Share this page!

Kevin Bonham Profile picture
Twitter logo
Jun 9 • 4 tweets • 3 min read
Very well-spotted by @gamertime58 who has found what, rather surprisingly at this late stage, strongly appears to be a substantial uncorrected booth 2PP error in #Sturt.
@gamertime58 Massive outlier. (The other outlier is a hospital team with 45 votes).

It looks like the usual problem with the 2PP add-ons written the right way around, especially given that Sturt has this unusual curved distribution of Liberal vote vs preference share. Image
@gamertime58 If verified about 468 votes of James Stevens' 1481 vote 2PP margin is incorrect. He still wins by c. 1013 (a few hundred still to count) and in fact #Sturt has already been declared.

@AusElectoralCom
Good work all - the booth error in #Sturt identified by @gamertime58 late last night has been fixed by @AusElectoralCom already and Sturt is now 50.47% 2PP to Stevens (who still of course wins.)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Kevin Bonham

Kevin Bonham Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kevinbonham

Kevin Bonham Profile picture
Jun 8
Not madness - the primary vote was evenly split between two candidates who were both strongly preferred to the Coalition candidate overall. Can argue about which of Labor and Greens most deserved to win but would be madness if one of them didn't.
(The argument for Labor there is that our system takes into account the preferences of voters for the defeated right micros but ignores the preferences of voters for the defeated LNP candidate. But finding a good practical system around that idea (ie Condorcet) is not simple.)
In the division of Nicholls, the Nationals candidate (who will easily win) was not the first choice of 73.9% - is that madness?
Read 6 tweets
Kevin Bonham Profile picture
Jun 7
Why the Reps post-count is far more work for the AEC this year and why there are so few declarations so far.
Does anyone remember which seat and year it was where there was a theory during the postcount that a Democrat might win off a primary vote around the mid teens (it ended up not happening)? (NB not Mayo 1998.)
It was Cunningham 1990 (HT @alex_mangov)

Meg Sampson (Dems) polled 13.6%, got 81% of preferences and jumped the Liberals into the final two from 8.2% behind them, losing to Labor 47.6-52.4.
Read 4 tweets
Kevin Bonham Profile picture
Jun 4
Henderson's piece is multiply woeful; he's another one who should be dragged before the Clue Fairy to show cause why he should not be banned from writing about elections and psephology for life.
Quite aside from him falsely stating that LNP (which he calls "Liberal") preferences elected the Greens in Griffith, he also falsely states that the LNP advised their voters to preference the Greens. The LNP advised their voters to put the Greens last web.archive.org/web/2022052116…
"I have never understood why the Liberal Party preferences the Greens over Labor in metropolitan seats."

They don't anymore and last did so at a federal election in 2010.
Read 10 tweets
Kevin Bonham Profile picture
Jun 3
Ecological fallacy alert - average voter in a Labor-won seat is not necessarily the same as average Labor voter.
Looks like the more glaringly incorrect claims have been corrected, though some of their inferences remain.
The fallacy aside, also worth mentioning that most voters in Labor-won seats are not actually Labor voters, though more than half are Labor preferencers. The average Labor primary in seats won by Labor is currently running at 42.3% and will not change much from there.
Read 5 tweets
Kevin Bonham Profile picture
May 30
Not sure I should feed the clickbait troll on this (hence screenshot) but when we have a pollster talking this nonsense that is at least vaguely concerning.
Absolutely ridiculous (that word again) to say that FPP ensures voters vote for what they want. They vote strategically for the least worst option, the same one they would have preferenced.
Looking at some of the amazing 3CP races we have had this election - yes well those are the same ones where in Canada the conservatives sometimes win despite most of the voters not wanting them, because the other parties can't work out who has the best chance.
Read 5 tweets
Kevin Bonham Profile picture
May 30
Updates on #Macnamara here. A batch of absents just added will close the 3CP gap further but didn't shift the dial on projection very much.

kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/05/2022-h…
A large batch of dec prepolls added and these were somewhat weaker for the Greens than earlier, and while reducing Labor's lead would still fall a few dozen short of the projected reduction. So that improves Labor's chances.
It looks to me like the Greens can only do this on COVID votes, they need there to be above average numbers of them and to break strongly. If either of those is not the case then there are probably not enough votes left.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(