Click here for full federal election results updated live.
Monday, June 6
In Deakin, some pre-polls broke 53-33 to Labor and some absents broke 13-11 to Liberal, leaving the Liberal lead at 440. It’s the final seat to have dropped from my hyper-cautious results facility’s list of seats in doubt. There are 1033 envelopes awaiting processing, which I would guess will amount to about 800 formal votes. In Gilmore there are just 34 postal vote envelopes remaining to be processed: added today were postals that broke 117-40 to Labor (sufficiently lopsided that I expect there may have been an element of rechecking going on as well), absents that broke 93-63 to Labor and pre-polls that broke 270-235 to Liberal, putting the Labor lead at 348.
Sunday, June 5
The deadline for the arrival of postal votes passed yesterday, leaving the Australian Electoral Commission with only a bit of mopping up to do on a result that very much looks like Labor 77, Coalition 58, independents 10, Greens four and one apiece for the Centre Alliance and Katter’s Australian Party. The only theoretically doubtful seats are Deakin and Gilmore, where perhaps 1000 votes remain to reverse leads of 550 for Liberal member Michael Sukkar and 276 for Labor member Fiona Phillips.
That still leaves the Senate, the resolution of which is likely a fortnight away, and the process of which is helpfully outlined in a video from the Australian Electoral Commission. I have now updated my spreadsheet in which I project a simplified preference count based on flows from the 2019 election. This has not caused me to fundamentally change an assessment I laid it out here in detail on Monday, except that Pauline Hanson’s lead in Queensland over Amanda Stoker has narrowed to the extent that I now have her margin at the final count at 11.9% to 11.1%, in from 12.1% to 10.8%. This is close enough to raise the possibility that changes in preferences flows from the last election will be sufficient to account for the difference, though I personally don’t think it likely.
So, this isn’t so much about the current counting, but about past counting, etc. Since senate ballots get turned into a giant csv file, they also publish the resulting file, and for NT, it’s a relatively reasonable-size file. So I thought I’d explore it, to get a feel for how people tend to vote in the Senate, at least in NT. I chose 2016, because 2019 was somewhat of an unusual election.
I’m hoping to glean some other interesting stuff from it, but there are definitely some interesting things I’ve already noticed.
1. Donkey votes are surprisingly uncommon. You would think that the most common thing would be donkey votes where the voter has just gone 1-6 above the line. 585 voters numbered 1-6 across the top, with 47 having also numbered below the line (and just three had numbered 1-12 below the line in groups, and 6 numbered 1-12 below the line by going across the sheet – plus 4 who numbered 1-10 across the sheet). From over 100,000 ballots, that’s a tiny number. 803 numbered 1-7 across the top, 131 of which also numbered below the line. 107 numbered only the top left box with 1 (some of whom them filled out below the line).
2. While most seem to vote in relatively obvious ways, there are some strange entries. For example, among those who voted below the line, there was someone who voted for ALP’s first, then CEC’s second, CDP’s second, RUA’s first, Antipedophile party, CDP’s first, Greens’ second, CEC’s first, HEMP’s second, RUA’s second, HEMP’s first, CLP’s first (and then stopped, because that was 12).
3. There are some curious entries for other reasons. For example, someone who voted 1-7 across the top also numbered below the line… and put a number in nearly every box, with either 1, 12, or 13, below the line. They gave ones to both RUA, both CEC, second CLP, and second Independent, gave 13 to second Greens, and didn’t give numbers to CDP’s first and the third independent – all others got 12.
4. Sometimes above and below the line voting seems pretty inconsistent. For example, nine people numbered above the line 1-6 starting with the second group (HEMP), but below the line gave their first preference to the first RUA person (in group 1), despite not even giving RUA a number above the line.
5. Voters following the HTV:
CLP – 6227 (16.76%)
Labor – 6100 (15.97%)
Greens – 1285 (11.68%)
Rise Up Australia – 74 (1.09%)
(other parties didn’t have HTV in ABC’s records) – note that some of these also numbered below the line.
A similar quick look at ACT (also relatively easy to look at) for 2016…
Donkey votes:
ATL 1-10: 121
ATL 1-6: 278
BTL 1-12 (groups): 1
BTL 1-22 (groups): 2
BTL 1-22 (across): 1
BTL 1-12 (across): 2
BTL 1-11 (across): 3
Following HTV:
Liberals – 16,552 (19.56%)
Labor – 9347 (9.67%)
Greens – 2702 (6.59%)
Rise Up – 22 (0.87%)
(again, no other HTVs, except ones that say “your choice” beyond a certain point).
Phillips now 383 with a swag of absents counted. 557 Dec pre polls left then less than 100 postals and absents.
Yep, go Fiona. P1, sucks to be you.
I agree regarding donkey votes. The impact is massively overstated.
I ran the same exercise in the lower house on Citizens Electoral Council votes. They tended to hold pretty steady on around 1% or so for a couple of decades. Comparing how much better they did if flipped to the top of the ballot (and conversely, how much worse if flipped lower down) between elections, the most significant impact on their vote I could find was just under a 1% impact (out of total votes cast), and more typically less than 0.5%.
Indeed, it’s not that hard to find local council elections where the local perpetual loon draws the top of the ballot and still only manages to score 12-20 votes.
Deakin could yet overtake Gilmore for most marginal seat status! Looking like a neck and neck race to the finish line!!
AngoraFish @ #55 Monday, June 6th, 2022 – 1:19 pm
I’m not sure how common it’s expected to be in the Senate, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be incredibly common – while I couldn’t do a full exploration of the NSW 2016 data, I was at least able to use Windows Command Prompt to do a quick search for how many instances of an ATL donkey vote there were (ignoring what happens BTL), and got 5415 (which is a little over 0.1% of the vote).
So yeah, Senate donkey voting seems to be very uncommon. I mean, NSW 2016 was one of the biggest ballots ever, due to the double dissolution, and the donkey vote was still that low.
I’d comment on House donkey voting, but they don’t publish the ballots for the House, as they do for the Senate.
An interesting thing – 57638 voters voted 1 Liberals only in NSW Senate in 2016, and 69706 voted 1 Labor only. Presumably because they still hadn’t learned that the new system required six votes ATL.
So, a total of 19 seats showed a 2PP swing to the Libs (including 1 seat swinging to the LNP in Qld). Although not all those swings resulted in wins, it’s interesting to see that 11/19 (57.8%) of such swings were in Victoria!!….
The “Get Dan” campaign, especially the one that used Covid as a shield, may have played a role there and I urge the Victorian ALP to adjust their strategies for the coming state election, to respond to that.
”
Alposays:
Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:49 pm
So, a total of 19 seats showed a 2PP swing to the Libs (including 1 seat swinging to the LNP in Qld). Although not all those swings resulted in wins, it’s interesting to see that 11/19 (57.8%) of such swings were in Victoria!!….
The “Get Dan” campaign, especially the one that used Covid as a shield, may have played a role there and I urge the Victorian ALP to adjust their strategies for the coming state election, to respond to that.
”
So coming Victoria State election will not be easy. Based on this data RWNJ will go even harder.
If they can have”Get Dan” in Federal election, they Victorian Labor can have a message ” send a message to Dutton “.
Yes, I agree. Dan and Labor will obviously put their current term achievements, their ongoing investments in the wellbeing of Victorians, and the future ones first, but it’s inevitable that Dutton will make an “appearance” in the ALP campaign, as he was the guy behind the African gangs brouhaha, and the Victorian Federal Libs were behind the campaign in support of NSW and against their own state during the worst period of the pandemic.
Oh, and then there is Guy as Vic Liberal “leader”… dear me!… Easy target. This is just a little sampler:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Guy
NSW Teachers Federation has said the NSW Government’s announcement to lift the wages cap policy from 2.5 per cent to three per cent is “not good enough”.
“Today’s announcement adds insult to injury. It does nothing to address the teacher shortage crisis facing NSW public schools,” said NSW Teachers Federation President Angelo Gavrielatos.
“Teachers are already experiencing a real wage cut with inflation running at 5.1 per cent in March 2022. This is despite the Premier’s calls to not have front-line workers’ pay fall behind.”
Here is one for the Bludger Sub Club.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/jun/06/australia-news-live-updates-albanese-dutton-indonesia-wong-china-security-aged-care-economy
A former Liberal premier says Anthony Albanese’s election as Prime Minister likely heralds a “decade of Labor” in power, saying his old party is in a “desperate situation” at a federal and state level.
Colin Barnett, WA premier between 2008 and 2017, said the Liberal Party needed to modernise itself by recruiting a new generation of future leaders.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-06/colin-barnett-calls-for-gas-pipeline-across-australia/101129746
I heard Colin Barnett make this comment getting on for two weeks ago now….He is a realist…
He used the analogy of a cricket batting order, whereby the Libs had lost the best of their top order batting in the election and it would take time to rebuild the Liberal Party.
His thinking was this would be two terms of the Labor government.
Mind you, old Charlie Court, after one election that Labor did not do well at all, predicted the death of the Labor Party.
He was quite wrong of course and was mischief making…..
Like in Labor, there are some who would vote Liberal because they are rusted-on, and will never change….
The Liberals will recover seats in the next State election as they will at the Federal level, but boy there are some gigantic gaps to make up.
The problem for the Libs is not Labor but the well-heeled Libs turned Teals who might just do a good job and thereby rob the Libs of some of their former heartland for good…..
Alpo says:
Monday, June 6, 2022 at 2:49 pm
So, a total of 19 seats showed a 2PP swing to the Libs (including 1 seat swinging to the LNP in Qld). Although not all those swings resulted in wins, it’s interesting to see that 11/19 (57.8%) of such swings were in Victoria!!….
The “Get Dan” campaign, especially the one that used Covid as a shield, may have played a role there and I urge the Victorian ALP to adjust their strategies for the coming state election, to respond to that.
——
The other way of looking at it is that the ALP achieved extraordinary efficiency of its vote in Victoria. The overall 1.2% 2PP swing would have meant that it would eke out a tiny win in Chisholm based on the pendulum. It took out Chisholm with more than a 6% swing, plus Higgins ( a seat that was on a narrow 2019 margin but that nobody seemed to be really talking about as a probable ALP gain) and key ALP marginals such as Corangamite and Dunkley had big swings to Labor. McEwen swang slightly to the coalition but (thankfully) less so than some of the other outer northern and western seats and was never really close. The ALP saw sizeable swings against it in some of those safe northern and western seats but this time that did it no harm at all. Of course Labor would be very wise to get to the bottom of what happened in those seats as it may well do them harm at a future election otherwise.
The ALP now has a cluster of seats sitting at the 55-60% range of the pendulum. That’s an optimal configuration in a lot of ways. On those margins they are seats that might go close but that the coalition would mostly be unlikely to actually win – except in a 1990 type landslide.
The ALP no longer has as much of their vote locked up in huge majorities in safe seats. And there are additional Liberal seats – Deakin, Casey and Menzies, maybe Aston and potentially Monash – that are still winnable. The ALP could do better than its current 54%~ odd 2PP in Victoria in a big year.
Of course the electoral landscape can change again and almost certainly will – but it seems to me that what’s emerged in Victoria in 2022 looks pretty different from anything we’ve seen recently.
Re Outsider at 1.30 pm
Margin between two ultra-Marginals less than 100: Phillips ahead by 348, Sukkar by 440.
Spot the other similarity and difference: Labor did 2% better on swing in pre-polls in Gilmore compared to May 21, while in Deakin the swing for Labor in pre-polls was 4.2% better than in May 21 booths.
Only 33 votes left to count in Gilmore. All postals. Phillips still 348 ahead. Barring miscounts that’s it folks.
Re max at 6.04 pm
Monash is quite marginal now. Margin left is 2.7%. Broadbent was an Xmas baby in 1950. Unlikely to recontest in 2025. Swing against him in big Warragul pre-poll was 8.6%, over double the seat swing.
Christian Zahra won the seat (called McMillan after the former Scottish Highlander turned genocidal colonist of the Kurnai people in Gippsland) in 1998 and 2001 but lost after a redistribution in 2004.
Don Watson’s book, Caledonia Australis, about McMillan is still in print. Description at:
https://www.historyvictoria.org.au/product/caledonia-australis-by-don-watson/
Defence Minister Richard Marles hasn’t ruled out ordering additional submarines before the country’s new fleet is completed some 20 years from now.
Mr Marles has said one of his top priorities is plugging the gap between the retirement of Australia’s ageing Collins Class fleet and the arrival of the nuclear-powered submarines.
Mr Marles on Monday said he had an “open mind” on the option of procuring an additional fleet of conventional submarines — a “Son of Collins” — to use in the interim.
“I don’t want to set the hares running on any of that,” he told the ABC.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/defence-minister-richard-marles-has-open-mind-to-huge-change/news-story/97870140cafc2609cf23fec1f7e010bb
The ALP how to vote in Deakin was the Donkey 1 to 10. It was the first time that Sukkar was below the ALP on the card.
Dr Doolittle says:
Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:26 pm
Re max at 6.04 pm
Monash is quite marginal now. Margin left is 2.7%. Broadbent was an Xmas baby in 1950. Unlikely to recontest in 2025. Swing against him in big Warragul pre-poll was 8.6%, over double the seat swing.
———
True – Broadbent apparently is perceived as a good local member (or so locals tell me) so the loss of his personal vote could do the trick. Also new estates in Warragul and Drouin, presumably catering to people working in SE Melbourne, should bring in a more Labor friendly constituency. Similar things are happening in the towns en route to Phillip Island. Some of the towns in the electorate, such as Inverloch, have had an influx of lockdown refugees from Melbourne (some members of my family among them). Apparently Inverloch booths showed a very big 2PP swing to Labor this time. Probably a better prospect in the medium term than some of those eastern suburbs marginals.
Re Alpha Zero at 6.59 pm
Six sizeable booths in Deakin had low swings against Sukkar: Burwood Heights, Croydon, Croydon East, Croydon Town, Vermont Nth and Warranwood, totalling just over 7,000 votes. That’s why he survived. Note: electoral roll in Deakin is about 15,000 smaller than in Gilmore. That may have helped him.
One reason why Sukkar got such a fright is that he lost 1.7% in 2019 to the previous Labor candidate Shireen Morris, being one of 4 VIC Lib MPs in 2019 to suffer significant swings to Labor. All the others (Wilson, Allen & Liu) lost this time, with Frydenberg who lost the biggest 2019 incumbent Lib swing.
I heard somewhere that Croydon is a big Pentecostal area. Don’t know if that’s true.
Holdenhillbilly @ #63 Monday, June 6th, 2022 – 5:46 pm
So close and yet so far. It needs to modernize itself by drafting some policies that don’t read like they were plucked straight out of the 1950s on everything from race relations to health to gender-equality to climate-change/coal/renewables/science in general. Then it needs to recruit some new leaders who actually believe in the new policies and don’t secretly long to revive the old ones.
Then they might find some relevance if they stay focused on tax/economy/cost-of-living issues, because all of those are about to bite in a major way.
But…why give them free advice?
@max: that sounds like the SA state Labor playbook for the last two decades. Target marginals ruthlessly, and if the swing against in the premier’s seat sends it to preferences, who cares? There’s plenty more where that came from. Result: government for sixteen years out of twenty, including three elections where they lost the statewide TPP and still commanded a majority of seats. (Good relationships with independents, ex-Liberal and otherwise, helped, but still, maybe don’t _aim_ for that…)
Essentially Labor will get two terms now. There is no realistic way for the Coalition to win back 18 seats next time around. Even if they managed to claw back 12 or 13 there is no way the Greens or Teals would back a Dutton led minority government. Considering too how poorly the Liberals have done in WA, SA and Victoria you have to think there is not much hope for them in those places in the foreseeable future. It is also hard to see them clawing back any of the Teal seats as by the time the next election comes the independents would have the distinct advantage of incumbency in those seats.
Now that the results are mostly all in, has anyone figured out why Tasmania took such a hard right turn? By 2PP from this election result, it’s now the second-most conservative state after Queensland, and on a seat-by-seat basis Lyons is now considerably more marginal than Bass (and thus a flip to 3-1 Liberal looks more likely than a flip to 3-1 Labor). Is this just the by-now-usual pattern of the center-left falling apart in rural areas, or is there something more to this?
As counting continues, it’s pleasing to see seats get declared – and it’s even more pleasing that so many of the ones declared so far are Labor seats – of 8 declared seats, 6 are Labor.
I’ve been watching as the declarations happen, because it’s interesting to see, and to try to guess, which one will be declared next. It’s somewhat fascinating, because natural instinct as to which seats will get declared aren’t always the right ones. First thought would be that the seats with the largest 2CP leads would be the ones declared first, but that’s not how it plays out in practice. Chisholm, with a 6.29% margin, has been declared, while Maranoa, with a 22.7% margin, has not.
One of the seats likely to be declared soon is Makin, which has Lib v ALP 2CP at this time, and ALP leads by enough that if all remaining votes go Liberal, Labor still wins. And there’s just under 11,000 votes potentially left (assuming 100% turnout) with 9,921 votes between Liberals and the sum of other candidates (other than Labor and Liberal) – meaning, for the Liberals to be overtaken, the remaining votes would need to overwhelmingly go to non-major candidates. There’s 1500 votes left to count, which means that it’s possible for it to be called with only a little more counting.
Meanwhile, I thought I’d also look at what’s happening in Tasmania’s senate count – in particular, Eric Abetz, and possible side-effects of his BTL campaign.
The Libs are on 2.2398 quotas on raw numbers. Abetz has 0.1682 quotas so far, with a little over two-thirds of Liberal preferences apportioned. If enough of the remaining votes yet to be apportioned go to Abetz BTL, it could be enough to prevent Wendy Askew from getting her seat purely from redistribution of Duniam’s voters, and thus could cause the Liberals to absorb some extra right-wing vote before Askew is elected.
I would imagine this would probably come from Federation Party, primarily, with some of the non-lead candidates for others (such as the second and third SFF candidates) also having some flow to Askew before she gets over the line to a quota.
I can’t help but wonder how this could affect the final result. Abetz doesn’t have enough to win his seat – he’d be, at best, on something like 0.3 quotas, and against Tammy Tyrrell, it wouldn’t be enough. Greens excess is likely to have good flow to JLN because they put JLN above ALP, and there’s a good chance that other left-wing voters would give a number to JLN.
But could it change the flows in an interesting way?
Also interesting is, how much more would need to shift from ATL to Abetz to risk the Liberals only winning one seat? I’d imagine that some of the Abetz voters would have otherwise voted for another party, and that flow could go, for example, to PHON, which could, in the right conditions, benefit from the split in the Liberal vote. It’s certainly not happening at this election, but the hypothetical is an interesting one.
All votes counted in Gilmore. Phillips wins by 373. Zero votes left to count. Last batch of postals broke to her.
justif01:
I agree that Dutton – or whoever is leading the Liberals in 2025 – has a real challenge ahead of him, but there are genuine paths to victory that don’t require the Libs to win back a single Teal or Green seat.
Look at the new pendulum: (obviously not the final margins, but it’s close enough)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_pendulum_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election
The Coalition could win a bare majority by taking every marginal Labor seat on that list, as well one extra. Unlikely? Sure, probably. Impossible? No way. The Albanese government would have to have become pretty toxic for such a scenario to come about, but a lot can happen in three years.
It’s important also to remember that despite the Liberals’ current seat count being a historic low for them, the Coalition still hold more seats than Labor had after both 1996 and 2013, and in both cases the opposition came quite close to taking government in the next election.
In the end, quite a clear margin in Gilmore.
Hopefully the Deakin count will be finalised soon – by how much will Sukkar’s current 44o vote margin be eroded?
https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/06/04/late-counting-week-three/comment-page-2/#comment-3934724
It is a mix of things including:
Rural/outer suburban conservatism played it part, however, both Lyons and Gilmore has Liberal candidate issues (disendorsement and controversial captain`s pick respectively) in 2019, which out which it could be argued that the Liberals might have won the seats in 2019 (and then, with Liberals sitting members, potentially this time as well, given the closeness of the count), so at least part of the swings were delayed 2019 swings, not swings away from the 2019 Liberals in general positioning. Gilmore is about one 47th of the vote in NSW and Lyons about one 5th of the vote in Tasmania, so Lyons was a notable contributor at state level (the swing in Lyons was approximately a 1% swing of the statewide vote). There were also some controversial historical social media posts by the ALP candidate in Lyons that came out late in the campaign this time (the ALP candidate apparently did better on prepolls and early postals than would ordinarily be expected from the on the day results).
The Tasmanian 2PP count also does not yet include Clark, because Wilkie is in the 2CP, and Clark was 66.17% to 33.83% in the ALP`s favour on the 2PP last time (with a small 2PP swing to the ALP last time). The Tasmanian 2PP swing on the AEC website appears to be calculated without taking that into account, so the current exclusion of Clark is the majority of the swing shown and is almost certain to diminish significantly once the 2PP count in Clark is included.
I will put my non existent reputation on the line (hence nothing to lose) to say that I will be amazed if the Lib/Nats get anything like the preferences flows in the Senate counts that Mr Bowe is predicting for them., in his spreadsheet.
I think that a far greater proportion of votes, especially the ‘Right’ votes will wither go to UAP / ON or exhaust.
How much will vary from state to state depending on, how much Palmer actually spent in each state in put the majors last, (it was a hell of a lot here in QLD – but I have no idea about elsewhere) & who were actually handing out how to vote cards (again I don’t know ) & where on the ballot paper each group was placed in relation to each other.
In Victoria the Libs/Nats were at the left hand end of the ballot paper, while the ‘Rights’ are mainly from centre to left on the paper. Therefore that should reduce the preferences to Lib/Nats in Victoria I think. Maybe however they would get a donkey vote however, if some people just vote 1 to 6 from the left?
GlenO says:
Monday, June 6, 2022 at 1:48 pm
“…….
An interesting thing – 57638 voters voted 1 Liberals only in NSW Senate in 2016, and 69706 voted 1 Labor only. Presumably because they still hadn’t learned that the new system required six votes ATL.”
True. However, I believe that there is a “vote saving” provision that means that a single 1 ATL is still a formal vote (but will expire with that party’s candidates). Some of those who voted this way may be aware of this and simply don’t have a second preference.
Declarations are coming thick and fast, now. Up to 21 seats declared, with the most recent one, I think, being Warringah. Very pleasing to see. Smallest 2CP margin that has been declared is Goldstein, with a margin of 5380.
Like Gilmore, Deakin as now confirmed with only 382 postals to count. Sukkar did well of course on postals (Constance did crap on postals) and Gregg only picked up 43 on Dec pre polls which was never going to be enough once Sukkar got nearly a 1000 in front from postals.
A follow-up in terms of the remaining apportioning in the Tasmanian senate counting. It’s looking like Abetz will be getting enough BTL votes to act as a bit of a spoiler. He currently has 0.2131 quotas, with 0.5006 Liberal quotas left to apportion – so far, he’s gotten about 12.2% of the apportioned Liberal votes, so he could see something like 0.0612 additional quotas, which would put him at 0.2743 quotas. Considering that Liberals appear to have gotten about 2.2424 quotas, that means he’s going to leave Askew something like 0.0319 quotas away from being elected before candidates start being excluded (obviously, assuming the final apportionment follows the same pattern as the apportionment so far).
It’s not a huge amount, of course, but it’s going to take some time for them to push past the quota for Askew, to the point that it could potentially see Labor get across the line with their second before Askew gets across the line.
It won’t be a real spoiler effect, of course – the result will be essentially the same as it otherwise would be… it just might change the order of election, and change the final balances in the count when the final winner is elected.
Re michael at 1.20 pm
The bigger problem for Labor was that Gregg (who had the “Donkey vote” at the top of the ticket) got a PV swing of only 0.4%, after three years of ProMo Morrison’s fuckwittery being obvious to many, not just to afficionados of the Juice Media’s “Australien Government” honesty in advertising videos.
By comparison, Shireen Morris, Labor’s candidate in 2019, got an almost 2.5% PV swing coming from near the bottom of the ballot paper, just above the ghost of the DLP (now vanished in Deakin in 2022). Morris even got a majority of DLP prefs (56%) in 2019. Having moved to Sydney as a Law lecturer at Macquarie Uni, she was third on the NSW Labor Senate ticket, and better value than the top two, plus Keneally, whose parachute failed.
It is an old lesson but candidate selection matters much more in the Australian system than in the NZ MMP system. While, for all sorts of reasons, it is far from being a meritocracy, good candidates are vital (as shown by Sam Lim’s victory over Morton in Tangey).
Over the last two elections Sukkar lost 8.6% on PV, so he deserved to lose. With only 6 candidates in 2019, the right wing grouplet vote was only 5.5%, excluding the DLP, AJP and an Indie at 1.6% (whose voters favoured Sukkar). In 2022 with 10 candidates the right wing grouplet vote was 9% (excluding AJP and the Indie at 1.27%). Sukkar survived because of that increase, and because around 15% or more (details not yet available) of the nearly 13,811 Greens voters preferred him, and so fuckwittery.
As for Constance, he had many tickets on himself but none were winners. He was on the top of the ballot paper, and got 0.5% more PV than Sukkar. There were seven candidates, and the right wing grouplet vote was just over 7.5%, up from 5% in 2019. In the 6 big pre-poll booths Constance did very well (in terms of swing compared to 2019, though not necessarily the same voters) in the smallest of them (Huskisson, a 6.2% swing); barely well in the one closest to his home (Bateman’s Bay, 2.7%); just below what he needed in Ulladulla (2.4%); and inadequately in Nowra South (1.6%); while he went backwards in the biggest one in Nowra (- 0.4%) and particularly in Kiama (- 2.6% swing, i.e. a swing to Phillips in the Kiama pre-poll that was the same % as her overall margin from 2019).
Constance had a clean run (with the Nationals dropping out and no ex-Liberal like Schultz) plus a lot of resources and lost. A reason must be that some of the almost 4,100 Schultz voters who preferenced Phillips in 2019 stayed with her, as did some of the 2,100 Nats voters who preferenced her in 2019).
All votes done in Deakin. Sukkar wins by 364 votes. Now Australias’ most marginal seat.
On percentage terms, Deakin is a 0.18% margin and Gilmore is 0.17% margin.
michael says:
Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:52 am
On percentage terms, Deakin is a 0.18% margin and Gilmore is 0.17% margin.
中华人民共和国
Percentages – Smercentages.
The next item of interest will be the national 2PP. Last time I looked it was 51.9% on the ABC website. I think with the addition of the 15 Indie/Green seats it will end up a few tenths higher. Let’s see!
So, the “Two part preferred” tracker boxes have been turned on (on the AEC site) for the non-traditional seats, now, which suggests they’ve started working on them.
@Upnorth: “All votes done in Deakin. Sukkar wins by 364 votes. Now Australias’ most marginal seat.”
What will be interesting to see when the full distribution of preferences is completed & published in Macnamara, will be how close that 3PP count ended up.
Similar to the state seat of Prahran in Victoria, it will be an ultra-marginal seat in reality but disguised as a “safe seat” on a traditional 2CP pendulum.
In Prahran, the Greens’ 2CP margin (adjusted post-redistribution) is 9.4% so it’s listed as “Fairly Safe” on the pendulum, but the Greens only beat Labor by 264 votes to actually make the 2CP count.
Macnamara will pretty much be the same; “Safe” on the traditional pendulum with a margin of 12.3%, but hidden away in the 3CP results Labor’s actual margin will only be about 300 votes between finishing second or third, which would actually make it the most marginal seat in the country.
Trent @ #95 Thursday, June 9th, 2022 – 3:17 pm
It would be interesting to see a variant of the pendulum that examines how much of a shift of votes would be needed to change the outcome. Unfortunately, that would require full data on all votes, rather than just the official distribution of preferences – doable in the Senate, but it’s not provided for the House.
There are fascinating edge cases – for example, it’s possible for a result at 4CP to be the difference between two different candidates winning, even where the two that could have been knocked out at the 4CP stage wouldn’t win in either case.
For example, if we were looking at Labor, Greens, One Nation, and Liberal, and either ON or Greens would be knocked out… and because of how it sits, enough ON votes leak to Greens over Labor in this seat that if ON is knocked out first (because of a large anti-Majors vote among ON voters in this seat), Greens edge past Labor, and the Liberals win against the Greens… but if Greens are knocked out first, they cause the 2CP to be Labor vs Liberal, and Labor wins. The 4CP challenge is between ON and Greens, but the end result is between Labor and Liberal. It’s a strange margin to consider, but an interesting one.
As of Thurs 09/06 5:30pm:
* Brisbane
ALP – 29,641 (27.25%) (2nd)
Grn – 29,632 (27.24%) (3rd)
9 votes difference, even if it’s academic at this stage. Does anyone know whether the full count is complete?
* Victorian Senate
UAP – 0.2770 parts of a quota
LNP – 0.2764 parts of a quota (2.2764 quota’s)
Babet leads Mirabella on the party vote
Where does the smart money lie on this one?
The ABC Senate results website now has the UAP’s Ralph Babet “ahead” for the sixth place in the Victorian Senate count, rather than Greg Mirabella.
Disappointing if it transpires as such, although maybe Mirabella could be worse, in that he would be part of a Coalition bloc, rather than an orphan, but having a member of parliament means the UAP can more easily continue as a registered political party, I think.
Mrodowicz @ #97 Thursday, June 9th, 2022 – 5:51 pm
I can’t say for certain, but it looks like they’ve finished the main counting, so it’s just the formal checking and finalisation of distribution of preferences, since they need to make sure it’s right in Brisbane, since it’s so close.
Mrodowicz @ #97 Thursday, June 9th, 2022 – 5:51 pm
Nowhere, right now. It’s not clear who will win, between LNP, UAP, ALP, LC, or PHON. First instinct is that it should be between LNP and UAP, and WB’s estimate based on 2019 flows suggests that LNP would then end up winning. So of the options, LNP would seem to be in the best position.
But we don’t know if it’ll flow like that. There was a much bigger anti-Majors vote in this election, which could push preferences away from LNP. In addition, a quick ballpark of where the votes lie on the left/right spectrum would suggest that it’s pretty close. Assuming that a few of the really low-vote candidates have preferences flowing strongly enough to get the Greens over the line, then my best ballpark is that Left and Right have similar numbers of votes (after distributing the first five seats worth of candidates), but with the Right being just a little ahead…
But if the Right have a higher exhaustion rate (which it might, since there’s probably a lot of Right voters who didn’t give the majors a number, while the Left are more likely to give Labor a preference), it’s possible that the Left will take the seat – meaning, Labor or Legalise Cannabis.
Personally, I think it’s a real possibility for Labor to take it, but we’ll have to wait for the button press to see where it lands.
@Corio
‘…but having a member of parliament means the UAP can more easily continue as a registered political party, I think.’
I tend to think that the UAP would be likely to have an incumbent member by 2025 anyway. There will always be a few deserters from other parties looking for someone with a shitload of money to help them win reelection at the next one. Uncle Clive would be the ‘top of the list’ chump who they would seek, since who else would be dumb enough to splash them with so much dough.