|
#
|
%
|
Swing
|
2PP
|
Swing
|
||
| Heidi Harris (Liberal) |
7416
|
36.0%
|
-0.1%
|
49.9%
|
-7.4%
|
|
| Jeanie Walker (Independent) |
195
|
0.9%
|
|
|||
| Nat Cook (Labor) |
5502
|
26.7%
|
+10.2%
|
50.1%
|
+7.4%
|
|
| Rob de Jonge (Independent) |
810
|
3.9%
|
|
|||
| Bob Couch (SPGN) |
271
|
1.3%
|
|
|||
| Dan Woodyatt (Independent) |
4791
|
23.3%
|
-15.9%
|
|
||
| Malwina Wyra (Greens) |
710
|
3.5%
|
-0.8%
|
|||
| Dan Golding (Independent) |
880
|
4.3%
|
|
|||
| FORMAL |
20575
|
96.1%
|
|
|||
| Informal |
825
|
3.9%
|
|
|||
| Counted (of 25,829 enrolled): |
82.9%
|
|
|
|||
| Booths reported out of 9: |
9
|
|
|
Monday 9.30pm. The indefatigable Tom Richardson relates that the final margin in favour of Labor after the preference distribution came down to just nine votes: 10,284 to 10,275.
Monday 7.30pm. Tom Richardson tweets that the conclusion of adjudication of informal votes has ended, and that the result after finalisation of the preference distribution will be a 13-vote win to Labor. There would appear to be a good chance of the Liberal Party will seek to have the Court of Disputed Returns revise the ballot paper rulings that went against them.
Monday 2.30pm. The recount that was granted to the Liberals, somewhat surprisingly, is now under way. Nine’s Tom Richardson relates on Twitter that reassessment of informal votes has caused nine formerly informal votes to be admitted, resulting in the Labor margin to narrow from 23 votes to 20, with the “validity of several to be adjudicated”.
Saturday 7.30pm. ECSA has published the preference distribution. Woodyatt needed a 24.75% greater share of preferences than Labor in the three-party preferred count, but could manage only 16.92%. The differentials at the Greens and Democrats exclusions were actually 17.04% in Labor’s favour, compared with 27.26% in Woodyatt’s favour among the other candidates. Slightly less than a quarter of the preferences went to the Liberals.
Saturday 2pm. The ABC reports that Labor has secured its parliamentary majority of 24 seats out of 47, having somewhat outperformed expectations in the preference distribution. Labor’s victory over the Liberals on the two-party count will take effect after its candidate Nat Cook survived the last exclusion ahead of independent Daniel Woodyatt by, according to Tom Richardson on Twitter, 226 votes. It appears the preference distribution process turned up another two votes for the Liberals and one for Labor, such that the latter’s winning margin at the final count is now 23. Hopefully the full preference distribution should be published shortly on the ECSA site. I’ve changed the time stamp on this post to bump it to the top of the page.
Friday 4.30pm. Rechecking ends with Labor 24 votes in the clear, so the Liberals are out. The issue between Labor and Dan Woodyatt will be decided at the preference distribution to commence from 9am tomorrow.
Friday 1pm. It seems the preference distribution will be conducted tomorrow. Well-connected observer Independently Thinking relates in comments that Labor appears pessimistic about its chances of staying ahead of Woodyatt, although clearly there will be very little in it. He also passes on an entertaining account of the Liberals’ confusion on election night by Nine Network reporter Tom Richardson at InDaily.
Friday 12.30pm. The last postals have been counted, of which there were only 30, and they have made no difference at all to Labor’s 21-vote lead. So unless anomalies emerge in the preference distribution or any recount that might be conducted, we can now say that the Liberals have not won the seat. Rather, the issue is whether it’s Labor’s Nat Cook (5501, 26.7%) or independent Dan Woodyatt (4794, 23.3%) who survives at the last exclusion. This is down to the 2861 votes cast for other candidates, how they split between Liberal, Labor and Woodyatt, and whether Woodyatt’s share of that total is 708 votes (24.75%) more than Cook’s. Woodyatt’s observation of the count has reportedly been that a “conservative” projection would bring it down the wire, suggesting he rates his own chances as better than even.
Wednesday 4.30pm. ECSA advises it will knock over whatever postal votes arrive in the available time frame of the next two days on Friday. These votes will be small in number, but given the lateness of their arrival they will almost certainly be coming from overseas, so it should not be assumed they will follow the same pattern as today’s batch which came in on Monday and Tuesday. The provisional votes have already been counted, contrary to what I stated earlier, so Labor is not awaiting upon the small boost that such votes invariably provide it.
Wednesday 11am. I should probably know better than to find anything about this count surprising by now, but that is undeniably where I stand after today’s batch of 194 postals behaved very unlike those that preceded in breaking 113-75 to Labor and putting them 21 votes ahead. As related on Twitter by Haydon Manning, today’s primary votes are 52 each for Labor and Liberal, 47 for Woodyatt, 17 for Golding, nine for the Greens, seven for De Jonge, four for Couch and nothing for Walker. By my reckoning, Labor’s two-party lead is now 10,282 to 10,261. The numbers are yet to be updated to the ECSA site, but it’s all accommodated in the table above (UPDATE: ECSA now updated).
Part of the surprise of the Liberals’ late count recovery was a dramatic improvement in their preference share, which was 34.6% on ordinary votes, 43.9% on the first batch of postals and 44.9% on pre-polls. But on this batch of postals, it was 27.4%. On this form, you would suggest that the late-arriving postals are behaving very differently from the early ones, and that the wind should stay at Labor’s back for the rest of the count, particularly if provisionals await to be added. But by this stage, the only thing it would seem prudent to expect is the unexpected.
Tuesday 4pm. The shocks keep rolling in: pre-polls, while slightly less favourable to the Liberals than postals, have gone to them with sufficient strength (2519-2051) to give them a 17-vote lead. Since there will presumably be about 200 postals still to trickle in, the likelihood now is that the Liberals will pull the iron out of the fire, unless a distinct trend in outstanding postals together with provisionals can yet save the day for Labor. Then there’s the fact that Dan Woodyatt’s deficit compared with Labor is down to 3.4% – probably bigger than he can overcome on preferences, but not definitely.
Tuesday 11:30am. Daniel Willis of The Advertiser tweets: “Told early indications from small sample of Fisher pre-polls shows same trend as ordinary ballots cast on Sat. Labor position strengthens.”
Monday afternoon. Things have taken another turn with the first 1217 postal votes flowing very heavily to the Liberals, to the extent of offering them a glimmer of hope. The votes have split 679-504, or 57.4-42.6, and in doing so cut the lead from 626 to 451. If all of the declaration votes were to divide thus, the Liberals would end up winning by around 250 votes. However, it’s all but certain that they will do less well on the pre-polls, of which around 4650 will be counted tomorrow. Of postals, there should be perhaps around 300 more to come in through the rest of the week. Kevin Bonham has been holding on to the idea of Dan Woodyatt still taking the seat after getting ahead of Labor in late counting, but suggests this is conditional on the 5.4% gap on polling booth votes being narrowed to around 3% on late counting. So far he’s pared it back to 4.6%, and if that trend continues it would fall below 2%. In short, a lot of election night prognostications were premature, although the likelihood still remains that Labor will win the seat. Tomorrow’s counting should clarify the situation.
Sunday evening. The recheck indeed confirmed the anomaly in Aberfoyle Park, which together with other rechecking puts Labor’s lead at a formidable 7614 to 6988, or 626 votes (1.2%).
Close of the evening. Multiple reports are circulating to the effect that there is an anomaly in the published numbers detailed above, and that its correction will confirm a stunning result that tips Labor over the line to a parliamentary majority of 24 seats out of 47. The ECSA score has Labor’s lead at 7384-7115, giving them a fragile margin of 269. But it seems there is an anomaly with the Aberfoyle Park High School result, where Labor has received only 48% of minor party and independent preferences compared with a fairly consistent 65%-67% elsewhere. Two stories have emerged on Twitter as to what has gone wrong here: David Washington of InDaily relates via an unnamed source that the two-party result from a booth was entered the wrong way around, and Kaurna MP Chris Picton indicates that 200 votes have been assigned to the wrong pile. In either case, Labor’s preference share from the booth would be well in line with the overall trend. Their lead would be 599 votes (2.1%) on the former scenario, or 669 (2.3%) on the latter. Nine Network reporter Tom Richardson splits the difference by tweeting the word from a “VERY seasoned” Labor source that their lead is in fact at 638.
Whichever it might be, it would take something quite miraculous to reverse the result in late counting. The check vote will be conducted tomorrow, which will presumably get to the bottom of the Aberfoyle Park anomaly. There will follow counting of postals on Monday and pre-polls on Tuesday.
9.00pm. All primary and 2PP booth counts are in, and that’s apparently it for the evening – except there is talk that ECSA has the 2PP numbers in the wrong way around for one booth, for which the likeliest candidate is Aberfoyle Park High School. If that’s the case, Labor’s lead is actually 7549 (52.1%) to 6950 (47.9%), in which case they’re pretty much home and hosed. Will keep you posted on that one. I’ve rejigged the chart to feature the Labor-versus-Liberal 2PP result.
8.37pm. The outstanding booth on 2PP, Aberfoyle Park North, was mid-range in terms of primary vote swings, so presumably won’t make difference to the knife-edge 2PP projection.
8.34pm. All booths now in on the primary vote.
8.18pm. Two more booths reporting on two-party, and Antony’s projection now has Labor 0.8% ahead. A big week of pre-poll and postal counting awaits.
8.06pm. There’s now a sixth booth in on the Liberal-versus-Labor 2CP, and whichever one it’s been, it’s a bad result for Labor, such that Antony now has the Liberals nudging into a 0.3% lead on his projection. But it looks to me like Reynella East was a particularly good result for Labor in a very large booth, so my feeling is that that will put them back in front when it reports.
8.01pm. Reynella East has now reported, and it’s left that last entry of mine looking pretty good. Woodyatt now well behind Labor, who would probably be getting a bit excited around about now.
7.57pm. The two booths outstanding are Aberfoyle Park North, which was a good booth for Such (45.9%), and Reynella East, a bad one (30.0%). But the Woodcroft booth, which was Such’s worst (22.2%), isn’t in use this time, and the nearest booth is Reynella East, so expect that booth to hit pretty Woodyatt hard.
7.53pm. And sure enough, the Happy Valley West booth puts Labor ahead of Woodyatt on the primary vote.
7.48pm. Interestinger and interestinger. A big fly in Woodyatt’s ointment is that the outstanding booths were far Such’s weakest part of the electorate, and if that flows through to him he has little chance of finishing ahead of Labor. And according to Antony’s projection, Labor now have a 1.3% lead on the Liberal-versus-Labor two-party count with five booths counted. So it appears a gravely underestimated their chances a few posts ago.
7.38pm. Aberfoyle Park booth added. With each booth my projection continues to look better for Woodyatt, who has also inched further ahead of Labor on the raw primary vote. I’ve just fixed a bug in my primary vote percentages.
7.33pm. I should observe that my primary vote swings are based on booth matching, so this looks a rather poor result for the Liberals, who are hardly making any headway in Such’s absence, whereas Labor are up around 10%.
7.30pm. Antony projecting 2.2% Liberal lead on the Liberal-versus-Labor count, based on three booths. A Labor win is thus not impossible if they indeed finish second, but the odds appear against them on both counts.
7.13pm. Aberfoyle Park Central booth pushes projected Woodyatt lead out to 4.5%, but he’s only just clear of Labor in second place.
7.10pm. Aberfoyle Park South puts Woodyatt’s nose in front. But I must again stress that this is based on a highly speculative preference allocation.
7.09pm. According to my calculations, Clarendon implies a Liberal win probability of 68%, but in Cherry Gardens it’s 26%.
7.07pm. I’ve cleaned a bug that was causing my 2PP projection to be based entirely on the Clarendon result. Revised verdict: very interesting.
7.05pm. Raw results suggest Woodyatt should finish ahead of Labor. Using the Such-versus-Liberal preferences from March, I’ve got an 11.9% swing to Liberal compared with a 9.6% margin from Clarendon, but a 6.4% swing in Cherry Gardens.
7.00pm. Mixed signals coming through. Labor MP Michael Atkinson pessimistic, but Daniel Wills of The Advertiser apparently hearing Woodyatt looking good. Both booths in so far are very small, so the the later results might change the picture.
6.57pm. Second booth in, Cherry Gardens, and it looks like this was the one Antony was referring to. So we’ve now got two unexpectedly good results in from the Liberals, who I’m projecting to win quite comfortably.
6.53pm. The Clarendon booth primary votes are in – I’ve been a bit slow passing it on because I’ve had bugs to iron out. Antony reckons the Libs vote is up 6.8% but my output says higher, so I might have to look at this.
6.40pm. There’s quite a bit coming through on Twitter about how the count is progressing. My live coverage will be strictly concerned with published results, but you’ll find the diligent PB community relating the Twitter info in the comments thread.
6.38pm. A further point of explanation: the swing figures shown for Woodyatt will be compared with the result for Such at the election. Sorry if this seems to suggest that I’m buying into Woodyatt’s campaign pitch, but it does seem the most instructive way of going about it.
6.30pm. ECSA will be conducting a Liberal-versus-Labor two-party count. Here however you will find something different – a Liberal-versus-Woodyatt count based on the assumptions that preferences will split between the two in the same way as they did between Liberal and Bob Such in each individual polling booth at the elections.
6pm. Polls have closed in South Australia’s Fisher by-election, which you can read all about in the post below. This being a suburban seat with large booths, I’m guessing we won’t see any numbers for about an hour or so.
Another great result for the ALP.
I’m so happy
Trying to think of who could replace Marshall as Lib leader. I actually don’t know. This is the first case I can’t pick an obvious successor; their talent pool is too shallow.
Problem with their party room is half of them are the dead and rotten old growth trees and the other half are saplings.
I have seen Wingard’s name thrown around and, on paper, that doesn’t sound completely stupid. However, his problem is he is too new and his electorate is the most marginal in the state (at least until the redistribution) – nevertheless, I don’t trust him to retain Mitchell at the next election.
I also dislike the proposal because it is extremely cosmetic. It’s basically the attitude that “All we need is a flashy salesman”. However, Labor would just tear him apart.
They are better going with one of their more experienced members but their problem is they are a bunch of old hacks.
The formula they need is:
– Needs to be from Adelaide or know Adelaide well and be able to appeal to Adelaide voters.
– Needs to be moderate and rational, or at least appear so. (Also, it would help them not to stand too close to Abbott.)
– Needs to have the ability to lead with confidence.
– Should have a plan, not just to win the election but also to govern.
– Vicki doesn’t object to them.
Who can meet those requirements?
Carey
My pet crow.
LOL
Only a 10% swing to ALP!
Abbott is BORKED
A late good evening all. What a result for Labor! What a disaster for the Liberals!! A once blue ribbon seat, after years as independent, now looks lost for good.
Whether this is put down to Marshall or Abbott, the Liberal leader is looking damaged.
Night all. I will sleep well now 🙂
A good result for the SA Government. It’s good seeing the conservatives sweat for a change. It would seem either way that Mr Marshall’s goose is cooked.
I think the Liberal-ness of Fisher has been overstated. Certainly Labor had no right to expect to win it under these circumstances. But let’s not get carried away with descriptions like “blue ribbon seat”. It ceased to be such in 1985, when Stan Evans fled to safer ground in Davenport.
Carey,
A big hat tip to you for badgering William to take the Fisher bi election seriously. It’s proved to be a fascinating vote and your insistence that it be covered has been a great service to PB.
Thanks for your effort.
On the point about how “blue ribbon” or otherwise Fisher was, according to Antony Green’s post 2014 pendulum the notional Lib/ALP margin in Fisher was 57.2 vs 42.8. So if not safe – it was certainly a comfortably held conservative seat at this point in a typical electoral cycle. An apparent swing of 8% + to a State Government that is 15 years old seems impressive.
max. The 57.2 – 42.8 results is based on the 2014 state election. I live in Fischer and the Liberals ran a strong campaign through Sam Duluk while Labor put in very little effort. Bob Such was extremely annoyed at the way the Liberals ran their campaign. That TPP was flattering to the Liberals. In 2006 Labor won the 2PP at very close to 60-40, not really a result from a safe Liberal seat.
That is not to say that the Liberals should not have won the by-election. That quite clearly should have won because the Labor government is old and stinking. The trouble is the Liberals are totally incompetent.
That’s right GG, I was all primed to make Fisher the first federal, state or territory by-election I had failed to cover in the 11-year history of this site, before Carey flew in and saved the day. It was then that I made my off-the-cuff decision to interrupt the holiday I’m on in northern New South Wales to publish a 1000 word blog post on it half an hour later, go back in time and stay up until 3am the night before writing an article of only slightly shorter length that appeared in Crikey earlier in the day, and spend four hours out of my Saturday doing the preliminary work for my booth-matched results table.
thanks Edi- good to know the background.
William – thanks a lot – we all really appreciate how much effort you put into this site.
And doing this extra work on holidays in such a lovely part of the world – you deserve a medal!
William,
There’s plenty of love to go round.
[Daniel Wills @DanWillsTiser
Just hearing the EC counting error has been confirmed. Updated numbers today will put Labor 638 ahead in Fisher, almost impossible to stop.
12:43 PM – 7 Dec 2014]
Ghost who Votes confirms ESCA have changed their numbers.
https://twitter.com/ch150ch
Oops.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/Fisher?src=hash
Certainly a great surprise as the Tiser’s (admittedly crappy) poll earlier in the week indicated a Woodyatt win. Labor won because:
1. It had the best candidate in the field.
2. It campaigned in Fisher as never before (and certainly harder than for two decades).
3. Abbott is toxic in SA because of submarines, GMH, the ABC etc.
4. Voters unhappy with the Weatherill Government were able to vote Labor via the back door (Woodyatt and co).
5. While the Libs were trashing Woodyatt’s credentials, the heat was taken off Nat Cook.
So, I am willing to propose 5 factors at work here:
1. The mood against the Federal Government. The cuts are hurting and SA is feeling like it’s being singled out for the worst of it. I have commented for a while this state is sharply turning against Abbott and this result backs that up. Imagine what the mood in Canberra would be if this state had 10 Liberal marginals rather than 1-3.
2. The complete ineptitude of the Liberal state opposition. While Harris was an okay candidate, they hyped her up as a local celebrity and honestly thought voters would be tripping over to get her elected (btw, to those who don’t know: she’s a political staffer who’s well known in party ranks – that’s her celebrity). Not to mention the fact the SA Liberals cannot seem to manage to hold the government to account for anything, coming across as pathetic whingers or focusing on the wrong angle. Even when they do hit the right note, they drop it quickly. And don’t get me started on their leader!
3. The absolute hard work of Nat Cook and the Labor team. Say what you want but, while other candidates might have been peacocking, she and her volunteers were busy wearing out their shoe leather, door-knocking and appealing to voters on a grassroots level.
4. The last minute dirt campaign against Dan Woodyatt by Family First and the Liberals certainly stuck to him a little and made his support drop, unluckily for the Libs, it seems a bit of that dirt fell on them as well and the voters who left Woodyatt either went to other indies or went to Labor. Also, they had pretty much ensured that most of Woodyatt’s voters were going to preference Labor over them!
5. The stability factor. While probably the most minor factor, it no doubt played in some people’s minds – especially if deciding between independent and Labor. That a Labor win would mean a majority government and no more uncertainty in the House. Voters, unless pissed off with the Government, prefer to see the Government get on with the job than see chaotic hung parliaments and silly parliamentary games lead to instability.
There are probably other factors at play and please tell me what you think they are. There’s certainly room for a 6,7,8 and more on this list.
So what do we think the ALP’s approach to Davenport should be? Take a serious stab at it? Try and get a good independent elected? Or just let it go?
Carey – the other thing that has been talked about as potentially affecting Labor’s campaign is the increase in the Emergency Services Levy.
I live in a conservative rural area, but people here aren’t blaming the State Labor Government for the increase – they are blaming Abbott and the Feds for making it necessary.
And if my local Tories are taking a swipe at the Libs when they *could* take a swipe at Labor, then the Libs are even more farked than we all think …
I think Labor should put up a strong candidate in Davenport, but I am struggling without the electoral boundaries report in front of me to think about who the local Labor people are.
If it is as close to the Adelaide Hills as I think it is, they might consider John Fulbrook, a previous candidate in the general vicinity (I think he lives in or around Mt Barker).
He is smart, presentable, and has a name and face that would be familiar to some.
Also, and arguably more importantly, it would make a change from the desperate, last-minute “oh shit, we need a candidate for Davenport” non-entity Young Labor person the electorate normally has foisted upon it …
There is a huge difference between Davenport and Fisher. Davenport has almost always been won by the Liberals on first preferences. More recent exceptions being,
2006 which was a Labor high point, still Labor only got 30.9% of first preferences, Liberals 48.7%
1997 when the Democrats managed 18.6% and another 11% was split between 3 independents.
1985 which was a contest between Dean Brown as the Liberal and Stan Evans as the Liberal Independent.
Labor has only managed more that 30% primary in 2006 although in recent elections the Greens have 14-15%.
Also Sam Duluk is the Liberal candidate. He ran a strong campaign in Fisher at the state election and should be able to do so in the by-election.
A Labor win in Davenport would be a much bigger upset than their win in Fisher which in itself was a big surprise.
Toorak
I thought stability may have been an issue too.
A labor win gives majority govt without relying on indies inc MHS.
A lib, indie win may have seen the libs pursue the tactic of Abbott. Destablisation for the sake of it.
Carey 119 –
1. Imagine what the mood in Canberra would be if this state had 10 Liberal marginals rather than 1-3
I would imagine they might have a different attitude to South Australia if that were the case. And that sentiment itself I am sure would anger South Australians even more. A bit like Pyne’s pathetic “petition” – he is a Cabinet Minister in the Govenrment the petition is directed against, not some local community organizer who has no other clout!
4. The last minute dirt campaign against Dan Woodyatt by Family First and the Liberals ….. pretty much ensured that most of Woodyatt’s voters were going to preference Labor over them!
Yes I think it seems unlikely that Woodyatt would otherwise have finished 2nd and thus won, but it is possible I suppose. But it certainly seems that even if they did dissuade a few from voting for him, they probably persuaded more of those who did to preference Labor. These last minute “cunning plans” often come unstuck, and as I commented on the previous thread, the very slight smirk on Steve Marshall’s face as he denied all knowledge totally gave the game away.
5. Malcolm Mackerras has always been a big believer in the stability argument. I am not totally convinced but again if it was a factor it probably helped in the Labor-Woodyatt undecideds.
[Also, and arguably more importantly, it would make a change from the desperate, last-minute “oh shit, we need a candidate for Davenport” non-entity Young Labor person the electorate normally has foisted upon it …]
So, no to Sam Davis for Davenport? 😛
I am of two minds. As is pointed out, Davenport is a different electorate but it’s also the weakest of the Liberal non-marginals.
Labor should do something. Whether it’s push for the seat or rally behind a strong independent depends on the circumstances. They definitely should not just let the seat go, otherwise it will take the wind out of the “Fight back against the Abbott Government” sails (“If they are so passionate on the issue, why have they just given up the fight?”)
Actually, Dan Woodyatt shouldn’t dismiss the idea of trying his luck at Davenport. He didn’t do too badly in the northern part of Fisher, which borders Davenport and some of the big booths are indeed on the southern edge of the electorate (use the same advantage Duluk is trying to take advantage of)
But yeah, I definitely agree that if Labor want to do something they have to decide now and not be stuck running an AYL sacrificial lamb.
They could use the opportunity to test run a Boothby candidate.
I am and always have been a strong believer in strong local candidates.
Get in early and encourage young local people to build their profile via community groups and then local government. Only then, with the benefit of some sort of local “incumbency” should people consider standing for State or Federal Government.
Labor’s great failing in strong Liberal areas is to field a non-entity.
No, no, a hundred times no.
Think local, nominate local. Show local people you are serious about representing their voices in the parliament.
And yes, I agree Dan should try his hand at Davenport … although the electorate might then see him as a political chancer, rather than someone who has a particular electorate in their heart and mind.
Davenport and Fisher have had various suburbs swap between each other, so I wouldn’t see that as much of an issue.
If Dan did run in Davenport I would expect massive Liberal attacks on him on several grounds (political try-hard, closet Labor candidate, helped Labor win in Fisher with prefs, bad music person etc)
I am putting them out there in the hope the Libs use them, because they will probably if used decrease the chances of the Libs holding the seat.
And if they think this is my “cunning plan” to get them to go soft on him – all the better, go hard and go the man!
Well, if the Liberals tried the “He’s trying his luck with us because he failed in Fisher” line, they can be politely reminded that Sam Duluk, the Liberal candidate, did the same thing.
Well, I think we’ll get a better idea about what Labor’s (and possibly Woodyatt’s) plans are by the end of this week or next. They obviously are still focused on Fisher and the postal/pre-polls.
http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/fisher-state-by-elections-and-federal.html
Fisher, State By-Elections And Federal Drag
A hopefully definitive attempt to place what seems to have happened in Fisher in historic context.
[Fisher, State By-Elections And Federal Drag]
A fascinating historical perspective. Thank you.
Cook’s lead down to 451 after counting big batch of postals.
http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/elections/2014-by-election-of-fisher/fisher-results-menu/pollingboothsummary/714
I’m adding postcounting updates to the Fisher piece. The real issue here is most likely the gap between Labor and Woodyatt; if it comes down again on prepolls then things will be a bit more interesting in terms of the outcome.
@ShowsOn is that all/most of the postals, then?
Liberal supporters gloating that Cook “only” leads the 2PP by 451 (ignoring that it’s only a couple of hundred down from the night)
More importantly, it means Harris is getting around 57.4% of the postals going her way. Really, she needed to be around 60%
I don’t expect a sharper swing to Harris in pre-polls. Although, I concede Woodyatt might get a sharp swing towards him and could, conceivably, jump into second (and subsequently win the 2CP).
Right now, despite the sensationalism of “the narrowing” the smart money is still on Cook.
InDaily claim Harris needs 55% so maybe I calculated that wrong. (I’d trust them over me.)
Update added to post.
Carey (#139) my own figures for Harris to catch up come out at about the same as InDaily’s (54.5-45.5). That’s assuming there’s 5000 declaration votes outstanding.
Harris actually got over 57% of the postals counted yesterday so it’s not quite over yet.
In the March election there was a 4% swing to Duluk (Lib) away from Such on declarations and postals (44-56) compared to the booth vote (40-60). If that was repeated here Harris gets those 52-48 (booth vote being 52-48 Cook) which isn’t enough to catch up.
Obvious differences this time are it’s an ALP-Lib race rather than a Ind-Lib race, and neither candidate has the benefit of incumbency.
Looking forward to the next update from ECSA sometime today.
Daniel Wills @DanWillsTiser 5m5 minutes ago
Told early indications from small sample of Fisher pre-polls shows same trend as ordinary ballots cast on Sat. Labor position strengthens.
So if there are only 4600 pre-polls outstanding (according to Dan Wills’ tweet earlier today) Harris does need 55%. That would be a really significant break on the current count, which it doesn’t sound like she’s getting.
For those wondering about Labor’s plan for Davenport:
[SA Labor @alpsa 6m6 minutes ago
We’re pleased to announce that Mark Ward has been pre-selected as the Labor Candidate for the upcoming Davenport byelection #davenportvotes
SA Labor @alpsa 4m4 minutes ago
Mark has lived in Davenport for the past 18 years and has been a local councillor for the past 8 years.
SA Labor @alpsa 2m2 minutes ago
Mark is currently a teacher at Urrbrae Agricultural High School who is passionate about education and advocating for his community]
Phillip, yeah I made an error with my calculating. Apologies for that momentary mistake. In my defence, it was a back-of-the-envelope rushed job I did on a break at work (My work isn’t in psephology FYI)
Carey, no need to apologise. You’re doing a top job.
BTW no update expect from ECSA until after 4pm today:
https://twitter.com/DanWillsTiser/status/542170417624920065
I expect they won’t update until they have a provisional TPP for everything they counted today.
Primary votes updated:
http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/elections/2014-by-election-of-fisher/fisher-results-menu/districtsummary/714
Both Harris and Woodyatt improved their share of the primary vote, Cook fell a bit. Woodyatt is still 700 votes behind Cook, so he might be too far behind to catch her for 2nd place.
Woodyatt’s position has improved significantly. He isn’t out of this yet. At present he needs 24 points more tiddler preferences than Labor but that’s down from 37 points on the night. Perhaps still a little bit high but with more postals to come he might do this. (I don’t know what the flow from others is like.)
If the 2PP spreads on the preferences are similar to before Labor should have something like 50.7 at the end of all this which I would think would bear up to remaining postals.
ECSA 2pp split now up with the pre-polls counted in – Harris now 17 in front of Cooke – 10,186 to 10,169.
Well, now you’d rather be in Harris’ shoes!
I can feel a recount looming.