Green bias in Flawed ABC Calculator Against Melbourne and Sitting Independents

There is a noticeable flaw in ABC Anthony Green's Election Calculator in that he has awarded the seat of Melbourne to the Greens based on the Essential Research quarterly state poll

The Greens only won Melbourne in 2010 because the Liberal Party at the time preferenced them ahead of the ALP. A mistake they are unlikely repeat in September.

In 2010 the State Liberal party fearing a backlash from its supporters placed the Greens below the ALP this allowed then State ALP member Browyn Pike to hold on to the State Seat of Melbourne.

Without LNP preferences the the only way the Greens can hold on to the Seat of Melbourne is if ALP endorsed candidate Cath Bowtell polls third below the Greens and the Liberal Party after distribution of minor party candidates preferences. in which case Cath Bowtell's preferences will elect Adam Brandt.


LNP supporters will be conscious of this potential outcome and we will most likely see a repeat of the State By-election where LNP voters will fall behind Cath Bowtell in order to prevent the Greens from being re-elected.

All recent  polls including the Essential Research Poll are showing a Statewide drop in Greens support which lends even more to the flaws in Antony Greens Calculations. You can not apply a statewide swing overall to a specific seat such as Melbourne where the 2PP contest is not between the LNP and the ALP.

UPDATE:  It is clear that Antony Green has hard coded in the defeat of  Independent seats as shown by this scenario on his calculator

Green wites off Independents

ABC Election Analyst, Antony Green, has written off independents in the forth coming election by hard-coding in their defeat in the ABC Calculator.  There is no mention or  disclaimer of this fact

In review Greens Calculator could have been much better given the amount of money and resources the ABC has thrown out at it.

It should be possible to click on any seat and either display the results of the last election or adust individually each seat. Swings are not even across the country let alone within each state.

In  Green's Calculator he could have determined the success of Independents based on the swing associated with the TCP party. 

The Greens Party chances of holding on to the seat of Melbourne depends on where the ALP falls in the final three.  In 2010 the LNP Preferenced the Greens ahead of Labor, a move that caused considerable angst and upset within the Liberal Party and a mistake that was not repeated in the following State election.  The only way the Greens can hold on to Melbourne without LNP preferences is for the ALP's vote to slump to such an extent the ALP falls behind the Greens and the the LNP into third place.   Given the make of the seat (which covers Richmond, Fitzroy, Carlton, Brunswick, Flemmington, Parkville, Docklands and North Melbourne) we do not see that a likelihood, which begs the question "Why has Green hard coded Melbourne into begin a Green Seat in his Swing Calculator?"

Antony Green has done likewise with the other independent held seats (Denison TAS, Kennedy QLD, Lyne NSW and New England NSW)

Green's unauthorised use of Twitter brings ABC into disrepute

Antony Green, ABC Electoral Analysts, use of Twitter has brought the ABC into disrepute.

According Alan Sunderland, Head of Policy & Staff Development at the ABC,  Antony Green's Twitter account is not an official or authorised ABC account. As such it falls outside the parameters of the ABC charter 

The ABC has a policy on the use of social media which states that "Personal and professional use of social media by ABC staff and contractors must not bring the ABC into disrepute, compromise effectiveness at work, imply ABC endorsement of personal views or disclose, without authorisation,
confidential information"

The policy applies to all ABC workplace participants, which includes: 

all ABC employees  –  including  casual, fixed term and specified task employees, employees on probation, part-time employees, managers,  actors engaged under the  ABC  Actors  Agreement,
employees working from home as well as full-time and ongoing employees; people providing services to the ABC on a contract basis (including ABC artists) or on secondment from or to another organisation, even if they are only working at the ABC on a temporary basis;   

Interactive services, which include social media like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, are part of the ABC’s future as a public broadcaster and increasingly part of the work  and private lives of ABC staff and contractors. 

The ABC encourages use of social media to engage existing and new audiences with ABC content, and to seek and share user‐generated content. Use of social media by staff and contractors  is not limited to the  workplace  and  occurs for  professional  or personal purposes  both  in  and  out of work hours.

Four standards apply to work and personal use of interactive services, with ABC accounts and personal accounts, by staff and contractors, at any time:
1. Do not mix the professional and the personal in ways likely to bring the ABC into disrepute.
2. Do not undermine your effectiveness at work.
3. Do not imply ABC endorsement of your personal views.
4. Do not disclose confidential information obtained through work. 

The ABC will enforce the four standards as and when appropriate.

The problem is that Mr Greens Twitter account implies that it has been authorised and endorsed by the ABC.

Unlike other ABC Staff members who also hold a twitter account Mr Green's account makes direct reference to the ABC in his twitter id and user profile  @AntonyGreenABC.  Antony Green's Twitter Account is also listed on the ABC website.

No other ABC staff members personal twitter account makes this direct implication. 

Antony Green by implying his account is endorsed or authorized by the ABC and forms part of his employment duties has and continues to bring the ABC into disrepute.  There is no disclaimer or statement of disassociation or non-endorsement. As stated by Alan Sunderland his account has not been authorised and any implication that it has is in direct breach of the ABC policy guidelines and as such falls outside the standards and guidelines of ABC.


Alan Sunderland notes "Many users include disclaimers in the profile section of their accounts making it very clear that the views contained in the twitter feed are personal, Others do not specifically reference such disclaimers, but that in and of itself is not a contravention of policy. Regardless of whether such a specific disclaimer is made, the fact is that such accounts are (a) personal, and (b) subject to the Social Media Policy"

Catch 22

Antony Green continues to use the resources of the ABC mixing his personal and professional interests.

Western Metro; The flaw in the system ignored in Antony Green's analysis

The method used in calculating the results of the Victorian Legislative Council is flawed. It is not accurate and is semi proportional at best.

If you applied a reiterative count where the ballot is reset and the votes redistributed on every exclusion with a weighted calculation of the surplus transfer value the results are somewhat different to that which Antony Green has presented.

There are 422588 ballot papers

If you recount the vote excluding all candidates but the last six standing (3 ALP, 2 Liberals and 1 Green) and distribute all the votes based on the order of preferences allocated to continuing candidates .

1205 ballot papers exhaust without expressing a valid preference.

The quota based on the adjusted primary vote is 70229

After redistributing preferences and surpluses using a value based formula in calculating the surplus transfer value

The following are elected with quota
PAKULA, Martin 70229
EIDEH, Khalil 70229
FINN, Bernie 70229
ELSBURY, Andrew 70229

Last vacancy
HARTLAND, Colleen 70237
SMITH, Bob 69419

Exhausted with value 811

The gap between Hartland and Smith is 818 votes not 2012 as is derived using the VEC counting method.

Similar distortions were recorded in the 2007 Queensland Senate which resulted in Larissa Waters denied being elected to the sixth Queensland Senate spot.

The system in place does not accurately reflect the voters intention.

The distortion in the count arises from the method of calculating the surplus transfer value and the method of segmentation in redistributing excluded candidates votes.

The system was designed to facilitate a manual count. With the use of electronic counting there is no justification or merit in maintaining the flawed counting system. A reiterative weighted count such as the Wright System or Meek produces a much more accurate reflection of the voters intentions.

Posted by: democracyAtWork | December 18, 2010 at 04:38 PM

Election Night: Antony Green comes out and blames the VEC for data outage

Election night stuff-ups.  Data missing - Voters kept in the dark- Then problem is later discovered to be another ABC stuff up.  Last tally room - Green says.  But Antony Green remains silent as the VEC refuses to publish below the line data as the count progresses.

It shows you what can happen when information is not available and voters are left out in the dark.

Why our electoral system needs to be open and transparent and why data needs to be published live and in real time.

Watch the exciting stuff-up here

Antony Green's bias of denial

Antony Green says there is no bias yet he continually does not publish comments that differ from his own or he makes statements that are one sided (or bias).

First, an early election does not have to be a double dissolution, although that is the most likely option.

The above the line voting system was introduced to assist in the counting of the vote as well as limit informality, It has also artificially inflated the number of candidates running, as those who seek to influence the outcome of the election have realised that they can do so more effectively by forming a group as opposed to running as individuals.

Rather than impose an artificial threshold to prevent minor candidates from leapfrogging on the back of other minor candidates. A better alternative would be to maintain the option of grouping candidates on the ballot paper and increase the required nomination deposit to say $5,000 or more for each candidate and only refund the deposit for every 4% of the vote the group receives per candidate nominated (IE If a group nominates two candidates and only poll 5% they would get one deposit refunded not two)

When faced with losing a higher deposit we will see a significant reduction in the number of candidates nominating and we would no longer have the need to maintain or provide an above the line voting system.

A higher deposit would also reduce the number of candidates running that know they can not be elected.

In addition it would reduce the number of feeder groups that are only there to direct preferences to other groups or candidates which above the line voting encourages. Instead of having eight groups of to to five candidates each we will have eight individual candidates/group members without the need to impose an artificial representation threshold.

Antony Green suggest adopting an optional preferential voting along the lines of Victoria minimum of five preferences to limit the risk of informality. There is no logic in having a minimum of five you might as well make it one or if you follw the logic of optional preferential make voting optional altogether.

The allocation of preferences is an important aspect of the Australian electoral system.  it means that every vote counts\if the candidate of your first choice is not elected your vot6e is not discard and can be transferred to a candidate of your next choosing. a higher nomination deposit would have tegh effect of reducing the number of candidates to those that are serious and have reasonable prospects of being elected. If parties only nominate the number of candidates they can expect to win plus one other then ranking in order of preference the candidate of your choice is is  not ownerus.  If the voter makes a mistake double up or leaves a number out of sequence then the vote can still be considered up to that point.  Your vote counts more if all preferences are allocated.

Green rightly points out the situation were under current rules with optional preferential voting a candidate could be elected with less than a quota.  This is correct but the problem can readily be address by introducing a reiterative count here the count is reset and restarted on each exclusion, the quota being adjusted in the process  taking into consideration those votes that do not express a preference for a continuing candidate.

Both the Wright System and Meek method seek to address this problem.  They also address other issues such as the distortion in the result of the election that arise from the segmentation of the ballot, skipping candidates that are already elected and attributing a voteat a higher value to a lower ranked candidate and the flaw in the method used to calculate the surplus transfer value. Each vote should be equal in value and treated in the same manner.  If a candidate is excluded from the count then the ballot paper should be reallocated as if the excluded candiate had not stood. The same rules should apply to single member electorates as they do multi-member elelctorates.

A freer more informative discussion on the ABC election blog instead of bias censorship and one-sided bebate would be more helpful. If Green wants to prevent discusion and limit contibutions then publish his blog in the private sector.

Posted by: democracy AT work | 10/12/2010 10:06:38 AM

Green's Western Metro revision

Western metro

Analysis of the data currently available indicates that a drift of less than 3-4% of Sex Party's below-the line preference votes will deliver the seat to Bob Smith (assuming that the Lib/FF/DLP ticket flows in full to the ALP) If there is a 5% drift from FF/DLP and a 20% drift in Liberal Party below the line votes to the Greens then the percentage of drift required from Sex Party increases to around 9%, We can expect that the actual drift of Sex Party preferences from the ticket vote will be greater than 10%. Some will flow to the Liberal Party and be absorbed by the Liberals second quota.

Contrary to Antony Greens earlier predictions I do not see on the basis of the data available that the Greens will reach quota  in the fourth position. The above the line vote has assured a win for the Liberals second candidate and the contest will be fought out between the ALP and the Greens for the fifth spot.

Which ever Party loses there will be a request for a recount and a closer examination of the polling place returns.

There are currently over 4750 ballot papers outstanding, Baring another 500 votes going missing or a repeat of the data-entry errors that existed in the 2006 election anything can happen. Concern over the election is not helped by the fact that the VEC has refused to provide scrutineers copies of the below the line preference data files progressively throughout the data-entry process as was the case in the conduct of the City of Melbourne Count, the VEC has to date not provided a tally of the number of ballot papers issued and returned. This makes it that much more difficult to undertake a proper scrutiny of the ballot as the process is no longer open and transparent.

Without access to this information it is impossible to properly scrutinise an electronic count. Let alone a count that involves a preference data-entry process. If we are to maintain public confidence in our electoral system the conduct of the election must be open and transparent. Important Information should not be withheld as is currently the case.

Posted by: denocracyAtwork | December 08, 2010 at 01:35 PM

Greens not Home in West Metro

ABC electoral analyst, Antony Green, assessment of the current results has come up short.

Greens analysis is predicated on the Greens achieving quota before the Liberal Party. This is unlikely at this stage of the count. The Greens are heavily reliant on Sex Party to bring it over the line.

The Greens miss out on holding on to a seat with just a 10% drift in Sex Party below-the-line preferences to Labor. There are currently 1,190 Sex Party below-the-line preferences representing 9.7% of their Group total (0.28 of a quota) The Greens need close to 97% of Sex Party's Group vote to secure a quota.

The ALP is expected to collect most if not all of the DLP preferences and any surplus derived from a Liberal Party's second candidate win on the back of Family First preferences. For the sake of the exercise we can assume that Family first and the DLP are one and that their combined vote will elect the Liberals second candidate and then flow on to Labor. All three parties(FF, DLP and Liberals) preference the Greens last.

It is unclear if any of the DLP, Family first or Liberal below-the-line preferences will exhaust under Victoria new optional preferential rules. It is unlikely that either would have a significant leakage to the Greens certainly not enough to counter a 10% Sex Party below-the-line preference drift. (The estimate of a 10% drift in Sex Party below-the-line preferences is conservative and could be much higher, which will makes it even more harder for the Greens to be re-elected)

Update: Further analysis shows that a 9% Sex Party, drift to the ALP and 5% FF/DLP and 20% Liberal Drift to the Greens in below-the-line prefernces will see the ALP home and over quota.

Western Metro, once again, will be a close race but contrary to Antony Green's assessment the Greens Party is not favourite to win. With over 4,875 votes to be counted it is unlikely that the Greens will secure sufficient numbers to survive the count. But as they say it is not over until the fat lady sings and the election count is final.

We can expect a recount as both parties have already flagged as much should they not win the provisional count.

In 2006, five hundred votes went missing from the total vote tally between Count A and Count B. What happened to them is anyone's guess.

No one seams to know the final expected number of ballot papers issued and returned. A tabulated cross check with the lower house votes and the voting centre returns should under the circumstances prove interesting to say the least, which may explain why the VEC is reluctant to provide this information early. The fact that they are not making available copies of the below the line preference data files during the data-entry process is another issue of concern as it prevents scrutineers from closely monitoring the progress of the count and or verifying the integrity of the data file used to tabulate trhe results of the election.

Greens Calculator of misinformation

ABC Electoral Analyst, Antony Green';s calculator is once again providing false and misleading information.  Green has Stephen Mayne winning the converted fifth seat in Northern Metropolitan.

Green who makes an assumption that the below-the-line preference votes will follow the party ticket has failed to apply the same logic and assessment to independent Adrian Whitehead,  In fact Antony Green has left poor Adrian off the list all together.  Green claims that Whitehead will not effect the outcome of the election.  This may be the case but why has he left him out.  If you can make the assumption that all other below-the-line preferences will follow the general direction of the Party ticket why not included Whiteheads ticket?

Whitehead currently has 277 (Earlier counts had him over 350) votes all of which scrutineers say follow his ticket  and preference the Greens then exhaust under Victoria's optional preferential voting rules. It is unknown how many Party Below-the-line will also exhaust and what impact that will have on the count.

It would be more professional for Green to include Whiteheads vote in his analysis so that all players were treated equally.

Currently Antony Green has Stephen Mayne on 5088 votes and the Greens just below on 4747 votes.  if you add to that Whiteheads vote vote the results are much closer.  Greenslade be less defensive and more professional in his assessment by including Whitehead results, Instead of having his mates come to his defence of the indefensible. Thank god he is not a scientist or an investment banker.

Antony Green's Upper-house Analysis Under Review

In reply and reference to summary comments made by ABC Analysts, Antony Green and published on his blog

The Liberal/National Party Coalition will win 21, ALP 16, Greens 3 =  Total 40.


Western Metro

UPDATE: In a close forth competition at teh End the number of ballot that exhuasted favoured the Greens who managed to be elected ahread of Labor's Bob Smith just below quota. The extnt of exhaust was not expected.  2010 as teh forst year Victoria used an opertional prefential ballot.  Many people are critical of the instructions on the ballot paper which meny say encouraged voters not to fill in all preferences.  This has a detrimentral impact on Labor which lost the third seat to the Greens


There are some 32,000 votes still to be counted to tally the lower-house

Ordinary Votes: There are 212 more votes in the Region then record in the lower-house
Absentee Votes:  14988
Pre-Poll; 16808
Postal: 109

We can assume that most of the Below-The-Line votes will stay within the group of their first preference - very few votes break group.

The Greens need 100%+ of Sex Party votes to secure quota even then they are still 3% short of a quota (approximately 2150 votes). I do not see Family First or DLP voters backing the Greens any drift in preference allocations is likely to be off set by a drift in Sex Party votes

We expect the number of outstanding votes to favour Labor and will push the Liberals back to below quota and they will be in contest with the Greens for the last seat.


9% of Sex Party have voted Below-the-line  Many of them will be donkey votes which favours the ALP or they will not preference the Greens and will flow to the Liberal party or the ALP this will reduce even more the Greens chances of crossing the line.

In 2006 The VEC undertook a recount of votes, The total number of votes recorded in Count B was 500 votes less then in Count A. No satisfactory explanation had been =provided for this discrepancy in the vote tally. There as also a discrepancy of over 250 votes when compared with the lower house vote tally. The Greens won the second count by 127 votes.  The VEC refused to provide copies of the voting centre returns for comparison.  This information was requested under FOI. Preference Data-files pertaining to Count B wires made available three months after the election in compliance with our FOI application. Additional Information was later requested by the Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee but the VEC claimed that the data for Count A had been deleted and information overwritten. no backup copies were made. This prevented scrutineers from undertaking a detailed independent analysis of the 2006 elections results.

Northern Metro

Antony Green in making his analysis may have allowed his association with Stephen Mayne to cloud his professional assessment.  It could also be due to his lack of familiarity with the electorate or the fact that he does not know what information is outstanding.

UPDATE:
16:10 Update has just put Mayne behind the Greens. Antony Green's Calculator has excluded Adrian Whiteheads vote which currently listed at 276 (It will increase to over 350) Whitehead's vote flows to the Greens then exhaust. This puts the Greens ahead of Mayne and Mayne is excluded from the count. Mayne is on 5058 and the Greens on 5558 - Assuming all group votes follow the Group Ticket.


Currently the Liberals are winning the last seat with a margin of 53413 to 49386 with a total vote of 325025 (71.87% of the total enrolment as at the close of rolls rechecked)


Posted by: democracyATwork | December 06, 2010 at 06:13 PM


The worst counted Region by the VEC,  The lower-house is also way behind all other reason with many Pre Poll, Absentee and Postal votes yet to be recorded.

(The number outstanding is known as information has not been made available to scrutineers as to what has been issued and what has been returned. This was the seat where the VEC in 2006 made the triumphant stuff up of provisionally declaring elected the DLP candidate without checking that the number of votes recorded in the computer matched the number of votes expected. - Lack of due diligence. They won't want to make the same mistake this year. We suspect that theyb have had trouble again this year reconciling the vote  whihc expkains why they have refiused to provided scutineers with a running tally of the number of votes issued and returned.  Information that they should have known on teh Sunday following the election - With the exception of a few postal votes still in the mail)

There are some 70,000 votes still to be counted

Much depends on whether Steven Mayne can outpoll the Greens surplus. Last count before the VEC pulled the curtain closed at 80% counted Mayne had fallen behind the Greens. With a number of large inner city booths to be counted we expect this will increase the Greens vote and place Mayne out of contention.

Antony Green's calculator does not take into account some 320 preferences for Adrian Whitehead, all of which preference the Greens then exhaust as per his ticket. This gives the Greens an edge and we expect the Greens will further outpoll Mayne in the final count.

With Mayne out of contention the contest will be between Labor's Nathan Murphy and the Liberals second candidate, Craig Ondarchie. The Liberals have the advantage and we doubt that Murphy can catch up.  Murphy would need over 70%  or more of the outstanding votes to favour Labor before the Liberals some of them will be absorbed in the increased quotas of those candidates already elected in the primary count.  Prediction Liberals will win the last spot by a clear margin giving the Liberal Party absolute control of both houses.Outside chance that Labor can regain ground.


 
VEC process and published data 

Much of the 2010 as with the 2006 election count has been marred by the Victorian Electoral Commission not proving information as to the number of ballot papers issued and received back.  This makes it that much more harder to scrutinise and analysis the expected results as the goal posts and location of the finish line is unknown.

Further the VEC is not proving copies of the BTL preference data files as the count progresses this prevents the proper scrutiny of the electronic count.  This Information was made available during the City of Melbourne Council count and by the AEC within a day of completing the data entry process.

In 2006 we had to FOI the VEC to gain access to this information which was provided only in part 3 months after the election.

Message to Antony Green ABC blog

Your calculator does not include the preference allocation for ungrouped independents.

In Northern Metropolitan Adrian Whitehead received 309 primary votes before the VEC pulled the publication of the election results.

If you look at Adrain Whitehead's HTV card your will see that he preferences directly to the Greens then exhausts.

Your calculator was showing incorrectly Stephen Mayne in a winning position when in fact he was behind the Greens' second candidate by 120 votes at the crucial juncture in the count. Mayne would have been eliminated and the Liberal Candidate was placed to win the fifth seat by a margin of 6,800 votes.

Analysis: Antony Green's outdated analysis based on 2006 data using 2010 preferences

Looks like Antony Green's getting sloppy and lazy as the days go bye. His latest attempt at analysing the likely Legislative Council outcome based on the registered Group voting tickets  was seeded using the 2006 vote. Something that Poll Bludger, Dr. William Bowe, did not pickup on.His previous analysis failed to take into consideration the absentee, postal and pre poll data. (Little wonder why he did not pick up on the fact that the 2007 Queensland Senate vote elected the wrong candidate. Larissa Waters missed out innin g a seat as a result of how the vote was counted. Green  was too lazy to do the analysis. Not to foget his false and miselading evidence to the Australian Paliamentary review committee estimate at the time it would take to modidy the AEC counting proceedures - and he is on the ABC pay gravy train)

ABC Antony Green's Projected Legislative Counci (sic) Preference Ticket results

	ALP	LIB	NAT	GRN	DLP	Seats
Old Council	19	15	2	3	1	40
Green's Predicted New Council	18	16	3	3	..	40

Our summary based on the Senate vote prediction for the upper house

Region	ALP	LNP	GRN
Eastern Metropolitan	2	2(3)	1(0)
Eastern Victoria	2	3
Northern Metropolitan	3(2)	1(2)	1
Northern Victoria	2	3
South Eastern	3	2
Southern Metropolitan	1	3	1
Western Metropolitan	3	1	1
Western Victoria	2	2	1

Total

18 (17)

17(19)

5(4)

Review of Antony Greens flawed Senate to Victoria’s Upper house comparison

Errors we pay for exposed.

(Greens comments in italics)

One difficulty in using the Senate results is that there were many more parties and groups contesting the Senate election than are likely to nominate for the Legislative Council. 

This is not an issue in making valid comparisons and analysis.  The information available indicates clearly where the minor party support is likely to fall

Overall the Victorian Senate saw Labor poll 37.8% compared to 41.4% at the 2006 LC election, the Coalition polled 34.4% down from 39.0% in 2006, while the Green vote rose from 10.6% in 2006 to 14.6% at the 2010 Senate election. Family First declined from 3.9% to 2.6%, and the DLP rose slightly from 2.0% to 2.3%. 

The drop in support is a reflection of the electorate and also reflects current public opinion polls.

In 2006 Labor won 19 Legislative Council seats, the Coalition 17 (Lib 15, Nat 2), the Greens 3, and the DLP winning the final seat in Western Victoria thanks to Labor's decision to preference the DLP ahead of the Greens.

Based on the Senate figures, there are two possible change to the composition of the Legislative Council, the Greens taking a seat from the Liberals in Eastern Metropolitan, and the final seat in Western Victoria again dependent on Labor preferences. Based on the Senate vote, the DLP don't have enough vote to win any seats. However, if the DLP's Peter Kavanagh can poll 5-6% in Western Victoria, he could still win the final seat depending on Labor's preference decision.

WRONG GREEN ASSESMENT

Liberal preferences could also play a part in determining whether Labor or the Greens win the final seat in Northern and Western Metropolitan region.

On the analysis set out by region below, Labor would win 19 seats, the Coalition 16, the Greens four plus a fifth seat in Western Victoria if Labor changes its 2006 preference decision. However, if Labor polls as well as it did at the Senate election, then Labor with 19 seats may see advantage in helping the DLP maintain a Legislative Council presence.

It is possible that Labor's LC vote will be lower than at the Senate election. However, the only Labor seat that looks at risk is the second position in Southern Metropolitan. Labor would have to poll very badly to lose seats in other regions.

(The party codes in the tables below are FFP - Family First, DLP - Democratic Labor Party, SEX - Australian Sex Party, LDP - Liberal Democratic Party, SF - Shooters and Fishers.)

Eastern Metropolitan Region
	ALP	L/NP	GRN	FFP	DLP	SEX	LDP	SF	OTH
2006 State % Vote	36.0	44.8	10.5	4.4	1.6	..	..	..	2.7
Quotas	2.16	2.69	0.63	0.27	0.09	..	..	..	0.16
Seats Won	2	3	..	..	..	..	..	..	..
2010 Federal % Vote	33.6	40.2	14.2	3.1	1.8	2.1	1.7	0.8	2.5
Quotas	2.02	2.41	0.85	0.19	0.11	0.12	0.10	0.05	0.15
Green's predicted seats won	2	2	1	..	..	..	..	..	..
Our prediction seats won	2	2(3)	1(0)	..	..	..	..	..	..

On Senate figures, the Green vote is close enough to a quota to win the final seat, gaining a seat from the Liberal Party. It seems unlikely that Labor will be of much assistance for the Greens, any decline in Labor vote since 2006 likely to leave Labor with little or no surplus beyond two quotas. A Green victory will require the Greens to approach the full quota, as the preferences of smaller parties such as Family First and the DLP will favour the Liberal Party.

The Status quo of ALP 2 LNP 3 is most likely outcome

Eastern Victoria Region
	ALP	L/NP	GRN	FFP	DLP	SEX	LDP	SF	OTH
2006 State % Vote	34.9	47.8	9.2	4.5	1.2	..	..	..	2.4
Quotas	2.09	2.87	0.55	0.27	0.07	..	..	..	0.15
Seats Won	2	3	..	..	..	..	..	..	..
2010 Federal % Vote	33.2	40.8	12.7	3.0	1.8	2.3	1.7	2.1	2.5
Quotas	1.99	2.45	0.76	0.18	0.11	0.14	0.10	0.12	0.15
Green’s predicted seats won	2	3	..	..	..	..	..	..	..
Our prediction seats won	2	3	..	..	..	..	..	..	..

The Coalition will run a joint ticket at the 2010 election. In 2006 the Liberal Party polled 2.35 quotas and the Nationals 0.52 quotas, the preferences of the Liberals and smaller parties delivering victory to the National Party. Once again, with Labor polling around two quotas, the Greens would need close to a quota in their own right to take a seat from the Coalition.

No change

Northern Metropolitan Region
	ALP	L/NP	GRN	FFP	DLP	SEX	LDP	SF	OTH
2006 State % Vote	49.0	23.2	17.1	2.8	5.2	..	..	..	2.9
Quotas	2.94	1.39	1.02	0.17	0.31	..	..	..	0.17
Seats Won	3	1	1	..	..	..	..	..	..
2010 Federal % Vote	44.1	21.9	22.0	2.0	2.6	2.1	1.5	0.8	2.9
Quotas	2.65	1.32	1.32	0.12	0.16	0.13	0.09	0.05	0.17
Green’s predicted seats won	3	1	1	..	..	..	..	..	..
Our prediction seats won	3(2)	1(2)	1	..	..	..	..	..	..

In 2006 the DLP came surprisingly close to beating Labor in the race for the final seat. A data entry error in the first count in fact delivered victory to the DLP, a result reversed on the re-count. On the Senate figures, the race would be on between Labor and a party of the right for the final seat. The Greens would have to increase dramatically on the Senate result to have a chance of winning a second seat, and that seat could only come at the expense of Labor. On the Senate results, Green preferences would deliver the last seat to Labor.

In 2006 the Liberal preference ticket put Labor ahead of the Greens. Were that repeated in 2010, the Greens would have no chance of winning a second seat on the Senate figures. If the Liberals directed preferences to the Greens, there would be an outside possibility of the Greens reaching a second quota.

The Liberal Party have placed the Greens last on all its Group voting tickets there is a possibility that the last seat could go to the Liberal Party

Northern Victoria Region
	ALP	L/NP	GRN	FFP	DLP	SEX	LDP	SF	OTH
2006 State % Vote	30.1	50.3	7.3	3.7	2.1	..	..	..	6.5
Quotas	1.81	3.02	0.44	0.22	0.13	..	..	..	0.38
Seats Won	2	3	..	..	..	..	..	..	..
2010 Federal % Vote	32.7	41.8	10.2	3.3	2.2	2.6	1.8	2.7	2.8
Quotas	1.96	2.51	0.61	0.20	0.13	0.15	0.11	0.16	0.17
Green’s predicted seats won	2	3		..	..	..	..	..	..
Our prediction seats won	2	3	0	..	..	..	..	..	..

The Coalition will run a joint ticket in 2010. In 2006 the Liberals polled 1.75 quotas, the Nationals 1.27. With many more choices of smaller right-wing parties at the Senate election, the Coalition did not poll as well. The most likely result will be three Coalition two Labor, as any Labor shortfall on the second quota will probably see the Greens excluded and elect the second Labor candidate.

No Change

South Eastern Metropolitan Region
	ALP	L/NP	GRN	FFP	DLP	SEX	LDP	SF	OTH
2006 State % Vote	49.8	33.7	7.2	5.3	0.9	..	..	..	3.1
Quotas	2.99	2.02	0.43	0.32	0.05	..	..	..	0.19
Seats Won	3	2	..	..	..	..	..	..	..
2010 Federal % Vote	43.9	30.7	11.3	3.3	2.9	2.3	2.0	0.8	2.8
Quotas	2.63	1.84	0.68	0.20	0.18	0.14	0.11	0.16	0.17
Green’s predicted seats won	3	2	..	..	..	..	..	..	..
Our prediction seats won	2	2	1	..	..	..	..	..	..

Based on Senate results, the Greens lead Labor in the race for the final seat. However, based on past preference tickets, the smaller right of centre parties will put Labor ahead of the Greens, ensuring Labor will benefit from preferences once the Liberal Party fill their second seat.

The Greens will pickup preferences from Sex Party which will put them above the ALP who will then in turn ensure the Greens are elected to the last position

Southern Metropolitan Region
	ALP	L/NP	GRN	FFP	DLP	SEX	LDP	SF	OTH
2006 State % Vote	31.2	46.2	15.7	2.2	1.2	..	..	..	3.5
Quotas	1.87	2.77	0.94	0.13	0.07	..	..	..	0.22
Seats Won	2	2	1	..	..	..	..	..	..
2010 Federal % Vote	28.6	41.6	20.9	1.1	1.3	2.0	1.7	0.5	2.2
Quotas	1.72	2.50	1.26	0.07	0.08	0.12	0.10	0.03	0.13
Green’s predicted seats won	2	2	1	..	..	..	..	..	..
Our prediction seats won	1	3	1	..	..	..	..	..	..

(Update: If you try and apportion the declaration vote from the federal electorate to the state regions, you get slightly different percentages, Labor 28.1, Liberal 42.0 and Green 20.7. I don't see that these numbers require me to change the comments below.))

In 2006 the Labor Party filled its second quota just ahead of the third Liberal, the result determined by below the line votes and the number of voters who exhausted their below-the-line votes. On the Senate figures, the Greens will have in excess of a quota and any Green surplus will be of assistance to Labor in winning a second seat. The chances of the Liberals winning a third seat would require a drop in the Labor vote, but it won't help the Liberal cause much if those Labor votes simply switch to the Greens. If the Liberal vote increases, chances of them winning a third seat increases.

This is one of the major floors in Greens analysis.  But not taking into account the Absentee, Postal and Pre-poll votes your distort the statistics.  This electorate has a large Jewish population which does not vote on Saturday they opt for other options such as  pre-polling or postal voting. This is a significant floor in Green’s assessments as it can provide a 1% variation in each of the three major parties.  In the Case of Southern Metro it is very much significant in determining the outcome of this seat which is the most likely to go down to the wire.  If the Greens plus the Sex Party vote falls below quota then the results could be ALP 2 LNP 3. Most likely outcome will be ALP 1, LNP 3, GRN 1. The ALP only picks up preferences from the Greens.,  If the combined Green surplus and the ALP primary is above 50% (Unlikely) then the status quo will be retained.  The Sex Party preferences the Liberal Party via the Greens (Adding insurance to the Greens but most likely will flow direct to the Liberal Party of the Greens are elected on primary vote.

TARGET GREENS BELOW 14%
If the Greens primary vote falls below 14% then Labor could be back in the game.

Western Metropolitan Region
	ALP	L/NP	GRN	FFP	DLP	SEX	LDP	SF	OTH
2006State % Vote	58.7	24.5	9.4	4.0	1.1	..	..	..	2.3
Quotas	3.52	1.47	0.56	0.24	0.06	..	..	..	0.15
Seats Won	3	1	1	..	..	..	..	..	..
2010 Federal % Vote	50.0	22.3	13.3	2.8	3.4	2.2	1.9	1.0	3.0
Quotas	3.00	1.34	0.80	0.17	0.20	0.13	0.11	0.06	0.18
Green’s predicted seats won	3	1	1	..	..	..	..	..	..
Our prediction seats won	3	1	1	..	..	..	..	..	..

In 2006 Labor came very close to winning a fourth seat. Initially the second Liberal was excluded and Liberal preferences elected a fourth Labor candidate. On the re-count the Labor vote fell just short of the second Liberal at a key point, and Labor was excluded, Labor preferences electing a Green. On the Senate figures, Labor easily win three seats and the Liberals one, with the Greens favoured to reach the final quota. On the Senate figures, the only way the Greens could lose is by the Liberal Party and smaller right-of-centre parties to do a tight preference exchange and stack preferences to reach a quota. A Green victory would be helped by Labor polling above the third quota if the Greens fall short of a quota.

In 2006 The ALP had initially won 4 seats and the Liberal Party 1. In a recount there was 500 votes in total vote discrepancy between Count A and Count B.  Either the VEC double counted or votes went missing. The Greens won the recount by less than 150 votes. When the Parliament asked for copies of the “Below-the-line” preference data for Count A the VEC claimed that the information was deleted/overwritten.  No backup copies made or available. As such there is no means of independent analysis or verification of the outcome of the election.

Western Victoria Region
	ALP	L/NP	GRN	FFP	DLP	SEX	LDP	SF	OTH
2006State % Vote	42.0	40.9	8.6	3.9	2.7	..	..	..	1.9
Quotas	2.52	2.45	0.52	0.24	0.16	..	..	..	0.11
Seats Won	2	2	..	..	1	..	..	..	..
2010 Federal % Vote	39.9	34.6	11.9	2.9	2.3	2.4	1.5	2.0	2.5
Quotas	2.39	2.07	0.71	0.18	0.14	0.14	0.09	0.12	0.15
Green’s predicted seats won	2	2	1	..	..	..	..	..	..
Our prediction seats won	2	2	1	..	..	..	..	..	..

The Coalition will run a joint ticket in 2010. In 2006 the Liberals polled 2.12 quotas and the Nationals 0.33. Minor party preferences put the DLP ahead of Family First, then Family First preferences put the DLP ahead of the Liberal plus National total, and then Labor's decision to give preferences to the DLP ahead of the Greens elected the DLP's Peter Kavanagh. On the Senate figures, who wins the final seat would be determined by Labor preferences. In the above figures, I have assumed Labor would direct preferences to the Greens, but if Kavanagh can improve his vote compared to 2006, and Labor choose to direct preferences to him, then he could again win the final seat.

Labor has not preferenced the DLP (The DLP has also not preferenced the ALP as such the National party or the Greens (which pick up the ALP surplus) is elected to the last seat.

In summary based on the Senate vote our prediction for the upper house

Region	ALP	LNP	GRN
Eastern Metropolitian	2	2(3)	1(0)
Eastern Victoria	2	3
Northern Metropolitan	3(2)	1(2)	1
Northern Victoria	2	3
South Eastern	3	2
Southern Metropolitan	1	3	1
Western Metropolitan	3	1	1
Western Victoria	2	2	1

Total

18 (17)

17(19)

5(4)