| Primary |
%
|
Swing
|
2PP
|
%
|
|
| Frank McGuire (ALP) | 10516 | 51.0% | -11.8% | 10215 | 74.4% |
| Graham Dawson (GRN) | 1227 | 5.9% | -1.4% | 3523 | 25.6% |
| Mark Hobart (DLP) | 1180 | 5.7% | |||
| Merinda Davis (SEX) | 1139 | 5.5% | |||
| Celal Sahin (IND) | 4758 | 23.1% | |||
| Other Independents | 1804 | 8.7% | |||
| Total | 20624 | 13738 | |||
| Informal | 2216 | 9.7% | |||
| Counted (% of enrolled) | 54.7% | 36.4% | |||
| Booths counted (out of 13) | 13 | 10 |
8.24pm. He also notes that Sahin ran McGuire close in Meadow Heights: 40 per cent to 37 per cent.
8.23pm. Antony Green reckons final turnout will be 76 per cent, which isn’t that unusual.
8.22pm. Meadow Heights added, so all the polling booths are in. Pre-polls and some of the postals will also be added this evening.
8.12pm. Roxburgh Homestead and Campbellfield added; only Meadow Heights to come.
8.01pm. Three booths added on meaningless Labor-versus-Greens two-party count.
8.00pm. Antony Green projects 67.1 per cent versus 31.9 per cent result for Labor versus Sahin on the final count.
7.58pm. GhostWhoVotes notes Sahin won the Upfield booth with 49.5 per cent primary vote.
7.56pm. Hume Central and Upfield booths added. By popular demand, Celal Sahin’s vote is now recorded separately in table. Psephos in comments notes Sahin has obviously harnessed the support of the electorate’s considerable Turkish community.
7.46pm. Independent Celal Sahin is easily the best performing non-Labor candidate on 17.8 per cent, and will finish far ahead of the Greens who are neck and neck with two other independents for third. So the notional two-party figures are purely a measure of the relative support for Labor and the Greens, not how the result will look after final distribution of preferences.
7.44pm. Lineball as to whether the Greens vote will be up and down. Not too big a shock: they also went nowhere in the Altona by-election.
7.43pm. Bethal, Broadmeadows North and Roxburgh Park primary vote results confirm the general trend, although the informal vote is back down to single figures.
7.41pm. I’ve added a row for the informal vote to my table, which is a very high 10.7 per cent from the five booths counted.
7.38pm. Two-party results from Glenroy East and Gowrie Park added, showing Labor with a thumping 81.8-18.2 lead over the Greens – but it’s by no means clear the Greens will in fact finish second, so this is as much a measure of their weak show as anything.
7.36pm. Broadmeadows, Coolaroo and Glenroy East booths added: Labor down quite sharply on the primary vote, further concerning for them with the informal vote is taken into account. Still a clear win on the primary vote however.
7.34pm. Antony Green points to high informal rate: 12.1 per cent.
7.30pm. Basically Labor took a big hit in their extremely strong Gowrie Park booth, but there was little change in weaker Glenroy North (which I have combined with the Glenroy booth, which is not in use at this by-election).
7.28pm. I’d made an error there on my swing calculations: Labor and the Greens are in fact both down, by 6.6 per cent and 1.3 per cent respectively.
7.24pm. To cut a long story short, Frank McGuire has won. Both Labor and Greens are up slightly, but the Greens trail the Sex Party and two independents.
7.22pm. Glenroy North and Gowrie Park have reported: results added.
7.20pm. “Not the most exciting by-election count I’ve covered” – Antony Green.
7.16pm. That same someone reports the Greens vote is down in Glenroy North: from 11 per cent to 8.2 per cent.
7.13pm. Taking their time. Someone on Twitter reports: “Labor’s @Frank_McGuire wins on primary at Glenroy Nth”.
6pm. Polls have closed in the Broadmeadows by-election, which is basically an exercise to rubber-stamp the entry into parliament of Labor candidate Frank McGuire. First results should be in at about 6:45pm. The above table shows the raw primary vote and percentage; booth-adjusted primary vote swing results, which match the available booth results against the equivalent from the November state election; and a raw two-candidate preferred figure, which assumes the Greens will finish second.
[Bird of paradox
Posted Monday, February 21, 2011 at 2:10 am | Permalink
Frankie:
the Greens shall continue as a boutique party for upper middle class white folk with a penchant for sanctimony and a willful ignorance of the limitations of renewable energy technology.
Last time I looked at my group certificate last financial year it said I’d earnt 28 grand, so I guess that means I’m hanging on by my fingernails to the lower middle class. I’ve lived in Armadale (I don’t remember that many Christians, just lots of drainage ditches and dogs running around the street), and also Coolbellup, Cloverdale and plenty of other suburbs not known for their ‘trendy’ population. (Cooby, by the way, gets something around 20% for the Greens – not bad for a decaying Homeswest suburb that isn’t that close to Freo.) Before that, I grew up as bogan scum from the wheatbelt, and still have a weakness for Emu Export, steelcap boots and Bob Katter. And I vote Green. Deal with it.
As for your working class seats, Rebecca, you should pull out some real examples (they’re easy to come by, just plug a pile of WAEC data into Excel). One I remember is Nollamara – the Greens polled ridiculously well, up to 20%-odd in a few random booths round that area. Even the seat of Bassendean was quite good for them… sure, it’s by the river, but way too close to Lockridge for those la-di-da trendy types I keep hearing about to live in. Eden Hill’s abandoned old shopping centre is more likely to be featured on The Worst Of Perth than a latte appreciation website.
]
You mean like this ?
http://theworstofperth.com/2007/11/08/purple-brain-drain/
Rebecca@96
Thank you for your detailed response. I have friends who are/have been Greens candidates (one of whom is running in NSW next month and is going to do quite well, I think, she’s smart, attractive and very personable, a real catch for the party) and I always had a problem with the assumption that Lib prefs were a definite. Certainly the party’s voters – perhaps not members – were up in arms about not getting what they thought they had a divine right to: the preferences of a party they hate the guts of and won’t deal with, ever, except under exceptional circumstances (Qld 96 being one example, I think NSW 2007 should have been another). Political party membership is at such an ebb at the moment it can be very easy to conflate the Party itself with its voters. I think your point about Barber is well-made.
lenwx@97: Extremely religious? According to the census figures 25% of the Canning electorate, of which Armadale is a big part, consider themselves of no religious affiliation. That is in the top 10% of all electorates.
Perhaps it was the booth I was on, but in any election I’ve ever done, I’ve never seen a polling day with so many obviously evangelical voters, and where the amount of people who turned out specifically to vote for the CDP was so high. I’ve handed out HTVs in other conservative seats before, and I’ve never seen anything like it.
The Greens put a lot of resources and manpower into the Armadale by-election.
How in blazes would you know? They ran a token campaign – nominate a candidate, do up some flyers, and staff the booths on polling day. It saw bugger all of the resources or effort put into Fremantle or even Willagee precisely because it was so unwinnable.
Also the media were caught by surprise and some first reported the 70/30 2PP as ALP/Greens rather than ALP/CDP even though the WAEC already early on got it right.
This is because of the piss-poor coverage of the by-election. The media seems to universally assume that with only one major party candidate the Greens will come second. On the other hand, the Greens on the ground generally have a clue what’s going on.
It is true the CDP poll well in Armadale. However in the Federal election 4 weeks earlier the Greens outpolled the CDP easily in most Armadale booths with the exception of two.
This is, rather obviously, because the Liberal vote went to the CDP at the by-election. The point of noting that the CDP polls very well in Armadale is that the breed of Liberal who lives there is probably more likely, given the choice, to go CDP rather than Green, as opposed to Fremantle, where even the Liberals are like “who are these mad bastards?”
I still maintain it was Adam Bandt’s hasty alliance with Gillard which turned the Liberals away and will continue to do so. In 2009 in both the Willagee and Fremantle by-elections, where there was no Liberal candidate, the Greens got most of the Liberal votes. No more.
Fremantle is one of the best electorates in the country for the Greens. Willagee is a decent electorate for the Greens. The only by-elections we’ve seen have been at the absolute opposite end of the scale – two seats which could not be demographically worse for the party. This is perhaps one area in which the Greens should take a hint from the major parties and not contest by-elections in their weakest seats, as it would remove the opportunity for daft conclusions from the dopey.
[This is perhaps one area in which the Greens should take a hint from the major parties and not contest by-elections in their weakest seats]
Very sound call that.
Independently Thinking@99: I think you’re right to a fair extent in terms of why seats like Broadmeadows are bad for the Greens, but I also think you’re stereotyping working-class voters. These voters undoubtedly exist, but it doesn’t mean everyone. In my time spent campaigning from the Greens in less well-off places, you find plenty of voters who don’t like Labor or Liberal, don’t really give a damn about wedge issues, and are pretty open to talk about infrastructure, health, education, and such. Bird of Paradox listed a few seats where these sorts of campaigns have been run quite successfully. There remains some seats, however, like Broadmeadows, where it just isn’t worth trying; one thing I notice about those sorts of seats is that they’re generally in the far outer suburbs.
Thanks Barry. Thanks Insiders.