Blogging Senate forecasts and results in the WA Senate re-election until officially declared.

Twitter: @AU_Truth_Seeker

Friday, 13 September 2013

Senate results - 13-9-13 - 10pm update

Welcome to my latest daily 10pm update of Monte Carlo simulated Senate forecast.

The forecast summary is as follows:

As per yesterday, my model is calculating the 3rd Liberal candidate as “most likely” to win the state of Tasmania. However, applying a crude assessment of BTL votes, I believe that this remains “too close to call”, with perhaps the PUP’s Jacqui Lambie as more likely to win than lose. The table above represents model output, and I have not manually overridden the table with my most likely expectation.

With weighty non-psephological duties I have not yet had time to fully analyse the full 2010 BTL preference set for Tasmania. If I get time on the weekend, I will attempt to apply my learnings from this analysis to the 2013 primary votes.0

Here is the detailed table with percentage likelihoods of each candidate winning:

Daily changes in vote:
Total: 85.59% to 88.32%
ALP: +0.04%
LNP: -0.03%
GRN: -0.05%
PUP: -0.04%, more decline
LDP: +0.02%

The model is now saying that the LNP is most likely to win the 6th seat, but this may not be accurate.

There are three critical junctures where order of elimination will determine the successful candidate. Count numbers below are as per the ABC Election website Senate calculator.

Count 20: SXP (10,405 votes, 3.35%) lead FF (9,607 votes, 3.09%)
If FF gets ahead, it could leapfrog into the final senate seat. After allowing for estimated BTL flows, I believe the “true” lead of SXP over FF is 763 votes.

Count 21: ALP (14,042 votes, 4.52%) lead SXP (13,632 votes, 4.39%)
If SXP gets ahead of ALP, it will leapfrog into the final Senate seat. After allowing for estimated BTL flows, I estimate that the true gap is 1328 votes, not the 410 votes the calculator is estimating.

Count 24: LDP (29,039 votes, 9.35%) purportedly lead PUP (28,000, 9.01%)
But after allowing for estimated BTLs, I believe PUP is approximately 412 votes ahead of LDP. If this occurs, PUP’s Jacqui Lambie will win the final 6-year stint on the red leather.

I direct my readers to Kevin Bonham's sitewho has spent significant time calculating what may happen in Tasmania and he’s even published a flow-chart!

Daily changes in vote
Total: 74.15% to 76.62%
LNP: +0.19%
ALP: -0.19%
GRN: -0.07%

The model’s likelihood of the election of the 3rd liberal candidate (Arthur Sinodinos) is steady at 78%. However, it still appears likely that he will retain his seat as my model is using relatively large variations (each party’s vote numbers vary by within +/-3% in each Monte Carlo simulation, implying a range of 34.6% +/-1% in the LNP vote).

The “biggest” mover in likelihoods to unseat Sinodinos today is the Democrats, up to 15% likelihood as the Shooters and Fishers move down to 7%. If this number gets any higher, I’ll have to investigate way more thoroughly

Daily changes in vote:
Total: 71.0% to 72.7%
LNP: +0.04%
ALP: +0.05%
GRN +0.03%
SOL is down from 0.24% to 0.20%, representing an actual LOSS of votes today (they had more votes to their name yesterday than today). I wonder why?

The six senators, 2 LNP, 2 ALP, 1 GRN and Ricky Muir from AMEP appear locked in in Victoria.

Daily changes in vote:
Total: 68.5% to 70.5%
LNP: +0.13%
ALP: -0.03%
GRN: -0.06%
PUP: -0.05%

HEMP’s likelihood of election is now up to 1.3%, according to my model. If elected, it is likely they will unseat the 2nd ALP candidate, owing to the minimal chance that the ALP vote will drop below two quotas. BTL votes may also come into play, but I consider this highly unlikely based on current data.

Daily changes in vote:
Total: 64.8% to 66.4%
LNP: +0.08%
GRN: -0.05%
No other party’s vote changed by more than +/-0.02%

My model is now giving Wayne Dropulich, Sports Part, only a 71% chance of election. At count 12, Dropulich leads the RUA candidate by just 250 votes, including 836 votes from the Australian Voice Party. If 10-20% of Voice votes are BTL, this implies a Sports lead over RUA of just 83-166 votes. This makes it the closest senate race. My model is predicting a PUP win if this count 12 situation is reversed.

Daily changes in vote:
Tocal counted: 75.30% to 78.8%
LNP: +0.29% (massive increase!)
GRN: -0.05%
ALP: -0.02%

As discussed yesterday, the No Carbon Tax party has a 17% chance of winning a senate seat in SA, according to my model. This represents a statistically insignificant reduction from yesterday’s 18% chance.

At count 29, if the Lib Dems can overtake Family First, then No Carbon Tax will almost certainly win. As per yesterday, the effective margin is 2100 votes, so it is still unlikely

The key equation is

FF + AI + SPP > LDP + Smokers + Group L 

If this equation is True, FF win a Senate spot in SA. If false, NCT win a Senate spot in SA.

Next update: Approx 24 hours, 11pm AEST ! See you there!!


  1. It is worth noting that the declaration votes counted so far in Tasmania have included 21,773 postal votes, more than 70% of all postal votes applied for, but none of the 12,000 pre-poll votes cast outside the voter's electorate, and barely half the absentee votes recorded. The tide to the Liberals shown in the postal votes is likely to recede as the counting moves to absentees and pre-polls.

    1. Thanks anon. That's good information!

      Of the 3 critical points in this election, none of them actually involve the Liberal Party vote. The three that will decide this are LDP (incl BTLs) vs PUP, SXP vs ALP, FF vs SXP.

      Any thoughts on how you think this will play out between these parties in absentee votes is most welcome.

  2. For WA... in all of your scenarios where SPORT is eliminated, does PUP win the 5th seat 100% of the time? If so, what is the breakdown of who wins the 6th in this case? I would imagine that this changes the race between ALP2 and GRN completely and you either get (SPORT + GRN) or (PUP + ALP2) in most cases. Is this correct?

    1. Fascinating proposition!

      Mainly correct. There is a 1-1 Left-right split. But there is no SPORT+ALP combo. i.e. where Sport win a spot, the Greens also win. BUT:
      -if the right spot is won by PUP then it's about 50-50 between ALP and GRN.
      -if the right spot is won by LDP, then ALP wins the left spot.

  3. Truth Seeker - I'm seeking your thoughts. I sometimes post a comment over at Poll Bludger under the name Mr Squiggle.

    I have a recent interest in a micro-party and am watching Victoria closely.

    The libs primary vote/quota stands at 2.8279 quota (or 0.1721 needed to secure the 6th spot.

    They pick up roughly 0.07 from preferences already, leaving a gap of 0.10 quota.

    From your figures above, they picked up 0.04% of the vote on just one days counting.

    AM I reading this wrong, or will they have in the bag by this time next week?

    1. Hi Squiggles

      Firstly, thanks for your declaration of partisanship. :-)

      By my reckoning I cannot get Helen Kroger over the line. LNP3 is 2.53% (0.17quotas) below direct election, based on my snapshot of last night. I won't check your 0.07q (1.1%) so assume it's true. That still leaves Kroger 0.10q (1.43%) short of quota, which is 1.43%. Sure, the LNP is picking up an additional 0.0x% per night, but there doesn't seem to be enough nights to get her over the line.

      This is where my Monte Carlo analysis comes in handy. It varies the vote for LNP in Vic randomly +/-3%, i.e. 3% of 40.33% or 1.27%. So my model is effectively saying that if LNP vote 41.60% it is still not giving Kroger a win.

      BTL votes add another complicating factor that may well give Kroger a chance of winning greater than my model is suggesting, but I highly doubt it's close enough for BTLs to matter.

    2. Thanks Truth Seeker, love your work, I'll be reading from time to time

  4. I was having a look at the House of Reps results and noted that RUA had almost a 7 to 1 ratio count over ASP and 10 to 1 postal vote ratio count. Is there any correlation between patterns of votes between houses?

    1. Great comment, anon!

      Note also that Sports Party has a very high relative House Absent vote, so it's a bit unclear. The lead for Sport is pretty small, now 79 to 164 votes according to my calcs, but possibly it will start increasing when Absent votes start getting counted.

  5. Lib Dems and Sex in Victoria:

    The Age reports that the Sex Party is claiming that, had the Liberal Democrats kept their word, and preferenced Sex in Victoria, that Fionna Patton would have won in VIC.

    This raises two questions for me --
    1) Is this Sex claim reasonable? Would that have been enough to put Patton over the top? (Instead, I suspect, of the petrolheads.)

    2) If there was no deal, and Sex had not preferenced LD the in any special way, would if have had any effect in NSW?

    My gut says it doesn't matter. But if it did, then that suggests a VIC Senate seat was awarded (in part) on the basis of being timely with paperwork. That would be bad.

  6. It's much easier to test 2 than 1 - estimating 1 would involve making up a series of new primaries and preferences for what would have been. I think with the high ldp donkey in nsw it wouldn't have made a difference. But I'll run it through my model later tonight.