NOTE: Despite what the date stamp says, this post began life on Sunday – I’ve pushed it to the top of the page as it’s the only part of the site that’s still active.
This post will follow the progress of the count in close seats over the next week or two. The table below shows the polling booth results which were counted on Saturday, which are completed pending rechecking; and the “declaration” votes which constitute the meat of late counting, particularly postals, pre-polls, absent, “electoral visit” and “declared institution” votes. The total number of such votes from the final two-party count in 2006 is shown to give some idea how many votes are outstanding.
REDLANDS
Friday 3rd. Final result: LNP by 34. Antony Green: “I understand it wasn’t a counting error, it was that some numbers had been transposed on data entry to the computer that publishes the website. The error was spotted at once in the re-count because all the original documents are examined at which point the discrepancy with the website was spotted. The Returning Officer uses a range of official documents to conduct the count and declare the result and the website is merely a public guide for everyone.”
Thursday 2nd. NEWS FLASH: The always reliable RedlandsRumbler in comments tells us that misplaced bundles of votes look to have handed a late victory to the LNP: “Word is, it was a pile of 35 LNP votes found in with Labor. There was also a pile of 12 Labor votes found in with LNP. Levels out to a total of 23 off the Labor total and added to the LNP total. Means LNP should be leading by 27 as of last update.”
Wednesday 1st. The last 19 postals have gone 12-9 to Labor, and a further two declared institution votes for Labor have shown up. Final score: Labor by 19. Recount to begin tomorrow.
Tuesday 31st. The ECQ has brought its website up to date showing 37 postals since Sunday have gone 16-all, but there seems also to have been a booth vote recount which has added one vote to Labor and taken four from the LNP, increasing Labor’s lead from 11 to 16. I believe tomorrow’s postal votes will be the last ones.
Monday 30th. The ECQ is again dragging its heels with updates, but RedlandsRumbler in comments informs us that Labor’s lead has increased from 11 to 23.
Sunday 29th. The ECQ finally comes through on the two-party count, and it shows Labor leading by a grand total of 11 votes. John English owes his recovery to 1558 absent votes breaking 805-606 his way: a further 649 pre-polls and 175 postals have gone slightly against him. Postal votes will continue to trickle in until Wednesday.
Saturday 28th. Those who wish to know what’s going on in this nail-biter of a contest will have to follow the rumour mill in comments, which suggests Labor led by 15 yesterday with a trickle of postal votes still to come (I have taken RedlandsRumbler’s word for this with respect to the chart at the bottom of the post). Unfortunately, since Wednesday the ECQ has only been updating primary votes and not 2PP. What gives?
Thursday 26th. No significant progress in the count as far as the website is concerned, but RedlandsRumbler in comments says firstly: “Word from the mountain is that Redlands has significantly tightened up thanks to absentees – this one will be decided by less than 50 votes.” And later: “Apparently LNP lead by 3 votes in Redlands with counting continuing this evening.”
Wednesday 25th. A big infusion of 2003 postal votes goes 963-913 to the LNP, increasing their lead from 112 to 139.
Monday 23rd. 1199 pre-poll votes, which might well be all of them, have broken 598-567 the LNP’s way, which along with adjustments to the declared institutions vote has increased candidate Peter Dowling’s lead over Labor incumbent John English from 55 to 86.
Sunday 22nd. Declared institution votes added, favouring the LNP 127-116.
CHATSWORTH
Friday 3rd. Final result: Labor by 74.
Wednesday 1st. A further 65 postals, 42 absents and 12 pre-polls have increased Labor’s lead from 83 to a final score of 93. Recount to begin tomorrow.
Monday 28th. 249 pre-polls, 157 postals and a handful of absent and institution votes have reduced the Labor lead from 89 votes to 83.
Saturday 26th. Another 712 absent votes and 491 pre-polls have respectively gone 248-213 and 343-325 to Labor, whose lead increases to 89 votes. LNP director Michael O’Dwyer is complaining about the postal vote count, suggesting that cases of double voting (which he concedes were “perhaps” done unknowingly) will be used as the basis of a legal challenge. He also makes unsubstantiated suggestions that vote rorting might explain the LNP’s weak showing on absent votes – although as Feral Sparrowhawk notes in comments, the real turn-up of the absentee count has been the 13.4 per cent vote for the Greens, the majority of which presumably exhausted. In terms of primary votes, Labor in fact performed slightly worse on absent votes relative to their booth vote result than they did in 2006.
Thursday 26th. Another great day for Labor’s Steve Kilburn courtesy of another 934 absent votes, which have gone his way 474-376. Votes from the Brisbane city booth (which I wish they’d just treat as absent votes, which is essentially what they are) have finally been added, and they have given Kilburn a further boost by breaking 52-20. He is now 41 votes in front and, if as seems likely mostly absent votes remain, likely to remain there.
Wednesday 25th. A big fillip for Labor with 583 absent votes breaking 329-197. Looking at the booth results map, this makes sense: absent votes often comes from voters who go to booths just outside their electorates, and the majority of such votes in Chatsworth would come at the Labor-voting western end of the electorate. That might portend a continuing trend to Labor with the 1500 or so absent vote soon to be counted. On the other hand, this might be a batch from a particular Labor-voting area, and future batches might not be as favourable. There have also been 358 more postal votes added, breaking in roughly the same proportion as previous postal votes: 189-149 to the LNP. All told, the LNP lead has been cut from 180 to 88.
Tuesday 24th. Another 601 postal votes have been added, breaking 341-240 in Caltabiano’s favour. A recheck of polling booth votes has cost Labor 27 votes and the LNP 3. Caltabiano now leads by 180.
Monday 23rd. LNP candidate Andrea Caltabiano has turned a 218 vote deficit into a 55 vote lead after the addition of 938 postals, 460 pre-polls, 112 declared institution and 99 electoral visit votes. All but the electoral visit votes have heavily favoured the LNP. Half of the postals and pre-polls remain to be added and are likely to add to Caltabiano’s lead: about 2000 yet-to-be-added absentee votes should do better for Labor’s Steve Kilburn, and will need to if he’s to be in the hunt.
MIRANI
Friday 3rd. Final result: LNP by 325.
Saturday 28th. Labor has conceded a defeat it can afford to be philosophical about, after 1238 absent votes failed to deliver the hoped-for divided by breaking only 637-567 their way. They also enjoyed small boosts from a further 240 pre-polls (126-108) and 217 postals (121-91), but the cumulative effect is an inadequate narrowing of the LNP lead from 400 to 282.
Thursday 26th. Another 452 absent votes have been added, and they’re still breaking to Labor in insufficient proportions: 237-198. Indeed, the gain has been more than cancelled out by the addition of 700 pre-polls which have gone 367-317 to the LNP. Ted Malone lead has increased 11 votes to 400. Most of the remaining votes should be absent votes (perhaps 1300 of them), but Malone is in the box seat.
Wednesday 25th. Antony Green writes in comments we should “keep an eye” on Mirani: “The postal votes havily favoured the LNP, as they did in Fitzroy and Mirani in 2006. But the absentee vote heavily favoured Labor in 2006, as it is generally miners voting in Rockhampton … The LNP lead will narrow from here.” The first 282 absent votes have been added today, but they have only favoured Labor 141-131. A further 320 postals have gone 134-179 to the LNP, so their lead increases slightly from 365 to 389.
Tuesday 24th. Another 379 postal votes have broken 223-159 in favour of Malone. Rechecking of polling booth votes has added 28 to Labor and 4 to the LNP. All told, Malone’s lead nudges up slightly from 347 to 365.
Sunday 22nd. LNP member Ted Malone has hit the lead with the addition of 1197 postal votes, which heavily favoured the conservatives (790 to 381) as postal votes are want to do. Many of these votes would have come from farmers who find it too hard to make it to a polling booth. There might be a few hundred more of these to come; Labor should do better out of absents and pre-polls, of which there should respectively be a bit more than 2000 and as many as 1500. Nonetheless, Malone should be very hard to reel in from here.
CLEVELAND
Friday 3rd. Final result: LNP by 155.
Wednesday 1st. A further 75 postals and 30 absents have been added, shaving five off an LNP lead which finally stands at 147. A recount will begin tomorrow.
Saturday 28th. Labor has conceded after failing to make up ground in recent counting: 741 postals have gone 372-345 to the LNP, 297 absents have gone 165-113 to Labor and 292 pre-polls 142-129 to the LNP. The LNP lead has narrowed just slightly from 172 to 152.
Thursday 26th. 792 pre-polls and 593 absent votes have partly cancelled each other out, respectively breaking 425-337 to the LNP and 306-247 to Labor. The LNP lead is up from 135 votes to 172.
Wednesday 25th. Similarly to Chatsworth, there may be a concentration of absent votes spilling over the Labor-voting northern end of the electorate: the first 783 such votes added have given Labor glimmer of hope by breaking 406-316 their way, with perhaps 1500 still to come. However, they are cancelled out as far as today’s score card is concerned by 986 pre-polls which have gone 541-420 to the LNP, whose overall lead is up from 112 to 135.
Tuesday 24th. RedlandRumbler in comments tells us that “a pile of 50 DS4SEQ votes were discovered in with the Mark Robinson (LNP candidate) votes yesterday following a re-check of booths”. The recheck turned up enough further anomalies that he made a net gain of 6, but Labor member Phil Weightman gained 48. However, that’s been more than cancelled out by a further 796 postal votes which have broken 427-339 to Robinson, whose lead is up from 66 to 112.
Sunday 22nd. The addition of 796 postal votes, which should be about half of them, have increased the LNP’s lead by 44 votes. The tide will need to turn in Labor’s favour from here, which tends not to happen in late counting.
GAVEN
Friday 3rd. Final result: LNP by 342.
Saturday 28th. Phil Gray has been predictably gracious in defeat. “In relation to Gaven I accept the will of the people”, says an exquisitely diplomatic Anna Bligh, who has hopefully emerged from the election with the authority to secure the disendorsement of members who carry on in this fashion.
|
| An emotional Phil Gray concedes defeat |
Thursday 26th. Phil Gray has recovered 81 votes with the addition of 1763 absent votes, breaking 783-702 his way. However, it’s too little too late: with another 389 pre-polls and 70 postals going slightly against him, he now trails 11,703 to 11,390. Fargo in comments tells us Gray has conceded.
Tuesday 24th. Labor douchebag Phil Gray has copped a richly deserved pummeling on postals and pre-polls. 2512 of the former have gone 1389-886 to LNP candidate Alex Douglas, while 988 of the latter have gone 422-482. That should be just about all of them, leaving about 2000 absent votes to be counted. Douglas goes from 184 behind to 379 ahead.
EVERTON
Friday 3rd. Final result: Labor by 735.
Wednesday 25th. Because I wasn’t following this from the start I’m not entirely sure what happened here, but I think a recheck of booth votes has boosted Labor by 199 votes (the near roundness of that figure suggests a few bundles were misplaced) and cut the LNP by 78. Furthermore, 1197 absent votes have broken 590-521 to Labor, much as I expected. As a result, Murray Watt now leads by 607 votes and is definitively out of the woods.
Tuesday 24th. Added by popular demand. Labor’s Murray Watt leads Troy Knox of the LNP by 261 votes, with the issue coming down to about 2000 outstanding absent votes. If it’s indeed the case that there was a late swing to Labor, that might be a comfort for Watt as these votes were cast on polling day, unlike the pre-polls and absent votes which have gone heavily against him.
243 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All
I understand it wasn’t a counting error, it was that some numbers had been transposed on data entry to the computer that publishes the website. The error was spotted at once in the re-count because all the original documents are examined at which point the discrepancy with the website was spotted. The Returning Officer uses a range of official documents to conduct the count and declare the result and the website is merely a public guide for everyone.
Emma, re voters having to present i/d: the present system of just stating your name seems wide-open to fraud, but I discussed this once with Colin Hughes (who was Aust Electoral Commissioner for several years) and he said that very little fraud has ever been proven to occur – most Aussies are too honest or just too uninterested to bother voting more than once. He said the AEC gets lists of death registrations and uses them to take people off the roll, but I gathered this was on a monthly or quarterly basis. I suggested that they could go further, and simply assign one officer to read the death notices in the daily papers for the month before the election. Pretty clearly they have never adopted this practice, and I still think they should – because the anecdotes about fraud that I’ve heard all involve reading the death notices on the morning and then using those names.
I think a bit more fraud goes on than Colin was prepared to admit, but far less than is alleged by some of the hysterical losers, or the hysterical H S Chapman Society (aka Charles Copeman and friends). If the LNP challenges the Chatsworth result we’ll find out how many dead people voted, and how many seem to have voted twice. My prediction – not many.
And the moment you start insisting on photo i/d, you have to be careful that you’re discriminating against the young, the poor, those who don’t drive cars, etc etc etc
…that you’re not discriminating…
I think this court case, from Fran Bailey’s win in McEwen in Victoria at the last Federal election, the case being known as Mitchell v Bailey should be reason enough for the LNP to stop their sour grapes over the count in Chatsworth.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2008/426.html
That case was continued here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2008/692.html
Antony, do you have a notional state wide two party preferred result floating around in that head of yours?
Interesting case, Steve, but it was about a different issue. In the McEwen count the AEO (the State chief of the AEC) had been ruling ballot-papers invalid willy-nilly when the judge held that they clearly expressed valid preferences. (And he gave a few of the contested papers to the ALP but even more to Fran Bailey – so the ALP lost the appeal officially but the AEO was the unofficial loser – a lot of egg on face!) In Chatsworth the LNP complaint is that people may have put in fraudulent absent-vote applications. If they have any evidence other than “the buggers didn’t vote for us!” it will turn on quite different issues from the McEwen appeal. Of course, if you’re saying that like McEwen it could result in an even easier victory for the original winners, that’s always possible.
(”he” in the “And he..” sentence above is the judge, not the AEO – in case it’s less than obvious)
Jack A Randa, my thinking was that if it was impossible for it to be worked out in the Federal sphere, how would it be any easier here.
I’m sure there is a typo snuck in here, last year, I’m sure the last sentence read:
This could NOT be done…
Possum, no. My rough estimate was the swing is 4.4-4.5%, which would make the 2PP about 50.5%. But that’s just a number that pops out of our computer automatically. Whether it’s right or not I have no idea. The swing is just a book-keeping value, we do all out predictions based on the swing in each seat, not across the election as a whole. I have to do a paper later this month where I’ll calculate one by adding up all the 2CP/PPs.
Thanks.
Ah now I get your point Steve. (In fact there’s no “not” in para 11 of that judgement but in later paras the judge explains that the law requiring the identification of absent votes was later repealed, so you’re remembering the gist of it.) So these days if a particular absent vote application is shown to be fraudulent, the vote that was inside the envelope can’t be identified and removed and the count adjusted.
But if the Libs could show that 100 dead people had voted, or 100 people’s names had been crossed off twice (both unlikely, it seems to me) the argument would be that 90-100 of them might have been ALP votes and therefore the election was tainted. (0n the assumption that nasty Labor people cheat but decent Libs never ever do – what, never? No, never! What, never? Wehhhll, ….) Similar argument succeeded in the Mundingburra case – some number of people had been deprived of their special postal vote and, though unlikely, they could have all been Nationals voters and it could have made the difference. Only thing for a judge to do – declare the election void and order a new one for that district (technically not a by-election).
I’m rather looking forward to Mikey O’Dwyer lodging a challenge so we can find out after close investigation how many or few really suspect votes there really were. If the answer is few, they will have proved to us what bad whinging losers they are. If the answer is many, well – one side was trying to cheat but there’s no evidence as to who it was, and either side is just as likely as the other.
It appears Langbroek is Geographically Challenged. Click on Gold Coast Chamber of Commerce under Business links to learn all about New Jersey.
http://jplangbroek.com/pages/links.php
William @ 186
I’d go one step further and say the ECQ ought to be able to give us an official 2PP figure for each booth. If they can do it for primaries, they can do it for 2PP.
Incidentally, where did you get your booth map figures from? Also google cache or through estimating preferences?
So long as they get it right in the end that’s all that matters. The goal is accuracy, not swiftness. And given that we allow postal voting, there’s really no choice in the matter of waiting a couple of weeks for a final result.
Nor will scanning machine improve things. Look at the Minnesota Senate race where a hand count was needed to correct the machine’s shortcomings. And their ballots only required marking a circle. A trivial task compared to reading numbers on a preferential ballot.
B.
Hi Antony at 201.
The scrutineers swear blind that they found a number of votes for Peter Dowling in the ALP pile and that’s where the late vote shift came from.
The most widespread and frequent fraud regarding election results is the claim that there is widespread and frequent fraud. Sometimes these type of baseless accusations are made by political parties in an effort to justify changes to electoral laws that would favour them – the previous federal government provides a textbook study in such a tactic.
It is quite easy after the fact to assess whether things like double or mutliple voting, or voting in the name of dead people has occured. If this can be shown to have occured on sufficiently wide enough scale to have potentially affected the result, the election for the relevant seat would be made void and a by-election held. The reason this rarely happens is because large-scale deliberate fraud is very rare. You would have to combine an extremely close result with clear evidence.
The reason why it is rare to have large-scale organised fraud affecting electoral results in Australia is that it would be very difficult to do undetected on the scale required to influence an outcome.
Some of the practices employed by political parties to try to influence the outcome can certainly be dodgy, but they are almost always legal. Sometimes legal changes are made specifically to try to improve the overall chances of a party (such the previous federal government’s changes to close the electoral rolls as soon as the election is called, and to try to prohibit all prisoners from voting). These things may be of dubious morality, but they are legal so they can’t really be counted as fraud.
“They are legal”? I suppose a government is acting “legally” when it pushes a Bill which turns out to be unconstitutional through Parliament, but it was very dodgy conduct! (For those who don’t know about Vickie Roach’s successful challenge to Johnnie’s law see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/43.html )
Otherwise, Antony, I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said above – when you read a case like Tanti v Davies (Mundingburra) it’s clear that most of the alleged “double voting” is because the wrong person’s name has been crossed off at one booth and the person who really owns that name has voted elsewhere. (Again for readers who don’t know it, it’s at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/1995/298.html ) The ECQ said they were using laptops at this election – I think the point was supposed to be that as names were checked they were sent back to HQ to check off a master roll. Is my impression about that right?
However, I still think the Commissions could be more proactive about taking dead peoples’ names off the roll, rather than, as I believe they do, waiting for notification from the Registrars. I did know someone years ago who boasted of voting 6 times once in dead mens’ names – though in the event it certainly didn’t affect the result. But the Libs and their stooge group the H S Chapman Society (or are the Libs the stooges of the Society?) certainly exaggerate the frequency of such incidents so they can try to change the law to make it harder for young folk, black folk, poor folk, etc to get on the roll and, once on the roll, to vote. Sometimes they give the impression they haven’t quite got reconciled to universal suffrage…
And, Emma, if you’re still reading this ancient string – we were discussing the opening of Parliament a page or two back. The Clerk tells me that in 2006, for the first time, they did the swearing-in and election of Speaker in the morning and then the Gov’s speech and tea and cakes on the lawn in the arvo of the same day, and they’ll do the same again this year. (This had quite slipped past me – the last time I watched the swearing-in from the gallery was after the Beattieslide in 2001.) See http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/education/documents/factSheets/Factsheet_3.21_OpeningOfParliament.pdf
Hi JAR
Still here, just having technical problems with login, which is frustrating as the discussion has become quite coherent and actually involves research and facts since the late-night bloggers dropped out – who are those people? What are they doing blogging at 3am? Do they live overseas? Why are they all Labor supporters? Are they really vampires in disguise?
Thanks for confirming the swearing-in date. We should meet there. I’m the willowy blonde in the red dress;)
The discussion here re election fraud is missing some history. It should be remembered, particularly by Andrew Bartlett @ 219, that the Queensland ALP does have a record of vote rorting, and it’s far from distant: Anna Bligh’s chief of staff, Mike Kaiser, was the third Labor MP forced to resign as a result of the Shepherdson inquiry, conducted by the Criminal Justice Commission, into allegations of electoral rorting. While rorting may – or may not – be caught as efficiently as Andrew suggests here, misgivings are understandable. It doesn’t require widespread vote rorting to swing a close seat. And it does seem to me strange that it’s so easy to ‘vote early, vote often’.
Does anyone know if the figures at the ECQ webpage are now *final* as opposed to just *declared*?
Emma I don’t think Bwee and Ryan and the other Jack were Labor supporters – and they were passionate to the point, certainly, of unreality and, possibly, incoherence.
Yes but that was getting enrolled at fake addresses so as to get a vote in the desired electorate in internal party pre-selections. Still not moral, but not “vote-rorting” in the sense in which it’s being used in this thread. And I agree with Andrew on that, and with Colin Hughes – there’s no evidence that much of it happens. And whose party operatives got caught delivering fake pamphlets in the last federal election, and stealing Labor corflutes in this one? Hmmm?
Now you’re getting me all excited – but the web is famous for people misdescribing themselves so I’ll control myself. If I come to watch the swearing-in I’ll be the old but interesting guy with the beard.
Is there a distinction Adam? Do they do further revisions after the declaration of the polls? When I look back at 2006 figures they still have the heading DECLARED above each seat’s figures.
Declared just means someone is declared elected. When the writ is returned to the Governor, a candidate is declared elected, but the actual result is not required to be returned with the writ. The results are more or less final, but as documents are returned to the Head Office of the Electoral Commission, any minor discrepencies will be corrected.
Most of the discrepencies will be in safe seats that nobody bothered to scrutineer.
Och JAR I would have to be a late-night loony indeed to suggest that all vice, or all virtue, belongs on either side of Australia’s political divide. I was commenting specifically on QLD voting misdeeds, rather than on campaign wrangles, which are very evenly shared between the two parties. Your point that the QLD ALP history relates to branch stacking, rather than general elections, is pertinent and true. I understand that there may not be organised high volume fiddling. But at this recent election I’ve heard from people that they fiddled the vote, which is anecdotal but seems to me to be significant, because it was obviously so easy to do. It was just one person voting for another who couldn’t get to the polls etc, but I still regard it as problematic. It wouldn’t have come anywhere near changing the result, but somewhere where the vote comes close, like in Redlands, it might. The late-night crowd I need explained to me are operating on the Poll Bludger’s site – please go and have a look! No, it’s true, I’m not blonde, am of uncertain gender, a candidate for the next series of biggest loser and covered in tattoos – see you at the first day of Parl!
That makes sense Antony (226), thanks v much. Do you know the answer to Adam’s question then – are all the results on the ECQ site as final as they’re going to get?
Emma (227), I’m not sure that I feel a sense of moral outrage that people do a de facto proxy vote for their friends at their express request, even though it is technically a breach of the law. I might even have done it myself once – or (having just noticed the constable standing behind me!) was that just a dream? It’s when the check of all the rolls returned from the booths reveals significant numbers of people appearing to vote more than once, or people now known to have died before polling day having voted, that I would get concerned. And, as several of us have said several times, it doesn’t happen.
And your self-description is so much the opposite of the previous one, I’m not sure that I believe it either. I know a few wimmin who match that description and none have ever voted Liberal or other form of conservative in their lives…
Oh, and Emma, I haven’t been following comments on Pollbludger, early-a.m. or otherwise. One blog is enough for me – I do have a day job and a consultancy or two, and a life away from the computer.
Should be final by the end of the month. The count went up today when Warrego was finalised. But all the paperwork will come back to the ECQ head office and be audited against what was reported back from the office of Returning Officers. They don’t re-count the votes, but some re-check will take place if discrepencies are noted.
So if we want truly definitive final figures, we have to wait for publication of the statistical returns?
more or less yes
I just got this, everybody, and thought the best group to pass it on to would be the crikey/electioncentral bloggers:
Australasian Study of Parliament Group Queensland Chapter Invites you to:
A behind the scenes review of the Queensland 2009 State Election with
Hon. Michael Lavarch – Dean of Law, QUT (and C’th A-G in Keating’s government)
Mr Antony Green – ABC psephologist (and blogger)
Hon. Andrew Fraser MP – ALP campaign
Mr Paul Turner – LNP campaign
To be held on Monday 27 April 2009
Time: 5.45pm for 6.00pm start – 8.00pm
Venue: Premiers’ Hall , Level 4, Parliamentary Annexe, George Street, Brisbane (Visitors’ parking under the freeway)
Light refreshments will be served. Cash bar.
RSVP: by Monday 20 April to Erin Pasley by telephone 3406 7931 or email Erin.Pasley@parliament.qld.gov.au
See you all there – come as your real selves or under your blognames!
So with a tip of precisely 51 ALP Seats when is my coronation?
Looking into that for you, Luckydave.
And since you said. Will, that the first hurdle was the number of ALP seats, the lucky man has won it all by himself on that criterion – but let it be noted that he was only 0.25% off on Pauline’s vote too. Can I buy your crystal ball please lucky one?
JAR I guess it’s all over between us, sigh, but anyway it wasn’t destined to last as my heart belongs to Antony Green. Night at parliament looks fantastic, thanks for posting. Will talk to all interesting bearded old blokes in the hope one is you. And congrats Lucky Dave.
Oh Emma, how could I possibly compete with Antony? See you both at the ASPG function. And all blogmeisters – Will, Poss, Mark, Antony, in particular – please spread the invitation (above @ 234) around as far as possible.
If anyone’s interested, I’ve done a 2PP analysis using the final 2CP counts on the ECQ website. There were 83 seats out of 89 with a standard ALP-LNP 2CP count. Of these, Labor won 51 and the LNP 32, with Labor winning 51.5% of the 2PP across these 83 seats. Of the other 6 seats, 4 were won by Inds and two by LNP; in 5 of these 6 seats Labor was 3rd, while in Gladstone the LNP didn’t contest. If we subtract 0.2% from Labor’s 2PP for each of the 5 where they ran 3rd, and add it in Gladstone, Labor gets 50.7% of the 2PP. Adjusting to 0.15% per electorate would give Labor 50.9%. So I think Labor got between 50.7% and 50.9% of the 2PP; this is what we’d expect using the ‘06 model, when Labor’s primary vote lead of 9% increased to 9.8% after prefs according to Malcolm McKerras estimates.
If LuckyDave is still reading, drop me an email to claim the spoils of victory.
Gollan decided he didn’t want to be Redcliffe resident after all. House removed from market.
Wow gold Wow gold wow power leveling wow power leveling buy wow gold buy wow gold world of warcraf power leveling world of warcraf power leveling cheap wow gold cheap wow gold
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All