Election: NSW Under Meek and Wright

Analysis of the NSW March 2011 State Legislative Council Ballot based on the detailed preference data published blatantly by the NSW Electoral Commission on August 3, 2011 indicated the following candidates are elected. (OpenSTV - Source Data)

| Count after transferring surplus votes. Keep factors of candidates who have exceeded the

| threshold: GALLACHER Mike, 0.081266; GAY Duncan, 0.088605; PEARCE Greg, 0.097127; CLARKE

| David, 0.107637; COLLESS Rick, 0.120694; MacDONALD Scot, 0.137060; CUSACK Catherine, 0.158742;

| MACLAREN-JONES Natasha, 0.188697; PHELPS Peter, 0.232255; BLAIR Niall, 0.302617; JOHNSTON

| Sarah, 0.432234; ROOZENDAAL Eric, 0.163670; DONNELLY Greg, 0.195524; SHARPE Penny, 0.242614;

| PRIMROSE Peter, 0.320513; KELLY Tony, 0.469467; FERGUSON Andrew, 0.870859; SHOEBRIDGE David,

| 0.335056; BARHAM Jan, 0.503748; and BROWN Robert, 0.919975. Candidate GREEN Paul has reached

| the threshold and is elected.

Winners are GALLACHER Mike, GAY Duncan, PEARCE Greg, CLARKE David, COLLESS Rick, MacDONALD Scot,

CUSACK Catherine, MACLAREN-JONES Natasha, PHELPS Peter, BLAIR Niall, JOHNSTON Sarah, GREEN Paul,

ROOZENDAAL Eric, DONNELLY Greg, SHARPE Penny, PRIMROSE Peter, KELLY Tony, FERGUSON Andrew,

SHOEBRIDGE David, BARHAM Jan, and BROWN Robert.

Likewise we under took analysis of the published data by excluding all but the last 22 candidates (Including Pauline Hanson) simulating the count  using the Wright System.  The results are the same - Detailed OpenSTV sheet sheet results.

To help you understand more how the system and method of counting the vote can and does distort the outcome of the election take a closer look at the 2007 Queensland Senate count.  

In 2007 Green's Candidate, Larissa Waters, was wrongfully denied representation.  The reason she was not elected was due solely to the distortion in the method of segmentation that is used in counting the Senate vote. A fact that Antony Green, ABC Electoral Analyst failed to understand or review. 

More information including count sheets using Meek and Wright methods of counting the vote.

2010 Victorian State Election - Legislative Council - BTL preference data files

We have published a full set of the below-the-line preference data files for the Victorian Legislative Council  that Victoria's Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully, refused to publish during the progress of the count.

13 Million dollars spent on software development and the VEC is unable or unwilling to make this crucial data available? Why?

Each zip file contains both the preliminary data set and the final data set as supplied by the Victorian Electoral Commission after the completion of the ballot.

• Eastern Metro BTL Preference data.zip (687k) Download
• Eastern Victoria BTL Preference data.zip (664)k Download
• Northern Metro BTL Preference data.zip (1232k) Download
• Northern Victoria BTL Preference data.zip (704k) Download
• South Eastern Metro BTL Preference data.zip (549k) Download
• Southern Metro BTL Preference data.zip (1025k) Download
• Western Metro BTL Preference data.zip (806k) Download
• Western Victoria BTL Preference data.zip (590k) Download

In 2006 Steve Tully refused to provide copies of the Legislative Council below-the line data files,  (We had to make an  FOI application for the data and then he only provided count B data for Western Metropolitan. When requested by the Victorian Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee to provide copies of the Count A data files, Steve Tully claimed that the data had been destroyed and overwritten and that no backup copies were made,  An extraordinary claim given that its costs millions of dollars to collate this information and it is hard to believe that any professional organisation would not have implemented backup procedures of the requested data. At a cost of 13 million dollars in software development it is hard to believe that backup copies were name made or were destroyed.

In 2010 Steve Tully once again refused to provide scrutineers copies of the below the line preference data files, this denying scrutineers the right to properly scrutinise the election. . This data which should have been published on on progressively as the count preceded has been now been made available but not yet published by the VEC.

We believe that this information should be readily available and that the election process must be open and transparent.   Steve Tully claims that he is not required to publish this data.  There are a lot of things he is not required to do but he does have an obligation and a duty to ensure that our public elections are open and transparent.  In not publishing this information live, as was the case with the election night polling place results Steve Tully has and continues to bring the conduct of the State Election into disrepute.  There is nothing in law that prevents this information being made public. It is a public document that the public have a right of access to. Copies of the preference data files was made available during the counting of the 2008 City of Melbourne municipal election. Why not the State election?

If Steve Tully cannot self regulate in the interest of maintaining an honest and transparent election he should resign and  the Victorian Parliament must legislate to ensure that this information is readily available progressively during the count

Segmentation and Surplus Transfer flaws come into play

Flaws in the way the Victorian Upper House is counted are likely to effect the outcome of the Western Metropolitan Region. The problem lies with the method of Segmentation and the calcualton of the Surplus Transfer Value.

Analysis, of what is going to be an extremely close and controversial count, has indicated that if the VEC used a mathematically correct and weighted formula for calculating a candidate's Surplus Transfer Value and  if the results were determined by a single transaction reiterative counting system. such as outlined in the Wright System, the result of the election could differ.  Likewise if Victoria had adopted the Meek method of counting the ballot. Both systems more accurately reflect the voters intentions

The quickest and easiest method of testing to see of the outcome is effected by Segmentation is to recount the ballot excluding all candidates except the last six left standing,  (ALP 3, Liberal 2, and Greens 1) Likewise you could apply the Western Australia method of calculating the Surplus Transfer Value again exlcuding all canidates except the last six standing. Similar flaws had denied Greens Candiat, Larrissa Waters election in the 2007 Queensland Senate count.

Segmentation is the system adopted that distributes an excluded candidates votes based on the value or group of votes allocated.  It was implemented to facilitate a manual count and to minimise the impact of the flaw in calculation of the Surplus Transfer Value.  It is akin  to dealing from the bottom of the deck in a game of cards. With a computerised electronic counting system there is no justification or need for segmentation.

All votes should be transferred in a single transaction.  Better still the ballot should be reset and started from a fresh following every exclusion.  This would allow for a recalculation of the quota taking into account any ballot papers that had exhausted and would allow minor party votes to contribute to a previously elected candidate's surplus value. All ballot papers are treated equally and distributed as if the excluded candidates had not stood.  One vote -one value.

Poll Bludger Dr of Tea Leaf Reading and misinformation as Contol of the upper-house is won by the Coalition

Poll Bludger Dr William Bowie has misread and miscalled the outcome of the Victorian Legislative Council election.  One week since the State election and the media is already tired of following the results of the election. Such is the extent of the media and public attention span.  The VEC has refused to provided summary details of the polling place declarations and the number of ballot papers issued and returned.  The figures provided show a significant discrepancy between the number of lower-house  ballot and the number for the upper-house in theory they should be the same.  Accoring to the last data available 10,000's of votes have gone missing and the VEC is not providing scrutineers with the information they require to ensure that all votes are counted bringing the VEC and the conduct of the election into disrepute.

In an extraordinary act of blind faith Dr Bowie has latched on to the hope and dream of corporate Australia's most rejected board aspirant Stephen Mayne,founder of crikey journal (which sponsors the good Dr's Tea Leaf reading clubs blog) and candidate for Victoria's upper-house Northern Metropolitan Region.

ABC Antony Green's registered party ticket calculator has Mayne listed as winning a seat on the Red velvet. Dr Bowie wrote

Stephen Mayne has discussed his prospects at length in his email newsletter, noting he has two hurdles to clear: first to stay ahead of the Greens at what appears as count 8 in the ABC’s projection, where he is currently on 1.54 per cent to the Greens’ 1.22 per cent, and then for the below-the-line count to not upset his applecart by putting him behind Liberal and Labor at the second last count. Mayne rates himself only a 50-50 chance of clearing the first hurdle as he expects the Greens to surge as absent votes are added. I’m not sure what was added today, but the addition has seen the Greens lose ground – possibly too much for Mayne, as Kevin Bonham argues in comments, because it will mean fewer of their preferences for him if he can stay ahead. Bonham reckons Mayne will need to significantly outperform Labor in preferences from the 3170 below-the-line votes which are recorded as going to him on the ABC projection, which treats all votes as above-the-lines.

Well the Dr's diagnose is wrong.  The Last results reported showed that Mayne had in fact fallen below the Green in at the crucial conjuncture in the count.  What Antony Green failed to take into account were the 309 votes for independent Adrian Whitehead.  At the last count before the VEC withdraw the publication of the results Whitehead had 309 votes - all of which followed his HTV Card and flowed onto to the Greens putting the Greens 2nd candidate ahead of Mayne. If Mayne can survive and out-poll the Greens he would win (The system in Victoria is not the same as in Tasmania).  The most likely result is a second seat win for the Liberal Party and if elected the LNP Coalition will have absolute control of both houses and as such will be in a position to undo all of the labor legislative changes that have been implemented over the last 11 years.

Dr Bowie has the Upper-house listed as being

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

	ALP	LIB	NAT	GRN	OTH	IN DOUBT
Eastern Metro	2	3
Northern Metro	2 (-1)	1		1		IND/LIB
South-Eastern Metro	3	2
Southern Metro	1 (-1)	3 (+1)		1
Western Metro	3	1		0 (-1)		LIB/GRN
Eastern Victoria	2	2	1
Northern Victoria	2	1 (-1)	1			LIB/CA
Western Victoria	2	2	1 (+1)		0 (-1)
TOTAL	17	15	3	2	0	3

Without knowing how many ballot papers were issued and returned it is still impossible to say for certian what the outcome wll be,

The most likely reality is that all three seats that Dr Bowie has in doubt will be won by the coalition mostly due to Sex Party who delivered the crucial 2-3% where it counted.  The Greens survived in Southern Metro because Sex Party topped by their vote pushing them ahead of Labor's Jenifer Huppert. Like wise Sex Party help the Liberals win in Western and Northern Metropolitan electorates.  And who handed out sex Party's how-to-vote cards?

Like Dr Bowie and the Media, The ALP head office had its eye off the upper-house ballot.  They failed to cut a good preference deal that would have seen control of the upper house remain out of reach for any single party let along the possibility of a incoming Liberal Government.

Green vote in decline kept alive by Sex in Zone 1

In what has turned out to be an exciting and close finish to the State  Election, the Brumby Labor Government has come within a bees whisker of retaining government in what now look like a possibility of a hung parliament. An excellent result for a Government seeking a historic 4th Term.

Victorians were concerned about the possibility of the Greens holding the balance of power, so much so that the Green vote had dropped by 4-5%.  With just under 70% of the vote counted the Greens look like losing a seat in Western Metropolitan to the Liberal party and only held on to Southern Metropolitan with the help of the Sex-Party whose vote increased from 2% to 3%.(See ABC Analyst Antony Green's Calculator) When compared with the August senate poll.

The Greens vote held up only within the Zone 1 Inner City area but was down in comparison to the Victorian Australian Senate vote in August.

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)