The Tally Room Tue, 24 May 2022 07:34:02 +0000 en-US hourly 1 6127899 What happened with the Chinese-Australian vote in the big cities? Tue, 24 May 2022 07:34:02 +0000 One of the trends I’ve started hearing about over the last day or two, thanks to the very smart commenters on this blog, is that booth swings in a bunch of suburban seats in Sydney and Melbourne were particularly strong in the areas with a large population of Chinese-Australian voters. So I thought I would try and visualise this effect, or see if it was just anecdote.

We know Labor did well in seats with a large Chinese-Australian population in Sydney and Melbourne, such as Reid, Bennelong and Chisholm. Even in Menzies the race was surprisingly close.

The trend doesn’t appear to be the same across a seat, so I don’t just want to analyse the data at the electorate level. But I also don’t have election results data at the SA1 level, and it’s a bit complex to match census data to a booth. So instead I’ve amalgamated all of the election results at the suburb level, and the same for the census data.

I’m looking at two-party-preferred swings between Labor and the Coalition, so this analysis can’t include suburbs like Chatswood in the seat of North Sydney, which has an Independent vs Liberal count.

The trend seems pretty clear to me. While suburbs with low proportions of people of Chinese ancestry moved in both directions, those with higher proportions almost entirely swung towards Labor, some moving quite far.

Next up, I thought I would try and map the booth swings across the seats with the largest Chinese-Australian populations in Sydney and Melbourne. For each of these maps, you can toggle from the 2PP swings to the 2PP overall percentage and the proportion of the suburb who have Chinese ancestry. Sorry these maps are big files and might take a little while to load.

For Sydney, I've included Banks, Barton, Bennelong, Blaxland, Mitchell, Parramatta, Reid and Watson.

Blaxland doesn't have a big Chinese-Australian population, but it connects Banks to the other seats, so I've included it.

Banks is particularly interesting. The eastern parts of the seat have much larger Chinese-Australian populations, and Labor gained swings across this area, while losing support in the west of the seat.

Further north, there were swings all across Reid, but they were particularly high in the Strathfield-Burwood and Rhodes-Wentworth Point areas, both of which have very high Chinese-Australian populations.

The swing in Bennelong was strongest in Eastwood, which has the biggest Chinese-Australian population. There were big swings in the safe Liberal seat of Mitchell, but they were strongest around Castle Hill.

I found Parramatta particularly interesting. This is the seat where the sitting MP Julie Owens retired, and Labor controversially preselected Andrew Charlton, an out-of-area former Kevin Rudd advisor, overriding a number of local candidates of colour seeking preselection in a very multicultural seat.

Charlton suffered negative swings across the west of the electorate, but gained small swings in the east, with big swings in his favour in the north-eastern corner around Carlingford, which is (you've guessed it) the area with the highest proportion of people of Chinese ancestry. This produces an interesting pattern when you look at the final percentages. The seat used to have stronger Liberal areas in the north and stronger Labor votes in the south, but now it is quite even across the seat.

Next let's look at Melbourne. I don't know Melbourne as well, so maybe I'm leaving off a few other seats, but it's generally a smaller area, focused on Chisholm, Deakin and Menzies.

There were swings to Labor across this whole area, but it was heaviest in the parts of Chisholm and Menzies with large Chinese-Australian populations, specifically Glen Waverley, Box Hill and Doncaster. The effect is not so obvious in Deakin.

I won't try and explain this effect, except to note that Australia's relationship with China was a major story early in the election campaign. I think there are probably other effects overlapping with these trends. Labor generally did well across the whole of eastern Melbourne, which tend to be relatively wealthy parts of the city, so the underlying large swings may be explained by the Liberal collapse with high-income voters, and is then enhanced in areas with a lot of Chinese-Australian voters.

What trends are you noticing in this data? And what other seats would you like to see similar maps for?

]]> 11 47839
Major party vote at all time low Mon, 23 May 2022 05:09:04 +0000 Prior to the election I wrote about the long-term downward trend in support for the major parties, and how polling suggested that this trend would continue in 2022. Not only has it continued, but it has accelerated.

So I thought I’d show how that vote has declined in 2022, and then look at how that changes the outcomes of House of Representatives races in various ways.

Firstly, this chart shows the total vote for Labor and the Coalition since 1949.

The combined vote has dropped from 74.8% in 2019 to 68.5% at the time of writing. This is one of the larger drops, but it is less than the drop we saw in 1977, 1990 and 1998, all elections which were breakthrough moments for minor parties. The 1977 election was the first election for the Australian Democrats, the 1990 election was a peak moment for the Democrats and saw some of the first Greens campaigns, and 1998 was the introduction of One Nation.

About a third of that lost vote has gone to independents. The vote for independents has increased from 3.37% to 5.50% (+2.13%). There was also a 1.8% swing to One Nation (largely explained by them running in another ~90 seats compared to 2019), a 1.5% swing to the Greens and a 1.45% swing to the Liberal Democrats (also explained by running a lot more candidates. The increase in support for those groups makes up almost 7% of the electorate, compared to a 6.3% decline in major party support.

I'll just briefly mention the Senate major party vote, although this post is mostly about the House, and the number of votes included in the Senate count is much smaller than in the House.

The major party vote in the Senate bounced back slightly in 2019 after hitting a low of 65% in 2016, but it has now reached a new low of just 62.1%, which means the combined vote for all minor parties and independents now exceeds either of the major parties in the Senate.

The Labor vote has been largely stable, since 2013, dropping slightly in the House and bouncing back slightly in the Senate. This is remarkable in a context where the party has possibly won majority government and gained a 3.5% two-party-preferred swing.

There's been a lot of discussion about what has happened with Labor's vote on Twitter. I've seen estimates that "strategic" voting for independents explains between 0.6% and 1% of the total vote leaving Labor. This may explain a small share but it still remains the case that this government has won power with the smallest share of support for a government ever seen, and that raises hard questions about our electoral system.

When the major party vote is very high, the impact of minor parties and independents is mostly through the flow of preferences in close seats. Now that experience is almost universal.

Just 61 out of 150 electorates at the 2004 election were decided on preferences, with the leading candidate polling over 50% of the primary vote in the other 89. This number increased to a record high of 105 electorates in 2019. On the current numbers, there are 133 seats where no candidate won a majority of the primary vote.

We can also take a narrower definition of "decided on preferences" and look at seats where the candidate coming first on primary votes was overtaken and another candidate won. In other words, the seats where first past the post would have elected a different candidate.

To be honest I expected this number to be more dramatic. I'm not really sure why, but the number of Labor come-from-behind peaked in 2016, but it still makes up a decent share of Labor's wins. The big change in 2022 is the increase in independent and Greens seats in this chart, with nine come-from-behind wins for crossbenchers.

The increase in non-major party support has seen a big change in how election results analysis works, due to the increasing number of seats where the final count is not between Labor and the Coalition (what the AEC calls a "nonclassic" seat).

The previous record was 17 non-classic seats in 2016, but at the moment it appears there are 24 in 2022 (the exact number depends on whether Labor or Greens make the top two in Brisbane).

Which brings me to my final chart, which I have previously shared on Twitter and the Guardian's liveblog, showing the size of the crossbench, and this one is totally out of proportion from the past. The six crossbenchers elected in 2010 and 2019 were the previous record, but now it seems likely we'll end up with about 16 crossbenchers.

]]> 4 47834
Podcast #75: A remarkable election Sun, 22 May 2022 07:49:56 +0000 Ben is joined by Kevin Bonham to discuss the results of yesterday’s federal election.

This podcast is supported by the Tally Room’s supporters on Patreon. If you find this podcast worthwhile please consider giving your support.

You can subscribe to this podcast using this RSS feed in your podcast app of choice, but should also be able to find this podcast by searching for “the Tally Room”. If you like the show please considering rating and reviewing us on iTunes.

]]> 13 47830
Next morning swings and roundabouts Sun, 22 May 2022 01:35:46 +0000 Wow! Okay so where are we at on Sunday morning?

With my work in the Guardian we have called 132 seats. There’s a handful I haven’t called (such as Parramatta and Werriwa) that can probably be called once the pre-poll vote comes in.

Decided Leading Total
Labor 70 9 79
Coalition 51 5 56
Crossbench 11 5 16
Total 132 19 151

When I went to bed last night, Labor was leading in 75 seats, but they are now leading in 79.

Of those nine seats where Labor is leading, I am close to calling Tangney, Parramatta and Werriwa. The other six seats are Lyons, Sturt, Gilmore, Bennelong, Deakin and Lingiari. Labor needs to win two of those six for a majority.

I am also close to calling Curtin and Fowler, and I have only hesitated to call North Sydney for the independent because of the possibility of Labor overtaking Tink in the distribution of preferences.

At the moment, including undecided seats, I count 22 seats that have either changed hands or the incumbent party is currently behind. That includes:

  • 8 Labor gains and 4 Labor leading
  • 4 Independent gains and 3 independent leading
  • 1 Greens gains and 2 Greens leading

Labor’s 12 potential gains include 4 WA seats, 3 NSW seats, 3 Victorian seats, 2 South Australian seats, and no gains in Queensland or Tasmania.

Independent gains include 4 in Sydney, 2 in Melbourne and one in Perth.

All of the Greens gains are in Brisbane.

I’ve made a map with three layers. The first layer shows the two-candidate-preferred swing in the 128 seats with a valid swing. We don’t have TCP swing in seats where they have had to reset the count, and we also don’t have swings in new independent seats.

The next layer shows the current prediction (called seats in a dark colour, leading seats in a lighter colour), and the final layer highlights the seats that have changed hands.

There is a repeated trend of Labor gaining larger swings in more inner-city electorates while gaining small swings or even losing ground in outer suburbia.

In Melbourne, Labor suffered small swings to the Liberal Party in large parts of the city, specifically the northern, western and outer south-eastern suburbs, but gained very large swings in the eastern suburbs. The Liberal Party has lost a contiguous block of four electorates in eastern Melbourne, but this could extend to six electorates if they lose Deakin and Menzies.

That pattern of outer suburban swings against Labor is not so obvious in other cities, although the Liberals did gain swings in most Tasmanian seats, and they did gain swings in Lindsay and Werriwa.

The swings to Labor are certainly more muted in the western suburbs of Sydney compared to seats closer to the city, and of course the Liberal Party suffered big swings to independents in the eastern and northern suburbs. In particular I noticed that, if Labor wins Bennelong, the Liberal Party no longer holds any seats on the harbour front or on the Parramatta River, having lost Bennelong, Reid, Wentworth and North Sydney.

If Labor wins Sturt, where they lead by 0.6%, the Liberal Party will be left with no seats in Adelaide. The swings here match the pattern elsewhere, with the Labor-friendly northern suburbs having the smallest swings.

The swings are massive across Perth, but particularly large in inner-city Perth and Tangney, along with outer suburban Pearce.

The Greens gains in inner city Brisbane also fit with the trend, but even in neighbouring seats like Moreton and Lilley, Labor had larger swings.

That’s it for now, I’m planning a few blog posts for today and tomorrow.

]]> 17 47823
Australia 2022, election night live Sat, 21 May 2022 08:00:23 +0000 12:01 – Well it turns out the website couldn’t handle the traffic tonight! Hopefully most of you found me at the Guardian. I’ll be back in the morning with a lot of analysis.

7:57 – There’s a lot going on, but some key points right now:

  • Labor is trailing in a few of their seats, but leading in a lot more Coalition seats.
  • Independents and Greens are doing very well.

6:31 – I’ll have the full list on the Guardian liveblog, but there are 11 independents on the east coast included in the TCP. This includes three incumbents, one running against Labor (Dai Le in Fowler) and two regional candidates (Jack Dempsey in Hinkler and Rob Priestly in Nicholls), with the rest typical teal candidates.

6:13 – I’ll have a blog post on the Guardian liveblog on this topic soon, but the final pre-poll count was just over 5.5 million, up from 4.7 million in 2019, thanks to over 900,000 pre-poll voters on Friday. Meanwhile almost 1.8 million postal votes have been returned.

6:11 – It turns out we received a few votes before 6pm. 302 ballots were received for the seat of Bean from Norfolk Island, which has a timezone ahead of the east coast. The vote was particularly favourable to independent Jamie Christie.

6:00 – Polls have just closed in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. I don’t expect we will see much in the way of results for the next 30 minutes, but I’ll be back later with some analysis. I will also be participating in the Guardian’s election results liveblog, and I’ll post a link when I get a chance. While you wait for results you could check out the two blog posts I wrote on the topic of how election night works – the rate of votes coming in, and which parties tend to be favoured early on.

]]> 19 47809
An expanding crossbench and the chances of a hung parliament Fri, 20 May 2022 22:00:04 +0000 I hadn’t been planning to write a substantive blog post for election day – I usually just post an open thread for discussion during the day. But yesterday I had an idea for one more bit of analysis that seems relevant to consider before tonight.

I have heard a few smart people point out that there is a history of a party winning the two-party-preferred vote but losing the election, and that is true. It happened twice in the 1960s, and again in 1990 and 1998. But this also made me think of a theory I have been explaining when asked about the chances of a hung parliament. A hung parliament depends on two factors: the closeness of the result between the major parties, and the size of the crossbench. A tiny crossbench requires a very close result to produce a hung parliament. A much larger crossbench makes a hung parliament more likely.

So I thought I would examine these two interrelated topics: how does the size of the crossbench affect the chances of a hung parliament, and do those increased chances make a “wrong winner” result less possible? I’m defining a “wrong winner” as a major party winning a majority in the House despite losing the two-party-preferred vote, not simply forming government in a hung parliament.

First up, I gathered data since the 1984 election on the number of seats that would have needed to change hands for the newly-elected government to not win a majority, and what uniform swing would have been needed for those seats to change hands, based on the post-election pendulum. I also then calculated the uniform swing needed for enough seats to change hands for the loser of the election (the new opposition) to win a majority. In effect this creates a range within which a hung parliament would have been produced, or the “hung parliament range”.

This chart also shows the number of crossbenchers elected to the House at that election (in brackets after the year), and the national two-party-preferred margin marked in red.

You can see that the national two-party-preferred margin often falls outside of the hung parliament zonw, which implies that a uniform swing that would have changed the national 2PP winner would not have changed the outcome. This is true for all but one election between 1984 and 2007. Only in 1996 did the national two-party-preferred margin fall within the hung parliament range. Incidentally, the 1996 election produced the most crossbenchers of any election prior to 2010.

Since 2010, three out of four elections have produced a hung parliament range that overlaps with the national two-party-preferred margin, and it was just outside the range in 2016.

This suggests that a uniform swing could have created a "wrong winner" result in 1984, 1987, 1993, 2001 or 2004, although 2004 was only just outside of the hung parliament range. Indeed the Labor two-party-preferred vote in 1993 was quite a bit stronger than their seat count, and a uniform swing of just 0.4% would have flipped seven seats and put them into hung parliament, and a uniform swing of just 0.61% would have flipped nine and given the Coalition a majority.

So why the change over the last decade? Well, I think it's largely because the crossbench has grown.

There were five crossbenchers in 1996, but otherwise there were never more than three prior to the 2010 election. Since 2010, we have never had less than five.

I think these first two charts show that there is a relationship between the size of the hung parliament range and the size of the crossbench, but the next scatter plot makes that very clear.

The two elections with the widest hung parliament ranges were 2010 and 2019, in which six crossbenchers had been elected.

In contrast, the only "wrong winner" results in the last half century both took place in a political environment where the House was almost entirely dominated by the major parties, even if both elections were famous for a surge in the minor party vote. Indeed, the two "wrong winner" results in the 1960s took place with no crossbench at all.

We don't know what will happen tonight. It seems unlikely any of the sitting crossbenchers will lose, and there are numerous prospects for crossbench gains. For all I know we could see ten or more crossbenchers in the House. That makes it very likely that the range of two-party-preferred vote figures that would produce a hung parliament would be wider than it has been for a very long time.

That doesn't mean we will have a hung parliament. If Labor wins the two-party-preferred vote comfortably they could well clear that range.

As long as we have a large crossbench, that will structurally change the nature of close results. A major party can win a majority if they win comfortably, but a close election will likely result in a hung parliament. That may not be permanent, but it will likely be with us for quite some time.

We may well not know the outcome of the election when we go to bed tonight, but it seems very unlikely that both a Labor majority and a Coalition majority will remain options at that time. As the major party vote has declined and the crossbench has expanded, the chasm between these two majority options is getting wider, and I think it's very unlikely that enough seats will be in play at the end of tonight to leave both those options open.

]]> 18 47811
Results prediction open thread Thu, 19 May 2022 23:30:28 +0000 Today’s blog post will be short. I’m creating this as an open thread to make your predictions about how the result will go.

I’ll be back with an open thread for election day tomorrow and there will be a liveblog on the night, although I will primarily be contributing to the Guardian’s results liveblog and seat-calling efforts. I’ll then be back with analysis on Sunday, and I’ll be recording a podcast with Kevin Bonham on Sunday afternoon to get out as quickly as possible.

I’d also like to throw in a plug for my Patreon. This has been a busy and intense election and I wouldn’t have been able to cover it the way I have without the support of Patreon donors – blog posts nearly every day and six pre-election podcasts. Patreon have levelled off now that I don’t have a paywalled federal election guide to view, but I do have my guide to the Victorian election and will soon have the guide to the NSW election. So if you’ve been thinking of signing up, now would be a great time to do it.


]]> 81 47805
Early voting update Thu, 19 May 2022 03:05:31 +0000 I thought it was about time to do another update of the early voting statistics.

As of the end of Wednesday, 3.87 million people had cast a pre-poll vote. This compares to 3.52 million as of the same point in 2019, and a cumulative total of just under 4.8 million as of the end of the 2019 pre-poll period.

As of the end of Tuesday, 2.6 million postal vote applications had been submitted, with 1.16 million votes returned. I don't have the Wednesday figures yet. About 1.6 million applications were made in 2019, which translated into 1.2 million votes.

So that is just over 5 million early votes cast so far, and I suspect we will have over 2 million more cast. So that would be 7.5 million early votes, compared to 6 million postal and pre-poll votes, 15 million total votes in 2019 and 17.2 million enrolled in 2022.

]]> 8 47799
Take a look at the Senate Tue, 17 May 2022 23:30:06 +0000 As is always the case, the election campaign has been very much focused on the House of Representatives. But there are some interesting potential outcomes in the Senate.

In short, I think the Coalition is in danger of losing a senate seat in at least four states and the ACT (probably not New South Wales or South Australia). The Greens have good prospects of gaining seats off the right in Queensland and off Labor in New South Wales, and may win a seat in South Australia depending on the strength of support for Nick Xenophon. Most states will elect two Labor and one Greens, with the possible exceptions of South Australia, where they may just win two, and Tasmania and Western Australia where I think there are slim chances they could win four seats between them.

While I don’t know who would win the seat, I also think the door is open for minor parties of the right to defeat the third Liberal in Victoria or Western Australia, while they are competing for the third seat with Nick Xenophon in South Australia, Jacqui Lambie’s ally Tammy Tyrrell in Tasmania, and a number of right-wing threats including Pauline Hanson, Clive Palmer and Campbell Newman in Queensland.

New South Wales

Labor and the Coalition are each defending three seats. The last election saw the Coalition win three seats, Labor two and the Greens one.

It seems likely that the Greens will gain a seat off Labor, and polling would need to substantially be understating the Labor position for the left to win a combined four seats, leaving the Coalition with two and Labor with three.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that the Coalition could also lose their third seat to a right wing minor party like One Nation or the United Australia Party. One Nation ended up on about two thirds of a quota in 2019 – a swing of about 5% would probably see them pick up the third right-wing seat.


The Coalition is defending three seats, alongside two Labor and one Greens. The last election produced the same result, and that outcome is also the most likely in 2022.

It seems unlikely that Labor can win a third seat, with polls suggesting Labor making relatively small gains here.

There may also be some prospect of the Coalition losing their third seat. If that takes place, a minor party candidate from One Nation, United Australia or the Liberal Democrats could have a chance, or potentially even Derryn Hinch.


The Liberal National Party is defending three seats, along with two Labor and one from One Nation. The last election elected three LNP and one each from Labor, One Nation and the Greens.

One of the most plausible opportunities for the left to gain a Senate seat would see the left (likely the Greens) pick up one of the right-wing seats. I estimate they would need a combined swing of about 3.1% for the Greens to pick up a seat without taking away one of the two Labor seats. This is quite achievable considering current polling.

This then sets up a race for the third right-wing seat between Pauline Hanson, third LNP senator Amanda Stoker, UAP founder Clive Palmer and former premier Campbell Newman, running for the Liberal Democrats.

It’s hard to say how Palmer will go. He may break through with a bigger vote in different political circumstances to 2019, but Hanson seems like the favourite. I think Stoker will be hurt by a decline in the LNP vote.

Western Australia

The Liberal Party is defending three seats, with Labor defending two and the Greens one. The 2019 election produced the same result.

The main question is whether the Liberal Party will lose their third seat, and then whether there’s a chance for Labor to pick up a third seat at their expense, or if the seat may go to a right-wing minor party.

The Liberal Party polled 40.9% in the Senate in 2019, but Bludgertrack suggests the Liberal primary vote is down over 8%, putting them around 32-33%. That doesn’t leave much after electing two senators.

The polling average has Labor’s primary vote up 8.8% but it hasn’t impacted on the Greens primary vote, who are up 0.8%. That’s two thirds of a quota in extra votes on the left. If you add that to the primary votes in the Senate for those two parties in 2019, it’s 49%, which is 3.43 quotas. So it’s not out of the realm of possibilities that the left could win four seats.

Alternatively, the UAP or One Nation could get ahead of the third Liberal and win.

South Australia

The Liberal and Labor parties are each defending two seats. The other two seats were originally won by the Nick Xenophon Team in 2016: Stirling Griff, who is now a member of the Centre Alliance; and Rex Patrick, who filled Nick Xenophon’s vacancy in 2018 and later became an independent.

The big question at this election is what happens with those two former NXT seats.

Nick Xenophon announced a late candidacy, with Griff running as his running mate.

While the last Xenophon campaign, for the 2018 South Australian state election, was seen as a failure, he still polled 19.4% for the upper house, compared to 21.8% in the 2016 federal election and 24.9% in 2013.

So the big question is how much of a vote Xenophon can poll after four years out of politics. It seems likely that he will retain a lot of his previous support, enough to reach a single 14.3% quota. It’s also not out of the realm of possibilities that he could poll sufficiently to be in with a chance of winning a second seat for his running mate Griff. His 24.9% vote in 2013 was not enough to win two seats, but that was due to unfavourable preferences under the group voting ticket system – it would likely be enough under the current system.

All of this makes it hard to know what will happen with the remaining seats. If Xenophon wins one seat in the current environment it seems likely the remaining seats will split as two for Labor, two for Liberal and one for the Greens. If he wins two, it seems most likely that the remaining seats will split as two for the left and two for the right, particularly since South Australia does not appear to be on track for a particularly large swing to the left. I wouldn’t rule out a possible outcome, however, of 2 Labor, 2 Xenophon, 1 Liberal and 1 Greens.


The Liberal Party is defending three seats, Labor is defending two and the Greens are defending one. At the last election, the Labor and Liberal parties each retained two seats, with the Greens retaining one seat and Jacqui Lambie regaining her seat.

Labor and the Greens should easily retain their seats, and the Liberal Party’s first two should be safe.

The big question is how the Jacqui Lambie Network performs. Lambie herself is not up for election, but JLN is running Tammy Tyrrell. JLN polled 8.9% in 2019. If the party’s vote was much lower, they would have trouble winning a seat.

If the Lambie vote is not high enough to retain that seat, the question will be about where that vote goes. You would expect a swing to Labor, making it hard for the Liberals to win a third seat, but a 4-2 split would be a big deal and the Liberal Party would do better from the remaining preferences if they can offset a general swing by winning back Lambie voters.

Australian Capital Territory

The territory Senate contests are different due to the election of just two senators. In the entire history of territory Senate elections, there has never been a result other than one Labor and one Liberal (or Country Liberal in the NT) senator.

There have been numerous pushes over the year from parties like the Democrats and the Greens to defeat the Liberal senator in the ACT without any success.

Recent polling suggests independent candidate David Pocock is in the strongest position of any of the challengers, although I don’t take exact polling figures too seriously.

The challenge for a candidate in winning the seat currently held by Seselja is similar in the Liberal House of Representatives races where independents are challenging. The challenger needs to peel away enough votes to make it to the final round of the count, in this case staying ahead of the Greens, the second Labor candidate and other independents, but then also win over enough Liberal voters to defeat the Liberal in the final count.

Overall it seems plausible that a decline in the Liberal vote in current circumstances could see Seselja lose.

Northern Territory

There is no realistic prospect of a change in the Northern Territory from the current split of one Labor and one Country Liberal.

]]> 10 47783
Podcast #74: The final countdown Mon, 16 May 2022 20:30:53 +0000 Ben is joined this week by Jill Sheppard and Peter Brent to discuss the state of the campaign, long term voting trends and the seat of Dickson in Queensland.

This podcast is supported by the Tally Room’s supporters on Patreon. If you find this podcast worthwhile please consider giving your support.

You can subscribe to this podcast using this RSS feed in your podcast app of choice, but should also be able to find this podcast by searching for “the Tally Room”. If you like the show please considering rating and reviewing us on iTunes.

]]> 7 47780