Abominable Intelligences? Heresy!

Land prices you say??

Narungga has reported a DoP. Here is that last graph updated.

The general philosophy being "reconnaissance by fire".

No rule against shooting a 10 range autocannon or M6 at a radar blip in the darkness, forcing the enemy to use their AP moving to vision range.

My cookie cutter build right now:

Multiple AI logistic OCIs, Bog with radar, spam other vehicle SLs with autocannons or M6s, a few minimum sized infantry who want binoculars, target designators/mark target perk, concealment, and exactly 1 ATGM holder (Tech or Carda preferred).

Last graph (until Narungga reports a DoP and I have to redo one).

These three seats had no left wing party make the final 3 so I had to change my usual schematic entirely. Sample size of 1 for each preference flow and as above the same caveat about independents being different applies.

Here's a grab bag of seats that had a final 3 comprising of Labor, an Independent candidate, and either One Nation or the Liberals (again displayed by dot colour)

Take these preference flow rates with a grain of salt, independents are different and the actual behaviour may vary wildly.

The Greens were not close in any other seat in this graph.

Interestingly you can see in the colour of the dots that the seats were the Greens performed better correlate strongly with One Nation performed worse relative to the Liberals. That seems to make intuitive sense demographically/culturally.

From the evidence available and my own hunch the preference flow rate would act extremely similarly in these two cases so they can be thought of as a block.

We can see that Heysen was an ultra-marginal 3 corner contest where the Greens came 3rd, but really came within 1% of winning.

With the next graph I have tried to kill two birds with one stone.

These are all the seats that came down to Labor, Greens, and a conservative party (Liberal or One Nation) in the final 3.

The blue dots are where the Liberals made the final 3 whereas the excrement coloured dots are One Nation.

None of the other seats have that much revealed about them by my graphs. MacKillop, Light, and Morphett are marginal, but the 2PP tells a clear story about that anyway.

More graphs to come.

To imagine that circumstance think of those dots drifting east into the blue zone. That would represent the Labor candidate being excluded rather than the Lib.

Labor supporters have voted 1 for independents strategically to keep out Libs before, could the ever vote 1 Liberal to keep out One Nation?

We can see that there were 2 seats that were very marginal 3 corner contests: Ngadjuri and Hammond are close to going Labor or Liberal if it shifted in an optimal way. Notably, one of those ways would be Labor voters cutting their loses and strategically voting 1 Liberal to keep One Nation out.

The shape of the regions is defined by the fact that the 3rd placed party gets excluded and the average preference flow rate between the parties (based on actual exclusions from this election if that happened somewhere, or on my ballpark guesses).

Nearly half the seats in SA came down to a 3PP count between the two "traditional" 2PP parties plus One Nation (note: I don't have data yet for Narungga, this might be in this cohort).

The colour of the region a dot lies in corresponds to who won the seat.

Does anyone have the final 3PP and 2PP for Hammond and Narungga from the South Australia election? They haven't loaded on the ecsa website.

I'm graphing all the electorates with my 3PP graphs.

Ah, ABC have ON in 1st in primaries. Polbludger has them (very narrowly) in 2nd.

Hammond?

Do we know an estimate of when the DoPs will begin?

This means the money ends up targeted toward people who couldn't afford to go into politics if not for the wage, while disappearing for the "I was already rich and now after politics I can spin my connections into the grey area corruption of lobbying/consultancy and be even more rich" class.

I have an idea.

We pay politicians a huge wage, and a huge "pension" (or defined benefit) post election.

But it's accrues a negative balance like a HECCs debt. If they make millions of dollars privately that will eventually be garnished such that they served as a politician "for free."

Right now it's quite opaque how close One Nation were from winning a bunch more seats.

I'm looking into doing some 3PP graphs of the South Australian election, but leaning toward waiting until after the full distribution of preferences.

So many unclear exclusion orders and I don't want to blind guess a dozen unique preference flow rates in novel contests.

Possibly. But it's likely that they need to have a substantially higher primary vote than the Liberals to actually overtake them in seat numbers (due to surety that every other cohort of voters will tend to preference the Libs ahead of One Nation).

So these Coalition MPs are upper class morons who have no idea of ordinary people's lives.

10 minutes from work? They think their mates who work in consultancy and corporate boards in the Sydney CBD are normal. Everyone else averages a much larger commute.

Nah, abolishing ICE cars is a lower priority than grid power transitioning 90%+ to wind and solar.

Dear oh dear, what's with the national park bisecting an electorate?

Ah, it's just on the back of cracking up Hill into 2 notional LNP seats isn't it.

Improved their margin by 1%?How did they manage that?

Normally I'm proud of the independence of our electoral commissions, but there's a little gerrymandering alarm bell going off for me.

I think it's so both actors get one position of prominence.

Presume a viewer is likely to interprets the left side of the image before the right side.

One actor gets their name read first. The other gets their face seen first.