Senate – Victoria – Australia 2019

As far as this race is concerned, there seem to be two things to watch for:

1) How well the Coalition polls;

2) What sort of support Derryn Hinch has.

If the poll is as it was in 2016, it’s a toss-up, albeit one with Hinch slightly ahead. If Hinch’s vote plunges, the Coalition gains a third seat. If the Coalition’s vote plunges, Hinch, assuming he polls about the same as in 2016, will survive.

Otherwise, I doubt there will be much of excitement- it would take a rather massive swing towards the ALP and a similar one against the Greens for that seat to be at risk, and it seems unlikely that any other minor party will poll well enough to be a major factor (note that ON has traditionally been weakest in Victoria, and I doubt that will change under current conditions).

In that final count “exhausted” would have out polled Family First had exhausted been a candidate.

In the AEC’s 6 candidate recount (https://results.aec.gov.au/20499/website/External/SenateStateDOP-s282-20499-VIC.pdf) exhausted on 0.3 quotas “lost” the last count to Hinch and Ryan (3rd Liberal) with 0.91 and 0.79 each.

I reckon 10% primary is the new 14% primary. It is looking hard to not win the 6th seat of a half senate election if you start with a massive lead on people trying to beat you on preferences, between “leakage” and exhaustion the chase got way harder.

Janet Rice and Derryn Hinch will be easily returned.

Hinch probably wont be first on the ballot again, I doubt he will maintain 6% and preferences are unlikely to flow super strongly to him. My feeling is Coalition will gain a third seat on One Nation/Conservative/Palmer preferences. The requirements to get a quota with the optional preference will be a bar too high for minor parties and independents like Hinch.

What was the exhaust rate of minor parties? I have a feeling not particularly many of the conservative minor party votes will flow to the LNP.

Would that make 3 Labor, 2 LNP, 1 Green possible?

John, if the ALP start a primary in the low 30%s they won’t win a 3rd senator ahead of the Lib/Nats 3rd or Hinch, especially with “left wing” minor party preferences probably splitting between Labor and Greens which at least washes out any additional exhaustion rate of right wing ballots you would predict.

Labor and Greens combined to 41.6% primary (2.91 half senate quotas), they would really be needing to combine to something like 50% (3.5 quotas) to be favourites to win 4 imo, preferable with ALP getting ~39% and the Greens ~11% for the juicy “Ginninderra effect.”

I don’t know to tease out exhaustion rates party by party, but the difference between the starting points of the 12 vacancy count and the 6 vacancy count are this:

Lib/Nats 33.1% -> 37.0%
ALP 30.7% -> 34.3%
Greens 10.9% -> 14.8%
Hinch 6.0% -> 9.5%
Other 19.3% -> 0%
Exhaust 0% -> 4.3%

[Note: in the actually 6 vacancy count those Exhaust ballots were basically treated the same as informal ballots, which is kinda like reducing the required quota to 13.67% rather than the usual 14.29% it actually would have been had it been a half senate election]

So 19.3% Other went basically 1/5th to each of the 4 remaining parties and to the exhausted pile (20.2% to the Coalition, 18.7% to Labor, 20.2% to the Greens, 18.1% to Hinch, and 22.3% Exhaust to be exact). That’s a way stronger preference result for “the left” than I would have assumed, I would have thought Coalition would be higher than Labor + Greens given so many of the micro party vote was “right wing.”

What I want to know is where those Hinch votes would have ended up if Hinch got eliminated. Is that data available?

I’m think there’ll be a statistically significant contingent of voters who vote for 6 minor parties and leave LNP and Labor off, but I also think there’ll be surprisingly poor flow between micros (do those two contradict each other?)

It may be more relevant in other states. Hinch seems like by far the most competitive right wing minor and will see a decent level of support. QLD and NSW on the other hand seem to have quite a few prominent micro parties.

But my overall hypothesis is if Labor can overtake Liberals on primary vote, they can defy the apparent Left/Right split of the electorate.

I’ve never seen the Ginninderra effect used to apply to systems without Robson Rotation. Are you referring to a situation where Labor and Greens both outpoll the last remaining right wing candidate AND their combined vote minus a quota would have put them behind?

My prediction is

Labor 2
Coalition 2
Green 1
Hinch 1

Although a third Coalition senator being elected instead of Hinch is a possibility.

Hinch didn’t make a quota on primaries at the DD. Can he actually make it over the line?

David Bahry did some great work when the Senate prefs data was released.

Unfortunately his ATL pref explorer for Victoria only goes to the third preference, but it does show that about 27% of Hinch #1 voters had Labor at #2 or #3, and about 21% had the Liberals at #2 or #3.

http://pappubahry.com/pseph/aus_2016/vic_atl/

That’s some overlap though, what if someone put Hinch 1, Labor 2, Liberal 3 or Hinch 1, Liberal 2, Labor 3. They’d be in that 27% and 21%. If I’m interpreting the “Step Forward” function correctly just over ~1% of both those numbers did so. Hinch ballots would end up with Labor 26% and Lib 20% (with 54% gone walkabout to other parties, coming to Labor or Liberal somewhere after preference 4 or never).

That data confirms that Hinch preferences go absolutely everywhere. Everyone’s preferences seem to go absolutely everywhere actually lol.

I don’t like the general assumption that in order for the ALP to gain a 3rd seat, the Greens MUST lose theirs.

Unless I have missed something, the Greens appeal to the Left, the ALP to the Centre and Right.

That means they are not playing in the same arena. The ALP says they are Left wing, and sure, they have Left wing members, but the policies are not, so why not compete directly against the Coalition and leave your potential allies alone?

It’s not an accurate assumption that Greens would win their seat at the expense of Labor. The Greens can win seats at the expense of conservatives in close counts (the one that comes to mind is the final seat in Tasmania being a handful of votes between One Nation and the Greens).

However Labor do not want the Greens to grow into a serious political force, as they have a lot to lose by not being the only party of “the left”. They also have a lot to lose by relying on them to pass legislation, as you rightly point out that many Labor voters aren’t motivated by progressive values and would second guess the party if it was closely associated with the Greens.

It’s this, and the psychological phenomenon of “loss aversion”, that sees Labor campaign extremely hard against the Greens in their marginal seats. The spend in Northcote was 5x what Vic Labor typically spends in a marginal Liberal vs Labor seat.

David Cutherbertson I reckon that assumption is based on memories from the old senate preference system where when either the 3rd Labor candidate or 1st Greens candidate excludes their preferences extremely strongly went to the one that survived, while other candidates in the mix at those late counts tended to be on the right and flowing extremely strongly NOT to Labor or the Greens.

Perhaps in the new system with preferences flows nowhere near as strong the 3rd Labor and 1st Green candidate have pathways to getting over the line without relying on each-others preferences. I certainly hope so!

In Victoria’s case the Labor party would have to increase their primary vote by a decent amount

Polling since the 2016 Federal Election indicates that the Greens vote has not moved in any meaningful way and according to The Poll Bludger, the Greens vote may even be down in Victoria. If that holds true come election, Janet Rice is in real danger.

Derryn Hinch, on 6% of the vote, is also by no means guaranteed to retain his seat in a normal half-senate election. However, he seems attract the populist right vote that One Nation usually attracts in NSW and Qld, which could help him.

The Coalition and Labor will retain two seats each.

The shambles in the Senate last week concerning the Liberal vote error on Sen Hansen’s “white is OK” bill was a disgrace. Senators for Victoria should think for themselves and most importantly represent the interests of Victoria before their party or vested interest groups like business, unions or religion. They certainly should not Cow Tow to the whims of idiot Queensland Parliamentarians. The worst thing the Liberals in Queensland did was join up with the red neck Qld Nationals.

The Labor senate ticket has now been changed, given Jacinta is no longer in the Senate.

Raff Ciccone is going to be a Senator within the next week or two.

Roger Mackay is a UAP senate candidate for Victoria. He was once a member of Port Melbourne Liberal Branch when I was a Liberal member over decade ago.

Adrian
National Party was taken over by city centric liberals in Qld not the other way around. The Morrison Government will probably (and the Turnbull Government certainly would have) be/been defeated by voters in Qld sick to death of their National Party MP’s saying one thing in electorate and voting another way in Parliament. Adani, Dams, Power Stations and infrastructure in general. Part of the reason why Katter is doing so well in NQ is the hypocracy of LNP MPs.

They have got to come up with policies and then stick to them no matter what the level of opposition to those policies are. They should learn a lesson from your local MP. He supports Israel no matter what extreme left and neo fascist right throw at him. He remains solid to his beliefs. LNP Country members have put up bills in one Qld Parliament knowing the bills would be defeated and then voted against identically worded bills when put up by Katter’s Australian Party.

Andrew – Katter is a solid and often entertaining performer. I thought when the LNP was formed in Qld, which Mal Brough opposed, that the Liberals numbered about six MP’s and the Nationals were the majority in the new party. The Nationals don’t stand candidates in metropolitan Melbourne. I like Victoria’s Senator Bridgett Mackenzie. The Nationals made a big mistake dropping the Country Party name.

To respond would divert thread not only from Victoria to Queensland but from federal to state politics. Therefore no comment.

I expect that the accidental senator, Derryn Hinch will be replaced by Australian Conservatives Kevin Bailey

Haha, Hinch polled over 6% at the federal election in Victoria. Only Pauline Hanson in Queensland polled higher amongst minor party tickets outside the Greens. There are a number of senators who are “accidental” but Hinch is not one of them. His party also polled much more than the other minor parties who won seats at the 2018 state election.

Hinch would have won a 6 year term if 2016 was a normal half senate election. He seems to be able to court disgruntled voters all the way from the centre to the far right.

Janet Rice isn’t a certainty of being reelected, and the Greens vote collapsing in Cooper (which they aren’t targeting this election) will hurt. The Greens seem weaker than usual outside of their core constituency and they were quite late to announce candidates.

I think Vic state election results converted to senate quotas give ALP3, LNP2, GRN1, but it’s not clear how much of the huge “other” vote could end up pooling behind someone like Hinch (a lot of the micros were ostensibly left wing that election). Even in a horror election the Liberals pulled a 2nd quota so Hinch would get up at the expense of the Greens or the 3rd ALP seat.

I think Victoria is most likely to return 2 ALP, 2 Coalition, 1 Green and Hinch.

Hinch not only got a significant primary vote but also a good flow of preferences because he is has a profile that seems to appeal to protest voters (at least those not left of the ALP). Hinch also got 3 MLCs elected in the state election (although 1 defected almost immediately). With Hinch now an incumbent, running himself, I think his vote will go up.

So long as the Greens stay ahead of the ALP second candidate`s surplus, they are likely to win in Victoria with preferences from the ALP and left-wing micros.

My understanding is that Senate determined that the first six elected would get 6 year terms and the other 6 elected would get 3 year terms. Therefore with same results a Senator elected for a 3!year term only got through because of double dissolution. Quota for double dissolution is 7.69% for a normal half senate election 14.28%. I think Hinch would have missed out if it had been a normal half Senate election.
However there would have been more candidates in DD than one would expect in a 1/2 Senate election so whilst the Quota cited above is accurate in an election with fewer candidates every candidate would get fractionally more votes. Quota is actually a number of actual votes based on formula of Number of formal votes divided by number of senate vacancies plus 1 vote.

If Hinch did not get a six year term I think he would have missed out. Any comments Ben? Or am I up the Creek.

Actually that’s not correct Andrew.

It is true that the method they used to determine who got the six-year term was based on who was elected first, but that’s not a useful way to determine who would’ve won if you were only electing six people.

The AEC actually conducted a special count to determine which of the 12 would have won in a 6-seat count. Mostly the result was the same, but Derryn Hinch and Lee Rhiannon would have got 6-year terms, not 3-year terms, under this method. It’s not quite the same as knowing what would happen if it was a regular 6-seat election (since the only valid candidates are the 12 who were actually elected, so some votes don’t count and thus the quota is lower with less vote exhaustion) but it comes close.

I flew into Melbourne airport yesterday and after picking up hire car Close to airport spotted a couple of Victorian Socialist posters pasted to vertical upright concrete pillars.
I thought pasted election signs were a thing of past.
I was in near lost in a strange car taking directions from a machine so details not exact.
If Victorian Socialsts are Trots tHis will make sense they are a thing of past.

Bill posting is common in Melbourne in some inners suburbs and public infrastructure. It worked with you as you read it. Only a one or two Socialist candidates in Victoria are successful with some others elected to inner suburban councils in the area just north of the CBD. The largest social group are the agrarian socialists the Nationals.

Saw yesterday that Ricky Muir is back in the mix, as lead senate candidate for the Shooters Etc.

I’ve only met him in person once, but he’s a nice enough bloke. We’re similar ages and came from the same part of the state, so we have a few mates in common from back in the high school era.

That said, I’m not likely to be voting for the Shooters, but good luck to him anyway.

Reports that Victorian Greens have lost 1/3 of their members and are struggling to staff booths outside inner city Melbourne. Greens doing particularly well in Melbourne, Macnamara, Kooyong and Higgins (Wills I imagine being similar to last time), won’t be able to make up with a collapse in Cooper and a slide in the 20+ suburban and rural seats where Greens have lost organisational capacity.

I’m more worried for Janet Rice than I am for any other Green up for reelection except Sarah Hanson Young, and that’s coming from someone who thinks they’ll pick up lower house seats in Vic.

John – what reports are you refereing too?

The deal between Hinch and Labor should go a long way to getting him re-elected, and will deliver Labor a handy few % here and there in some key Victorian seats. He seems to have done enough in his time there to have built a political brand and a reputation around what he stands for.

Longer term he might have issues keeping support from conservative-tending voters if he is too cosy with a Labor government.

Any takers for ALP winning 3 of 6 seats tonight? The ALP brand is reasonably strong in Victoria. If they can get their HoR primary vote up around 41, then it’s conceivable that their Senate is around 37-38, in which case a 3rd seat is at least in play. That’s a little ambitious, I know.

Also, what deal did the ALP do with Hinch? Their Senate HTV cards were advising voters to ALP:1, Greens 2, Hinch 3. Nick Economou suggested yesterday (the Conversation) that the ALP were directing preferencing Hinch ahead of the Greens.

https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-odds-on-for-a-labor-win-but-dont-bet-on-it-117189

Thanks for all of your great work, Ben.