Lord Mayor

As widely expected Rob Valentine has been returned for a fifth term with yet another landslide victory.  The margin was 71.7% to 28.3%, within a few points of my prediction.  Well, at least I got that one more or less right!

Deputy Lord Mayor

My expectation was that Eva Ruzicka would probably be elected fairly comfortably, but the strength of the Green vote has changed that.  I did, however, indicate that it was possible Burnet could lead narrowly on primaries if the Green vote increased, but that if this happened, Ruzicka would be able to overtake her on preferences.  That scenario has come about thus far, with Burnet leading on primaries by 268 votes after polling 30% of the primary vote to Ruzicka’s 28.6%.  The remaining candidates were way behind: 11.7% for Zucco (not a bad result given that he did not campaign at all, but partly a reflection of the abysmal performance of some of the others), 10.9% for Lyn Archer, 9.8% for Christie and 9.1% for Hayes. The low vote for Lyn Archer was predictable but I am surprised by the very low DLM votes for Christie and Hayes who I expected to lead the “conservative” tally.

Following Hayes’ exclusion, Ruzicka gained 251 votes compared to Burnet. Christie was next excluded and Ruzicka gained a further 197 to lead Burnet by 180 at the close of counting for the night.  Zucco will be next excluded followed by Archer.  The pattern of Ruzicka gaining preferences through the count will continue (limited sampling as well as political logic supports this view) and Ruzicka will most likely win by several hundred votes.  This is the third time Ruzicka has been elected to this position and the third time it has been marginal (indeed this may well be the closest of the three) but what is truly remarkable is that instead of it being a close two-candidate result against the “conservative” side of Council, it is a close two-candidate result by a left-leaning incumbent against an endorsed Green. 

Aldermen (6 to be elected)

All vote totals are provisional and subject to checking.

The strength of the Green vote has delivered another surprise – Philip Cocker, who has only been on Council for two years, has topped the poll (subject to checking) with 3440 votes (1.28 quotas).  This is not much less than the entire Green ticket polled in the previous two elections, and more than they polled in any previous poll.

Eva Ruzicka has also been elected on the first count with 3324 votes (1.24 quotas).  This is slightly less than expected and actually represents a slight decline compared to 2002 when she polled 1.37 quotas.  Ruzicka did not campaign as actively as normally due to study commitments and a few of her votes may have gone to the Greens, Briscoe or Leo Foley.

Concerning Jeff Briscoe, I previously wrote “a mid-range prediction is a bit less than a quota and third to fifth across the line”.  Briscoe has obligingly complied by polling 2583 votes (0.96 quotas).  He will be elected third, either on Cocker’s surplus or Ruzicka’s.  Although he was thrashed again by Valentine it appears the mayoral campaign has done his aldermanic standing considerable good and he has polled a strong aldermanic vote while the remaining “conservatives” have floundered.

Those three are the only aldermen who can be definitely called in on the night, as there is now a five-way battle for the three remaining seats.

Lyn Archer’s vote has, as expected, collapsed, from 2874 in 2002 to 1199 this year (considering the increased number of votes, this is a decline of 62%).  What keeps Lyn Archer in the race despite this is that he is unexpectedly ahead of two other sitting aldermen despite that poor vote – he is in fifth place on primaries and if he can stay ahead of both Ron Christie and Eric Hayes, both of whom he outlasted in the DLM count, then he will be returned.

Given that Lyn Archer’s vote has collapsed, what surprises me is that Eric Hayes (1136 votes) and Ron Christie (1094) have not only failed to capitalise but also gone backwards themselves (both polled in the 1400s in 2002).  It seems that Lyn Archer’s voters have mostly gone to Elise Archer and Briscoe rather than these other sitting aldermen, both of whom were not especially prominent in the campaign although Hayes appeared to be making some effort.

Elise Archer has, as expected, polled quite impressively.  With 1379 votes she starts with a substantial buffer over Lyn Archer, Christie and Hayes.  She needs to remain ahead of at least one of them, possibly two, to win, and this is no certainty given that her lead is not massive and that there is a tendency for sitting aldermen to accumulate preferences on the count.

Bill Harvey (613 votes- an excellent personal vote given that Cocker polled such a massive tally) is the second Greens candidate.  If the preference flow in the Greens ticket is as strong as in previous elections, Harvey can expect around 80% of Cocker’s surplus, ie about 620 votes, from Cocker’s surplus.  It may, in fact, be slightly stronger than that.  Preferences from the remaining Greens candidates will not flow nearly so strongly, but he should gain at least a further 300-400 votes compared with the rest of the field from them.  At this point his vote will stall, but this makes him a contender for one of the final three positions.

Of the remaining eight candidates, Leo Foley has polled a very impressive tally of 1022 votes.  However he is very likely to be stranded with nowhere to get preferences from as Ruzicka’s preferences go everywhere, and the second Green (Harvey) will be well ahead of him.  Sitting aldermen will continue to accumulate votes through the count making it unlikely he can outlast one, and even if he does so, he will probably be easily beaten by the others at that point.  I therefore believe he will finish ninth and his preferences will be crucial to the outcome.  However, if he can poll a similar vote again in the 2009 field he will have an excellent chance of getting elected at the third attempt.

Peter Donnelly (612 votes) has polled poorly this time, and unlike 2005 when he was a serious contender, in 2007 he is way too far behind to get close.  Rod Force (549 votes) has, as expected, polled reasonably for a newcomer but also not enough to threaten for a seat.  The third and fourth Greens candidates Peterson (486) and Perey (416) have both done well, but the size of Cocker’s surplus prevents them from competing in any way with Harvey.  Finally, as expected Shea (340), Winter (224) and Smith (204) have contributed little but background noise to the count.

Following the distribution of the surpluses of Cocker, Ruzicka and Briscoe, candidates will be cut out from the bottom, possibly in the order Smith, Winter, Shea, Perey, Force, Donnelly, Peterson.  With these seven all excluded, Harvey may well be in fourth place, with Elise Archer probably still ahead of Lyn Archer, and Foley most likely in ninth.  The six remaining candidates will have close to four quotas between them, but it is unlikely any will be over a quota.  Assuming Foley is excluded at this point, his preferences will still not necessarily elect anyone, however whoever is running last after his exclusion and any subsequent small surpluses is eliminated.  I am expecting that this is where one of Christie, Hayes or Lyn Archer will lose.  It’s quite possible one or them will have caught Elise Archer by this point, but I doubt very much that they all will do so.

Assuming one of the sitting aldermen does go out at this point, their preferences will heavily favour the other sitting aldermen over Harvey, who at this stage will be moving very slowly.  How Elise Archer will fare on these preferences is not so clear. At this point there will be four candidates left fighting over just under four quotae (assuming no-one was elected on Foley’s preferences) and the throwing of the defeated alderman’s preferences (and surpluses from them) continues until everything is resolved and someone else misses out.

At the tally room I was rather optimistic about Harvey’s chances of winning a second seat for the Greens and thought his position was rather more comfortable than that of the three sitting aldermen.  After a more detailed look I no longer hold this view, and suspect his chances depend on whether he can obtain a much stronger preference flow from Perey and Peterson than Green candidates have obtained from the other minor Green candidates in the past.  If not, as the conservative preferences funnel together as candidates are elected following the final exclusion, it will be an uphill battle for him to stay ahead of all remaining conservative candidates.

It is far too early to be confident about what will happen beyond the three candidates who are obviously in and several others who are obviously not, but I currently think the most individually likely result of the five-way battle for three positions is simply that Elise Archer will defeat one of Hayes or Christie.  I don’t expect to be calling anything on Wednesday, but maybe at some stage on Thursday I can be more confident about some more seats.  Unlike some pundits who were making “calls” and getting them wrong (including a very experienced pundit who was adamant Ivan Dean would win on preferences and not at all happy when this turned out not to be the case!), yours truly refrains from making “calls” until results can be predicted beyond reasonable doubt.

Interpretation to follow in a wrap-up article after it’s all over in a few days’ time. 

Kevin Bonham

A 7% swing to the Greens ticket in the Hobart City Council elections and a strong first-time vote for Elise Archer have three sitting aldermen fighting to retain their seats after the first night of counting.  It is likely that one of Lyn Archer, Ron Christie and Eric Hayes will lose their seats, and it is possible that two could be defeated.