Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. Are you on medication for the delusions at the moment?

Yeh and good people to convert

Pauline is a spent force, that will nevertheless carry some weight for as long as she chooses to remain in politics until her rusted on supporters meet their maker. She was the face of One Nation, though even on 8% (entirely unrealistic) she fails to secure a seat.

Much ridiculous press was made of FFPs “preferences with Pauline” in QLD, when they preferenced her 47 out of 65 candidates and the Coalition 7th position down!

Now, Andrew Bartlett (DEMS) rattled the cage on this non-story and railed about her anti-muslim anti-immigration and racist policies. What he failed to be truthful about is that his same party in NSW preferenced Pauline ahead of Family First!!! This is despite Family First:

1. Voting AGAINST the government on the terrible legislation to process refugees offshore (and Andrew was in the same room at the time!!!)
2. Having policies to increase foreign aid
3. Being PRO-IMMIGRATION and regardless of race nor religion!!

Where are the supposed principles?

In addition, both the Dems and Greens have made Climate Change central to this election. If they were truly being principled on this core issue, can they explain why they BOTH preferenced the ALP when they endorsed the pulp mill decision AND the Climate institute gave Family First a higher rating on their response to Climate change than either the ALP or the Libs???

I just can’t believe this story got legs. It is really absurd.

umm maybe a couple of points off the coalition vote into the labor column ?

————

The key exclusion in the Queensland race is the Family First/Pauline one.

The Greens -need- Family First to beat Pauline, otherwise her preferences go to Labor and push the Labor party ahead of the Greens and we end up with a 3-3 result.

If FF beat Pauline they receive her preferences, which keeps the Greens ahead of Labor, and we end up with a 2-2-1-1.

This also relies on the Coalition vote falling below 43%, which seems probable at this time.

I decided that I had best comply with your ruling (your logic seems pretty good to me) so I re-ran the figures (in Antony Green’s calculator) more along the lines that you suggested, and I also very slightly increased the Coalition vote. The end result is the same as previously! Family First beat Ron Boswell (National Party) into sixth place.

It could be a very late night and a nerve wracking wait of a week or two, for some Senate candidates.

1 MACDONALD Ian Douglas Liberal Party
2 HOGG John Joseph Australian Labor Party
3 BOYCE Sue Liberal Party
4 MOORE Claire Australian Labor Party
5 WATERS Larissa Australian Greens
6 BUCHANAN Jeff Family First Party

Party Total Votes % Votes Quotas
Family First 356,115 15.15% 1.0602
Liberal/National Coalition 315,612 13.42% 0.9396

Party Total Votes % Votes Quotas
Liberal/National Coalition 941,133 40.03% 2.8021
Australian Labor Party 820,288 34.89% 2.4423
The Greens 147,176 6.26% 0.4381
Pauline’s United Australia 126,487 5.38% 0.3765
Family First 100,625 4.28% 0.2995
Australian Democrats 50,548 2.15% 0.1505
One Nation 34,560 1.47% 0.1028
The Fishing Party 23,040 0.98% 0.0685
What Women Want 23,040 0.98% 0.0685
Group X Independents 11,520 0.49% 0.0342
Climate Change Coalition 9,404 0.40% 0.0279
D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party 9,169 0.39% 0.0272
Carers Alliance 7,993 0.34% 0.0237
Australian Fishing &Lifestyle Party 6,818 0.29% 0.0202
Australian Shooters Party 6,818 0.29% 0.0202
Liberty and Democracy Party 5,172 0.22% 0.0153
Group W Independents 4,937 0.21% 0.0146
Christian Democratic Party 4,702 0.20% 0.0139
Group N Independents 4,701 0.20% 0.0139
Non-Custodial Parents Party 4,466 0.19% 0.0132
Citizens Electoral Council 3,526 0.15% 0.0104
Group K Independents 2,586 0.11% 0.0076
Socialist Alliance 2,351 0.10% 0.0069

My thoughts on your numbers.

Pauline’s vote will rise and One Nation’s drop. ONP had a senator up for re-election in 2004, and are on the far right of the ballot this time.

Pauline: 5.5%, ONP: 1.5%.

The fishing vote will be split between Lifestyle and plain Fishing. So both below 1%. Fishing will be higher due to left positioning and simpler name.

Greens probably higher. Maximum 1%.

I’d never even heard of Family First until half way through the 2004 campaign. They’ve had three years to build their profile.

So Family First 1% higher.

Your votes for some independent groups are quite generous.. Group W,K,N.. 0.3% maximum.

Senator Online 0.1%.

What Women Want have the prime left position. Might get 1%.

Group X is James Baker, the National who contested pre-selection against Boswell. He’s had full page ads in country papers. I’m unsure what he’ll get but he won’t come last.

Candidate Party
1 MACDONALD Ian Douglas Liberal Party
2 HOGG John Joseph Australian Labor Party
3 BOYCE Sue Liberal Party
4 MOORE Claire Australian Labor Party
5 WATERS Larissa Australian Greens
6 BUCHANAN Jeff Family First Party

It comes from the following assumptions, the most ’sensitive’ of which are that One Nation polls below Pauline Hanson, so that One Nation preferences flow to Family First, who then pick up ALP and Green (and various other) preferences to beat Ron Boswell (National Party) into sixth place. One Nation did poll below Mrs Hanson last time, so this seems reasonable.

If Pauline Hanson polls below One nation, then her preferences go to One Nation and Family First get eliminated with Ron Boswell ultimately elected in sixth place, ahead of One Nation, on ALP and Green (and various other) preferences.

I have also assumed an overall swing of about 4% away from Coalition to ALP.

Party Total Votes %Votes Quotas
Liberal/National Coalition 922559 39.24% 2.75
Australian Labor Party 838156 35.65% 2.50
The Greens 126957 5.40% 0.38
Pauline’s United Australia 106738 4.54% 0.32
Family First 79231 3.37% 0.24
One Nation 73823 3.14% 0.22
Australian Democrats 51723 2.20% 0.15
The Fishing Party 30093 1.28% 0.09
Senator On-Line 12695 0.54% 0.04
Carers Alliance 12695 0.54% 0.04
Climate Change Coalition 12460 0.53% 0.04
Liberty and Democracy Party 12225 0.52% 0.04
What Women Want 11990 0.51% 0.04
Group K Independents 11520 0.49% 0.03
Australian Shooters Party 11285 0.48% 0.03
Group N Independents 11049 0.47% 0.03
Australian Fishing & Lifestyle Party 10814 0.46% 0.03
Non-Custodial Parents Party 4466 0.19% 0.01
Citizens Electoral Council 3526 0.15% 0.01
Group W Independents 2586 0.11% 0.01
Socialist Alliance 2351 0.10% 0.01
Group X Independents 2115 0.09% 0.01

Analysis of the below the line votes shops that most voters remain within the group of their first choice an whilst they may diverge in final preference allocation in general they tend to follow more and less the same direction as the party ticket. Which is why it is reasonable to assume that a below the line vote is in effect party ticket. Those who vote number 1 for a lead candidate tend to get locked into the party flow.

Those that vote one for the no 2 (Lib or ALP candidates) have their votes devalued as a result of the paper based surplus formula.

So whilst the btl vote may register 5% you can expect that a much lower value then 5% actually changed the flow of preferences to the extent that it could bring about an upset outcome form analysis of the above the line tickets.

In Victoria 2006 there was only one electorate that provided an change in the result as a result of below-the-line preferences that diverged from the party votes. And even then the result change was due to poor counting and votes that went missing between count A and count B and the adoption of optional preferential voting.

I am of the view that if the results from count A and Count B is different then there should be automatically a count C to confirm that mistakes were not made in Count B. or as a minimum a distributed random sample of the count should be verified.