Essential Research: 50-50

The Essential Research rolling aggregate records an unusually sharp move away from the Coalition, and finds strong support for Senate reform legislation.

The normally placid Essential Research fortnightly rolling average records a rare two-point shift on two-party preferred this week, which eliminates a settled 52-48 lead for the Coalition over previous weeks. Particularly remarkable is a three point increase in the Labor primary vote, from 35% to 38%, although the Coalition is down only one to 43%, and the Greens are steady on 10%. Also featured is a very detailed question on Senate reform, in which the legislation was explained to respondents in meticulous detail, producing a result of 53% approval and 16% disapproval. A question on election timing finds 56% wanting the election held later this year versus 23% who want it called early, although the distinction is an increasingly fine one. Also featured: most important election issues (health topping the list, followed by economic and cost-of-living concerns), best party to handle them (Labor for industrial relations and environment, Coalition for national security and the economy, although Labor has a slight lead on housing affordability) and perceptions of the parties as right or left wing (indicating Labor is seen as more centrist than the Coalition, although there is little sense that this has changed in recent years). This week’s poll was conducted online Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1017, with the voting intention numbers also including the survey results from the previous week’s poll.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,038 comments on “Essential Research: 50-50”

Comments Page 16 of 21
1 … 15 16 17 … 21

  1. There are some savings provisions for a HOR ballot;
    [Where a voter has indicated a first preference for one candidate and an order of preference for all the remaining candidates except for one. If the square opposite that candidate has been left blank, the Act deems that the voter’s preference for that candidate is the voter’s last preference. The voter has accordingly indicated an order of preference for all candidates. This ballot paper will thus be counted as formal.
    In a case where there are two candidates only and the voter has indicated the voter’s first preference by placing a 1 beside one candidate, and either leaving the other square blank or placing any other figure (apart from ‘1’) in the other square, the voter will be deemed to have indicated an order of preference for all candidates and the vote will be counted as formal.]
    http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Backgrounders/informal-voting.htm

  2. mimhoff:

    [You can direct your own preferences in the current system. You don’t “have no choice”.]

    I didn’t say there was no choice, just that you had to choose between GVTs above the line or numbering every single square below the line.

  4. Re NBN fibre option, ‘technology choice’s…
    Sounds familiar, wonder where I have heard that before as a coalition policy.

    It’s crap, all it does is entrench differences in a new medium

  5. shiftaling@747

    I agree with the idea that full preferencing should basically be required in the HoR

    I used to be of the staunch opinion that it should be OPV but I have come around to the idea that it is better to infringe on the right not to preference for the greater good of excluding the most hated candidate.

    I realise that a lot of people who are of the opinion that both major parties are equally detestable will not share this view

    You either have a preferential voting system or you don’t.

    If the system is preferential voting then voters need to express their preferences for it to work. POV simply subverts this and allows some to behave as if it is FPTP.

    As for your statement: “I realise that a lot of people who are of the opinion that both major parties are equally detestable will not share this view.” well, diddums. In a society we all have to accept compromises.

  6. [Abbott says he doesn’t leak or background.

    So we can be pretty sure it was Abbott then.]

    99.9% Certainty.

    [Malcolm Turnbull refers leak of defence draft to federal police http://trib.al/WzciDPi%5D

    The problem is what happens if he actually finds the source of the leaks and it’s his party room or someone very closely linked? Obviously it’s from the out to get Mal section, but they all believe (with more than a little justification) that a lot of the things that appeared in the papers that hurt Abbott and helped Turnbull probably came from a source not so far removed from the current PM.

    So what’s he gonna do? Finally find a spine just when his polls are heading for the toilet and provoke open warfare? Or shrink away again and say ‘this is your last chance’?

    He’ll be hoping like blazes the Feds turn up their usual ‘no evidence found’. He has enough problems atm without exposing beyond doubt that the NJs aren’t playing at trying to destroy him.

  8. [BevanShields: Breaking: Man found dead inside home of Kathy Jacksonhttps://t.co/9M8vD0ML16]

    For real? Holy shit!

    As a side-note, its nice to actually see an appropriate use of the endless, fevered “BREAKING NEWS!!” announcements that Twitter’s wannabe-journalists love to pepper every second tweet with.

  9. Voting reforms have strained tensions inside the Labor Party, with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten on Wednesday standing down Gary Gray as the party’s spokesman on electoral matters. Mr Gray took a swipe at his own party last week, saying it was “sad” that the ALP was not backing the changes.
    He will be replaced as shadow special minister of state by Brendan O’Connor and will ensure Mr Gray does not speak to the electoral bill when it returns to the House of Representatives with amendments.

    Isn’t it a bit Stalinist and thin-skinned of Labor to prevent Gary Gray from speaking in Parliament about electoral issues? He’s an MP with the right to speak. The word “parliament” is derived from the French verb “parler”, which means to speak. Gagging an MP, especially on a topic which they know a lot about, is not a good look for Labor and is inconsistent with the concept of a parliament.

  11. Edited extracts from Trent Zimmerman’s inaugural speech in parliament:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/trent-zimmerman/surely-a-persons-sexualit_b_9362788.html?utm_hp_ref=au-politics

    [I am very conscious that my election to this Parliament represents the first time an openly gay man or woman has entered the House of Representatives.

    I am proud to do so as a member of the Liberal Party.

    I am of course not the first in this Parliament — and I pay tribute to those that have forged a path in the Senate.]

  12. ratsak

    [ Malcolm Turnbull refers leak of defence draft to federal police ]

    I think it was Sir Humphrey (from Yes, Minister) who said you should never hold an enquiry unless you already know the outcome!

    I think Mal would have a pretty good idea on this one.

  16. Somebody quoting the Satd’y Paper about 100 posts back, re the SA Greens: “In a double dissolution the Greens could only get re-elected one of the two – … Sarah Hanson-Young, or Robert Simms”

    Substitute “might” for “would” and it’s true. One of the odd features of this whole senate-voting debate has been all the over-confident predictions about the outcomes of the vote. It DEPENDS, everybody, it depends – on how many people vote for each candidate or party, and where their preferences go – and indeed with the same number of votes for candidate A his/her success in the scramble for the last place can depend on how many votes others get, and who is eliminated first. So PLEASE, no more predictions of voting outcomes without qualifiers like “might” or “possibly”. Indeed the Greens might be in trouble in SA because of the strong vote for the X-team, but we won’t know till the counting is done. X seems to take votes from Greens and Labor and Illiberals, so anything could happen. Never been a more exciting time to be an election watcher!

  17. [I think Mal would have a pretty good idea on this one.]

    Yes, well, Mal thinks he knows.

    Feel free to use that qualifier anywhere you like 🙂

  18. victoria

    [ As I said, would be too funny if Mal was once again blindsided ]

    Don’t be too hard on Mal – he’s still busy trying to figure out how to negative gear his political capital.

  20. mimhoff@735

    Sorry that was in reference to Asha Leu 717 who described the current system as:

    having no choice over where your preferences go (apart from numbering 50-100 boxes, most being for candidates and parties noone has ever heard of or have opinions on, and risking your vote being made informing by duplicating or missing a number and genuinely being disenfranchised)


    It’s like having no choice (apart from the vast number of choices you have).

    To be fair it’s having 3 choices:
    1) Just vote one and leaving it to the tyranny of back room deals,
    2) Vote BTL and risk making more than 3 numbering errors, or,
    3) Vote both ATL and BTL and get either 1) or 2). (This is one of the existing savings provision).

  23. Peg

    [Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm will introduce a proposal to abolish compulsory voting]

    I strongly object. Let’s hope no one supports him.

  26. P1

    [Don’t be too hard on Mal – he’s still busy trying to figure out how to negative gear his political capital.]

    I think you would be a very entertaining dinner guest 😀

  27. I didnt see it, but is PVO being sarcastic? Cant always tell

    [Peter van Onselen
    Peter van Onselen – Verified account ‏@vanOnselenP

    Turnbull’s answer to the defence white paper leak was one of the biggest slap downs I’ve seen for a long while. Withering…
    7:22 PM – 1 Mar 2016
    7 RETWEETS7 LIKES]

  29. WeWantPaul@736

    It sounds much better now.


    The new system is infinitely better for your engaged thinking sophisticated voter, no doubt in the world about that.

    It will cut down the time it takes me to cast a vote from the intolerable 30 odd minutes to 10.

    A wonderful fast food quickie democracy for the smart but lazy political junky.

    Cuts down the time for someone who already have someone in mind to vote for.

    Say a Labor voter picks a HTV card from a volunteer, all they have to do is number 1 to 6 on the HTV. The 1 to 6 does exactly what it says on the card, rather than the old “vote 1 next to Labor” where the preference deals are unheard of to all but poll bludgers and the like.

  30. To echo WWP earlier:

    What is the problem that this reform is trying to solve?

    It’s not “giving the voter a choice” because they already had that choice. Is it “we want to address informal votes, so we introduced GVTs and they were terrible, so we want to try something else”?

  33. With a minimum number of squares to be completed?

    I would support OPV for the House with an instruction on the ballot that says, “rank a minimum of three candidates”, with a savings provision to include the votes of people who only rank 1 or 2 candidates. I wouldn’t object to a ban on Just Vote 1 advocacy – the rationale would be to ensure that voters who do genuinely have a rank order in mind will think about it and put it on their ballot. But people who rank fewer than the minimum number should still have their votes counted as valid – the rationale would be that this is a perfectly legitimate intention to hold and voters should be allowed to express that intention and have it counted. There is a role for “nudges” in public policy, including electoral arrangements, because of the cognitive biases and logical fallacies that afflict the human mind. But we shouldn’t be punishing people by excluding votes that express a clear intention.

  34. Another area that I’ve softened my stance – I used to think compulsory voting was illiberal but now categorise it with jury duty as a trade off with benefits outweighing costs.

    Doubt Leyonhjelm will have any luck, compulsory voting is widely popular in Aus.

  35. bemused@745

    Nicholas@742


    This happens all the time in the ballot for the House of Reps, I don’t believe there is a savings provision there for “1-2-3-3” or for a tick or cross.

    Why should the Senate be different?


    It shouldn’t be different. That’s why the next item of business should be to institute OPV for House of Reps ballots.


    With a minimum number of squares to be completed?
    Otherwise, be honest and call it optional FPTP.
    If you think FPTP is a good system then check out the UK.

    Agreed. OPV for the HoR works a lot more differently than in a proportional system.

  36. [But people who rank fewer than the minimum number should still have their votes counted as valid – the rationale would be that this is a perfectly legitimate intention to hold and voters should be allowed to express that intention and have it counted.]

    So if a voter can have a legitimate intent for his or her vote, then the ballot must be able to express this?

    We’d need a much better system to include all possible intents.

  38. ajm@751

    There are some savings provisions for a HOR ballot;

    Where a voter has indicated a first preference for one candidate and an order of preference for all the remaining candidates except for one. If the square opposite that candidate has been left blank, the Act deems that the voter’s preference for that candidate is the voter’s last preference. The voter has accordingly indicated an order of preference for all candidates. This ballot paper will thus be counted as formal.
    In a case where there are two candidates only and the voter has indicated the voter’s first preference by placing a 1 beside one candidate, and either leaving the other square blank or placing any other figure (apart from ‘1’) in the other square, the voter will be deemed to have indicated an order of preference for all candidates and the vote will be counted as formal.


    http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Backgrounders/informal-voting.htm

    I think this is redundant anyway. When only two candidates are left, every voter will never have their last numbered vote exercised, as at the very end, the second last box will go to one of the two remaining candidates.

  39. John Reidy@754

    Re NBN fibre option, ‘technology choice’s…
    Sounds familiar, wonder where I have heard that before as a coalition policy.

    It’s crap, all it does is entrench differences in a new medium

    Some Whirilpool Forum comments say that in the T&C, they reserve the right to not go ahead, so it is possible that this option might never be exercised and is just there for show.

  40. Re non compulsory voting I am pretty sure the last poll on it had about 70% support.
    The parties shouldn’t support it as they would have to spend effort and funds on voter registration and attendance.

  42. [522
    ratsak

    Shorten just doesn’t lose. You have to wonder if getting his enemies to underestimate him isn’t a conscious plan. ]
    Don’t suggest that when Rex is around. His head will implode trying to grapple with both the concept and the reality.

    Shorten is one of the most outstanding examples I have seen of somebody who knows how to play to their strengths, and turn their (real or perceived) weaknesses to their advantage. Not to mention exploiting his enemies’ weaknesses and hubris.

    He is not physically imposing like Whitlam or Fraser. He does not have movie star looks like Trudeau, or a voice and delivery like Obama. He is not Mr Popularity, like Turnbull thought Turnbull was.

    But Shorten knows all that, and I’m guessing has from early on. He has had a lifetime of recognising and adapting to his limitations, and at least neutralising them, and sometimes even managing to turn them to his advantage. He has had to earn his place far more than the Abbotts of the world will ever understand, let alone manage to do themselves.

    In many ways Shorten is a regular schmuck, lame Dad jokes, zingers, and all, just with a brilliant political brain behind it. (With due credit to the rest of Labor for their part in it. Shorten, of course, could not do all this on his own.)

    Shorten has more than earned the right to lead Labor to the next election, which is probably now Labor’s to lose. Hard to see what the Coalition can do now to save themselves from themselves at this point, and avoid many years in the political wilderness.

    I feel no pain. 🙂

  43. In a very poor community, entering the Catholic Church would have been one method of guaranteeing a better education, wouldn’t it?

  44. [ Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm will introduce a proposal to abolish compulsory voting ]

    This man is a complete dick and the senate will be far better off without him. 🙁

  46. Pegasus @757:

    [Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm will introduce a proposal to abolish compulsory voting, doing away with Australia’s long established practice in favour of a voluntary vote.]

    Oh hell no. Hell-to-the-f**k no. Optional voting results in both parties spending their time pandering to the extremists who can be bothered to vote. Invariably, this means the right-wing extremists – the US Presidential election is looking like a contest between a corrupt right-wing candidate and an out-and-out fascist.

    I know that Leyonhjelm just wuuuuuvs the USA, but he can move there if he wants that style of politics!

    Nicholas @759:

    [Isn’t it a bit Stalinist and thin-skinned of Labor to prevent Gary Gray from speaking in Parliament about electoral issues? He’s an MP with the right to speak. The word “parliament” is derived from the French verb “parler”, which means to speak. Gagging an MP, especially on a topic which they know a lot about, is not a good look for Labor and is inconsistent with the concept of a parliament.]

    Oh, please. Party discipline is neither a novelty nor “stalinistic”. And Gray can speak as he pleases – but if he speaks against Labor Party policy, why should he stay on the frontbench?

    Frontbench positions, the primary posts for prosecuting Party policy, belong to people who believe in it. Credit to Mr Gray for voicing his objections, but he shouldn’t (and doesn’t, AFAIK) think that he gets to keep the frontbench slot.

  47. Pretty much every country in Europe has voluntary voting, and I can’t say I’ve ever noticed Angela Merkel or David Cameron doing much in the way of “pandering to right-wing extremists”.

  48. i had my say a few weeks ago on the right’s wet dream of abolishing compulsory voting in Australia.

    bahstards.

  49. shiftaling@784

    Another area that I’ve softened my stance – I used to think compulsory voting was illiberal but now categorise it with jury duty as a trade off with benefits outweighing costs.

    Doubt Leyonhjelm will have any luck, compulsory voting is widely popular in Aus.

    That’s a really good justification as part of civic duty. Jury duty, taxes, and voting.

  50. imacca@794:”This man is a complete dick and the senate will be far better off without him.”

    Not apparently in the view of Stephen Conroy and Sam Dastyari

Comments Page 16 of 21
1 … 15 16 17 … 21

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *