WA redistribution numbers also change


Earlier today I posted about the change in Victoria’s redistribution numbers, with the ABS acknowledging an error and changing the projected enrolment data. I won’t repeat all the background, you can go read about it there.

The same issue has arisen in WA, although it doesn’t seem quite so dramatic. All the same, the errors seem to be similar.

The main difference is that regional WA has about half as much of a surplus, and the southern half of Perth now has a larger surplus than the northern half.

This is despite the fact that projections for Pearce and Hasluck increased by quite a lot. While five out of six seats on the south side now project higher than originally, four out of six seats on the north side are projected to be smaller than on the original projection.

This map follows the same format as the Victorian map, with two layers.

It does appear that the biggest changes in projections were in the outer suburbs, with Pearce, Hasluck and Brand experiencing the biggest growth.

Suggestions and comments on suggestions have already concluded, so these fresh numbers, while available to the mapmakers, would not have been used for any of the public submissions.

Liked it? Take a second to support the Tally Room on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!


  1. so given the issue with taking northern or eastern parts of brand ive decided to come in from the south and remove singleton and karnup sa2s from brand to canning. this gives brand with the minimum tolerance of electors. thoughts?

  2. Maps going up. New seat or hasluck based on Swan. It will depend on how many voters come from hasluck. Now contains all but cowans part of swan which I originally did but new numbers mean they have to remain there

  3. @John where’s the new seat on your proposal? I think it could potentially be in western Perth or maybe based around Mandurah and the surrounding area.

  4. @nether portal darling scarp/Armadale. The map suggests swan but based on both my proposal and what anthony green has stated the swan based seat will be hasluck as the majority of haslucks voters will be there so the new seat will be based on Armadale and the darling scarp

  5. Mandurah will remain in canning thoughi think it will take in parts of brand given the northern boundary of brand is a good boundary

  6. Used James’ redistribution toolkit and managed to do WA pretty quickly. Not too hard when there is only 16 seats. Big disclaimer that I haven’t been to WA in years so I’m not entirely sure all of these works on a community of interest point of views but I think they are all pretty neat boundaries.

    Maps here (click the right to see all 6 images)

    Also did some rough boundary calculations for my seats. Kind of hard to really get a sense of the true margin due to the McGowan/Covid issue massively inflating the Labor vote. In brackets the increase or decrease to the Labor TPP

    Forrest 53.3% LIB (1%)
    Canning: 50.9% LIB (2.7%)
    Moore: 50.9% LIB (-0.2%)
    Curtin: 51% LIB (0.3% more Lib)
    Tangney: 52.4% ALP (same)
    New Seat: 55.8% ALP
    Cowan: 57.7% ALP (-3.1%)
    Pearce: 58.1% ALP (-0.9%)
    Swan: 59.5% ALP (0.5%)
    Burt: 60.7% ALP (-4.5%)
    Hasluck: 61.7% ALP (5.7%)

  7. @Drake nice work with the calculations.

    One question though: on that redistribution, does that mean Curtin is notionally Liberal?

  8. Oh I made a mistake Curtin is roughly 51% Independent not Lib. So more Lib leading but still independent

  9. @drake i reckon swa can and should all be in the same seat. Hasluck can shift west to be based purely in Swan and Bassandean

  10. If this goes to mini redistribution I imagine libs would win cowan and hasluck but Labor would win cowan-hasluck


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here