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.
Please note that this thread is for discussion of the election count. The general discussion thread continues here.
“It is for this reason that they point to a collective swing to the Coalition of around 9%”…
Well, a character like Trump would have declared “Victory!” on that ground and then gone on claiming “electoral fraud” once shown the final result and defeat….
We may have a few right-wing deluded politicians in Australia but, to their relative merit, none of them seems to plunge to the appalling lows shown by a mentally deranged person like Donald Trump….
There is hope for this country….
—-
P.S. Congratulations to the Socceroos for classifying for the World Cup in Qatar!!
I still don’t get the focus on 2PP for seats where one of the major parties does not make the final two.
In extremis, it is cold comfort if Party X is preferenced above Party Y if both are well down the pecking order?
The 2PP must surely become meaningless if Greens and Independents continue to increase their representation.
NB I echo the congrats to the Socceroos!!
It appears Deakin 2PP margin is less than Gilmore.
Gilmore – +375 to ALP
Deakin – + 365 to Libs
How long does it take from the pressing of the button to the results being produced? And after that, how long until the AEC publicly releases them?
Skiapodes – the run time of the program is less than a minute. I would expect the result to be posted on AEC Tallyroom pretty much straight after.
Jimbocool – guess my F5 button is about to get a workout then.
Let me be the first to post that the AEC has formally declared David Pocock the second Senator elected.
Fabulous. Even if I didn’t like the candidate (which I do), being an independent and pulling a seat in one of the territories is an unbelievably tough achievement … one of the hardest in Australia. Not only do you have to do everything right, you need your opponent major party to do everything wrong.
When later figures come in this will be interesting.. especially in the teal seats
Jimbocool @ #6 Tuesday, June 14th, 2022 – 9:53 am
Sadly, still not up an hour and fifteen minutes later… Looking forward to seeing it.
What’s the point of calculating the 2pp in a 2cp seat? In an election where 17 percent of seats were 2cp, the 2pp number seems meaningless.
As I lined up with one of my grandsons at EPIC pre poll booth in Mitchell, David Pocock was there handing out how to vote cards I wished him luck and knowing Zed personally, I wished David all the best and that he give Zed the elbow, what a great result. Thank you fellow Canberran’s.
Congratulations to David Pocock! The horrible disinformation campaign against him failed. However, The Greens are probably kicking themselves for not getting him into the tent in the ACT.
Shaun @ #12 Tuesday, June 14th, 2022 – 11:18 am
It’s to enable a nation-wide 2PP number. If (and when) things shift enough that it’s possible for a party other than Labor or Liberals to form government as the main party (in a coalition), they’ll stop doing it, but it’s great for indicative sense of which party has more support from the population.
”
C@tmommasays:
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 11:25 am
Congratulations to David Pocock! The horrible disinformation campaign against him failed. However, The Greens are probably kicking themselves for not getting him into the tent in the ACT.
”
I reckon Pocock would not have won if he was Greens candidate.
The TPP is the number of people who had one potential party of government higher than the other on their ballot paper, which is good to know. Everything is good to know. The NSWEC publishes full ballot paper data (as the AEC only does for the Senate) and two-party preferred results not just for the Coalition versus Labor, but for every combination of two parties you care to choose. We should all want the AEC to do the same.
In matters Lower House, it seems Constance has asked for a recount at the last minute. Gilmore was to be declared at 2pm but now on hold. 400 votes behind. Similar margin to Deakin, yet it has been declared!
Pocock would not have won as a Greens candidate. The RW Advance Australia and Seselja combination tried to paint him as a Green because they knew that would damage his chances with a significant number of voters. Pocock did not brand himself as a Teal but was able to attract voters concerned about “Teal issues” including some who would otherwise vote Liberal.
citizen @ #19 Tuesday, June 14th, 2022 – 12:21 pm
A correction: “The RW Advance Australia and Seselja combination tried to paint him as a Green because they
knewbelieved that would damage his chances with a significant number of voters”Don’t confuse their intent with fact.
Andrew Constance…
Liberal candidate Andrew Constance has asked the AEC for a recount in Gilmore, which was due to be declared at 2pm. The margin is 373 votes. Constance tells me he had “concerns” over “scrutiny of informal votes”
The AEC has postponed declaration as it considers the request
AEC spokesman: “we have received a formal request for a recount… In order to appropriately consider the request we have deferred today’s scheduled declaration”
says the AEC conducts “thorough consideration of requests such as these”
Rumours that Constance is being advised by Rudy Giuliani are scurrilous
But,but, Andrew had Gash and Sudmalis scrutineering for him. He has Buckleys and none.
It seems a pretty desperate throw by Constance. 373 is a damn big margin to overturn on a recount: there would have to be a systemic issue in the scrutiny to do it – which begs the question why it was only raised at 5 minutes to midnight.
Everyone’s entitled to ask. If if scrutineers think there are issues worth considering, it’s worth asking the question. One thing I love about Australia is we have a rock solid electoral system that everyone can have faith in. We had a new Government sworn in two days after the Election, Meanwhile just look at the US.
Let Constance ask.
The AEC shouldn’t be under external pressure to either accept or reject the request. If there’s actually evidence to suggest a possible systemic issue with the potential to overturn a 373 vote margin then they should and will conduct the recount. If he’s just narky with the calls on a few dozen informals that the AEC already reviewed multiple times, then they shouldn’t and won’t. Recounts are not fishing expeditions to go and look for previously unknown missed votes with no evidence they exist at all.
“The AEC shouldn’t be under external pressure to either accept or reject the request. If there’s actually evidence to suggest a possible systemic issue with the potential to overturn a 373 vote margin then they should and will conduct the recount. If he’s just narky with the calls on a few dozen informals that the AEC already reviewed multiple times, then they shouldn’t and won’t. Recounts are not fishing expeditions to go and look for previously unknown missed votes with no evidence they exist at all.”
There is absolutely no way there is a systemic issue, the whiner doesn’t even describe one.
There is going to be a number of marginal informal votes where the call could perhaps have gone the other way, although in my experience if the returning officer can make out an intention the benefit of the doubt goes to the idiot, so for there to be 373 informal votes that are really both formal and have liberal ahead of I presume labor.
Seems just a hail mary, hoping there was some other kind of snafu the scrutineers missed (whole batch wrong sort of stuff).
When I scrutineered at a booth that was supposed to in a marginal seat that was critical, the process, instructions and ‘phone head office if’ was not going to leave the candidate with a vague ‘maybe there is something wrong with the informals’ outcome three weeks later.
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%).
Looking at the ACT result
D SESELJA LP 76,836
E POCOCK DAVI 75,601
H GORENG GORENG, T GRN 36,190
Before the final distrubtion
Antony Green – elections
@AntonyGreenElec
Startling change to the count in Groom. Independent Suzie Holt has reached the final pair after preferences despite polling 4th with only 8.3%. 2022 is a remarkable election. #ausvotes
5:41 PM · Jun 14, 2022·
So that makes 27 out of 151 lower house seats that are “non-classical” final counts. She has reduced the margin to 3% from 19%. A bit more effort by her or someone else could perhaps see the seat fall. There is certainly a market for an independent in this area but the LNP seems to take it for granted.
Re Arky at 3.01 pm
Would need to be more than a few dozen informals to be a serious request. Informal rate in Gilmore was 4.4%, 1.8% below NSW ave informal rate of 6.2%, but not as good as Qld at 4.2%. Ironic if the excluded votes that Constance is disputing were informal due to confusion from optional preferential voting, which Qld had from 1992 to 2015 (introduced by Labor, as in NSW). In 2010 federal election ave informal rate in Qld was 5.45%. For background (including Tom no. 1 re the problem of unintentional exhaustion) see:
https://antonygreen.com.au/candidates-informal-voting-and-optional-preferential-voting/
I think Labor was about 97 votes shy of a full quota in the ACT but the quota was probably lowered very quickly with the the first few candidates being dismissed and votes being exhausted. Of course, not all of the second Labor candidates votes flowed to Katy Gallaher.
I explaining to someone the other day that there is always small preference flows like Greens to Liberals than go against the trend.
“B.S. Fairman says:
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 8:02 pm
I think Labor was about 97 votes shy of a full quota in the ACT but the quota was probably lowered very quickly with the the first few candidates being dismissed and votes being exhausted.”
I don’t understand what you mean. In the Senate system the quota stays constant throughout the count: it doesn’t change if votes exhaust.
Judging by the 2PP (74.6% to 20.2%, 5.3% exhausted) it is clear that there would have 2 quotas for 2 candidates on the left to be elected regardless of an independent candidacy. Pocock v Seselja got largely treated as a left vs right contest, with little difference in “crossover” votes/preferences to register only a slightly different 2CP (75.7% to 19.6%, 4.7% exhausted). That largely answers speculation about whether the Liberals would have won if only Labor/Greens candidates were in the running for the 2nd senate seat (answer: no).
The Pocock/Seselja result is as I reported during the campaign. A member of Zeds campaign staff told me “it won’t even be close, he’ll miss by 10 to 20 thousand votes”.
He knew what he was talking about.
Those preference breakdowns indicate that had Pocock not made it to the final act, that it might have been a 2nd ALP senator rather than Zed
Would be much more likely a Greens senator rather than a second ALP (ALP have next to no surplus after getting a quota).
Jaegersays:
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 6:43 pm
Antony Green – elections @AntonyGreenElec
Startling change to the count in Groom. Independent Suzie Holt has reached the final pair after preferences despite polling 4th with only 8.3%. 2022 is a remarkable election. #ausvotes
———————————————–
That’s really quite incredible, can’t imagine anyone coming even close to that low a percentage of the primary vote going on make the final 2CP and currently on 47%! (although it should be noted that only 39% of ballots have been counted on this new 2CP). What probably made it possible in Groom is that you had 6 different minor party and independent candidates that won between 1.6% and 9.5% of the vote for a total of 38% of the votes between them and Labor only won 18.7% here.
I imagine when the Green got excluded from the count this would have gone mostly to the 2 independents running and got them initially ahead of PHON and then when one of them got excluded their preferences heavily flowed to the other independent to the extent it got them ahead of Labor at the final 2CP and it then heavily benefited from Labor’s preferences. PHON and UAP preferences likely also helped Holt get ahead of Labor by the final exclusion.
If we end up with more elections like this the AEC is going to need a lot more resources in future. It also highlights how ludicrous it is that a candidate could come close to winning a single member seat with only around 10% of the primary vote. If elections become more splintered and we see more results like this then we should perhaps consider implementing a PR model such as multi-member electorates.
In regards to the ACT if there was no Pocock the contest between the Liberals and the Greens would have been line ball if the result in the House of Reps was replicated in the Senate.
Goodnight Andrew, the AEC has spokenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HbEh0fy4io
Revealing another interesting statistic as we await the button push for the SA Senate.
If we look at the HR vote of the major left vs major right wing parties, we get the following:
Left – ALP (32.58) + Grn (12.25) = 44.83%
Right – L/NP (35.69) + ON (4.96) + UAP (4.12) = 44.77%
That’s pretty much as lineball as you can get.
Mrodowicz, one problem with your analysis, the Greens have to reach a quota first, and that will suck up a fair amount of Labor’s surplus.
Apparently different evidence of “what would happen if Pocock’s ticket didn’t run” based on simulating ballots. Seselja would beat second ALP and Green according to this site. So it seems the crossover vote was crucial. https://vote.andrewconway.org/Federal%20Senate/2022/ACT/Recount.html
Kevin Bonham also is getting a different 2CP between Pocock and Seselja of 63.03 to 35.01.
@michael
Re-read my post. I was diverting to another set of numbers (HoR national totals) unrelated to the SA Senate vote. Sorry if my allusion to the Senate count caused confusion.
Sorry Mrodowicz my mistake. If the Libs don’t get 3 in the senate in SA then there is no way the LNP will get three in Vic.
@michael
Agree with that assessment. I would be really surprised if the Libs don’t get the last seat in SA (in fact, I was expecting Antony G. to move it into the Lib gain column before the button press, but that didn’t happen. Interesting that he is confident about One Nation in Qld but not the Libs in SA). Victoria -obviously far harder to predict.
Is the SA button pushing 3pm SA time or AEST?
SA time so half an hour to wait
Groom is fascinating, 5 different candidates all getting between 5 and 10, and Labor running pretty dead under 20.
it’s a Bradbury sort of second I guess?
So, a few of the 2PP counts in non-classic seats have been completed now. The most interesting seat is Ryan – even without the Greens, Labor would have won – which would have been the first time that Labor would have won that seat at a general election, since its creation in 1949 (it was won by Labor in 2001, but that was a by-election, and they lost it again in the general election later that year).
Labor would have also won Brisbane comfortably, with a slightly higher margin than the Greens got.
Meanwhile, in Curtin, the Liberals would have won with a decent margin if it weren’t for Chaney (count hasn’t finished, but it’s nearly finished)
3 SA Senators for Libs