Click here for full display of South Australian election results.
Thursday night
Casey Briggs at the ABC relates that a recount (presumably as distinct from a preference distribution) has ended with One Nation’s Chantelle Thomas 58 votes clear of Liberal candidate Tania Stock in Narungga, compared with 77 votes in the initial count. However, there’s no sign of this on the ECSA site or in the results feed, so my system isn’t rating this as called. MacKillop on the other hand moves to “ON GAIN” status with the publication of a preference distribution confirming a 403-vote winning margin for James Virgo over Liberal candidate Rebekah Rosser.
Wednesday night
Most seats have preference distributions now, today’s highlight being confirmation of the Liberal win in Heysen, where the Greens fell 99 votes short of demoting Labor to third place and maybe winning on their preferences, though presumably we’ll never know. As it stands, Liberal incumbent Josh Teague retained the seat at the final count by 347 votes over Labor. Labor’s win in Morphett was confirmed by a distribution that gave their candidate, Toby Priest, a 306 margin over Liberal incumbent Stephen Patterson. Labor ended up retaining Light by 787 votes, a margin of 1.6%, where my system was still giving One Nation the faintest slither of a chance because it had no way of knowing the count was in fact over.
That leaves two seats without preference distributions that my system is not yet calling for essentially the same reason, which look like being the third and fourth seats for One Nation. As noted yesterday, the Liberal candidate has conceded defeat in MacKillop, where One Nation leads the two-candidate count by 383 after one last loose end got tied up today, which is assuredly too much to be disturbed by the emergence of any anomalies in the preference distribution. Nothing today from Narungga, where One Nation has ended the count with a 77-vote lead that will win the seat unless the preference distribution turns up something like a 50-vote bundle having been put in the wrong pile.
Tuesday night
A Facebook post by One Nation candidate Chantelle Thomas says he has won the count in Narungga by 71 votes, though the media feed has no update on her 77-vote lead at the end of yesterday. There were minor changes from rechecking in Heysen, but no change in Morphett or MacKillop.
Peter Malinauskas’s seat of Croydon has become the second seat after Finniss to report a full preference distribution, and it had the Liberal candidate dropping out before both One Nation and the Greens, with Malinauskas winning over the Greens candidate at the final count by a 24.0% margin. The One Nation preference exclusion split 61.7-28.3 in favour of Labor over the Greens: a bit over 20% of these votes were Liberal first preferences that flowed to One Nation, which would have boosted the flow to Labor to the extent that these voters were following the Liberal how-to-vote card.
Monday night
One Nation gained breathing room in the final stages of the count for Narungga: a batch of polling day declaration votes broke 44-18 their way, early voting declaration votes broke 23-15, and they gained 17 votes on rechecking, increasing their lead from 26 to 77. The week-long blockage in the MacKillop count finally cleared today, shortly after Liberal candidate Rebekah Rosser conceded defeat based on scrutineers’ reports. The 5526 votes of various types that were added broke almost evenly, with the One Nation lead narrowing from 428 to 380. My system isn’t giving it away, but as in a few other cases, it no doubt would be if it did not have a conservative over-estimate of the number of outstanding votes.
What Kevin Bonham describes as a “pro-Liberal Twitter account” claims a sample of One Nation’s preference flow had 62% going to Liberal, 23% to the Greens and 15% to Labor. In the absence of any better information to go on, I have implemented these numbers in my system in place of my previous guess of 50%, 29% and 21%, which was based on federal election preference flows and no doubt failed to account sufficiently for the impact of the Liberal how-to-vote card. However, it hasn’t actually made much difference to my projection, as the balance between the Greens and Labor is little changed, and the main question is which of the two makes the final count against the Liberal. Around 5% of the vote is tied up five other candidates, and my preference estimates collectively give them a fairly even three-way split. So far as it allowing for the possibility that Labor might win, this clearly isn’t going to happen: the two-candidate count has the Liberals leading by 239 (narrowing from 288 after the addition of 491 votes of various types since Saturday), and my system is allowing for nearly 800 votes outstanding when the actual number will be either zero or very close to it.
Finniss became the first seat to report a full preference distribution, and it confirmed that independent Lou Nicholson won the seat from only the fourth highest primary vote share. The exclusion of lower order candidates, notably the Greens, was enough to push her ahead of both One Nation and Labor, both of whose preferences (though especially Labor’s) heavily favoured her, giving her a 5.2% winning margin at the last.
Sunday night
With the curious exception of MacKillop, which has been pretty much stalled for the past week, counting for the close seats in South Australia is at a stage advanced enough that serious doubt remains only about Narungga, which might provide a fourth seat for One Nation (assuming those uncounted votes in MacKillop don’t erase their 428-vote lead) or a sixth for the Liberals. There is also the theoretical chance that the Greens could sneak into the last count in Heysen and pull off a late upset at the Liberals’ expense, but those with better information than myself do not expect this. My system is not quite calling Light, though I have no doubt it would be if its read on how many votes are outstanding wasn’t erring on the high side, or Morphett, which the ABC is calling for Labor on the basis of what I assume is better information than my own.
The race in Narungga keeps getting closer, the latest stroke in the Liberals’ favour being a correction to the result of the Kadina early voting centre that cut 21 votes from One Nation’s two-candidate count, reducing their lead from 47 to 26. I am unclear if any further rechecking remains before the full preference count, or if some last batch of late-arriving postals remains to be added to the count. Polling day declaration votes were added yesterday (meaning Sunday) in Morphett, which increased Labor’s lead from 261 to 290 – this was the only vote type for which no votes had been reported, and it may be that that’s all there is. If anything remains at all, it likely amounts to less than the size of Labor’s current lead.
Aside from the resolution to the mystery of MacKillop, remaining points of interest are whether any anomalies show up in the full distribution of preferences, which I’m told will begin for some seats today, and the resolution of the result for the Legislative Council. I’ve been paying no attention at all to the latter, but looks very much like being Labor five, One Nation three, Liberal two and Greens one.
William, the preference report for Croydon needs more info. Breakdown of Lib preferences to Labor. Greens. One Nation.
And preferences from ON to Greens and Labor should add to 100%?
Hypothetical Hare-Clark in SA would obviously depend on the model – let’s say 7*7, similar to the current 47 seats. Seven regions – two that look kinda like Grey and Barker, the other five in Adelaide. Here’s some total guesswork:
The two regional ones: something like ALP 3 Lib 2 ON 2 (local independents don’t get to exist with large PR regions). In Adelaide: ALP 3 Grn 1 everywhere; inner suburbs (two regions) go Lib 2 ON 1, while outer suburbs (three regions) go ON 2 Lib 1. That all adds up to ALP 21, ON 12, Lib 11, Grn 5. Majority is 25, so Labor can lose one to be speaker and then learn to play nice with the Greens. One Nation get to be opposition for about a year (until two of them inevitably defect).
Should have been 61.7-38.3 – corrected. Sorry, but I’m not going to interrogate every line of every preference distribution. See for yourself here:
https://result.ecsa.sa.gov.au/
This election goes to show that in the 2020s reactionaries have a monopoly over online political campaigning. They own the political memes, and most of the online discourse on platforms outside of Reddit and Poll Bludger. It’s really a structural change from the 2000s and 2010s when progressives were the main game in town in terms of political memes, and online campaigning. I’m just glad that Labor did as well as it did despite all of those structural barriers with the online campaign.
Heysen preference distribution up: the Greens fell short of making the final count by 99 votes, or 27.24% to Labor’s 27.61%. My estimate had them making it by 27.8% to 27.5%.
Thank you DanielT, Spence and Bird of Paradox for your comments on the hypothetical of Hare Clark being used in the House of Representatives as well as the Legislative Council.
Anyone have any idea of how left independent Tammy Franks has done and if she has a chance of getting re-elected to the LC?
Poorly and no. She’s on 5459 votes, or 0.53%.
Does the SA ballot paper really say, “You are not legally obliged to mark the ballot paper.”
https://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/html/practiceBallot/HA.htm
Why. Why??
Even if legally the case and the same everywhere, why would the body whose sole job it is to get people to make mark the ballot paper, preferably in full, say this. And the argument of “well, not that many voters follow it” is not the issue. It’s that the body who exists to get you to vote is also giving you an open to not, thus increasing a genuine level of acceptable and tolerated informality.
And it’s disingenuous that you can say “it’s ok to not mark your ballot paper” but you cannot say “if you just put a 1, we’ll actually complete your ballot paper for you (voting ticket)”.
On a side note, it could be interpreted that an unmarked ballot paper is a savings provisions of a kind. Still a valid vote, just not assigned to a candidate and therefore, informal.
Is there really full preference voting in SA or not? Because this ballot paper guidance, on top of the completely untransparent voting tickets, on top of the DIY interpretation of “cannot advocate for a non-full preference vote” on HTV material, on top of genuine informality rates that are actually around doubled because ECSA counts empty boxes as marked (voting tickets)…
This stuff really isn’t hard. Person gets a bit of paper, person fills in paper, paper gets counted. The model should be simple, clear and consistent. Why are there so many weird and awkward variables and workarounds in this model.
Because of Section 61(2) of the Electoral Act.
Because of Section 60A.
I’m aware that electoral commissions are run to execute their corresponding relevant legislation.
Legislation doesn’t come from nowhere or by magic. It comes from people who’ve had an idea and then the idea gets put into a formal structure which is then voted on.
I’m suggesting in an overall view of issues about formality, informality and the rigour of the electoral system, that matters such as the ones I raise could (and should) be considered, investigated and where improvements can be made by the parliament, in collaboration with the electoral management body, then they should be.
William, the reality is that the EC is the obvious body where much of this feedback goes because they are the executor and enactor of what happens. They have to follow what the parliament says and when things sometimes get a bit awkward, they end up being the ones standing up and needing to justify it.
Look at this interaction.
Electoral Backgrounder
No. 2 September 2020
ECSA
https://www.antonygreen.com.au/docs/sa/Electoral%20Backgrounder%202%20Voting%20tickets.pdf
On voting tickets. Quote:
This provision of the law has long been interpreted to mean that electors must not be
informed about the voting tickets lodged at an election in case this information were
perceived in some way to be advocating an alternative to full preferential voting. In the
words of Mr Steve Tully, South Australia’s Electoral Commissioner from 1996 to 2005:
“South Australia have dealt with that rather tricky issue – and I remember dancing lots of
times when questioned on it – by saying that the scrutiny provisions brought in the ability
to count the ticket vote as a formal vote but there were general provisions which made it
an offence for anyone to advocate voting other than in a fully preferential manner. I would
always get asked about what happens and why it was not advocated. The complexity
of having what some people regarded as a secret provision was often a bit challenging
to explain…”. Asked about whether ticket voting had ever been advertised, Mr Tully
went on: “There has been none. There was always a clamp down on it… I needed my best
communication skills when asked by radio people and commentators in the media about
that particular issue”.
End quote.
This is the top electoral official saying “rather tricky issue”, “I remember dancing lots of
times when questioned on it”, “what some people regarded as a secret provision was often a bit challenging to explain”, “There was always a clamp down on it… I needed my best
communication skills”.
These phrases are near the bottom of the list of things you want to hear from electoral officials.
This is not an open, honest, rigorous or transparent way to present the basis of vote counting information, but you have to present it because it’s your job as head electoral official.
The solution is not to put your head electoral official in a position where legislation means they have to say such things because the reality is an issue.
G,
Every electoral official and every politician hates informal votes. They want people to do what the instructions on the ballot paper say and they want to minimise the number of informal votes.
As it stands, in every state except NSW, there are upper house ballot papers with instruction on how to vote that if used on the lower house ballot paper render the vote informal. Every piece of research ever done on voting systems screams out that if you hold more than one vote at an election where instruction are not interchangable, you increase the informal vote.
All this leapt into the open in 1984 when the divided Senate ballot paper was introduced. It caused informal voting in the House to triple from 2.1% in 1983 to 6.3% in 1984. Numbering errors, especially 1-only votes, was the largest cause of the increase.
As South Australia was introducing the Senate ballot paper in 1985, this savings provision was introduced to allow more votes to count if there was a repeat of the Federal election rise in informal voting. No one says it is perfect solution, but the number of votes involved is small.
In 2018, the number of votes saved was 3.8%. Breaking them down, 2.7% were for one of the final two candidates and did not need preferences examined, another 0.2% were in contests where the winner polled above 50%, and only 0.9% of all formal votes defaulted to use a ticket of preferences.
Neither the SA Parliament, nor the Federal Parliament with the Langer provision, had any intention of allowing optional preferential voting. When the advocacy of Langer voting became too loud it was abolished. The SA provision does not allow OPV as so has trundled on.
Now you can rage against this provision if you like. There are only two solutions. One is optional preferential voting which makes the lower house rules the same as the upper. That is not going to happen.
Or this provision can be abolished and the number of lower house informal votes rise because of an inconsistency in the rules for completing the two ballot papers.
Of course Electoral Officials dance around the ticket savings provision. Nobody wants a voter to do anything other than complete the ballot paper as instructed and sequentially number all the squares. Nobody wants to discuss the tickets for fear of making voters think there is another option for voting. It is not there to be a voting option, it is there to allow votes to count where the voter has been caught out by inconsistencies in the instructions on the two ballot papers.
If you are happy to abolish the ticket vote saving provision and raise the informal vote, so be it. But the SA provision is the only one in the country that tries to stop votes from becoming informal due to confusion with instructions.
(from open thread)
My prediction for the 2030 South Australian state election post 2026 (if Labor loses all of its marginal seats and if the One Nation surge continues by then).
Labor: 28 seats (-6)
Liberal: 5 seats (=)
One Nation: 10 seats (+6)
Greens: 1 seat (+1)
Independents: 3 seats (-1)
Changes:
Light, King, Elizabeth, Taylor, Chaffey and Stuart (One Nation gains)
Morphett and Hartley (Liberal gains)
Heysen (Greens gain)
I maintain that it would be a step in the right direction for the savings provision to make incomplete ballots exhaust. It’s a happy medium between the current SA rules and the federal & other states rules, minimising informality but excluding preferences the voter didn’t specify.
The downside is that it becomes secret OPV. Or not so secret, because election analysts need to explain why someone won with a 2PP of 49.8%, and who that “Exhausted” candidate with 0.6% is.
As per ABC website, One Nation has won Narungga by 77 votes, subject to a recount which is being conducted today (Wednesday). I don’t know if this will be concluded today or not. https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/sa/2026/results?sortBy=az&filter=indoubt&selectedRegion=all&selectedParty=all&partyWonBy=all&partyHeldBy=all
I notice that your figures, after having the Greens statewide on 10.0% for quite a while have suddenly jumped to 10.4%. This seems to have been accompanied by a significant increase in the total votes counted, after a long time when additions were just trickling in, but I have not been watching that as closely.
The ABC site shows something similar, but not identical, but the ECSA still has the Greens on 10.0%, with more than 100,000 fewer votes counted.
Although the statewide vote doesn’t matter much, I am curious about this discrepancy, because if there were some late counted votes that boosted the Greens by that much, and these votes are still to be counted for the Legislative Council, which is running substantiallybehind, it would breathe life into the race for the last spot on Council, which had been looking like a boring win for Labor.
There are a lot of ifs for this to be true: your figures need to be right not the ECSA’s, the votes uncounted for the LC need to be similar ones to the late arrivals for LA, not some random mix, so not getting my hopes up, but thought I would check if you or anyone else knows.
One Nation must hate winning seats with Aboriginal names.
Stephen, ECSA has an issue where its headline numbers don’t include Polling Day Absent Ordinary Votes and Early Voting Absent Ordinary Votes on the primary vote. I was using its headline numbers before but am now aggregating their booth/type numbers to get the correct results. The ABC has been doing this all along.
Taking a ballot paper and not marking it yet putting it in the box gets you marked off the list as having voted so meet the compulsory voting requirement (which is really a getting a ballot paper requirement as no one is going to take those blank papers and trace them back to you)
It’s also a sign that the elector doesn’t want any of the candidates listed to be elected.
For most people that do it it’s a conscious decision not some sort of error.
For many people being marked off as having voted (even if they haven’t marked off a candidate) is importantly to them.
I’ve done it a couple of times here in the UK where the number of blank papers are reported as a separate category as part of the election results.
Thank you William. I thought that might be the issue.
That then leaves the question of whether the votes to be counted for the LC are mostly also absentees, or if they’re a mix. I guess the mix is more likely, in which case a boring Labor victory it is.
Greens got oh so close in Heysen, hopefully opens the door to a seat at the next federal election somewhere in Adelaide
One Nation must hate winning seats with Aboriginal names.
++++
In the sense that they hate the Aboriginal names, not the winning of seats. Absolutely that is the case.
I used to think right wing nuttery about Aboriginal stuff was the old ‘welfare’ arguments of various programs and grants targeted just for them.
But I now think it is literal triumphalism. They want to think not that Aboriginal people were disadvantaged by white colonisation, but that was the entire point. To destroy a people for fun.
@William Bowe – thanks for your updates including on Tammy Franks. A pity that her independent voice won`t be in the new Legislative Council but she didn`t have a machine behind her.
There are some amazing contributors to this site
Then there are what seems the majority who all seem to have a common thread
IF the Greens are so popular and exciting some to masturbate down to that excitement, how come their vote is less than half Hanson’s vote?
Noting the Hanson Cheer Squad on here calling the 2030 election!!
The (very few) non Labor seats and their geographical location are instructive
So back to the days of Playford where the votes of metropolitan voters are diminished versus rural voters
Perhaps those promoting the greens and Hanson need to emigrate because Trump may need their fantasies
I had another look at those missing polling booths – all are outside the seat they’re missing votes for (yay for booth maps), and look like they were supposed to be dual booths – triple in one case.
Hawthorn: 618 formal votes for Unley, 252 for Waite, 0 for Elder.
Clapham: 675 votes for Waite, o for Elder.
Glenelg South: 691 votes for Morphett, 0 for Gibson.
Port Augusta EVC: 5066 votes for Giles, 0 for Stuart.
I’m guessing they didn’t have ballot papers for the relevant seats at those booths? Considering the issues they had with booths opening on time etc, that wouldn’t surprise me. For the urban booths it’s no big deal – the next one is a km or two up the road. Port Augusta EVC isn’t so excusable, though. It was open for a whole week, and took over 5000 votes for Giles – how do they just not take any votes for Stuart, if it’s listed as early voting for that seat?
Antony Green: Count complete. One Nation’s Chantelle Thomas wins Narungga by 58 votes. The new 47-seat South Australian House of Assembly will be Labor 34, Liberal 5, One Nation 4, Independent 4.
Someone just sabotaged the Wikipedia map by showing Narungga as being the same margin as Ngadjuri when in actuality the margin is 0.1%.
Good to see the full voting numbers showing now. Just under 89% turned up but still disappointing over 4% informal.
89% is pretty good for state election. Usual numbers of people unwell, overseas, interstate etc.
@David – some unnecessary use of language in your post and as for the equivalence you make between the Greens and Hansonites, it`s apples and oranges and no, they aren`t the same fruit.
I`m a swinging voter as in voting in an election based on individual candidates and how their party has performed/behaved on issues that for me are key ones.
I voted Green and the left independents this time because for me they were the candidates showing a moral compass and focused on more pressing issues than taking a wrecking ball to the environment, natural and built, coming late to admitting the natural disaster that depleted our seas of marine life and poured toxic elements into it, celebrating spending vast sums of public money on sports (including Mali`s personal favourite throwback petrol burning and carbon emitting ones), Katy Perry, food and alcohol fests, and refusing to have real dialogue and action on reviving the Housing Trust which is desperately needed during this ongoing housing crisis. That`s just a sample.
I don`t believe in enabling this kind of behavior and that`s why my local Labor member didn`t get a first prefence from me. The Greens don`t have a wider appeal in the electorate because for many they go way to the left on issues such as immigration, border control, etc.
That`s a key reason why they don`t do better. Labor at present has the luxury of both occupying the middle ground while having claims to being progressive.
I think when the Greens focus more on recruiting prominent local community members in the different electorates then they will win more voters.
One of their strengths is the increasing support among young voters and judging by the shocking housing situation in both the private and public sectors, as well as Labor looking less credible in this state on environmental issues, that support is likely to keep increasing.
Lastly, coming home from work on the train I heard a number of people complaining about the fact that both the Premier and Treasurer dismissed implementing free public transportation to help ease the issues of fuel availability and rising personal costs because of it.
Mali with the smug deflection of seniors travelling for free and school students more cheaply – yeah, but we`re not talking about them in this case – and the usual arrogance of TomK who used a childish (nothing unexpected there) dig about how nice it would be to have free things but we can`t. Already this returned Labor Govt is showing the arrogance I refused to back in the election.
Some of us said `Don`t blame us – we voted Green` and after questioning some of the Labor defenders we found out that their fares are paid for by their employers. And too bad for the charities that depend on volunteers who are finding it just too difficult to pay to go to work but these kind of people are the opposite of over-privileged, self-entitled politicians.
The map has now been fixed with the correct margin.
So the LCP LOST 7 Seats to the ALP
And the LCP LOST 3 Seats to Hanson
And I would put that both Hanson and the Greens are fringe, single issue “parties” with no prospect of forming government
Monty. Why do you think the Greens immigration policy is a left policy?
David
Not quite – for a start there is no LCP (or LNP) in South Australia – the Nationals are not part to any coalition in SA, and indeed, the most recent Nationals MP in SA was a member of the Labor Government’s ministry!
The Liberals lost 5 seats to Labor
The Liberals lost 2 seats to One Nation
The Liberals lost 1 seat to an Independent
1 vacant seat was won by an Independent
1 Independent retained his seat
2 Independents lost their seats to One Nation
1 Independent won a seat previously held by another Independent
All 29 Labor seats stayed Labor
Liberals retained 5 of their own seats
As for the chances of One Nation or Greens becoming Government:
In 1891 the Labo(u)r Party was formed in Australia.
The establishment at the time said they would never form government.
In 1899 they became Government in Queensland.
In 1904 they became Government of Australia.
Never is a long time.
Hi WB,
Great job with this election coverage, especially the early pick up of those One Nation seats on election night (I had a look thru on the site on the night). I think your computer was going ping about 60 minutes into the count, so it’s obviously picking up something. Individual booth swings perhaps. If/when you do one of those SA Election: End Game threads, could you kindly explain in the intro how your system was confident, and so early in the count.
Poster’s Arange & Thomas brian Mutter, both very close with the final seat tally. I think Arange got it exact & his final 2PP of 59-41 is well within MOE. Might even tick up there as the vote count crosses over the 90% mark.
FWIW, I think the YouGov issued 19-Mar, was the most accurate pollster.
Link here: https://yougov.com/articles/54353-labor-set-for-record-win-in-south-australia-as-one-nation-surges-to-second-yougov-poll
Moving to Victoria, when you get a chance after Easter, could you plug these two polls into “Bludgertrack Victoria” and calculate the new voting aggregates pls.
* 2-Apr Freshwater –
https://freshwaterstrategy.com/2026/04/02/herald-sun-freshwater-strategy-march-polling-data/
&
* 4-Mar Redbridge/Accent
https://www.accent-research.com/projects/afr%2C-redbridge-group-and-accent-research-victorian-public-opinion-snapshot
You’ve covered both polls on the site, but I notice they haven’t been plugged into BT. (You’ve been busy with S.A. obviously).
Also, we should have 3 more Victorian Based polls soon:
* An April Redbridge – Kos Samaras mentioned on his “X” feed a couple of days ago, that one was on it’s way.
* Resolve (next Sun around 6PM) – Victoria’s turn this time, and possibly QLD.
* I’m guessing Newspoll/Pyxis will have been “triggered” by the Lib pre selection debacle, so I’d say that is looming.
Thanks for all the great work here. I might swing by for Nepean or Farrer. Ciao!
Excellent coverage during and after election day William
And just to conclude, those I knew and who were in the Parliament representing the “Blue” side were members of the Liberal Country Party in SA (noting the “Blue” side is the combination of State Administrations hence their different names)
Those I knew back in the day included the son of Tom Jones!!!
Actually attended a fund raiser courtesy of Tom’s invitation
Thanks Nadia. My system was being too aggressive in calling seats for One Nation on the night because it was crediting them with stronger preference flows than they ended up receiving, although they did end up winning everything I said they might. As I recall, it was calling Ngadjuri for them, which was justified, along with MacKillop and Narungga, which were not, and had them only ahead in Hammond, which they ended up winning relatively comfortably. I think my preference estimates were OK in Ngadjuri and Hammond, which were LIB-vs-ALP contests with no big independent. But in MacKillop I was splitting McBride 70-30 when it looks like it was more like 50-50, and presumably something similar happened with Fraser Ellis’s preferences in Narungga.
Most informative or insightful post on thread? – thankfully, too many to number – but shout outs at least to WB (multiple), Antony Green (very informative re voting legislation, for some of us) and Nadia.
The Toorak Toff 6.11pm 1st April – you win the award for silliest post on thread.
Corleone 9.34pm 1st April – you win the award for most insulting post on thread.
As usual, a largely enjoyable ‘State’ thread away from the horrible stuff on main threads. Keep them coming!
Now we just need to see the final confirmed result for the LC
Might have to wait a few weeks for that. Last time, the results were announced on 29 April (the election itself was on 19 March.) I don’t know if any substantial changes have been made to the process to make it faster this time but, frankly, considering some of the errors made this election, I don’t want them to fumble things through being hasty. Slow is smooth, smooth is faster.
As for my thoughts on this election, I might write them up later, if I feel like it. Frankly, I haven’t had the mental energy to deal with this place right now (the main thread is an absolute cesspool – thankfully very little of it splashed over here.) Either way, my thank you to all of you for your commentary and analyses and a special thanks to William for his excellent coverage as well as hosting the relevant threads.
Kevin Bonham has a very informative recent post up on SA election results and various issues.
WB’s got the count stopping at 88.7%, which is a little bit ahead of the ABC on 88.5%.
Probably will get a “S.A. end-game thread” wrap-up when the final votes are all sorted out – so Wat drop a line when/if that happens. Look’s like WB has confirmed YouGov as the most accurate pollster for this election, but they were all very close. Some of the posters here were spot-on too.
Wat, also, – the election threads are great, so stick with it pls and maybe drop by for Farrer & Nepean.
I’ll be there!
He’s pretty much mentioned on the open thread today to “stick to politics”.
I take it as a warning. The next will be “stick to politics on my blog, or go elsewhere.”.