| 2007 | 2004 | ||||
| ALP | LIB | ALP | LIB | Swing | |
| Booths | 37,572 50.39 |
36,995 49.61 |
31,126 44.20 |
39,302 55.80 |
6.19 |
| Pre-Poll | 3,242 48.00 |
3,512 52.00 |
1,343 38.92 |
2,108 61.08 |
9.08 |
| Absent | 4,335 53.32 |
3,795 46.68 |
2,720 40.01 |
3,468 51.02 |
13.31 |
| Postal | 3197 44.15 |
4,045 55.85 |
2,670 39.28 |
4,128 60.72 |
4.87 |
| Provisional | 70 53.03 |
62 46.97 |
237 42.86 |
316 57.14 |
|
| Total | 48,416 50.00 |
48,409 50.00 |
38,096 43.58 |
49,322 56.42 |
6.42 |
| ALP (adjusted) | 50.0 | ||||
| LIB (adjusted) | 50.0 | ||||
Saturday evening. This post will be used to follow the final stages of the count in McEwen, where at the close of election night counting the ABC computer has Liberal incumbent Fran Bailey 0.2 per cent ahead of Labor candidate Rob Mitchell. On raw figures from the AEC Mitchell is 0.4 per cent ahead, but the Liberals had a relatively stronger performance on absent, pre-poll and postal votes in 2004.
Sunday evening. About 70 per cent of pre-polls have been counted, showing basically the same swing as the booth results. So Fran Bailey’s adjusted lead remains on 0.2 per cent.
Monday 10pm. As in neighbouring La Trobe, counting of postal votes (3,309 out of perhaps 8000) has delivered a huge boost to the Liberals. So far 2063 Liberal votes have been counted compared with 1246 for Labor, a swing to Liberal of 1.62 per cent from 2004. On raw figures this has turned Fran Bailey’s 315 deficit into a 502 vote surplus, and boosted her adjusted lead from 0.2 per cent to a formidable 0.6 per cent.
Tuesday 4pm. No new figures added so far today, but The Australian reports Labor has been “buoyed by the discovery of about 3000 votes wrongly sent to neighbouring Scullin. The ALP believes the votes may be from the working-class urban end of the electorate and may strengthen challenger Rob Mitchell’s position”.
Tuesday 11pm. No sign in the count of any undiscovered votes saving Labor’s bacon here. Instead we have 2688 newly added postal votes breaking 1527-1161 Fran McEwen’s way, giving her an 862 vote lead that might be deemed decisive if it weren’t for the lingering promise of those undiscovered votes.
Friday 3pm. Not sure if this has anything to do with those legendary missing Scullin votes, but Labor has done amazingly well from the counting of 2070 absent votes, slashing McEwen’s lead from 862 votes to 396.
Saturday 6pm. Another coup for Labor with a further 1007 postals going 640-367 their way, slashing the lead to just 111. It seems those absent votes from the previous entry were indeed the Scullin 2000 of legend, having been lodged as absentee votes at a booth near the boundary in Epping and sent to the wrong centre. About 4000 more absent votes remain to be counted, but these will presumably not behave the same way as those from the Epping booth, which come from a Labor-friendly area. It cannot thus be assumed that the strong trend to Labor will be maintained (although comments thread chat suggests the bulk of remaining absent votes were in fact lodged in neighbouring Labor electorates). If anyone’s interested, I’ve corrected a spreadsheet error that was inflating the Liberals’ “adjusted” two-party score.
Saturday 11pm. Another 2823 pre-polls have boosted Bailey’s lead by 39 votes.
Tuesday 11pm. A long-delayed addition of 4820 votes has gone against the much smaller earlier batch to break slightly in Bailey’s favour, increasing her lead by 34 votes. Still more bad news for Labor from booth vote re-checking, which has cost Mitchell 61 votes and Bailey only 32.
Wednesday 8pm. A further 1020 pre-poll votes have split almost evenly, increasing Bailey’s lead from 190 to 194.
Thursday 8pm. The contest has again come to life with 1034 absent votes breaking 569-465 Mitchell’s way, with a further 800 still unaccounted for. With re-checking also costing Bailey 23 and Mitchell breaking even, there are now just 82 votes in it.
Friday 8pm. Mitchell continues to barnstorm home, with a new batch of postals going 113-67 his way and pre-polls going 212-202. Re-checking has turned up eight votes for Bailey and five for Mitchell. Bailey now leads by 32. Still unaccounted for: 423 absent votes, 59 pre-polls and 78 postals. Samantha Maiden of The Australian reports that “an estimated 300 votes” remain to be counted.
Saturday 9pm. Good Lord. The final votes are in, pending a recount, and the last few absent votes have broken 100-93 in favour of Rob Mitchell, postals have gone 37-21 his way, pre-polls have favoured him to the tune of 33-23, and further rechecking of booth votes have cost Bailey 14 and Mitchell eight. The results: Mitchell by seven votes in the closest federal election result in modern memory. This post will now be shutting up shop – commenters might like to take their business to the new post.
113 Comments
Link says Macarthur but goes to McEwen …
I wonder whether pre-poll and absentee votes will actually be as strong for Bailey this time around. I personally doubt it.
If anything the mood in the polls prior to the election was even more antagonistic to the Libs. Bailey was also caught up in a certain amount of “debate” in local newspapers pointing out that she was making dubious claims about her “contribution” to the local area.
The Melbourne city booth and two hospital/ nursing home booths are still not counted. Labor won the city booth last time around by a fair percentage. Bailey won the two nursing home booths.
This is going to end up one of Australia’s most marginal seats, I reckon.
Cheers
Rod
Gee i would love to see Bailey get beat
Latest AEC figures (9.33am 25/11) show that after preferences, Mitchell (ALP) is ahead by 570 votes with a swing of 6.8% and ahead on 2PP 50.38% to 49.62%.
This one is going down to the wire.
*Correction for above figures – they are from 9.33pm last night, not this morning.
Yes, TP.
The difference between Antony Green and the AEC here is that Antony is assuming similar results from the absentees, nursing homes, postals etc as last time (which did go fairly solidly to Bailey). I’m not so sure that this will be repeated this time. No “Latham factor” to inspire fear in quite so many of the absentees, for example.
Down to the wire, indeed.
Cheers
Rod
Thanks, Rod. Do you know how many postal/absentee votes there were at the 04 election?
I hope Bailey is beaten then i would not have to see all those absurd airbrushed photos making her look twenty years younger.
Update from AEC:
1.27pm 25/11 – 73.94% 2PP counted
Mitchell (ALP) leads by 562 votes with a swing of 6.80% and ahead on 2PP 50.38% to 49.62%.
A comment that applies to all these close races…Liberal apologists/Labor pessimists all expected a narrowing. Now they all expect the Liberals to be saved by voted that were cast well before election day. Spot the contradiction comrades!
The change is from the counting of the votes from the Seymour “Barrabill House Nursing Home” nursing home
which went 2PP 34-26 to Bailey (a swing against her of 4.11% in that booth).
Cheers
Rod
Another update from the AEC and another narrowing of Mitchell’s lead:
76.33% 2PP counted
Mitchell (ALP) now leads by 315 votes. 50.2% to 49.8% on 2PP – a swing of 6.62%.
Mmm. Wonder where that particular set came from? A substantial number of votes in that package , as the total vote has gone up from 73% to 76%. Some absentees from surrounding areas. maybe?
Still no counting of the Melbourne city booth according to AEC, and it runs Labor’s way usually anyway.
Cheers
Rod
Looks like it was pre-polls:
Polling Place Formal BAILEY, Fran % MITCHELL, Rob %
PRE_POLL 2,441 1,344 55.06 1,097 44.94
(from http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionTcpByPollingPlace-13745-226.htm )
Still a lot of votes outstanding here.
I think your TPP figures should be the other way around, William.
Wiliam, sorry to correct you!
Based on current figures from the AEC site, it should in fact read:
ALP 50.2
LIB 49.8
Charlie and Howard Hater, my blue and red figures aren’t the raw numbers – they are treated to compare like results with like. On this basis the swing to Labor is 0.2 per cent short (or at least it was last night). However, I’m not taking into account the fact that different pre-poll figures come from different areas, so that might be skewing things a bit.
Update from AEC and Bailey (LIB) is now ahead:
26/11 4.41pm
Bailey (LIB) ahead by 506 votes – 2PP 50.31% to 49.69% – swing is back to 6.11% to the ALP.
Bailey now up by 506 votes as at 16:41 on Monday – huge catch up for the Libs in one day, suggesting momentum is with Fran and will be v. difficult for Labor to get in front again. Back to helping Mr Helper, Robert.
Of course the postals will go frans way (always do)… and so will the ones on Wednesday… Thursdays count is where its at!!!
just some news on mc ewen
Labor’s hopes of ousting former tourism minister Fran Bailey in McEwen have been buoyed by the discovery of about 3000 votes wrongly sent to neighbouring Scullin.
The ALP believes the votes may be from the working-class urban end of the electorate and may strengthen challenger Rob Mitchell’s position although he slipped backwards after the counting of postal votes yesterday.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22827219-5006785,00.html
Looks like a late one for the AEC as the McEwan update didn’t come through until 10:10pm. The count has cut the Bailey (Liberal) lead to 396 votes with 84.46% of the vote counted, which now includes 2070 absentees.
It has been mentioned elsewhere on this site that last night’s count was meant to include the “missing” 3000 votes. The gain to Mitchell (ALP) in last night’s figures, however, seems to have come entirely from the absentees which are running 61% in Labor’s favor.
I’ve been doing some further numbers…
* Ordinary (polling booth) results are about 3500 below what might be expected based on the 2004 results, adjusted for the 9% increase in enrollment in McEwan from 2004. Consequently, the “3000 missing votes” may yet turn up.
* Based on 2004 returns, there are likely to be approximately 4000 absentee, 1500 pre-poll and 1000 postals yet to be counted, or a little over.
* If remaining absentee, pre-poll and postal returns remain consistent with trends to date this results in around 3115 extra votes to the ALP and 2385 to the Liberal Party. This would be enough for the ALP to win the seat by a bit over 200 votes.
Caveats:
* The current percentage of absentees going to the ALP (61%) is dramatically higher than 2004 (44%) yet postals and prepoll are more consistent with 2004 (2004 – 39% pre-poll, 39% postal to ALP; 2007 – 45% prepoll, 40% postal to ALP). This suggests that there might be some weirdness in the early absentee counting. If the 61% absentee ALP vote doesn’t hold up then the Liberal party looks pretty safe.
* We’ve been lead to believe that if these 3000 mystery votes ever appear they’re likely to favor the ALP. Although it’s possible that they’re still out there I personally won’t be holding my breath.
Conclusion: the ALP remains a real chance here, but given the above uncertainties my money is on the Liberal Party retaining the seat by a nose.
Rob Mitchell has cut Bailey’s lead from 800 odd votes to 396!!!
This from the AEC at 5pm Friday:
Turnout: 84.46%
BAILEY, Fran Liberal 42,905 50.23
MITCHELL, Rob Australian Labor Party 42,509 49.77
I understand that the ‘missing’ votes from Scullin were counted yesterday afternoon – hence the halving of the margin overnight.
They weren’t missing per se, but were from a large Epping booth which is located in Scullin – but where many McEwen voters from north of Epping and Mill Park lakes voted. These people were voting as absentee voters.
On that basis, the Libs’ chances in McEwen are now much better than 50/50.
potato_masher @ 20 -
Hmmm… I’d like to see the numbers behind your odds… 400 votes seems to be a huge amount to pick up given that in 2004 only 44% of McEwan’s absentee votes went to Labor. (Not to mention remaining postals and prepolls, 55-60% of which are still flowing to the LP.)
Even if the remaining absentees follow the seat’s overall swing of 6% to the LP this simply reinforces the status quo at 50/50. The ALP’s only hope in this seat is if the absentees stay on 61/39%, which seems unlikely… unless there’s something I’m missing?
potato_masher @ 26 I meant
Actually I have changed my mind re Mcewen…but only slightly…
There are still an amazing 7000+ absent votes to count in McEwen as well as 5000 pre-polls
Expect that the Libs will gain a few hundred on pre-polls
But the absents will mostly be concentrated on the southern metro boundaries of McEwen…predominantly strong Labor outer northern suburbs such as Epping, Mill Park as well as less strong areas near Diamond Creek and Greensborough…these are absent votes from people who live in McEwen but have voted down the road (in the same or neighbouring suburb) which is in Scullin or Jaga Jaga.
With 7000 votes at say 55%, Labor could gain as much as 700 votes…and I would put 55% as a moderate level. The Libs will have to depend on keeping up their leading trend in the remaining pre-polls and postals or will be overtaken
I’ve been up in Queensland for the last few days and I’d just about given up on McEwen from the numbers I saw earlier in the week. Got quite a shock at Rockhampton airport on the way home when I saw this afternoon’s figures.
Bailey must be seriously sweating , I reckon, and not just because of the hot weather that I gather we’ve had here while I’ve been away!
I’d be very surprised if Labor don’t pick up this seat next time around if they don’t make it this time. Bailey is getting old. If she stands again in 2010 then I suspect that the national incumbency will boot her out. If she doesn’t stand then loss of the local member factor and probably some demographic changes will make it a Labor seat on Green’s prefs.
If Labor doesn’t win McEwen in 2007 then it is going to be a mighty enticing prospect for a good candidate next time around! The demographics suggest it is likely to simply keep on getting better for Labor barring a major redistribution. But it looks to me as if there is still a 40% chance that Mitchell will take it for Labor this election
Cheers
Rod
What will probably save her skin is the forthcoming Victorian redistribution due in 2009. The current enrolment of 104,509 is already on the high end of the range.
In the next redistribution McEwan will almost certainly move northwards, cutting out a few of the Labor voting booths in the southern end of the electorate.
The only thing that might cost her the seat is an early DD election.
It is tightening even further in counting this morning according to the ABC, who say the margin is now down to about 100 votes!
Just a confirmation – the gap on the AEC website is down to 121 now – http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-226.htm
Interestingly Rob Mitchell also seems to be picking up a higher proportion of the later postals at present, which are currently splitting 43.5 to 56.5 (rather than the 40/60 being posted yesterday)
Sorry, that should have been a lead of 122, not 121
It’s looking like Labor might actually be able to claw this one back. Go Labor!!! Destroy the Libs!!
That was a huge surge for Mitchell in the last batch of counting given that the only change from yesterday is the addition of a little over 1000 postals.
Mitchell, therefore, has picked up almost 60% of this latest batch. Quite a dramatic change from the split in earlier postals.
This makes some sense, since to date the swing to labor in postals has been <1%, compared to the swing in the seat overall of around 6%. If Mitchell can pull the postals up to the average swing in the final batch then he is indeed in with a fighting chance.
Although I’d still call it 50/50, the token $10 I put on Mitchell to win might be safe after all… the kicker will be whether the swing on absentees is a little above or a little below the seat average.
If remaining absentees reflect the overall -6.35% swing to date Mitchell likely gets over the line. If they lag behind the seat average then Bailey survives, bearing in mind that in 2004 only 44% of absentees went to the ALP.
4000 absentees to be counted this afternoon in McEwan.
Mitchell is murdering poor little Franny on absentees. 111 is the margin and now and there are still many thousand to be counted. Is this the revenge of the shift workers in the northern suburbs?
Anyone know where the remaining absentee votes are from?
There will no doubt be some from booths in Scullin, Jaga Jaga and Calwell, but no doubt there will be some significant numbers from less Labor friendly areas such as Indi, Murray, and maybe for some other rural voters, Bendigo.
I wonder which have been counted and which are still to go.
I believe the ones being counted today are from Scullin. The ones to be counted on Monday are from Jaga Jaga.
The only additional votes showing this afternoon so far (on the 5.54PM update) are actually pre-polls, which have pulled Bailey back to a lead of 286 votes BUT the overall percentage of pre-Polls she got from this lot again was substantially less than the earlier ones.
Still no sign of additional absentees on the AEC website.
Cheers
Rod
Sorry, don’t know how I imagined that figure – should have said “have pulled her back to a lead of 150″ (not 286 – that is merely the overall difference on pre-polls – sorry about the brain fade)
Cheers
Rod
In response to
# Rob on 01 Dec 2007 at 9:48 am
“What will probably save her skin is the forthcoming Victorian redistribution due in 2009. The current enrolment of 104,509 is already on the high end of the range.
In the next redistribution McEwan will almost certainly move northwards, cutting out a few of the Labor voting booths in the southern end of the electorate.”
I have to disagree with your assertion here.
McEwen is currently the largest electorate in Victoria by number of electors, but if you look at the surrounding electorates – it is likely to move South.
To its North – Indi, to its South-East – McMillan, to its West – Bendigo, to its South – Ballarat, Lalor, Calwell, Scullin, Jagajaga, Menzies, Casey and LaTrobe.
If you look at the sizes of these electorates.
VIctorian Average – 93,030.
McEwen – 104,509 (Victoria’s Largest)
Indi – 90,871
McMillan – 87,092
Bendigo – 97,197
Ballarat – 93,624
Lalor – 103,761
Calwell – 95,622
Scullin – 88,924
Jagajaga – 93,765
Menzies – 89,968
Casey – 89,313
LaTrobe – 92,029.
Looking at that, surely the most likely outcome is that parts of Northern McEwen will be chopped off and given to Indi (Eildon, Alexandra, Yea perhaps) – which can only expand southward, and perhaps parts will be given to McMillan (In the Yarra Ranges). The rest could stay relatively the same, but the relative weight of the southern areas of McEwen will be increased.
I do agree with the contention of # Rod on 01 Dec 2007 at 1:05 am, that it is likely to fall to Labor the next time it goes to the polls in the near future. Either at a by-election or the 2009/2010/2011 election – whenever it is held.
I’d been thinking along similar lines, myself, McEwen Man, but another distinct possibility may be that they will simply shuffle off the rapidly developing Mill Park / Mernda growth corridor area along the northern extension of Yan Yean and Plenty Roads into Scullin. This, in the short term, could be used to restore basic numerical balance (though Scullin itself would in the medium term then be likely “outgrow” its neighbours, too, I guess.)
Still no sign of any more of those absentee votes!
Cheers
Rod
I still can’t understand the “declaration Vote Scrutiny process” page for McEwen.
(see http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionDecScrutinyProgress-13745-226.htm )
The number of absentee votes so far received seems very low and the tallies simply don’t seem to match, with more votes being counted than “envelopes issued” in some categories.
Is it likely that some of the “absentee” votes have incorrectly been added to the “pre-poll” and “postal” categories, perhaps, or am I simply misunderstanding the meaning of the figures?
McEwen Man – Your numbers are good.
My call was a gut reaction based on my experience with particular outer-suburban seats that have in the past tended to move progressively away from Melbourne following each redistribution. I’ve now had a look at the actual numbers and it does indeed seem that the next push will be towards the city.
Rod on 02 Dec 2007 at 9:14 am –
I would guess that the numbers ISSUED are those issued *by* the McEwan AEC office or booths, but not necessarily *for* McEwan. So, for example, “absentees issued” will all be for ballots issued to people enrolled in other electorates who are voting at McEwan booths. (While McEwan voters voting elsewhere won’t be included in this total.) The ‘issued’ numbers therefore may not be a good guide of what to expect.
A better guide is the 2004 returns, to which you might want to add 9% for seat growth. For the record:
2004 totals:
ABSENT 6,188
PRE_POLL 3,451
POSTAL 6,798
PROVISIONAL 553
DIVISION TOTAL 87,418
By this account, pre-poll looks done and postals look close to done, with only a couple left to trickle in from Tierra del Fuego (or wherever) over the next week.
We know that we’re waiting on around 1091 provisionals, of which about 600 are likely to be valid. We’re also waiting on around 4000 absentees.
On the other hand, if you look at turnout, we’re currently on 92,230 but you would reasonably expect to receive around 100,000 at 96% turnout. We therefore know that we have around 7500 ballots left to count overall – most likely the extra 2400 will split mostly between absentees and a few more postals. (Also, if you’re only looking at the 2PP totals you need to subtract around 3.5% from the above figures to allow for informals.)
Therefore, the seat will be decided on absentees and Labor needs to hold at least a 6% swing on absentees to be in with a chance. My guess it that it’s looking good for Mitchell, although there’s no doubt it will go down to the wire.
Rob wrote:
I would guess that the numbers ISSUED are those issued *by* the McEwan AEC office or booths, but not necessarily *for* McEwan.
Perhaps, Rob, but if you have a look at the very “neat” set of figures from neighbouring Macmillan at http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionDecScrutinyProgress-13745-223.htm or in the Queensland seat of Dickson, for example, you will see that the McEwen numbers look exceeding strange!
My suspicion is that the number of ” issued” number is, indeed, meant to be for this electorate, not from this electorate. I think either there is some category misattribution here, or there are data entry errors for some categories, or some of the figures for votes received have not been properly updated on the web site.
Regardless, it is pretty clear that there are still enough absentee votes waiting to come in to give the seat to Rob Mitchell if current percentages hold, as you suggest.
I wrote My suspicion is that the number of ” issued” number is, indeed, meant to be for this electorate, not from this electorate.
This piece of nonsense was, of course, meant to say:
“…….the “number of issued” number is, indeed, meant to be for this electorate, not for those voting ‘absentee” for other electorates at McEwen booths .”
Rod and McEwen Man: I think it’s too hard to work out what would happen to McEwen in the next redistribution.
While McMillan is short on numbers, you have a mountain range between it and McEwen, and I doubt the AEC would move the Yarra Valley to McMillan.
I see two options – either little bits of urban sprawl get hived off to seats like Scullin, Casey and Menzies (this would probably help the Libs in McEwen), or somewhere like Seymour, and/or Alexandra, Eildon and Yea get moved to Indi (which would definitely help Labor).
One one side of the electorate, the Diamond Creek area is growing rapidly, while houses are going up everywhere in the new suburbs north of Scullin. The population projections would suggest quite a lot of voters will need to be taken out of McEwen to cope with future growth.
I don’t think the AEC will fiddle much with Bendigo, and if Ballarat is to absorb more voters, they’d probably come from Lalor.
My rough guess is that seats like Scullin will be moved a bit north, because their population projections wouldn’t be as healthy. And that would help Bailey (presuming she survives this election – it’s going to be close).
the number of absent votes will be exceedingly high in McEwen as the southern boundary slices through the reasonably dense outer northern suburbs these days. These suburbs such as Mill Park Lakes and South Morang use to be wholly in Scullin/Jaga Jaga but have now quickly grown further north into McEwen (hence the above average population in McEwen these days).
Many of these new residents of McEwen will have voted in Scullin/Jaga Jaga booths across the AEC boundary where they shop or these kids play sport on a Saturday.
Hence, the ALP should get a significant chunk of all remaining absents and win by a few hundred votes in my mind.
A pity cause Rob Mitchell is a complete nong who has just been in the right place at the right time to win firstly a State seat and now a Fed seat. The ALP dont have much time for him – that’s why he got the arse in the last State pre-selections.
I reckon there is clearly something up with the count in McEwen.
All of the other close seats have had updates from AEC today, but not McEwen.
Coupled with the apparent anomalies in the declaration votes mentioned earlier, this suggests some sort of issue holding up either the count or the tabulation of results.
Still no update on McEwen by 6PM Monday! Curiouser & Curiouser
Rod @ 53
My maxim is, “when faced with a choice between incompetence and conspiracy, always choose incompetence.” More likely the McEwan RO is either new, slow, or both.
On a related note, completely inadvertently, I stumbled into a hive of activity at Melbourne count this afternoon. The only scruitineer I could see was a rep from the Greens desperately looking for a few thousand extra votes to get Di Natale over the line. I don’t hold out much hope, but you’ve got to admire their perseverance.
Rob, there are only 7 other Victorian seats which haven’t posted an update today. Every one of them has an absolute majority on the primaries. McEwen, by contrast, is one of Australia’s closest contests.
I’m not for a moment suggesting a “conspiracy” ( neither Jeb nor George Bush, nor the US Supreme Court, have been anywhere near McEwen as far as I know!
) , but I do think they have very clearly run into a major problem with the count in McEwen.
It would be interesting (and desirable, in the interests of electoral transparency) to know what it is, don’t you think?
Cheers
Rod
calm down lads…let the AEC work through their processes…there are a lot of votes to count…better they count them properly than count them quickly just to suit our needs
The AEC have actually dramatically changed the “audit” results in the last hour or so, P- masher, though there is no indication on the website that an “update” has occurred. Prior to that they were claiming to have counted more votes in some categories than they said they had received!
Assuming the current figures are correct, and, as they now suggest, almost all the pre-polls and postals have been counted but a huge swag of more than 7000 absentees remain to be dealt with, this is looking to be a likely gain for Labor.
I see the update has finally been posted. Still 88.25% but the margin is now 149 votes in favour of Bailey. Maybe they just recounted votes today?
Looks like it Ed.
There are big changes to the Declaration vote scrutiny stuff (which now makes sense) but the only other change seems to be the loss of a single vote from Bailey’s tally.
Maybe they had to do a recount to sort out the audit problems.
Let’s hope they can finally start dealing properly with the absentees!
Whatever the process that was occuring in the McEwen count over the last couple of days, the upshot is that overall difference had closed to 142 votes last night. 20 votes had been removed from Bailey’s “ordinary” tally, and 12 from Mitchell’s.
Cheers
Rod
By my reckoning, if the remaining postals and pre-poll votes all come in and continue to “break” as they have so far, then Mitchell needs just under 52% of the remaining absentee votes to win.
Given that those absentees counted so far are running 61% to 39% it looks very likely indeed that another former Lib minister is going to bight the dust.
I should add that I left the 1000 or so “provisionals” out of the last calculation. Anyone know how many of them usually end getting counted, and how they have split in the past?
Rod,
The 2004 figures had 553 provisionals counted in the final results and they split 57% in favour of Bailey – much the same as her overall vote. I can’t see any figures on how many provisionals were cast then. I’d guess that about the same number will be included in the final count this time and they are more likely to split closer to 50/50 with no significant advantage to either side. So it comes back to your scenarios in post#61.
Bailey’s lead out to 215 after 4000 odd absentee votes counted today. Labor’s share of these votes has dropped from 61% to 53%. Unless there is still a big batch to come in from other Labor areas it would seem that Bailey will hold on now.
Yes, Ed. Looks like the wicked witch of NE Melbourne and adjacent rural areas is going to scrape in yet again, on the basis of an almost unbelievable turnaround on absentees.
Those of us involved in any sort of community related activity in the area are going to stay mighty p@@@ed off about her amazing gall in regularly claiming the work of others as her own.
Those who relied on her promises this time around, though, are going to find that she no longer has access to the slush funds that occupied a significant part of the Auditor General’s pre-election report.
If she has any sense she will have jumped ship long before the next election. Not many around here will be sad to see her do so.
But heck, she is old, out of power, and hanging on by the plaque on her remaining teeth. IF Labor put up a decent candidate next time around McEwen is clearly there for the taking.
Sigh! I truly thought she was gone this time. I’m yet to meet anyone in McEwen who really wanted her to stay!
Yep, Bailey’s definitely got this one. Damn. Better luck next time…
Rod Rod Rod!
“I’m yet to meet anyone in McEwen who really wanted her to stay!”
How about the 45% of McEwen voters who put her down as no.1 on the ballot paper????
Dont let the partisan side of you takeover from the sane side.
tch tch tch!
pm writes: How about the 45% of McEwen voters who put her down as no.1 on the ballot paper????
Sorry pm, don’t see the connection.
3/4 of the ones you mention probably genuinely believe that Kevin Rudd is Lenin’s second cousin and John Howard is the last bastion against Saladin’s forces, while the rest are split between those who reckon she has a great name for a drink and those who vaguely remember the “Old Bailey” from some English TV show featuring ageing barristers.
Heck. I’ve been living in this electorate for 15 years and, as I said, I’ve yet to meet anyone who openly admits to wanting her as the local member!
Rod – Having had some minor dealings with Bailey in her capacity as a minister, I’m just very pleased that she no longer has that authority. I suspect quite a few public servants who worked for her would be equally relieved about that and privately delighted that she has been run so close in McEwen.
Got to temper my disappointment somehow. Darnit.
I suspect the inevitable redistribution of this seat will be a significant determining factor as to whether she saddles up for another go. It does sort of look as if her ministerial career has probably passed now. Thank goodness for that I say.
All being equal, I’d be very surprised if the new government doesn’t target this seat as being one they’d like to begin work on soon for next time.
you prove my point Rod….those 45% of people don’t want to see Lenin’s 2nd cousin’s intellectually challenged nephew takeover from Bailey in McEwen…if they thought that Bailey was that bad they would have voted for a minor party/indie
You clearly haven’t met any of the the conservative minor party candidates in McEwen, PM!
Cheers
Rod
Re McEwen in the Vic redistribution:
With Victoria almost certain to lose a seat this time, McEwen might well be the seat that goes.
All the surrounding rural seats are along the border, or based on Bendigo and Ballarat, so it would be difficult to abolish one of them. All these seats will need to expand and are likely to move further into the Macedon ranges, Central highlands, etc. Likewise the metropolitan divisions (Jagajaga, Casey, Scullin) will probably expand into the semi-rural fringe parts of McEwen.
Whoever wins this time could be left without a seat in 2010.
McEwen is now (10.49AM Thursday) back to a margin of 90 votes!
After additional absentee counting Bailey sits on 47,939 , while Mitchell is on 47,849
Around 1100 absentees outstanding, plus a few hundred postals and pre-polls, and 1091 provisionals.
This one isn’t over yet after all, it seems.
Cheers
Rod
At 12.21 the gap is down to 82 – Mitchell on 47919 to Bailey on 48001 , with Mitchell picking up an extra 8 (70 to 62) out of the first batch of 290 provisionals.
Rod, you poor bugger, this must be killing you. Nevertheless, the joy of doing Bailey slowly will be worth it if the count keeps going as it has this morn / early arvo. Do you think with what’s left to count Mitchell can get her or will it be an unbearably close victory for the tories?
Regarding Marcus
December 6th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Saying Victoria is likely to lose a seat. I would doubt that.
The average electorate size in NSW is smaller than that in Victoria – and added to that is the fact that at present the population of Victoria is growing faster than that in NSW.
Given that, I can’t possibly see how Victoria will lose a seat – if any state is to lose a seat it would be NSW. But to where?
Not SA or TAS obviously. Nor WA either – it has the smallest electorate size by far of the mainland states, and nor QLD. Really, I think the seats will stay consistent per state for the 2010 election. For 2013, you may get an extra Queensland seat I guess.
Make no mistake, McEwen will be there in 2010 – but its unlikely Fran Bailey will.
SIEV X writes: Do you think with what’s left to count Mitchell can get her or will it be an unbearably close victory for the tories?
Depends totally on where they are from and how many there are remaining that are valid, SIEV.
If they are from the “Melbourne end” of the electorate then the number of absentees alone (about 900 uncounted) could pull Mitchell over the line if they break the same way as the last lot. If they are from somewhere like Shepparton, though, completely the reverse holds, and he won’t have a hope.
Still a fair number of postals outstanding, too, but many of these may not be received in time, I guess. Still about 750 provisionals left, too, of which about half seem likely to be actually counted.
Time for at least one more twist before we know, I reckon.
Just for my two cents though – the next seat to be abolished in Victoria, whenever that happens, I’ll plum for Chisolm.
Caught in a bit of a no man’s land at the moment. Low growth and liable to have its eastern half eaten by Kooyong and Higgins and possibly its western half dismembered as well.
Just worked out the Australian Electorate Size Averages – to prove the point I made earlier. I can’t see Victoria losing a seat anytime soon.
Australian Electorate Size Averages – By State
ACT (2) 119,371
SA (11) 97,815
VIC (37) 93,030
NSW (49) 91,742
Australia 90,967
QLD (29) 90,079
WA (15) 87,529
TAS (5) 69,958
NT (2) 58,951
As an aside, there are 9 electorates in Australia with over 100,000 electors.
4 in Victoria
McEwen 104,509
Gorton 104,462
Lalor 103,761
Holt 100,884
2 in ACT
Canberra 122,401
Fraser 116,341
2 in SA
Barker 102,626
Port Adelaide 100,244
1 in NSW
Wentworth 100,276
Looking at those figures – Can’t see anyway Victoria is going to be losing a seat probably before the 2016 election at the earliest.
If NSW had 48 seats, 1 less than now, their average electorate size would move up to just above Victoria’s, at 93,653.
How do Tassie manage to hang on to 5 in these circumstances?
Rod said:
Section 26 of the Constitution ensures that Tasmania gets a minimum of 5 seats.
Ah!. Of Course!
With 12 Senators and 5 members in a State with the same population as Newcastle NSW it is certainly a good place to head if you want a career in Federal politics, I guess!
Now (8.39PM THursday) down to a 76 vote margin, with almost all the provisionals provisionally ruled out, 750 absentees remaining, and some more postals and pre-polls.
Now its down to 21 votes – see http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-13745-226.htm
According to the Declaration Vote scrutiny at http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionDecScrutinyProgress-13745-226.htm there are still around 700 absentees to count, but I’m not sure I trust that page.
Anyone around with a direct line to the scrutineers?
Cheers
Rod
The pick up is basically down to Mitchell doing very well in the late Postals and holding his own on the late Pre-Polls.
your going to ber more marginal than Bowman!!!
Yes, looks like hours of future fun to be had with this one, Redlands R.!
Gee I wish if the number of absentees still outstanding was really as great as the AEC website suggests though!
Mmm. I wonder if anyone has ever calculated the productivity loss caused by “skin of the teeth” election results!
Cheers
Rod
Never quite sure if I’m simply talking to myself here, but heck, this is going to be the most marginal street in Oz after this election!
McEwen at 6.05PM has a few hundred absentee votes left to count (goodness knows why!) and Fran Bailey (Lib) in front by 27.
Who wins depends completely on where they are from. “Projections” based on the general percentage in particular vote categories at this stage in the process are completely meaningless. If they are from the city end then Mitchell will “walk it in” (by a couple of dozen votes
) . If they are from Shepparton or some other rural centre then Bailey will win. If they are from a mix of both then it is in the lap of the inhabitants of Olympus or Valhalla or Álfheimr or Miðgarðr or some such!
Cheers
Rod
Never quite sure if I’m simply talking to myself here, but heck, this is going to be the most marginal street in Oz after this election!
McEwen at 6.05PM has a few hundred absentee votes left to count (goodness knows why!) and Fran Bailey (Lib) in front by 27.
Who wins depends completely on where they are from. “Projections” based on the general percentage in particular vote categories at this stage in the process are completely meaningless. If they are from the city end then Mitchell will “walk it in” (by a couple of dozen votes
) . If they are from Shepparton or some other rural centre then Bailey will win. If they are from a mix of both then it is in the lap of the inhabitants of Olympus or Valhalla or Álfheimr or Miðgarðr or some such!
Cheers
Rod
Bowman looks gone rod- 102 votes in the end but no-one can confirm for sure. hopefully labor will put them through a recount just to drag it out.
then the fun begins for the opposition backbencher who I think will find his workload rather drastically increased!!!!
keep talking I’m listening
Bowman looks a tad shaky, RR, but according to the AEC site there are still a fair number of absentees outstanding so I wouldn’t give it away quite yet unless you have some inside info.
Sounds like a somewhat similar electorate to McEwen in some ways, with its mix of suburban and semi rural areas so where the remaining votes come from can matter quite a lot.
Whichever way these two fall I reckon a good candidate will take them next time around.
Still in the game, but only just, would be my take on Bowman.
Here we now have a gap that has grown to 32 after two more votes were knocked off the ALP and two added to the Lib. No more counting that I can see, simply an adjustment.
Still waiting on those 500 + or – absentees down here. Whichever way they go decides the result I reckon.
Cheers
Rod
PS, lucky I’m not a finger nail chewer or I wouldn’t have enough digits left to type by now!
probably wasn’t the best time to choose to give up smoking though!
Cheers
Rod
there hasn’t been an update on counting since 10.30 QLD time which suggests very strongly its all over – despite the incongruity of AEC figures. Which is really annoying in itself if you are relying on their figures as published to inform you.
i wouldn’t even have a clue where Mcewen is (apologies) but i really have to call it – just hope a recount makes some changes, as futile as that is in reality
keep it up down there and keep an eye on my ongoing dialogue with the libs in bowman.
RR
i’m listening too – have been following quietly…ever hopeful that Madam Bailey will be gently (!) directed to early retirement…
thanks for your hard work and explanations…
i’ve been listening too- it’s been good – thanks guys
The only change so far this morning (Website at 11.30AM Saturday 8th) involves a slight REDUCTION in the regular booth count for both Bailey (Lib) and Mitchell (ALP). In other words , more “housekeeping”.
The overall effect is to reduce Bailey’s margin slightly again, to 26 votes.
According to AEC website there 423 Absentees, 58 Pre Poll and 78 Postals remaining to count.
Cheers
Rod
Bailey down by 7
What is left to come, Watcher?
Wow!
What a beautiful sets of numbers!
All counted.
Labor finish 7 votes in front!
BAILEY, Fran Liberal 48,409 50.00 -6.42
MITCHELL, Rob Australian Labor Party 48,416 50.00 +6.42
I’ll wait for any recounts or CDR activity before I get too excited, but ain’t that great!
Another Howard minister bites the dust!
Cheers
Rod
Unbelievable!
Big issue in McEwen over the how to vote card for Bailey The last number on the Bailey card was a 7 printed in italics. Nearly 300 Bailey voters couldn’t decide whether this was a 1 or a 7. The result was that nearly 300 votes for Bailey were classed as informal. Sheezel approved the how to vote card and now has egg on his face. Believe me the returning officer used a magnifying glass to determine whether many of the Bailey votes were a 1 or a 7. Watch this space.
I don’t know that the Court of Disputed Returns could overturn a result on the basis of a poorly-designed HTV. Surely?
Are you sure they’re all counted? The AEC site seemed a bit inconclusive
The HTV would clearly be the party’s fault, it’s their own responsibility to ensure their voters know how to vote correctly for their candidate
The problem the returning officer has to decide whether its a 1 or a 7 on several disputed votes. As you know some people when they indicate a 1 they put a little inflection on the top. That’s why the vote has taken so long at McEwen
The problem the returning officer has to decide whether its a 1 or a 7 on several disputed votes. As you know some people when they indicate a 1 they put a little inflection on the top. That’s why the vote has taken so long at McEwen. Returning officer and scrutineers have the same the problem in oth electorates. It is just that when it comes down to a few votes it becomes more critical.
Watcher writes: The problem the returning officer has to decide whether its a 1 or a 7 on several disputed votes.
Wouldn’t a problem of that kind affect votes from both candidates, Watcher?
Cheers
Rod
Oliver says: Are you sure they’re all counted? The AEC site seemed a bit inconclusive
Hi Oliver. The only real discrepancy on the website is a single vote that appears to be mislocated in either the “Postal” or “pre-Poll list. Not enough to change the vote and probably simply a “clerical error”.
DECLARATION VOTE SCRUTINY PROGRESS
Absent Provisional Pre-Poll Postal Total
Envelopes Issued 9528 1091 7276 9379 27274
Envelopes Received 9528 1091 7276 7790 25685
Rejected at Preliminary Scrutiny 877 949 292 373 0
Ballot Papers Counted 8651 142 6983 7418
remaining to count? (approx) 0 0 1 -1
(Sorry if that didn’t line up)
The discrepancy between Postals issued and postals received occurs simply because some people obtain them but don’t use them, and others arrive beyond the time limit.
Cheers
Rod
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22892302-29277,00.html
7 votes in the news.
rod at 107:
It would but it means that ability of the scruitineers to argue for the inclusion/exclsusion of doubtful ballots comes into play. Perhaps more important making sure you watch every ballot counted to make sure no possible informals go into the opponents pile. So the candidate with the best scruitineers will prolly win when it comes down to a margin as small as this.
The issue about the 1 & 7 on the Liberal HTV is that is might have befuddled voters as they were about to vote.
Some of us might say they were already clearly more than a bit befuddled if the Lib HTV card was the one they were relying on, GG!
Cheers
Rod
what a finish!!
I’ve put up a new post on this result, so I’m closing this thread.