2019 ACT Senate Election – Analysis of Preferences

This is the second in my series looking at how the Senate’s new electoral system worked. This post is on the ACT, which like the Northern Territory, has only two Senators. Both Senators face the electorate every three years in terms tied to the term of the House of Representatives. (See my previous post on the Northern Territory for an explanation of territory Senators.)

(My earlier overall analysis of Senate voting can be found in this post.)

Like the Northern Territory, the ACT has returned the same party representation at every election since 1975. Every ACT Senate election has elected one Labor and one Liberal Senator. With the quota for election set at 33.3% quota, support for a major party would have to be well short of this vote to miss out on a seat.

(Hint – if you are viewing this post on a mobile phone, the tables look much better if you turn your phone sideways.)

The ACT is the most left-leaning jurisdiction in Australia, but not necessarily entirely Labor voting. In the past the Australian Democrats polled strongly in the ACT, reaching half a quota twice and polling 17.6% in 1990. The Greens have polled even more strongly, above half a quota at the last five elections with a highest vote of 22.9% in 2010. Under the Senate’s abolished group voting ticket system, there was always a chance that a minor party could win the Liberal Party’s traditional seat if its vote fell short of 33.3%.

Those chances have faded with the abolition of group voting tickets. With weaker preference flows, the Liberal vote would need to be well short of 33.3% to miss out on a seat. The Liberal Party have polled short of the quota five times since 1975 with a lowest vote of 31.2% in 1998. The graph below plots party vote percentages at ACT Senate elections since 1975.

In 2019 the Liberal vote again dipped below quota to 32.4%. But with the Greens polling 17.7% and Labor’s surplus beyond one quota being only 6%, there were always enough third party and exhausted preferences to ensure the Liberal Party’s Zed Seselja would be re-elected.

Further down this page I run through the distribution of preferences that elected Seselja. I also use the surplus votes of Labor’s Katy Gallagher to explain how preferences are distributed from candidates with more than a quota of votes.

But first, let me apply my overall Senate analysis categories to the ACT result.

Ballot Paper Analysis

Table 1 sets out the general categories of votes cast at the ACT election by party. Compared to the rest of Australia, many more ACT voters completed their ballot paper below the line, 21.4% compared to 7.3%. Only 66.1% of voters followed the ballot paper instruction by numbering 1-6 above the line compared to 80% in the rest of Australia.

Table 1 is listed in descending order of percentage party votes completed as 1-6 above the line votes. There were significant differences between parties on how voters completed their ballot papers.

Table 1 – 2019 ACT Senate – Ballot Paper Categories by Party

		% by ATL Preference Sequence
Party (Group)	Votes	1	2-5	6	7	BTL
Liberal (A)	87,492	1.8	2.5	75.7	7.8	12.2
United Australia (E)	6,130	2.3	3.3	70.5	12.0	11.9
Labor (G)	106,330	1.8	1.8	66.3	9.4	20.7
Sustainable Australia (F)	4,463	0.9	2.0	60.3	10.0	26.8
Greens (B)	47,855	0.6	1.6	60.2	9.4	28.1
Fraser Anning’s CNP (D)	2,461	1.3	2.0	60.1	10.5	26.1
IND Pesec (C)	12,604	1.7	0.9	20.6	10.4	66.5
Ungrouped	2,896	..	..	..	..	100.0
ACT Totals	267,335	1.6	2.0	66.1	9.0	21.4
National Totals	..	3.5	3.5	80.0	5.7	7.3

The lowest rates of below-the-line voting occurred with the Liberal Party and United Australia Party. With only 7 groups on the ballot paper, more voters in the ACT numbered beyond 6 preferences than in other states. ACT voters are familiar with filling in preferences on Hare-Clark ballot papers at ACT elections, and this explains why so many voters gave their own preferences below the line.

As occurred in other states, Independent Group C recorded a very low rate of above the line voting. There seems to be some confusion by voters when faced with a group that has no party name. My guess is that some voters think they cannot use the above-the-line square for groups that aren’t parties.

Table 2 sets out what I call ‘effective’ preference data for above-the-line votes. An effective preference is one that flows to a party in contention for a seat.  As the ACT was a two-party contest, the table looks very much like two-party preferred preference flows in the lower house.

Parties are ordered in descending order of preference flows to Labor. As you would expect, Green preferences flowed overwhelmingly to Labor, and the rates of flow to Labor declined as you would expect, with voters for Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party least likely to preference Labor.

Table 2 – 2019 ACT Senate – Effective Preferences by Party

Party (Group)	ATL Votes	% to ALP	% to LIB	% Exhaust
Greens (B)	34,389	87.5	11.3	1.1
Sustainable Australia (F)	3,269	60.4	37.7	1.8
IND Pesec (C)	1,818	55.7	38.9	5.4
United Australia (E)	5,403	38.1	58.6	3.3
Fraser Annings CNP (D)	1,818	27.6	69.9	2.5
Total Excluded Parties	49,103	75.3	22.8	1.8

Table 3 below shows how many preferences matched how-to-votes where available. Both the United Australia Party and Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party issued a how-to-vote that had a preference for the ungrouped column, an impossible option as there was no box above the line for ungrouped candidates. The available how-to-votes can be found here.

Labor and the Greens swapped second preferences and the majority of voters followed the recommendation. The proportion of Green voters following the how-to-vote was much higher than in the NT where the Greens had placed another party ahead of Labor.

Table 3 – 2019 ACT Senate – HTV Concordance by Party

		% of ATL Votes Matching Party HTV by Preference Number
Party (Group)	ATL Votes	2	3	4	5	6	>6
Labor (G)	84,274	65.6	22.7	19.8	16.5	15.8	1.1
Liberal (A)	76,827	43.1	31.1	22.5	21.6	21.1	0.3
Greens (B)	34,389	72.4	23.1	19.7	14.9	14.4	1.1
United Australia (E)	5,403	34.1	4.5	..	..	..	..
Fraser Anning’s CNP (D)	1,818	26.8	15.5	10.2	1.1	..	..

The major second preferences filled in by voters are listed below. ‘*’ indicates the party’s recommended second preference.

• Liberal (Group A) – *43.1% United Australia, 18.7% Labor, 14.9% Greens (donkey vote)
• Greens (B) – *72.4% Labor, 12.4% Sustainable Australia
• Pesec (Ind) (C) – 24.9% Labor, 23.7% Liberal, 23.9% Greens
• Fraser Anning’s CNP (D)– 43.6% United Australia, *26.8% Liberal, 14.5% Sustainable Australia
• United Australia (E) – *34.1% Liberal, 21.0% Sustainable Australia, 17.0% Labor, 13.6% Fraser Anning’s CNP
• Sustainable Australia (F) – 30.9% Greens, 24.0% Labor, 15.2% United Australia , 14.7% Liberal
• Labor (G) – *65.6% Greens, 14.7% Liberal

It is interesting to note how many Labor and Liberal voters preferenced the other major party over any minor party.

Overall First Preference Result

The table below sets out the first preferences votes, percentages and quotas by party and candidate, with a separate entry for above the line ticket votes.

Table 4 – 2019 ACT Senate – First Preference Votes by Candidate and Party

Group – Party/Candidates	Votes	% Votes	Quotas	% Ticket
G – Labor Party	106,330	39.35	1.1804	79.26
Ticket Votes	84,274	31.19
GALLAGHER, Katy	20,660	7.65
WAITES, Nancy	1,396	0.52
A – Liberal	87,492	32.38	0.9713	87.81
Ticket Votes	76,827	28.43
SESELJA, Zed	7,776	2.88
GUNNING, Robert	2,889	1.07
B – Greens	47,855	17.71	0.5313	71.86
Ticket Votes	34,389	12.73
KYBURZ, Penny	11,391	4.22
DAVIDSON, Emma	2,075	0.77
C – Group C	12,604	4.66	0.1399	33.51
Ticket Votes	4,224	1.56
PESEC, Anthony	8,163	3.02
KENT, Gary	217	0.08
E – United Australia	6,130	2.27	0.0681	88.14
Ticket Votes	5,403	2.00
WALTER, Peter	548	0.20
HODGSON, Rebecah Elen	179	0.07
F – Sustainable Australia	4,463	1.65	0.0495	73.25
Ticket Votes	3,269	1.21
HAYDON, John	892	0.33
ANGEL, Joy	302	0.11
D – Fraser Anning’s NCP	2,461	0.91	0.0273	73.87
Ticket Votes	1,818	0.67
VAN DUREN, Shane	563	0.21
BIRKETT, Scott	80	0.03
Ungrouped	2,896	1.07	0.0321	0.00
HOUSTON, Nick	1,349	0.50
COWTON, Gary	303	0.11
KIM, David	1,244	0.46

The above count is useful reminder that while we lump together the vote for a party’s candidates as a single total, the count is actually a contest between candidates. So while the total Labor vote was 106,330 (1.1804 quotas), Katy Gallagher had only 104,934 (1.1649 quotas). The Liberal ticket total was 87,492 (0.9713 quotas), but the vote for Zed Seselja was 84,603 (0.9392 quotas).

How to Distribute Preferences from Over Quota Candidates

As Katy Gallagher had more than a quota on first preferences, she was declared elected. Count 2 would then distribute Galagher’s surplus to quota votes. This is a useful opportunity to answer a question I am always asked – how do you decide which votes to distribute when a candidate has more than a quota of votes?

• First, what is a quota? The quota is calculated by dividing the formal votes by the (number of vacancies + 1), rounding the result down to the nearest whole number, and then adding 1. The total formal votes in the ACT was 270,231, the number of vacancies 2. So the quota is (270231 / (2 + 1)) and rounded down, which is 90,077, adding 1 gives a quota of 90,078. Two quotas add to 180,156 with 90,075 votes left over. Once two vacancies are filled, the remaining votes will always be lower than the quota.
• Katy Gallagher has 104,934 votes. This can be split into 90,078 votes that will be her quota, and a surplus of 14,856 votes.
• All of Gallagher’s ballot papers will be distributed as preferences, but at a reduced value known as a transfer value.
• The transfer value equals (Surplus votes) divided by (BallotPapers). In Gallagher’s case, the transfer value = 14,856 (the surplus) divided by 104,953 (total ballot papers) equals 0.1415747041.
• So how does the distribution work out? Gallagher had 84,274 Labor above the line ballot papers with first preference for her, and 20,660 below the line ballot papers with first preference for her, 15,555 of which had a next preference for the second Labor candidate Nancy Waites.
• Applying the transfer value to these totals, Labor’s 84,274 ATL ballot papers become 11,931 votes with second preference for Waites, and the 15,555 BTL ballot papers with 1 Gallagher 2 Waites becomes 2,202 votes for Waites.
• These add to 14,133 Gallagher votes transferred to Waites. Another 5,105 ballot papers or 723 votes left the Labor ticket at this second preference.

This distribution produces the following totals by candidate and party after distributing the Labor surplus. Ticket vote totals have been rolled into the first preference votes for the lead candidate on each ticket.

After Count 2

Group – Party/Candidates	Change	Votes	% Votes	Quotas
G – Labor Party	-723	105,607	39.35	1.1724
GALLAGHER, Katy	-14,856	90,078	7.65
WAITES, Nancy	+14,133	15,529	0.52
A – Liberal	+88	87,580	32.38	0.9723
SESELJA, Zed	+63	84,666	2.88
GUNNING, Robert	+25	2,914	1.07
B – Greens	+392	48,247	17.71	0.5356
KYBURZ, Penny	+341	46,121	4.22
DAVIDSON, Emma	+51	2,126	0.77
C – Group C	+159	12,763	4.66	0.1417
PESEC, Anthony	+157	12,544	3.02
KENT, Gary	+2	219	0.08
E – United Australia	+10	6,140	2.27	0.0682
WALTER, Peter	+8	5,959	0.20
HODGSON, Rebecah Elen	+2	181	0.07
F – Sustainable Australia	+24	4,487	1.65	0.0498
HAYDON, John	+17	4,178	0.33
ANGEL, Joy	+7	309	0.11
D – Fraser Anning’s NCP	+2	2,463	0.91	0.0273
VAN DUREN, Shane	+2	2,383	0.21
BIRKETT, Scott	0	80	0.03
Ungrouped	+41	2,937	1.07	0.0326
HOUSTON, Nick	+29	1,378	0.50
COWTON, Gary	+5	308	0.11
KIM, David	+7	1,251	0.46

Further Distributions

With no candidate having a quota, the count now proceeded by excluding the lowest polling candidates. In successive counts, the three ungrouped candidates and the second candidate on five of the party groups were excluded in ascending order of votes. The second placed Labor candidate remained in the count with her own votes and most of Katy Gallagher’s surplus. The second placed Liberal candidate Robert Gunning remained in the count with more votes than some of the remaining parties.

When a candidate is excluded, votes are distributed in bundles of equal and descending transfer values. Following the distribution of Gallagher’s surplus, every candidate had two bundles of votes, one being first preference votes at Transfer Value = 1, and a second bundle of ballot papers from Gallagher at Transfer Value = 0.1415747041.

So each excluded candidate resulted in two ‘counts’, the first of TransferValue = 1 votes, the second of Transfer Value = 0.1415747041 votes. Eight excluded candidates produced 16 counts.

The table shows the totals at Count 18 after the exclusions. I have kept the party total lines as well as candidate total lines. This shows how many votes left each party’s group on the exclusion of the second placed candidate.

Of the votes for second in group candidates, the following percentages flowed to the lead candidate. Greens 86.2%, Group C (IND) 66.8%, Fraser Anning’s CNP 65.0%, United Australia 64.8% and Sustainable Australia 75.2%

The second placed candidate for the Liberal and Labor Parties were not distributed at this point. Labor’s #2 candidate’s preferences went 72.2% to Katy Gallagher, but only 47.4% of Liberal #2 candidate’s preferences flowed to Zed Seslja.

After Count 18

Group – Party/Candidates	Change	Votes	% Votes	Quotas
A – Liberal	+915	88,495	32.75	0.9824
SESELJA, Zed	+733	85,399	31.60
GUNNING, Robert	+182	3,096	1.15
B – Greens	+136	48,383	17.90	0.5371
KYBURZ, Penny	+2,262	48,383	17.90
DAVIDSON, Emma	-2,126	0	0.00
G – Labor Party	+525	16,054	5.94	0.1782
WAITES, Nancy	+525	16,054	5.94
C – Group C	+663	13,426	4.97	0.1490
PESEC, Anthony	+882	13,426	4.97
KENT, Gary	-219	0	0.00
E – United Australia	+125	6,265	2.32	0.0696
WALTER, Peter	+306	6,265	2.32
HODGSON, Rebecah Elen	-181	0	0.00
F – Sustainable Australia	+421	4,908	1.82	0.0545
HAYDON, John	+730	4,908	1.82
ANGEL, Joy	-309	0	0.00
D – Fraser Anning’s NCP	+135	2,598	0.96	0.0288
VAN DUREN, Shane	+215	2,598	0.96
BIRKETT, Scott	-80	0	0.00
Ungrouped	-2,937	0	0.00	0.0000
HOUSTON, Nick	-1,378	0	0.00
COWTON, Gary	-308	0	0.00
KIM, David	-1,251	0	0.00

Counts 19-20 excluded Shane Van Duren (Fraser Anning’s CNP). As noted earlier, the party’s preferences flowed mainly to the United Australia Party and the Liberal Party. In the table below I’ve retained a total for the two Liberal candidates but have reduced other parties to a single party candidate.

After Count 20

Group – Party/Candidates	Change	Votes	% Votes	Quotas
A – Liberal	+696	89,191	33.01	0.9902
SESELJA, Zed	+666	86,065	31.85	0.9554
GUNNING, Robert	+30	3,126	1.16	0.0347
KYBURZ, Penny (GRN)	+83	48,466	17.94	0.538
WAITES, Nancy (ALP)	+142	16,196	5.99	0.1798
PESEC, Anthony (Grp C)	+119	13,545	5.01	0.1504
WALTER, Peter (UAP)	+1,150	7,415	2.74	0.0823
HAYDON, John (SAP)	+374	5,282	1.95	0.0586
VAN DUREN, Shane (FACNP)	-2,598	0	0.00
Exhausted	+33	33	0.01	0.0004

Counts 21-22 excluded the second Liberal candidate Robert Gunning. As noted above, less than half of his preferences had second preference for Zed Seselja. Seselja was now on 0.9730 quotas.

After Count 22

Group – Party/Candidates	Change	Votes	% Votes	Quotas
A – Liberal	-1,544	87,647	32.38	0.9730
SESELJA, Zed (LIB)	+1,582	87,647	32.43	0.973
GUNNING, Robert (LIB)	-3,126	0	0.00
KYBURZ, Penny (GRN)	+216	48,682	18.01	0.5404
WAITES, Nancy (ALP)	+336	16,532	6.12	0.1835
PESEC, Anthony (Grp C)	+615	14,160	5.24	0.1572
WALTER, Peter (UAP)	+200	7,615	2.82	0.0845
HAYDON, John (SAP)	+173	5,455	2.02	0.0606
Exhausted	+3	36	0.01	0.0004

Counts 23-24 excluded John Haydon (Sustainable Australia). His preferences favoured every other candidate ahead of Seselja.

After Count 24

Group – Party/Candidates	Change	Votes	% Votes	Quotas
SESELJA, Zed (LIB)	+755	88,402	32.71	0.9814
KYBURZ, Penny (GRN)	+1,620	50,302	18.61	0.5584
WAITES, Nancy (ALP)	+1,211	17,743	6.57	0.1970
PESEC, Anthony (Grp C)	+836	14,996	5.55	0.1665
WALTER, Peter (UAP)	+981	8,596	3.18	0.0954
HAYDON, John (SAP)	-5,455	0	0.00
Exhausted	+52	88	0.03	0.0010

Count 25 excluded Peter Walter (United Australia). This was more than enough votes to elect Zed Seselja to the second ACT seat.

After Count 25

Group – Party/Candidates	Change	Votes	% Votes	Quotas
SESELJA, Zed (LIB)	+3,876	92,278	34.15	1.0244
KYBURZ, Penny (GRN)	+1,478	51,780	19.16	0.5748
WAITES, Nancy (ALP)	+2,037	19,780	7.32	0.2196
PESEC, Anthony (Grp C)	+1,003	15,999	5.92	0.1776
WALTER, Peter (UAP)	-8,581	15	0.01	0.0002
Exhausted	+187	275	0.10	0.0031