6:12pm – I have one last update and then my margins will be finalised.
There are four seats in Victoria where independents made it to the two-candidate-preferred count (2CP), but have added new areas where there was no independent in the 2CP: Goldstein, Kooyong, Nicholls and Wannon.
This issue isn’t relevant in Curtin, since that seat only lost territory. It’s also not an issue in Labor vs Coalition seats with non-classic areas added, since the AEC has calculated a 2PP figure in every part of the country. It’s also not such a big issue in the seat of Melbourne. Since the Greens had a primary vote in the new areas added to Melbourne, you can calculate a margin based on preference flows.
But in the case of Goldstein, Kooyong, Nicholls and Wannon, none of that works. You could theoretically not count any votes in the newly-added areas, or give the independent candidates zero votes in those areas. Neither of those seem fair.
Accounting for these new areas is important in all four seats, but particularly in Kooyong. Almost one quarter of all electors in Kooyong are new to the electorate, all from Higgins. The figure in the other seats ranges from 3.7% in Wannon to 9.1% in Goldstein. This reflects the relatively minor changes in rural Victoria and the major changes in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.
My first approach earlier this afternoon was to credit all Labor 2PP votes to the independent, and all Coalition votes to the Coalition candidate. But I think that underestimates their support.
In the areas which were not new additions to these seats, we have both a 2CP between the independent and a Liberal or Nationals opponent, plus a 2PP which is Labor vs Coalition. We also have 2PP counts for all the new areas. In all four cases, the newly-added areas are less favourable to Coalition on the 2PP than the areas already contained in these seats. Indeed every seat that gave some territory to a seat where an independent made the final count is held by Labor: Hotham, Isaacs, Higgins, Bendigo and Corangamite.
We know that generally independents did better against the Coalition than Labor did in these seats.
So this table shows my revised approach. I have compared the 2CP and 2PP in the non-moving areas, to calculate how much the independent over-performed Labor. I then add that extra vote to the Labor 2PP in the newly-added areas.
This approach significantly improves the independent position in all four seats. What do you think?
I also want to briefly touch on the peculiar seat of Macnamara. My approach to redistribution (which I believe is similar to Antony and William) is to break up the vote by each SA1, and then reassign the SA1s to the new seats and merge them. Unfortunately this means that, when there is a vote category that has been amalgamated into a single seat-wide total (such as postal votes) effectively I assign the same share of postal votes to every SA1. This is less true for pre-poll votes (where there are multiple pre-poll centres with different geographic patterns) and much less true for election day votes.
I have an alternative approach for state and local redistributions, where we don’t have SA1 results data. For those, I distribute the election day votes then skew the special votes to match the skew of the election day vote. So if Labor does better in one part of the seat on election day, I give it a better share of the special vote in that part of the seat.
I tried to apply that approach to my federal method but it didn’t work, so I’ve left it as is.
Most of the time this doesn’t cause problems. Usually we’re most interested in seats where the changes were significant, not the seats where changes were slight. These estimates are not precise, so when changes are small they should be taken with a grain of salt. 0.1% one way or the other isn’t really meaningful.
Now in Macnamara and Higgins there is a peculiarly large gap between voting patterns in different parts of the seats, and we’ve often seen very left-wing areas around Windsor moved around while they are part of larger seats that have voted Liberal (or at least not been so left-voting). This can produce peculiar outcomes where a small movement of a very left-wing part of a more conservative seat produces a counterintuitive change in the margin.
I recommend that people don’t obsess over very slight changes in the margin or primary vote estimates in Macnamara. The seat was close to a three-way tie in 2022 and any redistribution changes will be much less significant than how voters change in 2025.
4:10pm – I’ve now finished replacing the data after fixing the SA1 issue. The margin in Melbourne has dropped a bit further to 6.9% (I’d previously estimated 7.9%). The Labor margin in Wills is slightly better than I’d previously estimated, now at 4.6%.
3:51pm – Looking at the Victorian 2PP and primary votes, the main changes were Bruce, where the Labor margin is now 5.3%, which is much closer to the pre-redistribution margin and closer to Antony’s margin.
3:06pm – Okay I’ve solved the SA1 problem and will start uploading the corrected figures. Starting with 2PP and primary for WA, the Labor margin for Cowan has dropped to 9.9%, whereas my first estimate had it up to 11.0% (from 10.8%). The Labor margin in Bullwinkel is just 3.3% (not 3.7%) and Labor in Pearce is on 8.8% (not 8.4%). The Liberal margin in Canning is now 1.1%, not 0.8%.
2:33pm – It appears the AEC has switched from using 2016 SA1s for the 2022 election results spreadsheet to 2021 SA1s for the redistribution data, so it will be necessary to add some extra code that adjusts for these changes and this may change some margins. I’ll get that done later today and update the tables.
2:07pm – Okay I’m logging off now. I’m sure there’ll be more analysis later. I will be writing a piece for the Guardian tomorrow and I’ll be carefully kicking some tyres to see if there are any errors in the estimates over the coming days.
If you appreciated this very quick analysis of the breaking news, please consider signing up to support The Tally Room on Patreon!
2:05pm – So the creation of Bullwinkel in the outer east of Perth has then pushed all of the neighbouring seats out of the way.
Hasluck has become a much smaller seat and now sits entirely on the northern side of Perth.
Moore has shifted south, with Pearce adding a small area from Moore. Cowan and Perth have lost their eastern edges to Hasluck.
Swan has also shifted west, while Canning has lost its north-eastern corner to Bullwinkel and compensated by picking up Karnup from Brand. This explains the big drop in the Liberal margin there.
Tangney, Fremantle and Curtin have experienced very minor changes.
1:59pm – And here is the interactive map for WA.
1:55pm – Okay now here we have the 2CP margins for WA. Curtin thankfully didn’t add any extra territory so no complicated calculations needed there. Bullwinkel is a notional Labor seat with a 3.7% margin. Labor has also significantly improved their position in Hasluck, and the Liberal position is weaker in Canning. Labor’s margin has also been dented in Burt.
This means that Labor has gained a seat and the Liberal Party has lost a seat so far in this redistribution, with NSW yet to come.
| Seat | Old margin | New margin |
| Brand | ALP 16.7% | ALP 17.1% |
| Bullwinkel (new) | ALP 3.3% | |
| Burt | ALP 15.2% | ALP 13.3% |
| Canning | LIB 3.6% | LIB 1.1% |
| Cowan | ALP 10.8% | ALP 9.9% |
| Curtin | IND vs LIB 1.3% | IND vs LIB 1.3% |
| Durack | LIB 4.3% | LIB 4.7% |
| Forrest | LIB 4.3% | LIB 4.2% |
| Fremantle | ALP 16.9% | ALP 16.7% |
| Hasluck | ALP 6% | ALP 10.1% |
| Moore | LIB 0.7% | LIB 0.9% |
| O’Connor | LIB 7% | LIB 6.7% |
| Pearce | ALP 9% | ALP 8.8% |
| Perth | ALP 14.8% | ALP 14.4% |
| Swan | ALP 8.8% | ALP 9.4% |
| Tangney | ALP 2.4% | ALP 3% |
1:49pm – And here we go with WA. This table shows the 2PP and primary vote estimates for each seat.
| Seat | ALP 2PP | LIB 2PP | ALP prim | LNP prim | GRN prim | IND prim |
| Brand | 67.1 | 32.9 | 50.7 | 21.8 | 11.3 | 0.0 |
| Bullwinkel | 53.3 | 46.7 | 36.4 | 35.74 | 11.3 | 1.8 |
| Burt | 63.3 | 36.7 | 49.8 | 24.78 | 9.5 | 0.2 |
| Canning | 48.9 | 51.1 | 35.1 | 41.44 | 8.4 | 1.6 |
| Cowan | 59.9 | 40.1 | 45.8 | 30.97 | 10.0 | 0.0 |
| Curtin | 44.4 | 55.6 | 13.8 | 41.36 | 10.4 | 29.7 |
| Durack | 45.3 | 54.7 | 28.8 | 44.84 | 9.5 | 0.0 |
| Forrest | 45.8 | 54.2 | 27.7 | 43.13 | 13.3 | 0.1 |
| Fremantle | 66.7 | 33.3 | 44.0 | 24.38 | 17.9 | 0.0 |
| Hasluck | 60.1 | 39.9 | 43.7 | 30.12 | 11.4 | 2.1 |
| Moore | 49.1 | 50.9 | 31.9 | 41.81 | 14.1 | 1.3 |
| O’Connor | 43.3 | 56.7 | 26.7 | 44.5 | 10.9 | 0.0 |
| Pearce | 58.8 | 41.2 | 42.4 | 30.12 | 11.2 | 0.0 |
| Perth | 64.4 | 35.6 | 39.1 | 27.21 | 22.0 | 0.0 |
| Swan | 59.4 | 40.6 | 40.0 | 31.64 | 15.1 | 0.0 |
| Tangney | 53.0 | 47.0 | 38.2 | 39.41 | 12.4 | 0.0 |
1:36pm – So just a quick description of what the map shows before moving on to WA.
The seat of Melbourne has jumped the river into South Yarra, which has then pulled Wills and Cooper south, making Wills much stronger for the Greens. This doesn’t appear to have done much to the Greens’ position in Macnamara, although we’ll need to wait for a 3CP estimate to know for sure.
The abolition of Higgins has had dramatic impacts in the eastern suburbs, with Kooyong and Chisholm absorbing most of the seat.
Menzies has lost areas further east and expanded into Box Hill, which explains the seat becoming notional Labor.
Deakin has retracted to areas further east, further reducing the Liberal margin from a slim 0.2% to 0.02%.
Aston was barely touched, as was Goldstein, but Hotham, Isaacs and Dunkley have all been pulled north. Casey also expanded west to take in areas from McEwen and Menzies.
In the western suburbs, Lalor has contracted sharply, and Hawke has taken in the area around Melbourne Airport. But generally changes in the west were mild.
Outside of Melbourne, Corangamite has again shrunk in size, now almost entirely fitting within the Bellarine Peninsula.
Indi, Gippsland, Mallee and Monash appear to be unchanged, or close to it. McEwen has moved closer to Melbourne, but it has made no difference to the margin.
1:26pm – Okay I have now had a chance to revise my Melbourne 2CP estimate which was very quick. I now have the Greens on 7.9% by applying the same preference flows to the new areas as the rest. That is a drop in the Greens margin of 2.3%, but nothing like my first estimate.
1:18pm – Okay here is my interactive map where you can toggle between the old and new boundaries for Victoria. Will take a quick bathroom break then be back.
1:05pm – And here is my first stab at the new margins for Victorian seats compared to the old margins.
| Seat | Old margin | New margin |
| Aston | LIB 2.8% | LIB 2.6% |
| Ballarat | ALP 13% | ALP 13% |
| Bendigo | ALP 12.1% | ALP 12% |
| Bruce | ALP 6.6% | ALP 5.3% |
| Calwell | ALP 12.4% | ALP 12.4% |
| Casey | LIB 1.5% | LIB 1.4% |
| Chisholm | ALP 6.4% | ALP 3.3% |
| Cooper | ALP vs GRN 8.7% | ALP vs GRN 7.8% |
| Corangamite | ALP 7.6% | ALP 7.8% |
| Corio | ALP 12.8% | ALP 12.5% |
| Deakin | LIB 0.2% | LIB 0% |
| Dunkley | ALP 6.3% | ALP 6.8% |
| Flinders | LIB 6.7% | LIB 6.2% |
| Fraser | ALP 16.5% | ALP 16.6% |
| Gellibrand | ALP 11.5% | ALP 11.2% |
| Gippsland | NAT 20.6% | NAT 20.6% |
| Goldstein | IND vs LIB 2.9% | IND vs LIB 3.9% |
| Gorton | ALP 10% | ALP 10% |
| Hawke | ALP 7.6% | ALP 7.6% |
| Higgins (abolished) | ALP 2.1% | |
| Holt | ALP 7.1% | ALP 7.1% |
| Hotham | ALP 14.3% | ALP 11.6% |
| Indi | IND vs LIB 8.9% | IND vs LIB 8.9% |
| Isaacs | ALP 6.9% | ALP 9.5% |
| Jagajaga | ALP 12.3% | ALP 12.2% |
| Kooyong | IND vs LIB 2.9% | IND vs LIB 3.5% |
| La Trobe | LIB 8.7% | LIB 8.4% |
| Lalor | ALP 12.8% | ALP 12.8% |
| Macnamara | ALP 12.2% | ALP 12.2% |
| Mallee | NAT 19% | NAT 19% |
| Maribyrnong | ALP 12.4% | ALP 13% |
| McEwen | ALP 3.3% | ALP 3.4% |
| Melbourne | GRN vs ALP 10.2% | GRN vs ALP 6.9% |
| Menzies | LIB 0.7% | ALP 0.4% |
| Monash | LIB 2.9% | LIB 2.9% |
| Nicholls | NAT vs IND 3.8% | NAT vs IND 2.5% |
| Scullin | ALP 15.6% | ALP 15.3% |
| Wannon | LIB vs IND 3.9% | LIB vs IND 3.4% |
| Wills | ALP vs GRN 8.6% | ALP vs GRN 4.6% |
The Greens margin in Melbourne has been weakened quite significantly, while the Greens are much closer in Wills. Labor is also slightly weaker in Cooper.
Labor is much weaker in Bruce, Chisholm and Hotham, but stronger in Isaacs.
The seat of Menzies has flipped from 0.7% for the Liberal Party to 0.3% for Labor.
With Labor losing Higgins but picking up Menzies, that’s a net loss of one seat for the Liberal Party.
12:47pm – Okay I have calculated the 2PP and primary vote for the main parties for each seat, below.
| Seat | ALP 2PP | LNP 2PP | ALP prim | LNP prim | GRN prim | IND prim |
| Aston | 47.4 | 52.6 | 32.5 | 42.8 | 12.2 | 0.1 |
| Ballarat | 63.0 | 37.0 | 44.8 | 27.1 | 14.5 | 2.1 |
| Bendigo | 62.0 | 38.1 | 42.8 | 26.7 | 14.0 | 4.4 |
| Bruce | 55.3 | 44.7 | 40.3 | 31.7 | 9.7 | 0.2 |
| Calwell | 62.4 | 37.6 | 44.9 | 23.7 | 9.8 | 0.0 |
| Casey | 48.6 | 51.4 | 25.1 | 36.6 | 13.1 | 11.4 |
| Chisholm | 53.3 | 46.7 | 35.0 | 39.2 | 13.8 | 4.0 |
| Cooper | 75.7 | 24.3 | 40.7 | 16.2 | 28.4 | 0.0 |
| Corangamite | 57.8 | 42.2 | 38.4 | 34.0 | 15.3 | 0.0 |
| Corio | 62.5 | 37.5 | 41.9 | 25.0 | 14.7 | 0.1 |
| Deakin | 50.0 | 50.0 | 32.9 | 41.5 | 14.2 | 1.1 |
| Dunkley | 56.8 | 43.2 | 40.5 | 31.7 | 10.6 | 3.4 |
| Flinders | 43.8 | 56.2 | 22.8 | 43.3 | 9.5 | 11.7 |
| Fraser | 66.6 | 33.4 | 42.1 | 24.5 | 18.9 | 0.0 |
| Gellibrand | 61.2 | 38.8 | 42.8 | 27.2 | 15.6 | 0.3 |
| Gippsland | 29.4 | 70.6 | 19.2 | 54.1 | 8.5 | 0.0 |
| Goldstein | 46.3 | 53.7 | 13.6 | 39.6 | 8.4 | 31.3 |
| Gorton | 60.0 | 40.0 | 41.3 | 27.4 | 9.0 | 2.5 |
| Hawke | 57.6 | 42.4 | 36.7 | 26.4 | 8.9 | 7.9 |
| Holt | 57.1 | 42.9 | 40.8 | 29.5 | 8.6 | 3.0 |
| Hotham | 61.6 | 38.4 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 15.0 | 0.2 |
| Indi | 44.7 | 55.3 | 8.6 | 34.3 | 3.6 | 40.7 |
| Isaacs | 59.5 | 40.5 | 42.8 | 29.5 | 12.1 | 0.0 |
| Jagajaga | 62.2 | 37.8 | 40.8 | 29.2 | 16.7 | 3.0 |
| Kooyong | 46.3 | 53.7 | 11.3 | 43.4 | 9.9 | 31.0 |
| La Trobe | 41.6 | 58.4 | 26.2 | 45.2 | 10.9 | 0.0 |
| Lalor | 62.8 | 37.2 | 44.1 | 25.0 | 10.4 | 2.8 |
| Macnamara | 62.2 | 37.8 | 31.7 | 29.1 | 29.7 | 1.9 |
| Mallee | 31.0 | 69.0 | 16.8 | 49.1 | 5.3 | 12.2 |
| Maribyrnong | 63.0 | 37.0 | 42.2 | 26.8 | 16.7 | 0.0 |
| McEwen | 53.4 | 46.6 | 36.9 | 33.1 | 14.2 | 0.0 |
| Melbourne | 73.1 | 26.9 | 25.7 | 19.5 | 44.7 | 1.0 |
| Menzies | 50.4 | 49.6 | 31.8 | 41.0 | 12.9 | 4.9 |
| Monash | 47.1 | 52.9 | 25.6 | 37.8 | 9.9 | 10.7 |
| Nicholls | 34.1 | 65.9 | 13.2 | 43.5 | 3.7 | 24.0 |
| Scullin | 65.3 | 34.7 | 46.1 | 21.9 | 10.9 | 0.0 |
| Wannon | 41.4 | 58.6 | 19.7 | 44.2 | 6.7 | 20.8 |
| Wills | 77.1 | 22.9 | 36.4 | 16.2 | 32.8 | 0.2 |
12:40pm – The AEC has now published the Victorian redistribution. I’m going to focus on getting the new margins up first then analyse the trends.
12:17pm – While the AEC has not published anything, the Gazettes are now up.
In Victoria, the seat of Higgins has been proposed to be abolished. No other seat has changed names, and apparently 34 other divisions have been changed. 8.31% of all electors have been moved to a new seat.
In Western Australia, the new seat is named Bullwinkel, after Lieutenant Colonel Vivian Bullwinkel. The seat seems to be located in the outer eastern suburbs of Perth. 14.57% of electors have been moved to new seats.
12:00pm – The Australian Electoral Commission will be announcing the draft federal electorate boundaries for the states of Western Australia and Victoria this afternoon. They have indicated that the boundaries will be published at some point between 12:30pm and 2:30pm AEST.
My plan is to publish my estimated margins for each electorate, and estimated primary votes for the main party groupings, some descriptions of what changes have happened, and maps showing the old and new boundaries.
In 2021 I was held up by a problem where they didn’t publish the SA1s for Victoria until a couple of hours after they published their report, and then there was a problem with the data. Hopefully that won’t happen again, but I’ll be relying on that data to calculate the new margins.
On the other hand, I have previously drawn my own KML versions of the electorate boundaries. I am not planning to do that this time, so it should be quicker to take the AEC shapefile and make interactive maps this afternoon.
Angas
I think that it looks pretty good. My thinking for Menzies was that it only go as far as Burke Road – Kew would still be Kooyong. Chisholm does look pretty good too.
Good proposal @Angas! Our proposals are pretty similar for the north of the Yarra seats, just a few little changes here and there but the same general idea. Putting Melbourne’s excess into Cooper really does work to help fix Jagajaga and then McEwen.
For the eastern Melbourne seats we’ve got a bit of differences! One of the first things I tried when we got the updated enrolment figures was an abolition of Higgins and then a Kooyong and Menzies pretty similar to what you have. I could never get the numbers to work in a way I liked, but I only went as far as Balwyn. Maybe something worth trying to see if it works out is putting Balwyn and Box Hill in Menzies, Kew into Kooyong, and then Chisholm takes the rest. Maybe Deakin will have to take bits from Menzies and Chisholm to get the numbers to work. Worth exploring.
Do like your Casey! Always thought that area was probably more connected to Belgrave than Pakenham. I think I’m going to keep the La Trobe/Casey border though, because I do think it’s good if La Trobe has a few low growth areas. Much better than having Casey go into Nillumbik shire.
two other things i dont like hawke and corio going in lalor.
i like the new corangamite but that seat defintely needs to be renamed.
@Angas
Great work again! I really like your Chisholm and Kooyong. I think Menzies going into Kew may be a hard sell though, even though I see how it’s necessary to avoid a mess further south.
@nicolas definitely better then the aec. Though they didn’t set the bar high
John –
A theoretically (currently in use) ideal name for Corangamite could be Jagajaga – “Named in honour of the three principal Aboriginal elders who signed a treaty with John Batman in 1835 which intended to give the white settlers 500,000 acres of land at the north-west end of Port Phillip Bay and 100,000 acres around Geelong.”
I’ve not looked into or researched other names, I only mention this as I came across it when looking around at other divisions and saw the geographic area matched.
I note on the naming guidelines page – https://www.aec.gov.au/redistributions/guidelines/naming-guidelines.html – that “Names of divisions should not be changed or transferred to new areas without very strong reasons.” and also that “It should be noted that redistribution committees and augmented electoral commissions are in no way bound by the guidelines.”
Swapping out Corangamite with something actually connected to it could strong reasoning to suggest a change??
You would rename the proposed Jagajaga as something else, the most obvious answer might be “Higgins”.
Thoughts?
Thanks everyone for the feedback!
Sounds like a pretty unianimous decision to keep Kew in Kooyong. I think you’re all spot on with. Had a go at that and it works out way better.
https://ibb.co/Kw6K2Zn
Please excuse all the colours. Ignore the orange lines and just compare the green lines (my boundaries) with the black lines (proposed boundaries).
– Deakin now runs along Springvale Road for the most part
– Menzies captures Doncaster, Balwyn and Box Hill almost perfectly
– Kooyong retains Camberwell and gains more of Glen Iris and Malvern
– Chisholm still has that awkward movement into Malvern – Glen Iris, but it uses stronger boundary lines overall
– Hotham can retain the Monash Freeway boundary which I had to switch to Ferntree Gully Road in order to make the previous version work
The past two redistributions saw proposals to rename Corangamite fall through. It may end up joining the likes of Kooyong, Werriwa, and Moreton, enduring for decades without containing its namesake. (This might no longer be true for Kooyong after this redistribution!)
@Angas
That is beautiful. I really like what you’ve done with Menzies and how you’ve been able to make it work!
Unless someone suggests something better, if you submit that alternative in an objection, I will give it my wholehearted endorsement in my comment on objections.
When I said “avoid a mess further south”, I was concerned about Chisholm panhandling to the west, but what you’ve done isn’t that bad – certainly no worse than the committee’s proposal in that regard.
@Adam. I agree with your observation about Clifton Hill.
Most of Fitzroy North would fit into Cooper, except the part around Miller Street.
The northwest pocket of Fitzroy North fits in with Brunswick East, so much so that the southeastern part of Merri Bek municipal boundary should be extended south to Park Street, and east to St Georges Road, and then run along the Merri Creek. The current municipal boundary is messy as part of it follows property boundaries. Streets like Taylor Street are split by an invisible line. They have two separate garbage collections that terminate in the middle of the street. Yarra picks up garbage on Thursday in the southern part of the street, while Merri Bek picks up on Friday, in the northern half.
This part of Fitzroy North should be in Wills.
I once lived in this area, and everyone I spoke to wanted to be in, what was then, the City of Moreland. We all shopped at Barkly Square, and used the Sumner Post Office (which is in Brunswick East). People did their banking in Sydney Road. Even people running for Moreland Council thought we were in Moreland, as they door knocked our street. McKean Street, Alfred Crescent, and Delbridge Street etc would suit Cooper.
On an unrelated note, the Maribyrnong redistribution makes some sense. The northwest part of Brunswick West, and the Southwest part of Pascoe Vale South, west of the Tullamarine Freeway fit into the Maribyrnong electorate. Many people don’t even realize that they are still in Brunswick West when they cross Albion Street and Moreland Road, over the Freeway. They assume they are in Essendon. There is a Western suburbs feel in this pocket of Brunswick West, and Pascoe Vale South. I think this area will get put into Maribyrnong and no one will care. It’s certainly not getting talked about. It’s pretty much signed, sealed, and delivered.
Even though I am from the opposite side of the city, it’s the abolition of Higgins that makes me irate. The cynic in me says that ruling class figures in Toorak put pressure on the AEC, crying that they were in an ALP electorate. It wouldn’t sit well with the Elliott, Baillieu, Beaurepaire, Fox, Roach, and Moran families. Eddie everywhere probably doesn’t care either way. Higgins should remain, and the stuffed shirts should have to put up with living in an ALP seat.
@Angas Much better! Has a clear focus, rich parts in Kooyong, suburbs with high Chinese population in Menzies, Chisholm focused on Monash LGA, Deakin being Maroondah LGA. Surely that version of Menzies would have to be the seat in Australia with highest Chinese population. Basically every suburb is >30%
Agree with Malvern being in Chisholm being the main issue but that seems to be a problem with any form of Chisholm if you abolish Higgins. Eventually Kooyong’s slow growth will probably allow for it to all be in Kooyong.
@Angas, your proposal looks to be a vast improvement on what the AEC has suggested. Is there a way to look at an interactive version of your map where you can zoom, it’s a bit hard to work out which roads are which in that version. I would like to send in comments to AEC suggesting many of the changes you’ve made.
@Witness. SAlt/ VS were out in force in Footscray on Saturday. Jorge is popular, but he has no chance with the single member ward. I know leftists who refuse to vote for VS because they can’t stand SAlt.
I would like to see him elected, but I think it’s a hill too high to climb.
@Witness. Jorge is definitely running. I have not seen any of VS’ literature to date, but I assume that he is running in Sheoak ward, given that it covers areas that are in his current ward. He is also involved with the Borderlands co-operative.
As I said before, given that he is running in a single member ward, he has no hope of winning, despite his popularity. North Melbourne have more of a chance of winning a game of football than anyone in VS has a chance of picking up a council seat.
I am not privy to the inner sanctum of VS, so I have no idea if they believe that they can pick up a council ward, or if they are purely running as a way of putting far left ideas out into the public. All I know is that they plan to do many door knocks in the area.
@Angas excellent proposal. Will be supporting it when the comments on objections period opens.
@Adam @Drake @Nicholas
Thank you for the positive endorsements!
I’m going to run through the changes again to make sure I haven’t make any mistakes, but I’ll put together a more detailed map later tonight.
Would it be more useful to have a map that shows both the proposed and my changes, or just mine?
In terms of the boundaries used:
– Kooyong-Menzies = Burke Road -> Whitehorse Road -> Union Road -> Canterbury Road
– Kooyong-Chisholm = Warrigal Road -> High Street -> Burke Road
– Chisholm-Menzies/Deakin = Canterbury Road -> Springvale Road -> Highbury Road
And yes, according to this map (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Melbourne#/media/File:Ethnic_groups_in_Melbourne.jpg), this version of Menzies would almost perfectly capture Northeastern Melbourne’s Chinese community.
@Dan M @No Mondays
Good insights into the Southeast and the Northwest respectively! I think most of those key points can be accounted for in this redistribution.
If someone wants to make a suggestion of a name change for Corangamite as the new Jagajaga, please do so.
You can then suggest a name and/or the committee offered quite a number of suggestions for the former Jagajaga. Higgins may be the most logical suggestion either direct replacement or shuffling everything… north westish??
If you want to extend this concept, you can suggest a name change for Kooyong for the same reason (no longer in named area). Once again, Higgins is also a reasonable replacement (if not previously suggested) or one of the committee’s others, of which there are many fine examples.
Feeling inspired by James’s toolkit and Angas’s tireless efforts at drawing boundaries, I’ve made some updates to my redistribution tool that will help people with their submissions. https://kevinchen870.shinyapps.io/redistributiontoolSA1/
The first tab now lets you map your own divisions interactively. Download the template and input your new division names according to SA1. Then upload the file to the page. Hopefully the interactive map will then populate with your boundaries. You can then choose to include SA2, LGA, Current and proposed divisions alongside your own.
The second tab is the existing building of divisions from SA1.
Fingers crossed this works – if it does then I can generalise it to WA and NSW – time dependent.
@Angas, I’d love to see a detailed map with both the proposed changes and yours. Cheers.
@Dan M
Thank you for the support!
@Kevin
Saw that you posted this the other day, but didn’t get a chance to give it a proper look into. This is really nice work, well done!
I’ve been relying on ABS Maps (https://maps.abs.gov.au/) but it’s super slow and can only show 2 layers at once. Yours would have saved me a lot of time over the last few months.
I actually had a go at coding something like this last year, but it was super slow and buggy so I lost interest. Since then I’ve just been using a little Python script full of if/else statements to handle division transfers so I don’t have to poke around in a spreadsheet.
I’ll give it a proper test run later this week and I’ll let you know if any issues pop up.
It’s really important to have tools like this available to the public so that people can contribute submissions without requiring too much technical knowledge.
Interesting that Whitehorse East of Middlesbrough Road and North of Burwood Highway is still significantly Anglo and most of the Chinese Community were just the PRC influx from mid 2010s despite being in between the two Asian Hubs of BH and GW.
Strangely it’s most Anglo Place is Blackburn despite being just a stop or two away from BH probably due to Asian Immigrants avoiding tree changing bushland areas. Whereas for others like Nunawading and Forest Hill, its probably due to the poorer performing public school for this part of Melbourne.
@Angas. Thanks.
I love the work you have done. I agree with your proposal in regards to all of Glenroy staying in Wills. I also agree that Newlands should go back into Wills, while Maribyrnong can take Brunswick West, and Pascoe Vale South, west of the Freeway. To many the western suburbs begin west of the Tullamarine Freeway, as opposed to west of the Moonee Ponds Creek. The freeway really creates a barrier between the two parts of Brunswick West, and Pascoe Vale South. The terrain is flat to the west, whereas it’s hilly to the east. There is a real connection with these areas to the rest of the west.
The Westgate Freeway is a good southern boundary for Fraser. Freeways are such a divide, and communities often feel different on one side compared to the other, even if one is in the same suburb, and/ or municipality.
Kew should remain in Kooyong as you point out. In the 1960’s, and 1970’s Kooyong was centered on Kew. Hawthorn wasn’t even in Kooyong. Hawthorn was in an electorate called Yarra, which was centered on Richmond. I actually think Yarra should come back in the future. Hawthorn, and Richmond could be in it, while Hawthorn East could remain in Kooyong. I don’t really think Hawthorn fits Kooyong anymore. It is far more urban, and has lots more apartments. It has more pubs, and bars. It has the Room nightclub. It’s the only eastern suburb I have visited in a long time. It has a larger LGBTIQ+ population than other suburbs in Kooyong. It is also where the ALP gets most of their votes in Kooyong. It even has some light industry along the rail line. Hawthorn used to be the only wealthy suburb with industry. There were factories in both Hawthorn, and Hawthorn East. The Hawthorn Football Club get there colors from the bricks that were made in the brickworks in the area. Richmond is far more bougie now, and the demarcation between Hawthorn and Richmond is far less dramatic, than the demarcation between Abbotsford and Kew.
Even Pesutto says Hawthorn is one more apartment block away from being a permanent non Liberal Party area.
I understand why you put the Balwyn area in Menzies. I am very out of touch with suburbs that far east (from my vantage point it’s far east), so I am not fussed if it stays or goes. I have no idea how the residents of Balwyn feel about being in Kooyong. I have not set foot in Balwyn for years.
I remember a few years ago, someone on this website proposed an electorate that covered Richmond, Hawthorn, and South Yarra. Yarra used to cover Richmond, Hawthorn, Abbotsford, and Collingwood. Fitzroy was in it sometimes. The modern version of Yarra could be Richmond, Hawthorn, and South Yarra. It would be a very marginal seat.
First attempt done: https://imgbox.com/7fdONAXc
I think I like this version more than my old where I abolished Deakin. Not seen on the map but for regional areas I did
– Bellbrae & Freshwater Creek stay in Corangamite
– Ballarat keeps Hepburn LGA, Bendigo gains Woodend
– Corio’s border matches the state seat of Geelong and doesn’t go into Wyndham
For north of the Yarra I basically have the same as Angas but:
– I use Fisherman’s Bend instead of South Yarra North SA2 for the Melbourne/Macnamara boundary. It’s actually quite weird the AEC decided to go all the way down to Prahran.
– I just give Mernda South SA2 to Scullin instead of doing the Wollert/Mernda swap
– All of Research SA2 goes to McEwen instead of just Kangaroo Ground
For south of the Yarra
– I don’t love Chisholm and Hotham but I feel if you abolish Higgins both of those seats are just going to have less than ideal boundaries. At least they have clear boundaries.
– I might still try and rearrange Menzies, Deakin and Chisholm in a different way
– I don’t know why they give Bruce part of Cranbourne when they could just give Bruce more of Narre Warren South. Bruce should be a Narre Warren seat, Holt a Cranbourne seat.
Seems the AEC placed a very high importance on moving as few electors as possible, even over the expense of neat boundaries. I did check and both mine and Angas’ maps have more electors moved, but not by a large amount (the AEC moves around 8.3% of electors, ours does around 8.8%).
@Drake
Excellent work! I’m going to steal a few of these ideas!
Very interesting to see the subtle differences between your version and mine and how those changes affect adjacent divisions.
It’s funny how you’ve gone with Mickleham Road for the north end of Maribyrnong, as I have just swapped to start using Moonee Ponds Creek.
I suppose you had to keep Kingsbury in Jagajaga after transferring Research?
Feels like your Menzies would be right on the upper limit?
Using Burwood Highway for the whole length of Chisholm is really good. And I think your Hotham is fine. It’s a fairly consistent division now that it has removed Malvern East and that strip of Bentleigh East.
I like how you’ve managed to use Eastlink for Bruce’s western boundary. I didn’t realise it could done if both Holt and La Trobe had to shed voters to Bruce.
I don’t mind that they try to minimise elector transfers, but all those jagged edges in the proposed boundaries undermine the perceived quality of the redistribution. I think people would have been less shocked on Friday if they presented something a little less random.
My counter is sitting around 8.5% at the moment. Would be a good selling point to get it underneath the AEC’s number. I’ve been wondering what the theoretical minimum percentage of electors transferred could be. That’d be an interesting challenge.
Overall, I think this is a great proposal. There’s a handful of things I’d do slightly differently, but I would have no complaints if this is the version the committee eventually settles on.
@Angas I might end up putting that small pocket of Pascoe Vale South + Brunswick into Maribrynong and then just using the Sunbury/Greenvale border. I don’t know if you noticed but if you use the Keilor SA2, there is one SA1 that is west of Taylor’s Creek included in it. The annoying thing is if I don’t include it, I’m 2 electors short of the projected target. I’ve just been including it because it’s in the SA2 + suburb boundary but I don’t love it.
My Menzies/Kooyong border is one of the biggest gripes I have with my proposal. They are both right at the top end of enrolment (both over 3%), and I have such clear boundaries for Menzies their isn’t that much room to change without messing everything else up. I’d ideally like it to have either none on Boroondara council or to have the same boundaries as the AEC proposal. Neither work! So I right now have it taking the Union Rd section of Boroondara and not the Greythorn Rd section. It’s not ideal, but I’m not going to change every thing to get those numbers to work.
I wanted to keep Kingsbury in Cooper, it is probably better suited there, but if you don’t do the Mernda/Wollert swap (which I agree with, but I know the AEC doesn’t tend to like to do seat for seat swaps), than you have to do that as well as up to Research in McEwen. The state seats of Preston/Bundoora have had that boundary for years so it’s fine I guess. I am going to argue pretty hard for the AEC to fix up McEwen. The Bendigo/Ballarat border and the McEwen/Casey border are two of the biggest issues I have with the AEC proposal.
@Kevin I’m going to give your toolkit a go tomorrow. Hopefully I’ll be able to upload there!
@Kevin
I’ve been trying to use your toolkit and having some trouble. I am confused how I am able to click on SA1s. Are we supposed to draw the boundaries with the polygon thing?
I used James’ toolkit and downloaded the CSV file, uploaded it, and it doesn’t show up on the map. There is a tab for ‘Your Divisions” I click it and nothing shows up.
There has been some heated debate about how to calculate the post-redistribution 2CP in seats which have an independent in 2CP and have gained new areas.
Assuming the independent would have got zero votes in the new territory is fundamentally flawed and would greatly underestimate the independent support across the redistributed seat. It was hugely disappointing to see that the flawed 2CP estimate initially published by Antony Green, which assumed independent Monique Ryan would have got zero votes in the new area transfer to Kooyong, had been weaponised by some Liberals to push for Josh Frydenberg to have another tilt at Kooyong and push out the already preselected young and talented female candidate Amelia Hamer. Antony has since deleted the 2CP estimates for Kooyong and Goldstein from his website. It was also disappointing to see that the ABC initially used the flawed 2CP estimate to endorse the claim that the draft Kooyong redistribution favours the Liberals before consulting a wider range of experts.
Here I would like to propose a method for estimating the primary vote an independent would have got in the new area transferred to a seat where they were not on the ballot in 2022, so that we could get a credible estimate of the notional 2CP for seats like Kooyong and Goldstein. The method uses the swing against the main parties and others in the electorate on the old boundary at the last election to estimate the primary votes the independent would have got had they been on the ballot in the new area.
For example, the primary votes and swings in Kooyong in 2022 were:
Liberal: 42.66% (-6.51%), therefore we could assume that 6.51/(6.51+42.66)=13.2% of Liberal voters in the new area would had voted for Ryan had she been on the ballot.
Labor: 6.92% (-10.60%), therefore we could assume that 10.60/(6.92+10.60)=60.5% of Labor voters in the new area would had voted for Ryan had she been on the ballot.
Greens: 6.30% (-14.78%), therefore we could assume that 14.78/(6.30+14.78)=70.1% of Greens voters in the new area would had voted for Ryan had she been on the ballot.
Others: 3.83% (-8.40%), therefore we could assume that 8.40/(3.84+8.40)=68.6% of other voters in the new area would had voted for Ryan had she been on the ballot. You could also break out UAP snd AJP votes from “others”.
Therefore Ryan’s primary votes in the new area could be estimated as LIB%*0.132 + ALP%*0.605 + GRN%*0.701 + OTH%*0.686, and deduct the primary votes of the three parties and others accordingly.
@benraue, I am keen to know what you think of my method, and what the notional 2CP for Kooyong, Goldstein, Nicholls and Wannon will be using this method.
Ah, I’ve got my own template to fill in which you download first (the link’s in the side panel) rather than using James’s toolkit.
Yeah, clicking on the SA1s is too resource intensive compared to the old SA2 tool. Instead you use the polygon to draw your shape. You create each point of the polygon upon a click. Once you’ve clicked finish on the polygon building, you click display shape and it’ll display all the SA1s selected as well as the total projected population deviation
@Drake.
Your proposal for Melbourne, and McNamara are really good. I would put the northwest corner of Fitzroy North (north of Park Street, and west of St Georges Road) in Wills.
Can we put Angas and Drake on the committee? xD
@Nicholas
Just get me promoted to the role of Surveyor-General and I’ll have everything covered for the next redistribution!
NSW proposal is this Friday or next. Confirmation soon.
In response to https://x.com/michaele334/status/1797803226953314548
Have finished a more detailed version of my map from yesterday, with some small changes.
I’m struggling to find a good colour that has good contrast, so I’ve uploaded 2 versions:
– Changes in green (https://ibb.co/G9Ky62S)
– Changes in blue (https://ibb.co/KbvqHfQ)
Have made a few adjustments to the boundaries of Maribyrnong, Wills, Cooper, Melbourne and Macnamara:
– The boundary between Maribyrnong and Calwell follows Moonee Ponds Creek to match the state boundaries
– Wills now sits fully north of Park Street
– I was a big fan of using the West Gate Freeway for the Melbourne-Macnamara boundary, but have gone with @Drake and @Trent’s variation as it keeps Melbourne out of Stonnington and South Yarra
– I’ve also put Brooklyn back into Gellibrand (along with Spotswood) as it is more connected to Altona North than any other area in Fraser
If anyone can identify parts that have room for improvement, please let me know!
It’s time for the AEC to outsource themselves to the Tally Room Redistribution Committee lol!
as much as i disagree with it i think the abolishment of higgins is set in stone
@Kevin
I’ve tried changing a few SA1’s in your template to see if that works. When I upload your template a section shows up called “Your Divisions” but nothing shows up on the map. Shouldn’t something show up at the start, like shouldn’t it start off as just the proposed redistribution boundaries? And then you change stuff on the excel sheet and that would then change the boundaries when reuploaded? I can’t get any form of the “Your Divisions” to show anything. Can you? Am I doing something wrong?
The map automatically loads up with proposed, current, sa2 and lga boundaries as standard.
If you’re assigning new divisions to different SA1s that don’t touch each other it won’t work since the code takes the outer boundaries and removes any inner ones.
I’ll write up a user guide after work and put it onto the app
AEC’s Twitter account now saying the NSW proposed redistribution is being released on Fri 14th June.
@Edward
Cheers, hopefully it’s worth the wait!
@Ian
Sounds like we’ve accidentally become the Shadow Committee!
@John
I feel the same way. I’m expecting a lot of objection to the decision it because it’s wealthy seat with a lot of history behind it, but I just can’t see a way it can be unwound without pulling Melbourne back over the Yarra and rearranging almost every seat in Eastern Melbourne.
Angas –
“I just can’t see a way it can be unwound… rearranging almost every seat in Eastern Melbourne..”
Particularly given the mess up with the original ABS numbers, this is exactly the time to be making rearrangement suggestions. The wealth or history of a seat aren’t important in the context of redistribution.
The worse case scenario is that everything is ignored but if enough people put similarly themed submissions in, then it should be on the committee considering it to consider it seriously. There’s still a “further objection period (if required)” period built into the process.
Do it. There’s not going to be another opportunity in the forseeable future. There’s no reason to not make a suggestion to that large block of eastern / southern Melbourne seats – many here are finding there be better options.
If anyone has ideas that better the current outcome, you should make a submission.
Might be good if everyone in their submission suggests he AEC can build a tool for all people to use in the future that
This might make it easier for everyone
Captain Moonlight, that would be useful, particularly if it also showed population size and the terrain of an area. The VEC had one for its last redistribution, however, it would self-clear after a certain time.
@G
Yeah absolutely agree that there’s no harm in proposing better alternatives, even if they choose to dismiss them. Since all the original submissions are rendered useless, it’s important to present some alternatives to benchmark the committee’s efforts against. I suppose we really don’t know how deeply they considered other alternatives. They might not have realised that you could keep Higgins by giving it Caulfield.
I’m going to present 2 alternatives:
– The first will be an improved arrangement of the current plan to abolish Higgins like I shared yesterday
– The second will be one with the traditional Menzies-Jagajaga crossing to demonstrate the benefits provided for the Inner South/East divisions
That said, my sense is that even if a river crossing occuring between Jagajaga/Menzies and an abolishment of Hotham (or Deakin) is a better solution, it’ll be hard to argue the case that it’s significantly better. The currently proposed boundaries are a compromise for Kooyong/Higgins/Macnamara in an attempt to draw better boundaries for Menzies/Deakin/Chisholm/Hotham, but a crossing at Jagajaga/Menzies would be a reverse of that. Which of those 2 scenarios is better is relatively subjective, but maybe there’s a way to benchmark both strategies against each other.
Broadly speaking, I feel that there’s probably only 3 realistic options on the table:
1. Melbourne-Macnamara crossing and an effective merger of Higgins and Kooyong
2. Jagajaga-Menzies crossing and an effective merger of Chisholm and Hotham
3. Jagajaga-Menzies crossing and an effective merger of Deakin and Menzies
Thinking out loud, perhaps it’s worth considering this: “How would we draw each division if we didn’t have to consider the other divisions?”. Then it could just be a case of measuring each division up to its standard and scoring each arrangement in aggregate.
Looks like the detailed map I shared earlier is stuck in the moderation queue
I’ll share it again and hope that it works this time.
https://ibb.co/KbvqHfQ
I still haven’t worked out a great set of colours to show the changes off. There’s a subtle difference between the current boundaries (more pastel blue with red) and my updated boundaries (brighter blue). The committee proposed changes are in black.
If anyone can see any parts that have room for improvement, I’d love to hear what you think.
Great map Angus, I suggest also creating a map with only your proposed boundaries to maximise clarity. I believe a crossing in Melbourne is much more ideal than a Jagajaga/Menzies crossing, the eastern suburbs seats would become an absolute mess.
I don’t mind abolishing Higgins. Whilst Hotham might be the most mis-match seat, I feel that area is always going to be a bit of a mess. With Bruce likely needing to move further east in the future, you are going to be left with Hotham/Isaacs taking more of Dandenong and they are already paired with a decent amount of middle class suburbs. Abolishing Hotham did end up with the problem of slowly turning Chisholm into the new Hotham. Maybe one day the numbers will fall into place and there will be a Dandenong only division.
It’s interesting in all the submissions, even if you do a Menzies/Jagajaga split or a Melbourne/Macnamara crossing, you end up with broadly the same seats in the north and the west. Only real difference is what happens to Jagajaga or Wills/Cooper (depending on what seat should take Melbourne’s surplus). The goal either way seems to be to give McEwen enough voters that it can lose Woodend, Mernda South and Kilmore to fill up neighbouring divisions.
If the numbers allowed it, the Jagajaga/Menzies section would be immediately changed at the next redistribution. But I do wonder with the Melbourne/Macnamara split whether they might be open to keeping it for awhile. If Macnamara had to take back the Melbourne territory then you’d be left having to put all of Caulfield into Goldstein, and then I guess all of Bentleigh in Hotham?
@Angas
The main changes I’ve noticed between this and the old one seem to be a few changes in the north and the west. Not using the west gate freeway for Gellibrand/Fraser, Kingsbury in Cooper and a few slight changes to Melbourne and Wills. All of which work well. I’ve tried a few changes with mine and it ends up ruining all of the numbers so I think it’ll mostly be it unless I try a completely different approach.
The AEC hasn’t taken suggestions from the public since the updated figures, so hopefully they are more open than they normally are. The 2010 Vic Redistribution basically got completely redone after anger over abolishing Murray (now Nicholls). The next redistribution, if Victoria gains a seat, might create a new seat similar to that one’s proposed Burke.
OK – updated with a user guide. Hopefully it’s clear enough to use
@Kevin Maybe you can leave your email or some sort of contact on the website because I still can’t get it to work. Even if I just download the template, and change nothing about it, reupload it, I still get the “Your Division’ tab and nothing shows up on my map. I’ve tried naming all the divisions but that doesn’t work either. Would be curious if anyone else has been able to get it to work.
Every other tab shows the map except the ‘Your Division’ one
My email is at the bottom of the page.
If you re-upload the template without adding in any of your own divisions then there will be no boundaries created since the entire ‘your division’ column is empty. The whole point is to populate the ‘Your Division’ column (6th column) with the name of your proposed division. I emulated your Kooyong in the user example, filling out the relevant SA1s with a proposed name of ‘DrakeHiggYong’. When I uploaded that file your Kooyong shape becomes drawn.
@Angas – can you send me a mapping of your divisions to SA1s so I can edit it and use it as an example of a completed template
tbh i had to choose between abolishing higgins or hotham i would have chosen hotham. despite how i disagreed with. abolishing higgins just causes too many problems and make the curent problems worse in my opinion. im just hoping theres some sense in the nsw redistribution. the wa one was muhc better despite feeling they could have placed the seat better. the was i drew the new seat they only had to cross the metropolitain/regional boundary in one location. i wa able to push durack out of the outer etrolpolitain area in the city of swan but now the boundary crosses in 3 division