Oct 24 2006
Victorian election reading
Galaxy Research has created a buzz by showing a lower-than-expected Labor lead of 52-48 in its poll in today’s Herald-Sun. However, it comes on the same day as an ACNielsen poll in The Age showing a Labor lead of 56-44, in line with general expectations. A discussion on the upper house contest at Larvatus Prodeo brings my attention to this analysis by Russell Degnan from June last year, which seems to paint a rosier picture for Labor than my own assessment.
UPDATE (25/10/06): Newspoll says 54-46.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:48 am
I’d believe the Galaxy poll rather than the ACNielsen, the Bracks government is definitely on the nose here in Victoria
Ballieu is surprisingly doing a half decent job and if he doesn’t implode Liberal WA/QLD style during the election campaign a 10-15 seat pickup would be well in the realms of possibility
October 24th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Was it GaLAXY which recently caused a stir in Q’Land with polls predicting a close run thing for Beattie…and was quite wrong in it’s final prediction ?
October 24th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Brian: no, Galaxy’s Queensland polling was extremely accurate. In fact, the only poll that ever pointed to a close run thing for Beattie was a low-sample Morgan poll - that and alleged internal polling which Labor used to persuade journalists that the gap was closing, with considerable success.
October 24th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I’d also buy the Galaxy poll over the ACNielsen: everything I hear from my home state suggests Labor is very badly on the nose. I wouldn’t underestimate the ability of the incumbent to fight back after the Queensland and WA results, but I’d be very surprised if Ballieu’s Liberals didn’t pick up a bunch of seats. This is, of course, under the assumption that he doesn’t come up with an idea for a massive water pipeline or some other equally stupid idea like his counterparts in WA, NT and Qld.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
I wouldn’t say that the Bracks government is on the nose but they are not popular either. There is more the mood of the ‘devil you know’. The big change has been that Ted Baillieu is at least a viable alternative especially compared to Robert Doyle and Denis Napthine, who were both woeful.
The problem with the Bracks Government is that although everything is ticking along nicely they are lazy and unimaginative. The big advantage they have over other states is that seeing Jeff sold everything, they are essentially unaccountable for anything except hospitals, police and schools. Hospitals they have kept a good lid on, are there any votes in police? and I am not even that sure that schools are as big a deal in Vic as other states as the private sector is much larger than other states.
There is also a level of cyncism in that we are constantly told the government ‘might’ do something. 7 years of ‘might’ adds to very little achievement. Also the number of major decisions that have been deferred until after the election is raising doubts about what is out there for 2007.
Water and transport could be where they get in trouble. There has been the discovery of the drought, 5 weeks out, with money splashed (pardon the pun) everywhere.
As for transport, 7 years of inaction and a refusal to do almost anything except have ‘a study’ has made even the most committed labor voting public transport users I know apoplectic with rage. They work on the principle of refusing to see that problems exist - the Springvale Road Nunawading level crossing is an excellent case in point.
Not sure, that I would agree with Galaxy though. There is not sufficient rage or desire for change to make a big swing….. unless they come from unexpecetd places? Are there any correspondents out there in Ballarat or Bendigo as they might have a better idea of whether water will be a big issue in that swag of marginal seats.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
On the Qld internal Labor polling, I put this to one Labor strategist and he insisted that all the polling they’d leaked was accurate. That turned out to be right. The polls showing Cleveland, Clayfield and Sunshine Coast seats were going to be close run or lost were spot on. It’s just that Cleveland and the Sunshine Coast seats were the only seats Labor had real problems in.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Yeah, that was how I read it as well. I said at the time: “There is no question that Labor has released these results to promote the idea that the election is up for grabs, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t genuine. In fact, there is one good reason to think that they probably are: the figures that are actually provided don’t quite match the claims made for them.” Namely, that the Coalition had (in the words of Steven Wardill of the Courier-Mail) “stormed back into contention”.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Yeah, it was pretty poor of the C-M folks to fall for the spin. Dennis Glover was the only C-M columnist worth reading during the poll.
October 24th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Trackback.
October 25th, 2006 at 5:42 am
The latest Newspoll reinforces the ACNielsen poll. Two against one. I tend to believe these polls against the Galaxy Poll. I think there will be a natural swing back and a loss of up to 10 seats. This would leave the government with a very healthy majority still. The conservatives need to win 21 seats just to form a very uneasy coalition with the Nats. A big task as it is. It must be said that no poll is indicating a Conservative win and those people who like to stake their hard earned on poll results see Labor as clear favourites and even more so after yesterday’s polls (check Centrebet).
October 25th, 2006 at 8:11 am
If Labor cuts a side-deal with the Liberals at the expense of the Greens and Nationals in the inner-city and northern Victoria (principally because of Labor’s dud Northcote candidate) could the Greens nerve themselves to stand up to Labor and retaliate?
October 25th, 2006 at 9:33 am
An anti minor party preference deal is un likely as it is bad for each major party because the minor parties may decide to prop up a government of the other side to their natural inclination and mass breakaways are unlikely these days.
The Greens would also be helped along by a preference deal with People Power, which could creat a situation where in some safe Labor seat the one with the stronger vote overtakes the Liberal party. This would help the Greens in the Inner 4 where they have already overtaken the Libs and may help them past Labor in Hawtorn and Kew.
The media seem to forget that could easly win Melbourne and Richmond such as in an article on cabnet reshuffle possibilities the the speculation was that Bronwin Pike could get a less important portfolio or the back bench and that Richard Wynne could be promoted from his current Parliamentary Secrataryship when infact they could instead be replaced by David Risstrom and Gurm Sekhon respectively.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Note ma discussion in the Age today on the difference between the Nielson and the Galaxy polls. Nielson is slightly larger than Galaxy.
Galaxy are dismissive of the ACN figures on the Greens - Newspoll comes in curiously enought with 9.7% right in the middle of the other two polls.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
What did the polls put the Greens at in 2002?
What was the difference between the polls and the election result?
This may help in giving some idea of their vote.
The National`s result in the (Legislative) Council will probably depend on how many of the 33 Assembly seats in the non-metro provences they stand in. If they stand in all 33 then their chances of getting past liberal leftovers (from their 1st/2nd quotas) is higher meaning they are more likely to get a seat each in Eastern and Western Victoria.
I have a theory that if Doyle had stayed Liberal leader and the Nats directed their preferences against the Libs then they might have been able to
A. Confine the Libs to the city.
B. Cause the Liberals to have less seats than them so they were the opposition (a Queenslandesque situation of the Libs with more votes but the Nats with more seats).
Which would probably have given them a tilt at winning more rural seats in 2010, i.e. up to triple (if they were lucky) their seats,
for instance in 2002 in Savage (the Independant) held Mildura the Libs who held the seat 1988-1996 got 10% and the Nats who held it until 1976 got 15%.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Newspoll splits the difference of the other two on two party preferred, but they have the Greens on 7, like Galaxy (the 9.7% was last time). However, Newspoll has the “other” vote at 11%.
Most other parties seem to only be running in the upper house, so the “other” will be made up of Independents, Family First and People Power. Independents scored 3.4% last time, and I haven’t heard of a lot more running than last time. Family First and People Power getting almost 8% between them seems pretty unlikely, so I think we have to conclude that this component is way too high. How it breaks amongst the larger players maybe a significant question.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
The opinion poll in the Herald Sun, is hard to believe, you must factor in any margin of error which would be like 3-4% in there. I make the prediction Labor will win the next state election with a roughly similar majority, even if there is a swing against Labor.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
There are a few points about the 2002 Victorian campaign that should be remembered. The election was early, called just after Robert Doyle rolled Denis Napthine; The Robert Dean affair derailed the liberal campaign totally and they just couldn’t get back on track, and the liberals ran out of money so had no advertising toward the end of the campaign (please correct me on the last point if I am wrong). The libs were headed to total disaster with Denis Napthine but the Robert Dean affair had an effect like I had never seen before in a campaign (maybe he was advising Bruce Flegg recently!). At least this time, Ted has had the time and so far maintained discipline … lets see what unfolds in the campaign proper. The Greens vote in liberal seats last time may have been inflated to some degree by the desire to punish the libs for the mess they were in. Haven’t checked but they may have also taken votes from the ALP in Hawthorn and Kew.
Some months ago there was discussion somewhere that the ALP would preference the Libs over the Nats in regional Victoria as it was easier to have one foe than two. Does anybody out there know what came of this?
October 25th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Earlier this year we did an analysis of the new upper house boundaries based on the 2004 senate vote.
Our analysis shows that the Liberal Party would most likely hold the balance of power in the upper house. The greens getting at best 2-3 seats.
If a credible vox pop poll was undertaken bade on the new upper house boundaries it would be possible to determine the outcome and the various thresholds following the publication of the registered above-the-line HTV cards.
When I first undertook analysis of reform of the Victorian Legislative Council we proposed dividing ten state into five electorates. (Two rural and three urban) Each electorate would return either 7 members (12.% quota) or 9 members (10% quota). This model was and is preferable to the current model that has been put in place.
Game on..
Anthony van der Craats
http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com
October 25th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
The last election was unusual for many reasons, the Libs lost votes to the Greens, the ALP polled about the same as Kennett in 99, this lead to the landslide.
this election is really a battle between Liberal vs Green for the Greens have two principle areas of support, the inner city and the other eastern suburbs, and this is where the marginals are.
Brack last time was the first Government to obtain a swing since Hamer who managed back to back swings in the 1970s.
I don’t see the Greens winning anything in the lower house, they may win a seat or two in the upper, lets take Melbourne, the Liberal vote collapsed last time, now with Baillieu as leader will that vote rise to a more normal level, if so then the Greens can’t win the seat.
For any potential federal implications there are 3 seats which could say a thing or two.
Hastings, Bayswater and Mitcham, these 3 seats are marginal, they are the sort of seats which have the demographics that are open to a strong anti work choices vote.
October 25th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
The Greens will run in every seat. Public funding means that they need to maximise the dollars as much as the vote. They have an outside chance of winning the lower-house seat of Melbourne.
It is easier to win a so called safe seat then one that is within 5%. The greens will need over 12.5% of the vote with the Liberal Party pegged back to below 25% and all preferences favouring the Greens. of course the ALP would also need to poll below 50%.
The same goes for Liberal held seats as we saw with the
election of Phil Cleary in Wills and the independents in Victoria.
Additional Issues surrounding the upper house election system
The method of calculating the surplus value is based on the number of ballot papers and not the value of the vote seriously distorts the one-vote-one-value principle as major party votes increase in value at the expense of minor parties.
Further the system of segmentation which was first introduced to assist in a manual counting process also effects the outcome and needs to be reviewed.
With computer based technology the suplus vote should be transferred based on its value of the ballot paper being transfered and not the number of ballot papers.
There should only be one transaction per candidate. (Elimination of surplus distribution.)
As a result of my efforts to take the City of Melbourne to VCAT following the 1999 Council election and appeqals to the Victorian State Parliament, the Victorian Electoral Commission has indicated that it will publish the detailed preference electronic data-file following the declaration of the poll.
Unfortunately they will not be distributing it via their web site.
I will endeavour to do so and publish the link on this site as soon as I can.
There is no reason why this information should not be publicly available during the count. With the counting process now being undertaken in cyberspace we need to look at new ways of scrutinising the ballot. This only way this can be done is via on-line publication of the preference data during the count. The availablity of this data would facilitate open and transparent conduct of the ballot and provide a means for further independent analysis and scrutiny without it is is virtually imposssible to indepoendently vertify the validity of the election. More needs to be done to ensure that the process is fair and correct.
Anthony van der Craats
http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com
Game on..
October 25th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Well, the Greens got 27.4% of the vote in Richmond last time, with the Libs on less than 20%. If there’s a swing against Bracks, I’d say the Greens are definitely in with an outside chance there.
October 25th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Douglas, I understand your point, but because Baillieu is an inner city mp, whom as received many positive articles from the Age, and has several progressive policies he will improve the Liberal vote, not at the expense of the ALP, but the Green, for many may well say we can give Brack a kick in the lower house by voting Lib and give the Greens the vote in the upper house.
October 25th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
can someone please tell me when Anthony Green will have his election page up and running.
October 25th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Doug… what was the the Liberal Party’s vote in Richmons and how tight were the preferences?
Dick Wynne is an experienced politician and a good member of parliament.
The Seat of Melbourne is the greens best hope of winning a lower house seat. even then they have to peg the ALP back to below 50%. Tevor Huggard had a chance against Neil Cole but in the absence of media focus failed to peg the ALP below 50%.
Demographic have changed in Melbourne to such an extent that the ALP will most likely fall below 50% this time around
October 25th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Based on the 2004 Senate result our analysis indicates that the Liberal/National Party coalition would have obtained an absolute majority (21 out of the 40 members) of the Legislative Council.
Results
Eastern Metropolitan Region (Lib, ALP, Lib, ALP, Lib)
Eastern Victoria Region (Lib, ALP, Lib, ALP, Lib)
Northern Metropolitan Region (ALP, Lib, ALP, Lib, Grn)
Northern Victoria Region (Lib, ALP, NP, Lib, ALP)
Southern Metropolitan Region (Lib, ALP, Lib, NP, Grn)
South Eastern Metropolitan Region (Lib, ALP, Lib, ALP, FFP)
Western Metropolitan Region (ALP, Lib, ALP, Lib, ALP)
Western Victoria Region (Lib, ALP, Lib, ALP, NP)
Sum
ALP (16) - (32.27%, 30.66%, 42.82%, 27.11%, 27.15%, 39.71%, 48.50%, 35.21%)
Liberal (18-19) - (49.11%, 50.45%, 33.38%, 53.50%, 49.93%, 42.65%, 33.39%, 46.76%)
National Party (3-2) *
Green (2) - (8.33%, 7.59%, 13.28%, 5.39%, 15.01%, 6.43%, 6.24% ,7.39%)
Family First (1) - (2.17%, 2.46%, 1.25%, 2.61%, 0.78%, 2.25%, 1.55%, 2.11%)
* the Liberal/NP ran on a single ticket with the NP listed no 2
October 26th, 2006 at 7:01 am
The Greens chances of winning a seat are less than last time because Family First always put them last.
It would be fun for all if the Greens started winning seats though because the ALP would turn on them like a rabid dog.
October 26th, 2006 at 8:36 am
How useful is it to use the 2004 Senate results for calcualting election results for the Legislative Council?
October 26th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Used to live in Melb but no longer, so I want to know: is there still a lot of anger over the Scoresby Freeway? Labor have plenty of marginal seats in the outer east, and a strong anti-toll vote could at least make things interesting.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Not very useful because
1 A significant proportion people vote often differently in state elections to the way they vote in federal elections (generaly a bit further left these days(the Green vote will probably go up federally when Labor next gets into government there to the the detriment of the Labor members for Melbourne, Sydney, Graindler, Cunningham Dennison and possibly others)).
2 The peference deal with the cristian parties is unlikely to happen again (VSU and cross media) or Labor would face a “a vote for Labor is a vote for Family First” campain by the Greens.
3 There was no People Power in 2004.
If the Greens won lower house seats then they would be seats that Labor could not hurt them by denying them preferences because they would be the ones that the are fighing the Greens for the seat (Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick, Northcote) or they would be seats in which Labor has no chance (Hawthorn) and would try and get the Lib out (Labor directing it`s preferences to the Libs ahead of the Greens would ignored by many Labor voters and be like and as sensible as the Libs backing Labor in a National vs Labor contest).
The libs may lose a few voters in Richmond over their rejection of the local who was the only one to stand and running someone who lives in Hawtorn and would need to gain about 10% more primary vote to get ahead of the Greens so bar mass how to vote card ignoring or change a small to medium Liberal resurgence would cause a Green victory and coming third would have a proportion of voters in these inner 4 thinking that the Liberals are a minor party to them that will never win their seat so will send their punish Labor (protest) votes to the Greens.
October 26th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
The 2004 Senate result is also useless for determining wether the Libs or the Nats get the a seat in the non-metro regions as in the Senate the Coalition ran a joint ticket so it does not help on that.
October 26th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
In terms of Green vote, Melbourne is far more marginal because the primary difference in 2002 between Libs and Greens was less than 1000 votes. By contrast, Richmond has a roughly 3000-vote buffer between the Libs and Greens. I think the Greens have a much higher chance of taking Richmond, they are running a local councillor against an imposed Lib candidate, with a substantial buffer above the Libs, and a new influence in People Power, the preferences of which may decide close contests between Libs and Greens for second place (and ultimately the seat).
October 26th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Melbourne is demographicly more Liberal that the other 3 where the Greens came second (21% as opposed to 18-19%) because of the CBD, East Melbourne and Docklands (a more populated Docklands may influence the outcome).
The Melbourne Green vote probably would have been higher if Kevin Chamberlin the independent had not run it would probably have been at Richmond levels and the Greens may have won the seat by piccking up a tiny bit more protest vote (the ALP won by less than 600).
The marginality between Labor and the Greens will probably bring out much of the “it`s a safe seat” and “Labor and Liberal are indisinguishable and bad” brigades, rasing the turn out (in 2002 Melbourne 87.52%, Richmond 88.21%, Northcote 91.37% and Brunswick 91.29%) which would advantage the Greens.
October 26th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Yes of course there are always some differences in the voting patterns between the Senate and the State but I think you will find that the differences under the new proportional representation system will not be so great.
The 2002 State election figures where the best for Labor. The swing of the pendulum is on the rebound.
The Senate vote was properly the best result for the Liberal.
The 2004 data does show that the new boundaries are in the Liberal parties favor not the ALP.
Where the Senate vote is of interest is in the fact that all parties are represented and the method of election is similar to the new upper-house system. Many voters when presented with the Senate style voting paper will vote according to past practices.
If would be helpful if the pollesters were to publish a poll broken down to the new legislative council boundaries. Armed with this information and the registered above-the-line preferences it is possible to determine the various thresholds that could change the result.
I did the analysis for the 2004 Senate election and I tried to draw attention to the likelihood of the Greens becoming what referred to as the missing quota. David Risstrom was fully aware of the potential outcomes. the greens failed to position themselves favorably in teh preference deals making that much more difficult toi win. One the ALP fell below teh 39-40% mark and the Liberal party exceed 42% (the thresholds) the Greens were in a no win situation. Below-the-line results could not infulence the outcome by more then 1-2%.
To make comparisons with the 2002 election would be misleading more so then to make a comparison with the 2004 Senate vote.
Sadly the AEC has not published the below the line preference data. It would be in the public’s interest if this information was readily available along with voter distribution statics for each polling station. hjopefully teh VEC will publish this information. If not we will go back to VCAT to make sure this information is made available and that our elections under a new electronic system remains open and transparent.
game on..
October 26th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
re Melbourne and Richmond. The liberal party will not poll as bad as they did in 2002. I would doubt that the Greens will poll ahead of the Liberal Party. in any event there will most likely be more candidates running and the Greens will need every vote. I dont that labor will be pegged back in Richmond to below 50%. Melbourne is a different case. Again the level of the liberal vote is crucial to a possible upset. with all parties needing to maximise votes in the legislative Council I doubt that any party will run lame, to do so would jeopardise their chances in the upper house.
Greens 2 to 43 seats max Maybe a shot at Melbourne. A number of seats could change hands. In the end the Liberal Party has fewer “safer seats then Melbourne” This locks up the ALP vote is a few select areas. The overall election will be won in the marginals.
October 26th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Tom I factored the National Party joint ticket into the results. They will never the less cross preference each other. I think you are also wrong about the ALP Green preference catchment. I think the LAP won middle ground and listen to the Greens not as suggested the Greens took away from the Liberals. I think when the campaign heats up the Green policies and their party overall will be under greater scrutiny. ALP preferences to the Greens in inner urban seats will not be counted. They are only relevant in the marginals. I can not see the Greens being able to justify allocating preferences to the Liberal Party in the same way it will be difficult for the ALP to support family first this time around (Which explains why Family First is pitching to the Liberal Party) I have been analyzing the State election for too many years. No surprises really. This is the first election were I can stand apart from campaign central. Most of my attention is nowadays focused on inner Melbourne. whilst I support David Risstrom I can not extend his standing to the rest of the Green membership. The electorate really does not know enough about the greens overall other then the green branding. they have not achieved much in other forms. I do not believe the greens will do as well in the Legislative assemble as they did in 2002. yes they may pick up a bit in the Legislative Council but the thresholds are not in their favor. They could even lose in the West in which case they will only get two seats. Subject to ALP surplus preferences. More as the election draws clser and the registered preference data finalised. The key is knowing the realistic thresholds.
October 26th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Tom re Kevin. Australia unlike the rest of the world has a preferential ballot system. You should lok sloser at Kevin’s preference flow. Kevein may very well stand again. I have heard that some are tryng to encourage John So to Run. We will not know the likelyhood until after the close of nominations.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:00 am
My point about the prference flow is that if he had not run then some of the voters who put him first and Labor 2nd (or Lib 2nd and Labor 3rd) would have put the Greens first, possibly just tipping te ballance.
The Greens will probably pick up a small portion of the ALP vote in many seats because of the governments lack of action on public transport and other issues (voters who would rather vote for a real party of the left than the”Alternative Liberal Party”).
October 27th, 2006 at 9:07 am
I will be producing online Upper House calculators for all the Victorian Upperhouse regions similar to the ones I did for the South Australian election and pollbludger for the WA election if anyone is interested.
They’ll be up shortly after the group tickets are released.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Anthony, If you use the Upper house Primary’s in the last 3 Victorian elections you get a different result than using the Senate result from the last election.
For example Western Vic Upper House will not elect a National MP as the Libs 3rd will beat their 1st.
I agree your system for the upper house is better than this Bracks / Lenders model that has been introduced. Better for the Parliament and better for democracy
However I still beleive the upper ouse should be abolished and a PR component introduced into the lower house. I understand the greens were approached with this idea and rejected it.
If the ALP preferences the Libs over the Nats in the Country then the nats will be left with 3 lower house seats. Gipps South, Lowan and Benalla) based on the last election.
However if the Greens in Benalla prefernce the Libs ahead of the nats then they will lose even that seat. The only reason that the Nats won Benalla last time was preferences from the Greens who went Nats, ALP and then Libs
October 27th, 2006 at 11:42 am
What would the Nats say if Labor came to them and they would only put the Nats above the Libs if the Nats put them above the Libs?
Near wipe out or preference Labor?
With all the anti-Green things the Nats have been saying I think that they might try to preference against them.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
If the DLP, Family First, Nats put the greens last as is reported it wont hurt the greens anyway.
The DLP doesnt get may votes and what there is could go family first, same withFred Niles Party ( it usually only runs in the country)
October 27th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
I actualy meant that the Greens might Preference against the Nats.
This might be of help to the Greens in a case of a tight election resultwhere the majority was held by niether the Libs and Nats nor the ALP and the Greens had the balance the Nats might prop up the ALP to keep the Greens out so the less Nats the better for the Greens (plus us the upper house results show PR is worst for the Nats so they oppose it the most for the Assembly so if there are no Nats then the Greens could have a chance at doing a PR deal with the Libs).
October 27th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Last election most of the seats only had three parties competing - Lib/Lab/Green, so the Greens picked up all the protest vote.
This time with more minor partys competing, I am going to predict their vote will decline. These votes then being preferenced away from them is definitely going to hurt them.
October 27th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Elbow Room makes a very good point about the protest vote. The Dems used to always get their highest votes when there were only 3 candidates. More minor parties will mop some of the protest vote. Independents are evn better at mopping up the protest vote and blocking out minor parties. Historically, Victorian voters have always been more likely to vote for parties than independents (esp compared to say NSW). Not sure why (more ideological purity perhaps?). However, in NSW when there are high profile independents, the Greens, Dems in the past always poll very poorly. In NSW and QLD, these independents tend to come out of local government (Clover Moore, Peter MacDonald, those forgettable right wing ones from Newcastle, Liz Cunningham. In Victoria there never seems to be many people moving from local to state government candidature despite the high profile local government gives. Maybe the Sydney geography reinforces a local identity that Melbourne just doesn’t have.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Your theory is suported by Victoria`s 2 independents being in the two least Melbourne electorates in the state: Mildura and East Gippsland.
Mildura also had the lowest Green Vote in the state in any Green contested electorate of 1.74% (one of only 2 Green contested electorates where they got less than 4%) in one of the 4 they did not contest the Citezens Electoral Council got 8-10%.
The Protest vote may be bigger this time round.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
A couple of things worth noting from the booth I worked last time.
1. Green voters take absolutely no notice of how-to-vote cards. In the area I worked last time the Greens ran a split ticket in the Lower House and preferenced Labor in the Upper; Labor actually got more (76%) Green preferences in the Lower House than in the Upper (72%). Where Green preference allocations will matter is in the Upper House, where most people under the new system will vote above-the-line.
2. In most recent elections I’ve worked on, about 20% of Liberal voters preference Labor ahead of the Greens. This means that in seats like Melbourne and Richmond (which I would agree are potential Green wins), 45-46% of the primary vote is probably enough for Labor - the Liberals will come third (or worse) here but enough of their preferences would leak to get Labor across the line with anything higher.
Providing the overall swing against Labor isn’t too large, Doncaster could be one that Labor could gain against the trend. They got within 0.6% last time with no campaign and a candidate picked from the party office staff 6 weeks out because no-one else could be found. This time they have the advantage of incumbency because they’re running the sitting Upper House MP (Lidia Argondizzo) and the sitting Liberal MP is retiring.
In Ivanhoe a local councillor and former mayor (Jenny Mulholland) is running as an independent. Assuming that all the other minor parties will preference her, she might have a chance with anything much above 15% on primaries (although her presence in the race will probably suppress the Green vote). I don’t think she’ll get that, but she may not be too far away. In general it’s harder for independents to get anywhere in city seats because the individual candidates don’t attract media attention (unless they do something really stupid) in the way they do in the country, so it’s much harder to build a profile.
October 28th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Would she put The Greens ahead of Liberal and Labor on her how to vote cards (if she has any) and would the Greens do the same for her?
October 28th, 2006 at 10:45 am
I have given some further thought about why there have been more independents in other states compared to Victoria. In Victoria, there is a very high proportion of seats that are potentially winnable by either side. These types of seats have always traditionally voted for the major parties as the voters have something to gain. If you add the uneasy relationship liberals and nationals in regional victoria into the mix, there are very few seats which aren”t theoretically winnable by another party. In NSW and QLD, successful independents have usually done so in seats that were ‘’safe” for either of the major parties - Manly should be a safe liberal seat, Bligh has moved boundaries but at one stage would have been safe, Dawn Fraser in Balmain, Frank Arkell in Wollongong, Peter Wellington in Nicklin - the list goes on.
Blair, above mentions that Doncaster may be winnable for the ALP, as they came close last time on very little campaigning. An inevitable result of landslides is that the tail end MPs are usually not very talented and have ridden on the coat tails. We have an interesting situation here in the City of Whitehorse, Labour hold both state seats: Mitcham (Tony Robinson) by about 7.7%, Forest Hill by Kirstie Marshall (5.8%) - Federally the Libs (Phil Barresi) hold Deakin by 5.0%. Tony Robinson and Phil Barresi are classic marginal seat MPs, visible, hard working, getting involved. Judging by reports in the local paper, Kirstie Marshall has been largely invisible for the last 4 years (except for the breast feeding incident), has never even bothered to move to the electorate. This week a concerted campaign of slagging Kirstie for being ”not around” has started on the letters page - politically inspired no doubt - but justified. It will be interesting to see how she goes as it could be a litmus test seat - last time she won on a big swing - incumbent MP retiring, Liberal candidate was Indian or Sri Lankan (some degree of racism perhaps?), some disquiet within liberal campaign. Maybe she will run dead and quietly fade away. If the Libs win the seat it is a fair way up the pendulum. How well are the other MPs who never expected to win performing?
October 28th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
We’ve seen a similar effect in Geelong as to what blackburnpseph notes in the City of Whitehorse. While it wasn’t out of the question that South Barwon and Bellarine could fall in 2002, it certainly wasn’t expected to happen. The two MPs in those seats, Michael Crutchfield and Lisa Neville, are badly on the nose locally, both being low-profile and having backed the government against large swathes of the local community on quite a few controversial issues. There’s also issues in Lara, which, while traditionally very safe for Labor, has seen a popular long-term member (Peter Loney) disendorsed in favour of John Eren, an MLC who’s virtually unheard of in the electorate he supposedly represents, and which has a similar situation going on at the federal level, with the disendorsement of Gavan O’Connor. I doubt Labor could lose Lara, but I suspect there will be a fair swing against the party, and I’d not be at all surprised if the Liberals picked up Bellarine and South Barwon. I think the only one in our area that’ll be a safe hold for Labor is Geelong, where Ian Tresize is pretty popular.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
By the idependents do better in safe seats theory Kevin Chamberlin won`t do so well if he runs again because it`s now a marginal and the Greens will probably do quite a bit better in Footscray this time round if the independent who ran last time and got just more than the Greens (about 10% each) if they don`t run again.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
In Ivanhoe, Craig Langdon, the member, is quite unpopular among green members and supporters, while Jenny is a lot close to the Greens then most of the ALP, so I would guess she would be ahead of Craig and the Liberal on the Green HTV. Given she is ex-ALP she probably doesn’t like the Libs and is running against her party, I think its safe to assume the Greens will be above both. The only question is wether the Greens will beat Jenny or vice-versa, and if the combined vote will amount to a challenge to the ALP or Libs.
I think Jenny is well enough liked to get a 15% ish vote, beating the Greens. Seeing that Green support in Ivanhoe is about 10%, which means it could be possible for Jenny to beat the Libs and win the seat.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Kirstie Marshall has all but disappeared since the blackflip on tolls.
I tip she will be returned with a swing against.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Tom dream on. Melbourne is not a marginal in terms of the ALP/Liberal TPP. It is only a marginal if the ALP primary falls below 50% and the Greens can top the liberals. Preferential ballots are all about the order of elimination. The Liberal Party will ruin a stringer campaign then in 2002. I dont that the greens can make it. But Melbourne still remains their best chance in the lower-house I give them about 30% chance of winning… even then I am being generous. You better try getting some effective running mates, No doubt the ALP and others will try and find them. Watch out for a possible John So decision to run for State Parliament. he is getting old and if he is going to run it will need to be now. He could hold back for a better chance in the federal election due next year.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Peter Mitchel (I assume you are the Peter Mitchel) You are right I was highlighting the 2004 senate vote to show that it is possible for the Liberal party to win outright. It all depends if the ALP falls below 39% primary and the Liberal Party remains above 42% The greens will not go above 11% except in the northern Metro seat. and maybe in the Southern Metro) They will not secure a seat in their own right. Look closer at the thresholds the ALP will be fighting the greens for a 4th seat in the west in all others they get either two or three outright. Independents will not favor the greens before the main parties this time round as they also need preferences if they are to have a real chance of leapfrogging.. This will not be another Family First upset. The ALP will not fall below 39% as they did ion the senate. I think the results will be somewhere in between but most certainly not as shown in the 50/50 spilt analysis published on this sitye. You can not base the result based on the 2002 results. Proportional representation above-the-line voting has a totally different dynamic then the vote under the old system.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
the simple analysis is to take the percentage of the vote divide that by the quota and the resulting integer is the number elected and the remainder folds up in a similar fashion to to normal preferential ballot. If it i close within less then 200 votes (0.5% of quota) the last position could change. The main factor will be the registered above the line preference deals. Whilst i support above the line voting (Most people vote for parties anyway) I believe that the voter should have the option of preferential voting above the line as opposed to just ticking one box.
Also you need to factory in the built in bais to the method used to calculate the surplus value. It distorts the value fo the vote in favour of the major parties. A more fairer system would be to calculate the transfer value based on the value of the ballot paper not the number of ballot papers. Sound a bit technical but it is an issue. the method of segmentation in the counting process is another anomaly. Ideally there should be one transaction per candidate.
October 28th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Morgan Poll has been released, 55-45 on 2PP. The Greens are on 12%, putting Morgan and ACNielsen very close together. The poll has a split of 41-38-12.
2002:
Newspoll had a 41-40-7 split ALP-LIB-GRN
Morgan had 47-35-11 split
Outcome was 48-34-9.5.
October 28th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
I suspect that quite a large chunk of John So mayoral vote comes from the non-resident voters (land (buisness) owners) and that in a cotest where only residents vote.
His affect on the vote would be very interesting as he would probably take votes from the Liberals and Labor and could send the vote in any number of interesting ways.
October 29th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
You should look back at the various published polls going back to 1991. The Morgan poll has always overestimated the ALP support base. Newspoll tends to be the most accurate. never herd of Galaxy poll until now. The Galaxy poll is way out. If I was a betting man I would put my money overall on the Newspoll. But as they say the only poll that Counts is on election day. If we are to make an informed analysis ideally the poling organisation will undertake a voter intention poll broken down to the new upper-house electorates. I do not think you can accurately allocate the state state average to the new province boundaries it is possible but the error for margin could provide a different change in the outcome of the last position to be elected.
Re John So. His voting support is broad. He gained an extra 3-4% sympathy vote in the 2004 Municipal election following critical remarks about John’s accent and command of English. Unfortunately John has a speech impediment which is seen by many as being an accent. This additional 3-4% created an upset in the poll which would been much closer had the comments about his accent not been made.
I for one am opposed to the Presidential style direct election of Lord Mayor (I am also opposed to a directly elected Republican Head of State). I am a strong supporter of a parliamentary democracy with preferential proportional representation (Preferably with a open transparent and fair counting system).
Whilst rumour is abound that John So might enter the ring, I think it is unlikely. He may consider it best to try his hand at the senate. John is getting old (he turned 60 this year) and this would be his last chance to extend his influence beyond being Lord Clown. If he runs next year for the senate if elected he will take office in 2008. It is still unknown if he would need to resign as Lord Mayor. In terns of the State Parliament John could in theory hold both positions as is the case in Sydney. There is no limitation in the State constitution. (Maybe there should be) You can not hold office in two councils but there is no restriction in relation to being a councillor and a State member.
October 29th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
based on the polls and past support (Senate Elections) the Greens will most likely get around then 9.5% statewide. Stronger in two electorates. They will most likely only secure 2 maybe 3 seats in the Upper-house the ALP looks like getting 17-18 that leaves around 19-21 for the Liberal/NP. Its early days in the campaign and the Greens have not been subjected to serious review. At around 10% of the vote their only hope of securing a good election outcome is preference negotiation deals. Fail in this respect then they will become the wasted quota as was then case in then 2004 senate vote. Please remember that the system and formula used in calculating the transfer vote favors the major parties. The Greens were remiss for not addressing this issue before. (They are not good at addressing democratic values) They also should have advocated for a 5 seats x 9 members or 5 seats x 7 members option, where the quota would have been lower, when they had a chance (remember they signed off on the 8 seat x 5 member option). The odds are most likely that there will be a 50/50 outcome. A problem that always exists when you have an even number. Odd numbers provide for a majority outcome.
October 29th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
I wrote to Antony Green and he qualified the comments that were attributed to him by saying . (And I hope he does not mind me quoting him)
“I am constantly misquoted on having predicted the Greens will win the balance of power. All I did was transfer the votes of the 2002 election to match the new provinces. If all the parties got the same votes in the same seats at the 2006 election, that’s what you would get. But they won’t, so it’s all matter of opinion.
I personally don’t see why the 2004 Federal vote would be any better a guide to the LC result. It was Labor’s worst Federal result in Victoria for a decade. Labor’s primary vote will be better than that at the state election and the Liberal vote will be worse.â€
I agree with Antony Greens assessment and was also surprised by the misleading comments attributed to him. I am still unclear as to how he attributed vote to other parties where that party did not stand a candidate.
And yes the 2004 senate vote was the ALP’s worst but it does use the same system and also shows the bottom end of the ALP pendulum and the top end of the Liberal party support. More important it includes recent voting support of the other parties (Including the Greens who in 2002 did not stand candidates in all legislative council seat). Tis is te first multi-member Victorian state election all comparisons are valid in the absence of more reliable data.
It woiuld be worthwile if the editors of this forum could debate further the issues related to the formula and process adopted in counting the vote as this does need review. (see above or my blog site) It is only a matter of time until this issue becomes an issue. (one vote - one value. One transaction per candidate based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers in each distribution). Too technical? I am happy to explain it in more detail.
October 29th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
melbcity,
I think if you explained your problem with the method of surplus preference distribution with the aid of an example, it would be easier to understand what it is you object to.
October 30th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Why are people still debating the consequences of the Senate results for the state election? The federal election was fought on issues and personalities that simply aren’t at play here; there are no interest rates to fight over, no Howard to lead the campaign, and no advantage of incumbency for the Liberals. The 2002 results may be older, but they’re a far more useful measure for predicting the result, since they actually involve the same leaders and many of the same issues.
October 30th, 2006 at 11:31 am
These discussions alway tend to bog down in over-analysis of individual seats and candiadtes. There are two propositions which we of the political-obsessive class ought to remember:
1. Very few people (in urban areas) know or care what seat they’re in or who their candidates are. They vote for or against the government of the day. The only contest that matters in this election in Bracks v Baillieu. If Baillieu can make an good mpression during the campaign (and he has made a good start), and not make any stupid mistakes, he will get a swing. If he can’t, he won’t.
2. Swings in urban areas are nearly always uniform. If there is a swing to the Libs, the seats will go down like dominoes regardless of who the candidates are or how good or bad the sitting members are. This is less true in regional areas, but in the Bracks swing 1999 the regional seats also swung fairly uniformly.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
I agree in most cases Adam, but someone like a well liked mayor, hugely disliked MP, candidate dumped on members(Cunningham) and links to extreme groups can change things.
Also:
1. I am guessing that because of ALP prefs to FF in 2004 and reports it may happen this time, many ALP members will vote BTL.
2. Also many others will vote below the line as it is easier, I will. When I was in Tas I voted BTL but VIC had too many to do that easily.
3. The emergance of climate change and drought has shown the Greens have had the right idea, and who better to manage the environment then environmentalists.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Dave,
I doubt that anyone other than the sort of political obsessives who frequent this and similar sites will trouble to vote below the line. I qualify that by noting that the new system on 25 November for the Legislative Council provides for a valid vote by numbering (iirc) 5 group/party boxes correctly, which makes below the line voting more feasible for the less engaged.
However, I’ll be surprised if as many as 10% of voters break party ranks. I can recall attempting to explain to voters that how-to-vote cards are merely recommendations by the parties, and that the allocation of preferences is a matter for the voter’s discretion. This in the face of an assumption that they were obliged to follow one or other of the tickets offered to them.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
* By elections are obviously a different matter, as Wills, Ryan and Cunningham showed. Note however that both Ryan and Cunningham returned to their usual loyalty at the following general election, and Wills did so after one election.
* More generally, I was talking about the state election, but the principles I mentioned hold true for both state and federal elections. In Senate elections, 95% of voters follow their party’s ticket without a second’s thought.
* I agree that if the ALP preferences FF again, some ALP voters will refuse to follow the ticket - but not very many. Voting BTL is a cumbersome business and not many people will be motivated enough to do it.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
If the ALP does a deal with FF then quite a few of their voters will vote bellow the line (only 5 boxes needed) but some will vote for other parties mainly the Greens and PP (if they don`t do the same deal).
The Greens will be helped if they do a deal with PP because they will get a lower vote as they are brand new (Have their Registration problems been fixed?) (Were not in in 2002 or Senate 2004 making those votes Less of a guide) and could more chace at some of their less likely regions and might help them in the inner 4.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
PP registered some time last week.
How on earth is counting to 5 cumbersome?
October 30th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Many voters will think that they need to number every box below the line Senate style.
If we are going to have these anti-democratic party ordered list system then it should be fill in at least half the boxes above or at least half below (Half being the ballance between Anti-lazyness and allowing people to not vote for candidates they don`t want at all with much chance at winning).
Hare-Clarke would probably increase the quality of elected representatives because of the real intra-pary chioce.
October 30th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
*My reference to BTL being cumbersome related to the Senate, where there were 67 candidates in Victoria in 2004.
*If People Power get 5% of the vote anywhere I will eat my HTV
October 30th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Rebecca. As I tried to explain above you can not take the 2002 results and apply them to the new upper-house electorates. the system of voting is dramatically different as is the method of calculating and distributing the preferences. (Australia is on of the only countries to use preferential voting - Something I fully support.) A comparison with the Senate whilst obviously a different election never the less compares lemons with oranges grown in the same region where as comparing the 2002 legislative council results is like comparing Johnathan apples with orphanages frown in the same region. Not all parties nominated or participated in the 2002 election. The 2002 election did not have proportional representation or above-the-line-voting.
Adam C is right there will be some interplay based on personal profiles of particular; candidates and electorates but the percentage of variation will not change that much. As Antony green pointed out in his email to me the 2004 senate result was the liberal Parties best and the ALP worst. What it does show is the distribution of voter support across the state. If is in my view more worthy of consideration then the 2002 legislative council results.
in any event to use an old clique the only poll that counts is the one on election day. If the media polls provided a specific upper-house poll based on the new electorates this would provide a clear indication as to the outcome as most people will vote above-the-line (Why a voter can not preference vote above the line is only due to the fact that major parties want to control the vote and it is easier for the electoral commission to count .)
As to the issue of the bias built in the formula used I refer those interested to my blog and submission paper to the VEC municipal reviews.
I would be pleased to post more detail her for debate and consideration but suggest to the editors that it be a separate post.
Having written many programs over the years to count proportional ballot elections I am very much aware of the difference in calculating the result.
In most cases the result do not change but there are circumstances where the results are close that they can and will effect the result.
A system based on the value of each ballot paper if by far preferable then one that transfers votes based on the number of ballot papers. (Some papers have full value and other already used ballot papers a lesser value bare all transferred on the same value) The paper based transfer calculation distorts the proportionality. This is minimised to some extent by the method of segmentation used a negative countering a negative but both systems are wrong in principle and the system used provides an added advantage to major parties in a close election.
The distortion as a result of the inbuilt bias is more so apparent in local government elections where the number/percentage voting below-the-line vote is higher. If there is a toss-up over two places then it will also come into play.
But it never the less exists. The system in use was designed when the count was undertaken manually. With computer aided counting there is no need or justification for this distortion. We can and should transfer the vote based on the value of the ballot paper and not the number of ballot papers. Segmentation is also not required and it would be preferable to have one transaction per candidate (Elimination or surplus). The Greens running more then one candidate in the election will be purely advertising as most candidates will be eliminated from the count in the first exclusion transaction.
I may post an extract here…
October 30th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Adam People power will obtain less then 1 % Stephen Mayne having lead the hopeless and disenfranchised into battle has deserted his troops on the eve of the battle. They like their leader are a sad misguided joke.
More on Andrew landeryou’s blog http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/
October 30th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Stephen Mayne was never their leader. He was one of the founders the first time around, but initially refused to run this time on the same grounds that he isn’t now.
October 30th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Clarification:
Sorry on further reflection the inbuilt bias in the calcualtion of the surplus transerfer value can come into play in the election or the last ballot. In a five member electorate where major parties tend to cross the line on first preferences there the interplay of the bias does not come into play but where there is a deferred election of the one of the quotas it most certaintly does effect the result.
I have re-published an extract of a paper I piublished in Janruary this year you can find a copy here..
http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com/2006/10/one-vote-one-value-calculating-transfer.html
I have not had a chance to edit this extract and trust that the version is up to date and relevant informatiion is not missing.
II sincerly belive that we should simplyfy teh counting process and adopt a value based formula and a siungle transaction per candidate.
Paperbased formuia’s distort the onec vote one value principle and now we have a computer aided counting we can and should consider adopting a single transaction per candidate as opposed to the illogical segmentation process adopted by the VEC. (It would be great if we could also preferential vote above the line - but thats a different issue - maybe when we have online voting this will be considered)
There are other issues related to the scrutny of the ballot.
I refer readers to a paper poubished on “Save our Suburbs” by Ian Quick.
http://www.saveoursuburbs.org.au/files/SOS_LetterVEC_20060220_v2a.pdf
October 30th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
melbcity,
Thank you. Much clearer.
1. I agree. In surplus distributions, doubly discounted votes should count for less than first-time discounted votes.
2. The single transaction option makes the most sense to me. I’m not real clear on how the FIFO method is different (let alone superior to) the VEC method. (As for the “Meeks method”, that link was broken. Sounds complicated though.)
October 30th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
I have produced the below csv data file based on the statistics published by the editor of site… http://www.pollbludger.com/261/
The data below shows the number of quotas as opposed to just the percentage of the vote. Integers represent the number elected and the remainder would need be distributed in the similar process to that which applies to a “normal†preferential election with the lowest value being eliminated and redistributed until a candidate obtains a full quota. The remains are what is refer to a wasted quota the person or persons who miss out in being elected.
Please note I do not share the view that the data published is a correct or should be used as a valid comparison. (For reasons stated above). You can not compare the 2002 results with the revised new proportional representation system. It’s like comparing apples with oranges grown in the same region. There is data missing and a whole host of other inconsistencies. When considering the likely results you need to calculate the distribution of party state support for each of the eight electorates.
Having done this you need to then calculate the various permutations and thresholds that will result in a change in the results. The more information you have the better. Once registered HTV card are finalised Nov 12. (I think) the thresholds can be narrowed down. It would help is the media polls could provide a break down per upper house seat.
Notwithstanding … the following may be of some use..
csv (Comma delimited) data below.
Your Analysis,,,,,,,,,,
.,,2002 RESULT,,,,,50/50 OUTCOME,,,
Region,,ALP,LNP,GRN,OTH,,ALP,LNP,GRN,OTH
Northern Metropolitan,,56.8,23.3,17,2.9,,53.1,27,17,2.9
Eastern Metropolitan,,43.4,44.1,10.7,1.8,,38.8,48.7,10.7,1.8
Southern Metropolitan,,39.5,43.6,15,1.9,,35.5,47.6,15,1.9
Western Metropolitan,,62.3,25.3,9.8,2.6,,58.3,29.3,9.8,2.6
South Eastern Metropolitan,,54.4,34.7,8.9,2,,50.2,38.9,8.9,2
Northern Victoria,,38.8,48.9,8.9,3.4,,34.3,53.5,8.9,3.4
Western Victoria,,47.2,42.4,8.3,2.1,,42.8,46.8,8.3,2.1
Eastern Victoria,,41.1,47.5,10.1,1.3,,36.8,51.8,10.1,1.3
Total,,48.7,39,10.1,2.2,,43.9,43.9,10.1,2.2
Number of Quotas allocated,,,,,,,,,,
Quota,0.166666667,,,,,,,,,
.,,2002 RESULT,,,,,50/50 OUTCOME,,,
Region,,ALP,LNP,GRN,OTH,,ALP,LNP,GRN,OTH
Northern Metropolitan,,3.408,1.398,1.02,0.174,,3.186,1.62,1.02,0.174
Eastern Metropolitan,,2.604,2.646,0.642,0.108,,2.328,2.922,0.642,0.108
Southern Metropolitan,,2.37,2.616,0.9,0.114,,2.13,2.856,0.9,0.114
Western Metropolitan,,3.738,1.518,0.588,0.156,,3.498,1.758,0.588,0.156
South Eastern Metropolitan,,3.264,2.082,0.534,0.12,,3.012,2.334,0.534,0.12
Northern Victoria,,2.328,2.934,0.534,0.204,,2.058,3.21,0.534,0.204
Western Victoria,,2.832,2.544,0.498,0.126,,2.568,2.808,0.498,0.126
Eastern Victoria,,2.466,2.85,0.606,0.078,,2.208,3.108,0.606,0.078
Number elected prior to eliminations,,,,,,,,,,
.,,2002 RESULT,,,,,50/50 OUTCOME,,,
Region,,ALP,LNP,GRN,OTH,,ALP,LNP,GRN,OTH
Northern Metropolitan,,3,1,1,0,,3,1,1,0
Eastern Metropolitan,,2,2,0,0,,2,2,0,0
Southern Metropolitan,,2,2,0,0,,2,2,0,0
Western Metropolitan,,3,1,0,0,,3,1,0,0
South Eastern Metropolitan,,3,2,0,0,,3,2,0,0
Northern Victoria,,2,2,0,0,,2,3,0,0
Western Victoria,,2,2,0,0,,2,2,0,0
Eastern Victoria,,2,2,0,0,,2,3,0,0
Total,,19,14,1,0,,19,16,1,0
Percentage of vote/quota be distributed,,,,,,,,,,
.,,2002 RESULT,,,,,50/50 OUTCOME,,,
Region,,ALP,LNP,GRN,OTH,,ALP,LNP,GRN,OTH
Northern Metropolitan,,Quota filled,,,,,Quota filled,0.62,0.02,0.174
Eastern Metropolitan,,0.604,0.646,0.642,0.108,,0.328,0.922,0.642,0.108
Southern Metropolitan,,0.37,0.616,0.9,0.114,,0.13,0.856,0.9,0.114
Western Metropolitan,,0.738,0.518,0.588,0.156,,0.498,0.758,0.588,0.156
South Eastern Metropolitan,,Quota filled,,,,,Quota filled,,,
Northern Victoria,,0.328,0.934,0.534,0.204,,Quota filled,,,
Western Victoria,,0.832,0.544,0.498,0.126,,0.568,0.808,0.498,0.126
Eastern Victoria,,0.466,0.85,0.606,0.078,,Quota filled,0.108,0.606,0.078
October 30th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
David I agree about the meeks system being over complicated. Although I understand what it is trying to achieve. Again most of these system are in place because they were devised to assist the manual counting process.
The vote value based surplus calculation as opposed to a paper based formula is a MUST. The single transaction/distribution per candidate is possible if you adopt the value based surplus calculation. One transaction per candidate is easy to understand.
Outdated and inaccurate process over complicate the system. YES they have adopted most of the system that is used in Senate Elections but as they say two wrongs do not make a right.
The VEC for some unknown reason like to complete the issue and prevent detailed information being made public.
(I guess the secrecy of it all makes their (VEC’’s) job look more esoteric.)
Publication of detailed preference data facilitate independent analysis and better understanding of the multi-member preferential proportional representation system.
Hopefully they will publish the information without the need to make another application to VCAT. Publication of detailed preference data Should from part of the election process. Online live data collecting results following the close of the polls would be the best.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
AN OFFER: Following the registration and publication of party above-the-line preference allocations I will gladly process party preference percentage data for each of the eight electorates and published the results here on this site. I can also compare the results based on the value of the vote versus the number of papers. In most cases there will not be a change in then result. Never the less it is possible and the principle is clear. Maybe the editor can facilitate the publication of various analysis for various voter distribution options so as to not over clutter the site. One per electorate would help.
Of course the extent of below the line will need to be taken into account if the results of above-the-line assessment is close.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Thanks, I’ll get back to you nearer the publication date.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Dave. I will try and explain the FIFO. Under the system of segmentation adopted by the VEC (It differs from the senate) the VEC aggregates all votes of the same value and distributes them according to the highest value to the lowest value (Again this system was designed when a manual count was required). There is a further sub-segmentation separating primary votes form other votes of full value ( I have issues with the aggregation of all full value votes other then primary votes).
The FIFO tries provides segmentation in order in which the vote was received not the aggregated value of the vote. There is a little but big difference in the system used as it can effect the distribution and outcomes based on the order of elimination.
A single process means that all votes are transferred before any further assessment is made as to the order of elimination. A single transaction process is possible with value based surplus formula and computer aided counting system. It is cleaner and straight forward and easy to follow.
There are numerous debates on the segmentation issue. (Meeks system is one such an example) The value based formula is pretty straight forward. In my view one transaction per candidate is best, followed by the meeks system then FIFO. What is clear is that the system used by the VEC is wrong and can not be supported.
Technical, yes at first it appears very technical but in reality it is not and should not be too complicated, THE VEC system as previously stated is a hangover form the manual counting systems that were devised to make manual counting easier. it was a trade-off of time versus result. With a computer based system we should consider principle and process as time is not an issue. Two wrongs do not make a right but multiplying two negative can produce a positive
The VEC’s and the city of Mlebourne’s way of thinking is to adopt two wrongs then try and multiply it by a negative to hopefully produce a positive.
Both the senate and the State voting system needs review
Sorry if I have over stated my concerns… This is something I have tried to have addressed for many years now… I have taken the AEC, VEC and Melbourne City Council to court over these issues hoping that it will spure them on to rethink the system in place. If need be I will take them back to VCAT to ensure that the system remains open and transparent (The City Council, acting on poor advise of Alison Lyons and Jim Gifford, spent over $60,000 trying to prevent the disclosure of election results)
Game on..
October 31st, 2006 at 4:52 am
Another issue with the VEC counting process is that
1. The VEC (again based on an outdated manual count system) strips off the remainder from candidates/distributions. Under a computerised count the remainders could and should be retained by the candidates. This could be a deciding issue if there is a deadlock in the vote. I guess if that is the case there will be most likely be a recount.
2. With the adoption of partial optional preferential voting (minimum of 5 votes - is a random figure and has not basis of rational) means that a number of votes will exhaust. The optional preferential voting below the line runs the risk of creating by default a first past the post voting system.
HTV cards that recommend stopping at 5 votes should be prohibited.
Whilst it can be argued that a voter should have flexibility and choice the same can not be said for party group voting as voters are often not fully informed as to the true impact of their above-the-line vote. All registered above-the-line registered preference allocations should list a preference for all candidates (This should be a madatory requirement for above-the-line registration). Any vote that does not allocate a preference to all candidates is weakening the value of that vote.
Another reason to support the right to vote preferentially above-the-line.
Also keep in mind that parties can register multiple above-the-line tickets (Up to 3 if I recall correctly). Unfortunately parties can not nominate a percentage distribution and if they register multiple preference allocations votes are distributed equally across each registration. (ie 50%/50% or 33.33%/33.33%/33.33%)
October 31st, 2006 at 9:27 am
It would be more useful in predicting the Assembly if population trends were considered, I would think there would be 1000s of new voters in Bass and Hastings for example, where are they from? Labor polled better in the Council in Bass (which they lost because they ran dead) than in Hastings which they won. Does this make Bass a possible Labor gain?
October 31st, 2006 at 12:32 pm
That is the case in a lot of electorates that the ALP didnt campaign in last time. Although the same ca be said for the Liberals.
The new Upper House system will mean that the unwinnable electorates will receive more attention than they have in the past.
On Saturday the Liberals were handing out in Preston. They have never handed out material there before except on election day
November 1st, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Peter Mitchell. Your assessment is right. with public funding all parties will be seeking to maximise their vote. There is no advantage for the Liberal Party strategically to hold back their vote to help the Greens. Democratic shifts in population do not help the Greens, it might help family first.
If you look closer at the 2004 Victorian senate distribution its worth noting that the DLP and the democratic all placed Family First ahead of the Greens in their registered preference allocation. You do not hear the Greens on this issue. The fact is that the preference deal of the ALP Victorian senate was sound. The only problem was that the ALP polled less then 39% had they received an additional 1-2% the result would have been different.
The same goes for the Greens. They underperformed and fell below 9%.
The Greens Party electoral analysis has not been the best. I discussed the statdning fo the polls and the likely result with David Risstrom following the publication of teh parties registered above-the-line preference allocation. The Greens expected they would just drift across the line under the belief that they attract the middle non-aligned vote. The script was cast 12 weeks before the 2004 state election and the outcome was most certianly known before the results came in. Again the ALP and teh greens fell below expectations and teh Liberal Party above. That is how the system works.
Reality is far from the truth. With the decline of the Democrats this so called middle ground is not floating to the Greens. Any increase in votes only comes at the expense of another. The Greens will not rise above 10-11% statewide. They will not pick up from the democrats who will sill command 1-2% of the vote. People Power hope they could fill the vacancy created by the democrats but they have failed to capture the imagination and support of the voters.
I wait with interest the next two to three rounds of polls in the lead-up to the election.
Hopefully the pollsters will produce a break-down into the Upper-house electorates. This would be of interest and value. So any media barons and power shakers out there here is your chance to have your poll stand out from the rest….
November 1st, 2006 at 6:35 pm
I just took a closer look at the analysis the editor refers to in the leading post http://deggles.csoft.net/post.php?postid=593. I strongly disagree with both the data-analysis and the assumptions made in this post. Having erred in the statistics errors in the commentary followed. Even on 2002 results (And the data-set is incomplete and vastly different circumstances apply this year then in 2002) The ALP would not secure an absolute majority. The Liberal Party have a higher chance of securing a majority then the ALP. With the Pendulum swing they most certainly will not have control. I also find it amusing thatte media and there’s claim the will half the balance of power. The statement of balance of power assumes that the ALP and the Liberal Party will not act responsibly and agree with each other on issues that serve the best interest of the State. The Green vote only come into play when the main parties divide and power games games rule as opposed to common sense. THE ALP will most certainly not form a coalition with the Greens preferring instead to govern in a minority controlled upper-house. John Lenders is more then capable to steer government policy though a diverse upper-house without a clear majority. The fact that one single party will not dominate the upper-house will provide for better governance and accountability be control held by the Greens, Opposition or some other party/representative.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Your assuming that the ALP and Libs will put the state interests above politics. This never (or at least rarely) happening before suggests your assumption is wrong.
Your other assumtion is that the Greens wont do whats best for the state. It’s obvious that you hate the Greens Melbcity, but your not even trying to provide a balanced account.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:51 pm
I tip that Kirstie Marshall will lose Forest Hill.
There will be a big swing gainst her.
A lot of people are saying that she never does anything and she is a free-loader.
She has lost her popularity
November 1st, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Dave. I do not hate the Greens I just do not blindly support them. Truth be known I supported David Risstrom’s election and voted below-the-line to allocate him a high preference in the 2004 election. (David is someone of high integrity) I watched the Melbourne City Council Green’s candidate, to my shock and horror, advocate the holding of illegal secret meetings of Council behind closed door meetings to consider issues related to Council expenditure and governance. Issues that should nhaav ebeen discussed in public. instead of advocvating for teh public right of access to information Fraser Brindley sucked up to teh administration and denied access to this information I don’t know about you but I believe in open and transparent governance. (His pay-off was the Council paying for the executove costs of a third party international environment organisation. Why he had to fly to south Africa and could not attand executive meetings via teh internet I do not know.) Take a closer look and you will think twice before blindly supporting “The Greens”. I consider myself an environmentalist overall, always have been. I no longer own a car, I ride a motor scooter and catch public transport prefering to walk if at all possible. It’s an individual lifestyle and economic choice. I think there is a lot we need to do and can do to help the environment. Conservation is the key and way forward.
I do not support the BS idea of isolating Melbourne City and applying a selective ill-considered car/congestion tax. It’s akin to creating an economic gated community.
Anyway my concerns here are not aimed at the Greens but more to do with the electoral outcomes. The Greens will not attract vacating votes from the Democrats. Family First and People power will echg get around 1.5 to 1%. The Greens will struggle to get above 10% statewide. It not a shoe in. As to the ALP/Liberal governments not working together… yes there are issues but hey we have had governments for many years that did not control both houses. Overall it produces good governance. Of course there will always be issues that are purely political and not based on the best outcomes. Local Government reform is one such example.
I hope that the media barons will produce an efective and detailed poll on upper-house voting intentions.