Yesterday, the Australian Electoral Commission performed an act which in a rational world would have excited no interest. Since last weekend the commission has featured a “national two party preferred result” on the front page of its Virtual Tally Room, which has assumed tremendous psychological interest as Labor’s margin has steadily eroded from 0.6 per cent to 0.4 per cent. However, the tally had a flaw which biased it in Labor’s favour: there were no Labor-versus-Coalition figures available from strongly conservative Kennedy, Lyne, New England or O’Connor, where the notional two-candidate preferred counts conducted on election night involved independents. This was only balanced out by left-wing Melbourne, where Labor and the Greens were correctly identified as the front-running candidates for the notional count. For whatever reason, the AEC decided yesterday to level the playing field by excluding seats where the notional preference count candidates had been changed since election night, which in each case meant left-wing seats where the Liberals had finished third to the Greens (Batman and Grayndler) or Andrew Wilkie (Denison). The result was an instant 0.4 per cent drop in Labor’s score, reducing them to a minuscule lead that was soon rubbed out by further late counting.
In fact, very little actually changed in yesterday’s counting, which saw a continuation of the slow decline in the Labor total that is the usual pattern of late counting. The media, regrettably, has almost entirely dropped the ball on this point. Mark Simkin of the ABC last night reported that Labor’s lead had been eradicated by the “latest counting”, as opposed to an essentially meaningless administrative decision. Lateline too informed us that Labor’s two-party vote had “collapsed”, and Leigh Sales’ opening question to Julie Bishop on Lateline was essentially an invitation to gloat about the fact. Most newspaper accounts eventually get around to acknowledging the entirely artificial nature of the 50,000-vote reversal in Labor’s fortunes, but only after reporting in breathless tones on the removal of votes that will eventually be put back in.
The reality is that nobody knew who had the lead on the two-party vote yesterday morning, and nothing happened in the day to make anybody any the wiser. The Prime Minister equally had no idea on election night when she made her ill-advised claim to the two-party majority mantle. Only when all seats have reported Labor-versus-Coalition counts, which is probably still a few weeks away, will we be able to say for sure. The best we can do at present is to construct a projection based on the votes counted and our best assumptions as to how the gaps in the vote count data will be filled when all the figures are in.
At present we have completed “ordinary” polling day totals for all electorates and advanced counts of postal votes in most cases, but there has been no progress yet on absent or pre-poll votes in roughly half. Where counting of any of these three categories has been conducted, I have projected the party results on to the expected total of such votes (derived from the “declaration vote scrutiny progress” for absent and pre-poll votes, and from the number of applications for postal votes discounted by 16 per cent as per experience from 2007). Where no counting of a particular category has been conducted, I have compared the parties’ 2007 vote share in that category with their ordinary vote share, and applied that difference to the ordinary vote from this election. For example, the 2007 Liberal two-party vote in Canberra was 7.19 per cent higher than their ordinary vote share, so their 40.54 per cent ordinary vote at the current election has been used to project an absent vote share of 47.73 per cent.
For Batman, Grayndler and Denison, I have used the figures from the two-party Labor-versus-Liberal counts that were conducted in these seats from ordinary votes on election night, calculated the swing against the ordinary vote in 2007 and projected it over the expected absent, pre-poll and postal totals. For Melbourne, New England and Kennedy, where no Labor-versus-Coalition figures are available, I have used preference shares derived from the Labor-versus-Coalition counts from the 2007 election to determine the swing on ordinary votes, and projected that swing through the other categories. It’s with Lyne and O’Connor that things get crude, as we have no case study of how Rob Oakeshott’s or Wilson Tuckey’s preferences split between Labor and Nationals candidates. For O’Connor, which has at least been a Labor-Liberal-Nationals contest at successive elections, I have crudely arrived at a 7.9 per cent swing against Labor derived from the primary vote swing plus moderated by a 70 per cent share of the swing in favour of the Greens. The best I could think to do for Lyne was average the two-party swings from the neighbouring electorates, producing a 5.14 per cent swing against Labor.
Plug all that in and here’s what you get:
Labor 6,313,736 (50.02 per cent)
Coalition 6,307,924 (49.98 per cent)
In other news, Andrew Wilkie says the two-party vote total is “not relevant” in determining which party he will back. Good for him.
UPDATE: An Essential Research poll has it at 50-50, which is “unchanged” – I’m not sure if this is in comparison with the election result or a previously unpublished Essential result from a week ago. Basically no change on preferred prime minister. UPDATE 2: The 50-50 from last week was indeed an unpublished Essential result from their rolling two-week average, which they understandably felt was not worth publishing under the circumstances.
Ooo.. Julia giving Shenanigans some sarcasm 🙂
[443 BH
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
Did La Grattan call the PM “Miss Gillard” while everyone else is saying “Prime Minister”?
I think La Grattan may be a trifle miffed about the female PM.
444 Psephos]
she did that before the election,
it just needs a barrage of calls re Riley
lazy reporting should of checked his facts they have their little I phones these days could of been done
Why oh why we didn’t see this Julia during the elections?
Psephos @444, that only partly explains it. There is also outright partisanship and the subtle bias that comes with actually personally believing things like “BER disaster”. Maybe I should put that down to being uncritical – which whenyou think of it is an aspect of lack of intelligence. Oh heck, lots of journos are just plain stupid 🙂
Gweeds.. too scared of offending the media. Now it doesn’t matter.
ROFL courier mail journo asks about Rudd how predeictable.
445 madcyril
Interesting. Same happened to Bracks. I would predict same if Labor get up – not so ssure about Coalition (probably my bias)
By the way – I am quite prepared to say that whoever has the final AEC TPP should form government, but it seems when push comes to shove none of the Coalition supporters here, nor their MPs such as Abbott and Bishop will say likewise!
BH: Leigh Sales called the PM ‘single’ in an interview with Plibersek during the campaign.
I’d suggest that a female PM, plus a PM who doesn’t fit the stereotypical family mould has quite a few of them unsure how to relate to her. It’s bizarre. Are we in 2010 or 1910?
Only Rudd needed a time limit, and he won’t be getting many questions.
456
If Leigh ever interviews George Pell (or the Pope) I wonder if she would call them “single”?
Gilbert ask why do we have a democracy (paraphrased)
*facepalm*
Yet another very impressive performance from Gillard at the Press Club. She really does stand head and shoulders above Abbott when it comes to the discussion of any matter of substance. Hope the independents got a chance to watch it!
[Yet another very impressive performance from Gillard at the Press Club. She really does stand head and shoulders above Abbott when it comes to the discussion of any matter of substance.]
This is why I cannot understand why the Rabbott gets their undying support.
How is the 2PP count going?
Luuurve the way she slapped down Shanahan’s ‘learned interpretations’ of the polls every fortnight!
Dee – the forces of Good are ahead by a couple of thousand 🙂
[They’re not stupid, they’re lazy and conceited, with their egos puffed up by TV appearances and opinion columns with their names on. Some of them have been promoted because of their looks rather their acumen.]
What a fine clutch of words you’ve used there, Psephos.
Dee@462
Benighted self-interest?
can the press and libs really be this moronic on the 2pp thing ?
Also loved the way she slapped down the question about focus groups.
“By the way – I am quite prepared to say that whoever has the final AEC TPP should form government…none of the Coalition supporters…will say likewise!”
That’s because winning the TPP is your only possible remaining claim to any kind of legitimacy…whereas the Coalition has many claims.
[Luuurve the way she slapped down Shanahan’s ‘learned interpretations’ of the polls every fortnight!]
Will Shamaham find a new way to interpret the new 2PP figure as a win for Abbott? If there is a way he’ll find it.
I loved the PM’s feistiness with the press – fabulous putdowns in many of her answers which will be interpreted as she is cracking under pressure of the press!
Look at this quickly before the subs get to work and change it into “2PP too close to matter”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-takes-the-lead-in-two-party-preferred/story-fn59niix-1225912327439
BH
She was too measured today. In fact, I would say very sombre in her approach. Very evenkeeled. There is no chance it could be seen that she is cracking under pressure.
Changed my mind, again! After that I think the Indies will realize she is a class above her opponent. The most telling moment came when she utterly demolished the Liberals Stop the Boats sloganeering – based on a focus group question from a timid journalist from the West Australian. I think it now swings slightly her way with Wilkie a definite, and two of the WOK. ( It’s also the private view of a very senior Gallery journo)
I watched on SLY … and afterward, Blondie, when asked about Gillard’s performance, just rabbitted on about the 2PP. No response to the substance at all.
It is quite obvious she wants Murdoch to ‘notice’ how well she can push his line and avoid giving Julia any kudos.
Sad.
al paster
who is this senior Gallery journo – pray tell?
I am quite prepared to say that whoever has the final AEC TPP should form government, but it seems when push comes to shove none of the Coalition supporters here, nor their MPs such as Abbott and Bishop will say likewise!
Well in that case the TPP should be based on party lines, not on a coalition of parties vs one party. I think whoever can form a stable, governing coalition should form government.
Being measured is a sign you are cracking up? And I thought I was a pessimist 🙂
Do tell voice of truth, what claims to legitimacy does the Coalition have?
Victoria,
That would be telling.
al paster
touche’
coalition has a moronic majority
jenauthor
I agree that her answer to the focus group question was brilliant. Especially making reference to Abbott’s sloganeering of three words. Stop the Boats, End the Waste.
I think that put the journos back in their box, if only for a moment!
[That’s because winning the TPP is your only possible remaining claim to any kind of legitimacy…whereas the Coalition has many claims.]
TPP is a pretty good indicator.
ALP 72 – Coal 72
5 Uncommitted
The ALP also have etiquette.
What do the coalition have? I haven’t seen anything except for dirty rags.
Latest Essential Research has the 2PP at 50% – 50%
http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/essential-report/
[Latest Essential Research has the 2PP at 50% – 50%]
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
wtte
“Give me a slogan, three words would be good.
the focus groups say Stop the Boats, End the Waste
Great then,
Stop the Boats
End the Waste”
hahaha, brilliant stuff by Julia.
Essential Primaries
Coalition – 44%
Labor – 38%
Greens – 11%
Usual two week rolling average
Heard an excerpt earlier on radio that Oakshott was stating that they will be reading over all the economic data etc, and also revisit Garnaut’s recommendations sometime during this week, so they can evaluate what can be done with Climate Change Policy. I am not sure I heard it correctly. Can anyone shed any light on this?
[’d suggest that a female PM, plus a PM who doesn’t fit the stereotypical family mould has quite a few of them unsure how to relate to her. It’s bizarre. Are we in 2010 or 1910?]
confessions – I find it a bit sad. Surely they’d be so proud to have a female rise to such great heights. As Rocket R says – they don’t make similar comments about George Pell who has some very weird beliefs including his Opus Dei flagellation stuff we read about.
Would be funny if there was another election with the same result.
2PP Watch – 3600 lead and rising.
Boothby watch – Oakland PPV still excluded.
Abbott watch – still shooting his mouth off and generally being a complete twat.
[Mithrandir
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
Would be funny if there was another election with the same result.]
Nooooo I couldn’t take another election within the next 12 months
Indies group have withdrawn from SBS tonight.
[Do tell voice of truth, what claims to legitimacy does the Coalition have?]
They watched their Mothers and Fathers get married.
BH
#492
Where did you hear that?
grey,
That would be a cliam to illegitimacy, wouldn’t it?
A claim even!
[Would be funny if there was another election with the same result]
About as funny as a fart in an elevator.
Stepping out the drama for a minute: it really is an extraordinary dead heat in teh lower house.
50-50 on 2PP (or close enough)
level on seats
level on guranteed supporter of 1 extra seat
My view is the ebst way to see the election is this:
Punters ultianmtrly wanted neither patry. Huge dissatisfation with the govt, but no enthusiasm at all for Phoney and the Phibs.
*But:* voted strongly centre-left in senate as insurance against possible Abbott win.
Thats the one clear outcome from all this. There was even a swing *against* the coalition in the Senate.