Click here for full display of Tasmanian results.
End of night
I’ve been wrong before about Hare-Clark, but my take on the result is that the Liberals are looking 14 or 15 seats, meaning they have either broken even or gained one; Labor will win 10 or 11, meaning ditto; the Greens have broken even with five; the three independents elected in 2024 will be joined by a fourth; Shooters Fishers and Farmers should win their first ever seat and are a chance of a second; and the balance is accounted for by the evaporation of the Jacqui Lambie Network, none of whose three members have prospered either as independents or Nationals. Four of the five divisions seem to me to have straightforward results, the exception being Bass, though others might also cast doubt over Lyons.
The Liberals gained about 4% everywhere except Franklin, where independent Peter George’s 17.6% drained all comers. This reflected an 8% to 10% Jacqui Lambie Network vote from 2024 being up for grabs in the three regional divisions, only around 2% of which went to the Nationals in Bass and Braddon, increasing to a bit over 4% in Lyons. Conversely, the JLN vacuum didn’t prevent Labor dropping by a few points across the board, though not seemingly at a cost of any seats.
Eric Abetz won the evening’s creative electoral accounting prize for trying to make something out of the Greens’ 6.4% drop in Franklin, but this was clearly down to support for Peter George from voters who would happily have stayed green in his absence. Elsewhere the Greens were up by between 0.4% in Clark and 4.3% in Bass, with some help from a no-show from Animal Justice who polled 1.5% statewide last year. Only half of an increase in the aggregate independent vote from 9.6% to 15.3% was down to George: Craig Garland in Braddon and Kristie Johnston in Clark doubled their vote share, and the competition from George didn’t prevent David O’Byrne from gaining handily in Franklin.
To deal with the five divisions in turn:
Bass. The Liberals clearly have enough for three seats (3.31 quotas), Labor for two (2.21 quotas) and the Greens for one (1.32 quotas), but the seventh seat is unclear. The Greens face the problem that their incumbent, Cecily Rosol, should soak up most of the party’s lower-order preferences without getting elected until near the end of the count, meaning their other candidates will fall by the wayside. Two Liberals (Bridget Archer and Michael Ferguson) and one Labor (Janie Finlay) will be elected early in the count, with Rosol winning only when the last other Green is excluded. Incumbent Rob Fairs will then win a a third seat for the Liberals, and either Jess Greene or Geoff Lyons (both newcomers, though the latter a former federal member) a second for Labor. The last seat will come down a fourth Liberal (impossible to pick out of incumbent Simon Wood and newcomers Julie Sladden and Chris Gatenby), a third Labor (whichever out of Greene or Lyons didn’t win the second) and Michal Frydrch of Shooters Fishers and Farmers. The starting point for this game of musical chairs is 0.37 quotas for Shooters, a 0.31 surplus over their third quota for the Liberals, and a 0.21 surplus over the second quota for Labor. Labor will presumably get a fair chunk of the Greens’ surplus, and the 18.3% vote for the distinctly moderate Archer means a higher-than-usual share of the Liberals’ own vote is likely to leak out of the ticket, some of it to Labor (and presumably not much to Shooters).
Braddon. The Liberals are only a fraction short of four quotas, meaning incumbents Jeremy Rockliff, Felix Ellis and Roger Jaensch are to be joined by a fourth in former federal member Gavin Pearce. Labor is only just shy of two, ensuring re-election for Anita Dow and Shane Broad. Independent Craig Garland doubled the vote that got him narrowly got him elected last time, and had more reason to be cheerful than his ABC TV interview suggested. The Greens, with 0.58 quotas, are no threat to him, and the Nationals managed only 1.6%, ending the short parliamentary career of Miriam Beswick, who ran with the party after winning a seat for the Jacqui Lambie Network in 2024.
Clark. A straightforward status quo result in terms of party seat share: the Liberals retain two, with Simon Behrakis re-elected and newcomer Marcus Vermey to unseat Madeleine Ogilvie; Josh Willie and Ella Haddad are re-elected for Labor; Vica Bayley and Helen Burnet are re-elected for the Greens; and independent Kristie Johnston is handsomely re-elected with 15.2%, after dipping from 11.0% to 7.7% in 2024.
Franklin. Peter George’s win looks like coming at the expense of the Liberals, with Eric Abetz and Jacqui Petrusma re-elected but Nic Street missing out. The party has a seemingly solid 2.70 quotas, but stands to receive next to no preferences. Despite the 6.4% gouge taken out of their vote by George, the Greens have 1.11 quotas, ensuring re-election for party leader Rosalie Woodruff, and their preferences together with George’s should ensure that Labor’s 1.82 quotas converts to re-election for Dean Winter and Meg Brown, and that 0.88 is enough to re-elect former Labor leader and now independent incumbent David O’Byrne.
Lyons. It is clear the Liberals will win three seats, re-electing incumbents Jane Howlett, Guy Barnett and Mark Shelton; that Labor will win two, with Jen Butler re-elected and former federal member Brian Mitchell unseating Casey Farrell, who recently filled Rebecca White’s vacancy; and that Tabatha Badger will retain her seat for the Greens. I don’t see the last seat going to anyone other than Carlo Di Falco of Shooters Fishers and Farmers, though others are more circumspect. He has 0.58 quotas and will not suffer leakage, being the only candidate on the ticket. His competition are the Nationals on 0.34 quotas, which means former Liberal member John Tucker; and a fourth Liberal, Stephanie Cameron, given that party’s 0.32 surplus over their third quota. Postals and the New Norfolk pre-poll booth have the potential to change the equation a bit, but past experience suggests not much. So presumably either Tucker or Cameron goes out and their preferences decide the last seat between Di Carlo and the other. I tend to think nearly as many Nationals preferences would go to the Shooters as the Liberals, but if the Liberals go out, maybe there’s some hope for Tucker.
Election night
10.18pm. If anyone’s finding my live results of value, please note that the considerable effort has thus far gone unremunerated, a situation any one of you can correct using the “become a supporter” buttons at the top of the site and post.
9.45pm. Bird of Paradox in comments reiterates a point I made during my podcast appearance with Ben Raue that has since slipped my mind, which is that a fair chunk of the 41.4% Liberal vote comes from an 18.3% vote for Bridget Archer, much of which might be from people otherwise not favourably disposed towards the party. My previous assessment had Bass at three Liberal, two Labor, one Greens and the last seat a race between a fourth Liberal and a second Green – I’d suggest leakage from Archer would shorten the odds on the latter.
9.25pm. Struggling Labor election night panellists have been invoking the potential for late-reporting pre-poll booths to turn things around, as their Coalition equivalents did on the night of the federal election. However, the first three pre-polls are not encouraging on this count. Two are in from Bass: George Town, where the Liberals are up 7.4%, and Scottsdale, where they are up 5.2%, which compares with 3.8% on election day results; and Burnie in Braddon, where they are up 3.4% compared with 4.2%.
8.08pm. So assuming I’m right about all that — and minds better attuned to mine that Hare-Clark will have been focusing their full attention on this while I was hunting bugs — I’ve got Liberal matching their 14 from the previous parliament and hoping for as many as 16. A status quo of 10 looks like the best Labor can hope for, and they may be down to nine. The Greens look like holding their five seats with possibilities of one or two gains through a second seat in Bass or a first in Braddon. The three independents are re-elected and will be joined by Peter George and possibly one of his running mates, plus Shooters look like having a seat. None of the JLN class are making a mark, whether as independents or Nationals.
7.59pm. Shooters are doing very well in Lyons, suggesting Carlo Di Falco could be joining three Liberal, two Labor and one Greens. Brian Mitchell looks like being a third recently departed federal member to win a state seat, taking one of Labor’s two off incumbent Casey Farrell with Jen Butler re-elected. The three Liberal incumbents are untroubled.
7.56pm. Peter George doing well enough in Franklin to potentially elect a running mate off his coat-tails, which would come at the expense of a third Liberal if it happened – the rest looks like Labor two, Greens one plus David O’Byrne. Labor newcomer Jess Munday is polling disappointingly, suggesting Labor’s seats to remain with the incumbents. Eric Abetz and Jacqui Petrusma will be elected, with Nic Street the loser if George gets that second seat.
7.52pm. A big shift in Clark from Labor to Kirstie Johnston, but it still looks like a status quo of two Labor, two Liberal, two Greens and Johnston, with Elise Archer failing to register. Madeleine Ogilvie looks like losing one of the two Liberal seats to newcomer Marcus Vermey, the strongest on the Liberal ticket.
7.50pm. A big result in Braddon suggests this is a good night for the Liberals, suggesting four seats with former federal member Gavin Pearce taking the second without unseating any of the incumbents, namely clear leader Jeremy Rockliff followed by Felix Ellis and Roger Jaensch. Labor are down as much as the Liberals are up, such that they might even be reduced to Anita Dow — Shane Broad, if he gets up at all, will first have to overcome Vanessa Bleyer of the Greens. Craig Garland has a quota in his own right, making the result four Liberal, one Labor, one Greens and Craig Garland, with the last seat either a second Liberal or first Green.
7.46pm. In Bass we’ve got big movement from Labor to the Greens, suggesting polls showing the Greens a shot at a second seat might have been on the money. Shooters are polling well no doubt because of an imbalance of rural booths in the current numbers. The Liberals are up, so my initial impression here is Liberal three, Labor two and Greens one, with the last seat a battle between a fourth Liberal and a second Green. Janie Finlay assuredly gets Labor’s first seat with Jess Greene and Geoff Lyons fighting for the second; huge result for Bridget Archer, to be followed by Michael Ferguson and Rob Fairs, with Simon Wood doing no better than lower-order newcomers in the race for a possible fourth seat; anyone’s guess who a second Green might be. Rebekah Pentland is failing to register as an independent.
7.40pm. I think I might have fixed the problem now, so will finally have some analysis to offer shortly.
7.15pm. I believe there is a problem with my projections, which are at present too favourable for the Liberals, but the system should at least be of use for observing results and swings at booth level.
6.50pm. So anyway, we’ve got one small rural booth in for each of Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and a mobile result from Clark from which my swing figure won’t tell you anything useful. But the first three all have Liberal well up and Labor well done. Early days though obviously, with about 400 votes in all.
6.48pm. Eric Abetz on the ABC wishes he had swing figures from the Irishtown booth. The only and only place you can find such a thing is through the link above.
6.44pm. A little later than I’d have figured, there are some numbers and my system seems to be processing them okay.
6pm. Welcome to the Poll Bludger’s live coverage of the Tasmanian state election count. Polls are now closed and we should be getting the first results from small rural booths fairly shortly. Through the link above you will find live updated results throughout the night and beyond, inclusive of an effort to project party vote shares in each of the five divisions through booth-matched swings.
I was very critical of Winter’s response after last election, and somewhat critical of his actions immediately leading up to this election.
But I have no notes on his commentary since the 2025 election. 10/10.
“We acknowledge that Jeremy Rockliff won the most seats on Saturday night and that he has the first opportunity to form government, and he’s already opened those discussions,” Mr Winter said.
“But it’s also important the crossbench understands our position on things, understand how we will work with them across the parliament to deliver stability. No-one wants another early election.”
He said he would not ask any of the independents to compromise on their values or beliefs.
“And I’m not going to compromise on our values or beliefs.
Worth noting, a refusal to compromise on values or beliefs does not mean you can’t compromise on policies or projects. A ‘roofed stadium at macquarie point’ is neither a value nor a belief.
Any call from the Liberals for Labor to concede and claim opposition status are part of a misinformation campaign designed to improve the Liberals leverage.
Voice Endeavour, the local media is being flooded by Lib propaganda. Its in all of the local news outlets. The BTL comments are instructive, people se through it. But that should not also mean that Labor should remain silent. It was noted during the election campaign that the Libs had a more mature set up in terms of information dissemination, a simple metric was press releases at something like a 4:1 ratio. Quality doesn’t mean quality, but we dont live in that media world anymore. A constant stream of content is required by media outlets these days.
meher baba @ #437 Wednesday, July 23rd, 2025 – 9:41 pm
Sorry to hear this meher baba……part of the family
Nadia 1.11pm
Trying to imagine the outcry though, if ABL (anybody but Lib) does form a gov based on this election result of all results – with the 2024 result, it would at least have been seen to be a bit more equitable with the vote % that Tasmanians gave the parties.
But 40% with a lead of 14% seems to make it pretty clear which party the gov should have at its core.
For anyone’s interest, the average % per electorate that voted Independents that didn’t reach the threshold for election = 4.54% (meaning that the average % of Independent / Indy Groups that are elected is 15.3-4.54 = 10.76%). 4.54% is higher than I expected given the number of high profile candidates elected with big shares this time that I thought had sucked up most of the Indy vote.
* If a candidate in an Indy Group was elected, their whole group’s % is included in the 10.76%, though this doesn’t make up a lot of the figure as the elected candidate got nearly all the votes).
* I have assumed, for the purpose of the exercise, that both George Razay and Rebekah Pentland are confirmed as eliminated, though that’s not certain yet.
40% primary would normally result in a gov’t majority, whether it be Labor or Lib.
40% primary under FPTP, would result in a significant win (similar to the UK last year).
Hare Clark doesn’t deliver that though.
Mathematically it’s possible for Labor to form gov’t. The 40% who voted Lib may be unhappy, but it’s 50% plus one, or 18 seats which forms the gov’t. I agree with your sentiment though; the Libs are clear front runners.
It’s an interesting election this one. As KB has said, Rockliff remains Premier until he can test his numbers on the floor. There will be a mechanism for him to return to Parliament to do this, similar to the Feds where I think they have to re-open Parliament within 68 days or so of writs being returned.
I’m assuming the final Tassie count will be completed sometime next week.
41.6% voted Liberal/National while 40.2% voted Labor and Greens.
Stop the bullshit about outcry. 3/5 people didn’t want Rockliff.
Wolfe
That’s interesting / food for thought. I’m still not quite convinced that the benefits of 7 candidates outweigh the minuses.
You’ve made a clear case for having 5, for example, or 4 in a seat where your party typically only expects to win 2 seats out of 7. This gives you a ‘buffer’ of 2 for unexpected resignations/deaths post-election.
But do Tasmanians really not know how to fill in 7 names even if their party has fewer candidates, after all these years of this system?
Not sure how one can prove it either way without trying to list fewer candidates in an electorate? Hard to survey that kind of thing with any degree of confidence.
One indicator would be how many informal votes were due to not having selected 7+ candidates, and which parties were affected most in which electorates. Is this publicly available/requestable info after an election count is finished, or is it all just lost under the heading of ‘informal’ unless there’s some kind of judicial review?
There is strong evidence that when parties run more than one candidate but fewer than the number of vacancies the apparently unintentional informal rate for repetitions and omissions goes up for those parties. This is not only because of voters just numbering the party and stopping, which is relatively rare, but also because voters are prone to get confused and repeat numbers at the point where they switch between columns. A voter might vote 1-5 then start at the bottom and work back and not realise they have no 6.
The TEC publishes very detailed information on informals but some of its work on the 2024 election and the informal rate has not been published yet because of the short gap between elections. See 2022-4 report here https://www.tec.tas.gov.au/info/Publications/ElectionReports/Report_on_Parliamentary_Elections_2022-2024_w.pdf
An old article on my site re this topic (5 years and 3 elections old!) https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2020/02/unintended-informal-voting-in-tasmanian.html
Thks KB.
I’ve just seen your post “the race that stops a nation”.
Is Winter under threat of losing his seat to David O’Byrne? 13 votes. Or is it the Labor candidates below Winter are at threat of being preferenced out because O’Byrne’s votes is so high.
Gosh! What an election.
Nadia88, both will win, but ones ego might be dented (Winter as the LOTO who’s deeply tied up with the leaking of the text messages that brought down DOB)
https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2025/07/2025-tasmanian-postcount-franklin.html?m=1
OK who is favoured to win the 7th seat in Lyons, Bass and Franklin as it stands?
Franklin Meg Brown of Labor, Lyons probs SFF, Bass hard to tell but Labor possibly.
idk why Tasmania can’t keep its H-C system that it likes, but go back to 5 members per electorate, same as it was until a couple years or so ago and same as ACT is now.
If 25 members is too few, redraw the state into 7 electorates, still with 5 members each.
This would typically produce more stable results.
It’s probably the only system in the world that currently gives the winning party a LOWER proportion of seats, when discounting parties/groups that didn’t reach the threshold for election (nearly every polity has a threshold of some kind), than the % of usable votes won.
4.5% Indy (below threshold) + 1.9% Nat + 2.9% = 9.3% discounted votes, leaving 90.7% shared between winning groups/Indys.
Lib 39.8 / 90.7 = nearly 44%. Libs get exactly 40% of seats (if it stays at 14 / 35 as seems likely), so definitely no ‘winners’ bonus’ here.
D Winter/D O’Byrne is the main point of interest in Franklin other than how extreme the leakage off the Peter George surplus to the Greens out of the George ticket will be. (I suspect that if George doesn’t see out his term for whatever reason his recount would elect a second Green).
Under the 25 seat system this election would probably have been 11-7-4-3. Just imagine Labor trying to form a government out of that, it’s a reason why 25 members is not really enough anymore.
The problem with 7×5 is the state would have to have its own redistributions process and there would be a lot of confusion about state vs federal electorates.
Kevin Bonham 6.09pm
Thanks for that info.
The real answers lie in how MUCH the informals go up, and how that might compare with other, more positive, consequences for the parties like the candidates who are on the (shorter) list getting a higher proportion of a quota anyway and staying in the count long enough to pick up seats they might not have got.
I wonder if parties sometimes do things because that’s what they’ve always done. And tbf, it was possibly less of an issue when it was only 5 seats per electorate.
“The problem with 7×5 is the state would have to have its own redistributions process and there would be a lot of confusion about state vs federal electorates.”
Voters would get used to it. They can only vote for whoever is on their ballot card anyway, so they can hardly vote for the wrong guys by mistake. Just my instinctive opinion.
The Tasmanian Liberals today using the media to bully Dean Winter into conceding – that looked arrogant to me!
Winter is correct to say that they should wait for all the votes to be counted under that rather weird electoral system they have down there.
If Labor somehow got to 11 seats, it’d worth trying to see if they can cobble together some sort of government.
Franklin
Not sure I quite get the excitement – is this just about whether O’Byrne or Winter gets over the line first? Obviously they’re both elected regardless. Perhaps I’m missing something.
(puts his thinking cap on)
Suppose it’s symbolic as the ex-leader (some think ‘should be’ leader) of Labor getting more votes than the Labor leader in Tasmania, of all people – is that it?
Per ABC David O’Byrne says:
“Whilst the major parties need to be respectful that independents were elected and they need to listen to the independents, also the independents need to be respectful of the fact that close to 70 per cent of people voted for one of the three major parties.”
Not sure how good his Maths was when in government, but it’s actually 80% not 70%.
BT Says at 4.01 pm
In another proportional system, NZ in 2017, the incumbent National Party got 44.5% of the list vote (nearly 8% more than the Labour Party), and ended up in Opposition.
The Libs have won one of the former Lambie seats (in Braddon) and lost a seat in Franklin. They are unlikely to win 4 in Lyons or Bass. Even two Shooters and O’Byrne are not enough, because they did not get more seats.
Mostly Interested at 8.21 am, nadia88 at 9.26 am and Voice Endeavour at 9.59 am
Hare-Clark has existed since 1909. It will not be changed in the foreseeable future, whatever outsiders propose.
There is no widespread distrust of the electoral system, like existed in NZ before a royal commission led to MMP, which was endorsed twice by the NZ electorate.
The problems in Tasmanian politics arise principally from problems within the major parties, not from the electoral system. See the story about Bastian Seidel noted by MI above.
Single member electorates would not increase accountability, because many MPs would not face the kind of direct competition that Hare-Clark facilitates.
Why advocate for an electoral system that is less representative?
Prioritising major party rule over a more representative system creates its own problems. That is why NZ shifted to MMP.
Dr Bonham has pointed out that Hare Clark is more encouraging of an MP’s accountability than MMP, with reference to W. Peters, who lost his electorate seat (Tauranga) but was regurgitated via the MMP party list.
Dr Doolittle 10.15
Quite, but the Nationals still achieved >44.5% of the seats in 2017. It is mathematically impossible* in NZ’s system not to have a higher % of seats than your vote share.
*Unless the parties not reaching the 5% threshold diminish to a much smaller % of the total, AND there is an increase in electorate seats won by parties that don’t reach the threshold (only Maori last election, who won 5 such seats. Previously the ACT did by David Seymour winning his seat, but they now achieve >5% anyway.) This is a very outlandish scenario compared to the current Tasmania situation.
Dr D 10.38pm
With respect, that’s a very subjective opinion you are expressing. We could argue all day about the relative merits of different voting systems, and how representative they are and how close they are to what the electorate wants to (corporately) see – and be no closer to agreeing at the end.
What you say about accountability and representativeness is opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to, I am just gently pointing out that you are presenting these opinions as if they were accepted facts. They’re really not.
But apologies if that wasn’t your intention at all.
On balance I agree it isnt the system thats cooked, it’s the parties. That a huge part of the population are now parking their votes with center left candidates who on balance do not support huge debt spending and who do support conservatist principles should be a red flag to the Labor and the Liberals.
Any voting system will “struggle” to give a clear “winner” when the leading party is below 40% and the vote varies so drastically by region (North and South in this case). I think some countries (can’t remember which ones) give the the largest party a bonus number of seats but that is pretty suboptimal imo (I’m generally against anything that distorts 1 vote 1 value).
This is just another step in the long road of Australia’s political class having to come to terms with the fact that if the two majors are consistently getting <66% of the primary vote the governments are going to have to be genuine coalitions (not Coalition) than single party.
I'm agnostic on whether that is good or bad. Other places seem to manage just fine.
Whilst people are throwing around ideas about changing the political system that are ever unlikely to be realised – why don’t we get rid of the requirement that ministers are also members of parliament and untie the connection between the size of the house and the capacity to govern?
That way the members of the executive won’t be restricted to those people who can put up with the factional fun / warfare of the major parties and you could attract some decent talent rather than factional hacks or recycled Federal failures.
Under such a system members of the legislature might show some (more) interest in the performance of the executive – and could even have the power to remove them if they are not performing.
@KB
Based on your scrutineering in Franklin, who is getting the most 31st preferences?
I recall Uncle Eric was the runaway leader last election.
“Any voting system will “struggle” to give a clear “winner” when the leading party is below 40% and the vote varies so drastically by region (North and South in this case). I think some countries (can’t remember which ones) give the the largest party a bonus number of seats but that is pretty suboptimal imo (I’m generally against anything that distorts 1 vote 1 value).”
1. Greece gives 50 seats bonus to the winner, sometimes leading to a majority and sometimes not – but massively contributing to the more stable governments they’ve had compared to various coalitions of chaos.
2. In the UK, Labour won majorities in 2005 with 35% (about 60-seat maj); and 2024 with 33% (huge 172-seat majority); Conservatives won majority in 2015 with 36%. With the opposition split, it at least gave clear results, though 2024 was historically one-sided/unbalanced.
Conversely, Theresa May’s Conservatives got nearly 44% in 2017 and lost the majority previously held with 36%, because opposition coalesced around Labour with 40%.
TropicalWonderland 2.35pm
That’s a sensible idea, if done well and with accountability.
How come raw vote totals have reduced in the vote summary table on PB? – are they already eliminating more votes as informals, or are they correcting earlier mistakes? Or something else?
(can’t remember all the numbers from yesterday but e.g. Lib vote total was definitely 140,000+ yesterday, now it has a 139 on the front of the number)
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/hobart-mornings/jeremy-rockliff-on-liberal-bid-to-form-next-government/105566426
Although I thought this Leon fella was a bit too aggressive in the first half, rather than just probing like good journalists should do, I did find the above 10-minute listen very informative.
Rockliff kept calm and defended very well whilst acknowledging issues and avoiding hyperbole.
He seems to have come out of the blocks since the election with good positivity and action, using his improved vote share to good effect and sounding quite serious about making Parliament work.
He’d have been stronger if they’d got another seat or two over the line – I really think they won’t exceed 14 when counting is complete – but he is nonetheless stronger than before the election.
It may not have been a clearcut result (once again), but it’s just hard to see a government forming (successfully and not getting paralysed regularly) without the Libs at its heart, however much their political opponents would rather the reality was different.
BT Says at 1.18 am and 5.43 pm
Re accountability, consider the likely influence of Bridget Archer and Michael Ferguson (the person who was responsible for the debacle over the new ferries) in the Lib party room.
Ferguson was once the contender trying to beat Rockliff to succeed Gutwein in 2021. Ferguson suffered an 8% swing, ending with a vote a little over half that of Archer.
That is a fact, conceivable only in the Hare Clark system. Of course, many Libs (Ferguson, Abetz) would not think that Ferguson is diminished. Rockliff most likely does.
If Labor fluke 3 seats in Bass they will be on 11 seats. The Libs will still have 14. Di Falco in Lyons gets them up to 15, three short of stability.
Whereas before the election Rockliff had 14, plus the two Lambie MPs who were disowned by Lambie because they supported Ferguson over the ferries fiasco, plus D. O’Byrne = 17.
The idea that Rockliff is “stronger than before the election” in terms of his prospects for leading a stable government may be tested soon.
“If Labor fluke 3 seats in Bass. . . ”
That really would test the limits of the contortions of Hare-Clark, given Labor’s no. 2 result is 0.28 quotas and their no. 3 is 0.27 and their total quotas is 2.20. And with only 0.04 surplus quota from their no. 1, Janie Finlay.
But it is shaping up to be an exciting contest in Bass for that last seat. . . or possibly last 2 seats??
BTSays part of the fun of Hare-Clark is the weird way that mathematics helps and hinders.
Finlay being on exactly 1 quota for ALP is ideal as none of those votes will dissapear as leakage, and also wont soak up any preferences that ALP want to go to their no.2 and no.3 candidates. so that is 1 quota clean and alp is now working on 1.2 quotas (less leakage, plus preferences gained from outside ticket)hopefully split perfectly to allow 2 candidates to end on exactly 0.6quotas. As they are starting on the same quota (0.28 and 0.27) you would expect them to gain preferences at a similar rate.
Liberals on the other hand with 3.35 quotas have Archer on 1.55 quotas, of which 1 quota goes straight away to electing her, with the other .55 being redistributed. KB reports that apparently Archer votes are leaking at 25% so Libs have just lost 0.14 quota there taking them down to 3.2 quotas. Their No.2 candidate (Ferguson) is on 0.82 quotas and no.3 candidate (Fairs) is on 0.44 quotas, so while they are guaranteed to win, they will continue soaking up preferences that the libs want to go to their no.4 candidate. often a higher vote also means more likely to attract preferences. So by the time the liberal candidate 7,6 and 5 votes have been redistributed most will have gone to Ferguson and Fairs leaving Ferguson on quota, Fairs elected with about 0.85 quotas and very little vote left for whoever the unlucky liberal 4 is. still probably on only 0.3 quotas and a long way behind ALP.
ALP would also hope to pick up about half of Greens and Raznay votes(.32 and .28 quotas, half is 0.3) and just as much from shooters and pentland as libs get, putting the ALP 2 and 3 candidates on about 0.75 each, presuming they can outlast Raznay and Shooters. Greens i think are out because vote is to concentrated on Rosol with no clear no.2 candidate.
I personally feel ALP are strong favourites for last Bass seat with Libs out of running, but there is a long way to go
Going back to the conversation a cpl days ago about parties running full tickets (7 candidates) to reduce the chance of informal votes.
In Braddon the Martin group (GroupB) ran 6 candidates, 1 short of what is required for a formal vote. They only polled 2.2% which im sure is less than they were hoping for, but i would be interested to know if there was a high informal vote of ppl who went 1-6 Martin group then either stopped or made a mistake with no.7 when changing columns. If anyone is scrutineering I’d appreciate the good word.
In above I didnt fully factor in Archers excess redistribution. 0.55 of which .14 is lost to leakage and the other 0.4 ensures both Ferguson and Fairs are over quota and Liberal 4 (wood?)is still only on about 0.5 quotas. so i still view ALP as strong favourite for last seat, unless preferences from Pentland and Shooters are significantly stronger for Liberals than i expect .
For all those wondering how the hell Labor might get the last seat in Bass, look
up ‘Gininderra Effect’ in Google. (If I spelled it correctly).
A term coined by Kevin Bonham. Thanks KB.
As Tasmania waits to find out who will form the next state government, here are the priorities of the new parliament’s independents
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-26/tasmania-crossbench-minority-government-priorities/105573822
I don’t think the leak off Bridget Archer will necessarily be as high as the 25% in the scrutineering sample sent to me but it was a decent sample size, I suspect it will at least be into the teens which is enough to make their position very difficult.
I didn’t try to scrutineer 31s in Franklin, would have had to do a big sample across all candidates and it would have taken too long. Pretty close to every Greens or George voter who was voting through put the Liberals last.
New thread.