Click here for full display of House of Representatives election results.
Saturday
Tim Wilson has finished the preference distribution in Goldstein 260 votes ahead of Zoe Daniel, after a series of late revisions that drove first drove his lead up yesterday from 129 to 444, before today cutting it back to 170 and then settling on the final margin. These convulsions presumably loom large in the request Daniel has submitted for a recount, but experience suggests the AEC will stand by the 100-vote threshold it set in place in 2008.
Friday
Yet another twist in the saga of Bradfield, which ended with Gisele Kapterian taking the lead at the last and finishing the scrutiny with an eight-vote lead over Nicolette Boele. The Australian Electoral Commission promptly confirmed that this would be subject to a recount, as it does automatically when the margin is inside 100 votes, which will begin on Monday and is “expected to take up to two weeks”. Twenty-two out of Kapterian’s 48-vote gain during the preference distribution came with a second correction from the St Ives pre-poll centre, which had put Kapterian in the hunt the Monday after the election with the addition of hitherto unreported votes to its tally, booting her by 440 votes. The issue this time was apparently a transpositional error in the record of preference flows, causing 11 votes to shift from Boele to Kapterian.
The rest of the movement largely resulted from ballots previously admitted to the count being deemed informal, a process that favoured Kapterian because only the third or so of the vote that was cast for excluded candidates was under consideration, around two-thirds of which went to Boele as preferences. Boele’s hope lies in the recount revisiting the two-thirds of the vote that was cast for the two leading candidates, where the same dynamic is likely to work against Kapterian, who has 38.1% of the primary vote to Boele’s 27.0%. If these votes are excluded in roughly the same proportions as those of the other candidates during the preference distribution (during which Labor lost 23 votes, the Greens 14, One Nation 8, independent Andy Yin 7 and the Libertarians 6), Kapterian will lose about 65 votes to Boele’s 45. The distinctions are fine enough that clearly nothing can be said with certainty – and even if Boele were to emerge with the slender lead implied, there would be a strong chance of a court finding enough routine irregularities to void the result and force a by-election.
In Calwell today, the preferences of independent Joseph Youhana were excluded, nearly 60% of them favouring independent Carly Moore, pushing her well clear of the Liberals into second place. Labor holds a lead of 36.6% to 25.6% that Moore needs to chase down with the successive exclusions of the Greens and the Liberals, on 16.7% and 21.2%, which scrutineers’ reports related through the media suggest is unlikely to happen. Also today, whatever lingering hope there may have been for Zoe Daniel in Goldstein was snuffed out by dramatic revisions that blew Tim Wilson’s lead out from 129 to 444.
12.30pm. My assessment of last evening was evidently too sanguine with respect to Nicolette Boele, whose margin is dropping fast – now down to five votes. Almost all of the correction so far today is down to the St Ives pre-poll centre – the same one whose result was dramatically revised in the Liberals’ favour in the early stages of the check count – where 11 votes have been shifted from Boele to Kapterian. The broader dynamic is that the distribution of Labor preferences and their strong flow to Boele means that votes successfully being contested on grounds of formality are mostly for her.
Thursday
The Calwell preference distribution turned up its first real surprise with the exclusion of independent Sam Moslih, with fully 61.3% of the distribution going to the Greens ahead of the other remaining contenders, namely Labor, Liberal and independents Carly Moore and Joseph Youhana. This pushes the Greens ahead of Youhana, who will be the next candidate excluded. Kevin Bonham suggests this reflects a strong influence of Moslih’s how-to-vote card and/or that of Muslim Votes Matter, which is good news for Labor because both favoured Basem Abdo over Moore. Moore presently holds a 17.5% to 15.3% lead over the Greens, which seems unlikely to be closed with the exclusion of Youhana, given he favoured Moore on his how-to-vote card and the general tendency of independent votes to favour other independents. Assuming that’s so, we are now likely to see Greens preferences push Moore ahead of the Liberals, whose preferences will then produce a final result between Labor and Moore. Moore will need around 67.5% of the preferences shortly to be distributed from Youhana, the Greens and the Liberals.
Proceedings today in Bradfield wore Nicolette Boele’s lead down from 41 votes to 28, with three added to Gisele Kapterian’s tally and ten subtracted from Boele’s. A source familiar with the matter in comments indicates we should now be a good way into the last phase, namely the distribution following the exclusion of Labor with only Boele and Kapterian left standing. If the apparent pattern of movement in favour of Kapterian looks unlikely to eliminate the margin altogether, it does remove whatever doubt there may have been that the it will fall inside the 100-vote threshold for an automatic recount.
Wednesday
Calwell proceeded today through to the eighth count, leaving a remaining field of Labor, Liberal, the Greens and three independents. Carly Moore’s lead over the other independents has widened, and seems likely to be maintained through the imminent exclusions of the Greens and two other independents, together with the elimination of the current 18.5% to 16.4% gap between the Liberal candidate and Moore. Between now and the final count, Moore would need two-thirds of the preferences to overtake Labor.
Today’s preference distributions added 15 to the informal counts in both Bradfield and Goldstein, respectively cutting Nicolette Boele’s lead by four to 41 and increasing Tim Wilson’s lead by one to 129.
Tuesday
End of counting. We’re now six counts into Calwell, with another six exclusions to come. Candidates accounting for 9.1% of the primary vote have now been excluded, with results that probably don’t tell us all that much. Next out will be Legalise Cannabis and One Nation, who will perhaps go relatively heavily to established parties rather than independents, followed by Sam Moslih, whose how-to-vote card had Labor higher than the remaining independents. Most likely, the issue will then be whether preferences from Joseph Youhana, the Greens and the Liberals favour Moore enough to get her ahead of Basem Abdo.
Revisions arising from the preference distribution in Bradfield today have added 11 to the informal vote tally, costing Gisele Kapterian eight votes and Nicolette Boele two, increasing the latter’s lead from 39 to 45.
5pm. The Goldstein count has ended with Tim Wilson up by 128 votes. The AEC relates that the votes still in the system as awaiting processing have Senate ballot papers only. The preference distribution will now proceed, to be followed only by an automatic recount if the margin comes in below 100, though the discretion remains to conduct one even if it doesn’t. Arguments have been made that the population has increased since the 100-vote threshold was established about 15 years ago.
2.30pm. The Australian Electoral Commission will helpfully be publishing updates from Calwell in the form of progress preference distribution results that will presumably be updated with each exclusion. These are a bit hard to read, so I offer the following summary below, showing us up to count four out of twelve. This looks promising for independent Carly Moore with respect to her prospects of making the final count, with 21.5% of the preferences from the first three exclusions having gone to her. However, the marginal nature of the candidates excluded so far is such that these figures are unlikely to offer much insight as to whether Labor will receive enough preferences to get from their 30.5% primary vote to 50% at the final count. If it is Moore who comes second, she will need about two-third of preferences (and Labor one-third) from all other candidates.
Monday
The last batches of votes in Bradfield kept true to the contest’s epic form, with independent Nicolette Boele taking the lead at the last to end the scrutiny 39 votes ahead. But it doesn’t end there: the formal distribution of preferences will proceed throughout this week, almost certainly to be followed by the recount that proceeds automatically when the margin is inside 100 votes, so Liberal candidate Gisele Kapterian has at least some hope that proceedings turn up errors substantial enough to reverse the result. Kapterian began the day 43 votes ahead, then moved to 50 ahead when absents broke 29-22 her way. Boele’s breakthrough came when postals broke fully 125-56 her way, consolidated when declaration pre-polls favoured her 111-90.
A recent recount precedent missing from yesterday’s summary was Clive Palmer’s win in Fairfax in 2013: at 36, his margin on the indicative two-candidate count was very close to Boele’s, but it was reduced to seven during the preference distribution and then inflated to 53 on the recount. An informed source in comments notes that recounts have become less prone to produce changes since the initial recheck became a routine part of the procedure in 1984, and court rulings established legal precedents about formality, most notably in relation to the seat of McEwen in 2007.
In Goldstein, Tim Wilson’s lead is down from 254 to 206 after postals broke 94-60 and absents 76-62 to Zoe Daniel. The AEC records 332 envelopes awaiting processing, of which Daniel would need two-thirds to land in her column to get to automatic recount territory.
Sunday
With the deadline for the arrival of late postals having passed on Friday, there are two seats that can still be regarded as in doubt, barring extraordinary late developments. One is Bradfield, where today’s counting will account for 260 declaration pre-polls, 104 postals and 66 absents (UPDATE: Outstanding postals revised up to 191). Some of these will be deemed invalid and a handful will be informal, but as many as 380 will be added to a tally on which independent Nicolette Boele trails Liberal candidate Gisele Kapterian by 43 votes.
The counting of these votes will be followed immediately by a full distribution of preferences. Should the margin land inside 100, as seems extremely likely, this will be followed by an automatic recount. A review conducted for the Australian Electoral Commission in 2014 helpfully reviews the history of recounts, which provides at least some level of information on how much the dial was moved by 11 recounts going back to 1958 (see pages 24 and the very last page). A recount for Bass in 1998 was something of an outlier in increasing Labor’s winning margin from 16 to 78. Including the one recount conducted since – for Herbert in 2016, which increased Labor’s margin from 8 to 35 – a typical recount seems to make about 20 votes’ difference to the final result.
A recount would seem to be the only remaining chance for Zoe Daniel in Goldstein, who trails Liberal candidate Tim Wilson by 206 votes with 332 remaining to be processed: 172 declaration pre-polls, 100 postals and 39 absents, plus 21 provisionals that may all be disallowed. Even getting to the 100-vote threshold requires stretching the arithmetic here, but the returning officer can use their discretion to require a recount even if the threshold isn’t reached.
The other unknown is the seat of Calwell, which I have not been making the effort to follow on a blow-by-blow basis, since the point at issue is that there’s no way of knowing which out of as many as four candidates will make the final count along with Labor. The only thing that can be said for sure is that Labor win the seat if it’s the Liberal candidate, but it’s quite a bit more likely to be an independent. Such questions can only be answered by a full distribution of preferences. With only 154 votes remaining to be processed, this will presumably begin later today.
Then there’s the Senate, where the pressing of the button on the final results is still as much as a fortnight away. I have a post below with my latest updated assessments on how that is likely to play out.
High Street, that is nonsense. …..and frankly, really weird that you would tell someone how they should identify
As it is, Labor’s senate vote in teal type seats suggest there might be 2 to 300,000 Labor voters that vote tactically Teal in the lower house but still vote Labor in the senate. They are clearly still Labor voters letalone “supporters”
More weirdo weird shit from Green’s and (to a lesser extent) Teal supporters….in this case trying to deny there is a material wedge in the #collapsingmajorsprimary that are actually Labor voters voting tactically.
Like the nonsense above about the 20% of Labor PVs referencing the Lib over Boele…..5% higher than typical flow of preferences from Green to Red. Just teenage level rationalising really
Any intel on when we might get some more Calwell numbers today?
The Revisionistsays: Monday, May 26, 2025 at 9:40 am
Like the nonsense above about the 20% of Labor PVs referencing the Lib over Boele…..5% higher than typical flow of preferences from Green to Red. Just teenage level rationalising really
Here is my source. What is yours?
William Bowesays:Friday, May 9, 2025 at 11:32 am
…. the Labor voters of Bradfield are evidently a strange lot (not mentioning any names here), and about a quarter of them favoured the Liberals over Boele, and are seemingly continuing to do so.
Also, in electorates where there is significant tactical voting by Labor supporters for independents, removing those tactical voters (who would presumably have preferenced the independent over Liberal at near 100%) from the pool of Labor voters means that the remaining Labor voters would be expected to preference the independent less strongly than would be the case without tactical voting.
Tactically voting for the Teals in Sydney, and the subsequent loss of 3 or 4 seats from the Liberal column, has been a major factor in the existential crisis for the Coalition.
And conversely, guaranteed a 10 year hold on the Treasury benches for Labor, to lock in policies.
The huge advantage of a preferential system is that it allows voters to make their own choices about the order in which they rank candidates. In the case of Labor voters who have placed either Mr Wilson or Ms Kapaterian ahead of the ‘Teal’ candidate, there may be perfectly reasonably reasons for doing so and those voters have that right. I know of ALP supporters in Goldstein who, disappointed with Ms Daniel’s response on the war in the Middle East, might have preferenced the Liberal ahead of her – entirely their right, just as it would have been their right to take the view that Mr Wilson was the worst choice on the ballot and preference One Nation and the so called ‘Trumpet’ ahead of him. If candidates are unable to attract the support of the majority – after preferences – in a particular district, they don’t win that district.
Re High Street @9:06 AM.
”…You can’t keep pretending or inferring that you are a Labor supporter, but not voting for them. You can Vote 1for the Teal IND – that’s totally fine. But if you continually preference the Teal over the Labor candidate, there is only one way you can describe yourself – as a Teal supporter.”
I am not pretending. I voted Teal in 2022 and 2025. I also voted for the Teal-like independent Ted Mack (North Sydney) in the 1990s, so yes, I am a Teal voter. I voted that way because:
A. I wanted Labor to form Government, and
B. Because the candidate that I chose to vote for was acceptable to me.
For the Senate, I follow the Labor how-to-vote card. Were I to move into a seat that I judged that Labor had a chance of winning, for example a km or two up the road to Bennelong, I would vote Labor for the House.
Calwell latest throw. And as expected Abdo does very well. He is on 48%. Moore on 29% and Libs 22%.
Figures close to as I can. Back of Tuk Tuk now.
Abdo gets 68% of Garcha preferences to move to 48%
Goldstein getting partial recount – starting Wednesday.
https://x.com/AusElectoralCom/status/1926814454785699934
The good Dr Bonham
“
Monday 26th 11:37: Abdo has a massive 68.6% of the Greens exclusion in a three-way split and is on 48.01 with Moore now on 29.68 and needing an impossible 91.1% of the Liberal exclusion to win the seat. Abdo will win and Labor wins 94 seats, tying the Coalition under John Howard’s 1996 record for the most seats won (albeit from a parliament with two fewer seats in Howard’s case) and being the first government to lose zero seats since the Coalition under Harold Holt in 1966. ”
Wow, who would have thought that the deluded #rustedon labor types would have been bang on the money whereas the greens fanbois, free of bias as they are moral impurities, were wrong again?
The Revisionist says:
Monday, May 26, 2025 at 12:18 pm
Wow, who would have thought that the deluded #rustedon labor types would have been bang on the money whereas the greens fanbois, free of bias as they are moral impurities, were wrong again?
中华人民共和国
Pure as the driven snow some may say.
I suspect, Upnorth, the ‘purity’ maybe as common as ‘Thai driven snow’
So now we only have one left…. Bring on the Bradfield recount! Boele to win by 8…
Revisionist — again, don’t know if I’m included, but I don’t think you can attribute accuracy of predictions (globally) by party loyalty. While obviously some are going to be overly optimistic, this sorta-greenie’s predictions aligned with yours for Calwell.
G — hm, I wasn’t expecting even a partial recount to be granted. I’ll adjust Daniel’s chances upwards on my longshot-o-meter:
“the AEC is hit by a blackout in the next hour”
(again, meant to convey my subjective feeling, not an objective prediction)
The Albonator says:
Monday, May 26, 2025 at 12:53 pm
I suspect, Upnorth, the ‘purity’ maybe as common as ‘Thai driven snow’
中华人民共和国
Never eat Yellow Snow (or Green for that matter).
Aweirdnerd definitely not you!
Lest anyone think that 91% of Liberal preferences flowing to defeat Mr Abdo in Calwell is impossible, please consider the result in the McPherson electorate in 1972. After the distribution of all the minor parties, it was ALP 43.0%, Liberal 28.9% and Country Party 28.2%. With 91.7% of Country Party preferences, the Liberals won convincingly (though the 3CP was in doubt for days, and I remember it). A lot has changed since 1972, but I would like to hear some scrutineers reports about the flow of the preferences for Mr Ghani.
South Australian Senate count to be determined mid-afternoon. Tasmania and Northern Territory likely tomorrow morning.
Give up the dream stephen, there is precisely zero chance. For a start, 30% of the libs exclusion are from pvs from other candidates.
Even the nats only received 90% of lib preferences at the last election when the coalition parties contested empty seats
It will likely be over 53% by the end
Yes, it will be very interesting to see how it ends up. Maybe Labor will end up in the mid 50s 2CP?
To ‘The Revisionist’, let me be clear, I’m a Life Member of the ALP and very much want Mr Abdo to win Calwell. All I’m saying is two things (i) there are precedents for preferences flowing more than 90% and (ii) until there are actual scrutineers reports that can estimate the flow of preferences, we cannot be sure what the result might be. It is not ‘impossible’ for Ms Moore to win, it depends on the preferences. It is certainly very unlikely that she would win.
Well give up the hyper pessimism then.
That is not a relevant precedent. Almost a third of the libs 3cp votes are flows from others.
It is impossible
@ The Revisionist.
Still waiting for your response. I’m happy to be proven incorrect but dropping a casual response calling my post that 20-25% of Labor preferencing Blue over Teal in Bradfield “nonsense” / “Just teenage level rationalising” and then letting it sit without a response after I gave you the source of that info (from WB himself) irks.
I’m not trying to pick a fight, and genuinely want to know. Have the figures I quoted on this now out of date, wrong, taken out of context etc – or – was it more of an off the cuff response?
Bradfield – To answer one of my earlier questions, it looks like the AEC is updating the same page as the re-count goes.
– 3 Booths have been updated
– Blue now leads by 7 (down one from last week).
Edit – From Dr Kevin
Monday 26th 2:45: And they’re off! So far Kapterian has lost two to informal and Boele has lost one so Kapterian leads by 7. Three booths have changes showing.
@Nathan – if the AEC would just publish the result of the full Distribution of Preferences it conducted last week, we would at least know how many of the Labor pile preferenced Lib or Teal – and I think from that we could deduce a lot about where 1 Labor voters went (given they were about 80& of the overall pile). Given that at this final point of the count in 2022, the flow was 24.6% to Liberal, I don’t know why people are getting so surprised or getting so worked up about a less than 100% flow to Teal. We also know from WB results page that overall preference flow to Boele has fallen from 73% in 2022 to <66% in 2025 and that would be mainly Labor voters doing that damage.
LISTEN UP EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T LIVE IN BRADFIELD: A LOT OF LABOR SUPPORTERS DON'T LIKE THE TEALS AROUND HERE.
I haven't once been belittled by a Liberal party member for being a member of a political party. I have been belittled by the Teals for that "offence" every day for the past 3 years.
@ Stephen D Morey – You are my new hero. We ALL have a right to preference how we damn well want to. My only plea is don't tell me its sensible to not vote for your preferred party/candidate because you don't think they can win – it's totally illogical. You have a RIGHT to do it, just don't go on about how it's sensible. If you want the Teal to win – you vote for the Teal (the reverse is true unless you admit to treating your vote as a joke). If you want Labor to win, you vote for Labor.
I very much look forward to all the Mea culpa's when the 2PP count for Bradfield shows that Labor would have won if the had not been excluded.
Thanks High Street for the extra info. I also agree with the gist of your post (though not sure if Lab would have taken the trophy but it will be closer than most would have thought). The other thing I see from WB’s page for Bradfield is that his Projected 3CP –> 2CP is:
– Lib: 41.6 –> 50%
– Teal: 34.2 –> 50%
– Lab: 24.1 –> 0%
If accurate, the preference flow at the 3CP to 2CP stage from Labour was 35% to Lib / 65% to Teal. Given that Labors Primary Vote was 20.3% I’d not be surprised if WB’s 25% figure is still in the ballpark.
It Bradfield does go to a supplementary, the flow of preferences will no doubt be of great interest to who can be bothered running, or what their strategy will be.
Labor win 3 senate seats in SA. The 21yo Young Labor President Charlotte Walker is now a Senator!
A partial recount in Goldstein – Tim Wilson won’t be happy, and that rather condescending tweet he posted on the weekend directed at Zoe Daniel was low, even by his standards.
Not surprised the ABC have called Calwell for Labor, that’s 94 seats in total.
Nathan – yeah mate, I’m fascinated too about how the recount in Bradfield will proceed, we’ve got 2 weeks of it.
A historic election result for so many reasons, including the election of a 21 year old Senator in South Australia.
Nathan, I don’t know where you read that I was suggesting you were lying…..the point was that the preoccupation with the labor preference flows was weird. Consistent with the monomaniciacal “labor bad”
The nationals preferences flowed at 77% to lib over lab in 2016
@Democracy Sausage. ….yeah, and it is going to kill me at this rate!
– 6 booths updated so far
– Blue back to 8 infront
Nathan – you’ll need some stress relieving beers at this rate ha.
Whoever comes 2nd out of this will take it to the court of disputed returns, sure bet.
What exactly are they updating for Bradfield – a full recount booth by booth ? So 6 booths fully fully counted.
@ The Revisionist – If miss interpreted your statement, apologies – but here it is again:
“Like the nonsense above about the 20% of Labor PVs referencing the Lib over Boele…..5% higher than typical flow of preferences from Green to Red. Just teenage level rationalising really”
I certainly did not think you were calling me a liar! Rather my impression of your statement being both derisive (“Nonsense”) and then belittling (“Just teenage level rationalising”) at the same time as being wrong.
@ High Street – thanks for your nice words. I absolutely agree that people should vote 1 for the candidate they think will do the best job. That’s always been the ALP candidate for me, but the preferences after that are decided by the order in which I would consider candidates most likely to be voting for the things that matter to me. I had no difficulty placing Zoe Daniel and 2 and the Greens at 3 in Goldstein, I had a bit of doubt about whether I’d put Tim Wilson at 4 and the Libertarians at 5 or the other way round, and frankly the so called ‘Trumpet of Patriots’ deserved last place behind One Nation, though both were very strongly objectionable on multiple grounds to me. The point is, however, that each voter makes their own choice. And very clearly, as we’ve seen in all the close electorates, voters are making informed choices that don’t always match the expectations of the commentariat. Well, that’s good.
Kapterian has increased her 8 vote lead to 10 votes, I have a feeling that the trends will favour her and she will win Bradfield, even if it’s by an extremely narrow margin.
Democracy Sausage
That tweet was a shocker. “I hope she finds peace” says the only Liberal defeated by a Teal in 2022 who was not willing to accept the result. See, e.g, for the wreath laying moment, Anzac Day 2023: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/inappropriate-former-liberal-mp-tim-wilson-zoe-daniel-volunteer-clash-at-anzac-event-20230423-p5d2pa.html
@Bludgeoned Westie: Isn’t the recount trend meant to slightly favour Boele? WB’s initial projection estimated Boele would win by 12 votes after recount. Either way, if the final margin is below 20 votes in both directions, the chances of it going to court are pretty high.
@Bludgeoned Westie
Isn’t it too late for trends? The votes are real and final. All that remains to be seen is a confirmed accurate count.
@HNsays: Monday, May 26, 2025 at 7:30 pm
“Isn’t the recount trend meant to slightly favour Boele? WB’s initial projection estimated Boele would win by 12 votes after recount. Either way, if the final margin is below 20 votes in both directions, the chances of it going to court are pretty high.”
~~~
It definitely will be close and I think it’ll go to court. However, but given the huge number of votes that Boele has lost over the past few days, I have a gut feeling Kapterian’s going to eke out a win
@Edgepork Davidsays: Monday, May 26, 2025 at 7:36 pm
“Isn’t it too late for trends? The votes are real and final. All that remains to be seen is a confirmed accurate count.”
~~~
I’m describing the recount trends (which is parly based the trends from the formal distribution of votes)
If that’s not how I’m meant to use the word then it was a poor choice of wording on my part. I’m not exactly sure what specific word I should be using to describe what I’ve said.
on Bradfield: Recount is indeed expected to favour Boele, as the least-checked votes are Kapterian-favouring. But it’s unlikely to be a huge number. I definitely would suspect that the margin will be small enough for the court.
Here’s a weird scenario. If all of the following happen:
(a) the AEC publish the Lab/Lib 2pp and indeed find that Labor did better than Boele
(b) a supplementary election is declared in which Labor contests
(c) progressive voters strategically switch to Labor based on point (a)
There is a quite small, but real, chance that *Labor* is the eventual winner of Bradfield. Definitely a longshot, but I reckon better than Daniel’s longshot odds as of now. While I don’t know the prevalence of (c)-type voters, but if I lived in the electorate, I absolutely would vote this way iff (a) were true, so surely some others would think the same way.
Subjective Longshot-O-Meter:
Daniel beats Wilson in Goldstein: “AEC is hit by a blackout in the next hour”
Labor wins Bradfield from supp. election: “the final vote inspected in Bradfield was cast by someone whose birthday is February 29th”
Posters on here not being prepared so simply say sorry when their posts / insulting accusations against other posters have been (politely in fact) very clearly shown to be plain wrong (even if you ignore the insults, though why should someone accept being outright insulted?) is one of the things that is a threat to this thread being a nice, pleasant thread discussing psephology in contrast to the main threads.
If that’s not ‘petulant teenage’ behaviour, Idk what is.
Haha aweirdnerd I like your thinking.
Thanks BTSays (I really don’t want to start a fight. I too like this thread and have so all month).
Anyway, we are back to discussing what might happen if their is a subsequent election in Bradfield. It could be fascinating. I think the scenario put forward by WB and Dr Bonham has a lot of merit (that there is more 1p to count for Blue than Teal so Blue will end up having more votes invalidated). I guess we will see over the next week or so. Waiting for St Ives PPVC to add some more wackiness!
Even if the AEC does not publish the preference flows, I assume each parties scrutineers will have a fairly good idea of how it looks on the ground? Will it be enough for Labor to challenge directly? What will the minors do (do they even have the funds to run again)?
Up till then, Blue and Teal still have an election to win.
New thread.