However, there is still some uncertainty that exists, as outlined in my previous posts. The percentages in this table represent the probability of election of each candidate.
Sunday 8 September 2013
Senate results - Consolidated - 8-9-2013 10am
In the most likely case, it now appears as if the Coalition will have a path to achieving its legislative reforms without having to rely on Labor or the Greens.
However, there is still some uncertainty that exists, as outlined in my previous posts. The percentages in this table represent the probability of election of each candidate.
However, there is still some uncertainty that exists, as outlined in my previous posts. The percentages in this table represent the probability of election of each candidate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How have you varied your spreads now 60-80% of the votes are in?
ReplyDeleteMuch narrower spreads. Range is from +/-20% for micros (polling <0.2%) to +/-4% for parties polling 30%+.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, these spreads are still wider than what is likely - so it shows that:
-If a party has 100% likelihood, it is near impossible to lose; and
-If a party has 0% likelihood it is near impossible to win.
We all appreciate your work during this election.
ReplyDeleteWill you repeat this for state upper house elections?
Yes - I would like to. The absence of precise polling data would make things tricky... But it might be logistically easier for a state like Vic.
ReplyDeleteThe Grand Total adds up to 80, not 76. Territory senators from 2010 being counted?
ReplyDeleteCorrected. It didn't change the overall relativities as it was 2 to ALP and 2 to NT
DeleteDo you have a more detailed analysis for the ACT? I gather the sitting Liberal Senator was dumped at preselection so is there any likelihood of the Greens taking the seat?
ReplyDeleteTom, No numerical analysis. But it's very unlikely. My model becomes a bit redundant by common sense for the ACT and NT - the question is will the LNP + RUA + AJP + a share of SPP drop below 33%? It is more guesswork than modelling, but I will try to look at previous ACT flows to gain evidence for my conclusion. Also, there will be a large % of BTL in ACT, and a much lower % of BTL in NT.
DeleteI have just written up a proposal for a new electoral system to deal with the problems in the house of reps (http://www.abetz-rouse.com.au/new_election_system_for_house_of_reps.pdf), however it is clear the senate is problematic for different reasons.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be one easy option for senate reform - allowing sequential voting above the line, however I suspect this won't solve the problem hugely, with voters having absolutely no idea how to deal with a multitude of minor parties they have never heard of.
The senate's issues begin with the fact that every state gets 12 reps regardless of size. This might be a safeguard design to protect the smaller states, but I am not sure if this argument holds any merit any more?
I am thinking that the best electoral reform would be to make the house of reps more representative according to the proposal I have made, then replace the senate with some sort of "right to veto" system, in which all voters can submit an objection to any law passed by the house of reps at their electoral office or website (using some encrypted signature model). A sufficient number of vetos would bring the bill down.
New Zealand does not have an upper house, but a proportionally represented lower house. I would say their system has so far created good governments.
Replace the senate with a large randomly selected jury for each bill.
DeleteWeird fact. The Sex party preferenced NCT ahead of Lib Dems in SA. If they had gone the other way - ranking NCT LOWER - it would have resulted in NCT getting elected instead of Family First. What a perverse system.
ReplyDeletethis actually could be seen as a constitutional barrier to STV...in Germany, negative vote weight has been ruled to be unconstitutional. If directing preferences to a party can cause them to lose an election, it raises serious constitutional issues.
DeleteDoes this happen as it means that a different party would have been excluded and preferences flowed a different way?