Click here for full display of House of Representatives election results.
Thursday
As suggested here yesterday, today’s Queensland and Western Australian Senate distributions both produced results of two Labor, two Coalition, one Greens and one One Nation – predictably in Queensland’s case, less so in Western Australia’s. It was noted that my model based on 2022 election preference flows got the One Nation candidate in WA to a winning margin over the third Labor candidate of 0.013 quotas, and that the party had over-performed this in similar circumstances by 0.046 quotas in South Australia and 0.032 in Victoria. In the case of WA the improvement was 0.023 quotas, the margin at the final count being 0.895 to 0.859. That just leaves the New South Wales count to be finalised, which is scheduled for 9:30am tomorrow, and looks like a clear-cut result of three Labor, two Coalition and one Greens.
In the Bradfield recount, Nicolette Boele’s momentum yesterday failed to carry over to today: she began proceedings two votes behind and ended three votes behind, with a net 22 votes being knocked out for Kapterian and 23 for Boele. Much of today’s effort was seemingly spent on the 9589 votes of the Willoughby pre-poll centre, which disappointed for Boele in yielding only a net gain of one vote, despite the high Liberal vote there. Another part of today’s recounting was postals, which I presume wasn’t all of them given the modest scale of the changes, with two primary votes knocked out for both leading candidates. This unknown factor means it’s no longer possible to precisely calculate how much of the recount has been completed: ordinary votes amounting 41.1% have been accounted for, together with however many of the 12.3% of the total that were postals have been accounted for. The Liberal favourability deficit out of what’s been counted will also have narrowed, though not closed (remembering that the relative Liberal strength out of what’s been counted will likely be to their disadvantage, since it means more opportunities for their votes to be knocked out).
It seems clear now that the Goldstein recount will not pull any rabbits out of the hat for Zoe Daniel: Tim Wilson’s lead remains unchanged from yesterday at 263.
Wednesday
The Victorian Senate result was finalised today, producing the anticipated result of Labor three, Liberal two and Greens one: in order, Raff Ciccone (Labor), James Paterson (Liberal), Jess Walsh (Labor), Jane Hume (Liberal), Steph Hodgins-May (Greens) and Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Labor). Ananda-Rajah won at the final count with 0.869 quotas to the One Nation candidate’s 0.814, which was 0.032 quotas narrower than anticipated by my model based on preference flows from 2022. Something similar was observed in South Australia, where the final count likewise pitted One Nation against Labor’s successful third candidate, the final result being 0.046 quotas narrower than anticipated by my model.
This is encouraging for Tyron Whitten, One Nation’s candidate in Western Australia, where the count will be finalised tomorrow at 3pm eastern time. My earlier modelling of the result gave the third Labor candidate a narrow win over Whitten of 0.869 quotas to 0.852, but this was before Labor’s vote share fell back on late counting – re-running it with the final results, I get Whitten winning by 0.862 to 0.849. Half an hour later, the Queensland result will be finalised – here a result of two Labor, two Liberal National, one Greens and one One Nation looks assured.
Gisele Kapterian’s lead in Bradfield was slashed today from 14 to two, as proceedings went more as I expected them to go initially: votes for both candidates knocked out as informal, but the process favouring Nicolette Boele by virtue of the recount mostly affecting first preference votes for the two leading candidates, of which Kapterian has more to lose. On Monday and Tuesday, when as many previously informal votes were being deemed formal as vice-versa, Kapterian’s lead climbed from eight to 14 – today, Kapterian had a net loss of 29 votes compared with 17 for Boele.
The process has now resulted in the recounting of 30,357 votes out of 118,856, or 25.5%, encompassing 16 out of 52 election day booths and four out of 14 pre-poll voting centres. Non-ordinary vote types, including over 14,500 postals, are yet to be examined. Out of the votes examined so far, 33.5% were first preferences for Kapterian and 28.2% for Boele, compared with 38.1% and 27.0% out of the total count, with the two-candidate count being 53.9-46.1 in Boele’s favour compared with 50.0-50.0 overall. For reasons noted in yesterday’s update, this indicates the votes to be rechecked lean to Kapterian.
If today’s dynamic holds, with votes being knocked out as informal providing most of the changes, it seems very likely that Boele will soon pull ahead and stay there. However, I have no reason to be sure that we won’t see a re-emergence of the earlier dynamic of as many votes doing the reverse, in which case Kapterian may still be a show. Either way, the margin looks like being fine enough to raise the strong possibility of a legal challenge. Ben Raue of The Tally Room has done us all a fine service in attending the count as a scrutineer and recording his observations.
The partial recount in Goldstein began today, and got about 15% through without bringing any joy for Zoe Daniel, whose deficit against Tim Wilson is out from 260 to 263.
Finally, the AEC is now well into finalising two-party Labor-versus-Coalition counts for “non-classic” contests, which will ultimately allow for a national two-party preferred result. This will settle somewhere between 55-45 and 55.4-44.5, indicating that pollsters who were revising preference models based on the 2022 result to make them less favourable to Labor would have done better to have let them be. This under-estimation of Labor extends to the estimates I was using for non-classic contests to produce the national two-party preferred on my results page – I have revised these upwards, though probably not far enough.
Tuesday
End of day update: In the second day of the Bradfield recount, Gisele Kapterian again widened her lead over Nicolette Boele, which has gone from eight to ten to fourteen. Substantial revisions have been made in the Artarmon Central (17 informal votes reclassified as formal) and Gorton (14 votes going the other way) without appreciably advantaging one candidate or the other – the changes arise from another 13 booths that have been rechecked, five producing revisions in favour of Kapterian against one for Boele. Boele can take at least some comfort in the fact that these booths recorded a relatively narrow 29.6% to 27.6% advantage for Kapterian on the primary vote, compared with 38.1% to 27.0% overall, on the principle that opportunities await for challenges to the formality of Kapterian votes. So far though, it seems that as many informal votes are being deemed formal as the other way round, contrary to the experience of the preference distribution.
Earlier: The Senate distribution for Tasmania produced a result of two Labor, two Liberal, one Greens and Jacqui Lambie, in the order of Carol Brown (Labor), Claire Chandler (Liberal), Nick McKim (Greens), Richard Dowling (Labor), Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network) and Richard Colbeck (Liberal). With four candidates chasing two seats at the second last exclusion, Lambie had 0.82 quotas, Colbeck 0.80, third Labor candidate Bailey Falls 0.73 and Lee Hanson 0.57. Hanson’s exclusion put both Lambie (1.05) and Colbeck (1.01) over the line for a full quota, leaving Falls holding the bag with 0.80. I should have had more faith in my model based on 2022 preference flows in last night’s update, as Lambie got more preferences this time from lower order and mostly right-wing candidates, outperforming my model’s projection of 1.00 quotas for her. Colbeck outperformed his projected 0.92, while Falls did weaker than the anticipated 0.87, again contrary to what I suggested might happen last night.
The distribution for the South Australian count was published today, showing that Labor’s third candidate, Charlotte Walker, recorded 1.00 quotas at the final count ahead of 0.80 for the One Nation candidate, against which my model’s projection of 1.00 to 0.75 stacks up quite well. Also finalised today was the Northern Territory Senate count, confirming the formality of Malarndirri McCarthy (Labor) and Jacinta Price (Country Liberal) winning the two seats. The button-press for the Victorian Senate count is scheduled for 9:30am tomorrow – the evidence so far offers no encouragement for One Nation that they will be able to close what my model projects as a deficit of 0.85 to 0.76 in the race for the final seat against the third Labor candidate. This will shortly be followed by the foregone conclusion of the Australian Capital Territory count.
The preference distribution has been finalised in Calwell, Labor’s Basem Abdo emerging a comfortable winner with 49,481 votes (55.1%) to independent Carly Moore’s 40,350 (44.9%).
Monday
Today’s developments:
• The preference distribution in Calwell has all but confirmed a win for Labor, who received more than two-thirds from the exclusion of Greens, putting Basem Abdo on 48.0%, independent Carly Moore on 29.7% and the Liberal candidate on 22.3%. This leaves Moore needing an all-but-impossible 91% share of the preferences with the imminent exclusion of the Liberal.
• The button was pressed on the South Australian election Senate count, confirming the anticipated result of Labor three (Marielle Smith, Karen Grogan and Charlotte Walker), Liberal two (Alex Antic and Anne Ruston) and Greens one (Sarah Hanson-Young). We must await publication of the preference distribution for further detail.
• The Australian Electoral Commission advises that we can expect the buttons to be pressed tomorrow morning for Tasmania and the Northern Territory. The latter is a foregone conclusion, but the former is likely to find a three-way battle for the last two seats between Jacqui Lambie, the third Labor candidate and the second Liberal candidate. My earlier modelling suggested Lambie was very likely to be re-elected, since substantially different preference flows from the last election would be needed for her to fall behind both Liberal and Labor. On reflection though, the former seems more plausible than I was allowing, given the observable impact of Lambie’s opposition to salmon farming on the geographic distribution of her primary vote, and the fact that most of the preferences being distributed are from right-wing parties. The latter might arise as a corollary of Labor’s stronger performance overall.
• The AEC announced today responded to Zoe Daniel’s request for a recount in Goldstein by announcing a partial recount that would consider first preference votes only, which in fact account for about three-quarters of the total. Substantial revisions were made to the totals during the course of the preference distribution, a process which examined only the remaining one-quarter of the vote, ultimately with the effect of increasing Tim Wilson’s margin from 129 to 270. The recount will begin on Wednesday and is expected to take about four days.
• The first day of the Bradfield recount, which may take as long as two weeks, increased Liberal candidate Gisele Kapterian’s lead over independent Nicolette Boele from eight votes to ten.
Sorry for double post wifi played up now it won’t let me delete duplicate
Outsidersays: Friday, May 30, 2025 at 8:00 pm
I’m half kidding about randomness and hoping for a tie! I would like Boele to win and I know the statistical trend is in her favour (just) but I dare not hope too much… I thought at the outset of the recount she might win by 20 to 25, but it seems clear enough now it will be a lot less.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m a Bradfieldian, please don’t wish an “independent” on us. At least plug for ALP which would be my preference if Kapterian does not get up.
Yes I want Kapterian to win. If I was in Bradfield and forced to choose between Labor and Boele I’d pick Labor. There’s just something so uniquely insufferable about the teals.
Kirsdarke
Hinchinbrook only swung 5.6%/11.2% (depending how you define swing) in 1989, so can’t be the seat UpNorth’s dad stood in because he said “Heavy gerrymandered seat but we got an 18% swing.”.
Callide?
HN @ #503 Friday, May 30th, 2025 – 8:15 pm
That’s a fairly honorable political position. In my time I’ve come across staunch Labor members who would rather put their 2nd preference to Liberal over others that have otherwise come across as pretty decent people.
Given the current margin is now 1 vote I do hope for a good solid laugh — and for the historical record to reflect — that Kapterian wins the recount by a final margin of 1 (ie the hairdresser Boele made the comment to). Talk about karma. Good things like that don’t come too often in politics.
Obviously the result would be void but still funny
BTSayssays:
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 8:16 pm
Kirsdarke
Hinchinbrook only swung 5.6%/11.2% (depending how you define swing) in 1989, so can’t be the seat UpNorth’s dad stood in because he said “Heavy gerrymandered seat but we got an 18% swing.”.
中华人民共和国
Wasn’t Hinchinbrook. Hinchinbrook in that election was won my Marc Rowell. Rowells’ nickname during his Parliamentary tenure was “Bernie” as in “Weekend at Bernies”.
He is reputed to have gone to Borbidge in tears to get a Ministry after one of the Nat Ministers got caught with their pants down. Borbidge agreed and gave him Primary Industries which he held for less than 6 months until the 1998 election.
I should actually rephrase my initial post to read “in some parts of the electorate we got an 18% swing” – but I was cooking tea and the kids were hungry.
Close to Hinchinbrook but no Cigar.
Upnorth – A Labor Partisan @ #507 Friday, May 30th, 2025 – 8:28 pm
Ooh, then could it be Tablelands?
Kirsdarkesays:
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 8:33 pm
Upnorth – A Labor Partisan @ #507 Friday, May 30th, 2025 – 8:28 pm
BTSayssays:
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 8:16 pm
Kirsdarke
Hinchinbrook only swung 5.6%/11.2% (depending how you define swing) in 1989, so can’t be the seat UpNorth’s dad stood in because he said “Heavy gerrymandered seat but we got an 18% swing.”.
中华人民共和国
Wasn’t Hinchinbrook. Hinchinbrook in that election was won my Marc Rowell. Rowells’ nickname during his Parliamentary tenure was “Bernie” as in “Weekend at Bernies”.
He is reputed to have gone to Borbidge in tears to get a Ministry after one of the Nat Ministers got caught with their pants down. Borbidge agreed and gave him Primary Industries which he held for less than 6 months until the 1998 election.
I should actually rephrase my initial post to read “in some parts of the electorate we got an 18% swing” – but I was cooking tea and the kids were hungry.
Close to Hinchinbrook but no Cigar.
Ooh, then could it be Tablelands?
中华人共和国
No cobber. However the then Member for Cairns and then Treasurer in the Goss Government, Keith De Lacy, grew up on the Tablelands with his family having a tobacco farm in the Mareeba/Dimbulah district. My Aunty used to serve him at the Dimbulah pub.
Upnorth is fly fishing with some skill! I like it.
@Upnorth
Then my next guess is Burdekin? Even if Labor did win that in 2001.
Kirsdarke see the lure and goes for a bite!
Nathan @ #512 Friday, May 30th, 2025 – 8:48 pm
Welp, if I’m tempted by political history, I’ll bite.
Nathansays:
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 8:45 pm
Upnorth is fly fishing with some skill! I like it.
中华人民共和国
I used to fly fish for Barramundi and Sooty Grunter in the Burdekin River when I was younger.
The Inkerman Bridge on the Burdekin, which was built by the State Labor Government after the war, actually floats on its pylons. This is because there is no bedrock to anchor the structure. Our friend Wiki says:
“The Bridge was completed in 1957. Construction began 10 years earlier in 1947.[7 At 3,620 feet (1,103 m) in length, it is one of the longest multi-span bridges in Australia and longer than Brisbane’s Story Bridge or New South Wales’s Hawkesbury River Railway Bridge. It is 46 metres shorter than Sydney’s Harbour Bridge. It is the only bridge in Australia to be built on sand”.
Earlier this year during the Burdekin River flood event, 15.6 million megaliters of water were discharged, which is enough to fill Sydney Harbour more than 31 times. At the Inkerman Bridge flood levels there reached moderate levels for 7 consecutive days.
During flood the Burdekin discharges more water than any other River in Australia.
I shall leave matters at that.
UpNorth
Got to be Flinders then, surely?
BTSays sees the lure and goes in!
Nathan
I’ve just done the briefest of whistlestop tours of both Queensland geography and the 1989 state election, and if it’s in that Townsville region ‘up north’ that’s identified but a Nat/Lib held seat in 1989. . . well if it’s not Flinders I give up – I looked at every seat 🙂 (weird I know)
As you say, I was lured in.
BTSayssays:
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 8:56 pm
UpNorth
Got to be Flinders then, surely?
中华人民共和国
Not Flinders cobber – but Bob Katter only just got across the line in that election. Our candidate, Noel Robertson, was a Cloncurry Shire Councillor and Grazier. He used to shave with his pocketknife. Noel actually won on primaries (1 vote) but Katter got back on preferences.
Kirsdarkesays:
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 8:47 pm
@Upnorth
Then my next guess is Burdekin? Even if Labor did win that in 2001.
中华人民共和国
Ye know too much.
Upnorth lands a Kirsdarke!
…or is that is other way around?
Just because a voided general election result is exceedingly close doesn’t necessarily mean the re-run will be, as the British demonstrated spectacularly in 1997: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Winchester_by-election
William I am sorry to spoil this thread somewhat but counting has stopped for a while.
Following the Election of the first Goss Labor Government a Fitzgerald Reform (The Electoral and Administrative Reform Commission EARC) made recommendations to reform Queenslands Electoral Boundaries and get rid of the Gerrymander. Thus a seat like Burdekin changed dramatically from 1989 – 2001. In 2001 it took in some South Townsville suburbs like Oonoonba and Wulguru which are very strong Labor (usually).
In 1989 Burdekin reached way up behind Townsville right up to Paluma to try and keep it rural and as safe for the National Party as possible. That all changed from 1992 on.
Fun fact Goss won the same number of seats pre (1989) and post (1992) Gerrymander (54).
Burdekin! – I dismissed it 1st time round cos’ the swing was too small, and accidentally dismissed it 2nd time round cos’ I was accidentally looking at 2024 page when I saw it was a female candidate (therefore not UpNorth’s dad 🙂 )
Nyeheheh, got it in the end~
BTSayssays:
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 9:23 pm
Burdekin! – I dismissed it 1st time round cos’ the swing was too small, and accidentally dismissed it 2nd time round cos’ I was accidentally looking at 2024 page when I saw it was a female candidate (therefore not UpNorth’s dad )
中华人民共和国
Yes my bad for incorrect context in the original post – but the Pork Chops were burning.
Dad and Goss made us all proud that night. The end of 32 years of Corruption and National Party rule – a new dawn for Queensland.
Queensland used to be a joke in the old days – think of the changes across the State since December 2 1989. I for one am bloody proud.
BT
Winchester 1997 – yes, I remember that well! Very much seen, fairly or unfairly, as ‘sore loser’.
Was only won back in Cameron’s sweep of Lib Dem seats in 2015 I believe, returning to Lib Dem at the 2024 GE where they increased their seat numbers 6-fold from 12 to 72 (or 9-fold from 8 to 72 if you go by the notional numbers the boundary changes gave us). Very impressive given their vote share only went up from 11.6% to 12.2% nationally – I don’t think there’s a precedent for winning so many seats in the UK with such a low vote share (by a nationwide party standing in virtually all of GB).
Conversely, Reform secured 14.3% and just 5 seats.
Upnorth – A Labor Partisan @ #525 Friday, May 30th, 2025 – 9:29 pm
Yeah, gosh, December 1989 must have been really refreshing after nothing but a National-Liberal government since 1957.
Honestly I was feeling the after-effects when I was in high school up there from 2000-2004. It was quite unpleasant.
It’s sad I’ve lost it, but I had an original “Jo for PM” sticker from back in the day.
BT, I think the same dynamic would play out here. Whoever challenges a close result will be seen as a sore loser and an absolute pain in the arse for sending everyone back to the polls. They would be punished accordingly.
Nathansays:
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 9:34 pm
It’s sad I’ve lost it, but I had an original “Jo for PM” sticker from back in the day.
中华人民共和国
Joh did a great service for all Australians in 1987!
He was actually making the run and wasn’t at cabinet when Acting Premier and Police Minister, Bill Gunn, pushed the Fitzgerald Inquiry through cabinet after the Courier Mail made several front pages and Chris Masters – 4 Corners Moonlight State – evidenced Police Corruption.
Joh announced the end of his run, quite fittingly, whilst in Disneyland – when Bob Hawke called the 1987 Federal Election.
My apologies for the Jo not Joh. I must be getting old.
The reference to Inkerman Bridge is a fascinating one in the broader context of Crimean War references in Australian culture (cf. the now-abolished electoral Division of Balaclava). Young men in trenches dying of typhus… not really my thing, even as a military history buff. But I guess it’s the right kind of pre-federation History to have a patriotic halo to it, a bit like our half-remembered recollections of George Washington in the French and Indian War.
Re: the accuracy of AEC’s count, they run a remarkably tight ship. Ironically the occasional stuff-up (taking a box of ballots home by mistake, having one person give the wrong instructions resulting in a bunch of informal votes, etc.) gets magnified precisely because 99.999% of what AEC does is so well-executed and because they take accountability and work hard to fix those mistakes that do surface. There’s no surer way to my shit list than conspiracy-mongers having a go at poll workers without solid evidence. Anyway, don’t take it for granted, is what I’m saying.
Paul Thomas says:
Friday, May 30, 2025 at 10:39 pm
The reference to Inkerman Bridge is a fascinating one in the broader context of Crimean War references in Australian culture (cf. the now-abolished electoral Division of Balaclava).
中华人民共和国
The Inkerman Bridge is named after the Inkerman Sugar Mill which sits next to it.
The district, when first settled by Europeans, was part of Inkerman Cattle Station- named after Inkerman Hill. Next to it is Alma Hill and yes all in the context of the Crimea War.
Ludwig Leichhardt came through the area and crossed the Burdekin River at Expedition Pass. He named the Burdekin after a Mrs Burdekin from Sydney who helped him on the expedition.
Thus the Federal seat to the North is named Leichhardt in his honour.
Couldn’t keep myself fully away from amateur psephology, so figured I’d drop some data 🙂
Credit to Alex Jago for the idea/letting me know that the AEC released the raw senate votes!
I’ve made 4cp counts for the last 3 federal senate elections. The relevant parties (from political and typographical left to right) are:
Greens – Labor – Liberal – PHON (or other minor right wing if not available). I’ve normalised the percentages by removing exhausted votes (which account for <5% of the vote in every case). All in percent, in case it wasn't obvious.
*NSW*
2019: 12.5-34.1-43.7-9.6
2022: 15.6-34.7-40.5-9.2
2025: 15.2-39.8-33.5-11.5
*VIC*
2019: 15.5-35.8-41.8-6.9
2022: 18.3-36.1-36.5-9.1
2025: 17.8-38.8-34.5-8.9
*QLD*
2019: 13.7-25.7-44.1-16.5
2022: 17.6-28.3-39.6-14.6
2025: 14.7-34.9-35.4-15.1
*WA*
2019: 14.8-30.3-46.4-8.5
2022: 17.9-38.1-35.5-8.5
2025: 17.4-39.7-31.8-11.1
*SA*
2019: 15.0-33.6-42.4-9.0
2022: 16.3-36.5-38.7-8.5
2025: 17.4-41.6-30.9-10.1
*TAS*
2019: 17.5-34.2-38.1-10.2
2022: 21.0-32.5-37.0-9.5
2025: 20.8-40.6-27.1-11.5
*ACT*
2019: 20.4-42.4-33.5-3.8 *UAP, not PHON
2022: 20.7-46.2-29.3-3.9 *UAP, not PHON
2025: 19.2-53.5-24.2-3.1 *HEART, not PHON
*NT*
2019: 12.9-39.1-39.4-8.6 *UAP, not PHON
2022: 17.1-35.6-34.5-12.8 *LDP, not PHON
2025: 14.6-40.3-35.1-10.1
**AUSTRALIA-WIDE**
2019: 14.2-32.6-43.1-10.0
2022: 17.2-34.4-38.3-10.1
2025: 16.4-39.0-33.5-11.2
I was motivated to do this study for two reasons. Firstly, I wanted to disentangle microparties from the Greens' senate vote. Having done this, the slight (-0.8% 4cp) swing away from the Greens remains comparable to the primary data, so between 2022 and 2025 the microparties didn't change much for the Greens. I suspect that the slight decoupling between senate and house trends are more likely from a correction to an abnormally strong Green senate result, relative to the house, in 2022. Whatever factor that caused the senate to have a stronger result for the Greens in that year seems to have vanished in 2025.
Secondly, while 2pp results are certainly enlightening regarding the tussle between the majors, to my knowledge the AEC doesn't report arbitrary 2cp counts. So, this is one way to take a look at multi-party trends — which also has the advantage of removing the effect of independents. While I have no problem with independents in a political sense, by being so case-by-case they get in the way of my darn data 😉
I also note that these results show PHON has a much higher support than is immediately visible from raw senate votes, due to the funnelling of minor right-wing preferences. In retrospect, this goes some way towards explaining their surprise success in the recent election. While I very much dislike PHON, it shows that our democracy is "working as intended".
Some caveats:
– This is a relaxed-style python/spreadsheet analysis and I make zero promises that I haven't made any numerical errors. Also, I was lazy and didn’t check whether I double rounded when I copied the numbers here.
– I've used a kludge to include BTL votes, which could definitely be adjusted. I treated each column leader as the endpoint for preferences, and if they didn't reach a column leader the vote exhausted.
– The Greens seemed to do quite well on BTL votes generally. I'm not sure if this is a documented effect, or an artefact of the kludge solution above.
– I had to replace PHON in contests where they didn't run, and I've noted these above. This applied only to the territories, and so is unlikely to massively change things.
P.S. Exactly one voter in the ACT this year put in a BTL vote which didn't preference any of the ATL column leaders. I didn't check who they did vote for, but I found it funny regardless.
New thread.