Another year done for a site that is now just over four years old. When I started this site I intended it just as an interim site while I explored other options, but in spite of some very minor frustrations (like difficulty in stopping spammers from even submitting comments) I've seen no compelling reason to move.
This year was a federal election year and the activity pattern for the year looks like this (the units are sessions per week):
The federal election and its post-count events basically swamp everything else. Senate reform performance reviews maintained a high level of reader interest through to mid-August and after that the rest of the year was quieter, with little spikes for the ACT and NT elections. The massive federal election spike meant that this year had about 128% more traffic than last year, and about 60% more than the previous busiest year (2014).
ELECTORAL, POLLING AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS, COMMENT AND NEWS FROM THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CLARK. LOOKS LIKE 2026 IS THE YEAR VICTORIA IS FINALLY FREED OF THE CURSE OF GROUP TICKET VOTING! IF USING THIS SITE ON MOBILE YOU CAN SCROLL DOWN AND CLICK "VIEW WEB VERSION" TO SEE THE SIDEBAR FULL OF GOODIES.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Sunday, December 18, 2016
What Chance One Nation Seats In The Tasmanian Parliament?
Recently there have been some noises about Pauline Hanson's One Nation trying to break into Tasmanian state politics at the next election. The next state election still could be 15 months away, if the parliament goes full term, and before then we'll have the WA and probably the Queensland elections, which both look like fertile ground for the resurgent party. But anywhere might be fertile ground if a recent ReachTEL in Victoria that had the party on 9.4% there is to be taken even half-seriously. One Nation's current national surge might fall in a big heap by the time Tasmanians next go to the polls, but let's suppose it doesn't. I thought it was worth a detailed look at the sort of chances the party might have, supposing that it makes a serious effort.
The case for One Nation as a threat is pretty easily stated. The party very nearly won a seat in the state at the Senate election, albeit when competing for one of twelve seats rather than one in five per electorate. Its primary vote was low (2.57%) but it received about another 2% in preferences from micro-parties that might reasonably be expected not to contest the state election. Throw in regional variation and it's easy to project One Nation above 6% in both Lyons and Braddon. Throw in that the party's national polled support is running close to double what it polled in the Senate and something like 10% in these seats starts to look pretty viable.
One Nation might appeal to some voters who are displeased with the current state government but would hate to go back to another minority government where the Greens hold the balance of power.
The case for One Nation as a threat is pretty easily stated. The party very nearly won a seat in the state at the Senate election, albeit when competing for one of twelve seats rather than one in five per electorate. Its primary vote was low (2.57%) but it received about another 2% in preferences from micro-parties that might reasonably be expected not to contest the state election. Throw in regional variation and it's easy to project One Nation above 6% in both Lyons and Braddon. Throw in that the party's national polled support is running close to double what it polled in the Senate and something like 10% in these seats starts to look pretty viable.
One Nation might appeal to some voters who are displeased with the current state government but would hate to go back to another minority government where the Greens hold the balance of power.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Poll Roundup: 2016 Year In Review
Aggregate 52.0 to ALP (+0.1)
Labor would win an election "held now"
It's about the time of year when polling shuts down for a few weeks, so as usual I will post an annual recap. If there are any late polls then I will edit the text to add them in.
In the three weeks since the last roundup, we've seen some evidence that the anti-Coalition trend in polling has softened, but not all that much. Newspoll has come in from 53:47 for Labor to 52:48, while Essential's last three readings for Labor have been 51, 52, 53. I aggregated the Newspoll at 52.1 and the Essentials at 51.3, 52 and 53.1. There was also the Ipsos discussed in the update to the previous piece. All up I have things at 52.0 to ALP, down from 52.4 three weeks ago:
Whatever is going on in February and March is likely to shape polling much more than whatever (if anything) is causing the very small comeback that we see here.
Labor would win an election "held now"
It's about the time of year when polling shuts down for a few weeks, so as usual I will post an annual recap. If there are any late polls then I will edit the text to add them in.
In the three weeks since the last roundup, we've seen some evidence that the anti-Coalition trend in polling has softened, but not all that much. Newspoll has come in from 53:47 for Labor to 52:48, while Essential's last three readings for Labor have been 51, 52, 53. I aggregated the Newspoll at 52.1 and the Essentials at 51.3, 52 and 53.1. There was also the Ipsos discussed in the update to the previous piece. All up I have things at 52.0 to ALP, down from 52.4 three weeks ago:
Whatever is going on in February and March is likely to shape polling much more than whatever (if anything) is causing the very small comeback that we see here.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
SA's Voter Choice Bill Could Be Better
Earlier this year, the Australian federal parliament successfully passed Senate voting reform, which abolished the Group Voting Tickets that had trashed the 2013 election, and returned control over preferences to the voters. I've had plenty to say already about how successful that was (performance review part 1, part 2, JSCEM sub (PDF) etc). However, while Group Ticket Voting has been put in the bin at federal level, hopefully to remain there for good, it remains in place in the upper houses of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. (For completeness, NSW fixed its system after the 1999 debacle, Tasmania has a single-member-per-seat Upper House and Queensland has no Upper House at all).
I'm not going to expend a huge amount of energy on trying to get state upper house systems reformed in states other than my own. But with South Australia the first state where a move away from GVTs is the subject of legislation since the 2016 Senate outcome, I think it's interesting to have a look at what is being proposed. In attempting to get rid of Group Ticket Voting, the SA Labor government has come up with a near-polar opposite. The proposed alternative, while still much better than keeping GVTs (as is just about anything really) is so inferior to the Senate and NSW systems that I wondered for a moment if it was built to be voted down. It appears this isn't the case, so hopefully parties in the SA Upper House (where the Government holds just eight out of 22 seats) will be able to amend the legislation to improve it. An interview with the Attorney-General in July did suggest he was open to different models provided that preference harvesting got the chop, which is commendable.
I'm not going to expend a huge amount of energy on trying to get state upper house systems reformed in states other than my own. But with South Australia the first state where a move away from GVTs is the subject of legislation since the 2016 Senate outcome, I think it's interesting to have a look at what is being proposed. In attempting to get rid of Group Ticket Voting, the SA Labor government has come up with a near-polar opposite. The proposed alternative, while still much better than keeping GVTs (as is just about anything really) is so inferior to the Senate and NSW systems that I wondered for a moment if it was built to be voted down. It appears this isn't the case, so hopefully parties in the SA Upper House (where the Government holds just eight out of 22 seats) will be able to amend the legislation to improve it. An interview with the Attorney-General in July did suggest he was open to different models provided that preference harvesting got the chop, which is commendable.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Poll Roundup: Are Australian Voters Grumps?
2PP Aggregate: 52.1 to Labor (-0.3) - updated after Ipsos
Labor would win election "held now"
Another four weeks on since my last update on national polling and not much has changed. We still have only two regularly active pollsters and their results continue to show a very gradual shift away from the returned Turnbull Government since the July election. I'm expecting some improvement on the former front shortly, and may update this article should that occur. As for the smoothed 2PP tracking, it looks like this:
Since last time there's been little variation in the released polls, all from pollsters that don't do a lot of variation anyway: two 53-47s to Labor from Newspoll, two 53s and two 52s from Essential. I consider these two polls between them to have had a bit of form in skewing to Labor during the Turnbull phase of the previous parliament and so the current aggregate comes out at 52.4 to ALP. Before house effect adjustments, I've aggregated the recent polls at 52.7 and 53.0 from Newspoll and 52.5, 53, 53.4 and 52.6 from Essential. However, the 53.4 currently isn't in the mix, because of the way I use only alternate Essentials at any one time. Those who also follow BludgerTrack, which should be everyone reading this, may have noticed my aggregate is about 0.4 of a point more Coalition-friendly at the moment. A fair slab of this is because I assume that all the pollsters know what they are doing with their 2PP calculations, though a lot of the time I have my doubts.
Since Essential started using the 2016 preference distributions for its 2PP figures, I have its average published 2PP as 52.2 for Labor, but the average 2PP derived from the published figures without any knowledge of decimals or state breakdowns would be 52.72. So the Coalition has done better on the published 2PPs than would be expected from its primary votes, by about half a point. In contrast, Newspoll has had a published average of 51.72 for Labor but its derived average would be effectively identical to the published figures at 51.84. The differences in Essential's case could be caused by rounding, but rounding differences should be randomly distributed. If this continues for another, say, ten polls it will be strong evidence that something unusual is going on - not necessarily an error, as state breakdown factors could be at play.
We're still not seeing any panic-stations 2PP polling, and the rate of change is slower than the last time the Coalition lost support in a more or less steady fashion over a few months (in late 2014).
Labor would win election "held now"
Another four weeks on since my last update on national polling and not much has changed. We still have only two regularly active pollsters and their results continue to show a very gradual shift away from the returned Turnbull Government since the July election. I'm expecting some improvement on the former front shortly, and may update this article should that occur. As for the smoothed 2PP tracking, it looks like this:
Since last time there's been little variation in the released polls, all from pollsters that don't do a lot of variation anyway: two 53-47s to Labor from Newspoll, two 53s and two 52s from Essential. I consider these two polls between them to have had a bit of form in skewing to Labor during the Turnbull phase of the previous parliament and so the current aggregate comes out at 52.4 to ALP. Before house effect adjustments, I've aggregated the recent polls at 52.7 and 53.0 from Newspoll and 52.5, 53, 53.4 and 52.6 from Essential. However, the 53.4 currently isn't in the mix, because of the way I use only alternate Essentials at any one time. Those who also follow BludgerTrack, which should be everyone reading this, may have noticed my aggregate is about 0.4 of a point more Coalition-friendly at the moment. A fair slab of this is because I assume that all the pollsters know what they are doing with their 2PP calculations, though a lot of the time I have my doubts.
Since Essential started using the 2016 preference distributions for its 2PP figures, I have its average published 2PP as 52.2 for Labor, but the average 2PP derived from the published figures without any knowledge of decimals or state breakdowns would be 52.72. So the Coalition has done better on the published 2PPs than would be expected from its primary votes, by about half a point. In contrast, Newspoll has had a published average of 51.72 for Labor but its derived average would be effectively identical to the published figures at 51.84. The differences in Essential's case could be caused by rounding, but rounding differences should be randomly distributed. If this continues for another, say, ten polls it will be strong evidence that something unusual is going on - not necessarily an error, as state breakdown factors could be at play.
We're still not seeing any panic-stations 2PP polling, and the rate of change is slower than the last time the Coalition lost support in a more or less steady fashion over a few months (in late 2014).
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
New Tasmanian State Poll: Rolling Comments
ReachTEL Liberal 45.6 Labor 30.9 Green 15.1 Other 8.4 (Undecided removed)
On raw numbers, it is a tossup whether Liberals would just retain majority (c. 13-10-2) or just lose it (c. 12-10-3)
Adjusted for house effects, Liberals would be likely to retain majority (13-10-2)
Introduction (15 Nov)
A new Tasmanian ReachTEL poll of state voting intention, with a large sample size, is about to be released by The Mercury. As noted in the teaser, the poll points to the probable loss of two or three seats if the government were to face the music today. A loss of two seats would leave the government with a majority of one while a loss of three would create a hung parliament. This will be familiar territory for those who have followed my state polling coverage in the term, as my aggregated polling model has pointed to either 12 or 13 Liberal seats for a long time now.
Polling in Tasmania was inaccurate at the federal election, and has shown large pro-Liberal house effects at both the last two federal elections (but not at the 2014 state election) so there will always be some room for doubt about it. Another important factor is the potential for a tactical bandwagon effect as seen in the 2006 election - if one party has a realistic chance of majority government and the other does not, voters may gravitate to that party. While polling says the government's majority would be touch and go if an election were "held now", that assessment has very little predictive value because of this kind of strategic voting.
I have seen some of the results for the purposes of expert comment, but a recent business model change by The Mercury means I will be going about posting analysis of this poll in a slightly different manner. As I understand it, many of the results will be released behind a paywall in the first instance and then published in the print edition the next day. I won't be posting analysis of the results until they have appeared in the print edition, at least in basic form, or been freely reported.
As results are revealed over the next several days, in-depth coverage will be posted below.
On raw numbers, it is a tossup whether Liberals would just retain majority (c. 13-10-2) or just lose it (c. 12-10-3)
Adjusted for house effects, Liberals would be likely to retain majority (13-10-2)
Introduction (15 Nov)
A new Tasmanian ReachTEL poll of state voting intention, with a large sample size, is about to be released by The Mercury. As noted in the teaser, the poll points to the probable loss of two or three seats if the government were to face the music today. A loss of two seats would leave the government with a majority of one while a loss of three would create a hung parliament. This will be familiar territory for those who have followed my state polling coverage in the term, as my aggregated polling model has pointed to either 12 or 13 Liberal seats for a long time now.
Polling in Tasmania was inaccurate at the federal election, and has shown large pro-Liberal house effects at both the last two federal elections (but not at the 2014 state election) so there will always be some room for doubt about it. Another important factor is the potential for a tactical bandwagon effect as seen in the 2006 election - if one party has a realistic chance of majority government and the other does not, voters may gravitate to that party. While polling says the government's majority would be touch and go if an election were "held now", that assessment has very little predictive value because of this kind of strategic voting.
I have seen some of the results for the purposes of expert comment, but a recent business model change by The Mercury means I will be going about posting analysis of this poll in a slightly different manner. As I understand it, many of the results will be released behind a paywall in the first instance and then published in the print edition the next day. I won't be posting analysis of the results until they have appeared in the print edition, at least in basic form, or been freely reported.
As results are revealed over the next several days, in-depth coverage will be posted below.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Nats Under The Gun In The Orange Postcount
ORANGE, NSW (Nat 21.7 vs ALP)
GAINED by Donato (Shooters Fishers and Farmers) by 50 votes after recount
=====================================================================
Key questions:
1. Will Labor overtake Shooters Fishers and Farmers for second place? (If yes, Nationals win)
Assessment: No
2. If no to 1, will the Shooters Fishers and Farmers catch the Nationals on preferences?
Assessment: Very close, currently Shooters appear to be ahead
Three state by-elections were held in New South Wales today. Labor very easily retained Canterbury against token opposition, and held Wollongong now that their regular Independent opposition there no longer has the Noreen Hay factor to capitalise upon. But the third by-election, the one that was always likely to be the most interesting, has lived up to its billing, and then some.
In the by-election for Orange, held by the National Party (and its precursor the Country Party) since 1947, the Nationals have suffered a primary vote swing that is currently running at 35.4%. Their candidate Scott Barrett leads on primaries on 30.27% with 73.6% of enrolment counted, but is closely followed by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers' Philip Donato on 24.73%, with Labor's Bernard Fitzsimon on 18.85%. The rest of the field includes one Green, one Christian Democrat and three independents.
Even if the Nationals retain the seat, the result is still dismal. This is best seen in the stunning booth swings. The Nationals were down well over 20 points in all but two booths. This is partly down to the greater number of candidates running (the SF+F and three indies have replaced only No Land Tax at the last election). However in three booths they are down by 60 (!) points or more and in two more by over 50. If these were tiny rural booths with small samples this might be less surprising but one has over 1200 voters! SF+F are the main beneficiaries of the swing.
At some booths over 80% of voters who voted National last time didn't do so at the by-election. These are staggering numbers, even by by-election standards, and will come as a very rude wake-up call to the party after a strong performance at the federal election. The swing is thought to be driven primarily by proposed forced council amalgamations, with the now-retracted ban on greyhound racing also prominently in the mix. Some are even seeing a Donald Trump factor at work, which seems a pretty long bow to draw, though there is little doubt the US result emboldened the Nats' opposition in the final days.
GAINED by Donato (Shooters Fishers and Farmers) by 50 votes after recount
=====================================================================
Key questions:
1. Will Labor overtake Shooters Fishers and Farmers for second place? (If yes, Nationals win)
Assessment: No
2. If no to 1, will the Shooters Fishers and Farmers catch the Nationals on preferences?
Assessment: Very close, currently Shooters appear to be ahead
Three state by-elections were held in New South Wales today. Labor very easily retained Canterbury against token opposition, and held Wollongong now that their regular Independent opposition there no longer has the Noreen Hay factor to capitalise upon. But the third by-election, the one that was always likely to be the most interesting, has lived up to its billing, and then some.
In the by-election for Orange, held by the National Party (and its precursor the Country Party) since 1947, the Nationals have suffered a primary vote swing that is currently running at 35.4%. Their candidate Scott Barrett leads on primaries on 30.27% with 73.6% of enrolment counted, but is closely followed by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers' Philip Donato on 24.73%, with Labor's Bernard Fitzsimon on 18.85%. The rest of the field includes one Green, one Christian Democrat and three independents.
Even if the Nationals retain the seat, the result is still dismal. This is best seen in the stunning booth swings. The Nationals were down well over 20 points in all but two booths. This is partly down to the greater number of candidates running (the SF+F and three indies have replaced only No Land Tax at the last election). However in three booths they are down by 60 (!) points or more and in two more by over 50. If these were tiny rural booths with small samples this might be less surprising but one has over 1200 voters! SF+F are the main beneficiaries of the swing.
At some booths over 80% of voters who voted National last time didn't do so at the by-election. These are staggering numbers, even by by-election standards, and will come as a very rude wake-up call to the party after a strong performance at the federal election. The swing is thought to be driven primarily by proposed forced council amalgamations, with the now-retracted ban on greyhound racing also prominently in the mix. Some are even seeing a Donald Trump factor at work, which seems a pretty long bow to draw, though there is little doubt the US result emboldened the Nats' opposition in the final days.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Trump Wins: Another Major Poll And Modelling Failure
Well here we are again. As with the UK election, as with Brexit, as with many other voluntary voting elections we have an unexpected result with the election of Donald Trump as the next President of the USA. Pollsters are in disrepute because most had Clinton with a modest popular-vote lead, but overconfident modellers deserve their share of the blame for the level of public surprise at the result.
A few days ago, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight was the target of a terrible Huffington Post article and an argument broke out about whether it was more accurate to say Donald Trump had about a one in three chance of becoming President, or virtually no chance at all. HuffPo was to double down with this rather pretentious piece by a stats prof accusing Silver of overstimating Trump's chances - a piece that has proved to have an exceedingly short shelf life indeed. Silver's model might not look crash hot in the wake of what has happened, but it still looks a great deal better than those that were saying Trump had only a 1% chance of winning.
A few days ago, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight was the target of a terrible Huffington Post article and an argument broke out about whether it was more accurate to say Donald Trump had about a one in three chance of becoming President, or virtually no chance at all. HuffPo was to double down with this rather pretentious piece by a stats prof accusing Silver of overstimating Trump's chances - a piece that has proved to have an exceedingly short shelf life indeed. Silver's model might not look crash hot in the wake of what has happened, but it still looks a great deal better than those that were saying Trump had only a 1% chance of winning.
Friday, November 4, 2016
WA: How Bad Is Barnett's Latest Polling?
I last covered Western Australian state polling in March, in an article called A New Species Of Strangeness In The West. At that time, despite increasingly bad Newspolls for the Barnett Liberal government, there was a bizarre and very short-lived call to replace Opposition Leader Mark McGowan with former federal MP Stephen Smith. Since then it is Barnett who has gone through the normal process of leadership speculation and challenge that strikes leaders who are actually polling badly.
It came to a head in mid-September when then Transport Minister Dean Nalder quit Cabinet and launched a leadership challenge, in which his proposal for a spill managed to get 15 votes out of 46 although there was almost no public support for him as leader (5.5% in ReachTEL) and a widespread perception that his challenge was hopeless from the start. This would normally be the beginning of the end for an incumbent Premier, but the difference here is that if someone is going to throw Barnett under the bus, they will need to get a wriggle on. It is just over four months til the election.
It came to a head in mid-September when then Transport Minister Dean Nalder quit Cabinet and launched a leadership challenge, in which his proposal for a spill managed to get 15 votes out of 46 although there was almost no public support for him as leader (5.5% in ReachTEL) and a widespread perception that his challenge was hopeless from the start. This would normally be the beginning of the end for an incumbent Premier, but the difference here is that if someone is going to throw Barnett under the bus, they will need to get a wriggle on. It is just over four months til the election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


