The distribution of preferences concluded today in the final three electorates: Bass, Braddon and Lyons, after Clark and Franklin concluded on Friday.
The final seat result was 14 Liberal, 10 Labor, 5 Greens, 3 Jacqui Lambie Network and 3 independents: David O’Byrne, Kristie Johnston and Craig Garland.
The race in Lyons was no longer in any suspense, and there was little in Bass, where Simon Wood was re-elected by less than 0.12 quotas over fellow Liberal Julie Sladden.
The main race to watch was Braddon. In today’s counting we saw the exclusion of the second JLN candidate James Redgrave and lead Greens candidate Darren Briggs. This process saw the JLN’s Miriam Beswick elected in the sixth seat and then Craig Garland in the seventh seat.
I wanted to draw attention to one particular dynamic. Throughout the count, the Labor, Liberal and Greens parties (and JLN to a lesser extent) saw a number of unwinnable candidates excluded. Most of their preferences flowed to candidates in the same party, but some votes ‘leaked’ at each point.
But Garland had no fellow party candidates. Every vote for his ticket was for him personally, and had nowhere to go. So his vote was more solid.
I’ve charted the total vote for each ticket throughout the count, subtracting three quotas of Liberal votes and one quota of Labor vote. There was about 4 quotas of leftover votes to fill the last three seats.
The Labor and Greens votes largely stayed where they were, not really picking up many preferences.
Labor started on 1.98 quotas, and finished on exactly two quotas after their two lead candidates were elected and the other five excluded. The Greens started on 0.53 quotas, and ended up on 0.57.
Up to count 48, Garland had slightly increased his vote from a primary vote of 0.41 quotas to 0.46. The JLN had increased their vote from 0.91 quotas to a full quota, although it was then spread between their three candidates.
The Liberal vote experienced a large drop with the distribution of Jeremy Rockliff’s surplus, and then had another dip when their first two candidates were excluded.
Garland’s climb accelerated with the exclusion of ungrouped independent Peter Freshney, although the Liberal Party and JLN also benefited from his preferences.
The exclusion of the last Shooters candidate soon after saw Garland easily overtake the final Greens candidate, although the Liberal Party also picked up ground.
You can also see the JLN vote dip when the two unsuccessful candidates were excluded. In both cases, Labor were one of the main beneficiaries, although they weren’t ever in any doubt about winning a second seat.
Leakage can produce slight changes, and it was crucial in undermining the Greens position relative to Garland, but ultimately a lot more votes move around when the last-standing candidate from a party is excluded – first Freshney, then SFF, then the Greens.
When the Greens distributed their 0.57 quotas of vote, 0.17 went to Garland, and 0.13 quotas went to the last-standing JLN candidate, who was about 20 votes short of a quota. Only 0.03 quotas went to the Liberal Party, while about 0.24 quotas exhausted.
But that was enough to push Garland out in front, and his lead was widened even further when Miriam Beswick’s surplus (made up of preferences from the Greens) was distributed.
Garland finished the count on 0.89 quotas, with Liberal candidate Giovanna Simpson stranded on 0.73 quotas.
How many voters go beyond the minimum 7?
So what happens if say
Garland quit parliament… how would a count back work in that case?
His votes would be set aside and distributed as preferences to any unelected candidates who ‘nominate’ for the countback. Whoever ends up with the most votes will be declared elected.
He was the only one on his
Ticket?
The way countbacks work is that any unelected candidate can nominate, not just ones from the same party as the departing member. It is just that votes overwhelmingly flow within a party ticket so it is unlikely anyone else can win a vacancy.
Given that Garland ran on his own ticket, there would be great incentive for all other candidates to nominate should he vacate his seat mid term.
The largest bulk of votes set aside in Garland’s victory are:
1. Garland 1st preferences (approx 0.4 quota)
2. Votes that came to Garland from Green exclusions (approx 0.15 quota)
3. Votes that came to Garland from SFF exclusions (approx 0.1 quota)
Therefore I would say those would be the parties in the running in the event Garland’s seat becomes vacant. Garland voters would have to preference somebody else at an absurdly high rate for anyone else to have a chance.
What proportion Garland voters preference Green vs SFF would determine who wins with the Greens starting with a lead.
Thanks everyone
Comments are closed.