Two points to emerge from our friends in the polling community, which passed notice while I’ve been diverted by close counts:
• ReachTEL has published a helpful table illustrating pollster accuracy, which is sporting of them given the attention it calls to the eye-watering accuracy of Newspoll. However, all concerned did very well in predicting a two-party preferred result which, by my back-of-envelope reading, will ultimately settle at around 50.5-49.5 to the Coalition. Essential and especially Ipsos overshot on support for the Greens, with the latter landing around 2% too low for both major parties, but the only other substantial errors involved the balance of support between the Liberals and the Nationals, which I don’t regard as particularly important. Electorate polls were a different matter, and will be looked at in greater detail when all the results are in.
• On the Tuesday evening following the election, Roy Morgan conducted an SMS poll poll from 3587 respondents on leadership approval. The poll had Malcolm Turnbull with a narrow 51-47 lead as preferred prime minister, which the Morgan release sets up for comparison with a 57-24 result from May. However, the May result was an interviewer-administered phone poll, a method evidently less conducive to a “neither/can’t say” response. The poll also found Malcolm Turnbull leading Tony Abbott by 71-25 as preferred Liberal leader, and Anthony Albanese leading Bill Shorten 49-48 for Labor.
Now to an exercise I’ve conducted to get a clearer sense of what sort of areas did and didn’t swing. The chart below shows results of a regression analysis on 6582 polling booth results in which two-party swing data was available, which excludes the 14 electorates where the AEC’s two-party count is not between Labor and the Coalition. The purpose here is to discern if the swing to Labor was more or less evident in areas with particular demographic characteristics. The results record a big move back to Labor in the ever-volatile mortgage belts; an apparent failure of the Abbott-to-Turnbull leadership switch to improve the Coalition’s standing in ethnic communities; and better swing results for the Coalition where voters were wealthier and better educated, and – perhaps more surprisingly – older.
After the constant and starting with “Age”, the table lists the associations between polling booth swings to the Coalition, which in practice usually means negative results recording swings to Labor, and five demographic variables for the census districts in which the booths were located. All but one of these variables, English spoken at home, records a statistically significant association with the swing, as indicated by a score of less than .05 in the significance column on the right. The “B” coefficient of .001 for “Age” tells us that areas with a median age of 40 would generally swing 1% more favourably for the Coalition than areas with a median age of 30. “MFY” stands for median weekly family income and is measured in thousands, so the coefficient means swings tended to be 0.3% stronger for the Coalition for every $1000 of average household income. “School” represents the percentage of the 18-plus population who had completed high school, every point of which associates with nearly 0.1% of swing in favour of the Coalition. Conversely, Labor did 0.02% better for every percentage point of mortgaged dwellings.
The five demographic variables are followed by geographic ones that are there to ensure the results for the demographic variables aren’t influenced by regional differences in the swing, particularly those from state to state. Sydney is excluded so it works as a baseline, so the coefficient for Melbourne tells us that the Coalition would typically do 2.6% better there than at a demographically identical booth in Sydney. Finally, two variables are listed to control for retiring member and sophomore surge effects, which prove to be significant in both cases. “LNPgain” was coded 1 where the candidate was a Coalition sophomore and -1 where a Coalition member was retiring; vice-versa in the case of Labor sophomores and retirees; and zero where neither applied. “ALPloss” was coded 1 where Labor lost the seat in 2013 and 0 otherwise, to measure the boost to the sophomore effect in seats where Labor had a sitting member defending last time. The results suggest Coalition members who won their seats from Labor in 2013 did 2.2% better in swing terms than other Coalition candidates, which reduces to 0.5% in seats where they were replacing retiring Coalition members.
To observe these effects in action, the four tables below identify the 15 highest and lowest ranked electorates by the four statistically significant demographic indicators, and show their two-party swings to the Coalition where available. The lowest education electorates, all of which are regional, were 4.0% worse for the Coalition than those at the top of the scale, of which all apart from Fenner in the ACT are near the centres of the largest cities. Median age was more of a mixed bag — old electorates are regional, but the young ones encompass inner cities, mortgage belts, enclaves, a defence town and the largely indigenous seat of Lingiari. Nonetheless, the distinction here is as great as it was for education, and not in the direction that might have been anticipated from a touted backlash over superannuation policy.
The lowest income electorates, all of which are regional other than two in Sydney, recorded an average 3.5% swing to Labor, only slightly above the national result. But the results for the Liberals were well above average among the wealthiest electorates, over half of which swung in the Coalition’s favour. The mortgage effect is more modest, with 2.8% separating the averages for the top and bottom fifteen. Electorates at the top end of the mortgaged dwellings table are all in the outer suburbs of big cities, but the bottom end is a dissonant mix of regional and inner-city areas, producing a wide range of swing results.
The extent to which this exercise actually explains the results is illustrated by the chart below. For each electorate, the result the model would have predicted is plotted on the horizontal axis, and the actual result is plotted on the vertical. The electorates identified by name are those where the Coalition most under-performed or over-performed the prediction. Keep in mind that this accounts for regional as well as demographic factors, so Lyons shows up as a strong Liberal performance because the swing there was lower than in the other three Tasmanian seats included (remember Denison is not included due to its lack of two-party swing figures). Most electorates’ results were within 2% of the prediction, but a good many had results where alternative explanations are substantially required.
sohar @ #600 Monday, July 18, 2016 at 6:30 pm
Someone must have spotted the remaining numbers on the AEC page and ignoring the “count complete, pending recount” bit by AEC official statement.
Sohar
William on the other thread has info from the AEC that the website display is “old data” and the count is complete.
Herbert has been won by Labor by 8 votes.
A mandatory recount will no commence.
Now commence
Kevin Rudd can run for UNSG if he wants. He is not going to get the role. He is not really suitable for it, to be honest.
The race, to me, is going to be between Irina Bokova of Bulgaria and Helen Clark of New Zealand. There is a strong push for the SG to be a woman this time and I think that sentiment will be honoured at the election. The real contention is whether the “western bloc” will accept somebody from the Eastern European Group (and potentially more closely aligned to Putin’s interests) or not. If they can put that behind them, then it will be Bokova, if they can’t, then it will likely be Clark who, despite being West Europe and Others Group and anglo, represents a country that doesn’t too strongly align itself with any bloc’s interests.
A good compromise candidate here would have been Kristalina Georgieva of Bulgaria but, from what I understand, all signs are that she is not interested.
[A mandatory recount will now commence.]
Distribution of pref count first? Recount in a week-ish?
House Practice
“Absolute majority
Most decisions of the House are decided by a simple majority—that is, a majority of the Members actually voting. An absolute majority is a majority of the membership of the House, and has been defined as follows:
The phrase “absolute majority” has different meanings in different contexts. In this context, however, it clearly means a majority not merely of the votes actually cast but of all the votes capable of being cast. Arithmetically expressed, this is usually said to mean one more than half the total votes eligible to be counted. If, however, the total is of uneven number, this formula is not really a happy one. An absolute majority is perhaps better expressed as a total vote which could not be exceeded if every other eligible vote were adverse.399
In a House of 150 Members an absolute majority is 76 Members.
Any motion moved without notice and without leave to suspend standing orders must be carried by an absolute majority of Members. If such a motion is agreed to on the voices, the chair being satisfied that an absolute majority of Members is present, the record notes that the question passed ‘with the concurrence of an absolute majority’.400 If necessary the bells may be rung to bring sufficient Members into the Chamber,401 although the House does not proceed to a formal recorded vote as it does for unopposed third readings of constitution alteration bills, where the absolute majority is a constitutional requirement.”
Thanks, Sprocket. Very confusing when the AEC only update part of it.
CM
‘…represents a country that doesn’t too strongly align itself with any bloc’s interests.’
Putin and Xi might beg to differ.
Um, NZ has a Defence Treaty with the US.
Carey M:
I hope Clarke is chosen for the role.
Does Helen Clarke have the support of Keys for the UN job?
Sorry if already posted
Kristine thinks her labrador is more qualified than Rudd to be the next UN head
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/07/18/keneally–rudd-should-not-get-un-role.html
Bill Shorten & Malcolm Turnbull want to be seen as a strong & credible leaders.
Bill Shorten has shown he’s not credible by his endorsement of Rudd.
Will Malcolm fail this latest test also…..?
On Herbert, let’s be nice and knock out three from the Labor pile, add four to the Liberals pile, call it done and get to the pub.
Can’t say fairer than that surely?
rex douglas @ #612 Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:06 pm
Hey Rex, who does Di Natale support? An Australian or a Kiwi?
sceptic @ #611 Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:04 pm
Kristina Keneally is fantastic with her comments. Hilarious.
CTar1 – [It was very pleasing]
Oh, I misread your earlier post thinking the change meant separation.
Boerwar – you would be a lot more convincing about “same same” if you repudiated your vote informal campaigning in 2013. That really was “same same”.
P1
I don’t know.
Who do you want DiNatale to endorse?
rex douglas @ #618 Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:23 pm
Bill Shorten.
‘Wakefield
Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:23 pm
Boerwar – you would be a lot more convincing about “same same” if you repudiated your vote informal campaigning in 2013. That really was “same same”.’
Your analogy is crap.
Rudd and Abbott were the same: totally unfit to be prime ministers.
By way of contrast, the Greens’ mantra that Labor and the Coalition are the same, often repeated during the election, was an outright and deliberate and damaging lie.
I want Di Natale to resign in self-disgust at his performance, his behaviour, and his contribution to the destruction of the environment.
Wakefield
Boerwar supports same same spending $50,000,000,000 on subs that perform exercises every now and then rather than putting that money into, say, health and education.
BiS
KK is succinct. And correct.
P1
why?
‘Rex Douglas
Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:29 pm
Wakefield
Boerwar supports same same spending $50,000,000,000 on subs that perform exercises every now and then rather than putting that money into, say, health and education.’
It does not matter what I think, as it turns out.
It DOES matter what the Greens think because they have succeeded in helping Turnbull to maintain power.
Now that Abbott has missed out on a recall to the front bench I reckon the ravings of Price and Bolt should be entertaining tonight on 3aw.
Neil Mitchell was also insistent this morning that Turnbull must return Abbott to the ministry. I’ll be tuning in to hear what he has to say too.
Turnbull up for a tummy rub from Sales on 7.30.
Darn
Look forward to your feedback
rex douglas @ #624 Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:30 pm
He might have won the election if less Green preferences had gone to the LNP.
Darn
I suggest listening to nice music rather than Price, Bolt or Mitchell
Will the hacks on 7.3o get to the end without mentioning the massive majority of ONE!!! seat
P1
The ALP might have won the election with different leadership
S
Mr Turnbull says that that is a solid majority.
‘Rex Douglas
Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:37 pm
P1
The ALP might have won the election with different leadership… from the Greens.’
Fixed.
At least the thoroughly discredited Hunt has been removed from the environment portfolio. Trouble is it has been given to the equally discredited Frydenberg.
The federal ALP would be wise to coax Daniel Andrews to Canberra to lead them properly.
Turnbull simply refuses to answer Sales’ questions.
Sales moves right along…
Righto
Turnbull asked about Liberal donations and Sales lets Turnbull go on an on about Labor and the Victorian firefighters. It takes her a while to stop him and he just talks over her. What a joke she is.
‘Rex Douglas
Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:40 pm
The federal ALP would be wise to coax Daniel Andrews to Canberra to lead them properly.’
The Greens would be wise to sack Di Natale. He did a dirty deal with Tricky Turnbull. The result is a Senate packed with right wing homophobes, nutters, xenophobes and less Greens than before.
Dirty Dealer Di Natale thought he was being smart.
Except he was too dumb to realize the implications of timing for Senate DD quotas.
Then he made things worse by stabbing Labor in the back and helping Turnbull.
Time for Di Natale to go.
rex douglas @ #636 Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:40 pm
Given RDN’s brilliant achievements in building the Greens presence in the Parliament, perhaps Labor should ask him to lead them to the sunlit upland plains.
On reflection, I would hope Daniel Andrews remains in Victoria. Doing a sensational job in particular with employment and infrastructure.
Kiwis have Rudd sussed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11676799
rex douglas @ #632 Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:37 pm
Recep Tayip Erdogan has the kind of style that you would appreciate. He’s a proven election winner.
Rex
You miss the point. Schadenfreude can be every bit as entertaining as nice music.
The ALP might have won the election with different leadership.
The ALP might have won the election with different policies.
The ALP might have won the election with different voters.
The ALP might have won the election with more money.
The ALP might have won the election with…..
What an absolute pathetic performance from
Mal… less than usless
Zoomster
Indeed.
Turnbull just lying continuously about NBN and ‘Mediscare’.
Turnbull — Labor cheated! How else could they have nearly beaten me??
Election inside 6 months for sure