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.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Questions To The ABS Re Marriage Law Postal Survey
(Admin note: I have just made a change to the comments screening on this site. If you have problems submitting comments but haven't had problems in the past please email me at k_bonham@tassie.net.au . Where people have trouble submitting comments I am happy to accept them by email provided it is clear which article they are to be posted to and that they are for public posting.)
I have just sent the ABS the email below regarding the upcoming (unless the High Court decides otherwise) same-sex marriage postal survey. It raises various questions about quality assurance. The email is exactly as sent except that I have removed my telephone number. (I am happy for journalists who have or can find my number to call me at any reasonable time, but I do not want phone calls from time-wasting randoms.)
Also see Michael Maley's consolidated compendium of plebisurvey issues. The entertaining issue of 16-17 year olds voting has now, alas, been knocked on the head by a fresh directive from Minister Cormann.
I have just sent the ABS the email below regarding the upcoming (unless the High Court decides otherwise) same-sex marriage postal survey. It raises various questions about quality assurance. The email is exactly as sent except that I have removed my telephone number. (I am happy for journalists who have or can find my number to call me at any reasonable time, but I do not want phone calls from time-wasting randoms.)
Also see Michael Maley's consolidated compendium of plebisurvey issues. The entertaining issue of 16-17 year olds voting has now, alas, been knocked on the head by a fresh directive from Minister Cormann.
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
EMRS: White Lead Is A Big Problem For Liberals
EMRS August Lib 37 ALP 34 Green 16 Ind 6 JLN 5 Other 1
Interpretation Lib 39 ALP 38 Green 13 Others 10
Modelled seat result based on this poll if election held now: Liberal 11-12 seats Labor 10 Green 3-4
Warning: Polls are snapshots, not forecasts
Preferred Premier Rebecca White leads Will Hodgman 48-37
A new EMRS poll of state voting intentions is out. Also see the trend tracker. The party breakdown shows scarcely any change from the May result but the startling outcome is that Rebecca White leads Will Hodgman as preferred premier by the thumping margin of 48% to 37%.
Let's put that in the historic context drawn from other states. It's very simple: preferred premier is an indicator that usually strongly favours incumbents. When established state premiers trail as preferred leader in Newspoll (never mind by eleven points), they either lose the next election or are removed by their own party. EMRS is not Newspoll, and it's possible its continued devotion to landline polling (which I strongly believe to be not fully randomised) has meant its results have become total rubbish. But if that's not the case, the government should be rather worried. The suggestion is that so far negative attacks on the new Opposition Leader have either not worked at all or even backfired.
Opposition Leaders don't lead by eleven points just because people like them. Historically this sort of imbalance happens when governments are in deep trouble or their leaders are unpopular, or both. Federal governments sometimes recover from it; state governments historically don't. The large lead for Rebecca White is probably also a sign that among the voters who EMRS flags as undecided, or as intending to vote for a minor candidate, there are probably a lot who are leaning towards Labor or likely to direct preferences Labor's way. It should be noted, for contrast and a bit of sobrietry, that the recent ReachTEL had only a small White lead from a format that doesn't skew to incumbents, so perhaps this EMRS is an outlier. I am also aware of an unpublished commissioned poll showing Hodgman with a small lead using similar question design to EMRS.
Interpretation Lib 39 ALP 38 Green 13 Others 10
Modelled seat result based on this poll if election held now: Liberal 11-12 seats Labor 10 Green 3-4
Warning: Polls are snapshots, not forecasts
Preferred Premier Rebecca White leads Will Hodgman 48-37
A new EMRS poll of state voting intentions is out. Also see the trend tracker. The party breakdown shows scarcely any change from the May result but the startling outcome is that Rebecca White leads Will Hodgman as preferred premier by the thumping margin of 48% to 37%.
Let's put that in the historic context drawn from other states. It's very simple: preferred premier is an indicator that usually strongly favours incumbents. When established state premiers trail as preferred leader in Newspoll (never mind by eleven points), they either lose the next election or are removed by their own party. EMRS is not Newspoll, and it's possible its continued devotion to landline polling (which I strongly believe to be not fully randomised) has meant its results have become total rubbish. But if that's not the case, the government should be rather worried. The suggestion is that so far negative attacks on the new Opposition Leader have either not worked at all or even backfired.
Opposition Leaders don't lead by eleven points just because people like them. Historically this sort of imbalance happens when governments are in deep trouble or their leaders are unpopular, or both. Federal governments sometimes recover from it; state governments historically don't. The large lead for Rebecca White is probably also a sign that among the voters who EMRS flags as undecided, or as intending to vote for a minor candidate, there are probably a lot who are leaning towards Labor or likely to direct preferences Labor's way. It should be noted, for contrast and a bit of sobrietry, that the recent ReachTEL had only a small White lead from a format that doesn't skew to incumbents, so perhaps this EMRS is an outlier. I am also aware of an unpublished commissioned poll showing Hodgman with a small lead using similar question design to EMRS.
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.
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
More Section 44 Cases In Spotlight
A very long time ago now two Greens Senators resigned after discovering they were dual citizens. The Senate will refer their cases to the Court of Disputed Returns (typically the High Court) which will determine whether they were eligible to have been elected in the first place and, assuming that they weren't, will initiate a "special count" to fill their places. In the weeks since then, however, many more MPs have come under the spotlight of the dual citizenship rule in Section 44 of the Constitution, and it's unlikely it has claimed its final victim yet.
The Constitution is very black and white about dual citizenships - section 44 says that if you are a citizen of another country, you are not eligible to be chosen or to sit in Parliament. It doesn't seem to allow any ifs or buts about all that. However, the High Court in Sykes v Cleary [1992] found that the Constitution was unrealistic and had to be "read down". After all, if it were that straightforward then another nation could maliciously impose citizenship on Australian MPs and refuse to withdraw it. Alternatively, for a given citizen of a given nation, procedures for getting rid of an unwanted citizenship might be unrealistically expensive, time-consuming, slow, dangerous, unreliable or unreasonable.
The Constitution is very black and white about dual citizenships - section 44 says that if you are a citizen of another country, you are not eligible to be chosen or to sit in Parliament. It doesn't seem to allow any ifs or buts about all that. However, the High Court in Sykes v Cleary [1992] found that the Constitution was unrealistic and had to be "read down". After all, if it were that straightforward then another nation could maliciously impose citizenship on Australian MPs and refuse to withdraw it. Alternatively, for a given citizen of a given nation, procedures for getting rid of an unwanted citizenship might be unrealistically expensive, time-consuming, slow, dangerous, unreliable or unreasonable.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Poll Roundup: Are Malcolm's Newspolls Worse Than Tony's?
2PP Aggregate: 53.2 to ALP (-0.2 since last week)
ALP would easily win election "held now"
Five weeks since the last Poll Roundup, things have not improved for the Turnbull government in opinion-poll horse-racing land. If anything, things have got worse. We've had twin 53-47s to Labor from Newspoll and an Essential run of 52-53-54-54-53. Closer 2PP readings from ReachTEL (52 then 51 for ALP) have arisen only because of the use of respondent preferences, and new entrant YouGov has produced a 49-51 followed by a 52-48 lead by a new respondent preferencing method off primaries that offer the government no more joy than the others. (More on that later). I'm not aggregating YouGov until later this week after its third poll has arrived, but my overall read of the others comes out at 53.2 to Labor this week. Here's the smoothed aggregate:
The rot looks increasingly set in, with no large or lasting movement away from 53-47 since the start of the year. As with the Gillard government, voters so far do not give this government credit for passing legislation or policy announcements. In polling terms, everything the government sends out comes back dead. History doesn't say this position can't be won from, but it will probably need something large and unexpected to rebound in the government's favour.
ALP would easily win election "held now"
Five weeks since the last Poll Roundup, things have not improved for the Turnbull government in opinion-poll horse-racing land. If anything, things have got worse. We've had twin 53-47s to Labor from Newspoll and an Essential run of 52-53-54-54-53. Closer 2PP readings from ReachTEL (52 then 51 for ALP) have arisen only because of the use of respondent preferences, and new entrant YouGov has produced a 49-51 followed by a 52-48 lead by a new respondent preferencing method off primaries that offer the government no more joy than the others. (More on that later). I'm not aggregating YouGov until later this week after its third poll has arrived, but my overall read of the others comes out at 53.2 to Labor this week. Here's the smoothed aggregate:
The rot looks increasingly set in, with no large or lasting movement away from 53-47 since the start of the year. As with the Gillard government, voters so far do not give this government credit for passing legislation or policy announcements. In polling terms, everything the government sends out comes back dead. History doesn't say this position can't be won from, but it will probably need something large and unexpected to rebound in the government's favour.
Sunday, July 23, 2017
Reachtel: It's All About Lyons
Mercury ReachTEL Lib 43 ALP 32.9 Green 13.4 Other 10.7 (after redistributing "undecided")
Interpretation Lib 43 ALP 36.7 Green 10.7 Other 9.8
Most likely result right now based on this poll would be hung parliament (12-10-3) closely followed by narrow Liberal majority (13-10-2)
New aggregate of all polling: Liberal majority (13-10-2) with hung parliament (12-10-3) next most likely.
A Mercury ReachTEL of state voting intention is now out with a sample size of a whopping 2817 voters. My initial comments on it will be very brief because I am playing in a chess tournament this weekend and also so that the Mercury get good commercial value for their polling data, which I expect can be found in full in the Sunday Tasmanian. More detailed comments may be posted on Sunday night. There was also a commissioned poll of Lyons this week - see Fishy Prospects In The Seat Of Lyons.
This new poll again presents a story that I have repeated so many times in state polling coverage over the last two years that presumably something entirely different will happen and it will all be wrong! The overall picture of polling for some time has shown the Hodgman Government's majority hanging by a thread, given the virtually certain loss of a seat in Braddon and the likely loss of another in Franklin. With the Greens struggling to hold their seat in Bass, the key question then is whether the Greens (or somebody) can knock off one of the three Liberal MPs in Lyons. If that happens the majority goes, and it could be that the government goes with it. There are a number of possible fourth-party/independent wildcards, but at this stage none of them are known to have their acts together.
Interpretation Lib 43 ALP 36.7 Green 10.7 Other 9.8
Most likely result right now based on this poll would be hung parliament (12-10-3) closely followed by narrow Liberal majority (13-10-2)
New aggregate of all polling: Liberal majority (13-10-2) with hung parliament (12-10-3) next most likely.
A Mercury ReachTEL of state voting intention is now out with a sample size of a whopping 2817 voters. My initial comments on it will be very brief because I am playing in a chess tournament this weekend and also so that the Mercury get good commercial value for their polling data, which I expect can be found in full in the Sunday Tasmanian. More detailed comments may be posted on Sunday night. There was also a commissioned poll of Lyons this week - see Fishy Prospects In The Seat Of Lyons.
This new poll again presents a story that I have repeated so many times in state polling coverage over the last two years that presumably something entirely different will happen and it will all be wrong! The overall picture of polling for some time has shown the Hodgman Government's majority hanging by a thread, given the virtually certain loss of a seat in Braddon and the likely loss of another in Franklin. With the Greens struggling to hold their seat in Bass, the key question then is whether the Greens (or somebody) can knock off one of the three Liberal MPs in Lyons. If that happens the majority goes, and it could be that the government goes with it. There are a number of possible fourth-party/independent wildcards, but at this stage none of them are known to have their acts together.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Fishy Prospects In The Seat Of Lyons
ReachTEL Lyons: Lib 42 Labor 30.4 Green 12.4 Lambie Network 10 SF+F 2.7 Others 2.5
ReachTEL polls in Tasmania have in the past skewed against Labor and to the Greens
Seats that would be won based on this poll: Liberal 3 Labor 2 (status quo)
The Australia Institute has released a large-sample ReachTEL of the state seat of Lyons. Lyons has long looked like the most crucial seat in determining whether the Hodgman Government can maintain a majority at the next state election, as on a more or less uniform swing to Labor, the third Lyons seat is the third to fall. Polling has long appeared touch-and-go as to whether the party is likely to hold three seats there or lose one to the Greens or maybe someone else.
The commissioned ReachTEL also covers fish farms, which are seen as a significant environmental issue in the leadup to the next election. I am satisfied that the poll has not been selectively released and also that ReachTEL have a good record in not letting commissioning sources tweak the primary vote polling design. So while all commissioned polls are to be treated with some caution, and all seat polls always require special care, I'll have a look at what the data from this poll suggest.
As usual with ReachTEL the data require a lot of unpacking. ReachTEL use a different format to most other polls, by initially giving voters a set of options that includes "undecided", and then allowing those who are "undecided" to say which party they are leaning to. However the "undecided" in ReachTEL polls would be included in other polls' headline figures, while the truly undecided voters (those not even leaning to any party) are excluded, as they are by other pollsters.
ReachTEL polls in Tasmania have in the past skewed against Labor and to the Greens
Seats that would be won based on this poll: Liberal 3 Labor 2 (status quo)
The Australia Institute has released a large-sample ReachTEL of the state seat of Lyons. Lyons has long looked like the most crucial seat in determining whether the Hodgman Government can maintain a majority at the next state election, as on a more or less uniform swing to Labor, the third Lyons seat is the third to fall. Polling has long appeared touch-and-go as to whether the party is likely to hold three seats there or lose one to the Greens or maybe someone else.
The commissioned ReachTEL also covers fish farms, which are seen as a significant environmental issue in the leadup to the next election. I am satisfied that the poll has not been selectively released and also that ReachTEL have a good record in not letting commissioning sources tweak the primary vote polling design. So while all commissioned polls are to be treated with some caution, and all seat polls always require special care, I'll have a look at what the data from this poll suggest.
As usual with ReachTEL the data require a lot of unpacking. ReachTEL use a different format to most other polls, by initially giving voters a set of options that includes "undecided", and then allowing those who are "undecided" to say which party they are leaning to. However the "undecided" in ReachTEL polls would be included in other polls' headline figures, while the truly undecided voters (those not even leaning to any party) are excluded, as they are by other pollsters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)