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
1 2 3 4 Next »
farout farout 2:18 pm 26 Sep 13

“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.”

Significantly less preferences than Simon would have relied on, had he scraped over the line.
The Libs got more first preference votes than the Greens.

chewy14 chewy14 2:48 pm 26 Sep 13

farout said :

“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.”

Significantly less preferences than Simon would have relied on, had he scraped over the line.
The Libs got more first preference votes than the Greens.

Yeah Simon relying on Katter and PUP preferences would have been heaps better than Zed relying on AJP. Haha.

Garfield Garfield 3:19 pm 26 Sep 13

Zed the Silent says it all. This is the lowest first preference vote the Liberals have achieved in the Senate for many years, and its happened at the same time that the ALP have achieved their lowest first preference vote across the nation in 100 years. There was a Taverner poll in February that showed a 3% (Seselja) to 5% (Humphries) swing to the Libs. How did that turn into a slight swing against and less than a quota on first preferences?

neanderthalsis neanderthalsis 3:23 pm 26 Sep 13

chewy14 said :

farout said :

“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.”

Significantly less preferences than Simon would have relied on, had he scraped over the line.
The Libs got more first preference votes than the Greens.

Yeah Simon relying on Katter and PUP preferences would have been heaps better than Zed relying on AJP. Haha.

So who is willing to bet that he steps back into his GetUp role within days?

Deref Deref 3:33 pm 26 Sep 13

I’m going to go and eat some animals in retribution.

pepmeup pepmeup 3:43 pm 26 Sep 13

I have said all along it was closed to mathematically impossible for the greens to win a senate spot in Canberra. They did give it a reasonable shake this time, but I think this was their best and only chance. Next election the Canberra libs may have replaced Zed, in the fashion he saw fit for Gary. Or Canberrans will have forgotten what happened this time around. It is interesting to see such a large number of below the line votes for the liberal no2 candidate Nash. I guess this is due to Liberals not wanting to Vote 1 Zed.

It should be mentioned that the liberals ran a very poor campaign this time and seemed not to really put much effort in. Such a close result for the second spot is the result. I would imagine that all those involved in this poor effort will have moved on before the next election.

pepmeup pepmeup 3:45 pm 26 Sep 13

A swing against Zed in the senate while the rest of Australia had such a strong swing towards them should send a message to the Canberra Liberals, but it probably wont.

shirty_bear shirty_bear 3:56 pm 26 Sep 13

It boils down to Sheikh vs Seselja? Gawd, this really is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff.

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 4:06 pm 26 Sep 13

This is a real shame – it was a real chance to change the representation paradign in Canberra. Next time around Zed will be campaigning with the advantage of incumbency.

What started as a tanty over the unrelated local kangaroo cull has helped elect someone decided *not* supportive of animal justice. The backpedalling on the AJP’s Facebook page in the days after the election was something to see. There was so much anger directed at them from voters who didn’t question their above-the-line vote.

pajs pajs 4:13 pm 26 Sep 13

Zed did pop up today to issue a Tweet congratulating Clonakill’a Tim Kirk on winning the Winemaker of the Year award, so he’s not completely silent.

pajs pajs 4:14 pm 26 Sep 13

pajs said :

Zed did pop up today to issue a Tweet congratulating Clonakill’a Tim Kirk on winning the Winemaker of the Year award, so he’s not completely silent.

That should have been “Clonakilla’s”.

housebound housebound 4:33 pm 26 Sep 13

Garfield said :

Zed the Silent says it all. This is the lowest first preference vote the Liberals have achieved in the Senate for many years, and its happened at the same time that the ALP have achieved their lowest first preference vote across the nation in 100 years. There was a Taverner poll in February that showed a 3% (Seselja) to 5% (Humphries) swing to the Libs. How did that turn into a slight swing against and less than a quota on first preferences?

No idea, but it was probably personal and a direct result of the nasty preselection fight. But Lundy also saw a swing against the ALP (41% in 2010 to 34% this year), as did the Greens (23% to around 20%).

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote. The other difference is that the field was much bigger this time around. That has to have had an effect of ‘diluting’ first preference votes.

What would be really interesting is to know where the below-the-line votes end up after the minor parties get excluded. Some people use their first preference as a protest vote (it also makes sure no one gets any money for your vote if you pick a small enough party). For those people, the ‘no 1’ is irrelevant: it is the relative order of the big three that really tells you something.

neanderthalsis neanderthalsis 4:46 pm 26 Sep 13

pepmeup said :

It is interesting to see such a large number of below the line votes for the liberal no2 candidate Nash. I guess this is due to Liberals not wanting to Vote 1 Zed..

I am a party member and Gazza supporter. I voted below the just to but Nash as first preference above Zed.

Innovation Innovation 4:51 pm 26 Sep 13

What a shame the outcome wasn’t a lot closer. I doubt it matters for the ACT whether a Green or Lib won the second seat but a closer vote might have made some sit up and take note.

To me, Zed’s campaign appeared even lazier than his predecessors. The results and clear win seem to suggest that a future Liberal candidate could have a complete meltdown and possibly still be elected to the second seat.

It would now seem that the ACT will only ever have a true marginal or swinging seat if the Senate below the line voting process is simplified or if we get our third House of Reps seat back.

Robertson Robertson 5:06 pm 26 Sep 13

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

lostinbias lostinbias 5:08 pm 26 Sep 13

Deref said :

I’m going to go and eat some animals in retribution.

While I’m not going to go and eat any animals, the AJP is ridiculous. I just had an enjoyable read of their Facebook page and most of their supporters are either Vegetarian Bogans (they do exist it seems), Militant Vegans, believers in crap pseudoscience, or a combination of any of these. I left them a Facebook comment to this effect.

A couple of the supporters seemed like several young dickheads I’ve met on Facebook or loitering in Civic who call you “buddy” all the time and self-righteously act as if they know everything, including the solutions to all the world’s problems.

Roundhead89 Roundhead89 5:19 pm 26 Sep 13

Sheikh can go back to GetUp! and get lost. Looks like voters took the advice of that graffiti on his posters and Leb-proofed the Senate.

Deref Deref 5:36 pm 26 Sep 13

lostinbias said :

Deref said :

I’m going to go and eat some animals in retribution.

While I’m not going to go and eat any animals, the AJP is ridiculous. I just had an enjoyable read of their Facebook page and most of their supporters are either Vegetarian Bogans (they do exist it seems), Militant Vegans, believers in crap pseudoscience, or a combination of any of these. I left them a Facebook comment to this effect.

A couple of the supporters seemed like several young dickheads I’ve met on Facebook or loitering in Civic who call you “buddy” all the time and self-righteously act as if they know everything, including the solutions to all the world’s problems.

^ That.

Once I saw their preferencing I made sure that my kids, who probably would have voted for them, knew about it. They were horrified.

c_c™ c_c™ 6:34 pm 26 Sep 13

Robertson said :

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

Let’s dig into this a bit more, using the latest available figures from the AEC.

Humphries in 2010 vs Seselja in 2013, the first preference personal vote declined by 5772 for Zed, so obviously he couldn’t draw in nearly as many personal votes as his predecessor.

However the number of Liberal first preference ticket votes grew by over 10,160 votes.

The group total rose by 5150 first preference votes in 2013.

So the Liberal party did grow their first preference Senate vote at this election.

Now what about the Greens.

HD (2010) vs Sheikh (2013); personal first preference votes declined 1836 for Seselja, so it seems both leading candidates, despite their name recognition, couldn’t attract the same personal support as those in the past.

But importantly, for first preference ticket votes, the Greens declined, by just under 2000 votes.

And the group first preferences declined by 4993 votes in total from 2010.

chewy14 chewy14 6:40 pm 26 Sep 13

Robertson said :

housebound said :

One factor in 2010 was the combined campaign by ALP and Greens to dislodge Humphries: it had the perverse effect of increasing the Libs vote.

Interestingly, a quick check of the facts undermines your anti-Greens propaganda.

In 2004 The Libs got 1.14 of a quota before redistribution.
The 2007 1st-preference vote gave Humphries 1.03 quota.
In 2010 he got 1.0118.
This year it looks like Zed gets 0.99, or possibly as high as .995.

How is it anti Greens propaganda?

The Greens and Labor will have a swing against them in the ACT senate race as well because of the increase in candidates diluting the vote

1 2 3 4 Next »

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site