tip off

Senate of the day: South Australia

Nick Xenophon’s seeks re-election with the end of his first six-year term, while Sarah Hanson-Young faces an uphill battle to retain her seat for the Greens.

South Australia’s one extraordinary result in the era of six-seat half-Senate elections came with the election of Nick Xenophon in 2007, and it is this result that is to be revisited at the coming election. Xenophon won almost exactly a quota at the 2007 election with 14.8% of the vote (a quota being 14.3%), comparison of voting patterns for the lower and upper house suggesting he had poached 6% to 7% each from Labor and the Liberals, while the Greens’ Senate vote was stable at 6.5% despite a 1.5% increase for the party in the state’s lower house seats. Labor (0.4933 of a quota), Liberal (0.4698) and Greens (0.4542) candidates emerged with a very similar share of the vote after the top two Labor and Liberal candidates, but Labor thereafter remained becalmed while the Greens absorbed left-wing preferences and the Liberals absorbed right-wing ones. With Labor excluded, their preferences propelled Hanson-Young to a narrow win over Liberal incumbent Grant Chapman.

In Xenophon’s absence in 2010, the vote share for both major parties was up in the upper house (by 2.8% for Labor and 2.1% for Liberal) and down in the lower (2.4% for Labor and 1.6% for Liberal), while the Greens vote more than doubled to 13.3%. Preference from smaller left-wing parties pushed Greens candidate Penny Wright over a quota, winning her a seat at the expense of Labor’s third candidate, incumbent Dana Wortley. The final seat went to the third Liberal candidate, David Fawcett, after he cleared two hurdles: first emerging with 9.1% after the 7.9% right-wing micro-party vote consolidated behind Family First (another minor party founded in South Australia), and secondly emerging ahead of Dana Wortley at the final count by 16.1% to 12.4%.

South Australia had earlier been a stronghold of the Australian Democrats, which had its origins in the state. The Democrats’ strength through what were generally lean years for Labor in the state resulted in consistent results of three Liberal, two Labor and one Democrats from 1990 to 2001. That era ended with the national collapse in support for the Democrats at the 2004 election, their vote in South Australia falling from 12.6% to 2.3% and the six seats dividing between Liberal and Labor. A crucial factor in the Greens’ failure to win the seat that went to Labor number three Dana Wortley was the Democrats’ direction of preferences to Family First, which had they gone to the Greens would have propelled their candidate ahead of Wortley at a key point in the count.

Nick Xenophon is generally reckoned to be an excellent chance for re-election. However, the exact extent of his vote is hard to judge, Senate polling being scarce and generally unreliable. Any surplus he receives will divide between two preference tickets he has submitted, the guiding principle of which is that one favours the left and the other favours the right. However, both favour major over minor parties, which will assist the Liberals in their endeavour to stay in front of the right-wing micro-party preference bloc and give the Greens a higher hurdle to clear to stay ahead of the third Labor candidate. The Greens will be far from assured of putting a quota together even if they do emerge ahead of Labor, a strong alternative possibility being that the final seat will go to the third Liberal candidate. Should the final count be between the Greens and a Liberal, the Greens will at least pick up the half share of Xenophon preferences that went to Labor.

After a controversial preselection process, the Labor ticket reverses the order of the top two positions in 2007 by having Penny Wong in first place and Don Farrell in second. Wong entered parliament from the top position on the Senate ticket at the 2001 election, which was then reserved for the Left under a terms of a Left-Right alliance commonly identified as “the Machine”. The victims of this arrangement were the now defunct Centre Left faction, whose candidate Chris Schacht suffered demotion to the losing number three position after a 15-year career in the Senate. Number two on the ticket was the favoured candidate of the Right, Linda Kirk. Changing factional arrangements caused the Right and Left to swap their places at the 2007 election, resulting in Wong being demoted on the Senate ticket despite her promotion to shadow cabinet in March 2005. The determination of Don Farrell, the powerful state secretary of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association secretary Don Farrell, to take the Right’s Senate seat meant he went straight to the top position. Kirk was required to make way for Farrell, bowing out of politics after refusing the consolation prize of lower house preselection in Boothby. She was variously said to have fallen from factional favour due to her backing of Kevin Rudd’s successful leadership bid in December 2006, her defiance of the SDA faction’s opposition to the RU486 abortion pill, and the dismissal of Farrell’s wife from her office.

By the time of last year’s Senate preselection, Penny Wong had risen to the senior cabinet portfolio of finance and established herself as one of the government’s most popular figures, while Farrell had managed only a parliamentary secretary position. The party’s state conference nonetheless resolved by 112 votes to 83 to maintain the existing factionally determined arrangement where Farrell had top position by virtue of being from the Right. This was widely criticised within the party and without, with NSW Left powerbroker Anthony Albanese declaring it a “joke” and an “act of self-indulgence”. The backlash caused Farrell to back down, agreeing to a swap of positions with a magnanimous Wong. The third place on the ticket has gone to Simon Pisoni, a Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union official and the brother of a senior state Liberal politician, Unley MP David Pisoni.

Preserving the order from 2007, the top two positions on the Liberal ticket are occupied by a noted Christian conservative in Cory Bernardi and a moderate in Simon Birmingham. Bernardi was an investment fund manager and state party president before he filled the Senate vacancy created by Robert Hill’s appointment as ambassador to the United Nations in March 2006. Bernardi’s selection marked a victory of the party’s conservative’s wing over factional moderates, of whom Hill had been a figurehead. The favoured candidate of the moderates was Simon Birmingham, a former staffer to Robert Hill and narrowly unsuccessful candidate for Hindmarsh at the 2004 election (for which Bernardi had again been a preselection rival). Birmingham had to settle for the number two position on the ticket, but entered the Senate earlier than planned when he filled the vacancy caused by Jeannie Ferris’s death in April 2007. Incumbent Grant Chapman was unable to improve upon his third position on the ticket from 2001, which proved to be a losing proposition in 2007.

Cory Bernardi has thus far had two interrupted stints as a shadow parliamentary secretary. The first began after the 2007 election and ended in December 2009 when he related that a Liberal MP had told him he only chose the Liberal Party over Labor “to get into parliament”, and did too little to conceal that he was referring to factional moderate Christopher Pyne. Bernardi returned to the role when Tony Abbott became leader in December 2009, but again resigned in September 2012 after telling parliament that legalised bestiality marked “the next step” after gay marriage. This was deemed “ill-disciplined” by Tony Abbott and “extreme” and “hysterical” by Malcolm Turnbull, but Bernardi has recently defended the comments. Simon Birmingham has had a more stable time of things, serving as a shadow parliamentary secretary since December 2009.

The third candidate on the Liberal ticket is Cathie Webb, a metallurgist and the state party’s vice-president.

Nick Xenophon first entered politics after winning a seat in the state’s upper house on a “No Pokies” ticket at the 1997 election, polling 2.9% and harnessing an 8.3% quota after preferences. Once established in parliament, Xenophon’s deft hand at media stunts facilitated an enormous boost in his public profile, securing him a stunning 20.5% of the statewide vote when he sought re-election in 2006. This was sufficient to elect his running mate Ann Bressington as well as himself, and came very close to electing the number three candidate on his ticket as well. An emboldened Xenophon announced his run for the Senate shortly before the November 2007 election was called, although he was hampered during the campaign by a public falling out with Bressington. Xenophon’s 14.8% Senate vote was some distance short of his state election triumph, but easily enough to win him a Senate berth from which his profile has been enhanced still further.

Sarah Hanson-Young’s win at the 2007 election made her the state’s first Greens Senator and, at 25, the youngest woman ever elected to the federal parliament. Hanson-Young was previously the student association president at the University of Adelaide and had more recently worked for Amnesty International. She twice contested the party’s deputy leadership unsuccessfully during her debut term, the first time after the 2010 election and the second after Bob Brown’s departure in April 2012.

51
  • 1
    truth seeker
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    This should make us all scared to vote above the line. If major party (and Xenophon vote) is based on 2007, and then 2013 Lower house swings are applied, micro party “No carbon tax” has a 64% chance of election as long as its primary vote is 0.15%. This is sadly no typo. Seriously, what DOES this party stand for on other issues?

    Otherwise, it will be 2 ALP, 2 Coalition.

  • 2
    truth seeker
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    …and Mr X will get reelected too

  • 3
    Diogenes
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    Is this the “No carbon tax” party that preferenced Labor above the Libs?

    If a party with 0.15% of the vote gets in, something has to be done about the Senate. It would make a mockery of our democracy.

  • 4
    truth seeker
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Diogenes, I think NCT has preferenced Labor in some states, although in SA they at least have ALP last. But this means they’ve put Greens ahead of Labor.

    I have taken one specific run of my Monte Carlo analysis that elects NCT on just 0.04% of the vote. Yes, that’s right, NCT can be elected to the Senate if it gets just 400 out of 1,000,000 South Australian votes.

    In order to demonstrate transparency, I have published the numbers that generate this outcome on my (new) blog.

    http://originaltruthseeker.blogspot.com/

  • 5
    Edi_Mahin
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    The No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics get a great run of preferences from the other micro parties. The key for them is to draw enough of the micro parties votes together to get ahead of Family First. That includes the Shooters and Fishers who got 1% last time, the Sex Party who got about 1.6% last time. If they can do that then they will get the Family First preferences. If that combined takes them ahead of the 3rd Liberal Candidate then the Liberal preferences might get them elected. However I think it is a long shot, very, very long shot.

    It is hard to judge how much vote Xenophon is going to get. He had a huge negative in the last week of the campaign last time which surely cost him votes. Without that this time he might actually get more votes this time.
    The article also mentions his profile has gone up since being elected to the senate. This would be true in general around Australia but he was a huge media darling here in SA and had a massive profile in SA anyway. I doubt it was possible for his profile to increase SA.

  • 6
    truth seeker
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Edi: When I run 1000 scenarios, NCT gets elected in 64% of them! I think it’s much more likely than you think.

    Agree Xenophon will probably poll about the same as he did in 2007 – maybe a bit less.

  • 7
    Edi_Mahin
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    I have been playing around quite a bit with Antony Green’s senate calculator and yes they either get elected or get into the final two for the last seat with an extremely narrow loss a lot of the time. I even got them elected without really trying with 0.12 of the vote.
    However the calculator does not take into account votes below the line which could change things, micro-parties will not get as good a preference flow as predicted because people will vote below the line and direct preferences away from them. For example some Liberal voters below the line might put the Greens ahead of No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics which could make all the difference as lot of the times I have got NCTCS elected they have been on Liberal preferences by a very small margin. It is unlikely many Labor voters will favor NCTCS ahead of the Greens and there is probably going to be less Labour votes to be distributed when their third candidate is excluded than when/if the third Liberal candidate is excluded.

  • 8
    truth seeker
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    True. But don’t expect more than 3% below the line vote. Most of this will already have been “used” via Xenophon, Labor or Liberal, so will only have limited value after the transfer value is applied. It may make a difference, but I doubt it.

    Scary proposition…

  • 9
    Edi_Mahin
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Another option from continuing to play around from with the senate calculator is that NCTCS just fail to get ahead of Family First and NCTCS exlusion then boosts Family First’s Bob Day to being elected in the last place alongside two Liberal, two Labor and Xenophon. However it is still more likely that the third Liberal will get elected on FF preferences as FF will not quite get past the third Liberal.

  • 10
    Somerandomguy
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    One interesting aspect is that if the last 3 standing are Liberal, Green, and NCTCS, the Sceptics win as long as they get above one of the other two. Yes, this means we could potentially get a climate sceptic elected on the back of Green preferences!

    Truth seeker – does the win % for sceptics go up if you set their base vote at 0.5% rather than 0.15%? They got 0.46% in 2010.

  • 11
    truth seeker
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    SRG:
    Yes it will. The reason for it being less than 80-90% is that it gets overtaken early in some scenarios. A boost to 0.5% would increase their chances as they get to a more favourable position later in the count. Although they can fluke a victory off 0.04% or 400 votes as demonstrated on my blog.

    But remember there’s heaps more candidates this time so the protest vote will be much more dilute. And xenophon too will be the beneficiary of part of that protest vote.

  • 12
    Socrates
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    This is exactly why I referred to Senate Preference Bingo the other day. The odds are high that someone will go to the Senate with less than half a quota, less than the likely informal vote, and possibly less than the 1% or 2% that elected Madigan and Fielding. The only winners are the kooks on a handful of votes. This is a lottery, not democracy.

    The above the line system is nothing sacred in our democracy. It was invented to reduce the informal vote when the Senate ballot got too long. But it really is a lottery. Even the major parties recognise at this point that they must make preference decisions that might inadvertently send an opponent to tthe Senate. It is time for action.

    Ideally, the AEC or someone impartial must recommend a reform. Either allowing preferencing above the line, or eliminating and redistributing the votes of anyone who gets less than half a quota is needed. Many nations with two round presidential contests or proportional systems require candidates or parties to get a minimum % of votes.

    Whatever the best solution, there needs to be bipartisan support to a change before the next election, or we will start hearing comparisons to US gridlock.

  • 13
    Tom the first and best
    Posted Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    I think that Xenophon leaving the Legislative Council, 18 months into an 8 year term, cost him some votes. There may also have been a “he has enough votes to win and I don`t want my vote going to his running mate” effect.

  • 14
    democracy@work
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    I agree the X-Factor calls the tune in South Australia

    Independent Senator Nick Xenophon sets the tone and rhythm of this election. Some polls put him as high as 20%. (Quota is 14.34%) What is certain is Nick Xenophon has a quota in his own right, Whats not known is the extent of his surplus.

    The ABC calculator uses the 2010 data as their default, This is misleading as Xenophon did not run in 2010 so you need to look at the 2007 historical statistics to determine your base.

    Both Labor and the LNP will secure two seats each. Xenophone is also expected to secure a quota in his own right.

    All analysis sees the Greens in a winning position for the final position. The Greens have cut a preference deal with Clive Palmer and are also expected to pass the value of Labor’s surplus which will see them elected.

    if the Greens fall below 10% in primary vote then yes there is a remote chance that they will become the wasted quota. If the ALP surplus is equal to the Greens primary vote then the ALP may have the edge.

    What is clear with a large number of minor parties running the major players LNP, Labor , Xenophon and The Greens will secure the lions share of the voters support.

    SA Group Ticket Preference Flow
    ID ,Group Name ,Group Preference
    A ,Socialist Equality Party , GRN , TCS , ALP , LP , FFP , XEN
    A ,Socialist Equality Party , ALP , LP , FFP , XEN , GRN , TCS
    A ,Socialist Equality Party , LP , FFP , XEN , GRN , TCS , ALP
    B ,Family First , FFP , TCS , LP , ALP , XEN , GRN
    C ,Australian Democrats , GRN , LP , ALP , XEN , TCS , FFP
    D ,Secular Party of Australia , XEN , GRN , ALP , LP , TCS , FFP
    E ,Liberal Democrats , FFP , TCS , LP , XEN , ALP , GRN
    F ,Palmer United Party , GRN , FFP , LP , TCS , XEN , ALP
    G ,Nick Xenophon Group , XEN , LP , FFP , ALP , GRN , TCS
    G ,Nick Xenophon Group , XEN , ALP , GRN , FFP , LP , TCS
    H ,National Party , XEN , FFP , LP , TCS , ALP , GRN
    I ,, GRN , ALP , LP , FFP , XEN , TCS
    J ,DLP Democratic Labour , TCS , FFP , XEN , LP , ALP , GRN
    K ,Rise Up Australia Party , TCS , FFP , LP , XEN , ALP , GRN
    L ,, TCS , GRN , FFP , XEN , ALP , LP
    M ,Country Alliance , TCS , LP , ALP , FFP , XEN , GRN
    N ,Sex Party , TCS , GRN , XEN , ALP , LP , FFP
    O ,Australian Independents , FFP , TCS , GRN , XEN , LP , ALP
    P ,Australian Greens , GRN , ALP , FFP , TCS , XEN , LP
    Q ,Animal Justice Party , TCS , FFP , XEN , GRN , ALP , LP
    R ,No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics , TCS , FFP , LP , GRN , XEN , ALP
    S ,Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party , TCS , GRN , ALP , FFP , XEN , LP
    T ,Drug Law Reform , GRN , ALP , LP , XEN , TCS , FFP
    U ,One Nation , TCS , FFP , LP , XEN , ALP , GRN
    V ,Stable Population Party , FFP , GRN , ALP , LP , XEN , TCS
    V ,Stable Population Party , FFP , ALP , LP , GRN , XEN , TCS
    V ,Stable Population Party , FFP , LP , GRN , ALP , XEN , TCS
    W ,Australian Christians , TCS , FFP , LP , ALP , XEN , GRN
    X ,Shooters and Fishers , TCS , FFP , LP , XEN , ALP , GRN
    Y ,Katter’s Australian Party , TCS , FFP , GRN , LP , ALP , XEN
    Z ,Smokers Rights , FFP , TCS , LP , XEN , ALP , GRN
    AA ,Voluntary Euthanasia Party , GRN , XEN , ALP , LP , TCS , FFP
    AB ,Australian Labor Party , ALP , GRN , FFP , TCS , LP , XEN
    AC ,Building Australia Party , TCS , FFP , XEN , LP , ALP , GRN
    AD ,Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party , TCS , FFP , XEN , LP , ALP , GRN
    AD ,Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party , TCS , FFP , XEN , ALP , LP , GRN
    AE ,Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party , TCS , FFP , LP , XEN , ALP , GRN
    AG ,Liberal , LP , FFP , XEN , TCS , ALP , GRN

  • 15
    democracy@work
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    The Greens pick up from PUP, SXP, DEM, GroupI,and a host of other smaller players. These alone should bring the Greens above the ALP and secure them a quota and election.

  • 16
    Edi_Mahin
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 12:37 am | Permalink

    If Labor and Greens together are at 3 quotas or very close then the Greens will be safe. However if Labor’s vote drops and the Greens vote drops with the overall impact of Xenophon picking up a large percentage then they might be very short. If that is the case then it could be the third Liberal, Family First or No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics could overtake the Greens for the last place. If Xenophon was to get up to 20% then I wonder whether his second group member Stirling Griff has any chance. I doubt it but have not really considered it.

  • 17
    democracy@work
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 12:55 am | Permalink

    ABC State Seat Historical voting statistics
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/ssa/

    ABC Senate Calculator
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/senate-calculator/

  • 18
    democracy@work
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 1:00 am | Permalink

    reverse engineering.

    #16 What percentage do yo think PUP, SXP, DEM, Group I have combined? Add th3 value of the ALP surplus and Minus the sum value from 14.34% if the greens primar6y is above that value they are home. I wish that was not the case… but it is.. You can also add 50% of Xenophon’s preferences that will flow to the Greens via the ALP.

  • 19
    Edi_Mahin
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    SXP preferences go to NCTCS before they go to the Greens so if the final 3 for the last spot are Greens, Liberal and NCTCS then SXP preferences never reach the Greens so are no help to them. SXP will be the largest of the 4 you mention, probably just over 1% unless PUP get votes which I have my doubts about. DEM will probably go down even more, less that 0.5% and Group I next to nothing. So perhaps 2.5-3% total, with perhaps half of that making it to the Greens in some scenarios.
    But really before we get to that how much do you think the Greens are going to get? And how much over 2 quotas is Labor going to get?
    I have fiddled around with the senate calculator a bit and I have got lots of results where it is extremely close between the Greens and NCTCS for the last place which ever of them gets it. Maybe I have dropped Labor’s vote and the Green’s vote too much in those cases. I think NCTCS getting a seat is unlikely but not impossible.

  • 20
    Somerandomguy
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    Democracy@work, I think the problem with that analysis is there just ain’t that many votes to go around. Liberals are getting a big swing so they get a decent vote. Lots of minor parties so “other” gets a decent vote. Xenophon is running so he gets a decent vote. If you keep adding what you expect people to get you can easily get over 100%. Someone has to miss out.

    I see it as very hard for ALP/Green to get close to 3 quotas with all of those factors, which leaves the door wide open to NCTCS.

  • 21
    truth seeker
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    Glad The Age is now publicising the upcoming Senate Chaos. Amused that I’ve been quoted on page 1!

  • 22
    Edi_Mahin
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    Somerandomguy. Yes, if you give Liberals a decent swing to them and have a swing away from Labour and try and give Xenophon a full quota plus keep the greens at a reasonable level there is not much room for anybody else. Looking back at the historical voting the combined Lib/Lab vote has never fallen below 70%. It is hard to keep it at that level and give the Greens enough votes to be elected. So it seems to me either Labor or Greens or both are going to lose a lot of votes or Xenophon will not get a full quota. If Xenophon only gets 10-11% he could miss out on a seat depending on where the other votes go.
    While the Labor vote does seem to be holding up in polling in SA for the lower house I wonder what chance their is they fall below 2 quotas and need preferences for their second seat.

  • 23
    Biggs Max
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    In 2007, Sarah Hanson Young only beat the third Liberal by about 30,000 votes.

    Without Xenophon preferences, if the Liberal vote holds at its level from the last election, they should stay ahead of the climate sceptics and Family First and take the sixth seat.

  • 24
    Edi_Mahin
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    truth seeker well done

  • 25
    Edi_Mahin
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Biggs Max, yes Liberals getting three seats seems to be a strong likelihood. To me the two main options are 2 Labor, 2 Liberal, Xenophon and Greens or 2 Labor, 3 Liberal, Xenophon. With NCTCS or Family First very unlikely but still possible. Xenophon missing out also possible but very unlikely.

  • 26
    democracy@work
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    The LNP will not get 3 quotas. But I think TCSC will be excluded before they collect most of th3 prefer3nces that flow to them. Clive Palmer should get 3-4% which will come from disillusioned LNP voters and then there is the wasted quota. (Something I do not think should exist, Down with Droop I say. Much depends on the X-Factor will he get 20% or just 15-16% the ALP should get 36% ie 7-8% above quota. It would be nice if the Greens lost but I do not see this. Two Xenophon he would need to poll around 34-35% a big ask. 2LNP,2ALP, 1X, 1Grn is the most likely. But hey anyone other than the Greens would be fine by me. Hanson Yong being one of the worst and most useless Senators. At least Luddy has some credibility all others Green Senators totally useless. I am more interested in Xenophon in SA. I think he will get 16%

  • 27
    Edi_Mahin
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    democtacy@work.
    I do not see how Labor is going to get 36% when they only got 38% last time without Xenophon. If Xenophon gets 16-20% where are those votes going to come from if not Labor at all. There should also be a swing away from Labor. They have got as low as 32% when Liberal have won government previously and that is without a big vote for Xenophon in those elections. I cannot see Labor getting much more than 32% if Xenophon gets a quota or very close to it on primaries.
    I find it hard to see how Palmer is going to get 3-4%. He might get protest votes in other states particularly QLD but in SA that vote will go to Xenophon, Family First and the Greens more than to Palmer.
    I had a look at two Xenophon is impossible barring an unbelievably high vote like I think you meant, 24-25% minimum.

  • 28
    freediver
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    This is my regular “above the line” guide for voting in the senate. It shows you where your vote is likely to end up if you vote above the line, based on a limited set of candidates who have a chance of winning.

    http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/senate-group-voting-tickets-above-line-guide.html#guides

    Thanks to truth seeker for the info on which parties are in with a chance (and please contact to me to discuss some ideas I have). Thanks also to the AEC for issuing the tickets in csv form.

  • 29
    truth seeker
    Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

    Democracy@Work
    Your numbers are adding to more than 100%: X:16, GRN 10, ALP 36, Lib?? There’s only 38% left.

    The best numbers to go by for SA are 2007 final results. The 2010 HoR results indicated <1% swing, so are reasonable with this election. So we take the final 2007 results, and add the current forecast state swings as per BludgerTrack (-5.3 ALP, +5.3 LNP) and this gives us numbers that are more reasonable, and an ALP vote of 31-32%, GRN of around 6%. There is simply not the remaining left vote for a 3rd quota, and it all goes to NCTCS.

    Also consider there are many more micros this time. History shows this will mean a higher % of people will vote for micros compared to previous elections.

    My modelling consistently shows a 0% chance for ALP3, and a 2% chance for a Green.

    More info on my blog.
    http://originaltruthseeker.blogspot.com/

  • 30
    dovif
    Posted Monday, September 2, 2013 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    My view is as followed, While X takes support from ALP and Liberals, I believe he takes a little more from the ALP then from the Liberals. X will take a spot in the next election.

    This leaves us with 5 spots for the ALP/LNP/Minor Right/Greens

    At the moment the opinion polls are showing The Right vote is 3.4% higher then the left vote, so it is more likely that the LNP/minor Right will fill the final seat then ALP/Greens

    So the question is whether there will be 3.4% (ie .25 quota) leakage from the right to the left to elect the Green candidate. Hanson Young will need it to stay in parliament

  • 31
    democracy@work
    Posted Monday, September 2, 2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Truth I agree. I do not see Xenophon polling above 16% Most of his votes will come from consolidation of minor parties and the LNP/Green Bottom line and marginally from the ALP. Yes you need to use 2007 as a base and extrapolate from there. I expect the Greens to drop below 9% and the ALP to be at 34% their surplus will bring the Greens over the line

    I wish the Greens were not in a winning position but sadly I think they are. if anyone should lose it is Sarah Hanson Young. She is a policy vacuum dead weight Goth.

    The claim that the Greens are at risk in SA is just spook talk. There is no major threat. Xenophon preferences the Greens, sure it could in theory give the ALP the margin it needs to win three seats.

    The Droop quota is the main issue at play in this seat. the quota should be x/6 not x/7 and throw away a slice.

    FeeDiver:

    I have never seen such BS as the information published on the OzPolitics web site. It’s preference table does not resemble any form of reality or comprehension and many of the statements are false. Sorry. You need to think more about how the system works

  • 32
    democracy@work
    Posted Monday, September 2, 2013 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    dofit you have to factor in the wasted quota. This is a quata that does no where . It is a system that distorts the proportionality of the vote and works against the majorit6y party unless it has 50% support. The Droop quota favours minor parties. Labor 2, LNP 2, Xen 1, Grn 1.

  • 33
    democracy@work
    Posted Monday, September 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Truth> To clarify my earlier point I have the ALP on 36 without X. I think Xen will attract 4-5% from the ALP, soak up most of they minor party cote in consolidation and take votes from the Greens and the LNP. IE every one drops because of Xen. I do niot see him polling much more than 16%

    ALP 32% (2)
    Xen 16% (1)
    LNP 33% (2)
    GRN 8% (1)
    Wasted Quota 11%

    Give or take a percentage point.

  • 34
    dovif
    Posted Monday, September 2, 2013 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    D@W

    The left vote is 48%, for X to get 16% at least 9% will come from the ALP, that means the Greens+ ALP+ SEX + Socialist Allance will not be greater then 39% which will be way short of 3 Quota.

    The LNP 2PP vote is 52%, if you expect their senate vote to be 33%, I am happy to give you 100/1 for that odd

    Likelyhood is the LNP will lose 6-7% to X and the right minor/LNP will be around 44-45%, So unless the ALP/Greens can siphon 2-3% of the vote from the LNP/minor right parties, it will be ALP/Green/X/2 or3LNP/FF

    or ALP2/X/3LNP

    you seem to be working off primary vote that is not based on reality

  • 35
    Edi_Mahin
    Posted Monday, September 2, 2013 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    It is extremely hard to see how the Liberal Party will get less than 35% of the vote.

  • 36
    democracy@work
    Posted Monday, September 2, 2013 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    I do not see Sex just taking votes from the left

    I believe that the LNP will make up the bulk of the wasted quota I also believe that Greens are secure having picked up preferences from PUP and ALP Surplus I no not see LNP securing three quotas. I do not see X being a left draw card more conservative Personally I would be pleased if the Greens could lose out. But I can not see it. Not one of the numerous percentages used on the ABC Calculator has produced a Green loss. The 2-3% siphoned from the right will come from PUP and other parties that cross the line. Including Xen. This is all based on the above the line preference tables. I do not subscribe to teh theory of a linear transition from left to right. X rep[resents a large part of the right/LNP allocated split as does PUP All the smaller based parties place the majors low in preference. If the ALP continues to go back in the polls I may have to reassess on Thursday

  • 37
    democracy@work
    Posted Monday, September 2, 2013 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    Ed..i the X factor comes from the LNP not just Labor and other minor parties. See the 2007 results

  • 38
    democracy@work
    Posted Monday, September 2, 2013 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    Also Katter as well as PUP take from the LNP and end up delivering across to the Greens

  • 39
    Edi_Mahin
    Posted Monday, September 2, 2013 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    I agree that Xenophon takes from both sides of politics to get his votes.

    Not sure Katter or PUP are going to get many votes in SA because of Xenophon. It would not surprise me to see no one other than Labour, Liberal, Xenophon, Greens and Family First get more than 1% of the vote.

  • 40
    dovif
    Posted Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 3:24 am | Permalink

    Sa was always the worst state for onp. My bet is pup and kap will not get 1%. My senate primary would be. Alp 30% greens 8% ff 4% lib 38% x 15%. Pup 1 kap 1 dem 1 others 2

  • 41
    democracy@work
    Posted Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    I don’t think the Dem will get above 1& PUP and Katter together will get 3% Your right the minor parties will not do as well because of the Melbourne Cup field I still think the Greens will cross the line But it would be nice if they don’t. Hanson-Young is one of the worst Senators I have ever seen. FF can not get above the LNP surplus. I do not see the LNP getting above 37% Katter and PUP take from the LNP camp. but I am not on the ground in SA. I also think FF will not be 4% as a some of the christian groups will fall to Xen.

  • 42
    dovif
    Posted Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    democracy@work

    Today’s Qld poll is showing that KAP and PUP are taking as much from the ALP side as the Liberal side in Qld country area.

    There might be 20-25% taking off the ALP-Green/LNP 2PP, I would bet about 55% comes from the right and 45% from the left. The ALP/Green senate vote will be between 36-38% combined I do not see Greens > 8% or the ALP > 30%.

    If I have to rate the last quota I would go 40% LNP, 25% greens, 10% no carbon tax, 25% FF.

    The last 3 for the 6th senate spot is likely to be Green leading the LNP and FF, the KAP preference will be trapped in FF. Which will be an interesting count

  • 43
    Adam Rosser
    Posted Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    I doubt that PUP and KAP will be anywhere near 3% combined. From what I have seen, they have minimal advertising presence and no word of mouth. Both are seen as Queensland parties, and SA is to parochial to support them.
    FF, on the other hand, has been advertising heavily in Adelaide on TV, and has as many posters up as the major parties. I would expect FF to pick up a bit more from disenchanted LNP voters and get to around 5%.

  • 44
    TheSpeaker
    Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Truthspeaker – I think you are right on the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics. It is very difficult to create scenarios where they don’t win a senate seat.

  • 45
    democracy@work
    Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Today’s polls show PUP with 4% national Kap was at 1%

    PUP has extensively emailed people across the county

    I have not had NCTC elected in my analysis. I have sadly LNP 2 ALP 2 Xen 1 and Greens 1, much depends on the level of Xenophon are his surplus. Xenophon, contrary to the Greens lies on Preferences, has a split Ticket LNP on one side and the ALP Greens on the other. I do not see FF getting above 2.5-3.5% Greens should fall below 9%

  • 46
    democracy@work
    Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Dovif: The ALP will secure 2 seats. They would have to drop below 27% to only get one. So not think they will happen do you?

  • 47
    truth seeker
    Posted Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 3:00 am | Permalink

    Hello all,

    My forecasts are here.
    http://originaltruthseeker.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/sa-senate-truthseeker-forecasts.html

    Basically, I see the “other” vote as being slightly higher than my earlier estimates owing to a resurgance in PUP, and a strong FF candidate. My modelling is showing a split between NCT and GRN for the last spot, with GRN currently just ahead.

    D@W – I have updated my scenario to get NCT elected – check my blog.

  • 48
    Jennifer Dillon
    Posted Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Dear Mr Bludger

    How do you work out that the Dems had their origins in South Australia Has Don “keep the bastards honest” Chipp been forgotten already??

    Jen Dillon

  • 49
    Andrew Dolt
    Posted Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    I wonder why Democracy@work is having major hissy fits over Senator Hanson-Young. I would have thought Cory Bernardi was much more worth spluttering over, given his status as an insane moron from a different planet.

  • 50
    democracy@work
    Posted Saturday, September 7, 2013 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    South Australia like all other states has seen a consolidation of the vote in t6eh last week of the campaign

    Prediction

    ALP 2, LNP 2 Xenophon 1 and a toss but for the last spot.
    The LNP could secure a third seat or the Greens could creep over the line.

    Hanson-Young is not a good Candidate. 50% of Xenophon’s surplus votes will flow to the Greens and 50% will top up the LNP.

    PUP has 4% in SA and this will advantage the Greens

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...