Before I dive into today’s glut of electorate-level polling and the picture of unmitigated disaster it paints for Labor, mention should be made of today’s declaration of candidates and determination of ballot paper ordering. I’ve finished labouring through the chore of uploading the candidate lists to my election guide, in the course of which I was unavoidably struck by one salient fact: there are far too many candidates at this election. The total comes in at 1188 for the House of Representatives and 529 for the Senate.
The former number is solidly clear of a previous record of 1109 in 1998, amounting to nearly half an extra candidate per electorate, and well clear of the 849 in 2010, a relatively low number thought to have resulted from the election being called three months ahead of time. The Senate number is still more unprecedented, blowing the lid off the previous record of 367 candidates. Remarkably – suspiciously, even – this comes despite a doubling of nomination deposits to $1000 for House of Representatives candidates and $2000 for Senate candidates.
Some might consider a greater array of candidates a boon for democracy, but in my view that’s entirely negated by the obstacle posed to the act of voting, at least under our present system. This is starkly illustrated by the metre-long Senate ballot papers that voters in the larger states will be required to grapple with on September 7, and the magnifying glasses that will be supplied in polling booths to assist in reading the small print crammed on to them. That will no doubt have all but the tiniest handful of voters opting for the above the line option, exacerbating one of the least attractive features of our system – the mass transfer of votes as dictated by preference deals.
As for the lower house, an analysis by the Australian Electoral Commission indicates that each extra candidate causes a 0.2% increase in the informal vote. If partisan advantage is what matters to you, it’s likely that this makes a large number of candidates disadvantageous to Labor. Labor’s surprise defeat in Greenway at the 2004 election may well have been influenced by an 11.8% informal vote, which was in turn influenced by what I believe to have been a then record (at a general election at least) 14 candidates. This time around there are 12 candidates in Corangamite, Deakin and Mallee, 13 in Bendigo and McMillan, and 16 in Melbourne. Notably, all these electorates are in Victoria, which seems to have the largest number of organised micro-parties – perhaps having been inspired by the example of Family First and the Democratic Labour Party in winning Senate seats over the course of the past decade.
So, to these opinion polls. There are 14 automated phone polls in all from three different agencies, with swings ranging from 0% to 15% and averaging 8%. This is enormously out of kilter with the national polling that was coming through before we hit a dry spell at the start of the week, which suggested a swing of more like 2%. So one might variously hypothesise that there has been a huge shift to the Coalition this week; that the polls have targeted areas where Labor is doing particularly badly; that there may have been something about these polls to bias them towards the Coalition, through some combination of their being automated, mid-week and electorate-level polls; that the national polls have been heavily biased to Labor and the automated polls have shown them up. The latter at least I do not think terribly likely, the truth probably involving some combination of the first three.
We have also had more conventional phone poll results from Newspoll, conducted from Monday to Thursday from samples of 504 each, which oddly target Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor’s seats of Lyne and New England. These respectively have the Nationals ahead 59-41 and 66-34, which if anything suggest swings to Labor. The primary votes from Lyne are 26% for Labor, 51% for the Coalition and 7% for the Greens, while from New England it’s 24%, 53% and 5%.
Running through the automated polls:
• Lonergan and JWS Research have both targeted Forde and Lindsay, with very similar results in each case. In Forde, the JWS Research poll of 568 respondents has Liberal National Party member Bert van Manen leading Peter Beattie 54% to 33% on the primary vote and 60-40 on two-party preferred, for a swing of 8.4%. The Lonergan poll, for which The Guardian offers great detail, covered 1160 respondents and showed van Manen’s lead at 56% to 34% and the Greens at just 4%, compared with 12% at the 2010 election. While no two-party preferred figure is provided, it would obviously be very similar to JWS Research’s 60-40. As low as van Manen’s national profile may be, JWS Research gives him a 49% approval rating against 19% disapproval, with Peter Beattie on 35% and 51%. Kevin Rudd’s net approval rating is minus 18% against minus 1% for Tony Abbott. The Lonergan poll has 40% saying Peter Beattie has made them less likely to vote Labor against on 22% for more likely.
• Longergan’s Lindsay poll, conducted on Tuesday night from a sample of 1038, has Liberal candidate Fiona Scott’s primary vote at no less than 60%, up 17% on 2010, with Labor member David Bradbury on 32%, down 13%. The Guardian quotes the pollster saying a question about how respondents voted in 2010 aligned with the actual result – I will assume this took into account the tendency of poll respondents to over-report having voted for the winner. I am a little more puzzled by the claimed margin of error of 3.7%, which should be more like 3% given the published sample size (UPDATE: It transpires that this is because Lonergan has, unusually, done the right thing – calculate an effective margin of error that accounts for the fact that the sample is weighted, and that cohorts within it have been extrapolated from sub-par samples). The JWS Research result has the primary votes at 57% for Liberal and 35% for Labor, with two-party preferred at 60.7-39.3.
• ReachTEL has four polls with samples of around 600 apiece, which have the Liberals leading 65-35 in Bennelong (a swing of about 12%) and 53-47 in McMahon (11%) and 52-48 in Kingsford Smith (7%), with Labor hanging on by 52-48 in Blaxland (10%).
• The other Financial Review/JWS Research results show the Coalition ahead in Brisbane (54.1-45.9 from primaries of 50% LNP, 36% Labor), Macquarie (55.1-44.9, 51% Liberal, 35% Labor), Corangamite (53.3-46.7, 48% Liberal, 36% Labor), Aston (63.4-36.6, Liberal 59%, Labor 29%), and Banks (52.8-47.2, Liberal 50%, Labor 43%). The one ray of sunlight for Labor is their 51-49 lead in Greenway, from primaries of 46% for Liberal and 44% for Labor. A full graphic of the JWS Research results is available from GhostWhoVotes, including some diverting results on personal approval. Bert van Manen in Forde and Alan Tudge in Aston appear to rate as very popular local members, while David Bradbury in Lindsay and Darren Cheeseman in Corangamite do not. And Fiona Scott in Lindsay, fresh from the publicity bestowed upon her by Tony Abbott, is easily the highest rating of the challengers.
Now i know who was polling me weeks back, robo style, since I’d never heard of this style of polling (JWS). My first instinct was to ask who the hell are you and what chutzpah to just ring me and start electronically interrogating me. But robo Joe doesn’t listen and is straight into it with the questions and I didn’t have enough time to think how i could manipulate my responses to the detriment of Labor, but I did my best. Based on that I suspect that the MOE is huge on these polls.
Speaking of such matters, I expressed puzzlement yesterday that Lonergan cited a 3.7% margin of error on a poll with a sample of over 1000. It turns out that this is because they’re being honest. The normally published margins of error assume simple random sampling, but weighting the young age cohort (for example) upwards to address the fact that there aren’t enough responses causes the effective margin of error to increase.
The issue is the robocall guys could follow the rest and poll over 3-4 days at different times.
They won’t because it costs them money, so their results will never be as good.
lefty e:
I’ve always imagined robopolls to be a like a super trawler. You scoop up whatever falls in your path, and sort it all out later.
Think I have been poled twice. Once by Newspoll, and once by a robopoll on the afternoon of the last election, but something went wrong and it hung up on me before completion.
SS @1093
“Our grandchildren are going to despise us for what we are doing.”
Yep – the amount of economic waste on an unattainable outcomes in pursuit of lower CO2 emmissions is possibly the greatest economic and political fraud perpetuated on human kind in history.
[Roxanna
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink
1058
my say
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 6:05 pm | PERMALINK
AND GET THIS
I told me in
2010 I would get no solice from polls
well I damn well did ‘
‘JG won
bye mr bowe
liberals will ruin this country]
Have the resident loonies been into some bad oysters or something? What’s with all the zany posts today? I don’t see William anywhere saying he’s voting for anyone in particular?
[I’ve always imagined robopolls to be a like a super trawler. You scoop up whatever falls in your path, and sort it all out later.]
Good analogy – arent the nets are designed to let young ones escape? :p
my say might not have a uni degree, but then again that probably explains why she’s not as smart arsed as others on here, me included.
I was polled (Sydney) on Friday night around 7pm (landline) by a human being from (something like Q and A research?? Never heard of them) about attitudes towards public housing. Then I was asked opinion of Barry O’Farrell (very unfavourable, slightly unfavourable, slightly favourable, very unfavourable), attitude towards the NSW Liberal party, NSW Labor party, and State election voting intention. (No question on John Robertson). No federal questions either. They were lucky to get me at home Friday night (I’m childless and under 40…)
1058
my say
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 6:05 pm | PERMALINK
AND GET THIS
I told me in
2010 I would get no solice from polls
well I damn well did ‘
‘JG won
bye mr bowe
liberals will ruin this country
========================
For heaven’s sake! Firstly, you are being extremely rude to the host of this forum. Secondly, it’s none of your business who William votes for, but if you haven’t twigged by now what his leanings are, perhaps you should stick to the Herald-Sun discussion boards.
docantk – sames, they called this morning.
I was phone polled at the same time as those Robo polls by a female from some polling/research mob. It was about the Herbert electorate and they started with questions about how well i knew the following names.
It then went on about who i would vote for that day and who was better to handle a few things like economy , health, education etc.
I have yet to see any results about the poll/research.
Do i put it down to internal polling or it must have been bad for LNP so it has been ditched?
Mikehilliard 1112
Did you catch the name of the mob who called?
docantk – It was Q&A research as you said.
[Roxanna
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 6:39 pm ]
Apologies for my recent post, Roxanna – you had some odd threading going on in your previous post and it looked like you were the one spouting My Say’s nonsense. My response is directed at that content, not yours.
@ Compact Crank
The word you want is “perpetrated”.
But I digress.
“Yep – the amount of economic waste on an unattainable outcomes in pursuit of lower CO2 emmissions is possibly the greatest economic and political fraud perpetuated on human kind in history.”
Seriously? You can’t think of like… hmm… ten-thousand more egregious instances of “economic and poliical fraud” than an attempt to de-carbonize the economy in order to limit/mitigate the damage that global temperature rises will have?
You should have a look at the science mate, this is no longer about stopping the earth from warming up, rather it is about slowing the process of the warming of our planet before it actually does become uninhabitable – which based on current projections, it eventually will.
Not to mention the fact that an economy based upon renewable, sustainable energy will secure humanity’s environment and resource security for centuries, and even eliminate cause for conflict.
But to think that my electricity prices might go up %3 because of a carbon tax? Screw that! Short-term gain, long-term pain!
We were polled numerous times in 2007 and 2010 an were part of that JWS Megapoll. Polled by newspoll, Nielson and a couple of unidentified ‘internal’ polls.
Simon S
Don’t bother trying to correct Cranky’s thinking. It has been tried before. Just let him rave 🙂
When I was robo’ed there was no identification whatsoever or for whom, no electronic “we are ..”, just straight in with wtte “if an election were held today … press 1 for …”. Next time I’ll let it converse with my answering machine – they should get on like a house on fire. As i said earlier it’s chutzpah and it must get up the snout of a lot of people who then get even by fudging their answers. Huge MOE, also ‘cos of other reasons discussed here.
I was polled by that Q&A mob a couple of months back and remember Rua say that they are working for Clive Palmer. Am I correct rua?
Simon@1117 – Crank doesn’t listen to fact or reason but good try anyhow.
[Insiders
Series 2013 | Episode 29
Barrie Cassidy and the panel of George Megalogenis, David Marr & Gerard Henderson look back at the second week of the election campaign. Special guest is the Shadow Immigration Minister Scott Morrison. #Insiders]
Q and A Research:
http://www.qandaresearch.com.au/
lizzie – snap! 🙂
[The US authorities’ reaction would put the whole business at risk, as licences would be at risk.]
I care, really I do!!!!!!!!!!!!
Compact Crank
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 6:36 pm | Permalink
SS @1093
“Our grandchildren are going to despise us for what we are doing.”
Yep – the amount of economic waste on an unattainable outcomes in pursuit of lower CO2 emmissions is possibly the greatest economic and political fraud perpetuated on human kind in history.
———————————————————
The science shows that climate change is occurring. How much is natural and how much is man-made is up for debate.
But I think I would rather see us working on the reduction of all pollutants. Waiting and doing nothing is akin to not insuring your house for fire, then trying to get insurance as its burns, its too late.
What will you say to future generations? When they can’t breath the air, can’t drink the water, can’t fish the seas and can’t grow crops. Sorry but we didn’t like the PM? Sorry it was going to cost too much? Sorry, I put my personal needs for more money ahead of your future on the planet.
[I was polled by that Q&A mob a couple of months back and remember Rua say that they are working for Clive Palmer. Am I correct rua?]
Yep, they do Clive’s polling. Although this seems to be NSW related. Hard to tell.
For the Labor optimists here, and just to show there are no hard feelings, this one’s for you:
Labor must have had a good day and is obviously being heavily backed on betfair with payout now firmed to $7.40/$1.15, which translates roughly to probs of 13% and 87%. That tells me that Labor is on track now to get more than 50 seats, so well done.
[Tony Abbott has given his strongest indication that he would sooner fail to meet Australia’s emissions reductions target than spend more money on his climate change policy.]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/tony-abbott-signals-willingness-to-fail-meeting-emissions-targets-if-funds-fall-short-20130817-2s3eu.html#ixzz2cDPIVq7z
Hey, I’ve been PUP polled. 😀
lizzie:
No surprises there. There’s no way the budget can afford their direct action policy.
I guess he’ll have to keep the dreaded carbon ‘tax’ after all. 🙂
[For the Labor optimists here, and just to show there are no hard feelings, this one’s for you:
Labor must have had a good day and is obviously being heavily backed on betfair with payout now firmed to $7.40/$1.15, which translates roughly to probs of 13% and 87%. That tells me that Labor is on track now to get more than 50 seats, so well done.]
Aww.
William
The “at least 50 seats” bit I just made up … for fun!
On this whole question of polling by robots of mobile phone users: one point I’ve noticed is that it’s a good deal more awkward to hit buttons while listening to questions on a mobile phone than is the case with a fixed phone, even if your mobile has a loudspeaker function. And if you turn on the loudspeaker, anyone you are with can hear the questions, and maybe see your answers. If I were robopolled on a fixed phone, I would probably go through the process out of interest, but I doubt I would do the same if I were in a shopping mall (and of course if I were driving a car, I would be breaking the law if I responded).
Mick77 – when you were a kid was your idea of fun pulling the wings off flies?
@mikehilliard/1115
Sounds like internal polling to me, UMR is normally Labor.
http://www.qandaresearch.com.au/
“Mick77 is a complete twat” is currently paying $1.01 at Sportsbet.
Probably a bit long.
[Mick77 – when you were a kid was your idea of fun pulling the wings off flies?]
Only if they voted for the Greens.
[The “at least 50 seats” bit I just made up … for fun!]
At least you admitted to being a virgin lookin for a bonk, I admire honesty. 🙂
mike @1122 – my position is based on both the facts and reason – it is the AGW Catastrophists whose position is not based on facts and reason but inaccurate models based on assumptions.
I was telling you all that Copenhagen was going to be Copenfailing a long time before it spiralled into the ground.
Hhow’s that Kyoto thing working for ya? Seen the emmissions numbers since then? whooo hoooo – effective – not.
A National Tertiary Education Union ad just ran during the Ten News, explicitly spruiking for the Greens.
Mick – I’m back to wondering how the Senate is going to play out.
Crank
If you are wrong what will it cost to pay for your mistake?
Crank – well, when our children’s children are looking out on a ruined planet I am sure your wisdom in these matters will bring them cold comfort.
ruawake, it won’t cost Crank anything, he’ll be long dead. His descendants might curse him though :P.
Simon @1117
Please accept my deepest apologees for incorrect spelling. i am generally multitasking when on this site so don’t b other with too much proof reading – the intent is generally understood and only the pedants get amped about it.
Regards
CC
Compact Crank
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 7:16 pm | Permalink
mike @1122 – my position is based on both the facts and reason – it is the AGW Catastrophists whose position is not based on facts and reason but inaccurate models based on assumptions
—————————————————-
97% of scientists tell us the world is warming and man is contributing to the warming.
How do you know better than them???
Sceptics laughed at Columbus and Galileo was ostracised.
They laughed at Edison and derided Einstien.
I would rather be on the side of caution than find out that you were wrong and its too late.
CC
The senate is too convoluted for me to think through, particularly with all the wheeling and dealing and it all hinges on 1, 2 or 3 spots up for grabs. The HoR is easier and despite my obvious sarcasm earlier (some Laborites seem to take themselves very seriously) when reporting on betfair, I do think that Labor will struggle to get 60 seats. This is predicated on Rudd continuing to implode and the betting markets seem to share that view.
CC I have problems with spelling even when I proof read.