Click here for full federal election results updated live.
Saturday, May 28
As I should have noted yesterday, the AEC has published all-important three-candidate preferred counts for Brisbane and Macnamara, where the results hinge on who will finish second and third out of the Labor and the Greens. With “88% of the total expected ballot papers” accounted for in Brisbane, the Greens lead Labor by 29.55% to 28.56% (with the LNP on 41.89%), which is sufficient for the ABC to have called the result.
Macnamara on the other hand is exquisitely close three ways, with the Liberal candidate on 33.56%, Labor member Josh Burns on 33.50% and Greens candidate Steph Hodgins-May on 32.93%. This suggests 46.9% of minor candidate preferences are going to Liberal, 35.9% are going to the Greens and only 17.2% are going to Labor. For the Greens to win, two things need to happen after the remaining 6500 or so outstanding votes are counted: they need to close their 495 vote deficit against Labor, and the Liberals need to not fall to third.
The first of these seems entirely possible. If the outstanding batches behave like those already counted, they should make up around 200 out of 3300 pre-polls and 100 out of 1100 declaration pre-polls. If the 300 or so provisionals behave like they did in 2019, they should make up a further 40 or so. Then there’s the COVID votes, of which there are about 1000, and which are apparently also expected to favour the Greens. Postals are diminishing in number, but each batch continues to be better for the Greens than the last, to the extent that today’s was the first on which they gained on Labor.
As for the Liberals, the 3CP count has them 545 ahead of the Greens and 50 ahead of Labor. There seems no particular reason to think they will either gain or lose in large degree relative to Labor out of any of the remaining vote types, so everything that was just said about the Greens relative to Labor applies to the Greens relative to Liberal as well. The question is whether the chips just happen to fall in such a way that Labor gains 50 votes or so at their expense. I am flying blind here with respect to the COVID votes, and also with how many postals can be expected – postals can arrive until Friday, and I can’t really tell you how many tend to trickle in in the second week.
All of this amounts to bad news for Labor in its quest for 76 seats, with Brisbane now out of the picture and the odds most likely leaning against them in Macnamara, which I for one thought they had in the bag earlier in the week, and which my results system is continuing to call as Labor retain due to its inability to think in three-party terms. The likely retention of Lyons only gets them to 75: they now need a late break in their favour in Gilmore or, less likely, Deakin. A great deal hinges on the absents, declaration pre-polls and COVID votes in these seats, on which we remain none the wiser, with no progress in either count today.
Friday, May 27
My results system is now registering Ryan as a Greens gain from the LNP, as the fresh two-candidate count finally advances enough to tip the probability dial over 99%. Similarly, Wannon has been restored to the Liberals after further booths were added in the Liberal-versus-independent count that was begun yesterday, and Nicholls is now being called for the Nationals as Rob Priestly’s independent bid falls short.
Labor aren’t dead yet in Deakin, where rechecking today gained them 138 on postals and 37 on ordinary votes, while costing the Liberals 169 and 30. However, there was little in it in today’s batches of absents, which broke 236-232 to Labor, and declaration pre-polls, which broke 463-462 to Liberal. Labor will perhaps need about 55% of what’s outstanding to reel in a Liberal lead that today shrank from 1032 to 655.
The contention related yesterday by Antony Green that late counting would favour the Greens in Macnamara was borne out in that the latest batch of 1951 postals were much stronger for them than earlier batches and they also performed well on the first 965 declaration pre-polls, particularly relative to Labor. Their situation will apparently continue to improve from here, but the secret of the final result remains hidden in the preference flows, on which I can offer no hard information.
It seems rechecking of ordinary and postal votes turned up 157 extra ordinary votes for the Liberals in Lyons, but little else. The first absents from the seat broke 696-621 to Labor. That leaves Labor’s lead at 678, down from 784 yesterday. For the second day in a row, the only progress in Gilmore was rechecking, which cost the Liberals 41 votes and Labor five. Counting will continue over the weekend.
Thursday, May 26
The ABC is calling Lyons for Labor after the correction of errors gave Labor a 582-vote fillip on ordinary votes. My system isn’t quite there yet though, in part because each batch of postals so far has been better for the Liberals than the last, the latest breaking 1508 (56.1%) to 1178 (43.9%). However, it may also be because the ABC has formed a more considered view than I have as to how many outstanding votes remain.
I have been assuming for some time that Labor will win Macnamara, which together with Lyons would put Labor over the line to 76 seats and a majority. However, Antony Green has dropped by in comments with an account of his own decision to hold off on such a call, informed by Labor member Josh Burns’ own lack of confidence. Specifically, both Labor and the Greens believe the Greens will enjoy a surge when absents and “an estimated 1000 COVID votes” are added to the count. On top of anything else, this is the first intelligence I have received as to how many COVID votes might be expected, here or anywhere else.
The very first absent and declaration pre-polls were added to the count today, mostly in Deakin, which respectively got 455 and 449 (there were also 787 absent votes added in Lingiari). The absents in Deakin broke 251-204 to Labor, but the pre-polls went 249-200 against. However, there was a turn in Labor’s favour on postals, which broke only 1493 (51.1%) to 1427 (48.9%) in the Liberals’ favour, compared with 58.8% to 41.2% on the previous batches. With the Liberal lead at 1032, Labor will need everything to go right on the remaining postals (perhaps about 3000), outstanding absents and declaration pre-polls (seemingly around 3500 apiece), COVID votes (around 1000, I guess) and provisional votes (a couple of hundred).
I’m not sure of the details, but rechecking of ordinary votes in Gilmore today was to the advantage of Andrew Constance, who gained 25 while Labor lost 149. No new postal votes were added to the count. Another 4095 postals in Brisbane didn’t fundamentally change the situation described here yesterday, with Labor continuing to hold a 0.7% lead over the Greens on the primary vote that I don’t think will be quite enough for them when preferences are distributed. Liberal member Celia Hammond conceded defeat to independent Kate Chaney in Curtin, perhaps because the latest batch of postals sharplhy reversed earlier form in breaking 1955 (52.3%) to 1780 (47.7%) to Chaney.
My system has withdrawn Wannon as a confirmed Liberal retain, not because such a result has become objectively less likely, but because the AEC has concluded Labor will run third and begun a fresh two-candidate count between Liberal member Daniel Tehan and independent Alex Dyson. This has so far accounted for only about 10% of the vote, and is presently giving Tehan a fairly modest lead of 52.2-47.8. Based on the relationship at polling booth level between the Liberal primary vote and the share of preferences, I am expecting this to inflate quite substantially and do not believe Tehan is in trouble.
Wednesday, May 25
My results system today called Dickson for the Coalition, bringing them to 51 seats, to which I think it more than likely that Casey, Menzies, Cowper, Nicholls and Moore will shortly be added. Labor remains on 74, and I don’t think there is any real doubt they will further gain Bennelong. Batches of postal votes are being added to the count in diminish number, but we still haven’t seen any absents or declaration pre-polls, which we can at least make broad guesses about based on past performance, or the COVID-19 electronic assisted voting results, which are anyone’s guess.
Here’s the latest from the seats that may add further to the Labor count, any one of which will get them to a majority:
Brisbane. The result remains at the mercy of unavailable information on how minor candidate preferences are flowing between the Greens, Labor and the LNP. A source familiar with the matter has passed on an informal tally based on observation of pre-poll and postal vote counting that suggests around 50% of preferences are flowing to the LNP, 32% to the Greens and 17% to Labor. If this is accurate, Labor will need a primary vote lead of about 1% when all the votes are in to remain ahead of the Greens during the preference distribution. Currently the gap is 0.7%, having increased today from 34 votes to 528 following a batch of postal votes that was actually weaker for Labor than the previous. However, that’s likely to be sent down rather than up by absent votes, on which Greens do well. So it would appear the Greens remain favourites.
Gilmore. Labor had a better batch of postals today, which only favoured the Liberals by 754 (51.3%) to 715 (48.7%) compared with 5895 (54.5%) to 4913 (45.5%) from the previous batches. With further unfavourable adjustments from ordinary vote rechecking, that increased Andrew Constance’s lead only from 104 to 112, with postals now set to slow to a trickle. This isn’t quite the lead Andrew Constance would have wanted ahead of what’s likely to be a Labor gain when absents are added.
Lyons. There seems to be an improving trend here for the Liberals on postals, the latest batch of which broke 1103 (55.6%) to 882 (44.4%) their way compared with 2966 (50.9%) to 2857 (49.1%) against them previously. If the remaining postals break the same as this latest batch, there’s going to be next to nothing in it.
Further:
Curtin. Liberal member Celia Hammond has brought Kate Chaney’s lead on the raw count inside 1%, but today’s postals were actually a bit weaker for her than previous batches, favouring her by 1075 (55.3%) to 868 (44.7%) compared with 6729 (59.4%) to 4605 (40.6%) previously. They were also notable fewer than number, and have still left her 1640 behind. As noted here yesterday, the 2019 result suggests absents are unlikely to favour her. The dynamic may be a little different this time given the redistribution has pushed the boundary substantially northwards, and many absent votes are cast just outside an electorate’s boundaries, though I can’t specifically think why this would make them a whole lot more favourable to the Liberals.
Still looking remarkably close in Gilmore. Labor has called in extra scrutineers from Sydney for the count on account of the photo finish.
It would be disappointing for Labor if all three of Brisbane, Gilmore and Lyons didn’t go their way and they fell short of a majority. On the other hand 78 sounds quite nice to me.
In Curtin there’s still probably less than 5000 postal votes left and 8000 absents/provisionals. The latter non postal votes will likely favour Chaney and postals won’t bridge the 1600 vote margin. Curtin is a IND gain.
WB appears to hint that it is Advantage Liberals in Lyons and Gilmore and advantage Greens in Brisbane
And other than Bennelong and Curtin he has nominated LNP to be winners in other doubtful seats.
Love your work WB and the community. Any chance of a Senate races update? Or recommendations elsewhere to follow? Thanks!
In Lyons’s Kevin Bonham has indicated what seem to be obvious errors in preference distributions in the Lyon Launceston PPVC and Mole Creek boxes which if correct should result in an increase in the lead of more than 500 votes to Labor. So far this correction has not been made. Is Kevin’s contention correct?
Ven, WB clearly says in this post advantage labor in Gilmore. Though its strange his probability metre has them on just 27% chance of winning on the Gilmore page.
I’m surprised Lyons is this close. Labor have suffered about a 7% swing against it – in an election they won – and achieved a national 2pp swing of around 3%. Presumably some local factors at play.
Without Lyons (which I still think labor should be favourites) and Brisbane, labor can only get 76 seats, which if the speaker is labor will require his vote on the floor. Do-able I guess, but not exactly smooth sailing….
Hi William, Gilmore would be a labor retain rather than gain
Per the AEC website, this is the activity planned for today. Maybe some absent votes will get counted tomorrow? They will be critical to the outcomes in the doubtful 3.
“The mandatory secondary counts we conduct (fresh scrutiny) are in full swing. We’ll also be doing yet more postal vote counts across the country (House and Senate) today and those results will flow into the tally room late this afternoon. Declaration votes are securely packaged and in transit to ‘home divisions’ following sorting in locations where they were cast.”
Retaining Gilmore will also mean the Coalition have won zero seats, and lost 16.
Dr Bonham’s summary last night..
Wednesday: All the currently held postals have been thrown bar a few hundred (this may have happened yesterday) and Constance is only leading by 114. From projections last time I’d expect him to drop about 250 on absents, 50 on dec prepolls, 50 on provisionals and then there are the mysteries of COVID votes. As against that, maybe he gets 50 back on postals but he is currently projecting to nearly 200 behind, outside the automatic recount margin. He therefore probably needs absents or dec prepolls to be unusually strong for him to win.
I’m more bullish on Labor’s chances in Brisbane than perhaps wisdom would dictate, but as I have noted previously on other threads, it is doing much better on postals relative to the Greens in 2022 than in 2019. Whether a similar trend applies to absents remains to be seen.
Gilmore is very tight, and Lyons has tightened. Both will be decided on the absents as well, but I think Labor must now be favoured in both
No mention of Deakin, though the results system has the Liberal win probability at 59%?
Sukkar has been killing it on postals, 58/42 – but only 5-6,000 of these left
Lib now 890 in front
8,000 or so other categories, so who knows?
With no disrespect meant at all to AG and WB, I think neither of their predictive systems provides much insight by the time we get to late counting in the very close races – there are many variables by this stage which will dictate the outcome and to state the obvious, these can really only be resolved through the actual count. We also (now) have the benefit of some real data from which patterns can be identified and some predictions (guesswork?) can be made accordingly!
Once the absents are counted in all 3 doubtfuls, obviously we will have a much better idea of likely outcomes, although the Brisbane result won’t be known until completion of the full preference allocation. However if, for example, Labor does comparatively better on absents than it did in 2019 (as it has with postals), we might know that it is more likely to hold on over the Greens.
As we are nearing the end of counting it seems only fair to point out the leaders in the guessing game. (This was also posted on the “main” thread.)
PB GUESSING GAME, May-21 17:06
TPP (FINAL)
71 Respondents
ALP / LNP
51.8 / 48.2 Actual (William Bowe’s forecast)
53.0 / 47.0 Median
53.2 / 46.8 Mode
53.1 / 46.9 Mean
55.4 / 49.0 Max
51.0 / 44.6 Min
LIKELY WINNERS (per the forecast)
51.9 / 48.1 Lars Von Trier (May-15 18:46)
51.9 / 48.1 Sandman (May-16 20:15)
51.9 / 48.1 Seadog (May-19 22:19)
51.9 / 48.1 The Silver Bodgie (May-21 13:21)
Big A Adrian @ #6 Thursday, May 26th, 2022 – 8:45 am
In 2019, the Liberal candidate in Lyons was disendorsed, and the Nationals were running against them. The result was a split in the vote, with some people voting Nationals but then preferences didn’t flow to the Liberals.
So even though Labor+Greens saw a swing against them, and the Nationals picked up a lot of the voters that would have voted Liberal, with UAP and PHON making up the rest of the swing, the 2PP result was a swing to Labor.
This election is more of a “reset” of sorts for the seat.
LR – Don’t tell Lars, he’ll be insufferable.
William – echoing what someone else said about a likely transposition error Kevin B picked up a couple of days ago in Lyons, it seems that once corrected it will give Labor the extra 500 vote margin it needs to save the seat on both your figures and his?
Big A – the local factor in Lyons probably the old prepolitics tweets of the MP there, which got raised during the campaign, coupled with the Coalition vote being artificially low last time because they had to disendorse their candidate during the campaign (I now forget what she said that actually got Morrison’s Liberal Party to disendorse her but must have been pretty appalling). Just as Gilmore last time the Coalition vote was artificially low because of preselection drama and parachuting Warren Mundine into the seat, which is probably as much to do with the swing that has put the seat on a knife edge as Constance’s strength as a candidate.
Nice to be right about the 2PP but for Labor’s sake I would rather be right about my seat prediction (77). Lyons looks on the nose at this point but Brisbane might get us to 76 which gives Labor much more authority in the chamber. I imagine Wilkie will be the only useful Tasmanian other than the member for Franklin and he will back most if not all of Labor’s platform in the HOR if Labor fails in all three doubtful’s.
I think the “reset” for Lyons view is spot on. Tis going to be a very skinny margin either way.
“sprocket_says:
Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 9:31 am
Sukkar has been killing it on postals, 58/42 – but only 5-6,000 of these left
Lib now 890 in front
8,000 or so other categories, so who knows?”
So even if Labor breaks even on the remaining postals they would need to win the remaining vote 57 to 43
Last time Labor had a 5% skew in absentee votes and declaration pre-polls broke in line with the ordinary vote
So I would say Deakin is almost certainly lost
GlenO and Arky, thanks.
Ah yes, Jessica Whelan – how could I forget. Forced out as a liberal candidate for anti-muslim comments on facebook (particularly sensitive topic then as Christchurch was still very fresh). Libs then called for voters to vote national – but Whelan still managed around 24% as the ballots – with her as the liberal candidate – had already been printed.
ALP 672 votes ahead of the Greens now in Brisbane (0.7%). But it still seems that the smart money is on the Greens overtaking ALP later, once preferences are distributed.
Going to be close.
Checking the AEC website, from my reading of it, there have been nearly 23,000 postal vote ballot envelopes received and just under 15,000 counted. So, are there really 8,000+ postals still to come?
I also note that Labor is now out to a lead of 672, following the last batch of postals: it seems like they are making up around 150 votes for every 2000 odd postals counted.
Then there are the 6.4K absent votes, 1.3K provisionals and 7K of declaration ballots to consider BEFORE a formal distribution of preferences.
It seems to me, that if there are 8K in postals left to count that labor may extend its lead on primaries over the greens by another 600 or so. How many will be pulled back by absentees, provisionals ands declaration votes remains to be seen. …
OK, so on Macnamara, Antony Green I’ve just noticed has this note justying keeping it in the “in doubt” column
“Estimates provided to me are that the exclusion of the five lowest polling candidates produces preference flows of 18% to Labor, 34% to the Greens and 48% to Liberal. Applying those puts the final three candidates within a thousand votes of each other. If the Green or Liberal candidates are third, Labor wins. If the Labor candidates is third, the Greens win. For this reason Macnamara is being left in doubt.”
Surely it is time for him to let go?
Burns currently has a primary of 32.17. If he is getting 18% of preferences from minors then that would provide an additional 1.62 for a combined 33.79. This number needs to be below 33.33 for there to be any mathematical chance he doesn’t survive to the 2 candidate run off which he will win. There is next to no chance this will happen.
The Greens are currently on a primary of 29.39. If they are getting 34% of preferences then this takes there total to 32.45. This number needs to be over 33.33 for their to be any chance of pushing Burns into third. They would need to overperform the current vote that is far less plausible than Burns dropping below 33.33.
Finally, these two improbable events would require a calibration analagous to the fine tuning of the universe such that, if Burns was knocked down to say 33.32, the Greens and the Libs would need to on 33.33/34
It’s just absurd. Antony Green letting fantasy trump analysis
In Lyons’s Kevin Bonham has indicated what seem to be obvious errors in preference distributions in the Lyon Launceston PPVC and Mole Creek boxes which if correct should result in an increase in the lead of more than 500 votes to Labor. So far this correction has not been made. Is Kevin’s contention correct?
Yeah these two stick out pretty obviously as errors. The Labor + Lambie + Green totals work almost perfectly as an estimate of the Labor 2PP vote in each booth. In these two booths the Labor 2PP is only around Labor + Green. It looks like a 600-650 vote swing each way to me which increases Mitchell’s margin by 1200-1300 when that gets sorted out.
Not really that close.
The Revisionist
If labour’s votes drops by .8% and greens go up .8% then that is enough to put Labour 3rd.
How confident are you that the estimates of preference flows are correct?
Finally, these two improbable events would require a calibration analagous to the fine tuning of the universe
tbf, Burns’ percentage could drop from it’s current 32.17% on the outstanding votes yet to be added to the count. And it’s possible that that drop could be enough that his 3CP doesn’t quite make 33.334% after the addition of the 18% or so of the current 8.95% to be distributed (1.611% – So Burns needs to drop to something like 31.72%).
And by amazing coincidence it’s possible the Lib and Green are also almost exactly equal to 33.334% at the 3CP but just a vote or two higher than Burns. (The higher either get over 33.334% Burns needs to drop by an equivalent amount to allow the other to get over him). So the Libs need to only drop from their current 29.49% to something very close to 29.038% and the Greens need to jump from 29.39% to nothing much over 30.291%.
These things are ‘mathematically possible’ still.
But yeah it’s about as likely as a gold bar popping into existence in my bathroom due to quantum fluctuations.
Burns is well over the >99% likelihood threshold. Not 100% but not far enough from it to be worrying about it in the real world.
Catprog,
The preference flows are based on what has been fed to Antony Green by scrutineers. It is hard to see how they could be out by any margin significantly helpful to the Greens
The Greens need to make up 0.9 of remining votes in their primary to get to 33.34 based on those distributions (and need the Libs to at least achieve that as well)
This requires them to achieve an average of about 5% more votes than their ordinary votes from here.
It is within the realms of possibility that they get that from (currently 5,400) absentee votes if they are very lucky (they achieved a bit over a 3% positive last time) . However there are still 5,000 declaration prepolls and at least 3,000 postals left. Last time they got slightly unders on dec pre polls and, both this time and last, massively unders on postals.
If they needed to make up .2 it would be possible but I would say it is more likely they go backwards from here (given postals will likely drag them further than they’ll make up in absentees)
Simply no chance.
Catprog,
It’s a 3 body not a 2 body problem. It doesn’t really matter if either the Gs or the Libs get over Burns. The problem is that the more one gets over Burns the less likely the chances are that the other will as well.
Burns is currently the closest to the magic 33.334% needed to be assured of a spot in the 2CP count. So it requires not just for him to fall below 33.333% at the 3CP but for both the other two to be so close to 33.334% that one doesn’t use up all of the vote the other needs.
For instance assume Burns finishes on 32.70 at the 3CP (about a full percentage below where he currently sits assuming that 18% of prefs being quoted). Then neither of the Lib or Green can get over 34.59% or there aren’t enough votes left for the other to get above Burns and knock him out. The closer Burns gets to 33.334% the tighter those margins become.
And there are still postals to come which Burns is getting at around 32% (so about 33.6% @ 3CP which makes him more not less likely to make the 2CP). Burns also got almost exactly 30% of the absents, provisionals and declarations last time. These made up 13.8% of the total. So assuming he gets absolutely zero swing to him on these (as opposed to his current 1.33% swing on primaries) and that these votes make up almost exactly the same proportion of the total as 2019 Burns will end up with a primary of almost exactly 32%. That would mean he would only need 15% of the prefs at the 3CP to get over the 33.334% and win the seat.
The tolerances are just too fine for him not to win to be a realistic option.
It could happen, but the odds on it are astronomical.
Very well explained Ratsak
Brisbane is a similar 3 body problem.
The higher the Lib gets, the less Labor needs to ensure they stay in front of the Greens at 3CP.
Currently assuming the Absents, Provisionals and Declarations are about the same sort of percentage of the total and that the Lib has a similar swing against them then they’re looking at ending up on a primary of around 37.5%.
That would mean assuming the Lib gets precisely zero prefs that any candidate that gets over 31.25% at the 3CP count goes on to win. But the Libs are going to get the majority of the prefs. And each percent that goes to the Lib reduces the target by half. Currently we’re looking at about 7.2% of the vote to be distributed as prefs. Assuming the Libs get half of that the magic number now drops to 29.65%. Anything the Libs get over 50% drops the percent required. Anything the Libs get over around 37.5% of the remaining postals (currently 48%) reduces the percent required.
This one is definitely much more up in the air than Lyons, but Labor’s current lead has them in the game. Any overperformance from the Libs in terms of remaining votes and prefs reduces the amount of prefs Labor needs to come second and win.
Big jump to Labor in Lyons. Me thinks the AEC has fixed the problem Kevin identified. Lyons and Macnamara should give Labor it’s Majority.
Fingers crossed on Brisbane and Gilmore.
Lyons called for Labor by Kevin Bonham, booth error fixed, Mitchell’s lead over 1100
ALP’s lead in Lyons up to 1124/50.9%. Maybe correction of the previous glitch, or maybe addition of favourable postals? Looking much better now
I think the Greens are favourites in Brisbane. Antony Greens scrutineer sources are suggesting a 15-34-51 split in preference flows (lab-Greens-lnp). This would mean Labor would need to get 1.33% ahead before preferences. They may get there on the postals but will likely cough enough of the lead up on Absentees
Meanwhile, Lyons has had some correction to put Labor over 1100 votes in front. Now no chance of losing
So we are in the absurd situation of the ABC not giving (IK, the ABC does not award the election!) the 76 to Labor until a gold bar doesn’t emerge out of nothing on Antony Green’s Greens alter !
They’ve fixed the Lonnie PPVC.
The Moles Creek one is still busted, but that will only add another 40 to Mitchell.
This one’s done.
I would assume Gilmore will be a Labor hold, Constance on a 114 vote lead with 98% of the postals counted.
The remaining votes should split about 55:45 Labor’s way?
Assuming the current approx 7.2% of prefs to be distributed a 51-34-15 split would require only 1.08% lead.
Definitely advantage Greens, but not certain yet.
Now Labor is on 76, my main interest in Brisbane and Gilmore is whether Labor gets to 78 so that I then get to share in the glory of Late Riser’s tipping contest!! (only kidding….)
Antony Green has also called Lyons
Labor’s Brian Mitchell retains the Tasmanian seat of Lyons taking Labor to 75 seats, one seat short of majority government. #ausvotes abc.net.au/news/elections…
Incidentally the AEC website now says that absent votes are now being delivered, so hopefully some will get added to the counts in Gilmore and Brisbane tomorrow.
well looks like ABC have just given away Lyons to labor – now on 75
On Lyons, the ABC have inserted a note as follows:
“The Launceston Pre-poll centre was check counted today after a possible error in the preference count was notified two days ago. The check count located and corrected the error, boosting Labor’s lead enough to allow Labor’s Brian Mitchell to be declared as the winner.”
I don’t recall the ABC ever being this verbose about calls and non-calls in the post-count. It’s a good thing.
I see that the ABC has now called Lyons for Labor, giving the good guys 75. Of the remaining “in doubt” seats, Labor is projected as “likely” to win Macnamara, while Deakin seems almost certain to stay with the Libs. So Labor looks to have secured a majority, with Gilmore and Brisbane to determine just how big that majority is. Neither seat looks especially easy to give away at the moment. My best guess (and I have no inside goss to go off) is that of the two, Labor is more likely to hold Gilmore (with postals all counted, presumably the absents will favour Phillips), though Brisbane is definitely still in play for Labor, so a seat haul of 77-78 seems likely. Given that Labor has also had two (slightly) unexpected setbacks in Griffith and Fowler, the pre-election predictions of 80- seats for Labor on a 52-48 2PP were pretty much on the money.
Leaving aside Brisbane and McNamara – all 3 of Lyons, Bennelong and Gilmore, Liberals had donkey vote of at least 0.5% If not for donkey vote all 3 would have been clear Labor wins by now.
My results haven’t been updating today because my laptop has been in transit. They have done so now, although there will be another gap of two hours or so now until the next update. The Lyons correction has sent my Labor win probability from 57% to 79%, which is no doubt very conservative of it.
Gilmore back to 157. Looks like just some checks? Postals down to 322 which should increase Constance’s lead to 180-190.
Shouldn’t be enough.
“ Gilmore back to 157. Looks like just some checks? Postals down to 322 which should increase Constance’s lead to 180-190.
Shouldn’t be enough.”
Anybody know when the AEC plans on counting the absentees, provisions, declaration and telephone votes in these close contests?
Anthony Green`s explanation as to why he hasn`t called Macnamara:
https://twitter.com/AntonyGreenElec/status/1529385490608074753?cxt=HHwWgsClxYWAvLkqAAAA
It’s a pretty poor reason and not consistent. The lnp has just concede Ryan today despite it being given days ago on the ABC.
There are several seats already given that are more chance of being wrong than the greens are of winning MacNamara
Antony would have a long wait calling any seat Fiona Kotvojs was a candidate…
Nah sprocket
She always loses.