Australian Federal Election - Results Thread

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Leading party by division, Senate elections.

[Hash]

Lingiari?

[Platypus]

Melbourne Ports?? Griffith? Perth?

I'm guessing this is leading on first preferences, and these inner-urban seats are being lead by the coalition due to large Greens votes?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lingiari?

Not sure; might be issues with which areas have been counted and which haven't, or it might be Snowdon's personal appeal to white voters.

[Smid]

Lingiari?

Greens are on 16.23% and Sex Party are on 5.06%, Shooters and Fishers just ahead of Sex on 5.37% (evidently men like hunting and fishing more than sex... go figure...).  

That leaves Country Libs on 38.84% and Labor on 32.99%.

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-15508-306.htm

Hugh - yeah, Senate, therefore first preference by group.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Melbourne Ports?? Griffith? Perth?

I'm guessing this is leading on first preferences, and these inner-urban seats are being lead by the coalition due to large Greens votes?

Yeah, these are first preferences as that's all the AEC publishes for Senate elections at divisional level.

[Platypus]

so it's a pretty good indication of what would happen without preferential voting, and without tactical voting that FPTP encourages...less horrible for Labor than I would have expected (but still bad...55 ALP, 1 Green, 94 Coalition)

[Smid]

so it's a pretty good indication of what would happen without preferential voting, and without tactical voting that FPTP encourages...less horrible for Labor than I would have expected (but still bad...55 ALP, 1 Green, 94 Coalition)

I've done this map (for the reason you mention here) for the last Victorian State Election. Not sure if I've uploaded it here yet. Actually, have some sensational maps of the 2004 election (estimated vote by CCD), which I can print out and give you over coffee later (I didn't draw them, but I think the copyright probably is in the public domain, at least for non-commercial purposes).

[Mr. Morden]

Oakeshott says he wants there to be a "grand coalition", and wants to reform the way Parliament works so that the party leadership of the majority party doesn't decide everything:

link

If that doesn't happen (and it won't) then he might not back either side.

Betfair now has the probability of Labor forming the next government at 53%, and the probability of it being the Coalition at 47%.

I'm struggling to think of any recent election anywhere in the world where things have still been this uncertain three days after the election.  OK, there are cases like Iraq, but that's a bit different.  There, you've got about five significant factions, and the question is which particular combination of them is going to make a deal.  In countries where it's normally a contest between two major parties, when was the last time something like this happened?

[Verily]

Now it looks like Tony Crook and WA Nationals are saying that they won't support the Coalition unless they get more $ for rural WA??:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/profile-tony-crook-20100822-13azk.html

That's related to a question I was going to ask --

What - other than a political disaster - would prevent some sort of Labor-National coalition (other than the LNP merger in Queensland)?

What - other than a political disaster - would cause African Americans to vote Republican in the mid-terms this year?

(okay, probably a little more chance of the Nationals going off and having a Coalition with Labor, but you get the point... the Coalition has been around for about 80 years now - longer than the Liberal Party has been in existance in its current form).

Didn't the Nationals have a coalition with Labor at the provincial level somewhere until recently?

[ag]

An update on Hasluck:

Lib 33,786
Lab 33,417

difference of 369 votes

[ag]

An update for Dennison:

Lab 20,349
Ind 19,937

412 votes

[ag]

Dunkley

Lib 35,990
Lab 35,493

497 votes

[Platypus]

Verily: We don't have provinces. And yes, in the state of South Australia.

[Smid]

I'm struggling to think of any recent election anywhere in the world where things have still been this uncertain three days after the election.  OK, there are cases like Iraq, but that's a bit different.  There, you've got about five significant factions, and the question is which particular combination of them is going to make a deal.  In countries where it's normally a contest between two major parties, when was the last time something like this happened?

In Australia (federally), the last time would have been 1961.

There are a large number of myths surrounding this election, put to rest, however, by former Democrats Senator (and Greens candidate in Brisbane at this election), Andrew Bartlett, on his blog.

[Хahar 🤔]

Now it looks like Tony Crook and WA Nationals are saying that they won't support the Coalition unless they get more $ for rural WA??:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/profile-tony-crook-20100822-13azk.html

That's related to a question I was going to ask --

What - other than a political disaster - would prevent some sort of Labor-National coalition (other than the LNP merger in Queensland)?

What - other than a political disaster - would cause African Americans to vote Republican in the mid-terms this year?

(okay, probably a little more chance of the Nationals going off and having a Coalition with Labor, but you get the point... the Coalition has been around for about 80 years now - longer than the Liberal Party has been in existance in its current form).

Didn't the Nationals have a coalition with Labor at the provincial level somewhere until recently?

SA Nationals aren't affiliated with the national party.

[Hash]

Now it looks like Tony Crook and WA Nationals are saying that they won't support the Coalition unless they get more $ for rural WA??:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/profile-tony-crook-20100822-13azk.html

That's related to a question I was going to ask --

What - other than a political disaster - would prevent some sort of Labor-National coalition (other than the LNP merger in Queensland)?

What - other than a political disaster - would cause African Americans to vote Republican in the mid-terms this year?

(okay, probably a little more chance of the Nationals going off and having a Coalition with Labor, but you get the point... the Coalition has been around for about 80 years now - longer than the Liberal Party has been in existance in its current form).

Didn't the Nationals have a coalition with Labor at the provincial level somewhere until recently?

SA Nationals aren't affiliated with the national party.

It cost them their only seat in SA in March as well.

[Smid]

Independent back in front in Denison, according to AAP Newswire, but Liberal lead is narrowing in Hasluck.

Denison, Wilkie leads by 1,100 votes, with 1,600 pre-poll all that remains left to count.

[Platypus]

AEC is counting prepoll, absentee and postal in Hasluck; Jackson (ALP) is leading on absentee with 53.4%, but is only getting 48.2% of pre-poll. She's also behind on postals, with only 47.3%.

It should be noted that provisional, which will favour her, are not yet being counted, and that these are very small numbers of the total absentee/pre-poll/postal votes. But not looking good for Labor.

[Platypus]

FWIW, the standard pattern is *usually* that the coalition lead on absentee and postal and Labor on provisional (but that's usually not a huge number of votes). I'm not sure which way pre-poll leans, but I'd suspect not in the direction of Labor.

[Platypus]

FWIW, Southcott (Liberal) is doing hugely well on postal votes in Boothby, and horribly on absentee, so my previous post may be thoroughly incorrect.

[Smid]

FWIW, the standard pattern is *usually* that the coalition lead on absentee and postal and Labor on provisional (but that's usually not a huge number of votes). I'm not sure which way pre-poll leans, but I'd suspect not in the direction of Labor.

Absentee tends to go much the same as on the day, as it's people voting on the day from outside their electorate. Since parties all have their campaigners out, the only parties to be disadvantaged are the ones who don't run in all the electorates, who only get a handful of votes anyway.

I'd normally factor pre-poll to favour Coalition, although not as strongly as postals. Hold on, while I look at a few seats (approximate values based on deviation from Ordinary Votes, these are percentage points, so if the Greens received 10% of Ordinary Votes in a seat, and they received 12% of postals, it would be shown as +2%, not +20%. Additionally note that I'm only listing some of the parties, not all, so estimates won't sum to 0):

2007:
Chisholm (Absentee): Lib -1.5%, Lab -5.5%, Greens +3.45%, Fam First +1.55%, Dems +1.1%
Chisholm (Pre-Poll): Lib -0.6%, Lab -1.8%, Greens +1.6%, Fam First +0.45%, Dems +0.2%
Chisholm (Postals): Lib +6%, Lab - 5.4%, Greens - 2.4%, Fam First -0.5%, Dems +0.14%

Goldstein (Absentee): Lib -6.2%, Lab -0.9%, Greens +5.2%, Fam First +0.36%
Goldstein (Pre-Poll): Lib +1.8%, Lab -2.5%, Greens +0.7%, Fam First -0.26%
Goldstein (Postals): Lib +11.1%, Lab -7.3%, Greens -3.5%, Fam First -0.35%

Higgins (Absent): Lib -6.3%, Lab -0.9%, Greens +4.8%, FF +0.7%
Higgins (Pre-Poll): Lib +4.3%, Lab -4.5%, Greens +0.53%, FF -0.03%
Higgins (Postals): Lib +11.11%, Lab -7.5%, Greens -3.8%, FF +0.12%

Hotham (A): Lib -0.21%, Lab -9.2%, Greens +6.1%, FF +0.9%
Hotham (PP): Lib +1.3%, Lab -2.8%, Greens -0.9%, FF -0.24%
Hotham (P): Lib +4.9%, Lab -2.6%, Greens -1.9%, FF -0.4%

Isaacs (A): Lib -1.5%, Lab -3.9%, Greens +3.7%, FF +1.55%
Isaacs (PP): Lib +1.2%, Lab -3.4%, Greens +0.95%, FF -0.33%
Isaacs (P): Lib +8.2%, Lab -5.4%, Greens -1.5%, FF -1.4%

Kooyong (A): Lib -3.9%, Lab -2.7%, Greens +5.1%, FF +0.6%
Kooyong (PP): Lib -0.5%, Lab -1.5%, Greens +1.8%, FF +0.09%
Kooyong (P): Lib +10.9%, Lab -7.7%, Greens -3.2%, FF -0.03%

Melb Ports (A): Lib +2.1%, Lab -7.01%, Greens +3.4%, FF +0.75%
Melb Ports (PP): Lib +0.9%, Lab -1.5%, Greens +0.45%, FF +0.16%
Melb Ports (P): Lib +10.2%, Lab -2.7%, Greens -7.2%, FF +0.03%

These seats are all clustered in the inner south of Melbourne. Some are safe Liberal, some are safe Labor, Isaacs was (at the 2004 election) the most marginal Labor seat in Victoria (if my memory serves me correct). The Greens do particularly well in Melbourne Ports, and still very well in Higgins and Kooyong. I figure all of them clustered together makes them good for comparison, but at the same time, having variation between types of seats means that there is no particular trend (such as a Liberal incumbent's name recognition in every seat which might influence the result - ie, some seats have a Liberal incumbent, some a Labor incumbent, I think a retiring member in Isaacs, very high name recognition of incumbents in probably all non-retiring seats, including Peter Costello and Simon Crean). None of these seats were marginal following the 2007 election, however, so some results may not be directly comparable with the marginal seats currently being counted.

[Mr. Morden]

From the ABC numbers, the Lib lead in Hasluck has grown, and is now almost as big as the Labor lead in Corangamite.

Hasluck: Lib lead of 586
Corangamite: Labor lead of 637

[Mr. Morden]

In today's Financial Review, they ask an actuary for the odds on a parliamentary majority of one seat unraveling because of a member dying.  The answer the guy gives is that there is a ~20% chance of at least one member of the House dying in any 12 month period.  That would correspond to a ~50/50 chance of it happening during a 3 year term.  Of course, in an evenly split House, it's just as likely to happen to a member in the minority as a majority.

[Platypus]

Little birdie suggests Corangamite might see quite a big Lib surge in the votes to come. Certainly looks possible.