For the right the next election is about renovation

That is never going to be the choice at a national level, but it will be the choice in any number of seats and strongly suggests a substantial underlying advantage for the Coalition wherever a count ultimately comes down to Coalition versus One Nation.

That advantage, however, only matters if the Coalition candidate survives long enough to use it. This is where the order in which candidates are excluded becomes crucial.

In very safe Coalition seats Labor’s primary vote will often be low. If Labor is eliminated while both the Coalition and One Nation remain in the count, Labor and Greens preferences are likely to favour the Coalition strongly over One Nation. That gives the Coalition a substantial defensive advantage.

One Nation therefore does not necessarily need to top the primary vote to win such a seat. Nor does it need to obliterate the Coalition vote. What it needs is to stay ahead of the Coalition candidate until the Coalition is excluded.

If the Coalition is the first of the three major contenders to leave the count, its preferences can then carry One Nation past Labor, even where Labor was first on primary votes.

Things get more interesting as the margin of safety on the non-Labor side decreases. In more marginal seats the crucial contest may therefore be between One Nation and the Coalition over which of them survives to the final count against Labor. First preferences will usually be the largest determinant of that, although preferences from minor candidates can also determine the order of exclusion.

If One Nation is excluded first, its preferences mostly flow to the Coalition and can put the Coalition over Labor. If the Coalition is excluded first, its preferences also mostly flow to One Nation and can put One Nation over Labor.

But those two flows are not equal: One Nation voters preference the Coalition more strongly than Coalition voters preference One Nation.

In the most marginal seats, Labor is therefore more likely to win because the percentage of Liberals preferencing One Nation is lower than the percentage of One Nation voters preferencing the Liberals.

Preferential voting creates an asymmetry. One Nation can severely damage the Coalition without necessarily replacing it seat for seat. And a Coalition weakened by One Nation can leave Labor winning seats even where a clear majority of primary votes have gone to parties of the right.

This is more or less what happened in South Australia, with a rural/metropolitan frame over the top complicating things a little. There was also a strong move to One Nation, not the Liberals, in the safest Labor seats, turning them marginal, but still leaving them Labor.

In the end One Nation took all of its seats from conservatives and its spectacular rise in votes did not produce an equivalent increase in the number of non-Labor seats. It displaced Liberals and former Liberals much more successfully than it displaced Labor.