Category: Federal Politics 2022-2025

I have conducted a repeat of the exercise from my previous post on the Senate results, which involved taking random samples of the ballot papers from the 2022 election, weighting them to match the various players’ shares of the first preference vote at this election, and simulating preference distributions in which flows behave as they did in 2022. This is a simplified approximation of the process, so what might be referred to below as “Count 72” would be a lot higher by the AEC’s reckoning, but more than adequate for current purposes.

There are two important differences from the first run, the most obvious being that it’s based off a more advanced stage of the count. The other is that I have factored in changes in how-to-vote cards at this election, at least for the major parties (minor party how-to-vote cards are rarely followed, and changes unlikely to amount to much when considered in aggregate). This was mainly deemed necessary because the Coalition was a lot more amenable to One Nation than in the past, although the (electoral) significance of this should not be overstated — impacts are trivial where Liberal candidates are elected with only small surpluses, as is invariably the case when they themselves are elected off the preferences of other parties, and non-existent when they remain to the final count. The former applies in New South Wales and South Australia, where the Coalition will respectively win two seats from a shade over and a shade under two quotas on first preferences, and the latter applies in Tasmania.

My overall assessment is unchanged, the modelled result being Labor 30, Coalition 27, Greens 11 and One Nation two, plus Ralph Babet, Jacqui Lambie, Tammy Tyrell, Lidia Thorpe, Fatima Payman and David Pocock. However, the already live possibility of One Nation taking Labor’s third seat in Western Australia now looks stronger. I don’t believe the boost to One Nation from Coalition preferences puts them in serious contention in Victoria, and it affects only the size of their winning margin in Queensland. Nor do I think it likely that Jacqui Lambie will lose her seat, notwithstanding The Australian’s contention yesterday that her “folly” in attacking Tasmania’s salmon farming industry “may cost her political career”.

New South Wales

	Count 1	Quotas	Swing	Count 72	Count 73
ALP	37.77%	2.644	+7.34%	0.803	0.892
LNC	29.63%	2.074	-7.09%
GRN	11.16%	0.781	-0.30%	0.973	1.068
ON	6.03%	0.422	+1.91%	0.692	0.780
LC	3.39%	0.237	+0.78%	0.379

My earlier projection here of three Labor, two Coalition and one Greens doesn’t seem to be in doubt. Since the Coalition scrapes over the line for a second quota on primary votes, what happens with their preferences matters little — where previously I had Labor winning the last seat ahead of One Nation by 0.938 quotas to 0.771, I now have it at 0.892 to 0.780, and I expect most of the change is due to shifts in party vote shares over the past week.

Victoria

	Count 1	Quotas	Swing	Count 73	Count 74	Count 75	Count 76	Count 77	Count 78
ALP	34.79%	2.435	+3.34%	0.506	0.515	0.572	0.606	0.692	0.850
LNC	31.77%	2.224	-0.52%	0.292	0.293	0.308	0.342
GRN	12.31%	0.862	-1.54%	1.019
ON	4.44%	0.311	+1.53%	0.412	0.412	0.426	0.558	0.683	0.763
LC	3.56%	0.249	+0.55%	0.319	0.320	0.370	0.399	0.453
ToP	2.52%	0.176	-1.49%	0.244	0.244	0.260
AJP	1.56%	0.109	+0.04%	0.174	0.179

After the election of two Labor, two Coalition and one Greens, I now have the third Labor candidate’s lead over One Nation at 0.850 to 0.763 with the amendment of Coalition votes that followed the card, as compared with 0.740 to 0.608 in the first run. One Nation now gains 0.125 when the Liberal is excluded, compared with 0.060 previously. However, Labor has gained nearly as much since last time, for one reason or another, and a One Nation win would have to be rated unlikely. It’s true that One Nation’s 4.44% on first preferences is higher than the 4.01% from which Ralph Babet scraped home for the United Australia Party in 2022, but the two major parties had between 2.2 and 2.3 quotas on that occasion – this time Labor is up to 2.435, reducing the chances of two seats going to minor parties.

Queensland

	Count 1	Quotas	Swing	Count 78
ALP	30.67%	2.147	+4.01%
LNP	31.36%	2.195	-6.68%
GRN	10.29%	0.720	-3.09%	0.993
ON	7.05%	0.494	-0.94%	0.748
GRPF	4.63%	0.324		0.468

This appears clear cut, with both Labor and the Coalition a bit above two quotas and no chance of a amassing a third, leaving the other two seats to go to the Greens and One Nation. A joint ticket for Gerard Rennick and Katter’s Australian Party scored a solid 4.63%, which I dealt with by substituting it for the United Australia Party in the 2022 party data, such that it gave and received the same preferences flows. No doubt this is imprecise, but the margins involved are such that it doesn’t matter much.

Western Australia

	Count 1	Quotas	Swing	Count 54	Count 55	Count 56	Count 57
ALP	36.49%	2.555	+1.94%	0.642	0.654	0.720	0.869
LNC	30.31%	2.122	-1.36%
GRN	12.78%	0.895	-1.47%	1.017
ON	5.87%	0.411	+2.38%	0.625	0.625	0.746	0.852
LC	3.94%	0.276	+0.56%	0.399	0.402	0.416
AUC	2.64%	0.185	+0.47%	0.253	0.253

I continue to project a result of Labor three, Liberal two and Greens one, but incorporating One Nation into the Liberal how-to-vote card order makes a close race even closer. The operative margin between the third Labor candidate and One Nation at the close is now 0.869 to 0.852, in from 0.872 to 0.825 the first time. I have factored in that Liberal how-to-vote cards varied from seat to seat in 2022 depending on how it was thought a recommendation for One Nation would play with local voters (a source of much thundering outrage from elements of the media when Labor did something similar with the Greens at this election), and am indebted to Kevin Bonham for recording the variants from 2022.

South Australia

	Count 1	Quotas	Swing	Count 44	Count 45	Count 46	Count 47	Count 48	Count 49	Count 50
ALP	38.38%	2.687	+6.12%	0.704	0.706	0.723	0.730	0.852	0.944	0.995
LIB	27.77%	1.944	-6.16%	1.013
GRN	12.73%	0.891	+0.78%	0.996	0.998	1.011
ON	5.26%	0.368	+1.25%	0.415	0.420	0.470	0.470	0.504	0.551	0.749
ToP	2.80%	0.196	-0.23%	0.228	0.228	0.262	0.262	0.286	0.330
LC	2.77%	0.194	+0.45%	0.232	0.233	0.240	0.242	0.263
JLN	2.71%	0.189	+0.63%	0.219	0.220	0.233	0.233
FFP	1.99%	0.139	+1.56%	0.157	0.158

Here the Liberals scrape over the line to a quota at a late stage of the count, meaning their preferences for One Nation are of limited consequence. Previously I had the third Labor candidate’s winning margin over One Nation at the final count at 1.029 quotas to 0.743, now it’s 0.995 to 0.749. Here I used Bob Day’s independent candidacy in 2022 as a stand-in for Family First and the Rex Patrick Team for the Jacqui Lambie Network.

Tasmania

	Count 1	Quotas	Swing	Count 36	Count 37
ALP	35.53%	2.487	+8.55%	0.761	0.874
LIB	23.67%	1.657	-8.28%	0.793	0.922
GRN	16.14%	1.130	+0.70%
JLN	7.25%	0.508	-1.37%	0.785	1.001
ON	5.08%	0.356	+1.21%	0.596

Beyond a clear two seats for Labor and one each for Liberal and the Greens, The Australian rates this a “tight, four-way preference contest” between Labor’s third, the Liberals’ second, Jacqui Lambie and Lee Hanson of One Nation. I consider this generous to Hanson, who does not stand to benefit from Liberal preferences as she will be excluded while the second Liberal remains in the count. I then have the third Labor candidate losing the game of musical chairs to the other two, but if the primary vote swings are reflected in preference flows stronger for Labor and weaker for Liberal, the modelled gap of 0.922 to 0.874 is narrow enough that Labor might win a third seat at the expense of the Liberals’ second (conversely, a weakening in support for Lambie among conservatives might mean stronger flows from One Nation to Liberal). The Australian makes some notable points about the pattern of Jacqui Lambie’s 7.3% vote, which is down from 8.9% when she last ran in 2019 and the 8.6% her party’s ticket scored in her absence in 2022. Support for Lambie went up in the city and down in the country, and slumped in salmon farming towns. However, my model has her on over a quota in the three-way race with 1.001 quotas, meaning she would have to fall behind both Liberal on 0.922 and Labor on 0.874 to lose. This doesn’t seem likely even allowing for the principle that a lower primary vote means weaker preferences, particularly considering such an effect would harm the Liberals at least as much.

Click here for full display of House of Representatives election results.

Friday

No counting today in Bradfield — apparently everything outstanding will be knocked off on Monday, followed by a distribution of preferences. Arriving today were 106 declaration pre-polls, which were the last of those unaccounted for, and the last postals before the deadline, of which there were 48. This is in addition to those that were already awaiting processing, of which there were 66 absents, 154 declaration pre-polls and 83 postals. That’s 430 overall, of which about 10% will be deemed invalid or informal if consistent with the overall trend, but I’m persuaded it might be a bit higher with the final batch. If not, my estimate yesterday of 380 will hold, as will my assessment that Nicolette Boele will need about 56% to win or 43% to quality for an automatic recount, the latter of which at least seems extremely likely.

In Goldstein, Zoe Daniel continues, with astonishing regularity, to whittle away at Tim Wilson’s lead at a rate not quite high enough to overturn what looked like a comfortable lead this time last week. Today it was a 104-102 break in declaration pre-polls that reduced her deficit to 254. However, there are only 332 remaining to be processed with no more to follow, of which Daniel would need nearly three-quarters to get to an automatic recount even if none of them were disallowed or informal.

Thursday

Bradfield. Gisele Kapterian’s lead was cut from 80 to 43 due to postals breaking 112-85 and out-of-division pre-polls breaking 149-138 to Nicolette Boele, while absents went 46-45 to Kapterian. Awaiting processing are 154 out-of-division pre-polls, 83 postals and 66 absents. A further 105 out-of-division pre-polls are yet to arrive, but will be admitted to the count when they do, as will whatever postal votes arrive tomorrow, of which there were 33 today. With about 90% of likely to become formal votes, that leaves about 380, of which Boele will need about 56%, or 43% to stay below the automatic recount threshold of 100 votes. I believe the last recount was held for Herbert in 2016, and it moved Labor’s winning margin from eight votes to 35. The only recount ever to change the result was in McEwen in 2007, when a six-vote Labor margin became a 12-vote Liberal margin. Labor succeeded in getting the Court of Disputed Returns to review the formality decisions, but its determinations in fact increased the Liberal margin to 31.

Goldstein. Tim Wilson’s margin was cut today from 401 to 292, as out-of-division pre-polls, absents and provisionals respectively broke 248-238, 158-92 and 98-65 to Zoe Daniel. However, Daniel’s vague hopes of getting below the automatic recount threshold have likely been dashed: I’m estimating another 380 out-of-division pre-polls, 225 postals, and 175 absents, of which Daniel would need 62%, increasing to 68% for her to actually chase down the margin.

Wednesday

Bradfield. A less fortuitous day today for Nicolette Boele, with absents breaking 105-79 against her, postals defying the strong earlier trend in breaking only 145-143 her way, and out-of-division pre-polls going a lot less well for her than yesterday’s in favouring her only by 284-281. That increases Gisele Kapterian’s lead from 59 to 80 and blows most of the chances Boele had to chase it down. My assessment of what’s yet to come: about 400 out-of-division pre-polls, 150 absents and 350 postals (262 of the latter are awaiting processing, which will be supplemented by new arrivals tomorrow and the next day, of which there were 144 today and 248 the day before). Boele will need around 54.5% of them to take the lead and 49% to make it to an automatic recount.

Longman. LNP member Terry Young has finally shaken off the challenge here, thanks to a large batch of out-of-division pre-polls breaking 1299-1111 his way, together with a 248-241 advantage on postals and a 510-488 disadvantage on absents. This boosts his margin from 162 to 335 with maybe 700 votes to go.

Goldstein. By popular demand, I’ll note that Tim Wilson’s lead is now down to 401, having started the week at 1472. Zoe Daniel won today’s batches by 296-189 on absents, 554-422 on out-of-division pre-polls and 251-231 on postals. Likely still to come: 750 declaration pre-polls, 500 absents, 150 postals and 100 provisionals, of which Daniel would need at least 64%, compared with the 62.9%, 55.2% and 55.7% she’s received across the three days this week.

Flinders. Of note because the AEC are doing a fresh count between Liberal member Zoe McKenzie and independent Ben Smith that’s now mostly done, on which McKenzie leads 53.3-46.7, which I’m projecting to come in at 52.6-47.4.

Tuesday

The AEC has pulled a number of its three-candidates, indicating it it satisfied it has the right candidates in its two-candidate counts. This is of consequence in Ryan, as it means the Greens rather than Labor will defeat the LNP at the final count; Grey, as it rules out independent Anita Kuss finishing ahead of Labor and being a shot at defeating the Liberal; and Monash, where the same applies for Deb Leonard. Elsewhere:

Bradfield. The big development of today’s counting was the return of Bradfield to everyone’s “in doubt” column after a small but potent batch of out-of-division pre-polls broke 298-179 in favour of Nicolette Boele, slashing her deficit from 178 to 59. For my part, I have also determined (here as elsewhere) that I over-corrected yesterday in reducing the number of outstanding votes, which as much as the size of the Liberal lead was a factor in my system calling it for Liberal from last night until the new numbers were reported this afternoon. My assessment is now that that there are likely to be:

• About 1000 out-of-division pre-polls. Since Boele has received 51.8% of these overall, she will gain about 35 votes if those outstanding prove typical. Of the four batches that have reported, she has successively received 49.6%, 46.0%, 50.4% and now 63.5%.

• Perhaps as many as 700 postals. There are 421 listed as awaiting processing, and the acceptance rate so far has been 97.7%. This includes 86 that were received yesterday and 248 today – for purposes of my calculations I’m conservatively estimating another 100 a day up to the deadline on Friday. Here the trend to Boele has been clear, her share of successive batches being 41.0%, 43.1%, 43.4%, 48.6%, 49.5% and 54.7%. If that last batch is repeated, Boele will gain about 60 to 70. Should they suddenly revert to the mean, Kapterian will gain about 100.

• About 350 absent votes. Of the three batches that have reported so far, Boele has progressively received 47.2%, 49.6% and 53.9%. If the remainder break like the last batch, Boele will gain about 25 votes. If they break as absents have done in total, they will make next to no difference.

Which collectively suggests a trend to Boele that my projected 27.6% win probability for her isn’t factoring in.

Longman. After an interruption yesterday, Labor’s very slow and steady progress in chipping away at the LNP lead resumed with favourable breaks in out-of-division pre-polls (296-262) and absents (415-414) and a net gain of 59 on rechecking. This brings the LNP lead in from 256 to 162. My estimate of what’s to come is about 2400 out-of-division pre-polls, 1250 absents, 700 postals and 100 or so provisionals. If these behave as such votes have so far, Labor will make up about 100 votes. Absents and postals have been trending in their favour, but not overwhelmingly so.

Goldstein. Zoe Daniel’s late charge continues, today’s out-of-division pre-polls (1084-886) and absents (547-409) reducing Tim Wilson’s margin from 963 to 660, after yesterday’s counting reduced it from 1472. However, even allowing for my increase in estimated outstanding votes to about 3400, this leaves her needing a formidable share approaching 60%. This is slightly higher than the 58% I estimated yesterday, and well clear of the 55.2% she got today.

Fisher. Yesterday I wrote that the AEC’s three-candidate count “makes it clear independent Keryn Jones will make the final count”. Evidently I shouldn’t have, because it now has her falling to third with 30,485 votes to second-placed Labor’s 30,672. That count is 1513 behind the primary vote count, and I’m estimating 6000 still to come, so the identity of the final two candidates remains an open question. If it’s Labor, Andrew Wallace of the LNP will win comfortably; if it’s Jones, he will probably win quite a lot less comfortably. My system is presently giving Jones a 7.7% chance.

Bean. Labor now leads by 354, and I only rate that there are about 1600 still to come, leaving independent Jessie Price needing over 60% after every category of vote has been running against her.

Calwell. The Guardian explains this so I don’t have to.

Monday

I’ve finally made the effort to revise how many votes are outstanding, which has until now erred well on the high side, causing my probability estimates to be generous to trailing candidates, and also used the AEC’s three-candidate counts to revise preference flows in seats close enough for it to be worth the effort. I’ve also done some pretty serious rewriting of the code that handles preference flows, which was at once too clever and not clever enough — if it’s doing anything strange, that’s where the explanation will lie.

Bradfield. I’m calling this for Liberal now, but a late surprise is at least mathematically possible. Nicolette Boele’s deficit narrowed today from 227 to 178 after she got the better of absents (173-148), out-of-division pre-polls (143-141), provisionals (78-75) and re-checking (a net gain of 19). There will be maybe 1300 to 1400 more votes admitted to the count, of which Boele will need at least 56% – even on a good day like today she managed only 52%, rechecking aside, which is probably complete now. A bit under 53% would get her as far as an automatic recount.

Kooyong. This is well and truly over now: Monique Ryan won today’s postals 1420-1006 and its out-of-division pre-polls 253-232, and now leads by 1128.

Longman. The momentum to Labor here has slowed and now stalled: today, absents broke 142-139 to the LNP, who also made a net gain of 34 on rechecking, increasing the lead from 219 to 256. There’s a lot still out there though: over 2000 absents, approaching 3000 out-of-division pre-polls, and about 400 postals and provisionals, with absents in particular likely to be favourable to Labor.

Ryan. This is as good as called for the Greens now, which is to say that the three-candidate numbers give Labor essentially no chance of making the final count at their expense, since there’s no question but that the LNP will come second.

Goldstein. Since my system doesn’t call a seat until it rates the probability at 99%, it isn’t entirely writing Zoe Daniel off — some good results on absents and rechecking have brought her deficit to inside 1000, and there’s a lot still to come, including another 2000 absents at least 3000 out-of-division pre-polls, and about 750 postals and provisionals. Of this she needs about 58%, which is remote enough that I’m not going to comment further unless something surprising happens.

Fisher. I haven’t been commenting on this one, but it’s a wild card — the three-candidate count makes it clear independent Keryn Jones will make the final count, and as the AEC’s two-candidate is still between LNP and Labor, it’s only on the basis of preference estimates that my own projection has Jones’s chances at as low as 3.2%. A lot of votes are as yet uncounted, but the real variable of consequence is preference flows, which we won’t know about until the full distribution is conducted.

Bean. This has been trending away from independent Jessie Price, who now trails by 450, and with the revision of outstanding votes my system is a fraction away from calling it.

Grey. My model looks like it was doing its job in rating it unlikely that independent Anita Kuss would reach the final count at Labor’s expense, because she’s fallen into third place on the AEC’s three-candidate count now the Whyalla booths are in. My model currently rates her a 10.0% chance of getting ahead and then making it home over the Liberal at the final count.

Forrest. The ABC is calling this for the Liberal, but I’m not writing off independent Sue Chapman quite yet. She’s third behind Labor in the AEC three-candidate count by 30.1% to 29.1%, which my projection narrows to 30.0% to 29.3%, giving her an 11.1% chance of edging ahead and then doing well enough on preference to win at the final count.

Saturday

Time for a fresh post of daily updates on counting for House of Representatives seats, which will linger through the coming week as late postals arrive.

Grey. I’ve managed to get my system to stop calling a clearly in-doubt seat as a win for Liberal candidate Tom Venning by having it treat Anita Kuss as a generic rather than a teal independent for the purposes of the ad hoc two-candidate preferred count between the two, which is necessarily speculative because there is only hard data for Liberal-versus-Labor. However, my projection still rates it as more likely that Kuss will fail to make the final count ahead of Labor — Kuss now leads Labor on the AEC’s still incomplete three-candidate count, but the booths this is based on are weaker for Labor and stronger for Kuss (by virtue of under-representing Whyalla), and my system is correcting for the difference.

Bradfield. With the clock running down, Nicolette Boele’s deficit went from 209 to 227 today, as absents broke 684-672 and out-of-division pre-polls broke 250-213 in favour of Gisele Kapterian, cancelling out a 31-vote gain for Boele on rechecking. My best guess is that about 1750 votes of various kinds are still to come, of which Boele needs upwards of 56%.

Kooyong. My system is calling this for Monique Ryan now — Amelia Hamer was relying on a borderline-implausible flow of out-of-division pre-polls, but the first batch of them has come in at 1260-1183 in favour of Ryan. A batch of postals broke 511-467 to Hamer, limiting Ryan’s gain since yesterday to 661 to 693. Likely still to come: about 1500 more out-of-division pre-polls, 1000 absent, and few hundred each out of provisionals and late-arriving postals, of which Hamer needs at least 70%.

Bendigo. The Labor-versus-Nationals two-candidate count has caught up with the primary votes now, putting Labor ahead 51.4-48.6, which my projection is generously (for the Nationals) revising down to 50.7-49.3, but there’s no real doubt Labor have made it over the line.

Longman. Yesterday I noted that Labor would sneak home if absents and out-of-division pre-polls continued at their existing rate, so it was good news for Terry Young that a batch of the latter broke 509-458 his way, where the first batch had gone 360-321 against. Conversely, he had his first unfavourable batch of postals to date, going 499-473. He also lost a net 37 on rechecking, leaving him with a lead of 219, in from 231 yesterday.

Bullwinkel. Labor’s lead here is out from 634 to 990, and I’d say that’s your lot.

Finally, turning to the Senate. Below are the results of an exercise in which I have sought to model the count using ballot paper data from the 2022 election. The approach involves weighting ballot papers to reflect the extent to which the various parties’ votes shares increased or decreased at this election, and to conduct simulated preference distributions that effectively assume that each parties’ preferences will flow in the same way this time as they did in 2022. To make this doable in a manageable time, I have sampled every twentieth or every tenth ballot paper, depending on how big the state’s population is.

The only real fly in the ointment I can see in relation to this approach relates to changes in how-to-vote cards, though I only think this likely to be consequential in relation to the Liberal Party directing its preferences to One Nation ahead of Jacqui Lambie on this occasion in Tasmania, reversing its recommendation from 2022. However, this turns out not to matter since, as will be detailed below, the second Liberal will remain until the final count, meaning the preferences of those who followed the Liberal how-to-vote card will not be distributed. The other point to be noted is that I haven’t got around to doing Western Australia yet, but I’ll be on to that tomorrow.

To cut a long story short: in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and, it seems, Western Australia (see also the analysis of Adrian Beaumont at The Conversation) the results should be Labor three, Coalition two and Greens one. In Queensland, the result will be two each for Labor and the Coalition and one each for the Greens and One Nation. The closest contest looks like being Tasmania, not between Jacqui Lambie and Lee Hanson as I might have figured, but between the third Labor and the second Liberal, with the latter favoured. The results in the territories will be one each for Labor and the Coalition in the Northern Territory, and one for Labor and one for David Pocock in the Australian Capital Territory. Together with Senators carrying over from the last term, that will likely mean Labor 30, Coalition 27, Greens 11 and One Nation two, plus Ralph Babet, Jacqui Lambie, Tammy Tyrell, Lidia Thorpe, Fatima Payman and David Pocock.

New South Wales. I’m projecting a result here of three Labor, two Coalition and one Greens. The relevant players start out as follows: Labor 2.6097 quotas (37.86%), Coalition 2.0487 (29.77%), Greens 0.7661 (11.13%) and One Nation 0.4122 (6.01%). That gives Labor and the Coalition two each off the bat, and the Greens eventually reach a quota at a point where the third Labor candidate has 0.8934 and One Nation has 0.7686. The Greens surplus then flows mostly to Labor, who win the last seat with 0.9377 quotas to One Nation’s 0.7711.

Victoria. The same basic story here, the relevant starting point being Labor 2.4129 quotas (34.82%), Coalition 2.1919 (31.54%), Greens 0.8635 (12.42%), One Nation 0.3064 (4.38%), Legalise Cannabis 0.2478 (3.58%) and Trumpet of Patriots 0.1710 (2.47%). From there the Greens accumulate enough preferences to get a quota, after which things unfold as follows:

LIB #3	LC	ALP #3	ToP	ON
0.2501	0.3186	0.5021	0.2113	0.3622
0.2782	0.3406	0.5303	Excluded	0.4761
Excluded	0.3750	0.6011		0.5366
	Excluded	0.7398		0.6082
		Elected

I note that Labor got slightly more preferences upon the Liberals’ exclusion than One Nation, and would think that unlikely to happen this time. But I’d doubt it will be enough to account for the size of the projected margin. UPDATE: I said that not realising the Liberal how-to-vote recommendation included One Nation this time and not last time, a fact I am now alerted to by Kevin Bonham in comments, so that was undoubtedly an understatement — though probably not enough of one to account for the final gap of 0.7398 to 0.6082.

Queensland. Here there is the challenge of a 5.16% vote for a joint Gerard Rennick/Katter’s Australian Party ticket, which has no precedent from 2022, and which I’ve dealt with by substituting it for the United Australia Party, thereby writing Trumpet of Patriots out of contention, which matters not because they aren’t competitive anyway. The starting points are Labor 2.1138 quotas (30.80%), Coalition 2.0971 (30.89%), One Nation 0.4754 (6.98%), Greens 0.7174 (11.25%), Gerard Rennick 0.3349 (5.16%) and Legalise Cannabis 0.2389 (3.70%). After the Greens get over the line leaving one seat to go, One Nation has 0.8204 quotas, Rennick 0.4962 and Legalise Cannabis 0.4733. With the exclusion and distribution of the latter, One Nation wins 0.9145 to 0.5732, a margin that would presumably widen if Legalise Cannabis edged ahead of Rennick and the latter’s preferences were distributed instead.

Western Australia. Forthcoming, but pretty clearly Labor three, Liberal two and Greens one. UPDATE: I speak too soon. This in fact looks to be a very close race at the last between Labor’s third candidate and One Nation. The relevant players start at Labor 2.5355 quotas (36.55%), Coalition 2.0899 (30.03%), Greens 0.8949 (12.98%) and One Nation 0.4044 (5.82%). The Greens accumulate enough preferences to win the fifth seat, after which Trumpet of Patriots and then Australian Christians go out. This leaves Labor’s third candidate on 0.7264, One Nation on 0.7257 and Legalise Cannabis on 0.4071. The exclusion and distribution of the latter then gets Labor home by 0.8723 to 0.8246. A complication here is that the Nationals had a ticket this time but not last time, which polled 3.57%. I’ve dealt with this by merging Liberal and Nationals in determining the weighting applied to Liberal votes from 2022, which may mean One Nation gets stronger flows out of the Coalition than I’m crediting them with, since I assume they will do better out of the Nationals than the Liberals. But I’d doubt there’s much in it. It also means I’m not accounting for whatever share of the Nationals vote fails to pass on to the Liberals as preferences, but since they are assured of two seats at a fairly early stage in the count and nothing further, I don’t think this will matter.

South Australia. The starting points here are Labor 2.689 quotas, Liberal 1.9164, Greens 0.8885 and One Nation 0.3606. The Greens and the second Liberal accumulate enough preferences to get elected at around the same point in the count, after which the third Labor candidate wins the last seat like so:

ALP #3	JLN	ON	LC	ToP
0.7584	0.2337	0.4600	0.2406	0.2628
0.8850	Excluded	0.4983	0.2600	0.2839
0.9748		0.5452	Excluded	0.3325
1.0290		0.7426		Excluded
Elected

Tasmania. The likely outcome here is two Labor, two Liberal, one Greens and Jacqui Lambie, but I’m leaving open the possibility of three Labor and one Liberal. The relevant starting points are Labor 2.2521 quotas, Liberal 1.4012, Greens 1.1027, Jacqui Lambie Network 0.4744 and One Nation 0.3478. Two Labor, one Liberal and one Greens will be elected off the bat, with the last two seats to play out following exclusion of sundry also-rans:

ON	ALP #3	LIB #2	JLN
0.5897	0.7395	0.7983	0.7791
Excluded	0.8522	0.9183	1.0011
	0.8523	0.9184	Elected
	Excluded	Elected

I’ve been too consumed by the minutiae of the count to have accumulated any deep thoughts about the result, or even the polls. But I can recommend the assessment of Matthew Knott of Nine Newspapers, for identifying the relevance of Nate Silver’s axiom that “almost all polling errors occur in the opposite direction to commentators’ predictions”. A case in point being my own instinct that Labor couldn’t possibly doing as well as as BludgerTrack’s end-of-campaign reading of the situation, which gave Labor a lead of 53.2-47.8. My own projection of the national result currently has it at 54.2-45.8, but this is generally reckoned (in both senses) too conservative — a display at The Guardian appears to have it at around 54.6-45.4. On either reading, this is Labor’s best result since 1943, and was exceeded in this time by the Coalition only in 1966 and 1975. The primary vote, of course, is another matter — Labor’s currently stands at 34.7%, compared with BludgerTrack’s 32.6%; the Coalition is at 32.2%, by far the worst result in its modern history, compared with BludgerTrack’s 32.9%; while the Greens and One Nation are at 11.8% and 6.3%, compared with BludgerTrack’s 12.5% and 8.0%.

Not everyone agrees with me about this, but I don’t think it can reasonably be described as any sort of failure on the part of the Australian polling industry. In dismissing the notion that even its 2019 performance counted as such, Nate Silver pointed out that its roughly 3% error was exactly normal by international standards — though this rather glossed over the extent to which the industry’s failure on that occasion lay in the herding-related uniformity in the size and direction of its error. There were at least a few suspicions abroad that something similar was happening this time, and a general reluctance to believe what some polls were seeing — including some mid-campaign blowouts from Roy Morgan that were hardly credited by anyone at the time, but which proved about on the money — may have helped prevent polls and their aggregates from landing nearer the mark.

As it stands, the measure of any given pollster’s accuracy relative to its rivals was a simple function of how high it came in for Labor. As The Guardian’s display shows, line honours were shared by Resolve Strategic, RedBridge Group and Roy Morgan, and trailing the field was the Coalition’s hapless internal pollsters, Freshwater Strategy (apart from an Ipsos poll that was apparently half a point worse in having Labor’s lead at 51-49, which is news to me — the only polling I’m aware from it at any point during the term was limited to leaders’ ratings). Not included in this assessment was RedBridge Group/Accent Research tracking polling, which did very well for much of the campaign in pointing to a 3.5% Labor swing across 20 marginal seats that ended up swinging 4%, only to fall short with a 2% swing at the last. As an indication of how much better the polling industry performed than certain other areas of the media-political complex, the publisher that commissioned this polling persistently instructed readers to share its delusion that it pointed to a Labor minority government.

Another aspect worth noting of the news media’s horse race coverage was its acceptance of the Coalition’s claim that polling was failing to measure a revolutionary transformation in preference flows, such that the precedent of 2022 offered no guide on this score. Pollsters did in fact tweak their preference models in anticipation of weaker flows to Labor — BludgerTrack’s relatively good performance on two-party preferred had a lot to do with its persistence in applying 2022 election flows, which I must confess was more down to indolence than insight. We won’t actually know the true story here for a couple of months, when the Australian Electoral Commission will provide two-party preferred data from the unprecedented number of seats where the two-candidate counts include independent or minor party candidates, and — better yet — preference flows broken down by party.

We do, however, have 118 seats where the two-candidate counts are between Labor and the Coalition, and from which we can observe how well applying preference flows from 2022 would have done in projecting the two-party preferred. And they do in fact suggest that flows to Labor were quite substantially weaker than last time, such that Labor would have scored 55.4-44.6 across these seats on 2022 preference flows but in fact managed 54.5-45.5.

Click here for full display of House of Representatives election results.

Adrian Beaumont update at 11:50am Saturday: I wrote a long article on the Senate for The Conversation yesterday.  I believe Labor is likely to gain five seats from the Coalition.  Labor’s national primary vote in the Senate is slightly higher than in the House.

Friday

Sorry to disappoint Senate fans once again, but I’m kicking my promised post on that subject down the road for another day. Meanwhile:

Grey. By general acclaim, this should be added to the watch list, though my system is still calling it for Liberal because it’s giving independent Anita Kuss next to no chance of making the final count ahead of Labor. However, the AEC’s incomplete 3CP count has it very close (something may be amiss here though, because percentages are provided that don’t add up to 100%). I’ve tried making use of those figures in my projections, but what they are coming out with doesn’t accord with talk I’m hearing of scrutineers’ reports, which is that Kuss is doing a lot better on preferences from right-of-centre sources than I’m allowing for.

Bradfield. The Liberal lead fell from 237 to 209 mostly due to postals breaking 260-215 in favour of Nicolette Boele (maintaining an unbroken run of improvement for Boele across six batches of diminishing size, from 41.0% to 54.7%). The first batch of out-of-division pre-polls went 472-465 to Gisele Kapterian, who also made a net gain of ten on re-checking. I’m expecting about 1500 more each out of absents and out-of-division pre-polls, 200 provisionals, and let’s say another 200 late-arriving postals since there have already been more than I was anticipating. Boele will need about 53% of them, when there seems no particular reason based on the preceedent of 2022 to expect them collectively to lean one way or the other.

Kooyong. Monique Ryan’s lead fell from 724 to 661 as the first batch of absents broke 984-942 to Amelia Hamer, who also made a net gain of nineteen on re-checking. That’s probably over half the absents accounted for, and the remaining postals are unlikely to be appreciably helpful for Hamer. Her hope lies in out-of-division pre-polls, of which I had previously been suggesting 3000 could be expected, but after closer observation I believe it is more likely to be 4000. Others things being equal, Hamer will need about 58% of them — in 2022 the Liberals got 48.2%, which was 2.7% better than they did on ordinary votes, suggesting 50.2% if the pattern holds this time.

Bendigo. The two-candidate Labor-versus-Nationals count is taking its time catching up to the primary vote count, but Labor leads by 1.2% on what’s been counted, I’m projected them to a lead of 0.7%, and those who have been following the situation more closely than I have expect them to hold out.

Longman. The LNP lead is down from 289 to 231 after a second batch of absents broke 268-214 to Labor and the first out-of-division pre-polls broke 361-320, redressing by a 361-320 break in the latest postals to the LNP, the latter having exhibited little of their usual tendency to improve for Labor in later batches. I expect there will be a further 1700-or-so each of absents and out-of-division pre-polls, which will close the gap with about 100 to spare if they behave as they have so far, which they may or may not do. Here as elsewhere, there can’t be many more postals outstanding.

Bean. The first absents broke 820-679 to Labor, cutting independent Jessie Price’s lead from 195 to 54. That should be most of them — there should only be enough outstanding to exactly account for the independent lead if they behave like the first batch, though as I keep stressing, absent batches can be a bit variable. I would expect about 1200 postals, though since both batches so far have broken about evenly, that fact doesn’t offer much of a guide. That likely leaves the matter to be decided by how upwards of 2500 out-of-division pre-polls go — that absent votes and, to a lesser extent, pre-poll voting centres favoured Labor is presumably encouraging for them.

Bullwinkel. Things continue to trend Labor’s way here, their lead increasing from 333 to 634 after absents broke 595-364 in their favour, postals went only 143-142 the other way, and re-checking of early votes gave them a net boost of 71.

Thursday

I promised a review of the Senate a few days ago that hasn’t been forthcoming, but that will hopefully be rectified this evening, and I promise it will be worth it. Today’s developments from another place:

Bradfield. Nicolette Boele has suffered a blow in her already difficult struggle in chasing down Gisele Kapterian’s lead, with the first batch of absents breaking 477-427 against her, reflecting an unusually weak flow of preferences to Boele. This more than cancelled out rechecking that cut 50 votes from Kapterian’s total and 17 from Boele’s. Postals are now breaking about even, today’s batch going 243-238 to Kapterian. Kapterian’s lead is now 237, out from 215 yesterday. Boele now needs to hope for much better from around 2000 outstanding absents (not impossible, since these can vary from batch to batch depending on where they are sourced), out-of-division pre-polls (less likely) and what I presume will be a couple of hundred late arriving postals.

Kooyong. The odds on Monique Ryan holding out shortened after today’s postals broke 1966-1958 her way, her trajectory over three batches being 37.9% to 42.0% to 50.1%. Together with the effect of minor rechecking changes, Ryan’s lead has gone from 723 to 724, leaving Amelia Hamer to hope for something unusual to happen on maybe 1000 outstanding postals (which if anything seem likely to favour Ryan from now on), 3000 absents (which should also favour Ryan if 2022 is any guide) and as many out-of-division pre-polls (here at least Hamer can probably count on a few hundred votes).

Ryan. The AEC’s indicative three-candidate count is more or less complete, and finds Greens member Elizabeth Watson-Brown leading Labor’s Rebecca Hack by 30.44% to 29.79% in the race to make the final count and win the seat ahead of the LNP on the other’s preferences. I have used these numbers to revise the flow of lower order candidates’ preferences between the three in my projection, which hasn’t made much difference to what is now a 74.7% probability estimate to the Greens, since the changes involved a drop for the LNP and an increase for both Labor and the Greens. My model tends to get too conservative in estimating probabilities for leading candidates at this stage because, in the absence of hard information on how may votes remain to be counted, it errs on the high side.

Menzies. The first favourable batch of postals to Labor, breaking 1039-902 and pushing the lead out to 1300, marks an appropriate occasion to draw a line under this one.

Longman. Labor are hanging in here after the first batch of absents broke 383-280 their way, together with their usual modest dividend from provisionals, which broke 127-87, collectively cutting the LNP lead from 471 to 289. However, my system was clearly in error earlier today when it projected a high probability of a Labor win – how prescient it proves in continuing to lean slightly in their favour (now that I’ve replaced its dubious projection of primary votes with the raw results) remains to be seen.

Bean. The fresh two-candidate count between independent Jessie Price and Labor has caught up with the primary vote count, and it finds Price leading 48,353 to 48,158. If I were using the implied preference flow here I would be all but calling the seat for Price, but the truth is I have no idea what the outstanding vote types might do in a race involving an independent with no history, so I’m sticking with my existing preference estimates for no other reason than that the very close contest they project seems about right.

Bullwinkel. An already tough fight for the Liberals got harder with the first batch of absents breaking 524-429 to Labor. The long delayed two-candidate result from the Lesmurdie North booth also broke 402-316 Labor’s way, boosting their lead from 86 to 333.

Wednesday

I have obtained information from the AEC on which booths have gone into its incomplete three-candidate counts, resulting in meaningful revisions to my projections in the following seats:

Ryan. The 3CP count finds the Greens are under-performing my model on estimates from lower-order candidates, increasing their risk of having Labor closing the narrow primary vote gap and excluding them from the final count, in which case Labor will win the seat. Specifically, the Greens’ win probability is in from 79.6% to 64.0%.

Flinders. Here my three-way preference estimates were apparently about right: replacing them from the ones that can be inferred from the 3CP count increases the Liberal win probability from 87.3% to 89.2%. The shift probably reflects the fact that I now think there slightly more of a chance that independent Ben Smith will fail to make the final count, in which case Liberal member Zoe McKenzie’s win is certain. Even if he does make it, my system deems her victory very likely, projecting a two-candidate result of 52.1-47.9. However, this continues to be based on preference estimates — the AEC is not conducting a Liberal-versus-independent throw, though it may feel inspired to do so if the 3CP ends up confirming that Smith will make the count. Failing that, we will have to wait for the full preference distribution.

Richmond. Lower-order preferences are flowing a lot more strongly conservative than my model had counted on, in this case extinguishing whatever chance the Greens had of getting ahead of Labor to make the final count.

Two further seats warranting special mention, as I’ve retracted my system’s calls:

Bean. After continuing to mistrust my projection based on a still incomplete Labor-versus-independent preference count, I have reinstituted a two-candidate projection based on preference estimates, judiciously tweaked to reflect what the count seems to be showing. It had already withdrawn its call of the seat for the independent before I did so, and it now reckons it to be lineball.

Bendigo. I’ve done the same thing here, such that it is no longer calling the seat for Labor, as it was for a time today. But it still finds the seat leaning in their favour.

Elsewhere:

Bradfield. Gisele Kapterian only increased her lead today from 178 to 215, as postals followed their usual pattern in getting less conservative the later they arrived, in today’s case breaking only 495-468 (51.4%, compared with 58.3% of all previous). By my reckoning there should only be about 400 to come, though my reckoning might be out — it assumes 79.2% of postal vote applications will yield formal votes, based on what happened here and to a lesser extent in North Sydney in 2022 (postal votes can arrive up to two weeks after the election and still be admitted to the count if they were sent early enough). By this stage though, the bigger factor is absents and out-of-division pre-polls, of which there will be about 3000 each, together with a handful of provisionals. They respectively leaned independent and Liberal in 2022, but this can depend heavily on where the boundary is, since many of them are cast in booths just outside the electorate, and these have changed substantially with the redistribution. All you can really say here is that you would rather be ahead than behind.

Kooyong. After only rechecking was done yesterday, Monique Ryan’s lead shrank today from 1002 to 723 as postals broke against her by 2281-1649. However, this was a marked improvement for her on the first batch (42.0% rather than 37.9%), and rechecking of early voting centres improved her position by 332. I expect there to be a further 5000 postals, and the improving trend to Ryan would need to halt for them to get Amelia Hamer ahead. The precedent of 2022 suggests Ryan will gain about 300 on absents and break even on out-of-division pre-polls, but the caveats just noted for Bradfield apply here also — as does the concluding remark.

Done and dusted, or just about:

Goldstein. Postal vote batches continue to get less bad for Zoe Daniel, but are still breaking strongly against her and inflating a Liberal land that now stands at an unassailable 1362. My system isn’t calling it because it’s not doing data-matching, but I won’t continue following the seat on this post.

Melbourne. My system is calling this for Labor by a rather comfortable margin, on the basis of what now looks like a well-founded projection of preferences. I won’t continue following this one.

Menzies. My system is calling this for Labor. Postals broke 4258-3519 to Liberal today, cutting the margin from 1655 to 1145, but I only expect around 1200 to come, and absents should favour Labor.

Wills. My system is calling this for Labor, and I see no reason to doubt it. Nothing more from me on this one.

Longman. This continues to drift slowly away from Labor, today’s postals breaking 518-461 to push the LNP lead out to 471.

Fremantle. The Labor-versus-independent two-candidate count has caught up with the primary vote here, leaving Josh Wilson 1582 ahead of Kate Hulett, who has twice done well but not quite well enough. Another 4000 postals should widen the gap beyond the point where Hulett can hope to pull any rabbits out of the hat on absents or declaration pre-polls.

Continue reading “Late counting”

I have a new thread about this one that will follow late counting in seats by rather conservative results system still considers in doubt. This post attends to the ones that it is recording as having changed hands, or close enough to it — I have made the cut-off point a 95% probability rather than the usual 99%. First though, a plug for my paywalled article in Crikey yesterday on the likely make-up of the Senate, where Labor and the Greens between them look set for a clear majority they didn’t quite get to after the 2022 election, despite having respectively lost the services of Fatima Payman and Lidia Thorpe (erratum: I have Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts the wrong way around in the article — it was the latter who was up for re-election). And second, here is a podcast I did yesterday in a state of hopefully not too obvious sleep deprivation (still ongoing) with Ben Raue of The Tally Room:

The summary below encompasses fourteen Labor gains from the Coalition based on post-redistribution margins from the 2022 election, which involves three complications: Bennelong was a Labor-held seat that became notionally Liberal (just) following the redistribution; Labor had held Aston since winning the by-election there in April 2023; and the defeated incumbent in Moore was elected as a Liberal in 2022 but contested the election as an independent. There are also two Labor gains from the Greens, both in Brisbane, and the special case of Calare, which former Nationals member Andrew Gee has retained as an independent. If these are the only seats that change hands, the final numbers will be Labor 88, Coalition 48, independents ten, Greens two and one each for Katter’s Australian Party and the Centre Alliance. The other new post for today focuses on the undecided seats that could potentially change this calculation. Relevant to this question is a point made in relation to each seat below: fairly consistently, Labor did best on election day votes, second best on early votes and – so far – worst on postal votes. However, the first batches of postals are fairly reliably the most conservative.

New South Wales:

Banks. One of the election’s many unexpected Coalition casualties was David Coleman, just months after he was unexpectedly elevated to the foreign affairs portfolio in part because of his reach within a Chinese community that accounts for a substantial chunk of the seat’s population — for all the good that did anyone concerned. Coleman went in with a 2.9% margin and came out, on my current projection, with -2.6%. The swings were 7.3% on the day, 2.8% on pre-polls, and — so far at least — 1.3% in his favour on postals.

Bennelong. A technical Labor gain, having had a post-redistribution Liberal margin of 0.1%, for which my usual formulation of “accounted for by a 9.4% swing” feels like understatement. That Labor was up 13.3% on the primary vote and the Liberals down only 5.6% reflects the gap in the 2022 numbers created by the seat’s absorption of much of North Sydney, where around a quarter of the vote went to Kylea Tink. The swings to Labor was 10.9% on the day, 7.3% on early votes and 5.3% so far on postals, though the latter will likely increase as further batches are added.

Calare. Former Nationals member Andrew Gee held his seat as an independent from 23.9% of the primary vote, easily overhauling the 30.3% for the Nationals candidate after securing most of the preferences of teal independent Kate Hook (15.9%) and Labor (10.2%) to hold a 6.3% lead that late counting is unlikely to change much.

Hughes. A result no one saw coming was Labor’s win in a seat Labor last held before John Howard came to power in 1996. A post-redistribution margin of 3.2% was accounted for by a 6.2% swing, giving Labor a margin I project to 2.8%. In the absence of two independents who polled 17.5% between them in 2022, Labor gained 11.2% on the primary vote while the Liberals were only down 3.5%. The swings to Labor were 7.7% on election day, 4.5% on pre-polls and 2.1% on postals-thus-far.

Victoria:

Aston. James Campbell of News Corp related mid-campaign that Labor “hadn’t bothered” to poll the seat they gained from the Liberals at a by-election in April 2023, and every indication was that the Liberals regarded it as in the bag. I am projecting a 3.4% Labor margin from a swing of 6.0% compared with the 2022 election, almost exactly equal to the 3.6% Labor margin at the by-election. Swings were 6.7% on both election day and early voting, and 3.0% on the postals counted so far.

Deakin. The script for the election did not involve the Liberals losing seats in Victoria, but so it proved in Deakin, where I project a 3.2% swing off a Liberal margin that redistribution reduced from 0.2% to 0.0%. Swings were 4.6% on the day, 2.3% on early voting and 1.1% the other day so far on postals.

Queensland:

Bonner. Labor’s second ever win in a seat created in 2004 was not close, the LNP’s 3.4% margin accounted for by a swing I project at 8.7%. Primary vote swing for and against the major were around 10%; the Greens were down 4.7% on a strong performance in 2025, no doubt reflecting an increase in the field from five to eight candidates, and competition from Legalise Cannabis in particular. Swings: 9.3% on the day, 8.4% on early voting, 7.4% on postals so far.

Brisbane. Both in 2022 and 2025, this seat came down to whether it was Labor or the Greens who made it to the final count and defeated the LNP on the other’s preferences. In 2022, Labor scored eleven more primary votes than the Greens, a gap the latter closed on Animal Justice preferences. This time Labor is up 4.9% and the Greens are down 1.5% (with the LNP also down 3.3%), a gap the Greens would need nearly every preference from lower order candidates to close. A two-candidate count the AEC was conducting between the Greens and the LNP on the night has been junked, and it is now in the early stages of a count between Labor and the LNP that will only confirm the former’s winning margin.

Dickson. The day that Peter Dutton feared when he pitched for a safer seat before the 2010 election arrived at a particularly inopportune moment, from a swing of similar dimensions to a number of seats in outer Brisbane: 7.8%, compared with a margin of 1.7%. Dutton has a projected 34.9% primary vote, down 7.2%; teal independent Ellie Smith’s 12.8% kept a lid on Labor, up 2.0%, and contributed to a 5.7% drop for the Greens to 7.3%. Swings were 9.5% on the day, 7.0% no early voting and 3.7% on postals so far.

Forde. My system still gives the LNP a sliver of a chance, but I’m quite sure I’ve never seen a lead approaching 3000 votes slip away at this point in proceedings. Further discouraging the notion is that postals are not favouring the Coalition as they are elsewhere, the swings being 6.8% on the day, 6.1% on early voting and 6.4% on postals.

Griffith. The 3.3% drop in Max Chandler-Mather’s primary vote does not of itself explain his defeat in a seat where he outpolled Labor 34.6% to 28.9% in 2022. The decisive point was the swing from the LNP, who were down 4.1%, to Labor, up 6.0%, resulting in Chandler-Mather facing Labor at the final count, rather than the LNP as he had done in 2022. The AEC was conducting a Greens-versus-LNP two-candidate count that it has pulled in recognition of that outcome, leaving my system to rely on an estimated 70-30 break in LNP preferences in favour of Labor over the Greens in projecting the final result.

Leichhardt. The retirement of Warren Entsch presumably had something to do with the biggest swing in Queensland, presently at 10.1%, off an LNP margin of 3.4%. Booth results suggest Entsch was known and liked in Indigenous communities, but nowhere was the swing insubstantial. It was 11.4% on election day, 9.7% on early voting and 4.7% on postals so far.

Petrie. Another Queensland seat Labor has long had trouble shaking loose, this time doing so off a 5.8% swing accounting for a margin of 4.4%: 6.9% on election day, 5.4% on pre-polls and 3.4% on postals so far. I note that, with the exception of lineball Longman, Labor has won all the seats in Brisbane that formed part of Kevin Rudd’s statewide sweep.

Tasmania:

Bass. Northern Tasmania had one of its trademark changes of heart at this election, with noted Liberal moderate Bridget Archer’s 1.4% margin was demolished by a 9.8% swing, panning out to 10.2% on the day, 8.9% on early voting and 8.1% on postals so far.

Braddon. Unlike a lot of other places covered here, there were rumblings about northern Tasmania, but not like this: Labor’s Anne Urquhart, hitherto a Senator, picked up a 15.3% swing, possibly helpd by the retirement of Liberal incumbent Gavin Pearce. Labor was up 17.3% on the primary vote and Liberal down 12.3%, the gap reflecting the 7.8% vote in 2022 for independent Craig Garland, now in state parliament. The swings were 15.3% on the day, 14.9% on early voting and, unusually, higher yet on postals-so-far at 16.5%.

South Australia:

Sturt. The Liberals’ last seat in Adelaide, retained by 0.5% in 2022, swung to Labor by 7.2%: 8.5% on the day, 5.9% on early voting and 5.5% on postals-so-far. Their primary vote was down by more than Labor’s was up (8.9% and 4.6% respectively) because of independent Verity Cooper’s 7.3%.

Western Australia:

Moore. The Liberals’ last seat in Perth, retained by 0.7% in 2022 (bumped up to 0.9% by redistribution), swung 3.8%: 5.0% on the day, 2.6% on early voting and 3.1% on postals-so-far. Presumably not helping was incumbent Ian Goodenough, who ran as an independent after losing Liberal preselection and polled 9.9%, declining to direct a preference to his old party on the how-to-vote card. The Liberal primary vote was down almost exactly the same amount while the Labor vote primary hardly changed.

Click here for full display of House of Representatives election results.

I’m not presently in a position to offer the result the commentary it undoubtedly deserves, so hopefully the live results feature speaks for itself. Rest assured that this will be supplemented with voluminous analysis of late counting in close races in the weeks to come. Two changes keen observers might note from the close of play last night are that Bendigo is now rated a lineball contest between Labor and the Nationals – which would be an extraordinary success for the latter given the general course of events – and in allowing for the possibility that an independent who is on only 12.6% of first preferences will snowball to victory in Calwell. These changes result from me changing the candidates designated for my three-way projection, which had originally excluded the potential winners.

I have just finished writing an article for Crikey on the Senate race, which should be available to subscribers later this morning (UPDATE: Read all about it). The upshot is that the Coalition will only win two seats in each state, and could be reduced to one on a worst case scenario in Tasmania, which will reduce it to its lowest representation since parliament assumed its present size in 1984. Labor and the Greens look likely to have a majority between them, even without accounting for further left-of-centre votes from David Pocock (who romped home in the Australian Capital Territory), Fatima Payman and Lidia Thorpe.

Click here for full display of House of Representatives election results.

Live commentary

8.30pm. Just popping in to say my results system seems to be working well, and if you’re finding it of value, perhaps you might consider making a contribution through the “become a supporter” buttons at the top of the site or the bottom of each post.

6.21pm. My system has successfully processed the first booth, which is the CBD pre-poll result for Fowler.

Preview

Polls have closed on the eastern seaboard, so welcome to the the live thread for discussion of the results for tonight’s federal election. I will be doing honest work this evening in the data room at the Nine Network (on which Ally Langdon, Peter Overton, Charles Croucher, Andrew Probyn and Liz Daniels will be joined by Chris Bowen, Bridget McKenzie, Katy Gallagher and Christopher Pyne), so I won’t be in a position to provide live commentary, though I may sneak in the odd explainer about technical aspects of the count and things that are going on with my live results.

On that front, the link above will take you to one of two entry platforms, the other of which is a map display that will colour in as results are reported to reflect who the system deems to be ahead or to have won, respectively indicated with a lighter or darker shade. Scroll over an electorate on the map and you’ll a window with a two-party pie chart and other essentials of the result. Click and the results page for the seat will be revealed, featuring progress totals, projections, probability estimates, a table recording votes and swings for each booth and, if you click on the button at the bottom, a booth results display map. The results system is based on a three-candidate model that hopefully had the bugs ironed out of it when it had a run at the Western Australian election in March. This will prove especially useful in Macnamara, the Greens seats in Brisbane and possibly one or two other places I can’t presently foresee.

The AEC is conducting Labor versus Greens counts in Grayndler, Sydney, Cooper, Wills and Canberra; LNP versus Greens in Brisbane, Griffith and Ryan; Greens versus Liberal in Melbourne; Liberal versus independent in Warringah (Zali Steggall), Wentworth (Allegra Spender), Mackellar (Sophie Scamps), Goldstein (Zoe Daniel), Kooyong (Monique Ryan), Indi (Helen Haines), Bradfield (Nicolette Boele), Cowper (Caz Heise) and Wannon (Alex Dyson); LNP versus independent (Kate Hook) in Groom; Nationals versus independent (Andrew Gee) in Calare; Labor versus independent in Fowler (Dai Le) and Clark (Andrew Wilkie); LNP versus One Nation in Maranoa; Bob Katter versus LNP in Kennedy. The information for South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia will be provided when voting closes there.

If the choices in the Greens seats in Brisbane can be faulted for not including Labor where it seems possible or even likely (in the case of the seat of Brisbane) they will win, the results will in fact likely come down to whether Labor makes the final count, on which a two-candidate count would offer no guidance no matter who was chosen. This point can be illustrated with reference to Macnamara, where this evening’s Labor-versus-Liberal count is unlikely to tell us much: barring a better-than-expected result for the Liberals, Labor should win if they make the final count, and the Greens should win if they don’t. We may see a repeat of the ad hoc three-candidate counts that the AEC conducted for some of these seats after the 2022 election in the days to come. It is here that the Poll Bludger results feature comes into its own, as it integrates probability estimates for who makes the final count and what chance they have when the get there. However, this will of necessity be based on pre-determined estimates of preference flows unless and until three-candidate counts are conducted.

Now for some high wonk factor detail about the specifics of the count and the projection of the results. The Australian Electoral Commission relieves those of us in the election industry of the burden of producing “historic” data, namely estimates of how each polling place or vote type voted at the last election, a matter complicated by changes in locations and electoral boundaries. It is on this basis that swings can be calculated on a like-for-like basis, and a determination made as to whether they are big enough to cause the seat to change hands. The challenge it has faced on this occasion has been greater than ever because of the unprecedented number of independents who won seats last time, and the fact that nearly all of them were in states where redistributions have occurred. This means most of them are running in areas where they weren’t on the ballot paper last time, meaning there is no good way of determining their “historic” vote in these areas.

In a couple of cases, the AEC’s processes have led it to data that is of little value. The most glaring case involves Wills and Cooper: inner Melbourne seats where the threat to Labor from the Greens has intensified with the addition of territory from the seat of Melbourne. For reasons too arcane to go into, the AEC credits Labor with respective margins here of 9.0% and 8.9%, which makes little account of Greens strength in the newly added areas (my own determinations have it at 4.2% and 7.8%). Presumably to keep the historic two-candidate totals at this level, the AEC has produced two-candidate histories in booths around Carlton North and Fitzroy North that are wildly out of line with how people actually vote there. To pick one example: the Greens are allocated 30.4% in the Merri booth in Wills, where Adam Bandt got 65.9% in 2022. By contrast, the primary vote history has the Greens at a sensible 57.6% in this booth, suggesting the mathematical impossibility of them losing votes after preferences. If such booths are the first to report in these seats, the AEC’s early projection for the Greens in these seats will be massively inflated.

Independent incumbents, who in every case are teals, have been allocated zero primary votes in areas that were not in their electorates in 2022, meaning they will be credited with swings in these booths equal to the entirety of their vote. This presents my results system with a problem, as primary vote swings are a crucial element in how the final result is projected. If the AEC cannot be faulted for not crediting independents with invented numbers, they have in effect done so on two-candidate preferred – in this case with mostly plausible results. The AEC will use this data to produce useful swings and projections of its own based entirely on the two-candidate count. But it doesn’t do me any good, because my system is geared to make use of the primary vote, which gets counted first and is thus ahead of the curve.

There is one independent seat where I believe the AEC’s two-candidate determinations in areas now to the electorate will be of as little value as those noted for Wills and Cooper, namely Wentworth. In December, the AEC published its estimated margins for redistributed independent seats, which you can read more about here. The historic booth data matches these margins in every case except Wentworth, where it seems the previously published estimate of a 0.6% margin for Allegra Spender had it the wrong way around. The historic booth data in fact provides for a Liberal margin of 0.6% in this seat, such that Spender will need to record a swing in her favour to be projected as winning. I do wonder though if something might have gone awry in the AEC’s calculations, as its historic two-candidate numbers weigh heavily against Spender in such Liberal-unfriendly areas as Woolloomooloo and Kings Cross. So here too, the AEC’s early projections will be unreliable – specifically, heavily weighted towards Spender – if these booths happen to be among the first to report.

My approach to deal with these problems, which I can only hope won’t run into any major bugs, involves abandoning my usual effort to project preference flows based on booth matching, and – in the case of the independent-held seats – also to make no effort to project the primary vote. The numbers in both cases will simply be based on whatever the progress count happens to be. There are two independent seats whose newly acquired areas aren’t big enough for me to consider any of this a problem, namely Fowler (which gains a part of the suburb of Weatherill Park) and Wannon (which gains rural territory at the eastern end of the electorate).