I have conducted a repeat of the exercise from my previous post on the Senate results, which involved taking random samples of the ballot papers from the 2022 election, weighting them to match the various players’ shares of the first preference vote at this election, and simulating preference distributions in which flows behave as they did in 2022. This is a simplified approximation of the process, so what might be referred to below as “Count 72” would be a lot higher by the AEC’s reckoning, but more than adequate for current purposes.
There are two important differences from the first run, the most obvious being that it’s based off a more advanced stage of the count. The other is that I have factored in changes in how-to-vote cards at this election, at least for the major parties (minor party how-to-vote cards are rarely followed, and changes unlikely to amount to much when considered in aggregate). This was mainly deemed necessary because the Coalition was a lot more amenable to One Nation than in the past, although the (electoral) significance of this should not be overstated — impacts are trivial where Liberal candidates are elected with only small surpluses, as is invariably the case when they themselves are elected off the preferences of other parties, and non-existent when they remain to the final count. The former applies in New South Wales and South Australia, where the Coalition will respectively win two seats from a shade over and a shade under two quotas on first preferences, and the latter applies in Tasmania.
My overall assessment is unchanged, the modelled result being Labor 30, Coalition 27, Greens 11 and One Nation two, plus Ralph Babet, Jacqui Lambie, Tammy Tyrell, Lidia Thorpe, Fatima Payman and David Pocock. However, the already live possibility of One Nation taking Labor’s third seat in Western Australia now looks stronger. I don’t believe the boost to One Nation from Coalition preferences puts them in serious contention in Victoria, and it affects only the size of their winning margin in Queensland. Nor do I think it likely that Jacqui Lambie will lose her seat, notwithstanding The Australian’s contention yesterday that her “folly” in attacking Tasmania’s salmon farming industry “may cost her political career”.
New South Wales
| Count 1 | Quotas | Swing | Count 72 | Count 73 | |
| ALP | 37.77% | 2.644 | +7.34% | 0.803 | 0.892 |
| LNC | 29.63% | 2.074 | -7.09% | ||
| GRN | 11.16% | 0.781 | -0.30% | 0.973 | 1.068 |
| ON | 6.03% | 0.422 | +1.91% | 0.692 | 0.780 |
| LC | 3.39% | 0.237 | +0.78% | 0.379 |
My earlier projection here of three Labor, two Coalition and one Greens doesn’t seem to be in doubt. Since the Coalition scrapes over the line for a second quota on primary votes, what happens with their preferences matters little — where previously I had Labor winning the last seat ahead of One Nation by 0.938 quotas to 0.771, I now have it at 0.892 to 0.780, and I expect most of the change is due to shifts in party vote shares over the past week.
Victoria
| Count 1 | Quotas | Swing | Count 73 | Count 74 | Count 75 | Count 76 | Count 77 | Count 78 | |
| ALP | 34.79% | 2.435 | +3.34% | 0.506 | 0.515 | 0.572 | 0.606 | 0.692 | 0.850 |
| LNC | 31.77% | 2.224 | -0.52% | 0.292 | 0.293 | 0.308 | 0.342 | ||
| GRN | 12.31% | 0.862 | -1.54% | 1.019 | |||||
| ON | 4.44% | 0.311 | +1.53% | 0.412 | 0.412 | 0.426 | 0.558 | 0.683 | 0.763 |
| LC | 3.56% | 0.249 | +0.55% | 0.319 | 0.320 | 0.370 | 0.399 | 0.453 | |
| ToP | 2.52% | 0.176 | -1.49% | 0.244 | 0.244 | 0.260 | |||
| AJP | 1.56% | 0.109 | +0.04% | 0.174 | 0.179 |
After the election of two Labor, two Coalition and one Greens, I now have the third Labor candidate’s lead over One Nation at 0.850 to 0.763 with the amendment of Coalition votes that followed the card, as compared with 0.740 to 0.608 in the first run. One Nation now gains 0.125 when the Liberal is excluded, compared with 0.060 previously. However, Labor has gained nearly as much since last time, for one reason or another, and a One Nation win would have to be rated unlikely. It’s true that One Nation’s 4.44% on first preferences is higher than the 4.01% from which Ralph Babet scraped home for the United Australia Party in 2022, but the two major parties had between 2.2 and 2.3 quotas on that occasion – this time Labor is up to 2.435, reducing the chances of two seats going to minor parties.
Queensland
| Count 1 | Quotas | Swing | Count 78 | |
| ALP | 30.67% | 2.147 | +4.01% | |
| LNP | 31.36% | 2.195 | -6.68% | |
| GRN | 10.29% | 0.720 | -3.09% | 0.993 |
| ON | 7.05% | 0.494 | -0.94% | 0.748 |
| GRPF | 4.63% | 0.324 | 0.468 |
This appears clear cut, with both Labor and the Coalition a bit above two quotas and no chance of a amassing a third, leaving the other two seats to go to the Greens and One Nation. A joint ticket for Gerard Rennick and Katter’s Australian Party scored a solid 4.63%, which I dealt with by substituting it for the United Australia Party in the 2022 party data, such that it gave and received the same preferences flows. No doubt this is imprecise, but the margins involved are such that it doesn’t matter much.
Western Australia
| Count 1 | Quotas | Swing | Count 54 | Count 55 | Count 56 | Count 57 | |
| ALP | 36.49% | 2.555 | +1.94% | 0.642 | 0.654 | 0.720 | 0.869 |
| LNC | 30.31% | 2.122 | -1.36% | ||||
| GRN | 12.78% | 0.895 | -1.47% | 1.017 | |||
| ON | 5.87% | 0.411 | +2.38% | 0.625 | 0.625 | 0.746 | 0.852 |
| LC | 3.94% | 0.276 | +0.56% | 0.399 | 0.402 | 0.416 | |
| AUC | 2.64% | 0.185 | +0.47% | 0.253 | 0.253 |
I continue to project a result of Labor three, Liberal two and Greens one, but incorporating One Nation into the Liberal how-to-vote card order makes a close race even closer. The operative margin between the third Labor candidate and One Nation at the close is now 0.869 to 0.852, in from 0.872 to 0.825 the first time. I have factored in that Liberal how-to-vote cards varied from seat to seat in 2022 depending on how it was thought a recommendation for One Nation would play with local voters (a source of much thundering outrage from elements of the media when Labor did something similar with the Greens at this election), and am indebted to Kevin Bonham for recording the variants from 2022.
South Australia
| Count 1 | Quotas | Swing | Count 44 | Count 45 | Count 46 | Count 47 | Count 48 | Count 49 | Count 50 | |
| ALP | 38.38% | 2.687 | +6.12% | 0.704 | 0.706 | 0.723 | 0.730 | 0.852 | 0.944 | 0.995 |
| LIB | 27.77% | 1.944 | -6.16% | 1.013 | ||||||
| GRN | 12.73% | 0.891 | +0.78% | 0.996 | 0.998 | 1.011 | ||||
| ON | 5.26% | 0.368 | +1.25% | 0.415 | 0.420 | 0.470 | 0.470 | 0.504 | 0.551 | 0.749 |
| ToP | 2.80% | 0.196 | -0.23% | 0.228 | 0.228 | 0.262 | 0.262 | 0.286 | 0.330 | |
| LC | 2.77% | 0.194 | +0.45% | 0.232 | 0.233 | 0.240 | 0.242 | 0.263 | ||
| JLN | 2.71% | 0.189 | +0.63% | 0.219 | 0.220 | 0.233 | 0.233 | |||
| FFP | 1.99% | 0.139 | +1.56% | 0.157 | 0.158 |
Here the Liberals scrape over the line to a quota at a late stage of the count, meaning their preferences for One Nation are of limited consequence. Previously I had the third Labor candidate’s winning margin over One Nation at the final count at 1.029 quotas to 0.743, now it’s 0.995 to 0.749. Here I used Bob Day’s independent candidacy in 2022 as a stand-in for Family First and the Rex Patrick Team for the Jacqui Lambie Network.
Tasmania
| Count 1 | Quotas | Swing | Count 36 | Count 37 | |
| ALP | 35.53% | 2.487 | +8.55% | 0.761 | 0.874 |
| LIB | 23.67% | 1.657 | -8.28% | 0.793 | 0.922 |
| GRN | 16.14% | 1.130 | +0.70% | ||
| JLN | 7.25% | 0.508 | -1.37% | 0.785 | 1.001 |
| ON | 5.08% | 0.356 | +1.21% | 0.596 |
Beyond a clear two seats for Labor and one each for Liberal and the Greens, The Australian rates this a “tight, four-way preference contest” between Labor’s third, the Liberals’ second, Jacqui Lambie and Lee Hanson of One Nation. I consider this generous to Hanson, who does not stand to benefit from Liberal preferences as she will be excluded while the second Liberal remains in the count. I then have the third Labor candidate losing the game of musical chairs to the other two, but if the primary vote swings are reflected in preference flows stronger for Labor and weaker for Liberal, the modelled gap of 0.922 to 0.874 is narrow enough that Labor might win a third seat at the expense of the Liberals’ second (conversely, a weakening in support for Lambie among conservatives might mean stronger flows from One Nation to Liberal). The Australian makes some notable points about the pattern of Jacqui Lambie’s 7.3% vote, which is down from 8.9% when she last ran in 2019 and the 8.6% her party’s ticket scored in her absence in 2022. Support for Lambie went up in the city and down in the country, and slumped in salmon farming towns. However, my model has her on over a quota in the three-way race with 1.001 quotas, meaning she would have to fall behind both Liberal on 0.922 and Labor on 0.874 to lose. This doesn’t seem likely even allowing for the principle that a lower primary vote means weaker preferences, particularly considering such an effect would harm the Liberals at least as much.
Nice summary, William.
So the closest contest in the country with the Senate appears to be in WA between Labor’s 3rd and One Nation.
Is there any timetable about when the buttons would be pushed to determine those elected?
The button won’t be pushed until probably next week (the one starting the 26th). At the last election it took about 4 weeks for things to get moving. The ACT was first on June 14th from a May 21st election. Everyone was done within a week.
Almost all the ballots have had a preliminary count already but that is only good for the first preference. It is the scanning of the ballots which takes the most time.
This remains an extraordinary election! Albo, unassuming bloke that he is, has given us all in masterclass in how to win an election.
Albo’s dominance means the centre and left have a clear majority in both houses.
Equally Dutton has demonstrated how not to!
What a day.
At the 2022 election the minor right wing parties showed some awareness of preference dealing and educating their supporters on preferences. Got Babet elected as well as Hanson. But ON got fairly close in most states for last spot.
Will be interesting to see how the LNP and ON preference swap goes. We will see at least a couple of Liberal, LNP surpluses allocated while ON is still in the race. And pretty certain to see ON votes in Tas allocated with Libs still in.
What we can’t see is the prospective Liberal, LNP and ON voters who abandoned their usual party in disgust at the preference cuddleup.
Spence – The LNP only have 0.074 of a quota to distributed in NSW. Therefore, the preference deal with One Nation can at maximum only add that much to One Nations count. And that is not going to happen because a majority of voters are not following their party’s HTV. This is especially true when a group which is “on the nose” is suggested.
One Nation voters are one of the least likely groups to vote following their HTV because more often than not they don’t get one.
In the wash up I’ll be interested to see what the psephologists have to say about the LNP preferencing ON. Many of their supporters were rightly shocked by it.
MABWM at 10.41 pm
You don’t need to wait for the experts.
The WA Libs did such a deal in 2017.
Barnaby Joyce is no psephologist, but he pointedly called it a mistake then.
Google it mate: Barnaby Joyce, One Nation preferences, WA Liberals 2017.
The Inquirer section in The Australian on Saturday was led by a lengthy piece by Greg Sheridan on how it came to pass that the Liberals had lost faith with Chinese voters. You would think such an article might have been found space for the possibility that directing second preferences to Pauline Hanson may have cost it a vote or two among the people she once said Australia was in danger of being swamped by. But this was the only time she or her party was mentioned:
You can say that again.
If Greg Sheridan were a racehorse, the horse would surely be called the “The Digressor”, having been gelded many years ago and having shown very little recent form, the horse would fail to run the distance with any vigour and not be the beneficiary of any prize money.
Or perhaps becoming a little colourful as the sunset industry follows its natural path and allowing “nostalgia” to disrupt the usual pattern of things.
(and thanks for the Senate update)
‘Nor do I think it likely that Jacqui Lambie will lose her seat, notwithstanding The Australian’s contention yesterday that her “folly” in attacking Tasmania’s salmon farming industry “may cost her political career”.’
… and …
‘The Inquirer section in The Australian … might have been found space for the possibility that directing second preferences to Pauline Hanson may have cost [the Liberals] a vote or two …’
The Australian’s motto: “print the legend”.
Any sense of the directionality of the primary vote count? Is Labor gaining or losing ground in WA as time goes on? Based on turnout in the HoR, I’m guessing that there’s still about 1.5% of WA Senate first-preference ballots to be counted, which isn’t a ton but in a race that close could be decisive.
Re Jacqui Lambie: I remain somewhat sceptical about the size of the “salmon farming vote.” I think some people down here in both of the major parties (along with some journos in the Oz, it would seem) believe they can turn the debate about salmon farming into a sort of renaissance of the forestry wars and use it to turn voters off the Greens, Wilkie, Lambie, etc. But I doubt it’s ever going to be anything like as big a deal as forestry.
Anyway, I reckon Lambie’s declining vote has at least as much to do with the public disintegration of her so-called political party: her still insufficiently-explained break with her “best friend” Tammy Tyrell and then the totally predictable, but nevertheless embarrassing, failure of party members in the state parliament to keep their act together for more than a few months.
This is always going to be a problem with political parties that don’t stand for anything in particular.
It’s interesting that the vote appears close in WA as Labor’s #3 Deep Singh appears in a lot of caucus and new member shots on Instagram.
If Salmon farming was the reason why Jacqui Lambie is in trouble surely the Greens would be in the same position, but they had a swing towards them. I think Meher Baba’s analysis probably more to the point.
I would be happy if ALP no3 got up in Victoria: Michelle Ananda-Rajah won for Labor the seat of Higgins in 2022 for the first time .. and was gracious after it was abolished in the redistribution. Nobody would’ve predicted no3 on the ticket to get elected for the ALP in Victoria this year, but a 6 year senator she hopefully will be!
never baba at 8.22 am on Monday
There is also Lambie’s failure to run Reps candidates but instead to run her fruitless ticket in other states.
Obviously there are many more jobs in forestry than in toxic fish farming.
If Lambie still wins that will be quite remarkable. The Libs would do even worse with her organisational style.
William on Monday at 12.50 am
Re Mr Sheridan, did the DLP ever once preselect a woman? Sheridan is not only a pontificating nong, but the closest living thing to a DLP groupie.
Given that, it is revealing that he can not appreciate the irony of the Teal women doing to the Libs what the DLP did to Labor for well over a decade.
Interesting that the Greens potentially look like being elected
3rd in Tassie
4th in SA and WA
5th in Qld, NSW and Vic
Hard Being Green — much as I’d like to see that as a good sign for the Greens, it’s pretty much exclusively a reflection of the declining primary of the L/NP partially trading in for random minor parties. I’m not sure yet what the best metric is to assess how the Greens did in the senate, as they have a lot of ideological overlap with microparties on the left (socialist alliance, victorian socialists, FUSION allegedly, etc.). It basically adds a per-election noise, since those votes strongly flow back to the Greens, but the micro-parties on the ballot are constantly appearing and disappearing. So senate primary vote is obviously a good starting point, but not sure how I’d personally “clean up the data” so to speak.
No doubt the collapsing Liberal Party vote played a role although the Greens have polled well in many seats outside the inner city. Promising signs for the future if they can hold onto those voters imo
There seemed to be less “left wing” minors running in the reps this election for some reason even if they ran in the Senate
Tasmania and SA not far from their button presses, according to Kevin Bonham. Get excited, senate fans!
Bring on the pushing of the buttons and Greens BOP, hopefully in their own right
Hard Being Green — assuming the Coalition vote together and they don’t split up again, Greens will de facto have the balance of power (there may be a technical path for Labor to band together the rest of the crossbench if they win their maximum predicted seats, but it’s realistically a fantasy to sign on Pauline Hanson, Lidia Thorpe, and every other crossbencher).
The Greens in the senate are already effectively home free — so I’m cheering for Labor to get as many seats as it can to protect a Labor/Green senate majority in case next election surprises us.
Aweirdnerd, it’s potentially setting up for a big 6 years
Hopefully they work together better than they did, at times, last term
Give and take required from both sides imo
aweirdnerd – re your comments about left micro parties and the Greens primary.
The metric you’re looking for is n-party-preferred, just like how we use 2PP to factor out the impact of Greens etc on Labor.
Exactly which number N is can vary, but for mainland states I’d say 4: Labor, Coalition, Greens, PHON (or UAP in Vic ’22).
I have written a calculator to take the senate ballot files and turn them into a CSV counting by NPP order (eg GrnAlpLnpPhn) and by booth. https://github.com/alexjago/nparty
Some results for 2019 and 2022:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1sUPfi8HOs_-ZZjzkGrsQPeqR8wUbzAD3?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_bjw4EsB2zxWb1trQnYweSN8uNejBczm?usp=sharing
Alex Jago — briefly dropping back in to say thanks! I figured nPP would be along the right lines, but I didn’t think the data would be available to calculate it. So your tool / data sources are really interesting, and props for the work that has clearly gone into this.