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.
800
Half of 14% is 7%. Both of two 7%s are more than 6%. Therefore the Greens winning with 14% and Chamberlin not winning with 6% is perfectly reasonable.
You know, I’m getting the vague impression that democracy@work doesn’t really like the Droop quota. Its very subtle, but if you read his/her posts carefully, the clues are there.
@geoffrey 798
[this is my firth PB comment without a reply on the subject:
did the plane down have an electoral advantage for TA – appearing with world’s military, leadership etc etc. wasn’t all this an electoral stunt to large extent. TA knows that but apparently PB (to poll analysts) dont]
Exactly what sort of insights are you expecting PB’s resident psephs to be able to provide on this? I don’t think there’s much data available on how the electorate reacts to something like this. They’re political analysts, not mind readers. With the polls currently all over the place and reflecting on average a pretty static result for some time, I’d imagine any apparent advantage Abbott’s getting from this is negligible at best.
Anyone who’s candidate didn’t get in could be considered “disenfranchised”. One can claim that’s because their vote is “locked up in a wasted quota”, but how is that any less representative than, say, “mimhoff party” getting the last seat with 0.51 Hare quotas against “Stop mimhoff” on 0.49?
briefly:
You seem very pessimistic about this, but with good reason. The fracturing of our major party system does seem to have benefits flowing all the way of the Tories.
GRP % Qd Q
TD 38% 3.8 3.45
GRN 14% 1.4 1.27
IND 6% 0.6 0.55
x/(y+1) Green vote increases in value and TD vote whilst TD vote surplus is locked up and ignored.
when each vote should be of equal value in determining who is elected. x/y
[800
Half of 14% is 7%. Both of two 7%s are more than 6%. Therefore the Greens winning with 14% and Chamberlin not winning with 6% is perfectly reasonable]
yes if that was all the votes on the table but there are others such as Team Doyle 38% in a pure proportinal system that would be
TD 3.45 quotas
Grn 1.27 quotas
Ind 0.55 quotas
TD surplus .45 flow to IND candidate who is now on quota
geoffrey @798
[an electoral stunt]
What a disgraceful slur.
Any system that limits the number of candidates will mean that some candidate might get a vote and not be given the opportunity to represent their electorate.
How about, you get a minute of parliament for every vote.
An electorate of 60,000 would then get 1,000 hrs of representation. If you get 1 vote you get to “represent” for 1 minute, 60 votes = i hour etc.
Kevin Bonham back @ 730
Hmm, not good. 70% means the Libs looking OK for 3rd Senate seat.
It might be two after rounding.
I guess News Ltd rags will start their campaign to undermine Shorten from hereon in.
Who would take his place in the event that he resigned his position and there was another party-wide ballot.
Or am I being pessimistic?
Let me ask this.
Where in the counting does the surplus 0.12 quotas for the Greens get assigned, and does that happen before or after enough minor parties have been eliminated to give Palmer a quota? Where does that put Labor vs Liberal at that stage (when the Green surplus is apportioned) ?
democracy@work@799
That’s irrelevant. Indeed converting my example to Hare quotas just further highlights how silly the outcome looks. ALP 2.21Q between 3 (36.8% of vote) Lib 3.10Q between 4 (51.7%), Green 0.69Q for 1 (11.4%)
Now with linear ticket order this is a straightforward 2-3-1 but with votes evenly distributed within tickets it is again 3-3-0 for exactly the same reasons.
You are correct Feeney. The “get Shorten” diatribe from the usual suspects here give us a clear indication of the LNP (Liberal Newscorp Party)tactics.
[804
confessions
briefly:
You seem very pessimistic about this, but with good reason. The fracturing of our major party system does seem to have benefits flowing all the way of the Tories.]
The numerical result only needs to be stated to be understood: WA Labor can raise barely more than 1 vote in 5 under its own steam. Wherever we look around WA, the electorate has been fragmenting in ways that detach weakly-affiliated support from Labor and create opportunities for the LNP and its proxies.
Tomorrow the media will be full of Labor’s woes, which, while true enough, will only reinforce in the minds of the 4 in 5 who did not vote Labor that they made the right choice.
I can’t help feeling very dismayed. While nearly everyone will say they agree reform is necessary, there is no clear agenda for institutional change nor, it seems, are there any takers to lead a process of deep reform and renewal.
This should be a cause for reflection for all of us. Reform must start within the ALP and the unions and involve all those who believe in empowering ordinary people.
CC, Ludlam’s surplus will flow to the second candidate on the Greens ticket, who will stay in the count as most of the micro-parties are knocked out. On the projection I have open in front of me, at the point at which the second Greens candidate bows out, Dio Wang (13.0%), Louise Pratt (8.8%) and Linda Reynolds (7.2%) are all still in the count, straining to reach a 14.3% quota. The Greens surplus is then distributed, pushing Labor up to 10.3%.
[I guess News Ltd rags will start their campaign to undermine Shorten from hereon in.]
I can see the Senate re-vote in WA being badged as a kind of refresh button on Abbott’s leadership. A watermark of where the bad polling ended and some kind of ‘recovery’ begins for the govt. All spun furiously by News and other Liberal shills.
briefly:
I’m going to wait to see what effect the Liberal govt policies will certainly have if implemented, on voter hip pockets and job insecurity first.
Hockey’s got a first budget to bring down. Let’s see how they go with that.
Asha Leu
Posted Sunday, April 6, 2014 at 6:22 pm | PERMALINK
You know, I’m getting the vague impression that democracy@work doesn’t really like the Droop quota. Its very subtle, but if you read his/her posts carefully, the clues are there.
@geoffrey 798
this is my firth PB comment without a reply on the subject:
did the plane down have an electoral advantage for TA – appearing with world’s military, leadership etc etc. wasn’t all this an electoral stunt to large extent. TA knows that but apparently PB (to poll analysts) dont
Exactly what sort of insights are you expecting PB’s resident psephs to be able to provide on this? I don’t think there’s much data available on how the electorate reacts to something like this. They’re political analysts, not mind readers. With the polls currently all over the place and reflecting on average a pretty static result for some time, I’d imagine any apparent advantage Abbott’s getting from this is negligible at best.
–asha .. folk here are always doing a lot more than stats … offering opinions on campaigns… double guessing electoral impact etc. – aren’t they – what seems crazy about abbott astride with world’s media and ratcheting up publicity and scale of plane down would seem like macho political publicity out west and be a bigger factor pro lib that a labor faux pas (which is constantly endlessly tlked about here ) …. thank you
Feeney,
[I guess News Ltd rags will start their campaign to undermine Shorten from hereon in.]
Yes, but there’ll be no talk of a knife in the back this time.
Now they’ll be spruiking Senator Bullock for the Reps:
NewsCrap: Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that righteous gun in your hand?
Joe: I’m goin’ down to shoot Electric Bill – you know I caught him messin’ around with my Greek plan…
Compact Crank
Posted Sunday, April 6, 2014 at 6:43 pm | PERMALINK
geoffrey @798
an electoral stunt
What a disgraceful slur.
——–i do not you from an ephemeral turn of phrase good soul but assume that is pure irony detected in your enimgatic reply – anything more would a level of rhetorical riposte one cannot rise to this evening
this is the 8th msg about plane down without a meaningul reply – sometimes PB can look like a search for the black box of an election outcome in a vast ocean of possibilities even in the wrong part of the world
http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/wa-senate-take-two-preview-live.html
Comments updated. Yes I know it all looks so simple after last time but I’m sorry, there’s a tipping point to keep an eye on. If PUP just cross on Lib Dem preferences rather than HEMP preferences then Pratt wins (assuming no other significant changes). Trivial change in the PUP vote swings outcome by thousands. But I think more likely the PUP vote will change the other way.
I wonder how long it will take the PUP Senators to realise that they actually have more power than Clive Palmer.
ShowsOn@824
I wonder about Lambie especially. She has already come across as loopy enough that her chance of re-election in six years must be way low already. So if at any stage Clive bothers her she may as well flip him the bird and just enjoy her six years on a senator’s salary since the end result is the same either way. That said I’m unsure if she’s up to that level of rational thinking.
[I wonder about Lambie especially. She has already come across as loopy enough that her chance of re-election in six years must be way low already. ]
Lambie came out in support of the mining and carbon taxes before changing her views I suspect after Palmer told her to.
I suspect that some of these Senators will get to a point where they will decide that a 6 year political career is more than enough, so they will start to go rogue and will just vote however they like. If Palmer tries to control them they will just become independents.
Look politics isnt fair – but I think the WA election will be seen as the beginning of the end of the Shorten leadership. There’s no cut through in his leadership, the Griffith by-election was the first indication of his leadership weakness this is just confirmation.
EDJ, your ego is being let loose.
[Look politics isnt fair – but I think the WA election will be seen as the beginning of the end of the Shorten leadership. There’s no cut through in his leadership, the Griffith by-election was the first indication of his leadership weakness this is just confirmation.]
Even with a new government polling so poorly in historical terms?
Even with a government that has already lost 1 minister and sacked one chief of staff? And a government who is promising to make massive cuts in its first budget which will more than likely be very unpopular.
Yes especially then ShowsOn.
ESJ assumes Opposition leaders win elections. Blind Freddie will win the next election with Abbott in charge. Cant see Bill S not leading the ALP to the next election.
[Yes especially then ShowsOn.]
OK concern troll.
I doubt the results of this election reflect upon or affect Shorten’s leadership. And, frankly, the spin of a few Coalition hacks on here isn’t really going to change that view for me (just like the desperate spin by the Labor hacks about Abbott’s leadership every time a small bump was hit by the Coalition in the last term.)
Is Shorten in an unassailable position? No. But the ALP under him enjoys a lead in the polls and reasonable stability and, consequently, his leadership enjoys some stability too, despite the convoluted spin from some on here.
It may or may not be a critical point for Shorten (when the ALP win in VIC all will be forgotten about this disgraceful factional fiasco).
The real question is whether the ALP can reform its pre-selection processes. This way lies extinction. Its that grave.
Bullocksaurus.
Carey Moore 833 my take too.
He’s playing a long game. too many on here expect him to be kicking goals now. He’s very unexpectedly ahead against the firm favourite at the end of the first quarter, the last thing we need now is a show pony prancing around making grand statements and gestures to the faithful. Wont win any votes or friends.
[ But the ALP under him enjoys a lead in the polls and reasonable stability and, consequently, his leadership enjoys some stability too, ]
That wont stop the media and trolls from spinning on the ALP leadersh#t at the slightest provocation. Like Boats, they see it as a theme that will give results, AND, as soon as anyone tries to put the spotlight on Abbott’s security of tenure they have a canned rapid response ready….
“oh but look at the dysfunction and disunity in the ALP…..”
I’m thinking Pratt’s more competitive now. Earlier today I was giving the Liberals a 70% chance but now I see some issues. The BTL votes alone aren’t the big one; what’s more interesting to me is the possibility of BTL votes causing PUP to cross on the exclusion of the LibDems rather than HEMP, which causes Pratt to win unless the Labor vote drops off a long way.
Still quite a high chance Labor just gets blown away on the non-ordinaries, but we’ll see.
I do not see Bill Shorten as the cause of the WA senate debacle, but nor is he the solution.
Shorten would make a good pathologist but a poor physician. He has diagnosed the cause of Labor’s problems (domination by undemocratic unions of declining relevance) but not the solution (party membership rules). There is no point becoming a Labor party member as long as the members do not control the party. The number of voting union delegates needs to change.
Why should a union delegate get to vote for a Labor party preselection if they are not a party member? I couldn’t vote to decide who was on the ACTU executive when I was a party member, even as a branch secretary.
Have a good day all. Good luck to Louise Pratt in WA counting, but I fear a no.2 position and a disastrous candidate choice has already killed her chances.
feeney @811 – a bit counter intuitive there. If an ALP Leader is doing a crap job, why in Jens Voight’s name would they recommend a change? It’s the ALP itself that does all the white-anting, backstabbing and wanton blodd letting – the LNP just points and laughs.
Rossmore @831
[Blind Freddie will win the next election with Abbott in charge. ]
Where have we heard that before?
I’m with Ben Raue 🙂
http://www.tallyroom.com.au/19911#more-19911
Labor did the better preference swap deals and will benefit from them. Liberals don’t do negotiation well. Everyone says so and knows so!
Looking forward to the spluttering justifications from the Lib mouthpieces when they have to explain going from 3 Senators to 2 in 6 months! 😀
Libs must be kicking themselves for not putting Linda Reynolds back in her uniform for the election re-run. 😉
Catmomma – you can say it as many times as you like but it won’t make any difference:
Libs went backwards but it was not unexpected – both from the polling and from the historical fact that there is on average about a 5.6% swing against governments in by-elections. Also, the total anti-CO2 Tax and Anti-Mining tax vote did not fall as the PUP vote went up.
The ALP on the other hand should have been the benficiary of the swing awa from the government – but it wasn’t. I am certain that they will do better at the next election but it is pretty sobering that almost 8 out of ten voters did not vote for the ALP. Very hard to win elections from that position.
I don’t know about the 20-30% prepolls etc suggestion. Might be confusion. AEC said on Sat night there were c 280,000 prepolls and postals. That will add 20-30% on the current 68.7% count – ie about 85% as Willaim mentioned earlier. Are there absent votes in Senate – no reason why there should be. AEC not showing any pre-poll etc figures up yet.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateVotesCountedByDivision-17875-WA.htm
846
Not only the Liberals went down, so did the separate National ticket. The whole Coalition vote should be included in the government`s vote`s decline.
[The ALP on the other hand should have been the benficiary of the swing awa from the government – but it wasn’t. I am certain that they will do better at the next election but it is pretty sobering that almost 8 out of ten voters did not vote for the ALP. Very hard to win elections from that position.]
How exactly do you win elections by getting lots of votes in the Senate?
You don’t seem to understand how elections in Australia work.
The main hope for Pratt is that the vote for Labor is significantly higher among pre-polls compared with Saturday.
Some people suggesting earlier a Murdoch conspiracy to release the Bullock buffoonery just before election day. Any decent conspirator would have released it 3 weeks earlier – imagine the derailing effect that might have had on the Labor campaign. Just media/journos doing their job I suspect. Might be interesting to know where the story came from but likely just someone who heard Bullock talking.