Click here for full federal election results updated live.
My system today called Bass and Wannon for the Liberals and Wentworth for Allegra Spender, the latter being the first gain called for the teal independents, although I don’t doubt there will be four and probably five to follow. Postals continue to be added in large numbers, although they will start to diminish henceforth. As noted below, one of the biggest developments today arose from rechecking. Tomorrow we are apparently see numbers from electronic-assisted telephone voting added, which is exciting because I have absolutely no idea about their partisan tendency and how many there will be.
The latest from the three seats that could potentially push Labor over the line to a majority:
Brisbane. Kevin Bonham’s post-count post suggests the AEC is conducting an unusual indicative three-candidate preferred count to determine which out of Labor and the Greens will drop out and deliver the seat to the other. However, I’ve heard no official word on this. Based on the preference distribution in 2019, my earlier assessment was that Labor would need a buffer on the primary vote to hold out against preferences to the Greens from Animal Justice, and even to some extent from the right-wing parties, more of whose preferences went to the Greens than Labor (though a great deal more again went to the LNP). However, as with one or two of my other early assessments, this may have failed to fully account for the substantial increase in postal votes this time, which are being true to form in being weak for the Greens. Labor now leads the Greens on the primary vote, but it will need to further boost the margin if my surmise about preference flows is borne out.
Gilmore. Labor had a very handy boost of 382 votes in rechecking that was mostly down to the Gerringong booth, where the two-candidate figures had been entered the wrong way around. This apparently put Labor in the lead briefly on the raw count, but the Liberals recovered it when a small batch of postals favoured them 701-521, with Andrew Constance currently 104 votes ahead. Postals will no doubt continue to favour Constance, but the bulk of them are now out of the way. Still to come are declaration pre-polls, which should break about evenly; absents, which should boost Labor by maybe 300; provisionals, which should add a couple of dozen for Labor; and electronic-assisted votes, which I continue to have no idea about.
Lyons. This is the first result I’ve looked at where the second batch of postals was observably different from the first, going 1024-910 to Liberal compared with 2966-2857 to Labor. If the outstanding postals break like the latest batch, Labor’s current lead of 703 votes will be cut in half. That makes it very close, but there is no specific reason to expect the other outstanding votes will move the dial in either direction.
Elsewhere, Labor continues to be buried on postals in Deakin, the latest batch breaking 3715-2584 to the Liberals. Yesterday I asserted that outstanding postals should add around 1000 to Michael Sukkar’s lead, but this batch alone adds to 1131. From here Labor will need stronger than anticipated absents and/or declaration pre-polls, and/or for the enigma of electronic assisted voting. I would personally call Menzies for the Liberals now even though my system doesn’t yet have it past the 99% threshold, yesterday’s postals having broken 3715-2584 in their favour.
After a quiet day in Curtin on Monday, a second batch of postals were added that favoured Liberal member Celia Hammond 4464-2950, a similar proportion to the first batch. This suggests the outstanding postals will bite a further 1000 or so out of independent Kate Chaney’s 1842 vote lead. However, the Liberals were relatively weak on absent votes in the seat in 2019, and there’s little reason to think out-of-division pre-polls will be particularly favourable to them.
“If one candidate loses when pitted against each other candidate (that remains in contention), then they should be eliminated, because they can’t possibly win. Given that the purpose of the count is to determine which candidate wins, it seems unfair to keep a candidate in the count that can’t win, no matter which other candidate is in the count.”
Condorcet preferential, I like it 😉
Princeplanet says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:51 pm
After he goes they will sell leaving many right wing journos out on the street and extremely rueful.
________
Oh I don’t know. They’ve been on good money for years and most are unemployable in the rest of the media. They should be grateful for whatever pile they have managed to get hold of on the harbor.
So, the worst defeat *ever* in the history of the Liberal party. Wonder how ScoMo’s feeling? 🙂
Oh and btw: that thing where all the moderates lose their seats, then Dutts takes the rest of the party to the right? There’s a word for it in politics.
Its called a SPLIT
Peter Dutton makes it official: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-are-liberals-peter-dutton-s-rallying-cry-to-moderates-and-conservatives-20220525-p5aof6.html
What happens in a preferential count when two of the excluded candidates have the same vote?
LVT
I will take this question on notice, but you may be correct about you being “too flippant”.
I am normally the flippant one, in any conversation, but what the FUCKING COALITION did to research collaboration between Australia and China, was not only sheer vandalism, it left a lot of very talented Chines colleagues, who had gained, on merit, research positions in Australia, denied their jobs because “they had once accepted a Young talented Scientist scholarship from the Chinese Research Council.
It is identical to excluding European applicants from Australian research positions because they had held an Erasmus or Marie Curie fellowship (both EU scholarships).
How do I know: I had to write screeds explaining why holders of Erasmus and Marie Curie fellowships were “exempt” from the inference of political interference, so the candidates were eligible for Australian government research funding.
No point writing the same for any Chinese applicant. If the Chinese research council had given someone a scholarship, forget it. Under the Coalition, particularly underScott Morrison, the answer was just “NO”.
racist Bastards!!!!
Peter Dutton strategy turning his back on the previous Liberal government? The Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison malarkey he will probably want to avoid talking about as he was involved in it with his botched challange on Malcolm Turnbull.
“And he described John Howard and Peter Costello as his “political mentors’’ in a statement which failed to mention the three immediate past prime ministers, Scott Morrison, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott.”
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/former-hardman-dutton-hopes-to-reveal-rest-of-my-character-as-liberal-leader/news-story/f1f8e4fd79118aa53f8799d141de7445
Upnorth at 10.52
There’s a delightful bit of a scene in the orginal Ghostbusters. Vinkman is visiting a place though to harbour a ghost. He sees a piano and tinkles a couple of the higher notes ’cause he likes to get on their (the ghosts’) nerves.
So, Freya, this is for you…
The Rt Hon. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia
The Rt Hon. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia
The Rt Hon. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia
The Rt Hon. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia
The Rt Hon. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia
The Rt Hon. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia
The Rt Hon. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia
The Rt Hon. Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia
Nath : I remember I documentary where Ita Buttrose described her upbringing as just a normal ordinary childhood as the daughter of the editor of the daily mirror in point piper!!!! So you might be right. But plenty of loyal right wing junior reporters who would be paying off something far less grand and maybe a long way from doing so. I guess there’s always the ABC?
was only thinking the other day about all our (mostly other people here)’s discussions over the past few years about a possible Liberal split.
I, for one, always thought it’d happen well before any election (mid term when leadership tensions grew too great) and that it would be cause by internal tensions between leadership — all male.
Yet it has been an election and a bunch of women, who have basically done it
Princeplanet
I hope you’re right. If it does happen, that will be a fun scene to watch!
“What happens in a preferential count when two of the excluded candidates have the same vote?”
Same as at the end, random decision through a method determined by the RO, but in practice that one is going to the CDR
https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/05/25/federal-election-live-day-five/comment-page-21/#comment-3925093
The last Right Honourable PM of Australia was Fraser, the last to accept appointment to the Privy Council. Unlike Canada and New Zealand, we have not given our PMs Right Honourable status separate from the Privy Council.
Hawksfan,
I used to get wrecked a lot at King O Malley’s in Canberra a lot when I was younger. It’s probably his greatest achievement. Arch prohibitionist inspiring a pub.
Anyway, I’m confident the libs are out for a solid 6 years.
Tanya should stay nasty, we need bomb throwers.
“Martin Bsays:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:52 pm
“If one candidate loses when pitted against each other candidate (that remains in contention), then they should be eliminated, because they can’t possibly win. Given that the purpose of the count is to determine which candidate wins, it seems unfair to keep a candidate in the count that can’t win, no matter which other candidate is in the count.”
Condorcet preferential, I like it ”
Condorcet that only kicks in when you have three candidates left.
nathsays:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:45 pm
You seem to think that a corruption commission should hold fishing exercises rather than following the evidence.
Reviewing the last few pages:
• Mandate theory is bunk, as it always has been
• The ALP would have to have rocks in there head to challenge Dai Le’s election in the CDR over S44
• I still think ALP will win all of Brisbane, Gilmore, Lyons
• The idea that the value of representatives is to ‘deliver’ by being part of government is deeply dangerous and soft corruption
A Government has a mandate to present its legislation to the Parliament for consideration.
No more, no less.
Anyone notice that the SMH has a rank of party votes on the front page. It’s like they are trying to hint at a popular vote loss or something!
The Revisionist @ #975 Wednesday, May 25th, 2022 – 10:17 pm
Others may have commented already, I’ll scan back in a minute. But Brisbane, Griffith and Ryan surround the University of Queensland. I don’t know how a major university might affect voting patterns but at the very least there ought to be a bunch of young educated and keen voters in the area, and presumably a supply of volunteers as well. Also universities have not fared well under the Coalition. So they’re energised. (And my current musing, the three electorates flooded just in time for the election.)
Steve777 at 10:44 pm
He had reason to feel pride in it though. His dream was to produce the first national newspaper and the bastard achieved it. He did have some good journos but they are long gone .
• Mandate theory is bunk, as it always has been. Strictly speaking, yes, but Governments should be very careful not to break promises without good reason (unless they have the mainstream media in their corner, in which case it’s a moral issue )
• The ALP would have to have rocks in there head to challenge Dai Le’s election in the CDR over S44 Agree.
• I still think ALP will win all of Brisbane, Gilmore, Lyons Don’t know. Hope so.
• The idea that the value of representatives is to ‘deliver’ by being part of government is deeply dangerous and soft corruption Agree.
“Condorcet preferential”
Pretty sure there is an impossibility theorem associated with that
Late Riser,
Yep, that’s the answer.
The uni jobs losses due to covid were greater than if the coal industry just stopped work. 30K people retrenched.
They lack a good union to protect them. thank work choices and the corrupt academic system that hobbles young intellects.
I am hopeful, but doubt there will be great reform in the higher education sector whilst it remains a cash cow for Asian business students.
Tom the first and best says:
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:08 pm
https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/05/25/federal-election-live-day-five/comment-page-21/#comment-3925093
The last Right Honourable PM of Australia was Fraser, the last to accept appointment to the Privy Council. Unlike Canada and New Zealand, we have not given our PMs Right Honourable status separate from the Privy Council.
中华人民共和国
That’s correct. PM’s no longer Right Honourable as they are not members of the Privy Council. However Lord Mayors are Right Honourable! Go figure.
Wonder if the bevy of Lord Mayors in NSW are Right Honourables as well?
“Mayors of state capital cities
Use the title ‘The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor of [the name of the city]’ for lord mayors of:
Adelaide
Brisbane
Hobart
Melbourne
Perth
Sydney.
https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/titles-honours-forms-address/parliaments-and-councils#address_mayors_and_members_of_local_governments_with_the_correct_title
The Revisionist @ #970 Wednesday, May 25th, 2022 – 10:13 pm
I think you’ve misunderstood. I’m not saying “at 3CP, check each one against the others”. I’m saying at *every* step, check it. If one candidate would lose against every other candidate on a one-on-one basis, then that candidate gets knocked out. If not, the candidate with the lowest current number of votes gets knocked out.
I’d call it Modified Instant Run-Off. The goal is to remove a spoiler candidate as soon as they’re detected as a spoiler candidate. This then ensures that they cease to influence the final result.
It doesn’t just fix the 3CP case. It fixes an entire category of spoiler candidates – the ones that influence the final result by holding onto voter preferences despite their candidacy not actually being worthwhile.
It’s not so much a hybrid, as it is a modification to the process. Here’s IRV:
1. Remove the candidate that got the fewest votes.
2. Repeat the count with that candidate removed (equivalent to redistributing the ballots of those who voted for the removed candidate).
3. If only one candidate remains, they win. Otherwise, return to 1 with the remaining candidates only.
Here’s my modified version’s step 1:
1. Check if any candidate loses against each other candidates in one-on-one. If one is identified, remove them. Otherwise, remove the candidate that got the fewest votes.
Steps 2 and 3 are exactly the same.
It would be a little slower, of course, but it would remove the spoiler candidate problem.
—-
Allow me to demonstrate with a mocked up example. There are 5 candidates – Alice, Bob, Charlie, Delilah, and Scott.
Scott gets 30% of the vote. The rest of the electorate has put him last.
Alice is liked by almost everyone, but only 10% put her first. The remaining 60% split nearly evenly between Bob, Charlie, and Delilah, with Delilah getting 21% and Charlie getting 19%.
Under IRV, Alice is knocked out first, and her 10% flows to the other candidates, pushing Charlie up to 23%, while Delilah gets 23.5% and Bob gets to 24.5%. Charlie is then knocked out, and this pushes Bob up to 41%, while Delilah is now on 29%. Delilah gets knocked out, and Bob wins against Scott.
Under MIRV, Scott gets knocked out first, as he loses against each of the other candidates. His preferences flow mostly to Alice, who gets pushed up to 35%, with Delilah now on 24%, Bob on 21%, and Charlie on 20%. None of the current candidates would lose against all of the others (as Charlie would beat Alice), so Charlie gets knocked out as the lowest vote count. His preferences flow, and Alice goes up to 38%, Delilah to 30%, and Bob to 32%.
Bob, on checking the match-ups, would lose against either Alice or Delilah, and thus gets knocked out, which pushes Alice up to 49%, and Delilah to 51%.
Why should Scott, who clearly acts as a spoiler in this case to get Bob to win, while not having any chance of winning, stay in the count? If it weren’t for Scott, Alice would remain in the count under IRV, but she gets knocked out because of Scott. This leads to Bob getting ahead of Delilah, even though he would lose to Delilah, at the next pivotal point, and thus Bob wins, despite there being two clear candidates who should be better.
With my modification, Scott gets removed early as a spoiler who can’t win. Then Bob gets removed because he can’t beat the other two in the 3CP.
Snappy Tom says Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:22 pm
Australia can also choose to direct most of its aid to our region. China has grander plans around the world. So, they’ll simultaneously be trying to buy influence in Africa, Central Asia, South America, etc. The South Pacific will probably not be the number one priority in their aid budget. As it is, I understand Australia currently spends more on aid than China within the South Pacific. Not that it helped us in the SI.
[Why do you think the aim is to “stop china”? Why would we want to “stop China?” It is an important part of our region for trade, industry , innovation and science. We would like China to be improve its position on human rights, particularly on how it treats its its own citizens, but there is nothing to be gained by taking the “big stick” approach.]
This with a big exponent. But we’re supposed to hate China because it isn’t a liberal democracy which roughly translates to government by highest bidder. And it’s not just the politicians, it’s the media too, and this is all stemming from the US. How many more US backed right wing coups have to go down before this site starts to call them and what they really stand for out? It’s a nation run by complete psychos. I know diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggy” until you can reach a big stick, but this dog has left a trail of destruction like no other, for no other reason aside from a belief in their own supremacy and really needs to be given the dirt nap. There really are no good people in the US congress.
And to bring it home, the ideology they prescribe upon implied and real threat of regime change is what has probably a good many of you receiving capital gains on your homes orders of magnitude greater than typical income support payments, with none of the compliance, aside from a few bills that offset these amounts by only a fraction, and this has been going on for decades.
If the media had presented to the electorate something the precariat could understand, it would be this – “Home owners were gifted around $30-50K per dwelling this year in most major city suburbs for doing nothing”. There’s so much bad in this, starting with productivity, but clearing away the mechanics of the financial system, particularly fractional reserve lending, what we’re doing is actively making life difficult for young people rather than getting behind them.
This was also an effect of the ridiculous franking credits policy too which was going to affect small investors by pushing them up the tax brackets, meaning they would be better off investing in housing. ALP people pushing this policy couldn’t see this, all they saw was a large tax grab from a fit target. I don’t want to elaborate on where this money is invested, but the idea is somewhere more productive than real estate, preferably providing jobs for young people.
If investing in housing provides yields better than investing in business with the added benefit of security, I mean why would you?
If we want to be productive, we need to put opportunity in the hands of young people rather than taking it away. I’ve lived this, still renting a place I could’ve afforded to buy for about $125K which is now worth about $450K after ten years. If every renter was given a freebie like this, there’d be an uproar, but somehow it’s fine going the other way decade after decade and undesirable to do anything about it.
This is what it’s all about. Freebies for supporting the duopoly, provided by a precariat with a choice between renting and homelessness.
Why the hell would I ever put ALP above greens? Damn lucky there wasn’t a dick on my ballot, but Adam did well and Albo deserves a go (without a hostile backchannel to the US this time please ALP?). If it was a Casey O’conner green though, there definitely would’ve been a dick on my ballot.
Martin B @ #1002 Wednesday, May 25th, 2022 – 10:52 pm
It’s not quite Condorcet – it would still fail the Condorcet Criterion under some circumstances.
For example, where A would lose against B, B would lose against C, C would lose against A, and D would win against all three… but also got the lowest primary vote. Because there is no candidate that would lose against all of the others, D gets knocked out.
There are ways to slightly extend the modification to satisfy the Condorcet Criterion…
But then, I don’t fully agree with the Condorcet Criterion. I could see it causing a race to be the most “meh” candidate – someone who doesn’t ruffle feathers, someone who may not be loved by anyone, but also isn’t loathed by anyone. You still want to encourage people to take serious positions and risk upsetting some people, because the decisions that parliament need to make are often exactly like that.
Radguy @ #1028 Wednesday, May 25th, 2022 – 11:53 pm
Please don’t be rubbing your dick on your ballot papers. AEC staff don’t need to smell that.
Radguy @ #1028 Wednesday, May 25th, 2022 – 11:53 pm
Please don’t be rubbing your dick on your ballot papers. AEC staff don’t need to smell that.
From the AEC data, while Brisbane, Ryan and Griffith have the highest number of voters aged 18-24, Canberra and Melbourne aren’t close to the Top 5.
Measured proportionally, Canberra is 4th on this metric after the three Queensland seats, but Melbourne is behind Kooyong, Newcastle, Werriwa and Herbert.
The electorate with the lowest proportion of young people: Richmond, where the Greens also seem to have done rather well.
So I’m not sure that Facebook analysis plays out.
If the AEC published a NIMBY gentrifier metric I expect that would be more telling.
New thread.
Upnorth at 11.44 re ‘The Right Honourable…’
The only solution is a Bunyip Aristocracy!
When Liz 2 dies, let’s replace her with a slightly-Australian Head of State: Princess Mary of Denmark’s daughter, Princess Isabella.
Isabella I of Australia. Takes over the duties of Governor General but is, in fact Queen. She’s 15 years old, so maybe a regent NOT named Andrew!
Probably don’t even need a referendum (no idea what I’m talking about, but who cares!)
State Governors are made Dukes, or something.
You know it makes sense…
ABC RN: Interview with director of Green Energy Finance states that electricity prices are now three times higher than when Labor had the carbon tax and TA said that was economy wrecking. Prices will be worse in QLD and NSW due to expose to international coal prices and less renewables.
Also, more people die of cold in Australia than Sweden because of poorly insulated housing.
The MSM partizan misrepresentation Pink bats is not a victomless crime.
If a government reasonably believes that a person has been elected who is constitutionally ineligible that government is obliged to test that belief.