Simon Sheikh concedes to Zed the Silent

johnboy 26 September 2013 76

Twitter is abuzz with the news that the Greens’ Simon Sheikh is conceding he’s been beaten for the second Senate seat on the back of Animal Justice Party preferences to the Liberals.

We hope that Senator Seselja will make efforts to broaden his base over the next three years.


UPDATE: The ABC has a report:

While the final outcome will not be formally announced until Tuesday, Mr Sheikh has now conceded.

Mr Sheikh says it was always going to be a tough battle.

“We’re very proud of the fact that we focused on the Liberal Party and trying to win that seat, and the results have been very positive despite the fact that we haven’t gotten over the line,” he said.


Further Update: Simon’s sent out this email to supporters:

A few minutes ago I rang Zed Seselja and Kate Lundy to congratulate them on their election to the Senate as our ACT representatives. While the counting won’t finish until next Tuesday, it is now clear that with the Animal Justice Party preferencing the Liberals, it isn’t possible for us to overtake Mr Seselja.

I wanted you to be the first to know because this campaign was your campaign. I’ll be making a statement to the media later this afternoon where I’ll be making one simple point: as Greens volunteers you have much to be proud of.

Even though all around the country there was a swing towards the Liberals, here in Canberra we saw the Liberal vote decrease. Zed Seselja has not achieved the ‘quota’ he needed to win the seat in his own right, and instead will need to rely on preferences to win.

In the areas of Canberra where we door knocked and focussed our efforts, there was an even larger swing against the Liberals. There’s no doubt in my mind that this is thanks to your efforts.

Thank you.

I know that many of you will be disappointed in this outcome but I take solace in the knowledge that we had no other choice but to work as hard as we did. Had we been successful, adding an extra Greens Senator would have put us in a stronger position in the Senate to protect the carbon price and other policies that we’ve fought so hard for.

The first pages of the story of the Abbott Government may have been written but the last few haven’t. I hope you’ll continue to campaign on the issues that brought us together because, as we all know, our politicians will only ever soar as high as we demand.

Anna and I are looking forward to continuing to be a part of the formidable ACT Greens team that you have built and I hope we’ll be able to count on your support again in the future.

With deepest thanks,

Simon

PS: I know many of you will want to stay involved in building a more caring Australia, even though the election is over. We’re holding a special event for Greens supporters next Thursday October 3rd to talk about what campaigns we can run over the next 2 years, and to make sure Abbott doesn’t roll back everything we’ve fought so hard for. I’d love to see you there. You can RSVP here: http://www.simonsheikh.com/next_steps


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
76 Responses to Simon Sheikh concedes to Zed the Silent
Filter
Order
Robertson Robertson 11:04 am 27 Sep 13

housebound said :

Here’s the last few elections’ results:
1.029 (2001) –> 1.1361 (2004) –> 1.0260 (2007) –> 1.0005 (2010) –> 0.9923 (2013)

Apparently, according to c_c, due to …gobbledigook…confusion…nonsense…, the decrease in the Lib vote from 1.0005 to .9923 of a quota is actually an increase.

c_c™ c_c™ 11:36 am 27 Sep 13

Robertson said :

housebound said :

Here’s the last few elections’ results:
1.029 (2001) –> 1.1361 (2004) –> 1.0260 (2007) –> 1.0005 (2010) –> 0.9923 (2013)

Apparently, according to c_c, due to …gobbledigook…confusion…nonsense…, the decrease in the Lib vote from 1.0005 to .9923 of a quota is actually an increase.

Liberal first preference votes by group (2013 vs 2010): 81,613 – 76,463 = + 5150

Labor first preference votes by group (2013 vs 2010): 84,947 – 93,639 = – 8692

Greens first preference votes by group (2013 vs 2010): 47,553 – 52,546 = – 4993

ACT total Enrolment: 265,160 – 247,941 = +17,219

Number of groups (2013 vs 2010): 14 – 5 = + 9

The Lib vote did increase, end of story.

It didn’t increase enough to offset to capitalise on a larger number of votes in the electorate in a much more competitive field to achieve a higher proportion of the quota, but that’s a measure of proportion, not a measure of votes.

If that’s too complex, do us all a favour and disenfranchise yourself.

    johnboy johnboy 11:46 am 27 Sep 13

    c_c I’m going to rule against you here.

    Voting is about percentages of the electorate, not hard numbers.

    getting a 5% swing in an electorate that’s declined by 10% is still an improved vote.

davo101 davo101 12:03 pm 27 Sep 13

johnboy said :

c_c I’m going to rule against you here.

Voting is about percentages of the electorate, not hard numbers.

getting a 5% swing in an electorate that’s declined by 10% is still an improved vote.

I kinda like c_c logic. So in 1901 the ALP got 79 736 votes, in the last election they got about 4.3 million votes; therefore the ALP is 54 times more popular than they were are the turn of the 20th century…awesome.

c_c™ c_c™ 12:18 pm 27 Sep 13

johnboy said :

c_c I’m going to rule against you here.

Voting is about percentages of the electorate, not hard numbers.

It’s about both, if you try and conflate the two or just focus on the former, you end up with a simpleton view of things.

Liberal ticket vote grew, Liberal candidate vote decreased, which means the group first preference recorded an overall gain. Now add to that the figures on the electorate and number of candidates and what does that tell you.

1. Liberal candidate vote suffered because of issues earlier in the year with preselection

2. Liberal ticket vote was not negatively affected by preselection problems but it may have retarded growth

3. That the combination of the growth of the electorate and the growth of the minors seems to favour the left longer term, and so a retardation in the growth of the Liberal vote means a trend decline in their vote longer term and that will have implications for the percentages.

Now consider what a lower quota/percentage alone tells you

1. The Liberals managed a lower percentage… wow, informative, particularly as all three main parties in the race had declines in their quota. It tells you squat by itself.

Also your line about voting being about percentages and not hard numbers, as if that’s some golden all encompassing rule, is just so silly, looking more broadly at electoral maths. Just imagine if you wrote that in 98 and then a little while later, Howard wins an election on 49.02% of the 2PP vote to Labor’s 50.98%. Yep, you’d have to dig down to the raw numbers to figure that one out. Shocking.

housebound housebound 1:22 pm 27 Sep 13

I’m with the percentages mob here.

Looking at quotas in all recent elections:
Lib: 1.0290 (2001) –> 1.1361 –> 1.0260 –> 1.0005 –> 0.9923 (2013)
ALP: 1.2605 (2001) –> 1.2331 –> 1.2251 –> 1.2252 –> 1.0331 (2013)
GRN: 0.2164 (2001) –> 0.4909 –> 0.6442 –> 0.6875 –> 0.5782 (2013)

If anything, the Libs decline was slightly less than the others. Not one of the three major parties could capitalise on the loss of any of the others. All those Greens and Labor votes went to the minors.

But this is only first preferences – valuable to political parties wanting our taxpayer money.

If those minor party first preference votes went straight back to ALP or Greens, because some voters understood the preferential system of voting, then the 3PP vote might not have changed that much at all. We’ll find out next week. Below the line preferences will be interesting.

caf caf 1:33 pm 27 Sep 13

I’m going to join in the chorus and agree that looking at absolute vote numbers is meaningless. The fact that you can get a decline in percentage vote and an increase in absolute vote just tells you that the number of voters (well, really the number of formal votes) has increased in the interim.

It’s the percentage of the population you can convince that matters.

c_c™ c_c™ 2:44 pm 27 Sep 13

I think the real explanation is people get squeamish dealing with a lot of numbers so they tend to seek the quickest, shortest solution. I think some people here would turn to jelly if they had to go near sets or SPSS and the like. If people want to ignore the beginning and the middle of a story and skip straight to the end, owing to some strange logic that using the two numbers is a question of either/or, meh. Enough people struggle with electoral maths as it is, a few more won’t hurt.

caf caf 2:54 pm 27 Sep 13

c_c™ said :

I think the real explanation is people get squeamish dealing with a lot of numbers so they tend to seek the quickest, shortest solution. I think some people here would turn to jelly if they had to go near sets or SPSS and the like. If people want to ignore the beginning and the middle of a story and skip straight to the end, owing to some strange logic that using the two numbers is a question of either/or, meh. Enough people struggle with electoral maths as it is, a few more won’t hurt.

No, it has nothing to do with any kind of “squeamishness”. It’s the fact that a change in the raw vote numbers is meaningless because it does not take into account the change in the total number of votes cast. It is an irrelevancy.

IrishPete IrishPete 3:01 pm 27 Sep 13

c_c™ said :

I think the real explanation is people get squeamish dealing with a lot of numbers so they tend to seek the quickest, shortest solution. I think some people here would turn to jelly if they had to go near sets or SPSS and the like. If people want to ignore the beginning and the middle of a story and skip straight to the end, owing to some strange logic that using the two numbers is a question of either/or, meh. Enough people struggle with electoral maths as it is, a few more won’t hurt.

I LOVE SPSS – it’s my favourite computer program.

IP

watto23 watto23 3:15 pm 27 Sep 13

c_c™ said :

I think the real explanation is people get squeamish dealing with a lot of numbers so they tend to seek the quickest, shortest solution. I think some people here would turn to jelly if they had to go near sets or SPSS and the like. If people want to ignore the beginning and the middle of a story and skip straight to the end, owing to some strange logic that using the two numbers is a question of either/or, meh. Enough people struggle with electoral maths as it is, a few more won’t hurt.

Yes but in the scheme of things for the senate it is based on quotas so if your first preference grows, but grows less than the quota well its a negative to the party. Probably what saved Seselja was the swing away from the Greens as well. There have definitely been over the past 2 elections a push for labor voters to push preferences towards the greens to try and unseat the liberal senator as well.

I’d argue support for Liberals is pretty high in Canberra right now despite the job cuts issue and yet they just managed to scrape in a seat that probably should never have been in doubt.

Garfield Garfield 3:43 pm 27 Sep 13

Does anyone have any thoughts on the Libs federal numbers for 2013 compared to the local numbers for 2012? Locally the Libs went from 31.6% in 2008 to 38.9% in 2012. Federally they ended up with 34.62% in the reps and 33.08% in the Senate (with swings of -0.19% & -0.27% respectively from 2010).

Breaking it down by electorates Brindabella was 46.4% (+11.1%), Molonglo 37.4% (+5.9%) & Ginninderra 33.7% (+5.9%) while Canberra was 37.87% and Fraser 31.63% in the reps and 35.47% & 30.83% in the senate. Looking at this there must have been a lot of people who voted Liberal in Brindabella last year who didn’t vote Liberal federally, with smaller numbers doing the same in Molongo and Ginninderra.

It always seems to me that when there are state elections one side always says there will be some federal influences at play while the other says the voters are only looking at state issues. With that in mind can we read anything into the large swing against the Libs from the 2012 local to 2013 federal election?

howeph howeph 4:05 pm 27 Sep 13

IrishPete said :

I LOVE SPSS – it’s my favourite computer program.

IP

Wow. Now that is what I call mature software. Version one released in 1968 (same year as my car was built)!

Latest stable release v22.0 August 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPSS

IrishPete IrishPete 6:38 pm 27 Sep 13

howeph said :

IrishPete said :

I LOVE SPSS – it’s my favourite computer program.

IP

Wow. Now that is what I call mature software. Version one released in 1968 (same year as my car was built)!

Latest stable release v22.0 August 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPSS

IBM owned it for a while and called it PASW. just to confuse everyone.

IP

LSWCHP LSWCHP 7:50 pm 27 Sep 13

howeph said :

IrishPete said :

I LOVE SPSS – it’s my favourite computer program.

IP

Wow. Now that is what I call mature software. Version one released in 1968 (same year as my car was built)!

Latest stable release v22.0 August 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPSS

Aah jeez…I don’t want to turn this into an SPSS love fest, but that is a fantastic piece of software. I used it at the ANU back in the day. Not to mention LaTex for mind bogglingly high quality document production. And Scribe before that.

Damn…this is making me feel like an old bastard…

pepmeup pepmeup 8:22 pm 27 Sep 13

Garfield said :

Does anyone have any thoughts on the Libs federal numbers for 2013 compared to the local numbers for 2012? Locally the Libs went from 31.6% in 2008 to 38.9% in 2012. Federally they ended up with 34.62% in the reps and 33.08% in the Senate (with swings of -0.19% & -0.27% respectively from 2010).

Breaking it down by electorates Brindabella was 46.4% (+11.1%), Molonglo 37.4% (+5.9%) & Ginninderra 33.7% (+5.9%) while Canberra was 37.87% and Fraser 31.63% in the reps and 35.47% & 30.83% in the senate. Looking at this there must have been a lot of people who voted Liberal in Brindabella last year who didn’t vote Liberal federally, with smaller numbers doing the same in Molongo and Ginninderra.

It always seems to me that when there are state elections one side always says there will be some federal influences at play while the other says the voters are only looking at state issues. With that in mind can we read anything into the large swing against the Libs from the 2012 local to 2013 federal election?

Well the liberal party actually ran a campaign in the 2012 local election, also the zed factor, he went fom a locl challenger looking to help Canberra to a self serving ladder climber in 9 months. I think these two factors were the most significant.

What will be very interesting is 2016 when we should have a local and federal election with in months of each other.

shauno shauno 8:46 pm 27 Sep 13

Good the last thing we needed was another Green in the Senate. On another note I see the LNP turned back the first boat today well done guys. Instead of HMAS Ballarat being used as a Taxi they handed over the Illegals to the Indonesians. Funny how Labor could never manage to do that.

Pork Hunt Pork Hunt 9:42 pm 27 Sep 13

Can this thread please be awarded the ” Most boring as batshit” award of all time? Please give c_c a motel voucher so he/she can get a room with the protagonist of his or her choice.

Aeek Aeek 10:08 pm 27 Sep 13

LSWCHP said :

Not to mention LaTex for mind bogglingly high quality document

Damn…this is making me feel like an old bastard…

I remember reading a chunk of Knuth on Programming vol 1.
He wrote LaTex so he could get it printed.

Yay! Old Bardstards.

Aeek Aeek 10:33 pm 27 Sep 13

Aeek said :

LSWCHP said :

Not to mention LaTex for mind bogglingly high quality document

Damn…this is making me feel like an old bastard…

I remember reading a chunk of Knuth on Programming vol 1.
He wrote LaTex so he could get it printed.

Yay! Old Bardstards.

No surprise, remembered things wrong. He wrote “The Art of Computer Programing” and created TeX which underlies LaTeX.

Diggety Diggety 5:30 am 28 Sep 13

It takes a very dependant and immature human to vote for a Socialist, therefore IMO it’s best we get a Lib doing nothing than a Green doing anything.

*BUT* the Libs promised more freedom of speech, movement, liberty, opportunity and a roll back of the Nanny State – one of the reasons I voted for the them. Don’t like the Libs or TA? Good – this is what you do – hold them to these sets of principles and promises and see if they can live up to their stated ideals.

If not, I’ll gladly join the retarded (Left) chorus of getting them out of office.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site