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.
[Now that is pretty offensive. And this man talks about his concerns for ’stability’ while he wields power in a new government?]
Fair’s fair, apeman. How offensive were some of the MSM’s remarks about Katter, not to mention the bile (often smarta*sed defamatory) & state-ist claims & comments made by quite a few PBers! Should I recall your chiding them for their lack of respect?
I also seem to recall quite a few vitriolic PBer comments about Queenslanders after the election results, that Qlder PBs like me were expected to accept. But, hey, a few N Qlders make remarks about Southerners and suddenly it’s “pretty offensive”?
Do the MSM & PBers really expect those they attack as some type of loonies who ought to be thrown out of the Commonwealth (that was quite a common meme) really expect them not to retaliate? Gimme a break! If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen!
Katter becoming speaker
I would like to see that
[There is no clear narrative of what has happened with that box of votes, only that they were inapproriately handled.]
The story I heard was that instead of sending ‘x’ number of boxes to the AEC for scrutiny after the count, they opened all the boxes at the booth, emptied the votes into just one box (presumably that means one box for HOR and one for the Senate) and then sent just those two off. Evidendly some clever trousers thought it would be much more “economical” to send off one full box for each rather than three partly filled ones.
Anyway, the point was that when the boxes arrived at the AEC, the seals had obviously already been broken which, by definition, indicates tampering.
By law, the boxes must arrive at the AEC with the seals unbroken.
chinda63
thanks for the explanation.
#624
[ So? ]
Make what you will of it. The markets reflect weight of money. It reflects the opinions of people who put their money where their mouth is.
My original post was intended to reflect the “bi-polar” nature of this election. It was met with the usual one-liner from a person who has little to contribute to political discussion. I was merely pointing out the paucity of his intelligence.
I think Labor should offer the Speaker position to Bronnie Bishop. She has always wanted it but her own side would never let her have it. This is her last chance to grab it. Would put a cat among the pigeons. if Abbott gets to be PM Bronnie will be left to see out her days resting on the back bench so she might be tempted.
[lizzie
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
blue_green
Well, you see, a lot of my friends and previous workmates all over 50, all concerned about climate change etc. There are some of us who have been environmentalists since the 1970s and tend to vote Lab/green. We feel shut out by those who matured after the 80s who are further to the right.]
Lizzie, I know htat demographic really well. They have served in local enviornment groups since day one and provide the boards of every Australian Environmental NGO alsmost to a person. I encourage everyone to look through the demograhic spread of board members of Environmental NGOs- it is very, very narrow.
That group is THE environmental leadership of the country.
They are just not the demographic weight to shift an election.
More specifically on climate: if the climate opinions of the broader older demographics can be shifted then the overall climate debate is won.
Jenauthor
Actually I bet on the ALP, when Rudd was in trouble, and put a bet on Liberals (or closed my bet on the ALP), when Gillard was elected, either way, I have won $50.
The Independants are slowing my collection rate
Gillard fails to outline a parliamentary reform agenda. Abbott proposes setting up a review into parliamentary reform. I can see why people are so disappointed with both sides.
[ltep
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 3:24 pm | Permalink
Gillard fails to outline a parliamentary reform agenda. Abbott proposes setting up a review into parliamentary reform. I can see why people are so disappointed with both sides.]
CardsChest
rossco
Do you really want to hear Bronwyn speak more than you have to?
650 OzPol Tragic
As a one-time Queenslander I agree.
After this is resolved (either way) I recommend people visit the electorate of Kennedy
– go to Barcaldine where the Labor Party was formed
– go to Cloncurry where the Royal Flying Doctor Service was formed
– go to Winton and Longreach where Qantas was formed
– go to Combo Billabong where “Waltzing Matilda” was supposedly written (maybe about the same events that led to the birth of the ALP)
This is part of Australia, and they also have a voice.
[It means a things. it means that the feeling in the electorate is that Abbott will win.]
I would of thought it meant that those who backed Labor pre-election have saved on the coalition.
Here is my current thinking about the Independents.
Bandt is going to support Labor on almost all measures. And will actively support Labor on matters of no confidence.
Wilkie is going to support Labor on almost all measures. And he has now come out and said that he will actively support Labor on matters of no confidence – I think his words were “silly no confidence motions”. Which I take it to mean he reserves the right to vote against Labor if it offends too much against his agenda. Wilkie is vulnerable to either the Liberals or the Greens preferencing against him but neither will be that tempted. Also his main chance in remaining elected next time around is pleasing his constituents and increase his primary. Overall he doesn’t have much choice.
Crook is going to vote whichever way the Coaltion goes – except where it suits him. My take is he will vote against Labor on a no confidence motion. However, Crook will lose if the ALP chooses to preference against him – so his vote against Labor on a no confidence is not entirely assured.
Oakeshotte is most aligned to Labor policies so he’s going to vote with Labor most of the time (with amendments). I think he’s going to abstain from a no confidence. Oakeshotte is in any case most vulnerable to Labor and Greens preferences.
Windsor is split down the middle. I think he’ll choose to abstain on matters of no confidence. And probably vote mostly with Labor on most things. Windsor is also safe against preferencing.
Katter is probably going to return to his roots and will probably vote against Labor on a no confidence.
So how does that add up? Hmm..
Labor can count on 72 votes on a no confidence. Plus Bandt for sure. Plus Wilkie.
The Coaltion can count on 73 votes on a no confidence. That includes Crook – unless he can be convinced to abstain. They also have the vote of Katter I suspect.
That makes it 74 to 74
With O and W more inclined to abstain.
Now help me out here. A tied vote fails right? And where does the speaker come in to this?
Cross your fingers either Crook can be cajoled into abstaining, or Windsor decides that policy matters more than perception. Mind you, Windsor might end up as speaker. That’d put even more pressure on Oakeshotte not to abstain.
[Make what you will of it. The markets reflect weight of money. It reflects the opinions of people who put their money where their mouth is.]
Putting money where your mouth is doesn’t necessarily reflect belief. Many here had saver bets on the other side to limit their exposure.
If you watch the Hong Kong betting, you’ll know 90% of the money is mug money — that is why the syndicates clean up because they actually do form. Something you can’t do here because we don’t have the form — it is behind closed doors and is dependent on the emotional leanings and/or rational logic on the part of a few people.
Election betting is often swayed by personal political leaning which is emotional, not rational — the ‘mugs’ back their team, for good or ill. So ‘watching the money’ is a useless pastime in this case.
blue_green
[They are just not the demographic weight to shift an election.
More specifically on climate: if the climate opinions of the broader older demographics can be shifted then the overall climate debate is won.]
I agree. That’s why I often feel disenfranchised. Especially as my own sister has completely different attitudes and voting intentions. That’s also why I’m annoyed with baby boomers. They’re part of the consumer lot.
[RR @ 662]
Well said.
[Gillard fails to outline a parliamentary reform agenda. Abbott proposes setting up a review into parliamentary reform. I can see why people are so disappointed with both sides.]
Itep, I like what Fraser said last night on Q&A:
[The sad thing about a democracy is that really good politicians can make a lousy system work extraordinarily well and if the politicians – the people – are not adequate, they can destroy a really good system.]
[Now help me out here. A tied vote fails right? And where does the speaker come in to this?]
I recall Possum saying either party needs 76 votes for no confidence.
Hi Ozpol
I like you Qlders, I even barrack for the Cane Toads in SofO and I’m from the Cockroach state 😀
[Dumb ass. It means a things. it means that the feeling in the electorate is that Abbott will win. You need to think dude, instead of spitting out one-liners. But then again you may be genetically incapable of thinking outside your own little box. You are a disgrace.]
What an intelligent reply from young Pete. He’s improving. Name calling and all.
It still means Jack Shizen by the way. The electorate are not the ones voting in parliament, the indies are.
[Gillard fails to outline a parliamentary reform agenda. Abbott proposes setting up a review into parliamentary reform. I can see why people are so disappointed with both sides.]
Where’d you get that Ltep? Gillard put a paper to the Indies outlining a reform agenda that was supposedly quite detailed. She just hasn’t released it to us until the Indies have had the chance to look at it.
[How is it strange? It’s always been clear Labor are the outside chance in this.]
Even if Wilkie backs Labor?
b*gger
just realised Barcaldine and Longreach and Winton are in the Qld. electorate of Maranoa.
nevertheless, worth going to on the way – and definitely go to Lawn Hill Gorge, a truly beautiful place!
[I agree. That’s why I often feel disenfranchised. Especially as my own sister has completely different attitudes and voting intentions. That’s also why I’m annoyed with baby boomers. They’re part of the consumer lot.]
I have met many SKIers (Spend the Kids Inheritance). This group includes my parents and two out of four Grandparents.
The idea of leaving a legacy or a foundation for the future is no longer an overabiding value across the broader older generations.
I really hate the way the media expects all the negotiation to be out in the open, with them barracking on the sidelines. “We must see the details.” Have they no *respeck*?
[Does anyone know the earliest and latest date that Parliament can sit?]
Earliest: whenever Julia either goes to the GG and asks for Parliament to be recalled (if she thinks she has the numbers) or hands in her resignation (if she thinks she doesn’t)
Latest: November 26
#671 Gary
Nice to see a contribution of more than one line, even if all the verbiage was merely to state the blinking obvious.
Just had $50.00 @ $3.10 on ALP after listening to/watching Julia’s Prime Ministerial performance at the NPC…..
Can’t see how the Indies will go with “Three Boats Tone” if they want any of their issues seriously addressed………go Julia!!!
[Now help me out here. A tied vote fails right? And where does the speaker come in to this?]
No, if there’s a tied vote in the House of Representatives, the Speaker has a casting vote (but the Speaker doesn’t get a vote at first instance).
In the Senate, the President has a deliberative vote but tied votes fail.
Two QLD states would serve QLDers better.
Conversely would change the nature and balance of the AUstralian senate greatly though and also limit the ability of decent constitutional reform.
blue_green
I find that legacy thing so amusing. I’ve never had enough to leave (or to go on overseas holidays).
GetUp wants to ban legalised bribery.
[“When corporations and other organisations donate large sums to political parties it undermines the public confidence in the integrity of those parties and candidates and can lead to perceived conflicts of interest, if not conflicts themselves,” the report said.]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/call-to-ban-corporate-union-donations/story-fn3dxity-1225912418283
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/joehildebrand/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/constitutional_exclusive_50_ways_to_win_government/
[Both Labor and the Coalition claim they have the right to form Government under Australia’s complex constitutional conventions. However in yet another extraordinary exclusive, the Joe Hildebrand Blog can reveal there are a number of criteria to decide who has the mandate to seek a majority in Parliament…]
1 The party that has the most seats
2 The party that has the highest primary vote
3 The party that has the highest two-party preferred vote
4 The party that has the highest two-party preferred vote in the highest number of seats
5 The party that has the highest MPs (ie. the Greens)
6 The party that runs the best focus groups
7 The focus groups that run the best party
8 The focus groups that host the best party
9 The party with the most women
10 The party that picks up the most women
11 The party that wins Eden-Monaro
12 The party that wins Lindsay
13 The party that wins Lindsay Lohan
14 The party that finds Lindsay Lohan
15 The party that has a plan for the future
16 The party that has an action contract with the Australian people
17 The party that has a contract out on the Australian people
18 The party that can offer the most stability
19 The party that can offer the most money
20 The party that can offer its costings
21 The party that can cost its offers
22 The party that can stuff its coffers
23 The party that can stuff the coppers
24 The party backed by Marius Kloppers
25 The party that can tell the best joke
26 The party that has the most jokes*
27 The party that has the most blokes
28 The party that bums the most smokes
29 The party that snorts the most coke
30 The party with the most conservatives
31 The party with the most reds
32 The party with the most redheads
33 The party with the most deadheads (ie. the Greens)
34 The party with the best policies
35 The party with the most policies
36 The party with the best plan
37 The party with the best people
38 The best party
39 The Peter Best party
40 The Ringo Starr party
41 The Birthday Party
42 The third party insurance party
43 The arty-farty party (ie. the Greens)
44 The party in the house
45 The party in da house
46 The party with the numbers in the house
47 The party with da numbers in da house (ie. the Greens)
48 The party with the highest principles
49 The party with any principles
50 Any party
he he he…. the party that finds lindsay lohan buhahaha
[vik
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Does anyone know the earliest and latest date that Parliament can sit?
Earliest: whenever Julia either goes to the GG and asks for Parliament to be recalled (if she thinks she has the numbers) or hands in her resignation (if she thinks she doesn’t)
Latest: November 26]
Many thanks Vik. That is a long time between sittings. How did you work that out?
Wal,
That is poetic genius.
Blue Green
Does that means Qld get 20 senators
Be Carefull what you wish for
#664
Windsor will NOT accept the Speaker’s role. He has said that 100’s of times.
Gillard will be working hard to entice Oakeshott to accept it though. Watch this space….. 😆
[Nice to see a contribution of more than one line, even if all the verbiage was merely to state the blinking obvious.]
Something you conveniently overlooked earlier young fella.
My one lines usually make a lot more sense than your angry tirade of 3 or 5 sentences.
[Even if Wilkie backs Labor?]
Well that’s increase it slightly, but the 3 rural independents will always be the deciders and until they explicitly come out and back Gillard Labor should always be long odds.
You must have a lot to do Wal Kolla
[No, if there’s a tied vote in the House of Representatives, the Speaker has a casting vote (but the Speaker doesn’t get a vote at first instance).]
Ah, thanks for that ltep
[lizzie
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 3:34 pm | Permalink
blue_green
I find that legacy thing so amusing. I’ve never had enough to leave (or to go on overseas holidays).]
I have one grandmother who re-uses aluminum foil when she cooks- several times. I have another who jokes to her children every time she goes on a cruise- ‘thats a few Grand less for you children”.
The legacy ethic extends beyond personal finance though. It also goes to preserving nature and the environment, better education for children etc.
It’s unrealistic to expect that Boothby will magically move over to the Labor column, but perhaps a full recount wouldn’t be a bad idea?
Last time I looked, Labor is now on 50.02 of the 2PP vote, not that I imagine that the MSM will report this. 😉
[Conversely would change the nature and balance of the AUstralian senate greatly though and also limit the ability of decent constitutional reform.]
Well not necessarily. The Constitution provides the Parliament the power to make laws relating to the representation of new states in the Parliament. In the statehood movement for the NT, Howard was only offering the NT 1 additional senator in the case they became a state.
[but the 3 rural independents will always be the deciders and until they explicitly come out and back Gillard Labor should always be long odds.]
With Labor+Wilkie they get 77, as opposed to a bare 76 with the coalition. They are the ones who say they want stability and more than 76.
[Well that’s increase it slightly, but the 3 rural independents will always be the deciders and until they explicitly come out and back Gillard Labor should always be long odds.]
If the indies are just seen as naturally voting for the conservative side because they are rural then how can they be true independents?
[You must have a lot to do Wal Kolla]
Its called PHD-procrastination…
I get annoyed.
I come here.
I take it out on your computer screens.
I get bored and wonder what the fruit I am doing.
I go back to work.
Obviously, you can tell when I am most stressed / bored lol…
anyway, as they say “What are you looking at! Back to work you mangy dog” so back to work i go! 😛
[dovif
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 3:36 pm | Permalink
Blue Green
Does that means Qld get 20 senators
Be Carefull what you wish for]
Wouldn’t the two QLDs have to get 24 senators over two half-senate elections?
It would probably cause the ALP to desperately seek state status for the ACT.
I dont know the constitutional convention for adding states.
blue_green
Yes, there’s a whole generation that have always re-used, recycled etc, stemming from post-WW2, who do not fear new restrictions on consumables because they already self-impose. Some of us have mothers & g-mothers who went thru Great Depression and the lessons were passed on.
I fear for the world of Tone, which is the dominant attitude now.