Australian Election Results Thread

[ag]

Very safe coalition (over 15% swing required)

145. Riverina NSW 66.23% NAT (-4.62%)
146. O'Connor WA 66.54% LIB (-3.85%)
147. Murray VIC 68.29% LIB (-5.79%)

[ag]

Ultra-safe Coalition (over 20% swing required):

148. Mallee VIC 71.28% NAT (-3.47%)

[ag]

Ultra-safe independent

149.  New England NSW 74.33% Ind. (swing against NAT 2.95%)

Very safe independent

150. Kennedy QLD 66.22% Ind. (swing towards ALP 2.61%)

[ag]

Recount scheduled in McEwen. In Bowman the LIB margin is down to 72 votes (50.04%). The rest seem likely to have been resolved.

[ag]

Updates go on . Swan's margin nearly halved. Bowman and Flynn are back up. Dickson "undeclared".

McEwen, VIC: ALP ahead by 6 (50.00%) - 96.31% counted
Bowman, QLD: LIB ahead by 82 (50.05%) - 95.46% counted
Swan, WA: LIB ahead by 166 (50.11%) - 93.22% counted
Robertson, NSW: ALP ahead by 184 (50.11%) - 95.74% counted
Solomon, NT: ALP ahead by 196 (50.19%) - DECLARED
Dickson, QLD: LIB ahead by 217 (50.13%) -  - 96.05 counted
Flynn, QLD: ALP ahead by 270 (50.17%) - 94.99% counted
Herbert, WA: LIB ahead by 350 (50.21%) - 94.11% counted

[Democratic Hawk]

Don't see much point in me doing a declared result tally, if the AEC are going to declare seats only to undeclare them as in the case of, for example, Dickson and Isaacs

Dave

[ag]

Could Bowman be still in play?

McEwen, VIC: ALP ahead by 6 (50.00%) - 96.31% counted
Bowman, QLD: LIB ahead by 60 (50.04%) - 95.48% counted
Swan, WA: LIB ahead by 164 (50.11%) - 93.22% counted
Robertson, NSW: ALP ahead by 184 (50.11%) - DECLARED
Solomon, NT: ALP ahead by 196 (50.19%) - DECLARED
Dickson, QLD: LIB ahead by 217 (50.13%) - DECLARED
Flynn, QLD: ALP ahead by 270 (50.17%) - 94.99% counted
Herbert, WA: LIB ahead by 340 (50.21%) - 94.11% counted

[Democratic Hawk]

Could Bowman be still in play?

Not unless there is a seismic split in Labor's favour from the 170 pre-polls that, seemingly, remain to be counted http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionDecScrutinyProgress-13745-155.htm

In Bowman, the splits are as follows:

Ordinary: ALP 50.18% (34,063) / LIB 49.82% (33,816)
Absent: ALP 52.42% (1,680) / LIB 47.58% (1,525)
Provisionals: ALP 54.10% (66) / LIB 45.90% (56)
Pre-polls: LIB 53.96% (3,283) / ALP 46.04% (2,801)
Postals: ALP 50.10% (2,400) / LIB 49.90% (2,390)

Total: LIB 50.04% (41,070) / ALP 49.96% (41,010)

Assuming those 170 postals split as they have been doing, this will add 92 to the Liberals and 78 to Labour: LIB 41,162 / ALP 41,088 - LIB majority of 74

Labor needs those pre-polls to split in their favour 68% (116) to 32% (54) to win by 2 votes. Highly unlikely , to say the least

Dave

[ag]

Don't forget re-checking - in any case, that's where most of the recent action has been. Unlikely, of course, but not impossible.  In any case, if anything changes it will be in McEwen or in Bowman - the rest are pretty much done.

[Democratic Hawk]

Don't forget re-checking - in any case, that's where most of the recent action has been. Unlikely, of course, but not impossible.  In any case, if anything changes it will be in McEwen or in Bowman - the rest are pretty much done.

True. Apparently, the result in McEwen is not expected to be known until next week

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Heard that McEwen is Liberal by twelve votes.

[ag]

Heard that McEwen is Liberal by twelve votes.

Yep. And that seems to be pretty much it.

[Democratic Hawk]

Though McEwen could yet to go to the High Court

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/18/2121466.htm?site=elections/federal/2007

Still, Labor has won with a 16-seat majority, at least

Dave

[Platypus]

Heard that McEwen is Liberal by twelve votes.

Yep. And that seems to be pretty much it.

Fina; distribution of preferences is tomorrow. Until they're ALL done, I'm not willing to agree.

[Democratic Hawk]

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

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Because the preference flows from the Democrats and the SEP helped them leapfrog the Libs and quite a few Lib preferences would have gone to the Greens out of protest.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

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 .

[Democratic Hawk]

Because the preference flows from the Democrats and the SEP helped them leapfrog the Libs and quite a few Lib preferences would have gone to the Greens out of protest.

I can understand that but it shows that the Liberals are in second place on first preference vote not the Greens. Given that shouldn't the Liberals be facing off against Labor in the two-party preferred count?

Dave

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No, it's all based on where the preferences flow to, and their final destination. It's a step by step process.

[Democratic Hawk]

No, it's all based on where the preferences flow to, and their final destination. It's a step by step process.

So they must reallocate the votes of the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences, second lowest, and so on. Is it a rare occurrence for the third placed candidate to reach the final two?

Dave

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes.

It's rare for anyone but the major parties to be in contention, the Greens and the Lib primary is separated by only 0.7% - which is very odd for second and third place.

[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.)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Ah yes, the Cunningham byelection, I lived in that seat at the time.

Not only was there no Lib candidate, all the other parties preferenced the Greens ahead of Labor.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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.

[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).