We constantly hear about the Nelson Opposition requiring only a 2.7% swing to regain government. While this is unarguably true in a uniform sense, the simplicity of such a statement belies the actual danger lurking below the quaint headline.

If we break the pendulum down to compare the swings required for each major party to win the first 30 seats from their opponents (instead of lining up all the seats as we might usually do), we end up with a rough graphical measure of the vulnerability of each party to any swings against them at the next Federal election. It gives us a much better “for and against” measure of how the parties stack up in terms of their current electoral position and vulnerability.

The way to read the graphic is fairly straight forward: pick a swing on the left, trace it across to either the blue line for the Coalition or the red line for the ALP, trace it down and that is how many seats such a uniform swing would deliver at the next election for that Party. For example, a swing of around 3% to the Coalition would deliver them a gain of 12 seats, a swing of around 3% to the ALP would gain them 17 seats.

As we can see, while the Coalition may only require a 2.7% swing to regain government, they find themselves in a far more vulnerable position than the ALP in terms of the damage that a given swing against them would inflict. If we assume that the ALP could, at most, achieve only a small swing to them at the next election as a result of their pre-existing majority, they can gain eight seats from a swing of just under 1%, or gain five seats by virtually standing still, requiring a uniform swing of merely one fifth of one percent to them.

Another related issue worth keeping in mind here is the consolidation of margins in ALP held seats, with the ALP enjoying 37 seats with a margin of greater than 10%, while the Coalition has been pared back to having only 15 seats of similar ilk — quite an achievement considering that the Coalition sat on 45 such seats after the 2004 election.

The greatest sin an Opposition leader can commit is taking their party backwards. The animosity for Mark Latham stands testament to how that all comes out in the wash, and for whichever courageous individual takes the reigns of the Coalition beast into the next election, they surely must be risking their entire career on a big gamble.

Yet the big unknown with all this navel gazing is the impending electoral redistribution. There are 49 seats on margins of less than 5%, 22 seats on margins of less than 2%. A favourable redistribution for the Coalition might see them notionally pick up half a dozen seats (although the power of a fresh government and New Leadership in pork barrelling might make that a bit of a moot point). On the other hand though, a favourable redistribution for the ALP giving them half a dozen notional gains would be an electoral stake through the heart for any Coalition leader.

Malcolm Turnbull can apparently count, although usually with numbers involving far more zeros than the arithmetic of the party room or the majorities involved on the pendulum. If he’s as smart as he thinks he is, he won’t even consider a tilt at the leadership until the electoral redistribution is finalised. Taking the reigns before then risks getting shafted by the redistribution and being forced to carry the can for taking his party backwards at the next election, regardless of whether it would actually be his fault or simple AEC arithmetic.

The redistribution is something for political tragics and knife sharpeners everywhere to jot down in their diary. Surely it will be the date the games begin.