tip off

South Australian election late counting

A progressively updated post following the counting of over a quarter-of-a-million outstanding votes in South Australia’s cliffhanger election.

Friday

5.3pm. Further counting in Elder reversed the trend just noted, breaking 1485-1254 Labor’s way and putting the lead at 757, which is very likely more than the number of votes still outstanding. Counting also favoured Labor today in Ashford (347-287, increasing the lead to 820) and Newland (671-652, putting it at 656).

Noon. Declaration votes are flowing fairly strongly the Liberals’ way in Elder, a second batch breaking 528-429. That reduces the Labor lead to 526, and could send it below 300 if the trend continues.

Thursday

8.30pm. The final score for the day from Colton shows Labor gained 1196-1078, putting Paul Caica’s lead at an unassailable 570 with perhaps 1000 votes remaining to be counted. The tide of late counting continued to flood the Liberals’ way in Hartley, today’s batch favouring Liberal candidate Vincent Tarzia over Grace Portolesi by 1685-1204, pushing his lead out to 1131.

5pm. A big addition of votes in Newland breaks 1426-1332, putting Labor’s Tom Kenyon 637 ahead and confirming his victory. In Mitchell, Labor clawed back 39 votes out of 3203 added, but it’s too little too late. Pretty much impossible now not to see a result of Labor 23, Liberal 22, independents two.

4.30pm. Labor has pulled a further 107 ahead with the addition of 1415 votes in Ashford, where Steph Key’s lead is now at 760 and unlikely to change much with perhaps 1000 votes still outstanding. Sykesie reports Labor now 588 ahead in Colton, with postals favouring the Liberals by an insufficient 52-48.

1.30pm. Well-informed commenter Sykesie relates that the morning’s counting in Colton has broken Labor’s way 349-262, putting Labor 539 votes in front and making life all but impossible for the Liberals. Their only hope of making it a twenty-third seat is an unlikely late reversal in Newland, where Labor leads by 543 with declaration vote counting still at an early stage, with about 4000 votes still to count.

Wednesday

11pm. It appears a move from postal to pre-poll counting also staunched the flow in Ashford, where Labor’s Steph Key now looks home and hosed after today’s batch broke only 728-720 to Liberal. This leaves Key 653 in front and projected to win by about 500. Nothing today from Elder or Newland.

6pm. Labor nerves will have steadied considerably with the addition of 970 votes in Colton, which I understand to be pre-polls. These have broken 491-479 in their favour and held their lead at 452. Projecting the existing declaration vote shares over an assumption of about 3000 outstanding votes, Labor emerges over 250 votes in the clear.

1pm. Mitchell continues to trend the Liberals’ way, 980 newly added votes breaking 563-417 and pushing the margin out from 373 to 519.

Tuesday

6pm. It appears the votes counted today were mostly if not entirely postal votes, and they are playing according to the script of favouring the Liberals by virtue of not reflecting the move back to Labor in the final week. On top of what was mentioned previously, today’s counting favoured the Liberals 808-634 in Ashford and 888-767 in Elder, and while that’s likely to be too little too late in Elder, the projected Labor win in Ashford comes down to double figures if the final declaration vote total is presumed to be 6000.

5pm. Encouraging first set of declaration vote numbers for the Liberals in Colton, breaking their way 556-425. If that trend were to play out over a total of 5000 declaration votes – 4000 having been the norm last time, but many more pre-polls apparently having been cast this time – the Liberals would finish about 100 in front. However, it may be that these are absent votes cast over the boundary in a Liberal-leaning part of the electorate, or representative of a particularly strong result for the Liberals on either postals, absent or pre-poll votes that won’t be replicated among the other vote types. UPDATE: I’m told on Twitter that these are postal votes. ECSA doesn’t do breakdowns of declaration votes, but in the corresponding federal seat of Hindmarsh, the Liberal two-party vote in September was 55.4% compared with 53.9% for pre-polls. Absent votes favoured broke 52-48 to Labor, but that’s unlikely to be instructive with respect to Colton.

4pm. The first 1424 added in the only seat that might get Labor to a majority, Mitchell, have broken 782-642 the Liberals’ way, increasing their lead from 233 to 373. If that keeps up, their winning margin will be around 800.

2pm. 1218 votes have been added in Newland, breaking 632-586 to the Liberals and reducing the Labor lead from 589 to 543. If that trend continues, the Liberals will only be able to wear away about 200 votes. However, trends in late counting can be variable, particularly in relation to pre-poll and absent votes which might be cast in particular parts of the electorate or neighbouring electorates. Unfortunately, ECSA doesn’t distinguish between different types of declaration vote in its published results.

Monday night

This post will follow the crucial late counting for the South Australian election, which has so far only dealt with re-checking of the polling booth votes counted on election night. Counting of an estimated 260,000 pre-poll and postal votes begins today, with the Liberals needing multiple miracles to boost them from their likely total of 22 to a majority of 24, and Labor hoping they might yet get there through what presently seems an unlikely win in Mitchell. Labor’s narrowest leads are of 571 votes in Colton (1.6%) and 589 votes in Newland (1.8%), while the Liberal lead in Mitchell is 233 (0.7%).

390
  • 51
    Jackol
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    I have absolutely no doubt the person who designed that add, did so with a mind to drive a political wedge into the LNP’s base by playing with xenophobic sentiments.

    You and others keep asserting this. Your arguments have all been lacking evidence and entirely unconvincing.

  • 52
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Standard modern political practice is to refer to people by their given name and their surname.
    http://www.jay4sa.com.au/the-difference/
    Just calling him “Marshall” here would sound aggressive and discourteous (a finding no doubt based on focus-group research.) So the decision to call Carolyn Habib “HABIB” must have been deliberate. And the motive for that can only have been to highlight that she has a “Muslim-sounding” surname.

  • 53
    absolutetwaddle
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    Using anyone’s last name only in an attack ad instantly conveys disdain, ridicule and perhaps a little air of authority – which is precisely what attack ads are supposed to do. If you dont believe me, start going around referring to colleagues and friends by their last name, the reaction will not be positive. I’m quite sure if Carolyn’s family name was Whitebread the ad would have been constructed the same way.

    Also who actually reads these pamphlets aside from tragics like us?

  • 54
    Wakefield
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think anyone can say whether the Habib ad was effective. I would say it was an offensive ad. That might make me more inclined to vote for Habid. It would certainly make people with a Middle-Eastern background or Islamic faith have sympathy for Habib. Given Habid’s name is clear on the ballot paper it would be hard to prove that a focus on the Habid name in a leaflet would have any additional effect and no doubt a “happy family” photo on Lib posters.

    To me this tactic was a bit like the stupid Labor “Vote for your family first” HTV fiasco in 2010. Upset a lot of people. On my analysis had no net benefit in terms of Labor votes.

    Time for Labor to ensure there is a lot more supervision of young campaign apparartchics.

  • 55
    Diogenes
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Psephos

    Don’t you think there would have been “Can you trust Howard?” Or “Can you trust Rudd?” flyers or posters?

    I think pollies are often referred to by surname only.

  • 56
    Wakefield
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Make that Habib in all places.

  • 57
    Mortlock
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    @Jackol – yes, it is an assertion, but it is not lacking evidence, and its perhaps ‘entirely unconvincing’ to you, but if others are also asserting it then it must have some broader resonance. My conclusions are based on a deconstrution of the add in question, and more broader knowledge of politics and political tactics. The add itself can never be absolutely ‘proved’ to be racist, and that is why it’s clever/malicious. A strategic dog whistle that unhinged the LNP.

  • 58
    Jackol
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Time for Labor to ensure there is a lot more supervision of young campaign apparartchics.

    On that I would agree.

    And I find attack ads in general quite despicable, and as such I don’t like the Habib pamphlet – but not because it is racist because I don’t find it so.

    I’d like to see parties winning on positive messages, not denigrating their opponents, but … assuming that will ever happen truly is naive.

  • 59
    tomd
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    @Mortlock you seem to be agreeing with me, but we aren’t saying the same thing.

    I don’t think the ad drove a wedge between the Libs and their base, or between them and some racist / xenophobic section of the community that would hate the name Habib so much that just seeing the name on the ad would cause them not to vote for her, but who would have voted for her name when presented with the ballot paper. Who are those people?

    I’m saying that the Libs alienated people in the electorate by implicitly calling them racist by suggesting that a) the ad was racist and b) people wouldn’t vote for Habib because of her name. They possibly also made the *actual* attack in the ad on council rates more effective by drawing attention to the ad.

  • 60
    Independently Thinking
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    I could show everyone a good example of an ALP attack ad against a candidate in an election in which I was involved that used the candidate’s name in a similar way to the Habib flyer but the background was just very dark to make it look a bit sinister – it didn’t look like a back street in Beirut like the Habib one which is the big difference.

    I can’t show it as it would give a big hint as to my identity, but trust me, the name ‘Habib’ plus the wall, makes a context and the local ALP knew that.

  • 61
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    Here we go:
    http://psephos.adam-carr.net/marcus.JPG
    An almost identical attack ad: standard font, given name used at every refernce.

  • 62
    absolutetwaddle
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Is calling it Obamacare racist?

  • 63
    Independently Thinking
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Psephos.

  • 64
    Wakefield
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    Caica lead cut by 131 with counting of 991 declaration votes.

  • 65
    Independently Thinking
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    Wakefield just beat me to it.

    Liberal person I’ve just spoken to say they feel that the postals and prepolls will favour Barry a lot but the absentee votes will be close to a dead heat.

    If the trend continues, the Libs will get up by about 40 votes. This one is way too close to call.

  • 66
    Raaraa
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    @53

    How about Kevin the Lemon (or was that Kevin O’Lemon, can’t recall now)?

    Anyway it looks like the ABC computers has locked it all except Mitchell, which unless there’s some crazy last scramble at postal voting or pre-polling by Labor voters, it looks like a Lib win to make it 23-22-2.

  • 67
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Re the situation in Colton – as has been previosuly pointed out, one can’t assume the next tranche will necessarily break the same way as today’s bunch. I’m also not sure if the informal ticket votes have been added in yet – these will definitely break labor’s way if not yet added in.

    Colton really seems to be the liberals last decent hope of getting the seat count in their favour.

  • 68
    Independently Thinking
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    In other seats of marginal interest, today’s declaration vote counting sees the following:

    Adelaide: Breaking 67-33 Lib – Lib now 943 ahead 2PP.
    At current flow, I estimate Lib win by about 1500 votes.
    Lib RETAIN

    Ashford: Breaking 56-44 Lib – ALP now 661 ahead 2PP.
    At current flow, I estimate ALP win by about 100 votes.
    TOO CLOSE TO CALL

    Colton: Breaking 56.7-43.3 Lib – ALP now 440 ahead 2PP.
    At current flow, I estimate Lib to win by about 50 votes.
    TOO CLOSE TO CALL

    Elder: Breaking 53.7-44.3 Lib – ALP now 625 ahead 2PP.
    At current flow, I estimate ALP win by about 200 votes.
    TOO CLOSE TO CALL

    Hartley: Breaking 57.4-42.6 Lib – Lib now 650 ahead 2PP.
    At current flow, Libs will win by over 1,000 votes.
    Lib GAIN

    Light: Breaking 50.2-49.8 Lib – ALP now 726 ahead 2PP.
    At current flow, ALP will win by over 600 votes.
    ALP RETAIN

    Mitchell: Breaking 55.9-44.1 Lib – Lib now 523 ahead 2PP.
    At current flow, Lib will win by about 1,000 votes.
    Lib GAIN

    Newland: Breaking 51.9-48.1 Lib – ALP now 543 ahead 2PP.
    At current flow, ALP will win by about 300 votes.
    ALP RETAIN

    This election isn’t over yet.

  • 69
    Diogenes
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    FWIW

    In Frome, where 317 respondents were polled, 53 per cent wanted Mr Brock to back the Liberals. Thirty-five per cent want him to support Labor and 12 per cent are undecided.

    The Advertiser-Galaxy poll of 382 respondents in Fisher shows 66 per cent want Dr Such to permit the Liberals to form a minority government.

    Twenty-seven per cent want him to support Labor and 7 per cent are undecided.

  • 70
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    I’ve just spoken to those in the know in Colton and they estimate that labor would need roughly 47% of prepolls to ensure victory and assuming remaining postals break the way they have been to date.

  • 71
    Jackol
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    53 per cent wanted Mr Brock to back the Liberals

    66 per cent want Dr Such to permit the Liberals to form a minority government

    Crikey’s ‘tips and rumours’ suggests the Indies are leaning towards the ALP if they maintain their 23 seats, but … honestly the above results shouldn’t come as a surprise and the Indies would have to take a lot of heat if they chose the ALP over the LNP. If they have an eye to a political career beyond the current term I can’t imagine them siding with the ALP.

  • 72
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    It’s hard to see how the parliament would work if the indies sided with the libs if they are stuck on 22.

  • 73
    Independently Thinking
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Sykesie

    The prepolls will favour the Libs heavier than that. The absentees will go 50-50 or close to it. All very tight but I think the Libs will just fall over here.

    Elsewhere I think Ashford and Elder will stay ALP much more likely than not. I wonder if these results will sway the Independents or not?

    Surely they should wait until the results are known before making decisions – they could become redundant (one way or another).

  • 74
    Jackol
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    I’m still confused about the Speaker issue. Some have suggested that the ruling group basically have to have 25 seats so that once they provide the Speaker they still have a workable majority on the floor of the house … others have said that the Speaker effectively has a deliberative vote (though this doesn’t match up with the SA parliamentary website).

    The media (at least outside SA) hasn’t even mentioned this as being a stumbling block to the Libs forming government.

    So, yeah, I’m confused.

    I guess the media is just waiting for the counting to be finalized rather than speculating, but if 22+2 is simply not enough to work then unless the ALP make the bold decision to be willing to provide the speaker for an LNP government I’d agree 22 just doesn’t seem workable.

  • 75
    Independently Thinking
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    Speaker only has casting vote.

  • 76
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    I’ve just spoken to those in the know in Colton and they estimate that labor would need roughly 47% of prepolls to ensure victory and assuming remaining postals break the way they have been to date.

    FWIW, Labor did 2% worse off pre-polls than ordinary votes in Hindmarsh. Their ordinary vote total this time around was 51.6%.

  • 77
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    IT – the Colton scrutineers tell me that the libs haven’t sent their heavy hitting scrutineers, so the libs aren’t especially hopeful in Colton.

  • 78
    Jackol
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    Oh, and if the Speaker is the stumbling block to 22+2 working, then the outcome of the election is purely down to which party gets 23 seats or better this time around – it’s not even really a choice for the Indies to make, they just have to sit tight until all the results are certain and go with whichever party gets the most seats, which is another reason why I’m confused – the Indies are apparently holding talks with both party leaders as if they have some discretion in the matter…

  • 79
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Thanks William, this would correlate with the cautious optimism amongst the ALP Colton scrutineers.

  • 80
    Jackol
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Speaker only has casting vote.

    I guess the question is whether there is a “status quo” convention on this or not. If the Speaker is free to vote however they like to break ties then I guess it could be made to work … the Speaker’s casting vote would just get a thorough workout.

  • 81
    Diogenes
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Jackol

    I asked that question a few days ago and someone said the speaker has a deliberative vote. It’s not like in the federal HOR.

  • 82
    Diogenes
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    FWIW, Labor did 2% worse off pre-polls than ordinary votes in Hindmarsh. Their ordinary vote total this time around was 51.6%.

    I think given the late swing back to the government that it would be more than 2% in this election.

  • 83
    Jackol
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    I asked that question a few days ago and someone said the speaker has a deliberative vote. It’s not like in the federal HOR.

    Ok, assuming that means that they are free to vote however they like when using their casting vote, then 22+2 can work with one of the Indies acting as Speaker and basically agreeing to support the LNP in most things.

  • 84
    Wakefield
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Speaker has a casting vote. So in a 23 all vote Speaker decides. No conventions apply – if Speaker supports Govt then Govt bills, budget etc gets passed. If Speaker is an Indie then some bills might fail but Govt will not fall unless a no-confidence motion is passed.

  • 85
    Jackol
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Wakefield.

  • 86
    Diogenes
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    I expect Brock and Such would end up in much the same position that Oakie and Windsor faced if they support Labor.

  • 87
    spur212
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    I expect Brock and Such to be in the same situation as Oakeshott and Windsor regardless of who they back

  • 88
    Independently Thinking
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    Agreed – both Indies here are getting on and it is widely expected that this was going to be Such’s lat term anyway.

    I doubt if Such in particular would care what people thought and he would enjoy watching the Libs writhe in agony after what they did to him, whereas I cannot believe for a minute Brock would back the Libs.

    Minority Labor Government it is, unless Colton and one other turn, and I doubt that.

  • 89
    Everything
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    IT:

    I did a quick and dirty analysis of remaining vote as well. I assumed the final total will be the final total from 2010 (I couldn’t find the total number of declaration votes per seat listed anywhere). I assumed all “declaration votes” would behave the same way as the current counting (of course this depends on the proportion which are postals versus pre-polls but I couldn’t find that either).

    Results:
    Ashford: ALP by 290 votes (Lib TPP 49.3%)
    Elder: ALP by 394 votes (Lib TPP 49.0%)
    Newland: ALP by 438 votes (Lib TPP 49.0%)
    Light: ALP by 711 votes (Lib TPP 48.3%)
    Colton: ALP by 128 votes (Lib TPP 49.7%)
    Florey: ALP by 591 votes (Lib TPP 48.6%)

    Adelaide: Lib by 1632 votes (Lib TPP 54.1%)
    Mitchell: Lib by 966 votes (Lib TPP 52.2%)

    So it is very likely to remain 23 ALP – 22 Lib – 2 IND with no seat changing with declaration.

    Declarations are currently falling:
    Ashford: Lib by 56.0%
    Elder: Lib by 53.7%
    Newland: Lib by 51.9%
    Light: Lib by50.2%
    Colton: Lib by 56.7%
    Florey: Lib by 54.6%

    Adelaide: Lib by 63.0%
    Mitchell: Lib by 55.9%

  • 90
    Everything
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    If the seats fall 23 ALP – 22 Lib and 2 IND there is nothing much to be gained by having an Independent as Speaker. The Liberals will need BOTH Indies, irrespective of whoever is speaker.

    IND Speaker: Floor = 24 vs. 23 + Indie, so Libs need floor Indie PLUS Indie speaker help
    LIB Speaker: Floor = 24 vs. 22 + 2 Indies, so Libs need BOTH Indies still and their speaker

  • 91
    Everything
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    In my view the Habib pamphlet has delivered re-election to the ALP :devil:

  • 92
    Diogenes
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    IT

    Such has prostate cancer so that’s a bit of an unknown. He wasn’t impressed by the lack of sympathy he got from the Libs.

  • 93
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    What about Marshall urging people to vote Labor? I think that have persuaded quite a lot of people that he’s not ready for prime time.

  • 94
    Darn
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    ML

    I think these situations bring out the best in you.Your in depth analyses are always appreciated.

  • 95
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Someone here said Such and Brock are both over 60 and won’t be standing again, so they probably don’t care what anyone thinks.

  • 96
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    In my view the Habib pamphlet has delivered re-election to the ALP

    Just as well Labor persuaded Nigel Bin Laden not to run.

  • 97
    Everything
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    I actually screwed up though as the ALP would be 23 not 24….but I think everyone got the general message (just subtract 1 from what I said!! :devil: )

  • 98
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    just subtract 1 from what I said!

    We usually do.

  • 99
    Diogenes
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    In my view the Habib pamphlet has delivered re-election to the ALP

    Just as well Labor persuaded Nigel Bin Laden not to run.

    It could have been worse. There is a Hitler, A in the phone book in NSW.

  • 100
    Everything
    Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    I should be angry, but I am finding you quite funny tonight Psephos! :devil:

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...