This time yesterday, Liberal member Fran Bailey held on to a 32-vote lead in McEwen which, though rapidly diminishing, was calculated by Antony Green to be 77 per cent likely to hold after the few remaining votes were counted. Those votes are now in: the last few absent votes broke 100-93 in favour of Labor’s Rob Mitchell, postals went 37-21 his way, pre-polls favoured him to the tune of 33-23, and further rechecking of booth votes cost Bailey 14 and Mitchell eight. All of which leaves Mitchell seven votes ahead. This is apparently the final result, pending the final recount, which could certainly turn up enough anomalies to overturn a lead as small as this. Adam Carr further argues that with a margin of fewer than 20 votes, “the Liberal Party’s lawyers will be able to scrape up some pretext or another for a court challenge”. He also states: “Unfortunately for Labor, most of the precedents are that the incumbent government loses the subsequent by-election (Nunawading, Mundingburra, Greensborough).”
Mundingburra of course was the Queensland by-election in February 1996 that cost the Goss government the one-seat majority it retained after the 1995 election. The other two are from Carr’s home patch of Victoria. There are probably about five people in the country who can tell you about the 1985 by-election for the state upper house province of Nunawading, and I am not of their number. UPDATE: Scratch that – the result cost the Cain government its short-lived control of the upper house, so probably quite a few people know about it, including me from now on. What’s more, it followed an initial tied result and a win for Labor decided by a draw from a hat. The Greensborough by-election refers not to the one Sherryl Garbutt won in 1989, but rather to the one Poll Bludger commenter Chris Curtis ran in as DLP candidate in 1977, which produced a massive swing to the then Labor opposition. ANOTHER UPDATE: A correction in comments from Brian McKinlay (of McKinlay case fame), who says Carr was in fact referring to yet another by-election for Greensborough which took place in 1973, which saw a Liberal win overturned by the court before being re-confirmed by the electorate. One might respond that the 1996 Lindsay by-election demonstrates that voters do not take kindly to initiators of legal challenges, but perhaps the 5.0 per cent Liberal swing on that occasion had more to do with Labor’s generally poor performance at re-matches than is generally realised.
Anyway, let’s assume now for the sake of argument that this result stands. We now have a new modern standard for close federal electorate results to beat Liberal candidate Ian Viner’s 12-vote win in Stirling in 1974. The historians among you are invited to relate other famous close shaves in comments. We also have Labor on 84 seats and the Coalition on 64, with two independents. This is pleasing from a personal perspective as it’s exactly what I predicted early in the campaign for New Matilda, although I did underestimate Queensland’s contribution to the Labor total. Unfortunately, the day before the election I upped the ante to 87 in a prediction for Crikey, which looked very good on election night but became progressively less good as counting proceeded.
This prediction was highlighted today in The Australian, which has promoted me from confuser of fact with opinion and baser of opinion on ignorance and prejudice to the slightly more elevated title of “pundit”. I suspected at first that The Australian compiled this list as a subtle dig at an online commentariat that had leaned a little too heavily to Labor in its predictions, but that doesn’t explain the inclusion of Malcolm Mackerras. In any case, Brad Norington bails me out in the accompanying article by trying on the line that Labor owes its win to “fewer than 12,000 people across nine electorates”. Those of you marvelling over the seven-vote margin in McEwen are invited to consider an election in which the Coalition held on to power after retaining each of Bass, Bennelong, Braddon, Corangamite, Deakin, Flynn, Hasluck, Robertson and Solomon by one solitary vote. On this basis, I hereby declare that my prediction of 87 seats was only out by 595 votes out of 12,350,549. It would in fact be far more accurate to say it was 0.2 per cent out, which isn’t so bad either I suppose.
UPDATE: Adam Carr on historical close results:
In terms of numbers of votes, the closest result in a House of Representatives contest was 1 vote (13,569 to 13,568), when Edwin Kirby (Nationalist) defeated Charles McGrath (ALP) in Ballarat (Vic) in 1919. The result was declared void in 1920. In 1903 Robert Blackwood (FT) defeated John Chanter (Prot) in Riverina (NSW) by 5 votes (4,341 to 4,336). This result was also declared void. The closest result allowed to stand was 7 votes (13,162 to 13,155), when John Lynch (ALP), defeated Hon Alfred Conroy (Lib) in Werriwa (NSW) in 1914. In terms of percentages of the vote, the closest result was Kirby’s voided win in Ballarat in 1919: he polled 50.002% of the vote. The closest result allowed to stand was that in the Griffith (Qld) by-election of 1939, when William Conelan (ALP) defeated Peter McCowan (UAP), after preferences, with 50.007% of the vote. The closest winning margin in recent times has been 50.011%, polled by Ian Viner (Liberal) in Stirling (WA) in 1974 and by Christine Gallus (Liberal) in Hawker (SA) in 1990.
Mitchell has 50.003%, so his percentage is lower than both Conelan’s in 1939, Viner’s in 1974 and Gallus’s in 1990.
664 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 » Show All
The MSM “commentators” have been given oxygen for the past 10 years because of their “insider” knowledge. Now we have a change of Govt. the oxygen supply has been cut off.
The Bolts and Acker Toads will continue. It is the Milnes and Shananhahahahans of this world that will find things difficult.
All politicians need the media and the off the record background briefing will always continue.
It is a different breed of journo that will get these briefings, the others will fade into obscurity.
Work to rule @161:
I think I get the median at 87. Happy to double check this with you, my data is as above, I think it can be worked out from that.
I get a 10% Trimmed Mean of 87.12.
And I get a Geometric Mean for the non-ALP vote of 61.29, which converts* to an ALP GM of 88.71
*this is because there is a vote for an effective ALP seat count of 0, which makes calculating the GM impossible from the ALP seat count.
These sorta all say the same thing, which was reflected everywhere I think – the generalized wisdom of the crowds over-estimated the ALP seat count.
Minchin and others who predicted the postals going the way of the Libs seemed to have known something – I wonder how they knew it – but in the end, whilst it happened, it was not enough to get them over.
I think there is a similar dataset on Possum’s site – I might, for the fun of it (I seem to be quite a sad person) do the same thing with that data…
In a long and colourful life I’ve heard blokes whinge about just about everything. But I can’t recall ever hearing one express dissatifaction with a ‘working girl’ So I’m guessing they’d be mighty unpleased about being lumped in with pollies.
Work to rule @161:
Oops, I concur. Median at 86. I calculated an ‘interesting’ median, being the sumproduct of the seats and the votes. The median in that list is 87.
The previous Gov tended to leak stories to Shanahan and Milne and a few others. Who will the Rudd gov trusts with strategic leaks? Michelle G at Fairfax? Who else?
journos, not pollies
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/09/2113687.htm
This story will ring bells for all bloggers who have first-hand experience of the Howard government’s shameful neglect of universities, its disdain for academics and its constant attempts to silence critics. As the GG’s Higher Ed supplement said last Wed, 19 of the 20 cabinet ministers in the Rudd govt have degrees in humanities and social sciences, and most benefitted from Whitlam’s education reforms and received a free tertiary education. Let’s hope…
Postals always go the Libs way; that absolutely isn’t a surprise. I just thought Labor’s 2PP would be higher than it actually was.
Ferny Grover @ 205
I would suggest that Fairfax would not want any of their newspapers to be tagged as being the new GG. Look for another News Corp journo to take on the role.
Isn’t it time to move on from calling the Oz the Govt Gazette? As another blogger suggested, maybe we can now call them the OO – Opposition Organ.
at 179 MelbCity says: “Problem with the count as clsoe as that in McEwen is there is disputation over what should be included and what should be excluded. A person who was removed from the roll and previously had voted in the electorate has agood case to have their vpte included. They could have not recioved some notice or in pervious elctions in whcih they did not vote they could have been overseas or unable to vote. The actions of the Commission in removing their name and thus denying them the right to vote is of real concen.”
Why? I don’t follow that MelbCity. Voters have a legal obligation to keep their enrolment current…
But in any case, the Court of Disputed Returns can’t inquire into the correctness of the roll (because the roll is a snapshot), as per section 361 of the Electoral Act:
“Inquiries by Court. (1) The Court shall inquire whether or not the petition is duly signed, and so far as Rolls and voting are concerned may inquire into the identity of persons, and whether their votes were improperly admitted or rejected, assuming the Roll to be correct, but the Court shall not inquire into the correctness of any Roll.”
The only News Ltd journo I would trust is Mega George
FG: Maybe, but also Mike Steketee
If there is a by election in McEwen would Horatio Hornet really want it? Does he need a test of his leadership so soon?
I would not be surprised if dear old Fran gets left out to dry. If Fran wins by a small margin so what? If she gets thumped bye bye Horatio Hornet.
Is he willing?
That man is a disgrace to his trade, I would not dignify with the term profession
One of his nicknames is Pepsi, “like(s) Coke but not the real thing.”
208
Lord D Says:
That is not always true. it depends on who puts ion the work. The greens did no work on postals. The AEC published a running start following our requests on postals. It was clear and I had commented on this fact before that the Liberals were going to pick up on the postals. This is one if not the reason why the Liberals secured a third senate spot and the Greens missed out.
Ferny Grover Says:
“The previous Gov tended to leak stories to Shanahan and Milne and a few others. Who will the Rudd gov trusts with strategic leaks? Michelle G at Fairfax? Who else?”
Rudd seems to be adopting a “data rational” approach. Define the problem, define the metrics, use an evidence based policy to improve the metrics. Paul Kelly strikes me as a journo who likes to write from that angle.
apres (207),
Never hope – it leads to disappointment. Steve Bracks was a teacher. John Brumby was a teacher and a teachers’ union official. But Victorian teachers are still paid $31,000 less relative to average earnings than in 1975, there are still almost 2,000 teachers missing from our secondary schools, staffing is worse than it was under Dick Hamer, teaching loads are higher than throughout the 1980s, and one in five teachers is on a short-term contract. Past occupations and qualifications are no guide to what those in power will actually do.
Grace,
Usually slavishly agree with you but on this one I beg to differ.
You wrote,
Keeping your enrolment current and being struck off the rolls because you weren’t home when the man from the AEC called to check are two completely different things.
Working overseas ain’t a crime, either. Your enrolment should stay where it was (usually Mum and Dad’s place).
I can understand that there have to be limits. You can’t stay enrolled in an electorate you lived in twenty years before. when you were a kid. But I think it should be up to the voter to inform the AEC of a change of address, not for the AEC to be looking for excuses to cross people off (people – being itinerants, overseas appointees and renters – who usually vote Labor).
Talking of byelections, Are Costello, Andrews, Ruddock and Downer going to go in the new year? If so, would it be better from a Liberal point of view to have the by-elections all at once or spread out? All at once would be short and quick (and possibly painful but brief) but would spread resources thinnly. Where as if they are spread out, it would allow each seat to be a focus of the party and allow Nelson to try and build a profile. It also could be his undoing if the first one doesn’t go too well.
Again, MelbCity, do you have something against the Greens, because you seem critical of them in every post (even those on other sites, such as OC)?
in reply to pettigrew. (above)
A voter who has enrolled and always voted in their electorate has every right to assume that there enrollment is maintained. for the Electoral Authority to summarily remove their name and things deny them the right to vote is an issue that the courts will consider seriously. If the AEC had erred in the process of executing their duties and as a result of that error denied a voter the right to exercise and cast their voter then the Court will most likely rule in favour of the voter not the AEC. It is up to the liberal party to demonstrate that the AEC had erred in its administration and conduct of the election. The Liberal party (And any other candidate for that matter) is entitled to obtain a list of names of people who had submitted a postal vote, absentee, provisional or pre poll ballot that was rejected from the count. They will simple work through that list and in the process demonstrate that the decisions of the AEC returning officer was flawed. The Court may rule that these votes be added into the count. The Court may also consider that by doing so could run the risk of jeopardising the secrecy of the ballot 9Unless there is a significant number of such ballots) and as such they can not admit the votes but will call a fresh election.
I sat though most of the arguments that were fort out in the Nunawading court case. It was most fascinating.
Another aspect that the Liberal party should also consider is doing a comparison with the Upper-house Senate vote for the McEwen electorate.
One thing that has been bugging me after reading this site over the last couple of weeks is the number of times the donkey vote has come up. Sometimes it’s been claimed that the donkey vote is worth 1% or even more.
In my 20 years of scrutineering at local, state and federal elections I’ve seen very little evidence of the donkey vote. You could say that I’m a donkey vote skeptic since I’ve certainly seen campaigns where the first person on the ballot has walked away with just a couple of dozen votes.
I had a look at some of the results this time around, and it sure seems that some candidates who drew first on the ballot have done pretty badly. Poor old Kundan Misra in North Sydney, for example, polled just 245 votes, or 0.29%, despite being first on the ballot paper – surely all 245 can’t be donkeys.
In Macquarie, Kirk Fletcher didn’t do much better, with only 354 votes, or 0.41%, despite also being first on the ballot paper.
Even Danielle Ecuyer in Wentworth, also first on the ballot, nonetheless only won 771 votes, or 0.89%, despite a huge amount of media attention as the ex-girlfriend of George Newhouse.
Then I decided to be a bit more rigorous and do some actual numbers. I had a look at the chronically underperforming Citizen’s Electoral Council (CEC) to see if I could detect any donkey trends there. I looked at all electorates where a CEC candidate ran in both 2004 and 2007.
(If you don’t want to read the numbers feel free to skip to the second last paragraph.)
Of these, 11 CEC candidates were positioned #1 on the ballot paper in 2004 but at a lower position in 2007. 5 CEC candidates were positioned #1 on the ballot paper in 2007 but lower down in 2004. 3 CEC candidates were positioned #1 on the ballot paper in both 2004 and 2007.
Of those CEC candidates who had the #1 position in 2004 but not in 2007, every one dropped. (Avg -545, Min -230, Max -902 / Seats: Aston, Bass, Scullin, Fremantle, New England, Oxley, Page, Stirling, Moncrieff, Kooyong, Holt)
Of those CEC candidates who had the #1 position in 2007 but not in 2004 four of the five totals increased. (The exception was Hunter, where the CEC vote dropped -1292 from an extremely high 2590 in 2004 – I’m not sure what weirdness was going on there). (Excluding Hunter – Avg +364, Min +301, Max +409 / Seats: Fairfax, Jagajaga, Maribyrnong, Melbourne)
Of those CEC candidates who had the #1 position in both 2004 and 2007 the vote barely moved, with an average variation from 2004 of only -31 votes. (Min -226, Max +146 / Seats: Calare, Fadden, Hasluck)
So, despite my initial assumptions, there may indeed be a donkey vote out there after all, although clearly its appearance is inconsistent. If, however, we use the CEC figures as a base, the average donkey vote at the last two federal elections appears to have been around 0.3-0.5%, or in the order of 300-450 votes per electorate.
If we accept these assumptions, and remove the donkey factor from totals, this might have swung the outcome in Swan, Bowman, Dickson, Herbert (to ALP wins); Solomon and Robertson (to Lib wins); and Flynn (to Nat win).
Hmmm…
Quote: “the average donkey vote at the last two federal elections appears to have been around 0.3-0.5%, or in the order of 300-450 votes per electorate.”
Having had another look at my numbers, my natural skepticism seems to have kicked in again in the conclusion. Maybe up those percentages a little to 0.4%-0.6%, and votes to 450+
B. S. Fairman
I’d say go all at once, that way there is less of chance of an “wet” independant getting a profile, splitting the conservative vote and giving the ALP a shot.
Candidate selection on both sides will be interesting. For a laugh I’d like to see Kennett have a go in Menzies – not going to happen but it would fun.
Many of you would know that it is one of those strange quirks of history that average rainfall is higher under Labor governments than Conservative. Someone has suggested that God must vote Labor – but I wonder if the converse is true. Back in the old days when God was grumpy with a nation he would smite them with pestilence, locusts, famine and boils. The data may suggest that in these modern times when God is displeased with a nation he smites them with a Coalition government, and an accompanying drought! It appears the good people of Oz have once more found divine favour. Amen!
to remove the donkey vote effect , put as the first candidate “mickey mouse”
knowing us aussies & just to ’stick it’ to pollies we’d probably vote mickey
in in the 150 electorates…problem would be who would be speaker
Rob H – excellent work. A bit of extra work and you could turn your Sunday arvo exercise into a Masters.
Chris (218), my point was more about the effects of education than about the past occupations or employment of cabinet ministers. I’m not going to give up hope (yet) that universities will be valued by the Rudd Labor Govt if they train people to be critical and creative and, yes, dissident.
Ferny
“average rainfall is higher under Labor governments than Conservative”
I’m of the view that the aboriginal community have a spiritual connection to the land and that in times of the conservative governments this spiritual connection is lost as the the conservatives have no soul, being only interested in balance sheets. Labor of course look at the total picture,soul and balance sheets, and go some way to restoring spirituality to the community and the land.
My post mortem on polls, prophets, predictions, possums and prize prats is now available:
http://psephoblog.wordpress.com/
120
ViggoP
Look, if we have to blast the rodent out of his burrow, then, well, if it’s not too inhumane (sic), we’ll just have to resort to it.
As for erasing the image of said rodent on every blog and website, poster, letterhead and wherever, well that will just take time I’m afraid, and there’s only 24 hours in the day.
But rest assured, our work will not cease until the rodent is but a dim and awful memory in the collective conscious of our citizens.
OK, now, where’s the ratsak….
Interesting Rob H.
On the basis of your figures the ‘donkey vote” is the only reason that Bailey is even close enough to be talking about a recount in McEwen, and the reason that the Libs may retain Bowman.
(PS Ron, I reckon the “Mickey Mouse” approach would clearly favour whoever ended up second on the paper. Geeze, when I think about it, in quite a few electorates Mickey would probably be the logical choice for the thinking voter , in fact!
)
Cheers
Rod
Sorry I meant to say Western Metropolitan Not Western Victoria
The donkey voter is more of a player in OPV elections like NSW and QLD elections. If you are the major party candidate in those elections it can help a little bit. Basically if you are donkey voter you are not going to be the type who cares if your vote is valid.
It also used to be said that the more candidates the greater the donkey vote. I am not sure about that as it tends to the Informal vote that goes up.
PS. The CEC result in the Hunter in 2004 must be close to a record (3.2% and low on the ballot). Anyone know if that is the record?
The CEC has 1.6 in Hunter, with the donkey vote. You’re looking at the CCC, not the CEC.
If the ALP had lost Mcewen by 7 votes would they have challenge the result?
I think the answer would be no. There were string arguments that a challenge should be made on the Victorian Western Metropolitan result. the conduct of the election count clearly was flawed and there were dramatic inconsistencies in the data and results provided by the Nameless Commissioner. Votes went missing between count A and count B none of the tallies added up. the total number of votes counted varied with every breath there were more questions and answers, topped of by the nameless persons refusal to provide details of the count and subject them to independent analysis and review.
In the end the ALP realised that it was not worth the trouble as the best outcome would be a recount (It was unlikely that the court would subject the province to fresh elections) at the end of teh day to mount a successful challenge you have to demonstrate beyond doubt that the results of the election would change. Which is very very hard to do particlarly without access to the detailed results of both counts. The best you could hope for was a recount. In Western Metro there should have been a recount given the extent of errors made by the Commission in the count and the descrepancy in the reported number of total votes).
In the end if you are the overall winner of the election and you are seen to be challenging the result … is it worth it.. It is not as though the balance of power rested in the one seat as was the case in Nanuwading.
Details of the count should be made available. Our elections MUST be open and transparent.
The Libs in The ACT will not be a force for a long time to come
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/09/2113709.htm
and now Mulcahy has said the Stefaniak should stand down and that he (Mucahy) was stood down only because Stefaniak was afraid that he would be challenged by Mulcahy and didn’t have the numbers.
BTW, are we the only lot in Australia who doesn’t have to put up with a Country / National party?
Like in Russia, no doubt. Bring it on.
Adam: According to your site, wikipedia, the AEC and the ABC, the CEC got 3.2% of the vote in 2004 in Hunter. Any got any ideas? Climate Change denial maybe?
Ah you were talking about 2004, sorry. No idea. Maybe the candidate had a lot of friends. I doubt LaRouche is thought any less a whacko in Cessnock than anywhere else.
When will the FINAL result for the election be known? It’s been more than two weeks since the election – in New Zealand elections all the postals and other non-ordinary votes have to be counted within 13 days after the election date.
Anyway, notwithstanding the nail-biting result in McEwen, it looks like my prediction for the number of seats each party will win in the House was very close to what the actual result will be. Sometimes it pays to be slightly pessimistic!
My prediction was 83 seats for Labor (including my last minute pick of Bennelong), 65 for the Coalition and 2 independents. With Labor’s 7 vote majority in McEwen looking like it could be easily challenged by the Libs it could well be 83 seats for Labor in the end.
I wasn’t too far off with the TPP: I predicted 53% for Labor (which now has 52.86%) and 47% for the Coalition (47.14%). As for the primary support I was slightly optimistic for Labor at 45% (now 43.38%) but was more accurate with the Coalition at 42% (41.78%).
However when it came to the details of which seats Labor would win (or lose) I greatly underestimated how many seats would be won in Queensland and the fact that Labor would actually lose two seats in Western Australia.
Basically I correctly predicted all the seats in New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and Northern Territory that Labor would win off the Coalition.
In Queensland I was right about Labor gaining Blair, Bonner, Moreton and Petrie but wrong about Bowman and Herbert being Labor gains (although both those seats came very close). However (embarrassingly for me) Dawson, Flynn, Forde, Leichhardt and Longman were off my radar as being seats that Labor would actually win – some of them by double-digit swings.
In Western Australia I was correct that Labor would win Hasluck but hadn’t counted on the Liberals winning Cowan and Swan.
Finally in Victoria I was right about Corangamite and Deakin as being Labor gains, but was a bit optimistic about La Trobe (which again was one where Labor was ahead on election night but lost after postals). However Labor winning McEwen was a surprise for me (although that seat is now Labor’s most marginal at the moment).
I think the key to a successful challenge in a Court of Disputed returns lies in Article 355 (b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918…
Chris re your teacher stats, we have Labor ‘wall to wall’ for at least a week or two. Unless and until there is a massive lurch to the left, this is as good as it gets for education.
How are the Govts to be motivated to actually improve the profession and education, and how will they avoid or negate the inevitable allegations that they are behaving financially recklessly and are in the unions pockets?
My personal guess is the stupid behaviour of the Teachers Union in WA indicates either there is no way, and this is as good as it gets; or it is a very badly run very foolish union.
Don’t give up on Bowman yet, Kiwipundit.
If the Libs want to play hardball on McEwen then I’m sure Labor will in Bowman. If either seat ends up in the CDR and a re-election then in the current climate Labor will almost certainly win both.
Cheers
Rod
Don’t assume there will be a challenge in McEwen. As in Geelong at the Victorian election in 1999, there might be no point if it just brings on a by-election you could lose.
Antony, can I just say thanks for being THE DATAMAN for my entire life when it comes to elections. Since I was a teenager, Antony Green has always been”that guy” on election night.
No doubt this means nothing to you.
But its kinda funny for me to grow up and realise you an actual person
Anyway, thanks
Good point Rod. I notice that Antony Green still has Bowman and McEwen as too close to call.
Anyway who cares what Labor’s majority will be – the important thing is that Labor is now power, Howard’s political career is over, and that the New Zealand and Australian governments are now on the same wave-length when it comes to global warming and the war in Iraq.
and also
Section
364A Provision for Court to have regard to certain rejected
ballot-papers
In making its decision on a petition, the Court may:
(a) have regard to postal ballot-papers rejected at the preliminary
scrutiny because of paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 if the Court is
satisfied that the votes marked on the ballot-papers were
recorded prior to the close of the poll; and
(b) have regard to any declaration vote ballot-papers (including
postal ballot-papers) rejected at the preliminary scrutiny if
the Court is of the opinion that the ballot-papers should not
have been rejected.
Hey guys, GetUp has just started a petition campaign to get signatures for Al Gore to take to the Climate Convention in Bali asking for new targets to be bought forward to 2010.
Those of you that are already members will have an email inviting you to add to the partition – it looks like they have had about 5000 people in the last 4 minutes sign up.
Suggest anyone interested have a sqiz:
http://beta.getup.org.au/campaigns/campaign.php?alias=ClimateActionNow&id=8
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 » Show All