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
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 » Show All
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?
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 » Show All