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 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 » Show All
Every time I see a cane toad on my front lawn it reminds me of Piers Ackerman and gives me the cold shivers, but there is a certain satisfaction in quickly killing the pests. Cane toads are ugly, creepy and have a surprisingly similar appearance to Ackerman, they can also actually run quite fast for a toad – wonder if Pier’s chubby toad legs can run very fast.
Really, news ltd papers are just cutting their own throats if they go on a spoilt brat vendetta against Rudd – Or if it is murdoch that wants them to ruin Rudd’s name so he will lose at the next election?
The tide has turned against the Liberal party and its ideology – now that the ‘fear of change’ leash has been broken and the loyalty to Howard factOR is gone – many will continue to switch to Labor. News ltd will be just costing themselves readership if they make a policy of sniping at Rudd and leave themseves vulnerable to a new movement ‘Labor voters don’t buy Murdoch papers’. Would be interesting to see Ruperts reaction to losing a hundred or so thousand readers after a year or two.
Ron Brown… I think studies have suggest 80% of Greens voters do not follow HTV cards. Therefore, I’d argue the Greens have little control over how their voters direct their preferences. In fact, I’d imagine if the Greens directed their members to vote Liberal it’d cause them a lot of grief. If they issued a split HTV card Labor would still get the lion’s share of the 2nd preference votes.
Toads of course don’t actually run but hop – cane toads hop quite quickly.
Gary,
The ALP is quite pleased that the DLP came back from the dead because the ALP and the DLP combined can defeat the Opposition in the Victorian Legislative Council. I’m not saying that the ALP would not prefer the DLP seat to be an ALP seat, but the ALP certainly prefers the DLP MLC to an extra Greens MLC.
When Labor tried to get clever and cute with their preferences most recently what has been the result? A return from the dead for the Groupers and Michael Fielding getting elected in the Senate. Sorry I’d rather have the Greens thank you very much.
If state Labor prefer the DLPi n the the Council than that says a great deal about the current stae of the party in Victoria. Personally, I do not want a right wing party in the chamber when a perfectly good left wing alternative is in the offing.
Just played on 891.
‘It ain’t easy being green”
Environmental discussion ensues.
Gary,
The DLP is not now and has never been a right-wing party, but a centre-left party. In any case, that’s not the point. The point is that it is in the interest of a centre-left party like the ALP to have a choice of other parties to get its legislation through. It does not want to be dependent on the Greens, or any single other party for that matter.
By the way, I posted this previously, earlier thread.
I understand that Mayo had the highest Green vote of all SA Electorates.
Melb City
Regarding your preference for Multi-member electorates, given that Victoria has 37 H o R seats, this would give 6 multi-member divisions with 6 members (quota ~ 18%) and one with 7 members (quota ~15%). In effect a ‘mini senate election’ equivalent in each division. If the 7 member division was based on the inner metro area it would probably give the Greens 1 lower house seat, based on the lower quota.
Wannon, Mallee, Corangamite, Ballarat, Bendigo, Corio & part of Murray would be about right in terms of numbers for a Western Victoria Division.
Gippsland, Indi, part Murray, McEwen, McMillan, LaTrobe, Flinders as an Eastern Victorian Division.
Western Division
Lalor, Calwell, Gorton, Maribyrnong, Gellibrand, Wills.
Central Division
Scullin, Jagajaga, Batman, Melbourne, Melb. Ports, Kooyong, Higgins.
Southern Division
Goldstein, Hotham, Isaacs, Dunkley, Holt, Bruce.
Eastern Division
Bruce, Chisholm, Aston, Deakin, Menzies, Casey.
I think the major difference would probably be 1 or 2 greens, at the expense of probably one Nat/Lib and 1 ALP.
The real difference would be that, in each Division, there would be both ‘left’ and ‘right’ MPs, so all constituents would have someone to advocate for them from their ’side of the fence’. Also, all seats would be ‘gov’t seats, so the ‘pork’ would be spread much more evenly.
Oh really Chris, that’s why your preferences kept the Tories in power for 20 years. Dont try to re-write history mate. There has never been anything left wing about the DLP. Yeah Vince Gair, what a lefty. Ha, ha, ha!!!!!!!!!
LEP & Chris
Politics is about numbers , first 2nd 3rd etc
Labor numbers men are guaranteed 75% preferences under the Greens HTV
They are going to risk a proven guarantee for your & others opinion of what might happen
LTEP @ 341 – I don’t think it matters whether the Greens’ preferences are more or less rusted on to Labor. The ALP has more to lose by flirting with the right-wing fringe of the Christian lobby.
Labor in Vic did its credibility a lot of damage with the sneaky deal to preference Fantasy First in 2004. They knew it was dodgy too, because they didn’t even have the intestinal fortitude to tell the electors. I checked the HTV being given out at my polling booth, and there was absolutely no mention of where the prefs were being directed.
Many Labor voters I know were ropeable when they found out that they’d inadvertently put Fielding in by voting above the line in the Senate. Some of us were warned, because there was a storm of tip-offs by email. But when I voted below the line (through gritted teeth) I put Labor much lower than I normally would, and I’m sure lots of others would have done the same.
On the forests issue in 2004, I don’t think you can blame the Greens entirely for that debacle. I’d be more inclined to look to skilful media management by Gunns and its mates in the Tasmanian government, and a complete absence of any serious scrutiny of Howard’s policy by the MSM.
Oh, nearly forgot Bob Santamaria what a noted left winger. Archbishop Mannix too!!
Donkey votes – Rob H @223 is about right. In this election LDP and CEC would have had very few actual supporters so comparing their vote when on top of ballot is a near estimate of donkey vote. In SA all LDP candidates except 1 were from NSW and they had no profile at all. Take some examples where LDP and CEC were in middle of list. So LDP votes in SA of 171 in Hindmarsh, 154 in Boothby, and in Vic of 170 in Corangamite and CEC vote of 142 in Chisholm are typical of the rock bottom vote. Many of these votes will be fairly random – give a mug a go type votes. Then compare with Corio and Deakin where LDP were top – 794 and 583. Most of these votes will be typical donkey votes – this will be revealed when they are distributed – they will end up with the major party first below them rather than follow party wish to direct to Coalition. Anyone who has scutineered votes will know this is somewhere near the mark. So the net benefit of being above main opponent in ballot list might be say 200 to 600 on figures looked at. (It used to be a lot worse before party names were on ballot papers – 2-3% was common).
The donkey vote tends to be lower in seats with low informals but not precisely because donkey vote is a form of protest vote similar to a blank vote rather than lack of understanding of voting system which causes a lot of informals in seats with high numbers of overseas born voters for example.
There are various small numbers of votes which also are just random or bottom up donkey votes but relatively these are much less significant.
When looking at the effect on final count outcome the effect of donkey votes is doubled ie McEwen say net donkey vote for Bailey is 400 votes. If ALP had benefit of donkey vote instead of Bailey, ALP would win by 807. So the first risk for Libs in a McEwen by-election is change in draw.
And all of the other 7 close seats apart from McEwen were mostly decided by donkey vote as all 7 winners in these seats had the better draw. Unusual for this to be the case but worth looking at better randomisation.
When Alec Downer retired from Angas in 1964, he was succeeded by Geoffrey Giles, an upper-class twit of conspicuous uselessness. When Angas was abolished in 1977 most of it went into Wakefield, and Giles then knocked off Bert Kelly to win Wakefield. In 1983 he was himself knocked off by Neil Andrew, who went on to become Speaker under Howard. Mayo was created in 1984 as an Adelaide Hills seat, though it has at times extended eastwards into the Riverland. Now it extends south to Kangaroo Island.
Yes Mayo had the highest Green vote in SA, 10.8%, with the help of the donkey vote.
Chris Curtis Says:
December 9th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
The DLP is not now and has never been a right-wing party, but a centre-left party
RON says:
FACT: from 1955 (when the DLP split from Labor) to 1972 when it lost all Senators
the DLP NEVER preferenced Labor in any seat in the 1958 , 1961 , 1963 , 1966
1969 or 1972 Federal Elections
the DLP ALWAYS preferenced the LCP in every seat in all 6 Federal elections
Chris , do you agree this is correct ???
Jenny, 363.
Light years from the Fielding seat, in voting terms.
Anger extreme in Labor friend circles, SA, at the stupidity, ALP.
Hoped that Kev no Dope would ensure no repeat of such patent idiocy.
Of course Labor will accept any arrangement that secures Greens HTV that demonstrate placing Labor above Liberal (although all Greens HTV still suggest the voter make up their own minds).
That doesn’t mean they need to do anything in particular to secure the votes. It doesn’t give the party any real power. They can choose to print their HTV cards in whatever way they like and it will make little difference. The fact is the Greens are equally dependant on Labor for Senate votes so its in their best interests to attempt a deal with Labor. This deal will most likely involve House of Reps HTV cards.
Are you suggesting that the vast majority of Greens voters would preference Liberal over Labor just because the HTV card told them to? I find that very hard to believe. Furthermore, if the Greens want to push their agenda, the best bet is to do it with a Labor Government.
Do you really think the Greens members would be very happy if the party assisted the Liberal Party to win government? I think it’d be the death of them if that happened.
Kina,
For the last thirty years or so, the only newspaper I’ve been reading in any depth is the Canberra Times. There aren’t too many wingnuts amongst their current political commentators (David Barnett is an exception). It’s only through Crikey and these blogs (following the URLs) that I’ve come to find out just how weird the political commentariat is in the MSM. Objectively speaking, they’re a fascinating lot with their prejudices and general lack of decency. I guess they’re all doing their masters’ bidding but, I wonder, how much effect do they have on people? Yes, I know, half the population has below average intelligence (this is something that must be fixed).
Too cold for the denizens of the sugar fields down here, so far.
Before you all try and predict when Nelson will be challenged how about waiting till we see his performance in Question Time and during next year. Perhaps then you will be able to make a more measured judgment about his prospects rather than this partisan bull butter you rabbit on about.
As far as i know about McEwen there were alot of votes for Fran Bailey deemed invalid for some reason or another and that’s why the Liberals want a recount of those disputed ballots in an attempt to whittle down the margin so that perhaps another vote can be held.
Ron Brown
I ask you again……do you think any different on the subject of consensus in this time and age???
It would be polite to give a response you know.
Oh gawd….edicate???
Thank you, Adam.
Donkeys will do, though.
There are quite enough asses in Mayo.
The DLP preferenced Labor in Forrest, WA, in 1969, to punish Gordon Freeth for not opposing the Soviet Union loudly enough. He was defeated by Labor’s Frank Kirwan, a Methodist minister, on DLP preferences.
Crikey @ 368 – Labor didn’t preference FF this time, so at least I cd safely vote above the line.
Re the DLP, my favourite moment is when Vince Gair accepted the post of ambassador to Ireland from Gough in 1973 or 1974. When his DLP colleagues queried his decision, he said ‘You can all go and get stuffed. I’ve been supporting you bastards for years.’
A lot of kids vote Green because they distrust the two main parties and because “well they’re for the environment and that arent they.” Without guidance from a HTVC these voters could well give a second preference to the Liberals. We should not take for granted that all Greens voters will naturally prefence Labor second.
“Before you all try and predict when Nelson will be challenged how about waiting till we see his performance in Question Time and during next year. Perhaps then you will be able to make a more measured judgment about his prospects.”
For once I agree with Glen. Labor people are obviously in triumphalist mode this week, but Nelson is no fool (despite sometimes sounding like one), and he may prove a successful opposition leader. That said, history is against him and his chances in 2010 seem slender, but who knows what might happen next year?
gary, look at past elections where HTV cards did not direct a preference either way. What was the share of the vote in those elections? For instance, as far as I’m aware in ‘04 the Greens did not issue HTV’s directing voters to preference Labor in every seat. Still, Labor secured 80.79% of Greens preferences.
Also, I ask again… do you think the membership of the Greens would be happy if their party helped to elect a Coalition government? Certainly they could get away with issuing split HTV’s, but not HTV’s directing preferences to the Liberal Party.
With split HTV’s I’d say Labor would easily get 75% of the Greens preferences.
Yes but in this election, the Greens preferenced Labor in key marginals, marginals that Labor won.
Of course history and a ’split’ Party are against Nelson but who knows what will happen nobody knew how well Rudd would go as Opposition leader and he defied history and is now our PM. At least with this small margin, 2010 will be an interesting election considering how many marginals both sides have.
I think we’re still unsure about Rudd’s capacity to answer questions in QT just as we are unsure about what the performance of Nelson in Parliament will be like, we just don’t know.
The thing about Nelson is this bloke is chuffed to bits being our leader, he knows others want it, this IMHO makes him someone with the drive an energy to perhaps be a successful opposition leader. Nelson let’s face it has alot of inbuilt accountability on his performance so he’ll do everything he can to do a decent job.
Anybody know who the Speaker in the HoR will be?
Glen I’m here to tell you he will be Billy Sneddon Mrk II. I just hope Labor go easy on him!
Gary you don’t seem to be understanding… the key question is whether Labor would’ve won those marginals if the Greens hadn’t directed their members to preference Labor on their HTV cards. Maybe not the particularly close marginals but certainly enough to form government in my opinion.
Glen, QT is completely irrelevant. How can Nelson do a good job of asking questions which the Government won’t answer? The speaker will be Mr Jenkins Jr.
Sneddon didn’t do a bad job gary IMHO.
But Adam. We can but try.
Triumphal agreed, but I for one would not be so bold as to to allow myself much more than a moment.
History is definitely against Nelson, more importantly, his own are against him. As much as they are against each other.
In such a deadly atmosphere, I find it impossible to imagine Nelson surviving, as I say, for anything much more than 12 months.
Hi Glen!
Nice to see you. Soldier on.
Regards
CW
Lose the Election Please. We should try to do deals with the Greens where it is in Labor’s advantage to do so. Until something better comes along, Im happy with the current relationship. I dont agree with you that there is sufficient discipline in greens voters to suggest that Labor can take their preferences for granted.
No you’re quite right Glen. He didnt lose the 74 election, “he just didnt win enough seats to form a government.”
Scaper i delayed answering you because your question is difficult
1/ UNLIKE LEP & others the smart Labor numbers men know an uncontrolled preference deal with the Greens or anyone else gives unpredictable results
The greens are the 3rd biggest party & political nous dictates a HTV card guaranteeing Labor 75% of the Greens vote (3rd biggest partys vote)
Its smart politics for Labor in the Reps and smart politics for the Greens in the Senate – win/win
2/ Policy wise the partys like each other in OVERALL terms
whereas policy wise the Democrats were less reliable and
the FF are the liberals new DLP but better hidden (but Labor is awake to them
3/ In detail of policy there will be disagreements:
Fiscal: greens more expansionary , Labor more prudent & correctly so re rates
Dams: opposing views (driven by Labor wishing to win Bass & Braddon)
Climate: I see great problems between the Greens supporting the unquestioned Science that emissions must be cut by maybe 70% by 2050 & mandatory
emission targets for all Countries now
VS Labor being a “government” having to find middle ground with India & China
who did not cause the CO2 & want some initial discount to allow them growth VS the USA a big cause of current CO2 but does not wish to cede economic advantages to its 2 biggest economic threats
Gary any deals you make with the Greens will be exploited by Nelson, you do realise this.
Any deals you make with the Greens will have their finger prints on it and probably make your legislation worse, thus more opportunity to attack Labor.
The ALP is lucky it has the Greens though as we were lucky having the DLP, just remember it doesn’t mean it will last forever.
LTEP @ 382 – re Question Time, it depends on whether Rudd gets through some of the changes that have been canvassed, including a ban on Dorothy Dixers. Of course, ministers can still stonewall, and good intentions in opposition often disappear down the back of the couch in government, but if there are changes in the procedures it might be rather a more lively parliament than the last one, which was marred by constant droning on and on and on by ministers giving content-free answers to DDs.
Glen you werent serious about Sneddon were you?
If you believe Labor will do away with Dorothy Dixers you’ll believe anything. You think Labor members are going to ask probing and possibly embarassing questions of their own Ministers?
The best I can see happening is imposing a time limit on questions and answers, although this hasn’t really worked wonders in the Senate.
1. The Liberals want a recount for one reason only you goose, because they lost and the result was close, and they have nothing to lose. You are trying to make a virtue out of necessity and you know it.You are so full of bull butter yourself you could inseminate a herd.
2. Totally off topic, but does anybody else get totally p’d off by the way the press, and increasingly the population in general, describe every legislative change, no matter how regressive or repressive, as a “reform”. There is a big difference between a reform and an ideologically driven agenda like Workchoices.
3. The brotherhood in adversity that this site demonstrated prior to the election is rapidly disintigrating as sectional interests start to manifest themselves after the dispatching of the common enemy. Let’s not forget why we were united in the first place. The king of the rodents is gone but the rats still infest the nest.
Well Gary “while we didn’t win, we didn’t lose either” in 1974.
The Coalition did win 3 seats and had a swing to them of almost 3%, not too shabby id say and after all Labor only won 5 more seats than the Tories.
In 1987, Snedden suffered a fatal heart attack, while having sex with his son’s ex-girlfriend. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,4057,20462374-2,00.html)
What a way to go for Sned, just the thing to forget about a Liberal election loss lol!
LEP & Chris
You misunderstand the LONG TERM effect on political numbers of an uncontrolled
Greens HTV which IN THE LONG TERM would hurt Labor in the Reps and inevitably hurt the Greens in the Senate
Either that , or you have some gripe with the Greens
I think it is agreed that the greens are becoming the party of the left, this is different to being the environment party ( all parties will start banging on about the environment). Are left leaning voters going to vote Liberal?
Even if the Liberals breakout of the small right wing box that Labor has pushed them into, would a left wing voter vote liberal?
The balance of power in the senate is the only lever the Greens have over Labor.
Not a great fan of the Green myself, but they are certainly better than what Labor once had, the Chippocrats.
Thanks for filling in the blanks. I knew it was a Ross. he was a good candidate BUT let me publicly apologies now, As I am sure a few Green supporters of today will in years to come, for hanging out the Democrats sign. Had I known that I know now I would not have argued with my family over the right to display both the ALP and Democrats sign. We lived on the main road and the sign was very prominent. Io do not see the Greens as being a Left party. They could have been much better off being a lobby group for change and conservation. Like the Nuclear Disarmament party you really need to look closer at hwhois behind the party and look closer at the Family connection. I agree the City of Melbourne is a borough of corruption and NIMBYism. Melbourne needs to be expanded. Its boundaries should include the City of Yarra, Prahran and Port Phillip. (Reflecting the old Melbourne province boundaries and the state Seats of Melbourne Richmond , Prahran and Albert Park. Melbourne needs higher density developments of good design and more open space.
Richard Wynne should initiate a serious review of the cities boundaries and we should scrap the idea of a directly elected Lord Mayor. Had Clem Newton Brown ran on a reform platform he would have done better then he did. As it was he stood for nothing except Clem. Sorry Clem). Melbourne City is a joke. The State Government has initiated a piece meal review of the Cities boundaries and in the process has opened a pandora’s box. Its time to make some serious decisions Richard. Other left ministers have been non eventful. meanwhile the greens only contribution is to hold meetings behind closed doors and to seek Council funding of their “executive overseas travel” to South Africa. How many Trees dies for that excursion. Why did you not use the Internet for your envirofest executive meeting. the Greens are not green they only use it like a Koala suite to extract money from gullible voters. How much public funding has the Greens entitled to for this election?
Charles see my post 376.
Ron I’m not going to bother arguing any further when it seems you’re not listening to my main thread of argument. We’ll agree to disagree. I have no gripes with the Greens and preferenced them above Labor in the Senate (below the line).
That doesn’t mean I need to agree Labor needs to deal with the Greens on a policy level in order to get elected. They just need to be seen as more preferable than the Liberal Party to the vast majority of Greens voters. Not hard. How many elections have Labor not secured a good majority of Greens preferences? How many elections have the Greens not directed preferences to either party?
How much did the Greens vote increase during this election? (by 0.58% compared to a 5.74% increase in the ALP primary vote) How much did the proportion of Greens preferences flowing to Labor increase during this election?
In that way, what really was the difference in this election to ‘04? Was it the increase in the Labor primary vote or the increase in the proportion of Greens preferences flowing to Labor? I’d say it’s probably more the former, although in some tight seats the latter would come into play.
Pages: « 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 » Show All