Australian Election Results Thread

[Verily]

What's the deal with the Senate? Why do the Greens have five seats, but no representation in the House?

The Senate is elected by proportional representation. The House is elected by IRV in single seat constituencies.

"Proportional" is one word that should not be used in conjunction with the Australian Senate, which has no population equalization and has two two-member STV districts that guarantee 2 seats each for the ALP and Coalition.

[Verily]

RECAP OF RESULTS

Australian Labor Party: 82 seats WINNER
Liberal/National Party: 58 seats
Independents: 2 seats
In Doubt: 8 seats

Key Points

• John Howard likely to lose Bennelong to Labor's Maxine McKew.
• Swing of 5.6% to the Australian Labor Party which 70% of the vote counted.
• The Greens set to hold the balance of power in the Senate.
• Family First gains a seat in the Senate. The Democrats all but finished.
• Four Coalition Ministers lose seats, Mal Brough, Christopher Pyne, Di-Ann Kelly & Phil Baresi.

The Greens do not hold the balance of power in the Senate. The new Senate will be:

ALP: 32
Lib: 32
Green: 5
Nat: 4
CLP: 1
FFP: 1
Nick Xenophon: 1

That leaves the Coalition with 37 seats (38 including the FFP), the ALP+Greens with 37 seats and Nick Xenophon (someone for BRTD to really have a grudge against!) with the balance of power.

By the way, does anyone think that sometime in the future the ALP and Greens might end up in a coalition similar to the Liberal/National coalition? Not immediately, obviously, just eventually. There has never been a prolonged major party on the fringes before, just the Democrats in the center and the one-hit wonder of One Nation on the far-right.

[Verily]

By the way, does anyone think that sometime in the future the ALP and Greens might end up in a coalition similar to the Liberal/National coalition? Not immediately, obviously, just eventually.

Possibly, should the Greens ever secure significant representation in the House. Are there any divisions in which the Greens have a realistic shot at beating Labor in first preferences?

It's logical for Green voters to cast 2nd preferences for Labor, but would Labor supporters really want to see Labor step aside to give the Green candidate a clear run against the Liberals?

Dave

What's more likely is that the Greens will inch past the Liberals in some inner-city seats, then overthrow Labor with Liberal preferences, as happened in the Cunningham by-election. This correlates well with how the Nationals perform: most Nationals seats are seats that would be overwhelmingly Liberal anyway (except in Queensland, where the Nationals were traditionally stronger than the Liberals and so they hold and compete in some marginals).

[Verily]

For those interested, the results on d'Hondt instead of IRV.

1% threshold:
ALP: 70
Liberal: 57
Greens: 12
Nationals: 8
Family First: 3

2-5% threshold:
ALP: 71
Liberal: 59
Greens: 12
Nationals: 8

[Verily]

Looks like when all the votes will be tallied the Greens will come second in Melbourne. What this means for the 2PP I cannae claim to know.

Their first second-place finish. Quite a moment for the party, I think, though obviously the ALP wins the seat easily (they have 50.8% in first-preferences).

Interestingly, ABC has the Greens leading the Libs by two votes but still has the TPP as ALP-Lib.

[Verily]

It seems that the remaining 7 non-reporting booths in Melbourne are "Special Hospital Team" 1-7. Anyone know how those voted in 2004? Melbourne is interesting because the Greens are currently a whole two votes ahead of the Liberals for second.

[Verily]

The green vote in Bennelong was due to the candidate Andrew Wilke - he was a former intelligence official who revealed that he knew the intelligence surrounding the Iraq War was faulty, and there was political pressure both internal and external.

This time, he ran for Senate in Tasmania (but wasn't elected, as he was second on the Greens' list). Of course, some of the Green decline may also be seen as a rally behind McKew by the left to oust Howard, which shows how little even Australians understand their own electoral system. (There was never any risk that the Greens would outpoll the ALP in first preferences; the only seat with a realistic possibility of that happening in the future is Wentworth.)

[Verily]

How is counting in McEwen finished with 96.31% counted? (Or is that turnout, as in percent of the electorate counted?)

[Verily]

Melbourne: http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-228.htm

Two party preferred: ALP 47,905 (54.70%) / Greens 39,678 (45.30%)

Not sure why this is given that the Liberals are on 20,577 (23.49%) and the Greens on 19,967 (22.80%) in the first preference vote

Dave

That's kind of odd. The Greens must have gotten preferences from the Socialists, the Socialist Alliance and from the Independent candidate. Though it wouldn't be enough for them to gain 20,000 votes though. So they must have gotten preferences from the Libs, like my Gran did. Speaking of my Gran, I actually told her how to vote in the election .

That's what happened when the Greens won the Cunningham by-election (well, sort of; there was no Liberal candidate, and that was credited with giving the Greens the victory). Presumably there are a lot of socially liberal or else environmentally concerned Liberal voters even in a meltdown.

For the record, this was the Greens' first second-place finish in a general election, and the first time any minor party has done so since the Democrats in the late 1980s in some Adelaide seats. (I think One Nation didn't manage second anywhere.)

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true; The Democrats came with a whisker of winning the Division of Mayo in 1998.

You're right. I am not well-versed in Australian electoral history (although it was 3.5%, more than a whisker).