BENTLEIGH (Margin: 6.20%)
| ALP | LIB | Swing | 2006 votes | |||
| Ordinary | 12,650 | 50.11% | 12,595 | 49.89% | 7.12% | 27,106 |
| Postal | 1,491 | 45.28% | 1,802 | 54.72% | 4.45% | 2,785 |
| Early | 1,857 | 47.04% | 2,091 | 52.96% | 3.25% | 2,223 |
| Marked | ||||||
| Provisional | 109 | 60.22% | 72 | 39.78% | 20.73% | 21 |
| Absent | 1,062 | 50.26% | 1,051 | 49.74% | 7.68% | 1,643 |
| TOTAL | 17,169 | 49.36% | 17,611 | 50.64% | 6.84% | 33,778 |
ELTHAM (Margin: 6.41%)
| ALP | LIB | Swing | 2006 votes | |||
| Ordinary | 12,382 | 50.83% | 11,980 | 49.17% | 5.94% | 27,530 |
| Postal | 1,262 | 46.59% | 1,447 | 53.41% | 2.87% | 2,497 |
| Early | 3,209 | 50.45% | 3,152 | 49.55% | 6.01% | 3,266 |
| Marked | ||||||
| Provisional | 96 | 51.89% | 89 | 48.11% | 14.78% | 6 |
| Absent | 1,234 | 56.68% | 943 | 43.32% | 4.05% | 1,775 |
| TOTAL | 18,183 | 50.80% | 17,611 | 49.20% | 5.61% | 35,074 |
BALLARAT EAST (Margin: 6.81%)
| ALP | LIB | Swing | 2006 votes | |||
| Ordinary | 13,288 | 51.49% | 12,521 | 48.51% | 5.35% | 26,866 |
| Postal | 1,331 | 48.84% | 1,394 | 51.16% | 3.23% | 2,026 |
| Early | 2,315 | 48.55% | 2,453 | 51.45% | 5.28% | 2,268 |
| Marked | ||||||
| Provisional | 158 | 54.30% | 133 | 45.70% | 2.51% | 0 |
| Absent | 1,576 | 57.94% | 1,144 | 42.06% | 5.88% | 2,236 |
| TOTAL | 18,668 | 51.41% | 17,645 | 48.59% | 5.40% | 33,396 |
MACEDON (Margin: 8.17%)
| ALP | LIB | Swing | 2006 votes | |||
| Ordinary | 15,671 | 51.21% | 14,930 | 48.79% | 7.48% | 28,429 |
| Postal | 1,505 | 48.44% | 1,602 | 51.56% | 6.47% | 2,455 |
| Early | 3,351 | 50.04% | 3,346 | 49.96% | 2.43% | 6,245 |
| Marked | ||||||
| Provisional | 139 | 62.61% | 83 | 37.39% | -12.61% | 16 |
| Absent | 1,315 | 57.73% | 963 | 42.27% | 3.27% | 1,910 |
| TOTAL | 21,981 | 51.23% | 20,924 | 48.77% | 6.94% | 39,055 |
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
| ALP | LIB | NAT | GRN | OTH | IN DOUBT | |
| Eastern Metro | 2 | 3 | ||||
| Northern Metro | 2 (-1) | 2 (+1) | 1 | |||
| South-Eastern Metro | 3 | 2 | ||||
| Southern Metro | 1 (-1) | 3 (+1) | 1 | |||
| Western Metro | 2 (-1) | 2 (+1) | 1 | |||
| Eastern Victoria | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Northern Victoria | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Western Victoria | 2 | 2 | 1 (+1) | 0 (-1) | ||
| TOTAL | 16 | 18 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Tuesday, December 14
The button was pushed today on the count for the Legislative Council, securing the Coalition its 21 seats out of 40 and wrapping up the election count as a whole. Key to the Coalition triumph was Liberal candidate Craig Ondarchie’s victory in Northern Metropolitan from the second position on his party’s ticket, producing a result of two Labor, two Liberal and one Greens. His win came at the expense of Stephen Mayne, who in the event finished fairly solidly behind the second Greens candidate (2.6 per cent to 1.6 per cent) at a point where he had hoped to stay in contention by absorbing her preferences, and the Sex Party, who with 7.4 per cent failed to stay ahead of third Labor candidate Nathan Murphy on 9.1 per cent at the second last count. At that point the second Ondarchie was far enough ahead of Murphy that there was no prospect of preferences closing the gap, with the former sneaking over a quota on preferences from Mayne. In Western Metropolitan, below-the-line votes made the difference by heavily favouring the Greens – largely because below-the-lines for right-wing minor parties who had put Labor ahead of the Greens on their preference ticket tended to exhaust. The rate of exhaustion was such that Colleen Hartland won election with slightly under a quota, finishing on 16.6 per cent to Labor candidate Bob Smith on 16.2 per cent.
Saturday, December 11
As you may have noticed I’ve been less than vigilant in following the count, but those with an interest will be aware that Stephen Mayne continued to fade in late counting in terms that will almost certainly deliver the final Northern Metropolitan seat to the Liberals, securing the Coalition their upper house majority. The only remaining point of curiosity is whether Colleen Hartland of the Greens can secure re-election in Western Metropolitan, thereby achieving a status quo result for a party that had hoped for so much better. Antony Green reports all will be revealed when the button is finally pushed on Tuesday. Hopefully there will be no repeat of the 2006 error in which the Democratic Labor Party was wrongly credited with a second seat.
Monday, December 6
Stopped paying attention there for a while after the VEC started re-checking and took their existing results offline. Antony Green offers a thorough update, noting that recounting in Northern Metropolitan is proceeding slowly due to intensive scrutineering of the result that could deliver the Coalition an upper house majority. In Western Metropolitan, the tide seems to be favouring the Greens’ Colleen Hartland, who might yet retain her seat at the expense of Labor’s number three. UPDATE: Kevin Bonham in comments still rates her the underdog.
Wednesday, December 1
Stephen Mayne has discussed his prospects at length in his email newsletter, noting he has two hurdles to clear: first to stay ahead of the Greens at what appears as count 8 in the ABC’s projection, where he is currently on 1.54 per cent to the Greens’ 1.22 per cent, and then for the below-the-line count to not upset his applecart by putting him behind Liberal and Labor at the second last count. Mayne rates himself only a 50-50 chance of clearing the first hurdle as he expects the Greens to surge as absent votes are added. I’m not sure what was added today, but the addition has seen the Greens lose ground – possibly too much for Mayne, as Kevin Bonham argues in comments, because it will mean fewer of their preferences for him if he can stay ahead. Bonham reckons Mayne will need to significantly outperform Labor in preferences from the 3170 below-the-line votes which are recorded as going to him on the ABC projection, which treats all votes as above-the-lines. Bonham, who has learned a thing or two about preference behaviour from analysis of Hare-Clark elections in his home jurisdiction of Tasmania, reckons this unlikely, and that the most probable result would indeed be a twenty-first seat for the Coalition.
In the lower house, addition of absent and other votes have seen Labor pull further ahead in Eltham and Ballarat East, to 546 and 510 votes respectively, which puts these seats and the final result beyond doubt: the Liberals have won 35 seats and the Nationals 10, with Labor on 43. I will continue updating my tables as new figures come in, but I won’t be offering any further commentary on the lower house unless something unusually interesting happens.
Tuesday, November 30
Long past time I had something to say about the upper house, with the Coalition on the precipice of majorities in both houses. The Liberals have gained a seat from Labor in Southern Metropolitan and the Nationals have gained the DLP’s seat in Western Victoria. They also look likely to win seats from the Greens in Western Metropolitan and to hold off a challenge from the Country Alliance in Northern Victoria, where their second seat had been under threat. That puts the Coalition on 18 seats out of 40 with a likely extra two to achieve a blocking majority, and the chance of getting over the line for an absolute majority of 21. The decisive factor in Northern Metropolitan will be the second last count, at which the Labor number three, Liberal number two and Stephen Mayne appear to be at almost level pegging. Mayne will win the seat if he finishes ahead of either or both, and the current ABC projection has him finishing ahead of Labor after soaking up the Greens’ surplus and an eclectic range of preferences from the Sex Party, DLP and Family First. Should he finish behind the seat will almost certainly go to the Liberals, although Labor remain at least a mathematical possibility.
In continuing lower counting, Labor’s lead has more than doubled in Ballarat East, from 166 to 343, with the addition of 657 more postals and the first 766 absents. It was the latter which made the difference, breaking 60-40 their way – not unpredictably given that most would be sourced from town voters who cast their ballots in Ballarat West. Eltham too has become slightly firmer for Labor with 795 more pre-polls gaining them a handy 53 votes, but losses on rechecking have pared back the overall improvement in their lead, which goes from 245 to 267. Bentleigh and Macedon have drifted out of the doubtful column. Rechecking and a highly unfavourable batch of 819 absent votes has further increased the Liberal lead in Bentleigh from 460 to 559. In Macedon, the addition of 419 postal votes has cut Labor’s lead from 498 to 419, but it’s probably too little too late.
Monday, November 29
9pm. Another 605 postals in Bentleigh have broken 321-284 the Liberals’ way, increasing their lead from 423 to 460. In Eltham the addition of 5730 pre-polls and 600 more postals has increased Labor’s lead from 225 to 245. I’m not sure on what basis Labor sources quoted in the ABC yesterday were expecting to lose this seat – I would rate them better than even. Another 416 postal votes have been added in Ballarat East and have broken perfectly evenly, with Labor continuing to lead by 166.
4.30pm. Labor has had a disappointing result from 2268 pre-polls in Ballarat East which have cut their lead from 388 to 166. The addition of 5111 pre-polls from Macedon has also cut their lead from 719 to 498. However, absent votes remain to be added, and in both cases they favoured Labor heavily in 2006.
Sunday, November 28
11pm. Bob Katter’s Hat in comments relates that according to an ABC report, “Labor sources expect to lose Eltham but are ‘hopeful’ on Macedon”.
6.41pm. If there are the same number of absent votes as last time, and if anything there are likely to be fewer, they would need to defy every trend going by swinging to Labor by 5 per cent to overturn the Liberals’ lead.
6.34pm. The VEC site has now updated, and it has the Liberal lead at 15,667 to 15,244. The Herald-Sun’s assertion that only “some postal votes” remain to be counted is at best imprecise, as no absent votes have been added – and there were 1643 of these in 2010. So what we have today is the addition of 3130 pre-poll votes which, as stated in the previous entry, have broken 1670 to 1460 in favour of the Liberals and increased their lead from 213 to 423. The table at the top of the post has now been amended to reflect this. As you can see, the notion that there would be more of these than last time and that they would be relatively favourable to Labor was quite correct, but not nearly to the extent they required. So it’s fair to say that the ABC computer, which has copped some flak over this, was right all along.
6.12pm. Boerwar in comments reports postals have favoured 1670 to 1460 to the Liberals – I’m not sure if this includes or is in addition to those counted last night, which favoured the Liberals 1072 to 1050. An update on the VEC tally room site would be nice.
6.09pm. The Herald-Sun reports that there are now merely “some postal votes” remaining to be counted, so obviously absent votes as well as pre-polls have been counted (although I fail to see how absent votes could have been assembled so quickly from every corner of the state). In any case, a very clear impression emerges that barring counting errors, the Liberal lead of about 400 is insurmountable, ending any doubts about the overall result.
5.45pm. Rod Hagen in comments hears from Twitter that pre-poll counting in Bentleigh is trending against Labor, increasing the Liberal lead from 213 to 430.
5pm. By popular demand, the VEC have announced they will be counting the pre-poll votes from Bentleigh today. In what promises to be the television event of the year, this will apparently be broadcast live on Sky News.
Saturday night
This thread will be used to follow late counting in the Victorian election, which – for those who have just joined us – promises to be a focus of fierce interest due to the possibility of a 44-44 tied parliament if everything falls Labor’s way. For now you’ll have to look elsewhere for a summary of the situation. However, below is a table which will hopefully shed some light on a few important aspects of the situation. Four must-win seats are identified in the table, of which Labor currently leads in three while trailing by 213 votes (0.38 per cent) in Bentleigh. The first row of the table shows two-party results from ordinary votes, thus excluding the postals that were added last night. To give an idea of how the remainder of the count might go, the next five rows show Labor’s two-party results on the various types of vote in 2006. The story goes that a large number of pre-polls might offer salvation here for Labor in Bentleigh, but that would seem very unlikely indeed going on the precedent of last time. However, Labor is doing slightly less poorly on postal votes than last time — their primary vote is only 1.5 per cent lower — so there might be at least something in the idea that votes cast earlier would not have copped the effects of the late swing to the Coalition. The left column shows the percentage of the statewide vote accounted for by each vote type in 2010. The bottom half of the table shows the ordinary vote turnout in each electorate, which as you may have heard was substantially lower than last time.
| ALP 2PP | |||||
| % | Bentleigh | Eltham | Macedon | Ball. East | |
| 2010 Ordinary | ? | 50.0% | 50.8% | 51.2% | 50.9% |
| 2006 Ordinary | 78.0% | 57.2% | 56.8% | 58.7% | 56.8% |
| 2006 Pre-Poll | 9.0% | 50.3% | 56.5% | 56.2% | 53.8% |
| 2006 Postal | 6.5% | 49.7% | 49.5% | 54.9% | 52.1% |
| 2006 Absent | 6.5% | 57.9% | 60.7% | 61.0% | 63.8% |
| 2006 Declaration | 0.1% | 81.0% | 44.4% | 50.0% | – |
| Ordinary votes as percentage of enrolment | |||||
| 2006 | 75.5% | 74.3% | 69.1% | 73.9% | |
| 2010 | 68.0% | 64.3% | 67.4% | 66.5% | |
Finally, can we please keep this thread specifically for discussion of the count. If you would like to discuss the Victorian election in more general terms, the election night thread is still open below.
William,
I note your efforts to keep this thread tight on the count.
Why is there a Macedon table at the top of the post, have you heard the VEC is counting there as well? can we expect an update there?
If there was one other seat that needed counting today it was Eltham, last election the Liberal candidate picked up 0.35% in late counting. The ALP lead tonight is about 0.4%, so that’s were I’d be worried if I was and ALP staffer sitting on a statewide swing of 6%
[Suggestion: let’s have no ticketing system, bring back the paper tickets, and pay the conductors on board. That will surely improve efficiency and punctuality.]
mmm. Personally I can’t see why bringing back conductors, and even paper tickets, should have any negative effect on punctuality and as far as “efficiency” goes it may well be a danged sight cheaper, and more user friendly, to have conductors than bunging extra police all over the place!
(Whoops! sorry William! Wrong thread.)
Mr S: no, there’s no other counting today except in Bentleigh. I’m progressively adding tables for all the in-doubt seats as I get them done, and will continue following the progress of the counts over the next week.
Would there be a recount for Shepparton, where the Country Alliance came second? The VEC site has a Nat vs ALP margin of 26.27%, which is obviously wrong, but the Nats got over 50% – the VEC tend to stop counting when somebody hits 50%. It’d be interesting to see where the lower house ALP preferences went – they had CA ahead of the Nats on their HTV cards (as did Family First and one of the independents).
All over, red rover – what a shame!
Runs off now to sulk!
While it’s disappointing for a good government to go down, it’s better that it’s now, by one or two seats, than to wear out your welcome with 15 consecutive years in office and be chucked out holus bolus.
The Libs/Nats will have to stay healthy and produce results. There’s absolutely no margin for error.
and no room for a by-election loss by Big Ted !!
will be counted tomorrow morning – one of the VEC’s “priority” counts
reporter bird on ABC News tonight said “Labor sources expect to lose Eltham but ‘hopeful’ on Macedon”
46-42 firming as the most likely finish now
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Eltham go too after what we saw from Bentleigh today.
A few silly comments here about Bracks’ statements.
Firstly, if it had been a hung parliament, Labor would have (as the caretaker government) been asked to see if they could form government.
Whether they had been successful in this or not would have had nothing to do with anything the VEC said, but whether or not they could get a majority on the floor of the House.
So (in a hung Parliament situation, which I don’t think we’re facing now) Labor would remain the government until Parliament sat.
Secondly, whether they wanted to or not, as part of this process the Governor would expect that the party trying to form government would sit down and talk with all possible players, whether they wanted to or not.
Bracks made this very clear; that, as part of the process of exploring whether or not government could be formed, Labor would have to talk to the Nats, as the party which holds the balance of power (and still does, for that matter!)
So Bracks was not being partisan in any way, was not in denial, etc etc – he was simply outlining the constitutional process which must be followed in this situation.
For a pseph blog, I’d have expected that posters were familiar with this process, especially after the Tasmanian result, where Labor made it very clear they didn’t want to negotiate with the Greens and were willing to hand over to the Liberals rather than do so, but were instructed by the governor to attempt to form government.
Given the parallels between 1999 and 2010 and the tendency of pre-poll votes and postals to favour the Coalition, any seat held by the ALP around 0.4% or 0.5% after ordinary votes are counted would need to be in play. As the total percentage of votes cast is likely to be around 93% or 94% due to the weather rather than 95%, vote counts around 70% only have 23% or 24% to come in. The number of absentee votes will lower this time as the number of pre-polls and postals are higher. Absentee votes tend to be similar to ordinary votes in their overall composition. Eltham is likely to go down to the last 100 or so votes either way but I’d think the Liberal candidate is favoured to win it. Bentleigh is definitely gone. The absentee and remainder of the postal votes won’t be enough to swing the balance. Other seats in the lost column are out of reach. All this was known on Saturday night. The suspense is concocted. There are many lessons to learn from this campaign about what not to do. Also, it shows that a large number of people do differentiate between State and Federal elections. This may or may not be as large a number as the number of people who vote based on how the other layer of government is performing. This is a good topic for quantitative and qualitative research. I always regard the best campaign ever as the 1973 Hamer Makes It Happen campaign when the Liberals won against the ALP a few months after the It’s Time win of Whitlam. The ALP should have looked in the archives to see how to freshen a government after a long time in office. The 1973 campaign gave the Liberals nine more years of power.
z
[Mr Brumby is refusing to answer questions about what went wrong and remains confident Labor can find a way out of the problem and continue to govern.]
That is denial.
Diog
don’t understand why you’re addressing that comment to me – I’m just trying to explain what Bracks was talking about yesterday morning.
Of course, yesterday morning’s comments are now not really relevant to today’s situation.
I would expect Brumby – and indeed, any sensible person speaking on the public record – to refrain from navel gazing at present. I’ve been guilty myself of ‘morning after’ prognosations only to find that they looked very silly as the days wore on and the situation changed.
The time to get in to what went right, what went wrong, etc is a month or so down the track, when things aren’t so emotional (and for people in the game, elections are very emotional – these are your friends losing their jobs!)
So not answering questions on what went wrong isn’t denial, but common sense.
As for the ‘continue to govern’ thing, firstly, that obviously isn’t a direct quote, so I’d treat it with caution (and you’re welcome to give me the direct quote if it’s around) and secondly, Brumby will know things you and I don’t about what’s happening at the count.
I do remind you that Daniel Andrews was more often correct than Antony Green on Saturday night.
If anything, I’m surprised at Labor’s reluctance to admit defeat. Knowing these people as I do, they’re not the types to cling to hopeless dreams. If they’re not losing their heads when all of those around them are losing theirs, there might still be a few surprises in the bag.
I myself believe we’ve lost and have no trouble admitting it, as posts here show.
Brumby made that comment after the Bentleigh result.
Fine, Dio. Don’t see how that changes anything I’ve said above.
Direct quote?
Oh looky, Dio, a few minutes googling and you also get this:
[A downcast Mr Brumby admitted it was “extremely unlikely” Labor would achieve majority government, but said he would not concede defeat until all pre-poll votes are counted, which will not happen until Monday at the earliest.
“I think the most likely outcome is a hung parliament, the next most likely outcome is a coalition victory,” he said.]
[Mr Brumby, who had hoped to be elected premier in his own right, said he was obviously disappointed but was happy with Labor’s campaign and wouldn’t have made any changes.
He put the large swing against Labor (about 6.2 per cent) down to “wear and tear” of an 11-year-old government and said the coalition had made big impact election policies in the last week of the campaign, including stamp duty cuts, that he considered unaffordable.
Cost of living pressures, interest rate hikes and transport, including the myki ticketing fiasco, had also swayed voters, he said.]
None of which sounds like refusing to ask questions about what went wrong (as I said, he probably should) or tryiing to find a way out of the problem.
[So Bracks was not being partisan in any way, was not in denial, etc etc – he was simply outlining the constitutional process which must be followed in this situation. ]
The question is whether his comments were more qualified than reported. I should have known better to assume that they weren’t. If you take them on face value, the problem was that they referred to a situation which at the time of his comment did not exist and was not all that likely to come about – the likely-hung-parliament hope/hype/denialism from the Labor leadership on election night notwithstanding.
A comment in the form “If there is a hung parliament then Labor and the Nationals should explore [whatever]” would have been fine – perhaps that’s what he said and the journo then stripped it of context as they do. An unqualified call for Labor and the Nats to work together, without all the results yet in, would have been jumping the gun.
[I do remind you that Daniel Andrews was more often correct than Antony Green on Saturday night. ]
Both Andrews and Davis seemed to have a good handle on things and were reluctant to get into the usual improbable boosting of their party’s prospects that you often see from party figures on election night. I was impressed with both of them.
Has counting resumed? Any more numbers?
KB
can’t find the transcript on line (or indeed, any reference to the interview!) but my recollection is that he was outlining the process should a hung parliament occur. He made it clear that it was unlikely any power sharing arrangement between them would eventuate, just pointed out that it had in the past and talking to the Nats would be a necessary part of the whole process.
He was very step by step – Governor would request sitting government to attempt to form government, therefore they would have to negotiate with all parties, if that failed to eventuate, Parliament would be recalled, the situation tested on the floor and then a new election called.
Of course, he was pushing the hung parliament line, but you’d expect that when the party leader hadn’t conceeded.
[I think the most likely outcome is a hung parliament]
If that’s not denial, I really don’t know what is. You could put that in the dictionary as a textbook example of denial.
z
I think you are in denial about the denial.
Abbott just got warned for making two frivolous points of order.
I dont live in Victoria and didn’t see the real estate ad, but commonsense says that if result so tight everything factors esp in explaining a sudden last minute shift. if there is tenativity that one mistake counts. labor has not admitted this error so much as i know, they were frontrunner until a week ago. who managed that ad? another backroom adviser? or brumby? if latter then silence speaks for itself. suspect there are too many overqualified over ambitious amateurs running/advising major parties these days … mind you, i dont have to live with brumby in nsw but find him an unnecessarily drab headmaster type when do overhear –
[“I think the most likely outcome is a hung parliament”
If that’s not denial, I really don’t know what is.]
It is simply the standard political practice of doing your best to “accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative” in the face of adversity in politics, Dio.
Just like Barber’s comments after the Vic election, and Abbott’s hyperbolic claims after he had been badly beaten by Julia Gillard in the negotiations over forming a new federal government that the Coalition had scored a “historic victory” or wtte.
[I dont live in Victoria and didn’t see the real estate ad, but commonsense says that if result so tight everything factors esp in explaining a sudden last minute shift. if there is tenativity that one mistake counts. labor has not admitted this error so much as i know, they were frontrunner until a week ago. who managed that ad? another backroom adviser? or brumby? if latter then silence speaks for itself.]
It is far, far more likely that the late shift simply involved voters who identified themselves as “undecided” in polls all coming home for the conservatives, rather than any real change based on a single event, geoffrey.
Diog
you’re in denial that your accusation of denial doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
If you read back on my posts, you will see that I said I was surprised he hadn’t admitted defeat, so I’m denying there was any denial of the denial.
Rod
Some things are a matter of opinion. Numbers and probability aren’t. You can’t spin mathematical reality.
z
So you aren’t denying there was denial. 👿
Now that I’ve read more of what Brumby actually said, I am, but I was foolish enough to accept your statement on face value.
I don’t think working through possible options is denial. I don’t think waiting for the votes to be counted in full before throwing in the towel is either.
Brumby would have looked a lot sillier if he’d conceded defeat and then the count went the other way.
I’m actually quite zen about all this. My particular friends have either retained their seats or their jobs. Several of the messages I’ve been giving the party (I told you I met with Brumby to critique the government) have been proven to be correct, and several of my uneasy but unsubstatiated concerns have been validated.
I’m feeling engaged again. There’s a nice fight in front of us, lots of lovely policy work to be done, and a real job for ordinary branch members once again.
[While it’s disappointing for a good government to go down, it’s better that it’s now, by one or two seats, than to wear out your welcome with 15 consecutive years in office and be chucked out holus bolus.
The Libs/Nats will have to stay healthy and produce results. There’s absolutely no margin for error.]
Agreed.
Dio
[Some things are a matter of opinion. Numbers and probability aren’t. You can’t spin mathematical reality.]
That is why you and I are doctors and engineers, not accountants 🙂
No concession from Brumby at 3. 6pm at the earliest, maybe even tomorrow. Waiting for Bentleigh counting to be finished.
I see there is a one vote discrepancy between William’s figures for Eltham and the current VEC ones (one vote knocked off the Labor total) . Presumably they have been checking the numbers.
The House is dividing on Turnbull’s wrecking amendments.
House just voted on the Senate amendments. The Opposition didn’t even call for a division!
What a bunch of phonies. They try to add a heap of wrecking amendments all morning, but don’t even ask for a division on the final bill, even though they crapped on about how terrible it would be.
No sign of new numbers in the critical seats that I can see on the vec website, even though it was updated half an hour ago. Certainly seems to be slow going there today. Or are they focused on the upper house or somesuch?
Bentleigh:
“VEC spokeswoman Sue Lang said counting of 650 postal votes would begin at 4pm (AEDT) today after the ballots had been authenticated.
But counting of the remaining 1000 early votes would not take place until tomorrow.
Ms Lang said an unknown number of absentee and provision votes was still coming in, taking the number of uncounted votes to several thousand.
“It could be as many as 3000,” she told AAP.
“It’s looking likely now we’re not going to have an answer until tomorrow.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/election-result-not-likely-until-tuesday/story-fn3dxity-1225962758386
updated voting but only some seats , is good and bad news for labor (all labor leads
but many votes still to count
Ballarat east has closed to a Labor close 166 lead , eltham unchanged 225 , Macedon 498 , but Essendon that antony keeps missing as his computer seems hairy on Essendon is only 626 wth lots of votes to go but late should suit , Narre Nth great improve to 1838 so fine now , Monbulk 876 , albert pk at 1410 seems ok
I’ve updated my post with pre-polls which have been added from Ballarat East and Macedon.
William
I noticed last nite a single vote ‘error’ in eltham , but only one so didn’t bother
Rod Hagen
Posted Monday, November 29, 2010 at 1:08 pm | Permalink
“I see there is a one vote discrepancy between William’s figures for Eltham and the current VEC ones (one vote knocked OFF the Labor total) . Presumably they have been checking the numbers”
no , It is not clear what VEC is/has done
VEC has 26376 votes as does William Williams 2PP add up to that whereas VEC adds to 26375 with Labor down one vote vs William
If William got his 2 PP figures from VEC origin , then VEC may since got one 2ppp vote now subject to a Q or is rejected , but not amended th grand total , or in a recount issue
Diogenes
Posted Monday, November 29, 2010 at 12:33 pm | Permalink
z So you aren’t denying there was denial. 👿
zoomster
Posted Monday, November 29, 2010 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
“Now that I’ve read more of what Brumby actually said, I am, but I was foolish enough to accept your statement on face value.”
agree Zoom , even now with recent updates of actual no’s , changin eg Ballarat east not good but Narre Nth hapy days , Bracks simply made a politcal (guarded) coment as you said as Govt in theory could still win So Diog is norty baiting
What WAS deniel was Greens Barbers arrogance wtte saying Greens actual vote equaled expectd
My understandinng is eltham prob gone , and almost prob Balarat east =47/41
PREPOLLS , most intersted in FINAL pre pol alone primary vote flows in state and by area (and if pref flows vary vs onn poll day ones) cause of th great incr in this vote method as assume pre polls no’s just will keep gorwing by future electon
Brumby presser called for 5pm
Another 605 postals in Bentleigh have broken 321-284 the Liberals’ way, increasing their lead from 423 to 460. In Eltham the addition of 5730 pre-polls and 600 more postals has increased Labor’s lead from 225 to 245. I’m not sure on what basis Labor sources quoted in the ABC yesterday were expecting to lose this seat – I would rate them better than even. Another 416 postal votes have been added in Ballarat East and have broken perfectly evenly, with Labor continuing to lead by 166.
[Socrates
Posted Monday, November 29, 2010 at 1:01 pm | Permalink
Dio
Some things are a matter of opinion. Numbers and probability aren’t. You can’t spin mathematical reality.
That is why you and I are doctors and engineers, not accountants ]
Consider adding 1 + 1.
To a child: 1+1= 2.
To a engineer: What exactly are we adding. 1.4 rounded to the nearest is 1. 1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8 round top the nearest and you have 3. 0.7 rounded to the nearest is 1. 0.7 +0.7 = 1.4 round to nearest gives you 1. An engineer can honorable get anything from 1 to 3.
A mathematician: They actually don’t like numbers very much. 1 and 2 have something to do with fields and flags.
A computer scientist: Well we all know the world is binary 1 + 1 = 10
An accountant: What number did you have in mind?
Every seat that I have looked at has increased the Lib vote when the prepolls have been added in, except for Eltham , where they seem to have almost gone the other way. Does anybody have any idea why this has occurred , or has there been a miscount. The Greens flows in Eltham also seem to be incredibly high.
[Does anybody have any idea why this has occurred , or has there been a miscount.]
I don’t know why but it seems to be a feature of the seat. Have a look at the comparison between ordinary and prepoll for 2006 at the bottom of the lead post. Labor was worse on prepolls than ordinaries in 2006 in Macedon and BE and spectacularly worse in Bentleigh but in Eltham in 2006 it was about the same. So whatever the reason, looks like it has happened again.
Watch out – the Liberal victory was organised by A. Nutt!
The ABC reckons Stephen Mayne may hold the balance of power in the upper house. What’s the latest on this?
Just watched Ted’s news conference. Strangely enough I was impressed. If they achieve over the first term that which he detailed then I may even vote for him next time but that will depend very much on how he deals with the feds. Interrupt the health reforms or the NBN and he will have Buckleys of getting my vote.