State Electoral District of Marrickville

Summary of First Preference Votes Polled for Each Candidate

Electors Enrolled: 52,182
Voter Turnout: 90.2%
Informal Rate: 2.9%

TEBBUTT Carmel 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
BYRNE Fiona GNS 18,370 49.1 bar
TEBBUTT Carmel+ ALP+ 19,046 50.9 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
COGAN1.34571.34581.3572
BYRNEGNS35.412,02035.312,01035.916,395
TEBBUTT+ALP+39.913,52339.813,54338.117,413
TYLERLP17.86,05018.06,11419.18,714
LIEMFF0.82830.82870.9395
LAURENCECDP1.13571.13591.2531
QUEALYIND1.75841.75891.8817
HINMANSA1.96571.96611.9860
Total Formal Votes Counted33,93134,02145,697
Informal1,1371,1401,377
Total Votes Counted35,06835,16147,074

   + 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.