VIC and WA federal redistribution drafts released – live

All this naming talk, got me thinking… and this is probably a conversation for a seperate time, with that time maybe being connected to a theoretical expansion to the HoR.

Names.
https://www.aec.gov.au/redistributions/guidelines/naming-guidelines.html

Why not have an overarching, consistent pattern to division names rather than the current mishmash of:
– deceased Australians who have rendered outstanding service to their country.
– former Prime Ministers.
– original federation divisions.
– certain areas the use of geographical features.
– Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander names.
– others.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with any of the above but as time passes places, names and things change. For one example, we now see increasing female representation in suggested names. As another example, both Kooyong and Werriwa are divisions which no longer connect to the places where they are currently named.

Why not have some more that’s more reliable and consistent and maybe even changes over time. A naming convention, if you will. Something that provokes thought and discussion in a positive manner. For example and there are many, all seats are named after:
– deceased Australians who have rendered outstanding service to their country based on an agreed criteria; or
– Indigenous words / locations / names; or
– biogeographic regions; or
– native floral and fauna; or
– numbers; or
– something else

@Trent

That’s funny because that’s the exact same Macnamara/Melbourne boundary I played around with. I think it works really well. You get all of the CBD parts in Melbourne, and than you can unite most of the inner-city parts of Stonnington council in Macnamara. The only argument is a little bit of Port Phillip council gets divided, but it’s pretty well separated and it’s a nice border. It’s a really nice boundary and it goes a long way to making the Macnamara boundaries finally make sense.

I’m going to propose that, as well as putting the Prahran section back in Macnamara. Now just got to figure out a way to put the small section of Malvern in Hotham, into Chisholm and then Stonnington goes from being divided from 5 seats down to just 3.

I think a lot of issues I have with the redistribution, have a solution.

– The above mentioned Macnamara/Melbourne fix.
– Leaving Bellbrae/Freshwater Creek in Corangamite
– Leaving Hawke/Gorton unchanged
– Lalor taking a small part of Tarneit to prevent the Geelong/Melbourne boundary having to be crossed
– Putting Baxter in Dunkley so all of Mt Eliza can go into Flinders
– Using the LGA boundaries for Gellibrand/Fraser or using the westgate freeway

It would be incredibly cool if you all could do a communual VIC redistribution and present it as a group effort. Start at point of an agreed area of 1-3 boundaries and then gradually progress around the state. There a lot of super smart, switched on people here.

Make an acceptable to all (or most) group proposal and add any variants in notes at the bottom that also seem reasonable. Primarily concentrate on boundaries and then place names at the end.

You’ve got 4 weeks…

I will volunteer to help out with placing the names.

I will volunteer to help out with placing the names. [Double post, please delete the previous one.]

@G
That would be an interesting experiment to run. It could have a fair bit of weight behind it when being considered by the Augmented Committee. Group petitions are often effective, and this would be like that but for the whole state. Would have to hash out a good way to deal with disagreement though.

To follow on from @Adam’s point, I think that most of us who are interested in psephology are generally quite analytically minded and are pretty good at weighing up the different constraints that occur when drawing boundaries. The committee on the other hand, they’re mainly busy senior bureaucrats and to them this is just another job to get done. Maybe that’s actually a good thing, as it keeps them impartial. But I think if a little more care and effort was shown we’d get better divisions overall.

The report makes this quite clear. It’s almost completely devoid of insight into why they made the decisions they did in place of the alternatives. It’s even worse that they’ve claimed a mandate for certain changes by refering to cherry-picked suggestions based on the original numbers as if they are still completely valid.

It’s somewhat frustrating that the committee had finalised their decisions in February, but that it has taken another 3 months to put the report and maps together. The maps are certainly useful but if the report doesn’t say anything of substance (in constrast to the reports done by the VEC) perhaps it would be nicer to get these released earlier so that there is more time for review. Obviously that’s more of AEC staffing issue than something related to the committee itself

In regards to division names, I agree that it would be good to have more consistency. I personally think that using indigenous location names across the board would be a compelling idea.

@drake Flinders would be over quota if you did that

@Trent
That’s a great solution, and while not quite as neat as the preferred option of the clean Caulfield-South Yarra swap, makes for a clear community of interest.

Probably the main 2 faults with the current arrangement of Macnamara are:
1. It pairs Southbank with suburban Caulfield
2. It doesn’t include the Chapel Street area which is of a similar nature and has close ties to the St Kilda area

This solves both of those concerns.

@Drake I agree with all of those points.

On Corangamite-Wannon, I have this sense that the committee seems to prefer to use roads as boundaries over using locality boundaries (although this does not seem to be applied consistently). Is anyone aware of this being a thing? My thinking is that surely it’s surely easier for your average voter to find their division for their suburb, rather than considering what side of a road they are on, unless it’s a major roadway. That’s why it’d be better to put all of Bellbrae and Freshwater Creek in Corangamite over splitting them by Anglesea Road.

@John
I believe that swapping all of Mount Eliza for Baxter between Flinders and Dunkely would bring Flinders to a deviation of +2.72%. It looks kind of messy, but it’s solid on community of interest grounds.

Like many, I’m quite surprised that Higgins is the proposed division to be abolished which kind of defies the general trends with redistributions, particularly given that:

1. Higgins is a federation seat (not that it meant much to seats like Kalgoorlie but that’s a whole different story), and usually those seats don’t get abolished no matter what.

2. If the demographics and communities of interests are considered to be too ‘varied’ in Higgins, then it’s a stronger case for Hotham in comparison when that electorate has about 5 different council areas ranging from Kingston to Monash down to Greater Dandenong etc. Surely it would make more sense to consolidate those into distinctive electorates (e.g. Chisholm into Monash council, Isaacs takes on Kingston and Bruce absorbs all of Greater Dandenong and then shedding Casey into La Trobe). Of course that would mean re-aligning Deakin and Menzies in their current configuration but that would make more sense than to abolish Higgins which has somewhat of a more cohesive setup of councils and communities of interest compared to the hodge-podge that is Hotham (plus Hotham is on paper a more suitable name for abolition).

About WA, Bullwinkel is an interesting name to say the least. I would’ve thought if not Bates, Farmer, Court or Currie as proposed they’d probably name it Hancock or something else distinctively Western Australian.

Higgins is not a federation division it was created in 1949

Sorry had a mind blank but you are correct I must’ve been thinking of another seat.

My other point still stands though.

@Angas, yeah I would obviously prefer the Prahran/Caulfield swap as I especially think Caulfield belongs with Carnegie, Murrumbeena, Malvern etc just as much as I think St Kilda belongs with Prahran.

But I can’t think of any way that could work with Higgins abolished unless the surroundings seats were made completely unrecognisable.

So assuming the committee won’t overturn abolishing Higgins, this is definitely the second best option and I agree, it does solve the 2 biggest issues that you mentioned.

Maybe in future redistributions, Macnamara will start losing that tail, even starting small like Caulfield East and Glen Huntly joining Carnegie & Murrumbeena in Hotham where honestly they’d fit better than Malvern East does.

Ben, in regard your estimate of 2CP involving an IND. It is probably 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other, but this may be easier to communicate. It also may be of use in NSW in a couple of weeks.

Simply start by working out the 2PP of each seat – that’s useful to know in and of itself. Then make a standard or seat specific adjustment for how much better the IND went in 2CP in the old seat with that data, vs the Labor 2PP in that seat, to get an estimate of IND 2CP across the whole new seat.

This assumes Labor voters in the new parts of the seat will act like Labor voters did in the old part of the seat last time – the strategic voting cohort will be the same effectively. To test how likely this is, provide approximations of the IND and Labor primaries (this is effectively a 3CP and you said you would do them eventually). if Labor is well behind the IND primary, we can assume the new Labor voters will act like the old – this will probably occur a lot in the VIC teal seats. It might not in NSW though – probably will in Wentworth but not North Sydney and Bradfield, because the Labor primary was pretty close to the IND PV.

Sadly for Labor in North Sydney and Bradfield, there is no Labor seats adjoining them to be merged, unless parts of Bennelong get merged with North Sydney. That might be an interesting seat, though its probably the wrong side of Bennelong.

Labor should really have tried harder in Kooyong and Goldstein in 2022 to keep their PV up. Would be interesting to know a 2PP in the new versions of those seats

Wento

@trwnt could still be done

I have attempted to fix Menzies and Kooyong’s shape (without changing Macnamara or anything north of the Yarra relative to AEC’s proposal) but I haven’t bothered looking much into its implication on neighbouring seats (Other than the fact that it should be easily possible to put all of Box Hill (not Box Hill North), Mount Waverley and Glen Waver andley into Chisholm). Hope these are better than AEC’s proposal but I suppose other ways are possible.
I assume Menzies went into Box Hill to unite the Chinese community but I expanding that seat into Balwyn instead will enable Melbourne to have 2 seats (Menzies and Chisholm) that unites areas with high Chinese population but both with a different political complexion – the conservative Menzies and the marginal Chisholm.
I have been told by one former Box Hill resident that many Box Hill residents like to shop at Doncaster though (which could sink my proposal).

Menzies:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sl9f5lvqjnPgt-ONPHUwyibzHIn63dN8/view?usp=sharing
Kooyong:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fVn9CW1RkuzmjboGRzhOmU0qtmnuliAZ/view?usp=sharing

@High Street, that sounds very similar to what I did for the independents in Victoria?

You can’t estimate Independent primary vote for a whole seat, if they didn’t run in the other areas.

I think the treatment would be different for the NSW north shore, but this approach will likely prove useful for Wentworth.

On the north shore, you’ve got a block of four seats all with clearly identified teal candidates. Seems fair enough to treat them like with like. So if Mackellar takes a bit of Warringah, I would credit Steggall’s 2CP to Scamps.

But we may want to use this approach if part of Bennelong is brought into a seat which is mostly made up of parts of North Sydney and Bradfield.

All I can say is that I am glad I moved out of Collingwood over 20 years ago. The thought of suburbs south of the river being added to Melbourne electorate would make my blood boil if I still lived there. I saw the writing on the wall many years ago as I watched the Inner City become more and more bougie.

I also find it odd that the moment Higgins became a Labor electorate, the supposedly unbiased AEC wants to abolish it. When Higgins was the jewel in the Liberal Party crown, the supposedly unbiased AEC never came up with such a proposal.

It’s also funny that the Teal seat of Kooyong will now take in the economically and socially regressive areas of Toorak, Malvern, and Armadale. Surely the supposedly unbiased AEC aren’t hoping that Kooyong becomes a Liberal seat again? The addition of these suburbs will no doubt put Kooyong back into Liberal Party hands. Maybe the unbiased AEC wanted the subdivision of Kooyong, and the ultra bougie Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club to be in the Kooyong electorate.

The conservative mindset north of Gardiners Creek is different to the one south of it. The mindset north of the creek is classic liberal, not dissimilar to the US Democrats (don’t believe the BS, the US Democrats are a party of business with no roots in the working class). They want action on climate change, and support renewable energy, as long as it doesn’t harm business as usual. At the same time they are hostile to working class struggle.

The mindset to the south of the creek is outright reactionary. Malvern is the strongest Liberal Party district in the Victorian Legislative Assembly. The Teals (Neo Liberals on e bikes) didn’t even bother running there, as this is the heartland of climate skepticism, and pro nuclear sentiment. Toorak, Armadale, and Malvern are home to the old school Protestants who view themselves as the ultimate Melburnians (MCC- by default Melbourne FC-, Melbourne Club, and Old Melburnian members). Malvern is the natural constituency of the IPA, and it was the birthplace of the New Right in the 1980’s.

The conservatives north of the creek would not stomach Mr Potato Head, yet those south of it would have no problem with a Potato as PM. The people of Hawthorn jumped onboard the first Danslide as the far right diarrhea coming out the Lobster’s mouth was over the top, yet their Southern neighbors remained loyal. A Donkey could run for the Liberal Party in the central part of Stonnington and the people there would vote for it.

Wills was already turning Green but with the addition of Fitzroy North, and Carlton North the bougie hippies could snatch the seat from the Alternative Liberal Party. Cooper could also be a bougie hippie gain with the addition of Clifton Hill. MacNamara supposedly needs 300 people to vote for the bougie hippies, according to a friend of mine who tries to convince me that the Greens are part of the anti capitalist struggle. The addition of Windsor may deliver MacNamara to the bougie hippies.

In my area the Alternative Liberal Party will continue to storm home. The bougie hippies won’t put in any real effort to win the seat as anywhere west of the Tullamarine Freeway is a step too far. They will show up with their green triangles on Election Day, but that’s about it. While they are already door knocking MacNamara, they still need a tourist guide to navigate around the part of Melbourne that lies to the west of the Tullamarine Freeway.

SAlt’s electoral project The Victorian Socialists will get a very high vote in my area.

In my mind VS have the best policies and I will vote for them. At least they make an effort out here, and they genuinely want a better deal for workers, refugees, LGBTQI+ people, women, immigrants, neurodivergent people, renters, and public housing tenants. They want to defend and extend public housing, so that gets my vote.

That being said I am not a member of SAlt, nor do I get involved in electioneering. That’s my drunken anarchist rant. I can’t wait for the angry responses.

Any word on NSW?

“It’s also funny that the Teal seat of Kooyong will now take in the economically and socially regressive areas of Toorak, Malvern, and Armadale.”

This is bizarre. Yes it’s a conservative area but they elected a Labor MP in 2022. Even in this part of the seat, Labor managed almost 50% of the 2PP. Yet they won’t consider voting for a teal MP?

If you just look at the booths, yes the Libs managed 65-67% in three Toorak area booths, and 54% in Malvern, but the area transferred also includes booths where Labor polled 51%, 53%, 59% and 60%. And we know that generally a teal would do a bit better than Labor on the preference count. And Ryan has the benefit of incumbency.

I honestly can’t tell if NoMondays is serious or taking the piss.

Labor has had an absolute dream run at redistributions recently, so to whine and sook about ‘biased AEC” when one or two outcomes MAYBE help the Liberals, is peak delusion or straight up trolling.

I think the way Ben estimated 2CP margins in Liberal vs independent seats like Wannon was by joining up the Liberal vs non-Liberal 2CP in the component areas. Wannon won’t lose its current territory but is just gaining some Surf Coast Shire parts from Corangamite.

Joining up the Lib vs non-Lib votes of both is objective and simple. In reality, a Labor voter may not turn into an independent voter when redistributed.

For Wentworth, it’ll be tricky. It will likely subsume eastern parts of Sydney. Both Sydney and Wentworth had non-traditional contests. ALP vs GRN and IND vs LIB respectively.

There is some logic that you could assume everyone in the Sydney -> Wentworth parts will vote the same but both the Labor and Greens primary votes will mostly be preferencing the Independent (using the preference flows of Wentworth). We just know that Spender’s margin will grow as it’ll take up heavily Labor and Greens areas.

The other trick is to use the LIB vs non-LIB 2CP in the Sydney -> Wentworth parts and join it up with the LIB vs non-LIB 2CP of Wentworth.

Hi Ben,

Yes, it may be be – just a different mathematical order – I did say It is probably 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.

What I meant in estimating the IND PV vote is a rough approximation. For example. Monique Ryan seems unlikely to crash for her current PV simply because 24% of the new seat is from Labor held Higgins. As you say in a following post, these Labor PV and 2PP voters will be open to voting Teal IND, and many will. The high Labor PV in Higgins is highly unlikely to make a significant difference, let alone turn around the very low Labor PV in Kooyong in 2022.

In North Sydney and Bradfield though, it could be different. If we an estimating of Teal IND and Labor PV in a new seat is close, and perhaps closer than the current gap, then the strategic voting cohort (both from the current seat and the potential new ones from the new parts) have a decision to make – the result of which could jeopardise the IND chances and therefore quite possibly the ultimate winner

This is indeed a very timely discussion point you have raised though Ben – Insiders just spent a full 5 minutes discussing rumours about Josh Frydenberg re-contesting Kooyong based on Anthong Green estimate of a IND vs LIB margin reducing from 2.9% to 0.5% (whilst is also becomes less of a LIB 2PP seat 4.2% to 3.7%????).

Your numbers above, an approximate as you say, have it going up – lets assume its about the same. On Friday I heard many people say Monique Ryan would be delighted. Antony has some explaining to do – he often is mathematically consistent across different scenarios, sometimes to his own detriment. H ehas often said he doesn’t publish margins to be definitive, but to indicate where to look on election night for the likely action in determining the make up of the Parliament. I expect him to come out very soon and say there 0.5% is just very indicative.

@Mark Mulclair. To “sook” (sic) about the ramifications of the abolition of Higgins is not trolling.

While I am highly unimpressed with the performance of the Alternative Liberal Party government, I for one, don’t want the illiberal party to get back in power. Do you want Potato Head to be helped into government by the AEC? I don’t.

I am being serious, however I view parliamentary politics as an absolute farce. I see the options as a choice of who is the lesser evil candidate.

While in my previous rant I said I vote for SAlt’s electoral project VS, I don’t really understand why SAlt (who were once opposed to participating in the electoral circus) are all of sudden so excited about elections, to the extent that put all their resources into running in by-elections in bougie areas like Warrandyte. I vote for them because I agree with their platform and they put effort and energy into campaigning in suburbs to the west and northwest of the CBD, something that the Greens don’t. At the same time I am not about to hop onboard the VS train, as parliament changes nothing. We have Greens in federal parliament but have they pushed the ALP leftward? No. The bougie hippies were meant to help the renters and the public housing tenants, yet nothing has changed.

If you want change organize outside of parliament and take action. Nothing has ever been won through parliament without the pressure of extra parliamentary struggle. Whitlam’s reforms came off the back of the oppressed fighting back.

Hotham is widely expected to be abolished at the redistribution, but the draft boundaries for Victoria released on Friday abolished Higgins instead. I would strongly prefer Hotham to be abolished, but Higgins is also abolishable. I will submit an objection advocating for Hotham to be abolished and my full proposal with Hotham abolished, but I will submit another proposal with Higgins abolished. If the Augumented Electoral Commission proceeds with abolishing Higgins, they have got to do it probably. However, the Redistribution Committee’s proposed boundaries for many electorates result in many notable geographical divides being unnecessarily crossed, including the boundaries of many suburbs and LGAs.

Here are some of my objections:

Ballarat: The entirety of Hepburn Shire should remain in Ballarat. The boundary for Ballarat should be the same as last election boundary, except that the localities of Maude (Vic) and Sutherlands Creek (20301103507 SA1) are transferred to Corio.

Bendigo: The Redistribution Committee has transferred part of Hepburn Shire from Ballarat to Bendigo to make sure Bendigo is not 3.5% below projected quota. I would suggest Bendigo gain voters from the Woodend SA2 in over-quotation McEwen instead, which is growing much faster than Ballarat.

Corio: Corio should not be pushed into the City of Wyndham. Part of Werribee and Mambourin has closer links to Werribee than to Geelong. The boundary for Corio should be last election boundary + Bannockburn SA2 + the localities of Maude (Vic) and Sutherlands Creek (SA1 20301103507).

Hawke: Hawke, which is slightly over quota, should not gain voters from the well under-quota Maribyrnong. The localities of Melbourne Airport and part of the localities of Tullamarine, Keilor and Keilor Park should remain in Maribyrnong, because Melbourne Airport has closer links to Tullamarine, Keilor and Keilor Park than to Bulla and Sunbury.

Hawke should not cross into the City of Wyndham. Part of Wyndham Vale and Manor Lakes have stronger links to Werribee than to Melton. The boundary of Hawke should remain unchanged.

Lalor, Gellibrand and Fraser: Gellibrand should take in part of Werribee South from Lalor. The suburb of Spotswood, almost entirely south of the West Gate Freeway, should be located in Gellibrand rather than Fraser, since Spotswood has stronger links with communities south of the West Gate Freeway than those north of the West Gate Freeway. The boundaries of Lalor, Gellibrand and Fraser should be the same as what I previously proposed.

Corangamite and Wannon: Unite the localities of Freshwater Creek, Bells Beach, Bellbrae and Bells Beach in the Division of Wannon.

Wills: Unite all parts of the suburbs of Brunswick West, Moonee Ponds and Pascoe Vale South in the Division of Wills.

Melbourne and Macnamara: South of the Yarra, Melbourne should take in all or part of Docklands, Port Melbourne, South Melbourne and Southbank rather than South Yarra and Prahran. Docklands, Port Melbourne, South Melbourne and Southbank all have close links to the Melbourne CBD and should be located in the Division of Melbourne, while South Yarra and Prahran have much closer links to the rest of the City of Stonnington than to Melbourne CBD and should be located in the Division of Macnamara. I endorse @Trent’s suggestion of the boundaries for Melbourne and Macnamara.

The three Toorak booths are not as strong for the Liberals as they once were, the ALP came within about 32 votes of winning the booth closet to Williams Rd, and the two safer booths have seen big swings against the Liberal.

The booth on Toorak Rd that serves the top end of Toorak has seen the Liberal TPP go from the low 80s when Peter Costello and Kelly O`Dwyer were the local members, to now being in the mid 60s. The only demographic change has been the growth in Chinese population and more new money has moved in.

Malvern and Armadale booths swung from the Liberals to the ALP, and they demographically mirror the other middle-class suburban areas that went to Monique Ryan (Kooyong) and Zoe Daniel (Goldstein). Most of the post-election coverage focused on renters, however, gaining far less attention was the collapse in the Liberal vote across middle class suburbia, where there has been virtually no demographic change besides the growing Chinese middle-class population.

Monique Ryan’s biggest problem in Malvern and Armadale might be the sizable Jewish population, and this is why some people think Josh Frydenberg should throw his hat in the ring.

@No Mondays, if you seen from my previous comments, communities south of Malvern Road would be a target for the Teals as they are still similar to communities north of the Gardiner but North of Malvern Road will remain Teal-proof as they are the demographics you have mentioned “reactionary libertarians” with even one booth voting No to the Voice.
@Pencil, the heavy swings against Libs (TPP) in voting booths can be a bit misleading as many people shifted to voting early/postal recently which the wealthier and older demographics are even much more likely to embrace the shift.

I thought the speculation about Frydenberg running for Kooyong was because it is taking in strongly Liberal Toorak (old money rich) and Malvern and Armadale (also old money rich but to a lesser extent). The Jewish population is big closer to Dandenong Road.

I think a hidden reason is that he is seen as a potential saviour of the Liberals and he has a much higher profile than Katie Allen or Amelia Hamer and can give a boost to the party.

One small modification would be to unite Cooper’s share of Merri-bek (and of Coburg/Coburg North) in Wills in exchange for the part of Fitzroy North east of St Georges Road/Brunswick Street.

That would better balance areas that are closer to the Sydney Road and High Street corridors respectively, and would remove one of the LGA-division splits, although this would be at the expense of splitting Fitzroy North.

@Joseph My objection is going to follow a similar theme. Keep a larger share of Higgins as one piece and merge it into Hotham. Hotham then sheds voters into Chisholm, so you’re left with a combined Hotham-Higgins electorate with its extremeties removed.

Whether the name Higgins or Hotham goes is no matter.

Ran the numbers today and got it to work nicely. Saves them dicing up Higgins too much (I’m anticipating a fair amount of objection after Katie Allen’s comments) and achieves better consistency with LGAs/SA2s. No crossing of the freeway until the Monash LGA boundary

Hot off the press.

Good work KB!

https://twitter.com/kevinbonham/status/1797167403895579042

@Ben Raue. South Yarra, Prahran, and the southeastern parts of Higgins voted against the illiberal party. The suburbs that make up the central part of Stonnington (Toorak, Armadale, and Malvern) remained solidly illiberal. Check out the polling station results. Also look at the results in the Legislative Assembly district of Malvern.

Also check out how excited senior illiberal party members are that these suburbs have been put into Kooyong. They have been on the phone to Frydenberg encouraging him to run for the seat. They know they are in the box seat to win it back.

If you don’t believe me check the news outlets. The illiberals are buoyed.

If the Potato wins the next election, he should have the good grace to thank the Murdoch Media, 3aw, 2GB, 6pr, Channel 7/ Stokes media, and the AEC.

@Angas

What if you did something like this

– Wills gains the small bit of Brunswick West & Pascoe Vale South sent to Maribrynong + Cooper’s share of Merri-bek council
– Cooper gains all of Fitzroy North SA2
– Jagajaga gains Kingsbury SA2 from Cooper
– McEwen gains Research – North Warrandyte SA2 from Jagajaga
– Bendigo gains Woodend SA2 from McEwen
– Calwell loses just Kalkallo to McEwen, and the parts of Gladstone Park – Westmeadows SA2 south of Moonee Ponds Creek to Maribrynong.

I don’t like the Bendigo/Ballarat border. It feels like they just put a bunch of random SA1’s into Bendigo to get it into quota. It’s actually quite hard to get McEwen enough voters now that it can lose Woodend, now that Jagajaga isn’t gaining voters from Menzies.

@NoMondays

As Mark Mulcair said earlier – you really are taking the piss now. Why would we check out the news outlets for their views on this. These are the people you think seats are in danger of falling to IND when they are marginal, which is the exact opposite of how it works.
And we are sup[posed to believe the Liberal’s are correct just because they are buoyed. The same genius’ that last election last 6 of their safest seats to IND on top of one lost in 2019…..

@Ben Raue.

I appreciate the work you have done. I hope you are right. Don’t forget in affluent areas many electors do postal votes, and those postal votes from Toorak, Armadale, and Malvern were solidly for the Liberal Party.

The Liberals are crunching the numbers and they can sense a Liberal victory in Kooyong.

I still find it odd that Higgins has been proposed to be abolished now that it’s an ALP seat.

Is the seemingly main region of contention solved by having another go at the proposed current block formation of Macnamara, Melbourne, Kooyong, Chisholm, Hotham and Goldstein? And then fidgeting with any of those surrounds as required. And certainly other parts of the state too.

I bet there wasn’t a peep of complaint from NM about the impartiality of the AEC from all the previous redistributions that favoured Labor.

Maybe it might even be better to have Melbourne’s surplus just go entirely to Cooper instead

– Melbourne keeps Carlton North
– Fitzroy North and Clifton Hill to Cooper
– Wills keeps Glenroy and Oak Park and instead gains Cooper’s part of Merri-bek council and the small bit of Brunswick in Melbourne
– Maribyrnong gains from Calwell and Keilor from Gorton

And than the above mentioned changes in Jagajaga and McEwen

Inspired by @Trent’s design for Melbourne and Macnamara, I’ve also found that this also works:
https://ibb.co/JRjJfr6

Splitting the Cremorne end of South Yarra from the Prahran end would allow for a very clear boundary of West Gate Freeway-Kings Way-Toorak Road and I think that this is a reasonably accurate split of the most urbanised parts south of the Yarra River.

By my calculations, Melbourne would have a deviation of +1.44%, and Macnamara a deviation of -1.74%. So roughly 2% more of division transferred north (20.94 quotas vs. 20.92 including the other proposed changes to Nillumbik).

The part of Parkville north of Elliot Avenue-Macarthur Road could also be transferred for an aesthetically pleasing border, but since Parkville is wholly contained in both the state district of Melbourne and Melbourne City Council, it’s probably best to leave it in.

I haven’t considered the wider impacts yet, but it sounds like this would help improve the boundaries of Kooyong at the very least?

Hmmm, I think I’m missing something here….I think the AEC did a good job…..
1) The break down of the Little River boundary between Melbourne and Geelong is well overdue.
2) The jump over the Yarra surprised me, but is not unreasonable.
3) The alignment of Chisholm with the Glen Waverley line, Deakin with the Lilydale line, Hotham with the Dandenong line are all reasonable.
4) Proposed major activity centres such as Box Hill and Cheltenham are all in one electorate.

These boundaries seem to me impartially drawn and fair. It’s seems to me they are not favouring one party…but spoiler alert…that’s not the AEC’s job.

@Tommo9
That’s a really good point about every argument for abolishing Higgins being an even stronger argument to abolish Hotham. I’m going to borrow that for my objection submission.

@Leon
I was thinking about something similar yesterday actually. Would it help things if Menzies lost Wonga Park to Casey and Park Orchards to Deakin like the committee proposed? Would it be worth adding Kew? That whole area between the state districts of Bullen and Kew is quite well connected.

@Joseph
Agree with all of your points there. All of those random LGA slices are completely unneccessary.

To add to your point about Corio, an even better option is for it to gain Sutherlands Creek, but not Maude, and to also gain Moolap from Corangamite. That would have it in alignment with the state district of Geelong.

Casey crossing into Nillumbik is another one which I think could be reworked. Surely it would be better for it to gain from La Trobe, seeing as it already shares Cardinia Shire.

@BenM
That sounds like a far less destructive scenario than the current proposal, and would be a reasonable compromise if the committee is determined to abolish Higgins in its current format. You’d expect there would be far less opposition to them abolishing Hotham, even just in name.

@Drake
I think you’re on the right track with those changes. I definitely feel that Fitzroy North is a better fit with Cooper. Keeping Wills north of Park Street would be a great option as it just seems to be too far stretched otherwise.

Kingsbury into Jagajaga (or Scullin) could be a good manoeuvre. I think there’s at least a few decent ways in which the Northeast can be made to work depending on how McEwen needs to shift to accomodate Bendigo.

I think it’s a moot point now as the committee seems unwilling to change the boundaries of Hawke, but it still would be good result to contract McEwen out of the Calder area. If not, putting Diamond Creek and more of Nillumbik into Jagajaga would also be an improvement.

@G
I think that’s a good summary of things. Northern and Western Melbourne generally solve themselves. Same with the Outer Southeast as it’s quite constrained. It’s really only Eastern and Inner Southern Melbourne where there’s enough room to make mistakes.

@Sandbelter
I can’t say that it has won me over yet, but it is growing on me.

It’s not a bad job per se, but it’s quite a chaotic and unconvential redistribition. There’s a handful of really bizarre changes which I think overshadow the good bits. Higgins really isn’t the right division to abolish but it’s actually quite impressive that they’ve managed to make it work. There’s some really creative transfers in there.

I don’t mind the train corridor approach as it emulates what has naturally formed in the Northern Suburbs. It’s really just the suburbs that touch Dandenong Road that need some reworking to ensure that they don’t have wildly different communities at each end, Hotham especially.

Putting just Little River in either one of Corio or Lalor would be fine, but the proposed boundaries would shift new housing estates in Mambourin into Corio and that’s a no go.

A little bit of refinement and it’ll be quite sensible. I agree the they’ve been quite fair about it. No party benefits in any significant way.

I’m not fond of division names that are named after features that are no longer are in said division. Corangamite, Werriwa, Kooygong, maybe there are others.

I had a reasonably sound idea to use the name Jagajaga in place of the current Corangamite but that’s not really a bridge I’m willing to die on right now. I’m assuming even if “better”, this is not really something the AEC would likely do.

But that did prompt an idea. Kooyong is “named after the geographic location covered at one time by the electoral division.” While it’s a word of Indigneous background, you wouldn’t use it as a freshly named division name in its’ current location. I have no clue where the current actual Kooyong location but nothing wrong with the proposal of moving the name there.

“In the main, divisions should be named after deceased Australians who have rendered outstanding service to their country.” says the AEC.

My thought for the eastern / inner south region of Melbourne – on the assumption it remains Higgins (or Hotham) going – is retire the name Kooyong, and not the name of whatever area is going. Based on the current proposal, this essentially renames Kooyong as Higgins. I also know this might not be of interest to the AEC.

Perhaps my post now returns to where it began. As I mentioned in an earlier post of mine, there is a bigger discussion here for a consistent, national, naming protocol but that’s not likely for now.

If someone wants to take my suggestion of renaming Corangamite as Jagajaga (and finding a replacement for the proposed Jagajaga) and/or renaming Kooyong as Higgins, it’s all yours.

Based on the Vic redistribution I’m.curious about NSW could they a) àbolish Wentworth, b) cross Sydney Harbour. Im thinking they may choose to abolish either Warringah or Kingsford smith to preserve the federation name. Or C I think they might actually abolish Grayndler

It’s all up for grabs John I agree, there could be something funky coming our way. I think Victoria has shown we shouldn’t presume the consensus pick will happen – which is a good thing.

My tip from the AEC Committee is a big upheaval on the north shore, simply because… they can. Both major parties have suggested minor changes. There will basically be no incumbents on the north shore.

My favourite line – developed by me – an electorate might be “abolished”, but the voters aren’t. Which the discussion about Kooyong today as demonstrated. Those Higgins voters moved into Kooyong are going to have their say – just like everyone else.

@No Mondays;

I’ll start by saying I put VS #1 on the upper house ballot at the last state election, so politically we’re probably pretty closely aligned.

However, I think you’re overstating the differences between the inner suburbs north & south of the Yarra these days. Which is very common, so I don’t blame you, but the stereotypes are no longer the reality. Although I’m not entirely sure if you are because maybe you’re also acknowledging that in a subtle way.

The differences between the inner-north and inner-south are massively diminishing, as simultaneously the inner-north as been “yuppified” and inner-south areas have been dealing with a decline by taking inspiration from the north, making them meet more & more in the middle.

These days you get a lot of the same businesses – not chains but indie places that just open two locations – with one in Collingwood/Fitzroy and the other in Windsor/Prahran; demographics are extremely similar; education levels, household incomes, house prices, all very similar; and increasingly voting patterns too. The Greens won every booth around the Chapel St corridor and St Kilda, and the Libs came third in most, and the “Yes” votes in both the referendum and SSM plebiscite were similar too. The Libs averaged around 14-15% in St Kilda in 2022, slightly higher than Fitzroy & Collingwood but less than parts of Richmond, Northcote and Thornbury, for example.

Basically, the inner-north and inner-south are both very progressive and socially advantaged areas overall but dominated by renters, and both with pockets of significant disadvantage mixed in. There are still differences, but these days most of it is just people hanging onto stereotypes of their past differences.

The eastern & western suburbs are really where the actual social divide still exists, not the north & south.

As for the affluent east being more “small l” and progressive north of Gardiners Creek than south of it, I disagree that it’s that simple. Hawthorn absolutely is, partly though because it has a big student population and university. And Toorak is absolutely a regressive, old money, socially conservative heartland, I totally agree. But they don’t define those whole regions.

I’d dispute that Armadale is more conservative than Kew and Balwyn, for example.

I think one of the other comments that talks about the difference north & south of Malvern Rd is more accurate. Toorak, Kooyong and the north of Malvern is definitely old money conservative, but Armadale and most of Malvern these days I’d say is no less socially progressive – perhaps moreso – than Balwyn, Kew and Canterbury.

That’s my two cents anyway.

Oh, and if the AEC wanted to benefit the Libs, then rather than abolish a seat Labor won for the first time by 2% and will struggle to hold long term, they would have been better abolishing a safe Labor seat like Hotham and taking Chapel St out of Higgins to flip it back to the Libs. So I can’t agree that it was politically motivated.

@trent agreed the aec was impartial here simply abolishing the seat with the lowest enrollment and then filling the gaps with adjacent seats. It will interesting to see results on the previous election d(2019). It will also be interesting to see what the results will be the n 2025. Are we able to get a notional count should there be a mini redistribution too. Obviously you cant predict the wa boundaries though

Frydenburg wouldn’t be leader of the opposition if he wins back Kooyong. Name a time in Australian history a guy lost his seat, came back next time, and became leader straight away.