Late counting: first Senate buttons pressed

Final resolutions of the ACT and NT Senate counts imminent, as the AEC also gets to work sorting out the final two-party preferred result.

Thursday, June 16

UPDATE: Tasmanian Senate result confirmed.

The next cab off the rank for the Senate is Tasmania at 3pm today, which should confirm a result of two each for Liberal and Labor and one each for the Greens and the Jacqui Lambie Network. Yesterday’s result in South Australia (see below) did not surprise, but my analysis of the ballot paper data has: the United Australia Party did a lot better on preferences than in 2019, sufficient to suggest that their candidate in Victoria, Ralph Babet, is well in the hunt for a final seat that I had hitherto thought most likely to go to the third Liberal, Greg Mirabella.

On this spreadsheet you will find my determination of how the various minor players’ preferences split between Labor, Liberal, Greens and UAP for the Senate in South Australia at both this election and in 2019. Most notably, the UAP only got 30.2% of One Nation preferences ahead of the other three in 2019, but this time they got 58.3%. The same pattern is evident in lesser degree among most other parties, particularly on the right. The one glaring exception is the Liberal Democrats, the results for which show how important ballot paper order is for this particular party. In 2019 they were well to the right of the ballot paper, polled 0.67%, and sent only 35.4% to the Liberals on four-party preferred. This time they drew the column A, got 2.20% and sent 61.2% to the Liberals, who were right nearby in column C.

To get a sense of what this might mean for Victoria, my Senate projection spreadsheet now contains a new sheet called “Vic 2”, which as much as possible replaces the preference data from Victoria in 2019 with the new results in South Australia. Note that I have left the distribution for the LDP undisturbed rather than swing it dramatically to the Liberals as per the South Australian result. If Antony Green is correct in his assessment that “lockdowns and changes in party registration rules” might mean more LDP preferences for the UAP at the expense of the Liberals, this assessment will actually be conservative with respect to their chances of overhauling Mirabella.

Whereas the existing projection gives the UAP only a 0.2% boost over the Coalition when One Nation preferences are distributed, the new one makes it 2.1% in “Scenario 1”, where Legalise Cannabis are excluded before One Nation, those two parties being closely matched at the previous exclusion. Competition from Legalise Cannabis for One Nation preferences in “Scenario 2” reduces this to 1.6%, but the difference comes back to them when Legalise Cannabis is excluded in later counts.

There are, in effect, three scenarios laid out here, depending on who drops out at close exclusions in the final stages. As noted, one involves Legalise Cannabis dropping out before One Nation, another vice-versa. On the first of these, I now have Mirabella dropping out before both UAP and Labor, and his preferences then deciding the result for the UAP. The second sets up another tight exclusion at the next round, with either Legalise Cannabis or the third Labor candidate going out next.

The former case, Scenario 2a, is essentially the same as Scenario 1, the only difference being the order of exclusion between Legalise Cannabis and One Nation. But in Scenario 2b, Labor’s exclusion unlocks what seems to me a surprisingly strong flow of preferences to the Liberals, precious few for the UAP, and not enough for Legalise Cannabis. On this scenario, Mirabella makes it over the line — just.

Wednesday, June 15

As noted below, the button will be pressed on the South Australian Senate result at 3pm today.

UPDATE: The result in South Australia, as expected, was 1. Simon Birmingham (Liberal), 2. Penny Wong (Labor), 3. Andrew McLachlan (Liberal), 4. Don Farrell (Labor), 5. Barbara Pocock (Greens), 6. Kerrynne Liddle (Liberal). The full preference distribution is here. Liddle ended short of a full quota at the final count with 140,008 votes (12.4%), ahead of Jennifer Game of One Nation on 107,672 (9.5%). At the previous count, third Labor candidate Trimann Gill was excluded with 89,740 (8.0%) to Game’s 97,755 (8.7%) and Liddle’s 107,705 (9.5%), though Liddle would have won at the final count either way.

The AEC now announces the button will be pressed at 3pm on Tasmania, which I consider a foregone conclusion of two each for Liberal and Labor and one each for the Greens and the Jacqui Lambie Network.

Tuesday, June 14

The Australian Electoral Commission has announced the buttons will be pushed on the Senate counts today for the Australian Capital Territory at 10am and the Northern Territory at 11am. There seems little doubt about the former result and none about the latter, but it will be interesting to see exactly how minor party and independent preferences flow through to what I am presuming will be a win for independent David Pocock over Liberal incumbent Zed Seselja in the ACT. It also seems likely that the resolution in South Australia and Tasmania is not far off.

For the lower house, the AEC is now conducting Coalition-versus-Labor counts in the 26 seats where the two-candidate preferred counts include independents or minor parties, a process that is a little over 10% complete. This will finally provide us with a definitive two-party preferred and swing results for the election as a whole. The count so far has been systematically favourably for the Coalition because they are starting with declaration votes, and in particular with postal votes, which account for over 80% of those counted so far. It is for this reason that they point to a collective swing to the Coalition of around 9%, which will assuredly not be the case after the ordinary votes are added.

My displays of the lower house results can be found here, but for the two-party preferred results you will need the AEC site.

UPDATE: Counts for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory resolved as anticipated. The preference distributions will be published later today. The button will be pressed on South Australia at 3pm local time tomorrow. Liberal candidate Andrew Constance has requested a recount after his defeat by 373 votes in Gilmore.

UPDATE 2: The distributions have been posted for both the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. The ACT result was not close: at the final distribution, David Pocock had 103,618 votes (36.3%) and Zed Seselja had 81,485 (28.6%).

UPDATE 3: I had made the following calculations using the ballot paper data of how the various candidates’ preferences were apportioned between a) Labor, Liberal and David Pocock, b) Liberal and David Pocock, and c) Labor and Liberal. Since Labor polled almost exactly a quota, the question of preferences either to them or from them was academic so far as the count was concerned, but instructive with respect to voter behaviour.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

82 comments on “Late counting: first Senate buttons pressed”

Comments Page 2 of 2
1 2
  1. The margin in Bass has come back quite a bit in late counting- so much so that I wonder if they discovered an error along the way. Archer was sitting at around 52% 2PP for a while there but has come back into 51.4%, for a 1% swing in her favour. It’s a very gettable seat next time around.

  2. Page will be another interesting preference throw – Nats 45%, ALP 18.7%, greens on 8.5 and Hanabeth Luke (independent) on 13.1. The remaining Lib Dems, Indigenous party, UAP and PHON as well – could be another Groom!

  3. Full preference count for sa now up on aec. At last exclusion Lib c 108k, ON c 98k and Labor c 90k. After Labor excluded libs win easily over ON. C 140k to 108k

  4. The fact that Xenophon was beaten by both Palmer and more so by Hanson shows that celebrity stunt clowns cannot take four years off and expect their former facade to attract the befuddled without fail.

    Here is a speech Kerrynne Liddle gave at the Hawke Centre at UniSA in 2004 on respect for women:

    https://www.unisa.edu.au/connect/hawke-centre/relive-our-events/2004-Calendar/RESPECT-for-Women-seminar/RESPECT-for-Women-seminar—Kerrynne-Liddle/

    Significantly, Senator-elect Liddle then honoured her grandmother as “a linguist, a diplomat and a scientist”. Whether the new senator can teach her party the value of those roles remains to be seen.

  5. Re max at 4.26 pm

    See the contrast in pre-poll swing in Launceston (2.8% against Archer ) and 21 May booths (1.3% to her). Quantity of pre-polls much lower in Bass than in bigger mainland seats (e.g. Deakin and Gilmore) but note a similar contrast: Lib swing worse among early voters. Archer is first Lib MP returned since 1990.

  6. https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/06/14/late-counting-first-senate-buttons-pressed/comment-page-2/#comment-3939138

    Xenophon ran in a non-party group. Non-party groups don`t get any labelling for their group ATL box and so they tent to loose out on primaries and in preferences. Given the close margin, an ATL with either a party with Xenophon`s name in it or a simple candidate name group label (i.e. “Xenophon/Griff group”) would have meant Xenophon passing the UAP and possible PHON and/or the ALP (if both, victory may have been on the cards).

  7. Xenophon’s very odd last second run is his own & served no purpose other than to cruel the chances of Rex Patrick. (I’m not saying that was Xenophon’s intent but it was certainly a consequence).

    Xenophon has been around more than long enough to know that not having a ‘party’ name above the line on the Senate ticket will cruel your chances – he could easily have achieved this if he’d planned ahead rather than do a last minute run, but he didn’t for whatever reason/s.

    Rex Patrick probably still wouldn’t have won, but it destroyed his chances – which is a shame, because he was a genuinely effective hard-working Independent Senator. He’s not a show pony so didn’t get the attention he merited but I feel the Senate will be lesser without him in there.

  8. So of the non-traditional 2CP runoffs at this election the 2PP ALP v LNP seems much more advanced in Curtin than the other teal seats I’ve seen. Just about all votes have been allocated there and it is a 55-45 LIB v ALP margin. That result suggests that probably all of the teal won electorates will end up with a slight to moderate LNP advantage vs Labor on 2PP.

    It’ll be interesting to see if this trend maintains or continues, but can’t really see how Dutton will do anything other than make things worse in inner urban areas and he will likely be unpopular across most demographics. He has this viscerally dislikeable vibe about him and regardless of what he does, I think it is going to be very difficult for him to be trusted by voters.

  9. Has Donald Constance had the grace and dignity to concede defeat and congratulate Fiona Phillips, yet?
    Or is he still playing GrumpyMcFace!
    What a pathetic sore loser, just like his candidate for Bega, when he attempted to switch from NSW to the Federal jurisdiction.

  10. Dr Doolittle says:
    Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 10:18 pm
    Re max at 4.26 pm

    See the contrast in pre-poll swing in Launceston (2.8% against Archer ) and 21 May booths (1.3% to her). Quantity of pre-polls much lower in Bass than in bigger mainland seats (e.g. Deakin and Gilmore) but note a similar contrast: Lib swing worse among early voters. Archer is first Lib MP returned since 1990.
    ——————
    Thanks for unpacking that Doctor D. Interesting.

  11. Looking at the AEC distribution for SA, it was interesting to note that when Rex Patrick was eliminated the largest beneficiaries were the 3rd Labor candidate, followed by Pocock (Green). Xenophon came only 3rd.

    It would appear likely that those favouring Patrick were disenchanted with Xenophon (despite being running mates before). (And/or it might also be that many simply did not see him due to poor ATL visibility in an unnamed group.)

  12. Is there any particular reason why none of the Tasmanian House seats have been officially declared yet? What factor makes it take longer to finalise than seats on the mainland?


  13. Tom the first and bestsays:
    Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:28 pm
    https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/06/14/late-counting-first-senate-buttons-pressed/comment-page-2/#comment-3939138

    Xenophon ran in a non-party group. Non-party groups don`t get any labelling for their group ATL box and so they tent to loose out on primaries and in preferences. Given the close margin, an ATL with either a party with Xenophon`s name in it or a simple candidate name group label (i.e. “Xenophon/Griff group”) would have meant Xenophon passing the UAP and possible PHON and/or the ALP (if both, victory may have been on the cards).

    Jane Caro on NSW Senate ballot fared pretty badly too although she is a celebrity.


  14. Tom the first and bestsays:
    Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 11:28 pm
    https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/06/14/late-counting-first-senate-buttons-pressed/comment-page-2/#comment-3939138

    Xenophon ran in a non-party group. Non-party groups don`t get any labelling for their group ATL box and so they tent to loose out on primaries and in preferences. Given the close margin, an ATL with either a party with Xenophon`s name in it or a simple candidate name group label (i.e. “Xenophon/Griff group”) would have meant Xenophon passing the UAP and possible PHON and/or the ALP (if both, victory may have been on the cards).

    Jane Caro on NSW Senate ballot fared pretty badly too although she is a celebrity.

  15. The Xenophon Senate effort was a shambles. If he had got organised a couple of months earlier he could have had a group name based on Griff being a sitting Senator. Running as he did looked like just trying to knock out Patrick. They were clearly after the same centrist cohort. Noticeably neither suggested a preference for other. Mutual destruction.

  16. I might be missing something here– this is my first Australian election, forgive me while I diddle around trying to forget about the USA turning into a fascist hellhole at warp speed– but wasn’t Groom’s 2PP known from back when AEC thought it was going to be a classic division? Why is it showing as zeros on their website at this point? Is it just a data-entry mistake?

  17. Because the AEC has now determined that the final count in Groom will be between the LNP and an independent rather than the LNP and Labor, they have removed the results from the system. Obviously it would make more sense for them to have kept the “TCP” numbers in the “TPP” count, but for whatever reason they have just pulled the whole thing for now. These numbers will be put back into the TPP results soon enough though, exactly as they were, and Labor’s national TPP percentage will come back down when it happens. This sort of thing caused all sort of problematic confusion in 2010, when it was unclear who would be able to form a minority government and the nation waited with bated breath (some of it, anyway) on who would score the moral victory of winning the national TPP.

  18. So, the Tasmanian senate distribution has been released, and there are a few interesting tidbits.

    1. Abetz’s BTL campaign delayed Askew’s election until count 119-123, at which point there were only 5 candidates remaining in the count – PHON’s lead candidate, HEMP’s lead candidate, Tyrrell, Askew, and Abetz. It was LDP’s lead candidate’s preferences that pushed Askew over the quota mark.

    2. The only reason Abetz wasn’t knocked out after Askew was elected was the flow of her preferences – it pushed him ahead of the HEMP lead candidate.

    3. It was Abetz being knocked out that pushed Tyrrell over the quota mark – the only other candidate remaining at this point was the PHON lead candidate, who was behind by about 0.4 quota. It was a formality at that point, however, as Tyrrell had more quota than Abetz and the PHON lead candidate combined, so even if every Abetz vote flowed to PHON, Tyrrell would still have won.

  19. I can’t speak to Xenophon’s motivation — maybe he was supporting Griff — but he got 22% in 2016 and I would have guestimated a healthy residual 5% of that vote easily remained.

    Unrelated to that, if someone thinks they can get 4% of the vote just by having their name on the ballot they qualify for $2.914 per vote, which can work out to a pretty pay day if they don’t spend anything on campaigning.

    4% in SA is about 45,000 voters, which is about $130k.

    In QLD, a 4% vote will get you I think above $350k, which would turn the hair of anyone red.

  20. Fair point Emilius, although I think you can claim payments for managing the campaign, which sounds pretty open. Happy to be corrected!

  21. AEC ✏️ @AusElectoralCom

    The distribution of preferences for the QLD Senate count will be undertaken at 4:15 this afternoon.

    This will determine the six successful candidates for that election and we’ll post the list here shortly afterwards. #ausvotes

  22. Re: Vic, in the scenario where LNP are excluded before Labor and UAP, shouldn’t we expect some kind of change in preferencing behaviour there? We’re expecting UAP to perform better in preferencing (particularly amongst ONP voters). Antony Green calculated the 2019 3-way preference flow as Labor 28%, LNP 22.8%, UAP 16.5% and 32.7% exhausted. Now if we assume that UAP are going to perform better here and largely at the expense of the LNP, is it logical to think that the preferences that the LNP do accrue, are going to be those preferences that probably don’t skew as heavily to the UAP, and therefore may break kindly to Labor? I’m also wondering whether given UAP’s better showing this time around they may have already captured some portion of the LNP primary vote, so original LNP votes also might not skew as heavily toward UAP.

  23. I’m noticed that the UAP Senate vote in Victoria is 4.01%. As a hypothetical, if they received under 4% but won the final seat, would they still be reimbursed for their electoral spending (that’s assuming they are claiming electoral funding)?

Comments Page 2 of 2
1 2

Leave a Reply

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