Victoria, Australia, by-elections in the life of the 57th Parliament (2010-2014)

[Smid]

So The Age reports that the by-election in Broadmeadows, triggered by the retirement of former Premier John Brumby, will be held on 19 February 2011.

The seat is held by Labor by a very large margin. Labor polled 62.29% of the primary vote and 70.98% of the 2PP. The 2PP swing against Labor was about 10%, read into that what you will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Smid]

Again, according to The Age, the Liberal Party will not be nominating a candidate to challenge in the by-election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Smid]

Another article in The Age talks with Labor's candidate from the wealthy suburb of beachside Brighton who is running for the battler electorate of Broadmeadows. The article exceeds the maximum length for Atlas, so I’ll split it across two posts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Smid]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not split perfectly - given that it separates the two sentences in the middle where the whole cycling/pedalling analogy originates, but I think it was the best point to split it - between the interview with Labor's previous star candidate, Mary Delahunty, and Frank McGuire's background and personal history.

[Smid]

So the Broadmeadows by-election was held on Saturday.

Unsurprisingly, the Labor candidate, Frank McGuire, won the seat.

The Labor Party's primary vote fell about 22% from the November election, to about 53% (I'll update this later, once they finish counting postals and pre-polls). The 2CP result was determined by the VEC to be Labor vs Greens prior to the night, so it is showing a swing to Labor, however I am pretty sure that following the full distribution of preferences, the final 2CP will be Labor vs Independent.

[Smid]

Bumping an old thread to include the news that the former Brumby Government Deputy Premier, Rob Hulls, has announced his retirement. His seat of Niddrie was held by Labor in the November 2010 election with a 2PP vote of 56.95%. There were five independents who ran against him (the highest number of independent and total candidates in any electorate). The primary results were:

Labor - 14,435 (45.76%)
Liberal - 11,000 (34.10%)
Greens - 2,451 (7.77%)
Family First - 1,263 (4.00%)
Independent 1 - 1,516 (4.81%)
Independent 2 - 499 (1.58%)
Independent 3 - 162 (0.51%)
Independent 4 - 140 (0.44%)
Independent 5 - 131 (0.42%)

The large number of candidates, and relatively high proportion of people speaking a language other than English at home (Italian, I'd suspect, partially from knowing the area a little, and partially from other demographic maps showing the high proportion of Catholics in the electorate - one of the highest in the state, I think... anyway, the religion isn't Greek Orthodox...) probably both contributed to the highest informal vote in the 2010 state election - 2,865 (8.33%), which is higher than the margin (so theoretically could have affected the election result, but I think we all know that Hulls would have been elected regardless of it being theoretically possible).

Anyway, without further ado, here's the Herald Sun story. I'll post a link to Antony Green's page once he's uploaded his analysis.

[Smid]

Antony Green has prepared a page detailing the by-election, with his usual thorough analysis of the seat, the retiring member and historic results.

[Smid]

It's generally quite strategic. Penrith was contested because, while having been held just once (?) previously by the Liberals, the area was Liberal-held federally throughout the Howard years and the seat was winnable, especially with polls showing the hammering awaiting Labor, and the swings during the previous round of by-elections (Ryde, Lakemba, Port Macquarie and another seat which I forget).

Going back a bit longer, federally the Liberals didn't contest the Cunningham by-election, centred on the industrial town of Woolloongong, and the Greens picked up the seat because Liberal voters were willing to vote Green to defeat Labor, and some Labor voters, upset at the mid-term retirement of their MP (and consequent cost of a by-election), were also prepared to vote Green, whereas they may have not voted Liberal if there had been a candidate. If the Liberals had fielded a candidate, the Greens would have finished third and Labor won on their preferences, however by not fielding a candidate, the Greens actually won the seat off Labor.

Sometimes it pays to run, though - Labor almost decided to not run in the Ryan by-election (federal), but endorsed a candidate who ended up winning in a surprise upset (first time the seat didn't go Liberal in its 50-year history).

Labor didn't field a candidate in the Higgins by-election, which is affluent but contains some inner-suburbs where the Greens can potentially do well. This was at the same time as Rudd was enjoying his extended honeymoon as Prime Minister and the Liberals (then under Turnbull, although the leadership change happened I think a week before the by-election) were polling poorly, so Labor believed that by not running they were maximising the chance of the Greens stealing the seat, although it didn't pan out that way.

The difference between by-election and general election is that in the general election candidates need to be fielded in all the seats, since a presence at polling booths increases a party's vote and this flows through to the Upper House, however in a by-election, there is no need to maximise a party's vote in the Upper House, so therefore no need to field a candidate and spend campaign funds on a seat that the party cannot win, especially if it could potentially cause an upset for the other party by allowing a candidate who would otherwise finish lower than the party, sneak in on preferences.

[Smid]

Why is this the norm down under? Here its unheard of for parties not to field candidates... even in ridings considered un-winnable (i.e the tories will no doubt run in Toronto-Danforth, even thougth they will never win)

One other significant difference between Australia and Canada is compulsory voting. If the Tories don't run in T-D, tory voters just won't show up to vote. In Australia, since voting is compulsory, they'd show up to vote and without a tory candidate, would probably vote Liberal, and could potentially throw a spanner in the works for the NDP.

[Smid]

News Item in the Herald Sun

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Smid]

So in addition to today's Queensland state election, the Niddrie by-election in Melbourne's west also occurred. Polls closed half an hour ago. Results should be up at www.vec.vic.gov.au - to avoid confusion, and in case you missed the earlier commentary, there is no Liberal candidate, so 2CP is likely to be Labor vs Greens.

[Smid]

State Member for Melbourne, Bronwyn Pike, resigns from Parliament.

Of course, in Melbourne, the Greens outpolled the Liberals, so it's a marginal Labor vs Green seat. The Electoral Commission always publishes Labor vs Coalition 2PP in the Report into the election, and on that basis the seat becomes very safe Labor. Greens are obviously the bigger threat to Labor in this seat.

[Smid]

So the by-election is tomorrow. The Greens are the firm favourite, but Labor has won it at every election since 1908. Labor has been talking down its chances, leaking an internal poll last week showing them trailing the Greens, and blaming the federal government. Of course, if any electorate can resist a swing against Labor due to the Carbon Tax, it would be this seat, which is entirely within the federal boundaries of the only seat held by the Greens.

ReachTel published a poll with Labor trailing the Greens on primary vote, 38-36, so preferences will play a vital role. The Catholic Church emailed parents with children in Catholic schools, endorsing Labor, due to the Greens policy of refunding church-run schools. The Sex Party also will be preferencing Labor due to"anti-sex morality"from some in the feminist wing of the Greens.

I think Labor I'd talking down their chances so they have a good news story to tell when they scrape across the line in a seat they've held for over a century, but people seem to think the Greens are just about home and hosed. The results will be very interesting, regardless.

[Smid]

Looks like I might be wrong... Labor 31%, Greens 40%. I'm not sure what booths are reporting, though, and the electorate is polarised between Labor and the Greens, plus good Liberal booths in Docklands and East Melbourne, so early results may not reflect final results.

Sex Party 7% and Stephen Mayne 4.5%.

I think North Melbourne East should be good for Labor, but they're trailing there, so that's good news for the Greens. Only it and Parkville returning at this stage.

[Smid]

More booths in, Labor has improved slightly, but only has a plurality in the Gotham Hill booth, which I think was they're strongest both in the General. I think a fair number of housing commission towers in that part of the electorate, but I could be wrong.

[Smid]

The best part of this might be the Sex Party sitting on 7%...

I know! First time they've received their public funding?

I may not be quite so wrong... Labor at 50.37%. Looks like Liberal voters were the most reliable Labor vote, judging from the results in the East Melbourne booth...

[Smid]

I may not be quite so wrong

You're quite good at this, aren't you

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across like that. It's just it really did strike me during the week that groupthink in the media had hyped the Greens to the extent that a win for them wasn't just expected, it was more like it was a foregone conclusion. A Labor win was $3 on Centrebet the other day, which I thought was just ridiculous. That's why I posted on Friday that I thought Labor was talking down their chances so they could make a good news story of a close win. It was always about the preferences and it was the Sex Party that sealed the deal... They backed the Greens at the General, but Labor yesterday. Anyway, when early results had the Greens with a 9 point lead on primary vote, I said I looked like being wrong, so I didn't mean to sound smug or gloating when I said I got it right.

[Smid]

Labor evidently ran a good postal vote campaign... Ordinary votes were very close, prepoll votes were won by the Greens by about a hundred, but Labor got an extra 550 votes compared to the Greens from postal ballots counted last night.

[Smid]

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across like that.

i

Evidently I didn't either as it was intended as a compliment!

Ah, good, I was worried I was sounding like I was boasting, and I can't stand people who always say how good they are, especially after the fact, and am always worried that I sound like one of them.

That said, I was proud of my efforts in the last federal election, the subsequent negotiations with the independents after (the Tony Windsor "one of us might need to back down and support the decision of the other two" comment gave it away, I thought), that the minority government would not fall early*, but my best was probably Pauline Hanson's Senate bid in 2001 - I think I was the first I knew that said she wouldn't get it (I thought obvious, because they wouldn't get a quota in their own right and everyone was preferencing against her).

EDIT:*obviously barring a by-election that changes the numbers in the Parliament.

[Smid]

[Smid]

or are the boots just spread out and it's legal to vote at any one as long as you live in the district, thus making actual "precinct results" impossible?

^^^this. The dots are all the same size, but the number of votes cast at them vary, making it somewhat harder to compare. The map is more indicative of roughly where support for the parties was located within the electorate, rather than a particularly scientific approach, like when precinct maps in the US and poll maps in Canada are posted).

At the by-election, the smallest booth was Docklands (pink dot, previously dark red, South-West of the electorate, on the water, where the jutting in bits allow you to correctly assume that it used to be a wharf - now you'd call it a condo development and marina)... Docklands had 786 formal ballots cast.

The largest booth at the by-election was Kensington (the Westernmost booth, went from red to pale green) with 2,428 formal ballots cast.

Larger than any booth were postal votes, which could have come from any part of the electorate with 3,477 formal votes (58.44% Labor) and larger still was pre-poll, again, people could have come from any part of the electorate to vote there (3,832 - 51.3% Green).

Reading the small print on the image (you may want to view it in the gallery), I have the booth locations for the general election, but not the by-election... I've had to assume that they haven't moved, except for North Melbourne Central, which is abolished, and South Kensington, which is created - probably roughly the same area, just slightly further to the West, although it's difficult to analyse the impact on neighbouring booths - whether Kensington lost some voters to South Kensington, and whether North Melbourne and North Melbourne East gained voters from North Melbourne Central - due to the substantially lower turnout).

[Smid]

Tim Holding announced his retirement on Friday - yesterday's newspaper suggested that Martin Pakula may make the switch from Upper House to Lower House.

[Smid]

The Lyndhurst by-election date has been set for 27 April. Nominations close 28 March.

Edit: Antony Green has a write-up

[Smid]

Martin Pakula won Labor preselection on Friday. There was an article in the paper on Thursday about an internal battle going on about it (basically, the Opposition Leader is apparently threatened by him entering the Lower House and was encouraging someone else to challenge, despite a deal that seat "belonged" to Pakula's faction).

[Smid]

Lyndhurst by-election was held on Saturday. Labor held onto the seat with a significant primary vote swing against.