Welcome to the sixth annual Ehrlich Awards for Wrong Predictions. I have to say from the outset, what a right bunch of wallies we have lined up this year for your amusement. Around the start of each year here I obtain and provide cheap gratification by outing the most amusingly, instructively or staggeringly foolish calls that I observe in or relating to the previous twelve months, in any field of interest to this site. The Ehrlichs are named for Paul Ehrlich, who not only lightened his bank balance when losing his famous bet with Julian Simon, but also lightened his credibility by making poor excuses for his defeat. For the groundrules see the first edition and for previous years click the Ehrlich Awards tab. A fairly common theme this year involves statements that can be taken literally as simply false claims of fact, but that also imply certain predictions about what will or won't happen down the track (in an election post-count for example).
Showing posts with label postal plebiscite. Show all posts
Showing posts with label postal plebiscite. Show all posts
Monday, January 1, 2018
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Poll Roundup: Newspoll Moves! It Is Alive! (includes same-sex marriage polling)
2PP: 53.5 to Labor (+0.3 since last week)
Labor would win an election "held now" with a large majority
Time for another roundup of the state of play in federal polling. This week's exciting development was that Newspoll, after a record six consecutive 2PPs of 53-47 to Labor, finally moved by a whole point to 54-46! I am especially excited by this because had this week's result been another 53-47, I was going to lead off with a mock Death Certificate, and now I do not have to.
This briefly took my aggregate to an equal term high 53.8 to ALP (I tweeted this as 53.9 but later found a very small error) but then Essential moved back a point the other way after two 54s, and the primaries in YouGov didn't do a lot, so I currently have it at 53.5 to ALP. That was the Coalition's winning lead in the 2013 election, and also just shy of what Labor had when Tony Abbott was removed.
The strange 2PP results of YouGov continue to baffle - this week it has the Coalition with a 51-49 lead off primaries that would normally imply something like 53.1% to Labor. I discussed this issue last time, and the average difference between YouGov's 2PPs and the last-election 2PPs for their primaries is now running at a massive 2.9 points. As noted last time, it's possible that the current last-election 2PPs are overstating Labor's lead, especially because of One Nation issues, but it's highly unlikely that they're doing so by three points. Much more detail on the YouGov mystery from William Bowe here.
Labor would win an election "held now" with a large majority
Time for another roundup of the state of play in federal polling. This week's exciting development was that Newspoll, after a record six consecutive 2PPs of 53-47 to Labor, finally moved by a whole point to 54-46! I am especially excited by this because had this week's result been another 53-47, I was going to lead off with a mock Death Certificate, and now I do not have to.
This briefly took my aggregate to an equal term high 53.8 to ALP (I tweeted this as 53.9 but later found a very small error) but then Essential moved back a point the other way after two 54s, and the primaries in YouGov didn't do a lot, so I currently have it at 53.5 to ALP. That was the Coalition's winning lead in the 2013 election, and also just shy of what Labor had when Tony Abbott was removed.
The strange 2PP results of YouGov continue to baffle - this week it has the Coalition with a 51-49 lead off primaries that would normally imply something like 53.1% to Labor. I discussed this issue last time, and the average difference between YouGov's 2PPs and the last-election 2PPs for their primaries is now running at a massive 2.9 points. As noted last time, it's possible that the current last-election 2PPs are overstating Labor's lead, especially because of One Nation issues, but it's highly unlikely that they're doing so by three points. Much more detail on the YouGov mystery from William Bowe here.
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Will "Hate Speech" Be Illegal In The "Plebiscite"?
Things are moving fast in the Government's attempt to conduct a national voluntary postal vote on same-sex marriage. Although we won't get to the High Court challenge against the "survey" until September 5-6 - meaning we might be a month away from knowing if the thing is on at all - a lot of questions are being raised and in cases answered about how exactly the plebiscite will be conducted, if it does proceed. A major problem with the exercise has been that since it is not an Australian Electoral Commission process authorised by an act of Parliament, normal election requirements (authorisation, fraud and vote-buying protections and challenges) do not exist unless separately provided for. In Thursday's instalment (Electoral Process, But Not As We Know It: Postal Plebiscite V2) I mentioned that at least regulation would be needed to get around these problems. However the regulations available under legislation concerning the ABS are very limited concerning penalties.
In a welcome move, acting Special Minister of State Mathias Cormann has flagged the stronger possibility of special legislation to impose AEC-election-like conditions for the, er, whatever it's called. This would create the really strange situation of the Senate approving laws governing a postal vote that the Senate had itself not approved and would have blocked if asked to approve it. Such laws might themselves be subject to challenge. The most important aspect of this debate for me, though, is the incorrect impressions of the impact of such possible laws that we are seeing in the media. The SMH and ABC have referred to them as "ground rules for a fair and respectful debate on same-sex marriage", rules that would "stop hateful advertising material being distributed" and as protections against "malicious publications". It isn't so.
In a welcome move, acting Special Minister of State Mathias Cormann has flagged the stronger possibility of special legislation to impose AEC-election-like conditions for the, er, whatever it's called. This would create the really strange situation of the Senate approving laws governing a postal vote that the Senate had itself not approved and would have blocked if asked to approve it. Such laws might themselves be subject to challenge. The most important aspect of this debate for me, though, is the incorrect impressions of the impact of such possible laws that we are seeing in the media. The SMH and ABC have referred to them as "ground rules for a fair and respectful debate on same-sex marriage", rules that would "stop hateful advertising material being distributed" and as protections against "malicious publications". It isn't so.
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Electoral Process, But Not As We Know It: Postal Plebsicite V2
An article I wrote about the serious defects of a postal plebiscite (back on the annual day reserved for silly jokes) has for some unfathomable reason more than doubled its hit tally in the last 24 hours. Now that a postal plebiscite (but run by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, not the Australian Electoral Commission) has been announced by the government, it's time to update certain aspects of my commentary.
What it appears we will have (unless it is disallowed by the courts) is something so bizarre that it was not anticipated in any of the many polls about a plebiscite. Effectively, it is a national vote on whether the government will allow a conscience vote to be brought on in the parliament. (If the plebiscite proceeds and the "no" side wins, then the government will block a conscience vote, presumably ending any prospects for same-sex marriage for so long as the Coalition stays in power. This rather heavy-handed approach appears to be an attempt to prevent a mass boycott from working.)
Is it constitutional?
I don't know, but we'll probably find out soon enough. At least two sets of campaigners against the proposed plebiscite are filing for injunctions against it. Section 83 of the Constitution requires that appropriations must be supported by law, and no law has been passed for this plebiscite. However there are various standing general-purpose appropriations that governments have flexibility to use for the ordinary running of government, and also in emergencies. The question will be whether an appropriation for this purpose is valid.
What it appears we will have (unless it is disallowed by the courts) is something so bizarre that it was not anticipated in any of the many polls about a plebiscite. Effectively, it is a national vote on whether the government will allow a conscience vote to be brought on in the parliament. (If the plebiscite proceeds and the "no" side wins, then the government will block a conscience vote, presumably ending any prospects for same-sex marriage for so long as the Coalition stays in power. This rather heavy-handed approach appears to be an attempt to prevent a mass boycott from working.)
Is it constitutional?
I don't know, but we'll probably find out soon enough. At least two sets of campaigners against the proposed plebiscite are filing for injunctions against it. Section 83 of the Constitution requires that appropriations must be supported by law, and no law has been passed for this plebiscite. However there are various standing general-purpose appropriations that governments have flexibility to use for the ordinary running of government, and also in emergencies. The question will be whether an appropriation for this purpose is valid.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Postal Plebiscite: Australia's Biggest Bad Elector Survey
(Note added Aug 2017: This article from April has received much interest lately. For new comments go to Electoral Process, But Not As We Know It: Postal Plebiscite V2).
The federal Coalition went to the 2016 federal election with a commitment to hold a national non-binding plebiscite on marriage equality (aka "same-sex marriage") prior to any further parliamentary vote on the issue. The plebiscite was, as noted here before, a bad idea in policy terms, though it was mostly successful in neutralising marriage equality as a campaign issue. The plebiscite plan was voted down in the Senate, leaving the whole issue apparently unable to progress within this term.
The option of simply changing the law seems impossible because religious reactionaries within and supporting the Coalition won't allow it. (They're the ones who don't understand why people keep talking about marriage equality, but would bring down the Prime Minister and/or destroy their own party even in a failed attempt to stop it.) Leaving the issue as a festering distraction til the next election isn't too attractive either, so along comes Peter Dutton with a proposal to have the plebiscite anyway, but to do it by post. Voting would be optional.
The idea of holding a voluntary ballot that does not need the approval of parliament is not new; this option of a "fee-for-service" ballot under Section 7A of the Electoral Act was discussed in the Senate plebiscite report. The option was not costed at the time because there was no proposed legislation to implement it.
The federal Coalition went to the 2016 federal election with a commitment to hold a national non-binding plebiscite on marriage equality (aka "same-sex marriage") prior to any further parliamentary vote on the issue. The plebiscite was, as noted here before, a bad idea in policy terms, though it was mostly successful in neutralising marriage equality as a campaign issue. The plebiscite plan was voted down in the Senate, leaving the whole issue apparently unable to progress within this term.
The option of simply changing the law seems impossible because religious reactionaries within and supporting the Coalition won't allow it. (They're the ones who don't understand why people keep talking about marriage equality, but would bring down the Prime Minister and/or destroy their own party even in a failed attempt to stop it.) Leaving the issue as a festering distraction til the next election isn't too attractive either, so along comes Peter Dutton with a proposal to have the plebiscite anyway, but to do it by post. Voting would be optional.
The idea of holding a voluntary ballot that does not need the approval of parliament is not new; this option of a "fee-for-service" ballot under Section 7A of the Electoral Act was discussed in the Senate plebiscite report. The option was not costed at the time because there was no proposed legislation to implement it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)