.

  21. [I actually think that is one of the major paradigm shifts of this generation:

    Old white christian men are no longer in charge and they don’t like it.]

    Yet they are thriving and prospering inside the Liberal party.

  22. People talking about the ‘ save Ludlam ‘ factor, surely this is just a misleading way to say that many people thought it was more important that he stay in the Senate than that Labor or the Libs get another senator?

    And people who think Labor ‘s insane preselection choices aren’t a factor are kidding themselves.

  23. Everything

    “Old white christian men are no longer in charge and they don’t like it.”

    and this echoes SO LOUDLY in the Climate Change debate…

  24. @650

    Good outcome Ludlum surviving. Hes a genuine talent. I wouldnt be surprised if he did a Kernot in a couple of years though!

    Unless Labor was to change their position on the metadata retention, digital rights and copyright fair use, and make their position clear against the TPP agreement and online filtering, I don’t see Ludlum switching to Labor anytime soon, if at all.

  25. Age group 18-34 according to Newspoll quarterly.

    COAL … election 37% …Feb/Mar …29%

    ALP …. election 36% ….Feb/Mar …38%

    Greens . election 13% ….Feb/Mar ..18%

  26. I have no problem with old, white, christian men thriving and prospering.

    The point I am making is that they are no longer the only ones making decisions.

    The Liberal party has had the first Aboriginal parliamentarian, the first Aboriginal State or Federal leader, the youngest member (I presume Wyatt Roy the youngest?) and a much more diverse party than the ALP albeit with fewer women.

    Old, white christian, heterosexual men are more than welcome, they just have to make some room for others, thats all!

  27. There’s a lot of nonsense written on here about Ludlam: eg #650.

    He might be charming and personable, and be a bit tech savvy, but of all the watermelons in the Greens, he has the darkest red centre. If you read what he has said in the Senate on foreign policy, for example, he must be the furthest left of any senator since Gietzelt retired.

  28. “Have you not heard about the head of the IPPC?”

    don’t know what you mean.

    “Old, white christian, heterosexual men are more than welcome, they just have to make some room for others, thats all!”
    True, they are wholy OVER REPRESENTED in parliament

  29. “He might be charming and personable, and be a bit tech savvy, but of all the watermelons in the Greens, he has the darkest red centre. If you read what he has said in the Senate on foreign policy, for example, he must be the furthest left of any senator since Gietzelt retired.”

    Yawn…

    Compare him to Bullock. It’s not much of a contest.

  30. Is the word “bullock” a cross between “bullshit” and “pillock”?

    Disappointing result for ALP.

    Hopefully it will strengthen the resolve of members to select appropriate candidates.

    Some on here defending Bullocks reported comments have thrown back to Catholic right wing dogma. Those days are in the decline in the ALP and the sooner the better.

  31. fredex 679
    i would love it if pollsters broke it down a little further, 18-25 say.

    anyone else (like me) that see benefit in a staggered senate/HOR election? it would have to coincide with an increase in the 3 HOR year term.

  32. Astrobleme

    a friend of mine was at a meeting of climate scientists in the US, and noted that the featured panel was all male, and that all the ‘breakaway’ groups were chaired by men.

    And this is despite the fact that women scientists are well represented in this area.

    She made much the same remarks you have!

  33. [656
    zoomster

    briefly

    not arguing with any of that.

    My point is that we shouldn’t read too much into this particular result — just as we wouldn’t read too much into a regular, Lower House by election.]

    zoomster, this result is abysmal for Labor. WA voters are unsettled by Abbott and they are really peeved with Barnett, and yet they have not shifted to the ALP. The result continues a secular decline in Labor support.

    In the booth I attended yesterday, the moves in the main party primary votes were:

    ALP 38.7% to 27.0%
    Green 13.8% to 21.5%
    LNP 44.4% to 31.2%
    PUP 1.1% to 9.4%

  34. Everything@668

    I actually think that is one of the major paradigm shifts of this generation:

    Old white christian men are no longer in charge and they don’t like it.

    Actually, the last time I looked they were still in charge.

  35. If it was all about the carbon tax, with an almost doubling of the green vote the message is clear.

    I tend to agree with Nick Xenophon, WA voted with their middle finger pointing up and the rest held down

  36. Zoomster

    Science does tend to be sexist. Sad but true.
    I notice it in my current work, and in my wife’s work, and at the Geological Survey of WA, where I used to work.

  37. Roxanna I have to disagree re Shorten. I think he is absolutely the right person for Labor right. He is measured and safe. And politically smart. I haven’t seen him making the same tactical blunders that Rudd and Gillard made, although granted it is easier in opposition.

  38. ALP might do alright with postals – as many of them would have pre-dated Bullock’s highly publicised rant. I reckon that costed them a couple of percentage points at least. Seriously, how does the ALP put someone like that at the top of their ticket. It seems like the ALP now has its very own Cori Bernadi, welld done.

Comments Page 14 of 21
1 13 14 15 21

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *