South Australian state election - 17th March 2018

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I ran the legislative council numbers through my very own Group Voting Ticket calculator, so it's obviously not perfect given at the final count there's nigh on a quota of informal votes from tickets the Independents and those which didn't preference the majors. However even with that caveat my numbers showed, firstly on top of the 3 LIB, 3 LAB and 2 SA BEST seats guaranteed by the quota the Greens will easily reach quota, as they have 0.98 quotas combined with Animal Justice, who they'll get a very strong flow from. After the Green is elected and their surplus distributed Dignity and the Liberal Democrats go. Dignity goes first, and could go before Animal Justice if they're unlucky, and they're preferencing SA Best 2, so Xenophon should receive the bulk of their votes. Liberal Democrat votes will split between the Liberals and the Conservatives, probably favouring the Conservatives however they could quite possibly push the Liberals over quota, and with precious few going anywhere else. Then SA Best and the Conservatives will fight over exclusion, and Conservatives will probably come on top because despite Xenophon's ability at drawing preferences in from everywhere the Conservatives start on a higher base with no opportunity for below-the-line leakage. With SA Best gone that leaves either 3 parties fighting for two seats or 2 parties fighting for 3 seats and with the 4th Liberal either just below quota or already elected with his surplus distributed and with Labor probably at about .75 quotas there is simply no way the Conservatives can overcome and win a seat.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I guess this is really just a case of SA's fairness provision finally working as intended?

Yep, after 3/4 the four Labor wins happening despite losing the two-party preferred the fairness provision has, finally, worked.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I guess this is really just a case of SA's fairness provision finally working as intended?

Yep, after 3/4 the four Labor wins happening despite losing the two-party preferred the fairness provision has, finally, worked.

How much of the two-party vote have the Liberals got this time around?

Looks to be around 51.5, so a 1.5% swing to Labor

[AustralianSwingVoter]

The numbers at the end of the night:

House of Assembly

Liberal - 25
Labor - 18
Independents - 3
Seats in doubt - 1




Legislative Council

Liberal - 8 (±) Labor - 8 (±) SA Best - 2 (+2) Greens - 2 (±) Conservatives - 1 (-1)

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I guess this is really just a case of SA's fairness provision finally working as intended?

Yep, after 3/4 the four Labor wins happening despite losing the two-party preferred the fairness provision has, finally, worked.

How much of the two-party vote have the Liberals got this time around?

Looks to be around 51.5, so a 1.5% swing to Labor

Ironic that Labor gains a favorable swing but loses seats, not to mention government.
But that's SA for you. Fairness provision, packed Liberal votes, Labor incumbents perpetually gaining votes between elections, sheer bad luck, rural independents. Everything seemed to be going against the SA Liberals till now. It was only time before Labor stopped defying gravity...

What really happened was that ECSA got serious about fairness, after '02 and '10 they just tinkered with the boundaries to shift a couple of marginal Labor seats barely into marginal Liberal ones, while in '10 although they did do a bit of a shakeup Labor well and truly defied gravity, with the only two seats that swung towards them being they're two closest seats, as they got giant swings of over 10% against them in their safe seats.
However after '14 ECSA has completely redrawn the boundaries to make it actually fair, and compared to the notionals only one seat has flipped King where they had a margin of only 0.1, no sitting member and a neophyte as a candidate. With Mawson being a tossup. What happened was that Labor finally regained some of those votes in they're heartland they lost 8 years ago. Despite this Labor did go well, just think about it, a four-term government being only narrowly defeated. The only longer lived government was Queensland Labor and look how that ended.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Steve Marshall's been sworn in, meanwhile most of the talk about the next Labor leader involves (god forbid) Tom Koutsantonis.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

You (and whoever drew up the old Fairness Rule which isn't actually in place anymore) have a very skewed idea of what "fair" means in the context of single member elections.  The only fair way to do elections under FPTP or AV is to draw the boundaries without any political considerations at all and then you get whatever results you get.  As soon as you begin introducing political elements to that then you weaken the fundamental point of using single member seats - representing distinct geographic communities which have common interests - and replace them with what are in effect gerrymanders against the party who have a geographic advantage in the placement of their voters.  If you don't want wrong-winner elections - as personally I don't - then the only way to take a sure fire way which works a lot more often while also representing minority interests is to use a form of Proportional Representation and there are many options available.  The Fairness Clause basically weakened the lone advantage of using FPTP/AV as a voting system in order to try and do something that PR does a lot, lot better while also having a litany of other advantages.

Indeed the Electoral Commission said themselves post 2014 that the rule was stupid and that they were basically in a position where they had to start drawing what were effectively pro-Liberal gerrymanders to meet the rules: as well as effectively drawing Adelaide seats to be larger than rural seats which is a malapportionment and fundamentally undemocratic.  South Australia has history of pro-rural malapprotionments (the Playmander being an example of that) and I'd rather that such things don't become normalised in the name of "fairness" when making the vote of urban voters matter less than rural ones is the opposite of fair.

The fairness clause was passed in a 1991 referendum, and was implemented because of the Playmander. Before fair boundaries in 1970 it was constitutionally required that two thirds of the seats must be in the rural areas, despite by the end two thirds of the population residing in the City. During the LCL government between '44 and '62 when the TPP was counted Labor won the TPP 3 out of 7 times. The fairness provision was a long-term aim to completely resolve the problems of the Playmander.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

You (and whoever drew up the old Fairness Rule which isn't actually in place anymore) have a very skewed idea of what "fair" means in the context of single member elections.  The only fair way to do elections under FPTP or AV is to draw the boundaries without any political considerations at all and then you get whatever results you get.  As soon as you begin introducing political elements to that then you weaken the fundamental point of using single member seats - representing distinct geographic communities which have common interests - and replace them with what are in effect gerrymanders against the party who have a geographic advantage in the placement of their voters.  If you don't want wrong-winner elections - as personally I don't - then the only way to take a sure fire way which works a lot more often while also representing minority interests is to use a form of Proportional Representation and there are many options available.  The Fairness Clause basically weakened the lone advantage of using FPTP/AV as a voting system in order to try and do something that PR does a lot, lot better while also having a litany of other advantages.

Indeed the Electoral Commission said themselves post 2014 that the rule was stupid and that they were basically in a position where they had to start drawing what were effectively pro-Liberal gerrymanders to meet the rules: as well as effectively drawing Adelaide seats to be larger than rural seats which is a malapportionment and fundamentally undemocratic.  South Australia has history of pro-rural malapprotionments (the Playmander being an example of that) and I'd rather that such things don't become normalised in the name of "fairness" when making the vote of urban voters matter less than rural ones is the opposite of fair.

I am whole-heartedly in favour of a removal of the fairness provision, as it is fundamentally unfair. I completely agree with you on all of your points, my argument is just that if you are going to have a fairness provision you should at-least make sure the boundaries are 50/50

[AustralianSwingVoter]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-18/batman-by-election-huw-parkinson/9560280
lol

Huw Parkinson is simply brilliant.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Average swings:
LAB ahead vs LIB - 4.2% to LAB
LAB ahead vs SA Best - 0.9% to LAB
LIB ahead vs LAB - 0.9% to LIB
LIB ahead vs SA Best - 6.2% to SA Best

[AustralianSwingVoter]

The fairness clause was passed in a 1991 referendum, and was implemented because of the Playmander. Before fair boundaries in 1970 it was constitutionally required that two thirds of the seats must be in the rural areas, despite by the end two thirds of the population residing in the City. During the LCL government between '44 and '62 when the TPP was counted Labor won the TPP 3 out of 7 times. The fairness provision was a long-term aim to completely resolve the problems of the Playmander.

This isn't correct; one vote one value was implemented following the 1975 election which ended any rural overrepresentation in South Australia.  The Fairness Provision was added in 1991 after an election where on a fair map the Liberals failed to win on 52% of the TPP vote.  The two aren't connected at all.

I note that you aren't addressing my actual argument; just some random historical factoid.

The Playmander was eliminated before 1970, however you are correct in that the reforms weren't perfect one vote, one value, however they got as close as they could given the sheer unrepresentativeness of the Council, and that, yes, true one vote, one value was introduced in '75.
The fairness provision was a Labor policy from the 60s due to the Playmander, however they only got it through in '91 because after the Liberals lost in '89 they backed the fairness provision. The provision got through parliament with all three major parties (Lab, Lib, Dem) support. I agree that the fairness provision is stupid and tries to make AV do something it doesn't, but PR isn't the solution in Australia. Yes, the fairness provision is a gerrymander, just one to increase competitiveness, rather than for complete partisan gain. Also with regards to minority interests, other than in Hartley the closest there is in SA to a minority is the Lutherans. And ECSA didn't commit any malapportionment after 2014, as they are required to keep seats within 10% of quota, and always keep seats around 1% of quota.
I think that addresses your argument, if it doesn't then could you tell me what points of your arguement I have failed to address and I will most happily address them.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Leon Bignell's down to just 50.2, or only 90 votes. Definitely odds-on to flip to the Liberals.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Absents have pushed Leon Bignell back up to 50.5, and with 85% counted it seems unlikely that there's enough votes for the Liberals to make up the difference.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

In the Legislative Council Labor's advantage over the Conservatives is slowly but surely decreasing, and with only 73.4% counted I think the Conservative's could actually, if the trend continues, beat Labor. It's currently 3.53 vs 0.42 on FPV quotas, and with roughly even amounts of preferences going each way Labor can't afford to slip much further back.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

In the Legislative Council Labor's advantage over the Conservatives is slowly but surely decreasing, and with only 73.4% counted I think the Conservative's could actually, if the trend continues, beat Labor. It's currently 3.53 vs 0.42 on FPV quotas, and with roughly even amounts of preferences going each way Labor can't afford to slip much further back.

Th only party to change it's preferences is Stop Population Growth Now. In 2014 they preferenced 2 Greens, 3 Dignity, 4 Family First, and this time they preferenced 2 Liberal, 3 Dignity, 4 Greens.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Leon Bignell's looking better and better in Mawson, now on 50.4 with 89.2% reporting. If he hangs on then the major parties have just (on notionals) exchanged King and Mawson, with Florey and Mount Gambier going to de-selected incumbents of each.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

91.4% counted, and Leon Bignell is 0.2% ahead and exactly 100 votes ahead.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Leon Bignell's now up on 50.3, so Antony Green has called it.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

With Mawson called we now have all 47 House of Assembly seats called, so the final numbers are:

Liberal - 25 (-1)
Labor - 19 (-1)
Independents - 3 (+2)

Seats changing Hands:
Florey - Independent gain from Labor
King - Liberal gain from Labor
Mawson - Labor gain from Liberal
Mount Gambier - Independent gain from Liberal

[AustralianSwingVoter]

In the legislative council today the Liberals have gained 0.04 quotas, and Labor has lost 0.05. Labor vs Conservatives is now 3.48 vs 0.42. SA Best have also gained 0.02 quotas today, and if Dignity preferences flow very strongly towards them then they could overtake Labor. The Greens and the 4th Liberal are guaranteed their seats, with the fourth Liberal being elected first, probably after the Liberal Democrats exclusion, and if not then after SA Best's exclusion. The greens will hover right near a quota after Animal Justice is excluded, however they won't reach it until right near the end, after SA Best is excluded with them getting the bulk of Dignity preferences who voted 2 SA Best. The final count will certainly be between Labor and the Conservatives, and on current numbers Labor would be ahead, but not by much.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

In the legislative council today the Liberals have gained 0.04 quotas, and Labor has lost 0.05. Labor vs Conservatives is now 3.48 vs 0.42. SA Best have also gained 0.02 quotas today, and if Dignity preferences flow very strongly towards them then they could overtake Labor. The Greens and the 4th Liberal are guaranteed their seats, with the fourth Liberal being elected first, probably after the Liberal Democrats exclusion, and if not then after SA Best's exclusion. The greens will hover right near a quota after Animal Justice is excluded, however they won't reach it until right near the end, after SA Best is excluded with them getting the bulk of Dignity preferences who voted 2 SA Best. The final count will certainly be between Labor and the Conservatives, and on current numbers Labor would be ahead, but not by much.

Labor's dropped down to 3.47, down 0.06 today, the Liberals steady at 3.85, up 0.04 today, SA Best now up to 2.32, up 0.03 today. The Labor vote continues to erode on late counting. At the end of election night the Labor lead over the Conservatives was 0.16, it's now down to only 0.05.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

In the legislative council today the Liberals have gained 0.04 quotas, and Labor has lost 0.05. Labor vs Conservatives is now 3.48 vs 0.42. SA Best have also gained 0.02 quotas today, and if Dignity preferences flow very strongly towards them then they could overtake Labor. The Greens and the 4th Liberal are guaranteed their seats, with the fourth Liberal being elected first, probably after the Liberal Democrats exclusion, and if not then after SA Best's exclusion. The greens will hover right near a quota after Animal Justice is excluded, however they won't reach it until right near the end, after SA Best is excluded with them getting the bulk of Dignity preferences who voted 2 SA Best. The final count will certainly be between Labor and the Conservatives, and on current numbers Labor would be ahead, but not by much.

Labor's dropped down to 3.47, down 0.06 today, the Liberals steady at 3.85, up 0.04 today, SA Best now up to 2.32, up 0.03 today. The Labor vote continues to erode on late counting. At the end of election night the Labor lead over the Conservatives was 0.16, it's now down to only 0.05.

This morning Labor's dropped yet further to 3.46, reducing their lead over the Conservatives to just 0.04. Meanwhile the Liberals are up to 3.86 now.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Something very interesting, In 8 Liberal held seats the TPP count is being counted against the SA Best candidate, and of the 8 in only 1 is there a swing to the Liberals. That 1 seat is Hartley, Xenophon's seat.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Swings by seat:
Liberal held vs Labor (17)
11 to Liberal
6 to Labor

Liberal held vs SA Best (8 )
1 to Liberal
7 to SA Best

Labor held vs Liberal (17)
15 to Labor
2 to Liberal

Labor held vs SA Best (2)
1 to Labor
1 to SA Best

Frome - Liberal

[AustralianSwingVoter]

ECSA has been reconducting the two party preferred in Hartley, between Liberal and Labor. Yes, it seems that Xenophon didn't even manage to make it into the top two. The margin barely changes, from 8.2 to 7.8, which is very interesting as it suggests that a great many Labor voters are putting the Liberals ahead of SA Best.