Research Note Index

Research Note no. 5 2006–07

Preference flows at the 2004 House of Representatives election

Stephen Barber
Statistics and Mapping Section
31 August 2006

Introduction

Since the introduction of preferential voting in 1918, one question is often asked: which of the major parties has benefited most from the preferences of minor parties and independents?

The direction of minor party preferences has changed considerably since 1949. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Coalition (Liberal and [then] Country parties) was the clear beneficiary of minor party preferences.⁽¹⁾ However, with the demise of the Democratic Labor Party and the birth of new centre-orientated parties in the 1970s, the advantage enjoyed by the Coalition was reduced to such an extent that by the 1980s and early 1990s the Australian Labor Party (ALP) enjoyed the substantial advantage.⁽²⁾

This Research Note discusses the role of preferences in elections since the expansion of the Parliament in 1984 (the second election when full distribution of preferences was undertaken) and provides details on the direction of preferences at the 2004 election.

Significance of preferences

Since 1984, there has been an increase in the number of divisions where preferences have been required—1990, 1998 and 2001 had very large increases—but there has not been a corresponding increase in the number of divisions where the result has been changed by preferences (see Table 1).

Table 1: Coming from behind

At the 2004 election, preferences were required to be distributed in 61 divisions, but in only eight—Parramatta, Richmond, Bendigo, Melbourne Ports, Adelaide, Hindmarsh, Cowan and Swan—did a party win after trailing on first preference votes; the ALP won all of these divisions.

Three-cornered contests (where the Liberal, National and Labor parties each stand a candidate in a division)  have now become less common—a total of 9 in 2004 compared with 72 in 1987— and are now an insignificant determinant of the number of divisions where preferences are required to be distributed.

Of more significance is the low proportion of first preference votes received by the major parties in the last three elections (see Table 2).

Direction of preferences

Although preferences were not significant in determining the 2004 election outcome, there is still interest in knowing what the benefit from preference flows was to the major parties.

Table 2 shows the difference between the first preference votes and the two-party preferred votes for the major parties at the 2004 election and compares them with the previous seven elections.

Table 2: House of Representatives elections, 1984–2004

From 1984 the ALP clearly has gained more from preferences than the Coalition, although in the 1996 and 1998 elections the Coalition was able to somewhat reduce this advantage. The last two elections have seen the ALP regain its advantage, but the years 1996–2004 show just how its share of first preferences has fallen. In 2004 it recorded its lowest vote since 1931 and 1934.⁽³⁾

While it is clear that the Labor Party has been the main beneficiary of overall minor party and independent preferences in recent elections, what has not been clear is the support the major parties have received from the individual minor parties and independents.

Table 3 shows, for each party contesting the 2004 election, the number of first preference votes the party received and the percentage of those votes that flowed to the Labor Party and to the Coalition when the party's preferences were distributed. (Note that the final preference destination is not available for those divisions where there was not an ALP/Coalition final contest.)⁽⁴⁾ All independent candidates are included in the ‘Others’ category and the votes shown for the Liberal and National parties are those that were cast in ‘three-cornered’ contests.

Table 3: Final destination of preferences, 2004 election

Note: Excludes votes in Calare, Kennedy, Mayo and New England where there were no two-party (ALP/Coalition) final contests.

One interesting point is that nearly 50 per cent of preferences allocated have been cast by Green voters. The Greens’ first preference votes have increased from 294 000 in 1996 to the current level of 828 000, while the preference flow to the ALP has increased from 67 per cent to 81 per cent over the same period.

The 2004 election saw the advent of the Family First Party. It stood candidates in every division in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania and, overall, in 109 of the 150 divisions in Australia. It was the second highest vote winning minor party and two-thirds of its vote went to the Coalition.

Conclusion

These figures show the importance for the ALP of first preferences—the party has done very well in gaining preferences from other parties, but, since 1996, this has not helped it gain office.⁽⁵⁾

1. ‘Between 1949 and 1977, of the eighty-five divisions in which the candidate with most first preferences lost the division, Labor picked up just four, with DLP preferences being particularly important in blocking many victories.’ Scott Bennett, Winning and losing, Australian national elections, Melbourne University Press, 1996, p. 55.
2. Gerard Newman, ‘The role of preferences in the 2001 election’, Research Note, no. 39, Parliamentary Library, 28 May 2002; and, Gerard Newman, ‘Preference flows at the 1998 House of Representatives election’, Research Note, no. 4, Parliamentary Library, 31 August 1999.
3. Scott Bennett, Gerard Newman and Andrew Kopras, ‘Commonwealth election 2004’, Research Brief, no. 13, Parliamentary Library, 14 March 2005, pp. 5, 17.
4. Since 1996, the Australian Electoral Commission has traced the preference flows from excluded candidates to the final two candidates (not parties, i.e. ALP/Coalition).
5. See Bennett, Newman and Kopras, op. cit., pp. 11, 33, 39.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

Comments to: web.library@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 31 August, 2006 by the Parliamentary Library Web Manager
© Commonwealth of Australia

Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of Parliamentary Services, other than by senators and members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties.

This brief has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC