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.
Wonder if Taylor will challenge Ley for leadership before the parliament next sits given the legitimacy of the previous vote.
AEC Facebook page:
“
Bradfield update:
The counting of first preference votes & the indicative two-candidate preferred (TCP) count is now finalised.
The indicative TCP margin is 40. The full distribution of preferences is the next stage. Once finalised, it is expected to result in movement from the current indicative TCP margin (exact amount of change unknown) as things like the formality of votes are likely challenged afresh through the process.
The full distribution of preferences is the formal process that determines a final result. If, after that process, the final margin is under 100 it is AEC policy to then conduct a formal recount (and we will communicate about that at that time – if it is to occur).
The full distribution of preferences is expected to take until the end the week as it’s a complicated process occurring in front of candidate-appointed scrutineers. All information about this count is published but not progressively throughout the week. We will communicate about the final margin when it is finalised.
Further information about this stage of the count was communicated via a media release on Saturday.”
Algernon @ #99 Monday, May 19th, 2025 – 4:24 pm
Probably not, it’d look too messy if he does it too quickly. If he does end up challenging he’ll probably do a Turnbull and wait until next year while quietly undermining her.
re: parliament size increase, I think there’s only one way to ‘solve’ the proportion problem of states and senate seats. The senate seats can’t be lowered, but I don’t think there’s anything that forces them to be equal. As new lower house members are added, the upper house seats are added only for the large states until there is some ‘range’ of population differential. I don’t think people want it to become ‘fair’ in representation aka Tasmania having only a fraction of senate seats, but right now Tasmania having 12 seats and NSW having 12 over-represents Tasmania by about 14x. If the seat count increased, leave the smaller states alone (12 seats) and just allocate senators to the larger states. Say if you wanted to add 20 upper house seats, allocate the ten senators Vic/NSW/Qld to something like 4/4/2. I’m sure the AEC could develop a model. It won’t fix it, but it would be a change that evens out the discrepancy, and makes larger states a fairer representation of voters.
So in Sydney Liberals are restricted to 4 seats. Berowra and Mitchell (N, N-W) and Cook (S) in greater Sydney.
They won Lindsay, which includes outer suburbs of Western Sydney and Penrith, a satelite city of Sydney on Sydney West.
Pi @ #102 Monday, May 19th, 2025 – 4:32 pm
I think even a change like that would require a referendum to make it happen.
Ven – I would say Lindsay also counts as a greater Sydney seat. It is outer western suburbs.
Pisays:
Monday, May 19, 2025 at 4:32 pm
re: parliament size increase, I think there’s only one way to ‘solve’ the proportion problem of states and senate seats. The senate seats can’t be lowered, but I don’t think there’s anything that forces them to be equal. As new lower house members are added, the upper house seats are added only for the large states until there is some ‘range’ of population differential. I don’t think people want it to become ‘fair’ in representation aka Tasmania having only a fraction of senate seats, but right now Tasmania having 12 seats and NSW having 12 over-represents Tasmania by about 14x. If the seat count increased, leave the smaller states alone (12 seats) and just allocate senators to the larger states. Like Vic/NSW/Qld get something 4/4/2. I’m sure the AEC could develop a model. It won’t fix it, but it would be a change that evens out the discrepancy, and makes larger states a fairer representation of voters.
———————
constitution states H of R must be twice the size of senate
Part III – The House of Representatives
24. Constitution of House of Representatives
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.
The primaries on that last batch of Declaration pre polls in Bradfield went:
59 Labor
53 Liberal
48 IND
Labor probably won the batch of postals today as well – certainly beat IND
@PI
This is from the consitution
Until the Parliament otherwise provides there shall be six senators for each Original State. The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State5, but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators.
Therefore the six original states must be equal
Lindsay is absolutely Sydney, every part of it is within it’s borders, albeit right on the Western fringe.
Macquarie includes a portion of Sydney (far NW) but is essentially the seat for the Blue Mountains.
As you say barney, it’s the proportion of the senators to lower house members that is specified in the constitution, not where those senators are sourced from. That was my understanding.
Bradfield. There are now 20 Postals in “Envelopes awaiting processing” Given it went 66% in the last batch to Teal, the 40 vote lead may soon be higher.
‘As you say barney, it’s the proportion of the senators to lower house members that is specified in the constitution, not where those senators are sourced from. That was my understanding’
Not quite, the original 6 states must have the same number of senators at all times. This is to protect the influence of smaller states VS larger states. My limited understanding is that if one state gets additional senator/s, all states must get the same. But if wrong, please correct!
What do we think will happen with a formal distribution of preferences ? Is the Boele lead likely to grow or shrink and how long will that process take ?
The electorate of Hume also includes a large part of outer south-western Sydney. Hume borders both Lindsay and Macquarie, as well as Werriwa and Macarthur, among other greater Sydney seats.
Angus Taylor is not going to challenge again in the short term. It would be too damaging to the party and therefore would harm his chances too. However, if things are still looking woeful in the new year, then anything could happen.
”
Shogunsays:
Monday, May 19, 2025 at 4:37 pm
Ven – I would say Lindsay also counts as a greater Sydney seat. It is outer western suburbs.
”
Maybe, maybe not. It has large parts of electorate, whose phone code is not (02)
Sydney metropolitan phone code is (02).
But Lindsay has boundary with Hume, which is the electorate of Angus Taylor. Angus Taylor has increased his 2PP by 1.1%
Oh fuck, Bradfield, so much for everyone in here who wrote off Boele over the weekend!
The now leader of the Liberal Party had a tainted victory, Kapterian voted for her and so did 2 other senators whose terms finish on July 1. Will Angus Taylor launch an immediate challenge, or keep his powder dry?
The Liberals of course will round up every scrutineer they can for the recount, I’d assume the Teal camp will recruit Labor and Greens scrutineers.
kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2025/05/2025-late-postcount-and-expected.html
2025 Late Postcount And Expected Recount: #Bradfield
Pisays:
Monday, May 19, 2025 at 4:39 pm
re: parliament size increase, I think there’s only one way to ‘solve’ the proportion problem of states and senate seats. The senate seats can’t be lowered, but I don’t think there’s anything that forces them to be equal.
Actually, there is, at least as regards original states (though any newly added states can be given a different number of senators). Section 7 of the Constitution says, ‘The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State, but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained …’ So it would require a referendum to reduce the proportion of senators from Tasmania, and any such referendum, besides the usual requirements of a majority of voters in a majority of states, would require a majority ‘yes’ vote specifically in Tasmania, because section 128 says, ‘No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament … shall become law unless the majority of electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.’
Bradfield 2PP at the end of official count
Gisele Kapterian (Liberal) 56,193 50.0%
Nicolette Boele (Independent) 56,233 50.0%
So near, yet so far Libs. If only 21 voters voted or preferenced in favour of Gisele Kapteria…
@DPR of CBR:
“216 HoR seats would require the senate to be expanded to 108 state-elected members, increasing from 12 per state to 18. That might also see an increase in the territories from 2 seats each to 3, but that is not necessarily the case. In a normal half senate election, this would drop quotas from ~14% to 10% (and if the territories also increased, from 33% to 25% for them). No great obstacle, just something to keep in mind.”
Indeed. Actually, the increased chance of fringe parties getting a seat so they can’t claim they are completely shut out seems like a feature not a bug. We SHOULD have a couple of random Ricky Muirs in the Senate. I’m far more sanguine about proportional representation requiring the lower house majority to negotiate their bills through the Senate than I am about the concept of a proportional representation lower house.
We can’t just sit on 150 members forever because the upper house would also need to be increased.
I think we are fortunate to have the opportunity to do this in a situation where we have a trusted AEC, as otherwise the cries of “gerrymander!” would fill the air no matter what the updated map looked like. I hope the government strongly considers legislating the process this term (but as I say giving the AEC until the election after next to complete the process, as it would be too big to rush).
Wow I live in a street with 50 houses in Bradfield. Looks like my street may have swayed the result.
Wow I live in a street with 50 houses in Bradfield. Looks like my street may have swayed the result.
Wow I live in a street with 50 houses in Bradfield. Looks like my street may have swayed the result.
Not by voting three times mind!!
I reckon a modest increase of having the Senate increase to 14 seats per state which would increase the House to about 180 seats would be appropriate at this point in time.
I don’t think it would serve Australia’s interests to do it like the USA way and keep it as it is forever while electorates grow to about 200,000+ registered voters each. And even then when people complain about Tasmania, the constitution gives them 5 seats minimum, so even that has inequality when in, say, 2040 the average mainland seat has 200,000 electors while the Division of Lyons only has 80,000.
No you cannot have different numbers of senators for any of the ‘original states’…
“Until the Parliament otherwise provides there shall be six senators for each Original State. The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State,5 but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators”
Most of NSW has an phone area code of (02). Suburban trans run to Emu Plains. I had to work briefly at Penrith for two to three days a week. Lindsay us very much part of Greater Sydney.
With no envelopes remaining to be processed, Bradfield now has Boele 41 votes ahead.
Of course the distribution of preferences followed by the recount will probably change that.
“Say if you wanted to add 20 upper house seats, allocate the ten senators Vic/NSW/Qld to something like 4/4/2. I’m sure the AEC could develop a model.”
This would be unconstitutional.
“The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State, but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained.”
We have essentially the same problem that the Americans have with the electoral college. Unrepresentative swill where the votes of backwater rednecks mean more than people who live where the country generates it’s money from. I don’t see Tasmania, WA & SA being over-represented as the biggest issue, I think it’s that Queensland gets equal status to NSW & Victoria despite being significantly lower in population, giving Queensland politics bigger impact on the nation than it should & giving them an inflated sense of value.
The seats should be:
NSW – 23
VIC – 19
QLD – 15
WA – 7
SA – 4
TAS – 2
ACT – 1
NT & External Territories – 11
I think there needs to be a two pronged approach to Constitutional reform.
1. Make the Senate be proportional to the number of people in the State. Not some fictitious crap about States rights. Senators vote on party lines not State lines. Make at least 5 for an original State.
2. OK five lower house seats for each original states minimum, but then make the proportion increase in the same way as the Senate.
Upper house is representative of total votes in a State. Lower House is representative of majority view in each electorate.
Both Canada and the UK have much smaller number of electors in each electorate. We should be aiming for the same.
The “overrepresentation” of Tasmania in the Senate is deliberate. This was done to protect the interest of smaller states. Each state gets the same number. It might be crazy as the ACT’s population approaches that of Tassie when the ACT get 2 senators and Tassie 12 and I think that needs to be addressed -perhaps by increasing the ACT number.
Tassie are also overrepresented in the lower house as each state is guaranteed at least 5. At 2.1% of the population Tassie should have only 3.
If both Senate and House of Reps seats are increased Tassie may gain Senators, but perhaps not MP’s.
Sooner or later we need to increase the House of Reps numbers as our population increases.
If this result in Bradfield holds, the Liberals now only have 4 seats in the Sydney metropolitan area – Cook, Lindsay, Berowra, Mitchell.
My seat of Berowra – The Labor candidate won the election day vote and the prepolls too, Julian Leeser got home on the postals.
Speaking of Tasmania, what do you think were the reasons for that mega swing to Labor in that state?
Candidate selection in Bass and Braddon obviously was pivotal, but what else was going on – a reaction against the Liberal state government?
Jemima Puddleduck @ #130 Monday, May 19th, 2025 – 5:38 pm
Sensible ideas, but all of this has to pass a referendum to effectively change it. That’s the sticking point here in Australia.
And there’s the additional rule in referendums that it will not pass if a state does not vote ‘Yes’ in matters that reduce their constitutionally allocated representation.
The point is no one votes on States Rights. States rights is a furphy. Cows don’t vote. The only State that benefits from this arrangement is Tasmania. All other States are underrepresented in comparison with Tasmania. This includes the ACT and NT. We need to overturn this crappy constitution that is 125 years old and no longer fit for purpose.
Late postal voters from the far flung reaches of the world must of thought:
“Hmmm, do I really want to come back home and find Temu Trump in charge?”
A federal electorate-sized bloc of overseas votes has helped determine the results of close seats as expatriates and tourists cast their ballots at near record levels at the May 3 election.
Data from the Australian Electoral Commission reveals more than 75,000 people voted overseas, casting ballots everywhere from Alofi on Niue to Ulaanbaatar in Mongolia.
The commission had 111 polling centres in a record 83 countries at the May 3 election.
With still some votes to be counted, the single largest number of votes were cast in London – 15,747. Australia House has traditionally been the largest overseas polling booth, with people lining up to participate.
The London vote is down on the 2023 referendum, when 18,000 ballots came from the British capital.
Across the English Channel, more than 12,500 Australians voted in other parts of Europe. The largest continental polling centres were Paris (2043), Berlin (1700), The Hague (1130), Rome (838), Madrid and Denmark (811 each).
One of the largest increases in overseas-based votes can be seen in China.
At the 2023 referendum, there were almost 5300, of which 2894 came from Hong Kong. So far, the electoral commission has received more than 8000 votes from China, with 4339 votes of those coming from Hong Kong. Other Chinese-voting centres include Chengdu and Guangzhou.
……
Another is the northern Sydney seat of Bradfield, where Liberal Gisele Kapterian is likely to go into a recount against independent Nicolette Boele. This seat had one of the largest overseas voter bases at the 2023 referendum.
Bradfield received almost 1300 overseas votes, either in person at the nation’s embassies or high commissions or via the post, the 11th largest overseas count of any electorate.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/from-london-to-ulaanbaatar-australia-s-largest-and-smallest-overseas-voting-booths-20250519-p5m0e5.html
Jemima Puddleduck @ #135 Monday, May 19th, 2025 – 5:46 pm
Well, best of luck in pursuing that. Constitutions are very hard to change unless they have massive support from all political parties.
Personally I would like things like that to change, but I recognize that the path to getting there is extremely difficult and strewn with legal and political landmines.
Section 128 of the Constitution requires any referendum removing equal representation to pass in each state losing representation. Good luck selling that to voters in SA, WA or Tasmania! There is a reason it’s called the State’s House. Even raising the idea would be political suicide in those states.
In any case, I don’t think the malapportionment of the Senate matters too much given our party system and the broadly similar political leanings of most of the 6 states (especially now that WA has left Qld alone on the right (federally) to hang with the rest of us on the centre-left!)
Any chance we can contain comments to vote counting??
The current National 2PP as per ABC is 55-45 in ALP’s favour.
Democracy Sausagesays:
Monday, May 19, 2025 at 5:43 pm
“Speaking of Tasmania, what do you think were the reasons for that mega swing to Labor in that state?
Candidate selection in Bass and Braddon obviously was pivotal, but what else was going on – a reaction against the Liberal state government?”
My take as a Bass resident.
Very much a vote to ensure no Dutton in Bass.
Archer was a very popular candidate but the risk of Dutton killed her chances.
Braddon was similar topped off with a poor Liberal candidate choice.
Small update in Bradfield, Boele has lost 2 votes and Kapterian has lost 1 vote in the 2pp, reducing the lead to 39 votes.
So outside NSW, the Coalition now holds four metropolitan seats. That’s one Inner Metropolitan (by a tiny margin) and three Outer Metropolitan.
What a time to be alive.
Remember the huge ruckus made by Lars regarding Barton electorate for not selecting that muslim ex-councillor and Albanese making captain’s pick for that electorate. That candidate has 4.1% swing towards her.
# % Swing
Ash Ambihaipahar (Labor) 66,113 66.2% +4.2%
Fiona Douskou (Liberal) 33,766 33.8% -4.2%
> Democracy Sausage says:
> Monday, May 19, 2025 at 5:41 pm
>
> My seat of Berowra – The Labor candidate won the election
> day vote and the prepolls too, Julian Leeser got home on the
> postals.
Berowra elector here, too. I put this three-election history in the previous Late Counting thread. It tells a pretty vivid story of Leeser’s declining relationship with Berowra’s voters.
PV: Liberal; Labor; Greens; C200 independent. (2PP)
2019: 57.20; 21.10; 11.88; n/a. (65.65-34.35)
2022: 49.08; 22.23; 15.58; n/a. (59.77-40.23)
2025: 41.75; 26.99; 11.88; 11.39. (51.54-48.46)