Friday, November 30, 2018

Not-A-Poll: Best State Premiers Of The Last 40 Years: Round 2 Results And Runoffs

For the past few months the mostly hopelessly socialist heathen who come here to admire the colour scheme have been involved in the selection of best state premiers of the last 40 years.  This month saw the runoff stage for those states that were not resolved in round 1 by absolute majority, and also the start of the consolation prize round for Coalition premiers.

We are not yet ready to proceed to the grand final stage because some young chap called Andrews was involved in a real election and I feared this could contaminate the vote.  The Victorian runoff will be in February to get a little distance from this result and meanwhile we can continue eliminating Coalition premiers.

In the meantime the winners of four of the remaining states and territories have been decided:

NSW Neville Wran 152 defeated Bob Carr 50
Queensland Wayne Goss 122 defeated Peter Beattie 73
Tasmania Jim Bacon 105 defeated Lara Giddings 84
ACT Katy Gallagher 119 defeated Jon Stanhope 52

These join Don Dunstan and Clare Martin in the final runoff series, which is scheduled to begin in March.

For Western Australia, Geoff Gallop and Carmen Lawrence tied on 97 votes apiece.  Normally I declare a tiebreaking procedure (which in the past has been firstly the leader on primaries at the last stage at which there wasn't a tie, and failing that the leader who was least recently in office wins).  However in this case I did not do this, so there is a runoff for Western Australia, and if there is a tie again the above will be applied.  The WA runoff will run for two months for sample size reasons, this being a quiet time of year.

As for the Coalition premiers and Chief Ministers, the following was the Round1 result for their runoff:


Total Votes: 236

Candidates Barnett, Marshall and Everingham are all eliminated for failing to reach the 8% threshhold and the rest continue to the next round.   The same tiebreak as noted above applies for the Coalition runoffs.

Sunday, November 25, 2018

2018 Victorian Postcount: Other Indie Challenges (Pascoe Vale, South-West Coast etc)

On this page - Pascoe Vale, South-West Coast, Geelong, Ovens Valley, Werribee, Mildura

Link to state tally and main postcount thread

Link to upper house coverage

I've already posted threads on the interesting post-counts in Morwell, Benambra and Melton.  There are more seats I could post threads of their own on but I shouldn't put too many on the front page!  This seat covers all remaining seats I am aware of where there are interesting issues involving independent candidates creating problems for either major party.  Often in election leadups this is spoken about as a factor but then most of the indie challenges fizzle.  In this case the Coalition's performance has been so bad that it has opened many doors to independents to either beat the Coalition on Labor preferences or beat Labor on Coalition preferences.  Suzanna Sheed has easily retained, Ali Cupper appears to have won Mildura (see below),  Russell Northe is in a fairly good looking position in Morwell, and there are a bunch of others who either can't be written off, or who can be written off but have come close.  Here we go then.  All seats will be updated from time to time unless I have already called them.

2018 Victorian Lower House Postcount: Melton

Melton (Labor vs probably Birchall (IND), 2014 ALP vs Lib (11.2))
2014-elected ALP member Don Nardella quit party, sat as independent and did not recontest
Assessment: It's complicated [update: fairly close to an upset but Labor has won.]

(Link to main postcount page and state summary)

Melton? What is this?

The Daniel Andrews Labor government has crushed the Coalition opposition in the state election, but it's had a bit of bother in a few seats from independents, and these create the only real threat to its 2014 seat collection apart from the fairly likely and widely expected loss of Brunswick to the Greens.

One that sticks out like a sore thumb on the 2PP swingometer is Melton, the former home of Deputy Speaker Don Nardella, who resigned from the party and declined to recontest his seat after being caught up in an expenses claim scandal.  In an election where the swings are a sea of red everywhere except a few safe rural Nationals seats, Melton has produced a 2PP swing to the Liberals of 7.2%.  Currently, the Liberals are getting 58% of all preferences in a safe Labor seat where last time they got 42.4%.  There is the in-theory prospect of a bizarre boilover in this seat, and while someone out there might have information to prove it won't happen, I don't.  Even if it doesn't happen, it is worth keeping an eye on in case such a contest happens again in the future.

2018 Victorian Lower House Postcount: Benambra

Benambra (Lib vs probably Hawkins (IND), 2014 Nat vs ALP (9.7%)
Current 2PP Lib vs ALP figure is irrelevant
Assessment: Probable Liberal retain (update: retained)

(Link to state tally and main postcount page)

The seat of Benambra has been held by conservatives for 141 years but is under siege from independents inspired by the Cathy McGowan victory in Indi.  Bill Tilley's primary has fallen well below 50% leaving him in the danger zone. Here are the current primaries:

Tilley (Lib) 40.29%
Tait (ALP) 17.61
Hawkins (IND) 16.77
O'Connor (IND) 12.91
Knight (Shooters) 8.97
Bardsley (Green) 3.44

Jacqui Hawkins is a McGowan staffer and Jenny O'Connor is a local mayor who was a Greens candidate for the federal seat of Indi.

The Green how-to-vote card preferences O'Connor then Hawkins.  The Shooters registered two cards, one of which preferences Tilley then Tait and the other preferences Tait then Tilley.  O'Connor registered an open preference card (as did Hawkins.) Labor's card preferenced O'Connor then Hawkins with Tilley last.

2018 Victorian Lower House Postcount: Morwell

Morwell (IND vs ALP, Ind Held, 2014 Nat vs ALP 1.8%)
Nat vs ALP two-party figure is irrelevant
Assessment: Northe (IND) wins subject to being 2nd after preferences which is overwhelmingly likely
(update: confirmed, Northe has won)

(Link to main postcount thread and tally)

This is the first of my indie-seat postcounts.  The 2018 Victorian state election has thrown up a very large number of seats where independents have some sort of chance in the postcount and are likely to finish in the top two.  The count in Morwell may be more straightforward than in Melton and Benambra but it is nonetheless still messy.  Perhaps not as messy, however, as many thought it might be.

Russell Northe held the seat narrowly in 2014 despite a monster swing to Labor.  He has been a very much embattled incumbent (including in the final days of the campaign when there was more adverse media coverage of debt issues) but also one who has received plenty of sympathy for his struggles with the unusual pressures of political life in this seat.  He's polled a primary of around 20%, which normally wouldn't be enough, but he may have been saved by the collapse in the Coalition vote.  Here's how the primaries currently line up:

2018 Victorian Postcount: Greens Vs Labor (Prahran, Brunswick, Melbourne)

Link to main postcount thread including state summary

This thread covers late counting in seats being contested between the Greens and Labor.  The Greens went into the election holding Melbourne, Northcote (which they won from Labor in a mid-term by-election) and Prahran (which they won in a ridiculously close three-cornered contest in 2014) and hoped to pick up Brunswick (ALP vacancy) and Richmond (where there is perennial opposition to their candidate Kathleen Maltzahn from sections of the left on account of her support for the Nordic model of criminalising paying for sex).

The Liberals tried to stoke the pot in Richmond by not running a candidate at all, the strategic point of which remains elusive.  Former Prime Minister Paul Keating waded in by accusing the Liberals of piking on the contest to try to dislodge Planning Minister Richard Wynne in order to assist Liberal-linked property developers, while Maltzahn issues were another distraction for the Greens in a campaign full of them.  In the end Wynne has won Richmond with a commanding swing in his favour, and Labor has also comfortably recaptured Northcote.

2018 Victorian Lower House Postcount: Summary And Classic Seats


Labor 55, Coalition 27, Green 3, IND 3

Seats covered on this page:

Links to other postcount threads (links to be added as completed):

Green vs Labor (Brunswick, Prahran)
Other indie challenges (Pascoe Vale, Mildura, South-West Coast, Geelong, Ovens Valley, Werribee)

Link to Upper House coverage

Victorian Upper House Live

Button presses to occur on Tuesday at 10-minute intervals commencing 2:10 pm.  Very close results (if any) could still be subject to recount beyond that.  ABC Calculator seat "results" (actually output of a flawed but useful model) are not final and some are not likely to be correct.

Warning: The North Metro count section has been rated Wonk Factor 5/5.  Some of the rest aren't too far behind.

Current estimate:

Labor 18 Coalition 11 Greens 1 Transport Matters 1-2 Hinch Justice Party 3-4, Lib Dems 1-2, Shooters 1, Sustainable Aus 1, Animal Justice 1, Reason 0-1

At present the Greens with around 8.5% of the vote will win only 1 seat while either Transport Matters (0.6%) or Liberal Democrats (2.7%) appear likely to win two.

General Considerations: Put The Calculator Away!

Welcome to my Victorian upper house comments.  Apologies for the delay getting on to these but the Lower House count is fascinating.  The Upper House count should be equally so.

The initial results based on the ABC Calculator look like a depressing number of mostly unworthy micro-parties will win.  This may still be the case, but fortunately there has been a large increase in below-the-line voting which is running at around 10%.  This will generally count against micro-parties that are snowballing up from low primaries to beat parties that start on 14%.  Below the line voting is likely to destroy at least some apparent calculator wins, and analysing this will be very complicated.  My suggested rule for this analysis: the calculator is only a tool, use it as a guide but in some cases you may have to  put the calculator away. It's a model based on 100% assumed preference flows, but a lot of the flows will actually be only 80% or 90%, and that will greatly affect the results.  However, it's still likely that the micro-parties with really good preference flows will win seats - and humans trying to work out where the calculator might be wrong can easily make errors too (see Northern Metro Thursday update).

The other important thing is that as I start this article, most of the counts are at only 40-45% counted, which means the prepolls aren't yet in.  As we have seen in the Lower House these are likely to favour the Coalition.  So in seats where the Coalition is narrowly missing out, that may not stay the case.  We may also see that micro-parties generally do worse with more votes added (at present their vote is generally very high.)  Changes in the votes may bring scenarios into view that are not readily apparent at an early look.  These counts are also extremely complex to model and generally micro-party seats can't be called for sure until the button is pressed.

As usual small party voters have tended to vote BTL more than large party voters, and left party voters have done so more than right party voters (spectacularly so in some cases). 

This thread will have a section for each district which will be updated from time to time until the button is pressed.  If one district becomes especially fiendish I may move it to its own thread (if I have time).  In general when I have a look at the districts (every day or so) I won't update those where I don't detect any change in the prognosis.

As I start the thread the districts will be progressively unrolled through the night until all have an initial post up.  The projections are not to be treated as calls of any kind and it is entirely possible other parties will come into the mix that I have not yet considered.

Donations welcome!

If you find my coverage useful please consider donating to support the large amount of time I spend working on this site.  Donations can be made by the paypal button in the sidebar or email me via the address in my profile for my account details.  Please only donate if you are sure you can afford to do so.

Eastern Metro (2014: 3 Liberal, 1 Labor, 1 Green)
Projection 2 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Transport Matters

2:10 am Sunday: As I start this thread Labor is on 39.2%, Liberal 34.5%, Greens 9.2% and a gaggle of micros.  The calculator winner of the final seat is Rodney Brian Barton (Transport Matters) who was a usual suspect in pre-election projections.  His primary vote is 0.61%.

Barton can lose early if he falls behind both Aussie Battler and Australian Liberty, but the laws of small numbers are such that this is highly unlikely.  At present, Barton finishes well over quota at the final count, carrying preferences of every party in his battle with the Greens except for the Victorian Socialists.  Indeed the calculator count doesn't even throw all the votes.

Below the lines don't make a difference here because the flow is way too strong.  Unless there is some way that shifts can muck about with the exclusion order and propel a different winner my initial view is that Barton will win.

9:20 Tuesday: I have not seen anything to change the assessment in this seat.

10:10 Thursday: I have done a manual data entry off the manual count Word document which shows 85.8% counted.  Labor 37.1 Liberal 36.4 Green 8.9 LDP 4.1 and so on with Transport Matters still 0.61.  I am still seeing nothing that stops the Barton (Transport Matters) spiral.


Eastern Vic (2014: 2 Coalition, 2 Labor, 1 Shooters Fishers and Farmers)
Projection 2 Coalition, 2 Labor, 1 SF+F (Aussie Battler looks highly unlikely)

2:35 am Sunday: As I start this thread Labor is on 34.8%, Coalition 33.2%, Greens 7%, Shooters 5.2, DHJP 4.0, LDP 3.4, AJP 3.3, Labour DLP 1.7, Aussie Battler 1.4%, and according to the calculator Vern Hughes (Aussie Battler) wins.

However, Hughes is vulnerable at an early point where, after receiving ALA, ACP, Health Australia and Labor preferences, he leads Animal Justice and Hinch Justice by less than 2%.  Hughes is coming up from a lower primary than DHJP and AJP so can lose votes to below the line "leakage", but a bigger problem for him here is that the addition of prepolls and postals is likely to drop Labor to around 2 quotas (33.3%) if not slightly below.  If I knock out Hughes at this stage, which at the moment is a fairly likely outcome, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers become the likely winners.  If I knock Labor slightly below two quotas, Animal Justice can win Labor's seat, but this is an artificial result that will be foiled by below the lines unless Labor drop well below two quotas, which isn't likely.  At the moment I think there is a fair chance of a no-change result in this district.

Monday 4:30: Hughes' position has continued to weaken and has done so rapidly for the small volume of added votes.  He now trails Animal Justice on the calculator at the first crucial point, where he leads DHJP on the calculator by 1.07%.  He is vulnerable to (i) Labor's primary continuing to fall (it is currently on 34.43) (ii) "leakage" of BTLs from his feeder parties (iii) being outperformed by DHJP on the BTLs of parties whose ATLs flow to neither.

Tuesday 8:30: Bourman (SFF) has now moved into the calculator lead with Hughes now eliminated at the cutoff with DHJP even assuming all votes are ATLs.  Labor are only very marginally above two quotas so the calculator might start showing AJP as beating them soon, but I wouldn't take that seriously unless Labor dropped at least 1% below.

Thursday 10:25: 81.1% counted.  Coalition 35 Labor 33.6 Greens 6.5 Shooters, Fishers and Farmers 4.9 DHJP 4.47 etc.  The Shooters are the calculator winners again, although only by 0.01% at the DHJP cutoff.  As noted above this is effectively higher because of BTLs.

Tuesday 6:33: 90.69% counted now and showing on the ABC calculator.  Aussie Battler is over DHJP by 0.11% (534 votes) at the cutoff.  However Hughes is carrying over 2000 votes of below the line liability as well as the issue with DHJP being more likely to snag BTLs as mentioned above.  So I don't have any real doubt the calculator result will be overturned here.

Friday 1:00 91.05% counted.  No real change to the above.  Also note that Labor are holding steady at over 2 quotas.


Northern Metro (2014: 2 Labor, 1 Liberal, 1 Green, 1 Sex Party (now Reason))
Projection: 2 Labor, 1 Green, probably 1 Liberal, 1 Reason/DHJP (potentially both at expense of Liberal though not on current numbers). Outside chance of 3rd Labor instead of Reason or DHJP.

NOTE: My earliest projections in this seat regarding below the lines were incorrect, see Thursday update.

3:08 am Sunday: As I start this thread Labor is on 45.2%, Greens 15.8, Liberal 15.0, Victorian Socialists 4.7, Labour DLP 4.27 (they were slightly to the left of Labor on the ballot), Reason 3.46, Animal Justice 1.8, DHJP 1.67.  Dagiandis (DHJP) obviously has a great preference flow and the calculator has her snowballing and winning from 1.67% and the Liberals missing out to Labor.  However, I expect the Liberals to improve with more counting and hold their lone seat.  The question then is whether Dagiandis can beat Labor and here below-the-lines are relevant.

Currently Dagiandis snowballs from 1.67% to 18.51% on the preferences of: Hudson 4 NV, Country, Liberty Alliance, Transport Matters, Sustainable Aus, Health Aus, Aussie Battler, Shooters, LDP, Reason, DLP and the Greens' surplus after being put over quota by Victorian Socialists.  Labor goes from 11.91 to 16.48 on votes from the Socialists (via the Greens surplus), Vote 1 Local Jobs, Voluntary Euthanasia and Animal Justice.

On the calculator projection Dagiandis beats Labor by 4162, and Labor will probably drop back further.  But 7548 votes worth of below the line is being treated as above the line votes for Dagiandis, compared to only 1717 for Labor.  Moreover, the below the line votes are very probably more likely to flow to Labor than to Dagiandis (especially those coming from the Greens, Reason and Animal Justice).  What looms as a probable killer for the DHJP snowball is the massive Reason Party below the line vote of 55% below the line! (See Thursday update below)

We'll have to keep an eye on just how much Labor's primary weakens but at the moment I think the high BTL rate in this district will trash the calculator projection.

Monday morning: Commenters have hinted at a possible pathway for Fiona Patten to retain her seat.  If the Green vote rises to very close to a quota, Samantha Ratnam might be able to cross the line on BTLs before the Victorian Socialists are excluded.  This is an important tipping point because if this happens, the preferences flowing from the Victorian Socialists exclusion are entirely their own and not the Greens', meaning that the Socialist ATLs go entirely to Reason instead of the same value of votes going mostly to DHJP.  If the Labor vote has also dropped off (which is more likely than not) then it might be possible for Patten to beat Labor, although the huge BTL vote for the Socialists won't help her.  I think this is a rather difficult path for Patten, but it isn't hopeless.

Monday 4:40: The Liberals have improved to 15.57 and in my view will get a quota on primaries, so should appear with a seat in the calculator eventually.  However the Greens have dropped back to 15.26, which is not good news for Patten.  Labor has actually improved so far, to 45.4, and Dagiandis' calculator lead over them is dropping.  Dagiandis may pick up if the Liberals go over a quota; on current numbers she wouldn't win.

Monday 10:45: The Liberals have improved to 16.40 and will soon move into a seat on the calculator.  The Greens are dropping further - absents will pull them back but it is much more difficult now for them to get quota.

Tuesday 9:00: The calculator now shows the Liberals getting quota but it is on DLP preferences via DHJP.  Assuming that the Greens do not make quota before Victorian Socialists are eliminated, DHJP's margin over Labor on the calculator is currently 8278.  But I estimate DHJP's below the line liability at 11226 votes, meaning that they would have to substantially outperform the majors on the below-the-lines of the micros to beat them. It still doesn't look like Dagiandis is winning despite her calculator lead. (See Thursday update below)

Thursday 10:39: Labor 43.5 Liberal 16.7 Green 16.0 Vic Socialists 4.3 Labour DLP 4.1 Reason 3.35 DHJP 1.94 etc with 71.2% counted.  Here I have discovered that some of my previous estimates of DHJP's effective lead over Labor were underestimates, because of a peculiar artefact in the Victorian counting system.  The primary vote value votes of an excluded candidate are treated as one count in the preference distribution, and then all their remaining full-value votes are treated as a second.  This means that ATL votes from the Voluntary Euthanasia Party and Animal Justice Party, which I was treating as Labor votes in the event of a contest between Labor and DHJP, are in fact DHJP votes in that contest, because DHJP can get them if it is not already over quota on Fiona Patten's primary votes.

The consequence of this is that the effective margin of DHJP over Labor is in fact not the 3.8% I thought but more like 9.1%, meaning that the Dagiandis spiral will not be derailed by below-the-lines, and Dagiandis will win unless the Greens cross quota before the Victorian Socialists do (in which case Patten wins).

As @sorceror43 notes, the low percentage completed means it is likely there are still lots of inner-city absents (or out-of-electorate prepolls) to be added and these are likely to boost the Greens, perhaps at the expense of the Liberals.  The Liberals would have to drop a long way to not win themselves (because of BTLs), in which case both Patten and DHJP would win, but the chance of Patten beating DHJP because of the Greens going up to quota must be quite realistic.

Sunday 3:30 Commenter David J has noted that the Word documents now include district totals making them much more tractable.  On counted votes both Liberals and Greens are just a whisker shy of quota, which means they would make quota on BTLs and Patten would win.  However the question is whether the Green vote would stay high enough when the undercount in Yuroke (where they are polling only 4%) is rectified.  I am going to have a go at a projection later today.

Sunday 6:30 I have run a projection which assumes the uncounted vote in each electorate will break the same way as the counted vote and the turnout will be the same as in 2014.  The critical votes are the Liberal and Green votes and in this projection the Liberals are on 16.53% and the Greens on 16.44%.  However the current count is completely missing absents in Pascoe Vale, Northcote and Yuroke and includes an extremely small sample of early votes from Pascoe Vale.  The Greens are likely to do a little worse on the early votes than the ordinary votes, but significantly better on the absents, so it's not clear how much their tally might move around.

Based on the BTL figures compiled by David J, about 1.3% of the count will be BTLs for the 12 micros that can expect to be excluded before Victorian Socialists.  These BTLs will be splitting either six or seven ways: Labor, Green, Reason, DHJP, FPRP, exhaust and possibly Liberal.  It's plausible that if the Greens do finish about 0.23% shy of quota, they could make that (probably about 1000 votes) back on these BTLs.

However the potential killer for Patten's chances is leakage from minor Green candidate BTLs.  In 2014 the Greens dropped 1033 votes off leakage from their three excluded minor candidates while gaining only 336 from Labor surpluses and leakage from minor Labor and Liberal candidates.  This time the Greens will have four minor candidates excluded instead of three, Labor will have two instead of one, and Labor will have a somewhat larger surplus.  Even so with the increased BTL rate it is quite easy to see the Greens, and by extension Patten's prospects, being 500 votes if not more down at this point.  That on current numbers could leave them needing more like a 30% share rather than an 18% share of the BTLs escaping from other parties.  An especially bitter irony here could be that Patten is one of the common destinations of leakage from minor Green candidates (getting 20% of their leaks in 2014) and could lose because votes from minor Greens leaked to her instead of flowing to other Greens!  

At the moment this looks like one of these counts where we just won't know til the button is pressed - let me know if I've missed anything or made any obvious mistakes here!

Wednesday 12:30 am: Updated current totals again posted by David J in comments suggest the Greens have picked up again; they are on 16.54%.  The Yuroke count is up to speed with the most lagging districts being, in order: Pascoe Vale (about average for Greens), Northcote (excellent) and Broadmeadows (terrible).   So maybe the Greens can hold at about this level, at which they will probably just make quota before the Victorian Socialists cutoff.

David also raises an issue I mentioned briefly further up: that even if Dagiandis doesn't get the Green preferences, there is another chance for Dagiandis down the track - Patten must stay ahead of Labor.  Although Patten is around 8150 votes ahead of Labor late in the count, Patten is carrying 8126 votes of BTL liability, mostly from the Victorian Socialists.  Labor has a small amount of BTL liability from leakage from exhaust and also from its minor candidates, which in 2014 cost it 718 votes with 75 going to Patten.  With Labor's vote increased this liability could be close to 1000 this time.  On neutral BTLs (those not for a candidate whose HTV preferences flowed to either party) as best I can tell Patten did somewhat better than the minor ALP candidates in 2014. Whether she would do better off Victorian Socialists BTLs than Labor I am unsure of.  I think Patten would probably survive at this point, but it isn't clear.

If Patten is out at this point, Dagiandis then has a notional calculator lead over Labor which I get at about 12600 votes (though this may be a bit inaccurate as I have had to make some calculator fiddles to bring up this scenario).  BTL liabilities are about 12600 for Dagiandis (mostly Patten) and 7500 for Labor (mostly Victorian Socialists).  I would think Dagiandis wins here but I can't write Labor off entirely.

Wednesday 8:45 David J's latest figures have the Greens over quota and the Liberals falling to 16.11%.  I will be having a serious look at what sort of primary the Liberals need here to be safe from losing as they get almost no ATL preferences (a tiny parcel from Vote 1 Local Jobs as part of a surplus from Patten).

Wednesday 10:43 On the current calculator (based on votes as relayed by David J) the Greens reach quota on primaries, the Victorian Socialist preferences flow to Patten, and Patten beats Labor by about 13700 which seems easily enough.   Patten's preferences then almost all flow to Dagiandis putting Dagiandis over the Liberals by about 4,000.  However, Dagiandis carries BTL liabilities worth at least 4600 even before she gets to Patten's preferences.  After that, she is vulnerable to whatever net loss Patten has sustained on BTLs on her way up the ladder, while the Liberals pick up leakage and, except for small losses from their own minor candidates, can only improve (perhaps to quota).  It's not quite as simple as saying that every one of the 6300-odd Vic Socialist BTLs that doesn't go to Patten hurts Dagiandis, because these can be compensated by whatever BTLs Patten got from someone else.

Another curious thing is that at this point another ugly and undemocratic feature of the election system makes an appearance - unweighted inclusive Gregory distortion.  Unweighted Gregory is a ludicrous leftover from the days of hand-tallying in which all ballots in a surplus are given the same value (whatever their previous value) so that electoral officials don't have to keep track of countless transfer values and multiply 10-digit decimals by each other.  These days all this is easily done by computer so what unweighted Gregory does is distort vote-values in a way that can cause votes to increase in value unfairly, or lose value unfairly, or not lose as much as they should.  In this case the effect of it is that Labor preferences swamp Patten's surplus meaning that her own votes are devalued as surpluses and Dagiandis becomes much less exposed to damage from Patten's huge pile of BTLs.  The Patten votes which were worth 1 vote get cut down to 0.08 apiece, while the Labor votes that were worth only .22 apiece get cut down to the same.

Projecting just how much the flow from Patten to Dagiandis might get affected by BTL issues is getting even beyond my pay grade.  It might be only a few thousand votes.  On current primaries, I think the Liberals are fine here, but if they lose, say, another 0.5%, this won't be so clear-cut.  Yes, North Metro has massive below-the-line vote rates, but nearly all of those are for Greens, Labor, Patten and Socialists, and the first three get cut down in surpluses if we get Dagiandis v Ondarchie (Lib) for the final seat.

Friday 1:00 The ABC calculator figures are still not useful as the calculator is still lagging the actual count here.  However it should catch up soon.

Friday 7:00 The ABC calculator has finally caught up in North Metro with 87.9% counted.  Currently the Greens have 16.74%.  Based on that Ratnam won't make quota on primaries, and whether the Greens' pickup on BTLs from other parties is enough to compensate for leakage from their other candidates is not clear - one would say probably, but any further drop back of the Greens total makes things precarious.  The Liberals are currently OK, having picked up to 16.46%.


Northern Vic (2014: 2 Coalition, 2 Labor, 1 Shooters, Fishers and Farmers)
Projection: 2 Labor, 1 Coalition, 1 Liberal Democrat, 1 DHJP (2 Coalition instead of 2 Labor now looks unlikely)

3:45 am Sunday: As I start this thread Labor is on 32.5%, Coalition 30.8%, Shooters 8.3, Greens 6.9, DHJP 4.3, Liberal Democrats 3.4, AJP 2.22, VEP 1.87 etc.  The calculator has Labor winning 2, Coalition 1, DHJP and Liberal Democrats 1.

DHJP's Tania Maxwell however, has a juncture where she only just get over the Greens.  Currently 715 more votes are being treated as above the line in DHJP's pile to this point than for the Greens, and that exceeds the margin.  It's quite possible Maxwell gets eliminated here (indeed minor changes could eliminate her even earlier.)  Even if she does get over this point there is a later point where she has snowballed to just over 1% ahead of Labor.  That might expand with more counting, but even so the Greens' below the line vote is 1.6% by itself.  So I have a lot of doubts about this snowball and think it more likely both majors will win two.  (See some comments from Henry Schlechta in comments section - at the moment I still think the Coalition are best placed on current numbers, but it could shift pretty easily.)

The Tim Quilty (LDP) preference spiral, on the other hand, is not so easily disposed of.  Presently Quilty has a calculator lead of 5684 votes over the Shooters at the key point.  His feeder parties have only 2915 below the lines so I suspect that the Shooters won't bridge that gap and that Quilty will take their seat - unless the vote for all these micros declines sharply or the Shooters lift.

Monday 4:45: There has been quite a turnaround in the primaries here already with the Greens dropping back to 6.45 and DHJP climbing to 4.68.  As a result Maxwell's calculator lead has shot out to a whopping 2819 at that point.  Also, Maxwell's calculator lead over the majors is now just over 4%, which seems like plenty.  If both micros get up this pitches Labor and the Coalition into a battle for the final seat, which Labor is currently just winning but I don't believe that would stick. Absents might yet turn this around but there are still a lot of prepolls to be added.

Monday 5:40: On cue the calculator has flipped the final seat to the Nationals.

Monday 10:35: @sorceror43 has noted that the prepolls counted so far appear atypical in that the Liberal to Labor ratio is even higher than in postals, so they may be from an unrepresentative area.  That ratio should moderate but whether things can be dragged back in Labor's favour is another question.

Tuesday 3:30: Labor's #2 candidate Jaclyn Symes has just been promoted to Cabinet, which is being taken as a sign that Labor think they will win.  The likelihood here is that there is a disproportionately uncounted vote in Yan Yean where Labor did very well off the back of a Liberal candidate disendorsement in the Lower House.

Tuesday 9:00: The calculator has reverted to Labor for the final seat.  However its margins are very close.  At the moment the DHJP seat looks reasonably comfortable but I'll wait for further counting there.

Thursday 11:25: Coalition 32.1 Labor 31.3 Shooters 7.9 Greens 6.3 DHJP 4.9 LDP 3.8 AJP 2.17 VEP 1.96 etc (81.8% counted).  The calculator still has both Quilty (LDP) and Maxwell (DHJP) winning and currently has Labor just winning the final seat but by a margin I wouldn't go placing confidence in.

Saturday 5:20: @sorceror43:

"I've copied the district totals into Excel for North Vic, and calculated a grand total, then percentages. With count at 87.4%, Labor 31.9%, L/NP 31.4%, Shooters 7.8%, Greens 6.5%, Hinch 4.8%, Lib Dems 3.8%. With primary vote lead, think Labor wins final seat"  

Wednesday 1:00 am: This count is very well advanced now at 90.66% and Labor is looking good for the final seat.


South East Metro (2014: 2 Coalition, 2 Labor, 1 Green)
Projection: Looking like 3 Labor, 1 Coalition, 1 Lib Dem or possibly Transport Matters

4:05 am Sunday: As I start Labor is on 52.7, Liberal 26.9, Greens 5.61, DHJP 2.75, AJP 2.12, Labour DLP 1.45, Shooters 1.31 and Transport Matters' Ali Khan 1.14.

According to the calculator Khan then snowballs to victory while the Liberals do not see another vote, and the final margin is almost 13%.  Thus far I can't see anything that might interfere with this result, not below-the-line votes alone, perhaps there is some exclusion order issue that hasn't been found yet.  This is a result that was projected as possible by commenter David J a few days ago.

1:50 Tuesday: Tim Quilty (see above) in comments has noted that Transport Matters are at some risk of being chopped off at the point where they fall to second-last (Count 20, where their calculator lead has shrunk to 3891 votes (1.49%).  Transport Matters' vulnerability to losing votes from BTLs is fairly small at this point (about 1370 votes if treating all Labor BTLs as 1 for the lead candidate, but higher in reality because the Labor vote will be disproportionately for minor candidates - see Alaric in comments) while the Greens can only lose BTLs from Vic Socialists (217).  However the Greens can also gain on BTLs from third parties, especially Reason who have 893 BTLs.  At the moment there are not enough BTLs to dislodge Transport Matters at this point.  However any vote Labor loses in post-counting takes a vote off Transport Matters' calculator lead.  Labor currently contribute 1.25% to Transport Matters so if they drop back to quota Transport Matters will lose.  In this case it appears the winner is the Liberal Democrats, off an even lower 0.79%, but I will look at this more carefully should it look more likely.

11:40 Thursday: ALP 50.6 Lib 28.8 Green 5.37 DHJP 3.01 AJP 2.15 LDLP 1.45 Shooters 1.43 Transport Matters 1.22 FPRP 0,86 LDP 0.82 with 75.9% now counted.  The lead of Transport Matters over Greens at the key point on the calculator is now only 1.03%, which is getting a little bit shaky.

5:13 Monday: Current live figures posted by David J in comments have ALP 50.18 Lib 29.02 Green 5.5 DHJP 3.01 AJP 2.17 LDLP 1.44 Shooters 1,42 TM 1.24 FPRP 0.85 LDP 0.82 with 82.3% counted.  This would give Transport Matters a calculator lead over the Greens at the key exclusion of 0.52%, which I don't think would be enough (if they fail, the Liberal Democrats win).  I haven't taken into account where these votes are from as yet.

12:05 Friday: The ABC calculator has caught up with now 86.0% counted.  Labor has fallen below three quotas so now its third candidate carries ATLs instead of its fourth candidate.  Transport Matters are over the Greens by only 0.34% on the calculator, which seemingly shouldn't be enough.  The difference between TM's BTL liabilities and the Greens' is very similar to TM's calculator lead, but the Greens are much more likely to make gains on BTLs.  However it has occurred to me that Labor falling below three quotas presents a possible small advantage for Transport Matters.  Firstly the Labor BTLs are no longer a liability for Transport Matters.  Secondly if Labor actually crosses quota on BTLs from some party that doesn't preference Transport Matters, then that creates a surplus for Labor that flows almost entirely to Transport Matters, which in the most optimistic scenario might give Transport Matters say 150 votes.  Even with this considered it still looks like Transport Matters are struggling.

5:00 Friday: Labor now on 49.98% with 88.36% counted.  Whether Labor actually hit three quotas here on primaries probably doesn't matter much because leakage and votes for minor candidates will probably mean that their third candidate does not cross on surpluses from the first two in any case, and will get across the line on BTLs or Greens preferences at some unknown stage of the count. The Transport Matters - Greens gap on the calculator has stretched to 0.40% which might be survivable but at present I still doubt it.


Southern Metro (2014: 3 Liberal 1 Labor 1 Green)
Projection: 2 Liberal, 2 Labor 1 Sustainable Australia

4:25 am Sunday: As I start Labor is on 37.6, Liberal 35.6, Green 13.2, Animal Justice 2.12, Reason 2.08, LDP 1.46, Labour DLP 1.37, and Clifford Hayes (Sustainable Australia) 1.33.  The calculator script is simple: Hayes gets everyone's above-the-line votes except the Socialists, and beats the Greens by 11338 votes (nearly 6%).  Hayes is never at danger of exclusion and while there might be some rival harvester, I'm not aware of one at this stage.  Assuming it is Hayes vs Greens the issue is below-the-lines.  At present Hayes is relying on votes including about 6769 votes worth of BTLs, and a lot of those BTLs (eg from Reason, Labor and AJP) are likely to flow to the Greens.  But at present the Greens need to get about two-thirds of the BTLs which is completely unrealistic.  The Greens will need to lift substantially, or have micros fall substantially, to hold their seat.  Sustainable Australia looks quite strong here.

9:20 Tuesday: I have not seen anything to change the assessment in this seat.

11:50 Thursday: 75.5% counted and it's Liberal 37.9 Labor 35.3 Green 13.2 AJP 2.2 FPRP 1.9 DHJP 1.44 LDP 1.38 LDLP 1.33 Sustainable Australia 1.32. With more or less exactly one-tenth of the Greens' vote, Sustainable Australia's Clifford Hayes appears to be beating them easily.

12:50 Friday 7th: 87.96% counted and the Greens have come up to 13.93%, but on the calculator are still losing by over 23,000 votes.  SA's below-the-line liabilities come out to about 13,000-14,000 so they are still winning rather comfortably.


Western Metro (2014: 2 Labor 1 Liberal 1 Green 1 DLP)
Projection: 3 Labor 1 Liberal and 1 DHJP or possibly SF+F

4:55 Sunday: As I start this one the leaders are Labor 47.88 Liberal 20.02 Green 9.31 DHJP's Catherine Cumming on a stonking 6.71% and Labour DLP on 3.37.  The calculator has Cumming making gains from Sustainable Australia, Animal Justice, Reason, Voluntary Euthanasia and Hudson 4NV to get over the Greens, at which point their preferences put both her and Labor over the line defeating a rival snowball from Labour DLP.  At the moment the calculator margin at this key point between Cumming and the Greens is 3676 votes but Cumming is notionally carrying 2301 BTL votes to 504 for the Greens (which are Socialist votes that may well flow to them anyway).  Quite a lot would have to change for Cumming to drop out at this point instead of the Greens so at this stage I think she could very well win.

9:20 Tuesday: I have not seen anything new in this seat other than Cumming's position improving.

10:30 Wednesday: ...but commentator Cam Nation has! The Liberal Party are sneaking up on Labour DLP at a critical exclusion and on current numbers would beat them there because of BTLs, and the resultant preference flows appear to result in Cumming losing to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers.  The reason is that if Labour DLP go out before the Liberals then the Liberal preferences do not flow to Labour DLP, the Shooters get Labour DLP preferences, and as a result the Shooters get Liberal preferences as well, which saves them from elimination.

It might seem that the Shooters should be more vulnerable to BTLs than DHJP but in fact the Shooters' spiral consists mostly of right-wing parties and major parties - all with low BTL rates - while DHJP's includes Animal Justice, Reason, Vic Socialists and Greens.  As a result, while there is a further cutoff point in this scenario with Shooters over 10,000 up on DHJP, DHJP in fact go backwards once BTLs are added.  If the button was pushed right now it appears the Shooters would actually win and it would not be surprising to see them soon take the calculator lead.

Cumming may however recover and still win should the Liberal vote go down, which @sorceror43 has noted is possible because Footscray is under-counted.

12:01 am Friday: 79.2% counted and I have Labor 46.1, Liberal 21.5, Greens 8.9, DHJP 6.89, LDLP 3.47, AJP 2.48, SFF 1.91, LDP 1.66.   I have the Shooters in the calculator lead as a result of the Liberals being 0.01% ahead of Labour DLP on calculator numbers, which would be a much greater lead in reality.  It will be interesting to see if this can be turned around.

3:30 Saturday: The VEC site is showing a tick for this seat as final and declared but with only 25% in the rechecked count and no other indication of finality I believe this is an error.

10:30 Tuesday: David Jeisman (David J in comments) has kindly sent me current primaries culled from the spreadsheets - as of last night ALP 46.11 Lib 21.34 Green 8.96 DHJP 6.8 LDLP 3.53 AJP 2.52 SFF 1.92 LDP 1.70.  86.34% counted.  These are minor changes but have enough impact to push Labour DLP ahead of the Liberals by 0.27% on the calculator at the key point.  Labour DLP's notional lead of 1218 votes includes 528 votes in BTLs that in general won't flow to them.  The Liberals don't get any ATL votes before this point but can lose votes from leakage from their minor candidate BTLs and their one surplus - based on 2014 figures this could cost them around 300 votes.  On these figures I don't see that the Liberals could pick up enough BTLs from other parties to overturn what is effectively a 1000 vote deficit so it looks like Labour DLP will survive this exclusion on current numbers.  (Perhaps late counting could still change this).

The other point of interest here is that Labour DLP themselves get within 10060 votes on current numbers of beating DHJP at the end.  Although DHJP are coming from a higher primary, they are in general carrying ATLs from the left-wing micros with higher below-the-line rates while Labour DLP are carrying the right-wing ones.  On my numbers DHJP have at least 3700 votes more exposure to below-the-lines than LDLP do (probably somewhat more because of issues with minor candidates for Labor and the Greens), but they are also more likely to pick up BTL leaks than Labour DLP do.  So on current numbers DHJP are not in danger here.

On current numbers it looks to me that Catherine Cumming is winning the final spot again, but we need to see if the exclusion point involving the Liberals and Labour DLP tightens as there are probably only several hundred in it at the moment.  There is a slight undercount in St Albans district but nothing major.

Thursday 1:07 Note that the ABC calculator now has Shooters winning but it is based on less complete count figures than above.

Friday 2:45 With 89.16% counted in the spreadsheets I have the calculator gap of Labour DLP over Liberal (which determines the DHJP vs Shooters contest) at 0.16%.  A calculator lead of around 700 votes, which is the sort of margin at which either side could win.

Friday 5:00 The calculator has very nearly caught up now, on 88.81% and has the gap out to a more comfortable 0.34%.  As @sorceror43 has noted it is not clear if the difference is caused by changes on rechecking or changes on votes yet to be rechecked (the former means DHJP are still winning, the latter that the seat is very line-ball.)

Saturday 2:20 The calculator now has 89.24% counted and the Labour DLP over Liberal gap on the calculator is 0.37% so it looks now like Cumming is winning.


Western Victoria (2014: 2 Coalition 2 Labor and Vote 1 Local Jobs)
Projection:  2 Labor 1 Coalition 1 DHJP 1 AJP (2nd Coalition appears unlikely.)

5:00 Sunday: As I start this one Labor is on 39.16, Coalition 29.09, Greens 7.57, Shooters 4.75, DHJP 3.81. Animal Justice 2.69, Liberal Democrats 2.54, VEP 1.77 etc.  The calculator has both Animal Justice and DHJP winning with 2 Labor and 1 Liberal.

On current numbers, however, the Animal Justice candidate Andy Meddick is only 2550 votes on the calculator up on Labor at the point where he gets their surplus.  Notionally he is carrying 2354 below-the-lines here, which are probably going to flow significantly to Labor, so on current figures he's out at that point.  However if Labor drop back (which they probably will) he may get over that one.  If Meddick survives at this point he wins on Labor and Green preferences.  In that case, the calculator then has Grimley winning by 12047, but there are around 6500 votes worth of BTLs that can interfere with that at various stages (either by failing to reach AJP or by failing to flow from them to DHJP).

At the moment that gap is too large, but the Coalition are likely to come up and might reach a point where Grimley's win becomes in serious doubt if Meddick wins.  If Meddick loses, Grimley wins, and the Coalition seems to get the final spot on Greens preferences over the Coalition.  This one is very messy at the moment.

5:00 Monday: Meddick's position relative to Labor is now a 1.04% lead (2914 votes) which is about holding station given the change in votes counted (now 56%).  The calculator has another addition to the mess, which is it now has Grimley reaching quota before Meddick.  On current numbers this wouldn't actually happen because of BTLs.  At the moment I think Grimley has a good chance because he has multiple paths to victory, while Meddick is touch and go.

12:10 Friday: With 82.9% counted Labor 38 LNP 30.6 Green 7.5 SFF 4.38 DHJP 4.32 AJP 2.67 LDP 2.61 VEP 1.86 etc.  The calculator still has both AJP and DHJP winning.

Meddick is now 2.29% ahead of Labor at the point where he gets their surplus, which is easily enough.  There is also a large buffer now for Grimley after Meddick gets elected (assuming Grimley doesn't cross first) and on current number it looks like both micros win.

1:00 am Wednesday: 91.6% counted and I'm not seeing any reason why Grimley and Meddick don't both win.  The calculator at the moment has Grimley over first, I think as a result of Shooters going out before Greens.

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Victoria 2018 Live

The starting line: Labor 46 Coalition 37 Green 3 Ind 2 (Melton treated as Labor)
Polls have closed
Seats apparently won (some at low levels of doubt) ALP 51 Coalition 24 Green 1 Ind 2
10 seats currently in significant doubt (that I know of)

Apparent Labor gains from Coalition (some still in some doubt): Bass, Mt Waverley, Ringwood, South Barwon, Burwood, Nepean, Box Hill

Coalition seats in doubt: Bayswater, Ripon, Hawthorn

Apparent ALP gain from Greens: Northcote

Apparent IND gain from Nat: Mildura

In doubt Coalition held vs Ind: Benambra, South-West Coast (likely hold but exclusion order issue)
In doubt IND held vs ALP: Morwell (Ind favoured)
In doubt ALP vs Ind: Melton
In some doubt ALP held vs Ind: Pascoe Vale (probable ALP hold)
In doubt Green held vs ALP: Prahran (ALP ahead)
In doubt ALP held vs Green: Brunswick 

Friday, November 23, 2018

2018 Victorian Final Polls

Galaxy 53-47 to Labor, ReachTEL 54-46 to Labor
Current primary vote aggregate ALP 40.7 L-NP 39.4 Green 11.0 Other 8.9
Polls could be underestimating Labor 2PP vote slightly and may be overstating Greens primary
Seat projection estimate ALP 48 L-NP 36 Green 3 IND 1

This post will update all polling news in the final 24 hours of the Victorian campaign.

If the latest polls are right, yesterday's token post about Lower House modelling might not be quite so token after all. What we've seen in the Herald Sun's YouGov-Galaxy (53-47 to Labor) and Fairfax's ReachTEL (54-46 to Labor) suggests that the net effect of the last few weeks of campaigning has been more or less zero.  The polling would not have to be wildly wrong for an unlucky distribution of seats to leave Labor short of a majority, but it would have to be very wrong indeed for the Coalition to win the election in any way.

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

A Token Post About Modelling The 2018 Victorian Lower House

Seat modelling on assumed 2PP of 53.4 to Labor currently gives estimate around ALP 47 Green 3-4 LNP 36 IND 1-2 
On current numbers Labor are very likely to win, but at some risk of doing so in minority
Contest badly lacks sufficient recent polling data so any modelling is unreliable

State opinion polling aint quite what it used to be.  At this stage of the 2014 Victorian state election, there had been twelve statewide voting intention polls by six different pollsters released in the previous two months.  This time it's four by either two or three (depending on how you treat Newspoll/Galaxy) and the most recent one was commissioned.  Over a million voters have voted already (including those whose votes are in the mail) and yet so far this month the only statewide poll we've had is a ReachTEL for the Victorian National Parks Association.  There may well be a flood of polling in the final days, but at this stage, those of us trying to predict what might occur have not a lot to work with.

Saturday, November 17, 2018

Site colour change

From time to time I change the colour of this site, often partly or entirely for some reason connected with its content.  Examples of past colours adopted have been:

a shade of dark blue which was the subject of a ludicrous cease-and-desist letter from the Tasmanian Liberal director asking that an "independent liberal" candidate cease using the colour "Liberal Blue"
Orange, partly in amazement at Cathy McGowan's team finding 1000 votes under the proverbial table during the 2013 Indi count.
Purple, signifying neutrality between the major parties
The colour of Senate ballot papers, moving to a purely psephological colour as an expression of disgust with the federal parliament over anti-free speech provisions in the rushed-through same-sex marriage plebiscite safeguards bill.
Burnt orange, flying SA-BEST colours in protest against SA Labor and Liberal parties preferencing the Australian Conservatives.

The new colours (though I'm fiddling with the combination to try not to make it too hard on the eyes) are another protest, concerning the behaviour of nearly every party in or leading up to the current Victorian Legislative Council election.

Friday, November 16, 2018

Wentworthless: Another Epic Seat Poll Fail

The failures of seat polling have been a common subject on this site this year.  See Is Seat Polling Utterly Useless?, Why Is Seat Polling So Inaccurate and How Did The Super Saturday Seat Polls Go?

The recent Wentworth by-election was difficult to poll because of a late strategic-voting swing of probably a few to several points from Labor to the winner Kerryn Phelps.  All seven polls that polled a Liberal vs Phelps two-candidate preferred vote did actually get the right winner.  But that is all the good news that there is.  In so many other respects, the seat polls for the historic Wentworth by-election, perhaps the most polled seat in Australian history, were way wrong. And like other recent seat poll failures in such seats as Bass, Macarthur, Dobell, Lindsay and Longman, the failures were characterised not just by the polls being very wrong, but also by them tending to be wrong in the same direction.  The problems go beyond small sample size, and beyond even the tendency of seat polls to be less accurate than their sample sizes say they should be.  They point to systematic errors not random ones, and in this case, I suspect, to the oversampling of the politically engaged.

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Fear And Loathing With Victorian Upper House Preference Flows

Following the launch of Antony Green's Legislative Council calculator I've been playing around with some possible scenarios for the Victorian upper house group ticket flows.  Quite a few people are doing this and so there are a number of different estimates about what might happen out there.  What we know from the past is to expect the unexpected - we can say that it looks like preference harvesters will win several undeserved seats, but it's hard to say which ones they will be and who.  The whole exercise is incredibly sensitive to starting assumptions - one micro-party you've never heard of might get 1% instead of 0.5% and suddenly something completely different happens.  Snowballs from very low vote shares have a higher chance of crashing because of below-the-line votes, especially as voters for micro-parties, with the exception of the Liberal Democrats, are more likely to vote below the line.  In 2014 the BTL rate for most micros was in the range 8-22%.

At the last Victorian election, five candidates won seats as a result of preference-harvesting:

* In Eastern Victoria, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers (2.44%) beat ALP-2 (8.68% over quota) and Green (8.23%)
* In Northern Metro, the Sex Party (2.87%) beat Labor-3 (7.06% over quota)
* In Northern Victoria, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers (3.5%) beat L-NP-3 (7.84% over quota) and Greens (7.68%)
* In Western Metro, Democratic Labour Party (2.57%) beat ALP-3 (10.65% over quota) and L-NP-2 (6.90% over quota)
* In Western Victoria, Vote 1 Local Jobs (1.28%) beat Greens (9.19%)

There weren't any cases of candidates winning from well below 1%, but based on our experience of the new Senate system since, none of the above would have won had voters made their own preferencing decisions.  These parties only won because the Group Ticket Voting system created completely fake near-100% preference flows.  Perhaps, had the Senate system been implemented in Victoria before that election, some of the minor parties would have merged into larger groups and polled higher primaries, but that doesn't seem all that likely.

With the release of the new round of Group Tickets it seems that almost all parties have been involved in backroom preference-trading.  There are again tight flows between the micro-parties, largely believed to be networked by Glenn Druery, that seem designed to elect a particular winner or choice of winners in each seat.  Labor has preferenced a range of, for progressives, dubious parties above the Greens in what looks like an attempt to replace the Greens with Druery parties:

* The Aussie Battler Party, an anti-immigration populist outfit that wants to place juries of randomly selected citizens in control of many aspects of the political system, and that promotes illiberal law and order policies including indefinite sentences. This party is the latest home for long-time conservative party-hopper Vern Hughes.
* Sustainable Australia, a seemingly environmentally focused party that is actually a home for old-style pre-Tampa immigration-cutting Dick Smithery.
* The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party.  Guns!
* The Liberal Democrats.  More guns!


The Greens are far from blameless themselves, having preferenced the anti-vaccination, anti-fluoridation Health Australia Party, the aforementioned Aussie Battlers and Sussos, and also the law-and-order-loving Derryn Hinch's Justice Party all above Labor in various seats.

This basically means that if you want to vote for either Green or Labor and preference the other in the Upper House without your vote going to at least partial right-wingers or crackpots first, you have no choice but to vote below the line.  

The Liberals, for their part, seem to think that the only parties worse than Labor and the Greens are the Australian Liberty Alliance and Victorian Socialists.

Some of the micro-party preference orderings might be taken as vaguely logical (Fiona Patten's Reason Party) while others (eg Animal Justice) are simply all over the place.  I mention the Victorian Socialists (see comments) as one party that has produced an ordering that very closely reflects its likely voters' views.  The Liberal Democrat and Hinch Party orderings of the major parties and Greens jump around between individual candidates in a way designed to confuse the average voter out of having the slightest idea who is actually being preferenced and what the effect will be.

Some possible scenarios

In trying to test some ranges of possible outcomes, here were some assumptions I made:

* Labor currently seems on track to win the election with a modest swing to it, based on state polling.  I assumed this would be the case, all else being equal, and that the Labor primary might be up a shade.

* The field of micro-parties looks mostly weaker than last time, especially on the religious Right.  So even if Labor wins the election I assumed the Liberal primary would be little changed.

* Generally I gave new and unknown parties about half a percent of the vote, unless they seemed hopelessly limited in appeal (Hudson For Northern Victoria won't get a lot of votes outside Northern Victoria, if even there).

* Logos are now displayed on ballot papers.  I assumed this would reduce the strength of the link between ballot position relative to the majors and votes for the confusingly-named parties (Liberal Democrats and Labour DLP).

* I thought the vote for Labour DLP might be down somewhat as the party has lost all the MPs it formerly had at state and federal level.

* The calculator assigns votes for the Sex Party to Fiona Patten's Reason Party.  But as with the change from Family First to Australian Conservatives, the name change switches from a name with a certain appeal to low information voters to a name that is more obscure (and I also think, in Reason's case, pretentious.)  I could be wrong but Reason might not do as well as the Sex Party did, outside of Patten's home seat.

* It's hard to predict what vote Derryn Hinch's Justice Party might get without Hinch on the ballot paper.  In states outside Victoria it polled less than 1% in the 2016 election.  I think it should do quite a bit better here and have guessed 2-3%.

On my first run of this and with some subsequent fiddling, here were some possible outcomes I got:

* Eastern Metro: In my first attempt I got Transport Matters off 0.5% beating the Greens off 10.4%.  If Transport Matters dropped out early or the Liberal Democrats polled 5% off name confusion (seems unlikely) then the Liberal Democrats took the seat instead.  Either way I seemed to get a preference harvester alongside two of each major party.

* Eastern Vic: On my first attempt the Liberal Democrats off 4% beat the Greens off 8.4%.  If I reduced the Lib Dem vote, the Shooters Fishers and Farmers won off 2.4% instead.  Again I kept getting two majors apiece and a preference harvester.

* North Metro: My first attempt elected two Labor, a Liberal, a Green and one from Hinch Justice, with the latter on 2% beating ALP-3 on 10.4%.  When I tried to elect Fiona Patten instead of Hinch Justice, I found I had to jack her vote up to around 7%.  Depending on how much of that I took from the Greens, in some cases I could leave the Greens short of quota and elect both Patten and the Hinch candidate (this seems unlikely.)

[EDIT: As commenter hoddlegrid notes, and as others have confirmed on Twitter, the Victorian Socialists in this district are well above average "socialist" ballot clutter level, and seem to be running a well organised union-backed campaign with a lot of street presence and a reasonably high-profile candidate who has polled several percent in the lower house in the past.  The Socialists have poor preference flows but a strong result for them at least improves the chances of the Greens and Reason compared to Hinch Party; it seem the Socialists would need about 6% themselves for any chance of winning.  If the Greens and Patten do well it becomes more like 9%.  Anything in this range seems unlikely.  If the Hinch Party bombs out I also found chances for Animal Justice and Liberal Democrats].

* Northern Vic: My first attempt here got two of each major and a Liberal Democrat, with the latter off even 2.5% beating the Greens (8%) and Lib-3 (the same).   I had to knock the Liberal Democrat down to below 1% before they lost to Shooters, Fishers and Farmers.  Another thing to bear in mind here is that Hudson For Northern Victoria can win as well as the Lib Dems; I found he could do this off a primary of about 3%.

* SE Metro: Here I got a sane result of 3 Labor, 2 Liberal at the first attempt, and 2 Labor, 2 Liberal 1 Green was just about as easy to get.

[EDIT: David J in comments has found, and I have replicated, that if Tarang Chawla (Group D) can poll a primary of around 2%, Chawla can possibly take the third Labor seat.  Also, if the Transport Matters party can poll around 0.6-0.7%, Transport Matters can win the seat.]

* Southern Metro: On my first attempt I got an unlikely snowball with two of each major and Sustainable Australia (0.5%) beating the Greens (15.6%).  However, see note at the top (I had a crunch point where SA would need almost every preference to get over at least one major), and the snowball is very prone to collapsing early if the primary vote is low, or failing because of below the line votes.  So probably 2-2 with 1 Green was a more realistic outcome for the range of numbers I was looking at.  However if I give Sustainable Australia a non-trivial vote, over 1%, in some cases I get them up with the Greens and with Labor getting only one.

* Western Metro: Here on my first go I had 3 Labor, 1 Liberal and then Aussie Battler Party (0.5%) beating Green and Liberal-2 (each 10.5%).  If I knocked out Aussie Battler early then the Greens or in other simulations Shooters (even off 1.3%) won the seat.

* Western Victoria: The most dramatic one til last - I got a 2-2 major split with DHJP (2.5%) easily beating Greens (9.4%).  I tried cutting the Hinch candidate down to see how low I had to go to beat them and they didn't lose on the calculator until reduced to 0.32%.  [EDIT: It is also plausible for the Animal Justice Party to beat DHJP if AJP poll about 2% and get over Reason, then over Labor and hence over the Greens, though this path to victory is fragile.]

Overall the Greens seem to struggle - while North Metro might not realistically fall, their other three chances are all shaky.  Both the Liberal Democrats and Hinch Justice seem to have some very good flows, though a note of caution is required because if it is close and comes down to Below The Line votes, then the Liberal Democrats will tend to lose.  With varying degrees of likelihood I found micros possibly winning off c. 0.5% of the vote or even less in up to four seats.

These were just my experiments and others doing the same thing (with varying levels of idea what they are doing) are getting different possible outcomes.  Check the Poll Bludger thread, and also Tim Colebatch's Age piece (written before Antony Green's calculator was unveiled).  Also Antony Green has more voting advice - though I am not so sure that some of these specific disasters will actually happen as he is.  Feel free to leave exciting finds in comments!

Just Don't Vote Above The Line. For Anyone!

Voting below the line is easy in Victoria - you only need to vote 1-5 for candidates.  If you're a major party voter you can even vote for your own party's candidates and then stop if you like.  For a minor party voter, you might need to pick a few more.  Your vote won't be as powerful as if you keep on going, but even stopping at 5 is better than voting above the line.  If your vote exhausts at 5 it still doesn't help candidates with no actual voter support beat candidates with voter support, in the way that an above the line vote often will.  The best thing to do is to keep going, ranking any micro party you do not know either last or only above parties you utterly can't stand - especially if the micro has a gimmicky-sounding name like, oh, "Aussie Battler".  Numbering all the boxes below the line - if you have time - will make your vote most powerful and can never help a candidate further down on your list beat a candidate who you prefer.  (If you're short of time, feel free to leave out the second candidates from all the micro parties, since they'll never get elected anyway.)

Voting above the line instead of taking the effort to number a mere five boxes is an act of cowardice and shirking.  Willingly handing out how to vote cards that encourage voters to misdirect their preferences with a 1 above the line is on a par with giving cigarettes to children and then lighting them.  If parties are too lazy and self-interested to fix group ticket voting in the few states that still have it, maybe voters have to do it for them by making aiding and abetting preference harvesters socially unacceptable.  Just remember, everybody: friends don't let friends vote above the line.

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Poll Roundup: Well That Wasn't Much Of A Honeymoon

2PP Aggregate: 54.8 to Labor (+0.8 since last week) by 2016 preferences
54.2 to Labor with One Nation adjustment
Labor would win election "held now" with a very large majority 

It's been a while since my last federal poll roundup.  At that time the Coalition's polling was recovering from the shock caused by the messy and (to the public) inexplicable coup that deposed Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister, and it was too soon to read anything into what we were seeing.  Because the Coalition's polling was in recovery mode but the new Prime Minister was still in a polling honeymoon period it was a matter of waiting for things to settle down to get a feeling for how competitive the Coalition really was.

On my aggregate, the recovery from a post-coup low of 43.9% peaked at 46.7% after seven weeks, and since then things have been getting worse rather than better.  Furthermore, since the defeat in Wentworth, they have been getting worse faster, at least if this week's shocker Newspoll is anything to go by.  The Coalition's current position is worse than at any time with Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister, and also worse than all but the worst few weeks under Tony Abbott.

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Not-A-Poll: Best State Premiers Of The Past 40 Years: Round 2

Two months ago I started a round of Best State Premier Not-A-Polls.  Winners from each state will eventually go through to an elimination-style final similar to my Best Prime Minister series.  Also the skew in this site's reader base (and that's probably not the only cause) led to Labor Premiers winning round 1 in every state, so I am starting a Best Non-Labor Premier/Chief Minister runoff as well.

As it has turned out six states have finished up with two-candidate runoffs.  The first named was the round 1 winner in every case except Queensland which was a tie.

NSW Neville Wran vs Bob Carr
Victoria Steve Bracks vs Daniel Andrews (postponed to January to reduce Vic election contamination)
Queensland Peter Beattie vs Wayne Goss
Western Australia Geoff Gallop vs Carmen Lawrence
Tasmania Jim Bacon vs Lara Giddings
ACT Katy Gallagher vs Jon Stanhope

All these runoffs will go for one month.  (Voting in the sidebar, closes 6 pm Nov 30.)

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

2018 Hobart City Council Count (With Some Coverage Of Other Councils)

The number above appears at the top of my coverage to highlight the final informal vote rate for the Hobart City Council councillor count, as a result of absurdly strict formality requirements. Launceston (7.94%) and Clarence (7.24%) are not far behind.  

This level of informal vote as a result of absurd legislation is a farce, an insult to democracy, and a threat to the legitimacy of seats being decided by a handful of votes.  The informal rate was 100 times the final seat margin in Hobart.

I call on the state government and other parties in the Lower House to immediately and publicly commit to fixing this problem.  The current government did not create this problem, but the problem should have been fixed after the last election four years ago.

Coverage follows below.

Note added Saturday night: I will be mostly offline for the coming week (Nov 4-10) so comment clearance will be slow.

Introduction (from Tuesday)

Welcome to my live coverage thread for the Hobart City Council count, which will also have some comments on other councils when I find time to look at them.  My Hobart candidate guide and preview was here and has probably been viewed by about 20% of Hobart voters.  Updates will be added below the dotted lines; check back regularly through the week for comments.  These introductory comments will stay at the top, there are also some more detailed introductory comments at the bottom.

Friday, October 26, 2018

2018 Victorian State Election Intro

It's very close to the 2018 Victorian state election for me not to have written a thing yet about it!  Largely this has been because my analysis model needs polling to work, and (in common with other recent state elections) there's hardly been any of it.  Anyway, this is an opening offering on some general issues in trying to forecast this election

Let's start with the important bit.  If voting in the Legislative Council (upper house) in Victoria, vote below the line for candidates, not above the line for parties.  You only have to choose five candidates for a valid vote, though you will make your vote a lot more powerful if you number a lot more.  If you vote above the line, your vote will be at the mercy of your party's decisions about where to send your preferences, and they may well choose to send it to a party who you'd be totally opposed to.  Unfortunately, Victoria is one of the two remaining states that has not got rid of the Group Ticket voting system.  Keep control of your own vote and say no to preference-harvesting which can lead to unknown parties electing unaccountable candidates off tiny percentages of the vote.

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Ways To Improve Tasmanian Council Elections

On Tuesday I voted in the Hobart City Council elections.  (By the way, if you haven't voted yet, you might want to take your vote direct to your local council centre.) After following this election for months, including researching the candidates and writing a guide to the election it still took me 70 minutes to fill out my ballot papers, albeit with a little live tweeting of my thought processes on the way.  I'm not even convinced I did all that good a job of it, and suspect it would have taken me 3-4 hours to come up with a vote that was the best I could possibly do.  If it wasn't for the fact that there are always people who need putting near the bottom, I would have been wondering why I even bothered.

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Wentworth Live: Majority On The Line Again (Plus Post-Count)

WENTWORTH (Lib vs ALP 17.8%)
Dave Sharma (Lib) vs Kerryn Phelps (IND) (16 candidates total)

GAIN by Phelps (IND) - margin will exceed 51:49

Government to lose majority and seat held almost continuously since Federation.

The swings involved, while among the largest, are not an all-time record of any kind. (Not even if you discount Wills 1992)

Friday, October 19, 2018

Oh Yes We Do Have Strategic Voting In Australia (Sometimes)

On Wednesday Alex Turnbull, who has been campaigning for voters to evict the Liberal Party from his father's former seat of Wentworth, switched his support from Labor to independent Kerryn Phelps on strategic grounds.  Amusingly, Turnbull jnr justified his support by reference to a popular American text called "Gaming the Vote" by William Poundstone, and posted a colourful excerpt explaining how the squeezing out of a centrist candidate who finishes in third places can lead to "unpalatable, Wizard-or-Lizard dilemmas".  After Clinton-vs-Trump, or even the utter farce that has been the present term of Australian parliament, wizards and lizards are both sounding pretty good at the moment.

The idea here is very simple: if Kerryn Phelps makes the final two she is more likely to beat Dave Sharma (Lib) on preferences from Labor (which will include some votes originally for the Greens and minor candidates), than Tim Murray (Labor) is to beat Sharma on Phelps' preferences should he make the final two.  Phelps is (mostly) seen as the more centrist candidate in an electorate that has never elected a Labor MP.  There will be voters who want to send a protest vote against the Liberals for disposing of that other Turnbull or whatever other reason, but who cannot bring themselves to vote Labor.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Council Voting - Please Be Careful!

I've already made this point in my Hobart guide but I thought I should make it prominently in a separate post to cover all councils.  Please feel very free to share and spread widely.

A scourge of Tasmanian council elections is the high rate of informal voting.  Informal votes are votes that are returned but cannot be counted as they are not valid votes.  The main reason the informal voting rate is high is that voters make mistakes and the rules concerning this are stupid.  The reason the rules are stupid is that governments have failed to fix them.  The previous Labor/Greens government ignored warnings that bringing in all-in all-out elections would cause a high informal voting rate under the current system. The current Liberal government has so far done nothing to fix it.  The Local Government Act needs to be reformed to provide savings provisions for voters who make honest mistakes.

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

2018 FIDE (World Chess Federations) Elections Updates

8:15 am Georgian time

Greetings from Batumi!  This is a post to cover the goings on regarding the FIDE election, which I first posted about nearly three months ago (2018 World Chess Federation elections).  I hope to post updates through the election today but they may or may not be delayed a little by duties in connection with it, or issues with running my computer off its wayward battery.

Since my previous article, the attempt to impose greater strictness surrounding the tempting of delegates has fallen by the wayside (because it lacked statutory authority), but still the election has been austere compared to the cash-splash of 2014, especially on the Makropoulos side.  Unlike in 2014, a delegate is not bombarded with pamphlets at meetings for days before the election and there are few posters to be seen.  The Makropoulos and Dvorkovich camps have stalls at the Olympiad venue (and the Makropoulos camp accuses a member of the Dvorkovich camp of some scruffy behaviour related to this) while the Short camp has no physical presence beyond its various members.

Monday, September 24, 2018

Poll Roundup: The Current Polls Aren't All That Meaningful

2PP Aggregate: 54.2 to Labor (-0.6 since last week) by 2016 election preferences
53.6 to Labor with One Nation preference adjustment 
Labor would win election "held now" with a large majority
(scores and text, but not graph, updated for Essential)

This week Newspoll, which has so far produced the worst readings for the Coalition since Malcolm Turnbull was replaced by Scott Morrison, came down two points on the two-party preferred vote from 56-44 to Labor to 54-46.  Taking into account the primary votes, the Coalition's gain was probably slightly greater.  Indeed this Newspoll had a slightly smaller gap (0.7 points) between the expected last-election preferences off the primaries and the published 2PP with Newspoll's adjustments of One Nation preferences than has usually been the case lately.

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Hobart City Council Elections Candidate Guide And Preview 2018

All candidates are directed to the note for candidates at the bottom of this page.

Introductory Waffle

With some rather expensive looking corflutes already cropping up in parts of the city, it's time to start my resource page for the 2018 Hobart City Council elections.  This guide (like my 2014 guide) includes a list of candidates who are running for the Council for the 2018-22 term.    The guide includes brief bio details and links, descriptions of candidates' past electoral form (where any) and an attempted assessment of prospects.  All sections will be updated regularly, but there will be lags of a few days at times between Sep 25 and Oct 7.

During the campaign period voters will get official statements by the candidates, with photos supplied by them.  The online version will include web links.  This piece was first published for the interest of those who don't want to wait for the candidate statements, but will stay up to present a less filtered view of candidate backgrounds.

Donations to cover even some of my time in writing this guide are very welcome - but not from candidates or their direct connections.  There's a PayPal button on the sidebar or you can email me for bank account details. Please only donate if you are sure you can afford to.

Note to all voters: please make sure your vote is valid.  Your vote for Councillor (Aldermen) must include the numbers 1 to 12 each once and once only.  If you skip or double any of these numbers, your vote won't count at all.  If you stop at 11, your vote won't count at all.  You can give further preferences beyond 12 if you wish and I strongly encourage doing this (a mistake beyond 12 will not make your vote informal).  If there are candidates you dislike then number all the boxes and put them at the bottom.  You will never help them beat candidates you have ranked higher by so doing.

A reader has prepared this simple voting order shuffler which also allows you to write notes about the candidates, in order to put them in your preferred order!

For some complex background to the voting patterns of existing councillors, see Hobart City Council Voting Patterns 2014-8. By way of a quick summary, while most councillors are technically independent, and even the party-endorsed candidates don't vote the same way as each other all the time, I've historically found that most councillors belong to two loose clusters of generally likeminded councillors.  I refer to these as the "greens" (who are typically The Greens) and the "blues" (who more often favour the interests of commerce and development when environmental conflicts arise).  Note that "blues" are not necessarily Liberals and sometimes have Labor connections.  However in the last term, those tendencies, while still there, have been weaker than they've ever been before.  Personality clashes on the blue side have continued, positions on both sides have moderated, while solidarity on the Green side has weakened to the point that for the first time in Hobart history a councillor first elected as a Green will run as an independent.  (On other Tasmanian councils this has been common.)

Alas I don't have time to do the same for every council.  I may post links to similar sites for other councils if they are sent to me. Please address any corrections or additions for such other council guides to the sites in question and not to me.  I cannot vouch for the bias or lack thereof, or the updating, of any such external links.

"Alderman" vs "Councillor"

The term "alderman" is equivalent to "councillor" in the case of Hobart City Council.  The term "alderman" is considered sexist and the current Council has supported switching to "councillor".   I have followed this by using "Councillor" throughout this guide.

Candidates for Lord Mayor and Deputy

The following are candidates for Lord Mayor and Deputy, all of whom are listed in the councillor guide.  A candidate cannot run for Mayor and Deputy, and the winner of each position needs to also be elected as a councillor to serve.

Lord Mayor (11 candidates)

Alexander, Darren
Briscoe, Jeff (incumbent councillor)
Christie, Ron (current Lord Mayor and incumbent councillor)
Denison, Tanya (incumbent councillor)
Dutta, Mike
Harvey, Bill (incumbent councillor)
Mallett, Robert
Reynolds, Anna (incumbent councillor)
Sexton, Peter (incumbent councillor)
Thomas, Damon (incumbent councillor)
Zucco, Marti (incumbent councillor)

Here is an accurate image of this year's mayoral field.

Deputy Lord Mayor (11 candidates)

Allardice, Robin
Behrakis, Simon
Bloomfield, Louise
Burnet, Helen (incumbent councillor)
Coats, Will
Merridew, Chris
Roffe, Richard
Sherlock, Zelinda
Stansfield, Philip
Taylor, Andy (Tubes)
Waldhoff, Martin

Incumbent Deputy Peter Sexton is running for Lord Mayor.

Declared Candidates for Councillor (36 for 12 vacancies)

The following are the candidates.   There are three vacancies, caused by Sue Hickey's resignation on moving to state parliament, and two retirements (see below).

I am trying to keep this section fairly neutral without it being totally boring. Some biases may sneak through (or be overcompensated for) but my main interest in this section is in providing a resource.  I should also note the ritual disclaimer that sometimes candidates get endorsed by my mother.

Each candidate's name, with a few exceptions where I haven't yet found a campaign page, is a link to what seems to be the main page or a campaign page or other web presence for that candidate.

Ticket/team webpages are listed in the Tickets/teams section below.

Alexander, Darren - IT entrepreneur (Autech Software and Beetle Black Media), Brand Tasmania and Business events board member, Launceston councillor and 2014 mayoral candidate now returned to Hobart. Other links: candidacy announcement, linkedin, press release

Allardice, Robin - accountant (profile), director of Bentley's Chartered Accountants Tasmania, involved with private school boards and foundations, self-professed "introvert". Other links: personal Facebook pagelinkedin

Behrakis, Simon - recent state Liberal candidate (Denison and Hobart), Eric Abetz staffer, parliamentary researcher, economist, assistant manager Salamanca Fresh, culture warrior.  Other links: linkedin, candidacy announcement, Twitter

Bloomfield, Louise - accountant, small business owner (Bloomfield & Associates), President of business networking groups, guest lecturer on business integrity, Porsche racer.  Other links: Twitter, Your Hobart page

Briscoe, Jeff  incumbent councillor, college teacher of maths, computing and chemistry (see student reviews here!), credit union director.  Other links:  TwitterlinkedinZoominfocandidacy announcement,

Burnet, Helen (Tasmanian Greens)  -  incumbent councillor and former Deputy Lord Mayor, frequent Greens state candidate, Podiatrist at Royal Hobart Hospital, volunteer on range of non-profit boards.  Other links: Twitter

Christie, Ron - incumbent councillor, elected Deputy Lord Mayor at last two elections and promoted to Lord Mayor on Hickey's resignation, former radio and TV host, marketer and Eisteddfod president. Other links: Twitter (quiet lately), candidacy announcement

Coats, Will - advisor to Legislative Council Leader for the Government Leonie Hiscutt, former Young Liberal State President + life member Uni Liberal Club, information systems graduate, has worked in IT for Mystate and RACT, executive director of a hair style products company Other links: linkedin

Corr, Brian - President of Hobart Not Highrise (lobby group re building heights), Vice-President Newtown Community Association, former WA local councillor and ALP state candidate, plum endorsement

Denison, Tanyaincumbent councillor, business owner, first female CEO of the Civil Contractors Federation and mining engineer. 2013 federal Liberal candidate for Denison (including Hobart council area).  Preselected #3 for 2019 Liberal Senate ticket.  Other links: linkedin, candidacy announcement

Dutta, Mike - proprietor of Macquarie Street Foodstore cafe/restaurant, former teacher, lawyer and Minister of Religion. Other links: candidacy announcement (father of Sherlock)

Dut, Salpha - member of local South Sudanese community

Ewin, Holly (endorsed by Tasmanian Greens but quit party 20 October) - florist, early childhood educator, student, activist (including recently on gender and reproductive rights issues), lives on a boat, Greens candidate for Franklin at state election

Frame, Nigel - State director + Senate candidate for Australian Conservatives, radiation therapist Royal Hobart Hospital for c. 25 years, studying ancient history/cosmology, state chess champion 2005, five times state lightning chess champion*.  Other links: Conservatives website, Facebook

Harvey, Bill (Tasmanian Greens) - incumbent councillor, English teacher, frequent Greens state candidate, formerly involved in Malaysian/Chinese business college and boutique wine delivery, director Hobart Cat Centre.   Other links: Facebook, Twitter, linkedin

Irwin, Fiona - university administrator, formerly worked in Labor and Liberal ministerial offices and State Government community services. Other links: linkedin

Mallett, Robert - "entrepreneur, small business owner, communication trainer and association manager" (The Front Man), former public servant, Small Business Council Executive Officer, 2014 state Liberal candidate for Denison

McCallum, Stephen (Labor) - Young Labor member, consultant, former electorate officer for Lisa Singh and United Voice administrator. Other links: linkedin

Merridew, Chris - former National Trust councillor, motor industry consultant (car sales Performance Automobiles), advocate for keeping Treasury Building in public hands (see recent op ed and coverage). Other links: Op ed re bus interchange and candidacy announcement

Ngor, Atak - recent media graduate, involvements in investment management and electricity retail startups, youth advisory committee member, SBS film and directing placements.  Other links: linkedin

Peelman, Ben - violin teacher and events promoter who has worked in several other businesses, advises me he has "worked in every field council operates in, except rubbish - and I'll get round to that too." Other links: main site page

Reynolds, Anna - incumbent councillor, former Greens Denison and Senate candidate, CEO for Multicultural Council of Tasmania, former Greens advisor and climate change organiser.   Other links: Twitter, linkedin, vimeo, Facebook

Roffe, Richard - Doctor, previously supported Ron Christie's push for purchase of Sydney monorail.  Other claims to fame include having a defibrillator stolen.  Other links: linkedin

Sexton, Peterincumbent councillor and current Deputy Lord Mayor (elected by Council on Christie's elevation), G.P., Cricket Australia medico, Clinical Associate Professor (UTAS), Honorary Consul (Estonia), former medical administrator  Other link: linkedin

Schofield, Cat - Director of Nursing, Mental Health Services.  Formerly Strategic Nurse Co-ordinator DPAC.  Other link: linkedin

Sherlock, Zelinda - recent State Labor candidate for Denison, teacher of English for refugee students, former lecturer, PhD candidate.  Other links: TwitterLHG page, coverage (daughter of Dutta)

Siena, Kasha - President of Salamanca Market Stallholders Association, market stallholder, "small business owner" with "long history of running a business", involved in tourism awards, family left Poland to escape communism in 1980s.

Stanaway, Glen - Regional Manager for Australian Sailing, has also worked as a draftsman and in software development.  Other links: linkedin

Stansfield, Philip - disability support worker, has worked as State Government lawyer and policy officer and also electorate officer and ministerial adviser (for David Crean), ALP member. Other links: Facebook, candidacy announcement

Tang, Yongbei - editor of Chinese News Tasmania, Multicultural Council of Tasmania treasurer, SBS correspondent, recently in debate about Greens comments on Chinese influence.  Other links: linkedin,Twitter, response to stacking claims

Taylor, Andy "Tubes" - Co-owner/director of Johnno's Home Made, quiz host, sports commentator and former CUB visitors centre manager.  Other links: Twitter, candidacy announcement

Taylor, Rebecca (Tasmanian Greens) - "Parent, athlete, social worker, and coach" (sporting involvements in roller derby) and former Council employee for 11 years.

Thomas, Damon - incumbent councillor, Lord Mayor 2011-2014, business consultant, Adjunct Professor (UTAS),  Korean consul. Formerly: Crown Solicitor, Ombudsman, CEO of Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.  Other links:  linkedinTwitter

Waldhoff, Martin - real estate consultant at Elders Brown + Banks, also tallow producer (see article) and former life sciences student, army reservist and small businessman in various fields.  Other links: Twitter, Your Hobart page

Vogel, Stefan - Glaciologist and Antarctic scientist, has worked "over the course of 34 years in the Manufacturing Industry, Tourism, Education, Leadership Training and Academia from Europe via Antarctica and the USA to Australia." Other links: linkedin

Zucco, Marti - veteran incumbent councillor, businessman, veteran restaurateur, frequent candidate for state and federal politics, one-man political popcorn generator. Other links: Twitter, Your Hobart page

Text is mine but thanks to my mother Pru Bonham for assistance with candidate-spotting.

Note that Denison's preselection to the #3 position on the Liberal Senate ticket does not preclude her from standing and indeed that following the precedent of the Steve Martin case she could potentially be a councillor (even Mayor) and Senator at the same time.  However she has stated she would resign from Council if elected to the Senate.

(* Frame is in fact my most frequently played opponent in long-time control rated games in Tasmanian chess - we have played 55 times, the last in 2012.  He has not been active in competition in recent years.)

Retiring Councillors

Phil Cocker (Greens) and Eva Ruzicka have retired from the Council.  Ruzicka was first elected 1999 and was elected Deputy Lord Mayor three times.  Cocker was first elected in 2005.  Retirements of one councillor from then green side and one from more or less the centre mean that the balance of Council could shift substantially if new left-leaning candidates are not elected.  However I suspect at least one will be.

Teams/Tickets (etc)

In last election's guide I expressed some bemusement at the appearance of Ron Christie's "Hobart's Home Team" grouping, a six-candidate ticket that eventually elected only Christie (though Mao Ding missed out by 3.6 votes), and that cluttered the ballot for Deputy Mayor to no useful effect.  Following this latest failed attempt to generate useful preference flows by running grouped candidates (something which has a long history of not working well outside the Greens), roll round 2018 and ... almost everyone is doing it!

Strictly speaking, although these groups are often called "tickets" they do not tend to recommend a regimented order of candidates and should really be considered as teams.  Of this year's batch the Liveable Hobart Group appears to be running the most like a party, with detailed announcements of policy promises.  Your Hobart also has a substantial list of policies but seems to be less formalised.  Elected Green candidates are not bound by party solidarity and fairly often do not vote together.

Candidates involved in groups at this year's election are:

Tasmanian Greens - Harvey, Burnet, Ewin, Taylor.

Liveable Hobart Group - Thomas, Allardice, Sherlock, Irwin, Siena.

Your Hobart - Zucco, Bloomfield, Waldhoff.

Also, the following candidates are campaigning together to some degree:

Briscoe/Stansfield - Briscoe (Lord Mayor) and Stansfield (Deputy) are announced running mates.

Mallett/Coats - Mallett has endorsed Coats. I am unsure if Behrakis is also involved.

Reynolds/Corr - Corr endorses Reynolds in at least one of her videos.

Also Dutta's posters are authorised by Sherlock, but Dutta is not a member of the Liveable Hobart Group.

We have also seen an (as far as I know) unprecedented decision by the Liberal Party to recommend certain candidates to its membership, although there are no candidates running as endorsed Liberals in the usual fashion.  That said it was sometimes clear in the past that the party supported some pre-existing ticket or other.  Those recommended are Denison, Mallett, Behrakis, Bloomfield, Coats, MerridewVogel, and Waldhoff (the last of whom was initially not included for reasons unknown to me). It is unknown to me whether this is an ordered ranking.

Form Guide

This section includes a summary of past election performances (where any known) including histories of any known party or quasi-party involvements, and also assessments of past voting patterns.  This one is again in reverse alphabetical order.  Many new candidates have no previous known electoral form, but this section isn't about saying that more or less electoral form is good.  It is mainly for the purpose of saying how people have gone in the past for those interested in trying to guess how they'll go in the future.

Note that for the 2014 election the number of seats elected at a time was increased from (usually) six to twelve, resulting in large drops in the primary votes for several incumbent councillors.

Zucco, Marti - First elected to Council in 1992, Zucco's record is of always being re-elected comfortably without ever having polled quota and sometimes struggling to gather preferences.  Missed out for Deputy in 2011 when beaten by Ron Christie by six votes at key exclusion point; not competitive in other leadership tilts.  In 2014, elected fifth as a Councillor, but also finished only fifth for Deputy Mayor.  Independent candidate for Legislative Council a few times (best 25% in Newdegate 1993).  Unsuccessfully sought preselection for Liberal Party for 2010 state election, attempt squelched by pro-Elise Archer forces, quit party.  Palmer United Party candidate for Franklin 2013 federal election polling very respectable 6.1%.  Involved in dispute with Jacqui Lambie, quit party and ran as independent for Denison polling 788 votes (more than any Denison PUP candidate).  My assessments have consistently shown Zucco to be one of the most hardline pro-commerce ("blue") councillors on council.

Thomas, Damon -  First elected to Council in 2009 polling 8.7% of the councillor vote and finishing fourth after preferences.  Then won Lord Mayor at first attempt defeating Helen Burnet narrowly on preferences with 51.5% two-candidate preferred.  Defeated by Sue Hickey 52.5-47.5 in 2014; polled second on Councillor ballot with 16.3% (over two quotas).  My assessments have generally shown Thomas as a fairly moderate member of the pro-commerce ("blue") grouping on council.

Stansfield, Philip - Contested 2014 election, polled 432 votes (10th on primaries) but slipped to 16th after preferences.

Siena, Kasha - Contested 2014 election on Christie ticket, polled 64 primaries and was second excluded.

Sherlock, Zelinda - Labor candidate for Denison (2018 state election). Polled 1998 votes.

Sexton, Peter - First elected to Council in 1999 on a recount after John Freeman temporarily resigned.  Third elected in 2005 and 2009, each time with relatively modest primary votes (6.6% and 5.5%) but very high shares of preferences from other candidates.  This continued in 2014 when he polled a mere 384 primaries (equal sixteenth) but was elected 8th after preferences from other incumbents.  Competitive for Deputy Mayor in 2005 (beaten 46:54 by Eva Ruzicka) and 2009 (beaten by Helen Burnet by 77 votes.) Disappointing 18.6% (fourth) in field of four for Lord Mayor in 2011 and fourth for Deputy Mayor in 2014. Elevated to Deputy Mayor after Ron Christie became Lord Mayor as a result of a 6-5 vote of councillors.  My assessments have generally shown Sexton to be a moderate member of the pro-commerce ("blue") councillors grouping, but in the current term I've classified him as a blue-leaning centrist.

Roffe, Richard - Member of Christie ticket in 2014, polling 180 votes.

Reynolds, Anna - Drew the short straw as Greens candidate running against Andrew Wilkie in 2013 federal election.  This was always a hiding to nothing since Wilkie agrees with the Greens on many issues dear to their supporters, but would probably still have expected more than 7.9% . Polled an impressive 571 primaries for Council in 2014, unseating fellow Green Harvey. Also polled 1433 below the line votes as Greens #3 for Senate 2016.  Although elected as a Green, Reynolds has voted more like a green-leaning independent on Council, and has not voted with any other councillor more than 67% of the time on contested motions.

Peelman, Ben - Candidate in 2011, polled 145 votes and was second excluded.

Merridew, Chris - Has reportedly run for Council previously without success, I believe over 30 years ago.

Mallett, Robert - Liberal candidate for Denison 2014, polled 2080 votes.

Harvey, Bill - Elected to Council at the third attempt in 2007, polling over 600 primaries and performing strongly on preferences.  In 2011 (as lead candidate in that year's slate) the strongest-polling Green, getting more than half the Green ticket vote and being easily re-elected.  Shock defeat by fellow Green Reynolds in 2014, attributed in some circles to his moderate voting record.  Topped the Deputy Lord Mayor primary count in both 2011 and 2014 as the sole Green but beaten 46:54 and 45.1:54.9 by Christie after preferences each time.  Ran as a heavily promoted second candidate for the Greens in Denison at the 2013 state election, and seemed an outside chance to get elected based on some polling, but ultimately Green vote was not that high and he polled 1614 votes. I have consistently assessed Harvey as a lighter shade of green than Burnet and Cocker and in the current term this difference became more pronounced.

Ewin, Holly - Greens support candidate for Franklin at 2018 state election polling 909 votes.

Dutta, Michael - Dutta contested the 1996 election as a minor candidate on the Valentine/Bonham-led Hobart Community Team, polling 270 votes (1.5%). Much more competitive in 2014 when he polled 467 votes (ninth on primaries) but as with many non-incumbents did poorly on preferences and finished 17th.

Denison, Tanya -  Endorsed Federal Liberal candidate for Denison at 2013 federal election, in a race in which the Liberals were very late announcing a candidate after a previous candidate failed due diligence at the last moment (there was also speculation they were deliberately helping Andrew Wilkie to win.)  Polled third on primaries with 23.2%. Polled 408 primaries for Hobart 2014 and was elected 11th after outlasting Mao Ding at a critical point by 3.6 votes.  Denison has displayed a strongly "blue" voting pattern on council as would be expected.

Corr, Brian - Elected second in ward to Joondalup (WA) council in 2006.  Re-elected unopposed 2007 and overwhelmingly against one opponent in 2011.  Labor candidate for state seat of Kingsley (WA)  in 2013 but there was a 2PP swing of 10.2% to the Liberal incumbent in the seat (just a few points larger than average in the context of an overall 5.4% swing to the Barnett Government plus a sophomore surge for his opponent).

Christie, Ron - Elected to Council for a two-year term in 1999, defeated 2000, fifth elected in 2002. Almost defeated in 2007, surviving a fight with fellow incumbents Lyn Archer and Eric Hayes by nine votes after reportedly clearing his desk in the belief that he had lost.  In 2011 he created some surprise (and some embarrassment for this psephologist) when he polled much more strongly than before, being third elected as councillor and winning DLM over Zucco by six votes at the crucial exclusion. In 2014 ran at the head of a "Hobart's Home Team" ticket and retained his Deputy position easily. Polled a very weak councillor primary (just 455 votes) but was elected 4th on a strong flow of preferences from mayoral contenders Hickey and Thomas.  For a while Christie was one of the most hardline and at times even quirkily extreme members of the "blue" cluster of pro-commerce councillors. However from about 2012 his voting behaviour changed and he is now more moderate than, say, Denison and Zucco.

Burnet, Helen - Helen Burnet has a long history of strong electoral performance for the Greens. She came within about 200 votes of beating the party's endorsed ticket-leader to a seat at her first attempt in 2002, then was easily elected in 2005 with 14.6%, which rose to 19.2% in 2009.  After a competitive loss to Ruzicka for the Deputy Lord Mayor position in 2007, Burnet defeated Peter Sexton by 76 votes to win it in 2009, to date the Greens' only leadership position victory in Hobart.  Burnet ran for Lord Mayor in 2011 losing narrowly to Damon Thomas with 48.5% two-candidate preferred.  She also polled over 3000 primaries as #2 Denison Green candidate in the 2010 state election, but was narrowly excluded behind Andrew Wilkie in the cut-up (with Wilkie nearly winning on her preferences).  Burnet contested the Greens' process to replace retiring Senator Bob Brown, but they preselected Peter Whish-Wilson instead.  Preselected #2 on the Greens' 2013 Senate ticket behind Whish-Wilson but the Greens did not manage even one quota in their own right.  In 2014 Burnet was third elected with 12.4% (1.6 quotas) as a Councillor but was third for Lord Mayor.  Also again Denison Green support candidate at the 2018 state election but less successful than in 2010, as were the Greens in general. I have consistently assessed Burnet as one of the two greenest councillors alongside Cocker.

Briscoe, Jeff - Narrowly elected as councillor in 1994 and consistently increased his primary vote at every election from then until 2011 (when he topped the councillor poll with well over a quota.)  However in 2014 he polled only 502 councillor votes and was elected sixth. Ran for Lord Mayor three times unsuccessfully (polling in the 20-30% range each time, two of those against Rob Valentine) and was third on the   Briscoe was initially elected on a ticket linked to local residents' groups and progress associations but soon switched to the "blue" side of Council.  I've generally assessed him as a member of the "blue" cluster, though not very predictably and with a strong green tinge on certain issues such as the cable car. Briscoe contested the Legislative Council seat of Hobart for the Greens in 1994 (polling 23%) but a falling-out with the party over preselection order saw him quit the ticket and run as an independent for Denison (state) in 1996, polling 551 votes.  He later joined the Liberal Party and contested Franklin for it in 2002 polling just 787 votes.  He was a supporter of Sherlock's (ALP) campaign in 2018 and has been supported at this election by Liberal Speaker Sue Hickey (who ran with him in 2014) but I am unsure if he is associated with any party.

Behrakis, Simon - Liberal Candidate for Denison (state) in 2018, polling 2317 votes.  Then stood for Legislative Council seat of Hobart, finishing third with 19%.

Alexander, Darren - One of four mayoral candidates for Launceston in 2014, finished fourth with 15.2% and elected eighth out of 12 councillors with a councillor primary of 1100 (0.64 quotas).


1. Proposed Mount Wellington Cable Car: Previous cable car proposals were major features of the 1988 and 1994 elections, but the current proposal is much more detailed and high-profile.  However it is struggling to find a viable departure point after the Cascade Brewery declined it access to land and the Council recently in a 7-4 vote did likewise.  (Those voting not to allow the cable car to use any council land were Burnet, Cocker, Harvey, Reynolds, Briscoe, Ruzicka and Christie while in favour of at least allowing a flora and fauna survey of a proposed site prior to a decision were Zucco, Thomas, Sexton and Denison.)  The proponent hopes to have another go should the election greatly change the composition of Council (past elections where cable cars were a big deal didn't.)

My summary of (known to me) candidate positions on the cable car is HERE - (By clicking on the link you agree not to recirculate the list in any way or to link directly to it - all links should be to this article)   This will be updated frequently as more information appears.  Note that laws covering Council voting can cause Councillors to be barred from voting on issues if they appear to have prejudged them based on public comments.  However, the scope of this prohibition is vague.  For this reason some candidates are more reticent than others to openly support or oppose the proposed project, even in principle.

I have comprehensive coverage of polling on this issue going back several years and in a scientific capacity I recently covered some incorrect environmental claims being made about one proposed road site.  While the cable car is popular statewide, it is much less so in the Hobart area.  In my own suburb of South Hobart, opposition is massive, with No Cable Car signs on a substantial proportion of houses.

2. Leadership: The city has in past enjoyed long periods of stability under popular mayors such as Doone Kennedy and Rob Valentine. The last 5-6 years have been pretty messy and, ideological differences aside, Council has often presented to the public as a divided group of competing egos, an image somewhat at odds with the hard work councillors do on issues behind closed doors.  In Ron Christie's term the role of the Lord Mayor has become particularly contentious because of a number of outspoken mayoral statements on issues such as confronting art at the Dark Mofo festival, "mass tourism" and a proposal to co-name Hobart "nipaluna".  Both the content of these statements and whether or not they were made on behalf of the Council have been debated. In the leadup to the election, with almost everyone running for Mayor, the every-councillor-for-themselves vibe has grown stronger and it remains to be seen how the winner of this mayoral election will get the Council's public image back on track - if they can.

3. Building Heights: With the city's tourism boom (see below) have come some proposals for large hotels, especially from Fragrance Group.  I haven't been paying a great degree of attention to this one except for laughing when my old foes at the Confrontation Trust got sprung for indicating building size via dodgy mockups of Trump Tower, but I expect to see a fair bit of debate about this issue. Currently caps are proposed with a maximum of 60 metres, lower in several areas, but these caps have run into opposition both from councillors who think this is too high to those who don't support them at all.

4. Tourism and Housing Affordability: The issues of tourism and housing affordability are connected because increased tourism increases the market for Air BnB which appears to reduce rental availability.  The city therefore has both a tourism boom and an affordable housing shortage at the same time.  Christie in particular has sounded warnings about "mass tourism" but has struggled to establish a consistent position on the issue (and has run into a lot of flak from tourism advocates who suggest he is risking damaging the market when the focus should be on remedying downsides.)

5. Traffic: While Hobart is a small place compared to mainland cities, its geography, geology and environmental values have resulted in its traffic flows depending on a small number of major roads.  Severe traffic congestion has been increasingly common in recent years.

6. Alleged Chinese Influence: The candidacy of Yongbei Tang has been highly controversial with various attempts to link her candidacy to the Chinese Communist Party through, for instance, her recent roles on various Chinese diasporal groups (see here, here, etc).  This comes against a backdrop of recent concerns about Chinese involvement in Tasmanian politics, particularly by the parliamentary Greens and parts of the independent left off the back of Clive Hamilton's "Silent Invasion" book.  These concerns have been criticised as allegedly xenophobic, not only by the government and pro-China commentators but also by others such as Greg Barns, and as "racist speculation" by Greens council candidate Holly Ewin. On the other hand, ten unnamed persons stated to be members of the Tasmanian Chinese community have criticised Tang and compared her unfavourably with Chinese candidates from the last election.  In general the debate has been more heat than light, and apart from its crossings of partisan boundaries it's been difficult to distinguish from "debates" spawned by right-wing xenophobes.

7. Dark Mofo Funding - The winter music and arts festival Dark Mofo is a tourism success but pulls no punches with its exploration of contentious issues - last year the use of a bull carcass for an artistic performance, this year the presence of inverted crosses on the Hobart waterfront.  Christie came out against funding the festival, to fairly widespread condemnation, after receiving a large number of emails from religious campaigners. He has revived the issue to a similar response during the campaign.

Other issues may be added.

Campaigning Issues

This section deals with contentious aspects of campaigning.  It's notable that size restrictions on signage have been removed, resulting in billboard-size advertising for some candidates.

1. Alleged Roll Stacking (Again): Rinse and repeat as this issue was also on the list in 2014.  The allegation is that candidates are using the General Managers' Roll to sign up international students (especially Chinese) to vote for them.  This can be done because temporary residents who are not citizens can register to vote.  There were rumours that thousands of international students had been signed up but when the roll closed it turned out to contain 662 representatives of corporate bodies, 665 non-resident property owners and 589 non-citizens, suggesting that the issue had been a bit overblown.  Nonetheless the vagueness of rules and the fact that this process is under Council control continue to raise concerns.  Non-citizen voting is not the only issue here as double-voting for corporate representatives continues to be just as big a factor.  Moreover, there are questions around the rules there too based on a case reported by Monte Bovill on Twitter of a student society managing to register someone to vote by this method, which on the surface of it sounds absurd.

The whole issue of GM rolls needs serious review - but the time to review electoral issues (which in this case would require making noise to attract attention from the state government) is during the quiet times between elections, not the noisy time in the leadup when everything is politicised and it is too late for legislative changes anyway.

There has been some support for compulsory voting as a remedy to this issue.  If the GM roll is a problem then it remains one that should be addressed even if it is diluted by increasing the voter pool, so I suspect this is just an argument of convenience for those who want to introduce compulsory voting anyway.

2. Donation Disclosure (Again): Encouraging candidates to voluntarily disclose donations they had received was a fairly big deal in 2014 but this year not so much.  However, there is a new rule that requires sitting councillors (note: not all candidates) to disclose donations exceeding $50 value within 14 days.  On 13 Oct, Reynolds wrote a Facebook page alleging she was "the only Hobart Alderman/Councillor" following the rules, on the grounds that "Given the amount of billboards and advertising around, it's hard to believe that nobody else has received any donations."  The issue also received publicity on ABC TV news.  Reynolds' post promoted various angry responses from other candidates, especially Zucco, including claims by some incumbents that they were paying for their own ads, and also some comments suggesting some donations might have been received that were still inside the 14-day window.


For the first time ever a poll of the Hobart Lord Mayor race has been released.  The poll was conducted by EMRS and I understand it to originate from the tourism industry (my source for this claim is outside that industry).  The poll should be treated with extreme caution for the following reasons:

* the apparently implausibly high rate of voters not intending not to vote.   It appears that there were 2680 connected calls with only 20% (548) of those intending to vote, however this seems to have included a high refusal rate (respondents who hung up more or less immediately when called).  In any case, those willing to respond to the survey appear to be unrepresentative of all eventual voters, given that 51.7% voted in 2014, and that never changes much from year to year.
* of those intending to vote, 42% are undecided, meaning that these voters could break differently to those who have an intention.
* the effective sample size of just over 300 voters with an intention is trivially small.
* difficulties with seat polling in Australia recently suggest that a sample of 300 may as well be a sample of 50.
* there is little previous experience to compare such results against, though I have heard one was also done for Glenorchy at a previous election with some success.
* Australian pollsters are generally inexperienced at polling voluntary vote elections, and their results in polling the same-sex marriage "survey" were pretty ordinary.

I have seen a slightly more detailed version of the results of the primary vote question.  Of those intending to vote and able to name a candidate, 26% named Reynolds, 14% Thomas, 13% Harvey, 11% Zucco, 10% Briscoe, 8% Christie, 6% Mallett, 4% Dutta, 3% Sexton, 3% Denison and 2% Alexander.  The version I've seen also shows the age breakdown for the 18-34 group, which shows that intending voters in this bracket are less likely (22/52 cf 297/496 for rest of sample) to know who they are voting for; young voters who do have a view skewed heavily to the left candidates.  What I've seen also suggests no age weighting was applied at least to that group, a tricky issue given that voting rates vary sharply by age; I would have weighted by past voting rates for age groups.

A further report says the most commonly cited issues (voters can cite more than one) among intending voters were:

* 43% cable car (22% against, 11% for, 10% neutral)
* 25% traffic congestion/roadworks
* 18% development / planning
* 15% leadership
* 14% controlling building heights

Prospects: Lord Mayor

I like to have a go at crystal-ball gazing for these elections, but there are always surprises.  Do not treat the following as reliable!  There's a Not-A-Poll in the sidebar if you want to offer your own view on the mayoralty.

A mayoral race with so many candidates (and optional preferential voting for Lord Mayor) is messy to predict. As the campaign progresses we may get a better idea of who's making an effort and who isn't, and of those who are making an effort, who is making a good one.

The obvious starting point is that the councillor-level support for Thomas in 2014 was much stronger than for any of his rivals.  This looks to have been partly because of the degree of focus on the mayoral race.  None of his rivals this time contested the mayoralty last time, and many of their primary votes appeared to suffer from not doing so.  However Thomas did secure almost five times as many primaries as the best of his incumbent challengers, and I doubt that him being Mayor at the time alone explains that.  He also outpolled Briscoe and Sexton for Lord Mayor in 2011.  Unless voters turn away from him or towards someone else specific in droves, he would seem to have the profile to possibly get his old job back.

On the left, Harvey and Reynolds are likely to secure high primaries but Harvey especially will struggle on preferences (as he did in the past Deputy counts).  Given that Harvey couldn't win Deputy and lost his Councillor seat last time, and with the competition from Reynolds, I don't see him winning Lord Mayor, although I expect he will poll one of the higher primary votes.  Greens-turned-independents often do well in council elections, and the federal MP for the seat containing Hobart, Andrew Wilkie, is one such.  It appears that Reynolds, who campaigned vigorously in the early stages and has nabbed several former Greens sign sites, is the real left contender.   I think the large, mostly male field also advantages Reynolds.  Dutta also has at least some left-wing positions but didn't get elected as a councillor last time.

Christie won Deputy Lord Mayor handily last time and has the added profile of being Lord Mayor, but has also faced widespread ridicule in the role.  He may have more sympathy than is obvious from media bubbles both mainstream and social, but I suspect he has burned off too many stakeholders to win.  (Yes, "silent-majority" religious types will like his stance on Dark Mofo, but Hobart doesn't have all that many of those.)

Sexton, Briscoe and Zucco have only made up the numbers in their recent leadership tilts except for Zucco's near miss for Deputy in 2011.  Zucco may poll a decent primary vote compared to others though.  Briscoe does have the assistance of the cable car debate for preferences if he can get over both Harvey and Reynolds but I don't think he will do that.

Denison has a higher profile as a result of the Senate preselection but was not very high profile before that, and is not even near being Sue Hickey, who won the mayoralty narrowly last time.  The prospect of Denison resigning the position if elected to the Senate may also count against her mayoral bid.

Of the non-incumbents, Mallett seemed like a dark horse because of his existing profile and business links, but my early doubts about his effort level have been reinforced by not having a candidate statement included.  Alexander didn't have much impact as a mayoral candidate in Launceston and has only recently relocated.  Dutta was not elected as a councillor last time.  So I see little chance of a Mayor being elected from off council, frustrations with the current council notwithstanding.

The most likely scenario for the count in my view is that one candidate from the left (probably Reynolds) makes the final two.  If that candidate can lead on primaries then the question is how large their lead is and whether they can hold off the snowballing of preferences between conservative candidates.  Optional preferencing gives the left candidates better chances than if preferencing was compulsory, and if none of the "blues" can get a decent primary vote (as in the poll) then it may be a case of too many cooks spoiling their broth.  My tip for the final two is Thomas vs Reynolds but this could easily be incorrect.

Prospects: Deputy Mayor

Almost every continuing incumbent has run for Mayor at least in order to try to shore up their councillor seat, leaving Burnet as the only incumbent to run for Deputy.  Burnet has won the position in the past but the Greens brand is struggling, so despite her very strong electoral record it's no certainty she will win it again, though I think she's a serious chance.  At this early stage, Sherlock and Behrakis are the most obvious threats based on their state election profiles and visible evidence of campaigning but we'll see how they go converting that to Council votes.  In a possible contest between Burnet, Sherlock and Behrakis, Sherlock will do well on preferences from whoever is excluded if she makes the final two.

In the event that Burnet doesn't win, it will be interesting to see whether whoever beats her actually manages to secure the position by winning their councillor seat, as most of the candidates are no certainties to get across the line, especially with so many councillor candidates running for Mayor.

Prospects: Councillor

We have 9 incumbents contesting 12 positions.  Historically this is good odds for all the incumbents being returned but given the level of competition on the "blue" side this is far from a certainty. Two I don't have any doubt about because they easily got quota last time are Thomas and Burnet.

Based on regression from the results last time the sort of vote needed for a 50-50 chance of winning was just under 400 votes for an incumbent and about 520 votes for an off-Council candidate.  Sue Hickey scored nearly 20% of the vote last time and isn't a candidate this time.  If her voters switch to whoever they put 2 last time then the base for many of the non-green incumbents rises to about 700-950 votes, very probably enough to win.  However I believe the off-Council competition on the "blue" side in particular is much stronger this time than last time, so I am not sure the incumbents will get all these Hickey votes back.

Endorsed Greens won three seats last time, which became four on countback after Suzy Cooper resigned.  With Cocker apparently not standing and Reynolds running as an indie I give the endorsed Greens little chance of winning three again.  We'll need to keep an eye on the campaign to see if either of the new Greens candidates might pose any threat to Harvey.

Reynolds' Councillor vote is difficult to predict but I think the scale of her mayoral attempt and the general tendency of greens-turned-indies to do well will stand her in good stead and that she will significantly and probably greatly increase her vote compared to 2014.

On to the non-Green side.  In order of election last time they were Thomas, daylight second, Christie, Zucco, Briscoe, Sexton and Denison.  All these are running for Lord Mayor but with 11 candidates running for Lord Mayor that probably won't be the boost it was last time. Denison scraped in at her first attempt but has had more time to build a profile based on Council issues, and I doubt her party will allow their #3 Senate pick to lose her council seat, so I expect her to be returned.  Of the rest Christie's fate is hard to predict because he has been high-profile but has had terrible press, so I could credit anything from being one of the first few in to losing altogether (as usual in such cases I'll plump for something in the middle).  Zucco and Briscoe should both be returned (with slightly more of a question over the latter because he lost more of his vote in 2014, but he has been very high-profile over the cable car). Sexton seems more marginal because of his modest performance last time and a relative lack of profile through the term until recently.

Of the off-Council candidates I can't identify any sure-fire winners, but a large number are decent chances.  At least three of them must win to fill the expected vacancies but I wouldn't be surprised to see four.  Mallett, Sherlock and Behrakis all have profile as past state major party candidates (as well as other connections) to be serious contenders.  As noted above I am unsure about Mallett's effort level.  Some others who could be in the mix based on past performance or ability to stand out (plus in cases endorsements, though it's unclear how much difference endorsements make) include Dutta, Stansfield, Bloomfield and Corr.  A Chinese-background candidate very nearly won last time and Tang is a more prominent candidate than him (and has been given massive free publicity by her opponents) so should be given a chance too.  Alexander is an unknown quantity in Hobart but effectively disrupted politics as usual in Launceston.  Thomas could poll a high enough councillor vote to drag any of his running mates in with him assuming even a modest level of preferencing within his ticket, though I suspect that even if Thomas's vote is huge a lot of it will still flow to incumbents rather than his team.  The LHG grouping is very prominent in early signage displays (as is Behrakis.) Labor previously failed to get into HCC with an endorsed candidate but obtained large swings in inner-city Hobart at the recent state election so I will be interested to see how McCallum goes.   Coats is making a significant effort and seems to be campaigning strongly towards the end of the campaign.  Merridew has a lot of signs up and ads  Taylor is an offbeat candidate with a large social media following though not a lot of obvious campaign activity.  And so on.

Note For Candidates

Most candidates are sensible but there are always a few who seem to think that because I am voluntarily covering the election they are running in that makes me their slave.  Almost as annoying are those who think that if they fail to put information somewhere where I'd find it, that's my fault.  

Any candidate may contact me once to have their main link changed (this is the link that the candidate's name goes to, if I can find one) and/or links added, or to supply extra bio information (which I will use or not use at my discretion, and I will not include your whole CV or go beyond a few lines per candidate).  Requests that blame me for not unearthing information, or are in any way disrespectful or threatening will result in that candidate getting no links at all!  Feel free to whinge about alleged bias (etc) in comments though.

Anyone may of course advise me of any clear factual errors or clearly misleading content and I will fix these, but please do not stretch the concept of factual error to include differences of opinion or interpretation.  

Any comments about this guide that I become aware of by any means including indirect hearsay are on the public record, especially if stated otherwise.  In the past there have not only been threats but also blatant attempts to "get at" my coverage by commenting about it to people likely to pass comments on to me, and this sort of thing will not be tolerated.