I’m running the above headline essentially because I have no new poll to trumpet for the following assortment of bits-and-pieces. The latest addition is yesterday’s large-sample ReachTEL poll, which was a relatively good result for Labor taking into account the past lean to the Coalition in this series. Its inclusion caused a 0.6% shift in Labor’s favour without affecting the seat projection, mostly because the improvement was concentrated in Victoria where there are few marginal seats. This isn’t the first time recently that the addition of a ReachTEL result has caused BludgerTrack to move in Labor’s favour, which raises the possibility that the series is not as pro-Coalition as it used to be. If so, the addition of the result with out-of-date bias adjustments attached might be causing the present BludgerTrack numbers to flatter Labor slightly. There has apparently been, for the second evening running, a poll conducted overnight by ReachTEL which will have been unveiled on Seven Sunrise by the time most of you are reading this.
(UPDATE: A less good result today for Labor, and another good one for the Palmer United Party. Labor’s primary vote is down to 32.7% and the Coalition’s up to 43.6%, with the Greens on 10.0% and Palmer on 6.1%. Two-party preferred is 53-47 to the Coalition. ReachTEL also has a very ugly result for Labor from the Tasmanian seat of Bass, courtesy of the Launceston Examiner, with Liberal candidate Andrew Nikolic on 51.8% and Labor member Geoff Lyons on 26.6%.)
Now to those bits and pieces. First, I address what looks to be one of the election’s most significant imponderables: the share of the vote that will go to micro-parties in the Senate. Much hinges on the answer, given the tightness of the preference arrangements between micro-parties and the extremely limited value of polling as a guide to the smaller details of Senate voting patterns. Tim Colebatch of Fairfax has run reports over the past week based based on what Antony Green’s Senate election calcalators come up with when seemingly plausible vote share scenarios are plugged into them, which have been partly inspired by simulations conducted by Poll Bludger commenter Truth Seeker (who details them on his own blog).
One particularly headline-grabbing observation was that Pauline Hanson might succeed in her bid for a New South Wales Senate seat at the expense of Arthur Sinodinos, who has the number three position on the Coalition ticket in New South Wales. Since Labor, the Coalition and the Greens all have Hanson last on their preference order, this can only happen if she and the various parties feeding her preferences collectively amount to more than a quota (14.3%). Colebatch argues that this is highly plausible: “In 2010, 29 micro-parties won 14 per cent of the vote between them. This time there will be 41 of them, and disillusioned Labor supporters could swell their collective vote to 20 per cent – easily enough for a Senate quota.”
This appears to assume that collective vote share of micro-parties will continue to expand as more of them enter the field. Evidence from the last three elections, which provide a common footing in that the Democrats and One Nation had faded from minor to micro-party status, provides some support for this. Excluding the unusual circumstance of South Australia in 2007, when Nick Xenophon polled a full quota in his own right, there are 17 state-level observations for modelling the relationship between the number of Senate groups and the vote share for micro-parties (which I take to mean everyone other than Labor, the Coalition and the Greens). The model I have derived is 0.243+(0.283*A)+(0.681*B), where A is the number of Senate groups and B is the “others” vote in the House of Representatives from the state in question. This has an R-squared of 0.517 and a p-value of 0.006, which is to say that the model explains 51.7% of the variation in these 17 results and has a 99.4% chance of being better than no model at all.
With unprecedented numbers of Senate groups at this election ranging from 23 in Tasmania to 44 in New South Wales, this suggests “others” votes ranging from 12.9% to 20.5% (going off the BludgerTrack projections for the lower house “others” vote), which is well in line with Colebatch’s expectations. However, there’s a considerable theoretical problem with the model in that it presumes the relationship to be perfectly linear. If this were so, the major party vote would disappear altogether if only enough micro-parties took the field. In reality, the rate of increase has to taper off, and the meagre sample of observations available offers no insight as to point at which it does so. My own guess though is that it kicks in fairly sharply before we reach the stage where we can start talking of an aggregate micro-party vote approaching 20%.
To offer some historic guidance as to the sorts of numbers you should be punching into the Senate calcalators, the table below displays the vote for micro-parties of various kinds in each state. “Religious” includes the Democratic Labour Party, although they no doubt occupy something of a grey area. The “right” category is exclusive of the “religious” one. “Left” is defined broadly to incorporate the Democrats and all environmentalist concerns, even ostensibly conservative ones. There were also parties and independents that were deemed not to fall into any of these categories, so the “total” column is not simply an aggregate of the other three.
2010 Relig. Right Left Total NSW 3.63 5.55 3.37 13.82 Victoria 5.35 3.83 3.28 13.2 Queensland 4.31 7.59 3.61 16.43 WA 3.71 2.66 2.81 9.92 SA 5 2.65 2.55 11.11 Tasmania 1.69 2.24 0.66 5.36 TOTAL 4.16 4.81 3.18 13.13 2007 NSW 3.83 3.35 2.44 10.17 Victoria 3.77 1.24 3.16 8.72 Queensland 2.76 6.73 3.04 13.08 WA 3.57 1.1 1.84 7.04 SA 3.97 1.68 1.68 22.25 Tasmania 2.67 0.19 0.78 4.38 TOTAL 3.48 2.97 2.57 10.71 2004 NSW 3.17 3.73 3.88 12.17 Victoria 4.16 1.55 4.18 10.98 Queensland 3.37 9.34 4.09 18.05 WA 2.73 2.82 3.05 9.22 SA 3.98 1.53 3.95 10.02 Tasmania 3.03 0.16 0.82 7.04 TOTAL 3.42 2.93 3.84 12.22
Now to some scattered bits of news for around the traps that I have recently used to supplement the seat-by-seat election guide:
Indi (Liberal 9.0%):Liberals have been telling journalists of serious concerns for Sophie Mirabella’s hold on Indi, where she faces a well-organised challenge from independent Cathy McGowan. The Guardian reports on widespread opinion polling being conducted in the electorate; the Weekly Times reports that Labor are campaigning strongly to boost McGowan; and The Australian reports some in the Liberal Party have been urging Tony Abbott to visit the electorate. The contest is another source of friction between the coalition parties, with former state Nationals MP Ken Jasper among those who are throwing their weight behind McGowan.
Melbourne (Greens 6.0% versus Labor): The Greens have been spruiking a poll of 400 respondents conducted for them by Galaxy showing Adam Bandt’s primary vote up 4% since the 2010 election, with “as many as four in 10” Liberal voters in the seat planning to ignore the direction of their party’s how-to-vote card that voters should favour Labor ahead of the Greens in their preference allocation. This is actually in line with the 35% rate of leakage in inner Melbourne when the Liberals likewise directed preferences against the Greens at the 2010 state election, which nonetheless wasn’t high enough to win them any of the seats they were anticipating. But taken together with the purported primary vote swing, it suggests a very close result.
McMahon (Labor 7.8%): The Liberal candidate for Chris Bowen’s western Sydney seat, Liverpool area police superintendent Ray King, has been defended by a series of police figures and corruption investigators after Labor claimed he had a “close friend” in Roger Rogerson, the notorious detective who was imprisoned in 1990 for perverting the course of justice. The claim has been denied by Rogerson as well as King, with retired assistant commissioner Geoff Schuberg complaining of a “grubby, baseless smear campaign”.
Forde (Liberal National 1.6%):The Australian reports that Forde MP Bert van Manen, who is fighting off a challenge from Peter Beattie, was the half-owner and recently resigned director of a financial planning firm which owed creditors more than $1.5 million when it collapsed last year. The report says administrators KPMG had told creditors of “unreasonable director-related transactions” behind the collapse. A Liberal spokesperson was quoted saying van Manen had personally settled with the main credtior, Westpac, but no comment was offered on $325,000 owed to three further creditors.
Greenway (Labor 0.9%): The Sydney Morning Herald observes a “systemic” silence among Liberal candidates in Sydney, “with multiple examples emerging of candidates pulling out of events or interviews”. The low profile assumed by Greenway MP Jaymes Diaz has been particularly widely noted, after he failed to show for a candidates forum in Blacktown last week.
Herbert (Liberal National 2.2%) and Dawson (Liberal National 2.4%): Sid Maher of The Australian identifies marginal seats on the central Queensland coast as the main targets for the Coalition’s promised curtailing of marine protected areas, a pitch at commercial and recreational fishers. A similar promise before the 2010 election was “credited with delivering the seat of Dawson”, by persons unidentified.
Murdoch is stepping up pressure on Labor’s economic reputation
[quote]LABOR plans to force government departments to absorb more than $1.6 billion in savings to pay for scores of announcements during the election campaign, according to final policy costings that show a slight improvement in the budget bottom line.
Set against dozens of spending items were plans for each department to “redirect” a matching amount of money from existing resources to pay for the new measures. The “redirections from uncommitted funds” add up to $1.6bn over the next four years but are not explained in detail in the costings documents.
A $30m policy to establish a new research centre in the industry portfolio is to be offset by a cut in the department’s program to set up innovation “precincts”.
The cost of a $20m plan to help schools buy equipment to connect to the National Broadband Network is to “absorbed” by the Education Department, without specifying what programs might be affected.[/quote]
[GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVotes 2m
#ReachTEL Poll L/NP Govt calling DD election to abolish carbon tax: Support 41.8 Oppose 40.2 #ausvotes]
Support for another election would surely dip once an actual election is no longer imminent?
[Anyone that is on the roll as an eligible voter should be able to run for parliament imo]
I agree, provided they pay the deposit, which they will get back if they poll any significant vote.
Psephos – others run because they genuinely want to make a difference, misguided or not. My Father, RIP, was one of those. Why should people not have that right???
[The purpose of elections is to elect members of parliament, not to indulge bogus and frivolous candidates.]
Totally agree. There are a ridiculous number of candidates this election. It’s absurd that people will need to be issued with magnifying glasses in order to complete the Senate ballot paper in some states.
I’ve got a feeling though that we won’t see meaningful reform until someone like an Arthur Sinodinos is pipped by a Pauline Hanson type candidate.
[Peter Brent @mumbletwits 9m
Reachtel’s 53 47 off 3pt drop in both major parties’ primary support since from week’s 53 47. http://www.reachtel.com.au/blog/7-news-national-poll-4september13 … ]
Clive and kicking!
A massive, in relative terms, deposit locks plenty out – we need to move to electronic ballots. Takes away the problem of the size of the ballot
[quote]Such a difference preference flows make.[/quote]
Nielsen was just a QLD poll. That’s significant because Katter preferences ALP in QLD, and Libs and Palmer everywhere else.
Then again, it’ll be hard for Katter to get votes anywhere OTHER than QLD…
[GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVotes 13m
#ReachTEL Poll Preferred PM: Rudd 45.9 (-1.2) Abbott 54.1 (+1.2) #ausvotes]
[Schtang @Schtang 16m
Abbott said on Radio National 2day – I love Tasmania but it just has too many trees & many need 2 come down to support the economy #auspol]
[ A Bull Market in Apathy
Change in world voting rates since 1980 ]
Australia one of only 3 countries to increase voting rates.
In US voting rates have dropped 35% since 1980!
Full article –
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-04/americas-curse
[Why should people not have that right???]
Because it’s against the public interest.
[Peter Brent @mumbletwits 3m
@SimonJackman Big question abt PUP prefs. @Reachtel assumes 55% to Coalition which is as gd a guess as any.
ReachTEL @ReachTEL 2m
@mumbletwits @SimonJackman Very challenging indeed. Follow HTV card or make assumptions of where vote is coming from? Hrm…
My assumption is that PUP voters would preference the coalition over Labor.
When one imagines all the things that could potentially go wrong for Abbott’s administration over the next three years it brings a warm comforting glow…..let’s just hope the ALP don’t allow themselves to be sidelined by the media.
Let’s hope the ALP aren’t as useless in opposition as everything about their campaign suggests is likely…..
Re: River @ 109
I don’t see Katter getting much vote outside of Queensland – is he even running that many candidates outside QLD?
Rosemour or Less@97
Why wait.
Start now.
Will calling Wendy Deng a Chinese spy win him votes?
Re: confessions @ 114
> My assumption is that PUP voters would preference the coalition over Labor.
Not the ones that PUP is poaching from Labor.
Nielsen (the only polling on this matter we’ve had, so as good a guess as any) suggests 62% of PUP voters will preference Labor over Coalition, at least in QLD (which IS one of the most pro-LNP states, after all).
WOW. PUP is going to make this a really interesting night purely because his preferences will decide whether the result is close or on the other hand a blowout to the Liberals.
As I understand it PUP has put out Liberal biased how to vote cards (at least according to Morgan) and hence we could expect that any drift of Labor votes to PUP could be lost to the Liberals on the basis of voting the card. This would be the nightmare scenario for Labor.
On the other hand, we just don’t know and they may show some independence of mind in the polling booth. I expect not given that they are voting PUP in the first place.
As a Labor voter I am mighty concerned about PUP…….I think it is possible that Liberals get 45% of all of the others vote this time, up from 35% last election……in which case you can add about 11pp onto their primary of 43% for a total of around 54%…..this is a Keating sytle landslide loss.
Hope I am wrong.
That is, Will calling Wendy Deng a Chinese spy win Palmer votes?
Sorry
[Preferred PM: Rudd 45.9 (-1.2) Abbott 54.1 (+1.2]
Unbelievable. Negative abbott ad’s must have been REALLY effective. NOT!
If Deng was a spy she wouldn’t have broken up with Murdoch.
Does the day to day increase to PUP, let alone the 10% shift in support for the carbon tax not strike anyone as… concern-worthy? Not in terms of what it means, purely in terms quality control?
[Political disengagement in T minus 60hours and counting….]
hudson
can’t you give us a break and go early…
take the rest of the term off…you’ve earnt it
Re: Psephos @ 124
> If Deng was a spy she wouldn’t have broken up with Murdoch.
From the interview with Karl Stefanovic, Clive seemed to think it was Murdoch that ended the relationship on the basis that Deng was a spy.
Gee there are a lot of white flaggers on here today.
Never give up!
There’s no reason on God’s green earth why the ALP can’t win on Saturday.
I’ve felt it all along.
Tony’s toast!
Toast I tell you!
He has no answer for Labor’s brilliant campaigning and strategic tactical wizardry.
It’s almost too cruel.
Go easy on ’em ALP…they probably mean well.
But they’re just not fit for government and I’m uterly confident the electorate will reject Abbott and his band of nobodies and has beens.
Boy there’s gonna be some humble pie eaten on PB come Sunday!!
Anyway, to sleep I go.
Psephos I’d argue it’s in the nations interest to have a diverse range of candidates from diverse backgrounds. We need variety in politics, independent voices not party hacks
Bob Broen notes one key similarity between the LNP and The Taliban: http://m.theage.com.au/comment/what-do-abbott-and-the-taliban-have-in-common-20130904-2t5cn.html
Rosemour – it’s not one or the other… Jesus. If every ALP-supporter had your attitude no one would bother getting out of bed.
Cheer up Rosemour!
I heard a rumor that Abbott once said you shouldn’t take as gospel what he says in the heat of and election campaign….only what’s carefully scripted, written down and signed by him?
I mean seriously who would have made that up.
I mean, as if Abbott would’ve gone on telly and handed a gift like that to his political opponents…
And anyway, if it were true the ALP would never have shut up about it.
Just shows how desperate people are to try and smear Mr Abbott.
[Nielsen (the only polling on this matter we’ve had, so as good a guess as any) suggests 62% of PUP voters will preference Labor over Coalition]
There was something about the way the question was worded from memory which raised questions about whether that would be replicated on election day.
Can’t remember exactly what it was though.
[Psephos I’d argue it’s in the nations interest to have a diverse range of candidates from diverse backgrounds. ]
I agree, provided they are genuine candidates with some genuine support. A candidate who can’t poll 1% of the vote fails that test.
Morning all
clive Palmer was an absolute hoot on the morning Program. Thanks to whoever linked the segment. The freedom of Clive’s speech was not handled very well by Karl and his colleagues.
If the Palmer party, does get balance of power in the senate, is Palmer able to replace one of the senators with himself?
I can’t see him just sitting back and letting his representatives take the limelight. He doesn’t strike me as a modest man.
Liyana – the elected Senator would have to resign, then get the QLD Parliament (assuming it is QLD) to give consent to the new nomination.
[Nielsen (the only polling on this matter we’ve had, so as good a guess as any) suggests 62% of PUP voters will preference Labor over Coalition]
Don’t the majority of voters traditionally follow the htv cards?
I am pre-polling in Griffith.
The PUP HTV is putting Rudd last.
Alright… so no one is concerned about the ReachTel numbers? Alrighty then.
“But Abbott is dumb and if the public takes him they will get a large kick in the bum and they will deserve it.” ~Paul Keating, 21 June 2012:
[The PUP HTV is putting Rudd last.]
Well if that’s replicated for the rest of qld. Game over man!
Rumour is that Roger Corbett will be tasked with conducting commission of audit ala Cosfello style.
JimS
Posted Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 8:38 am | Permalink
WOW. PUP is going to make this a really interesting night purely because his preferences will decide whether the result is close or on the other hand a blowout to the Liberals.
As I understand it PUP has put out Liberal biased how to vote cards (at least according to Morgan) and hence we could expect that any drift of Labor votes to PUP could be lost to the Liberals on the basis of voting the card. This would be the nightmare scenario for Labor.
On the other hand, we just don’t know and they may show some independence of mind in the polling booth. I expect not given that they are voting PUP in the first place.
As a Labor voter I am mighty concerned about PUP…….I think it is possible that Liberals get 45% of all of the others vote this time, up from 35% last election……in which case you can add about 11pp onto their primary of 43% for a total of around 54%…..this is a Keating sytle landslide loss.
Hope I am wrong.
You may well be correct! Most of the people voting for palmer are disgruntled Labor voters. They don’t want to vote Labor but equally don’t want to vote for the coalition.
Really they are votes that would never have gone to coalition anyway…The way I see it is that any vote for Palmer is a chance of an extra vote for coalition that they in all likelyhood would never have had.
So even if coaliton get 40% of preferences from palmer which is unlikely (they should get more), it will probably mean a net positive to coaltion in the end. Only time will tell. Most Pundits at this late stage are tipping a strong coalition victory, but not a land slide, but PUP may change things in the favour of coaltion….
For those interested, Rudd will be at the NPC today at 12.30pm
Psephos,
Wouldn’t optional preferential be a simpler and less anti democratic solution.
I’m sure most that run hope to get more than 1%, it’s harder than it sounds.
Looking forward to Kevin at the NPC, Hockey and Robb telling is half the story and more of Clive
Passed by 3AW on the way out – plenty of support for Clive
Off to work, have a great day All
Number Clive is Alive 😉
victoria
Posted Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 8:58 am | Permalink
For those interested, Rudd will be at the NPC today at 12.30pm
Noones interested…