The Kalgoorlie Numbers Game

Can Labor win Kalgoorlie?

I have had an interest in the numbers game, Psephology, for a long time. It is linked to another ‘-ology’ interest, the study of word origins, etymology. It is derived from psephos, the peeble used in ancient Athens for voting. Ever been blackballed? The abacus is a mixed metaphor.

The Kalgoorlie Result

So what does the raw data from 2004 tell us?
Two-party Preferred was ALP 43.70% – LP 56.30%.

Swing required: 6.3%. If a national swing is on, this is a marginal seat.

Informal vote: 5.34%. This is too high.

Turn out: 83.53% of those enrolled compared with 94.32% for all of Australia. The difference is nearly twice the required swing!

Preferences: The flow from the other candidates was weak, including from the Greens. It was 58.75/41.27 against the ALP, worse than the final result. The lower Greens flow may have been caused by the donkey-vote factor as Barry Haase was directly below their top position on the ballot paper.

If Labor is to defeat John Howard, it must pick up seats in Western Australia. It cannot concede any marginal seats, especially not a traditional one like Kalgoorlie.
Getting people enrolled and getting them to vote are clearly priorities for this electorate.

Source:

http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-12246-241.htm


Please click on COMMENTS below to leave a message or read others' opinions.

Sphere: Related Content