Monday, June 17, 2024

Ralph Babet Was Elected Fair And Square. I Know It's Hard But Try To Deal With It

For the avoidance of any doubt at all, I'll start with my view of the subject of this article.  Most of what I see of United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet is his social media output, and it is awful.  He delivers dumbed-down denser-than-even-Sky-News versions of what were in general stupid ideas to begin with (MAGA nonsense, supposed conspiracies against Christians and western culture, whining about "wokeness", gender, sexuality and multiculturalism, and baiting people who would rather at least try not to get COVID).  Babet is perhaps our purest yet elected example of what happens when you spend way too long inhaling what Christopher Hitchens called "the exhaust fumes of democracy", and then attempt to breathe them out. His Senate career so far has been even cringier than very early Jacqui Lambie.  As with Bob Katter, the concussed-sounding nuttiness of Babet's output frequently leads to debates about whether he's just harmlessly insane or whether some of what he's saying might dangerously affect a few impressionable chaps out there.  Think you can tell I'm not a fan.  

However, I'm also not a fan of the misrepresentation of election results and the denial of the will of the people.  Every now and then on Twitter someone will accompany some silly tweet by Babet with some negative reflection on how he got elected.  But the collective will of the voters in Victoria in 2022 was that Ralph Babet (UAP) be one of their six elected representatives.  He was rightly elected based on the mostly party-level choices made by the voters, and he was elected with a significant party vote and a high level of party support on mostly voter-chosen preferences.  He was not some kind of undeserving freak of the system, like another Ricky Muir without the good bits.  While he was elected off an unusually low primary party vote share for a half-Senate election under the current system (so far), the perception of it as a freak result is wrong.  I would say to those who complain about Babet winning that either they believe in proportional representation in the Senate or they don't.  If they don't, what is their alternative system under which Babet (or failing him, One Nation instead) would not have won the final Victorian seat?  It's probably something terrible if they have even thought about it at all.

4000 votes?

The most persistent myth about Babet's election - one which I saw again in a high-scoring tweet yesterday - is that he only got 4000 votes.  (This myth seems to have been started by a Peter FitzSimons tweet on 9 September 2023).    This one results from people not knowing how to read Senate results tables:

The 4425 votes next to Babet's name are the votes that he received below the line.  But the vast majority of UAP voters - as with the vast majority of voters for parties generally anywhere outside Tasmania and the ACT - saw no reason to vote for candidates below the line and were perfectly happy to vote for candidates above the line.  The 147,330 votes for UAP above the line were also votes for Babet.   His primary vote was therefore 151,755 votes, about 4% of all valid votes cast in Victoria.

If one was so concerned about below the line votes one could also complain about the elections of Senators Cadell (Nat), McKenzie (Nat), Stewart (ALP), Chisholm (ALP), Sterle (ALP), Payman (ALP), Smith (Lib), McLachlan (Lib), Liddle (Lib), Farrell (ALP), Polley (ALP), and Askew (Lib) - all of these were elected around the country with fewer BTL primaries than Babet got, thanks to party surpluses. And that's just 2022.  But the Senate is a primarily party voting based system (and in my view should remain so).  

The Liberal Preferences Myth

The next commonest myth about Babet is that he owed his election to Liberal preferences and in particular to the Liberal how to vote card.   To refute this one, here's a recap of the preference flows.

The Victorian Senate cutup started with the elections of Senators Sarah Henderson (Lib) and the late Linda White (ALP).  Their surpluses elected Bridget McKenzie (Nat) and Jana Stewart (ALP).  After those two surpluses the standings of leading competitors for the final two seats were as follows (quota is 545,935)

Thorpe (Green) 525,869
Babet (UAP) 152,474
Mirabella (Lib) 134,211
Smith (L Cann) 114,716
Pickering (PHON) 111,018
Nunn (ALP) 100,454
Limbrick (LDP) 91,946

Candidates were now excluded from the bottom up.  Thorpe eventually crossed the line and was elected fifth.  Limbrick was the first of these to go and by this time Nunn and Mirabella had both overtaken Babet so the order in the race for the sixth spot was Nunn, Mirabella, Babet, Pickering, Smith.  Smith's exclusion didn't change the order.  With Pickering's now 220,364 votes to be distributed the order was

Nunn (ALP) 277,825
Mirabella (Lib) 244,827
Babet (UAP) 239,045
Pickering (PHON) 220,364 - excluded

Babet at this point is out next if preferences coming from One Nation do not put him above at least Mirabella.  But they did do that, in spades.  Babet got 110,764 preferences at this point to 30,682 for Mirabella and 22,973 for Nunn.  This put Babet ahead of Labor by 49,011 votes with 275,509 preferences from Mirabella to throw.    So even if the preferences coming from the Liberal exclusion (which are not all actually 1 Liberal votes) had split evenly between Babet and Labor, Babet was home anyway.

As it happened, they favoured Babet further (105,719 to 75,346 with the rest exhausting) but the votes transferred from the Liberals were not the cause of Babet's victory.  He won because the flow to him from minor right wing candidates (this includes flow from One Nation but also votes for other minor right wing forces that flowed via One Nation) was strong enough to more than cancel out the usual tendency for preferences to flow more to the majors, Greens and One Nation than anybody else.   A noticeable feature of the 2022 Senate cutups was a great strengthening of flows between minor right-wing parties, particularly the UAP and One Nation.  This owed a great amount to the strength of the anti-lockdown/vaccines/mandates movements in driving Senate preferences away from the major parties (the Coalition in particular, as compared to 2019) and nowhere were these movements stronger than Victoria.  Indeed, it isn't just the UAP - and this is one answer to those who suggest that only the UAP's massive spending got them elected - had the UAP not run at all, the same votes would have elected Pickering (One Nation) in spite of One Nation being left off the Coalition how-to-vote card.  

As concerns the Liberal how to vote card preferences especially, 335,766 voters copied the Liberal/National Victorian how-to-vote card from 1-6.  The number of Liberal voters above the line who put the UAP second was much higher (494,035) but the difference would have included many who did so by choice and not influenced by the card.  The number who did copy the card sounds like it's still a big number, but the 335,766 were mixed in among over 1.2 million primary votes for Henderson that flowed to McKenzie and then flowed on (together with McKenzie's primary votes) in McKenzie's surplus.  Because McKenzie was not that far over the Coalition's second quota, the card-following votes now continued at a much lower value than they started at (they were now worth about 36,007 votes total).  Babet won by 81,024 so even had the Liberals preferenced Labor on their how to vote and omitted UAP, and even had every voter who copied the how to vote card with the UAP at 2 still done so in that scenario (which obviously wouldn't have happened), Babet would still have won.

Babet's election was assisted by a lucky accident that the number of Senators being elected was precisely six.  This was a happy number for him because it meant neither major party had much below two quotas.  Had there been five Senators elected the majors would still have been close enough to two quotas and there would have been no seat for Babet to get, and had there been seven they would have been far enough ahead of him to get three each.  But one can only win under the seat balance that there is, and it's not easy to begrudge the UAP for holding a mere 1/76 Senate seats (1.32%) when its national Senate vote was 3.46% in 2022 and 2.36% in 2019.  

(Minor parties like UAP in races like this also benefit from the somewhat primitive way the Senate deals with quotas.  The Senate system uses a fixed quota through the count, but because significant numbers of votes along the way reach the exhaust column, this leaves elected candidates holding more votes than they really needed.  At the point where Mirabella was excluded, the elected major party candidates are holding over 40,000 more votes than they would at minimum need.  However, even with this changed - and there are some systems that can adjust for this - Babet would still have won.)

As I said further up, either we believe in proportional representation of a State's voters in the Senate or we do not.  Either we think our system should give minor parties a shot or we don't.  If we do, we have to accept that they won't always be ones we find tolerable.  As much of a waste of a seat as Babet has so far been, the fact that he got elected is a good sign for the strengths of the current Senate system in that it will give minor right wing parties a fair go if the support level is there to elect them.  It shows the system is exactly not what it was claimed to be by those who foolishly opposed Senate reform in 2016, when they wrongly claimed the system would see an end to minor parties other than the Greens.  Even the first two half-Senate elections under the new system have elected four such parties!  

Saturday, June 15, 2024

The Draft Boundaries Would Not Put Labor On The Edge Of Minority

The current round of draft redistributions is complete with the release of the NSW proposal today, following the Victorian and WA proposals two weeks ago.  While the Victorian redistribution led to an outbreak of unsound psephology with false claims that the Kooyong redistribution greatly favoured the Liberal Party (I wrote about this for Crikey), the NSW washup has been pretty sensible, for the first day at least.  One thing I have seen that seems hard to credit is the idea that Kylea Tink, whose seat is proposed to be abolished, would win the now even more marginal Bennelong off two major parties fighting tooth and nail for it.  This is a general article about the impact of the draft changes.  A note that I am not a primary source for redistribution margin estimates, and am here largely relying on the work of Ben Raue, William Bowe and Antony Green for those.

The Victorian draft proposes that part of the boundary of Kooyong expands to take in part of Higgins.  The key issue in the shortlived Frydenberg-comeback debacle was that there's no obvious way to project how an independent would have done if their seat is expanded into an area they didn't previously run in.  One can use the 2022 preference flows from the present Kooyong to distribute votes for Labor and the Greens et al between the Liberals and Monique Ryan (IND) as if Ryan had been running in the new bits, but that means assigning Ryan a primary vote of zero in the new part.  It's saying that voters who would vote 1 Ryan 2 Liberal, for instance, don't exist in the new bit, but we know they do exist in the old bit, or she would not have won the seat.

Ben Raue came up with a method for modelling how an independent might go in an expanded division, which is to assume that differences in the 2PP between the new and old parts of a seat would flow on to the 2CP.  I think this should work well for an urban seat where the proportion of the seat that is new is modest, and on the proviso that the independent still makes the 2CP (which Ryan would easily do).  It now seems to be accepted that while one can make arguments about whether Monique Ryan's position has really improved, the case that the redistribution seriously favours the Liberals in Kooyong was wrong.

Of other matters of suspense in Victoria, the draft redistribution notionally flipped one seat, Menzies, but by small margins (The Tally Room has it as Labor 0.4%, Poll Bludger has 0.7 Antony Green has 0.4.)  This shouldn't really matter as Keith Wolahan is a first-term sitting member and all things equal should get a personal vote, so Labor would only be expecting to take the seat if there was a swing to them.  The draft changes to the micro-close 3CP exclusion point in Macnamara appeared very minor (and any assessment of changes in this seat are rubbery anyway as voters in it vote all over the place geographically), while a more serious change to the Labor vs Green margin in Wills has attracted some attention.  That's not to say Wills would fall on account of Labor's margin coming down to 4.5% or so - just that it would keep Labor on their toes.  Labor's 2PP margin in Chisholm would be significantly cut.  

The WA draft redistribution creates a new seat called Bullwinkel on a margin of about 3.2%.  One thing that has been missed in discussion of this seat is that 70.8% of its voters had a sitting Liberal MP at the 2022 election (most of these were in Hasluck), while most of the rest were Swan voters with no sitting MP.  In theory, there is a loss of personal vote for the Liberals across most of Bullwinkel, and while the seat along with Tangney looks like low-hanging fruit for the expected WA correction, it's not quite the gimme on paper some people seem to think.  The big news for Labor in WA is their margin in Hasluck going into double digits; nothing else including the tightening of Canning is likely to have much significance.  

For NSW I had eyes on all the competitive non-classic seats, not just the teal ones, but absolutely nothing happened in the draft in Richmond and very little in Fowler or Cowper.  Of the teal seats, Wentworth not only becomes safer for Allegra Spender with expansions into red territory west and south but comes down to 51.2% Liberal vs Labor 2PP, closer than it has ever been at an election.  Something like this expansion of Wentworth was a forced move and the draft margins reveal that it is going to be very difficult for the Liberals to defeat Spender in the seat, especially as it is also a "double sophomore" seat where she defeated the previous Liberal incumbent at the last election.  It is so difficult that I'm no longer doing hypotheticals of the form "if the Liberals recover all the teal seats they lost last time".

North Sydney is abolished in the draft and distributed between Bradfield, Bennelong and Warringah.  Because independent Nicolette Boele made the 2PP in Bradfield last time, it is possible to make a notional combined Liberal vs IND 2CP for the new Bradfield based on Kylea Tink's 2CP in North Sydney and Boele's in Bradfield.  This sees Paul Fletcher's notional margin cut from 4.2% to 2.5% (Raue).  However, there's the question of who is the candidate when Boele has already been campaigning for some time, and whether one or the other will agree to stand aside or run somewhere else.  Tink gets a personal vote in the North Sydney part, and it's common for independents to get outsize boosts at the end of their first term.  But the North Sydney part is a minority of the seat.  In theory Boele and Tink could both run, but the challenges there would include generating a sufficient preference flow between the two for one to win without looking like a party, and also convincing potential strategic voters that they now needed to vote for two independents - it would be a weird contest.  

The news has led to speculation Matt Kean could seek to have preselection re-opened to challenge Paul Fletcher on the grounds that he would supposedly be a better candidate to beat Kylea Tink.  Looking at the 2022 results I actually see little difference between Boele's performance and Tink's beyond Bradfield being a harder seat to win.  The primary vote swings against the Liberals were similar in both seats.  Tink got a greater share of preferences (75.4% to 73.0%) than Boele did, and this was mostly caused by Labor preferences, but could have been just because the Labor candidate in Bradfield was male.  (A note that while the gap between Tink's 2CP and Labor's 2PP looks much higher than the gap in Bradfield, this is partly because of an apparent uncorrected transposition in the 2PP figures for the Willoughby PPVC booth.)

I hinted above that I don't think anything of the idea that Tink will win Bennelong.  Parts of the new Bennelong are  tealy enough but the overall primary votes on Ben's estimates start at Labor 32.1 Liberal 40.7 Green 10.3 Tink 8.2.  Of course Tink would take some votes from the majors but any gain that doesn't come from building a personal vote has to come from the 2022 part of the seat.  Overall the 2022 seat didn't show any great signs of teal-compatability (for starters it might be too multicultural) - including having a below-average Green vote by national standards.  On a 2PP basis the seat is being estimated as very marginally Liberal, presaging a massive two-party fight - how is an independent supposed to get either major party's primary low enough to make it into the final two and not lose the 2CP contest in the process?   Teals trying to win marginal seats didn't work in the Victorian election and I don't see how it works here.  

On the 2PP front, I mentioned that Bennelong has notionally flipped (again think little of it by itself since Jerome Laxale should get a personal vote bonus).  The Liberal margin in Hughes is halved (though they get a new personal vote there in turn), and Labor hasn't got that much to crow about (the Wentworth 2PP boost being most likely wasted).

What would this all mean?

There was a widespread perception going into the redistribution process that the draft boundaries would make it harder for Labor to win a majority.  If nothing else, the reduction from 151 seats to 150 seats would mean that Labor had one fewer seat to get a majority out of (a majority is 76 seats in either case).  But on balance I find the draft has done Labor's prospects of majority no harm whatsoever and may have even helped them, primarily by getting rid of North Sydney which they were probably not winning anyway.  

Thinking of seats in terms of who occupies them (or would notionally hold them if new) the net impact of the drafts would be that the crossbench loses one seat (North Sydney), Labor loses one seat (Higgins) and Labor gains a seat (Bullwinkel), and goes into the election as the holder or notional holder of 78 (including Aston picked up at a by-election).  If including notional changes, there's a swap of Menzies for Bennelong, if one agrees that Bennelong is notionally Liberal (it's so close that estimates may vary).

Because Bennelong moves to notional Liberal status while Menzies is only very narrowly marginal Labor it appears on notional swing that Labor moves very close to loss of majority (using the 0.4% estimate for Menzies) in the draft boundaries, at least if Aston is still treated as a Liberal seat.  But the appearance based on uniform swing is deceptive.

My method of modelling targets for minority or majority is to use a conditional swing based probability model of the current major party seats that allows for the fact that swings are never uniform, and that also takes in personal vote factors.  I have run a quick version of this with the following settings: +1% for first-term incumbent, an extra 0.5% for "double sophomore", -1% for a known retirement, deselection or defection, 2% for a change in whether the incumbent is the party leader, and -0.5% for a mid-term change of member in a by-election without a party change.  

For the Aston disruption I've used my usual method for a "disrupted" seat that changed hands at a by-election (which is to average the previous election and the by-election 2PPs) and then adjusted that for the redistribution.   (I should caution that there's very limited data for disrupted seats involving cases where governments win seats from oppositions rather than the other way round - my previous analysis was of the reverse - but the few state level cases I've checked suggest that when this occurs the seat often proves "sticky" for the new incumbent.  Benalla 2002 was one counter-example.)  An alternative for Aston would be to treat it as a standard personal vote gain/loss situation; the difference between these two treatments is fairly small (about 1.6%).

I find after all this that Labor's position as concerns retaining a majority looks better than the uniform swing model suggests, for these reasons:

1. Labor has gained expected personal vote bonuses (assuming its new sitting members are any good) in nine seats at or below 8% including four "double sophomores", their only likely personal vote negative to date being the mid-term change of member in Dunkley.  On the other hand in Coalition seats at or below 8% there are six personal vote bonuses but so far five retirements or deselections.  If there is little or no overall swing then these bonuses help Labor considerably.

2. There is an asymmetry in margins at certain scales.  For instance the Coalition has eight seats on less than 2% while Labor has four (plus by my hybrid method Aston).  Because swings are variable this places the Coalition at more risk of losing seats if there is not much net swing.

3. The disruption of Aston via Labor winning it mid-term means it's just not reliable to treat it as still at its 2022 margin. 

All these things are also true (2 to a slightly lesser extent) of the current boundaries, but I have not bothered modelling those since they certainly won't be the boundaries for the next election unless there is a very early election call with mini-redistributions.  

All this means that supposing the draft is adopted and there is no 2PP swing at all, my model then projects Labor to on average win the 2PP in 79 of the 135 seats in the model to the Coalition's 56, meaning Labor gains an extra seat on top of its position including Aston.  This model could of course be undone by regional patterns or by one side outperforming the other in terms of swings in the marginals, but it's quite strong evidence that Labor is in better shape than the pendulum suggests.  

My model assumes that there will be no net change in crossbench seats, and it's always possible that Labor could, for instance, drop a few seats to the Greens and not recover Fowler.  But if there is no change involving the crossbench, then Labor can on average drop as low as 51.07% 2PP before their chance of a majority falls below 50% - that's more or less exactly where I have them now.  There is a widespread view that the next election will inevitably be a hung parliament and while that is an obviously very possible outcome, a lot of the talk about it at the moment is way overconfident.  Polls at this stage are not very predictive of the eventual 2PP at an election, at least not if it's next year.

Here are some other rough targets I have estimated:

* For a plurality of seats with no changes to the crossbench (beyond the abolition of North Sydney and the Coalition recovering Monash and Calare from defectors) the Coalition needs on average 51.3% 2PP

* For a majority of seats with no crossbench changes as defined above, the Coalition needs 53.4%

* If the crossbench changes only via the Coalition recovering every marginal seat the crossbench holds against it (that's 4 teal and 2 Green seats) the Coalition needs 50.6% 2PP for a plurality and 51.9% for a majority

* If Labor wins every crossbench seat that it lost marginally based on 2CP, 3CP or both (that's Ryan, Brisbane. Griffith and Fowler) and the Coalition recovers nothing then Labor needs 50.0% for a majority and 48.2% for a plurality.

* In the absence of any other changes involving the crossbench, Labor can lose all of Macnamara, Richmond and Wills to the Greens and still have a just over 50% chance of majority if there is zero 2PP swing.

The draft is only a draft and sometimes major changes are made before the process finishes.  Also I am still assuming here that the process will finish and an election won't be called before mid-October.  But I think it is useful to consider the draft in preference to the current margins in thinking about what current 2PP and primary vote polling levels might actually mean.  

I should also note that there's a further redistribution coming that might get done in time for the election if it is in 2025, depending on when.  That's the Northern Territory where Solomon must take voters from Lingiari, most likely in Palmerston.  That's likely to make Lingiari less close and Solomon closer, and this will benefit Labor's prospects slightly in my model if it happens in time.  

Of course, my model makes no allowance for geographic factors.  If there is the expected large correction in Western Australia then Labor will lose Tangney and Bullwinkel even if the national swing is not that high.  But what goes up in one place often comes down somewhere else; for a given 2PP a larger swing back in WA would mean the swing elsewhere is smaller, boosting Labor's chances of retaining the marginals it occupies elsewhere or picking up some Liberal marginals.  

Wednesday, May 29, 2024

EMRS: The Election Chaos Hasn't Moved The Dial

EMRS Tas(state) LIB 35 (-1.7 since election) ALP 28 (-1) Greens 15 (+1.1) JLN 7 (+0.3) IND 12 (+2.4 but probably overstated) others 3 (-1.1)
Seat estimate for these primaries unchanged from election (14-10-5-3-3-0)
Better Premier Rockliff leads Winter 40-32 (lead up 5) but new leaders usually underperform on this score

The 2024 Tasmanian election had a remarkable outcome, one which polls in broad terms saw coming.  The Rockliff Liberal government was sent deep into minority while the Labor opposition gained only two of the ten expansion seats and was outnumbered by the crossbench.  Following this, Labor controversially decided not to attempt to form government, with leader Rebecca White resigning and being replaced unopposed by Dean Winter, who soon announced that Labor now supported the proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium.  

The Liberals formed a controversial (but not for them) arrangement with the Jacqui Lambie Network, who attracted criticism for giving away too much without any need to do so, and over secrecy surrounding the minor party's internal structures.  Later the Liberals formed a more standard confidence and supply agreement with independent David O'Byrne, and released something that they claimed to be the same with independent Kristie Johnston.  (On my reading Johnston has guaranteed supply but has said all confidence matters would be considered on their merits, and has outlined an approach to confidence questions including commitment to pre-discussion.  In any case the Liberals don't strictly need Johnston's vote.)  The Parliament resumed with the unusual touch of an Opposition Speaker, the first since the 1950s.  

Sunday, May 19, 2024

Budget Week Rolling Poll Roundup

2PP Aggregate 51.2-48.8 to ALP (last election preferences)
Pre-Budget aggregate was 51.0-49.0 
(Topline number for this article frozen as of 28 May, Budget week now being well and truly over.)

Note: False claims have been published by The Australian, Sky News and others about Newspoll, see the Newspoll section below.  

Sunday, May 12, 2024

Why Does Suspending Standing Orders In The Tasmanian Assembly Require A Two-Thirds Majority?

UPDATE:  Following this article - and I have been told this article had some influence - the House on 14 May suspended Standing Orders 358 and 359 for the current Session, replacing them with this: 

"358 Suspension of Standing Orders

Any Standing Orders or Orders of the House, except Standing Order No. 94, may be
suspended on a Motion duly made on Notice or without Notice, provided that such
Motion has the concurrence of a majority of the Members present."

This is not necessarily a permanent change.  


One thing that I have noticed in Tasmania's parliamentary debates that I find strange is that suspending standing orders without notice requires a two-thirds majority.  In the Standing and Sessional Orders from the previous term this appears as item 358:

"358 Standing Orders not suspended without Notice.

In cases of urgent necessity any Standing Order or Orders of the House, except Standing Order No. 94, may be suspended on a Motion duly made without Notice, provided that such Motion has the concurrence of a two-thirds majority of the Members present.

359 Motion for suspension carried by majority. 

When a Motion for the suspension of any Standing Order or Orders appears on the Notice Paper, such Motion may be carried by a majority of the Members present."

(Standing Order 94, for anyone wondering, is the procedure for rescinding previous votes, which requires three days notice and, if the decision is less than a year old, support of an absolute majority).  

Saturday, May 4, 2024

Legislative Council 2024: Elwick, Hobart and Prosser Live

Elwick: Thomas (IND) has won c. 53.3-46.7 after preferences

Hobart: CALLED 9:01 pm Cassy O'Connor (GRN) wins (final margin was 59.7-40.3)

Prosser: Kerry Vincent (Lib) has won c. 52.9-47.1 after preferences

Donations welcome!

If you find my coverage useful please consider donating to support the large amount of time I spend working on this site.  Donations can be made by the Paypal button in the sidebar or email me via the address in my profile for my account details.  Please only donate if you are sure you can afford to do so.


Live comments (scrolls to top)

All numbers posted here are unofficial.  Check the TEC site for current figures.  Comments will appear here once counting starts - refresh every 10 mins or so for updates.  Note that Green in Prosser is Bryan Green the Labor candidate not the Greens.


Final Wrapup And The Road Ahead

It's all over bar a trivial number of votes to be added in the next week and these are the party standings in the new Legislative Council with the seat changes compared to the start of the year:

Saturday, April 27, 2024

The Tide Is Going Out For Queensland Labor

...and when the tide goes out in Queensland, they say that it goes out a long way ...

Yesterday's YouGov poll finding the Miles government trailing 44-56 led to a minor outbreak of poll denialism on social media (I've so far seen versions of A4, C4, C6, C8 and C9), but Steven Miles himself was not denying the polling at all, commendably admitting that it looked "most likely" that his government would lose in October.  (Just whatever you do, Premier, don't actually concede before election day!) I haven't covered Queensland polling since I gave the Courier Mail a big roasting for some really bad poll reporting in December 2022 and a return to Queensland polls is overdue.  It happens this time that the poll is so bad for Labor that even the Courier Mail can't spin it as much worse than it is.

It's worth noting that Queensland Labor during its nine years in power has often polled indifferently.  In the 2015-7 term it trailed on 2PP in a third of the published polls, but never worse than 48-52.  In the 2017-20 term there was less polling and there had been a few shabby looking numbers (again no worse than 48-52) before the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in 2020 and lifted all governing boats.  The Palaszczuk government ended up slightly outperforming its final polling, but it was a very sparsely polled election.  Going into the 2024 contest that is now just six months away, it looks like we might see a higher volume.

Sunday, April 14, 2024

Every Child Wins A Prize: Federal Seats With Swings To All Contestants

During last night's Cook by-election count there were a few comments about the swing column.  All six parties/independents had recorded a positive swing from the 2022 election.  In the case of Cook this was not at all surprising - three of the parties and the one independent had not even run in the seat in 2022, so their "swing" was automatically plus.  The Greens were always going to get a primary vote swing with no Labor candidate and no prominent left/centre independent.  That left the Liberals, and the question was whether they could gain enough primaries from the 34.6% who voted Labor, UAP or One Nation in 2022 to compensate for replacing a former Prime Minister and 17-year incumbent with some dude from outside the electorate.  This they did with 7% to spare and lo and behold there's a neat little line of pluses in the swing column for the recontesting candidates:

(Apologies to AEC, I've pinched the Wikipedia version for clearer display)

This is a common event in by-elections where one major party doesn't contest.  It has happened by my count in 9 of 21 such by-elections in the last 50 years, the others being Perth and Batman 2018, Higgins 2009, Isaacs 2000, Holt 1999, Blaxland 1996, Wentworth 1995, and Menzies 1991.  Perth 2018 achieved this feat despite having 15 candidates, however only three parties were recontesting.  Blaxland 1996 had five recontestants - I should note that I treat an independent as such only if it is the same person running and doing so as an independent both times.  

Saturday, April 13, 2024

2024 Cook By-Election: Well I Don't Think I Should Call It "Live", But Anyway ...

COOK (Lib vs ALP 12.4% - ALP not contesting)
Cause of by-election: resignation of former Prime Minister Scott Morrison (Lib)
CALLED 6:46 pm Liberal retain - Simon Kennedy replaces Scott Morrison.  
Liberals win on first preferences. 


9:09 Such postals as are going to be counted tonight is in now, and there is no change to the overall pattern with Simon Kennedy on a primary vote of 62.7% and a 2CP of 70.8%.  Nothing to concern the Liberals in one of their safest seats tonight but it is not in such places the next election will be won and lost. Unless something crops up that needs debunking, that is all from me for tonight.  

8:20 Animal Justice are opening up a gap to the Libertarians for third but postals might narrow this.  Overall the Liberal result is no cause for concern - they would expect some aspect of swing against them over the departure of an ex-PM, but also swings to them because there is no Labor candidate; to come out with a gain of 6.5% out of primary vote off those two things seems fine.  But I wouldn't say it's an especially good result because there's no basis for making such a call when the opposition is so weak.