Victorian State Election 27/11/2010

[Smid]

Yeah, came on to create this thread. As Hugh mentions, I won't be commenting. Or I could comment, but you'd be getting Liberal spin in every post, and I don't think anyone wants spin/hackery on here, so I don't think I'll post anything other than possibly the occasional link to news stories.

Anyone who is interested, there's a blank map in the gallery that's simple to shade in paint - feel free to use it for predictions or results. I'm pretty sure I have uploaded some maps of the last election, too. If you're lucky, I may upload a 2002 map, and possibly even a notional 1999 map (redistribution was in 2000, Adam Carr has notional results hidden somewhere on his website, though).

[Smid]

The one other thing I was going to add, but forgot to, was the Galaxy poll from the other day. I think I saw it mentioned on Friday, but yesterday there were more news stories about it, including some issues polling that came out of it.

I went looking for the actual poll online, but couldn't find it, so I can't provide a link.

Firstly, Primary Votes:
Liberal - 39%
National - 4%
          (Coalition - 43%)
Labor - 38%
Greens - 14%
(Others therefore must be 5%).

This gives a 2PP of (note that pollsters apportion preferences the same as at the previous election, rather than asking people during the poll who they'd support):
Labor - 51%
Coaltion - 49%

The Greens polling could potentially deliver them four seats (Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick and Northcote), according to The Age. The article has some clumsy wording, combining federal election results and polling figures (federal results - Greens win Melbourne and Richmond, Galaxy poll & uniform swing - Greens win all four).

In terms of Approval, the Premier has 48% satisfied, 46% dissatisfied and the Opposition Leader has 41% satisfied and 44% dissatisfied.

With other leadership ratings, according to The Herald Sun:

Baillieu in touch with hardships of everyday life - 30% Agree
Brumby Stronger Leader and understands the needs of working Victorians - 50% Agree
Brumby and Trust - 38% Trust the Premier
Baillieu has a vision for Victoria - 34% Disagree
Brumby is arrogant - 38% Agree
Baillieu is arrogant - 36% Agree

(Unfortunately that's all straight out of the article, I can't find the original figures and therefore can't compare agree and disagree, nor compare the Premier and Opposition Leader on the same questions).

On the question of:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The response was:
Deserve to be re-elected - 18%
Better than the alternative - 62%
Uncommitted - 20%

And finally, regarding issues:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Roads - 47% ALP, 42% Liberal, 11% Uncommitted
Water - 46% ALP, 43% Liberal, 11% Uncommitted
Public Transport - 39% ALP, 48% Liberal, 13% Uncommitted
Health - 49% ALP, 41% Liberal, 10% Uncommitted
Education - 56% ALP, 36% Liberal, 8% Uncommitted
Law and Order - 42% ALP, 47% Liberal, 11% Uncommitted

[Smid]

Alright, rather than just sending you to the gallery, here are links (and a few images) of election results in Victoria:

Blank Map
Upper House Regions (Multi-Member Electorates, based on 11 Lower House Electorates)

The current numbers in the Upper House (Legislative Council) are:

19 ALP
1 DLP
3 Greens
2 Nationals
15 Liberals
(ie, 19 Labor, 17 Coalition, with the Greens and DLP holding the balance of power).

Eastern Metro Region - 3 Liberals, 2 Labor
Eastern Victoria Region - 2 Liberals, 2 Labor, 1 National
Northern Metro Region - 3 Labor, 1 Liberal, 1 Green
Northern Victoria Region - 2 Liberals, 2 Labor, 1 National
Southern Metro Region - 2 Liberals, 2 Labor, 1 Green
Southeastern Metro Region - 3 Labor, 2 Liberals
Western Metro Region - 3 Labor, 1 Liberal, 1 Greens
Western Victoria Region - 2 Liberals, 2 Labor, 1 DLP

Upper House Margin by electorate
The Upper House is PR-STV, and this map shows the winning party's primary vote, minus the second party's primary vote. I should get around to doing one just of winning party's primary vote. The VEC doesn't release figures for the Upper House by Lower House electorate, although it does provide the results in each booth for both the Upper and Lower House. I've compiled Lower House electorates using the booth results, which is where that map comes from. The Nationals are shaded Green because their party logo is yellow writing on a dark green background (so I've always thought of them as a dark green colour - and I think pre-Greens, that may have been their colour on election night graphs), but if I re-do the map, I think I'll shade them purple.

Upper House Primary Vote for the Liberal Party (note, some rural areas appear weak for the Liberals, however these are very conservative National Party seats, and not competitive for the Labor Party).

Upper House Primary Vote for Labor

Upper House Primary Vote for The Greens

And finally, Two Candidate Preferred in the Legislative Assembly:


The four inner city seats (Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick and Northcote) are ALP vs Greens, two seats (Rodney and Shepparton) are Nationals vs Liberals, one seat (Gippsland East) is Indpendent vs Liberal, and one seat (Mildura) is Nationals vs Independent.

[Smid]

Here's the pendulum:

The Government holds these seats (figures are from last General Election, and represent 2PP margin, ie, 0.31 = 50.31% 2PP):

0.31   Mount Waverley
0.72   Gembrook
0.77   Forest Hill
1.97   Mitcham
2.01   Melbourne (vs Greens)
2.28   South Barwon
3.22   Frankston
3.55   Prahran
3.62   Mordialloc
3.64   Richmond (vs Greens)
3.65   Brunswick (vs Greens) - Loss of Government Majority
3.74   Burwood
4.35   Ripon
5.35   Bendigo East
6.32   Bentleigh
6.48   Eltham
6.53   Monbulk
6.55   Ballarat West
6.71   Carrum
6.81   Ballarat East
6.82   Seymore
7.95   Bellarine
7.99   Yan Yean
8.17   Macedon
8.33   Geelong
8.51   Northcote (vs Greens)
9.22   Albert Park*
9.23   Narre Warren North
10.43  Ivanhoe
10.56  Bendigo West
10.94  Narre Warren South
11.22  Niddrie
11.29  Cranbourne
11.70  Essendon
12.37  Oakleigh 
12.47  Tarneit
13.54  Melton
15.12  Bundoora
15.77  Mulgrave
17.93  Lara
18.67  Dandenong
19.41  Keilor
20.19  Yuroke
20.21  Altona*
20.27  Clayton
20.79  Mill Park
21.78  Lyndhurst
22.77  Pascoe Vale
24.25  Williamstown*
24.31  Derrimut
24.67  Footscray
25.29  Preston
25.27  Kororoit*
31.07  Thomastown
31.89  Broadmeadows

* means a by-election has subsequently been held in this electorate.

The Opposition holds these seats:

0.04   Ferntree Gully
0.35   Kilsyth
0.99   Hastings
2.12   Morwell (Nationals)
2.65   Narracan
2.78   Evelyn
2.89   Bayswater
4.01   Southwest Coast
5.22   Box Hill
5.22   Bass
6.08   Mildura (Nationals - vs Independent)
7.63   Caulfield
7.71   Benambra
8.12   Benambra
8.43   Bulleen
8.68   Sandringham
8.99   Warrandyte
9.38   Nepean
9.56   Kew
10.69  Polworth
10.93  Brighton
11.17  Scoresby
11.32  Malvern
11.85  Mornington
12.26  Hawthorn
15.81  Gippsland South (Nationals)
17.51  Benalla (Nationals)
21.76  Murray Valley (Nationals)
22.08  Lowan (Nationals)
23.40  Swan Hill (Nationals)
4.20  Rodney (Nationals vs Liberals)
16.67  Shepparton (Nationals vs Liberals)

Gippsland East is held by an independent 9.1% vs Liberals.

The four seats held Labor vs Greens are obviously higher when considered Labor vs Liberal, likewise, the two seats held National vs Liberal are safer if considered Nationals vs Labor. The Independent has a stronger win when rated as 2PP vs Nationals and an even stronger win when it's vs Labor.

[Smid]

And here are some historic maps for the 2002 and 1999 elections. There was a redistribution finalised in 2001 and the 1999 results are based on the notional figures calculated on the new (current) boundaries. One map for 1999 includes the by-elections held in Burwood and Benalla, while the other one does not. Both by-elections were won by Labor.

2002:


1999 (without by-elections):


1999 (with by-elections):


Same warning again that Green is for the National Party, not the Greens (I really should get around to fixing that sometime). I'm also pleased to note that I have included in the Key the link to the source data for the notional results).

[Smid]

As always, Antony Green's Website is the be all and end all of electoral information for this election.

EDIT: The Tally Room webiste is also exceptional. Definitely check both out.

[Smid]

The Coalition released an ad last night. It's up on YouTube on the party's official channel thing, so no doubt other ads will pop up there, too, when they're released. Anyway, if anyone's interested, I'll post it here (and also in the election ads thread, wherever that's gone).

http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalVictoria

[Smid]

The Coalition released an ad last night. It's up on YouTube on the party's official channel thing, so no doubt other ads will pop up there, too, when they're released. Anyway, if anyone's interested, I'll post it here (and also in the election ads thread, wherever that's gone).

http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalVictoria

LOL!!!! That is one of the most pathetic election ad's I've ever seen.

How about the follow-up? Personally, I think it's worse but I can understand a different view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJRoIEeoNxQ

Didn't watch it here, but I suspect it's the Little Girl one that showed up in my inbox the other day. I rather liked it - it emphasises the problems the current government has failed to address, points out that they've done nothing and that there's the ability to change things... They remind me of the "Re-Pete" ads they ran up in Queensland a few elections back, which didn't win us the election, but certainly took the shine off the government, leading to a decline in their polls following the election. I don't have them on YouTube, but I do have that series on my computer in mp3 format, or wmv format, or whatever format they're in. The versions of those ads I have aren't the original version that were run on the tv (they don't have the authorised by at the end, and finish by saying something about "Beattie Bulls***). I'll have to show them to you sometime.

We should catch up for coffee again sometime.

[Smid]

The Age published a Nielsen poll, the poll was taken on Wednesday and Thursday. The main figures were published on Saturday, but the link is for an article from today, which I've copied here for you:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Accompanying the article was a table:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Smid]

A recent Newspoll has the 2PP as 51-49 to Labor (changed from 52-48 in the previous Newspoll). Two ACNielson polls released over the same time frame shows 52-48 to Labor (changed from 51-49). The Newspoll broke down to the following primary vote:

Liberal - 39%
Nationals - 5%
     (Coalition - 44%)
Labor - 37%
Greens - 14% (as a side note, this figure is down from 19%)
Others - 5%

A link I found in a news article showed some issues polling and personality polling for the leaders and parties, which seems to be from the same Newspoll (but with additional comparison to previous polls taken just before other elections).

Here's a news story from today's Herald Sun. I don't know how accurate it is - it's always interesting to hear government MPs talking down their chances, especially when polls consistently have them leading. In Australia, people certainly like to support the under-dog, which can lead to some quite ludicrous claims at times (such as Queensland Premier Peter Beattie claiming to be the under-dog when polls had him sitting at 54% and he ended up winning 2/3rds of the seats in Parliament). Some of this may be to try to limit a protest vote against the government, although some of it may be accurate. I'm sure you can all make your own minds up.

I also heard the other day that a Morgan Poll had the Greens winning the four inner-city seats. I was of the impression his methodology involved monkies and dart boards, but according to this it was a sample of 276 voters across the four electorates... of course, that means he probably only interviewed about 70 people in each electorate...

[Smid]

A new poll just out in the Herald Sun seems fairly extensive - 9,218 people were polled, and in the seats that were polled, between 222 and 580 people were polled.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Smid]

Over the past few days, the polls have had us at 49, 50, 51 and 52. I've been focusing on specific booth results in specific electorates and don't know how we finished. The VEC had us (when I left my other computer) at 45 seats to Labor's 43, however I saw some more up-to-date booth results and one of the seats the VEC is calling for us, we're behind in on my numbers, but I don't know about the others. There are lots of postals and pre-polls still to count (something like 20%) and those votes were cast before the swing started to materialise. I know for a fact that some senior MPs are very concerned that it could end up as 44-44 (it looks like there are no independents nor Greens). I've discussed this possibility previously with Hugh and also with a couple of MPs. Anyway, that would be a Constitutional nightmare, I don't even know how it could work. I've done up a quick map, but I'll work on some ones with margins before I post them on here, though. Should have some notional ones together in the next 24 hours.

[Smid]

My first map for this election:

2PP, election night, before postals, pre-poll, re-counts, etc...

[Smid]

2PP Swing by District:



The Labor Party had a swing to it in Murray Valley (I think an incumbent National retired after about 30 years of service, and it's still held by the National Party with about 70% of the 2PP), and also in the four inner-city electorates (probably has more to do with the Liberal Party decision to preference Labor ahead of the Greens, a reversal of the preference decision at the last election, rather than a genuine desire of constituents to re-elect their Labor incumbents).

With the exception of Lowan, the National Party had a swing to it in every seat it already held. It also had a substantial swing in Gippsland East, to unseat the only incumbent independent in the Parliament. In Morwell, there was a very large swing to the National Party, and in the neighbouring seat of Narracan, there was a very large swing to the Liberals. Both were seats gained by those respective parties at the last election, so there may have been some degree of "sophomore surge" however there are a large number of timber workers and power station employees in those two electorates, and Labor's environment policies and general closeness to the Greens may have increased the swing in these seats.

In all seats contested by the Liberal Party, where the 2PP is Liberal vs Labor, the Liberal Party received a swing to it.

[Smid]

In other news, the Liberal lead in Bentleigh increased this afternoon, after about 4,000 pre-poll votes were counted. Bentleigh was the most marginal seat last night, and was the one the Labor Party was hoping would switch back in postals and pre-poll to give them a 44-44 split Parliament instead of a 45-43 lead to the Liberals.

Here is the Herald Sun report on the count in Bentleigh. Postal votes received thus far were counted last night, so Labor's only hope will be that there are a few bundles of votes in the wrong pile, to be found during the re-count in the week or so ahead. I think this is unlikely, although the exceptionally small swing reported in the Coatesville booth (or at Coatesville Uniting Church - Hughesdale South booth), which is very different to the general swing across that electorate, suggests to me that it's possible that a bundle of Liberal votes could be found in Labor's pile at that booth during the recount... will be interesting to see if that ends up being the case or if there is another reason the swing there was small...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Smid]

Brumby concedes.

[Smid]

Swing to (and against) the Liberal Party (on primary vote). Most of the swings against the Liberals in those country seats were electorates where there was a National Party incumbent. Under the Coalition agreement, the two parties would not stand candidates against the other party's incumbent MPs. The swing in Seymour was no doubt because of the high profile independent who ran there. I can't explain the swings against in the Bendigo seats, or Ripon, except maybe it's because of the Country Alliance who didn't field Lower House candidates last election.

[Smid]

Liberal Party Primary Vote:

[Smid]

In the long run, perhaps not so dreadful. At least Victoria Labor will avoid the fate of certain comrades to the east. It's one thing to bounce back from a narrow defeat, quite another from... well...

My thoughts exactly. If Labor had won this election, I think they would be in a similar shape to Queensland and New South Wales by next election.

[Smid]

Postal votes received thus far were counted last night, so Labor's only hope will be that there are a few bundles of votes in the wrong pile, to be found during the re-count in the week or so ahead. I think this is unlikely, although the exceptionally small swing reported in the Coatesville booth (or at Coatesville Uniting Church - Hughesdale South booth), which is very different to the general swing across that electorate, suggests to me that it's possible that a bundle of Liberal votes could be found in Labor's pile at that booth during the recount... will be interesting to see if that ends up being the case or if there is another reason the swing there was small...

I was mistaken, it was actually the Bentleigh East booth, where the swing was small. I was correct about the bundle of 50 Liberal votes being stacked in Labor's pile, though - according to the rechecked results on the VEC website for Bentleigh, the Liberal vote at that booth is up by about fifty votes and the Labor vote is down by about fifty votes (the other couple of votes being probably ballots ruled formal on the night but subsequently ruled informal during the recount).

[Smid]

Andrews to Contest Leadership Ballot, Friday

Seems as though the ALP is opting for a bloodless takeover, but Andrews?

Keeps their powder dry... means someone more talented won't be burnt by the series of bad polls that inevitably follow an electoral defeat. If they change him after a while for someone else, it means they think they can win the next election, otherwise they might keep him there, let him take the fall for the 2014 election defeat and then install someone more charismatic ready for the following election.

[Smid]

If they change him after a while for someone else, it means they think they can win the next election

Sounds like something you guys did back in '01, and look how that turned out

otherwise they might keep him there, let him take the fall for the 2014 election defeat and then install someone more charismatic ready for the following election.

But if the ALP is in a position to reclaim government in 2014; (I mean, the Coalition's victory on Saturday was by no means a 'landslide' - and the ALP's task of winning back government is no difficult feet) then surely they would have opted for the best candidate, to lead them back to government right now. Or they could hope for what happened with the Libs and Baillieu. Andrews is the only viable candidate; the ALP has nobody else and hopes for the best!

I was thinking more like how Nelson suffered in the polls and was then replaced by Turnbull, who performed well until the Gordon Gretch affair, which was when his polls started to slide. Andrews cops the bad polls for a year or eighteen months and then gets replaced by someone else. That'd be my thought, anyway. Likewise what Labor did following the 2004 election... Latham hung on for a short time, then got rolled by Beazley, who went nowhere in the polls. Then they replaced him with the (charismatic?) Rudd, who lifted them in the polls. As you note, the ALP is not in a terribly weak position. They certainly could win the next election, as you point out. Indeed, that's why I think it likely that Andrews will be replaced in 12-18 months, maybe longer, but probably keep him there about that long. I guess they could always wait a little longer... they installed Rudd a year before the election and gave him plenty of time to become settled with the electorate. It's unlikely they'd leave it until less than twelve months before the election, because they need time.

[Smid]

Coalition wins a majority in both houses, 45-43 in the Lower House and 21-19 in the Upper House.

[Smid]

Sorry to be beating a dead horse (not trying to just thread bump) but am updating some maps and popping them in the gallery. I thought I should include them here for completeness sake.

2CP Results by Legislative Assembly District




2CP Swing by Legislative Assembly District


Brunswick (inner-city, immediately North of the CBD) was the only seat that swung to The Greens.

There were three inner-city seats (where 2PP was Labor vs Greens) where there was a swing to Labor (predominantly due to the Liberal Party's preferencing decision) - Melbourne, Richmond and Northcote. In Murray Valley (on the Northern state border with NSW), there was a slight 2PP swing to Labor probably due to retiring Nationals MP Ken Jasper (first elected in 1976 and winning ten consecutive elections).

The swing to the National Party in Lowan (Western state border with South Australia) was precisely 0%. In 2006, the 2PP in Bendigo West was Labor vs Liberal, in 2010 it was Labor vs National. There was a swing against Labor so the seat is shaded as a swing to the Nationals, however the scale of the swing is shown as the swing to the Coalition (as opposed to the swing from the 0% 2PP the Nationals received last election - the swing is based on the National 2PP this election and the Liberal 2PP last election). The swing in Gippsland East is calculated the same way (the 2CP last election was Independent vs Liberal, this election was National vs Independent, the swing is calculated as Coalition vs Independent in both years).



Percentage Received by Party Obtaining the Highest Primary Vote - Legislative Assembly


Although appearing in the Key, The Greens did not receive a plurality of votes in any District.



Percentage Received by Party Obtaining the Highest Primary Vote - Legislative Council


The Liberals and Nationals ran joint tickets in the Legislative Council Regions of Eastern Victoria, Northern Victoria and Western Victoria, so the shading is blue in all Districts in which the Coalition out-polled other parties, despite some of these areas probably being stronger for the National Party. The percentage includes votes cast above-the-line and also all first preference votes cast below-the-line for a candidate from that party.

The scale used is the same as that used in the Legislative Assembly map, to allow for better comparisons. The only exception to this is the lowest percentage category, in which the minimum is >30% rather than >35%, as there were some seats with a lower level in the Legislative Council compared to the Legislative Assembly (probably due, in part, to the greater number of candidates contesting the Council).

As the very pale blue shade is almost indistinguishable from the very pale green shade, in Melbourne and Richmond, The Greens won a plurality of votes, whereas in Essendon, the Liberals won a plurality.

[Smid]

Christian Parties

There were four parties that I would consider emphasise their "Christian credentials" that ran in the 2010 Victorian election: Family First (which attracts many of its votes from Pentecostals and Evangelicals, but also receive votes from some conservative Catholics), the DLP (which predominantly attracts its votes from conservative low-income Catholics, many of whom are probably older and still remember when the DLP and ALP split, or are the children of people who were members or supporters of the DLP during the time of the split - I know a handfull of these), the Christian Party and the Christian Democrats (Fred Nile Group). I don't know a profile of the people who vote for the Christian Party or the Christian Democrats, although the Christian Democrats are stronger in New South Wales than in other states - they actually hold an Upper House seat or two there (I'm too lazy to look up exactly how many). I think the Christian Party is relatively new, and hadn't run in previous elections. Their candidate in Bendigo East was the local chapter leader of the Australian Families Association, which is conservative Catholic and has strong ties to the DLP, so perhaps it's an attempt by the DLP to run a low-profile ticket in the Upper House to funnel preference votes to them from people wanting to vote "Christian" but who didn't realise the DLP's social stance (in other words, cheaper to run a ticket openly targeting conservative Christian voters, rather than run an advertising campaign for the DLP to try to attract those voters). I don't really know, that's just speculation on my part.

Anyway, here are a few maps looking at how these openly Christian parties performed, how Family First performed, how the DLP performed, and whether Family First or the DLP outpolled the other party, by District. I have used Legislative Council figures here, because personal votes tend to be lower in the Upper House as most people (close to 95%, although I'll do a map of that later) will cast above-the-line votes for a party, and because Family First didn't run candidates in a couple of seats, and the DLP only ran candidates in a few seats (I have a DLP map using Legislative Assembly votes, but really, it doesn't show much because so many seats didn't have a DLP candidate). It may be slightly distorted because the Christian Party only ran in a few Regions, and the Christian Democrats only ran in one, however it won't be by much... the Christian Democrats didn't crack 1% in any seat in which they ran and the Christian Party topped 1.5% in two electorates, and got more than 1% in less than half the electorates in which they ran. Overall, these four parties received 5.58% of the total formal vote statewide, which breaks down to 2.86% for Family First, 2.33% for the DLP, 0.3% for the Christian Party (which ran in 2 of the 8 Regions) and 0.08% for the Christian Democrats (which ran in 1 of the 8 Regions).

By comparison, in 2006, Family First received just over 4% of the primary vote, however many of their votes seem to have leaked to the DLP, so if anything, their vote was split, which probably accomplished little but to prevent them from receiving public funding (only parties receiving more than 4% of the vote are eligible for funding, at a rate of about $2 per vote in every electorate in which they received more than 4%... so if the DLP split Family First's vote, this may have simply resulted in the various Christian Parties receiving public funding than would otherwise be the case).

Generally, Christian parties received a higher vote in the suburban outskirts of Metropolitan Melbourne, a middle sort of vote level in rural Victoria, and low vote level in the inner suburbs of Metropolitan Melbourne, and the lowest level of all in the inner city. In 2010, the level in many rural seats was relatively higher (in terms of average vote) than it was in 2006. This is especially the case for Family First. I am not sure if this is due to the decrease in the Metropolitan area perhaps being greater than the decrease in rural areas, or whether the level there has actually increased (I might take a look at that later). In 2006, the vote received by Family First in many rural electorates was relatively (and surprisingly) low, compared to the party's statewide result. I saw a report in which it was speculated that this was due to conservative voters in these electorates being comfortable with the social viewpoints their National Party or country Liberal MPs.

One particular result which I found surprising was Bendigo East. In the life of the previous Parliament, a highly controversial abortion bill was passed. The Member for Bendigo East had voted in favour of the Bill and pro-life groups were specifically targeting her for this and because she is a member of Emily's List. She was also one of the more marginal seats that voted for the Bill, and Bendigo East has a high number of people identifying as Christian during the last Census, many of whom are Catholics. I am very surprised at just how low Christian parties generally performed in Bendigo East - to the extent that their vote there was lower than every neighbouring seat. The swing to the Liberal Party was also lower there than I had expected. The result in Mount Waverley was also lower than I expected - for the same reason. Mount Waverley was the most marginal Labor-held seat in the state and the incumbent was the Minister for Women, so was probably the top target for the pro-life groups. That said, the swing to the Liberals was far greater there, so perhaps some social conservatives swung directly to the Liberal Party rather than via the various Christian parties.

Legislative Council Primary Vote Results Total for the Four Christian Parties by District


Of note is the result in Thomastown (10.02%), Broadmeadows (10.4%) and Dandenong (10.81%) - all very safe Labor seats. The next tier are also safe Labor seats - Lyndhurst (8.34%), Mill Park (9.14%), Kororoit (9.17%) and Derrimut (9.69%). Indeed, every one of the 13 seats recording the highest total votes for the four Christian parties are held by Labor, and all of these 13 were held by Labor with more than 60% of the 2PP in 2006. Part of this may be socially conservative voters from low-income areas, who grew up voting Labor and who do not feel comfortable giving their first preference to the Liberals, although that's just speculation on my part.

Legislative Council Primary Vote Results for Family First by District


As I mentioned higher up this post, Family First does best in the outer suburban areas. Of particular interest is the result in Mildura. I'm not sure exactly what caused Family First to poll so well in Mildura, although it may have contributed to the Country Alliance missing out on the final position in the Northern Victoria Region (Country Alliance's votes were higher in some other Districts, but their result in Mildura was lower... the result was fairly close and for a while, some speculated that they would win the final Upper House position). Family First actually outpolled the Greens in Mildura - I'm pretty sure the only seat where this was the case.

Legislative Council Primary Vote Results for the DLP by District


As with the Christian vote generally, the DLP receives a higher percentage of the vote in the outer suburbs. The one thing that really stands out to me here is their higher vote in Bulleen and Doncaster (eastern suburbs, just south of the Yarra River - they're the two seats that stand out, surrounded by seats where the vote is lower). I can't explain it, it's not what I was expecting. I thought that perhaps the DLP ran candidates there in the lower house, so perhaps the booths were more heavily manned than neighbouring electorates, but this does not seem to be the case - the DLP did not run lower house candidates in those two seats, however did run candidates in the three seats immediately north of those two seats, and also in some of the seats below. I'll post that Legislative Assembly map after all, so you can see for yourself... Again, I'm surprised at how poorly the DLP performed in Mount Waverley and Bendigo East, given the high priority the AFA placed on unseating those two MPs.

Legislative Assembly Primary Vote for the DLP


Not really handy for much, except guessing seats where the DLP may have campaigned. It is interesting to note how few seats they ran candidates, especially in areas where they were strong (western, northern and south-eastern suburbs) - as evidenced by the high vote they received in some electorates, where they had no candidate in adjacent seats. Also consider the vote they received in the Legislative Council. Especially surprising is the absence of candidates in Lara and Melton (Western Vic), given these areas vote strongly for them and they were defending a Legislative Council position in that Region... possibly supporting the rumour that the Upper House incumbent wanted to lose because of a deal done that will see him replace the DLP Senator elected in the federal election (I must stress that this is just a rumour).

Family First vs DLP Primary Votes in the Legislative Council


The percentages in this map are based on the total vote received by Family First and the DLP - so basically shows seats where Family First outpolled the DLP and where the DLP outpolled Family First. The actual vote received by those parties is better reflected in the earlier maps, this one is really just useful in seeing which of these two parties performed better in a direct competition. The DLP's vote is fairly consistent, although is stronger in some aareas rather than others. Family First's vote, at least in Metropolitan Melbourne, is more strongly linked to proximity to the inner-city, so a fair amount of this is based on how well (or poorly) Family First did in each electorate.