Two-party-preferred vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Two party preferred)

Template:Short description Template:DMCA Template:DMCA

Instant-runoff (preferential) voting method. TPP/TCP vote is calculated when two candidates remain.

In Australian politics, the two-party-preferred vote (TPP or 2PP) is the result of an opinion poll or a projection of an election result in which preferences are distributed between the two major parties, being the Labor Party and the Liberal-National Coalition, e.g. "Coalition 50%, Labor 50%". The preference distribution is usually based on the results of the most recent election, with votes for other candidates being distributed between the two major parties.

As such, the TPP is a rough indicator of voting intent that focuses on determining the likely majority in the lower house. It is compared to previous values to predict the swing and hence the likelihood of a change in government between the major parliamentary parties.

The TPP assumes a two-party system of government, i.e. that after distribution of votes from less successful candidates, the two remaining candidates will be from each of the two major parties. It provides no indication of the number of representatives of other parties or independent views on the cross-bench, and as the proportion of votes for other candidates increases the TPP becomes less useful. It cannot predict a hung parliament as it does not quantify the alternatives to the two main parties.

The TPP is often confused with the two-candidate-preferred vote (TCP). The TCP is the electoral penultimate result for an electoral division where preferences have been distributed using instant-runoff voting. The winner of the contest is the candidate with over 50% of the TCP vote.

Unlike the TCP, the TPP is informative only and has no direct effect on the election outcome. It is an indicator used for analysing results above seat-level, such as a national or statewide TPP. For individual seats the TCP is the preferred indicator, because when the final two candidates are from the major parties, the TCP will have the same value as the TPP, and when at least one of the final candidates is not from a major party the TPP is misleading, not informative.

The full allocation of preferences under instant-runoff voting is used in the lower houses of the Federal, Queensland, Victorian, Western Australian, South Australian, and Northern Territory parliaments, as well as the upper house of Tasmania. The New South Wales lower house uses optional preferential rather than full preferential voting – with some votes giving limited or no preferences, TPP/TCP is not as meaningful. TPP/TCP does not occur in the Tasmanian lower house or the Australian Capital Territory due to a different system altogether, the Hare–Clark single transferable vote system. Aside from Tasmania, TPP/TCP is not used in any other upper houses in Australia, with most using the single transferable vote method of proportional representation.[1]

History

Australia originally used first-past-the-post voting, as is currently used in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Full-preference instant-runoff voting was introduced at the federal level after the 1918 Swan by-election, and has been in use ever since. In that by-election, candidates from the Australian Labor Party, the Nationalist Party government (predecessor to the United Australia Party and Liberal Party of Australia), and the emerging National Party of Australia (the then-"Country Party") all received around a third of the vote. However, as Labor had a plurality of three percent, it won the seat. The new system allowed the two non-Labor parties to compete against one another in many seats without risking losing the seat altogether.

It is increasingly uncommon for seats to be contested by more than one Coalition candidate. For example, in the 2010 federal election, only three seats were contested by more than one Coalition candidate. With the popularity of parties such as the Greens and One Nation, preference flows are very significant for all parties in Australia.

Not distributing preferences was historically common in seats where a candidate received over 50 percent of the primary vote. Federal seat and national TPP results have only been produced as far back as 1937, though it was not uncommon in subsequent decades for major parties at federal elections to not field a candidate in a few "safe" seats, but since 1972, all seats at federal elections have been contested by the major parties. Full preference distributions have occurred in all seats since 1983.[2]

Until recently, South Australian state elections had boundaries strategically redrawn before each election with a fairness aim based on the prior election TPP vote, the only state to do so. The culmination of the historical state lower house seat malapportionment known as the Playmander eventually saw it legislated after 1989 that the Electoral Commission of South Australia would redraw boundaries after each election with the objective of the party that receives over 50 percent of the TPP vote at each forthcoming election forms government. Nationally in 1983/84, minor gerrymandering by incumbent federal governments was legislated against with the formation of an independent statutory authority, the Australian Electoral Commission.[3]

Procedure

Under the full-preference instant-runoff voting system, in each seat, the candidate with the lowest vote is eliminated and their preferences are distributed; this process repeats until only two candidates remain. Whilst every seat has a TCP result, seats where the major parties have come first and second are commonly referred to as having a TPP result. In a TCP contest between Labor and the NSW/Vic Nationals and without a Liberal candidate, this is also considered a TPP, with the Nationals in these states considered a de facto major party within the Liberal/National Coalition. In seats where the major parties do not come first and second, differing TPP and TCP results are returned. When only one of two major parties contest a seat, such as at some by-elections, only a TCP result is produced. Swings in Australian parliaments are more commonly associated with the TPP vote. At the 2013 federal election, 11 of 150 seats returned differing TPP and TCP figures ("non-classic seats"), indicating a considerable two-party system.[4]

The tallying of seat TPP results gives a statewide and/or national TPP vote. Non-classic seats have votes redistributed for informational purposes to the major parties so that every seat has a TPP result. Whilst the TCP is the determining factor in deciding which candidate wins a seat, the overall election TPP is statistical and indicative only, as swings in seats are not uniform, and a varying range of factors can influence marginal-seat wins with single-member electorates. Several federal elections since 1937 have seen a government elected with a minority of the TPP vote: 1940 (49.7%), 1954 (49.3%), 1961 (49.5%), 1969 (49.8%), 1990 (49.9%) and 1998 (49.0%).

As the TPP vote rather than the primary vote is a better indicator of who is in front with seats won and lost on a preferential basis, Australian opinion polls survey voter intention with a TPP always produced. However, these TPP figures tend to be calculated based on preference flows at the previous election rather than asked at the time of polling. The difference between the two is usually within the margin of error (usually +/– 3 percentage points). History has shown that prior-election preference flows are more reliable.[5]

Three-candidate preferred (3CP)

With the decline in voting for the two major parties, more elections are becoming three-way contests. Here the order of elimination becomes more critical in determining the result.

As the preferences are distributed the ranking of the last three candidates can vary and the three candidate preferred count becomes critical. The candidate initially ranked first with the largest proportion of the primary vote can end up being placed third due to stronger preference flows to the other two candidates.

As the preferences of the third placed candidate determines the TCP and hence the ultimate winner the 3CP becomes a critical stage when three candidates a similarly preferred. The third place may be determined by a small number of votes, and this complicates counting and can delay the progress of the TCP count and the production of preliminary results.

In the 2022 Federal Election, the AEC performed three candidate counts for the seats of Macnamara, and Brisbane.[6]

Analysis

After the count has taken place, it is possible to analyze the ultimate preference flows for votes cast for the parties that were ultimately excluded from the TPP calculation, in order to determine if the composite flow would have significantly affected the final result. Such an exercise is shown for the 2017 by-election in Bennelong:

2017 Bennelong by-election – preference flow data[7]
Party Candidate First preferences % preference to
Votes % Liberal Labor
width=3pt Template:Australian party style|  Greens Justin Alick 5,688 6.8 19.7 80.3
width=3pt Template:Australian party style|  Conservatives Joram Richa 3,609 4.3 86.5 13.5
width=3pt Template:Australian party style|  Christian Democrats Gui Dong Cao 2,626 3.1 72.4 27.6
width=3pt Template:Australian party style|  Science James Jansson 1,041 1.2 39.4 60.6
width=3pt Template:Australian party style|  Sustainable Australia Wesley Folitarik 995 1.2 48.9 51.1
width=3pt Template:Australian party style|  Affordable Housing Anthony Ziebell 741 0.9 44.7 55.3
width=3pt Template:Australian party style|  Liberty Alliance Tony Robinson 719 0.9 79.0 21.0
width=3pt Template:Australian party style|  Progressives Chris Golding 425 0.5 42.1 57.9
width=3pt Template:Australian party style|  People's Party James Platter 186 0.2 48.9 51.1
width=3pt Template:Australian party style|  Non-Custodial Parents Anthony Fels 132 0.2 56.1 43.9
Totals 16,162 19.2 51.2 48.8

Preference flows in federal elections

2019 Australian federal election – preference flow data[8]
Party First preferences % preference to
Votes % Liberal Labor
width=3pt Template:Australian party style|  Greens 1,482,923 10.40 17.8 82.2
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  United Australia Party 488,817 3.43 65.1 34.9
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Independent 479,836 3.37 40.6 59.4
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  One Nation 438,587 3.08 65.2 34.8
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Christian Democrat 116,675 0.68 74.4 25.6
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Conservative Nationals 77,203 0.54 71.8 28.2
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Katter's Australia 69,736 0.49 67.0 33.0
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Centre Alliance 46,931 0.33 32.9 67.1
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Shooters, Fishers, Farmers 41,479 0.29 59.1 40.9
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Sustainable Australia 35,618 0.25 46.0 54.0
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Liberal Democrats 34,666 0.24 77.2 22.8
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Justice 26,803 0.19 46.2 53.8
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Western Australia 25,298 0.18 49.0 51.0
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Australian Christians 23,802 0.17 80.8 19.2
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Democratic Labour 18,287 0.13 39.8 60.2
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Rise Up Australia 18,287 0.10 60.4 39.6
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Science 12,617 0.09 32.5 67.5
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Victorian Socialists 12,453 0.09 12.4 87.6
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Reason 8,895 0.06 31.2 68.8
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Progressives 7,759 0.05 32.8 67.2
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Australia First 6,786 0.05 56.4 43.6
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Great Australian 5,355 0.04 53.1 46.9
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  CEC 3,267 0.02 26.4 73.6
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Socialist Equality 2,866 0.02 36.9 63.1
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Socialist Alliance 2,447 0.02 20.2 79.8
  Non-Affiliated 2,143 0.02 32.4 67.6
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Better Families 2,072 0.01 64.1 35.9
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Australian Democrats 2,039 0.01 30.9 69.1
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Workers 1,676 0.01 58.7 41.3
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Love Australia or Leave 1,564 0.01 54.5 45.5
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Child Protection 1,219 0.01 45.4 54.6
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Non-Custodial Parents 1,213 0.01 51.3 48.7
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Involuntary Medication Objectors 1,179 0.01 36.4 63.6
width=3pt Template:Australian party style |  Flux 602 0.00 46.2 53.8

Examples

Federal, Swan 1918

1918 Swan by-election: Division of Swan, Western Australia
Party Candidate Votes % Page Template:Tooltip/styles.css has no content.Template:Encodefirst
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Edwin Corboy 6,540 34.4 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Basil Murray 5,975 31.4 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name William Hedges 5,635 29.6 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name William Watson 884 4.6 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Turnout 19,213 64.3%
Script error: No such module "Political party". gain from Script error: No such module "Political party". Swing N/A

The result of the 1918 Swan by-election, the first-past-the-post election which caused the government of the day to introduce full-preference instant-runoff voting, under which Labor would have been easily defeated. Labor won the seat, and their majority was 3.0 points (34.4 minus 31.4). No swings are available as the Nationalists retained the seat unopposed at the previous election.

Federal, Adelaide 2004

Template:Election box 2pp
2004 Australian federal election: Division of Adelaide, South Australia
Party Candidate Votes % Page Template:Tooltip/styles.css has no content.Template:Encodefirst
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Trish Worth 38,530 45.29 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Kate Ellis 35,666 41.92 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Jake Bugden 6,794 7.99 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Peter G Robins 1,753 2.06 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Richard Pascoe 1,355 1.59 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Amanda Barlow 978 1.15 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Total formal votes 85,076 95.60 +0.66
Informal votes 3,920 4.40 –0.66
Turnout 88,996 93.62 –1.09
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Kate Ellis 43,671 51.33 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Trish Worth 41,405 48.67 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name gain from Template:Australian politics/name Swing +1.95

It can be seen that the Liberal candidate had a primary vote lead over the Labor candidate. In a first-past-the-post vote, the Liberals would have retained the seat, and their majority would be said to be 3.4 points (45.3 minus 41.9).

However, under full-preference instant-runoff voting, the votes of all the minor candidates were distributed as follows:

2nd count: Barlow 978 votes distributed
Party Candidate Added votes % Votes %
Template:Australian politics/name Trish Worth 172 17.6 38,702 45.5
Template:Australian politics/name Kate Ellis 206 21.1 35,872 42.2
Template:Australian politics/name Jake Bugden 365 37.3 7,159 8.4
Template:Australian politics/name Peter G Robins 96 9.8 1,849 2.2
Template:Australian politics/name Richard Pascoe 139 14.2 1,494 1.8
Total 978 85,076
3rd count: Democrats 1,494 votes distributed
Party Candidate Added votes % Votes %
Template:Australian politics/name Trish Worth 343 23.0 39,045 45.9
Template:Australian politics/name Kate Ellis 494 33.1 36,366 42.8
Template:Australian politics/name Jake Bugden 560 37.5 7,719 9.1
Template:Australian politics/name Peter G Robins 97 6.5 1,946 2.3
Total 1,494 85,076
4th count: Family First 1,946 votes distributed
Party Candidate Added votes % Votes %
Template:Australian politics/name Trish Worth 1,098 56.4 40,143 47.2
Template:Australian politics/name Kate Ellis 377 19.4 36,743 43.2
Template:Australian politics/name Jake Bugden 471 24.2 8,190 9.6
Total 1,946 85,076
5th count: Greens 8,190 votes distributed – final TPP/TCP
Party Candidate Added votes % Votes %
Template:Australian politics/name Kate Ellis 6,928 84.6 43,671 51.3
Template:Australian politics/name Trish Worth 1,262 15.4 41,405 48.7
Total 8,190 85,076 1.3

The process of allocating the votes can be more succinctly shown thus:

2004 Australian federal election: Division of Adelaide, South Australia
Allocation of votes by count
Party Candidate Count
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total
  Template:Australian politics/name Kate Ellis 35,666 206 494 377 6,928 43,671
  Template:Australian politics/name Trish Worth 38,530 172 343 1,098 1,262 41,405
  Template:Australian politics/name Jake Bugden 6,794 365 560 471 (8,190)  
  Template:Australian politics/name Peter G Robins 1,753 96 97 (1,946)    
  Template:Australian politics/name Richard Pascoe 1,355 139 (1,494)      
  Template:Australian politics/name Amanda Barlow 978 (978)        

Thus, Labor defeated the Liberals, with 85 percent of Green and Green-preferenced voters preferencing Labor on the last distribution. Labor's TPP/TCP vote was 51.3 percent, a TPP/TCP majority of 1.3 points, and a TPP/TCP swing of 1.9 points compared with the previous election.

South Australia, Frome 2009

Template:Election box 2ppTemplate:Election box 2cp
2009 Frome state by-election: Electoral district of Frome, South Australia[9][10]
Party Candidate Votes % Page Template:Tooltip/styles.css has no content.Template:Encodefirst
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Terry Boylan 7,576 39.24 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name John Rohde 5,041 26.11 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Geoff Brock 4,557 23.60 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Neville Wilson 1,267 6.56 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Joy O'Brien 734 3.80 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Peter Fitzpatrick 134 0.69 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Total formal votes 19,309 97.12 +0.21
Informal votes 573 2.88 –0.21
Turnout 19,882 89.79 –4.44
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Terry Boylan 9,976 51.67 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name John Rohde 9,333 48.33 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Geoff Brock 9,987 51.72 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Terry Boylan 9,322 48.28 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name gain from Template:Australian politics/name Swing N/A

The 2009 Frome by-election was closely contested, with the result being uncertain for over a week.[11][12][13] Liberal leader Martin Hamilton-Smith claimed victory on behalf of the party.[14][15][16] The result hinged on the performance of Brock against Labor in the competition for second place. Brock polled best in the Port Pirie area, and received enough eliminated candidate preferences to end up ahead of the Labor candidate by 30 votes.

Distribution of Preferences – 4th count[17]
Party Candidate Votes % Page Template:Tooltip/styles.css has no content.Template:Encodefirst
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Terry Boylan 8,215 42.54 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Geoff Brock 5,562 28.81 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name John Rohde 5,532 28.65 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".

Brock received 80 percent of Labor's fifth count preferences to achieve a TCP vote of 51.72 percent (a majority of 665 votes) against the Liberal candidate.[18][19] The by-election saw a rare TPP swing to an incumbent government, and was the first time an opposition had lost a seat at a by-election in South Australia.[20][21] The result in Frome at the 2010 state election saw Brock come first on primary votes, increasing his primary vote by 14.1 points to a total of 37.7 percent and his TCP vote by 6.5 points to a total of 58.2 percent. Despite a state-wide swing against Labor at the election, Labor again increased its TPP vote in Frome by 1.8 points to a total of 50.1 percent.

Federal, Melbourne 2010

Template:Election box 2ppTemplate:Election box 2cp
2010 Australian federal election: Division of Melbourne, Victoria
Party Candidate Votes % Page Template:Tooltip/styles.css has no content.Template:Encodefirst
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Cath Bowtell 34,022 38.09 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Adam Bandt 32,308 36.17 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Simon Olsen 18,760 21.00 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Joel Murray 1,633 1.83 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Georgia Pearson 1,389 1.55 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Penelope Green 613 0.69 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name David Collyer 602 0.67 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Total formal votes 89,327 96.38 –0.82
Informal votes 3,356 3.62 +0.82
Turnout 92,683 90.09 –1.41
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Cath Bowtell 65,473 73.30 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Simon Olsen 23,854 26.70 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Adam Bandt 50,059 56.04 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Cath Bowtell 39,268 43.96 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name gain from Template:Australian politics/name Swing +10.75

In this example, the two remaining candidates/parties, one a minor party, were the same after preference distribution at both this election and the previous election. Therefore, differing TPP and TCP votes, margins, and swings resulted.[22]

South Australia, Port Adelaide 2012

Template:Election box 2cp
2012 Port Adelaide state by-election: Electoral district of Pt Adelaide, South Australia
Party Candidate Votes % Page Template:Tooltip/styles.css has no content.Template:Encodefirst
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Susan Close 8,218 42.3 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Gary Johanson 4,717 24.3 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Sue Lawrie 2,938 15.1 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Stephen Humble 1,415 7.3 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Justin McArthur 1,096 5.6 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Colin Thomas 314 1.6 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Bob Briton 292 1.5 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Grant Carlin 269 1.4 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Elizabeth Pistor 151 0.8 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Total formal votes 19,410 92.8 –3.8
Informal votes 1,505 7.2 +3.8
Turnout 20,915 82.8 –10.4
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Susan Close 10,277 52.9 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name Gary Johanson 9,133 47.1 Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".
Template:Australian party style | Template:Australian politics/name hold Swing Script error: No such module "MultiReplace".

At the 2012 Port Adelaide state by-election, only a TCP could be produced, as the Liberal Party of Australia (and Family First Party and independent candidate Max James), who contested the previous election and gained a primary vote of 26.8 percent (and 5.9 percent, and 11.0 percent respectively), did not contest the by-election. On a TPP margin of 12.8 points from the 2010 election, considered a safe margin on the current pendulum, Labor would probably have retained their TPP margin based on unchanged statewide Newspoll since the previous election. Labor retained the seat on a 52.9 percent TCP against Johanson after the distribution of preferences.[23][24][25]

Unlike previous examples, neither a TPP or TCP swing can be produced, as the 2010 result was between Labor and Liberal rather than Labor and independent with no Liberal candidate. An increase or decrease in margins in these situations cannot be meaningfully interpreted as swings. As explained by the ABC's Antony Green, when a major party does not contest a by-election, preferences from independents or minor parties that would normally flow to both major parties does not take place, causing asymmetric preference flows. Examples of this are the 2008 Mayo and 2002 Cunningham federal by-elections, with seats returning to TPP form at the next election.[26] This contradicts News Ltd claims of large swings and a potential Liberal Party win in Port Adelaide at the next election.[27][28]

House of Representatives primary, two-party and seat results

Page Module:Message box/ambox.css has no content.

A two-party system has existed in the Australian House of Representatives since the two non-Labor parties merged in 1909. The 1910 election was the first to elect a majority government, with the Australian Labor Party concurrently winning the first Senate majority. Prior to 1909 a three-party system existed in the chamber. A two-party-preferred vote (2PP) has been retrospectively calculated[by whom?] from the 1919 election change from first-past-the-post to preferential voting and subsequent introduction of the Coalition.

ALP = Australian Labor Party, L+NP = grouping of Liberal/National/LNP/CLP Coalition parties (and predecessors), Oth = other parties and independents.

House of Representatives results and polling
Election
Year 		Labour Free Trade Protectionist Independent Other
parties 		Total
seats
height=4 colspan=2 Template:Australian party style| colspan=2 Template:Australian party style| Template:Australian party style|
1st 1901 14 28 31 2   75
Election
Year 		Labour Free Trade Protectionist Independent Other
parties 		Total
seats
height=4 colspan=2 Template:Australian party style| colspan=2 Template:Australian party style| Template:Australian party style|
2nd 1903 23 25 26   1 Revenue Tariff 75
Election
Year 		Labour Anti-Socialist Protectionist Independent Other
parties 		Total
seats
height=4 colspan=2 Template:Australian party style| colspan=2 Template:Australian party style| Template:Australian party style|
3rd 1906 26 26 21 1 1 Western Australian 75
Primary vote 2PP vote Seats
ALP L+NP Oth. ALP L+NP ALP L+NP Oth. Total
13 April 1910 election 50.0% 45.1% 4.9% – – 42 31 2 75
31 May 1913 election 48.5% 48.9% 2.6% – – 37 38 0 75
5 September 1914 election 50.9% 47.2% 1.9% – – 42 32 1 75
5 May 1917 election 43.9% 54.2% 1.9% – – 22 53 0 75
13 December 1919 election 42.5% 54.3% 3.2% 45.9% 54.1% 25 38 2 75
16 December 1922 election 42.3% 47.8% 9.9% 48.8% 51.2% 29 40 6 75
14 November 1925 election 45.0% 53.2% 1.8% 46.2% 53.8% 23 50 2 75
17 November 1928 election 44.6% 49.6% 5.8% 48.4% 51.6% 31 42 2 75
12 October 1929 election 48.8% 44.2% 7.0% 56.7% 43.3% 46 24 5 75
19 December 1931 election 27.1% 48.4% 24.5% 41.5% 58.5% 14 50 11 75
15 September 1934 election 26.8% 45.6% 27.6% 46.5% 53.5% 18 42 14 74
23 October 1937 election 43.2% 49.3% 7.5% 49.4% 50.6% 29 43 2 74
21 September 1940 election 40.2% 43.9% 15.9% 50.3% 49.7% 32 36 6 74
21 August 1943 election 49.9% 23.0% 27.1% 58.2% 41.8% 49 19 6 74
28 September 1946 election 49.7% 39.3% 11.0% 54.1% 45.9% 43 26 5 74
10 December 1949 election 46.0% 50.3% 3.7% 49.0% 51.0% 47 74 0 121
28 April 1951 election 47.6% 50.3% 2.1% 49.3% 50.7% 52 69 0 121
29 May 1954 election 50.0% 46.8% 3.2% 50.7% 49.3% 57 64 0 121
10 December 1955 election 44.6% 47.6% 7.8% 45.8% 54.2% 47 75 0 122
22 November 1958 election 42.8% 46.6% 10.6% 45.9% 54.1% 45 77 0 122
9 December 1961 election 47.9% 42.1% 10.0% 50.5% 49.5% 60 62 0 122
30 November 1963 election 45.5% 46.0% 8.5% 47.4% 52.6% 50 72 0 122
26 November 1966 election 40.0% 50.0% 10.0% 43.1% 56.9% 41 82 1 124
25 October 1969 election 47.0% 43.3% 9.7% 50.2% 49.8% 59 66 0 125
2 December 1972 election 49.6% 41.5% 8.9% 52.7% 47.3% 67 58 0 125
18 May 1974 election 49.3% 44.9% 5.8% 51.7% 48.3% 66 61 0 127
13 December 1975 election 42.8% 53.1% 4.1% 44.3% 55.7% 36 91 0 127
10 December 1977 election 39.7% 48.1% 12.2% 45.4% 54.6% 38 86 0 124
18 October 1980 election 45.2% 46.3% 8.5% 49.6% 50.4% 51 74 0 125
5 March 1983 election 49.5% 43.6% 6.9% 53.2% 46.8% 75 50 0 125
1 December 1984 election 47.6% 45.0% 7.4% 51.8% 48.2% 82 66 0 148
11 July 1987 election 45.8% 46.1% 8.1% 50.8% 49.2% 86 62 0 148
24 March 1990 election 39.4% 43.5% 17.1% 49.9% 50.1% 78 69 1 148
11 Mar 1993 Newspoll 44% 45% 11% 49.5% 50.5%
13 March 1993 election 44.9% 44.3% 10.7% 51.4% 48.6% 80 65 2 147
28–29 Feb 1996 Newspoll 40.5% 48% 11.5% 46.5% 53.5%
2 March 1996 election 38.7% 47.3% 14.0% 46.4% 53.6% 49 94 5 148
30 Sep – 1 Oct 1998 Newspoll 44% 40% 16% 53% 47%
3 October 1998 election 40.1% 39.5% 20.4% 51.0% 49.0% 67 80 1 148
7–8 Nov 2001 Newspoll 38.5% 46% 15.5% 47% 53%
10 November 2001 election 37.8% 43.0% 19.2% 49.0% 51.0% 65 82 3 150
6–7 Oct 2004 Newspoll 39% 45% 16% 50% 50%
9 October 2004 election 37.6% 46.7% 15.7% 47.3% 52.7% 60 87 3 150
20–22 Nov 2007 Newspoll 44% 43% 13% 52% 48%
24 November 2007 election 43.4% 42.1% 14.5% 52.7% 47.3% 83 65 2 150
17–19 Aug 2010 Newspoll 36% 43.5% 20.5% 50.2% 49.8%
21 August 2010 election 38.0% 43.3% 18.7% 50.1% 49.9% 72 72 6 150
3–5 Sep 2013 Newspoll 33% 46% 21% 46% 54%
7 September 2013 election 33.4% 45.6% 21.0% 46.5% 53.5% 55 90 5 150
28 Jun – 1 Jul 2016 Newspoll 35% 42% 23% 49.5% 50.5%
2 July 2016 election 34.7% 42.0% 23.3% 49.6% 50.4% 69 76 5 150
15–16 May 2019 Newspoll 37% 39% 25% 51.5% 48.5%
18 May 2019 election 33.3% 41.4% 25.2% 48.5% 51.5% 68 77 6 151
13–19 May 2022 Newspoll 36% 35% 29% 53% 47%
21 May 2022 election 32.6% 35.7% 31.7% 52.1% 47.9% 77 58 16 151
28 Apr – 1 May 2025 Newspoll 33% 34% 33% 52.5% 47.5%
3 May 2025 election 34.6% 31.8% 33.6% 55.2% 44.8% 94 43 13 150
Polling conducted by Newspoll and published in The Australian. Around three percent margin of error.

Non-standard contests

In seats not held or won by minor parties, the two-party-preferred contest is almost always between either both major parties (Coalition vs. Labor) or (less commonly) between a major party and an independent, there have been some cases in certain electorates where the contest has been between a major party and a minor party (and the major party wins).

Federal examples

In many inner-city seats that are safely held by Labor, the Greens finish second place. As of 2022, this occurred in the seats of Cooper and Wills in inner-city Melbourne, Grayndler and Sydney in inner-city Sydney and (since 2022) Canberra, which covers the inner-city and eastern suburbs of Canberra. In 2019, the Greens also finished second for the first time in the Melbourne seat of Kooyong, which was held by the Liberals until 2022, when it was won by teal independent Monique Ryan. In 2016, the Greens also finished second in the seats of Higgins in Melbourne and Warringah in Sydney. The Greens also finished second in the now-abolished Melbourne seat of Batman in the 2010, 2013 and 2016 elections, as well as in the 2018 by-election. Plus, before the Greens won the seat of Melbourne in 2010, the Greens had finished second in that electorate in 2007.

In 2016 and 2019, One Nation finished second in the seat of Maranoa in outback Queensland.

In 2016, the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) finished second in three South Australian electorates: Barker, Grey and Port Adelaide (the latter of which has since been abolished).

State examples

In New South Wales, there were only two electorates where minor parties finished second to a major party at the 2023 state election (Labor won both electorates); the Greens finished second in Summer Hill and One Nation finished second in Cessnock.[29] At the previous state election in 2019, the Greens finished second in four seats (Davidson, Manly, Pittwater and Vaucluse), all of which were won by the Liberals and were all located in Sydney.[30]

In Victoria, the Greens finished second to Labor in four Melbourne seats in 2022. These were Footscray, Northcote, Pascoe Vale, Preston.[31]

In Queensland, One Nation often finishes second in many regional electorates. At the 2020 Queensland state election, One Nation finished first in Mirani but finished second in just one seat, Bundamba, where they finished second to Labor.[32] This happened again in Bundamba at a by-election held in the same year.[33] At the previous election in 2017, however, One Nation finished second in 18 seats across Queensland. At this election, the Greens finished second in South Brisbane, a seat they gained in 2020.[34]

In Western Australia, the Greens finished second to Labor in Fremantle at the 2021 state election.[35]

See also

References

Page Template:Reflist/styles.css has no content.

  1. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."How the House of Representatives votes are counted". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 11 March 2012.
  2. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Historical national and state-by-state two-party preferred results". Australian Electoral Commission. 17 February 2016. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  3. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Malcolm Mackerras (2012). Simms, Marian; Wanna, John (eds.). The Results and the Pendulum. Australian National University. doi:10.22459/J2010.02.2012. ISBN 9781921862632. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  4. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Non-classic divisions, 2010 federal election". Australian Electoral Commission. 4 November 2013. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  5. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Green, Antony (10 February 2012). "How Should Reachtel's Ashgrove Polls be Interpreted". Blogs.abc.net.au. Archived from the original on 6 September 2012. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  6. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."AEC redirection page".
  7. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Green, Anthony (15 January 2018). "2017 Bennelong by-election: Commentary". abc.net.au. ABC News.
  8. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Green, Antony (25 November 2019). "Preference Flows at the 2019 Federal Election – Antony Green's Election Blog". Retrieved 19 August 2020.
  9. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."2009 Frome by-election results: State Electoral Office". Seo.sa.gov.au. Archived from the original on 20 January 2009. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
  10. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."2009 Frome By-election: ABC Elections". Abc.net.au. 2 February 2009. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
  11. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Frome by-election goes down to the wire". ABC Online. 18 January 2009. Archived from the original on 20 January 2009. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
  12. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Green, Antony. "Frome By-election Results". ABC Online. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
  13. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Emmerson, Russell; Pepper, Chris (18 January 2009). "Liberals confident they'll hold Outback seat of Frome". The Advertiser. Archived from the original on 20 January 2009. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
  14. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Liberals claim victory in Frome". Poll Bludger (Crikey). 21 January 2009. Archived from the original on 31 January 2009. Retrieved 25 January 2009. This article reproduces the original Liberal press release, no longer available on the SA Liberal site.
  15. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Hendrik Gout (30 January 2009). "Frome one loss to another: Independent Weekly 30/1/2009". Independentweekly.com.au. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
  16. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Richardson, Tom (30 January 2009). "Frome, a lost moment for the Libs: Independent Weekly 30/1/2009". Independentweekly.com.au. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
  17. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."District of Frome" (PDF). Retrieved 28 July 2010.[permanent dead link]
  18. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Pepper, Chris (25 January 2009). "Shock Frome loss rocks SA Liberals". The Advertiser. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
  19. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Walker, Jamie (31 January 2009). "Peace plea as Nationals take revenge on Liberals at polling booth". The Australian. Archived from the original on 6 March 2009. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
  20. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Nason, David (26 January 2009). "Leader left with pumpkin". The Australian. Retrieved 28 July 2010.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  21. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Lower, Gavin; Nason, David (26 January 2009). "Libs demand recount after shock poll loss". The Australian. Retrieved 28 July 2010.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  22. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Melbourne 2010 election result". Australian Electoral Commission. 29 September 2010. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  23. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."2012 Port Adelaide by-election results: ECSA".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  24. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Port Adelaide by-election preference distribution: ECSA" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 April 2013.
  25. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Antony Green (20 February 2012). "2012 Port Adelaide by-election results". Abc.net.au. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  26. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content.Antony Green (13 February 2012). "A Comment on the Size of the Port Adelaide Swing". Blogs.abc.net.au. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  27. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Port now a poll target for Liberals". The Advertiser. 2 March 2012. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
  28. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Susan Close wins Port Adelaide for Labor but seat now marginal". The Australian. 11 February 2012.
    Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Labor Keeps Port Adelaide, Ramsay in South Australian by-elections". The Australian. 12 February 2012.
    Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."By-election swings carry 'message for Labor'". The Australian. 13 February 2012.
  29. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."New South Wales Election 2023 Results". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 25 March 2023.
  30. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."New South Wales Election 2019 Results". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 23 March 2019.
  31. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Victoria Election 2022 Results". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 26 November 2022.
  32. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Queensland Election 2020 Results". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 31 October 2020.
  33. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Bundamba By-election - BCC Electorate, Candidates, Results". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 27 April 2020.
  34. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Queensland Election 2017 Results". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 25 November 2017.
  35. ^ Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css has no content."Western Australia Election 2021 Results". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 13 March 2021.

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:Navbox/configuration' not found.

Retrieved from "https://cosmopedia.co/index.php?title=Two-party-preferred_vote&oldid=3055782"