On election night and the following day, the best bet seemed to be that Labor would emerge with between 86 and 88 seats. After that, Labor watched leads disappear in one seat after another. Liberal candidates took the lead in McEwen and La Trobe on the Monday after polling day, followed by Dickson and Swan on Tuesday, Herbert on Friday and Bowman on Wednesday of this week. Corangamite, Flynn and Robertson were also on the critical list at various stages after looking secure for Labor on election night: Robertson arguably still remains there. In Solomon, Labor’s Damian Hale watched nervously as his 860-vote lead on booth votes was whittled down to 89 on Wednesday, before he was saved by a late rally yesterday that widened the gap to 194. The entirely one-way nature of this traffic raises the question of what has happened and why. Here at least I will limit myself to the first half of the equation.
The first table shows the size of the swings to Labor for each type of vote in all seats which look to have margins of less than 1 per cent, barring the new seat of Flynn where any swing calculations would be hypothetical (an unfortunate omission as it would have cut the Labor swing on postals still further). Provisionals are excepted because too many of them are still to be counted, and they are few in number in any case. The outstanding feature is the Coalition’s strong performance on postal votes, which cost Labor dearly in McEwen, Dickson, Herbert and La Trobe. I read one newspaper report (I can’t remember where) suggesting this was because most postal votes were cast before the Lindsay pamphlet scandal broke, but the pattern would surely have been reflected in pre-polls if this was the case.
| Ordinary | Absent | Pre-Poll | Postal | Total | |
| Corangamite | 6.43 | 7.42 | 6.20 | 5.00 | 6.10 |
| Solomon | 3.06 | 1.87 | 4.77 | 2.88 | 3.00 |
| Robertson | 7.35 | 7.00 | 6.51 | 6.14 | 7.06 |
| McEwen | 6.19 | 9.44 | 8.78 | 4.21 | 6.38 |
| Bowman | 9.17 | 8.34 | 9.95 | 9.36 | 9.09 |
| Dickson | 9.30 | 8.69 | 8.07 | 6.13 | 8.99 |
| Herbert | 6.18 | 2.41 | 8.21 | 1.86 | 5.92 |
| Swan | -0.08 | -2.81 | 1.21 | 0.61 | -0.32 |
| La Trobe | 5.78 | 6.20 | 6.05 | 0.58 | 5.31 |
| Macarthur | 11.04 | 8.63 | 8.51 | 11.29 | 10.58 |
| TOTAL | 6.65 | 6.15 | 6.79 | 4.57 | 6.39 |
The second table shows the number of votes cast for each type over the past three elections. Here as elsewhere it must be remembered that a small number of 2007 votes still remain to be counted. It can be seen that this election has maintained a trend of sharply increasing numbers of postal votes, exacerbating the impact of the Coalition’s strong performance, along with the more neutral pre-polls.
| 2007 | 2004 | 2001 | ||
| Provisional | 167,167 1.32 |
180,878 1.46 |
165,238 1.37 |
|
| Absent | 856,407 6.75 |
853,571 6.91 |
851,945 7.07 |
|
| Pre-Poll | 1,105,948 8.72 |
754,098 6.10 |
610,107 5.06 |
|
| Postal | 820,946 6.47 |
660,330 5.34 |
516,458 4.28 |
|
| Turnout | 12,681,332 92.94 |
12,354,983 94.32 |
12,054,664 94.85 |
The final point to note is how lucky the Coalition has been. Present indications suggest it will win five of seven seats determined by margins of less than 0.3 per cent. Assuming no further changes, the bottom end of the Mackerras pendulum will look as follows:
| Corangamite | 0.8 | ||
| 0.7 | Macarthur | ||
| 0.5 | La Trobe | ||
| Flynn | 0.3 | ||
| Solomon | 0.2 | 0.2 | Swan Herbert |
| Robertson | 0.1 | 0.1 | Dickson |
| 0.0 | Bowman McEwen |
Elsewhere, the chances of a National Party boilover in O’Connor have been reduced as the slowly progressing late count has widened the gap between Labor and the Nationals from 2.08 per cent to 2.70 per cent. It will take an extremely high level of obedience to the how-to-vote card from Greens voters if that gap is to be closed, which seems an unlikely prospect in a sparsely populated electorate where the party would have had a hard time finding volunteers to cover each of the booths. Any vague chance that independent Gavin Priestley might win Calare has probably been laid to rest by late counting which has increased Nationals candidate John Cobb (formerly member for Parkes) from 47.71 per cent to 48.47 per cent, close enough to an absolute majority that the question of who comes second out of Priestley and Labor is probably academic. In the Victorian Senate, the Greens’ hopes rested on what would have been an out-of-character boost from declaration votes, which have in fact reduced their vote from 10.1 per cent to 9.7 per cent. The Labor vote has also faded enough that third Liberal candidate Scott Ryan has overtaken Labor’s number three David Feeney, so that Ryan looks likely to take the fifth seat and Feeney the sixth. Greens candidate Richard di Natale is 1.67 per cent behind Feeney after preferences CORRECTION: I wasn’t factoring in the Liberal surplus, which actually makes the gap more like 0.9 per cent.
UPDATE: One other thing – it is clear that dramatically fewer provisional votes are being allowed through this year. In 2004, any given electorate ended up with about 400 to 600 provisional votes counted. This time it’s more like 100 to 200. I suspect the answer to this mystery lies somewhere in the Electoral and Referendum (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act. Can any wise heads out there point me in the right direction?
UPDATE 2: Comments respondents note that provisional voters must now show photo ID either at the booth or by emailing or faxing a copy to the AEC in the following week. Peter Brent: “Presumably the number of people who took ID to the AEC in the next week was about zero”. Grace Pettigrew: “Many voters who are likely to need a provisional vote do not carry ID around with them (aboriginal voters, the homeless, for example) are also most likely not to vote for the Coalition”. Adam Carr also takes issue with my description of O’Connor as “sparsely populated”: I would argue that this is sort of accurate, but Carr says the real point is that O’Connor is “the most agricultural seat in Australia, where most people live in or near small farming towns”, and consequently has “more booths than any other seat”.
627 Comments
Another answer to your questions is FRAUD.
Here in Herbert I recieved a Postal Vote application from Peter Lindsay with his propaganda attached with the postal vote(with a rip away)
Whats the rules regarding sending people postal vote applications without them requesting it??
And you are saying, what? William.
The postal votes?
Those who influence in ‘helping’?
Necessarily, the way I see it, the people with the money, the incumbents.
Presumably the lower number of provisionals being allowed comes from the fact that previously, if someone showed up to vote but were not (correctly) on the roll (had moved etc) they were given a provisional vote and then the accuracy of their enrolement etc was checked later on. If they measured up, their vote was allowed to be counted. I would guess that with the change to dates for updating the roll, a lot of these wouldn’t be allowed to be counted.
#1: Here in North Sydney I recieved a Postal Vote application from Mike Bailey with his propaganda attached
Both parties do it, and it is completely legal. (See http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/australian_electoral_system/electoral_procedures/Guidelines_for_the_Reproduction_of_Postal_Votes.htm )
I have no problem with it as it is only the applications they send out, not the actual ballots.
William:
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Electoral and Referendum (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act makes the following change to provisional voting.
· establish a proof of identity requirement for provisional voting. An elector(other than a silent elector) who wants to cast a provisional vote on polling day will need to show either their driver’s licence or a prescribed identity document (of the same type required for enrolment proof of identity) to an officer either at the time of casting the provisional vote or by close of business on the Friday following polling day. If the elector cannot show the document in person, they may post, send by facsimile or email an attested copy to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). Ballot papers will only be admitted to the count if the provisional voter has provided suitable identification and, if they were not enrolled, if their omission from the roll was the result of an AEC error;
For the record the above change was inserted into the Commonwealth Electoral Act as Section 235(1B).
Postal votes = vote early, vote often. Perhaps the whole area of postal votes needs a comprehensive rethink and a tightening up of eligibility and control/audit.
By the way, what is a “silent elector” referred to in James J @ 5?
I guess that in the end, all of this is now academic, Labor should win 83 seats, and we have some very low hanging fruit for sport at the next election, Dickson, McEwen etc. What an election campaign, historic is the only word for it.
Basil
a silent elector is someone who has had their name removed from the Public list of electors ,But are still on the roll
It is a bit like having a silent number
Regarding postals etc- a quite prominent lawyer is looking at a group to challenge both the validity of certain aspects of Howards bastardisation of electoral laws and the whole shemozzle of postal/absentee votes
As Labor voter and others have pointed out the potential for fraud is huge and how in hell do you check to make sure someone has not voted multiple times
I wonder whether the postal vote breakdown in Labor seats shows a different pattern to those in liberal seats? Are postal voters more likely to vote for the incumbant than people who vote in other ways?
Reminds me of Bracks’s win over Kennett in 1999. Every really close seat broke Labor’s way. If even one of them had gone Kennett’s way (eg Geelong which the Libs lost by about 16 votes), Kennett may have survived.
The large number of very close seats should keep the opposition on the ball over the next three years, and many Labor MPs will not be taking their seats for granted. This is good for democracy.
There’s potential for the next election to be very exciting for us amateur psephologists.
Interesting to see the rise and rise of pre-poll voting over the years. And that, on the seats covered, Labor scored surprisingly high swings — some even higher than ordinary votes in several key electorates — e.g. Solomon.
Can anyone do the maths to calculate just how much these swings have off-set the increase in Liberal swings in the other categories?
Of the different types of voting, only one is done away from a voting centre. Postal voting. All other forms require you to front up to a polling place. This is quite a distinction. Some research into this form of voting in 2007 might help.
Postal votes increased by more than 21% from 2004 (see above – 5.34% to 6.47%).
A lot has been said about parties sending postal vote applications to all voters and I’ll assume that all sitting members mailed all voters in their electorates a postal vote application. But this says nothing about whether the alternative candidate (Labor in 90 seats) allocated resources to match.
A few questions that need answers (restricted to the current crop of close seats)…
Did Labor mail all voters a postal vote application?
What were the swings for just the postal votes?
Do postal votes favour the sitting member (by how much)?
Do postal votes favour the incumbent government (and need to compare with 1996).
Do postal votes always favour the Conservatives?
Did the last time a Conservative govt was defeated (1983) produce similar favourable postals for LNP?
Did the LNP work harder with retirement villages/hospitals/nursing homes etc?
So is the current high count for the LNP the result of harder work by them or is there an historical explanation?
Given the much higher proportion now of postals (up 50% from 2001 alone!) maybe this result could have been anticipated (after some research into the above)?
Not sure that the sort of pattern you are suggesting really stands up, Will.
The pre-polls were closer than the postals in some of the “tight ones”, but in Bowman , for example, the Pre-polls favoured the Libs substantially, while the Postals favoured Labor.
In the four closest seats – Solomon, Robertson, Bowman and McEwen – the Libs won the pre-polls in each case, so any “offset” is marginal, limited to “not quite so bad” , at best, and , in the case of Bowman, “extending the damage”.
Looking at William’s figures, both Postals and Pre-polls seem to be increasing in overall numbers at about the same rate. It is the “Absentee” category that is marking time. I suspect in reality that the increase in “Pre-Polls’ comes at the expense of “Absentees” and regular booth votes, rather than “Postals”.
Cheers
Rod
so, let me get this straight: someone turns up at a polling booth and says, i’m joe bloggs at X address (but is not), votes and is on his merry way. then, the real joe bloggs turns up at the same electorate, and finds that his name has already been ruled through. he is then given a provisional vote and when he gives his ID, his vote is allowed. but what happens then to the [unreal] joe bloggs’ ballot papers?
Bryce, I suspect that part of the reason why the Libs tend to do better from Postals is that many pensioners / elderly people use them to avoid a trip to the booths and standing in queues etc.
Given that from the polls we know this was the last group to stick with the coalition it shouldn’t really surprise us that the coalition do better from them than Labor.
Mind you, here in McEwen the Libs (and an unknown group who did not place authorisation information on their letterbox drops but which attacked labor ceaselessly – probably EB related) certainly did a lot “better” at flooding the house with paper than the ALP. Any elderly, housebound, voter here using a postal vote would have received a similar vastly disproportionate bombardment.
It has long seemed to me that the Libs work much harder at getting the postal votes in, but I suspect this is largely because more of their elderly supporters (who otherwise may not vote at all) are actually likely to want to use them.
5 Seems to be the difference.
http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/print.htm?DocID=NEM%2FEM200618%2FNAT%2FATO%2F00001
I should have given more attention to the postal vote application I received from the Mad Monk, unfortunately I put it straight into the shredder, just like I do with everyting that dill send me. So now I’m curious to know to whom the application for the postal was to be returned.
Was it the AEC or the members office?
Are postal votes (ballot envelopes) numbered/identifiable?
Is there a ‘double-blind’ system, preventing identifcation of the actual owner of the ballot envelope, rather than the ballot itself?
I pre-polled and I do recall a number on the envelope. Presumably there is an audit trail on these envelopes.
What is the exact procedure for a postal vote?
William, one major factor would be the new requirement that a provisional voter must have photo id (drivers licence) on them. If they don’t, they can make their vote, but it is only counted if they go to the AEC office in the next week with ID or equivalent. Presumably the number of people who took ID to the AEC in the next week was about zero.
There’s also an issue which I don’t fully grasp about enrolment by address rather than by electorate. This may affect people who have moved house within the same electorate and have dropped off the roll. Under old rules, they could still vote, but I’m not sure about the new ones.
The AEC first raised its concerns with the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters over the transmission of postal vote applications through political party offices back in 1999. This practice, supported by both major political parties, and not prohibited under the Electoral Act, has expanded over the years and should now be of real concern to voters.
Go here for AEC submission number 88 of 12 March 1999, and find part 8.6, for a comprehensive statement of those concerns:
http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/australian_electoral_system/JSCon_EM.htm
If postal vote applications are unknowingly or at least trustingly being sent by electors back to political party offices, what is to prevent party workers simply binning those applications where they might have a suspicion that the elector will vote the “wrong” way, so that the applications are not sent on to the AEC, and electors do not receive their ballot papers, either at all, or at least in time to vote?
Is this perhaps part of the explanation for postal votes splitting mostly the Coalition’s way, in defiance of expectations? Given the dirty tricks that surfaced in the Division of Lindsay at the 2007 election, would you trust these same party workers with your postal vote application?
On the subject of provisional votes, the Howard Government changed the law, as indicated in previous comments, in order to make it more difficult to obtain such a vote. Many voters who are likely to need a provisional vote do not carry ID around with them (aboriginal voters, the homeless, for example) are also most likely not to vote for the Coalition.
This legislative amendment on provisional voting by the Howard Government was similar in intent to the abolition of the grace period for last minute enrolments, to supress the votes of those who might support Labor. All bought to you courtesy of Senators Minchin, Abetz and Nairn, former Special Ministers of State.
Yes, without a doubt postal votes have stopped Labor winning an extra 3 or 4 seats. Nothing new there: they always favour the Liberals, but it’s still a tragedy that Rodney Cocks, George Colbran and perhaps Jason Wood couldn’t make it into parliament. Oh well, Labor supporters can’t be too greedy, 83 seats is more than I predicted for Rudd.
William, thanks for presenting such interesting data regarding non-ordinary voting patterns. Most of my friends and rels voted at the pre-poll centre located in the middle of our CBD shopping mall, and all used the Labor HTV. There were at least two Labor HTV volunteers stationed outside the pre-poll centre at all times.
Here’s a different type of consolation prize for Labor supporters disquieted by losing so many close icing-on-the-cake seats. (Hey, Graham Richardson predicted 80 seats, so every seat over that is a bonus).
Skynews’ online/remote control polls during the election campaign invariably showed the Coalition winning 60% to Labor’s 40%.
Today’s online poll question is:
“Who has the stronger frontbench lineup?”
Shockingly, all morning the result has stuck around Labor winning 54% to the Coalition’s 46%.
Perhaps, there’s a lot of disgruntled Turnbull supporters in Skynews’ demographic.
Postal votes favour incumbents without a doubt. There are also resources that members are allocated that challengers have to scramble for, eg letter folding machine.
Someone mentioned low fruit- next election I predict Labor 101 seats. The only seats that won’t fall in easy reach are turnbulls and bilson’s (hard working). The coalition will win WA at the next state election. They should be able to win Vic if Baileau can get it together, and NSW with a credible opposition. Queensland minumum 2 more terms, as is SA. Not sure about NT?
Or perhaps, Julian@21, the incumbency factor is already kicking in.
It’s amazing to think that the ALP could be ahead in any SkyNews poll! How things change.
If any state government deserves to lose office, it’s Morris Iemma’s N.S.W Labor govt. The good thing for them is that they don’t have to go to an election until 2011, but methinks Iemma won’t last that long.
Centaur @22
Good call about the impact of voting out some rancid state Labor governments before the next fed election.
Alas, the next NSW election will be approximately 6 months after Rudd’s re-election campaign, yet that should be close enough for people to feel more inclined to vote for Rudd safe in the knowledge it’s dollars to donuts they’ll soon be rid of Iemma or Watkins.
They should have lost the last one progressive but there was no opposition. as for queensland I reckon i could do better myself running family members and friends in every seat.
Who is advantaged by Absent voting really varies from seat to seat. Absent votes are cast by people outside of their electorate on polling day. The biggest absent vote take is in polling places near electorate boundaries. For example, the electorate of Wentworth, where the absent vote has clearly favoured Labor. The best Liberal booths are on the South head peninsula, well away from the electorate boundary. The best labor booths in Darlinghurst and Kings Cross, and in the south around Coogee, are near a boundary with neghbouring Sydney and Kingsford Smith. Most of the absent vote in Wentworth will have been cast in Sydney and Kingsford Smith by people who lived near the electorate boundary and have rocked up to a booth not in Wentworth. In both cases, many people have gone to the same booth they usually go to, only to discover the boundary change. As these people come from the Labor part of Wentworth, it is therfore not surprsiing that the absent vote favoured Labor.
It is also why the vote tends to swing back and forth in post-election counting. If you count the absent or pre-poll vote for Wentworth that was cast in North Sydney, you get a different sample of voters than if you count the same categories of vote from Grayndler or Sydney. It is why some of the talk of ‘trend’ in post-election counting is meaningless. It’s not a trend, it all depends where the vote you are counting came from.
As to postals, it depends on the category. In Flynn, the postal vote hugely favoured the Nationals. But Flynn is a seat with an outback component, where voters a large distance from polling places can register as permenant postal voters. This group largely consists of farmers and is always heavily anti-Labor.
In seats with few permenant postal voters, there is a tendency for postal votes to work in favour of the sitting member, which is why in all those close seats, mostly held by the Coalition, they tend to favour the Coalition. The gap isn’t quite so glaring in Labor held electorates.
I’ve always wondered what happens if Joe Bloggs (either the real one or an imposter) turns up at several booths within his electorate and casts multiple votes.I assume that it is subsequently discovered that someone claiming to be JB has voted several times. What then?
Yes Julian but none more rancid than the Howard coalition government that just got trashed. The party that stood for nothing and did nothing. Using every underhanded trick in the book, the Dick Dasterdley 00 was eventually derailed and destroyed, never to be seen again in its present form. The more I think about it the more i think p*ick from head to tow.
In the last hour, the ABC site has updated its seats won tally to Labor 82 and Coalition 63 with only McEwen and Bowman in doubt and Labor likely to win Solomon. Final result prediction is Labor 84 seats.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/
Jude, the rolls are all scanned, and multiple instances located. Most multiple voters turn out to be clerical errors, and the person voting twice can be matched with someone in the next spot on the roll who was not marked as voting but claimed they did.
Someone who votes mutliple times (like more than twice) is spotted and quizzed. The number is tiny. If someone actually tried to stack an election by getting lots of people to vote multiple times in an electorate, it would stick out like dogs bollocks. And if this had happened and the election result was close, the courts would probably invalidate the result and a major electoral fraud conspiracy case would be launched.
The question of multiple voting with fraudulent enrolment is different again, and is the real area that the AEC and parties put effort into pursuing. But simple multiple voting is not a major problem.
Re: The ABC site. Antony Green here yesterday seemed very well informed about the real status of vote counting as opposed to the computer input data, which seems to lag behind the ABC tally site.
If the ABC’s prediction of 84 is borne out, then let me think for a moment which famous blogger website called that number of Labor seats……….geez, it’s right on the tip of my tongue!
Julian, that list shortened because I changed a paramater in the computer system to give away more seats. The decision algorithm is designed for election night counting, and I have to keep narrowing its parameters as the post election count continues.
Thanks Antony @ 31. And are you THE Antony Green??
Julian, the number is between 83 and 85, and it rounds to 84. There are 2 seats sat on under 100 votes. The prediction is all based on probability. Labor has a definite 83 seats, plus a 31% chance of winning Bowman and 23% chance of winning McEwen on the current count. That rounds to 84 seats as a prediction. I can tighten the parameters so that the chance of Labor winning either seat falls and Labor’s prediction falls to 83 seats, but then that gives away both seats when they should be left in doubt. There is uncertainty here you know. We don’t publish it on the ABC website, but the seat prediction always comes with an error margin, and it is currently +/- 1 seats on 84.
22 -
“The coalition will win WA at the next state election. They should be able to win Vic if Baileau can get it together, and NSW with a credible opposition. Queensland minumum 2 more terms, as is SA. Not sure about NT?”
I very much doubt the Coalition will win WA at the next state election, with their current leader, at least. Being a Victorian, I think they have a good chance of winning here, especially with Bracks now gone. Queensland you’re right to rule off for quite some time. I don’t know about SA. But the CLP would have to come back from a long way to win at the NT elections. What about ACT? It is, after all, the next state/territory election, and has been in the news a bit of late.
Prepoll and postal are always likely to favours the coallition.
They are either farmers who will find it hard to vote, or older people who do not have the mobility, both of those are people who votes for the coalition
as for voting muliple times, nothing stops you from going to many booths on election date to vote, exept you will be fine by the AEC
Of topic, a pretty funny take on Australia’s so called culture wars by George ‘Mad Max’ Miller:
“It’s as ridiculous as bald men fighting over a comb, when we should be out there trying to grow hair.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/film/culture-war-makes-miller-mad/2007/12/07/1196812969753.html
centaur – I wouldn’t be so sure that the Libs will get their act together in Victoria. The branch is so broke that they couldn’t afford to stand candidates in a couple of by-elections recently, and Baillieu seems to attract crackpots and crank schemes, which then make their way into party policy. Not that I wouldn’t like to see a shake-up down here, but I can’t see the Libs managing it in their present state.
Antony Green @35
Many thanks for your lucid explanation of the ABC website prediction methodology. Since I am a Rudd voter, ’tis most heartening that you consider Labor has 83 definite seats.
As League coach Jack Gibson would say, Antony, you played strong, done fine!
Forgive me Anthony but did you manage to get out Nuntucket sleigh ride on election night. As i was scruteneering i didn’t catch the count until 8 ish.
No I didn’t. I had too many other things to think about.
Priorities Antony, maybe next time! (of course i am only joking and thoroughly enjoyed the coverage and the eelection site)
Just to prove the system works, the latest update for Bowman puts the Liberals 105 ahead, meaning the probability of a Liberal win goes to 86%, and the seat prediction for Labor rounds back down to 83 seats. It’s through my election night system and should be on the website within minutesl.
It’s funny. The post election period is the only chance I get to fine tune the software. On election night, the numbers pour in so quickly you just use the default settings.
For shame!
“Prepoll and postal are always likely to favours the coallition. They are either farmers who will find it hard to vote, or older people who do not have the mobility, both of those are people who votes for the coalition.”
That might have been the case many years ago dovif, but these days, with the major political parties blanketing marginal seats with postal vote applications, attached to their own party propaganda, the conventional wisdom no longer holds (and see Antony Green above on differentiating Registered Postal Voters, such as farmers and the elderly who might usually vote conservative, from the more numerous opportunistic postal voters, who should not be assumed to vote conservatively).
“as for voting muliple times, nothing stops you from going to many booths on election date to vote, exept you will be fine by the AEC.”
yes dovif, but its not simply a fine. Multiple voting is a criminal offence prosecuted through the courts. See here for Electoral Backgrounder No 14 “Electoral Fraud and Multiple Voting (pdf file):
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/Backgrounders/
At the 2010 federal election West Australians will credit Rudd for the Chinese boom and Labor will pick up a pile of seats. The first majority Labor govt legislated to make postal voting harder so this argument has gone on for ever.
39 -
Especially with the state Liberal party’s ongoing problems with the Nationals
William, O’Connor is not “sparsely populated.” Compared to Kalgoorlie, it is quite densely populated. The point about O’Connor is not that it has huge uninhabited areas, but that it is the most agricultural seat in Australia, where most people live in or near small farming towns. It therefore has more booths than any other seat, 151 of them. This must stretch the ability of the Greens to have HTV workers at every booth all day. If the 10-hour voting day is broken into five 2-hour shifts (which is what Labor does), that means 755 people are needed to cover every booth. If the Greens follow Labor’s practice of always having two people on every booth, that means 1,510 people. The real number will be less because many booth volunteers work all day, and I doubt the Greens can maintain two people per booth, but it will still be at least 500. I very much doubt the Greens have 500 active supporters in O’Connor, and therefore some of the smaller booths will have been left unattended. This will result in a leakage of Green prefs to Labor, since Green voters won’t preference the Nats unless told to by their HTV (and even then some won’t).
Antony Green,
Your efforts to give us the good oil on your system in this blog is yet another prime example why we must insist on a fully resourced and totally independent ABC.
On this issue, thanks Pancho for the link to George Miller’s plea for enhancement of of the ABC. Last night the 7 pm ABC News suffered its umpteenth technical glitch this year, so the impact on service delivery is not confined to such problems during the election night broadcast, which I watched from start to finish.
EXCELLENT INFO WILLIAM , thank you
The Questions are:
a/ do postal votes of their very “impersonal nature” favor incumbants ?
b/ IF SO , then if the extra 1.13% of the TOTAL vote going to postals vs. the 2004
election HAD INSTEAD been cast as “ordinary votes” would the voter voted the
same way ?
c/ As the postal vote has increased by 50% from 2001 4.28% to now 6.47%,
what is the cause ?? (have the LCP chased block votes in retirement homes etc
PS/ the increased provisional vote rejection rate I believe is related to the shorter time between the calling of the election & NEW voter registration. alot of young voters may have registered by mail but unwittingly missed the cut off point
Sean @ 36
Labor won a majority govt at the last legislative election here in the ACT. I could be wrong, but i think this might have been the first time since self-govt that someone had won a majority govt.
Since then, they’ve released an unpopular education policy and generally been fairly useless. Given this, i’d suggest they probably will hold on to power, but i think it will be thanks to the Greens support in the assembly, rather than as an outright majority.
Im hurt deem down inside that none of you people talking about state governments mentioned the Tasmanian government. You even mentioned N.T lol. Anyway i can not see the Tasmanian Labor government returned. In my opinion they come only second to N.S.W for standards of governance and the opposition is not “completley” hopless. In my opinion the only uncertainty will be whether the liberals win outright or have to from a minority government.
plz no tassie jokes
Antony (@10.26), doesn’t a 31% chance in one seat and a 23% chance in the other equate to a 47% chance of winning at least 1? 53% chance of zero, 40% 1 and 7% 2??
Therefore, rounded, should be 83 seats?
Scotty #55,
But why not? They’re so easy – and so much fun!
“a 47% chance of winning at least 1? 53% chance of zero, 40% 1 and 7% 2??”
So expected number of seats = 0.5313 x 0 + 0.3974 x 1 + 0.0713 x 2 = 0.54 seats
I would support the Tasmanian Liberals if they would push for an independent Tasmanian republic. Then we wouldn’t have to put up with weird wackiness (of the Unions for Howard or Mersey Hopsital type) every election.
53 -
I think you’re right in saying the present ACT Labor government is the first majority government in its history. Given how popular the Greens and Labor are federally in the ACT at present, you’d have to think Liberals did not have much of a chance in the coming election.
54 -
From the sounds of it, the state Labor government in Tasmania is pretty shocking, but they just don’t have a good opposition. And I doubt the Greens would side with the Liberals to form a minority government.
As for Nantucket Sleighride – I was hoping to hear Antony say the magic words too. But the reality was that it wasn’t a sleighride kind of result. The win to Labor was modest and was certainly no landslide (though I admit that here in Qld the fall of Dawson and Longman had a wonderful Nantucket feel to it). Next time let’s hope Antony gets to utter the words when Labor is returned!
22
centaur_007 Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Hi centaur.
CLP hold 6 of the 24 seats in the current NT HoA. No credible leadership, no policies of note and a dwindling support base in Darwin. Alice Springs is their stronghold these days.
ALP to win the next 2 at least.
Bowman settled.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/bowman-mp-back-from-the-brink/2007/12/07/1196812976664.html
61 -
Actually, the CLP only hold four seats in the NT Legislative Assembly.
Now that Bowman has been won by Laming I think that Queensland Labor need to take a close look at how both the State and Federal campaigns have been run in the Redland Bay area. Something just isn’t quite working.
Anthony Green says:
In seats with few permanent postal voters, there is a tendency for postal votes to work in favor of the sitting member, which is why in all those close seats, mostly held by the Coalition, they tend to favor the Coalition.
Ron says , Anthony has supplied the answer !
The LCP clearly worked hard over time
What we do not know is if the 50% postal increase since 2001 election
is due to the LCP Government resources concentrated to increase
the NUMBER of registered postal voters !!
(thereby increasing the LCP 2PP vote !)
Centaur_007 – Labor should hold State WA without difficulty at the next State election. Most of Labor’s problems revolve around Brian Burke – ex Premier, jail bird, and lobbiest. The Liberals have their equivalent in Ray O’Connor – ex Premier and jail bird, and Noel Crichton Browne – ex Liberal Senator and lobbiest. The Eastern MSM tends to concentrate on Burke alone, but WA votors are well aware of NCB and his activities.
The Labor Government have finally been able to enact legislation that creates one vote one value, this effectively transfers seats from conservative rural areas to urban areas. Soon we will see the mother of all cat fights when the Liberals start to squabble over pre-selections in the reduced number of easier to win rural seats. In addition, the Nationals refuse to join in coalition with the Liberals and they will also be engaged in the same cat fight for the reduced number of seats.
For any who believe that Rudd Labor was given a free ride by the press, read the attached scathing review of the Murdoch press less than balanced reporting:
http://www.apo.org.au/webboard/comment_results.chtml?filename_num=183199
wayaway @ 55.
No, it is 0.31 + 0.23 = 0.54 which rounds to 1. The Liberal probabilities add to 1.46 which also rounds to 1. That’s why the precition bobbed between 83 and 84 seats. Everytime new votes came in, you got slightly different probabilites which rounded up or down a whole number.
Geoff Robinson, I had a half day yesterday plowing through the 1927 SMH’s trying to follow the entrails of the end of Jack Lang’s first government, followed by another half day trying to understand the pre-selections for the 1930 NSW election. Thankfully I had your 1930 study as a guide, though it has proved frustrating as you used the one reference per paragraph footnoting method.
I note you used the Country Party’s vast archive of central council minutes in your study. I’ll give you a call at some point about that, and also sources on the UAP.
Thanks for that guys, probability never my strong point
In probability terms there’s a 53% of 83 (on those figures), so thought you may predict that way, but I understand your calcs.
Cheers.
No, there’s a more than 99% chance of 83 seats. The probabilities indicated the last two seats would divide 0.54 to Labor and 1.46 to Coalition, but the rounding made this 1:1. I didn’t put a probability of it being 84.
Apparently the Coalition will need to win 9 seats to reclaim Government from these impostors next time around. At the rate Krudd is falling apart, it’s practically a done deal.
Why do the coalition have to continually use cricket anologies? I heard it yesterday and throughout the campaign. don’t they know that soccer is the no 1 sport nowm and cricket might come in a distant 4th?
Sorry taswegians, i thought i didn’t know but i do Lennon is the biggest loser that the labor party has evere had I suspect. I hate him too. Bob brown should move into state politics and take over.
Okay so we got the icing on the cake with Howard losing his seat, and now I want the cherry on top. Downer going to jail. Lets open up the AWB rort and prosecute that creature. I can just see him behind bars crying, holding onto his teddy and asking for his mummy.
FG 67, thanks for great link. A very incisive account of the Murdoch press’s politics.
A couple of nice headlines at the ABC’s website: “Telstra rejects Govt broadband plan” and “Mortgage rates to head past 9pc: economist”. Let the good times roll!
centaur – unless I heard incorrectly, commedian-in-chief Nelson referred yesterday to ‘throwing wides’. He’s not gonna win Qld back in a hurry with behaviour like that…
At 53: “Labor won a majority govt at the last legislative election here in the ACT….Since then, they’ve released an unpopular education policy and generally been fairly useless. Given this, i’d suggest they probably will hold on to power, but i think it will be thanks to the Greens support in the assembly, rather than as an outright majority.
Really, Yo ho ho, the opposition Liberal Party in Canberra is a standing joke, and has been for years now. Its constant leadership changes, internal squabbling and ridiculous grandstanding are probably worse than the Queensland Liberals. They have no chance of winning the next election on present indications.
By contrast, the Stanhope Government might have gone through a bad patch when it bit the bullet and closed some small schools for budgetry reasons, but the heat has now passed, and there is little to suggest that they won’t be returned in their own right again. Stanhope has delivered serial budgetary surpluses, built a major highway and a prison, housing supply cannot keep up with demand, and the cranes are rising high over the city. Stanhope is also popular in Canberra for delivering an ACT Bill of Rights and his repeated attempts to legalise gay unions…
Useless? Depends on your point of view.
apres @ 73 – the APO site is worth bookmarking. It covers all things in the political and social policy world.
Antony Green Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
No, there’s a more than 99% chance of 83 seats. The probabilities indicated the last two seats would divide 0.54 to Labor and 1.46 to Coalition, but the rounding made this 1:1. I didn’t put a probability of it being 84.
Um, ok – let’s just agree the Coalition is in big trouble…
Grace @ 73
Oh, i agree wholeheartedly agree that the Libs in Canberra are more than useless. To be honest, i think Bill Stefaniak is leader but the fact i’m not sure (and i should really know) cannot be a good omen for them.
In regards to the schools policy i actually thought the ALP were doing the right thing. There is a real need for consolidation of public schools in Canberra, especially at a primary level. The massive increase in construction around the city is noteable and Stanhope has been relatively successful as a leader. The useless comment was a throwaway line i agree and i apologise.
However, i stand my point that i don’t think the ALP will hold majority govt in the next assembly. I think the Greens will increase their vote as many ALP votes may move there because the schools policy was sold so poorly and was very unpopular.
I also think it is worth noting (as i did) that the 2004 election was the first time a majority govt has been elected. Its entirely possibly that this represents a ‘high water mark’ for the ALP in Canberra, and contibutes to my belief that the ALP will not win the majority again in the next assembly.
I still think there are votes to be had by getting the AEC to do something about reducing informals. Either a long term education program and/or at the booth.
Or is the Libs leader in the ACT Jacqui Burke?
Anyone know why the provisionals in Bowman are taking so long to count, or to appear on the website? (Not that I’m expecting anything, just curious
Also does it seem unusual that the ALP looks likely to get a majority of each of the Ordinary, Absent, Provisional and Postal votes, but lose the election on the strenght of the Pre-polls? Just a quirk I guess.
Re #54, that’s pretty much what a very large number of people said before the 2006 Tassie state election, and look what happened; Lennon almost increased his majority!
At the moment if there was a state election in Tassie there would be a massive swing to the Greens over the pulp mill, but as it would occur mainly in Bass (where they scraped in by 136 votes last time) and Lyons (where they won comfortably but not with a hell of a lot to spare) it might not even deliver them one extra seat. Whether there would be any movement between the major parties is hard to say. The Libs have a new leader, sure, and that should make some difference, but they’re still the same old bunch. The electorate had a fair idea what Lennon was like and still re-elected him.
By 2010 I’d be surprised if the mill is still such a major issue, one way or the other.
Would be nice to get some Tassie state level polling sometime soon, there hasn’t been any for quite a while.
I don’t think we can assume that high postal votes means there is some fraud unless something else is changing disproportionately as well. Lets assume teh percentage of people who don’t vote is roughly constant. Then if postal votes go up, votes on the day should go down. The question is, does the icnrease in postal votes “balance up” relative to the number of votes made on the day, and the normal rate of non-voting?
@ 12 Will Says:
People like to pre-poll. It’s generally quicker than having to hang around in a queue on polling day with the kids whining or anxious to get to sport or be taken to their shift at Maccas etc. etc..
No parking issues and generally very few people thrusting their HTVs at you.
I know people who will never vote on polling day again because of the convenience and are happy to slightly perjure themselves on the declaration you have to sighn at the pre-poll office counter.
Laming is ahead by 102 votes in Bowman we’ll have 65 after all sweet!
HURRAY for Andrew Hip Hip HURRAY!
Glen, I’ve a feeling that in about 3 years 65 seats will look like the good old days.
Glen: Andrew Lamming is a useless tool, but whatever makes you happy LOL
As you’re so joyful about it I hope you’re blessed with many election results like this one, Glen!
Anthony, the one footnote per paragraph was imposed on me it was not my choice. I have draft versions of the 1930 and 1932 monographs with many more footnotes. The Country Party records are impressive. Email me directly for more info at geoffr@deakin.edu.au.
Glen, enjoy the 65 as its the most your side will have for quite a long while…
FG such a Ruddslide wasn’t it 83 seats compared to the 90+ most of you were predicting LOL!
Progressive since you are biased i will take your views on the Member for Bowman with a grain of salt, tough bickies that’s one less seat for KR in QLD
I’m not joyful at the election result Jude and i never said i was for your information but i am happy that Andrew won
To borrow a phrase from a left wing hardnut who posts on pollbludger, Jason Young suffer in your jocks LOL!
Glen has to take what little crumbs of consolation he can find. How you can be proud of having idiots like Andrew Lamming, Peter Lindsay and Jason Wood on your side of politics is beyond me, but I’m not a Liberal LOL
Glen, even you’d admit that if it wasn’t for some rorting of postal votes, your lot would be in even worse shape.
And as the vote count progresses, Labor’s primary just keeps dropping. Now it’s at a measly 43.4%!
Glen,
Old Australian saying: “Look at the scoreboard.”
Glen, as I’ve said elsewhere, it was no landslide (and my prediction was for 85 seats to Labor). It was a significant swing but a modest win and one that will keep Labor on its toes. Unfortunately my fear is that Rudd will play it very conservatively so as not to threaten his very small margin. I also think that the Conservative side of politics needs to do a complete rethink and the loss wasn’t substantial enough to force them to do so.
If you want to talk about deadbeat MPs they aren’t just on our side of politics.
Look at the dead beats for the ALP Progressive, Jodie Campbell, Shayne Neumann, Kerry Rea, Sid Sidebottom, Darren Cheeseman, James Bidgood, Brett Raguse, Sharryn Jackson, Jim Turnour, Jon Sullivan, Tony Zappia, and last but not least Belinda Neal!
Glen, I take your point about Belinda Neal LOL
As for the others, let’s see how they go as MPs before we start trashing them
James Bidgood in particular has a rather impressive resume – finance director etc.
93
Progressive – unless you have any proof of that slur i suggest you rethink your line of attack.
94
!
ViggoP – yeah i have and it is looking at lot better than it was on election night
FG – i got my prediction wrong too i thought the Tories would get 78 seats alas i was 13 out. Sure i agree the Tories need a big rethink but i don’t think we should turn away from everything Howard did, while not all of it was perfect alot of it was good for the country. I could agree to scrapping workchoices providing that AWAs were kept and unfair dismissals were not a part of our IR system.
97
Progressive – chances are she’ll lose her seat in 2010 providing the Tories stand a half decent candidate.
I’m glad to see the end of Jim Lloyd, ex-minister for territories. Seemed to think that the central basin of Lake Burley Griffin here in Canberra should be his own private jet ski playground. The hide of the man!
Yohoho at 78: well said, and I agree with you about the schools closures, as many canberrans did (quietly) at the time.
You might be right about the 2004 “high water” mark for Labor, but on the other hand, it should be acknowledged that was achieved while the Howard Government had its boot firmly planted on the neck of the ACT…through the National Capital Authority in particular, which seems determined to turn the national capital into just another big country town…and the repeated overturning of assembly legislation by the GG on Howard’s orders…and the succession of plug-ugly Territories Ministers like Wilson Tuckey and Jim Lloyd…
What might be achieved with a more friendly federal government? We shall see.
Oh and BTW, its still Stefaniak I think, for the moment. Jacqui Burke stuffed up her recent leadership bid by sneering at Minister Katie Gallagher for bringing her baby to work, and then had to back-peddle fast as women all over the country dumped on her, it was not a good look…
For the 2nd time it’s Lemming(the little critters that just follow) not Laming. He will be leading the next election to oblivion. Glen it will be 100+ at the next ellection. I predicted 80 for this onwe and i was plecantley suprised with the pick up of Deakin 9as i helped out), coorangimite and of course Bennelong.
Australians are reluctant to change as a whole especially when the economy is doing reasonably (auto pilot of course). Once they do the floodgates will open and the coalition will be severley punished next election. Especially with the locum running the ship.
I remember when Kate Carnel and Trevor Kaine would not even speak to each other – that was when she was Chief Minister and he was Deputy.
Ah the good old days.
Always amazed that some people support the sacking of people for no reason or bad reasons.
So if you wont play around with the boss – out [just hope that you are not in financial difficulty or you might have to play the prostitute to the boss]
So if the boss doesn’t like that women/men prefer you – out
So if your footy team beats the boss team – out
So if you have wrong politicis, religion, friends etc – out
So how could anyone plan for the future, borrow for home, car or have kids etc when they could be sacked at the drop of the hat for no reason and for unfair reasons. THATS OK say the hard-right-wing Howard supporters.
You don’t want to have to make bussiness be only able to sack people for real reasons do you? Is this still Australia?
Glen, I think the electorate generally gets it right (my two exceptions being 1980 and 2001 – but then I’m biased) as governments do get tired and a change is healthy for democracy.
I had many concerns about the Howard government. Chiefly in my mind was their disregard for the rule of law and for human rights. The children overboard, detention centre fiascos, Hicks and Haneef cases were symptomatic of a deeper contempt was justice and civil liberties that distressed me greatly. It reached the point where the government of one of the world’s oldest democracies had itself become a threat to democratic principles. AWB and the refusal to accept responsibility was just another example of a government that no longer had any moral authority to govern.
These are the things (along with WorkChoices etc) that the Conservatives need to think long and hard about as they are foundational to the principles our society is based upon.
so it’s not landslide? not annihilate?
how many seats should Howard and Co lose would be categorised as landslide? as annihilate?
Losing his own Bennelong seat is so hummiliating / ashame to Howard though.
It’s like electorates breaking eggs on Howard’ face.
yeehaaaa!
McKewen down to 22 votes!
Following my 105 comment: And here (in my observation) is a major difference between Labor and Coalition supporters. If a Labor government went down the Haneef/Hicks/Children overboard etc road then its own supporters would openly castigate them. Coalition supporters generally seem unable to focus on the big democratic picture; unwilling to see the threats to our system of justice, and blindly support whatever dangerous path their government chooses to take.
Agree with Grace P. @75 – Libs in the ACT, lightweight and always fighting among themselves (sound familiar?). Stanhope Labor has taken some hard decisions in the interests of the Territory as a whole, which has upset some special interest groups who are particularly uptight because they realise they have nowhere else to turn (certainly not to the Libs). Stanhope himself perhaps not the best media performer, but a hard worker with high principles and periodically the victim of vicious personal attacks by assorted nasty pieces of work and others with a chip on their shoulder (perhaps a disproportionate number of the latter here in the ACT – seem to be mainly male, ex professionals or pseudo professionals who have taken or have been forced into early retirement, think they know everything and have nothing better to do but gripe – hey, that also sounds familiar – perhaps I should take another look in the mirror). Next ACT election will be a test of the maturity of the ACT electorate.
Centaur_007 #22,
If Carpenter proves that he really is serious at cracking-down on corruption in WA, then I wouldn’t be too surprised to see him re-elected. Remember, he does have a lot of seats on a lot of margins. Also, the benefits from the Mandurah line should guarantee a swag of South Metro seats, too. My prediction is that he’ll probably be returned with a swing against him and a loss of seats.
It doesn’t help the Libs that they don’t have even the prospect of an electable leader. Omodei is ridiculous, and Birney and Buswell both carry too much baggage.
It’s McEwen and there aren’t many votes left to count, Fran should hold it in a squeaker!
25% of the Liberal party’s third Senate candidates the comes from minor parties who represent 10 percent of th number of votes received.
Contrary to the misleading impression provided by the ABC calculator. Under the current Senate Counting rules the 10% of veterans who represent 25% of the Liberal candidates vote will be devalued and distributed at a fraction of their proportional value. Instead of carrying a transfer value of 25% of the surplus hey will be revalued down to 10%. Meanwhile the Liberal party ticket vote which represents 75% of the overall surplus will increase in value and be transferred out at 90% of the surplus value.
This situation might not eventuate as the ALP will most likely secure a third Senate position in Victoria before the Liberal surplus is distributed.
There is something wrong when 25% of the value of a vote is transferred at 10% far less then their true value.. the problem lies in the unjust formula used by the AEC in calculating the surplus transfer value. Under the AEC formula the surplus value is divided by the number of ballot papers and not the value of the vote.
the ticket vote representing 90% of the number of ballot papers only holds 75% of the value of the candidates support is increased in value and carries 90% of any surplus. 25% of the value allocated to 10% of the ballot papers are devalued accordingly. Is this fair. Is it proportional. Answer No.
It is a denial of the one vote one value system. if the Victorian senate come down to the distribution of Liberal preferences then the Greens would be the benefactor is this distortion in the disporpotionate value of the vote.
IT MUST BE FIXED… The system as it stands is designed to support a manual count. It is outdated and unjust.
With computerised counting the surplus transfer value should be based on the value of the vote (Not the number of ballot papers) remainders should remain with the vote and there should be on transaction per candidate. Fair proportional and supports the one vote one value principle.
Fran Bailey got dropped from Nelson’s shadow ministry, probably with good reason. Assuming she holds on to McEwen, she’ll need all her time to defend a super marginal seat in the next 3 years.
#99 –
“my fear is that Rudd will play it very conservatively so as not to threaten his very small margin”
But he promised so very, very much…
McEwen is going to a recount. Surely. 949 provisional ballots rejected? Is that a lot? It sounds like it.
117 – the same reason why Laming didn’t get a thing too probably Progressive.
Well, if we’re going to expose our poor predictive abilities, then I should
mention the 103 seats that I thought would have ALP bottoms on them by now.
I was very wrong. In the order of 20 seats wrong.
And the worst thing is that I’ve used up the last of the Tom Burns’ Patented
Extra-Sour Lemons that I’d stocked up on, and I still can’t get the smile off
my face.
At 104: “I’m glad to see the end of Jim Lloyd, ex-minister for territories. Seemed to think that the central basin of Lake Burley Griffin here in Canberra should be his own private jet ski playground. The hide of the man!”
Could not agree more ViggoP. I cut out that photo of dimwit Jim Lloyd, getting all noisy and smelly on our beautiful placid lake, and stuck it on my dart board.
Howard was quite deliberate with his choice of red-neck philistine Territories Ministers. John and Janette not only refused to live in left-leaning Canberra, they did their very best to grind our noses into the dust for a decade.
Cry Freedom!
Steven Kaye I suggest that the 22 very marginal coalition seat members start putting the feelers out for new jobs in 2011. it’s not really that long a time. they could atleast get the ball rolling updating their cv’s etc.
The thing is that Jim Lloyd was absolutely confident of retaining his seat on election day. Told me that we “ALP” would have to put up with him for another 3 years because he didnt detect any so called quantum shifts. I think he either hiding his worries he would have been shocked on the night.
Fran will be gone within twelve months. Given her age, she is unlikely to see Ministerial duty again. As a Polly’s super is based on salary over the last three years, then everyday she stays she will be losing money.
Still up to three hundred possible postals to be counted. Today is the cut off. There will be a recount etc. Result won’t be decided till Monday.
Too,too close to call.
Cartoon for Laming and Bailey
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5787321,00.jpg
Nicola is off to a good start:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/07/2112790.htm?section=justin
Nice swing and connect; now let’s see the follow-through.
“If Carpenter proves that he really is serious at cracking-down on corruption in WA.”
You cannot live in WA or you wouldn’t have put in the qualifier. We have amazingly strong CCC powers, that on my understanding reveals, and therefore discourages corruption that in most other States and definitely at a commonwealth level, would go unchecked. In fact the CCC has so much power even journalists were questioning it (only because those passing as journalists in WA were put under the blow torch).
But yet you say ‘if … he is really serious’.
You obviously have very little idea at all about how the factions in the Labor Party work in WA or you would just not have said if.
The only threat to Carpenter and his members is the West Australian. While I fully support a robust media as a balancing force in a democracy, the West has openly declared war on the Govt and seems prepared, consistently to fight dirty. I would say in WA the media is more of a threat to democracy than a help.
McEwen looks tighter than a gnat’s chuff.
Could still go 84.
Nice to see Tollner has gone down
Jasmine, the NSW and WA Government should be the first to go they are as incompetent as Wayne Swan and Peter Garrett. The only reason Labor would win is if the Liberals don’t put a top class person in the leadership role.
And QLD, Glen? Coalition looking good up there?
The only reason Labor will hold QLD is that the Opposition is more incompetent than the Government IMHO.
McEWEN is a cliffhanger: projected FINAL COUNT is a LABOR WIN !!!!!!!!!!
If as I believe over 3,000 ordinary votes are left : Labor wins by 38 votes
if less than 3,000 , Labor still wins by lless than 38 votes
The Absentee votes WILL deliver a cliffhanger Labor win in McEwen
anyone wish to cheer ????
PS Loving the wall to wall deal. ALP from pillar to post! Not even a local council!
Q: Has an major Australian political party ever been less relevant or successful than today’s coalition?
Discuss.
Jasmine, the CCC’s powers are not unique. The CMC here in Qld has powers roughly equivalent to the Star Chamber which is frightening.
Glen, the problem is the Liberals have no ‘top class people’ anywhere. Look at Qld….and Nelson’s front bench! My God man….Bronwyn is on there!
It’s official Ron is living in ‘Bizarro World’!
Grace Pettigrew (122), amen to that, I’m rejoicing for Canberrans on their liberation. I’m in a safe Labor seat and it’s been bad enough to live in Australia.
I agree with Ron – McEwen is trending late for an ALP win.
FG, is Carpenter top class, is Iemma top class, is Brumby top class, is Bligh top class????
Glen,
Agree with you about NSW: Morris Iemma is in complete denial.
Disagree about WA: Alan Carpenter seems to be doing the best for his state (and he’s ex-ABC, like you know that lady, I forget her name, oh yes, Maxine …).
The Liberals had all the benefits of encumbancy. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars of our money advertising their own policies – especially workchoices. and on top of that Howard spent a fortune on pork barrelling in marginal seats. Then of course there was the economy – generally conceded by all and sundry as being as strong, or stronger than it has ever been. Howard told his team several times during the year that the circumstances in which governments get thrown out were just not there and that 16 seats was an enormous buffer to overcome.
And what was the result? A huge loss of at least 23 seats (at last count) with some swings well in excess of 10%. You can call it whatever you like, but given all the circumstances, I would call it an absolute electoral thrashing.
You’re playing avoidance, Glen. The talent pool is looking very shallow down your end. But if your point is that it doesn’t take top class people to win elections (as in the case with those you mentioned) what does that say about the conservatives now entrenched losing streak in the states and territories?
52.7 – 48.3 is not a landslide Darn, a landslide would of been 54-46.
And Labor lost 2 seats in WA.
Darn well Rudd will have a buffer of just 9 for 2010.
143
Ferny Grover – it says FG that we struggle when Labor starts trying to act fiscally conservative or right wing we haven’t been able to cope with this so that’s what needs to change.
At least they have flouride in the water in queensland now Glen. those toothless rednecks will just be rednecks in a generation or 2.
I think anna Bligh and brumby are top notch
Repealing “unfair dismissal” laws means that you support unfair dismissal. Is that fair?
On another topic…
I keep reading in the papers that Brendan Nelson, as Leader of the Opposition, has “the hardest job in politics”. Well, what a load of crap. Rudd seemed to cope with the job pretty well, and I suspect Nelson is happy to have it, and Turnbull unhappy not to have it.
At least, when you’re Leader of the Opposition, you have a team at your command and some staff to assist you.
In my opinion, the hardest jobs in politics are those belonging to Independent MPs and minor party Senators. They have to scrutinise every single piece of legislation, and work out which way to vote without a party whip to show them which side of the chamber to sit on. They don’t have big organisations to do their fund-raising, and to have influence (in the Senate), they need to negotiate with a range of other parties.
Leader of the Opposition pays pretty well, and there’s a big prize waiting if you can win the election.
Ron (134) What makes you think there are 3000 votes still to count? According to my information (just a friend, not inside info) 96% of the vote has already been counted. Allowing for non-voters, it seems almost inconceivable there could be that many votes still to come.
Having said that, I hope your analysis is right.
So Glen, it’s all a failure of strategy and no policy rethink or recruitment planning is necessary. Still sounds like avoidance to me.
Glen, I think you’re in for a few more electoral disappointments. With the incumbency factor working in his favour, and hopefully with a favourable economy, Rudd will utterly crush the Libs next time, just as has happened to the Libs in NSW, Vic, Qld, SA, Tas and NT. Once Labor wins, with the economy holding up, they’ve been returned in record landslides. The Libs just don’t have any good opposition policies of their own.
WA will probably be held by Labor; the Libs are awful there, and the move to one-vote-one-value in the WA lower house will mean the Libs and Nats are reduced to cat-fights for the dwindling number of safe rural seats, while Labor will have more urban safe seats of its own to get more talent up in.
Darn,
See my 125.
Even if Baily hold McEwen, Labor will probally get it “before” the next election due to the redistribution probably La trobe too in my opinion. Victoria is long overdue for a redistribution. McEwen has way to many people in it. So i would expect it to loose some of its more pro liberal areas in the redistribution.
I’ll admit my prediction of 100+ seats for Labor was grossly wrong. I didn’t anticipate the narrowing in the final week. Next time, provided the economy goes well, this won’t happen, as Rudd will be the INCUMBENT. The “better the devil you know” uninterested voters cost Labor a crushing landslide this time, but probably won’t next time.
Yes, the states really *should* start falling to the coalition now.
Problem is the state oppositions are entirely populated by d-grade jokes, urgers, bludgers and no-hopers.
Id call it 50/50. Best chances probably NSW, VIC and NT.
QLD – zero chance.
Bligh will crush them like bugs.
Glen (144) I didn’t call it a landslide. I have already learned the futility of arguing over that term. Everyone has their own ideas about what it means. (Grahame Richardson, for example, believes anything over 20 seats is a landslide – and he is a numbers man from way back). I simply called it an electoral thrashing, to go from a 16 seat buffer to a probable 16 seat deficit – as the coalition did. And right now I don’t think you would find too many of them arguing the point on that one.
If ever I wanted to get into parliament, now would be the ideal time to join the Qld Libs. I’d have to sell my soul to do it but it seems that anyone with a heartbeat and an IQ bigger than their shoe size would be really welcome right now.
You’d be 1 in 8 for the leadership, for starters FG!
Looking at the “declaration vote scrutiny” for McEwen, it looks as if there’s still another 739 absentees to be counted. If so, Bailey is probably toast.
McEwen
Fran Bailey 22 votes ahead.
AEC says counting is nearly finished:
739 absent votes to go
0 provisional
59 pre-poll
78 postal
There is no sign that I can see of any ordinary votes being left
to count.
On current voting patterns expect:
ALP to make up 50 votes on the remaining absents.
lose 2 on pre-poll.
lose 9 on postal.
Expected final outcome:
ALP by 17 votes.
Lord D
If Libs are ahead in polls in the weeks leading up to the next election then the reasons you give do point to a narrowing.
Agree with Lefty E @ 154. NSW “should” have fallen last time and we all know why it didn’t. No matter how hopeless the Iemma govt was, the Opposition was a joke, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, shot itself in the foot … whatever cliche you want to use. If they’d just left Brogden alone they’d be in office now, but no, the Right had to flex its “muscle”. Will they do it again next time? All they have to do is sit tight and wait for Iemma to lose.
Sounds good Dr Good (159). Hope you’re right.
I think though that whatever the outcome, this one’s headed for the Court of Disputed Returns.
Glen-About a week ago you posted about the woes of WA Health and it missing its targets. Do you have a reference for it I can look at? I am interested in what targets they used and which ones they were able to meet and which were impossible. SA Health (and in turn the Feds) are working on the same things but the WA list was more extensive than SA’s.
I have now posted seat-by-seat results
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007/2007reps.shtml
All attempts to predict the next election are just childish political games at this point. Haven’t we just seen how hard it is to predict an election three weeks out, let alone three years?
Lord D I think it is too early to be making bold predictions about the next federal election. You are on safer ground predicting the Melbourne Storm to win back to back NRL premierships.
I see Mike Kaiser has returned to Qld as Capt Bligh’s chief of staff:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22885712-952,00.html
At least she can rest easy that whatever happens she’ll always have the numbers.
Many updates on Liberal Party website since Nov 24, but they are apparently still the Government, and the former member for Bennelong is apparently still the PM.
http://www.liberal.org.au/about/ourhistory.php
Ron Brown Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
McEWEN is a cliffhanger: projected FINAL COUNT is a LABOR WIN !!!!!!!!!!
If as I believe over 3,000 ordinary votes are left : Labor wins by 38 votes
if less than 3,000 , Labor still wins, but by less than 38 votes
Ron again says
LCP supporters who may object to my figures but I reckon they ARE right
There are 104,509 enrolled and only 100316 counted
The absentees are running 53.40% to Labor on a 2PP basis with 759 to count
less 4.2% rejections less 5.85% informal of those = ALP overtakes LCP !!!!!!!!!!!
Any ordinary votes to count simply increases Labor lead !!!!!!!!!!!!
And here’s a list of the “Howard Government Achievements” Wow, this lot must be worth voting for.
http://www.liberal.org.au/about/ourfoundationsforthefuture.php
Speaking of compassionate Liberals,
I was feeling a bit relaxed and comfortable, when Andrew Landeryou reminded me of the delightful Member for Indi, Sophie Mirabelle.
Specifically her performance in one of the last Question times of the Howard government.
So here it is, part of Australia’s history.
Not that little Albo needs any help from me.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxoor0DyUE
Antony now has McEwan at TPP 50/50
oops McEwen
Ron,
Even though we have compulsory voting about 95% of enrolled voters will vote. We are at 95.99% according the latest AEC count.
There are a possible 300 odd votes to be accounted for!
Problem is that the AEC and everyone else for that matter has NO IDEA how many votes are out there or how many have been issued. The scutiny data is wrong. They are flying by the seat of their ballot box and there is no seal on it.
169 That list looks more like a wishlist than a list of achievements. How does nuclear power fantasising get a run as an achievement.
173
Greensborough Growler Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Ron,
Even though we have compulsory voting about 95% of enrolled voters will vote. We are at 95.99% according the latest AEC count.
Ron says
yep GG you are right. total roll is 104,509
We know there are 759 absentees , 59 pre polls & 78 postals left
that leaves “potentially” 3317 ordinary votes left IF everyone voted
IF the 3317 did not vote (3.17%) then we have only absentees pre polls & postals
On the current 2PP % for each of these voter types less informals in each type ,
Labor has a final lead of 14
Better to be plus 14 than -14 ….but its a cliffhanger alright
The States should start to fall to the coalition, but will they?
Qld: No hope
NSW: To win, they just have to keep O’Farrell in the job for the term and keep the nut jobs from picking fights within their own party. No guarantees that they will do that though. Still, greater than 50/50 chance IMO.
Vic: They’re coming from a long way behind – doubt it.
Tas: 50/50
SA: No
ACT: Based on what commenters have said here about Liberal disarray it seems unlikely
WA: With one vote one value also unlikely
NT: Coming from a long long way behind so unlikely
Seeing the NSW election will be after the next Federal one it is quite conceivable that it will still be wall to wall Labor at the time of the next Federal poll.
Matt D @ 177
I think the Libs will get up in NSW at the next election for two reasons.
1. The Iemma government is ‘less than perfect’
2. You’ll be amazed how quickly factions shut up when the chance of winning is at hand.
I’d kinda rather 83 seats to 84 in a way, it would make me wrong by four seats instead of three, but would mean I wouldn’t have to kick myself for walking away from a bullseye. I publicly posted a prediction of 84 way back on 7 September and was fool enough to raise that cautiously to 87 on 15 November as the much-vaunted Narrowing continued to show no signs of being much more than a whimper. Still, when there is a big swing it is very difficult to forecast the number of seats accurately; this one is much harder than 2001 and anyone who tipped anything in the 80s (including 80 itself) has done well.
On the “landslide” thing, “landslide” should signify an exceptional thrashing and not just an easy win, so I’d like to try this as a definition: victory by over a quarter of the size of the parliament. On that criterion, the following were landslides: Hughes 1917, Bruce 1925, Curtin 1943, Holt 1966, Fraser 1975, Fraser 1977, Howard 1996. Comments on this measure and its weaknesses welcome.
The good news is the Green vote is falling in the Victorian Senate count down to 89% of a quota. The Liberals have a 6.5% of a quota surplus which will not be distorted or distributed as the ALP secures a third seat before the Liberal surplus is distributed. 2.940 Million votes counted.
“I think Mick Keelty should be sacked and we should have another commissioner because he was far too close to the (Howard) government,” Porter says.
Amen to that!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22882862-17044,00.html
163
Diogenes – i posted links with my comments regarding WA’s shocking health system.
has anyone noticed Labor do a clean sweep in Tas, ACT and NT?
(thought ACT and NT only have 2 seats each)
Yes frank, and has anybody noticed that the Liberals hold 11 out of 15 seats in WA?
179
Kevin Bonham Says:
victory by over a quarter of the size of the parliament were landslides
Ron says:
where a Government is unpopular and holds a narrow seat majority as Keating did , its easier to end up with a landslide
Why not maybe use 2PP % as a measure
Hawke & Howard BOTH got 2PP I think of 53.3%
Yes FF, and we were hoping to extirpate the demon from the Senate as well in the ACT but, alas, it wasn’t to be.
Glen I think the only important number is 83 (or maybe 84).
Yo ho ho @178,
I agree, I think the Liberals only have to refrain from shooting themselves in the foot to win, but are they capable of not shooting themselves in the foot? Their track record is not good.
In the end yes Ruawake.
We need more Party conferences like they have in the UK, it gives both sides a platform to inform people of what they want to do and it also mobalises the members.
I wonder if anybody has a credible source for numbers of Party membership of the Liberals, Nationals, ALP and Greens???
oh Glen,
WA is the only state Coalition has a majority number of seats.
My wild guess is that it the first to fall to Coalition (also depends on how soon WA has state election compare with other states)
I think anyone who predicts a change of government in any of the states are over estimating the strength of the Liberal oppositions. Until they get their acts together they have Buckley’s. People will only throw a government out if there is a viable opposition.
Glen
Need to work on your maths. 100 – 52.7 = 47.3.
I think ALP just a bit higher than 52.7 anyway.
Also I think Coalition having 11 out of 15 is a really good situation for ALP next time around as the WA result will normalise and ALP can count on 3 seats as a given.
Together with mopping up about another 5 or 6 coalition seats under 1 % in Vic and Qld, looks like the bad guys will need to do something very special in the rest of OZ to get up. No doubt Horatio is up to the challenge.
Glen
I think the Liberals do need some kind of body to formulate policy guidelines. But historically power has been in the hands of the state branches.
This works fine when the Libs are in Govt. but it is a problem when they are opposition (I mean federally).
For example the WA members may want to keep AWAs as policy because they see it as a plus for them, but the members in the eastern states may want to ditch them becuase they see them as a minus.
If there was a body whos sole interest was winning elections they could decide what is best for the party as a whole.
Hey there Glen
Yes, but Labor’s just saving WA for later . . . kinda like dessert
QUESTION
aec site shows total count 92.42%
anthony green’s site shows total count 93.7%
BUT when you go into anthony green’s site via “live results” I can not see any seat count higher than the aec site
any ideas ??
PS/ same thing has happened last few days
Ron Brown @185
In 1983 Hawke’ 2PP was 53.2
In 1996, Howard’s 2PP was 53.63.
However, I don’t think it matters whether this is a Nantucket Sleigh Ride or just a good old thumping. Presumably, without voter repression tactics such as the early poll closing deadline this is up there with Hawkie’s landslide.
To think Team Rudd accomplished this “emphatic victory” (the MSM’s most ubiquitous description) against a government which benefited from a world economic resources boom is nothing short of sensational.
The AEC is showing Turnout: 93.68% Updated: 7/12/2007 4:34:59 PM
Maybe Antony’s site updates quicker?
Another on Keelty by Richard Ackland today
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-time-for-explaining-after-saga-of-vindictiveness/2007/12/06/1196812914927.html
Both the ABC and AEC sites are published from XML files. The AEC’s is done from the giant one with all the booth details, the ABC’s done from the much smaller one without the booths. The ABC polls the AEC site every 10 minutes and processes the data through a Linux box and outputs the XML that produces the ABC website, that process occurring after every update, the website checking for new XML every 5 minutes, so on average there might be 15 mins between the AEC publishing a file and it appearing on the ABC website. I think the AEC XML file is on a 15 minute update cycle, so there will also be some delay in that file parsing and updating to the AEC website. Then you have the fact different pages update in different cycles of the XSL translation, and then there is browser caching at numerous different levels. It’s amazing the ABC and AEC website ever agree actually.
Menzies 1958 should be on my list as well.
Ron (#182), Howard’s TPP was a bit higher than Hawke’s (53.63 to 53.23). TPP is another way to do it but since the aim of the game is winning seats in parliament and since we don’t have TPP all the way back to Federation, I slightly prefer to judge by the end result; it could be argued either way. TPP over 53.5 produces a similar list except that Menzies 1955 gets added as well. TPP over 53 adds 1983 but makes 2004 and 2007 very close to landslides, which I don’t think is really accurate especially as Rudd is not going to have a huge majority.
I was not aware of the surplus-distribution quirk in the Senate system that Melb city mentions in #116 but I just looked at NSW Senate 2001 (distribution of surplus of Marise Payne) and it was consistent with what Melb city is saying – can anyone else confirm that when a surplus of votes with a range of values is thrown, all ballot papers are weighted equally irrespective of previous value? Or is there somewhere on the AEC site that explains it by explicit reference to that scenario?
MelbCity is correct Kevin. It is explained well by Farrell and McAllister, ‘The 1983 Change in Surplus Vote Transfer Procedures for the Australian Senate and its Consequences for the Single Transferable Vote’, Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol 39 No3, Nov 2003, pp479-492. The was also a major paper on it done for the WA Electoral Commission after the 2001 state election when the procedure resulted in some votes increasing in value when distributed.
But to correct something MelbCity wrote earlier, the ABC election calculator is written exactly as specified by the Electoral Act, so includes this weighting anomoly. You can see it at the end of the count in Queensland, where the Coalition’s vote is oversampled when its surplus is distributed. Surpluses are calculated based on the using the ballot papers, not the reduced value votes.
William – you’re spot on with your description of O’Connor as “sparsely populated”.
The alternative is “barely populated”.
Even old Iron Bar doesn’t choose to populate himself there.
After last night’s lively discussion on FF and religion, the following video turned up on Crikey today.
Make sure you watch right to the end. Your jaw will drop.
http://www.crikey.com.au/video.html
I saw Mike Bailey this afternoon walk out of the Mercantile Hotel in The Rocks in Sydney looking very shabby. Must have been a long lunch. It has been a long couple of months for him I guess.
I hope the party looks after him seeing he put a bit on the line for them.
I think it is alos a lesson that celebrity candidates are always the right strategy for Labor ( I prefer my stock from other sources). The Jury is still out for me on Maxine but I hope she lives up to her promise as her margin for 2010/11 wont be a big one.
DLP @ 204,
Give us a break! Knocking off an incumbent PM as a novice candidate and you regard that as early promise.
Maxine is and will always be a Labor icon.
Don’t have to prove nothing to no one.
I think Marise Payne has also overtaken Ursula in NSW to be elected in fifth spot not sixth as it looked (on my reading anyway) earlier.
Off topic I can’t believe that in Nelson’s “new faces/new ideas/new look” shadow ministry Bronnie comes back in with Veterans Affairs and Marise Payne (who might actually fulfil some of those criteria) is the second most junior shadow parliamentary secretary. I feel sorry for veterans. Haven’t they suffered enough.
Although watching Mrs Bishop facing off against Alan Griffin will be entertaining if just for the complete contrast of their style.
GG @ 203
Unbelievable! Check out this interview with one of the church members: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pzjj92OZwI&NR=1
207
Trawler – thats not funny that’s scary!
on message 101
GG,
An excellent drop. That reminds me, time to attack the cask.
WTF are they doing to their kids?
Before he became Commissioner, Mick Keelty was in charge of operations in Queensland. He always seemed to me a competent officer with his heart in the right place. Perhaps the politicking became too much for him. Unlike his predecessor, Mick Palmer, he probably isn’t a political animal.
Anthony Green
thank you for your update info
However the aec site for the last hour says total vote 92.57%
whereas yours for the last hour shows 93.7%
1% is a large difference ? (this 1% also occurred last night & the night before)
copied from another post.
Victorian Senate Count
To provide you with a more precise breakdown of the vote as it stands
The ALP has 2.93 Quotas
The Libs 2.77 Quotas
The Greens 0.68 Quotas.
The above votes are locked in and will not be be redistributed (Outside Chance the Liberal surplus derived later in the count will)
Others represent 0.61 of a quota
Of the 0.61 of a quota 81% of the votes are allocated ticket votes (We know where their preferences will fall)
There is a yet to be determined 11% of a quota which represents the below-the-line votes for the other minor parties… that are not allocated to the Greens, ALP or the Liberal party.
For the Greens to win a seat (They are notionally on 89% of a quota after redistribution of the ticket votes) The Greens would need 80-100% of the unallocated vote to secure a Victorian seat in the Senate
BINGO Game over… Liberals 3, ALP 3 Green 0
Ron
I just checked the AEC site it says 93.85% check your browser settings or do a shift refresh.
Sorry I was being generous.. if teh greens are notionally on 89% or a quota and there is 11% unallacted below the line votes the reens would need 100% not 80% I do not want to get the Greens hopes up to high… In theory I guess the Greens could pick up all 100% of the unallocated vote… in a far away land maybe…
From Peter Palmer’s blog:
“The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has spoken out against the tax cuts promised in during the Australian election campaign, saying they will make economic management more difficult and could prove unsustainable.”
Let’s hope Peter Garrett was correct, and they will change everything now, scrap any tax cuts in the pipeline and use the money for boosting productivity. The greedy little piggies at the trough will scream for a while but will soon see the logic of it.
Nice article in the Monthly magazine this month (Dec/Jan joint issue) about how Howard has stacked the board of the ABC over time and how, now with sanity on the horizon in terms of a Rudd Labor government, it might be fixed.
Antony, after reading that story, you and Kerry O’Brien have my sympathy
Trawler @ 207. Jeez, that is scary. And she has the same helter-skelter eyes as Julie Bishop. The amazing thing is that was on Faux News, normally they are the ones stirring up hatred on behalf of the village idiot.
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. 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!
McEwen
Starnge that such a high nunber of votes have been rejected. Given that Postal votes are only issued if you are on the roll I can only assume they have been rejected because the voter did not sign the declarion slip., Something that I am sure will be challanged.. anythng under 100 to 150 votes will go to a recount and if the vote is tight a possible court challenge. And by the look of itr there is a numbre of issues (BNot as bad as Victoria’s electon) whihc are challengable. problem is those in power do not want to fight over the crumbs when there is no need and in times of plenty. Is the challenge worth it… And what would the likely outcome be. First step is the automatic recount… Then the scrutiny becomes interesting. This is just the warm up event.
I thought I read somewhere that the AEC has to write to the voter who has not signed the declartion form and give them time to come in and correct the oversite. The vote is received and within the time limits. I am not 100% on this point.
#203. To imagine they would be so stupid, that they would use a song written by one of the “greatest sinner” of them all, namely Michael “Whacko” Jackco.
Sory, sorry. I take it back, they are so stupid!!
GG – that video you link to @ 203 was made by the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas.
Among their other accomplishments are their cancelled-at-the-last-minute plans to picket the homes of the Amish school shooting victims in October last year with signs describing them as “whores” and the like.
The ages of the victims were between 8 and 13.
Trawler figtening indeed. I find the American Baptist church to be the most scarey thing on this planet. more scary then other funda-mental-ists. It is enough to make you want to reject all religions. Thankfully this fanatical minority is a minority. I know baptists are scarey but they are not all as scarey as that I am sure (Costello does not even desrve to be tainted with teh same brush). I am sure the TV studio had fun with their exposure and hatred.
God save America. (They need saving)
Melb city @ 223
What about Scientologists
206 Emily, yes Marise Payne does appear to satisfy the criteria, one of those who should represent the future if the Libs are to have any chance of resurrecting themselves as a credible alternative. But the mere fact that good old Bronny was selected tells us that they have indeed learned nothing. What is the saying about those who don’t learn from history?
Another re religion and politics -influence in US…..
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062907J.shtml
Emphasis on ‘end-time’ belief by Bush et al which is so frightening. Explains why they don’t care about global warming,etc.
antony 201. i am not saying tyour calculation is wrong.I do not think you shouldn have used teh terminology you have used. You should not refer to tyhe value of a candidates support as “votes” and at the same time presdent it as they have only a few votes. It gives the wrong impression. They have a million ballot papers all which are votes) but at a lessor value. It would be better if you presented the number of ballot papers and teh value to be distributed.
If you also do a notional distribution of tenLiberal surplus you will find that 10% of the number of ballot papers represents around 25% of the value of the Liberal Candidates support. If the suplus is distributed then this 25% is reduced to just 10% due to the flaw in the system. The system favours the major parties Both Labor and Lberal) disproportionally. The only reason then Greens are not complaining is that they are the potentyial benefactors. BUT it could just as well go against them.
By using the terminology you have schosen you are masking the real calculations used. A ballot papers is one vote it has a value whihc is then transfered to the candidate, This is the issue I have with your calculator. 9Aprt from the fact you can not do manual adustments and feed the input values… Again do a notional distribution of teh Liberal Parties surplus. (It will not be required, becausxe the ALP should reach qupota before the Libs surplus distribution,. But it does higthlight what I have been trying to say needs attantion and fixing.. your calculator only confuses and hides the fact. terminology needs revision.
..
How long before Bronny gets booted from Question Time – Even Hawker got the irits with her.
Do you reckon they would really be crazy enough to let the public hear and see Bronny B in the current climate, ruawake? Still, I guess Brendan N represents just about the same, freaky (sorry Alexander D., I know that’s your name) , part of the world;-)
aec on ABC radio tonight saying they’ll count about 500 declaration votes tomorrow
do not why they would not count them today
hope the 500 is a general figure aec is quoting because their web site shows 759 uncounted
Trawler,
Scarey video, but a really annoying interviewer. I would have liked to have actually listened to that lunatic’s rationale but he wanted to make the interview about him.
#
214
ruawake Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Ron
I just checked the AEC site it says 93.85% check your browser settings or do a shift refresh.
Ron says I’m using http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ shows total count 92.72%
Ruawake , have you got a different site address
(if not correct what browsers setting)
thanks
Based on the following figures(+prepolls/postals) ALP would finish behind by 12
aec you should be ashamed with McEwen figures published at 1.00pm today:
At 1.00PM today ALP 48281 LCP 48303
as of now ALP 48256 LCP 48284
WORSE STILL
At 1.00PM today Absentees counted 8428 rejections 357
as of now Absentees counted 8440 rejections 665
ie after 1.00 today , we 320 absentees “counted” of which ONLY 12 were valid
was McEwen the seat late last week that had allegedly 3000 votes ‘missing’
If Bronny has come back into Nelson’s Shadow Cabinet, it’s for one reason and one reason only -because the good Dr. knows that she still fancies herself as Australia’s first female Prime Minister and she’ll be plotting mischief on the backbench -perhaps trying to ingratiate herself with Turnbull -if he doesn’t find her a portfolio where she can be kept occupied. Yet at the same time it has to be a portfolio where she doesn’t get too much attention because goodness knows, she’s got negative publicity in every portfolio she has occupied
Does anyone remember Bronwyn’s interview after she was dropped from the Cabinet in 2001? She kept arguing that she wasn’t a spent force -all great Liberal leaders had spent time on the backbench after losing their cabinet positions.
While I’m glad it didn’t happen, part of me wonders what would have happened if Bronny had been elected Speaker in the last Parliament. Of course such musings are best left to the deepest depth of our nightmares
Bailey now up by 32, presumably on rechecks.
She was never in Cabinet. She was dropped from a minor outer portfolio after she stuffed it up. Nelson has probably had to give her something because he promised her in exchange for her vote. But she is 65 and this is her last term one would think. So she’ll just hang around until 2010 and then ride off on her broomstick.
One thing I’ve noticed, looking at Vic electorates, is that there seems to still be a lot of counting to do in the safe Labor seats, such as Melbourne, Gorton, Maribyrnong, etc. When these votes are tallied in the Senate, one would think it would help the Greens against the Libs, though I think they’re almost certainly too far behind now.
Yes, Lord D. two up on the booth vote for Bailey, and two down for Mitchell.
Ron, yes McEwen was the place where 3000 were “lost” but they were “found” again pretty quickly.
As far as the rejections go, I suspect that the earlier “rejection” figure was actualy too low, so the change may not be as dramatic as it seems.
Certainly been some strange stuff here, with very slow updates while they seemingly sorted out the declaration Vote scrutiny audits on occasion though.
Given some of the strangeness along the way, whichever way it ends up unless those 500 absentee votes fall very clearly in one direction or another, I reckon we will be in for a recount and possibly a court of disputed returns situation in McEwen.
Actually, talk about Bronwyn being placated brings to mind Nelson’s internal party political skills, which are probably reasonably good.
After all, he’s been a young (perhaps the youngest-ever?) president of the AMA, then got himself parachuted into Bradfield (traditionally the bluest-ribbon seat in Sydney) only a couple of years after he left the ALP. Then got to the ministry pretty quickly as well.
All this with the personality (in public, anyway) of a dead fish and with everyone having no idea what he thinks about anything.
Whether these back-room skills will translate into much impact as leader, I doubt.
Adam, I very much doubt that, if she survives, Bailey will even see out the term, given the “gravy train” problem that the Auditor G made so clear in McEwen in his report. Probably far less embarrassing for them to get her out of sight ASAP, even if it means losing a subsequent by-election.
Cheers
Rod
PD1981 @235,
Agree about Vets Affairs. Almost impossible to stuff up as a Shadow, and lots of worthy functions (I’m not being facetious) to attend, all important stuff, keeps you busy, but of no interest whatsoever to the media.
Can anyone tell me when is the count finally finished in lower house seats? Every time i check more votes are added. Im now less than 50 votes behind FF when i was over 200 behind last week. That must upset allot on here as they seem to be happy that FF polls well
First Preferences by Vote Type
Enrolled: 97,912 Candidate Party Ordinary Absent Provisional Pre-Poll Postal Total
Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes %
RICHARDSON, KymPrevious Member Liberal 30,296 39.55 1,822 39.14 57 35.19 1,724 38.93 2,014 44.60 35,913 39.74
BECKER, Barry J Independent 386 0.50 42 0.90 3 1.85 38 0.86 35 0.78 504 0.56
WELLER, Bill The Greens 4,218 5.51 395 8.49 12 7.41 310 7.00 182 4.03 5,117 5.66
FOWLER, Matthew Australian Democrats 694 0.91 78 1.68 0 0.00 47 1.06 37 0.82 856 0.95
RISHWORTH, Amanda Australian Labor Party 36,137 47.17 1,934 41.55 80 49.38 1,986 44.84 2,027 44.88 42,164 46.66
BROKENSHIRE, Robert Family First Party 4,373 5.71 318 6.83 8 4.94 277 6.25 184 4.07 5,160 5.71
KUSZNIR, Alex Independent 286 0.37 32 0.69 0 0.00 30 0.68 32 0.71 380 0.42
SMITH, Lachlan Peter LDP 215 0.28 34 0.73 2 1.23 17 0.38 5 0.11 273 0.30
FORMAL 76,605 96.18 4,655 95.02 162 97.01 4,429 97.13 4,516 98.24 90,367 96.27
INFORMAL 3,039 3.82 244 4.98 5 2.99 131 2.87 81 1.76 3,500 3.73
TOTAL 79,644 84.85 4,899 5.22 167 0.18 4,560 4.86 4,597 4.90 93,867 95.87
Thanks Antony and Melb city for the further info on the Senate surplus peculiarity.
The thing i love the most is that star candidate Brokenshire could not gain more than than 0.04 percent.
Go Bill!!
Bill, let me say that for me at least every vote closer to Fantasy First you score makes me happier, though they aren’t your ultimate quarry!
Personally I’m looking forward to the day when you (or your successor if need be) are slugging it out with the Labor member for the main prize in Kingston.
I doubt that this will be as far away as many people imagine! Heck, there are signs already emerging that people are starting to realise what the real issues that matter are in today’s world.
Cheers
Rod
Bill, congratulations!
Trawler @ 207 adds great value to the discussion.
Glen @ 208 Agree. Twice in two nights! You are on target for honarary Labor Supporter status.
Work on it!
MelbCity. I agree, but in the end, I only wrote the prototype, not the version that drives the web site. I drove the programmer mad with detailed calculation changes to ensure that there was no way you would be able to find a calculation error. In the end, there’s a couple of points where it says ‘real votes’ when it should say ‘ballot papers’. But all I can say is that it’s still more understandible than some of your typing!
Bill
I think that you must have done a good job campaigning but that is outrageous that the Greens get beaten by FF in seats in Adelaide.
Over here in my electorate in the West the Greens get close to 9% while FF are on 1%.
I had not noticed that before.
What is the explanation?
It makes it a lot harder for your Labor colleagues, you know?
Also in WA …
We are getting our first “Declared” signs put on electorates on the AEC web site.
Still no sign of preference flow info though.
I should also say, Bill, that now that McEwen (the electorate I live in, vote in and hand out HTV cards for the Greens in) has replaced Kingston as Australia’s most marginal seat (whichever way the cookie crumbles) there are things that can be learned here from the process.
Seats like ours “on the fringe” between urban and rural probably come closest to representing traditional “town and country” OZ , even though they don’t reflect the total population. We can see it in Kingston and ones like Bowman and McEwen. Voters in these places aren’t wedded to ideology. They got sick of being taken for reactive fools by Howard et al. They won’t respond well if Rudd tries the same play either, but they have moved from the redneck wasp margins to something more complex, more honest , and more important to the future.
I guess that is part of the reason why the Greens are scoring close to 9% in McEwen this time around. In seats like ours neither major party can afford to ignore such things.
Cheers
Rod
Mark Reynolds Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Bill
I think that you must have done a good job campaigning but that is outrageous that the Greens get beaten by FF in seats in Adelaide.
Over here in my electorate in the West the Greens get close to 9% while FF are on 1%.
I had not noticed that before.
What is the explanation?
It makes it a lot harder for your Labor colleagues, you know?
Kingston has a very ultra conservative population and a large grouping of AOG and similar churches
Mark writes:
that is outrageous that the Greens get beaten by FF in seats in Adelaide.
Ah! Mark, Never underestimate the religious vote in the “City of Churches”!
Fantasy First have done a lot of work on “niche marketing” there. They will never really get even close to matching the old DLP in terms of political power, but don’t be surprised if you have to bang their heads down from time to time.
In the real world, though, they will never genuinely trouble the scorer. Think back 30 years, divide their vote by half, then halve it again, and again, and you probably have a fair representation of their real share of the vote!
Well done Bill.
This was a strong election for the Greens, in about 120 seats they increased their primary vote, this whilst the ALP were driving the tories into long term oblivion.
To those who strongly suggested putting $100 on Maxine, I thank you.
Re the next election, centrebet have the ALP on $1.14 and ‘any other party’ on 4.60. Do they know something we don’t. I heard a rumour from a source that knew someone who was left in tory head office that heard the John W Rodent was considering doing a Menzies and Leading the conservatives back from oblivion.UMMMMM I’m bored already, can’t we have election every year?
Bloody hell, ftp, do you want us all to spontaneously combust? I’d like a spell of relaxed and comfortable for a little while (and smug and self-righteous as well, if that’s not too much to ask).
Found this site which is quite fun. You do a quiz and it tells you how closely your views match the 17 US Presidential candidates. And it picked me as Barack Obama so it must be right!
http://politicalquiz.net/
Greg Hunt on LL saying that we need to halt deforestation…..hmmmm….didnt the Libs approve the Tassie pulp mill.
Is anyone watching this rubbish on lateline with Graham Morris???!!!!!
Message to Morris – remove head from sand…..
Bronwyn Bishop certainly fancies herself as the first female PM, still, and good luck to her.
Bronwyn has one great achievement to her credit. She was responsible for the National Toilet Map. This is not a laughing matter, for many people are incontinent and Bronny has done them a great service.
The Transport Workers Union didn’t do Bronny a great service. They praised the National Toilet Map in their house journal, but gave no credit to Bronny. Shame TWU Shame.
The result this time was not much different to 2004 when it was FF: 4,767 (5.6%), GRN: 4,478 (5.3%).
However, given that the climate is a much greater concern for South Aussies this year, I would have expected the Greens to do better. OTOH, FF did have a higher value candidate this year. Brokenshire is a former Lib state minister.
On the subject of strange US religions, this will shock just about everybody. Follow the links to other pages as well it will curl your hair!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_flakes
FTP,
JWH trying to come back????!
No, non, nein, nada, nyet, …
This will not happen.
What a gosh awful LL to finish the year with. IMO it is the best current affairs on TV. I turned it off. ¡Hasta el próximo año!
LL very flat.
VT: What do the Libs have to do?
Morris: Do something every day to make the case for change.
It was a bit like someone saying we’ll win the game by scoring more points than the other team …
Diogenes. I did the survey too . It seems I’m a Democrat aswell but John Edwards is my man. Obama came 2nd!
Oh & heres something that has been posted on you tube about Rudds “swearing in”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSxoHffWiPk&sdig=1
PS contains colorful language!
So when do Jho and Hyacinth get their sorry arses out of Kirribilli? All they have to do is pack their clothes as we own the furniture!
ViggoP, what do you expect with Trioli fronting the programme. The woman is dreadful IMHO. At least she’s leaving her radio gig to pursue television interests, although that could mean she’ll take over LL full time.
Johnny Ratten says “Shhhhhh! little mices be very, very qwiet! and Kirribilli Removals won’t know we’re still here!
Be still, my beating heart! not the trioli, please. Tony Jones is a good interviewer although he doesn’t quite stick in the knife as often as he should. If we really want a change we should get someone who is really willing to cut through the crap: could Clarke and Dawe work without a script?
we are cracking open the Soviet Odessa Champagne. Celebrating the victory of Victoria’s newest Senator – David Feeney.
The ALP m with 41.8% of the formal vote, the Liberal Party with 39.7% and the Greens on 9.8% Others 8.7%
Of the 8.7% 83% are ticket votes leaving just overt 10.13% of a quota to undecided BTL votes (over 43,000) . The greens are notionally on 89% of a quota After ticket votes are allocated. They need over 100% of the undecided vote to secure a place in the Senate chamber .
The undecided BTL vote is one of the lowest on record since the introduction of above the line voting indicating a significant consolidation of the parties vote. Minor parties overall have also dropped in support
Congratulations Feeney…
Adrian says: what do you expect with Trioli fronting the programme. …. At least she’s leaving her radio gig to pursue television interests
I’m intrigued by the Sydney antipathy to Trioli. Anyone who heard her completely take apart Peter Reith on 3LO in Melbourne during the “chjildren overboard” election would have a very different view of her, I suspect.
Maybe it is just that Sydney radio carries an expectation of partisanship one way or another given Alan Jones et al. Trioli , when on radio in Vic, always seemed to me to be a consummate professional. As a former Sydneysider I can understand the joys of the northern beaches corrupting even the best, but as far as her interview tonight on LL went, it seemed to me she simply let Morris stew in his own juices. She very led him to the point where he overcooked himself to the point of complete carbonisation. For those who tuned out before the end of the interview, he never recovered!
Cheers
Rod
Antony I agree with you there.
I like the calc its reporting is great a few mods,. Open up the code and change the terminology and your there… As to the AEC distortion it will not come into play in Victoria. Feney will be elcted before the Liberal Vote is distributed. There just is not enough unallocted below the line votes for minor parties. It will be quicker and cheaper for the AEC to do a manual count then a data-entry count.
Hey Melb city
andrew’s site at ABC RIGHT NOW shows 94% counted but aec shows 92.77%
but individual seats count % on the ABC are the same % as aec
how can this be ?
Rod,
She’s a bit of a smiling (non-)assassin. I don’t think she is Maxine or Leigh standard.
In view of your comment I’ll watch it when the ABC puts it on download. They didn’t stream it tonight and SWMBO had the TV tonight.
Bye the bye, I would like to see someone like Geraldine Doogue do it for a while. No, wait, she may seem a gentle soul but I’ve heard her nail recalcitrants on radio.
OT,have you seen this?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/07/2113263.htm?section=justin
#
276
Ron Brown Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Hey Melb city
andrew’s site at ABC RIGHT NOW shows 94% counted but aec shows 92.77%
but individual seats count % on the ABC are the same % as aec
how can this be ?
Virginia Troll (sic) is really desperate to give these losers some succour, isn’t she?
For god’s sake, silly old Baird rattled off a list of things they got wrong, and the words ‘climate change’ never left his lips. (Did he omit Work Choices as well?)
Doddering idiots, the pair of them. Morris’s head is gradually disappearing down his own neck, and frankly, it won’t be a great loss. So they’ve got a thousand days to tell us we need a change? They had 11 bloody years and refused to change when poll after poll in the final year told them they were on a hiding to nothing.
Holy sheeet, batman, they’re gonna spend 1,000 days reminding us why we wanted a big change!
That’s going to work.
Does anyone know a site that shows the total number of uncounted votes per seat
??
Rod, I have listened to Trioli every morning for an hour as I walk to work, and I have not the slightest doubt in the world that she is a Liberal stooge.
From her treatment of callers who complained about Howard, to her daily interviews with Howard huggers David Speers or Malcolm Farr and her unequal treatment of Rudd, Gillard as opposed to Costello and Howard, she is so blatant it is embarrassing.
I don’t care what she did to Peter Reith 5 years ago, fr the past 2 years she’s been a one woman Liberal propoganda machine, and still is.
Viggo writes:
I don’t think she is Maxine or Leigh standard.
Well I have a soft spot for Maxine (largely because she was the first, and just about the only, person to ever interview me on a major ABC current affairs program
) , but I’d say Sales (who I have a lot of time for too) is still learning the trade, by comparison to either McKew or Trioli.
Radio shows, especially prime time ABC ones, can be tricky because of the need to balance information and entertainment, but I’d have to say that I prefer Trioli to Jones on Lateline. Less ego , but much sharper when it comes to “reading” the interviewee rather than sticking to a line decided by management beforehand.
Cheers
Rod
And a week after the Rudd government was elected, all the commentators on the program were Liberal representatives such as Kroger. The only Labor interview was a short one with ex president Warren Mundine later in the week.
You’d think after such an historic win, she’d make the effort to get someone from the new government to speak. No, it was still more Liberal propaganda even when they were no longer in power.
She really is a disgrace.
On a good night Tony jones can tear an interviewee apart
as he did this week with the US under sec of State
other times he’ll ask 2 probing questions & then the interviewee off and switch subjects like he allowed Julie Bishop to get away with NOT answering 2 questions: do you STILL support work choices ??
Off topic, but on the honeymoon and the gift that keeps on giving!
Regardless of Monday’s swearing in every time I hear the phrase ‘The Prime Minister’ I immediately get an image of the Rodent in my minds eye (11 years will do that to ya!). But then the realisation sets in, the school captain is now the boss, and it’s like the win happens all over again. Oh joy!
Ps Glen 184, you and WA can go root yourselves.
You tragic people! It’s Christmas! The election is over! Go to bed. Go out. Watch a movie. Read a book – anything. Get over it! (I booked my tickets today.)
On a different subject , I was feeling good at lunchtime as Labor was going to win McEwen by about 38 votes
with 759 absentees left of which Labor were winning 53.4% of
and only 59 pre polls & 78 postals
THEN late today the aec post a further 320 absentees ‘counted’ and horror
312 were rejected….meaning the Libs would win by 12
SEIV XI,
It’s interesting: with el roedor it was always “the Prime Minister, John Howard” now, half the time it’s “the Prime Minister” with no name.
I think I detect a certain element of pride; like the previous PM was this person JWH, but now it is “our” PM. Yes?
Liberals really do not get it but the history books WILL record that Howard was
PM for 11 years and brought in workchoices and ignored climate change and lost his seat
I doubt future school kids will be taught anything else about Howard
- what a legacy
288 Viggo, it’s all a matter of greivious ABH for me, Anybody But Howard, but I think you are on to something, hard to tell in a context such as this blog, but my ‘vibe’ is that people are more proud to utter the phrase ‘our PM’. Here’s hoping it lasts longer that a few weeks!
http://politicalquiz.net/
It rated me a hardcore Democrat. I wonder if that is a good thing.
yep Kina…..your party is a ‘goodie’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kina 291, I’m a Hardcore Demo too, apparently. eeewww! (note: I can’t help but imagine an x-rated Meg Lees scenario when I hear the expression ‘hardcore democrat’).
Apparently, Im a HC too. But the first three I’m supposed to vote for are Paul, Richardson and Huckabee. No way, José.
Sorry, HD: too many vinos.
The Victorian Senate vote is looking even better then first thought. Looks like there will not even be a need to data-enter any of the Below the line vote as the results of the election will be determined by the Ticket vote and primary vote alone. That’s a lot of money saved.
Adam Christmas is not celebrated until next month. January 6 to be precise.
Has anyone else noticed all the livestock being named in honour of Kev?
During the election campaign on a Vic farm a new born lamb was christened Kevin and today at Roma PM Kev was introduced to calf Kevin.
Strueth! at this rate there will be flocks and herds of Kevins running rampant all over Oz!
Wouldn’t that be great and it’d be even greater if all their farmer owners effed off the Nats and started voting Labor.
276
Ron Brown ??? Sorry I have no idea what your asking here?
the aec site shows ALL the booths counted in all 8 doubtful seats
Am I stating the obvious by saying ALL ‘ ORDINARY ‘ votes have been counted ??
(as yesterday I saw such notations on seats but later saw
more ‘ordinary’ votes counted) ?
299
Melb city Says:
Ron says a Melbcity more precise question is in #300
Meanwhile things are afoot in Greenway. This week’s Blacktown Advocate reports:
It is understood that hundreds of Greenway electors have written to the AEC requesting that the 2004 flyer be investigated alongside the inquiry into the Lindsay pamphlet scandal.
MelbCity do you know re below
the aec site shows ALL the booths counted in all 8 doubtful seats
Am I stating the obvious by saying ALL ‘ ORDINARY ‘ votes have been counted ??
(as yesterday I saw such notations on seats but later saw
more ‘ordinary’ votes counted) ?
The AEC does a recheck of the booth results you would have to provide more information in order to know what you are refering to.
Good Heavens, William.
I did not mean you should sleep forever!
William, have you collated the number of posts to your blog between the calling of the election and the actual election date. It must run to many thousands, perhaps you can invent a new measure, the “Bowe-meter”, as a means to measure interest in the outcome of future elections
lol, what a party
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22889363-601,00.html
Oh God, 307!
And by groupie Sam Maiden, erstwhile strummer ‘for the love of the Party’!
What a rabble. Oh the humiliation. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving group of bastards. Howard rule has ended with his party in shame and disgrace. When is the old bastard moving back to the suburbs? The house on the harbour will require through disinfecting once he’s gone – and someone will need to make sure all of the cutlery and art works are accounted for. Why Turnbull would want to be involved is beyond me. With his wealth he could do some serious good for the nation but instead he is interested in trying to blow life back into a cold corpse of a coalition.
As one of the owners I am starting to get really p***** off about this.
They’re been nothing but trouble since they moved in, very unexpectedly, nearly 12 years ago. All they’ve done since is demand expensive renovations, held wild parties for people I consider undesirables – the cops must too because they’re there very day keeping an eye on the cretins – and we’ve had not a single cent in rent from these squatters in all that time.
Its time the buggers slung their hooks. How far is it to the nearest Salvation Army homeless shelter?
Interesting that the ABC may have lifted its game, in the recent two weeks or so. Post 24/11.
Geraldine Doogue, Saturday Extra. This morning.
Guest, Judith Brett. Long time objective critical observer of the Howard Government.
Post Election topics I have noted.
All in the Mind. The sheer inhuman bastardry of the Act, handed down to Howard’s Willing, as it it affects people who would ordinarily have qualified for a Disability Pension. Described additionally their treatment under Newstart.
Rear Vision. Queensland. Under Jo Bjelke. Police State. Springboks. Street Marchers. Politicisation of a generation. Not only, Peter Beattie.
Australia Talks. Indigenous Issues. NT. Sorry. Etc.
No public concession yet from Howard on the loss of his seat. Final declaration for Bennelong probably next Wednesday so we’ll find out then if he’s prepared to do the right thing.
My guess (if true to his mean and sneaky form) is to brush it off by claiming he conceded a week and a half ago (see below).
Just get it over with. Then get over it.
Or can spineless be added to your list of qualities?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/071207/19/156z3.html
“On Wednesday, the Australian Financial Review carried a small report on page eight quoting a spokesman for Howard as saying the country’s second longest serving prime minister had conceded a week earlier in a phone call to the returning officer in Bennelong.”
Turnbull was robbed. Apparently in the Liberal Party those eligible to vote can’t and those who have lost their seat are entitled to a leadership vote. When they know that their performance has entitled them to a decade and a half of opposition what was the rush to fill a permanent position with a locum.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/liberal-partys-leadership-vote-under-cloud/2007/12/08/1196813058415.html
Alan Ramsey has a nice story spun around a booth in Fraser, Wreck Bay, where the primary vote was: Labor 37, Greens 32, Democrats 2, Independent 1, Informal 2, Liberal 0 (see http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-13745-8839.htm )
Ramsey says “Wreck Bay was the ultimate election night metaphor for John Howard’s government, his prime ministership, his party, his seat of Bennelong and his political career. How much more appropriate could it get?”
Read more at http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/brave-victory-against-media-bitchiness/2007/12/07/1196813020139.html
The Poetic symbolism of it all! Gridlock Campell’s Brisbane City Hall slowly sinking through the sewerage ridden subsoil into one of his favorite bus tunnels. All this only 96 days before the public vote for his eviction. Love the way he took the money for the new moat out of the fire safety fund. The Liberals might be a spent force in Brisbane City Council but our Gridlock Campbell is ‘a force for spending’!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/new-moat-for-sinking-city-hall/2007/12/07/1196813020985.html
Bryce
“No public concession yet from Howard on the loss of his seat.”
The polite thing to do is to ring your opponent personally and concede, a candidate does not claim a seat until their opponent has conceded, to claim a seat before the your opponent has conceded is seen as rudeness and arrogance.
This also applies to claiming the election, Rudd did not claim victory until Howard had conceded, which has been the accepted manners for all elections.
Howard forced Maxine to claim victory in Benelong as she was to be sworn in as a parliamentary secretary.
As to why Howard refused to give Maxine the courtesy every other candidate and government has shown in past elections it may have to do with his general attitude to women and the fact that he was defeated by a woman.
But it is typical of Howards character, say what you like about Keating but he was infinitely more gracious than Howard in defeat.
Alan Ramsey’s excellent article is more notable for telling the true story of Nicole Cornes’s bravery and integrity in the face of media bitchiness.
Thank you 314 Albert Ross for the Ramsey reference and Nicole for showing up one of the worst section of the media.
William
are the ONLY votes to count for the election are Absentees , Provisionals , Pre Polls and Postals ?
I am trying to establish the status of the McEwen seat where the aec site:
shows 77 of 77 booths counted and
shows in the NON ‘ordinary vote’ aec menu 423 absentees,59 pre polls & 78 postals
I presume from the above all “ordinary votes” cast are counted ?
(meaning 3317 voters 3.17% did not vote in McEwen)
Ron,
Hopefully, this helps you.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bailey-leads-by-22-in-cliffhanger/2007/12/07/1196813026887.html
arbie
etc
j ho is partying at kirribilli drinking the cellar dry and generally creating mayhem
this is true to form of the man and the libs in general
what a way for history to remmeber the libs drunk,lying in the bushes and general proving what an unrepresentative swill they are
maybe it is snap off a log time
In The Age this morning Tony Wright says a string of resignations by ex-ministers would be a disaster for the Opposition because they would lose the by-elections.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/tony-wright/2007/12/07/1196813015582.html
What a load of tosh. If there are by-elections in Berowra, Higgins, Mayo, Menzies, Gippsland and/or Lyne early next year, the historical precedent is that they would produce swings away from Labor, and that is what I would expect to happen again. That’s what happened when Fraser, Street, Anthony, Snedden and Killen resigned their seats after 1983. Swings towards incumbent parties at by-elections are very rare. There has only ever been one by-election at which a seat swung towards Labor when there was an incumbent Labor government – Fremantle in 1994.
Latest senate results for Victoria
First Preferences and diatributuon of known Ticket votes
Liberal ALP Green Others Total Quota
1286029 1279365 364763 47922 2978080 425441
43.183% 42.959% 12.248% 1.609%
Quotas
3.0228 3.0072 0.8574 0.1126
The above is calculated by taking the group vote of the Liberal Party, ALP and Greens and then adding the known Ticket vote of the other minor parties. What is remaining in the unapportioned BTL minor party vote. 1.609%
GG
Noticed in that article about McEwen and Bailey.
“Former prime minister John Howard rang Mr Irons on Thursday to congratulate him on being the only Liberal to dislodge a sitting Labor MP.”
Appears Howard does know how to use a phone, be good if the media put pressure on him to ring McKew and formally concede Benelong.
Bailey has held on in Mitchell. 26 votes ahead. Only 23 absentee votes left to count. 59 pre-polls and 78 postals to count.
Bummer.
Arbs
this poor excuse of a man represents all thats bad about the ideology of the libs
man=strong
woman=subservient
its rather simple and any deviation from this is moronic creed is attacked like ferals that they btruly are
case 1:the heiferman and his mysognistic comments ALL through his time as an mp
the latest being the Gillard slander. atruly bestial of a man
case 2: jho”s treatment and disdain of Mckew all the way to not having the balls and common decency to concede. a truly little little man
there is so much more but the bile is so turgid that i wont say anymore- except
Goodriddance
The above should read “Bailey has held on McEwen”, naturally.
Agree
Howard’s attitude to woman was clearly on display in his treatment of Kylie Russell and this quote says it all.
“You’d have to be thinking on the purest of dehumanised political levels to either forget or deliberately snub the man’s widow”
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067233083792.html
So what is it with McKew, has Howard forgotten the protocol of conceding or is he deliberately snubbing her.
He is entitled to wait until the seat is declared. I would.
When will Malcolm take the knife to Dr Nelson.I predict within 3 months.
Ron Brown (319)
The ordinary votes would all be well and truly counted by now. They are the easy ones. The ones that take all the time are the declaration votes (postals, pre-polls, absents and provisionals) because of the amount of checking and roll marking that needs to be done before they can be opened.
Charlie, according to that article there were 200-300 absentees left as well as a small number of pre-polls and postals. The McEwen % counted has only moved from 95.99 last night to 96.00, so I don’t think all those absentees have already been counted.
331
Turnbull would be better off if he bides his time on this.
I know he’s pissed off about the party vote, but it’s a matter of timing.
Best to sit back and let the responsibility of the blood- letting be on other hands.
Charlie (326)
I will be amazed if the result is not overturned in the Court of Disputed Returns.
With the ever increasing number of declaration votes these days and the greater propensity for errors in processing these type of votes, it shouldn’t be too difficult to find enough doubtful decisions to have the whole thing re-run.
Without a doubt there will be a few recounts in McEwen and it’ll go to the court of disputed returns, whether Fran Bailey or Rob Mitchell come out as the declared winner. Labor supporters better hope the absentees left to count come from the more urban parts of the electorate.
Charlie , the only change on the AEC website for McEwen this morning that I can see involves a REDUCTION in the ordinary booth vote for both Bailey and Mitchell, resulting in the 26 vote lead you mention.
According to it there remain a few hundred absentees to still be counted, and still a few Pre-Polls and Postals , too.
Cheers
Rod
Actually, I misread the declaration vote scrutiny page. Sorry guys!
@ 330 Adam Says:
That’s the spirit old boy. Keep on yelling it as the wheelie bin you occupy is upturned and emptied into the garbage truck of history.
What an interesting week!!
Turnbull appears to have realised that people who had lost their seats had voted as well two MP’s were excluded from voting.
According to the Age several former Liberal Govt MP’s may be leaving causing by-elections, and while Adam dismisses the ALP’s changes I would rather look at these four seats in question
Higgins, Gippsland, Berowa, Menzies and Mayo
Normally By-elections swing against the Govt, and apart from Higgins I couldn’t see the ALP picking up any of these seats, people may point to Burwood (Higgins) but the Liberals had a shocker of a candidate
Victoria indeed delivered an interesting result as predicted there were solid swings across Melbourne’s East and rural Victoria, the only seat that moved towards the Liberals was Kooyong.
I may be wrong but I believe the biggest swing in Victoria was in Casey with Aston not far behind.
I believe Victoria will have a redistribution before , which could mean both Lt Trobe and McEwen are notionally ALP, that’s if Fran survives, I would also expect she may retire come 2010.
I will give Nelson a tick for dropping Kevin Andrews
There’s no way Labor will win Berowra, Higgins and Mayo in byelections.
BM of Vic. Mayo. Is Lord Alex departing.. if that is true that would be great news…
332
Darn Postal vote roll marking is not that slow. A quick scan and open the emvelope is all it takes. Prepolls should already be marked off the roll.
I do not think their is a court of disputed returns (Other then the Federal Adminsitrative Court) It is way to early to consider a court challenge. First step is a recount. There is only one. Although I argue of the overall result changes there should be an additional count to confirm the last count. (Questions are still being asked about the Western Metro Count in Victoria where votes went missing between count A and Count B (The Tully Count that did not tally) and details results of the first count were not provided (SNIP: ill-advised statement deleted – PB)
Fist counts do not warrant close scrutiny but next weeks count will. The Senate will not be subjected to a recount or scrutiny. BTL Preferences will not be counted. Unless the AEC wants to spend money and play with their toys.
I recall the VEC spending thousands of dollars in counting a single member election by data-entry. A total waste of time and money. It would have been quicker and more reliable to count manually. The VEC counting system has little to desire and there is overwhelming errors in the data-entry process. They do a random sampling check where the AEC does a double entry check. The other problem with the VEC count was they refused to pre-sort the ballot papers into first preferences piles making it that much harder to scrutinise or monitor. If the AEC spends time and money undertaking a data-entry for the Victorian Senate then questions should be asked for what reason and justification. The result is decided on ATL first preferences.
Greens have nargunally incresed tehir position in the Victoriasn Senate. ( More votes from Melbourbne and inner ciuty areas added to the acount. )
No change in the result and still no need to count BTL preferences.
Liberal ALP Green Others Total Quota
1291839 1285828 370099 46253 2,994,020 427718.1429
43.147% 42.947% 12.361% 1.545%
3.020312267 3.006258587 0.865289922 0.108138971
Who is mad enough to want to lead the federal Liberal party? Its a poison chalice. I’m not a betting man but to put money on Nelson not seeing out a term as Lib leader is a “sure thing”
As for Turnbull (a so called moderate but still voted for workchoices) why would he want the leadership as the Libs are sailing into the uncharted deep waters of opposition for a long time to come. He may as well call himself “Captain Smith”
It reminds me of the ’80’s when we had the Peacock/Howard tango & in the end neither got up in that era then we had another 2 more before Howard finally made PM. So some where in the mix Tony Abbot will make the leadership as the pecking order evolves whilst the Australian public laughs at their misfortune as it is played out in the media for public folly.
This scenario is not far fetched as I reckon it would make the Qld Liberals look sophisticated! It couldn’t happen to a better bunch.
I head from Senior Liberals that Costello was going to serve out his time on the back bench… Bit much saying they will continue then when the tide turns bow out… However looking forward tio see the departure of Sir Alex. I hope the new government revokes the unjust fine imposed on victims of crime who have their watllets and passports stollen. This is just a tax on the traveller and a impost on Travel insurance.
Albert Ross, you moron, you must be the only person here too stupid to have noticed that I am an ALP member – it’s only been mentioned about a thousand times. I’m very pleased that Howard lost his seat. I was making the simple point that technically no seat is decided until the poll is declared, and that Howard is within his rights not to concede until Bennelong is declared. If he doesn’t concede at that point, then it will be time to criticise his bad manners, though such criticism will come a little oddly from an abusive grub like you.
I would not want to rush into electroinic voiting just yetr. There are way to many errors in e-voting to warrent thje expense and implementation.
We have seen the Victorian count and erros in the backend of this count.
I have to agree with Fran on one point..
QUOTE from the Age…
Ms Bailey also raised doubts about the count, saying she had not had a satisfactory explanation for why the advice on how many votes were to be counted each day kept changing.
“I am not saying there has been voter fraud but you can’t help but raise questions about the entire process,” she said.
If we do introduce a online voting system then the first step is postals and absentee votring only… BUT they must prov ide access to perefernce data files and ensure that electoral officals do no access the resulst of the e-count , unliuke in Victoria, prior to the close of the ballot. YES it is illegal to open the e-voting ballot box before the close of the poll, whichj is one of the many questions asked about the conduct of the Victorian election. following a VEC email sent to the media indicatng that VEC staff had counted the e-votes before the close of the ballot.
I don’t believe that someone of Costello’s age and prospects will spend three years of his life as a bored and frustrated backbencher. Nor will Nelson want him there as a possible source of disaffection. He should resign in the new year, and so should Ruddock and Downer, and probably Vaile, McGauran, Andrews and Hawker too. If they wait a few months until the initial gloss has gone off Rudd, all the by-elections will produce swings to the Coalition. The only real battle would be between the Nats and Libs in Lyne and Gippsland.
In an article in the Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22889501-5014046,00.html
Nelson suggests one of the reasons for the coalition’s defeat was:
“because Labor outspent the Coalition by a factor of two to one, particularly on the issue of Work Choices”
Quite apart from Nelson clearly not taking into account the tax payer’s money burnt to support Work Choices – the idea the Libs were outspent is quite ridicules.
Are the any estimates floating around about the costs of each of the campaigns?
HOW can ABC site (3 hours earlier !) have 1.21 % MORE votes than the aec site ??
AEC Site:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/
94.1 % counted | Updated Sat Dec 8 11:37AM
Total Count 92.89%
ABC site (Antony Green)
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/Default.htm
this website was last published at 8/12/2007 2:31:55 PM.
COUNTED % : National 92.89
CORRECTION
HOW can ABC site (3 hours earlier !) have 1.21 % MORE votes than the aec site ??
AEC Site:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/
94.1 % counted | Updated Sat Dec 8 11:37AM
ABC site (Antony Green)
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/Default.htm
this website was last published at 8/12/2007 2:31:55 PM.
COUNTED % : National 92.89
ALP member eh?
What do you think about the 31 billion in tax cuts?
Will it be of benefit or will it be inflationary?
Just a waste of money I reckon.
If they were serious they would lower the fuel excise or get rid of the GST on fuel.
But then again, that is a bit too much to expect from the boys club isn’t it???
Meanwhile Rome still burns…
Scaper , the REALITY is that as soon as Howard irresponsibly offered $34 billion
in tax cuts , Rudd had to copy or he would have lost the Election
Blame Howard for the stupidity
but then again when howard was last the Treasurer in 1982 he spent all the money then so there was none for the incoming Government
History repeating
Adam
I may be wrong but I interpreted Albert Ross’s “old boy” comments as being directed towards John Howard – not you.
Perhaps he would like to clarify that.
Under normal circumstances Labor couldn’t win Mayo in its wildest dreams, but I sense there may be an opportunity in a bye election if they really want it and are prepared to put in the work and some money, especially given that many here are beginning to realise that safe seats don’t attract the pork. Certainly, the area hasn’t gotten much during Downer’s time.
Parts of the seat are among the fastest growing areas in the state and probably the country, southern Queensland excepted, and the growing pains are hurting.
Mt. Barker has major traffic and parking problems and these are about to get much worse with the recent approval of 3 new retail projects. It also badly needs extra on/off ramps for the SE freeway east of the town to allow trucks from the industrial areas, and in the near future from two newly approved mines, to bypass residentual areas. The hospital needs staff doctors, and more staff generally, especially for the maternity ward which is now the only one in the hills. Stirling also has traffic and parking problems and Nairne has been trying to get pedestrian lights outside the primary school for ages. In the more rural areas the apple farmers are unhappy about fireblight being introduced by NZ apples, the dairy industry has taken a hit as have the egg/poultry producers. Lack of water is a big issue.
So find a well regarded, well known local candidate, offer assistance towards fixing the problems, make the right noises on the farm issues and with a bit of help from the increasingly dysfunctional, threadbare opposition there just could be a boilover.
Adam did not Downer come close to losing his seat to a rock star???
Side issue:
How effective and responsive is our Senate? Why is it that we have to wait until July 1 to see a change in its composition. Disaffected, voted out members of the Senate continue to sit on its benches absorbing the benefits of office Mostly world travel knowing full well that their time is limited.
Senators term of office should be pegged to the lower house. senators that lose support and are not reflected should vacate their office in the same way that members of the lower-house lose their seats. What positive contribution is to be had by allowing members of the Senate to remain in office for an additional six months.
Of the hundreds of votes ruled out of order in McEwen, a high proportion would have come from the more mobile, less established sections of the community – more than likely Labor voters. Fran Bailey should be on her way.
The big disappointment in this election is that at least one new Labor dud has been elected while several really good people have missed out – among them, George Colbran, Rod Cocks, Mia Handshin, Peter Tinley and, bravest of the brave, Nicole Cornes.
REFORM
Why can not the Constitution be changed to
1/ elected Senators take office immediately after a House of Reps election and
lose it/get re-elected on house of Reps election dates
2/ 4 year fixed House of reps
preferably on a fixed day as well
3/ Senate terms be either 4 years for all or
1/2 4 years and 1/2 8 years
4/ Postal Applications be ONLY sent from ,and posted back to, the AEC
5/ new enrollments have min 7 days from the calling of an election
Should we be lowering prices when the biggest problem we face is climate change?
It might be better to direct the tax cuts into super funds where applicable.
Ron I gave up looking at the number of votes expected long ago when I realised the AEC had no idea and I suspected that votes were still being issued or printed out the back. Its in the lap of the gods and I think the AEC has a few more things to look at before they contemplate a e-voting system and high expenditures on new toys. Fran Bailey and others have just concern at the ever changing number of votes. the same situation occurred in the Victorian Cont expect their votes went missing between count A and Count B and ten upper house did not tally with the lower house. Their record keeping was shonky to say the least. Made worst by the fact that Tully refused to provide4 details of the election count (SNIP: another ill-advised statement deleted. MC, say what you like about a certain bureaucrat on your own site, but not here – PB)
I think it is obvious to all that the AEC records are not accurate. This will undoubtedly will be raised if and when a court order is required to review the count.
My analysis of the count was seriously impeded by the fact that the information provided by the AEC was not reliable. (At least we had some information where as in Victoria Steve Tully refused to make available any information on the number of postal or pre poll votes issued prior to the election. Scrutineers need to be more assertive. the AEC and VEC thinks they are just observers.. as they watch the keyboard operators punch the keys… Believe me there is more to an effective scrutiny then just looking. information is the key. Information that all too often is denied or kept from scrutineers or the public. I am still waiting 12 months later for the Preference data for the Victorian Count… A complaint has been lodged with the parliamentary inquiry and the VEC is exempt from review by the Ombudsman (hopefully that will change soon)
Ron Brown
True, but if Rudd really wants to rule for Australians, this would surely be an alternative?
In regards to the constitution, I believe that we are mature now as a nation and we should review thus.
scaper…
Ron Brown (357): New enrolments should be allowed up to and on election day itself, as happens in the US, Canada and even Nigeria.
Phil Robins @356
Who do you reckon is the new Labor “dud”?
Outgoing NSW ALP General Secretary Arbib might not be a dud, but Bronny Bishop wiped the floor with him a few times on Skynews during the campaign. How the underwhelming Arbib went straight up the NSW HQ ladder to #1 on the ALP Senate ticket is further evidence of the internal power games which have resulted in NSW lurching from one Iemma ministerial sacking to another.
RE: Nicole Cornes from today’s SMH by Alan Ramsey:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/brave-victory-against-media-bitchiness/2007/12/07/1196813020139.html
I am amazed by the short sightedness of those like scaper @ # 351 that argue for a cut in the cost of petroleum products particularly petrol.
I too would enjoy being able to fill up my car for half the price I do now or a fall in the cost of everything I buy as it all need transport or cheaper plastics or the whole raft of things that petroleum is involved in. However, we must remember that petroleum is a limited resource and it is become more and more scarce every day.
There are some that argue that we have already passed what they describe as “peak oil”, that period in time when the production of oil must fall but even if this is incorrect we should all know that unless there ars some remarkable finds of oil soon then we are all on the downward slope to there be no oil at all. It should be realised by all that the distribution of the use of oil cannot be represented by a “bell curve” and that once we have reached “peak oil” the slid to “no oil” will be much quicker than the slow clime to “peak oil”.
Only those who have no concern for the future are arguing for a fall in the price of oil and they are demonstrating this on two fronts.
Firstly they are placing on future generations a necessary to find a replacement for petroleum in our society much earlier while they at the same time are endeavouring to consume as much of this resource as possible. The driver for this increase in consumption of petroleum is the reduction in the price of all products associated with it.
Secondly, the impact on the environment that accrues with the use of such products. The less we use petroleum products now the less will be the effect on such things as climate change.
I have to admit that the call for a cut in the price of petroleum products sound nice, with cheaper petrol and food and … well you name it. But what is being ignored is the future.
No names, no lipstick.
362
I indeed see your point, but it is an example of the concept that I was endeavouring to convey.
I’ll give you another example that could deal with our economic woes.
Let’s say…..reducing the GST so all Australians benefit.
And as for having no thought or vision for this nation…..you are greatly mistaken, sir!
Phil Robins @364
No names………no fair, mate! :>)
Melb City,
I agree re Electronic voting:
The U.S. experience has been less than satisfactory and until they have a watertight system, we should leave it alone until it is. (Indications are that Bush may not be in office if there had been a paper trail for example.)
I for one, want a system tried and tested overseas. Our tendency to reinvent the wheel,such as the joke that is public transport(especially in Sydney) gives me no comfort whatsoever.
(BTW-Why can’t we do what Japan did/does and use world’s best practice? Why do we stick to only UK and US for transport models? Hongkong had electronic ticketing for trains in 1991 and we still can’t get it right? )
I am currently researching an article on who predicted what during the campaign and who was right and who was wrong. In the course of my research I found the following comment made by me on 30 September: “If Labor wins any one of Warringah, Dawson, Wannon and Kooyong I will be the first to nominate Possum for the Nobel Prize in Psephology.” Labor did win Dawson, so I have emailed the King of Sweden nominating Possum Comitatus for the Nobel Prize in Psephology. I have not yet received a reply. (Memo Possum: I was however right about everything else.)
I have a crystal clear memory of the Dawson graphic coming up for the first time on the ABC’s coverage on election night. It was then that I knew that the ALP had definitively won.
Damn that was a good feeling.
Not only should be be asking when will John concede defeat but when will the Greens also concede defeat in Victoria? They have gone very quite of late…
Just saw a footage on Skynews of the Rodent attending the NSW Liberals meeting and the commentary was “JH attending the meeting still with his PM entourage”. WTF, dont tell me this man and Hyacinth is still hanging out at No: 1 Kirribilli. Do they have any shame and still sucking us dried. Rudd should put his foot down and kick them out.
yep Can not see the Greens getting even close to a Senator in Vic
Megan problem is our system is rather uniwue in the world. I have faith that an e-voting system will work. But it does not need the expense and toys the electoral officals want to get their hands on. There are many examples where the AEC and VEC have used a computerised counting system when a manual conting system would have been cheaper and more effective. Single member elctorates for example). One of the main issues is in the data-enry process. if they come up with a suitable user input system then half the problem disappears BUT there still are quiestions of intgerity and secutirty. The fact that the VEC access the e-voting system without scrutineers present and prior to close of the poll is a very serious issue.
Other sisies with t5he Victorian count include the fact that they opted to avoid the preliminary distribution of first prefernece votes. This is useful in that one it provides a check digit and two it allows for scutioneers to minor a selct group opf votes as they are processed as opposed to the random data-entry syustem adopted by the VEC. The AEC does a better job over all.
If you have poor records on the TOTAL NUMBER of votes issued then there is no way in which you can really monitor or scrutinise the count. Same situtiaon if scrutineers are denied access to the raw preference data…
Steve Tully in Victoriua refused to make available the prefernce4 data for the first count so there was no way in which a comparison between the two counts could be made. The overall number of total votes between count A and Count B change significantly. Votes went mssing between the tow count. i can understand a missallocation but for the totral number of vaotes to change something is seriously wrong. To then deny access to detailed data only makes it worst. e-Voting systems MUST be open and transparent if the public is to maintain confidence overall in the system. I have no confidence in the way Steve Tully and the VEC conducted their count. I was proven right.
aec manager said they’d count mcEwen declarations today.
Maybe its too hot to count
For heavens sake we are supposed to be a first World country
-get 77% counted on noght and the ‘hard’ votes …2 weeks its is
Just imagine if it had of been a cliffhanger ?
(’Kirribilli Removals’ would STILL be parked outside the Lodge)
I don’t think unsuccessful challengers are required either by custom or good manners to “concede.” This is an obligation for defeated sitting members alone. The only Victorian Senate candidate required to concede defeat is Lyn Allison, which she has done. http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Democrats-down-but-not-out-Allison/2007/11/25/1195947541134.html
It is custom that the winning candidates wait for the concession speech of the losing side. Lynn Alison I think served Victoria well. Her party did not. They are just a feeder for the Greens
I do not think the custom of concession only applied to incumbent members. John last time I looked was and is an incumbent member. No the custom applies to the losing team to concede. In Victoria’s case the Greens should concede they are not going to win a senate seat.
I recall attending the declaration of the Member for Malvern and I was gracious to congratulate Robert Doyle in his expected Victory.
Di Natalie should also announce his unsuccessful candiature
McEwen, 7 Votes, ALP WIN
adam
“Albert Ross, you moron, you must be the only person here too stupid to have noticed that I am an ALP member”
mate beside being a will o wisp you jump on any bandwagon when you feel the mood suits your outlook
i really like your schoolboy insults “grub”
matches your reasoning powers “old son”
McEwen Updated: 8/12/2007 4:10:50 PM
BAILEY, Fran Liberal 48,409 50.00 56.42 -6.42
MITCHELL, Rob Australian Labor Party 48,416 50.00 43.58 +6.42
I’m glad you like my insults, gusface. I try to please.
As I said above, I am researching who said what during the campaign. Are you the same gusface who said on 30 September: “warringah will go to the wire”?
Why is it that PB today has become a place to do a “dump” on someone? Some manners please or have we stooped to Glenn & ESJ level.
Schrifsteller – you little beaudy!!!
The fact that the VEC access the e-voting system without scrutineers present and prior to close of the poll is a very serious issue.
Yes, THAT is the issue….it has to be tamper-proof and seen to be above board.
As they say,vigilance is required to maintain the old ship ‘Democracy’.
Re #383
Let us hope that the recount(s) confirm(s) the desired result.
McEwan. Looks like all votes have been counted.
I wonder what happened to the 1589 postals that did not get to the count in time?
Mitchell by 7 votes. Amazing. Of course there will be a recount, and then a court challenge. This will run for weeks yet.
No way do challenging losers have to concede, except in exceptional circumstances (if say Maxine was theoretically going to lose and holding up the forming of a new Liberal government). Otherwise the presses would be full of CEC and Socialist Alliance concessions Australia wide.
Nor should there be pressure for Senate concessions at all, given that the spots aren’t to be filled for half a year.
Lynn Allison stated in the article
“… our competitors for the balance of power hold extreme positions and have vested interests that back them.”
I understand the extreme positions but just what are the vested interests….. could these “vested interests” have something to do with the voting record of the Greens in the Victorian parliament…
more importantly WHY did the democrats support the Greens by preferencing the Greens ahead of Labor and the Liberal Party. (I never could support their split ticket policy… they could have issued a third ticket)
Melb city – makes both ideological sense and gives them Greens prefs as well?
I think you trying to rewrite the books. The concession speeches are not limited to incumbents… never have been… If your in a losing at the point it becomes obvious you concede. That is the tradition and the past practice.
The count in McEwen is fantastic. Let’s hope this holds up in the recount. My partner was very disappointed when Ms Bailey pulled in front during the count.
There can’t be a court challenge just because it’s close.
I think generally incumbents are expected to win, all things being equal. Therefore Albanese or anyone else in a safe seat does not have to wait for a concession from their opponents. It would be manners, but not custom for challengers to need to concede. There is a more of an ethical responsibility on a sitter than a challenger to concede if the jig is up.
The Landeryou Election Map site is Showing a win to the ALP in McEwen 50/50 ALP by 7 Votes. Baily should concede
She is the incumbent 
McEwen I heard from a local had retired treechangers on holiday thus Labor’s comeback. Rob Mitchell must be relieved, especially after the hell of being the Benall candidate in 2006.
I’ll second that
. Unfortunately I think she’s gonna keep jigging though…
Spiros @ 393.
Right on. However, Julian Schneezel has already said that there will be a challenge. Unfortunately, they will need to provide clear incontravertible evidence that they have been disadvantaged by the counting process e.g. specific evidence that votes in one booth were counted differently or similar.
Subject to a recount verification process, Labor has won McEwen. Congratulations to Rob Mitchell and his campaign team.
Bailey is toast, unless she wins on a recount.
Even if she wins a court challenge, she’ll lose the subsequent bye-election.
Unless google-man can get he some really good evidence for court.
393
Spiros Says: Yes there can be.. Its a question of which judge and the arguments to be made… And I would think there are sufficient grounds for a case to be heard. As to the outcome of such a challenge that something else…
Again The tradition is for the losing candidate to concede at the point it is obvious they will not win. It does not relate to incumbents only….
Seven votes
Adam
your coyness becomes you (use google brains for your comments research)
actually from late dec last year i was saying among others that Jho would lose benelong and that a few “blueys” would go
people like bushfire,arbie,jas,amber,liver et al were fighting against a tide of lib syncophants
beside the usual suspects (glen,fonz ESj et al) deriding my verbose predictions of 110+ seats and a generational change there was constant snide and sometimes personal attacks by some posters who thought their status meant their words were golden
well Adam you cannot attack a poster such as albert and think your history will not follow your footsteps
alberts comments on the whole are more meritorious than your sometime invective as opposed to argument
I am told that is the final result. ALP McEwan by a magiun of SEVEN votes… a Prime number also…
Seven votes!!! I suppose there will be a recount, but for now, I’m partying.
If the result is within 20 votes after the recount, the Liberal Party’s lawyers will be able to scrape up some pretext or another for a court challenge. There is always some little irregularity in a campaign and in the count that can be used. Did an ALP booth worker go into a booth wearing a Kevin07 cap? Did someone step inside the 6m line? Were these absent votes properly witnessed? Is that really Mr Nguyen’s signature? Has this envelope been tampered with? That’s not how you spell Woori Yallock. Is that a 1 or a 7? (Always a popular one, that).
Foirst comes the recount. Then the court challenge. There is always grounds for a challenge question is will it result in a court order and a fresh election?
As PJK might say, a beautiful number.
Another vote less for Brendan in the Turnbull stoush? Mal would be grinding his teeth now.
The AEC have to do a full distribution of preferences yet in McEwen, so Ms Bailey could still edge her nose in front, and of course there will be recounts, and the inevitable challenge in the Court Of Disputed Returns.
Labor supporters, good news, but I wouldn’t be partying just yet!
Sadly the tendency of the courts in disputed returns cases is “when in doubt call a by-election.” This is very democratic sends it sends that case back to the people to determine. Unfortunately for Labor, most of the precedents are that the incumbent government loses the subsequent by-election. (Nunawading, Mundingburra, Greensborough)
The incumbent government on this occasion is a new government that will still be in its honeymoon period.
Think Lindsay, 1996.
I grew up in McEwen and spent many years roaming the back roads of the electorate before moving into the City as a uni student. I think Fran is toast… she has made many enemies in her time in office. she should have lost the electorate long ago had it not been for Tamper and other Howard con jobs… Seven votes… It would be nice to think that result will stand .. A recount will be interesting as the only way to know which votes you want in and which ones out is by the address on the envelope.. I wonder how the informals went… all 3,825 of them… 3.8% according to Landeryou
Sadly the tendency of the courts in disputed returns cases is “when in doubt call a by-election.” This is very democratic sends it sends that case back to the people to determine. Unfortunately for Labor, most of the precedents are that the incumbent government loses the subsequent by-election. (Nunawading, Mundingburra, Greensborough)
lots of contrary precedents…lindsay, burwood, benalla. unless something goes badly wrong for the federal govt i reckon they’d pick up mcewen in a by-election quite easily
Adam, McEwen could do a Lindsay
Adam, in the case of Mudingburra, the Goss Govt was on its last legs at the time. It wasn’t a shock that the Liberals won that byelection.
We’re all getting ahead of ourselves! Perhaps the recount will put Fran Bailey ahead again by 50?
Yes, I agree there are precedents the other way. This all has a long way to go yet.
I remember Labor winning Mundingburra in the 1995 QLD State Election by 19 votes – this is an eerily similar result.
Pity McEwen wasn’t in New South Wales because the ALP would get whipped if their was a by election with the sale of Electricity about to occur.
Another question might be how hard Bailey is prepared to fight it. If she had won I would have expected a by-election before too long anyway. No more ministerial perks and no prospect of getting them back, given that she would inevitably have retired long before the Libs return to power. She’s no spring chicken and I couldn’t see her enjoying life as a back bencher in opposition.
If she was about to jump ship anyway, will she really want to go through the additional stress of a Court of Disputed Returns process, for, probably at best, a shot at a by-election?
Let’s hope Mitchell takes very careful note of the 8.6% Green vote and the consequent preferences that got him over the line despite a major shortfall on primaries.
Cheers
Rod
It will stand, don’t worry about that.
My spies tell me each count has been recounted, twice, including TCP.
A challenge is fraught with danger, include the charge of being a bad loser and a whinger.
Great article here from Brett Solomon [GetUp]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/07/2112846.htm
The Libs couldn’t care less about being bad losers or whingers. If they think there’s a chance of forcing a by-election, they’ll take it. And so would Labor in similar circs.
There appears to be come confusion. I am told that was a recount outcome.. I thought they had just finished the postals and the prime count?
Interesting how before the election Rudd complained about how Kyoto targets were way off and than after says we are only 1 percent of reaching them, put simply Labor like the Coalition will do very little about reducing emissions, all it will be is a change in rhetoric.
marky marky, what’s it a change of rhetoric from and where’s your proof there won’t be action? They’ve been sworn in now for just under a week and you’re already whinging?
#423
BULL!
A by-election would result in an easy ALP win and make their candidate a hero.
He’d have a profile that would attract a strong profile and personal vote a-la Jackie Kelly.
The Liberals would sour their hopes for the next few elections.
Labor has done well in Victoria after all, winning Corangamite, Deakin and possibly now McEwen, despite the fact that Darren Cheeseman, Mike Symon and Rob Mitchell have all been bagged on this board as dud candidates/union hacks. The irony is that the one supposed star candidate, Rodney Cocks, couldn’t win La Trobe.
419 marky marky – bad luck ah?
425 marky marky – we’ll see.
I Agree .We will wait and see.
I am sceptical though, more interested in being elected than doing anything.
425
We will set our own targets……and work to achieving this.
re McEwen
if the difference is so small there will be an Automatic recount
whoever loses has the right to take matters to the court of disputed returns if they so wish.
BUT there are dangers in this ….. do people in a Semi-Rural seat want a voice
in Government? do people object to voting again ? etc
Nanawading had no alternatove it was decided by a draw out of the hat. The court wilol have to consider seriously any basis of a callange. They might rule some votes should be included and other out. To call a fresh elction might appear a simple solution.. There has to be just grounds that indicate the result of the election would have changed as a result of any error in the process.
A tough ask when much of what you are arguing is pick and choose…
A by-elections would tend to favour the losing party but then again Frans Age and other issues could go against her. The electorate might think it is best to get with the strength be part of the winning team and not the opposition.
Until the court rules the member elect holds office… follwoing the declation and swearing in.
marky marky
I think you will find it was the ex Govt. who were saying we will meet Kyoto targets (an 8% increase).
So now we have a 9% increase (imagine what it would have been without Qld Labor stopping land clearing).
m&m what should we do? What is your rhetoric?
If there was a by-election wouldn’t it make sense to vote for the person whose party is in power rather than some old has been who isn’t going to get jack out of the govt?
If I was Rudd, I’d be finding a bucketload of new money for regional Victoria.
marky marky… exactly what is it you want? What course of action? I’ve yet to see you state what it is you actually want done.
You say action instead of rhetoric… name specifically what action you want taken. Then explain the process that would need to be taken to ensure that action was fulfilled and how long it would take to fulfill.
I think you’ll find the whole process will take a lot more than a week.
If a by election occurs and is held in February next year, just at the time of an interest rate hike, Bailey will be returned.
If there is to be a recount they should limit it to the two contenders. imagine the proliferation of candidates should a fresh by-election be held.
430 marky marky – to do anything you need to be elected and you need more than one week to do so. Any other negative comments you want to add or any other dire predictions? You must be fun to live with.
Assuming the McEwen result stands, it’s time to reflect on the Labor performance at the election.
It was a great performance. 26 seats won, 2 lost.
Just about every marginal seat that could be won was won.
Western Australia, it must be said, was a little disappinting, winning just Hasluck, not winning Stirling, and losing Cowan and Swan. But the Workchoices campaign was never to going to go as well there as the elsewhere. With Labor holding just 4 of 15 seats, the potential is all upside in the west.
As far as the rest of the country goes, Wentworth might have been winnable with a better candidate, but maybe not. Turnbull cleverly positioned himself at a distance from his party to win his seat. Labor was never going to win Boothby, with or without Nicole Cornes. It was disappointing not to win Herbert, especially considering how well Labor did in regional Queensland. And I suppose the same could be said for Bowman. But considering how well Queensland delivered, including seats like Dawson and Forde, that weren’t on anyone’s radar, we shouldn’t complain about the sunshine state.
And that’s about it. Labor was never going win seats Like North Sydney, despite the breathless predictions by some, during the campaign.
It was a 90/100 performance.
McEwen goes red!
Another victory for union hacks. In fact, it seems the ALP made a mistake in not running more of them in VIC
Of course, these were also the YR@W target seats, no?
Marky, what makes you think voters will blame Labor for the next interest rate rise? They will be voting at a time when we have a divided opposition with a leader most will not recognise. The Libs seem intent on defending Workchoices still. That will go down well I don’t think. Labor’s honeymoon will still be strong, hell, Rudd’s is still going after 12 months.
I’m still disappointed about Herbert, but Peter Lindsay can’t last forever, and nex time, he won’t have the advantage of being an incumbant government MP with superior financial resources.
God I wish we had got rid of Jason Wood in La Trobe. His last job was in special ops with the police……I think he was the “battering ram”
It’s interesting to notice the ‘INCUMBENT PARTY TRAILING’ page (http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseIncumbentTrailing-13745.htm) doesn’t have McEwen listed as one of the ‘trailing’ seats.
However, it also doesn’t list Cowan anymore.
McEwan is ours, whether it is as it stands ora bi-election. I am also tipping a very close competition in Higgins bi-election too.
436
Why???
Just out of interest – what happens when there’s a tie (after all recounts and challengable votes have been dealt with)?
Jason Wood has the personality of a block of wood, but obviously he did enough pork barreling to save himself this time. And perhaps Rodney Cocks was put into the seat too late.
As far as dissapointments it has to be Mia Handshin missing out. Beautiful and smart, I hope she has another go next time.
What do i want done.
Real action..
How about come parliament next year Labor scraps the diesel rebate to farmers, how about enforcing laws stating that all cars must be fitted with technology requiring gas conversion use, how about getting rid of heavy emission vehicles like four wheel drives, how about scrapping fringe benefits tax rebates for company cars and making it only available for people to take public transport.
Putting money from roads into public transport.
Stating now the development of a toxic pulp mill.
This includes also the Channel deepening in Victoria, allowing more ships into Melbourne which use excessive greenhouse gas.
Then their is Native Forest logging, how about scrapping this and requiring logging only from plantations. Look at money that governments could save.
I could go but election please the country and world is to do busy procrastinating.
Sorry I mean a new election… if te courts rule that the election should be rerun will and can they limit the contenders… It would make sense if the run is to decide who should win… Fran should call it a day and save the cost of any disputation.. Labor had good to challenge the western Metro result (There most certainly were ground for a challenge to the count) but they opted for the easier path of not challenging…
I could not wait for the Greens to concede they have lost the Victorian Senate race.. the cork of the champagne has been popped. Here is to Feeney’s victory and an over all successful election… Well done.
Sorry, Stoping the toxic pulp mill now.
Good afternoon all. ABC radio a few minutes ago stated that the AEC has said there has already been 2 counts in McEwen and are confident that any further recount would provide exactly the same 7 vote win to Labor.
hehe. Libs only got 4 of 8 close ones – ie about what you’d expect on a random distribution. So much for the post-poll comeback.
And well done William for the 84 pick.
Gary Bruce, climate change is getting worse everyday and you are busy denying it. Get Real.
So now 2 people who appear to have lost their seats voted in the Liberal leadership ballot? Turnball ought to call for a new election. Shambolic stuff from the Liberals.
Melb City: another Labor supporter! Good on ya mate!
Adam said
“He (Howard) is entitled to wait until the seat is declared. I would.”
What he is entitled to do and what he should do is at the heart of why Howard has not done Maxine the courtesy of formally conceding and is why I asked what is Howards problem wth women who challenge him like Kylie Russle, Julia Gillard and Maxine McKew.
If we take your reasoning to it’s logical conclusion then the government should not be sworn in until all seats are declared and thus Jefferies swearing in of Rudd on Monday was a farce and illegal.
Profile of Rob Mitchell:
http://alp.org.au/people/vic/mitchell_rob.php
Of course, a Greens victory over the Vic Lib would have been far better, wouldnt it, Melb city.
All in all – an outstanding result for the greens
5 seats in the senate, and party status with the extra funding that brings
dispatched all other minors to oblivion, only show in town now
Getting a national HoR swing of 0.6%, despite/ on top of the ALP’s massive swing of 5.7% (an extraordinary achievement for the minor party, IMHO)
An even larger national swing in the Senate (1.25%), again despite/on top of 5.4% to ALP.
Brown gets quota in own right.
ALP+Greens primary tops 50%
Like it!
In the very unlikely event of a by-election in McEwen Labor would win easily.
Rudd has impressed since being elected and the big ticket for the Libs in the campaign was the union scare ads. A real non starter now! Bailey would be an ineffective member in opposition.
With the fait accompli of Rudd, popular policies being moved on quickly and the sky still firmly attached, Labor would bolt in.
I thought Howard virtually conceded Bennelong on election night!
It doesn’t matter to me if he doesn’t say something formal!
The main thing is that Maxine has won the seat!
Centaur
Mia could have a go at Mayo when Lexy oulls the plug, saw a funny article that others had posted on Lexies options including consultant, but of course he would not have all his advisors to write his speeches, so I think he will stay.
Realistically i don’t give a if Howard concedes or not, the election is over, how about our politicians doing something about the problems in the country or is that just to serious an issue.
463
And the betting agencies have payed out on Bennelong as well…..which has made more than a few people quite happy!
The cult of the celebrity rears its head again, with a profile of Mitchell put here, who bloody well cares.
If the Libs force a by-election, they’ll be branded as bad losers. Result: Labor will retain McEwen with a 5%+ swing in their favour. Apparently, a Tory challenged in the UK after losing by 2 votes in ‘97, and Labor retained the seat with a 20,000 vote majority at the subsequent by-election.
Prog
There are courtesies in all walks of competition, shaking your opponents hand after losing a tennis match, showing respect for officials during presentations, giving your golfing opponent a putt in match play.
The least Howard could have done would have been to show this basic decency, he is supposed to be a cricket tragic but is behaving like others have said like W C Grace.
Marky,
The hubricating astertions are on the loose tonight!
Either blog off and warm up some more mung beans or get into the swing.
463
You still did not answer my query…..why???
M&M
Your inner city Green feel good namby pamby solutions to climate change make me bilious.
At last we have a Govt. that admits there is a problem. Realises that we may have limited influence on others and tries to exert that influence.
You live in a fools paradise.
Rob Mitchell,
Go you good thing!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/08/2113481.htm
Greensborough some of us should grow up and yep maybe i am crying wolf but i am so disillusioned by air heads and the lack of action on all the problems facing this country and the world.
Look at America someone goes into a shopping mall and kills eight people and yep it is just part of everyday life,
than their is our people who earn millions or companies who earn billions of dollars in profits each year but people in bangledesh, india or south africa or anywhere else struggle to get a feed each night or adequate health care.
And what are we talking about if Howard concedes defeat or not. Fantastic life this world offers. Maybe my brain needs to explode.
Ruawake, suit yourself, yep we have a problem, and yep lets recognise we have a problem, just love that.
Like going to the doctors you have a problem young man, and yep now that i have recognised it i will not do anything for it because you will be much better because i have recognised it.
#
382
Aussieguru01 Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Why is it that PB today has become a place to do a “dump” on someone? Some manners please or have we stooped to Glenn & ESJ level.
Aussie I have always found Glenn’s posts to be polite, very misguided perhaps, but civil.
Here is the link from ABC about McEwan
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/08/2113481.htm
Some comments from a constant lurker regarding two aspects of this thread…
Melb City
I scrutineered data entry for a local gov’t single member by-election 2 years ago.
Following the data entry the VEC published a primary vote count … and then ‘pushed a button’ to provide the result. NO DETAILS whatsoever of preference distribution OR order of elimination.
While the result accorded with scruitineers predictions, the mechanism did nothing to make the process ‘transparent’, or to identify how their preferences have impacted on the result. It is not dissimilar to the ‘above the line’ senate voting process.
As other posters have emphasised previously, preferences (HoR & Senate) are what make our system one of the best in the world. For that reason preference distribution should be totally visible in the count and the published results.
(AND the data entry system took longer than a manual count as well as requiring considerably greater numbers of staff. Can’t see point.)
Labor result in marginals.
If McEwan ‘result’ stands, the yr@w campaign will have been successful in 3 of the 4 seats where it was most active in Vic. [If the ALP had not changed candidates in LaTrobe maybe it would've also been 4 out of 4 for candidates with a union background. A cautionary tale against being scared away from the base of the Labour Movement.]
I may have said this in a previous post however, it is worth re-stating anyway. The ‘Your Rights @ Work’ campaign was the most significant community campaign by the trade union movement since the WW1 anti-conscription campaign.
Regarding who predicted what seats, I can humbly claim success in Forde, however my optimism got the better of me in McPherson (my own seat) and Ryan. And of course I backed the Mighty Max for a motzah in Ratland.
I think the Greens should admit defeat in the Victorian Senate and save the cost (estimated at over $50,000) in having to undertake a data-entry of the below the line preferences – It wouold be quicker and cheaper to do a manual count) In anyeventy the results of the first prefernce count shows that the Greens are not in a winning position. Even with the distortion of the Liberal preferences that the Greens bought by selling their vote in tne Victorian parliament… $50,000 can be better spent…
marky
It does not matter if Australia has zero greenhouse gas emissions or if we all fart and belch CO2.
What is needed is for our Govt. to be helping, cajoling, harassing, praising, nudging, demanding, that others – the ones who really make a difference (The US, China, India, Indonesia) do something.
At least we are now in that position – before we had a Govt. that denied we even had a problem.
Labor has to bite the bullet and scrap these ridiculous tax cuts. The claim that it will encourage people back to the workforce is arrant nonsense. All it will do is add to the demand for even more imports of junk from China, further worsening our balance of trade figures. And why, oh why did we never hear about the parlous state of our terms of trade when Rodent/Smirk were passing themselves off as ‘great economic managers’. Blind Freddie was aware of it, but the MSM never brought them to book over the ever-increasing sea of debt to overseas interests. SCRAP the cuts, invest in infrastructure and refunding our research facilities, we once led the world in solar energy research, now it has been given away to countries such as Germany. I am angry!
Old Tom I fully agree. SNIP: MelbCity, your concerns about the VEC might be legitimate, but I don’t want to be in the position of publishing them if they’re not, which I’m in no position to judge. I have asked you before to limit your pursuit of this crusade on this website, and I suggest that limit has been reached for the time being – PB
Melb city is getting way ahead of himself expecting anyone to concede in the Victorian Senate – there’s only 90.27% counted. Let’s count the rest of the votes, then see if it’s close enough for the below-the-lines to make a difference.
Ruawake, agree totally. But Australia has on a per capita basis the worst Greenhouse emissions use in the world or is second. Making a change here is all part of the process and we should be putting in place policies which do it.
If what i said is not part of the process than the rest of world may say the same thing. Get it.
Basil, I agree completely re the tax cuts. As irresponsible as it is, however, the Government is determined to keep this promise regardless of the fact that any savings will simply be passed on to the banks re rate increases. Its margin is only 9 seats and this will see realpolitik triumph over the nation’s long term interests for labor’s first term at least.
More info about the McEwen count.
http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2007/12/mcewen-much-carnage-in-north.html
Adam way back yonder – those things weren’t actually predictions, just an attempt to use statistical wonkery to find out what the newspolls of the time were roughly saying.
One of the interesting things about this election was that, yet again, like the two elections before it, the wet Libs threatened to vote against the Coalition, they told all public and party pollsters that they were going to vote ALP – yet at the end of the day, just like always, they didnt.
I dont know if it’s just me, but I find that really interesting.
You can count an election quicker manually then by a data-entry process. In a single member election where there is no countback requirement there is no need for a data-entry count. It is boys with toys trying to be seen to be using then latest technology when a simple calculator is all that is required.
The fact that in a local council election they do not undertake a resort of the ballot papers makes the scrutiny even more difficult. it s a con game akin to the three shells and a pee.. Unless they show you where the ball is lifting one cup is not good enough. The Nillumbik Shire election lasted more money and took more man hours to count then if it was done manually. The same applies to the Victorian Senate election right now there is no need for a preference count and if they do one it would be quicker and more transparent to do a manual distribution.
They just want to spend money. The Greens should stand up and so Don’t waste public resources. We know we have lost and can not win… call it a day and avoid the costs. Money that would be better spent on hospitals, alternative energy or something else other then Junkets, overseas trips, conferences and the like…
In the end they will gain more respect.
Charles the Greens need over 100% of the below the line minor party vote.. your living in fairy land… There is not enough votes in the system…
Old Tom @ 478. Here here. The effect of the YR@W campaign should never be understated. I was speaking to our local union organiser the other day about the massive swing to Labor that occurred here in Leichardt, the largest in the country. This swing can be directly put down to hard work, door knocking, representatives of YR@W at every booth and a mobilisation of people that is now a template within the union movement. The effective ads that the ACTU started showing over a year ago knocked the wind out of the decrepit Howard Government and they never recovered. The ability of the unions to organise people to fight for what they believe just shows why Howard and his ilk feared and despised them. I hope we never again see a Liberal Party so against working people within this great country of ours.
On the topic of uncivil posters, has anyone heard from Tabitha or Generic Person, or is Bronnie to busy with her new responsibilities to bother posting here?
Old Tom I fully agree.
The information below is fully documented and verifiable as fact.
It is also doumented in teh evidence published in the State Parlaiment and shoudl see the light of day and not be snipped.
SNIP: MelbCity, you might be right. The point is that it’s too much effort for me to check, so I’m going to err on the side of caution and not publish it. I’m sorry if this displeases you, but that’s my decision and I’m sticking with it. You have your own website: damn the VEC to your heart’s content there – PB
McEwen, 7 Votes, ALP WIN
Ron says …great to see BUT are their any mathematicians here ?
I suspect this seat will be a very long legal battle as the figures keyed in over the last few days keep changing backwards ! something has been seriously wrong
EG at start of today & as at & from 7.00PM last night
Labor 48256, Liberal 48284 inform 3783 +Absentees 423, Prepolls 59 , Postals 78
NOW
Labor 48416, Liberal 48409 inform 3826
Total Count today 328 ** : Labor 160 , liberal 125 Informal 43
From Declarations this morning Absentee rejections were 665 now 877 -212 more
1/ So countable absentees less rejections but before informals 423-212 = 211
2/ This morning Prepolls plus postals this morning 59 + 78 =137 before rejections & informals
3/ Adding 1/ and 2/ (211+137) = 348 less informals today of 43 = 305
incl pre/post rejections but excl absentee rejections
4/ We know the vote count today (ALP 160 , LCP125) = 285
Therefore the pre polls/postal rejections are 305-285) = 20
making the prepolls/postal less rejections but before informals =117
CONCLUSION TODAYS VOTE BREAKUP
total votes counted 328
informals 43
ALP votes 160
LCP votes 125
ALP got its 160 votes FROM a total of
absentees 211 and pre poll/postal 117 less a total of 43 informals
on todays 2PP vote of absentee 53.40% , pre poll 47.89%, postal 44.02%
which is a mathematical impossibility !
So either aec had the wrong starting figures this morning or the count today
wrongly favored Labor
melbcity,
I don’t think it’s true that the AEC only counts BTL votes if a party has refused to concede. I’ve spent many an hour perusing the Senate counts of years past and there is always information on BTL votes – your assertion about the Greens wasting money is ridiculous.
Also – you have mentioned many times the Greens ’selling out’ and ‘cosying up’ to the Liberal party in the Victorian Legislative Council and frankly it’s just an infantile apeing of one of the most ridiculous scare campaigns from the right faction of the Victorian ALP.
If anyone’s interesting in seeing one of the most poorly argued accusations of an ‘unholy alliance’ then you should check out http://greens-liberal-deal.com.au/, authorised by S.Newnham no less.
In truth the Greens members of the Council have voted with the Libs and the Nats on many many occasions in an effort to force the ALP to reveal documents about the Gaming License tender process – as yet to no avail. The kind of reductionist argument by the ALP that the Greens should never vote with the Libs or Nats on any issue is immature in the extreme and shows clearly their assumption that they could rely on the Greens to support them unquestioningly and the assumption that they would lack the political nous to negotiate with the Libs and Nats when it was in line with their principles and vote against them when it didn’t. The truth is that all year the ALP has continually argued that because they were the ones to reform the LC then the Greens should vote out of gratitude. As a lefty I’ve never been more disappointed in the ALP than when listening to Martin Pakula rant on about the ‘unfairness’ of the way the Greens are voting, never considering that they have been forced to negotiate with the Libs because the ALP have acted out of such arrogance as to deem negotiation unnecessary.
I’m sorry to rant about that now but MelbCity’s repetition of the fallacy that the Greens have sold out in the Victorian LC was too ridiculous to go unchecked.
Hi Poss. So you’re saying that the 3% swing back to the Coalition in the dying few days of the campaign was all because the Liberal wets decided to ignore the complete shambles of their party’s campaign, respendent with racism, corruption, blunder and bullsh*t, and vote Liberal anyway?
If you like you can ask the VEC to publihs the detailed missing preference data from the first count of the Wewstern Metropolitan and if you get it puvblihs it. If not ask why not. Tyhen thinnki twice about what the futire e-votiongs system has in stall for us. ask yourslef WHY is this data not available and why has the VEC done to such efforts to avoid it being publihsed. it is not just me that asks these questions morwe and more are be`coming aware of the problems of the weay elctions are being conted in Victoria. I first raosed this concern 10 years agio and the VEC continues to aviod open and transparency. IT SHOULD AND MUST BE DEBATED…
Possum. All was noted, all is remembered, and all will be laid out for judgement. Those who said that “the average national swing in government safe seats is around the 11.6% mark” will be called to account.
Can I just take this opportunity to gloat at being a McEwen voter, and knowing that my vote, my girlfriend’s vote, my parents’ votes, her parents’ votes and one of my other mate’s votes “decided” the seat…in a sense….along with 104 000 other people….but you know what I mean.
Ferny Grover,
I have no idea on the nitty gritty of the composition of the swing back in the final week, but I d know that between the two weeks leading up to the campaign and election day itself, there were a a significant number of people in seats like North Sydney, Wentworth, Higgins, Goldstein and Ryan that were telling all of the pollsters one thing, and then did the opposite thing on election day.
Maybe the Latham theory (that people tell lies to pollsters) is right – but apparently only right for Coalition seats that seem to have a large wet Lib component in them.
Nick, it’s great to be in a democracy isn’t it! Gloat away!
Adam, I’m sure they will – make sure you tell Newspoll.
A count normals stops when the result is known. there is not need to distribute preferences if the result is determined on first preference votes,.
I also have been scrutineering Senate elections for over 30 years and this is the first election I can recall that has not required to go to preferences to determine the result. of course it is a waste of money. If need be the AEC can use their spare time to record the historical data..
Take a look at all the other seats. Do you see them busily going over the minor candidate preferences. Hey I like elections as much as anyone BUT they comes a time when you have to question the excess of costs involved. Conducting a data-entry count of preferences that will not alter the outcome is a waste of resources and public money. If the result was close then yes I would be the first to say do the job…
If you want to argue the Greens are still in with a chance then please by all means publish you data… I am sure you would call on the Ministers of the day to backup their claims…
MelbCity, how is you can on the one hand work yourself into a lather over obscure technical issues in the conduct of Victorian upper house elections, yet on the other hand shamelessly defend Putin’s totally rigged Russian Duma elections? (On the latter I refer you to p56 of this week’s Economist.)
I’m totally convinced it was you and your familys votes Nick, if your ever on the NSW far Sth coast I’ll even by ya a beer for winning it
ruawake says: It does not matter if Australia has zero greenhouse gas emissions or if we all fart and belch CO2….What is needed is for our Govt. to be helping, cajoling, harassing, praising, nudging, demanding, that others … do something.”
Well, given our own role as the worst performers on the planet per person, with the world’s dirtiest power stations, and while making a lot of quid out of export coal that doesn’t even get counted in our own “contribution”, I reckon it really does matter what we do, ruawake.
Clearly we can’t seriously pretend that we can influence “others” one iota on such matters until we get our own house in order. It is pretty hard not to imagine just about every country in the world laughing their heads off if we moralise about such things like maintaining our current domestic approach to such things!
Clearly , too, we have to stop pretending that flogging our own coal to Japan and China for megabucks isn’t actually a huge part of the problem. THis is going to be a very difficult issue for Labor in the next few years. Simply put , if we keep on flogging coal, despite the greenhouse consequences, no one will take us seriously about such matters. On the other hand, if we stop flogging coal, the short term economic implications are going to be pretty nasty (even if in the long term the quicker we move to other ways of making cash, instead of acting as a one of the world’s biggest dirty energy mines, the better).
None of this is going to be easy, but using our nouse to deal with our own gross (all other countries could legitimately say obscene, especially given our natural advantages ) profligacy in the energy area is absolutely fundamental to being able to get ourselves taken seriously on such issues.
As we also stand to pay a very, very high price economically (and environmentally and socially) in Australia for climate change it is pretty obvious that any government that doesn’t bite the bullet (and any opposition that tries to get in the way of us doing so) is going to get very short shrift in the future.
457 marky marky – that’s strange, I don’t recall denying that climate change is getting worse. Would you like to quote me saying this? I can’t find it.
Nick to you and yours, your blood is worth bottling!
Thanks Poss. It may be one for experts in our national psyche rather than for psephoogists but that major narrowing in the last few days was so counter-intuitive that it left me completely flummoxed…and resurrected my natural caution when it comes to trusting polls, or even poll trends. That can’t be a bad thing.
How do you explain the Greens City Council candidate (SNIP: Allegation of illegality deleted – PB). What happened to their commitment to open, transparent and honest government. Sorry you might argue thee Greens are clean skins and worthy of support. I do not share that point of view. tackle a closer look at the organization and the deals they have made and their past actions. Just because they dress up in a Koala suit and want to protect our environment is not an excuse to blindly think they are cute and cuddly. Do your sums and add up the votes in Victoria. There is not enough votes out there. Even with the undisclosed AEC data… to elect a Green senator. What do you think 101% of below the line voters will all vote Green.
Nick wrote: Can I just take this opportunity to gloat at being a McEwen voter, and knowing that my vote, my girlfriend’s vote, my parents’ votes, her parents’ votes and one of my other mate’s votes “decided” the seat…in a sense….along with 104 000 other people….but you know what I mean.
Sorry Nick, our family, our best mates , and the next door neighbours have already claimed to be responsible for the 7 vote majority in another thread here.
Every one of us voted Green with prefs to Mitchell, clearly giving the last 8 votes necessary to get us from one behind to 7 in front!
On a serious note, though, it is a great feeling when you know that your vote actually counts , eh! Spent much of my life in electorates where he margins were huge one way or another. Certainly makes a day spent handing out HTV cards seem well worth the time!
Cheers
Rod
Melb city (@ 490), I don’t know what you mean by “There is not enough votes in the system”: according to the AEC website they’ve counted 3.107 million Senate votes as against 3.226 million Reps votes. Feeney is only 8,000 votes over quota; if those extra 119,000 votes go to the Liberals or Greens (doesn’t matter which, because the Greens get the Liberal surplus), he won’t win. I’m not saying that will happen – my tip is he’ll hold on, but it’s certainly too close to call.
For heaven’s sake Melbcity, wait until all the Vic Senate votes have actually been counted before saying the Greens should concede now. In fact, over the last 1% of the count, the Libs have been going down dramatically, while Labor is also down slightly and the Greens are improving fast. With more counting to be done in Melbourne, the Greens strongest seat, and in other Labor heartland seats, this could get closer. If the Vic statewide vote counted is about 95%, it could certainly be closer, though the Greens will almost certainly miss out. You’re correct to say that no other seats are in any dispute, only the 6th Vic Senate spot.
When did the last Senate seat in Vic change from being a contest between di Natale and Ryan (as I understood was the case) to being a contest between di Natale and Feeney (as now seems to be the case)?
Possum says
One of the interesting things about this election was that, yet again, like the two elections before it, the wet Libs threatened to vote against the Coalition, they told all public and party pollsters that they were going to vote ALP – yet at the end of the day, just like always, they didnt.
Ron says: I remain unconvinced that ACN , Newspoll & Morgan had ALP primary vote at 46% to 47% on the weekend before the election
BUT 4 days later Newspoll & Morgan CORRECTLY drop the ALP vote by over 3%
Possum’s ‘wet liberals’ would be one answer
Morgan’s ’soft labor vote’ count could be another answer (or the same answer)
Howard’s cleverest election “fear” trick (if it ain’t broke don’t fix it) in the last week could be another answer
ALL we know is there was an unprecedented massive drop in the largest party’s PRIMARY vote in 4 days but the Polls do not tell us why
especially as Howard’s last week was a disaster
Perhaps the electorate have become more sophisticated whereas the Pollsters
like Howard are asking “old’ questions allowing some polled to hide the extent of their commitment to change their former vote ??????????????????????????????
The sad Greenies strike again. Ho Hum.
There are lots of things we should do – because they are good policy. If you want to tie everything to global warming you are missing the point.
Public transport – great. Because it is a good idea, can save time and congestion. Etc.
Sadly as polical ignoramuses you try to press what you see as an advantage, politics has always been the art of the possible.
Sadly you guys need about another 4 million votes to win Govt.
I am not talking about what is right, I am saying what is.
Adam said
“Possum. All was noted, all is remembered, and all will be laid out for judgement”
Keep going mate, you sound like someone put sand in your vaseline.
Adam (@ 314) – about 3 days ago, when they entered most of the postals & pre-polls.
Adam te results of the Russian Duma elections for what it is worth is a fair and honest reflection of the peoples choice. Whether you agree with Putin or not. I can assure you he has 60% plus support of the Russian people. In the same way that electorates in Australia have over 60% support.
Now I do not agree with the 7% threshold barriers imposed in this election, But I am supportive of some of the changes made to Russia’s Parliament and Putin without any doubt has been a positive influence on Russia and the recovery of its economy. If I had a vote I would support Putin. The Russian opposition is in worst state then the Australian Liberal party. Putin has turn his country around beyond doubt. Yeltsin left the country in a hideous unstable mess. Putin was able to regain control over the Oligarchs and restore stability and confidence in in Russia. I am mconstnetly amazed at the poor quality and misinformed information about Russia that is published in the western media. they still think Russia is part of a Soviet State. it most certainly is not. I suggest readers might like to watch http://www.russiatoday.ru/ before embarking on an ill informed Russia bashing exercise.
re the VEC… (SNIP: No thanks, MelbCity – PB). Tell me Adam do you support the VEC not maintaining an open and transparent system and should they not be held accountable and amnswerable by trying to prevent disclosure and independent review? tell me why … SNIP – PB
Charles, not all the Lib vote will be distributed if Labor falls short of a quota in its own right. Since the 3rd Lib spot is much made up of Family First, etc, those votes would go to Labor ahead of the Greens.
Well Rod, I’ll see your Green votes with prefs to Rob with my Green votes with prefs to Rob, but my girlfriend and I cast ours first (pre-poll absentees in the seat of Melbourne) so we win. Seriously though…thanks to all the well wishers, I’ll take you up on that beer Hobosexual on the off chance that we cross paths AND somehow recognize each other from a blog comments post.
2 weeks afterthe election 635852 votes had been counted in the “close seats” and the combined lead in those seats amounts to 1600 votes which is 0.252%
Imagin Fran Baily told here is the reuslt but you can not loook at the detailed prefernce distribution or have a copy of the detailed election results…
Votes went missing in the Victorian Count between count A and Count B. And teh VEc resudfes to publish details of the first count. Why do you think that is the case. Something to hide maybe? We know they cut corners and the fiorst count was unreliable. But what about the second count?
Yes Lord D, that’s right – that’s one reason I expect Feeney to hang on. Still, the Family First etc is a pretty small fraction of the Liberal total, and (as Melb city has pointed out before) the strange way of calculating transfer values makes them even less significant.
Incumbancy may have been another key factor in the safe Liberal seats. On the day people voted for the names they knew. Polls ask which Party and preferred PM etc. Voting means selecting from a list of names.
Also, Newspoll changed their sampling in the last poll. Maybe a recognition that their earlier polls were inaccurate. Predictions based on bad data will be bad!
In Calare the count is thus:
NAT:………………………………..39,941
ALP:…………………………………20,265
IND:…………………………………19,037
IND + GRN:…………………………21,389
ALP + CEC:…………………………21,059
IND + GRN + ALP…………………..41,654
100% counted as of Sat arvo but the AEC persists in showing the TPP as LNP/ALP split whereas here it should probably be LNP/IND unless the AEC knows something we don’t.
Now it would be fair to assume that the GRN 2007 vote is die-hard here in Calare as it is in most places in NSW west of Harris Street and has followed the GRN ticket and preferenced the IND ahead of ALP
Most of the CEC vote would have been people voting for their mate Cecil or donkey and goes to NAT eventually but ALP preferences would have stuck to their ticket and preferenced IND before NAT
This is a preference count that will bear watching if only for the entertainment value.
Nick I salute you and your girlfriend. I wish my vote would count for as much… Problem with the single member system I am afraid..
Ron Brown, I believe it was simply a case of the people who make up their minds late deciding to stick with the devil they knew. These people don’t register on most polls, as polls routinely exclude those who say they’re uncommitted. They favour incumbents when the economy’s going well I guess. Next time, they should favour Labor.
Re Wet Libs….one of our Lib friends said Howard had to go,but when asked if he voted Labor, a look of distaste came over his face when he replied”Ofcourse not!”
It is beneath them,a class thing.
Adam count the results that have been published. The result is now out of contention…
I need to do an update but last time I did the results were…
Liberal ALP Green Others Total Quota
1291839 1285828 370099 46253 2,994,020 427718.1429
43.147% 42.947% 12.361% 1.545%
3.020312267 3.006258587 0.865289922 0.108138971
the above is the group vote for the ALP, Liberals and Greens plus the known tickets votes for minor parties. the reminder is the unknown BTL vote allocated to the minor parties. The Greens need 101% of the BTL minor party vote. Now I might concede they could get 100% of the BTL vote but 101% is asking too much.
There was a significant consolidation of the vote for major parties. the minor parties overall dropped. the greens picked up a bit of the minor party vote but there is not enough votes in the count to see them home. I agree there are still some votes out there… (THE AEC does not know how many there is — sadly) BUT I am sure they do not all go to the Greens and I am sure they will not make up the shortfall.
The Vioctroian senate is decided on First preference votes and Ticket votes. BTL votes do not come into play. And thank god nbor does the built in distortion in the count that inflates the value of Liberal ticket vote
Others have mentioned the postal flow to the libs.
I did a quick check of the Senate in the ACT, the postals gave the libs an extra 1%, without the inflated postals the lib candidate would be sitting on 33.4% and would have made it very very close.
It goes with Nicks comment about how he and his family voted and a close result of 7 in McEwan is a delight to see and reinforces that every vote counts.
Me and my wife only managed to swing 9 over from the dark side and it wasn’t enough, but to see Nicks post makes you realise that sometimes your little efforts can make a difference.
MelbCity I am very well informed about Russian politics thanks very much, and what you say is a gross distortion of the truth. I don’t doubt that 60% of the population supports Putin – this is not hard to achieve in a country with no democratic tradition and a long history of subservience to authoritarian rulers, when you have destroyed civil society and control all the levers of state repression and all the media. It is even easier when an energy boom has enabled you to bring about some increase in living standards. The fact remains that Putin has created (or recreated) a one-party state in Russia, in which he controls virtually every institution that matters and no organised dissent is permitted.
A quick google:
“Observers from the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe said the election “failed to meet many … commitments and standards for democratic elections.” In a statement, the observers said the election had been tainted by “frequent abuse of administrative resources, media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party and an election code whose cumulative effect hindered political pluralism.” Some of the results were indeed puzzling. According to the Central Election Commission of Russia, Chechens voted in droves in the breakaway republic where rebels fought a vicious civil war with Russia. More than 99 per cent of Chechens voted, the commission said, with 99.3 per cent voting for Mr. Putin’s United Russia.”
Stalin would have been proud of that one.
“Goran Lennmarker, president of the OSCE’s assembly, said: “This election was not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards.” Luc van den Brande, head of the CoE’s delegation, criticised the “overwhelming influence of the President’s office and the President”. He added: “If Russia is a managed democracy then this was a managed election.” The fall of the Berlin Wall had ended Cold War divisions in Europe but there was now a risk of “a new dividing line in terms of democracy”.”
Ah Nick, but my 86 year old mum sent off her application for a postal on the very first day it was possible to do so, and whizzed it back as soon as it arrived at her 92 year old sister’s place in Sydney where she was visiting at the time, so I’ll need proof of the date of those pre-polls!
And of course, we could both alternatively argue that it was the LAST 7 votes counted that really did the job!
I wonder where they came from?
Let me simply say that it is grand on such an occasion to hear from another one of the 48,416 people in our area who made the right choice, and even more particularly, one of the 8,396 who voted for Steve!
Cheers
Rod
There have been several comments on the thread about ‘quality of candidates’ affecting the outcome.
As this is something over which parties have immediate and direct control it interesting to conjecture that this has at least once cost the ALP as much as does the technical application of the count – which isn’t to say that I don’t prefer the manual count.
Case in point. Melb City is p*ssed at the greens getting up in Western Metro at Labor’s expense. However, in Western Victoria the DLP got up in the last of 5 places, at Labor’s expense. The reason?… Unity insisted on dropping sitting MLC Elaine Carbines to 3, as a form of internal factional ‘pay back’. Had she been at 1, Labor would’ve romped in 3 positions, and the groupers would’ve gone down.
Factional ruthlessness seems to have had its hand in the LaTrobe preselection intervention this time – don’t know if it was also a factor in any of the seats in other states.
G’day Poss,
Your question why the small l, wet Libs shifted back in the final week is fascinating indeed. I don’t know if exit poll data would be helpful, but worth a look.
My first guess, based on some anecdotal evidence with wet Liberals I know, is that the Howard Party Launch package 12 days out was far more persuasive than the Rudd “stop the auction” launch.
Economics savvy Libs would have heeded the opinions of most respected economics writers, such as Ross Gittins, that Rudd’s spending halt was far too little too late to have any significant impact on inflation. Perhaps Rudd took more of a Latham-like risk than it seemed to Labor supporters at the time.
So, how many wet Libs were going to have the ticker to knock back Howard’s generous non-means-tested private school fees tax scheme in favor of Rudd’s useless (for them) education rebate when the major parties’ huge election promises will be adding similar inflationary pressures, including the inevitable hikes in school fees?
And it might not have been only the money either. Howard’s education bribe might have been a very potent cultural wedge demonstrating starkly to the wet Libs that the Coalition alone understands their fundamental, deeply emotional, requirement that their children must attend private schools. Moreover, Mike Kelly’s comments about shifting federal funding back to public schools could have stoked the wet Libs fears of far worse anti-private school policies down the line.
Latest data from the AEC
90.7% of enrolled counted
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByVoteType-13745-VIC.htm
Liberal ALP Green Others Total Quota
1295308 1287790 372427 42123 2,997,648 428236.4286
43.211% 42.960% 12.424% 1.405%
3.024756743 3.007200979 0.869678161 0.098363888
The Greens are at 87% of a quota and there is only 0.098% of undecided BTL votes… Do you think the Greens can win… They need more then 100% of teh undecided unallocated vote. Are they printing votes., Did the AEC hold back a box of Green votes just to make the count interesing? This is not reality TV… all though at times it is just as exciting….
Sorry 90.27%
Re 529,
Megan Says:
Agreed
…….. In my electorate, Werriwa, and also neighboring Fowler, the local newspaper this week reported that the informals in our two electorates were amongst the highest in the state of NSW. Fowler had 5849 for 7.71% of total and Werriwa had 4873 for 6.54% of total cast.
Both of these electorates are safe Labor seats by a long shot. MSM have speculated since the election that a high # of informals might be caused by ethnic voters not understanding the language or the process.
I suspect that the high number of informals in our electorates here in SW Sydney were because the Liberals in these electorates couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the Liberal candidate but wouldn’t vote Labor either
.
Sorry correction The Greens need 130% of the unallocated BTL vote to win a seat in Victoria
I think Antony Green has taken a well deserved break.
The Greens like Howard are waiting for the declaration of the poll I guess. that is their right. But if you look you will see they are not so jubilant and buoyant today.
Adam the Victorian Senate changed from di Natale V Ryan to di Natale v Feeney some time last week when the postals started coming in terribly for the ALP.
To avoid the accusation that I am a Greens fantasist, I would like to preface the following calculations with the comment that I think it is highly unlikely that di Natale will win, though not quite as impposible as Melb city would make out.
For the Greens to get up, the ALP primary needs to drop to about 41.38. It is currently on 41.78 with 90.27% of the vote counted. Assuming we will end up with around 95.43% as we did in the last election, there are 171,350 votes to go. For the ALP to be in the clear, they need about 34.6% (or 59,370) of those votes to go their way.
As I say I realise it is highly likely that they will fail to get these votes but not an absolute certainty. You would have to hold democracy in some high disdain to claim that there is no point in at least counting them.
ruawake, I don’t want to tie everything to anything. I’ve spent the 33 years of my working life in areas ranging from Indigenous to Industrial to Environmental issues. They all matter.
I’m more than aware that politics is the “art of the possible”. I’m also aware that unless people stand up for what really matters “the art of the possible” can produce grotesque travesties of little value (and sometimes a lot of harm) to almost all of us.
If you read my response to your “cajoling fart and belch” post again, you’ll see that I was actually trying to address the “real politik” of the situation, rather than imagining that we can get away with a bit of “smoke and mirrors”. As I said there, if Australia really wants to be taken seriously by other countries about such things, we have to have our house in order. Those in power will also have some very hard decisions to make if they want their position to achieve anything more than a few more seats than the “other side” in the next election, or the one after, or the one after, etc etc.
Cheers
Rod
Anyone who thinks Russia just held a free and fair election obviously holds democracy in considerable disdain, assuming they even know what it is.
Adam the the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation has most certainly compromised their professional standing and independence when it comes to CIS states. They The CoE and OSCE sat back and kept silent as Ukraine’s President unconstitutionally dismissed Ukraine’s stable and democratically elected government. The President interfered with the operation and functioning of Ukraine’s constitutional Court to avoid the court ruling against his unconstitutional dismissal. (Remember Nov 11, 1975 this was far worst ) All the time the Council of Europe and OSCE state back and made no comment knowing full well that the actions of the President was in direct breach of Ukraine’s constitution . So much for their integrity and support for constitutional rule of law. Now Ukraine has an unstable political situation, eh newly installed government represents 45% of the people and trust in the EU one sided democratic values is at an all time low and the CoE and OSCE is seen, rightly so, as having acted with extreme bias and most certainly not professionally) I suggest you break away from your 1990’s view of what is going on in Russia (It is no longer a soviet state) and take another less bias look. The Western Stereotype of Russia is wrong false and bordering on racism . We seriously run the risk of alienation Russia with our constant bias and ill informed assessment (A bit like the US assessment of weapons of mass destruction). If the OSCE continues to act in the way they have and then they will lose all respect and trust. And I am looking at this from a independent point of view. But blind freddy can see the problems that are being created.
The Sunshine coast Daily had this gem today about the New Leader of the Queensland Liberals, Mark McArdle.
Newly elected Liberal leader Mark McArdle – a former partner in Boyce Garrick lawyers – has no desire to revisit the past, but victims of the failed mortgage schemes run by the firm are not nearly so reticent.
Mr McArdle was a partner in the firm when hundreds of mainly elderly investors lost millions in the schemes in the mid-to-late 1990s, and some of those involved have neither forgotten nor forgiven.
The change at the top for the state Liberals was designed to give the party a fresh start after being dogged by questions about the leadership. But those stung by the mortgage schemes say that for them, moving on is easier said than done.
The former principal of Boyce Garrick, Terry Boyce, was struck from the roll of solicitors in 2003 for his involvement in promoting the schemes.
Mark McArdle was named in the prospectus of one of the failed companies, BG managed investments, and he was named in law suits initiated by victims.
Joyce Baker, who has been among the most vocal of investors who sought to recover their losses through the courts, said she was stunned to hear Mr McArdle had been elevated to the leader’s position.
“You’re joking!” she gasped.
“What are these people thinking? I can’t believe it.
“Mark McArdle’s name was in every statement of claim – on all the legal documents.
“He was a shareholder, partner and director in that firm.
“They know what happened – what class does that put the Liberal party in?”
http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2007/dec/08/liberal-dose-worries-leader/
542
Rod
The time for the hard decisions has to be now.
I’m sure that this is understood….will Rudd act???
Ferny Grover back at 509,
The moving 4 pollster average actually seemed to be the most accurate estimation (in terms of minimising the dramatic movement in the last week) – it’s certainly what I’m going to use a lot more from now on. If you just take that 4 pollster average, the narrowing was a few points over the last few weeks of the campaign which seems to concur with the party tracking polls. The “if you change governments, you change the country” line that the Libs ran at the end seemed to do its job in terms of stemming the blood flow. It didn’t win them votes, that certainly wasn’t the point of that particular issue campaign, but it seemed to create the doubt in the electorate that the Libs were looking for… and did so quite successfully.
That had Mark Textor written all over it – maybe if the Coalition had listened a little bit more to him during the campaign the election could well have become a nail biter.
Adam I believ teh resultsb of teh rusuain Duma elction was a fair and accurate reflection of the Russian community. I have no doubt about it. I do not supprot their 7% thershiold. But the opposition in Russia are hopeless and it comes as little surprise that they failed to achieve any support. i would not rerly on the BBC for my information on what is going on in Russia.
I’m not sure if this has been covered in an earlier post (other than mine, some days back, which nobody seems to have read). On provisional votes, one of the key changes is that if a person has been removed from the electoral roll by objection on the grounds of non-residence, his or her provisional vote will now not normally be admitted to the count. And as most deletions from the roll are on the grounds of non-residence, that has the potential to have a significant impact. See Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, Schedule 3, clause 12(b)(iii).
541
Stephen Sholl
How can the Greens come back when they are down more then 130% form the available vote that has not been allocated. Are they printing ballot papers. They are two full percentage points short of a quota. I think your suggestion that it is not impossible should be backed up with some figures..
Have you looked at the published results? The AEC has allocated most if not all the undecided/unallocated vote. We now know what is below the line and what is above the line. the below the line vote is too small to make a difference in the count. OK if they needed 1200% of the BTl vote then Maybe I would acknowledge they had a chance BUT 130% is beyond an honest election and even if there is another 2% of votes hidden away under the AEC desk I would be alarmed if they all went to the Greens.
Tally up all the group votes for the ALP, Liberal and Greens (They will not be distributed beyond their group).
Add to that the known Ticket vote allocation… and there is less then 42,000 BTL votes for minor parties that are waiting to be allocated.
The Greens need 130% of these votes.. 130%… There is not enough votes to go around. And your still saying it is possible. please show me your figures. maybe I have counted it wrong. Its possible I only have a laptop at my disposal…
Group Vote plus Ticket Vote BTL
Liberal ALP Green Others Total Quota
1295308 1287790 372427 42123 2,997,648 428236.4286
43.211% 42.960% 12.424% 1.405%
3.024756743 3.007200979 0.869678161 0.098363888
1.000502132 1.33
Bailey loses McEwen by 7 votes!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bailey-loses-mcewen-to-labor/2007/12/08/1196813080945.html
All is not lost for the Liberal Party and its fellow travellers – the ABC news website is currently carrying a report ‘Coalition ‘making progress’ in Taliban stronghold’.
Bull Butter about McEwen, a recount will get Bailey across the line.
And you say the Tories fudged the postals system well how come so many postals came in so late!
The next person who writes “McEwan” will be required to donate $10 to the William Bandwidth Fund. Even The Age does it in the above article!
MelbCity: Re Russia: Bollocks. Re Ukraine: Go Yulia! But there’s no point in arguing these matters further here.
Now if you think 130% of all the minor party vote will mysteriously flow to the Greens in some mystical transformation. family first voters turning Green I guess anything is possible.
SNIP: Please, MelbCity, for the final time: no more allegations of professional misconduct against named individuals. Whether or not you agree with my ruling, please respect that this is my website, and do not repeatedly and wilfully ignore what you know to be my wishes – PB.
Already been counted twice, with the same result, Glen.
Cheers
Rod
Sorry Melb city (@ 530), that’s just nonsense. The Greens don’t need 130% of anything, they (plus the Coalition) just need a sufficiently large share – say 70% – of the 120-odd thousand votes still to be counted. No, I don’t think they’ll get it, but there’s no earthly way you can say it’s impossible.
Well they are counting it for a third time.
And even if we lose it, we’ll get it back in 2010, this nobody will be a one termer.
Thanks again Poss. If the advice coming from Crosby Textor was anything like the denial-filled dribblings that Mr Crosby poured onto the pages of the GG during the campaign, then Im thinking that the only ones who benefitted from their advice was the ALP. The “if you change the government…” line didn’t work for Keating in 96 and I’d need to see some solid evidence to believe it stemmed the flow this time. As with all these things the reasons for the ‘narrowing’ (in spite of the hellishly embarrasing coalition campaign) will be many and varied. Some of it will, I suspect, lie in the methodoiogy of polling, some in the attitude of the respondents to the pollsters, some on the Australian reluctance to change governments, some in wet Libs deciding dry is better than Labor, some in what voters had for breakfast and the fact that it was a full moon – hence a percentage of voters were insane at the time (clearly such insanity only afflicted conservative voters). It would take some very complex and lengthy research to know the reasons so I suspect we’ll be left to speculate – which we all enjoy so much.
Fran Bailey in opposition is a nobody
Fran Bailey was a minister, oh well i guess the people of McEwen wanted some pork before they vote out bugerlugs in 2010.
Melb I’m fascinated by your numbers and would love to know where they come from. I lay no claim to being an insider and am referring only to the aec website that you yourself have linked to.
My numbers from http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroupByVoteType-13745-VIC.htm are as follows:
ALP – 1,252,278 (41.78%)
Lib/Nats – 1,188,532 (39.65%)
Greens – 296,264 (9.88%)
Total count – 3,107,129 (90.27%)
As I stated before my calculations are based on the assumption that there will be about 95.43% counted by the end (as there was in 2004), which would mean that there are about 171,350 votes unaccounted for. I’m not sure why you are so certain that the only votes left are BTL – I have seen several Postal & Provisional votes yet to be counted in my electorate’s counting centre.
Maybe I’m following the wrong link or my site is not updated, but your numbers and mine simply don’t match up. Can you perhaps link me more directly to the count to which you are referring?
Glen, a government MP is never a nobody. The Howard government greatly increased backbench members’ staff numbers and their printing and postage allowances, all designed to help sitting members entrench themselves. Of course that didn’t save 24 of them from defeat, but without those extra resources even more of them would have lost. Now all those entitlements belong to us, for which we thank you. You can sure that Rob Mitchell will use them very effectively to dig himself in in McEwen.
dam Yulia represent 30% of the Ukrainian electorate she has made some pretty outrageous promises that she can not meet. Most people voted for her under the belief that she will open the doors to Europe. The main problem as I see it is the Our Ukraine bloc (Yulia’s Coalition partners) whose main agenda is for Ukraine to join NATO.. Yulia with Ou Ukraine has a parliamentary majority of 2. there is constant blackmail and disputation with the governing coalition with ongoing threats of members of parliament being expelled if they do not tow the line.
It really is a mess and more unstable then it was before Ukraine’s president unconstitutionally dismissed the parliament. (a parliament that had a working majority and was stable) if Yulia can not secure tech support of the Lytvyn block then Yulia’s government will not survive. Most of this of course plays into the hands of President who constantly;y undermine Ukraine’s democracy in the hope that he can reverse Ukraine’s recent transition to a parliamentary democracy and restore a presidential dictatorship subordinate to the interests of the USA.
I do not know about you but I fully support a parliamentary democracy over a presidential dictatorship any day. I would even like to see Russia become a parliamentary democracy and would it not be nice if the USA also became more democratic. I have no doubt that Ukraine is best suited to a European parliamentary system. I am beginning to think you know very little about what is going on in Ukraine. Sorry… I like Yulia in part but I am not sure she can or will provide stable government for Ukraine. Time will tell.
I stated before I am opposed very much of what Our Ukraine stands for. And most certainly opposed to the restoration of a presidential dictatorship which you and the Amercian adminsitration seam to support.
Scaper I used to like you but now it becomes clear that you are just a lib stooge.
all your bleating about im a business man and empty threats to expose some non -exsistant drivel and start a new politiical party is just empty b=shit.you threatend to bring stuff up during the election campagin but never did. you are a fake poser and probably takes yourself in hand to get your name mentioned on a blog.loser
Adam, hasn’t Kevin reduced the allowances and staff allocations significantly?
Glen, I’m sensing your pain. Kubler-Ross’ stages of grieving are coming vividly to life in your posts.
I believe Labor is committed to reducing the number of ministerial staffers, which also expanded enormously under Howard. I don’t recall any mention of backbenchers’ entitlements.
MelbCity, things in Ukraine might be a bit more stable if it wasn’t for Putin’s constant bullying and interference, don’t you think? Do you think trying to poison a presidential candidate in another country is a legitimate way for a great power to behave? Putin is a KGB trained thug and bully, and it shows in everything he does.
Glen is still in stage 1, though, I think , Ferny.
Cheers
Rod
What exactly IS the “Unapportioned” vote. I had assumed that it is BTL not yet entered on the system, but does it also include Ticket votes that have been removed from the count while they’re being recounted.
In Victoria, the distribution based on Tickets alone put the ALP3 over the line by fewer than 4,000 votes when FFirst get cut-up. There appear to be about 128,000 “Unapportioned” ALP papers. If these really are BTLs, it wouldn’t take much leakage from them to strip that excess away.
In SA, Xenophon doesn’t get elected on primaries on the current Tickets and Greens do not get in on his coat-tails. On the Group votes, it looks the same as Saturday night, though the Xenophon excess is smaller.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByVoteType-13745-VIC.htm
Look at the total column on the right.
Allocate the group total for
ALP: 1252278
Liberals: 1188532
Greens 296264
They are locked in.
Look donw the total column and record the Ticket vote for each of the minor parties (We know how they will be distributed) allocate them to the three parties under contention ALP/ Liberals and Greens)
When distributed
ALP 1287790
Liberal 1295308
Green 372427
The remaining vote (42123 is unknown BTL minor party votes…
Total number of votes equals
2,997,648
Quota is 428236
Liberal 43.211%
ALP 42.960%
Green 12.424%
Others (BTL) 1.405%
Quotas
Liberal 3.024756743
ALP 3.007200979
Green 0.869678161
Others BTL 0.098363888
Add the others to the Greens ASSUME 100%. NOT ENOUGH VOTES
please check maybe I have made a mistake in my spreadsheet calculations/. I am fallible and I only have a laptop not millions of dollars and a host of staff.
When all else fails, Read the Instructions
Doh… “Unapportioned”- it says this on the AEC First Preferences by Candidates page.:
Above the Line Votes are entered for each group (ticket only). These are referred to as ‘Ticket Votes’. Below the line votes for individual candidates are also counted. A derived figure ‘Unapportioned’ is calculated which equals ‘Group Total’ minus ‘Ticket Votes’ minus ‘Below the line votes’.
Not COMPLETELY clear, but I assume therefore Unapportioned is BTL, though the site does say that numbers may fluctuate during a recount.
One thing Howard got right was that he was more popular than the party when he said the problem was with them and not him.
The nation wide swing against the coalition was 5.6% whilst in Benelong the swing was only 5.53%
Defintely stage 1 Rod….though I’ve always argued the stages are often concurrent – and oft repeated. But yes, stage 1 is certainly clear in this case.
FG said
“if you change the government…” line didn’t work for Keating in 96.
There is a significant difference in this campaign (and ‘04) – the overall increase in wealth during Howard’s term. Increased property prices, share prices and net real wages may have made the many voters feel they had a few more chips on the table than they did in ‘96.
I still find the extent of the swing back to the coalition in the last week remarkable. Given the context of an ordinary campaign and the leaflet scadal in the dying days.
It seems to be of a similar size to the one acheived against Latham in 2004. Maybe its an effect that is exgoneous to how the campaign is perceived to have gone. Maybe there was no hand-shake moment it was just an ex-post rationalisation.
If the ALP is leading 54/46 leading into the last week of the next election – I bet we’ll be debating if the coaltion can muster the same last minute swing from oppostion – I’m guessing no.
Geoff, they just enter a group total on election night. In the following days these are recounted. Under the old system used until 2001, at the re-count, only the group ticket (ATL) totals for each booth were entered, and all below the line votes went to zero until the BTL votes were data entered. However, this could distort the count, as the major parties have the highest proportion of ATL votes, so this old method made it seem like minor parties could not win, as their vote fell two days after the election, and did not rise again until data entry was well under way. So for instance, under the old counting system in 2001, Bob Brown had won just short of a quota in Tasmania, but once the BTL votes were excluded, his vote was way less than a quota. It only came back towards a quota when BTL votes were includd.
Now they keep the election night total as a batch total, and show unapportioned below the line as the difference between the group totals and data entered BTL votes. When all BTL vote for each booths is entered, the orginal group total for the booth is ditched.
Geof what I did weas take the total and deduct the ticket vote. That way I dod not have to add up the votes allocated to individual candidates. total gorup votes minus ticket votes equals BTL votes…
I used the total votes as a check
We know where ticket votes end up. We do not know the BTL votes for minor parties. Any BTL vote for the ALP, Liberals and Greens we can safely assume will stay within the group. …
The ungrouped candiates I have lumped into the BTL minor partioes voters list..
The numbers add up and equal the total number of cotes
You don’t need millions of dollars or any staff – you just need Antony Green’s wonderful Senate calculator.
Preferences cannot be allocated accurately until you have a proper primary count – which we don’t.
You cannot measure the requirements of the swing for future votes against preference allocations that you’ve already made – the way preferences are allocated changes depending on what the primary vote ends up being – this seems to be why our interpretations are confoundingly different.
As I state in an earlier post my calculations are based on the required swing in the remaining primary votes to allow the Greens to get up. I realise this is made more complicated by the fact that BTLs comprise the majority of the uncounted votes and the preference allocation is therefore skewed. BUT, as a basic guide, if you imagine a swing of .4% away from the ALP directly to the Libs, then the Primaries would be 41.38% to 40.6%. Leave the others the same, including the Greens. Such a result would see di Natale defeat Feeney for the sixth seat.
For this result to happen, the ALP need to receive less than 34.6% of the vote including their preferences.
As stated earlier, I realise the extreme unlikelihood of this happening, but your continued assertion that the Greens need 130% of the remaining vote is based on a bizarre and blatantly wrong reading of the Senate count. You are working from quotas that are simply irrelevant because they are based on a preference allocation that will not happen if there is a dramatic shift in primaries in the final part of the count.
To be honest I’m ashamed of myself for following this argument through to its ridiculous conclusion but for some reason I couldn’t reisist your particular brand of keyboard mangling and firebrand logic. For now, though, I’m going to get drunk with my friends at a pub. Please enjoy the rest of the night.
I am essentailly only interested in the ALP.Liberal and Green group vote and the minor party ticket votes. The rest is in the unkown basket. Not enough to see the Greens over quota
Sorry, for ‘34.6% of the vote’ please read ‘34.6% of the remaining vote’.
WTR: Good point re the chips on the table. The electorate may have felt more exposed than in 96. Nonetheless, that late swing to the Coalition will remain a “Bermuda Triangle” type mystery to me for a long time. It just made no sense at all in the circumstances.
Possum back at 547.
The last few weeks of the Lib campaign were aimed purely at holding onto the traditional Lib voter – to minimise the losses. Textor has acknowledged this. He had already conceded defeat. And it seems it was successful. The best explanation of the “narrowing” is that previous Lib voters eventually decided there might be some risk in a Labor Govt.
Stephen are you talking about the senate or the house of reps. The senate does not work on swings it works on percentages..
Group votes, Ticket votes and BTL minor party votes. The first two we know how they will be distributed, It is the last quanative number we do not know. BUT in Victoria case it does not matter as 100% of them will not make a difference to the outcome. It is all decided on the ALP, Liberal/Green group vote and the minor party ticket vote.
We know the total number of votes therefor the quota. We know the quota percentage anyway the number is just a little more accurate.
Geoff can you confirm in Antony’s absence. I need to go shopping. I need more champagne
I do not normally drink…
Antony you on line I thought you took a qwell deserved break.
On election night they allocate the vote into groups (above the line and Below the line) and then slowly break it down into ticket votes and primary votes for each candiates.
We do not need to worry about the BTL vote much as it does not come into play.
We only need to look at the group vote for the ALP. Liberal and Greens (Assume they are locked in very few will leave teh group and most are ticket votes anyway)
We already know the breakdown ot the tiket vote for the other minor parties we can assume the rest are BTL votes for individual candidates.
The calcluator assumes 100% ticket vote. If we eclude the BTL minor party votes we can calculate the total ticket vote allocation as we know how they will be distributed. IN VIC;s case the number remaining is too small to make a difference.
Enough said I need to go…,
If 2 subsequent recounts confirmed Rob Mitchell’s win by 7 votes, what is the point of another one? I’m sure the Liberals, Fran Bailey and Glen will huff, and puff, and take this to the Court of Disputed Returns. And if a byelection is ordered, Rob Mitchell will bolt it in.
Re #585
“We will huff and puff and blow your house down!”
Progressive, they’d need to mount a case to take it to disputed returns. A small margin isn’t enough of a reason. I guess they could borrow the “Republican Book of How to Steal an Election” and plough through every ballot till they find something, no matter how trivial.
If anyone wants to discuss McEwen specifically, I have a new post up which is mostly about that.
I agree with Work to Rule at 475. The circumstances were diefferent back in 1996. Keating in 1996 was hated, if that is the right word, more than Howard was in 2007. Whether that was Keating’s fault or not could be debated at great length. I’m personally of the opinion that the media had more to do with Keating’s defeat than Keating himself. I also think that the coalition’s advertising in the last week of this election together with the “If we change the Government etc” had more resonance with waverers at the end and consequently some narrowing occurred. Next time round given sound management by the ALP I wouldn’t expect say a 55-45 poll two weeks before the election to narrow very much at all
There seems to be an assumption that there was a late swing back to the government. This has now happened two elections running. Personally I feel ripped – off by the published polls. To be putting out crap about 55-57%++ all year and then come out with the (correct) result the day before as Newspoll, Galaxy & Morgan did…and then claim that they got it right…yeah try the other one. In future I’ll only take these last polls seriously.
Some of the electorate polls were on the money though, esp the Advertiser in Stuart & Boothby, Westpoll (which proved more reliable than the Newspoll WA breakdown) and the Bennelong polls come to mind. Newspoll’s Bass & Braddon + the local Tassie polling was a disgrace…these seats actually went to the wire.
FG, I certainly think the mystery of the late swing to the coalition and whether they can repeat it will be well worn themes in the next election.
My theory, well theory is overstating it a bit. My guess is that in the final week the coalition were tracking towards a 2PP of about 48. Most likely a narrow loss – but a nail biter and still in with a chance. The leaflet scandal derailed the last 72 hours and the swing back stalled leaving the final 2PP just above 47.
Any of the 8 seats the ALP won with less than a 1.5% margin (9 including McEwen) could have gone the other way if not for Kelly’s prank.
Pure speculation of course, but I do like the poetic justice that Howard was eventually cut down by poorly executed wedge.
Wet / Small l Liberal seat Kooyong swung toward it’s local MP, at my polling booth there were only pictures of Petro, it was all about him there was no Howard in sight, interesting side note the ALP had pictures of Rudd but nothing of the candidate.
Goldstein did what I expected all the booths East of Neapean Hwy went to the ALP but West of Neapean Hwy was an ALP no go zone.
Higgins also did as expected all the booths at the Western end went to the ALP with a few booths around the edge of the seat going towards the ALP but the Malvern/Toorak/Glen Iris area went Liberal.
I note with Wentworth that Turnbull appears to have won both Paddington booths.
Both Goldstern and North Sydney saw solid swings towards the ALP.
“I think the Greens should admit defeat in the Victorian Senate”
Well, call me weird, MelbC, but I think they should probably, you know, count the votes in this ‘ere democracy lark.
I know BTL is terribly inconvenient for hacks – since it means the lowly voter actually decides where their vote ends up; not some unelected apparatchik.
But since certain anonymous f*ckwit moron hacks in the VIC ALP managed to elect Mr 1.7% in ‘04, well, can you blame the punters for going in under?
If you think Im harsh on the VIC ALP, i think you’ll find this view increasingly widespread in ALP ranks in, ohh, I dunno, about 7 months time when Rudd’s trying to get program past a happy clappy no one voted for.
Which gets us back to the VIC 07 vote – real shame the Green didnt knock off the Lib, innit, mate? Mightn’t have been a problem.
Enjoy yer champers.
Gotta agree WTR – justice indeed! I’m interested in the earlier post which suggested Crosby Textor had given up 2 weeks out and were simply playing to minimise the extent of the loss. If this is true and the narrowing was indeed happening, then they may have given up too soon.
Now I’m off to William’s new post.
For want of anything better to do, I have prepared a table comparing the enrolments of the 5 ‘outer ring’ Victorian seats – Wannon, Mallee, Murray, Indi & Gippsland – with the adjoining 5 ‘middle ring’ seats – Corangamite, Ballarat, Bendigo, McEwen & McMillan. The relevance of the comparison is that, as the pop’n of the ‘outer’ seats decline, thew will have adjoining portions of the ‘middle ring’ seats redistributed to them. E.G. Colac from Corangamite to Wannon. This, together with ‘tree change’ poulation movements from metro seats, should result in increased vote margins for the ALP middle ring seats (Corangamite, Ballarat, Bendigo & McEwen). If Traralgon moves from Gippsland to McMillan it may also assist in the ALP regaining this seat, which it won in ‘98 but lost in ‘01.
(Hopefully the data as I have entered it below will post as ‘wsywyg’, in which case it should read fairly clearly.)
The average enrolment across the 10 seats is 93,424. All ‘outer’ seats, other than Gippsland are below the average. All ‘middle ring’ seats are above the average – Ballarat barely. Seats vary from 88,890 (Murray) to 104,509 (McEwen).
The 5 outer seats are, on average 2,515 votes below the average for all 10 seats. The 5 middle seats are, on average, 2,515 votes above the average for the 10 seats.
Hope this makes sense / is of interest.
Clearly, Stone & Mirabella represent far fewer constituents than do their opposite numbers on the government benches from Bendigo & McEwen. (Did it ever feel g-o-o-d typing that!!!)
‘Outer’ Enrolled Diff to ‘Middle’ Enrolled Diff to Total Average
Seats Votes Reg. Ave. Seats Votes Reg. Ave. Votes Enrolment
Wannon 90,904 -2,515 Corang’m'te 96,155 +2,731 187,059 93,530
Mallee 90,112 -3,312 Ballarat 93,624 +200 183,736 91,868
Murray 88,890 -4,534 Bendigo 97,197 +3773 186,087 93,044
Indi 90,871 -2,553 McEwen 104,509 +11,085 195,380 97,690
Gippsland 94,882 +1,458 McMillan 87,092 -6,332 181,974 90,987
Total Total Total
‘Outer’ 455,659 -11,456 ‘Middle’ 478,577 +11,457 ‘Regional’ 93,4236
Outer Middle Regional
Average 91,131 -2,291 Average 95,715 +2,291 Average 93,424
Very interesting redistribution, I hope Victorian doesn’t lose a seat but when you consider that the inner city seats have not changed in over 10 years and with the changes in population in the outer suburb could be interesting.
BMWofVic @596 – Victoria is unlikely to lose a seat, as its population has been growing at the same rate as the national average. The slowpokes in the population stakes are NSW, SA and Tasmania; but Tasmania’s already at its constitutional minimum of five seats, so if there are seats to be lost they’d have to be in NSW or SA.
Possum,
When I heard about the Libs tax deduction for education expenses I thought that would be enough to get a lot of the “wet libs” back into the fold- just because these people already have a lot of money doesn’t mean they would take a bribe when it was handed out.
BMW,
Some time back you mentioned swings in Victoria and wrongly suggested that Casey was at or near the top. It was close to the Victorian average (Casey 5.3 cfd. Victoria 5.1). The big swings were Calwell 11.1, Holt 10.0, Aston (noted by you) 8.1, Indi 7.1. The seats which labor gained were next Deakin and McEwen 6.4 and Corangamite 6.1. Scullin and Isaacs were also both on 6.1
Correction.
In reviewing my spreadsheet I found a few more votes for the Greens. (I left out one of the gRoups ticket votes (The AEC had not listed then separately before)
The good news is that it does not change the overall result. (The green vote goes up but the number of undecided vote goes down.) The Greens still need over 100% of the undecided vote to secure a seat.
Revised summary
Group Vote plus Minor Party Ticket Vote
Party Liberal ALP Green Others (BTL) Total Quota
Votes 1294853 1287790 377868 37137 2,997,648 428236
43.196% 42.960% 12.605% 1.239% 14.286%
Quotas 3.0237 3.0072 0.8824 0.0867
* 0.0237 0.0237
* Note the the Liberal surplus of which 25% of the value is derived from 10% of the ballot papers transferred from minor parties will not be distributed as all positions are filled prior to their distribution. Should the UNLIKELY situation occur where the Liberal surplus is in fact distributed then a devalued percentage of the Liberal surplus (Thanks to a inbuilt distortion in the system adopted) will transfer to the Labor Party. It is also reasonable to assume that a proportion of the undecided BTL minor party vote will also favour the ALP which in turn places the result of the election further out of reach for the Greens.
The ALP position only improves.
Lefty they have counted it is you that has not… but hey it is your right to wath the them draw the final breath.
I don’t know why everyone keeps banging on about Victoria. It’s not even close. The closest contest is South Australia. And the perversity of the Senate voting system is that in South Australia, where the Greens had their worst vote, they will probably gain an extra seat. And Victoria which was their best mainland vote is going to miss out.
William asked: I suspect the answer to this mystery lies somewhere in the Electoral and Referendum (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act. Can any wise heads out there point me in the right direction?
Well, a Returning Officer told me that the DRO had issued an edict to strongly dissuade provisional voters because “95% of them will turn out to be ineligible” and that they are “too much work” to validate.
MelbCity said: We know where ticket votes end up. We do not know the BTL votes for minor parties. Any BTL vote for the ALP, Liberals and Greens we can safely assume will stay within the group.
Well, in the case of Victoria, it would only take about 3% of the ALP1 and ALP2 BTLs to stray into the Greens column before ALP3 to drag the 3rd ALP below a winning position. I seem to recall that this level of leakage occurred in one of the Vic2006 LC seats, didn’t it?
The table in the header, showing swings by vote type in 10 electorates can be subjected to a variance analysis to show that all the variation comes from a “between electorate” source and that there is no significant contribution from vote type.
This means that the notion, which I held, that there really was a last-minute 2% swing back to the Government, can not be demonstrated in the pre-polls and postals made before any such a swing took effect. It adds weight to the uncomfortable notion that the “Polls got it wrong” on all but the last-minute surveys. And Tim Gartrell said as much in his Press Club speech which I inferred to mean that internal ALP polling was always showing 53% (which was what the much-maligned NineSM Passion Poll was showing 2 weeks prior).
Yes, well, the sooner we have an optional BTL system the better!
Until then, the selection of federal upper house members will remain a national embarrassment, and a rotten borough of Australian democracy, until voters decide.
Frankly, someone really ought to mount a high court case against the practice of allowing unelected party officials to direct where our votes go.
Its the semi-detached chad of Ozpolitics. The banjo-plucking inbred cousin in the attic. We dont talk about Johnny in the attic.
Id suggest some fairly basic implied political freedoms (eg to vote for a party of your choice, perhaps even one vote one value) are infringed.
I don’t see any objections to optional above-the-line voting. Votes don’t even need to expire. If someone wants to vote 1. Greens, 2. Democrats, 3. Labor and then isn’t fussed which party come next, why can’t the vote just revert to the group voting ticket of the party that won the primary vote, once expressed preferences are exhausted?
In other words, if the Greens, Democrats and Labor were all eliminated, the vote in question would simply revert to the Greens’ group voting ticket. Easy. Would cut the informal vote in the Senate down to something very close to the voluntary informal rate.
If there is a successful challenge they should hold the second election on the same day as the by-elections for all the retiring Liberals. That way the voters wil have a clear reminder of why they have to do it again.
Still, at age 61 and after 14 years in parliament, I would have thought dear Fran Bailey would want to spend some time wiht the family by now.
Optional preferential is akin to not votingin many cases. There is no logic of justoficaton behind the Victorian idea of being required to number at least the numbre of preferences as there are positions to be filled. Whoever came up with that idea should be sacked.Yes optional preferential assisted the Greens ion Victoria alomg with votes that went mssing betawween count A and Count B (I regret I can not say more as the VEC failed to provide a colpy of the details of the First Count preference files – Tully had something to hide)
If we do adopt optional preferntial then it should not apply to above the line ticket votes. Parties should always be required to register full preferences. And we should then intrroduce a reiterative counting system (based on the value of tehnvote and not the number of ballot papers – one transcation per candiate no segmentation) In a reiterative count you would restart the count each time you exclude a candidate usinmg only the ballot papers that exopress a ongoing preference.
I would prefer to argue for preferential voting above the line. But this would make the AEC’s job more harder.
Re ALP below the loine preferences I can do an analysis of the percentage of prefernecs that break ticket befor the last elected if you like. But I would be surpised if it is as high as you suggest. In any event what is interetsing in this elction is that fewer people Other then Green and Democrate voters) choose to vote below the line. Minor party support overall had droped. The Greens and clearly the Labor and Liberal Party were the benefactor of some of that shift.
The number of ALP people voting below the line was significantly less.
In anyevent as Antony Green has confirmed Minor party BTL votes will not infulence the reuslts of this elction. You can allocate 100% of them top teh reens candidate and the Greens will still not get above the line. They needs something like 120 to 130%. With 90.27% of the enrolled vote counted I do not see the results shifting unless there is a huge Green only booth or a few Green boxes of votes the AEC forgot about. Anything is possible wwhen you do not know how the total number of votes that were issued. That was very much one of the problems also in the Victorian Count. (SNIP: MelbCity, to simplify my adjudication here, ANY reference you make to a certain Victorian bureaucrat will henceforth be deleted – PB)
I will see what I can do about your stats request..
Antony The Greens could not muster the 14.28% vote… I recall Costigan once saying on radio, advocating a first-=past-the-post ballot, … that 40% of the voters voted for him …. to which I replied in debate yes that is true but 60% did not want him. The same applies to the Greens in this case. I think Risstrom would have polled better.
a more interesting statistic to look at would be how many of the BTL minor party voters break direction of the ticket. Most below the line votes like my own are so they can vote first for a candidate lower down on the list. Over 97% of BTL votes remain within the group of their first choice then then just number down the party tickets of the chosen columns. Which indicate they are changing the order of party support more so then voting for individuals. I could not vote for the Democrats for example but I wanted to support Lynn Allison as I think she has been a good Senator. (Wrong party) I think many of the democrats What’s left of them) do not like the split ticket which both went to the Greens and as such never did split. Where as the Socialist Equity Party effectively applied an optional preferential ballot as their ticket went no where…
Have you ever wondered what is behind the Greens running more candidates then they have as much hope of winning then a snowflakes chance in hell? Sadly we do not have a count back system so why nominate six? if you adopt the Optional preferential system where you have to number a minimum of six then where is the logic? I guess we will fast become by default a party list system and we might as well do away with preferential voting… that is the logical conclusion if we adopt optional preferential voting.
Wiliam prehapes you should put a filter block on Howard, Rudd and Brown…. for moderation
Charlie, agree, I think numbered optional prefs ATL is also fine. And maybe it just expires after that. Who cares? Votes “expire” every time a candidate doesnt get up. Some 48% in the HoRs last fortnight. Its not a problem in the slightest.
My sole objection is delivering votes per an unelected hack’s preference, under some dismally undemocratic notion of “convenience”. It risk setting up, for want of a better word, a partocracy.
I like to think this isnt a tinfoil hatted view in any way. Lets face it – the current system is the bizarre oddity, not the idea that voters should determine 100% of prefs.
William why no9t apply a filter block on the governor General, Rudd or any other persons name. Then fact remains that the Victorian electoral Commissioner is responsible for the shnnky count and cover-up in the Victorian election as much as you might wish to avoid his name being exposed. Had ST ullly not sought to cover up his mistakes and shoky short cut counts and released the data that should have been published he would not come under such strong criticism. nice attempt at censorship…
\
Ok I have had a look at the Stats for Northern Victoria ALP
And whilst 3% did jump ship the number is insignificant as the location where they jump to varies significantly in some cases they jump from ALP to Liberal and then back or a minor candidate that has been excluded in the count. Similar percentages exist with all the other parties given that the number represents less then 0.05% of the overall vote (even less when you consider the number that jump back on board before the exclusion) Not worth considering and most certainly would not make a difference in the Victorian Count in which the Greens require 100% of the BTL vote that is be determined. It would have been nice to compared the Tally stats from the first count BUT we were denied the details of that count so no one had the opportunity to scrutinise the count. It was not open or transparent thanks to a Nameless Commissioner.
Lefty you logic is flawed or just plain misleading. Might as well adopt a party list system and be done with it. Abolish compulsory voting and wearing of seat belts… Optional preferential can only work if you adopt a reiterative count (Drop quota) system. I have no problem and have been advocating preferential voting above the line but its should be compulsory to vote all squares in order of preference if that is the case. And most certainly parties should not be able to register a optional preferential ticket. Failing that we adopt a party list system
Let me correct my terminology. The formality requirements of the vote should be that all above the line votes should indicate a preference for each column/group Whilst supporting Australia’s compulsory voting requirement it si not compulsory that the voter submit a formal vote. If the voter wishes to waste his or her vote they have the right now. But Lefty is of the view that only activists have the right to have their vote counted and he would support not only option preferential but also non compulsion of voting so that the non week will inherit the earth/parliament… I suppose Left E also supports the notion that an unnamed Victorian Commissioner should withhold the details of the count so as to avoid public scrutiny and review of his obvious mistakes in the count. he should not be held to account or even brought into question. open and Transparent elections is not a right but a privilege and Commissioners on high salaries are exempt from review and criticism even if they stuff up big time. Publish the detailed data…. maintain an open and transparent system.
hey we should not be allowed to criticize or express concern at the fact that the number of ballot papers recorded as being issued is less then the number received back. IOf ballot papers go missing or are added into the count well bad luck we should only know what the commissioners publish as a being the results be it seven votes or 150 difference. if the result changes between count well the last count holds. Even if the first count clearly had errors.
Sorry I am of the view that the system Must be open and Transparent, that details of the count MUST be published and made public and that Commissioners are accountable for their mistakes and attempts of cover-up. Elections go to the heart of our democracy and if the system is not open or transparent then public confidence in the outcome and process is undermined.
I expect the Commissioners to know how many votes they have issued and to accurately and in a timely fashion make that information public. i also expect that the data files recording preferences used to determine the result should also be published and open to independent public review.
The Greens remain quite on all accounts. Got news for you it will bite you in the bum at some stage and you will yell….
So, when will John H*ward concede Bennelong??????
Or is he waiting on the 2 000 odd postals he and Janette personally filled in at Kirribilli to come in?
This is the story that has been overlooked by the media. No-one has applied the egg to the faces of the pundits (even the online ones here) who refused, poll after poll after poll, to entertain the possibility that H*ward could loose his seat, regardless of the national swing.
How many times did we hear the horsesh-t: “Maxine wont win this time, but she’ll win the by-election” ?
Even on election night, the pundits kept banging on about how H*ward *may* have lost his seat. They’d called several other seats which were less close, but there was something magical about Bennelong which made every one overly conservative. Had they been consuming LTEP’s medication perhaps??
H*ward won’t concede of course, he’s hoping we all forget that he’s lost his seat – only the 2nd PM to be honoured in such a way. The media and even many posters here have been so compliant in this, that Maxine’s victory just feels like an anti-climax. Not letting her claim victory for days after the election has made it almost as if she’s won a by-election after the election, with the press relegating her victory to a page 13 post-election side note to the Rudd victory.
Antony and Kerry O’brien’s shameless abuse and fluster at the folks in the tally room who were claiming Maxine’s victory were part of the complicity. They couldn’t fathom that a) Bennelong was lost and b) people were happy about it.
Well just in case you missed: H*ward lost Bennelong!
*rant over*
WHat on earth are you going on about Melbcity? I support compulsory voting. I dont support the undemocratic practice of allowing third parties to determine where a vote ends up.
Exhibit A: Fielding, who practically no-one (aka 1.7%) voted for, randomly generated by hacks foisting a pref list on unsuspecting ALP voters.
As for your views on the Vic Commissioner – huh? I think you’ll find im not too interested in whatever that’s about.
To be fair to Anthony and Kerry regarding Bennelong calling the seat of the PM has gone is a big call and while it was clear early on that Maxine was going to win I think out of respect for the position of PM rather than the person dicates that it couldn’t be called until Howard conceded it.
Anyway Maxine McKew is now the MP for Bennenlong and that will be the definding moment of the 2007 election.
In saying that had Howard conceded on the night but somehow hung on he would have looked very silly.
Perhaps BMW. But I don’t agree that his seat should have been subject to any special treatment. People had been doing that all campaign and that impacted their logic to the extent that they actually believed that H*ward couldn’t lose his seat because he was sitting PM. This carried over into a group think for much of the press.
They shouldn’t have had to wait for H*ward to concede the seat. All the networks had called the election for the ALP long before H*ward was wheeled out at the Wentworth Hotel for his national concession speech. Why have this special treatment for Bennelong? I mean they even called McEwen for Fran Bailey, and now she’s lost the seat! That was actually a close seat, rather than Bennelong which was never close.
And an extraordinarily silly rant it was too, John Ryan.
John Ryan, that is pure stupidity. A bunch of yahoos in the tallyroom reacting to any picture of Maxine McKew on the television doesn’t correspond to analysis of the numbers. Now I always said the Bennelong would go with government, and the swing has been exactly that. But on election night, using a mathematical model that has been spot on accurate for 15 years, you couldn’t give the seat away until 40-50% of the vote was counted. It got no special treatment from me on the night. It got the same formula as every other seat, and indeed every seat at every state territory and federal election since 1992.
As for fluster at the crowd. I’m not sure if you’ve ever relied on ear pieces to hear other people on a television panel, but it becomes impossible when your other ear gets drowned out with background noise. It’s like trying to talk on a mobile phone in noisy bar.
Whether Howard conceeds or not is entirely his business. I have nothing to say on the subject. Concession or claims of victory mean nothing to the counting process, and there are candidate who have conceeded defeat on election night and been elected.
And as for optional preferential voting in the Senate, I’m all for it. Optional preferential voting both above and below the line and an end to group ticket votes, though perhaps some interim measure to deal with people being used to the use of only a single 1. Force parties to campaign for votes rather than arrange deals on preferences. Optional preferewntial voting and PR works fine in Tasmania, the ACT and NSW. Minimum number of preferences below the line, perhaps matched by a minumum number above the line.
Was the National Tally room shambles its demise? I doubt TV channels will broadcast from there again (not serious ones anyway).
Does anyone have any real knowledge of what’s going on with the count in O’Connor? If CDP and Greens preferences flow as directed then Wilson Tuckey is in trouble. If he loses, it could have implications for the Liberal leadership.
I agree with comments previously that Greens preferences may not be disciplined, but does anyone know where they’re going in O’Connor? The AEC still hasn’t released two-party preferred voting.
Christmas greetings to all candidates who have taken part in the great democratic process. My particular thanks go to the people who carried the banner for Labor in South Australia. Here they are, seat by seat:
Barker: Karen Lock was the state champ with a swing of 10.4% swing. Admittedly that was from a very low base but Karen captured many votes that were supposedly heading from the Liberals to the Nationals. She as clearly the right fit for the electorate.
Grey: Karin Bolton won big in the Iron Triangle for an overall swing of 9.4%. Grey would have returned to Labor with that vote on the old boundaries (before Yorke Peninsula and parts of the Mid North were added). In a vast seat like this, maybe Labor could consider running two candidates – one from the industrial cities and a farmer like Ben Browne to appeal to the outlying areas.
Makin: Tony Zappia was rewarded second time around with a massive 8.6% swing against his moneybags opponent. Justice at last.
Wakefield: Nick Champion regained the Labor heartland with a 7.3% swing. He should be a member for many years.
Adelaide: Kate Ellis gained a 7.2% swing and a ministry after three years of hard work. All those street corner meetings have borne fruit.
Port Adelaide: Mark Butler rode the wave against Work Choices for a very enjoyable 6.8% surge into parliament.
Mayo: Mary Brewerton did really well with a 6.5% swing, but this seat needs a strong independent to challenge the Libs should Lord Downer step down.
Sturt: Mia Handshin achieved Labor’s best result here since Norm Foster’s 1969 win. Big swings in the northern suburbs for an overall result of 5.6% but the blueblood south stayed true to class.
Hindmarsh: Steve Georganas gave up smoking during the hair-raising 1974 election count which he won by 106 votes. No need to take it up again after a reasonably comfortable 5% swing this time.
Kingston: Amanda Rishworth survived a tough multi-candidate contest to regain what is perhaps the state’s most volatile seat with a 4.5% swing. For some reason some of the south-western suburbs in Kingston and Boothby did not swing that much to Labor.
Boothby: Nicole Cornes has sparked more commentary than anyone in memory. Why only a 2.4% swing? She did well in some middle-class booths, poorly in the affluent east and disappointingly in some of the tree-hugging and working class areas. But she still came closer in Boothby any Laborite since Tom Sheehy won it in 1946.
Congratulations also to Labor’s Senate winners, Don Farrell and Penny Wong (though they should have been in reverse order on the ballot paper).