Backdated - US Midterm Summary - Senate

All right, midterms have come and gone. For those of you who have been following this, it is time to wind up and reflect. For everyone else, you missed out, and there was cake.

Let's start with the...

Senate

As predicted, the swing was strong against the Democratic Party, but the 63% of carry-over senators from 2008 and 2006 hold the house for the Democrats by a margin.

As you should all know, there are 100 seats in the Senate - 2 per state. The continuing Senators give the Democrats an assured 40 seats and the Republicans a guaranteed 23. In the 2010 Midterm Senate elections, the following seats fell as follows:

Alabama (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Alaska (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Arizona (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Arkansas (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
California (Considered a likely Democrat seat) - Democrat
Colorado (Considered a tossup) - Democrat
Connecticut (Considered a likely Democrat seat) - Democrat
Delaware (Considered a safe Democrat seat) - Democrat
Florida (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Georgia (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Hawaii (Considered a safe Democrat seat) - Democrat
Idaho (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Illinois (Considered a tossup) - Republican
Indiana (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Iowa (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Kansas (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Kentucky (Considered a likely Republican seat) - Republican
Louisiana (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Maryland (Considered a safe Democrat seat) - Democrat
Missouri (Considered a likely Republican seat) - Republican
Nevada (Considered a tossup) - Democrat
New Hampshire (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
New York 1 (Considered a safe Democrat seat) - Democrat
New York 2 (Considered a safe Democrat seat) - Democrat
North Carolina (Considered a tossup) - Republican
North Dakota (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Ohio (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Oklahoma (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Oregon (Considered a safe Democrat seat) - Democrat
Pennsylvania (Considered a tossup) - Republican
South Carolina (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
South Dakota (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Utah (Considered a safe Republican seat) - Republican
Vermont (Considered a safe Democrat seat) - Democrat
Washington (Considered a likely Democrat seat) - Democrat
West Virginia (Considered a tossup) - Democrat
Wisconsin (Considered a likely Republican seat) - Republican

All predictions, as it happened, were correct for the Senate, and of the tossup seats 3 (Colorado, Nevada and West Virginia) became Democrat while 3 (Illinois, North Carolina and Pennsylvania) became Republican.

This gives the Republicans a further 24 seats, and the Democrats 13, giving the house to the Democrats 53 to 47 (counting the two independent senators from Connecticut and Vermont as Democrats). This also leaves the Democrats with double senators in 18 states (including the two independent senators from Connecticut and Vermont as Democrats), the Republicans with 15 states and the remaining 17 states with one senator from each party.

Backdated - US GUBERNATORIAL ELECTIONS 2010

I said I wouldn't analyse the Gubernatorial Elections, but here I am. There are several reasons:

1. The Gubernatorial Elections will determine the bias of the next ten years of United States Politics,
2. There is a little more to this than just whoever wins the most Governorships, and
3. I REALLY like the word Gubernatorial.

So, there are 39 Governors to be elected today (plus several Lieutenant Governors), including Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 38 of these elections are traditionally scheduled for the midterms, the exception being Utah, which constitutionally requires a special election due to unusual circumstances. This leaves 13 states and four territories with carry-over Governors.

In addition to the 36 states and two territories that hold their Gubernatorial elections at the midterm, there are 11 states and two territories that hold Gubernatorial Elections in conjunction with the US Presidential Elections. Utah is normally one of these, as are New Hampshire and Vermont, but with two-year terms these latter occur at every Presidential and Midterm election. The remaining 9 Governors elected in 2008 to remain in power until 2012 are:
Delaware - Democrat
Indiana - Republican
Missouri - Democrat
Montana - Democrat
North Carolina - Democrat
North Dakota - Republican
Washington - Democrat
West Virginia - Democrat
American Samoa - Democrat
Puerto Rico - Republican

The remaining fives states and The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are therefore elected in the other two years, the “off-years”. In 2007, these were:
Kentucky - Democrat
Louisiana - Republican
Mississippi - Republican

And in 2009,
New Jersey - Republican
Virginia - Republican
Northern Mariana Islands – Covenant Party

This gives the Republicans 7 Governors, and the Democrats 8 but – as we shall see – there is more to the nation-wide view of Gubernatorial Elections than the number of seats won.

The 37 states and two territories up for election currently are:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
The U.S. Virgin Islands

Providing predictions for all of these would require a lot of research, and by the time I had formulated them, the elections would probably be over. However, history has traditionally resulted in more Republicans in the South, and more Democrats in the North. However, we are only interested in their impact of future elections through Gerrymandering, so lets first consider the nature of this process.

Gerrymandering is the act of realigning the boundaries of electoral districts to skew or manipulate the voting outcome. Because the United States Constitution demands that Congressional Districts be based on the latest population figures, the government conducts a census every ten years – including this year, 2010. After the 2010 census, Congressional districts may need to be re-sized, added or removed, and the State Governors will play some role in this.

To give an example of Gerrymandering, consider a small state (in terms of population, at least), like Idaho. Idaho has two congressional districts at present. Now imagine 60% of the population are traditionally voters for party A, with party B gathering the remaining 40%. But, imagine that most of Party B's supporters are city dwellers, while Party A does best among the country folk. Now finally imagine, as in Idaho, the majority of the big cities – Boise, Meridian, Pocatello, Nampa, Idaho Falls, Caldwell, Twin Falls etc. lie in the southern, industrial half of the state, while the north is largely rural.

If party A is in power, then the ideal boundary line would run more or less vertically through the state, making each half more or less representational of the whole state. Party A is likely to win both seats, with about 60% support in the North of each versus roughly 40% opposition in the south.

If, however, Party B was in power at the time of drawing the borders, they might opt for a horizontal divide. This places the rural, northern seat firmly in the hands of Party A, perhaps receiving 90% of the vote, but all of this avid support is wasted in the safe seat. In the southern seat, however, the city-dwellers dominate and Party B is likely to win. In short, a vertical divide will give A two seats, while a Horizontal divide will give one seat to each party. This, effectively, is Gerrymandering, except rarely are the borders as clear a straight lines. In some cases, the Gerrymandering can occur to such an extent that seats curl up around eachother in strange contorted positions to maximise the dominant party's wins whilst segregating powerful areas of opposition or diluting minority groups.

However, this is where the Gubernatorial Elections come down to more than the number of seat won. Whoever wins the most populous states will have far better Gerrymandering opportunities than anyone else, and winners of marginal states will find the process far more effective than solid Republican or Democrat states where most of the votes will go one way, regardless of borders, and Gerrymandering will scrape together or dissolve only a couple of districts that vote otherwise.

Based on population and this years marginal seat distribution, the top states to watch are:
California (53 Congressional Districts at present, with one currently “Likely” for each party, which could be realigned to become a tossup or even go the other way)
Texas (32 Congressional Districts)
New York (29 Congressional Districts including three “Likely” Republican, one “likely” Democrat and one Tossup which could be strengthened or weakened as desired)
Florida (25 Congressional Districts )
Pennsylvania (19 Congressional Districts with four Republican and one Democrat “Likely”s )
Illinois (19 Congressional Districts with two Republican and one Democrat “Likely”)
Ohio (18 Congressional Districts with two Republican “Likely”s and a Tossup)
Michigan (15 Congressional Districts )
Virginia (11 Congressional Districts, two “Likely”s for either Party)

In addition to this, the Parties will want to dominate the most marginal states. A map of how marginal a state is can be found at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/PurpleNation.PNG
This places a high premium on the states of Nevada, Missouri, Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire, Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Arkansas, Virginia and West Virginia. Factoring in the previous list of desirable seats, it is apparent that Florida, Ohio and Virginia are highly desirable for both parties, along with the ridiculously populous California, Texas and New York. The following offers a brief analysis of each state:

Florida (Likely Republican)
Partisan Rating: 0-5 Democrat
Recent Voting History: (last 4 Presidential Elections) Even – 2 x Democrat support, 2 x Republican
Predicted House of Representatives result: 18 Republican seats, 6 Democrat, 1 Tossup
Number of Congressional Districts at present: 25
Number of marginal seats: 4 (1 Tossup, 3 Change hands to Safe Republican)

Ohio (Likely Republican)
Partisan Rating: 0-5 Democrat
Recent Voting History: Even
Predicted House of Representatives result: 12 Rep, 5 Dem, 1 Tossup
Number of Congressional Districts at present: 18
Number of marginal seats: 5 (1 Tossup, 2 Change hands to Safe Republican, 2 Change hands to Likely Republican)

Virginia (Likely Republican)
Partisan Rating: 0-5 Republican
Recent Voting History: 3 x Republican
Predicted House of Representatives result: 7 Rep, 4 Dem
Number of Congressional Districts at present: 11
Number of marginal seats: 4 (2 Change hands to Likely Republican, 2 Remain Likely Democrat)

California (Likely Democrat)
Partisan Rating: 10-15 Democrat
Recent Voting History: 4 x Democrat
Predicted House of Representatives result: 20 Rep, 33 Dem
Number of Congressional Districts at present: 53
Number of marginal seats: 2 (1 Change hands to Likely Republican, 1 Remain Likely Democrat)

Texas (Safe Republican)
Partisan Rating: 10-15 Republican
Recent Voting History: 4 x Republican
Predicted House of Representatives result: 22 Rep, 10 Dem
Number of Congressional Districts at present: 32
Number of marginal seats: 2 (1 Change hands to Safe Republican, 1 Change hands to Likely Republican)

New York (Safe Democrat)
Partisan Rating: 20+ Democrat
Recent Voting History: 4 x Democrat
Predicted House of Representatives result: 6 Rep, 22 Dem, 1 Tossup
Number of Congressional Districts at present: 29
Number of marginal seats: 6 (1 Tossup, 1 Change hands to Safe Republican, 3 Change hands to Likely Republican, 1 Remain Likely Democrat)

Naturally, with the pro-Republican swing across America, we would expect the Republicans to gain many states. They also look set to gain many of the key states, and those the Democrats do win (New York and California in particular) are only held because they are so solidly pro-Democrat that the maximum possible Gerrymandering advantage has already been achieved.

It is difficult to say what impact this will have on Obama's attempt at a Second term, but I would predict the next decade to bode well for Republican Presidential Nominees. If Obama gets a second term and Palin is not the best candidate for the Republican party, I would expect a strong, two-term Republican President to dominated from 2016 to 2024.

If Obama does not get a second term and Palin is still not the best candidate for the Republican party, I would expect a strong, two-term Republican President to dominated from 2012 to 2020 and another Republican for the 2020-2024 term before the next census is completed.

If in either case Palin is the best candidate the Republicans can muster, then they just aren't trying, and it is impossible to call.

Backdated - US House of Reps

Right, now for the big one! 2010 Predictions for all 435 seats of the US House of Representatives!

It's currently four-past-eight in Washington D.C., so I would guess polling is just starting. So, here is the most last-minute prediction I've ever made:

Congressional Districts will be abbreviated to a two letter code followed by a number for reasons of brevity. So AL-1 is the first Congressional District of Alabama. If there is no number then it must be a Congressional District “at-large” – which means there is only one district, and it is state wide. An example is AK – or all of Alaska. If you are not crash-hot on your US state abbreviations firstly, join the club, and secondly here’s a list: http://www.uvm.edu/~pmc/mailservices/images/states.gif

Now, to business:

SAFE REPUBLICAN SEATS

1. AL-1 (Currently Republican)
2. AL-3 (Currently Republican)
3. AL-4 (Currently Republican)
4. AL-5 (Currently Republican)
5. AL-6 (Currently Republican)
6. AK (Currently Republican)
7. AZ-1 (Currently Democrat)
8. AZ-2 (Currently Republican)
9. AZ-3 (Currently Republican)
10. AZ-6 (Currently Republican)
11. AR-2 (Currently Democrat)
12. AR-3 (Currently Republican)
13. CA-2 (Currently Republican)
14. CA-3 (Currently Republican)
15. CA-4 (Currently Republican)
16. CA-19 (Currently Republican)
17. CA-21 (Currently Republican)
18. CA-22 (Currently Republican)
19. CA-24 (Currently Republican)
20. CA-25 (Currently Republican)
21. CA-26 (Currently Republican)
22. CA-40 (Currently Republican)
23. CA-41 (Currently Republican)
24. CA-42 (Currently Republican)
25. CA-44 (Currently Republican)
26. CA-45 (Currently Republican)
27. CA-46 (Currently Republican)
28. CA-48 (Currently Republican)
29. CA-49 (Currently Republican)
30. CA-50 (Currently Republican)
31. CA-52 (Currently Republican)
32. CO-4 (Currently Democrat)
33. CO-5 (Currently Republican)
34. CO-6 (Currently Republican)
35. FL-1 (Currently Republican)
36. FL-2 (Currently Democrat)
37. FL-4 (Currently Republican)
38. FL-5 (Currently Republican)
39. FL-6 (Currently Republican)
40. FL-7 (Currently Republican)
41. FL-8 (Currently Democrat)
42. FL-9 (Currently Republican)
43. FL-10 (Currently Republican)
44. FL-12 (Currently Republican)
45. FL-13 (Currently Republican)
46. FL-14 (Currently Republican)
47. FL-15 (Currently Republican)
48. FL-16 (Currently Republican)
49. FL-18 (Currently Republican)
50. FL-21 (Currently Republican)
51. FL-24 (Currently Democrat)
52. FL-25 (Currently Republican)
53. GA-1 (Currently Republican)
54. GA-3 (Currently Republican)
55. GA-6 (Currently Republican)
56. GA-7 (Currently Republican)
57. GA-9 (Currently Republican)
58. GA-10 (Currently Republican)
59. GA-11 (Currently Republican)
60. ID-2 (Currently Republican)
61. IL-6 (Currently Republican)
62. IL-11 (Currently Democrat)
63. IL-13 (Currently Republican)
64. IL-15 (Currently Republican)
65. IL-16 (Currently Republican)
66. IL-18 (Currently Republican)
67. IL-19 (Currently Republican)
68. IN-3 (Currently Republican)
69. IN-4 (Currently Republican)
70. IN-5 (Currently Republican)
71. IN-6 (Currently Republican)
72. IN-8 (Currently Democrat)
73. IA-4 (Currently Republican)
74. IA-5 (Currently Republican)
75. KS-1 (Currently Republican)
76. KS-2 (Currently Republican)
77. KS-3 (Currently Democrat)
78. KS-4 (Currently Republican)
79. KY-1 (Currently Republican)
80. KY-2 (Currently Republican)
81. KY-4 (Currently Republican)
82. KY-5 (Currently Republican)
83. LA-1 (Currently Republican)
84. LA-3 (Currently Democrat)
85. LA-4 (Currently Republican)
86. LA-5 (Currently Republican)
87. LA-6 (Currently Republican)
88. LA-7 (Currently Republican)
89. MD-6 (Currently Republican)
90. MI-1 (Currently Democrat)
91. MI-2 (Currently Republican)
92. MI-3 (Currently Republican)
93. MI-4 (Currently Republican)
94. MI-6 (Currently Republican)
95. MI-8 (Currently Republican)
96. MI-10 (Currently Republican)
97. MI-11 (Currently Republican)
98. MN-2 (Currently Republican)
99. MN-3 (Currently Republican)
100. MN-6 (Currently Republican)
101. MS-3 (Currently Republican)
102. MO-2 (Currently Republican)
103. MO-6 (Currently Republican)
104. MO-7 (Currently Republican)
105. MO-8 (Currently Republican)
106. MO-9 (Currently Republican)
107. MT (Currently Republican)
108. NE-1 (Currently Republican)
109. NE-2 (Currently Republican)
110. NE-3 (Currently Republican)
111. NV-2 (Currently Republican)
112. NH-1 (Currently Democrat)
113. NJ-2 (Currently Republican)
114. NJ-4 (Currently Republican)
115. NJ-5 (Currently Republican)
116. NJ-7 (Currently Republican)
117. NJ-11 (Currently Republican)
118. NY-3 (Currently Republican)
119. NY-26 (Currently Republican)
120. NY-29 (Currently Democrat)
121. NC-3 (Currently Republican)
122. NC-5 (Currently Republican)
123. NC-6 (Currently Republican)
124. NC-9 (Currently Republican)
125. NC-10 (Currently Republican)
126. OH-1 (Currently Democrat)
127. OH-2 (Currently Republican)
128. OH-3 (Currently Republican)
129. OH-4 (Currently Republican)
130. OH-5 (Currently Republican)
131. OH-7 (Currently Republican)
132. OH-8 (Currently Republican)
133. OH-12 (Currently Republican)
134. OH-14 (Currently Republican)
135. OH-15 (Currently Democrat)
136. OK-1 (Currently Republican)
137. OK-3 (Currently Republican)
138. OK-4 (Currently Republican)
139. OK-5 (Currently Republican)
140. OR-2 (Currently Republican)
141. PA-3 (Currently Democrat)
142. PA-5 (Currently Republican)
143. PA-6 (Currently Republican)
144. PA-9 (Currently Republican)
145. PA-15 (Currently Republican)
146. PA-16 (Currently Republican)
147. PA-18 (Currently Republican)
148. PA-19 (Currently Republican)
149. SC-1 (Currently Republican)
150. SC-2 (Currently Republican)
151. SC-3 (Currently Republican)
152. SC-4 (Currently Republican)
153. TN-1 (Currently Republican)
154. TN-2 (Currently Republican)
155. TN-3 (Currently Republican)
156. TN-6 (Currently Democrat)
157. TN-7 (Currently Republican)
158. TN-8 (Currently Democrat)
159. TX-1 (Currently Republican)
160. TX-2 (Currently Republican)
161. TX-3 (Currently Republican)
162. TX-4 (Currently Republican)
163. TX-5 (Currently Republican)
164. TX-6 (Currently Republican)
165. TX-7 (Currently Republican)
166. TX-8 (Currently Republican)
167. TX-10 (Currently Republican)
168. TX-11 (Currently Republican)
169. TX-12 (Currently Republican)
170. TX-13 (Currently Republican)
171. TX-14 (Currently Republican)
172. TX-17 (Currently Democrat)
173. TX-19 (Currently Republican)
174. TX-21 (Currently Republican)
175. TX-22 (Currently Republican)
176. TX-24 (Currently Republican)
177. TX-26 (Currently Republican)
178. TX-31 (Currently Republican)
179. TX-32 (Currently Republican)
180. UT-1 (Currently Republican)
181. UT-3 (Currently Republican)
182. VA-1 (Currently Republican)
183. VA-4 (Currently Republican)
184. VA-6 (Currently Republican)
185. VA-7 (Currently Republican)
186. VA-10 (Currently Republican)
187. WA-4 (Currently Republican)
188. WA-5 (Currently Republican)
189. WA-8 (Currently Republican)
190. WV-2 (Currently Republican)
191. WI-1 (Currently Republican)
192. WI-5 (Currently Republican)
193. WI-6 (Currently Republican)
194. WI-8 (Currently Democrat)
195. WY (Currently Republican)

LIKELY REPUBLICAN SEATS

1. AZ-5 (Currently Democrat)
2. AR-1 (Currently Democrat)
3. CA-10 (Currently Democrat)
4. CO-3 (Currently Democrat)
5. IL-14 (Currently Democrat)
6. IL-17 (Currently Democrat)
7. IN-9 (Currently Democrat)
8. MD-1 (Currently Democrat)
9. MS-1 (Currently Democrat)
10. NV-3 (Currently Democrat)
11. NM-2 (Currently Democrat)
12. NY-19 (Currently Democrat)
13. NY-20 (Currently Democrat)
14. NY-23 (Currently Democrat)
15. ND (Currently Democrat)
16. OH-16 (Currently Democrat)
17. OH-18 (Currently Democrat)
18. PA-7 (Currently Democrat)
19. PA-8 (Currently Democrat)
20. PA-10 (Currently Democrat)
21. PA-11 (Currently Democrat)
22. SC-5 (Currently Democrat)
23. SD (Currently Democrat)
24. TN-4 (Currently Democrat)
25. TX-23 (Currently Democrat)
26. VA-2 (Currently Democrat)
27. VA-5 (Currently Democrat)
28. WA-3 (Currently Democrat)
29. WI-7 (Currently Democrat)

SAFE DEMOCRAT SEATS

1. AL-7 (Currently Democrat)
2. AZ-4 (Currently Democrat)
3. AR-4 (Currently Democrat)
4. CA-1 (Currently Democrat)
5. CA-5 (Currently Democrat)
6. CA-6 (Currently Democrat)
7. CA-7 (Currently Democrat)
8. CA-8 (Currently Democrat)
9. CA-9 (Currently Democrat)
10. CA-12 (Currently Democrat)
11. CA-13 (Currently Democrat)
12. CA-14 (Currently Democrat)
13. CA-15 (Currently Democrat)
14. CA-16 (Currently Democrat)
15. CA-17 (Currently Democrat)
16. CA-18 (Currently Democrat)
17. CA-20 (Currently Democrat)
18. CA-23 (Currently Democrat)
19. CA-27 (Currently Democrat)
20. CA-28 (Currently Democrat)
21. CA-29 (Currently Democrat)
22. CA-30 (Currently Democrat)
23. CA-31 (Currently Democrat)
24. CA-32 (Currently Democrat)
25. CA-33 (Currently Democrat)
26. CA-34 (Currently Democrat)
27. CA-35 (Currently Democrat)
28. CA-36 (Currently Democrat)
29. CA-37 (Currently Democrat)
30. CA-38 (Currently Democrat)
31. CA-39 (Currently Democrat)
32. CA-43 (Currently Democrat)
33. CA-47 (Currently Democrat)
34. CA-51 (Currently Democrat)
35. CA-53 (Currently Democrat)
36. CO-1 (Currently Democrat)
37. CO-2 (Currently Democrat)
38. CO-7 (Currently Democrat)
39. CT-1 (Currently Democrat)
40. CT-2 (Currently Democrat)
41. CT-3 (Currently Democrat)
42. CT-4 (Currently Democrat)
43. CT-5 (Currently Democrat)
44. DE (Currently Republican)
45. FL-3 (Currently Democrat)
46. FL-11 (Currently Democrat)
47. FL-17 (Currently Democrat)
48. FL-19 (Currently Democrat)
49. FL-20 (Currently Democrat)
50. FL-23 (Currently Democrat)
51. GA-2 (Currently Democrat)
52. GA-4 (Currently Democrat)
53. GA-5 (Currently Democrat)
54. GA-8 (Currently Democrat)
55. GA-13 (Currently Democrat)
56. HI-2 (Currently Democrat)
57. IL-1 (Currently Democrat)
58. IL-2 (Currently Democrat)
59. IL-3 (Currently Democrat)
60. IL-4 (Currently Democrat)
61. IL-5 (Currently Democrat)
62. IL-7 (Currently Democrat)
63. IL-8 (Currently Democrat)
64. IL-9 (Currently Democrat)
65. IL-12 (Currently Democrat)
66. IN-1 (Currently Democrat)
67. IN-7 (Currently Democrat)
68. IA-1 (Currently Democrat)
69. IA-2 (Currently Democrat)
70. IA-3 (Currently Democrat)
71. KY-3 (Currently Democrat)
72. LA-2 (Currently Republican)
73. ME-1 (Currently Democrat)
74. ME-2 (Currently Democrat)
75. MD-2 (Currently Democrat)
76. MD-3 (Currently Democrat)
77. MD-4 (Currently Democrat)
78. MD-5 (Currently Democrat)
79. MD-7 (Currently Democrat)
80. MD-8 (Currently Democrat)
81. MA-1 (Currently Democrat)
82. MA-2 (Currently Democrat)
83. MA-2 (Currently Democrat)
84. MA-4 (Currently Democrat)
85. MA-5 (Currently Democrat)
86. MA-6 (Currently Democrat)
87. MA-7 (Currently Democrat)
88. MA-8 (Currently Democrat)
89. MA-9 (Currently Democrat)
90. MI-5 (Currently Democrat)
91. MI-9 (Currently Democrat)
92. MI-12 (Currently Democrat)
93. MI-13 (Currently Democrat)
94. MI-14 (Currently Democrat)
95. MI-15 (Currently Democrat)
96. MN-1 (Currently Democrat)
97. MN-4 (Currently Democrat)
98. MN-5 (Currently Democrat)
99. MN-7 (Currently Democrat)
100. MN-8 (Currently Democrat)
101. MS-2 (Currently Democrat)
102. MO-1 (Currently Democrat)
103. MO-3 (Currently Democrat)
104. MO-5 (Currently Democrat)
105. NV-1 (Currently Democrat)
106. NJ-1 (Currently Democrat)
107. NJ-6 (Currently Democrat)
108. NJ-8 (Currently Democrat)
109. NJ-9 (Currently Democrat)
110. NJ-10 (Currently Democrat)
111. NJ-12 (Currently Democrat)
112. NJ-13 (Currently Democrat)
113. NM-3 (Currently Democrat)
114. NY-2 (Currently Democrat)
115. NY-4 (Currently Democrat)
116. NY-5 (Currently Democrat)
117. NY-6 (Currently Democrat)
118. NY-7 (Currently Democrat)
119. NY-8 (Currently Democrat)
120. NY-9 (Currently Democrat)
121. NY-10 (Currently Democrat)
122. NY-11 (Currently Democrat)
123. NY-12 (Currently Democrat)
124. NY-13 (Currently Democrat)
125. NY-14 (Currently Democrat)
126. NY-15 (Currently Democrat)
127. NY-16 (Currently Democrat)
128. NY-17 (Currently Democrat)
129. NY-18 (Currently Democrat)
130. NY-21 (Currently Democrat)
131. NY-22 (Currently Democrat)
132. NY-25 (Currently Democrat)
133. NY-27 (Currently Democrat)
134. NY-28 (Currently Democrat)
135. NC-1 (Currently Democrat)
136. NC-4 (Currently Democrat)
137. NC-7 (Currently Democrat)
138. NC-11 (Currently Democrat)
139. NC-12 (Currently Democrat)
140. NC-13 (Currently Democrat)
141. OH-9 (Currently Democrat)
142. OH-10 (Currently Democrat)
143. OH-11 (Currently Democrat)
144. OH-13 (Currently Democrat)
145. OH-17 (Currently Democrat)
146. OK-2 (Currently Democrat)
147. OR-1 (Currently Democrat)
148. OR-3 (Currently Democrat)
149. OR-4 (Currently Democrat)
150. PA-1 (Currently Democrat)
151. PA-2 (Currently Democrat)
152. PA-4 (Currently Democrat)
153. PA-13 (Currently Democrat)
154. PA-14 (Currently Democrat)
155. PA-17 (Currently Democrat)
156. RI-1 (Currently Democrat)
157. RI-2 (Currently Democrat)
158. SC-6 (Currently Democrat)
159. TN-5 (Currently Democrat)
160. TN-9 (Currently Democrat)
161. TX-9 (Currently Democrat)
162. TX-15 (Currently Democrat)
163. TX-16 (Currently Democrat)
164. TX-18 (Currently Democrat)
165. TX-20 (Currently Democrat)
166. TX-25 (Currently Democrat)
167. TX-27 (Currently Democrat)
168. TX-28 (Currently Democrat)
169. TX-29 (Currently Democrat)
170. TX-30 (Currently Democrat)
171. UT-2 (Currently Democrat)
172. VT (Currently Democrat)
173. VA-3 (Currently Democrat)
174. VA-8 (Currently Democrat)
175. WA-1 (Currently Democrat)
176. WA-6 (Currently Democrat)
177. WA-7 (Currently Democrat)
178. WA-9 (Currently Democrat)
179. WV-3 (Currently Democrat)
180. WI-2 (Currently Democrat)
181. WI-3 (Currently Democrat)
182. WI-4 (Currently Democrat)

LIKELY DEMOCRAT SEATS

1. AZ-7 (Currently Democrat)
2. AZ-8 (Currently Democrat)
3. Ca-11 (Currently Democrat)
4. IL-10 (Currently Republican)
5. IN-2 (Currently Democrat)
6. KY-6 (Currently Democrat)
7. NM-1 (Currently Democrat)
8. NY-1 (Currently Democrat)
9. NC-2 (Currently Democrat)
10. PA-12 (Currently Democrat)
11. VA-9 (Currently Democrat)
12. VA-11 (Currently Democrat)
13. WA-2 (Currently Democrat)

TOSSUPS

1. AL-2 (Currently Democrat)
2. FL-22 (Currently Democrat)
3. GA-12 (Currently Democrat)
4. HI-1 (Currently Republican)
5. ID-1 (Currently Democrat)
6. MA-10 (Currently Democrat)
7. MI-7 (Currently Democrat)
8. MS-4 (Currently Democrat)
9. MO-4 (Currently Democrat)
10. NH-2 (Currently Democrat)
11. NJ-3 (Currently Democrat)
12. NY-24 (Currently Democrat)
13. NC-8 (Currently Democrat)
14. OH-6 (Currently Democrat)
15. OR-5 (Currently Democrat)
16. WV-1 (Currently Democrat)

In this list the Democratic Party has 195 seats listed as “Safe” or “Likely”, whilst the Republicans have 195 “Safe” seats; in other words if the Democrats won all their “Safe” and “Likely” seats, it would be negated by the Republicans winning all of their “Safe” seats – which by definition should not be too hard. Of those 195 “Safe” Republican seats, twenty have been taken from the Democratic Party. All twenty-nine “Likely” Republican seats have also been taken from Democrat Congressmen and Congresswomen, making a total of 49 seats of the Republicans' 224 victories over the incumbents.

On the other hand, of the 182 “Safe” Democrat seats, only two were previously Republican, and of the 13 “Likely”s, only one. This gives the Democrats back only 3 of the lost 49 seats, and thus an expected 46-seat swing (or just over 10%, the limit on traditional Australian swing charts) to the Republican Party – and that is before including the 16 Tossups. Only one Tossup was formerly Republican-owned (this was Hawaii's 1st Congressional District), which means the swing is only going to increase as some of them fall to the conservatives.

In addition to the above seats, there are five delegate seats also up for election. All are currently Democrat owned, and tipped as Democrat wins. Washington D.C. and American Samoa are both tipped by me as "Safe" Democrat seats, while Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are considered "Likely" Democrat wins.

Not counting these non-voting seats, or the non-voting Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, this gives a tally of 195 Democrat seats, 224 Republican seats and 16 Tossups. Even if the Democrats won all the Tossups to reach 211 seats, they would need a miracle to gain a majority. Far more likely is a Republican-led House of Representatives with a lead of about 30 seats.

Backdated - US Senate Predictions for 2010 Midterms

Is anyone out there? Hello? Oh well.

It has technically been Election Day for about an hour and a quarter in Washington D.C. – Seattle has to wait another couple of hours though. And being just after 1 AM, there have obviously not been any votes cast – ignoring postal votes, of course.

So, before any exit poll data is announced, here is my US Senate pre-poll predictions for the 2010 Midterm Elections:

1. Alabama (Formerly Republican) – Likely Republican seat
2. Alaska (Formerly Republican) – Likely Republican seat
3. Arizona (Formerly Republican) – Likely Republican seat
4. Arkansas (Formerly Democrat) – Likely Republican seat
5. California (Formerly Democrat) – Possible Democrat seat
6. Colorado (Formerly Democrat) – Tossup
7. Connecticut (Retiring Democrat) – Possible Democrat seat
8. Delaware (Retiring Democrat) – Likely Democrat seat
9. Florida (Retiring Republican) – Likely Republican seat
10. Georgia (Formerly Republican) – Likely Republican seat
11. Hawaii (Formerly Democrat) – Likely Democrat seat
12. Idaho (Formerly Republican) – Likely Republican seat
13. Illinois (Retiring Democrat) – Tossup
14. Indiana (Retiring Democrat) – Likely Republican seat
15. Iowa (Formerly Republican) – Likely Republican seat
16. Kansas (Retiring Republican) – Likely Republican seat
17. Kentucky (Retiring Republican) – Possible Republican seat
18. Louisiana (Formerly Republican) – Likely Republican seat
19. Maryland (Formerly Democrat) – Likely Democrat seat
20. Missouri (Retiring Republican) – Possible Republican seat
21. Nevada (Formerly Democrat) – Tossup
22. New Hampshire (Retiring Republican) – Likely Republican seat
23. New York (Formerly Democrat) – Likely Democrat seat
24. New York* (Formerly Democrat) – Likely Democrat seat
25. North Carolina (Formerly Republican) – Tossup
26. North Dakota (Retiring Democrat) – Likely Republican seat
27. Ohio (Retiring Republican) – Likely Republican seat
28. Oklahoma (Formerly Republican) – Likely Republican seat
29. Oregon (Formerly Democrat) – Likely Democrat seat
30. Pennsylvania (Retiring Democrat) – Tossup
31. South Carolina (Formerly Republican) – Likely Republican seat
32. South Dakota (Formerly Republican) – Likely Republican seat
33. Utah (Retiring Republican) – Likely Republican seat
34. Vermont (Formerly Democrat) – Likely Democrat seat
35. Washington (Formerly Democrat) – Possible Democrat seat
36. West Virginia (Retiring Democrat) – Tossup
37. Wisconsin (Formerly Democrat) – Possible Republican seat

*New York has both Senate seats up for Election in 2010

Remember that the last time most of these people faced election was the 2004 Presidential Elections, which saw a slight swing to the Republicans. 2010 promises bigger Republican support, however, so it would not be surprising to see North Carolina return to the Republicans with several formerly Democratic Tossups. However, with 40 Democrat seats carrying over and only 23 republicans, the Democrats have a distinct advantage in known seats – a lead of 17.

If the Likely seats fall as predicted, this will reduce the Democrats’ lead to 6, with 47 seats against the Republicans’ 41. Factoring in Possible seats as well, both sides gain 3 leaving the tally at 50 to 44 in favour of the Democrats. Allowing for the Dems to pick up a few Tossups, and expecting any likely or possible seats lost to be compensated by gains in the Tossups would give the Democrats a strong enough lead to govern the Senate until 2012.

Backdated - US MIDTERM ELECTIONS 2010

Hello Reader!

It may be November 2 here, but it is still good ol' 1/11 in the US of A (or 11/1 to use the local vernacular).

And that fact is important because this is going to be my first attempt at INTERNATIONAL ELECTION COVERAGE!

After the State and Federal elections finished earlier this year, I was slightly disappointed that I would not get another election to cover until 2013. Sure, Local Government elections are on, and I'll cover them briefly too, but those postal votes don't get counted until November 12. Plus they aren't that exciting. And after that, nada for three years. (For those of you counting – I know I am – Federal elections are due 2013, State and Council elections 2014 baring a disillusion of parliament). In other good news, Victoria has announced an election for November 27, so look out for that one!

But to business: US midterms are tomorrow – or today – November 2nd. For those of you into your electoral trivia (and who the hell isn't?) the United States holds all federal elections on the day after the first Monday of November, so November 2 is the soonest it could ever be held – and not soon enough I say!

Now, America never does anything small, and elections are no exception. You've no doubt heard for months about the Republican Tea Party Movement, the Backlash against Obama's Democratic Party and senate candidates engaged in Witchcraft. No Australian election could ever become more heated, more controversial or more lengthy. For a wrap up of the more... shall we say... “American” ads, Jon Stewart assembled the following montage:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/the-daily-show-mocks-negative-campaign-ads-larry-wilmore-fcks-chickens-video.php

The article is not particularly amusing, even by the standards of American TV, but I think the section from 2:05 – 2:45 is a useful insight into the ferocity of US campaigns.

But it is not just the length, magnitude and insanity of the campaigning that the Americans offer in excess, the Elections themselves are super-sized. In an Australian Federal Election it is traditional to hold the votes for the House of Representatives (150 seats) and roughly half the Senate (40 seats). In America, the Presidential elections are held every 4 years, and the midterms two years later (i.e. midterm). This involves the House of Representatives (435 seats – plus 5 non-voting members) and one third of the Senate (33 seats).

Except for the massive lower house, this does not seem like such a big difference. Like Australia, the House of Representatives is organised so the nation is divided into areas of roughly equal population, each representing one seat (there is a clause to ensure each state gets at lest one seat though) and the Senate contains X seats per state (6 per state, 2 per territory in Aus, 2 per state in the US).

BUT the US also takes the opportunity to hold many of its Gubernatorial Elections on the same day. Gubernatorial. Revel in the glory of that word. It means elections for Govenor, and of the 50 states, 37 will be electing a Governor today, plus Guam and Puerto Rico, two non-state territories of the US. This is kind of like Australia holding State and Federal elections ON THE SAME DAY – an event so massive it is ILLEGAL and totally justifies using all-caps THREE TIMES in one sentence! The Australian Constitution forbids state and federal elections clashing. The Constitution, of course, being the law upon which all other laws are based, which makes two-level elections about the most illegal thing you can do in this country – and America does it every four years!

Whilst I will be following the American 2010 Gubernatorial Elections recreationally, don't expect updates. The Federal elections will do me fine without taking on board another 39 in depth analyses. However, there is a point worth making about the 2010 Gubernatorial Elections: these elections will be the last before the 2010 US census.

Now, remember that America, and Australia for that matter, are divided into territories representing the seats of House of Representatives (called congressional districts in the U.S.) and these territories are based on population – as are many state-wide non-Gubernatorial elections. And naturally these figures are based on the census data. Whoever rules the state after this election gets to re-draw these boundaries, so if either party wins a lot of seats, you can expect a fair bit of Gerrymandering to ensure a clear advantage for the next ten years of American politics.

To move on to the the House of Representatives, there are 435 voting members (although constitutionally this number can change, it has been fixed for a long time), and all are being elected on Tuesday the 2nd. There are also 6 non-voting, or “delegate”, seats (although they can vote in some cases, normally only when their votes don't matter. I'm sure that made sense to the Americans who organised that system, but the delegates exact rights are constantly changing depending on which party is in power and whether they have the most non-voting seats). Puerto Rico is not up for re-election because their delegate is a “Resident commissioner” (which is technically not the same as a delegate) and is elected for four years in the same year as the U.S. President. The other five delegates, for American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and Washington D.C., are all up for re-election.

The House of Representatives can last only two years, being re-elected every midterm and presidential election, so it currently reflects voter opinion during the Obama campaign with a few modifications: Republican John McHugh of district NY-23 resigned to become Secretary of the Army and was replaced by Democrat Bill Owens, and Parker Griffith of AL-05 left the Democrats to become a Republican.

As a result, the house contains 255 voting Democrats to 178 voting Republicans, with two vacancies from former Democrats. With large sections of the population disappointed with Obama's change – or perceived lack there of – a correction is expected to result in a much closer House. Furthermore, with two exceptions (1998 and 2002), every midterm election since WWII has seen a swing against the then President's party.

Without going into a long list here, my predictions for this give the Democrats 195 seats, the Republicans 224 and 16 seats in doubt. Even if all of those went Democrat, it would still be 211:224 in favour of the Republicans. In other words I am prepared to predict a Republican win in the Lower House by a margin of 29 seats, give or take 16.

Those sixteen in doubt (or Tossups) are as follows:

• Alabama's Second Congressional District (AL-2)
• Florida's Twenty-Second Congressional District (FL-22)
• Georgia's Twelfth Congressional District (GA-12)
• Hawaii's First Congressional District (HI-1)
• Idaho's First Congressional District (ID-1)
• Massachusetts' Tenth Congressional District (MA-10)
• Michigan's Seventh Congressional District (MI-7)
• Mississippi's Fourth Congressional District (MS-4)
• Missouri's Fourth Congressional District (MO-4)
• New Hampshire's Second Congressional District (NH-2)
• New Jersey's Third Congressional District (NJ-3)
• New York's Twenty-Fouth Congressional District (NY-24)
• North Carolina's Eighth Congressional District (NC-8)
• Ohio's Sixth Congressional District (OH-6)
• Oregon's Fifth Congressional District (OR-5)

AND

• West Virginia's First Congressional District (WV-1)

All were previously held by Democrats, but with the wide-spread disillusionment with the Democrats war-cry of “Change”, incumbency is likely to offer little advantage, especially in a voluntary voting system like the United States'.

The United States Senate has 100 seats – 2 from each state – and is divided into three approximately equal groups or “classes”. One class is elected in a given midterm (e.g. 2010), the next class in the following presidential election (2012), then the third in the following midterm (2014). The following presidential election (2016) will see the first class face re-election once more. As a result, 63 senators are staying on (40 Democrats, 23 Republicans) with 37 up for contest (19 currently held by the Democratic Party, 18 by the Republican). This is slightly over one third to accommodate retirements and the like. There are 14 retiring senators (7 from each party) and thus 23 aiming for re-election (12 Dem, 11 Rep).

With a 17 seat lead in the carry-over Senators, the Democrats have a better chance in the Upper House than the Lower. Again, without listing each seat here, I grant the 37 contested seats thus:

Democrats: 7 safe + 3 likely
Republicans: 18 safe + 3 likely
In Doubt: 6

Ignoring the 6 in doubt (Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, if you were wondering,) that gives the Democrats 50 to the Republicans' 44. If the Democrats did loose some of their likely or even their safe seats, they might be able to compensate by winning some Tossups. With the Democrats just one seat away from an outright majority, I'm predicting a likely win in the Senate for the Democrats, but with a large swing to the Republicans.

IN SUMMARY:

Gubernatorial Elections: Republican swing expected, probable slight Republican majority of governors, offering a slight advantage to the conservatives for the next ten years.

House of Representative Elections: Strong Republican swing, expect clear Republican dominance. That said, Clinton is one Democrat whose governance is generally accepted to have improved with a Republican-dominated House of Representatives, mostly as a result of over-confident Republicans. If the same applies to Obama's next two years, a second term is more than possible for him.

Senate Elections: A strong Republican swing here too, but with enough incumbent Democrats to make a Republican majority unlikely.

In all this will probably limit Obama's powers, but if you give the Republicans enough rope, you never know what might be happening in 2012.

Epilogue (probably)

With the decision on the leadership being decided tomorrow (or rather, today) this is the end of my election coverage for a while. Years, probably. However, before I hang up my wild-guess-o-meter and burn by notes, I would like to direct my reader (in the singular - you rock [Editor: name redacted]) to a couple of interesting points I stumbled across today.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Will-Labor-protect-the-independents-pd20100906-926D6?opendocument&src=rss

Ted Mack makes a good point.

Although I previously (and still) favour a Labor victory by 0.0001%, I did not discuss the point that these are all strong Nationals seats that the independents are sitting in. While I might have guessed this might push them to side with the coalition to appease their ellectorate, Ted Mack takes the opposite view. If the Coalition comes to power they will work on taking these seats from the independents, while Labor has no hope of winning them and will work to keep the independents in.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s3001596.htm

Tim Dunlop makes a hilarious point.

What would politics be without hypocrisy, lies and double standards? An effective method of rulership probably, but also a lot less fun. This article gives a more indepth analysis of Abbotts efforts to avoid treasury scrutiny than I did, and raises some very goop points. My highlights:

While he was not doing both these things, a key plank of his election pitch was that his side were better economic managers, a claim not at all undermined by his unwillingness to test it before Treasury or the Australian people.

I mean, why would he make something like that up?

In another act of fiscal rectitude he offered Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie, amongst other payments, $1 billion for a new hospital, which an ungrateful Mr Wilkie rejected merely on the grounds that Mr Abbott failed to account for where the money would come from.

No pleasing some people, I guess.

and

Oh, and somewhere in amongst all this, a senior Liberal Senator rang one of the independents and declared himself to be the devil when he thought it was the MP's young child who had answered the phone.

Insider journalists cooly revealed that the Senator does this a lot and that it is therefore nothing to worry about.

A relief all round.

It's moments like these that I love Australian Politics.

A Happy Government to All,
PsephologyKid.

Backdated - House of Representatives III: Revenge of the Seats.

In one way, nothing has happened. Everything still rests on the three independents Katter, Oakshot and Windsor. From another point of view a lot has happened in Australian pollitics. Some is old stuff I haven't touched on yet, and some is new. Here is a summary of the issues I think may have a bearing on the final outcome:

I) SHOWDOWN: Warren "foot-in-it" Truss V. Bob "big-hat" Katter

National's leader Truss and former National Katter have not exactly seen eye to eye for a while. It all started with the deregulation of the dairy industry, and has continued on. Normally this would be a slight hinderance to the Coalition snagging Katter and (with just 73 seats) this posses a concern. Still, Abbott could work around that and ignore the conflict.

It did not help, however, that according to Katter on the 7:30 report Truss raked up the animostiy again. On the very same night it became obvious Katter may hold the power to make or break a Coalition government.

"[H]e attacked me personally last night" Katter reported, and we can only assume that this was a verbal assault rather than a failed assasination attempt.

[Editor: Or was it? Is Truss the mysterious Bubble-O-Bill hat-hole shooter?]

To make matters worse for Abbott and the Coalition, Barnaby Joyce - the human punchline - did exactly the same thing, which Katter tamely described as "a similar piece of incredible unfortunateness".

While this has done nothing to ingratiate the Nationals with Katter, this is not the disaster it could have been for the Coalition. Firstly, Katter alone cannot descide the parliament. Secondly, Katter is more likely to be swayed by rational argument, not emotional tomfoolery. Thirdly, it has been suggested Katter might make a deal with the Coalition that then costs Truss his position. This third option is, however, as likely as a Liberal-Labor coalition. Speaking of which:

II) HEY! NOT COOL MAN. - Liberal backbencher cries.

After Adam Bandt sided with Labor to give them 74-seats, they were criticised for forming a coalition. Which would be a minor note except that the criticism came from the Coalition parties. Without wanting to recap all of Australian politics since 1922, I should point out that the Coalition is (and the name really should be a hint here) a coalition. So when they yell that Labor and Greens formed a coalition and compromised on all their policies, you think someone might take them aside and remind them that so did they - and they've been doing it for 88 years.

The real concern for Abbott is his claim that there was a secret deal before the election, because the Greens did not seriously talk to the Coalition. But given a choice between a left-wing party that wants, among other things, to price Carbon and a right-wing party that still harbours climate skeptics and whose leader once described climate-change as "bull$#!+", what was the point. They would have had to make massive concesions to bring the Liberals anywhere near the point that Labor was already at.

And environmental policies are not the only point of contest between the Greens and the Coalition. To quote the Wikipedia page on the Australian Greens:

Relations between the Greens and conservative parties are almost uniformly poor. During the 2004 federal election the Australian Greens were branded as "environmental extremists" and even "fascists" by members of the Liberal-National Coalition Government. Fred Nile and John Anderson described the Greens as 'watermelons', being "green on the outside and red on the inside". John Howard, while Australian Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party, stated that "The Greens are not just about the environment. They have a whole lot of other very, very kooky policies in relation to things like drugs and all of that sort of stuff".

While the debate will continue to have no significance on the outcome, the coalition has now ruined any chance they might have had of winning Bandt back by claiming they acted as underhanded minions of the Gillard Overlorddom (Overladydom perhaps?).

III) I'M NOT A NATIONAL NATIONAL. - Tony Crook

While the Labor Party has been busy plotting this totally unexpected unison of Left-wing parties which no one could have predicted (See: [Editor: a link to a former PsephologyKid statement has been lost. This statement specifically predicted Labor-Greens cooperation.] see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm) the coalition has been facing the exact opposite. Nationals' Tony Crook has expressed his desire to be considered a crossbencher. Apparently the WA nationals are not part of the coalition (which was news to the Liberals, AEC and Nationals in other states).

There is a very real risk that Crook may cross the floor and side with the Labor party. Assuming the Labor party backtrack on absolutely everything and become a second Liberal party, that is.

The biggest impact I can see this having would be when Crook announces that he cannot negotiate with those Leftists and backs Abbott, and the national media print every paper with the headline "CROSSBENCHER TO SUPPORT ABBOTT", scaring the daylights out of Labor supporters for two whole seconds.

IV) WHAT ELEVEN BILLION? OH, THAT ELEVEN BILLION. - Abbott

The indepenents asked Abbott to submit his election promises to the treasury to check the costs, and Abbott refused. Which is perfectly understandable, because it is the treasury's job to check the costs of election promises, and not waste time checking the costs of election promises.

Abbott was afraid that some of the information might be leaked to the Labor party. You know, all that top secret stuff they were broadcasting nationally for five weeks. So the indepenents asked Abbott to submit his election promises to the treasury. And he refused again. And this went on until someone reminded Abbott that the independents held the ballance of power.

Then the treasury looked at the figures and discovered that the Coalition had promissed $ 11,000,000,000 more than they admitted. But as Abbot pointed out, the coalition hadn't been trying to cover this up. It was a "difference of opinion".

And after all, whose estimate are you going to trust? A group of honest polliticians, or that bunch of economically-literate men and women running the national finances?

V) LOVING AND HATING IN TASMANIA.

A fourth independent was elected in Denison, a seat in Tasmania including Hobart. The fight was close with Labor and the independent Andrew Wilkie, and eventually Labor had to give up. Before they could work up a bitter campaign of statistics and emotional blackmail to win his heart, though, Andrew Wilkie joined the Labor party, making my detailed examination of the seat moot. As a former Green, one might have expected this, and his support for a National Broadband Network and opposition to Work Choices would have been big hints too.

This is probably the most significant move since the election, earning Labor 74 to 73.

VI) THE FALL OF HASLUCK.

For a while I was predicting that the winning of Hasluck would play a key role in winning a majority of seats. While it turned out to be less significant than expected there is no doubt the Coalition would be almost out of the running completely had the Liberals not won it.

With all 73 seats, including Hasluck and the WA Nationals' seat of O'Connor, the Coalition could just reach 76 with the aid of Katter, Oakeshot and Windsor. Although this is far from stable government, we can see that Labor's 74 is only one seat stronger, and relies the Greens' Adam Bandt and Denison independent Andrew Wilkie. If either of these should oppose Labor on any point, they will fall to 73 seats - and raise the coalition to 74.

Had Hasluck fallen the other way we would almost certaily have a Labor minority government already.

VII) LET THE PEOPLE DESCIDE THEIR LEADERS? DON'T BE REDICULOUS. - A statement agreed upon by all sides of politics.

Everyone is saying the people of Australia do not want a second election. Well, I can more or less guarentee the half who voted for the loosing side will once things settle out. [Editor: see also: everything Abbott said between 2010 and 2013, especially relating to motions of no confidence and blocking supply] The fact is, the politicians don't want a second election. Here's why:

Labor doesn't want a  new election, because they will need to fight hard to keep their seats and win more.
The Liberals and their coalition buddies are in the same position, but now need to worry also about WA Nationals.
The Greens have their first seat in the lower house. Ever. [Editor: Actually, they won Cunningham in a 2002 by-election. This was their first general election win, though.] In a re-election, with voters flooding back to Labor or Liberal in droves to break the stalemate in favor of their prefered side, the Greens will almost certainly loose this.
Andrew Wilkie has contested several elections in NSW and Tasmania, and only just got in this time. For a simmilar reason to the Greens, he does not want to risk another election.
The three independents Katter, Oakeshot and Windsor now hold all the power, because the Coalition-Labor split is so close. With a re-election they can once more be thrust aside and ignored.

VIII) SO HOW WILL IT END PSEPHOLOGYKID?

Look, if I knew, someone better informed than me would have published it by now.

Labor has the best promise of stable government. On the other hand, I think the Coalition is slightly closer policy-wise to winning the Independents. At a guess I would say the three amigos could easily split it 75-75 if they don't hold things together. But there will be so much pressure to decide that they now have to move as a block, or at leat give two to Labor. I think this will be the easiest solution for them, rather than maintaining their co-operation. After all, they aren't a party - they are three people with different views forced together by circumstance.

Possible outcomes:
Liberal 76:74
No Leader 75:75
Labor 76:74
Labor 77:73

If they must split but form a government, then Labor is the only option mathematically. If they reamin united, Labor offers the best prospect of a full three-year term for them to influence.

For this reason I am backing a Labor win if - and only if - I am forced to bet at gun-point.