Two-party-preferred vote

In Australian politics, the two-party-preferred vote (TPP or 2PP) is the result of an election or opinion poll after preferences have been distributed to the highest two candidates, who in some cases can be independents. For the purposes of TPP, the Liberal/National Coalition is usually considered a single party, with Labor being the other major party. Typically the TPP is expressed as the percentages of votes attracted by each of the two major parties, e.g. "Coalition 50%, Labor 50%", where the values include both primary votes and preferences. The TPP is an indicator of how much swing has been attained/is required to change the result, taking into consideration preferences, which may have a significant effect on the result.

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

The TPP assumes a two-party system, i.e. that after distribution of votes from less successful candidates, the two remaining candidates will be from the two major parties. However, in some electorates this is not the case. The two-candidate-preferred vote (TCP) is the result after preferences have been distributed, using instant-runoff voting, to the final two candidates, regardless of which party the candidates represent. For electorates where the two candidates are from the major parties, the TCP is also the TPP. For electorates where these two candidates are not both from the major parties, preferences are notionally distributed to the two major parties to determine the TPP. In this case the TPP differs from the TCP, and is not informative. TPP results above seat-level, such as a national or statewide TPP, are also informative only and have no direct effect on the election outcome.

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-preference instant runoff 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 proportional voting system. Aside from Tasmania, TPP/TCP is not used in any other upper houses in Australia, with most using the group ticket single transferable proportional voting system.[1]

History

Australia originally used first-past-the-post voting as used by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Federal election full-preference instant-runoff voting was introduced by the government of the day 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 (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.

The Coalition now includes four parties: the Liberal Party of Australia except Queensland and the Northern Territory, the National Party of Australia in New South Wales and Victoria, the Liberal National Party of Queensland, and the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory. 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 the next few 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]

South Australian state elections have 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 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 the independent Commonwealth 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]

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[6]

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

Examples

Federal, Swan 1918

1918 Swan by-election: Division of Swan, Western Australia

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Labor	Edwin Corboy	6,540	34.4	N/A
	Country	Basil Murray	5,975	31.4	N/A
	Nationalist	William Hedges	5,635	29.6	N/A
	Independent	William Watson	884	4.6	N/A
Turnout			19,213	64.3%
	Labor gain from Nationalist		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

2004 Australian federal election: Division of Adelaide, South Australia

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Liberal	Trish Worth	38,530	45.29	+0.82
	Labor	Kate Ellis	35,666	41.92	+5.50
	Greens	Jake Bugden	6,794	7.99	+2.02
	Family First	Peter G Robins	1,753	2.06	+2.06
	Democrats	Richard Pascoe	1,355	1.59	–9.30
	Independent	Amanda Barlow	978	1.15	+1.15
Total formal votes			85,076	95.60	+0.66
Informal votes			3,920	4.40	–0.66
Turnout			88,996	93.62	–1.09
Two-party-preferred result
	Labor	Kate Ellis	43,671	51.33	+1.95
	Liberal	Trish Worth	41,405	48.67	–1.95
	Labor gain from Liberal		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	%
	Liberal	Trish Worth	172	17.6	38,702	45.5
	Labor	Kate Ellis	206	21.1	35,872	42.2
	Greens	Jake Bugden	365	37.3	7,159	8.4
	Family First	Peter G Robins	96	9.8	1,849	2.2
	Democrats	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	%
	Liberal	Trish Worth	343	23.0	39,045	45.9
	Labor	Kate Ellis	494	33.1	36,366	42.8
	Greens	Jake Bugden	560	37.5	7,719	9.1
	Family First	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	%
	Liberal	Trish Worth	1,098	56.4	40,143	47.2
	Labor	Kate Ellis	377	19.4	36,743	43.2
	Greens	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	%
	Labor	Kate Ellis	6,928	84.6	43,671	51.3
	Liberal	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
	Labor	Kate Ellis	35,666	206	494	377	6,928	43,671
	Liberal	Trish Worth	38,530	172	343	1,098	1,262	41,405
	Greens	Jake Bugden	6,794	365	560	471	(8,190)
	Family First	Peter G Robins	1,753	96	97	(1,946)
	Democrats	Richard Pascoe	1,355	139	(1,494)
	Independent	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

2009 Frome state by-election: Electoral district of Frome, South Australia[7][8]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Liberal	Terry Boylan	7,576	39.24	–8.86
	Labor	John Rohde	5,041	26.11	–14.93
	Independent	Geoff Brock	4,557	23.60	+23.60
	National	Neville Wilson	1,267	6.56	+6.56
	Greens	Joy O'Brien	734	3.80	+0.06
	One Nation	Peter Fitzpatrick	134	0.69	+0.69
Total formal votes			19,309	97.12	+0.21
Informal votes			573	2.88	–0.21
Turnout			19,882	89.79	–4.44
Two-party-preferred result
	Liberal	Terry Boylan	9,976	51.67	–1.74
	Labor	John Rohde	9,333	48.33	+1.74
Two-candidate-preferred result
	Independent	Geoff Brock	9,987	51.72	+51.72
	Liberal	Terry Boylan	9,322	48.28	–5.13
	Independent gain from Liberal		Swing	N/A

The 2009 Frome by-election was closely contested, with the result being uncertain for over a week.[9][10][11] Liberal leader Martin Hamilton-Smith claimed victory on behalf of the party.[12][13][14] 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[15]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Liberal	Terry Boylan	8,215	42.54
	Independent	Geoff Brock	5,562	28.81
	Labor	John Rohde	5,532	28.65

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.[16][17] 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.[18][19] 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 statewide 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

2010 Australian federal election: Division of Melbourne, Victoria

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Labor	Cath Bowtell	34,022	38.09	–11.42
	Greens	Adam Bandt	32,308	36.17	+13.37
	Liberal	Simon Olsen	18,760	21.00	–2.49
	Sex Party	Joel Murray	1,633	1.83	+1.83
	Family First	Georgia Pearson	1,389	1.55	+0.55
	Secular	Penelope Green	613	0.69	+0.69
	Democrats	David Collyer	602	0.67	–0.76
Total formal votes			89,327	96.38	–0.82
Informal votes			3,356	3.62	+0.82
Turnout			92,683	90.09	–1.41
Two-party-preferred result
	Labor	Cath Bowtell	65,473	73.30	+1.03
	Liberal	Simon Olsen	23,854	26.70	–1.03
Two-candidate-preferred result
	Greens	Adam Bandt	50,059	56.04	+10.75
	Labor	Cath Bowtell	39,268	43.96	–10.75
	Greens gain from Labor		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.[20]

South Australia, Port Adelaide 2012

2012 Port Adelaide state by-election: Electoral district of Pt Adelaide, South Australia

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Labor	Susan Close	8,218	42.3	–7.6
	Independent	Gary Johanson	4,717	24.3	+24.3
	Independent	Sue Lawrie	2,938	15.1	+15.1
	Liberal Democrats	Stephen Humble	1,415	7.3	+7.3
	Greens	Justin McArthur	1,096	5.6	–0.6
	Independent	Colin Thomas	314	1.6	+1.6
	Independent	Bob Briton	292	1.5	+1.5
	One Nation	Grant Carlin	269	1.4	+1.4
	Democratic Labor	Elizabeth Pistor	151	0.8	+0.8
Total formal votes			19,410	92.8	–3.8
Informal votes			1,505	7.2	+3.8
Turnout			20,915	82.8	–10.4
Two-candidate-preferred result
	Labor	Susan Close	10,277	52.9	–9.8
	Independent	Gary Johanson	9,133	47.1	+47.1
	Labor hold		Swing	N/A

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.[21][22][23]

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.[24] This contradicts News Ltd claims of large swings and a potential Liberal Party win in Port Adelaide at the next election.[25][26]

House of Representatives primary, two-party and seat results

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 calculated since the 1919 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
1st	1901	14		28		31	2			75
Election Year		Labour		Free Trade		Protectionist	Independent	Other parties		Total seats
2nd	1903	23		25		26		1	Revenue Tariff	75
Election Year		Labour		Anti-Socialist		Protectionist	Independent	Other parties		Total seats
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	36.2%	43.4%	20.4%	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
Polling conducted by Newspoll and published in The Australian. Three percent margin of error.

See also

• Mackerras pendulum
• Nonpartisan blanket primary
• Two-round system

References

1. "How the House of Representatives votes are counted". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 11 March 2012.
2. "Historical national and state-by-state two-party preferred results". Australian Electoral Commission. 17 February 2016. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
3. Malcolm Mackerras. "The Results and the Pendulum". Australian National University. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
4. "Non-classic divisions, 2010 federal election". Australian Electoral Commission. 4 November 2013. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
5. Antony Green (10 February 2012). "How Should Reachtel's Ashgrove Polls be Interpreted". Blogs.abc.net.au. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
6. Green, Anthony (15 January 2018). "2017 Bennelong by-election: Commentary". abc.net.au. ABC News.
7. "2009 Frome by-election results: State Electoral Office". Seo.sa.gov.au. Archived from the original on 20 January 2009. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
8. "2009 Frome By-election: ABC Elections". Abc.net.au. 2 February 2009. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
9. "Frome by-election goes down to the wire". ABC Online. 18 January 2009. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
10. Green, Antony. "Frome By-election Results". ABC Online. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
11. 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.
12. "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.
13. Hendrik Gout (30 January 2009). "Frome one loss to another: Independent Weekly 30/1/2009". Independentweekly.com.au. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
14. Richardson, Tom (30 January 2009). "Frome, a lost moment for the Libs: Independent Weekly 30/1/2009". Independentweekly.com.au. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
15. "District of Frome" (PDF). Retrieved 28 July 2010.
16. Pepper, Chris (25 January 2009). "Shock Frome loss rocks SA Liberals". The Advertiser. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
17. Jamie Walker (31 January 2009). "Peace plea as Nationals take revenge on Liberals at polling booth: The Australian 31/1/2009". Theaustralian.news.com.au. Archived from the original on 6 March 2009. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
18. David Nason, New York correspondent (26 January 2009). "Leader left with pumpkin: The Australian 26/1/2009". Theaustralian.news.com.au. Archived from the original on 11 September 2012. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
19. Gavin Lower and David Nason (26 January 2009). "Libs demand recount after shock poll loss: The Australian 26/1/2009". Theaustralian.news.com.au. Archived from the original on 13 September 2012. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
20. "Melbourne 2010 election result". Australian Electoral Commission. 29 September 2010. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
21. "2012 Port Adelaide by-election results: ECSA". Archived from the original on 28 July 2012.
22. "Port Adelaide by-election preference distribution: ECSA" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 April 2013.
23. Antony Green (20 February 2012). "2012 Port Adelaide by-election results". Abc.net.au. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
24. Antony Green (13 February 2012). "A Comment on the Size of the Port Adelaide Swing". Blogs.abc.net.au. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
25. "Port now a poll target for Liberals". The Advertiser. 2 March 2012. Retrieved 1 August 2016.
26. "Susan Close wins Port Adelaide for Labor but seat now marginal". The Australian. 11 February 2012.
    "Labor Keeps Port Adelaide, Ramsay in South Australian by-elections". The Australian. 12 February 2012.
    "By-election swings carry 'message for Labor'". The Australian. 13 February 2012.

External links

• National and state-by-state TPP results since 1949 – Australian Electoral Commission
• National TPP results since 1937 – Malcolm Mackerras