Late count: Herbert finalised, Senate results imminent

Prospects for a legal challenge to Labor’s 37-vote win, as the AEC prepares to press the button on Senate election counts across the country.

New South Wales and Queensland results (Thursday)

So then. New South Wales as expected: 1. Payne (Lib); 2. Dastyari (ALP); 3. Sinodinos (Lib); 4. McAllister (ALP); 5. Nash (NAT); 6. O’Neill (ALP); 7. Fierravanti-Wells (LIB); 8. Cameron (ALP); 9. Rhiannon (GRN); 10. Williams (NAT); 11. Burston (PHON); 12. Leyonhjelm (LDP).

But in Queensland, the second One Nation candidate, Malcolm Roberts, pulled off what I deemed the improbable in getting enough preferences to win a second seat:

1. Brandis (LNP); 2. Watt (ALP); 3. Hanson (PHON); 4. Canavan (LNP); 5. Chisholm (ALP); 6. McGrath (LNP); 7. Moore (ALP); 8. Macdonald (LNP); 9.Waters (GRN); 10. O’Sullivan (LNP); 11.Ketter (ALP); 12.Roberts (PHON).

The primary vote front-runner, Gabe Buckley of the Liberal Democrats, received a remarkably weak flow of preferences, and Roberts was further able to pull ahead of the Nick Xenophon Team, Family First, Katter’s Australian Party and Glenn Lazarus Team candidates at various points in the count. The chart below shows the results at Count 9, at which point Pauline Hanson was elected and her surplus flowed on to Roberts, and the race for the final three positions out of the last nine surviving candidates.

2016-08-02-qld-senate-count

Thursday

The AEC has announced the button will be pressed in Queensland at 9am, with New South Wales apparently likely to follow either late today or some tomorrow. I’ve now done a spreadsheet for Western Australia, to go with the one I did earlier for Tasmania, showing the frequency with which voters for the various parties included the various other parties in the top six of their preference order (which in most cases means giving them a preference full stop, since most voters simply numbered six boxes above the line). As before, each party’s first preference vote and preference allocations are listed by row, and there are separate worksheets accessible at the bottom left for above-the-line and below-the-line votes.

Victorian result (Wednesday)

1. Fifield (Lib); 2. Carr (ALP); 3. Di Natale (GRN); 4. McKenzie (NAT); 5. Conroy (ALP); 6. Ryan (LIB); 7. Collins (ALP); 8. Paterson (Lib); 9. Marshall (ALP); 10. Hinch (DHJP); 11. Rice (GRN); 12. Hume (Lib).

No surprises there then.

South Australian Senate result (Tuesday)

1. Birmingham (LIB); 2. Wong (ALP); 3. Xenophon (XEN); 4. Bernardi (LIB); 5. Farrell (ALP); 6. Griff (XEN); 7. Ruston (LIB); 8. Gallacher (ALP); 9. Fawcett (LIB); 10. Kakoschke-Moore (XEN); 11. Hanson-Young (GRN); 12. Day (FFP).

A defeat for Labor as the fourth candidate on its ticket, Senator Anne McEwen, loses out to Bob Day of Family First. McEwen had 39,378 votes after the surplus from the third-placed Labor candidate was distributed, ahead of Bob Day on 31,548. As the table below illustrates, McEwen maintained a lead of 50,515 to 44,907 as the various also-rans were excluded, leaving candidates of six substantial parties competing for the last three seats. However, the exclusion of the fifth Liberal, Senator Sean Edwards, unlocked a decisive flow of preferences to Day, a considerable number for the third Nick Xenophon Team candidate, Skye Kakoschke-Moore, and pitifully few for McEwen, and fewer still for the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young – who nonetheless came within 16 votes of a quota at this point of the count. Then followed the exclusion of One Nation, and an approximately equal flow of preferences to Day and the Kakoschke-Moore, and much fewer to McEwen and Hanson-Young, although sufficient for the latter to win election at this point. This left Day to a still greater lead over McEwen, which was dented only slightly by the distribution of Hanson-Young’s surplus.

2016-08-02-sa-senate-count

Western Australian Senate result (Monday)

1. Cormann (LIB); 2. Lines (ALP); 3. Ludlam (GRN); 4. Cash (LIB); 5. Sterle (ALP); 6. Smith (LIB); 7. Dodson (ALP); 8. Reynolds (LIB); 9. Back (LIB); 10. Pratt (ALP); 11. Culleton (ONP); 12. Siewert (GRN).

The outcome of the final seat appeared to be up in the air before the count was finalised, with preferences set to determine the winner out of Rachel Siewert and Kado Muir of the Nationals. In the even, Siewert did it surprisingly easily. With the election of Louise Pratt to the tenth seat and the distribution of her small surplus, two seats remained to be filled with three candidates left in the count, of whom Rod Culleton of One Nation had 104,782 votes, Siewert 936,266, and Muir 67,657.

Earlier

First up, The Australian reports that “the Senate count is also due to be finalised this week, with results to be known in South Australia and Western Australia tomorrow, Victoria and Queensland on Tuesday, and New South Wales on Wednesday”.

The other big news today was the finalisation of the recount in Herbert, which delivered Labor a final winning margin of 37 votes. The AEC should declare the result some time this week and must return the writs by next Monday, initiating a 40-day period inal which a challenge can be made before the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. This court can either uphold the result, reverse it, or order a fresh election. Overturning could conceivably happen if the court ruled ballot papers had been incorrectly interpreted, or declaration votes wrongly excluded. However, all the talk has been of a by-election initiated on the basis that voters had been wrongly denied votes in numbers exceeding Labor’s winning margin.

There are three stories circulating as potential basis for such a challenge: the Australian Defence Force’s confirmation of a failure to vote by 628 Australian Defence Force personnel participating in Exercise Hamel, a military exercise conducted around Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla in South Australia, including up to 85 who might have been based in Townsville; claims that people were unable to lodge absent votes in the neighbouring seat of Kennedy due to a shortage of ballot papers; and a statement Senator Ian Macdonald says he has from medical staff a Townsville Hospital that AEC officials neglected to provide ballots in a particular hospital ward.

A number of legal precedents are of note here. At the Queensland state election in July 1995, the Labor government under Wayne Goss eked out a one-seat victory that depended on a 16-vote victory in the Townsville seat of Mundingburra. This result was voided by the Court of Disputed Returns on the grounds that 22 military personnel serving in Rwanda did not receive the postal votes they applied for in time due to a transportation bungle by the Australian Defence Force, combined with errors made by the Electoral Commission. A by-election was ultimately held the following February and won by the Liberals, resulting in the fall of Goss’s government.

On a purely legal level, the relevance of a case centred on postal votes to the claimed irregularities in Herbert is limited. However, the centrality of Defence Force personnel to the Coalition’s case is very important as a matter of political strategy. The Murringburra by-election was followed at the end of that year by another litigation-initiated electoral re-match — this time in the federal seat of Lindsay in western Sydney, where Jackie Kelly’s win for the Liberals had been overturned on grounds of her employment by the RAAF, an “office for profit under the Crown”. On that occasion, Labor was humiliated when voters gave Kelly a further 5.0% to add to the 11.8% swing she received at the election. If a fresh election in Herbert is to have any chance of being to the Liberals’ ultimate advantage – a very dubious proposition under the best of circumstances – it is crucial that it be presented as a means of redressing the disenfranchisement of military personnel, and not the sort of sore loser act Labor was indulging in in Lindsay.

The second clearly relevant precedent from federal level was the seat of Ballarat at the 1919 election, when Labor’s Charles McGrath was defeated by Nationalist candidate Edwin Kerby by a margin of one vote. This was overturned on the grounds that a handful of voters had been wrongly denied ballots due to various official errors, which in two cases involved voters being denied absent votes. At that time, polling stations were issued with blank ballot papers for absent voting, on which officials would fill out the names of the candidates for the relevant division and provide them to the vote. However, a polling station in Corangamite ran out of such papers, and the presiding officer advised deprived voters to await the arrival of new papers. None arrived, and after several hours, the officer decided instead to issue altered ballot papers for Corangamite – but by this time, two affected voters from Ballarat had given up and gone home.

In response to this episode, a number of legislative changes were made in 1922 – one of which proved to be significant after the Western Australian Senate election was botched in 2013, and another of which has an important bearing on the present circumstance. In determining whether the official errors in Ballarat at the 1919 election were sufficient to warrant a fresh election, the court deemed it material that the deprived voters had intended to vote in a way that would have changed the result. It was felt this violated the secrecy of the ballot, so the Electoral Act was changed to specify that no such evidence was to be admitted. After the 2013 election, this section was invoked to refute the argument that the voting intention of the 1375 voters whose ballots had gone missing during the WA Senate recount should be ascertained with reference to the first count.

This changed to the act widened the scope for potential challenges, so the 1922 amendments also imposed limits on who could give evidence about having been denied a vote. This survives today as section 367 of the Electoral Act, which allows evidence to be admitted only from those who made a claim to vote. Media reports say the AEC set up seven polling stations within the Exercise Hamel area at which 1274 votes were cast, and that a further 1371 force members were taken to vote at surrounding population centres. However, 628 did not cast votes for reasons the Defence Department has declined to shed further light on. Unless these members actually fronted up to vote and were knocked back, section 367 would allow no basis for the court to hear their complaint.

As well as that, the Courier-Mail reports the Liberal National Party has written to postal vote applicants in an attempt to identify anyone who failed to receive their ballot paper. The party’s efforts to cover all bases calls to mind another legal challenge at state level in Queensland, following Labor’s 74-vote victory in the Brisbane seat of Chatsworth in 2009. An LNP fishing expedition cited 130 postal vote applications for which no vote was processed, 30 cases of multiple voting, and various other bits and pieces. Most of these were deemed to have had innocent explanations, and the 10 genuine discrepancies that were identified were too few to influence the result. But with the federal division of Herbert having three times as many voters as the state district of Chatsworth, and fewer than half as many votes having decided the result, there seems to be an even money chance that a court challenge will give the Coalition what it appears to believe it wants.

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.

362 comments on “Late count: Herbert finalised, Senate results imminent”

  1. simon katich @ #99 Monday, August 1, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    I am not a reactionary, nor a conservative nor in (or particularly a fan of) the ALP. I was, and still am against limiting of the number of preferences a voter must give ATL. I like the preferential voting system and these changes undermine it IMO.

    Then you’re missing the point of it. The point of preferential voting is to *allow* you to transfer your vote to another candidate if the candidate you have chosen is excluded, and thereby to give you the ability to vote for an unpopular candidate and yet still influence the final outcome if you want to.

    No part of the point of preferencing requires people to be forced to choose between every pair of candidates (even on pain of exclusion of their vote if they stuff it up).

    Indeed forcing someone to preference every square denies them the right to say that they actually don’t have any preference between two candidates, and forces them to lie about their actual opinions between two candidates. Forcing people to lie is wrong.

  2. @Simon Katich, you can number as many boxes ATL as you want. I voted in Victoria, and relished the opportunity to number all 38 boxes above the line – the first time I have been able to do so. Previously, if I wanted to give full expression to my preferences, I would have has to number 100+ boxes below the line — too onerous.

  3. Sorry that should be 4 libs, 3 Lab, 1 Green, Pauline are certain
    Then there are three seats up for grabs
    The possibilities are:
    Labor 4: Very likely
    Liberal No 5 – likely
    The last spot is anyone’s guess with Lazarus, and Hanson the most likely. However both Katter and Lazarus will get solid preference flows and either or both could edge out the Liberal as could the LDP

    As noted it is even possible if preferences flow slowly to the Greens that they could not get Waters elected until late and then have a significant over quota to pass to Bartlett. They would then need preferences from LDP. Not likely but vaguely possible.

  4. Assuming that the LDP gets ahead of any other ‘others’ for NSW, there are 3 separate groups with veto power over anything that Labor + Greens oppose – NXT, ON, and LD.

    The only people that don’t have veto power are JL and DH. I am predicting now the dreaded union of Linch/Hambie forming a voting block.

  5. So, given the Senate reforms were indeed made – and they should have been – what was the catalyst for making the reforms?
    It seems clear to me that two men in particular were the catalysts – Glenn Drury for “preference farming” and Ricky Muir for getting elected. If Muir hadn’t been elected I doubt the reforms would even have been on the radar.
    Muir’s election meant reform had to be undertaken. It made a mockery of the whole system – so thanks to Ricky & Drury were exposing the flaws in the old system.
    Ricky at least benefited to the tune of $360,000 or so of taxpayer’s money (less tax) and Drury got some fair compensation as well didn’t he?

  6. Daretotread: you have greens at a maximum of 11, Assuming they get their 2nd Victorian seat to get to 9 – where can they possibly get 2 more?

  7. Poor wording, sorry. The changes ‘allow’ a voter to limit their preferences…. potentially to just 1 (I assume they did count those wtih just 1 ATL). That is optional preferential voting and similar enough to FPTP to freak me out.

    It is not forcing people to lie, it is ‘forcing’ people to preference. Which is what I thought full preferential voting (where it is compulsory to vote) means. But now I am at odds with KB, I have to say my confidence in my definitions is wavering.

  8. DTT: “it is even possible if preferences flow slowly to the Greens that they could not get Waters elected until late and then have a significant over quota to pass to Bartlett.”
    Except that Andrew only has 1075 votes in his own right, so he will have been eliminated before all the major-minor party leaders with their tens of thousands.

  9. “Daretotread: you have greens at a maximum of 11, Assuming they get their 2nd Victorian seat to get to 9 – where can they possibly get 2 more?”

    Yep Daretoread has definitely got the sums wrong. Greens definitely won’t pick up a secound seat in South Australia, Queensland, and NSW, or a senate seat at all in NT or ACT.

    Tas 2 + Vic 2 + WA 2+ QLD 1+ NSW 1 + SA 1 = 9

  10. Steve, I would whole heartedly support a system forcing you to number all the boxes ATL.
    But these discussions have been gone over before, and prbably not for this thread anyway. Can we give it the Tibet monk debate clap?

  11. For what its worth Simon i agree with you 100%, but we are in the minority and these changes only happened because an elite few supported it, and some parties thought it would advantage them. Nothing we think or say will ever change it.
    Above the line voting is a convenience for lazy people who would donkey vote or spoil their ballot otherwise, having people number all boxes above the line would have been more democratic (or not having above the line voting at all). But maybe that would have been too much trouble for some to bother with. This solution is better than i expected it would be.
    The real problem with the old system was that it could be gamed by flooding the system with lots of candidates. The more candidates there are the less likely people will vote below the line which increased the insentive to flood the system with more candidates.
    It will take a decade or more to see the real change this has on our democracy. I expect minor parties will slowly wither away as they realize that trying to be a part of the system is increasingly futile.

  12. 1. Been told by those who know more than me the button push in SA will be tomorrow, subject to any last minute hitches;
    2. Former SA Australian Democrat MLC, Sandra Kanck, was scrutineering Senate count here and posted on her Facebook page that she thinks the last Senate seat in SA will go to Family First’s sideshow Bob Day over ALP’s Anne McEwen ;
    3. I hope she is wrong as a) Bob Day is detestable in every way b) I have a tenner on him losing his seat.

  13. I think this election may have given minor/micro parties a false sense of hope. I think factors of disillusionment with the major parties, full senate election which means a lower quota, and minor/parties support can erode quickly will come back to haunt them sooner or later.

    I can see the Greens staying put- but Liberal Democrats, One Nation, Xenophon, and Lambie I can definitely see flaming out. As we have seen Palmer United Party and One Nation in it’s hey day, some these parties lack the professionalism or the discipline to survive. The Greens have a big advantage over these parties which is a base and voter loyalty. I can definitely see some of these parties shut up shop in an election or two real quick.

  14. mark basham @ #115 Monday, August 1, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    1. Been told by those who know more than me the button push in SA will be tomorrow, subject to any last minute hitches;
    2. Former SA Australian Democrat MLC, Sandra Kanck, was scrutineering Senate count here and posted on her Facebook page that she thinks the last Senate seat in SA will go to Family First’s sideshow Bob Day over ALP’s Anne McEwen ;
    3. I hope she is wrong as a) Bob Day is detestable in every way b) I have a tenner on him losing his seat.

    Her post is dated July 19 and says:

    “My ongoing SA Senate scrutiny as of today tells me that in the contest for the final three seats, the ALP #4, Anne McEwen, won’t make it across the line. Those three seats will be fought out between the NXT #3, Skye Kakoschke-Moore, the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young (she’ll be elected from McEwen’s transfer), Bob Day of Family First and the One Nation candidate, whose name I don’t even know. Just so you can say you knew this before the political commentators.”

    She also says 54% of the Liberal votes preference Family First (this is not in itself enough, but it would close a lot of the gap).

    Hmmm.

  15. Actually I accept the Bartlett thing. He will get eliminated early so it is a not possible.
    However i still think that both Katter and Lazarus could edge out the Liberal and LDP.

    My decidedly optimistic exercise could have given greens two in Qld but I rule it out. NSW is a different story. It is possible that a second Green or far more likely a soft left type from Sex or AJP might scrape over the line.

  16. @Bug1
    I don’t expect minor parties to die, I expect them to merge (or run joint tickets like Sex / Hemp) since the lack of Group Tickets reduces the incentive to setup multiple similar parties (preference harvesters) to try and stay in the throw for the last seat. I also think you substantially underestimate the actual time cost of Senate voting , I filled in 21 boxes ATL (through to the Liberals, since I had no stake in the garbage fire beyond that point) and by the time I cross checked parties, and made sure I didn’t miss or double numbered it took me 20 minutes to fill in the paper. Below the Line Voting would be even worse. And I’d come in having already down an investigation and evaluation of every party on the Queensland ballot. Filling out all boxes BTL for someone who has no real interest in politics on polling day would either take ~10 minutes (they voted for their preferred party and maybe a few other similar parties they recognized , put their least favorured last, and then did the rest randomly ) or over an hour (if they actually evaluated candidates thoroughly). ATL was introduced because the huge number of BTL candidates caused ludicrously high informal rates (not because people were deliberately doing so but because of errors).

    @David
    I don’t think Lambie will flame out because she can’t fracture from herself and she’s basically riding a personal vote. She just won’t get a successor when she steps down and her party will disappear. I fully expect One Nation to explode again (you can already see from the candidates that they have limited similarities). It wouldn’t surprise me if the Lib Dems have defectors but the party itself has been around long enough that I think it’ll be fine as an institution. I think Xenophon might be okay too, it’s basically a party of ex-Liberal moderates , which means they have a fair degree of ideological similarity and already jumped ship from the party they would be most likely to jump too. It was a mistake to explicitly name it after himself though since that may cause serious problems when he retires and takes his personal vote with him.

  17. @D2R:
    A second Greens in NSW is just as impossible as in Queensland. I’d be happy to give you $1001 odds on it.
    Rhiannon starts on 0.94 quotas. She will get elected fairly quickly. But Osborne (GRN#2) only starts with 1550 votes, and will likely be eliminated even before Rhiannon gets elected.
    If you’re looking for a surprise left pick-up, there is a possibility of the Liberals not getting their fifth seat in Victoria. Most likely it’ll be a fourth Hanson, but AJP or Sex is also a possibility.

  18. Actually, let me take that back: If it’s not L/NP#5 (which I’d still regard as quite likely), it’s a pretty wide-open race between Hanson, AJP, Sex, Xenophon and LDP. Simply not enough preferencing data to say where it would go.

  19. Joe, how on earth do you work that out? Sex Party has 0.0866 of a quota, AJP has 0.11. Where on earth, or in the heavens, are they going to get preferences that will put them in competition with the following
    5th Liberal 0.6715
    Pauline Hanson’s One Nation 0.5319
    Liberal Democrats 0.3998
    Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) 0.3501 ???
    (Figures from Ant Green’s site cos he has party totals which are what really matter except in Tas)
    You’re not alone – there are some really funny predictions being posted here. Leave it to Kevin!

  20. Will-i-am, you’re going to correct that number for Siewert aren’t you? That would give her 9 quotas – a remarkable feat after 11 others have been elected!

  21. [It seems clear to me that two men in particular were the catalysts – Glenn Drury for “preference farming” and Ricky Muir for getting elected. If Muir hadn’t been elected I doubt the reforms would even have been on the radar.
    Muir’s election meant reform had to be undertaken. It made a mockery of the whole system – so thanks to Ricky & Drury were exposing the flaws in the old system.]
    This indeed is what i think drove the change too, and it is pathetic, no wonder the case for change was so riddled with lies and deceit. It boils down to an insiders arrogant view that people got it wrong when Ricky was elected, that Ricky shouldn’t have been elected. No evidence or logic was needed it was just wrong. But of course it was in no way wrong. It was in no way random, and it was in no way a result of ‘secrecy’ which didn’t exist.

    If you have a process then people are going to make choices within that process, other than insiders who just ‘knew’ it was wrong, noone was really upset either by all the parties having group tickets as envisaged by the Parliament (although some inexplicably call that dodgy) or by the result.

    The changes are fine, as was the old system, they are just slightly different processes and the difference in process will cause some difference in human behaviour (perhaps donkey voting clusters around preferred party rather than parties taking risky preference swaps), and thus results. Bit of a coin toss between them but the case for change was put so badly, so dishonestly I’m still astounded, Donald Trump has more credibility than the case that was put for change.

  22. You really like a system that encourages regimentation don’t you WWP? All march in step with the party bosses, or the faction leaders – hup, hup, hup!

  23. But the changes make it clear the preferences expressed in GTV weren’t at all reflective of the preferences of people voting for the parties. Which strongly suggests that people were voting 1 ATL out of convenience not out of an agreement with the preference flows thus generated. You could say that at best they didn’t disagree strongly enough to change their vote. I suspect that it’s more likely they didn’t even check the actual order and might have been horrified if they did.

  24. [You really like a system that encourages regimentation don’t you WWP? All march in step with the party bosses, or the faction leaders – hup, hup, hup!]
    No I don’t know why you’d have to make this up, I didn’t dislike the old system which presumably had the support of both houses of the Australian Parliament at some point. Personally I would never leave my preferences to the ALP state machine in WA, and voted BTL, under both systems.
    [Which strongly suggests that people were voting 1 ATL out of convenience not out of an agreement with the preference flows thus generated. ]
    You could argue all sorts of things, and with almost any argument you made up you’d be doing better than what we were given in the public discussion that attended to the Lib-Green deal and the change of law. But without actual evidence it is pretty pointless speculating what goes on in the minds of voters. If they are really unhappy there is always a chance they will tell you, you should really listen then.

  25. “Personally I would never leave my preferences to the ALP state machine in WA, and voted BTL, under both systems.” Glad to hear that – but you don’t seem to have taken your own advice and listened to ordinary voters. They wouldn’t have told you they were “really unhappy” but they would have told you they were scared/bluffed into voting ATL by the fear that if they voted BTL they’d make one tiny mistake and the vote would be informal. And yes, there was an obscure saving provision but nobody ever publicised it so the general impression was as I said – one tiny mistake and you’re out. So Labor voters helped to elect Stgeve Fielding and Greens voters heldped to elect Bob Day – you can’t tell me they knew they were doing that.

  26. @Simon Katich and Steve Gardiner. I too voted in Victoria and voted all 118 candidates below the line. Voting below the line and completing every square is the best way to maximise your vote. The preferential system is a fairer way to elect candidates as compared to first past the post. With the new system where you can vote 1 to 12 below the line and then stop, there really is no justification to retain above the line voting

  27. @ Jack A Randa
    My “prediction” my not seem so “funny” once you read my two posts together and realise I’m talking about Victoria. 😉
    I very much appreciate Kevin’s work, but I regard myself just as well placed to make accurate ones.

  28. Ahhhh Joe, I see now – yes there was a reference to Vic at the end of your previous post and you were correcting it. And yes, there’s a whole heap of parties with about 0.2Q in Victoria so all sorts of things could happen. Exciting times!

  29. With WA and Tas out of the way, that’s the two most stressful results for the left taken care of (assuming Anne McEwen and Janet Rice are fairly safe, which I think they are). Barring unwelcome surprises in SA or Vic, just some skirmishing among the RWNJs in NSW and Qld to go!

    Before the election I would have been far more confident about the Greens winning two in Tasmania than in WA. Interesting to be so wrong there!

  30. “I suspect that it’s more likely they didn’t even check the actual order and might have been horrified if they did.”

    I’d take it one step further still, and suggest that under the old system a majority of voters probably didn’t even realise prefs were distributed at all if they voted ATL, let alone where others were directing them for them!

  31. Although, Joe, now I’ve had a ponder while looking at AG’s nice ordered list of Vic senate votes, I think the most likely outcome is that, as they’re all eliminated from bottom up, none of the 0.2Q groups will accumulate much, FF will pass strongly to Libs and other RWNJs less strongly so, Sex and AJ will pass considerably to Greens and we’ll end up with 5 Libs 4ALP 2 Greens and Derryn. But Hanson could get enough from SFF and JLN to pass the Libs or Greens.
    Re-reading your 5:54pm, I note you said “if you’re looking for a surprise”. I agree that if there is a surprise the ones you mention are most likely, but I’ll be surprised if there is a surprise. (Do I hear someone say “Ca va sans dire”?)
    This is all based on an assumption that the other States won’t be so different from Tassie in one important respect – that people who vote for a minor party have a strong liking for that party and don’t much like the other ones , even if to a pol scientist they seem close on the spectrum (rather like the leaders of the minor parties who are natural-born squabblers and schismatics), so after a few “emotional” prefs to minor parties whom they see as particularly similar to their favourite one they’ll give a “pragmatic” preference to one of the big 3.

  32. wewantpaul @ #128 Monday, August 1, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    You really like a system that encourages regimentation don’t you WWP? All march in step with the party bosses, or the faction leaders – hup, hup, hup!

    No I don’t know why you’d have to make this up, I didn’t dislike the old system which presumably had the support of both houses of the Australian Parliament at some point.

    That point was the early 1980s when the previous system was suffering scandalous levels of informal voting and GTV was brought in as a way to cut the informal rate. At the time micro-parties were polling very little and so the issues with the system that would lead to it being gamed to death were not obvious. Had they been obvious it’s extremely unlikely the system would have been supported. More likely there would have just been liberalisation of the savings provisions, perhaps accompanied by a reduced preferencing requirement.

    The idea that it is all about Ricky Muir is not correct. Yes that case helped highlight it but there was also (among others) the WA case where Dropulich nearly got elected off an even lower vote, only for the whole election to be wrecked and have to be rerun because votes were lost and there was a close exclusion point between two otherwise irrelevant parties. Despite the AEC’s best efforts there was another stuffup in WA this time with 105 voters given the wrong state’s ballot papers. Had we been using the old system still, that could have again caused a full-state rerun.

    I don’t think anyone supporting the old system should be taken seriously unless they personally offer to pay for the cost of any full-state re-elections that might be caused by the combination of irrelevant tipping points that that system used to generate plus a few lost votes. If they have that sort of money then maybe we take them seriously, but they’re still an accessory to the denial of human rights.

  33. Re Day in 2013 – in fact Labor voters caused him to win without any help from the Greens; had Labor not preferenced him then he would not have won even with the Greens’ help. The myth that the Greens caused it was created by a mistaken Crikey article that noticed the impact of the Greens’ surplus but didn’t realise that that surplus consisted mainly of ALP ticket votes. The Greens could have caused Day’s election and should be harshly criticised for that, but actually they didn’t.

  34. “The myth that the Greens caused it was created by a mistaken Crikey article that noticed the impact of the Greens’ surplus but didn’t realise that that surplus consisted mainly of ALP ticket votes” Actually my perpetration of the myth had nothing to do with Crikey – I looked up the preference flow and came to that conclusion myself, without realising that most of the surplus had come from Labor. I stand corrected. So Labor was twice responsible for electing FF instead of Greens or Xenophons? Miscalculation, or some DLP-lite types in Labor who secretly support the fundies?

  35. Just on WA, something I’ve not seen commented on much is the absolutely dire result for the WA Nationals at this election, in stark contrast to their eastern cousins. Not only have they failed to win a Senate seat in a double dissolution election (probably their best chance for a while), they also collapsed to an emphatic third in both O’Connor and Durack. Mere reflection of the incumbency of the Liberal sitting members, or an indication of trouble to come at the state election? Maybe one of our resident sandgropers can enlighten us. Either way, it seems they can be discounted at the federal level for a while.

  36. Jack: Three times, if you count the 2006 Victorian state election when Labor delivered an upper house seat in Western Victoria to the DLP ahead of the Greens. I don’t think they are responsible for the DLP’s other two wins of recent times (2010 federal, 2014 state), which is something, I guess.

  37. “Dtt – it is impossible for Greens to win a second seat in NSW. Its the same story as Queensalnd.”

    Agreed. Even Bob Brown has slammed the Greens performance in NSW the other night on the 7:30 report conceding they will win only one seat. So how is it that Daretoread suggest there is a possibility for a secound seat, when the Greens haven’t got to even one quota from counting?

    I know Daretoread says he is not a Green, but he talks up the Greens chances at every opportunity. It makes me wonder.

  38. There seem to be quite a few micros who PHON do slightly better out of than anyone else. In WA, ALA, DHJP, RUA, Aus First, Mature Australia are all in this category. These excepted most of the cases of a micro’s voters preferring another micro involve the Christian cluster (CDP prefer AC, FF prefer AC, AC prefer FF).

  39. Regarding the Sandra Kanck post re Bob Day, the ever-useful @sorceror43 has pointed out that at the time she made it the Liberals were on 4.3 quotas in SA; they have since gone back to below 4.24.

Leave a Reply

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