Miscellaneous horse race commentary and developments from the past two days of the campaign, much of it involving the Victorian Electoral Commission:
• The Herald Sun reports Liberal sources saying Daniel Andrews’ personal ratings have “tanked” over the past fortnight, with his disapproval rating at 51%. Forty-four per cent wanted a Labor win, but 38% of Labor voters said they would favour a minority government. It should be noted that any Liberal polling would be limited to its target seats. The report also says the Greens rate themselves “a strong chance to win Northcote and Pascoe Vale”, the latter of which would be a turn-up. Conversely, Labor has “become more optimistic about its chances in Melton”, which it fears losing to independent Ian Birchall.
• John Ferguson of The Australian says views within the Labor camp about the number of seats it stands to lose range from “as little as seven or eight” to “as many as nineteen”, with anything more than ten being sufficient to cost the government its majority. A “senior ALP figure” said it was “hard to see the Liberal Party winning more than nine or ten seats” and “they could also lose a few”.
• The Liberal Party has accused the Victorian Electoral Commission of “serious, deliberate and unprecedented” interference in the election after its referral of potential breaches of donation laws to the Independent Broad-based Commission Against Corruption. The issue relates to alleged attempts by Matthew Guy’s chief-of-staff, Mitch Catlin, to encourage a businessman to make donations to his private business, which prompted Catlin’s resignation in August. The VEC says it has not received satisfactory responses to its invitations to the principals to respond to questions, although Guy told journalists on Thursday he had not had “any direct contact” with the commission. Electoral commissioner Warwick Gately presumably had this statement in mind when he said yesterday that the VEC had “not received the full co-operation from those connected to its investigation … despite public statements to the contrary”.
• The Liberals have referred Labor and preference negotiator Glenn Druery to IBAC over the video published in the Herald Sun on Thursday in which Druery discussed preference deals during a video conference, with MPs David Southwick and Louise Staley accusing Labor of “vote-rigging” over its rather tenuous connections to Druery’s activities. Paul Sakkal of The Age reports that Michael Piastrino, who is running for the Liberals against Daniel Andrews in Mulgrave, conducted a press conference yesterday alongside member of the anti-lockdown Freedom Party in which he called for the election to be “postponed and for the state government to go into administration … given the election can no longer be deemed valid”.
• Teal independents have succeeded in having the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal overturn the Victorian Electoral Commission’s determination that voters were likely to be misled by how-to-vote cards showing only one box numbered, with accompanying wording advising voters to number the remaining boxes in order of preference. If voters had indeed been misled, the effect would have been the opposite of what was plainly intended.
• A Lonergan Research poll for the Victorian National Parks Association, concerned mostly with public attitudes to national parks and conservation reserves, has breakdowns of voting intention by upper house region if you stick with it until the end, although the field work period was October 28 to November 6.
Friendlyjordies puts it pretty plainly in his latest video, at about 9:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9KFCnFiNnM
Can any of the budding psephologists here give a pithy explanation as to the predictive power of election betting odds – particularly in relation to Australia generally and Victoria specifically? Are they likely to be any more incisive than a good poll? or a methodologically challenged opinion poll?
Some posters here quote them as hard evidence a swing is on, others dismiss them outright – noting you can get different odds on any day and that they are more a reflection of the total bets received. I would have thought there wouldn’t be enough money wagered on most electorates for odds to say much at that level, and at a State wide level I would assume punters are just guessing like the rest of us.
TW
It is not called gambling for nothing.
MaccaRB
Haha. Definitely dont miss the hyper posts.
@TropicalWonderland
I think people look to betting odds because of the principle “The House Always Wins”, in which the betting markets want the best return from the gamblers they profit from.
However, at times they can be incredibly inept at that. An example I heard of was the 2020 US election where when vote counting started, it looked like Trump was winning from on-the-day votes being counted, so the odds of Biden winning was reduced significantly in the immediate few hours/days, increasing the return on the odds of his win. Then the postal votes came in and brought the result back to a Biden win.
Some people tend to still turn to the betting markets as true indicators though, especially with the absence of polling, since the markets don’t want to lose out. But as with all gambling, it’s not guaranteed.
TropicalWonderland,
They’re pretty much useless. The national and state odds just follow the prevailing opinion polls and the weight of money. The individual seat odds are garbage.
@Tropical
Studies have shown them to be next to useless as a predictor.
They just swing with the money wagered, so at best they tell you more about “the vibe” (media-influenced) than actual voting intentions.
They also swing with fairly small amounts of money wagered, so if you felt so inclined (in the absence of actual polling data) you could theoretically chuck a couple of thousand to bring in the odds and scare the horses on an internet pseph forum…
Tbh it’s ethically questionable that betting on an election should even be legal.
I just had a look at the how to vote cards. Labor have Pearce 5th (3 are behind) and Liberals 5th( 3 are behind). Is this some kind of joke. Labor have not put him last. Dan and his Nazi comments, what a hypocrite.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/election-campaign-veers-from-uninspiring-to-disturbingly-nasty-20221121-p5bzvq.html
michael @ #461 Monday, November 21st, 2022 – 5:08 pm
Maybe Labor didn’t know his back story? But the Liberals did. 😐
michael, when there are so many nazi’s in the last three slots, even they have to be ranked. The point is, the ALP puts nazis behind the LNP, and the LNP puts the nazis ahead of the ALP.
The only thing you’re doing, is highlighting how many nazis there are.
Another one. The Labor candidate for Richmond claims she is indigenous. Says just have to believe her. Andrews backs her 100%. Her family says there is no way she is indigenous, and unfortunately for Dan the family tends to know those facts very accurately. Another fake candidate.
Yeah i’m not sure either of the two major parties really have the resources to go and background check all other candidates in detail. Particularly when permission won’t ordinarily be granted.
Grime: “Election campaign veers from uninspiring to disturbingly nasty”
Take a bow Costello. Take a bow Murdoch. Take a bow Buttrose. Take a bow, all of the minions in the press that continue to carry out their bidding.
Also michael, you’re playing a very stupid game complaining about Dan defending candidates. For every mistake by Labor (and there are some), there are more than a few examples elsewhere by other parties.
Perhaps you’d like to start with ‘Matt’ Guy and the racist/homophobic/mysogynist nutjobs that the Libs have managed to dig up.
If I was you privi, I would be very careful using the term nazi, people tend to sue and all sites tend to get read. If you are claiming the last four candidates in Narre Warren are Nazi, good luck.
michael, I’m quite careful in the use of these terms. If you want to not be identified as a nazi, I’d suggest that you stop standing up to be counted with them.
And the Liberals believe this woman when she claims she is Indigenous.
Dan and his staff must be feeling the pressure. Just say racists, disgrace etc then there is no problem. I would never go down the nazi path. It won’t end well.
Michael: ” feeling the pressure.”
Do you have any polling handy that would make us all believe that they should be feeling ‘pressure’?
Michael: ” I would never go down the nazi path”
Your party preferences say otherwise.
Michael: “It won’t end well.”
Yes yes. African gangs are running rampant. We’re all living in a real dystopia.
michael @ #472 Monday, November 21st, 2022 – 5:46 pm
You appear to have forgotten/conveniently overlooked, the former staffers in Sarah Henderson’s office.
Kirsdarke455
Thanks. Enjoyed the quote. It’s spot on.
We want our politicians to answer questions put to them by the media.
However, with our mongrel Merdeoch media, someone smart needs to show them up for what they are- a pack of baying hounds.
Up ’em Dan!
Apologies for the pi/privi izumo confusion. I actually logged into my account for the first time since forever, and hadn’t updated my nickname from many years back. Fixed now.
Cat what did the former staffers say. I must have missed it.
“TropicalWonderland says:
Monday, November 21, 2022 at 4:42 pm
Can any of the budding psephologists here give a pithy explanation as to the predictive power of election betting odds – particularly in relation to Australia generally and Victoria specifically? Are they likely to be any more incisive than a good poll? or a methodologically challenged opinion poll?”
Absolutely fair questions and I am 100% sure that the raw data are easily available from past elections (state and federal) to test whether opinion polls and betting odds are similarly predictive of election results or whether they differ.
This is the result of a scientific work carried on US presidential elections:
“Prediction markets have drawn considerable attention in recent years as a tool for forecasting elections. But how accurate are they? Do they outperform the polls, as some scholars argue? Do prices in election markets carry information beyond the horserace in the latest polls? This paper assesses the accuracy of US presidential election betting markets in years before and after opinion polling was introduced. Our results are provocative. First, we find that market prices are far better predictors in the period without polls than when polls were available. Second, we find that market prices of the pre-poll era predicted elections almost on par with polls following the introduction of scientific polling. Finally, when we have both market prices and polls, prices add nothing to election prediction beyond polls. To be sure, early election markets were (surprisingly) good at extracting campaign information without scientific polling to guide them. For more recent markets, candidate prices largely follow the polls.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379412000467
For the case of Australian elections, here is an interesting article co-authored by Andrew Leigh:
“What is the best way to predict Australian federal election results? This article analyses three forecasting tools: opinion polls, economic models, and betting odds. Historically, we find that opinion polls taken close to the election are quite accurate, while economic models provide better medium-run forecasts. The November 2001 federal election largely follows this pattern, although the economic models provided more accurate projections than recorded through the 1990s. Against these, we compare betting odds, analysing a rich data source from one of Australia’s largest bookmakers, Centrebet. The betting market not only correctly forecast the election outcome, but also provided very precise estimates of outcomes in a host of individual electorates. Betting fluctuations present an intriguing quantitative record of the shifting fortunes of the campaign. Particularly in marginal seats, the press may have better served its readers by reporting betting odds than by conducting polls. We conclude that the results of these three models can help determine how important the events of August and September 2001 were in deciding the outcome of the election.”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10361140220148115
If you really want to get into this in earnest, go to Google Scholar and search for: “betting odds opinion polling and elections results australia”
I would not be assessing whether somebody is Indigenous Australian or not purely based on physical appearance because you cannot assess somebody’s ancestry just from looking at them (no matter what Andrew Bolt thinks).
There seems to be more candidate oddities in recent elections but I think you can attribute this to increased scrutiny and the internet being one big database where you can find out all sorts of interesting things about individuals. People with dodgy opinions is hardly groundbreaking stuff but it’s easier to identify and record these types nowadays. I don’t think candidate vetting could screen out all these types anyway – are people really going to tell you upfront whether they are bigots or not. These are all things that can come out at any time, not just during the candidate nomination process. Obviously parties should consider more WHERE they are getting candidates from but there is no foolproof process to have ‘ideal candidates’.
I see this has become an incredibly petty thread instead of a discussion on psephology, deja vu.
The bullying and hypocritical approach by the majority left-wingers on the site is breathtaking, that comment’s meant to cause a bit of reflection and I hope it doesn’t see further rising up in rage though I’m not optimistic. It’s not particularly better from any right-wingers, but they are a tiny minority so don’t have the opportunity to set the tone of the chat in general.
Some people avoid the bile, why can’t everyone? – much more satisfying chat when it’s like that. Instead of thinking it’s ‘my job’ to take issue with every comment that already has bile (or simply that I disagree with) or to use every opportunity to stick a fork into my most hated politician. As if it’s going to change minds on this site! 🙂
Positively, I have really enjoyed some of the regional/topic specific threads where the discussions have been about what they are meant to.
Kennett’s lament:
‘michael says:
Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:33 pm
Another one. The Labor candidate for Richmond claims she is indigenous. Says just have to believe her. Andrews backs her 100%. Her family says there is no way she is indigenous, and unfortunately for Dan the family tends to know those facts very accurately. Another fake candidate.’
————————————
It is not uncommon for there to be disputes inside families about whether there is Indigenous ancestry. This may or may not be ‘accurate’.
It is also not uncommon for Indigenous people beyond the family to dispute Indigenous status.
Therefore your simple assumption of a ‘fake’ candidate lacks credibility, one way or the other.
You have to be accepted by the Aboriginal community you are claiming to be part of. The Yorta Yorta dispute her claim.
My family is not indigenous but some of my family members have been often confused for being indigenous. To the extent that my brother was racial abused whilst playing footy in the 80s and an auntie was place on a workplace diversity committee and then started to be asked about how indigenous people felt about things. So you can’t judge by looks alone.
B.S. Fairman says:
Monday, November 21, 2022 at 6:59 pm
My family is not indigenous but some of my family members have been often confused for being indigenous.
______
A friends’ family had an oral tradition about an Indigenous ancestor. Turned out to be incorrect once Ancestry.com came into it, but there was an African American connection in the late 19th century that was later mistaken to be Indigenous.
michael @ #477 Monday, November 21st, 2022 – 5:59 pm
Somebody checked their historical timelines on fb and found fascistic posts.
Kennett wrecked Victoria, now he’s wrecking Hawthorn.
C@tmomma says:
Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:45 pm
And the Liberals believe this woman when she claims she is Indigenous.
________________
Straight out of Bolt’s playbook. What happened to our nice Victorian election thread?
The ABC just destroyed the Labor candidate for Richmond. If the Greens are close, watchout.
OK – this may be stirring things up, but…
…I have a distant relative (let’s call her Aunty X) who is a respected community elder of an indigenous community. Except, she has no actual indigenous heritage.
What happened was that one of her gggg grandsomethings was a British sailor of mixed African descent. Unhappy with life in colonial Melbourne (i.e. getting picked on for being black) he left the city and went up bush, and eventually started hanging out with a particular Aboriginal community in the country.
Basically, he was sort of adopted as being one of them. He eventually married a white woman and had kids, but his descendants sort of became Aboriginal by proxy. Some have very much embraced this Aboriginal identity, others openly say “it’s garbage, we’re actually African”. Caused much angst, even amongst siblings in the same family. Has become an extremely sensitive issue.
But the Aboriginal community in question consider Aunty X to not only be officially considered one of them, but also to be an elder and spokesperson. So… Who gets to be the arbiter in this situation?
Expat says:
What happened was that one of her gggg grandsomethings was a British sailor of mixed African descent. Unhappy with life in colonial Melbourne (i.e. getting picked on for being black) he left the city and went up bush, and eventually started hanging out with a particular Aboriginal community in the country.
________
What area did he settle in? This sounds really familiar to my friends story.
Re: Richmond – I think everyone had it chalked up as a Greens gain already. The O’Dwyer affair won’t change much.
Richmond probably would have gone to the Greens in 2018 had they not stood Kathleen Maltzahn as a candidate (again).
@nath
I originally wrote the location/group, but then edited it out, as it might make it too easy to identify who I’m talking about. As you can probably understand, I don’t really want to “out” Aunty X.
Maybe your friend connects back to the same person though, it’s a large extended family.
Expat says:
Monday, November 21, 2022 at 7:12 pm
@nath
I originally wrote the location/group, but then edited it out, as it might make it too easy to identify who I’m talking about. As you can probably understand, I don’t really want to “out” her
__________
No worries. I understand.
Thanks Expat. Only just started taking notice. Thats one gone for Labor.
Bye, Jeremy.
Hi, Michael.
The Candidate for Richmond has given explanation including referencing her associations and connections
There is politics among the various groups who present as representing our Indigenous
In regards Kennett it is amusing that he attacks those he now attacks, offering that the matters are political and that he was only President so not his fault
On the other hand, the Pandemic is Andrew’s fault according to Kennett
And the Nazi movement, which still exists, is a Right Wing movement
The Liberal Party is a right wing organisation, as identified by Malcolm Fraser when he said the Liberal Party is no longer a liberal party all those years ago, and resigned
‘Expat says:
Monday, November 21, 2022 at 7:09 pm
OK – this may be stirring things up, but…
…I have a distant relative (let’s call her Aunty X) who is a respected community elder of an indigenous community. Except, she has no actual indigenous heritage.
What happened was that one of her gggg grandsomethings was a British sailor of mixed African descent. Unhappy with life in colonial Melbourne (i.e. getting picked on for being black) he left the city and went up bush, and eventually started hanging out with a particular Aboriginal community in the country.
Basically, he was sort of adopted as being one of them. He eventually married a white woman and had kids, but his descendants sort of became Aboriginal by proxy. Some have very much embraced this Aboriginal identity, others openly say “it’s garbage, we’re actually African”. Caused much angst, even amongst siblings in the same family. Has become an extremely sensitive issue.
But the Aboriginal community in question consider Aunty X to not only be officially considered one of them, but also to be an elder and spokesperson. So… Who gets to be the arbiter in this situation?’
—————————————————
An interesting post, IMO. ATM. The current pragmatic answer to your question is, de facto, the people who run Indigenous-specific programs. That is to say, the Federal Government.
It is not uncommon for different factions in communities to either support or not support ‘membership’ in a particular community. Further, as large numbers of Indigenous people shift and/or concentrate, the definition of ‘community’ becomes contestable.
One of the functions of the Voice could be to advise Parliament on issues surrounding the ‘working criteria’ of Indigenous status.
I know individuals who have been driven close to suicide in this contested space.
https://aiatsis.gov.au/proof-aboriginality
Trent wrote,”goll – The Greens policy on the LC has firmly been to scrap GTV. They’ve probably been the most vocally opposed, especially after losing 4 seats in 2018 as a result of it.”
Which seats were these? Name them, which seats fell? Stop making crap up.
Further, one of the powers vested in Indigenous people through the Treaty might be to issue Indigenous citizenship. The latter could include people who marry in as well as people who are granted citizenship for services rendered.
Oliver Suttonsays:
Monday, November 21, 2022 at 7:15 pm
Bye, Jeremy.
Hi, Michael.
——————-
I thought the same earlier.
And nath has dropped in on Victoria thread.