State Electoral District of Cessnock

Summary of First Preference Votes Polled for Each Candidate

Electors Enrolled: 51,035
Voter Turnout: 94.2%
Informal Rate: 4.7%

BARR Clayton was declared elected on 5 April 2011

Results Explanation

The District Summary page displays the summary of First Preference Votes polled for each candidate.

The TCP votes and percentage of total formal votes counted for each candidate will progressively display against each candidate's name during the following election status categories:

  • Election Night Commenced
  • Final for Election Night
  • Check-Count and Dec-Vote Commenced
  • Check Count Completed (without Town Hall)
  • Check Count Completed (Town Hall only)
  • Check Count Completed
  • Dec-Vote Count Completed
  • Recount Pending
  • Final Result
  • Candidate Declared Elected
Two Candidate Preferred (Post Election Night)
CandidatePartyVotes% Total
DAVEY Alison NP 15,689 45.6 bar
BARR Clayton CL 18,684 54.4 bar

   + Sitting Candidate or Party

Results Explanation

First preference votes and percentage of first preference votes of total formal votes counted will progressively display against each candidate's name during the following election status categories:

  • Election Night Commenced
  • Final for Election Night
  • Check-Count and Dec-Vote Commenced
  • Check Count Completed (without Town Hall)
  • Check Count Completed (Town Hall only)
  • Check Count Completed
  • Dec-Vote Count Completed
  • Recount Pending
  • Final Result
  • Candidate Declared Elected
First Preference Votes
Election NightCheck CountCheck Count & Dec
CandidateParty%Votes%Votes%§Votes
RILEYCDP3.51,2293.51,2173.51,598
DAVEYNP24.28,38224.28,39824.711,309
STAPLEFORDIND4.61,5914.61,5915.02,297
BARRCL34.511,96134.511,97334.515,812
McCUDDENIND5.21,8175.31,8245.02,284
TROYIND19.46,71419.46,72518.88,640
RYANGNS8.52,9318.52,9408.53,913
Total Formal Votes Counted34,62534,66845,853
Informal1,9311,9182,240
Total Votes Counted36,55636,58648,093

   + Sitting Candidate or Party
   § Figures displayed have been rounded to the nearest decimal place. Note the rounding process makes the displayed value an
     unreliable indicator, if it is within a decimal place of the required threshold, for deposit refund or public funding.