Newspoll has 47 per cent for the ALP, 41 per cent for the LNP, 7 per cent for the Greens and only 5 per cent for Others in Victoria. The last Senate poll had a non-major party vote of 19.8 per cent (8.8 per cent Greens, 11 per cent Others), so I can see the Others vote doubling, but the question is which major parties lose votes and which micro-parties gain them.

I have worked on a 5 per cent swing from the LNP to the ALP on primaries. The Newspoll figures in fact show a 10.9 per cent swing to the ALP and a 3.1 per cent swing away from the LNP when compared with the 2004 Senate result, so my initial allocation of votes is particularly harsh to the ALP as I am taking 5.9 per cent from it to cover the increased non-major party vote, but only 1.9 per cent from the LNP for the same reason. In terms of the outdated left-right continuum, left-sounding parties (CCC, WWW, SoL, SEP, SA, CA) get 0.8 per cent, centre parties (AD, FF, DLP, CDP(?), CA) get 8.3 per cent), right-sounding parties (ON, ASP, LDP, CCE, CEC, NCPP) get 1.5 per cent, and independents get .4 per cent. This does not mean that the right-sounding parties take votes from only the LNP or that the left-sounding parties take votes from only the ALP, though majorities may do so in each case. Nor is it clear from which major parties the centre parties take votes. An electorate-by-electorate analysis of Senate and House votes would be needed to determine such figures.

I left the Greens on the 8.8 per cent they obtained in 2004. Some ALP voters will put them first in the Senate in the mistaken belief that this will help them get the balance of power (when it is LNP voters who have to do this) and some Greens voters may go for the other Climate parties. My basis for doing so can be subject to all sorts of arguments – which is fine by me. On my first run, I used the following figures:

Primary vote

Party % Vote

Group A: Climate Change Coalition .4
Group B: One Nation .4
Group C: Australian Democrats 1.8
Group D: What Women Want .1
Group E: Senator On-Line .1
Group F: Australian Labor Party 41.1
Group G: Australian Shooters Party .2
Group H: Liberal/National Coalition 39.1
Group I: Group I Independents .1
Group J: Socialist Equality Party .1
Group K: Family First 4.0
Group L: Liberty and Democracy Party .1
Group M: Conservatives for Climate and Environment .2
Group N: D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party 2.0
Group O: Christian Democratic Party .3
Group P: Group P Independents .1
Group Q: Citizens Electoral Council .5
Group R: Non-Custodial Parents Party .1
Group S: Socialist Alliance .1
Group T: Group T Independents .1
Group U: Australian Greens 8.8
Group V: Group V Independents .1
Group W: Carers Alliance .2
Ungrouped Candidates (no ticket submitted)
TOTAL 100.0

The result was 2 ALP, 3 LNP and 1 Green (elected on Liberal preferences). If I increase the ALP vote to 41.5 per cent and cut the Greens vote to 8.4 per cent, the result is 3 ALP, 3 LNP, with the Green missing out by only 96 votes. If I leave the Greens at 8.8 per cent and increase the ALP vote to 41.7 per cent and cut the Family First vote to 3.4 per cent, the result is 3 ALP and 3 LNP, with the Green missing out by 888 votes.

It seems to me that the contest for the last seat is definitely between the ALP and the Greens. In other words, it will have no effect on the balance of power because the Greens have to take seats from the Liberals, not from the ALP, to win the balance of power. All else being equal, if the ALP can get close to 42 per cent on primaries, it will win 3 seats. All else being equal, if the Greens can maintain their 2004 vote, they will win the last seat and cut the ALP back to 2 seats.

The polls say the ALP will win three seats. Voters telling pollsters that they will vote ALP in the House and then vote differently in the Senate will, if their numbers are sufficient, cost the ALP its third seat.

The irony in it all is that if Jacinta Collins were the No. 3 ALP candidate this time (as she was in 2004), DLP preferences would give her the ALP its third seat.

FFP primary polling has been increasing from their appearance on the scene (when was that? previous federal?). I believe at the Vic state election, they had more than 4%. It is quite reasonable to expect that to rise to 6-7%, within coo-ee of the Greens.

Generic Oracle, I think FFP is closer to the “middle” than most people realize. Senator Fielding voted against 45% of Howard’s legislation, including Work Choices, sale of Telstra, and Medibank. So they’re marketing themselves as a more “main-stream” party, without the extremes of (shudder) union-dominated Labor, the (IMHO) obsolete Dems, and the utterly impractical Greens. Could work.

most people have missed that the CCC goes to Labor’s first candidate only. Not to the third candidate before the Democrats and Greens.

So CCC vote will flow to Greens over Labor. This is the crucial preference. Labor 3 misses out because after Jacinta (yuk) is elected, CCC prefs go to Democrats then Greens.

Having said that, I probably follow the polling and media on FFP more than most here, so it is worth noting a few factors here:

1. Gary Plumridge (FFP) is from Geelong, and has been generating a reasonable amount of media attention for a minor on a shoestring since the Cats win and is apparently prolific on the ground.

2. The FFP vote here is certainly less than both QLD and SA, though a primary of 4% is certainly not out of the question given the last Victorian state election.

3. Preferences have still been fairly kind to FFP and the abundance of micros and other parties than tend to put them “middle to high middle” in the flow is either testament to their policy equilibrium at a centre-right position, perhaps just left of the Libs (and some might argue and LONG way left of Kevin Rudd!!). More likely such placement though was simply strategic/FFP not seen as a threat.

Now, on scenarios taken from polling, you can’t go past Chris Curtis’ analysis on “Wheel of Fortune 2″. I do recommend a look.

The Greens, on this analysis, have some chance at a seat as does Plumridge but only if the LIb vote is substantially down AND FFP gains about 6% of the primary… a tall order.

We may just see a 3-3 split and many would not be too surprised with this result.

I think the Dems primary vote will surprise people. It was 2% last election (a lot people like to think it was <1% but 2% is actually still a lot of voters – eg that was the Greens average for the 90s and early 00s). Presumably it will be higher because it feels like a better campaign, and maybe even a personal vote for Lyn Allison(?). Anyway, I expect 3-3.5%, not enough to get elected, but not far short of the 4.5% needed to probably do it.

I have never been right about these things though.

Although you all seem to be calling it 3/3 between the majors, there are many plausible scenarios where it splits 4/2, with 3 ALP and 1 of either the Greens or the Dems. Lyn Allison can get reelected on 4.5-5.5% of the vote (depending on how well CCC and Carers Alliance poll). Although a 3/3 split is the most probable outcome, a 4/2 split certainly remains possible.

The challenge for the Dems is trying to boost our vote to 4.5%+. Our campaign is far stronger than in 2004 – we have more reps candidates and will have better booth coverage, so we should poll significantly higher than 2004, but whether we can get our primary vote up enough to put us into contention remains to be seen. If we poll what we did in 2004, then of course we won’t have a chance. Ironically, the Greens need the Dems to poll well for them to have a shot at a seat, as it’s quite likely that the ALP will poll close to 3 quotas in the senate in Victoria, but not over 3 quotas, so the Greens won’t benefit from the national preference deal they cut with the ALP in Victoria.

I don’t think the Family First will match their state upper house vote from 2006 (which from memory was around 3.5%), as they face a lot more competition.