By-elections

Preference Flows at the Secret Harbour By-Election

Update after full distribution of preferences published: The Liberal Party polled 4,777 votes. During the distribution of preferences, its tally rose to 6,018 votes. When excluded, 3,549 votes transferred to One Nation. That means it is mathematically impossible for Liberal preferences to flow to One Nation at a rate higher than 74.3%. (3549/4777).

My original estimate based on flow data counted out for the Early Voting Centre was that 70.2% of Liberal preferences flowed to One Nation. While I cannot update that number from the distribution of preferences, the lower Liberal vote on polling day suggests to me the % flow of Liberal preferences to One Nation is under 70%.

A quick break from my holiday to deal with some nonsense claims made about preference flows at the Secret Harbour by-election.

In this YouTube video, Topher Field uses some weird maths to come to the conclusion that the Secret Harbour by-election saw a record flow of Liberal and right-wing candidate preference flows to One Nation.

It is a bit hard to be clear what he is saying, but I think he comes to the conclusion that once you exclude left-wing parties from the calculations, 88% of preferences from right parties, including the Liberal Party, flowed to One Nation.

This claim is rubbish and preference flow data released by the WA Electoral Commission shows that claim to be wrong.
Read More »Preference Flows at the Secret Harbour By-Election

Break in Transmission

A quick post to let everyone know that I won’t be doing much posting on politics through September. That includes there being no coverage of the Secret Harbour (WA) by-election on 29 August.

I’m currently in Bled, Slovenia, where I’m heading off on my latest European cycling holiday. More detail inside the post for those interested. If I have the energy I might do the odd post on the trip here, but more likely I’ll post pictures on X.
Read More »Break in Transmission

Why Australia Doesn’t Have Novelty Candidates like Count Binface

As I wait to hear the result of the UK’s Clacton by-election, I thought I should ponder the question of why Australia doesn’t have novelty candidates.

The Clacton by-election was triggered by the resignation of Reform Party Leader Nigel Farage. The announcement came amid parliamentary scrutiny of Farage’s personal finances, and allegations concerning undeclared gifts and support. He is re-contesting the seat to, as he puts it, let the people rather than the establishment decide his fate.

It has rather backfired on Farage as none of the ‘establishment’ parties are contesting. His major opponent has turned out to be serial novelty candidate Count Binface, in real life known as Jonathan David Harvey, an Oxford classics graduate and television comedy writer.

The record field of 34 also includes Nick the Incredible Flying Brick, Howling Laud Hope and Baron Von Thunderclap, candidates for Britain’s ‘establishment’ novelty party, the Monster Raving Loony Party.

So how is this allowed and why doesn’t it occur in Australia?

Well, it sort of used to occur, but the law was tightened after several protest candidates representing the Abolish Child Support/Family Court Party adopted vvvveeerrrryyyy lloonngg names to contest the 1998 Federal election.Read More »Why Australia Doesn’t Have Novelty Candidates like Count Binface

The Financial Review’s Inaccurate Preference Analysis

One Nation’s polling surge has triggered an intense dissection of recent election results.

One Nation made the final preference count at the recent Farrer by-election. One Nation also finished in the final preference pairing in more than half of South Australian electorates at the state election in March. These results offer a mine of data where One Nation is a recipient of preferences rather than a provider.

Trying its luck dissecting the results on 7 June was the Australian Financial Review. It published an analysis piece on Farrer and South Australia headlined “How One Nation is winning the preferences war (with the Greens’ help)”.

As I will outline in this post, the article has confused published preference distribution data with more accurate but unavailable preference flow data. And the remark about Greens preferences isn’t backed by my analysis of the data.

The article was published three days before the Farrer flow data was released and the South Australian analysis has been attributed to preference flow data that is not available.

With the South Australian results, the article uses preference transfer data to draw some odd conclusions about Green preferences, and illustrates flows for other parties that aren’t justified given the quality of the data.

That the analytical problems, which I’ll explain in this post, have passed without much comment from anyone is due to the published chart included below. The chart tries to show SA preference flows from other parties to One Nation.

The chart’s meaning and data source are hard to unravel, but mirth has been the main reaction due to the inclusion of imaginary party names. It has caused the AFR to publish a correction and remove the chart from the on-line article.

LCP, an acronym for the Legalise Cannabis Party, is rendered as the Liberal Catholic Party. FGA, for Sarah Game’s Fair Go Australia, is transformed into the Family Guardian Association.

To the best of my knowledge, neither party name has ever been used in Australia.

It looks to me like a case of AI ‘hallucination’, AI asked to convert codes into party names and guessing it wrong. I doubt a human made those errors.

But enough cheap shots over party names. What I really want to explain is the article’s problems with data source and analysis.

With Farrer, I want to explain how the chart used to demonstrate the composition of One Nation’s winning vote uses the wrong data. It results in an incorrect emphasis on whose preferences were responsible for One Nation’s final margin.

With South Australia, the available data cannot be used to isolate the preference flows shown in the now deleted AFR chart. And the data that is available does not support the headlined conclusions about Greens preferences.

In both cases the problem comes down to limitations on how you can use preference transfer data from published distributions. The data must be treated with caution and can’t be automatically compared with more accurate preference flow data.Read More »The Financial Review’s Inaccurate Preference Analysis

2026 – Farrer By-election – Final Count Data Released

This morning the AEC finalised counting for the Farrer by-election with the release of detailed preference data.

It answers what I thought was a key question in the result – whether there was a difference between Liberal and National preference flows to One Nation. It was not possible to answer this question using the previously released full distribution of preferences.

Preference flow data tallies destination preferences from the primary votes for each excluded candidates to one of the final two candidates. In Farrer this data tallies preferences from ten excluded candidates to One Nation’s David Farley and Independent Michelle Milthorpe, the final pairing of candidates. Preference flow data ignores the intermediary stages published as part of the formal distribution of preferences.

The data released today reveals a difference in preference flows by supporters of the two Coalition parties . Liberal voter preference flows to One Nation were 59.0% compared to 69.1% for Nationals voters.

The flow data also reveals that One Nation’s David Farley did not need Liberal preferences to win. In the full distribution of preferences, Farley did not pass 50% until the Liberal candidate was the last excluded. Using the flow data where National preferences do not first flow through the Liberal candidate, Farley reached 50.2% on the flow of National preferences without the need for any Liberal preferences.

The question is whether the different flows tell us anything about how Liberal and National preferences would flow at a general election. In Farrer there was no Labor candidate in the final pairing. I suspect both National and Liberal preference flows to One Nation would have been higher in a final contest involving Labor rather than an Independent.

But it does suggest that Liberal preferences to One Nation will be weaker than those of National candidates. That was the case two decades ago in Queensland before the formation of the LNP. It in part reflects the different appeal of One Nation in rural electorates contested by Nationals versus the flows in urban electorates contested by Liberal candidates. One Nation polled a high enough first preference vote in Farrer for this difference not to matter. But a lower primary vote and weaker Liberal preferences would hamper One Nation hopes of winning urban seats.

Against this view, that the Liberal candidate drew top spot on the ballot paper with Milthorpe in second position suggests that the donkey vote may have played a party in the weaker Liberal preference flows to One Nation.

And it has to be remembered that preference flows from voters on the right of politics have always been weaker than from voters on the left. One Nation and the two Coalition parties rarely achieve the sorts of flows produced by the Greens in Farrer. Despite polling only 2.3% of the vote, Greens preferences flowed 91.8% to Independent Michelle Milthorpe. At general elections, Green voter preferences to Labor are consistently above 85%, a figure that the Liberal and National parties struggle to achieve from their supporters in three cornered contests.

I haven’t had time to pull apart the data by polling place, but the swing to One Nation was smaller in Albury, by far the largest regional centre in the seat. It was also in Albury where Liberal and Milthorpe support was strongest. Farley was better known in the west of the electorate where National support was also strongest. It may be the different preference flows reflect this familiarity with local candidates and the weaker One Nation support in Albury.

There’s more data on the preferences inside the post, along with an effort to graph the preferences data. Read More »2026 – Farrer By-election – Final Count Data Released

2026 – Stafford By-election – Count Centre Summary Tables

The tables in this post summarise the results by count centre.

  • The first table shows the Labor primary and two-candidate preferred vote by count centre and associated swings since the 2024 state election.
  • The second table shows count centre percentages after summarising the nine candidates down to four group totals, Labor, LNP, Greens and ‘Others’.
  • The third table shows change in results by count centre since the 2024 election using the four party group in the previous point.

Links: Result Summary | Commentary | Count Centre Summaries | Count Centre Results
Read More »2026 – Stafford By-election – Count Centre Summary Tables

2026 – Stafford By-election – Result Summary

Tonight and in coming days, this post will publish an overall summary of the results of the 2026 Stafford state by-election in Queensland. The page will be regularly updated on election night and in the days that follow. Tonight there will also be links below to commentary on the results and more detail on the results by polling place.

Links: Result Summary | Commentary | Count Centre Summaries | Count Centre Results
Read More »2026 – Stafford By-election – Result Summary

Stafford By-election Preview

Last week it was the Farrer by-election, a week earlier the Nepean by-election. Both Liberal held seats where the interest was how One Nation would perform against the Liberal Party in contests with no Labor candidate.

This week’s Stafford by-election flips the interest. This time it’s inner-city Brisbane and a Labor held seat with no One Nation candidate.

It’s a conventional two-party contest where Labor is defending one of its marginal seats two years after losing state government to the LNP. And there is added interest with how preferences will flow following a decision by the Greens to make no recommendation of preferences. Will leakage of Greens preferences cost Labor one of its traditional Brisbane seats?Read More »Stafford By-election Preview