Saturday, July 5, 2025

2025 Federal Election Pollster Performance Review

NOTE FOR TASMANIAN READERS: Comments re the Liberal-commissioned EMRS poll will be added tonight (Sunday 6th), possibly around 8 pm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh no, not again ...


On the day after the 2019 federal election I did the most media interviews I have ever done in one day, eleven.  Eight of those were entirely about the same thing: the polls being wrong.  That day and in the coming days journos from as far afield as Japan and from vague memory Switzerland wanted to know how Australia had gone into an election with Labor unanimously ahead about 51.5-48.5 and come out with the Coalition winning by the same amount. Was this part of a global pattern of polls being increasingly broken and underestimating the right?  (Answers: no and no - it was just a shocker by Australia's high standards).  

The day after the 2025 federal election it was obvious something had gone astray with polling again, and by something near the same amount, but the media reception was muted.  I think I did only one interview where the polling was even part of the report's initial focus.  The ABC did an article about the polling, but it was so quarter-arsed that it omitted four final polls, initially got the 2PPs of four others wrong, and even when "corrected" continues to this day to contain errors about what the final poll 2PPs were.  There were a few other articles that were better.

When there's a general polling failure (polling picking the wrong winner) that's big news, especially if polls picked the left to win, because that plays into the outdated (and always overrated) "Shy Tory" myth about voters frequently lying to pollsters.  When there's just a general polling error (polling picking the correct winner but with a large miss on the margin) hardly anyone cares, especially if polls picked the left to win (see New Zealand 2020, a worse miss than Australia 2025).   Even I have been so bogged down in the extraordinary Reps postcount followed by yet another snap election in my home state that it's taken me this long to write anything detailed about the second-worst set of Australian final polls in the last 40 years. This wasn't quite as bad as 2019 and there were some bright spots - but it wasn't that much better either.  (This said, by global standards 2025 wasn't terrible.  On the major party primary vote gap - which is the international standard for polling errors - it's just an average error, but Australia is used to better.)

A brief note on 2PP conventions for this article.  Whether the 2PP was really 55.22 to Labor (the AEC's official figure) or 55.26 to Labor (my estimate accounting for the Bradfield situation, re which more soon) has no real impact on the conclusions or rankings here, since everyone was below that 2PP.  However, for the time being I use the AEC's figure.  In the event of the AEC releasing figures for Bradfield calculated by the normal methods later, I may edit this article to include a revised figure.

Final polls

In a very richly nationally polled election ten pollsters ended up releasing a final poll.  This included two pollsters that had not released any other leadup voting intention polling, one of which was previously unknown to me.

Pollsters are judged a lot by final polls, but final polls are only a single poll (so there's a degree of luck involved as to whether it's a good one), and final polls are taken at the time when there is the most data around for any pollster who might be tempted to herd their results in some way to base such herding on.  However, the final poll stage is the only stage where, at least in theory, there's an objective reality to measure the poll against.  A poll taken a few days out from election day should have a good handle on how people will vote, even more so these days when so many people have already voted by that point.  Any attempt to determine the accuracy of polls taken well before election day requires much more debatable assumptions (but even so, a seat poll taken a month out shouldn't be wrong by double digits).

It's also important to note that often which poll comes out as the most successful depends on how you choose to measure it.  A few comments going into the following table:

1. I consider 2PP estimates to be a very important part of the polling service in Australia and therefore weight them heavily in my assessment of pollster performance.  This was another election at which, for all the trendy nonsense about the demise of 2PP,  two-party swing overwhelmingly determined the shape of the outcome.  Labor gained very slightly more seats than the 2PP pendulum predicted for the 2PP swing they got, and the other net changes (three Labor gains from the Greens and one net Independent gain from Coalition) were very minor.  Two of the three Labor gains from the Greens were also predictable in advance if one knew the national primary vote swings.

2. YouGov released a final MRP and a final public data poll.  The final MRP got far more attention but a poll taken from 1-29 April, where the pollster later released a poll taken 24 April-1 May, should not be considered a final poll.  I include it in the table but not in the rankings, and cover it separately.  

3. I use the same four indicators as in other recent accuracy articles:

AVE2 (headline): The average of the raw difference between the poll and the results on 2PP and the average raw difference on Labor, Coalition, Greens, One Nation and other - this is a 50-50 weighting of 2PP difference and other differences.

AVE: The average raw difference on the five primary groups, excluding 2PP

RMSQ2: The same as AVE2 but using root mean square error, which more harshly punishes a large miss on one figure than a number of small ones on others

RMSQ: The same as AVE but using root mean square error.

4. I do not consider any poll's stated margin of error. Instead I consider any miss by 3% or more on a figure as significant and highlight it.  One reason for this is that judging polls by their stated margin of error discourages pollsters from releasing large final polls.  This is an issue that comes up with the 2019 final polls.  Apologists for the 2019 poll failure often say that the polls were within their margins of error as if that failure was purely random, but it was absolutely not.  Firstly that claim ignores the fact that random misses within the margin of error might explain one or two polls being about 3% out in a given direction, but not 18 in a row.  Secondly and more relevantly here, it ignores the fact that several of the 2019 polls bumped up their sample size for their final poll or final few polls and had a lower claimed margin of error than normal, and hence were individually outside their claimed MOEs.   Some of the 2019 final polls that were outside their published MOEs would have been inside them had their sample sizes been smaller and the numbers been the same, but that would not have made those polls any more useful.  I want pollsters to release large final polls because they are more likely to be accurate, so I apply a flat 3% as a benchmark for a significant miss.   (Another thing here is that pretty much everything said by pollsters about the margins of error of their polls is not really true anyway, though some are closer to the truth than others.)

5. Where a pollster published multiple 2PP estimates (such as respondent and last-election preferences) I have used whichever figure they used as the headline, or failing that whichever figure was reported first by their client.

Here's the usual table.  I've included a figure Last El which is my conversion of the poll by 2022 election preferences based off the published primaries, so we can see which polls were possibly most off with their preferencing assumptions.  In most cases it is hard to be sure about this because most polls do not publish primaries to one decimal.  Bold indicates the closest result, blue indicates within 1% and red indicates outside 3%.  The breakdowns some polls provided for TOP, IND etc are shown but are not used for the accuracy scores.  Notably the polls that polled Independent as a breakout category all did pretty well at it.  


The overall average error on the final poll published 2PPs was 2.89%, more or less identical to the 2.93% error in 2019.  The components of the 2025 error I estimate as follows (though rounding can also contribute):

* Major party primary errors (Labor too low and Coalition too high) 2.51 points
* Non-major-party primary errors (eg One Nation too high) 0.27 points
* Estimated preference flow to Labor too low 0.11 points

So in the end, the lion's share of the error is the same as in 2019; the major party primary votes were wrong; preference modelling had little impact.  

At times there were large differences between 2022 election preferences and the preference flow estimates many pollsters were using but by election day these differences were on average minor, and there was a very small shift in preference flows to Coalition at this election anyway.  However YouGov's final poll underestimated the flow to Labor, to a degree that surprised me even given the partly respondent-sampling-based adjusted preference flows they had been using.  Had YouGov used last election preferences in this poll, they could (depending on rounding) have got a 2PP of around 54.3 which would have made them easily the most accurate final poll.  As it was the closest of a mediocre bunch was Redbridge, but with an AVE2 score that was beaten by all five final polls in 2022 - and the polls in 2022 were good on the whole but not great.  Redbridge was the only final poll to have the major parties tied on primaries rather than wrongly having the Coalition ahead; Labor finished ahead on primaries by 2.74%.  While which of my indicators works best is always debatable (eg AVE2 puts Resolve just ahead of Newspoll but Resolve had 3+ point misses on both major party primaries) Redbridge was first or equal first on all four and was clearly the best final poll.

A few of the leadup polls were much closer however than any of the final polls, especially the Morgan of 14-20 April (55.5 to ALP), which would have scored 1.04 on AVE2.  

As for the shift that some pollsters expected in preference flows, the expected large shift in One Nation preference flows used by Newspoll among others actually did happen (indeed it was slightly stronger than in the Quensland state election).  However it was mostly counter-balanced by a smaller shift to Labor in flows from Greens and independents - only a few percent but Greens and independents combined got three times as many votes as One Nation did, so that added up.  

Five pollsters missed by more than 3% on the 2PP and five also (not all the same five) missed by more than 3 points on the Labor primary.  That's not good.  

Tracking

When final polls are this far out at the end it's not much use to say which tracked the best, as the only way to do it is to subject them to a jury of their peers, but in this case their peers were wrong at least somewhere.  If either Morgan or YouGov had kept getting the sort of readings for Labor they were getting earlier then they would have been very clear winners here, but that didn't occur.  (Morgan does deserve a nod here for the way they were first to pick up that Labor was surging; I suspect that some of their high polls for Labor were over the top at the time taken but that several of them were actually right.) There was one form of tracking that did rather well and that was the Redbridge/Accent marginals seat tracking poll.   This was an unusual and interesting experiment in public polling where Redbridge and Accent mimicked the marginal seats tracking polls used by major parties with a sample of about 1000 voters across 20 classic-2PP marginal seats that in 2022 had averaged about 51-49 to Labor.  Starting at 48-52 in early February this poll tracked upwards to 54.5 in the second and third last waves before finishing at 53.  Shame about the last one (caused by an overestimate of minor party votes) because the 2PP in those seats was in fact 54.8 to Labor, but even at 1.8 points short the final tracking poll was still closer to the 2PP pin than all of the final national 2PP polls.   The tracking poll also provided value by showing that Labor was doing at least as well in the marginals covered than it was overall, and hence was unlikely to be harmed by a bad distribution of support of the sort that had been on the table at some points.

What is unacceptable with this poll was the misreading of it by the Herald-Sun's James Campbell, who shouldn't be allowed to interpret polls in future.  After the second of the two 54.5s Campbell wrote "The poll points to a likely minority Labor government dependent on independents but with so many voters still undecided or there is still a chance the Coalition could claw back enough ground to force Mr Albanese to rely on the Greens to retain office."  

As I wrote in response regarding what 54.5 to Labor in these marginals meant, "(I'll give James Campbell a very big hint; it's not a hung parliament, it's the red team in the bar at 7:45 pm and the rest of us spending the night going "Bonner?  Is that actually a seat?") "  We'd actually stopped talking about Bonner already by about 7:45, it was among the first to fall.

Campbell was in the tank again with the final Redbridge 53-47 national poll, which he claimed showed " Anthony Albanese easily returned to the Lodge in a minority and with a small chance he could govern in his own right." As I pointed out at the time " If Labor wins 53-47 they will probably increase their majority (my model has +4 seats median)"; by uniform swing from the actual results Labor would actually have gained even more than that. 

MRPs

Several MRP models by YouGov and Redbridge/Accent were released during the leadup but only the final YouGov one was fresh enough to warrant serious attention in this article (the last Redbridge one was very old rope by the time it emerged and was generally ignored).  When YouGov came out with a median forecast of 84 seats to Labor I understand the gallery response was "well that's the end of YouGov then" thinking that it was too high and a result with Labor on 74 seats or so would mean the pollster would never be taken seriously again; not so fast.   The YouGov MRP, with a 2PP of 52.9, correctly projected the winners of 136/150 seats (the 2022 YouGov MRP done by staff who are now elsewhere scored 138/151, remarkably getting only four classic seats incorrect).  The 2025 model missed only Labor wins over the Coalition in Aston, Bass, Dickson, Forde, Hughes, Leichardt, Moore and Petrie, Labor's wins over the Greens in Griffith and Melbourne, and it incorrectly projected Wannon, Cowper, Monash and Goldstein as Independent wins (the Coalition won all these).  

There have been suggestions that YouGov got lucky in that Labor in winning a majority much greater than their model also had a vote share much greater than their model and could not have won 84 seats if YouGov's primaries were correct.  YouGov had Labor on a primary vote of 31.4 and a 2PP of 52.9, very much lower than the 34.56 and 55.22 Labor actually got.  

There are various ways of looking at this.  One is that if I take the actual results and uniformly adjust them for national 2PP and primary differences, Labor would not have won Bullwinkel, Bendigo, Menzies, Petrie, Solomon or Forde vs the Coalition, Wills and Richmond vs the Greens or Fremantle or Bean vs independents.  That's ten seats which is exactly the difference between what YouGov had for Labor and the result.  Another is to take the YouGov 2PPs and adjust them uniformly to match the actual result, and in this case Labor only gains another six seats - this suggests that YouGov's model could have even undershot how many seats Labor would win off 52.9% 2PP, not overshot.  All up it seems very possible Labor could have won 84 seats off a primary vote of 31.4 with a 2PP of 52.9.  My own pre-election seat probability model put Labor on 81.6 2PP wins for that 2PP, but it did not take account of Labor getting higher average 2PP swings in marginals than safe seats (which they did).  It's actually possible that if the 2PP was 52.9, YouGov's model could have nailed the Labor seat total but got more individual seats wrong (say twenty) than it did.  

Of course the model had some very inaccurate outputs (such as huge 60+ 2CP wins to independents in Wannon and Cowper, both of which the Coalition retained) but overall the MRP was fairly successful despite landing ten seats short of Labor's landslide.  It pointed to a potential for Labor to increase its majority if Labor could get even a small 2PP swing, something I was also saying but which was very hard to get through the wall to wall "inevitable Hung Parliament" media bulldust.   

Seat polls - some absolute shockers!

Seat polling in Australia hasn't been good for a very long time but this election saw seat polls that were a mix of so-so performances by some firms and many others that did among the very worst I've ever seen.  It is difficult to evaluate some of this polling because of insufficient detail in media reporting.  

* YouGov released a set of ten regional seat polls in late April that were criticised including here for very small sample sizes; some turned out to be accurate while others were a long way off; all but two still had the right winner.  I was not able to find 2CP results for all of them but on average they underestimated the Coalition primary by 1.9 points, though in some seats (notably Dickson) they overestimated it.  They underestimated the Labor primary in every seat where Labor was a top-two contender however, by an average of 5.7%.  They had the combined independents primary in Calare close enough to perfect but overestimated Alex Dyson in Wannon by 4.3% (a more serious miss on the Liberal primary there causing an incorrect projection of a Dyson win).  Overall the average miss on a major contender's primary in these polls was 5.1%; had these been perfect random samples it would have been around 2.7%.  These samples did correctly pick comfortable Labor wins in Braddon and Lyons, although the samples for those seats were larger than the others.  

* There were a range of uComms polls commissioned by various sources of which reports surfaced, though rarely the full results.  As it is likely sponsors chose strategically which ones to tell media about, it's hard to draw any conclusions from them.  There are also several reported 2CPs for Climate 200 sponsored polls that seem likely to have been uComms but where the reporting media were too lazy to say who did the poll.  Of the known knowns, either during the campaign or in the leadup close to it, uComms appear to have correctly predicted Labor's wins in Dickson (twice) and Lyons with underestimates of 4%/4.3% and 10.5% on the margins, to have nailed the winner and margin in Wentworth (only 0.4% off!), to have Deakin tied 50-50 (Labor won 52.8-47.2) and to have incorrectly had Zoe Daniel winning in Goldstein 54-46 (she lost by 0.1%).  Finally there was a Brisbane uComms that had Labor winning 56-44 if over the Greens, but the numbers published (which had Labor 7.9 points below what they got and the others 2.2 and 1.7 above) didn't have Labor quite making the final two.  Labor did make the final two and won 59-41, so at least the poll's projection that the LNP would lose no matter what was right.     On average the 2CP error of polls attributed to uComms was just over 4% which for seat polls is pretty reasonable.  

Among Climate 200 related polls that may or may not have been uComms there were ones that had them winning Bradfield 52-48 (won by 26 votes), losing Flinders 49-51 (47.7-52.3), winning Cowper 53-47 (lost 47.5-52.5) and winning Forrest 51-49 (quite possibly true on the 2CP, we'll never know!)  The Forrest case was reported with primaries of Liberal 34 IND 20 but without any reference to the ALP primary so it's not clear if Labor were in second (and it's also not clear if these are raw primaries or with undecided reallocated).  The actual primaries were Liberal 31.8 IND 18.3 so the poll was quite close.  Overall the reported C200 results sound reasonably accurate on average, but not of the class of their very accurate Redbridge seat polls from 2022.  

* Aggregated seat polls weren't any magic solution.  DemosAU had the LNP 2PP in five Queensland seats at 53-47 on April 18-23, the LNP lost four and saved Longman by a whisker, with an average 2PP across the five of 47.2.  A Freshwater batched teal seat poll from a few weeks before the election was called had the incumbent teals on average getting 51-49 2CP, they actually got 54.8 (which could well have just reflected voting intention change since the polls were taken.)

And now among those that were definitely poor:

* KJC Research was reported as having Labor losing Tangney, Blair and Richmond and narrowly retaining Hunter (albeit with an extremely high 2CP-undecided vote in Richmond) all on April 24. These polls were way off in the classic seats (underestimating Labor by an average 7.7% 2PP with little variation) and in Richmond the Greens missed the final two.   

* JWS in mid-April had Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Greens) losing Ryan with a primary vote of 13% and the LNP winning the 2PP 57-43.  Watson-Brown polled 30.2% and won; for what it's worth Labor won the 2PP 52.4-47.6.  JWS had Labor winning Brisbane only 51-49 after eliminating Stephen Bates; Labor won 59-41.  They also had Labor winning the 2PP in Griffith by the same margin if the Greens dropped out (they didn't, but Labor's 2PP was 65.9).  JWS polls prior to the election being called were also off the mark to wildly so with the sole exception that they (alongside Freshwater) correctly had Zoe Daniel losing Goldstein in March, albeit off primaries with Zoe Daniel's vote too low and Labor's too high.  Some of the differences to the results (eg in Bullwinkel and Curtin) were too extreme for voting intention change to be a likely cause.  

* Before the campaign proper started so strictly could also be excluded from discussion but Insightfully seat polls in mid-March said to portend the Greens being reduced to one seat (well that happened, just not the one expected!) had the Liberals over what they actually got in every Greens target seat for which figures emerged, by an average of 5.1%, and Labor below what they actually got by an average of 10.2%.

* During the Dickson leadup Freshwater at one stage had Peter Dutton up 57-43; he lost 44-56.

* And finally the worst of all, Compass Polling, which I have imposed a Five Thirty Eight style ban on for this effort, meaning that if Compass or anyone who I find out worked for them in the 2025 leadup ever does a federal poll I will not aggregate it.  The "poll" of McMahon had errors of 31.2%, 26.5% and 6.5% on the three leading vote getters and - as a result of a ridiculous presetting method - had a candidate in a winning position who finished third without even making double figures on primaries.  The Australian was stupid enough to report this nonsense semi-credulously and should take a few years off pretending to be a newspaper in shame. 

Mention should also be made of some seat-specific preference flow polling that was very wrong.  Much was made of JWS seat polls that had minor right parties (ON/TOP/Libertarian) flowing at 85-90% to Coalition in certain seats.  This was never going to happen - JWS overestimated both support for these parties and their preference flows.  In Ryan JWS had the minor right on 10% with an 85% split, but the result if including GRPF was 5.91% with a 78.6% split.  In Whitlam, 13% with a 90% split but the result was 11.6% with a 75.7% split.  In Werriwa (a result I found particularly unbelievable because of the weak flow there in 2022) 18% also with a 90% split.  The result was just 9.24% with a 67.7% split.  

Why were the national polls so far off?

We're two cycles out from the 2019 fail and some lessons have been learnt, but some haven't.  At this stage I can only suggest some possibilities as to what happened this year, there is really no firm evidence on the causes of this year's error.  

The 2019 failure seems to have been mainly caused by primitive weighting and targeting practices, compounded by herding which meant that the polls that year failed uniformly instead of there being a few lucky winners.  The extreme lack of transparency of the industry then made it hard to say exactly what polls were doing wrong.  After improving in the 2019-22 cycle, the level of average transparency has been declining in the 2022-5 term.  Because the Nine stable and the AFR failed to insist that the pollsters they hired were extensively transparent, some of the other pollsters decided they couldn't be bothered being transparent either and through the term the transparency level of polling (excepting Pyxis/Newspoll and not many others) declined.  Only four of the ten final pollsters this year are now listed as Polling Council members.  

There's been a lot of publicity about how the Liberals' internal polls by Freshwater were a lot worse than the public national polls, and one aspect of the blowback here has emphasised why low transparency continues to be a problem in Australian polling.  In an article immediately post the election which acknowledged being outperformed by "some" of Freshwater's competitors (try nearly all of them) Michael Turner wrote that Freshwater had overestimated the tendency of "Labor No" voters (ALP supporting voters who voted No to the Voice referendum) to switch to the Coalition.  This has copped heavy criticism from Liberal sources who have said that what Freshwater was doing with Voice weighting was silly, as if Freshwater simply assumed without testing that Voice vote was a salient predictor.   It's actually not inherently daft to use Voice voting as a weight - indeed YouGov did it without any of the same adverse consequences. It could, for instance, be a useful bulwark against a sample with too many Yes voters that might be politically overengaged and skew left.  But I don't know whether what Freshwater did with Voice weighting was sensible but unlucky or silly from the start, because it wasn't publicly documented, at least not in a non-paywalled place.  I had no idea Freshwater were using Voice data and I still don't know exactly what their method was.  Pollsters who still do not tell the public enough about what they are doing - which is still most of them - are in a poor position to defend themselves when things go pearshape.  

Typically when polls are off, late swing is blamed by pollsters, who will say the numbers were right when the polls were taken but voting intention moved later.  In this case there was no relationship between how old a final poll was and how accurate it was, which counts against that to a degree.  Moreover, of the final polls that had a recent precursor by the same company, the average swing from the previous poll was tiny.  There was however a substantial difference in 2PP swing to Labor between votes cast on the day (4.23%) and votes cast before the day (2.65%).  If it is assumed that that difference is entirely down to late swing and that the swing in voter intention matched the swing in votes cast before the day then that would excuse just under 0.5 points of the error.  It could conceivably be more than that, because the average data age of the final polls was six days, and about two-thirds of the prepoll came in the final week.  On the other hand, some of even all of the difference could be unrelated to late swing.  On the day voters are becoming less and less representative, and the 2022 election was odd in that some voters who normally wouldn't vote by post did so because of COVID.   My view overall is that late swing was probably a minor component of the error.

Herding (final polls producing numbers that were almost identical although by random variation there should have been more variation) was again an issue this election (as again called out by Mark The Ballot, as well as here), though less so than in 2019.  Clustering was especially notable in the final polls after a campaign in which results had varied considerably, and it looked especially suspicious that the polls that had very high readings for Labor and the polls that had very low readings converged on middling 2PP readings at the end.  The 2025 final poll numbers were very clustered on two-party preferred, but not especially on the primary votes.  All ten polls landed between 51 and 53 with eight between 52 and 53.  The standard deviation of the final poll 2PPs was just 0.70% (extremely unlikely to happen by chance), but the standard deviation on the Labor primary vote was 1.28% and on the Coalition's 1.44%.  Some of this is because some pollsters tend to get lower major party votes than others, meaning that if they underestimate Labor they will overestimate the Greens, which cancels out on 2PP.  The standard deviation on my last-election estimates for the published primaries was therefore only 1.07%, and after applying the same rounding as the polls were using it dropped to 1.01%.  Still there is quite a bit of clustering to be explained, and it's a common theme in Australia that the final poll 2PPs are much more clustered than the primary votes.  

The classical herding theory is that pollsters are copying each other (or copying aggregates), making sure their results are similar to those of other pollsters so that they don't end up being the only pollster who is way wrong. However, clustering can happen in a variety of ways, including pollsters being influenced not by other polls but by perceptions about what the result "should" or "shouldn't" be.  Because polling is still not very transparent in Australia, there is abundant opportunity for pollsters to make subjective decisions about how to apply a particular weighting from poll to poll (for instance) and in this case there would have been very strong priors against the result that we actually got.  Pollsters had overestimated the Labor primary in both 2019 and 2022.  There is a general pattern that polling errors in Australia somewhat favour Labor, and elections are also usually close and frequently closer than the final polls suggest.  Nobody expects a once in 50 years blowout from a leadup with the parties closely matched.  While I am not saying that all or nearly all pollsters would have been influenced in this way instead of just taking a method and sticking with it, it only takes a few to create the appearance of herding.  The full scale of the result may have been missed because it was unthinkable.   Pre-election perceptions that if the polls were wrong they must be overestimating Labor again were an example of the same unthinkability bias, and also of course of Nate's First Rule.  

It's also possible the Coalition were simply harder to vote for than polling was able to measure, or that voters when they made their final decision were scared by talk of minority government and decided to give the party that could win a majority numbers to work with (a national version of the Tasmanian bandwagon effect).  The funny thing about this is that during the campaign there were no shortage of pollsters willing to lecture us on how vote softness was at record highs but the Labor vote appeared to be the softest - well so what, it always is.  

Finally there are two other vulnerabilities in Australian polling.  Virtually all the polling is online panel polling, so if there just happens to be a mode effect in online panel polling compared to other methods we wouldn't know about it.  Secondly the use of past vote as a weighting and/or targeting measure is now widespread, and while this is OK for those pollsters who have a record of it per respondent for the previous election, the polls that capture it continuously run big risks of having their numbers look too much like the last election.  

I will be rolling out various goodies from the federal election as time and the state election permit.  This article has a lot of data in it, any minor errors that are found will be edited.  

Friday, July 4, 2025

What Happens If An Ineligible Candidate Wins In A Tasmanian State Election?

This article is part of my 2025 Tasmanian election coverage.  Link to main guide page including links to seat guides and voting advice.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Something bubbling away in the state election campaign which I have so far avoided writing a full article on is the alleged controversy (and I don't believe the claims really have any merit) about Franklin Labor candidate Jessica Munday's eligibility to be elected.  However the appearance in today's Mercury (and also now Pulse) of a claim that the entire election might have to be voided and rerun over this is something that I think I should comment about.  Advance summary: no.  I also thought this was a good opportunity for a general article about ineligibility in Hare-Clark elections and what can be done about it if it occurs.  

The debate concerns Munday's unresigned membership at the time of nomination of the WorkCover Tasmania board.  The Liberal Party maintains that Munday is ineligible under Section 32  of the Constitution Act 1934 (effectively the Tasmanian Constitution) which states:

(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided, if any Member of either House shall accept
any pension payable, out of the Public Account, during the pleasure of the Crown or any
office of profit or emolument by the appointment of –
(a) the Governor or the Governor in Council; or
(b) a State instrumentality –
his seat shall thereupon become vacant.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) do not apply to a person by reason only that he
holds the office of Minister of the Crown or Secretary to Cabinet for this State.
(3) No judge of the Supreme Court, and no person holding any office of profit or
emolument to which the provisions of subsection (1) apply, shall be capable of being
elected to, or of holding, a seat in either House.

There is no dispute so far that Munday is a person holding such an office.  Labor however say that Munday is eligible under the Constitution (State Employees) Act 1944 which at least to some degree otherwise expressly provided as follows:

2.   Employees in employ of State may be elected to Parliament

(1)  Nothing contained in subsection (3) of section 32 of the Constitution Act 1934 shall extend to any person otherwise qualified who holds any office of profit or emolument in the public service of the State, or in any business or undertaking carried on by any person, body, or authority on behalf of the State.
(2)  Any person to whom subsection (1) applies shall –
(a) forthwith on being elected to a seat in either House of Parliament cease to hold such office; and
(b) be entitled to leave of absence for a period not exceeding two months for the purpose of contesting a Parliamentary election, but shall not be entitled to any salary during his absence from duty for that purpose: Provided that this paragraph shall not affect any right of any such person to leave of absence under any Act or any regulations or by-laws thereunder.

Munday is not a state public servant under the provisions of what is now the State Services Act 2000.  She is a "crown servant" appointed by the Governor to serve the State on the advice of the relevant minister.  The question is whether her position is an "office of profit or emolument [..] in any business or undertaking carried on by any person, body, or authority on behalf of the State".  In the event that it is, as it would seem to very obviously be on a plain English reading of the clause in isolation, there is no problem at all and the entire thing is a massive beatup.    The heading of the section suggests it refers to "employees", but a legally qualified colleague has pointed me to Section 6 (4) of the Acts Interpretations Act 1931 which says that headings to provisions are irrelevant.  The State Services Act 2000 itself has intepretations under which such boards are state authorities, however those interpretations are for the specific purposes of the State Services Act 2000.  My assumption is that Munday is eligible, pending any clear evidence otherwise.

The legal opinion that the Liberal Party has obtained from barrister Chris Gunson SC explains in detail how Munday meets the definition in Section 32 of the Constitution Act 1934 but unfortunately it does not comment at all about Labor's defence or even display an awareness that Labor has raised it.  I would have expected if the Liberals were seriously interested in proving Munday to be ineligible rather than spreading some FUD and getting a few headlines then they would have ensured the defence was addressed in the advice.  It would be interesting to see if the Liberal Party has any legal advice about Labor's defence or if for that matter Labor will release advice on the issue.  Munday herself has advice from a former Solicitor-General that she is eligible.  [Update: this advice is now covered here - the advice is by Michael O'Farrell SC.  O'Farrell specifically references the 1944 Act and says that he does not think "there can be any doubt that the WorkCover Board is engaged in an undertaking, and carries that out as a body or authority on behalf of the state". I have not yet seen the full O'Farrell advice.]  

The rest of this article isn't written to take seriously the idea that Munday is ineligible.  It's written because the general matter of what happens if someone is ineligibly elected in Hare-Clark is a matter that hasn't had much attention, and this is a good example to talk about as it involves a candidate who at this stage might or might not be elected.

Consequences of ineligibility: if candidate won

In federal elections the matter is well settled.  If a member of the House of Representatives is ineligibly elected then the solution is a by-election and the ineligible member can recontest if they are now eligible.  If a Senator is ineligibly elected then the solution is a special count at which the entire Senate count for the state or territory is redone without the ineligible Senator, typically electing the next candidate down on their party's ticket.  This excludes the disqualified Senator until the next election, unless they get appointed on somebody else's casual vacancy.  

However for state elections conducted under Hare-Clark the answer is complicated by a lack of precedents and court rulings.  This situation last arose in 1979 when various elected MHAs were accused of breaching spending caps that existed at the time, resulting in challenges initially against everyone elected in that election that were later narrowed down to challenges against three Labor MHAs in Denison (now Clark) and four in Bass.  Ultimately the three Labor MHAs in Denison (John Devine, John Green and Julian Amos) were found to have breached their spending caps and to have been ineligibly elected.

The result was a by-election for all seven seats in Denison, not because the court had directed such but because the Parliament had passed the Electoral Amendment Act (No 2) of 1979.  This Act held that if a single member in a division was ineligible to be elected, their seat would be vacant and a single-member by-election would be held for that seat.  But if more than one member of a division was disqualified, the entire division would be voided and a seven seat by-election held.  This led to the Denison by-election of 1980, at which Devine and Amos won their seats back but Green lost out to Democrat Norm Sanders. (One of the sitting Liberals also lost their seat to another Liberal). 

As Devine, Amos and Green were all seated in parliament while the challenge to their seats was heard, they were in fact able to vote (and did vote) on the legislation that made this solution possible, which the Liberal Opposition opposed.  The Government's argument was that for a member who had breached a salary provision to be excluded from parliament for up to four years with no prospect of recovering their seat was an unreasonable penalty.  They also argued that recounts of any kind were not a fair solution since in Bass if they lost four MPs they would run out of MPs to contest the recount and lose a seat, and of course a mult-seat by-election for just the voided seats would make it impossible for Labor to recover them all.  In the end only the three Denison seats were voided, not the four Bass seats.

The Electoral Amendment Act (No 2) of 1979 expired at the end of 1980 so there is now no enacted rule in place for dealing with a disqualification.  This all highlights that if an ineligible candidate ever does win again the Parliament (via legislation passed through both houses) has scope to determine how to fill the vacancy before the court makes a decision; the court is not necessarily going to just declare the whole seven-seat contest for that seat void.  Possible solutions would include:

1. a recount of the excluded member's seat as if it were a casual vacancy (but I would argue that this is a bad solution since it rewards the party that ran the ineligible candidate by ensuring they retain the seat)

2. a recount of the whole election with the excluded member removed from the count as if they had died between nomination day and polling day (the risk although small is this might unelect someone who was validly elected at the first election)

3. a single seat by-election, but this would be unfair if the vacating member was from a minor party

4. a whole-of-electorate by-election.

Even if left to its own devices, it is not obvious to me that the court would choose solution 4 as opposed to declaring a different candidate elected following solutions 1 or more likely 2 (the Court has no power to order solution 3 of its own volition, but could declare a vacancy that activated solution 3 if there was legislation allowing it to do so).  We already know that the High Court has so far chosen solution 2 over solution 4 when an ineligible Senator is elected, a situation that had not come before the High Court in 1979.  The 1979 decision by Parliament does not set any precedent that the Court would be required to follow, least of all because the Parliament specified solution 3 not solution 4 as the remedy for a single member being disqualified.

Consequences of ineligibility: if candidate lost

The opinion the Liberal Party has obtained also suggests that even if Munday is not elected but found to have been ineligible, the Court of Disputed Returns might invalidate the contest for Franklin and send all seven elected Franklin MPs to a by-election.  This in my view is very unlikely - but it could in an edge case depend on the mechanics of the count.  As I noted in comments re the NT case Hickey v. Tuxworth (1987) 47 NTR 39 there has been an example in Australia of a seat being voided because an ineligible candidate stood and was defeated.  However the High Court has since severely criticised the reasoning, especially on the grounds that voiding elections because somebody ineligible ran and lost would "play havoc with the electoral process". Ineligible candidates - dozens of whom run at every federal election as it is - could then run just to try to get a seat voided even if they had no chance of winning.  Perhaps a court would do something about an ineligible candidate losing in a case where reallocating their votes as if they had died between nomination and polling day resulted in a different list of winners to the actual election, but otherwise (and even in such a case) I doubt the court would go there.

Voiding of the whole election?

The opinion obtained by the Liberal Party raises the spectre of the entire 2025 election being voided and rerun if a prominent candidate was found to be ineligible, supposedly on the grounds that their presence and activity in the state campaign has somehow contaminated the choice of voters in other divisions regarding their own representatives.  The opinion suggests that whether or not this could be a thing would be determined by "necessary facts" as yet unknown - Munday's involvement in the campaign and analysis of the results in the other seats.  It is totally unclear to me - and no mechanism is cited - how any level of an ineligible candidate's involvement in the campaign in other seats, or any results in other seats, could result in a different seat being voided.  After all people who are not eligible to be, or even attempting to be, elected to any seat will campaign in seats all the time.

I am very confident that if this was even remotely a thing there would have been precedent by now as there have been so many cases involving ineligible MPs and there is not, at least not in Australia.   In 2016 the Liberal-National Coalition was narrowly returned with an ineligible Deputy Prime Minister but when his ineligibility was discovered (albeit long after the close of the window for public challenges to the results) there was no suggestion that the Parliament should refer at least all the other National Party members and Senators to the High Court. "Your Honours, the member for Gippsland was never eligibly elected because his win was infected with Barnaby's Kiwi germs!"  (The language of the Electoral Act 2004 may give the lay impression that the Court of Disputed Returns would consider voiding an entire state election but in this context an "election" is an election for one of the five divisions.)

The idea that the Court could void an entire state election on the grounds of a single candidate's eligibility is in my view beyond absurd.  There are very many cases where voters might vote for a party under impressions about which candidates running in different seats might be a member of that party's government, but those impressions might be wrong for any number of reasons that might or might not be the fault of the party that endorsed the candidates (including simply that the candidates might lose).  It's only two elections (which is only just over four years, sigh) ago that Adam Brooks resigned his Braddon seat hours after being (eligibly) elected following multiple scandals.  There were claims that the Liberal Party were not running Brooks as a serious candidate and were just running him as a profile-harvester, and never intended that he serve a full term.  Voters might vote for parties in a seat based on all kinds of other false pretences created by the party (broken promises for starters!); there is never any end to contentious judicial interference in elections if one thinks that other seat contests should be voided over this stuff.

I may add more comments later.

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

There Must Be Some Way Out Of Here: YouGov and DemosAU Tasmanian Polls

YouGov Liberal 31 Labor 34 Green 13 IND 18 other 4
DemosAU Liberal 34 Labor 26.3 Green 15.1 IND 19.3 other 5.3
IND vote likely overstated in both polls
Seat estimate if YouGov poll close to accurate 13-14-4-4 (Lib-ALP-Grn-IND)
Seat estimate for DemosAU 13-11-5-4, 2 unclear 

This article is part of my 2025 Tasmanian election coverage.  Link to main guide page containing link to other articles including electorate guides.  

At the 2024 Tasmanian election, voters elected a parliament where it wasn't easy to form a government at all, and the one that was formed didn't last for long.  Labor was unwilling to even try to form a government that would have involved the dreaded Greens, and the Liberals were only willing to form a government with what was left if it was basically a Liberal government with relatively minor concessions to others.  When that ceased to be a viable option upon the loss of the key vote of Andrew Jenner, the government was unable or unwilling to adjust to the fact that it was hanging by Craig Garland's fishing line, and here we are.

A new election offers the prospect that someone might break through and we might have some sort of a normal government - if not a majority (which needs a very hefty swing) then at least a stable minority government needing the support of two or three crossbenchers and able to find such numbers that they can work with.  But also, the quagmire might continue.  If neither major party appeals then we could even end up with a parliament where neither major party can govern without the Greens.  What happens if Labor wins the most seats but needs the Greens or needs, say, all of five other crossbenchers three of whom may as well be Greens?  What happens if we end up more or less back where we were?  (Only one state government in Australian history has ever pulled that off after losing a no-confidence vote).  

Tonight we got some public results from two polls, from YouGov and DemosAU.  The YouGov one is the more positive for Labor (the DemosAU one is horrible for them in the circustances) but at this stage neither shows either major party close to getting us out of the mess.  

YouGov

This poll was taken online from 12-24 June with a sample size of 1287 (Bass 253, Braddon 250, Clark 251, Franklin 266, Lyons 267).  Respondents were offered the choice of Liberal, Labor, Greens, Independent, or an Other (specify) option which I hear drew some predictably unavailable responses.  

These are the results from the YouGov website: 


The individual electorate samples of c. 250 shouldn't be taken very seriously.  Aside from them having a notional margin of error of over 6%, the real error margin is likely to be much higher because of weighting, targeting and sample pool effects (as with all single seat polling).  Nobody should believe the Greens with Rosalie Woodruff on top of the ticket are on only 9% in Franklin after polling 10.5% in the federal election with an ineligible candidate who had withdrawn from campaigning.   30% independent in Clark is also a major stretch.

At the 2024 election pollsters generally overestimated the independent vote despite the number and diversity of indies on offer.  It's not easy to put a number on this because some polls lumped independents and others or did other unusual things, and because full details of two media-reported Freshwater polls were frustratingly never obtained.  Polls with independent broken out averaged nearly 14% but independents only actually got 9.6%.  This is a problem with offering independent as a generic option - some voters think that Andrew Wilkie will be running in their state electorate and some also seem to confuse minor parties and independents.  There could well be a swing to independents this election with JLN not running, at least one new independent who could poll heftily (Peter George) and so on but 18% seems unlikely.  

Taking the poll numbers literally and assuming a fair degree of scatter in the independent vote, Bass would be 3 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green 1 Independent (or 3-3-1-0), Braddon probably 3-3-0-1 though with some potential for a second independent, Clark 2-2-1-2, Franklin 2-3-1-1, Lyons 3-3-1-0.  That would be something like 13-13-4-5 (the scenario where either party needs the whole crossbench to get around the Greens) though there's a fair chance that Labor's 3% statewide primary vote lead would in reality be good for an extra seat somewhere.  Factor in the independent vote being likely to be overestimated and something like 13-14-4-4 looks like a better read.   I don't personally think the Greens are going to lose their second Clark seat to an independent anything like as easily as in this sample (if at all, which is not to say they won't lose it to Labor) but the numbers are the numbers and it's difficult to read this poll as "saying" anything different.

Other stuff in this poll includes a 43-36 lead for Jeremy Rockliff over Dean Winter as Preferred Premier.  Of course, I always prefer to see approval rating polling.  Preferred Premier polling skews to incumbents but this is at least hardly emphatic rejection territory for Rockliff.  The poll includes issue findings where voters are asked to choose between issues of health, debt, privatisation, the stadium and salmon farming.  Health comes out on top among these issues, especially in the north, and while voters tend to be against the stadium and privatisation, in neither case is this overwhelming.  Accounting especially for the cancelling out of for and against views, the stadium is significant, but its salience can be overestimated.  The government is running very hard on health announcements.  

DemosAU

I hope we see a lot more results from this poll, which was widely reported in field by people taking it via the EMRS survey portal.  At the moment what we have is a report in The Advocate regarding a poll taken for an "unnamed peak body" by a mix of robocall and panel methods and a very large sample size (4289) between June 19 and 26.  The poll has results of Liberal 34 Labor 26.3 Green 15.1 and "independents" 19.3, leaving 5.3 for others.  The Advocate has published the Braddon figures which are 44-25.2-9.3-15.6 leaving 5.9 for others.  The Advocate has interpreted these numbers as either 3-2-1-1 or perhaps 3-2-0-2 but a 15.6% independent vote in Braddon would most likely scatter between a number of candidates with only one (presumably Craig Garland) competitive.  Actually given their potential ability to spread votes between Gavin Pearce, Felix Ellis and Roger Jaensch, these numbers are not far short of four Liberals at the expense of the Greens or maybe Garland.  This makes sense given the Liberals almost got four last time with JLN taking a seat.

Neither poll shows anything promising for Tasmanian Nationals, who were named in the DemosAU poll.

I have seen some of the text of this poll and it tried to avoid the problem with generic independents by naming specific independents, however it did include some that are not running (eg Ben Lohberger was available as an option in Clark).  Even when knowing the candidates, naming the independents can also overestimate their vote in Hare-Clark because it means they are named while the major party candidates are not - this is one of the reasons Hare-Clark is so difficult to poll!

While this poll may be dismissable if there's a suggestion that the "peak body" was somebody adverse to Labor's interests, overall Labor would not want to see polls like this being talked about at all!  Polls that show them going backwards or even not going anywhere play into the government's narrative that Labor caused the election without knowing what they are doing and are still not ready to govern.  The YouGov poll on the other hand is more positive for them.

It's very difficult to interpret the DemosAU numbers in seat tally terms because of the very high independent vote, and for now without full breakdowns, but if Labor are going backwards on primary votes then even after accounting for the Independent overestimate they're probably not gaining many or perhaps any seats.   For the majors it seems something like the status quo.  Let's make it the status quo and say for now 14-10-5-6, with reservations about whether the 6 are independents, something else or maybe some don't even exist.   

I should add a cautionary note about this DemosAU in particular.  The EMRS online panel is an opt-in with a high percentage of political polls and a very high proportion of politics junkies are on it.  I suspect the EMRS online panel has the sort of skews towards high engagement voters that no degree of weighting will ever fix.  DemosAU polls in the federal election underestimated the combined major party vote, albeit in the case of their final poll only by 2.4% which isn't massive.  A degree of caution hence about the combined major party vote being quite as low as 61.3, especially with JLN not running and only three parties on the ballot in two electorates.  

I am aware of a third (private) poll which I may say more about that falls somewhere between these two, with a far lower but still quite high independent vote (around 12%) and the Liberals slightly ahead, with both majors in the low 30s.  Nobody anywhere near a majority in any of these, indeed no poll yet with a major party over 35.  

At some stage before the election I will again do the best I can to aggregate all these polls and others still to come.  I think it's a bit too early right now with the potential for more detail to emerge re DemosAU especially.

Tuesday: Some more detail on DemosAU; the Nats are on 2.3% statewide including 2.6% in Braddon and 3.7% in Lyons (that suggests they might be around 5% in Bass if they were only offered where running).  They trail SF+F both in Braddon and statewide.  In what are reported as if forced choices (but I am not sure about that yet and I would not recommend forced choice for the second question) voters are reported as preferring Rockliff to Winter 56-44 and being more likely to blame Winter than Rockliff for the early election 55-45.  

Wednesday: Pulse has published the full seat results with graphics and further details.  My take on Braddon is above.  For the remainder:

* Bass (33.5-27.5-18.8-IND 11.1-Nat 5.1-SFF 4.0): the Greens number looks too high, but Labor has not much over two quotas here.  A murky reading in terms of the potential for nobody much to have enough for a second seat; on these numbers 3-2-1 and the last one is possibly Pentland or a National, but Labor could be in the hunt if their non-Finlay vote split evenly between two candidates.  (Two Greens couldn't even be ruled out on those numbers but adverse preference flows would probably take care of that).  

* Clark (26.2-23.6-22.7-27.5) Although the Independent vote combined is over two quotas it is going to be overestimated and will include a lot of scatter as different indies get excluded, this is clearly 2-2-2-1

* Franklin (29.1-22.6-12.9-35.4) The Independent vote here is enormous and I can't take that seriously but anything remotely near that is going to be 2-2-1-2 with both O'Byrne and George elected.  The Liberals are too far short of three for even a perfect split between their candidates to save them as they will get killed by preferences.  

* Lyons (35.9-31.9-13.1-IND 8.4-SFF 7-Nat 3.7) this is 3-2-1 and of all things Labor vs SF+F for the final seat though the SF+F vote looks excessive; they only got 4.8% with 5 candidates in 2022 so let's say 3-3-1

My estimate of the total then for this poll is 13-11-5-4 (Liberal-ALP-Green-IND) with two unknown; Labor would not get to 18 without the Greens; the Liberals would need the whole or nearly the whole non-Green crossbench.  The poll also finds 61% wanting a majority government - which is about as many as it finds intending to vote for both major parties!

Can also (again from DemosAU via Pulse) add the excluded undecided votes: Bass 9.5 Braddon 12.9 Clark 9.8 Franklin 6.3 Lyons 13.7.  

Thursday 3 July: Something I should note re the very high Clark IND vote in both polls is that votes are not readily transferrable between different independents - there is some flow but it's not necessarily that strong.  If INDs were to get more than two quotas in Clark that could well put Kristie Johnston way over a quota.  However in that case her surplus would not necessarily flow much to Elise Archer (though they are adjacent on the ballot paper which helps).  This is all of course speculation anyway - Johnston got 0.61 quotas last time, down from 0.88 in current terms in 2021.

Monday, June 30, 2025

How To Best Use Your Vote In The 2025 Tasmanian Election

This piece is part of my Tasmanian 2025 election coverage - link to 2025 guide page including links to electorate guides and other articles.

This piece is written to explain to voters how to vote in the 2025 Tasmanian election so their vote will be most powerful.  It is not written for those who just want to do the bare minimum - if you just want to vote as quickly as possible and don't care how effective your vote is then this guide is not for you.  It is for those who care about voting as effectively as possible and are willing to put some time into understanding how to do so.  This is very near to being a carbon copy of my 2024 guide but I have put it out as a 2025 edition with some very minor changes tailored to this year's election.  

Please feel free to share or forward this guide or use points from it to educate confused voters.  If doing the latter, just make sure you've understood those points first!  I may edit in more sections later.

Please do not ask me what is the most effective way to vote for a specific party, candidate or set of goals as opposed to in general terms.

Oh, and one other thing.  Some people really agonise about their votes, spend many hours over them and get deeply worried about doing the wrong thing.  Voting well is worth some effort, but it's not worth that.  The chance that your vote will actually change the outcome is low.  

Effective Voting Matters!

I'll give a recent example of why effective voting matters.  In 2021 the final seat in Clark finished with 10145 votes for Liberal Madeleine Ogilvie, 9970 votes for independent Kristie Johnston and 8716 votes for independent Sue Hickey.  As there were no more candidates to exclude at this point Hickey finished sixth while Ogilvie and Johnston took the last two seats.  Had the two independents had 1606 more votes in the right combination, Ogilvie would have lost instead, and the Liberals would not have won a majority.  But during the count, 2701 votes had been transferred from Labor and Green candidates to "exhaust".  All these were voters who did not number any of Ogilvie, Johnston and Hickey.  Many would have voted 1-5 for Labor and Green candidates (mostly Labor) and then stopped.  There were enough votes that left the system because voters stopped numbering that the outcome could have been different.

That's not to say it would have been had everyone kept numbering - the voters would have had to somehow sense that Hickey needed preferences more than Johnston, or else the flow to the two independents would have had to be extremely strong (which wouldn't happen).  But it is possible for voters who choose to stop numbering to cause the election of parties they would not want to win.  And now we have seven seats per electorate, it's probably more of a risk than it was in the old five-seat system.

Some of these voters would have stopped because they didn't care about other candidates - but I suspect most really would have had a preference.  Most of those stopping most likely stopped because they didn't realise they had the potential to do more with their vote, or because they couldn't be bothered.  

There Is No Above The Line / Below The Line

Tasmania does not have above the line party boxes in state elections.  All voters vote for individual candidates and decide how many preferences (if any) to give beyond the required seven, and which parties or candidates if any to give their preferences to.  There are no how to vote cards.  Your most preferred party may recommend you put its candidates in a particular order but you don't have to follow that.  While a lot of voters will vote 1-7 all for the same party, plenty of voters vote across party lines for a mix of different candidates.  

Your Party Doesn't Direct Preferences

If you vote 1 to 7 for a party and stop, your party does not decide what your vote does next once all your party's candidates have either won or lost.  At this point your vote plays no further role in the election.  Your vote can only even potentially play a role between other parties if you make it do so.  The same applies if you vote for seven candidates across party lines, or for seven independent candidates.  Your vote can only do the work you tell it to do.  If you just vote for one party but think another party is OK while some other parties are terrible, your vote does not reflect that.  

There Is No Party Ticket 

Unlike the Senate, candidates do not appear in a specific order on the ballot; the parties appear in a specific order for each seat but the candidates within each party's column are rotated.  There is therefore no number 1 Liberal or Labor candidate in each seat.  The Greens put out recommended how to vote orders but these are only a recommendation and the voter can just as easily put the candidates in their own preferred order.  

You Cannot Waste Your Vote! (Sort-Of)

The idea that voting for minor parties or independents that won't get in or form government is a "wasted vote" is an evil and pervasive myth smuggled in from bad voting systems where it's actually true (like first past the post).  Some major party supporters spread this myth, including in Hare-Clark, to try to scare voters off voting for anyone else.   In Tasmanian elections if you vote for a candidate who is not elected, your vote flows at full value to the next on your list and so on.  You can't waste your primary vote except by not casting a formal vote - but you can waste your preferencing power by stopping early.  If your vote only numbers a limited number of candidates then once all those are excluded or elected, your vote might hit the exhaust pile and be a spectator for all the remaining choices.  If the candidate you like the most is from a minor party or is an independent, ignore anyone who tells you voting for that person is a "wasted vote".  They're wrong.

Make Sure Your Vote Counts - No Mistakes In First 7

A vote must include at least the numbers 1 through 7 without mistake because our politicians are not committed to protecting voters from losing their votes as a result of unintended errors. Do not use ticks or crosses.  If you number six boxes and think you just can't find a seventh candidate and stop, your vote won't count at all.  If you're one of those people who starts at the top then goes to the bottom to number all the boxes and works up, and you accidentally end up with two 6s, that will not count either.  When you have finished your vote check carefully to make sure you have the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 each once and once only.  (Also check that you have not doubled or omitted any later numbers, but that's less critical, as if you have your vote will still count up to the point of the mistake.)  If you make a mistake while voting at a booth you can ask for another ballot paper.  

Some voters try to number the candidates from each party column separately, so they rank the Labor candidates from 1-7, the Liberal candidates from 1-7, the Green candidates from 1-7 etc.  If you do this your vote does not count.  You are ranking all the candidates together.  Each number you use should appear once only on the whole ballot paper.

Voters for the Nationals in Lyons and the Martin independent group in Braddon should be especially careful here.  If you vote 1-5 for the Nationals in Lyons, or 1-6 for the Martin group in Braddon, and then stop, your vote will not be counted.

Be especially careful with keeping numbers in sequence when moving from one column to another as that is when mistakes often occur.  

The Gold Standard - Number Every Box

The most effective way to vote is to number every box.  That means that your vote has explained where you stand on every possible choice between two candidates and there is no way that your vote can ever leave the count while there are still choices to be made.  

But doesn't this help candidates you dislike?  This is a common myth about the system.  By numbering all the way through, if you've numbered a candidate you dislike and your vote reaches them, it can only help beat candidates you dislike even more!  The reason for this is that every candidate you put above the mildly disliked candidate must have already won or lost before your vote can get there.  If your vote reaches that point then one of the candidates you dislike is going to win no matter what you do.  You may as well make it the more bearable one and use your vote to speak for the lesser evil. 

In terms of the primary election you can stop when you've numbered every box but one, and it makes no difference.  But because of a weird quirk in the recount system, numbering every box could help your vote to have a say in a recount for your worst enemy's seat!  

Numbering every box takes some preparation - it is best to plan your vote before you go to the booth,  There are sometimes automatic tools to help with this and if I see any I'll link to them here.  

The Silver Standard - Number Everyone You Can Stand

If you don't want to number every box then a lower-effort alternative that is still better than numbering 1-7 and stopping is to number all the candidates/parties who you think are good or on balance OK and that you have some idea about. That at least means your vote will never leave the count while candidates or parties who you think are at least so-so are still fighting with the baddies.  

I Don't Care Who Wins But I Want Someone To Lose!

Then number all the boxes and put that party and/or person last.  You may also find the strategic voting section interesting in this case. You can never help a candidate to win by putting them last.

Minor Exceptions

An exception to the gold standard is if you reach a point where of the candidates you have not numbered, your response to any choice between them is that you absolutely do not care.  If you get to that point, and you've numbered at least 7, it's safe to stop. (That said I would keep going and randomise my remaining preferences at this point, for potential recount reasons.)

Another one is if you slightly prefer one party to another but are so disappointed with the first party that you want to send it a message by not preferencing it, in the hope it fights harder for your preference next time.  In that case you can also stop (if you've numbered at least 7 boxes), but in this case you should tell the first party that that's your view (anonymously if you prefer); otherwise they will have no idea you felt that way.

Who Are These People?

Numbering every box is hard work - who are all these people?  I write guides about elections and even I know nothing about lots of them!  If you've never heard of a candidate and they're not running for a party that you like, I'd recommend putting them between the candidates you dislike slightly and those you're sure you cannot stand.  Even if they're running for a party you like, it may be worth doing some research because sometimes parties preselect candidates they shouldn't.  Ultimately it is up to the candidates to make themselves known to you.  If they haven't done that, you are entitled to penalise them.

What Is Group B, Group E and So On?

Some independent candidates have registered their own columns so they stand out on the ballot paper, while others are just listed in the ungrouped column on the far right of the ballot.  In this year's election both these kinds of candidates have the same status, it's just that some of them have lodged 100 signatures either by themselves or as a group to stand out more.  If a candidate is a party candidate you will see their party name.  The group letter names for some independents just refer to their position on the ballot paper; the "Group B" independents in various electorates are not connected to each other just because they have the same group letter.  

Are These Candidates In This Group That Isn't A Party Connected?

There are two non-party groups running multiple candidates this year - the group including Adam Martin (Group B) in Braddon and the group including Peter George (Group C) in Franklin.  The Braddon group are a bunch of independents who have chosen to run together, who have some common viewpoints but may have quite different views on many things.  The Franklin group are not a formal party but are said to be much more tightly aligned to each other based on a set of common principles.  

Then there are the ungrouped columns on the right hand side of the paper. In general, the candidates in the ungrouped column are independents who do not have anything to do with each other (an exception is Gatty Burnett and Mellissa Wells in Braddon who are running together).  A few ungrouped independents are actually members of parties that are not registered to run in state elections.  Independents in the ungrouped column may have very different views to each other.

How Does Your Vote Work?  Why Your Number 1 Matters

This is not the place for a full account of how Hare-Clark voting works, there's one here.  There's a common misconception that when you vote for seven candidates the order doesn't matter much because your vote will help them all.  In fact, that's often not true and your vote only helps one candidate at a time, and helps them in the order you put them in.  Who you vote 1 for can be very important.  If your number 1 candidate is excluded then your vote flows on to the next candidate who is still fighting for a spot at that stage at full value.  If your number 1 candidate is elected straightaway with over 12.5% of the vote in their own right, part of your vote's value is used on helping them to win, and part flows on to other candidates you have numbered.  If your number 1 candidate doesn't win off the first ballot but never gets excluded, then all your vote's value goes to helping your number 1 candidate either eventually win or at least try to (if they finish eighth).  For this reason it's not just who you choose as your first seven that matters, but also the order that you put them in.

That ends the main part of this article, and the rest is something specialised I threw in because ... people do ask. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Sealed Section: Strategic Voting (Advanced Players Only!)

This section is an optional extra and is rated Wonk Factor 4/5.  If you read it and are not sure you understood it, pretend you never read it and certainly don't try explaining it to anyone else! 

Most voting systems are prone to tactical voting of some kind; indeed, in some it's necessary.  Under the first-past-the-post system in the UK it is often necessary for voters to vote tactically for their second or third preference party to ensure their vote isn't "wasted".  In the 2022 federal election, some left-wing voters voted 1 for teal independents because they were more likely to win from second than Labor or the Greens were.  Our preferential systems are much fairer than first-past-the-post, of course, but there are still ways of voting that can make your vote less than optimally powerful, and ways to get around that if you want.  

In this case I am not arguing that voters should vote tactically - I'm just explaining how they can do it if they want to.  The ethical decision involved (since voting tactically effectively reduces the value of other voters' votes) is up to them.  There's also a problem with tactical voting in that if everyone did it it would stop working and create bizarre outcomes.  (But no one should let that alone stop them, because that will not actually happen.  Immanuel Kant was wrong about everything.)

The scope for tactical voting in Hare-Clark is mainly around quotas and the way the system lets votes get stuck.  One simple principle of effective tactical voting for those who want to do it is to not vote 1 for any candidate who you know or strongly suspect will be elected straightaway.   

Suppose I am weighing up between these three candidates, whose surnames indicate their voting prospects: Morgan Megastar, Nico Nohoper and Lee Lineball.  And I decide they are my equal favourites.  Morgan always polls a bucketload of votes and will probably be elected in their own right, or at least will surely win.  Lee might get in off the first count, on a good day, but I don't really know if they'll win at all, and Nico has run in 17 elections and got two deposits back but I like them anyway.  Now in this situation I will vote 1 Nico 2 Lee 3 Morgan (and I will then number all the other boxes).  

Why?  Because I know Morgan doesn't need my #1 vote.  If they get it and they're elected at the first count, the value of their excess votes is one vote greater, but that vote won't all be mine.  A part of the value of my vote stays with them and the rest of it flows on to other candidates, but I've also slightly increased the value of all their other votes to make up the difference.  And these could be votes cast by Hung Parliament Club op-ed writers or other witless philistines. I'd rather have my vote flow on at full value!  Also, Morgan might not quite get quota on the first count, and in that case my vote never goes anywhere else, and I might be boosting whatever vote detritus does put them across the line (shudder!) There is even an extremely rare scenario here where by voting 1 for Morgan I could boost the votes of Lee's key opponents to the point that it actually harms Lee.

So I vote 1 for Nico Nohoper.  A few counts in Nico will be excluded, again, by this stage Morgan is already over the line, or will be soon, and now my vote flows at full value to Lee who may need it.  And if Lee eventually gets eliminated, it will flow on at full value to #4, and so on.   I do this sort of thing a lot - among my top five or six candidates I will often put them in order from least promising to most, so that my vote will hang around a while and might even be able to flow on past all those candidates at full value.  But it takes a lot of knowledge of who is likely to poll well (or not) to pull it off.  

One can get carried away with this idea and try to thread the needle in an order one doesn't support (eg candidates one dislikes above candidates one likes) to try to get one's vote still on the table at full value at #30 in Franklin trying to defeat You Know Who.  I call this "quota running" and I really don't recommend it.  It's too easy to fail to predict something that happens in the count and wind up with your vote doing something that you don't want.  Most likely your vote will never get that far anyway.  

And there's another thing worth knowing here.  Suppose I'm tossing up at some point between two similar candidates who I think will both be contenders, but I really do not have a view between them.  This could happen if I was a major party voter, but it could also be two leading indies.  Now in this case I could go for the one I think will poll less well.  Why?  Because this increases the chance that both of them stay in the count and can both beat a single candidate from some other force (aka the Ginninderra Effect).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, which also has PayID details 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.  If viewing this site on a mobile, you may need to scroll to the bottom of the page and click "View web version" to see the sidebar with the donate button.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, June 28, 2025

Tasmanian Nationals Are Lambie Chaos 2.0

This article is part of my 2025 Tasmanian state election coverage. (Link to main guide page with links to other articles here.)




I was going to write an article called "There Are Too Many Independents" but on seeing the full rollout of candidates for the state election I feel that higher duty calls.  There are too many independents this election (a record 44; some are competitive or at least entertaining but I'll be impressed if even ten get their deposits back) but that can wait.  I want to make some comments about the latest coming of the Tasmanian Nationals.

We've been here before.  In the leadup to the 2014 election there was a Tasmanian Nationals branch that was briefly part of the federal Nationals and was under the stewardship of former Labor MLC Allison Ritchie (never herself a candidate).  Initial enthusiasm for that run included Michael McCormack tweeting (above) that the appointment of Ritchie was "a coup for Christine Ferguson" (then Nationals Federal President).  Less than a month after McCormack's tweet the branch had been disowned by the federal party, who tried but were powerless to cancel the state party name registration.  The rogue branch's curious crew of candidates, including a legal dope advocate and a former Socialist Alliance member, polled a risibly tiny vote tally and the Nats name disappeared. 

Monday, June 16, 2025

2025 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Lyons

This is my Lyons electorate guide for the 2025 Tasmanian State Election.  (Link to main 2025 election preview page, including links to other electorates.)  If you find these guides useful, donations are very welcome (see sidebar), but please only donate if you can afford to do so.  Note: if using a mobile you may need to use the view web version option at the bottom of the page to see the sidebar. 

Lyons (2024 result 3 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green 1 JLN, at election 3 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green 1 Nat)
Most of the state
Rural, outer suburban and forested.  
Lots of tiny dispersed towns that take many years for an MP to work

Candidates

Note to candidates: As the number of candidates becomes large, continually changing link and bio details could consume a lot of my time.  It's up to you to get your act together and have your candidacy advertised on a good website that I can find easily well ahead of the election.  On emailed or Twitter/Bluesky request by July 12 at the latest I may make one free website link change per candidate at my discretion; fees will be charged beyond that.  Bio descriptions and other text will not be changed on request except to remove any material that is indisputably false.   

Where a link is available, a candidate's name is used as a hyperlink.  Emails from candidates who do not understand this will be ignored.  

I am not listing full portfolios for each MP, only the most notable positions.  Candidates are listed incumbent-first by cabinet position/seniority and then alphabetically, except if stated otherwise.

Liberal
Guy Barnett, incumbent, Deputy Premier,  Treasurer, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, former Senator
Mark Shelton, incumbent, backbencher, Speaker, former minister Police, Local Govt etc, former Meander Valley mayor
Jane Howlett, first-term Assembly incumbent (previously MLC for Prosser), Minister Primary Industries, Hospitality and Small Business, Racing
Stephanie Cameron, Deputy Mayor Meander Valley, farmer, deputy president of party, 2021 and 2024 candidate
Bree Groves, farmer, former electorate officer for Bridget Archer
Richard Hallett, prominent Hollow Tree farmer, chair Southern Highlands Irrigation Scheme committee, 2024 candidate
Judith "Poppy" Lyne, farmer (sheep, cattle and irrigated cropping), former councillor

Labor
Jen Butler, incumbent, Shadow Minister Police, Corrections, Veterans Affairs, Women etc
Casey Farrellincumbent elected on recount in March,  previously CEO Enterprize Tasmania (business startups firm), also Neon Jungle (design/technology)
Edwin Batt, Mayor of Southern Midlands, 2021 and 2024 candidate, farmer
Shannon Campbell, first-term Sorell Councillor, Founder/CEO of Campbell Conveyancing & Campbell Attraction Marketing
Richard Goss, "high school teacher with a mechanical and construction trade background", Northern Midlands councillor and former Deputy Mayor, 2024 candidate
Brian Mitchell, federal MHR for Lyons 2016-2025, former journalist/editor/media consultant, more detail here
Saxon O'Donnell, young baritone singer and recent support Senate candidate

Brian Mitchell retired graciously as Lyons incumbent to make way for Rebecca White amid a widespread belief that Labor risked losing if they did not make the switch.  It turned out Labor won Lyons much more easily than expected!  The Liberals have sought to use Mitchell's old social media posts travails from the 2022 federal campaign (noted on the "more detail here" link above) against Labor but have been hamstrung in so doing by the Electoral Act which prohibits them using his name without consent in advertising, whatever that is.  

Greens
Greens candidates are listed in endorsed ticket order.  Link to Lyons Greens profiles
Tabatha Badgerfirst-term incumbent, past Wilderness Society convenor and Lake Pedder restoration campaigner
Alistair Allan, Antarctic and marine campaigner at Bob Brown Foundation, former Sea Shepherd captain, 2024 candidate, 2025 federal candidate 
Hannah Rubenach-Quinn, former Break O'Day councillor, chaplain, disability support worker, 2014 and 2024 candidate, 2016 federal candidate
Isabell Shapcott, museum and gallery professional at QVMAG, 2021 candidate
Mitch Houghton, social work student, climate campaigner with Bob Brown Foundation, past horticulture business owner/operator, 2021 Bass and 2024 Lyons candidate
Craig Brown, retired GP, 2024 candidate
Joey Cavanagh, "longtime Greens volunteer".  Apparently a speedcuber.  

Nationals 
Andrew Jenner, first-term incumbent elected for Jacqui Lambie Network, former UK Tory mayor and voluntary magistrate, former Liberal Party member
Francis Haddon-Cave, former barrister in Hong Kong
Rick Mandelson, Midlands-based tax agent, secretary/treasurer/director of companies in psychology, fencing, land and rail and quarrying
Lesley Pyecroft, Army veteran, registered nurse (schools and LGH)
John Tucker, Liberal MHA 2019-2023, defected to crossbench over stadium, lost seat in 2024 as independent, farmer, former councillor

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers
Carlo di Falco,  target shooter, hunter and gun collector, serial candidate making his 8th run for party, more detail here

Independents - Own Column
Angela OffordLaunceston vet, has been involved with Voices for Tasmania, ran in 2024 and for federal seat

Independents - Ungrouped

Phillip Bigg, tradesman, hunter, President Tasmania's Shooters Union Australia, former SF+F state secretary and frequent candidate, regular #politas contributor
Ray Broomhall,  esoteric lawyer, formerly of No5G Party and ran for Federation Party Senate 2022 then Trumpet of Patriots 2025 
Paul Dare, retired, farmer, army veteran (worked on electronics and helicopters), former senior Baptist pastor, hospitals board member
Michelle Dracoulis, Mayor of Derwent Valley, was preselected by Labor for seat in 2024 but withdrew, photographer
John Hawkins, prominent antiques dealer and Tasmanian Times writer, LegCo candidate for Western Tiers 2012, petitioned against election of Eric Abetz to Senate in 2010 to force Abetz to provide evidence of renouncing German citizenship
Jiri Lev, prominent architect and heritage and planning advisor who supplies build-it-yourself housing plans
Tennille Murtagh, Brighton Councillor, One Nation candidate for Lyons federal 2019 (polled 8.1%), works at Wilson Security (buses, Royal Hobart Hospital and Indigenous engagement)

An adverisement for Hawkins calls for legislation to "create a talent pool of over 65 citizens who will sit for one term only in the parliament in three [sic] years' time and calls for requiring candidates to take an exam! 

The ballot paper order in Lyons is SF+F, Nationals, Greens, Offord, Labor, Liberal, ungrouped

Prospects for Lyons

Lyons often runs alongside the northern seats but a little behind them on the Liberal vote.  At the Liberals' previous three victories they would have won four seats in Lyons under the current system but in 2024 they could only manage three.  They polled 37.6% (3.00 quotas) to Labor's 32.8% (2.62), Greens 10.9% (0.86 Q), Lambie Network 8.3% (0.66), Shooters Fishers and Farmers 4.8% (0.38) and Tucker 3.1% (0.24 Q).  

This looked like a close race between Labor and JLN for the final seat but Labor dropped back on a very high leakage rate off Rebecca White's surplus and never recovered.  In fact, Andrew Jenner (JLN) overtook the Greens on preferences and was elected sixth.  

Labor will suffer from the absence of White who was a huge vote-getter.  However the silver lining is that they will be able to spread their vote better and reduce leakage, especially with Mitchell's presence effectively giving them three incumbents (albeit one of those, Farrell, having not been there for long). If things go badly for Labor Farrell could struggle against Butler and Mitchell after such a short time in parliament - MPs elected on mid-term recounts are often vulnerable and Farrell has had a very short time as an incumbent.  

Without the competition from the JLN banner and even without White it's pretty easy to see how Labor can manage three here if the election goes decently for them overall, the question being can the Liberals drop back to two, and if so who would it be to?  

The non-big-three vote appears scattered here between the Nationals, SF+F and independents and I'm struggling to put any of these over the line.  The Nationals have an incumbent and a recent incumbent on their ticket and the question is how much vote can be picked up there between Tucker's support base from 2024, whatever Jenner carries from those who voted JLN in 2024, and miscellaneous support for the Nationals attempt. .  The flow from whichever of Jenner or Tucker is excluded to the other may not be all that strong.  I'm not wildly convinced of the idea that the conservative anti-stadium vote is enough to elect this lot; if it is then why did Tucker bomb out in 2024?

Of the independents Dracoulis at least might poll substantially but being Mayor of a not especially large municipality population-wise is typically not near enough.  The SF+F vote in this seat is sometimes decent but I am expecting them to suffer from a modest effort and competition from the Nats.  Also the Shooters lineup has fractured with Bigg running as an indie; he seems to have more energy than the remaining party put together.    As for the Greens while being short of quota could make them at risk with some combinations of other party totals, I reckon that this time that's probably not going to be an issue, at least if their primary vote holds.

Outlook for Lyons:  3-3-1-0 (Liberal-Labor-Greens-others) is the early frontrunner, perhaps Nats still a chance despite poor early polling.