Click here for full federal election results updated live.
Wednesday, June 1
Pardon me for dropping the ball for a couple of days there as I made a fraught transition from Sydney back to Perth. You will now find my results facility regularly updating again as the very last votes trickle in over the next few days. As you’re all no doubt aware, it seems generally accepted that Labor will make it not merely to 76 but to 77 seats, having opened up a 301-vote lead in Gilmore with barely 1000 votes left to go. Since opening the 142-vote lead noted in the previous update, Labor has further benefited from a 181-122 break in its favour on electronic-assisted COVID votes and 1401-1335 on declaration pre-polls. While later batches of absent votes were predictably not as strong for Labor as the first, they did them no actual harm, breaking 690-682 their way, and they even got a 127-101 break from the latest postals.
Monday, May 30
The ABC is now calling Macnamara for Labor, and with it a Labor majority of 76 seats out of 151, with a growing chance that Gilmore will make it 77. The AEC’s three-candidate preferred count for Macnamara has not been updated, showing Liberal on 29202 (33.6%), Labor on 29152 (33.5%) and the Greens on 28657 (32.9%), with Labor to lose the seat if the Greens overcome the 495 deficit against Labor, unless the Liberals also lose their 50 vote lead over Labor. This leaves it lagging 2354 votes behind the primary vote count, with three batches added today accounting for the shortfall:
• The electronic-assisted COVID votes were, contrary to earlier suggestions, neither approaching 1000 in number (perhaps there are more yet to be added, though I’d doubt it) nor especially favourable to the Greens. The 477 formal votes went Labor 169, Greens 154 and Liberals 105. This would have added 10 or so Labor’s lead over the Greens, and erased the Liberals’ 50 vote lead over Labor with half-a-dozen or so to spare.
• There were 1447 pre-polls added to the 1678 that were in the count already, of which 417 went to the Greens, 412 went to Labor and 404 went to the Liberals. This would have cut about 40 from Labor’s lead over the Greens and restored to the Liberals the 50-vote lead over Labor I just said they had lost on the COVID votes.
• The 475 absent votes added today were about half of those outstanding, and were much like earlier batches in that the Greens got 169, Labor got 134 and the Liberals got 114. This would have cut about 45 votes out of Labor’s lead over the Greens and hardly affected their lead over the Liberals.
• No postals were added today. There are 266 of these to be added to the count, plus however many arrive in the post over the coming days, which surely won’t be many.
My best estimate is that this still leaves Labor 420 votes ahead of the Greens on the three-candidate preferred, with the outstanding votes consisting of at most 555 absents, 730 pre-polls (there are about 1000 fewer of these than I suggested in yesterday’s update) and 266 postals, plus the few extra postals that will trickle in over the coming days. Realistically, any cut to Labor’s lead over the Greens here will number in the dozens rather than the hundreds. There are, however, potentially enough to erase a Liberal lead over the Labor that I reckon to be about 44 votes, though whether that happens is academic if Labor stays ahead of the Greens.
There was further good news for Labor today in Gilmore, where Labor’s Fiona Phillips has opened a 142 vote lead over Andrew Constance. This was mostly due to a remarkable 334-145 break in their favour on the first batch of absents, which obviously came for a strong area for them. Labor were further boosted by a 157-132 split on the latest batch of postals, 388-278 from the first declaration pre-polls and 95-63 from the provisionals, plus a net gain of 40 on rechecking of ordinary votes.
Labor’s position further improved in Lyons, where the second batch of absent votes broke 550-306 their way, putting their lead at 932 with no more than 2000 still to come. However, Deakin continues to slip away from Labor, with the latest postals breaking 1112-836 to the Liberals, more than compensating for advantages to Labor of 998-714 and 720-696 on the latest absents and pre-polls. This puts Liberal member Michael Sukkar 619 votes ahead with at most 2500 still to come.
There are now three seats with electronic-assisted COVID results in (Macnamara, Flinders and Graynder), and it seems they typically involve around 400 votes that are roughly 10% below par for the Liberals and 3% to 4% above it for Labor and the Greens. This suggests they will boost Labor by a few dozen votes when reported in Gilmore, Lyons and Deakin.
Sunday, May 29
With the Greens now effectively confirmed as the winners in Brisbane, Labor’s bid for the seventy-sixth seat needed for a majority hinges on three seats: Macnamara, which like Brisbane will be won by whichever out of Labor and the Greens survives to the final count against the Liberals; and the conventional contests of Gilmore and Deakin.
The Australian Electoral Commission’s efforts yesterday were devoted to preparing for a big push of counting in these three seats, meaning I have nothing to add to my updates from Saturday. In Macnamara especially, the result may well prove so close that it may not be definitively known until the final eligible postal votes have trickled in at the end of the week.
Note also the post directly below this one taking a deep and overdue look at the Senate result.
The Revisionist @ #47 Monday, May 30th, 2022 – 1:16 pm
No need to be a wanker all the time.
“Trentsays:
Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:20 pm
Absents are already 75-80% counted and the last 2000 broke almost identically to the first 2000, so I don’t see any reason the last 1100-1400 will break significantly differently to that now.
Declaration prepolls have less to go on because only about 35% of them have been processed so far. But still, I wouldn’t say there’s any particular reason that the 2019 flows would be more likely than the 2022 flow so far. Why wouldn’t the current trend me more likely than one from 3 years ago which had different factors, a totally different set of minor candidates, different election issues and even slightly different boundaries?”
Trent, I am not saying it will be “more like 2019 (relativities’) than 2022 ” I am saying it may be more likely to regress back in that direction.
Subtle but significant difference.
In terms of dec prepolls, last election Burns underperformed his ordinary PV by 2.8% and is currently 4.35% underperforming this time around
“slackboy72says:
Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:28 pm
The Revisionist @ #47 Monday, May 30th, 2022 – 1:16 pm
“slackboy72says:
Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:11 pm
ALP ahead in Gilmore now.”
A bloke with a beard just made the red sea part
No need to be a wanker all the time.”
It was a joke, apologies if you were offended
I also do not agree I am a wanker all of the time
“The media keep framing it as ‘inner Brisbane’, but the divisions of Brisbane, Griffith and Ryan all stretch out to middle-ring, middle-Australia suburbia.”
***
As well as winning the three Lower House seats, the Greens also got Penny Allman-Payne elected to the Senate in Queensland too. She lives in Gladstone – around 500km north of Brisbane.
Kevin Bonhams latest on Gilmore:
“A batch of absents breaks 334-145 to Labor with provisionals 95-63 and dec prepolls 378-288 putting Phillips 142 ahead. Unless remaining absents/dec prepolls are from somewhere Liberal-friendly it will be hard for Constance to come back from here. Still to come up to 1850 absents 3970 dec prepolls, a few provisionals, probably several hundred postals.”
@Revisionist: “Do you have statistical evidence in support of this assertion?”
Well, the variations between absent & ordinary, and dec prepoll & ordinary, were not the same in 2019 as they were in 2016. Some of the variations were in the total opposite direction.
For example, in 2016 the Greens were roughly a +0.5% on dec prepolls compared to ordinary, in 2019 they were a -1% (I’m just rounding to .5’s). Similarly, the Liberals were a -0.5% on them in 2016 and +1.5% on them in 2019. Labor were a -3.5% on absents in 2016, but only -0.5% in 2019.
So no, the variations are not the same election-upon-election and there’s no reason to think 2022 needs to “correct” itself to a previous election, even if that does just mean a subtle regression back to it.
And to the main point I was making, if a subtle regression towards 2019 flows does occur, like I said, we’re literally talking about a handful of votes that does not in any possible way change the outcome I was talking about, so why harp on nitpicking about a possible a 10 vote difference, when I am predicting the Greens falling short by 100+ anyway? Are you that desperate to find something in my post to challenge? I generally agreed with your analysis, but you need to find ways to prove that I’m not agreeing with you in the correct manner?
(As a side note the boundary difference between 2016 & 2019 is pretty much the same as the difference between 2019 & 2022 too, because the 2018 redistribution adding Windsor just got reversed in 2021).
The Revisionist @ #55 Monday, May 30th, 2022 – 1:24 pm
It’s basic statistics.
One would expect a reasonably random sampling to look a lot like the population it’s drawing from, assuming an appropriate number of samples are taken.
You can’t rule out the possibility that there’s a big chunk of votes of one particular kind (say, Labor votes) that’s just hiding behind the scenes, waiting to be counted, but the exact same logic says there could be a different kind (say, Greens votes) that are waiting to be counted in large numbers.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a continuation of what we’ve seen so far in this count is the logical prediction. How it happened in previous elections is not a suitable predictor at this point, as this election is a different population (in the statistical sense) – we use previous election patterns for predictions when we have no data from the current election to use in its place, but as soon as we have a decent amount of data for the current election, we switch to that.
More than 4000 votes have been counted for absents, and more than 1700 for dec pre-polls. So for absents, the margin of error (at 99% confidence) is less than 1%. For dec pre-polls (again, 99% confidence) it’s about 2.4%.
Unless you can provide either evidence of a bias in the sampling, or a coherent reason to think that the remaining ones will track differently that is more nuanced than “because the proportions were different in 2019”, there’s no reason to assume that the remaining ballots are substantially different from the ones so far.
“Trentsays:
Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:34 pm
@Revisionist: “Do you have statistical evidence in support of this assertion?”
Well, the variations between absent & ordinary, and dec prepoll & ordinary, were not the same in 2019 as they were in 2016. Some of the variations were in the total opposite direction.
For example, in 2016 the Greens were roughly a +0.5% on dec prepolls compared to ordinary, in 2019 they were a -1% (I’m just rounding to .5’s). Similarly, the Liberals were a -0.5% on them in 2016 and +1.5% on them in 2019. Labor were a -3.5% on absents in 2016, but only -0.5% in 2019.
So no, the variations are not the same election-upon-election and there’s no reason to think 2022 needs to “correct” itself to a previous election.
(As a side note the boundary difference between 2016 & 2019 is pretty much the same as the difference between 2019 & 2022 too, because the 2018 redistribution adding Windsor just got reversed in 2021).”
Trent, refer to my previous response to you
I am not saying the variations between “absent & ordinary, and dec prepoll & ordinary” don’t change between elections.
The dec poll differential in Macnamara are particularly large compared to previous elections. I am suggesting that it is more likely the rest will be lower (not that they are more likely to be the same differential as last time)
The Revisionist @ #57 Monday, May 30th, 2022 – 1:30 pm
Last time there was an election with this big a swing was 2007, and in Melbourne Ports (which, as you know, was what became Macnamara), the Absent vote tracked 7.01% lower for Labor than the Ordinary vote did. And Greens got a bigger bump (3.39%) than Liberals did (2.23%).
EDIT: Wait, Dec Pre-poll, not Absent. Don’t mind me.
AEC now showing Labor on 76:
https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-27966.htm
All votes counted in Gilmore?
Firefox @ #54 Monday, May 30th, 2022 – 1:32 pm
True, but the voters in Gladstone didn’t vote for her. In Flynn, which contains Gladstone, only 4.66% of senate voters voted Greens. Since the argument is that it’s the inner city voters that elected the Greens, that Allman-Payne is from Gladstone isn’t relevant.
2007 election more relevant than 2019 ……..because of a sample size of 1 ……based on untested “big swing” hypthosis……#statisticallyspeaking?
I ask the same question again, Revisionist. If we both agreed on the same likely outcome, why are you so obsessed with trying to prove that about 10-20 votes that won’t change that outcome might move in another direction?
I honestly feel like you’re just being an antagonist for the sake of it at this point. You see a post by me, and even if it’s 99% in agreement with what you said, some sort of red alert goes off and you need to scour through the finer detail to find something you can try to prove me wrong about. Even when all those details you’re nitpicking are things I have made very clear are only rough estimates anyway.
The Revisionist @ #62 Monday, May 30th, 2022 – 1:47 pm
My point wasn’t that it proves something. It takes a great weight of evidence to prove something. It can take a single data point to disprove something.
That said, as my edit made clear, I misread what you were referring to, anyway.
@ShowsOn: The AEC desperately need a huge sign on their front page saying that all they are showing is who’s LEADING in seats and is not a call.
People are constantly making that mistake and running in here or onto Twitter overexcited, it’s not just you.
“My point wasn’t that it proves something. It takes a great weight of evidence to prove something. It can take a single data point to disprove something.”
Statistically speaking?
“That said, as my edit made clear, I misread what you were referring to, anyway.”
I misread Antony Green’s comment the other day (thought he meant only 3,000 postals had been included in the 3CP) deleted the comment within in a minute …… you responded half an hour later…..and continued to harp on about it for thours
The Revisionist @ #66 Monday, May 30th, 2022 – 1:51 pm
No, logically speaking. Statistics (of the kind we’re working with) is used to estimate when you don’t have all of the data to define the “population”. We’re talking about previous elections, where we do have the necessary data.
I didn’t “continue to harp on it”, I kept responding to your constant attempt to defend your indefensible claim. At no point did you say you read it as “only 3000 postals had been included”. When I pointed out that Antony Green probably knows better than you do, you basically accused me of appeal to authority while asserting that you still hold to the claim that there’s no doubt that Labor will win the seat.
And even now, you have refused to actually acknowledge it. When the trends are supporting the idea that it’s too close to call, you insist that further votes will deviate back to old patterns, with no evidence… and then you demand evidence from everyone else for any other possibility.
While this this fun conversation has been going on, another small batch of 481 absents just got counted in Macnamara.
They broke like this (compared to the earlier batch):
LIB 23.7% (-1.1% compared to first 4000)
ALP 28.4% (+0.6% compared to first 4000)
GRN 35.3% (+1.1% compared to first 4000)
Greens actually slightly outperforming Labor by a little more this time, but a small reversal of the LIB/ALP dynamic.
In 3CP terms (using the previous preference flows) it’s:
LIB 29.6% (-1.4% compared to earlier absents)
ALP 30.7% (+0.5% compared to earlier absents)
GRN 39.7% (+0.9% compared to earlier absents)
This batch has slightly accelerated the Greens’ catch-up campaign, but it has reversed the trend of Liberals outpacing Labor.
It’s only a very small batch though so I wouldn’t read into any of that as a trend. Also note that taken as a collective with the first 4000 absents counted, the Liberals still outpace Labor after preferences, and the Greens only increase their rate of outpacing Labor by about 0.1% compared to their earlier rate.
But as it stands, in 3CP terms the batch reduced the Liberals’ lead over Labor by 5 votes, and Labor’s lead over the Greens by 44 votes.
We can assume the Liberals now lead Labor by 45, and Labor now lead the Greens by 451.
What’s the world record for the longest argument between two people that agree with each other?
Spray says:
Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:00 pm
What’s the world record for the longest argument between two people that agree with each other?
中华人民共和国
My missus and her mum.
Spray @ #69 Monday, May 30th, 2022 – 12:00 pm
I think we are about to find out.
i know – just noise – but spray +1.
Love the actual work of all involved though. Insights from the trenches and actual methodologies for how the remaining votes will split.
If I want personality fights and greens v Labor v random trolls I can just go back to the main thread.
Much prefer to just refresh this page than constantly look at the AEC site (particularly as I don’t have time to keep the old result and without that and the resultant delta it is not much help in these close seats.)
“True, but the voters in Gladstone didn’t vote for her. In Flynn, which contains Gladstone, only 4.66% of senate voters voted Greens.”
***
It all counts. Senators are elected by the entire state, not by individual electorates – Queensland voted for her.
As a regional Greenslander, PAP will do a fantastic job of representing all of her constituents – from Coolangatta, to Cape York, and everywhere in-between.
“GlenOsays:
No, logically speaking. Statistics (of the kind we’re working with) is used to estimate when you don’t have all of the data to define the “population”. We’re talking about previous elections, where we do have the necessary data.”
Geepers that nonsense.
There is no “statistically speaking” rule that says you should only rely on a sample of current data at the absolute disregard of the complete population of the previous data point
Ergo, when you said “statistically speaking” you were talking nonsense
“I didn’t “continue to harp on it”, I kept responding to your constant attempt to defend your indefensible claim. At no point did you say you read it as “only 3000 postals had been included”. When I pointed out that Antony Green probably knows better than you do, you basically accused me of appeal to authority while asserting that you still hold to the claim that there’s no doubt that Labor will win the seat.”
Go back and read the actual comment ……(that lives on your response a sad half an hour later despite me deleting it wihin a couple of minutes)…..it very clearly demonstrates that I had misread AG’s comment which is why I deleted it
I then refused to get tangled up in you verballing me which I’ll do again
“And even now, you have refused to actually acknowledge it. When the trends are supporting the idea that it’s too close to call, you insist that further votes will deviate back to old patterns, with no evidence… and then you demand evidence from everyone else for any other possibility.”
I have never “insisted” that further votes will deviate back to old patterns
Apart from the deleted comment based on a misread, my strong push for “declare it now” on this anonymous blog preceded information about the preference flows (which I was clearly wrong on) and AGs subsequent provision of background information
The trends imply a margin of 200 on 3CP after a particularly strong overperformance of the Greens vote and preference flows.
Got far closer than I thought it would but I certainly thought it would. If an AFL team was down 8 goals and with 10 minutes to go, I am calling that game over. If they kick 4 goals in 5 minutes, well all of a sudden they have an outside chance
I often admit I was wrong. You don’t come across as someone who does though?
“ozpmnsays:
Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:25 pm
i know – just noise – but spray +1.
Love the actual work of all involved though. Insights from the trenches and actual methodologies for how the remaining votes will split.
If I want personality fights and greens v Labor v random trolls I can just go back to the main thread.
Much prefer to just refresh this page than constantly look at the AEC site (particularly as I don’t have time to keep the old result and without that and the resultant delta it is not much help in these close seats.)”
Sorry Ozpm…..promise my last contribution to a “personality fight” here will be my last!
I agree guys and apologies for continuously engaging too!
As much as possible I’m trying to remain impartial – to be honest I am pretty impartial too, I live in the seat and voted Greens, but I like Josh Burns as a member and never expected the Greens to actually win it anyway so I’m not invested in the outcome, just fascinated by the count and enjoying updating the projections as the numbers evolve and sharing those updates.
Especially considering I actually agree with Revisionist on what the likely outcome is anyway, I’m just getting a little frustrated that it feels like I can’t post any of these evolving projections without being misquoted to bait me into a continuing argument.
Spray @ #69 Monday, May 30th, 2022 – 1:30 pm
Yay! Spray is back. Welcome.
I dont know what the record is but surely Pollbludger would be in the running for the platform for the highest number of long running arguments of such type. Shame that G and Fran have departed, then we would surely have the individual prize as well.
Antony Green – elections
@AntonyGreenElec
Labor move into the lead in Gilmore after achieving a strong lead on the first Absent votes counted. Doesn’t mean that trend will continue. Absent votes tend to reflect which outside electorate they were collect in. #ausvotes
Trent, apologies if I have misquoted you or even if you feel that’s what has happened.
It certainly hasn’t been intentional.
Arguments about the Judean Liberation Front and The People’s Front of Judea aside, Fiona Phillips, you are a star, a Labor hero and a true believer!!! Her CV is impressive with economics and commerce quals and work experience, and a place on the cabinet reserves bench is richly deserved. As one of the few caucus members who represents a regional electorate – and I note her upbringing on a dairy farm – I wonder if Agriculture is suitable. Julie Collins, the current shadow ag minister, strikes me as better suited to Social Security. Yeah, I know….don’t count your chicks until the fat rooster crows… or whatever it is.
Revisionist, no worries. Apology accepted, and I know that I also got a little too fired up and personal at times myself – particularly hammering on about the early call thing a few days ago – which no doubt contributed to the friction and I apologise for that too.
Honestly, as a data nerd I’m just really enjoying watching this race unfold regardless of the outcome, especially since it’s in my own seat. And I really like both candidates, and have voted both Labor & Greens in recent elections too so I’m not rusted onto either.
>>>>>
All votes counted in Gilmore?
>>>>>>
No, many more. c. 1346 Absents, maybe 2230 live Dec PP, and 170 postal + those arriving.
No more counting today, I’m informed.
Can the experts here give us a short summery/prediction for the 3 seats left in doubt
Oh come on. Boooooo.
We have known for some time this is one of the 3 seats that would decide if the ALP gain a majority. Is there some intense scrutiny slowing it down? This is dragging on longer than a Rob Oakshott speech.
Jan says:
Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:45 pm
No more counting today, I’m informed.
Oh come on. Boooooo.
We have known for some time this is one of the 3 seats that would decide if the ALP gain a majority. Is there some intense scrutiny slowing it down? This is dragging on longer than a Rob Oakshott speech.
中华人民共和国
Or a PB slag fest
Thanks everyone. Totally gripping for a fellow data nerd (from the left).
This is like the old days when TV series had tune in next week and you actually had to wait (im)patiently…
# Really interesting to see a live case which is close to 3 can beat 1 and 2 but won’t win. The whole area of tactical voting is very interesting and I think will become more so as we have lower votes to the 2 main parties. Many in my North Sydney electorate probably only thought about it for the first time this election. Not for this thread though.
Back to the popcorn.
BeaglieBoy, I’m certainly no expert but happy to provide my take on the 3 uncalled seats:
Gilmore – Today’s count has put Labor in front, and Labor are expected to do better on the remaining votes too, so this is now leaning a Labor gain
Deakin – Labor are only slightly outperforming on absents (53-47) while the Liberals are doing slightly better on dec prepolls (51-49) and postal votes, and the Liberals lead by almost 900 votes so this appears to be increasingly out of reach for Labor. Very likely Liberal retain.
Macnamara – Almost certain to come down to all 3 parties being within about 0.4% of each other on the 3CP count, and because it’s looking so close they will probably need to wait until later in the week to give more postal votes an opportunity to come back before anybody can call it. Currently the Greens are about 450 votes behind Labor in 3CP terms, and in my view they will probably make up at least 250-300 of that but fall short. So still a likely Labor retain but will almost certainly be the last seat called. A lot hinges on how many postal votes are returned (4300 issued but not returned currently) and how they break.
Trent and The Rev. I was only joking of course. Your discourse has been conducted at a much higher level than the PB average. Thanks to both of you (and others) for the number crunching and associated insights.
Not claiming expertise but if Sukkar Phillips and Burns aren’t elected then it will take some very unlikely scenarios. And yes MacNamara is a lot less unlikely to be a Green win than it was a few days ago, but even with that it’s still very unlikely.
Thanks Trent….been popping in to get the latest from time to time on these close seats…..apppreciate yours and everyones close watching and input on these close and vital seats.
I think it is so important for the ‘narrative’ of the new government to have a Majority….being seen in minority and “lacking a mandate” or “legitimacy”….will just be the first of many sticks that the Murdocracy will hit Labor with….so I hope at least 1 of these gets across the line
@Beaglieboy
Macnamara – 75% Labor, 25% Green. Based on current trends it looks very close to being a three-way tie but the Greens perhaps falling just short on 3CP. My view is that later absents/declarations and then COVID votes will play a decisive role – I’m thinking it’s quite likely Greens catch up to Labor on those but that the Liberals start falling behind. They haven’t at this stage, but that’s my hunch for how later votes may behave. It could be incorrect and we may see counting errors in the mix for a last second turnaround. In any case, still favoured for Labor as they only need to be ahead of one of the Greens or Liberals.
Gilmore – 80% Labor, 20% Liberal. The uncertainty here really comes down to where the remaining votes are coming from – the last batch of votes today looked particularly Labor friendly, which is a good sign but may also be due to disproportionately being from Labor-friendly areas. Still, being in the lead with very few postals remaining and much more in absents/declaration pre-polls points to Labor being unlikely to lose.
Deakin – 95% Liberal, 5% Labor. The counting today seems to have all but put the nail in the coffin – unless there’s a big last minute turnaround or booth correction in favour of Labor. Otherwise, there just don’t seem to be enough votes remaining.
I agree. While I voted Greens in Macnamara, I do want Labor to have a majority so that the Murdoch media can’t stir up a scare campaign about a “Labor-Greens Coalition” like they did in 2010-13 to kill the government.
I’m glad Gilmore is looking more like a Labor gain now because that seat give them the majority, while I can quietly hope for the very unlikely outcome of a miracle Greens win in Macnamara. But as I said I’m pretty confident they will fall somewhere between 100-150 votes short, and don’t mind that outcome either because I think Josh Burns is an excellent MP. I’m happy to have him, and I think he has a bright future in the party, so it’s win-win for me.
I’m mostly happy that the Liberal candidate got trounced with their worst primary vote in Ports/Macnamara since the seat extended into the industrial inner-west back in 1966!
Thanks all – this has been the best PB thread in ages, with mercifully little of the tiresome banter than overtakes the other threads.
It helps, of course, that there is something specific and highly germane to discuss here, namely the slowly unfolding late count in a few very close seats. It is a tribute to the strength of our democracy that just about everyone (both here and more broadly) is happy to wait for things to play out in due course, rather than rush to a result, even though a key outcome (ie majority government) rests on the outcome. We only have to look to our American friends to see how electoral system can be easily besmirched in the name of political gain.
So many contributors on this thread have been extremely helpful to wade through the entrails of these last seats, and to give us some indication of what the new parliament will look like. Of the last remaining seats, Macnamara continues to be more likely Labor than not, but Brisbane showed us how things can play out when late counting pushes things in another way. Gilmore is inching toward being a Labor retain, while Deakin might be just out of reach.
Assuming the parties currently ahead hold their leads (as now seems very plausible), that suggests that the 47th Parliament will be made up of 77 Labor, 58 Coalition, 4 Greens, and a whopping 12 independents.
“BeaglieBoysays:
Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:45 pm
Can the experts here give us a short summery/prediction for the 3 seats left in doubt”
Note: response does not imply I think I am an expert
Macnamara: Extremely likely Labor (in from almost certainly labor a few days back). In my view, it is highly unlikely that the Greens can sustain the vote differential they would need to overcome the deficit with Labor and, if they did, it is less likely again they could achieve that without pulling the libs below Labor (i.e. remaining votes skew left)
Gilmore: Highly likely Labor (in from toss up). Labor did exceptionally well in the Provisionals and the first absentees counted. Won’t continue the absentee advantage in that first batch but remining votes are likely to extend the lead
Deakin: Almost certain Lib (in from highly likely). Absentee votes counted today have seen Labor underperform
The record argument time must go to Guytaur and anyone who ever disagreed with him.
Probably too little too late now, but the ABC figures show about 300 cut from Sukkar’s lead in Deakin, which is now 613. Of the last three, I’d probably love to see this one fall to Labor most of all, given how I’d love to to see the back of Sukkar, but I appreciate that it remains only a very faint outside chance.
Looks like much better break of absentees to Labor than the earlier ones in Deakin
Still impossible to see how Labor could overcome a lead of 600 though with only 1100 absentees left. Dare I say it, surely close to being called
Much stronger batch of absents there for Gregg (overall, absents have gone up in 2PP from about 52% to 56%). Probably in to about 85-90% chance of Sukkar winning. Most of the doubt is coming down to COVID votes (Flinders sample showing very strong Labor 2PP lean on those) and the chance of booth corrections.
Another update from Macnamara. I’ll let someone else follow the change of numbers there (I’m busy).
Latest update in Macnamara was just a small correction in the checking for the Emerald Hill (South Melbourne) polling place. I can’t tell what it moved but looks like it was only a couple of votes per candidate.