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.
[It was suggested earlier that the NBN TAS rollout …]
Currently, it’s also being rolled out in Armidale (Tony Windsor’s electorate) & in Townsville (Electorates of T’ville – Ewan Jones LNP, with some in Kennedy- Katter & Dawson – George Christensen LNP). So, if Abbott wins, will these rollouts be stopped? And what will it cost the nation in “breach of Contract” compensation?
IOW, Abbott’s position on NBN where contracts have already been let is silly. In fact, it’s silly with or without contracts. Presumably Defence will lean on Abbott to continue to cable areas with bases & other installations; Capital cities will also. The health lobby (naturally conservative) want it for data transmission (eg MRI & other scans & tests to doctors outside the immediate area). Universities with Distance Ed, esp OS, will join the lobby … hence my silly comment.
[Sylvia Hale is set to announce her resignation from the NSW Legislative Council.]
To be replaced by Bondi based lawyer David Shoebridge.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/31/2998205.htm?section=justin
Itep @216
Read William’s Article above…
[Katter is the big unknown, but wherever he goes Windsor will follow.]
That really doesn’t say much for the character of Windsor. I’m not so sure he is that easily lead. This is a man who has said if need be they will go back to the people.
I have read it Democracy. Are you referring to this:
[ For Melbourne, New England and Kennedy, where no Labor-versus-Coalition figures are available]
This is because the ‘night’ 2CP figures were between ALP/Green; Ind/Nat and Ind/LNP. Labor candidates ran in all three seats.
I don’t think that the best deal would come from the conservatives either. But let’s say you are an independent who tends towards the Coalition, but you want to extract the most out of either party. If on election night you went to Abbott and say that you would support him then Abbott wouldn’t need to give you anything as he has already you on your side. However if you say you haven’t made your mind up and you may back Labor, then the Coalition would have to give you some reason to support them. The same with Labor of course.
Let’s face it the three amigos are between a rock and a hard place here, can’t imagine myself in their shoes. They have their constituents views to consider for their own futures but would no doubt want to do the right thing by the country too, I don’t think they are deliberately vacillating, I think it’s very hard, pure and simple.
Wilkie is different, he is almost certainly only a oncer even if he may be tempted to think otherwise, and can play Devil’s Advocate and enjoy himself. Bandt will go with Labor but come to think of it he is probably a oncer too.
Let’s face it Crook will vote with the Coalition even if he sits on the cross benches.
Gos
[I now Naurau wasn’t actually budgeted for, but the Coalition did include savings from “stopping the boats”. If there is no prospect of that policy being passed through Parliament those savings won’t be made.]
All I know is that an angry Moylan said the Nauru solution won’t get by her or Broadbent.
Windsor keeps indicating the election probably won’t be resolved for another one to two weeks. Even when he was presented with the notion that Wilke may have a decision today he retorted with, “I don’t think so”, cheekily.
Perhaps he is hoping the Coalition will implode.
[Just read that post by Psephos. How right he is. Paul Barry (now doing MediaWatch) wrote in his book that Fraser knew Murdoch invited Kerr to lunch at the Yass farm the day before Fraser did Gough in. Murdoch apparently made it clear to Kerr that he wanted Gough gone.
Fraser was very happy for Murdoch to intervene in many ways in 1975 and last night Fraser was trying hard to rewrite history for those born after that event.
His leaving the Liberal Party hasn’t made up for his impatience by blocking supply. If he’d waited a few months he would have won the election anyway]
Karma dealt with this situation. Gough is a national folk hero, Fraser is a man without a party and Kerr was a vile drunk who was chased out of the country.
Well done to William for spelling “minuscule” correctly.
In other news, my heater has stopped working. This is a serious matter in Qbn in August. Mercy dash to the DFO imminent.
If anyone’s interested, the latest count has Labor 778 votes in front on the national 2PP.
Labor storms to the lead 😉
What time is Jools on at the NPC – 12.30?
Meanwhile, Labor has taken the lead in the 2PP count again, yet headlines on all major news outlets have the Tories leading.
Coalition support has collapsed in a shocking turn of events that throws Abbott’s claims of legitimacy into doubt.
Dee@254
There are a number of people in the Coalition who would have a vested interest in remaining in opposition. If they can get to the top of the heap after the dust settles from the usual post-loss shenanigans, then they will be well placed to lead them into a very winnable 2013 election.
The same is true for the Labor Party of course.
The interesting thing will be to see which party can maintain disciple (no leaks of “gaffes” etc.). An extended caretaker period would simply ratchet up the pressure until one of them implodes…
Parehelion, we have heard so much “absolute crap” about the indie’s constituents. They had the chance to vote in a coalition candidate and didnt. they voted independent. The majority of those that voted for that independent candidate back a Labor minority government. It would appear that supporting a coalition government would be going AGAINST the wishes of those that voted them in.
In any electorate there is a great % (up to 49.9%) that didnt vote for the winner and its stiff cheese for them because winner takes all.
ltep
Not only that but it is an ‘overwhelming majority’! The people have clearly decided.
ltep, fear not, as I predicted yesterday, there will be screaming headlines about Labor surging back in front. Not.
Would like Mesma to asked about the turnaround though
[Karma dealt with this situation. Gough is a national folk hero, Fraser is a man without a party and Kerr was a vile drunk who was chased out of the country.]
Well said, by the way how is Gough, I heard he was in a nursing home, is that true?
How’s his health.
I remember seeing him speak live in Sydney in 1972 just before the election (he was mocking the controversy at the time about some family trusts that Liberal Ministers had set up) and I was mesmerised, so was the audience and they weren’t all Labor by any means.
Check this out PBers:
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-15508-31787.htm
Notice when Fraser said on Q&A that the ALP was the worse than the Whitlam government it was splashed all over the place. Apparently, he reckons, that was his opinion of one Labor policy.
Anyone hear in the media today what he said last night?
[Fraser was very happy for Murdoch to intervene in many ways in 1975 and last night Fraser was trying hard to rewrite history for those born after that event.]
I was pleased Fraser made a note of the Murdochracy.
Fraser is not in politics now and perhaps he has a better view from outside that prism.
The notion that Murdoch has become so big that he is influencing world politics seemed to upset Fraser.
James, is that the booth they’re recounting?
Would be nice for the 2PP to stay Labor’s way at the time of the press club. The MSM have their “press club address overshadowed by loss of 2PP” headlines already written
[264 Perahelion
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 11:59 am | Permalink
Karma dealt with this situation. Gough is a national folk hero, Fraser is a man without a party and Kerr was a vile drunk who was chased out of the country.
Well said, by the way how is Gough, I heard he was in a nursing home, is that true?
How’s his health.]
yes that is true,, Mrs whitlam still in her home i read.
Iter @ 250
No. There are only 150 seats. Try looking at them and then read williams artcile above AGAIN. The ALP did not stand in all seats. FACT.
[Check this out PBers:
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-15508-31787.htm%5D
What the hell! Is this to do with the accusation of vote tampering?
Yes Fraser said the the current labor govt like Whitlam on one policy, not overall. Not how it was reported. And of course abosultely hypocritical on Murdoch but absolutely right. Nailed the OO over the BER.
The best predictions on election night were that the ALP would lead
the TPP vote in the end, and it seems that has not changed. It was fair enough to mention that on the night: it regularly gets trotted out with respect to the
moral legitimacy of governments, even though we all lived through the
Howard 1998-2001 government without open, active revolt on that front.
If anyone wants to claim that it is what should be the determining factor
for the Independents then they should ask that the Independents
wait for a couple of weeks until the TPP is finalised. When it is close
it would be unfair not to count some people’s TPP.
If this storm in a tea cup has any impact amongst the wider voting
population then it may be good if they are aware at any future
elections that their later preferences are going to be scrutinized
carefully by the Grattans and Colebatch’s to perhaps provide an
alternative way to select governments.
I don’t think the TPP is a meaningless statistic. However, there are
many reasons why it may not reflect voter preferences for
overall government.
One that hasn’t been mentioned yet as far as I can see is
tactical voting. If voters vote tactically in particular seats
to try to determine their preferred seat outcome then
that would not be consistent with their TPP reflecting
their preferred government.
The two situations of tactical voting that I have heard about
for 2010 both cause such a “false” reduction in ALP TPP.
1)
They are ALP voters in Melbourne voting Liberal as first preference
to try and get the Liberal above the Green so the Green gets
eliminated and the ALP win the seat. This gives their TPP
vote to the Libs. Note that any Libs who vote Green 1 in Melbourne
to try the opposite trick to get the Green in, do not
lose their TPP vote to the Liberal party as they can
put 2nd pref Lib.
2)
In O’Connor, an ALP voter could vote 1 National in order to
make sure that the ALP candidate gets eliminated first
and thus ensuring that the National wins instead of
Tuckey. Again, provided that the AEC counts the
vote for the Coalition (even though Crook is not
in any Coalition) then that vote becomes a Coalition
TPP vote.
If anyone knows of any other cases of tactical voting in
this 2010 election, I’d be interested.
[265 James Bodentown
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
Check this out PBers:
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-15508-31787.htm%5D
not a great reader of polls so dont want to get excited is this something new
Democracy, why don’t you just tell me which seats they didn’t stand in? I’m not trying to be difficult here, I’m really curious as to where you’re coming from?
Are you quibbling over whether Country Labor is the same thing as the ALP?
Hope someone is out twittering re the surge to Labor in the 2PP
AGAIN, if you use the Senate vote comparsion you can determine more accurately the 2PP.
Thanks my say.
[265 James Bodentown
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
Check this out PBers]
what does previous member mean james
Itep 267: Maybe recounting. Why delete though?
Dee 271: Yep.
Juast by the way, I see the number has now “blown out” to a Labor lead of 1530!
Luckily the AEC notes that the current vote count
in Boothby is not final.
so are they recounting was this the story about the votes found in a cupboard
Rod, lets see how long the MSM takes to pick this up. Hopefully Gillard is well briefed. She can say, of course, that her comments were based on AEC and ABC projections which, of course, have yet to proven incorrect.
Dr Good
Do you know how many votes were expected to be counted from the suspect booth in Boothby? thanks in adavance.
[If anyone’s interested, the latest count has Labor 778 votes in front on the national 2PP.
Labor storms to the lead]
How long to go to the siren. I am waiting for the headline changes – waiting waiting
James Bodentown et al
OAKLANDS PARK PPVC was where there was alleged improper handling of about 3000 ballot papers by a staff member. The was challenged by the ALP and the AEC is seeking legal advice on the matter.
[Meanwhile, Labor has taken the lead in the 2PP count again, yet headlines on all major news outlets have the Tories leading.]
Mitchell made a big thing of it this morning, claiming even JG wanted Abbott to win.
Australian Labor Party 5,362,774 50.01 -2.69
Liberal/National Coalition 5,361,244 49.99 +2.69
The surge. Ms Bishop, your comment please?
[Juast by the way, I see the number has now “blown out” to a Labor lead of 1530!]
OMG
the pain the pain
gary, have you emailed Neil? I’m sure he’ll address the issue again tomorrow. Or not.
Dinkum: I know. The votes have only been deleted as of today. Stay tuned.
[Australian Labor Party 5,362,774 50.01 -2.69
Liberal/National Coalition 5,361,244 49.99 +2.69
The surge. Ms Bishop, your comment please?]
These figures can still change of course but it shows the futility of opening one’s mouth too soon and that applies to both sides.
I’ve just complained to the ABC that they are still saying that
the Coalition is ahead. The promised to investigate.
This de-facto rail strike in Perth today, without the minimum notice as required, may be a completely unrelated issue, but the timing will do Labor’s chance of governing no good at all. People will be annoyed, and will blame the union.
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-train-chaos-as-drivers-call-in-sick-en-masse-20100827-13ula.html
The ACTU would have more credibility if we saw equivalent action for workers in less well paid industries.