South Australian state election - 17th March 2018

[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

[IceAgeComing]

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.

[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.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

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.

Assuming Bignell holds Mawson, I got the following seats wrong:

Finniss (thought SA-Best would get up)
Giles (ditto)
Hartley (I thought Xenophon would at least narrowly win his seat, pleased to see Tarzia get a good swing towards him in the end though)
Heysen (prime SA-Best territory, thought they'd win this especially as the sitting MP retired)
King (stupidly changed this from Liberal gain to Labor hold in my final prediction)
Mawson (underestimated Leon Bignell)
Newland (overestimated Tom Keynon)
Taylor (another SA-Best overestimation)

So 39/47, or 82.97% correct. Not too bad, done much better though (got Tasmania 100% correct).

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Another interesting thing, although SA Best flopped mightily in the House of Assembly, getting only 14.1% of the vote, in the Legislative Council they are currently on 19.3%. This suggests that if their campaign hadn't of flopped and they had maintained the position in the polls they had at the start of the campaign, that is, hovering at around 30%, then in the Legislative Council they would have performed even better, maybe getting close to 40%. All in all SA Best probably performed the best of any third party since One Nation in Queensland '98. The result is quite impressive for a third party, though of course not compared to the polls at the start of the campaign. If only Xenophon hadn't of done that stupid ad he could quite possibly be premier. SA Best is different from most third parties in that it's vote isn't really concentrated anywhere, rather it is spread out rather homogeneously. If they could of got 30% then, depending on preference flows, they could possibly of got a majority, and almost certainly would be the largest party.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Elizabeth has been recounted as Labor vs SA Best. This has reduced the margin from 17.7 to 13.9.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Port Adelaide and Ramsay have been recounted between Labor and SA Best. In Port Adelaide the margin falls from 16.8 to 11.1. And in Ramsay the margin falls from 18.9 to 15.5.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Some more Legislative Council votes in, and the Liberals are now up to 3.87. Beyond the quota-guaranteed 3 Lib-3 Lab-2 SAB, the fourth Liberal is guaranteed, the Green is certain, given Animal Justice preferences. The seat in doubt remains final seat, between the fourth Labor and the Conservatives.