BAYGON, I cant see why anyone would think that a vote for an independent instead of Liberal would mean a vote for the Greens. The Lower House ballot papers are not usually that long that most people cant number all boxes - I did, and that's with two preschoolers busy trying to pushover other booths (sometimes with people in them). The Senate was another matter. I usually try to number through, but had already uprighted two booths that had been empty and thought I had better cut my losses!

Perhaps the independents that are incumbent as well as those that stand a fighting chance should band together some resources about how to vote properly - including how to decide your own preferences (which any true independent should support).

I must say Graham,you assiduously do your homework.The protest vote may not have decided the outcome but it was a factor.In the Labor heartland for example,how many knew that their seat was marginal?

In many of these seats where education is not valued,a 60 minutes expose of a gung ho Latham would be more than enough to return a blank ballot paper.

Time will tell,but I don't think that the Coalition will be keen to go back to the electorate soon.In fact with the GFC looking worse next yr,they may be better off letting Labor win and be on the nose even more. Labor will be forced to an early election late next yr if in power,because of the influence of the independants.

So if I were Tony Abbott,I'd do a deal with the independants to let Labor rule for now,but to jump ship when the economy gets really nasty,thus getting a workable majority in both houses.

I disagree with the premise of this article. I believe that the number and diversity of protest votes led to this unfortunate, unintended outcome.

People protested about: Rudd's removal, Julia Gillard's atheism and lack of children and her ears, Tony Abbott's ears and constant policy changes, the modifying of the mining super tax, the imposition of the mining super tax, the soft treatment of boat people, the hardening of treatment of boat people, the possibility of a carbon tax, the scrapping of a carbon tax, the negativity against same sex marriage, the advocating of same sex marriage, the demolition of Malcolm Turnbull, the unmarried status of Gillard, the blokey image of Abbott, etc.

There was so much protesting that common sense flew out the window!

methinks david that you protest too much!
However, the point David makes will need to be rebutted Graham - If there was such an incoherent antipathy towards both parties would that not be consistent with your findings?
Your central thesis is that we can identify a protest vote by looking at what happened in the blue ribbon seats. But surely that would only make sense when there was a strong and particular antipathy to a particular party or set of policies.
As David has illustrated there was really no central narrative under which a protest vote could gather - hence the impossibility of identifying a protest vote using the analytical tools at your disposal.

Hi Baygon, you have to use the definition of protest vote as I have used it. Otherwise the debate becomes meaningless because any decision not to vote for a party could be to be a protest.

So a protest vote is one where you vote against the party that you want to win expecting that they will win anyway but hoping to send them a message. That is the phenomenon that leads all political parties to generally say they are the underdog.

Voters weren't voting this election to send a message, they were voting on the issues and personalities. So I don't really disagree with David G, we are just talking about different things.

Hi Graham,

I scrutineered in Bonner,(Bonner changed hands) at Gumdale school booth on Saturday. It is traditionally a strong Liberal booth. There the results, as expected, didn't mirror the rest of the community and may have some indication of the patterns in Liberal areas. The conservative Liberal candidate received 66% of the first preferences. Out of the 5000 votes 450, 9% (Less than the 11% nationally) were to the Greens and of those 70 - 75% preferenced Labor. Oh and there were only 40 informal votes 0.08%.

I've seen many media reports saying voters rejected both parties. I'm not so sure.

To me these figures suggest Liberals don't appear to have rejected The Liberal Party in the same way Labor voters rejected The Labor Party. I know my view is ancedotal. Is there anyway of undertaking such analysis?