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.
Latest exclusions up. My very quick read is that Youhana is the next to be excluded.
Edit to note that Antony Green agrees with me.
Isn’t Youhana the next one out?
Youhana 13.9%, Green 15.3%, Moore 17.5%, Lib 18.9%, ALP 34.4%.
https://www.aec.gov.au/election/fe25/files/FE2025_CALW_RHFU_Excl8.pdf
The Green got 61% of that last exclusion – stays in the race
Wow yeah, Greens got over 61% of Moslih’s preferences (to only around 8% to Youhana) and Greens have now passed Youhana. So Youhana will be the next exclusion.
Moore & Labor got around 12% each out of that exclusion so the gap between them (if Moore makes the 2CP which is most likely) is pretty much unchanged.
The gap between Moore & LIB has shrunk from 2.09% to 1.56%, it’s safe to say the LIB won’t make the 2CP, especially with Greens preferences still to be distributed.
So Garcha, the Green got 8.29% primary vote.
And has a good chance of making the final 2 if the remaining exclusions are anything like the 61% he just got.
Moore with 11.95% primary is even better placed as she has a 2,000 lead over Garcha with only Youhana’s 12,492 to be distributed,].
Ghani the Liberal is treading water with these recent exclusions – only got 5% of the last one as is likely to be swamped.
*damned auto spell check*
And Antony’s tracker updated..
https://antonygreen.com.au/
Dr Bonham latest on Calwell
“12:50 Oh wow. A massive flow of preferences (61%) from Moslih has put the Greens into fourth place and Youhana is eliminated!
Current standings: Abdo 34.40 Ghani 18.95 Moore 17.49 Garcha 15.26 Youhana (out) 13.90
Moore now needs a 5.01 point gain off Garcha and Youhana to make the final two, and now needs 67.6% of preferences to win if she does. Moore also needs to survive the Youhana exclusion, which won’t occur if Garcha beats her by 16.05 points in the four-way split.
Youhana recommended preferences to Moore on his how to vote card (unsure how wide its circulation was). What happened here with the Moslih preferences is however bad news for Moore because it suggests a high proportion are following the Muslim Vote Matters card (or Moslih’s own) which will mean that on the Greens exclusion there will be flow to Labor. That might mean that even if making the final two Moore will need too much off the Liberal exclusion. “
Part of me wonders if we just eliminated the Condorcet winner (if there even is one!) in Calwell with Youhana. IMO he was most likely to win the 2pp matchup, as he’d get more Greens prefs than Moore. Then again, it’d depend on ALP prefs too which I have no clue about off the top of my head.
Wow, I noted that the Greens were capable of passing Youhana, but I didn’t expect them to get more than 60% of flows at that exclusion (I thought 40% was a possible but unlikely high mark). I guess I need to do another run of my estimates…
First thing to note – the preference flows so far look like this: Moore 24.3%, Youhana 13.9%, Green 30.6%, Labor 17%, Liberals 14.2%.
Interestingly, the Moslih flow to Liberals was 5.01%, supporting my 5% estimate. I also had Labor getting 25%, but they only got 12.22%. So that increases the chances of an upset (Labor losing).
As has been noted already, Youhana is now the next one to be excluded, as the Greens have leapfrogged him. The challenge for the Greens, as I said before, is that Youhana put Moore ahead of them on his HTV.
For Greens to get ahead of Liberals, they’d need to get 26.5% more flow than the Liberals. To get ahead of Moore, they’d need 16% more… which is unlikely, with Moore higher on the HTV. If I had to take a shot at what the flows would look like to get Greens ahead of Liberals, it’d look something like this:
Moore 35%, Greens 42%, Labor 8%, Liberals 15%
This would only really happen, I think, if enough of the flows to Youhana from previous exclusions flow on to Greens over Moore… but let’s run with it. Now Greens stay ahead of Liberals, and this is where they run into their biggest obstacle. Liberal preference probably aren’t going to favour Greens very well. On Liberal exclusion, Greens would need to get 6% more flow than Moore… which is unlikely, with Moore the highest remaining candidate on the Liberal HTV, and Greens in second last spot. Not completely impossible, but I’d guess things will very much not go the Greens’ way at this point.
So let’s come up with a more realistic scenario – Moore 50%, Labor 30%, Greens 20% (I think this overestimates what Greens (and Labor) will get, here, but then, I’ve been shocked once already with this count).
That puts Moore comfortably into the 2CP with Labor. And from there, the question is how the Greens flow plays out. Greens put Moore ahead of Labor. Moore then needs better than 35% more than Labor in flows, so we’re looking at something like a 70-30 split in flows in favour of Moore, for Moore to win.
If Moslih can give a 60% flow to Greens in a field of 5, then Greens could certainly manage a 70% flow to Moore in a field of 2. While some of count 9 has been a shock, I stand by my position that it’s going to be very close. And the only other candidate I could see making it into the 2CP was Youhana, and he’s getting excluded. So the end prediction remains the same.
My instinct says that Moore is slightly the favourite, now, but I can’t back that up with any specific analysis, because there are too many remaining questions.
Glen O — IIRC Greens put Labor over Moore.
Well this is odd– I’ve now had two comments seemingly eaten by the internet monster.
Anyhoo, the gist of them was as follows:
1. The Citizens Party are Lyndon LaRouche loons;
2. LaRouchism, other than an addiction to crank conspiracy theory and “Church” of Scientology-esque personality culthood, has no actual ideology and thus it makes sense that its preferences wouldn’t either;
3. Youhana’s HTV card seems similarly confused, having put Citizens second, Moore third, the Greens fifth, Liberals sixth and Labor dead last in 13th. No, I don’t understand that ordering either. But how many will actually follow it?
aweirdnerd (she/her) says:
Thursday, May 22, 2025 at 2:26 pm
Glen O — IIRC Greens put Labor over Moore.
—-
Oops, misread it.
Fixing now.– forgot how long it’d been since the post.The question then becomes, will voters go against the HTV on this front? It’s hard to say – people always talk about Greens voters following HTV cards, but I feel like that’s because Greens voters often agree with the HTV in the first place. I could totally imagine a lot of Greens voters wanting to put decent independents ahead of Labor.
But that said, I’d say it tilts in Labor’s favour in this case.
Won’t it also tilt in Labor’s favour for when (if) the Greens get excluded, the votes they received from Moslih will likely then flow to Labor, assuming they’ve followed Moslih’s HTV recommendations? That fact alone will should help Labor immensely. And given that the Greens got 61% of Moslih’s preferences, it suggests a quite high follow rate. But even if the Greens do get to the last two, which I doubt, the Liberal preferences will heavily flow to Labor. So I really can’t see the Greens or anyone but Labor winning this seat now. But I could be wrong.
@Glen O: But the fact that a whole lot of Moslih preferences flowed to the Greens doesn’t mean that a whole lot of Moslih voters suddenly converted over to the Greens’ preference orderings– and I gather from Bonham’s analysis that Moslih and Muslim Votes Matter ordered Labor over Moore. So those streams, despite momentarily being united under Garcha, may diverge at a later point in the count.
YaramahZ says:
Thursday, May 22, 2025 at 2:47 pm
Won’t it also tilt in Labor’s favour for when (if) the Greens get excluded, the votes they received from Moslih will likely then flow to Labor, assuming they’ve followed Moslih’s HTV recommendations? That fact alone will should help Labor immensely. And given that the Greens got 61% of Moslih’s preferences, it suggests a quite high follow rate. But even if the Greens do get to the last two, which I doubt, the Liberal preferences will heavily flow to Labor. So I really can’t see the Greens or anyone but Labor winning this seat now. But I could be wrong.
—–
In theory, yes… but it’s hard to say how many will have followed the HTV in terms of Labor vs Moore. As you can tell by how most of the other exclusions flowed, a lot of people don’t entirely follow the HTV, even if they mostly follow it. We don’t know if a lot of voters put Moore ahead of Labor even though their preferred candidate did the opposite on the HTV.
Almost half of Greens’ vote at this point in the count (45.6%) have come from preference flows from previous exclusions. For all we know, every single one of those put Moore above Labor.
Liberals HTV put Moore above Labor and Greens, too. Liberal PV is only 1000 less than the current margin between Moore and Labor.
Between Liberals and Youhana PV, you have 23,751 votes, with the gap between Moore and ALP at the current count being 15,186. Meaning, setting aside the question of the Greens, you might see Moore catch up to ALP on exclusions. And more of the Greens vote will have come from other parties at that point.
So what might happen is Moore gets ahead of Labor on 3CP, and then Greens exclusion is a wash, about 50% each. Or not. We don’t know, yet.
Paul Thomas says:
Thursday, May 22, 2025 at 2:59 pm
@Glen O: But the fact that a whole lot of Moslih preferences flowed to the Greens doesn’t mean that a whole lot of Moslih voters suddenly converted over to the Greens’ preference orderings– and I gather from Bonham’s analysis that Moslih and Muslim Votes Matter ordered Labor over Moore. So those streams, despite momentarily being united under Garcha, may diverge at a later point in the count.
—–
It’s worth noting that I made a mistake – I was using ABC’s “How to vote cards in your electorates” to check the majors’ HTV lineups, but it turns out there’s a mistake on there for Greens – it has Moore above Labor, but they put Moore below Labor. Not sure how it happened, but it does change things a little.
But as I’ve pointed out, the other two remaining candidates, Youhana and Liberals, both put Moore above Labor, and they have a larger share of the PV than Moslih + Greens. ToP, FFP, PHON, and Citizens all also put Moore ahead of Labor. I couldn’t find Peach or Ragupathy’s HTV cards, but if initial flows are anything to go by, Moore was probably high on them, too (if they exist), or at least their voters seem to prefer Moore over other options (about 26% flow to Moore from each, with the highest flow to any other party on either exclusion being just under 17% to Liberals from Ragupathy’s exclusion).
All told, Moore needs just over 66% of preference flows on a 2CP basis to win. It’s harder due to Greens and Moslih HTV favouring Labor, but it’s certainly not insurmountable.
Paul Thomassays:
Thursday, May 22, 2025 at 2:30 pm
Well this is odd– I’ve now had two comments seemingly eaten by the internet monster.
Anyhoo, the gist of them was as follows:
1. The Citizens Party are Lyndon LaRouche loons;
2. LaRouchism, other than an addiction to crank conspiracy theory and “Church” of Scientology-esque personality culthood, has no actual ideology and thus it makes sense that its preferences wouldn’t either;
3. Youhana’s HTV card seems similarly confused, having put Citizens second, Moore third, the Greens fifth, Liberals sixth and Labor dead last in 13th. No, I don’t understand that ordering either. But how many will actually follow it?
_______________________________
HTV cards don’t always seem to make sense from an ordering point unless you look at the potential to “Donkeytise” your HTV order…
I have seen examples in Deakin from Mike Symons (who was in last place on the ballot in 2013 and Matt Gregg who was in first place on the ballot in 2022). Symons had a “reverse donkey vote” numbering from 12 -> 1, Matt Gregg went 1 to 12.
The general gist is “does this put the candidates in roughly the correct order” In Symons and Greggs case it was Labor > Greens > Liberals.
They didn’t really care too much about where the fringe parties were in the HT as long as it was generally correct, it would make it easier to fill in the card and reduce a percent or so of informal voting to their advantage…
@ @0: Fair cop, but in this case Youhana’s preference ordering went 3,4,11,10,8,5,7,13,12,2,9,6 so clearly “ease of filling out the ballot” was not foremost in his team’s strategic thinking here. I had to cut down to four terms to even find an entry in the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences!
Maybe he should have gone with Fibonacci or something.
Does anyone know why Youhana stood and what his motivating positions to attract voters were?
Felix @ #320 Thursday, May 22nd, 2025 – 3:59 pm
Well, this is his policy website, so it’s pretty much written out there.
https://josephyouhana.com/youhanas-policy-positions/
To me he basically seems like an Independent specifically targeting issues in Calwell.
https://josephyouhana.com/
This is what he stands for
Committed to a real response to the cost of living crisis, ending years of infrastructure neglect and supporting better education outcomes for our children.
Seems to support the new Pope as well
I totally don’t believe a single person voted for him because they read that page, and I totally don’t believe that he thought “You know what? Calwell needs a good candidate who’s interested in (checks list) faster internet. I better stand for parliament”. It’s totally generic.
Felix @ #323 Thursday, May 22nd, 2025 – 4:17 pm
Looking into his social media posts, he seems to basically be a run-of-the-mill “I hate Labor but not enough to be a Liberal” Independent.
Meanwhile Nicolette Boele’s lead in Bradfield is down to 34. I understand the AEC team was doing the distribution of Labor preferences today, so it must be getting near to the end of this part of the counting process, with the recount to follow next. I would be interested if anyone else knows more about how far the distribution of preferences has progressed.
Outsider
In Bradfield, they have done 29 of 65 booths – assuming the date/time stamps from this weeks transactions are reflecting progress on the full distribution of preferences. Every time the scrutineers find an anomaly – onto the informal pile, and off the candidates one.
https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-31496-108.htm
Outsider @ #325 Thursday, May 22nd, 2025 – 4:29 pm
I think probably the best way is to go to this page here,
https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-31496-108.htm
Scroll down to “Polling Places”, then sort them out by “Two Candidate Preferred Returned” in order of date.
The remaining booths left to count would be those with a date before this week, the most recent being Normanhurst (Bradfield) which was last updated Wednesday last week.
33 Boele up now will she get her hair done if she wins?
I know where she will not go!
Now I’m confused. How can you do a full distribution of preferences on a booth by booth basis? Surely it’s on a whole of electorate basis – as we can see being done in Calwell.
“Almost half of Greens’ vote at this point in the count (45.6%) have come from preference flows from previous exclusions. For all we know, every single one of those put Moore above Labor.”
Why would you think that?
Anyone who has put the Greens ahead of Moore in their preferences clearly hasn’t done a straight donkey which I suspect Moore is strongly benefiting from. A lot of people would put one in their preferred candidate and then donkey the rest given there are so many candidates (ie at a higher rate than standard field sizes).
It would be wrong to assume the high 2nd preference flows to Moore are going to be replicated with 3rd preferences.
Wishcasting perhaps?
Does anyone have any general thoughts on how the counts going in Bradfield? I’d think Kapterian would want Boele’s lead to drop below 30 heading into the recount to have any chance. Or ideally below 20 might put Kapterian competitive to somehow pick up the votes in the recount you’d think?
Outsider @ #329 Thursday, May 22nd, 2025 – 5:23 pm
At the moment it looks like they’re rechecking each booth for the 2cp, which is why the numbers are jumping around a lot, especially since it’s so close so there’d be lots of challenges from scrutineers from both sides.
Once they’re done with that, then they’ll head to the formal preference distribution. Then the expected full recount.
Both Kevin Bonham and William have mentioned that the full distribution of preferences is being conducted this week, following the counting of the last remaining votes to trickle in which happened on Monday. Comments on KB’s blog indicate that Labor was excluded at the close of counting yesterday, which would make sense. This, in turn, was the basis for my observation that the distribution of those Labor preferences would be taking place today.
SMH –
“Exclusive: Zoe Daniel weighs up calling for a recount in Goldstein
Zoe Daniel is weighing up calling for a recount in Goldstein and is likely to point to the tight margin given the size of the electorate and some anomalies in the count.
Liberal Tim Wilson claimed victory in the Victorian seat over the teal independent on Tuesday after all votes were counted, with a margin of 128 votes.
The Australian Electoral Commission automatically undertakes a recount if the margin is under 100 votes, but candidates can also request a recount if they have sufficient grounds.
Daniel has been getting advice from data scientist Simon Jackman, who has pointed to the increased size of electorates since the 100-vote guidance was given in 2007 and to anomalies in the count.
Daniel told The Age she is weighing up calling for a recount.
“Simon Jackman makes some worthwhile points that we are factoring into our thinking as we consider whether to request a recount,” she said.
Jackman said the AEC’s 100-vote guidance was instituted following the McEwen recount of 2007.”
Go the Greens in Calwell, while there’s life there’s hope
#29in25 or #28in25*
* Until the split is resolved
Calwell.
Go [insert any independent/Green]!
It won’t hurt Labor to get stung to keep them slightly more honest by reminding them they can lose safe seats.
I must be dumb, as I can’t see any (plausible) scenario where Labor are run very close in Calwell.
The clear prefs for Lab on HTVs of some of the significant Indys (over the other Indys) surely removes any doubt for all but any who like to maintain a game of it until the last?
BTSays — agreed. I’m not betting on anyone other than them at this stage, I think Youhana probably had the best shot if he had lasted. But hey, sometimes the longshot is fun to root for! Notwithstanding my biases, it’d be *hilarious* (and hilariously unlikely) if the Greens won a second seat from less than 10%.
Counting late in Bradfield. And Boele’s lead back to 28.
Sprocket – that’s not how it works. When each candidate is excluded, they go through each booth 1 by 1. It appears that the only time there’s an update to the website booth list is when there is a change in the total number of formal votes – the effect on the indicative 2CP of this change is also made. So its all 40 odd booths once, then all 40 off booths again, etc, etc, etc.
A total electorate wide tally must then be made – this is recorded on the sheets that the AEC are publishing for Calwell, but oddly, the scrutineers (in Bradfield at elast) aren’t being provided this information. The call is then made as to who is the next to be excluded – this is normally pretty obvious who it will be but obviously today in Calwell there was a surprise overtaking.
In Bradfield, the micros’s were done on Monday afternoon and Tuesday. IND Yin and Greens were done in a long day of counting yesterday, with Labor exclusion being confirmed at the end of it. There are 25 – 26% of the vote now to be distributed in the final exclusion, some of the votes having been distributed more than once already (though noting like Calwell!). Given 11% of the vote got distributed on Wednesday in a very long day, you can imagine it will take 2 days to do this final count. Though perhaps when there are only 2 candidates to distribute to, things get quicker
Just getting a chance to have a look at the current run off situation in Calwell, I really can’t see how Labor loses from here.
I can’t see how Labor get less than 10 points from the Greens exclusion given that almost certain 60% HTV following of Moslih and the Green HTV.
Likewise, I’d be very surprised if Labor got less than 4 from Youhana’s exclusion
That would leave Labor needing about 6% of the lib exclusion (i.e. of its 5CP vote).
I am going to take a stab at the 53/47 final margin.
On another note, I know it’s a dumb question, but how are the Green fantasists seeing the Greens winning this seat? Just comical
Oops – wrong thread!
The Revisionist — not sure which Greenies you mean specifically, but in case it’s me, by “hilariously unlikely” I don’t mean “1%”, I mean “struck by lightning twice and then winning the lottery”. But I think the others are just playing the extreme longshot, which is fair enough imho. After all, I was secretly hoping Goldstein would come back to Daniel against all the odds.
The Revisionist says:
Thursday, May 22, 2025 at 5:24 pm
“Almost half of Greens’ vote at this point in the count (45.6%) have come from preference flows from previous exclusions. For all we know, every single one of those put Moore above Labor.”
Why would you think that?
—–
You do understand the phrase “for all we know”, right? It’s not me saying that it’s a fact, it’s me saying we lack information. Anything from them all putting Moore above Labor to them all putting Labor above Moore is possible, we don’t know (obviously, it’s much more likely to be somewhere in the middle).
Wishcasting would be a dyed-in-the-wool Labor supporter assuming that Moore is only doing as well as she’s doing because she’s at the top of the ballot.
aweirdnerd (she/her) says:
Friday, May 23, 2025 at 10:20 am
The Revisionist — not sure which Greenies you mean specifically, but in case it’s me, by “hilariously unlikely” I don’t mean “1%”, I mean “struck by lightning twice and then winning the lottery”. But I think the others are just playing the extreme longshot, which is fair enough imho. After all, I was secretly hoping Goldstein would come back to Daniel against all the odds.
中华人民共和国
Respect you for that mate. You gotta back your team and you aren’t one of the ones on here having a constant dig at by team. davidw up in Queensland is a good bloke too. He is a Tory and hopes his side does well – look at the Longman count where his cobber just got up. But he is constructive and wants a better Oz. We all have our beliefs and good on you for sticking by yours.
Glen, nope wish casting is a deluded greens supporter lighting candles for an independent candidate winning a freak run off and making ridiculous conjecture.
Moslih’s preferences are clearly running in line with the htv
Moore is clearly benefiting from the top of the ticket spot
At least labor supporters tend to have a self awareness about their biases
Youhana excluded, Greens next.
Moore 25.56%, Greens 16.65%, ALP 36.59%, Lib 21.20%.
Boele’s lead is now only 7 (SEVEN) votes. Wow.
Latest exclusion has:
Labor 36.6 (+2.2)
Moore 25.6 (+8.1)
Liberal 21.2 (+2.2)
Greens 16.7 (+1.4)
Clearly a Labor vs Moore 2CP now.
The Greens exclusion should flow pretty heavily to Labor I would say, partly because the Moslih to Greens flow indicated a high percentage of Moslih/MVM voters most likely followed the card and they put Labor above Moore, plus I expect a pretty strong Greens to Labor flow.
Even 50% of the Greens’ distribution would put Labor around 45% and that’s probably the minimum they’ll get I think.
Liberals will no doubt get the least, so there may be 23% to distribute at the Liberals exclusion and I’d guess that Moore will probably need around 18 of that 23 (78%) as a bare minimum.
Definitely not impossible, but I’d lean towards Labor winning. Especially if they get more than 50% of the Greens’ distribution.
For example, if Labor get 60% of the Greens’ distribution (similar to the Greens getting over 60% of Moslih’s), that would put Labor close to 47% which would require Moore to get around 87% of the Liberal exclusion.
https://www.aec.gov.au/election/fe25/files/calwell-dist-of-prefs.pdf