Victorian election: photo finishes

A closer look at the yet-to-be-decided seats for the Victorian election.

A full display of the election results, with complete booth figures, swings and probability estimates, can be found here. This will be updated with the latest figures at irregular intervals.

Tuesday afternoon

4pm. Ali Cupper has reportedly emerged the winner in Mildura after distribution of preferences by 254 votes.

2pm. No official figures available, but the preference count in Prahran has established that Greens incumbent Sam Hibbins has prevailed over Labor’s Neil Pharaoh, apparently by around 200 votes, with the latter conceding defeat on social media. So the Greens have maintained their lower house status quo of three seats, losing Northcote but gaining Brunswick, although they stand to be gutted in the upper house, where they went in with five and will come out with one or two.

Tuesday morning

Preference distributions will apparently start being conducted today, and it doesn’t seem there are more than tiny handfuls of votes remaining to be cleared up in the primary and two-party counts. So unless the preference distribution process turns up a misplaced bundle, it would seem Labor has won Bayswater and Hawthorn, the Liberals have held on in Caulfield and Ripon, and independent Ali Cupper has scraped home in Mildura. The only significant action in the close seat counts yesterday was in Caulfield, where postals continued to save the day for David Southwick, the latest batch favouring him 145-61 and extending his lead from 338 to 410.

Monday morning

The most interesting development over the weekend from my perch was that 525 postals were added in Mildura, which cut Ali Cupper’s lead from 252 to 189. With the dealine for postals to arrive being tomorrow at 5pm, there will presumably be only one more, smaller batch to go, and very little chance that it will overturn Cupper’s lead. Tiny additions to the vote in Hawthorn and Ripon made no appreciable difference to the situation there, as related in the previous entry. Kevin Bonham has been doing good work following the count in Prahran, where only scrutineers’ reports offer any guidance as to the flow of preferences between the Greens and Labor, which stands to decide the result. Suffice to say that it’s going to be very close. The other potential wild cards when preferences are distributed are Melton and Benambra, which Labor and Liberal respectively have at least some chance of losing to independents. Then there’s the upper house …

Friday evening

Just as my interest in the count was winding down, along comes Caulfield — Liberal member David Southwick led by 1101 yesterday, and trails by 118 today. Southwick is one of three Liberals on very narrow deficits, hoping they might be overturned on the final batch of postals. The damage to Southwick was done on absents — not so much due to the swing, which was actually modest (3.6% to Labor, compared with 7.0% of ordinary votes), but the surprisingly high number cast (5692 as compared with 3130 in 2014). Labor scored over 60%, for a split of 3439-2253. Postal votes have been overwhelmingly favouring Southwick — 2682 to 1030, or 72.3-27.7 — so it will only take a small number of late arrivals behaving according to form to get his nose back in front. But there will very little in it either way.

Provisionals and a handful of pre-polls have made next to no difference in Hawthorn, where the Labor lead goes from 156 to 163. A big day of counting in Ripon (or maybe two — I don’t think I looked closely at the numbers yesterday) has failed to settle the matter — Labor has moved to a razor-thin 73 vote lead due to the latest pre-polls, which they won 2211-2059. There was nothing in it on absents (1296 to Labor and 1289 to Liberal), and Labor made their usual small gain on provisionals (147 to 124).

In Mildura, independent Ali Cupper got a handy 195-144 break on provisionals, cancelling out a 41-22 loss on pre-polls and 20-10 on absents in a race where every vote counts. She now leads by 303 votes, which will presumably be enough.

Friday morning

As the count dries up, the in doubt seats are increasingly looking less so. Labor’s lead in Hawthorn grew from 47 to 156 yesterday, as they gained the edge on absents (281-207), postals (109-86) and pre-polls (27-15). They should gain a bit more when provisionals are added, leaving John Pesutto needing something pretty extraordinary on late postals. Labor’s lead nudged from 236 to 266 in Bayswater, after provisionals broke 120-88 their way and postals went 69-67 to the Liberals. The Greens’ lead in Brunswick grew from 353 to 414 with small additions of absents, postals and pre-polls, at which point you would be pretty much calling it. It no longer seems necessary to continue following Nepean, where Labor leads by 794, or Sandringham, where the Liberals lead by 451. No progress today in Mildura, where independent Ali Cupper leads the Nationals by 281.

Thursday morning

Another good day for Labor overall, who seem to be doing better from votes cast out-of-district, whether as absent votes or pre-polls, than the in-district pre-poll votes that were counted on election night. However, I’m not clear if absent votes are all being added in one hit per electorate, or if further additions can yet be anticipated where results have already appeared. I’m tending to think the latter — since absents are usually the best part of late counting for Labor, a fair bit hinges on this.

In Hawthorn, absent votes turned yesterday’s 235-vote Liberal lead into a Labor lead of 47. Labor got 56.8% out of 2498 absents, above the 53.0% I was projecting. I was also projecting there would be 3792 in total, so I am guessing there are another 1000 or so still out there. These will be decisive if so, but it can’t be said how they might behave — batches of absent votes can behave very differently depending where they were sourced from. The Liberals also got only 50.7% out of 4242 new pre-polls (2150 to 2092) added yesterday, compared with their 56.3% of the first 7148 counted.

Things continue to go Labor’s way in Bayswater, where their lead grew yesterday from 165 to 236. Labor got 55.2% of the absents added yesterday — exactly as I had anticipated, but they were 2705 in total rather than my projected 2054. It was also a good day for Labor in Nepean, where they won a batch of 3673 new pre-polls 1903-1770 — 51.8% compared with their 46.4% from the first 14,903. Labor now leads by 492, and most of the outstanding votes are likely to be absents, none of which have been added, so the balance would seem to be tipping their Labor. My lineball projection as of yesterday is now for a Labor winning margin of 0.5%.

One late counting bright spot for the Liberals is Sandringham, where 4464 new pre-polls behaved very much like the first 9424 in breaking 2489-1975 their way. Furthermore, absent votes were added and while they went 1139-884 to Labor, there were less of them than I was anticipating (2023 rather than a projected 2566). However, I’m not sure if this is all of them or not. In any case, the Liberal lead is now 497, and with only a few scraps still outstanding, this will be hard for Labor to rein in.

The Greens’ lead in Brunswick grew from 218 to 353, but they underperformed my projection out of 2653 absent votes counted in Brunswick, scoring 1475 to Labor’s 1178 — 55.6% compared with my projected 61.8%. However, that’s also about 1000 less than I was projecting, so there are presumably more of these to come. There would seem to be another 2000 of these as well. Labor will need about 56% of what’s to come.

The Nationals have come storming home in Mildura, being overwhelmingly dominant on the small number of absent votes (575 to independent Ali Cupper’s 227), and reversing earlier form to win a batch of pre-polls 870 to 640. This slashed Cupper’s lead from 859 to 281. My earlier judgement was that the number of votes outstanding here was too small for the Nationals to close the gap, and that probably still holds, as I believe there are only a few hundred postals still to come.

Nothing today from Ripon.

Wednesday morning

Labor solidly outperformed my projections yesterday in Bayswater, scoring almost exactly half of 4559 pre-polls added, where they only got 46.1% of the first 8383. They also won 52.1% of 674 postals, after scoring only 39.6% of the 2217 counted on election night, did about as well on absents as anticipated, winning 1132-922. That gives Labor a lead of 165, or 0.2% – with not much of the vote outstanding, my projection has it coming down to 0.1%, but Labor will more likely than not continue outperforming its assumptions.

Better news for the Liberals from Ripon, where 889 postals broke 535-354 to Liberal (60.2% compared with 58.0% in the first 3735) and pre-polls went 393-304 (56.4% compared with 51.0% of the first 3302). My Liberal projection has gone from 49.9% to 50.2%, but here too the number of postals received has exceeded my projection, so if anything it might be understating their chances. That said, the margin is narrow enough that a good pre-poll batch or better than expected show on absents for Labor could up-end it. Swings and roundabouts in Nepean, where the Liberals went below par on yesterday’s postals (360-297 in their favour, or 54.8% compared with 59.2% in the election night batch of 2341), but above par on pre-polls (587-357, 62.2% compared with 53.0% of the first 13,959). Before I was projecting a 134 vote win for Labor, now it’s 26 votes for Liberal.

The Liberal lead in Hawthorn increased yesterday from 53 to 235, but only postals were added, and these were slightly less favourable to the Liberals than those counted on election night, bringing my projected final Liberal margin down from 1.1% to 0.8%. The election night postals went Liberal 1104 (60.4%) and Labor 725 (39.6%), but yesterday’s batch went Labor 1115 (54.3%) and Liberal 937 (45.7%). No further pre-polls have been added, and the outstanding ones may yet surprise in either direction. Then there are absents, which I am projecting Labor to do well on, though evidently not well enough.

The Greens are firming in Brunswick: they won a second batch of postals 442-426, after losing the election night count 950-699, and they won a batch of absents 811-537, exactly the proportion anticipated when I projected them to win by 1.0%.

Tuesday afternoon

Labor leads on the raw count with about a third done in Morwell, but my projection is that this will flip when the outstanding votes are in — Northe is on track to receive about 70% of preferences, in which case he wins 52-48 (I conducted a regression analysis to test whether the existing preference count was representative of the whole, and found that it was). Better news for Labor in Geelong, where Christine Couzens leads Darryn Lyons, and Pascoe Vale, where Lizzie Blandthorn leads Oscar Yildiz 59.0-41.0. In Shepparton, Suzanna Sheed looks seat to emerge with 54% to 55% against the Liberal candidate.

Tuesday morning

With very little counting done yesterday, the chief news is that the Victorian Electoral Commission announced it is conducting new preference throws to indicate the likely winners Morwell (independent versus Labor), Geelong (Labor versus independent), Pascoe Vale (Labor versus independent) and Shepparton (independent versus Liberal), and will publish the results later today. The removal of the two-party numbers from the media feed caused my results reporting facility to conk out, so the figures it show remain those from Sunday.

The only thing I know so far about the new preference throws is that the Pascoe Vale pre-poll count has broken 6059-6008 for Labor’s Lizzie Bladthorn over independent Oscar Yildiz, as related by Richard Willingham of The Age. This suggests the advantage to Yildiz on preferences is only 53-47, in which case Blandthorn would win handily with between 54% and 55%. Independents Russell Northe and Darryn Lyons will respectively need around 72% and 66% of preferences in Morwell and Geelong. The deal in Shepparton is that it’s the Liberals rather than the Nationals who finished second, but unless I’m missing something, it would seem to me that Suzanna Sheed is home and hosed in either case.

The only change in the seven seats where I felt the existing notional counts were following was in Ripon, where a batch of pre-polls broke 587-357 to the Liberals – 63% compared with their earlier 53%. This means my projection has gone from 0.1% in favour of Labor to 0.1% in favour of Liberal. The votes counted totals for the upper house have edged up from the forties to the fifties, but I’m still holding off looking into them in detail.

Sunday night

If you want real detail on the likely course of the late count, Kevin Bonham is your man. For starters, I will content myself with the following projections of how the undecided seats where the correct two candidates have been picked for the notional preference count stand to play out. As explained below, there are methodogical details that one might well think imperfect, but if nothing else, consider it a conversation starter.

This assumes that a) outstanding pre-polls will break the same way as those already counted, and the number outstanding is as indicated by the relevant figures from the Victorian Electoral Commission; b) postals will break the same way as those already counted, with the total number to be counted equal to the total in 2014 adjusted in proportion to the growth in enrolment since that time; c) absent votes will differ from non-absent votes in the same way they did in 2014, with the total number determined the same way as for postals. No account is made for provisionals, which should throw a handful of extra votes Labor’s way.

This makes it clear enough that the Liberals should get home in Hawthorn, Sandringham and probably Bayswater, but Nepean and Ripon will go right down to the wire. The Greens’ traditionally strong showing on absent votes should see them home in Brunswick, and it seems likely independent Ali Cupper will gain Mildura from the Nationals. I was circumspect about this in my post last night, as I expected the Nationals would do well on postals – but it turns out that, for whatever reason, very few postals are cast in Mildura. Indeed, it ranks last in the state for number of postal votes received, according to the VEC’s figures.

Then there are the in doubt seats for which the two-party count doesn’t offer an insight. Prahran will be won by whoever out of Greens incumbent Sam Hibbins and Labor’s Neil Pharoah survives the second last exclusion on preferences, which will be absolutely touch and go. Then there is my watch list of five seats (not counting Mildura) that could potentially be won by independents, as discussed in my previous post. Morwell could stay with Nationals-turned-independent member Russell Northe, and will go to Labor if it doesn’t; the Liberals might lose Benambra; Labor might lose Geelong, Melton and Pascoe Vale.

That leaves Labor with 49 seats nailed down, on top of which they might keep Geelong, Melton and Pascoe Vale, and gain Prahran, Nepean, Ripon and Morwell. The Coalition have 27 seats in the bag, including Hawthorn, Sandringham and (perhaps generously) Bayswater, on top of which they might keep Nepean, Ripon and Benambra. I’m pretty sure the Greens will have Brunswick in addition to Melbourne, and are lineball to keep Prahran. I’m giving Mildura as well as Shepparton to independents, to which it’s at least possible to add another five.

As for the upper house, we’re still at too early a stage in the count for me to be bothered putting my oar in – only election day votes have thus far been counted, and an increasing number of voters have finally got the message about the advisability of voting below the line (requiring the numbering of only five boxes in the case of Victorian state elections). However, it looks fairly clear that there will indeed be a spectacular array of micro-parties on the cross bench, and that the principal casualty of this phenomenon is the Greens.

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.

457 comments on “Victorian election: photo finishes”

  1. Tom @ 01.12,

    You write that “The DLP`s voters were largely in the centre, although the party was probably to the right of most of its voters, possibly more so than most political parties and that is probably part of why it did not last as a significant force for long with an ALP government.”

    Mate, that’s not how I remember it. As a boy, I handed out ALP HTVs in the old federal seat of Yarra in the ’60s. Jim Cairns was the working man’s hero then, though it all ended badly. The DLP voters were feral then, and still are with their abortion nonsense. I vividly recall some of their insults. Every time I hear of hokey pokey in the Catholic church, I immediately associate it with this same demographic – unfair I know. Anyway, Chris Curtis, are you around? I miss your sage comments re the early DLP.

  2. Gorks: Labour DLP preferences split 81-19 to Labor over LNP on a two-party basis, but “only” 33.8% of them flowed directly to Labor, 11.4% flowed directly to Greens, 4.3% flowed directly to LNP. The rest flowed to four other candidates still remaining in the contest (LDP, ON, IND and CYA). Unfortunately we don’t have a 3-way breakdown of them between Labor, Green and LNP including those that flowed first to other parties. If it is the same as the breakdown for the rest then Labor gained on the Greens at .45 votes/vote, but in the Prahran context we need to bear in mind that some of the Labour DLP vote is donkey vote that will go to the Liberals. All the same this does make me wonder if “Labour DLP” flows more strongly to Labor than the old name “Democratic Labour Party”, which if so may cause the Greens to lose Prahran.

  3. Let’s face it – The 10 word history of the DLP is that it was formed to ensure Doc Evatt never became Prime Minister (and a good thing too).
    The preferences always heavily supported the coalition but in its current iteration not so much but certainly ALP before Green

  4. Why not have PR on a state-wide basis akin with the Senate vote? This would eliminate assorted ratbags such as Vote 1 Local Jobs and anyone advocating a new shooting range in Nar Nar Goon South.

    On the contrary, if we assume the LegCo retains it’s forty members and we do nothing else, the quota would be less than 2.5% anywhere in the state. So whatever ratbag got that little gets in.

    Usually, smaller divisions are considered to reduce the division in the house. For instance, the House of Representatives has single member districts, and it rarely has more than two parties/alliances in it (sometimes with a smattering of independents). On the other hand, even with a 5% minimum, the German parliament typically has CDU/CSU, SDP, Greens, FDP, the Left and now AfD too.

    Or take Tasmania and the ACT, which have five or seven members per district, and their parliaments only ever has three groups.

    We can assume the Bracks and his silly advisors used small districts precisely to avoid a ratbag stew, having witnessed what happened in the NSW Legco. But they still somehow gave us group voting tickets — since it increases the power of any alliance leadership. They just completely ignored the fact that Glenn Druery — already in action — was one of those alliance leaders and was already creating an unwitting coalition of unrelated groups. Why they ignored the lesson that NSW learnt, at the same time as NSW was learning it, I cannot fathom.

    Viable reforms should not be mixed. Previous attempts at mixing have always shown they suck. We could try:
    * STV (i.e. below the line) with five member districts. Preferably the Tasmanian/ACT system.
    * Statewide party list preferential voting with a threshold of two seats (assuming 40 members). In this case we might consider allowing some preferential voting to allow those whose vote gets eliminated because it’s below threshold to still contribute to the makeup of parliament. But then you’d just need two preferences. I would suggest this should be closed list because otherwise it’d be confusing (you’d want preferences between lists and preferences within lists).

  5. The real joy from the Victorian election is to go to the local library and look at the Letters page in the Herald Sun

    And they wonder why media with its bias and particularly Murdoch are irrelevant

    You don’t have to look far


    The Victorian Greens have claimed victory in the inner-Melbourne seat of Brunswick after last weekend’s state election, stealing the electorate from Labor for the first time in history.
    “Since 1904 this seat was held by Labor, so this is historic. ..
    Before running in the November state election, Dr Read worked as a doctor and medical researcher in the public health system, specialising in sexual health and HIV medicine.

  7. We can assume the Bracks and his silly advisors used small districts precisely to avoid a ratbag stew, having witnessed what happened in the NSW Legco.

    I would think the ALP would be very happy with a situation where they aren’t hostage to the Greens’ agenda.

    The ALP is a centrist party & not everything it wants to do is supported by the Greens.

    With the new Legco, they would have a huge amount of choice regarding the parties with whom they want to do a deal on a particular piece of legislation.

  8. Assuming most people prefer a PR voting system in the upper house, why not copy the German system of requiring all minors/indies to reach a threshold of, say, 4-5%?

    Why not a 10% threshold, so there’s no more Greens ?

  9. I don’t like threshholds. One issue with them is that a party can fall below the primary vote threshhold because of competition from a party of an apparently similar nature in a situation in which that party would have won on preferences by actual voter choice. While this might be seen as a good thing because it encourages parties to merge, it’s possible a competitor party might be something set up with a misleading name as a spoiler.

  10. Oakeshott Country, Kevin Bonham

    It would seem in the upper house that the “Labour-DLP” vote improved in the two regions where they were listed ahead of Labor on the ballot (Northern Metro, Western Metro) and went backwards in four of the six where they were after Labor on the ticket (the exception being Eastern Vic. Western Victoria may end up about the same). Which makes you wonder whether they will persist with this name change which seems to have actually caused them to lose votes overall, while maybe slightly benefiting them in the regions where they were listed ahead of Labor.

    Anecdotally from pre-poll booths there were people confused – and telling the “DLP” people they weren’t going to vote anything ‘Labor’, to then be informed that they were actually the DLP. But of course if this scenario repeated across lots of pre-poll booths and the hundreds of booths on election day where there was no DLP representative, it would seem their “cunning plan” could easily have come unstuck.

    And so in Prahran – if Labor does get more preferences from them it does leave you wondering whether the whole gambit was worth it for them. Though of course ironically in Prahran if some of their preferences go direct to Labor rather than Liberal and prevent the Greens winning that is maybe what they would have preferred anyway.

    My prediction – the name “Labour DLP” will maybe get a run at the 2019 Federal election, and if it is a vote loser again it will be consigned to history. Overall probably better for Labor if they keep it though.

  11. @ Felix

    Bracks didn’t rely on silly advisors

    The introduction of PR in the Legco was handled by a senior minister

    A number of meetings were held between the ALP and Greens ( and others) to get agreement as to what the new Legco would look like

    In fact a one house option was offered with a mix of PR and single member electorates, but the Greens negotiators rejected that

    Group voting tickets were part of the discussions and signed off by all parties

  12. Kevin

    I think there is a 5% threshold in NZ (if your party doesn’t win an individual seat) to get list members elected. And in the 1999 election I remember following the count and thinking there could be enormous ramifications for NZ First and The Greens who were both around that vote.

    In the end both parties won an individual seat making it irrelevant, but NZ First on 4.26% then got 4 extra list seats, and The Greens on 5.16% got 6 extra list seats. So between them they got 12/120 seats when it could quite easily have been 0/120.

  13. “Labor loses Brunswick. About time the ALP lost a seat.”

    Thanks to Jane Garrett doing a runner. This is not the first time this has happened with Steven Miles in QLD finding a safer seat after redistribution gave the seat of Maiwar a 3% LNP margin. Miles would have won and the Greens ended up taking the seat.

    Labor has to put a stop to rewarding Labor politicians running away from a fight and should have more MPs like Jackie Trad and Anthony Albanese who stand their ground and fight and refuse to look for an easy way out. It creates a culture of politicians putting there own interests ahead of the party.

  14. I just checked the DLP is still registered as DLP with the AEC. I think this may have been a Victorian experiment perhaps not to be repeated

  15. Another question….
    With the rise in early voting – how in future will a nominal majority be calaculated for an area after a redistribution?
    If you have a seat like Bass which will have major changes in the next redistribution – how do you calculate a post redistribution majority when only 40% of voters go to a geographic booth?
    The AEC provide votes for geographic early voting centres – the VEC seem not to.

  16. Any idea when the VEC is planning to do the distribution of preferences for Prahran?

    It seems odd that they would do it for a seat like Melbourne where there was no question who the 2PP contest would be between rather than prioritising a seat with an uncertain 3PP outcome.

    I imagine Sam Hibbins is having the longest week ever right now, with none of the result updates really giving him any indication of whether he’ll still have a job or not until the preference distribution commences! At least in close 2PP seats like Hawthorn & Caulfield the candidates can monitor the progress.

  17. Is it the view out there that the Libs are home in Benambra or will there be a surprise in the distribution of preferences?

    The numbers on the ABC website are just estimates of how the other candidates’ preferences will flow to Hawkins.

    It could go either way in the actual preference distribution.

  18. “Labor loses Brunswick. About time the ALP lost a seat.”

    “Thanks to Jane Garrett doing a runner.”

    Yeah, Brunswick really was a catastrophe all round – which would the voters punish more: Greens’ appalling campaign or Labor’s appalling preparation? (Neither due to either of the actual Brunswick candidates of course.)

  19. Some thoughts on the LC. Comments and corrections welcome.

    Two of the Victorian Legislative Council regions that I definitely wouldn’t trust the ABC calculator for are Northern Metro and Eastern Victoria.

    In NM, Libs are 1% short of quota, with about 3.5% of the vote in below the line votes for micros that will get distributed. Libs are surely a good chance of getting to quota on these, in which case they would tip Hinch out of the 5th spot.

    ALP are projected to be about 1.5% behind Reason at their exclusion, so there is also some chance that they will pull ahead, in which case Reason votes would elect the third ALP instead of the other way around.

    In EV ALP are less than 1% short of a second quota, with about 2.5% of the vote in below the line votes for micros that will get distributed, plus another 1.3% in Greens BTL. They are surely certain of getting that, at the expense of Animal Justice.

    In Northern Victoria Libs are 1.5% short of a second quota with 2.5% of the vote in below the line votes for micros that will get distributed, so that’s possible but less likely.

  20. On second thoughts don’t worry – I went and found Kevin Bonham’s analysis – and realised I was looking at older figures that have since been updated.

  21. Martin B, in NMet Reason have more below the line votes than above the line, so on their exclusion, the computer estimates will introduce errors ~6000 votes

  22. There has been some movement in Caulfield. Libs now lead by 338 votes or 50.45% of the vote. 19104 Libs to 18766 Labor. Assume it was postals breaking their way but not sure.

  23. It was postals. A batch of 1558 votes which went 1007 Libs to 551 Labor or broke around 64% to the Libs in Caulfield. A gain of 456 votes which turned a deficit of 118 votes into a 338 vote lead.

  24. @Captain Moonlight, thanks for that information. If you want to amend it with “Bracks and his silly fellow MPs” you may. Anyone who introduced Group Voting Tickets in the early 2000s was 100% asking for an anti-democratic election manipulator to come up and dismay us.

    @Tetsujin, I don’t think you actually read what I said. But a democratically elected legco, with outcomes that are clearly related to the inputs voters give, is a necessary requirement for a stable democracy in the long term. Short term partisan advantage is not a good basis for constitutional decision making.

    @Both of you, you seem to be assuming that I am a Green partisan despite that being nowhere apparent in what I have written. It is not true. If anything, I’m probably more socially conservative than the average voter (without being reactionary). Labor is a much more comfortable home for my vote.

  25. blackburnpseph

    Just back from meeting with some of the key Labor campaigners in Benambra. Liberal hold.

    Labor’s lead over the indie is increasing, so it looks like the count will be a classic Lib/Labor.

    Also told that they won’t be counting Monday, although they were scheduled to.

  26. Note that there are discrepancies in the Caulfield count between the spreadsheet and the checked primaries although they sum to much the same thing. This probably explains why Labor scrutineers are saying they are only 50 behind although the 2PP quick count shows over 300. The 2PP quick count isn’t fixed for errors.

    It is quite common for VEC 2PP quick counts to be up to 100 votes wrong and in cases up to 400.

    There also still seem to be quite a lot of votes to count in Caulfield unless turnout has collapsed compared to 2018. But no idea what they are.

  27. Kevin Bonham @ #385 Saturday, December 1st, 2018 – 6:41 pm

    Note that there are discrepancies in the Caulfield count between the spreadsheet and the checked primaries although they sum to much the same thing. This probably explains why Labor scrutineers are saying they are only 50 behind although the 2PP quick count shows over 300. The 2PP quick count isn’t fixed for errors.

    It is quite common for VEC 2PP quick counts to be up to 100 votes wrong and in cases up to 400.

    There also still seem to be quite a lot of votes to count in Caulfield unless turnout has collapsed compared to 2018. But no idea what they are.

    Note also that the number of votes counted is only is 83.89% compared with 90.66% at the last election. Still some time to go with this one.

  28. Prahran also possibly has a lot left to count. On current primaries I think Labor would be slightly better placed but if there are more votes to come and we have no idea what they are then who knows.

  29. I can’t find the exact quote but I’m pretty sure one of Bracks motivations was to prevent One Nation being elected in the LC and the Greens elected. Regardless of what you think of ON, surely taking into account who may or may not be elected is hardly the workings of a democratic electoral system?

  30. ALP is trailing in Ripon and Caulfield now. I know Kevin B has explained the vagaries of counting but what is happening there? Does anybody have a opinion whether this trend can be reversed?
    According to ABC, The count in Caulfield is 87.6% and it is a Lib retain

  31. In both Caulfield and Ripon the counts are still a few percent short of 2014 turnout and there might still be some more votes to come. If I’m right about the apparent discrepancies in both then both are too close to call if there are more votes to be counted, though the Liberals should still be ahead in both.

  32. If anyone was wondering, the “counted” column on my results summary page is a percentage of votes counted as a projection of the total, the latter assuming the vote totals from 2014 will grow in proportion to the growth of the electoral roll. It’s imperfect, in other words — I’ve now got Mulgrave on over 100%.

  33. I have had a go at projecting where the final North Metro count might end up and cannot say with any confidence whether Patten or Dagiandis will get the final spot.

    Gory details here:

    In my projection there was a lurking possibility that Patten could lose because of minor Green candidate preferences leaking ***to her*** when it would be better for her that they go to Ratnam.

    This is only an issue because the Greens preferenced Dagiandis over Patten, meaning that if the Vic Socialists put the Greens over quota then Dagiandis gets a bucketload of Green surplus, while if the Greens are already over when Vic Socialists go out then the Vic Socialist votes go to Patten.

    And in a real electoral system they would both lose and Labor would get the seat, so more fool Labor for not fixing it.

  34. This is from the VEC’s 2018 Media Handbook: “The deadline for receiving postal votes into the count will be 6.00 pm Friday 30 November (the Friday after election day – three days shorter than the previous deadline).”

    Presuming there are no more remaining postal votes to add to the count, would it also be reasonable to assume that the finalization of results in the close seats is imminent?

  35. With whose authority can the VEC decide to shorten the time postal votes are accepted? Who authorised this? Clearly the government wants to minimise postal votes because they favour the coalition. I’m surprised they haven’t banned postals completely. Outrageous!

  36. Jerry B: this is a cut and paste of the relevant section of the Victorian Electoral Act, available from the Austlii website:

    “S. 106(3) amended by No. 41/2010 s. 13, substituted by No. 30/2018 s. 29(4).

    (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(e), a ballot‑paper is to be taken to have been posted before 6 p.m. on election day if—

    (a) the ballot-paper is received by the Commission or an election official at a voting centre on or before 6 p.m. on the Friday immediately after election day; and

    (b) the declaration is witnessed on or before election day.”

    From this is is evident that the Act was amended some time in 2018 to introduce the rule that postal votes must be received “before 6 p.m. on the Friday immediately after election day”.

Leave a Reply

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