Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
More Annotations
A complete backup of https://lifeview.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://garyfong.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://tiget.net
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://10yetis.co.uk
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://ediindia.org
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://markdalgleish.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://azhar.eg
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://gatesofantares.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://funktion-one.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://on-point-clothing.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://www.forestryengland.uk
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
Favourite Annotations
A complete backup of https://allianceinteractive.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://legalbet.ru
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://primehealthcare.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://luxurybrandgang.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://les-aides.fr
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://tcf.org.uk
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://naish.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://pushkino.org
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://beamex.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://dlpng.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://deltacollege.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of https://readrate.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
Text
DR KEVIN BONHAM
When George Souris retired after 27 years in 2015 there was a 20.8% swing to Labor, in the context of an election with an overall 10% swing. Souris would have taken a huge personal vote, but even so, it is worth bearing in mind that this seat had not been won by Labor since 1910. However, the tightening in this seat was driven byincreased coal
DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN STATE ELECTION GUIDE: MAIN Ogilvie chose to sit as an independent and has mostly voted with the government, joining the Liberal ticket after the 2021 election was called. Hodgman resigned in early 2020 and was replaced by Treasurer Peter Gutwein, a long-serving MP and former publican with a reputation for parliamentary headkicking. DR KEVIN BONHAM: WHAT'S THIS THEN? COMMISSIONED POLL Australia Institute uComms: Liberal 41.4 Labor 32.1 Greens 12.4 IND 11 Other 3.1. If accurate Government would probably lose majority (approx 12-10-2-1 or 12-9-3-1, perhaps more INDs) DR KEVIN BONHAM: WA 2021 LIVE 8:44 South West on an initial attempt off 5% counted I got 3 Labor 1 Liberal 1 National and 1 Legalize Cannabis, though the latter was by less than 1% over the Greens. This could yet fall over but the dope party is on 2.7%. For Agricultural the Health Australia spiral iscurrently failing.
DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN STATE ELECTION GUIDE: FRANKLIN Prospects for Franklin. Franklin is a left-leaning seat at federal level where it has been Labor-held since 1993, but at state level the difference between it and the northern seats is less pronounced. Votes in Franklin in 2018 were Liberal 48.4%, Labor 34.4, Greens 14.4. DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN POSTCOUNT: CLARK With 70.2% counted, there is one booth remaining that was expected for tonight and that is the Glenorchy prepoll. The Liberal ticket has 1.86 quotas, Labor 1.30 quotas, the Greens 1.26, Kristie Johnston 0.67 quotas and Sue Hickey 0.58 quotas. DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN STATE ELECTION GUIDE: CLARK Clark, which I often refer to jokingly as the "People's Republic of Clark", is Tasmania's most left-wing and idiosyncratic electorate. It falls into two halves - the Glenorchy part which is traditionally strongly Labor and the Hobart part which has historically had a high vote for Greens and other left-wing candidates, with a small Liberal enclave around Lower Sandy Bay. DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN POSTCOUNT: BRADDON In Braddon there is nearly 84% counted. The Liberals have 3.42 quotas, Labor has 1.6, the Greens 0.32, the Shooters 0.23 and Craig Garland has 0.37 (6%) and has beaten the Greens again! Jeremy Rockliff has topped the poll, of course, and currently has 1.74 quotas. It might look like this is a trivial two for Labor but candidate effects have DR KEVIN BONHAM: SENATE SURPRISE: ABETZ DEMOTED TO THIRD Senate Surprise: Abetz Demoted To Third. News has just come through that Tasmanian Liberal preselectors have released a ticket with Senator Jonathon Duniam first, Senator Wendy Askew second and Senator Eric Abetz third. This comes as a surprise after recent Fontcast gossip that suggested Abetz and Duniam would fight out the top spot onthe
DR KEVIN BONHAM: TASMANIAN LOWER HOUSE: 25 OR 35 SEATS? A perennial subject of Tasmanian political debate is the comparative impact of having 25 seats in the Tasmanian House of Assembly or 35 seats. This follows the extremely contentious 1998 reduction of the size of the House from five seven-member electorates to five five-member electorates. By way of history, the Hare-Clark system wasintroduced
DR KEVIN BONHAM
When George Souris retired after 27 years in 2015 there was a 20.8% swing to Labor, in the context of an election with an overall 10% swing. Souris would have taken a huge personal vote, but even so, it is worth bearing in mind that this seat had not been won by Labor since 1910. However, the tightening in this seat was driven byincreased coal
DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN STATE ELECTION GUIDE: MAIN Ogilvie chose to sit as an independent and has mostly voted with the government, joining the Liberal ticket after the 2021 election was called. Hodgman resigned in early 2020 and was replaced by Treasurer Peter Gutwein, a long-serving MP and former publican with a reputation for parliamentary headkicking. DR KEVIN BONHAM: WHAT'S THIS THEN? COMMISSIONED POLL Australia Institute uComms: Liberal 41.4 Labor 32.1 Greens 12.4 IND 11 Other 3.1. If accurate Government would probably lose majority (approx 12-10-2-1 or 12-9-3-1, perhaps more INDs) DR KEVIN BONHAM: WA 2021 LIVE 8:44 South West on an initial attempt off 5% counted I got 3 Labor 1 Liberal 1 National and 1 Legalize Cannabis, though the latter was by less than 1% over the Greens. This could yet fall over but the dope party is on 2.7%. For Agricultural the Health Australia spiral iscurrently failing.
DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN STATE ELECTION GUIDE: FRANKLIN Prospects for Franklin. Franklin is a left-leaning seat at federal level where it has been Labor-held since 1993, but at state level the difference between it and the northern seats is less pronounced. Votes in Franklin in 2018 were Liberal 48.4%, Labor 34.4, Greens 14.4. DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN POSTCOUNT: CLARK With 70.2% counted, there is one booth remaining that was expected for tonight and that is the Glenorchy prepoll. The Liberal ticket has 1.86 quotas, Labor 1.30 quotas, the Greens 1.26, Kristie Johnston 0.67 quotas and Sue Hickey 0.58 quotas. DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN STATE ELECTION GUIDE: CLARK Clark, which I often refer to jokingly as the "People's Republic of Clark", is Tasmania's most left-wing and idiosyncratic electorate. It falls into two halves - the Glenorchy part which is traditionally strongly Labor and the Hobart part which has historically had a high vote for Greens and other left-wing candidates, with a small Liberal enclave around Lower Sandy Bay. DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN POSTCOUNT: BRADDON In Braddon there is nearly 84% counted. The Liberals have 3.42 quotas, Labor has 1.6, the Greens 0.32, the Shooters 0.23 and Craig Garland has 0.37 (6%) and has beaten the Greens again! Jeremy Rockliff has topped the poll, of course, and currently has 1.74 quotas. It might look like this is a trivial two for Labor but candidate effects have DR KEVIN BONHAM: SENATE SURPRISE: ABETZ DEMOTED TO THIRD Senate Surprise: Abetz Demoted To Third. News has just come through that Tasmanian Liberal preselectors have released a ticket with Senator Jonathon Duniam first, Senator Wendy Askew second and Senator Eric Abetz third. This comes as a surprise after recent Fontcast gossip that suggested Abetz and Duniam would fight out the top spot onthe
DR KEVIN BONHAM: TASMANIAN LOWER HOUSE: 25 OR 35 SEATS? A perennial subject of Tasmanian political debate is the comparative impact of having 25 seats in the Tasmanian House of Assembly or 35 seats. This follows the extremely contentious 1998 reduction of the size of the House from five seven-member electorates to five five-member electorates. By way of history, the Hare-Clark system wasintroduced
DR KEVIN BONHAM: BROOKS (BRADDON) INSTANT RECOUNT 2021 Short answer: no. In the light of this result the issue is being raised of whether Brooks was a sham candidate, run to harvest votes with the intention always being that he would resign immediately or soon. However, the Liberals won 57.2% of the vote in Braddon (3.43quotas).
DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN POSTCOUNT: CLARK With 70.2% counted, there is one booth remaining that was expected for tonight and that is the Glenorchy prepoll. The Liberal ticket has 1.86 quotas, Labor 1.30 quotas, the Greens 1.26, Kristie Johnston 0.67 quotas and Sue Hickey 0.58 quotas. DR KEVIN BONHAM: ABOUT In 1997-2001 I was a regular writer for Togatus magazine, and often wrote political commentary, including often biased and deranged (but psephologically accurate) analysis of the annual student elections. This body of work led to my appointment as Editor in 2002 and 2003 and a media desk at the 2002 state election. DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN STATE ELECTION POLLING DROUGHT The horizontal axis is days before polling day and the vertical axis is the absolute difference between the EMRS poll result (undecided redistributed) and the actual outcome.. Liberal Party results have tended to become more reliable as election day approaches especially in the last 50 days where the poll has usually been within 2%. DR KEVIN BONHAM: TASMANIA 2021: WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS Before the events that led to this election, Tasmania had a 13-9-2-1 parliament. After Sue Hickey quit the Liberals and Madeleine Ogilvie joined them, it was still 13-9-2-1.And after the election it was yet again 13-9-2-1.All the election seems to have achieved is replacing Sue Hickey with Kristie Johnston and letting Labor get Dean Winter and Janie Finlay into parliament, without any renewal DR KEVIN BONHAM: ALMOST EVERYTHING IN WEST MEDIA'S POLLING The video at 0:36 highlights a sample size of 2,000 and claims that the sample sizes are tiny. In fact if 2,000 voters is an accurate random sample and questions are well designed then it is a very adequate sample for most purposes - in at least 95% of cases results will be within 2.2%. When polls are wrong by more than that, the causeusually
DR KEVIN BONHAM: POLL ROUNDUP: ANOTHER BUDGET RATES PRETTY The current Newspoll had Labor ahead 51-49 (unchanged) off primaries of Coalition 41 Labor 36 Greens 12 One Nation 2 others 9. The second ever Resolve Political Monitor poll (link to my April discussion) has primaries of Coalition 39 Labor 35 Green 12 One Nation 2 Independent 8 Other 5.Treating "independent" in this poll as generic "others", I get a 2PP of 51.1 to Labor (+1 since April). DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN POSTCOUNT: BASS Jennifer Houston (Labor) loses seat to Finlay. In Bass, we currently have 81% counted, which is pretty good. Premier Gutwein has already smashed Will Hodgman's 2018 record for the largest number of personal votes ever recorded by a candidate, and his 48.2% primary vote is the second highest of all time, behind Doug Lowe's 51.2% (which was pre DR KEVIN BONHAM: 2021 TASMANIAN POSTCOUNT: LYONS Rebecca White has topped the poll with 1.4 quotas. Guy Barnett is also over quota and Mark Shelton is on .72 quotas and will win, though it will take a while. On the Liberal side we have John Tucker, elected on a recount mid-term, who is 1109 votes ahead of Meander Valley councillor Stephanie Cameron, who has outpolled her councilmate SusieBower.
DR KEVIN BONHAM: SENATE SURPRISE: ABETZ DEMOTED TO THIRD Senate Surprise: Abetz Demoted To Third. News has just come through that Tasmanian Liberal preselectors have released a ticket with Senator Jonathon Duniam first, Senator Wendy Askew second and Senator Eric Abetz third. This comes as a surprise after recent Fontcast gossip that suggested Abetz and Duniam would fight out the top spot onthe
DR KEVIN BONHAM
ELECTORAL, POLLING AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS, COMMENT AND NEWS FROM THE HOME OF HARE-CLARK. WE WILL DECIDE WHAT POLLS HAVE FAILED IN THIS COUNTRY AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY HAVE FAILED. COMMON SENSEDOES NOT LIVE HERE.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2019 AUSTRALIA'S CLOSEST FEDERAL ELECTIONS (2019 WASN'T ONE OF THEM) This article is brought to you by the following quote from Brendan O'Connor, as Labor continues to grapple with its unexpected 2019 federal election loss and continues trying to work out whether what it did wrong this year was hardly anything or almost everything (or something in between): _"SOME OF THE CRITIQUES TO DATE, ESPECIALLY FROM OUTSIDE THE PARTY, REMIND ME OF THOSE ABSURD FOOTY MATCH REVIEWS WHERE DESPITE THE MARGINS BEING VERY CLOSE, EXTOL ONLY THE EXCELLENCE OF THE WINNERS AND DENIGRATE THE VIRTUES OF THE VANQUISHED, EVEN WHEN THERE WAS JUST AKICK IN IT."_
_
_ He's right, for the most part, of course. Analysis which praises everything the winner did (because they won) and pans everything the loser did (because they lost) is a massive problem in electoral commentary. I refer to it as "annotation by result", a chess termfor the same thing.
But there are a couple of big caveats here. Firstly if you're up against Richmond or GWS, you might think a loss by a few points was a decent effort and that with only a little fine-tuning, if you catch them on a bad day next time round, you'll beat them. But if you think you're a good team and you lose by a goal to the Gold Coast Suns, you might be sacking more than the captain. One of the hard things with elections is that you can say how much one side won by, but that doesn't tell you if both sides campaigned well or if they were both hopeless. Before the election the Morrison Government hardly looked like Grand Final material! The second one is: was 2019 really comparable to a one-kick loss? In some ways yes, because the government only scrambled to a three seat majority. But on the other hand, the government won nine more seats than Labor, healthily won the two-party preferred vote, and did so well at sandbagging marginal seats that it wasn't even sweating on the post-count to know that it had won. (In fairness to O'Connor he didn't actually say that the 2019 result was comparable to a one-kick loss, but that was just the media-received meaning of the comment.) So through this last week I've been thinking about a multi-factor process for ranking the closeness of federal elections. There's no one indicator that captures everything about how close an election was, or that is faultless, so when in doubt, aggregate. I've aggregated the results of five different measures by two different aggregation methods (one based on rankings, one on magnitude), and then reweighted and averaged the two aggregates to produce what I think is a decent attempt at ranking which elections were close and which were not. Of course, there can always be arguments; some questions aren't meant to be answered. I've confined this ranking to the elections from 1910 on, since 1910 marks the emergence of a two-party system that has pretty much survived until this day. Winning elections is mainly about winning seats. That's a _post hoc_ justification for seat tallies being three of my five indicators. But it also matters whether a comfortable win in seat terms was a product of general voter satisfaction, or a result of a lot of luck in close contests. So two of my indicators make use of two-partyresults.
I've worked all this out quickly and don't guarantee anything to be error-free. But because I am aggregating across multiple indicators, any errors probably won't matter too much. Here's a link to thespreadsheet I used
,
but there's no need to contact me about any _minor_ errors that won't affect the overall rankings. The five indicators are: 1. SIZE OF GOVERNMENT MAJORITY AS A SHARE OF ALL SEATS Obviously a government that has won with a big majority has done very well for itself while no government wants to (and few governments have had to) depend on capricious crossbenchers for confidence and supply. So this indicator is THE NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT MPS MINUS THE NUMBER OF ALL OTHER MPS, DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF SEATS. Some judgement calls have been made in cases of state branches of government parties that may or may not have been formally parts of theCoalition.
Incorrect claims about the size of the government's majority are common in media reporting. The majority is typically determined as the number of government MPs minus the number of all others, so that the Turnbull government started with a majority of two and the current government with a majority of three. To say the current government has a majority of one is silly, because if it lost a seat to Labor it would still have 76/151 seats, which is a majority - albeit not a floor majority, so it would need the Speaker's casting vote to pass legislation opposed by the opposition and crossbench. One issue with majority as a measure is it doesn't deal with differences over time in the size of the crossbench. A majority of three is much more comfortable with six crossbenchers than it would be with none. At many times federal elections have had few or no crossbenchers, but at times there have been many (particularly in the early days of the Country Party, but also more recently). Another important issue with this one (and also the following two) is that what parties are part of government is sometimes determined _post hoc_. So in 1922, the Nationalist-Country coalition had a majority of five. But it acheived this only at the cost of Billy Hughes departing as Prime Minister as the condition for the Country Partyjoining.
The closest elections by this measure were: 2010 (a majority of -6), 1940, 1919, and 1913 tied with 2016. 1919 is a good example of why this is a dodgy metric, because the Hughes Government could well have formed a coalition with proto-Country elements if it had to. The least close were 1975, 1917, 1977, 1925 and Labor's biggest win in1943.
2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION SEATS AS A SHARE OFALL SEATS
This one does a better job of accounting for variation in crossbench size than number 1. What it doesn't do so well is deal with the rare cases where a crossbench of decent size is known to support one party much more than the other. There were a few cases where the Country Party did not go into coalition with the proto-Liberals but nonetheless clearly had confidence in their government. The closest elections by this measure were 2010, 1913, 1961, 1969 and 1990. 2010 is the only case of a government not having more seats than the opposition. The least close were the same five in the same order as for method 1. 3. EXPECTED MARGIN OF CONFIDENCE This one gives an estimated margin for a vote of confidence in the new government, again as a proportion of the size of the parliament. In general it assumes that Greens, Lang Labor and independent Labor candidates will give confidence to Labor governments, and that Country, independent Country/Nationalist/UAP (original)/Liberal candidates will give confidence to the Coalition. However there are exceptions - eg I treat the Nationalists who voted (in effect) to dump Stanley Bruce's government as giving confidence to Labor. Usually I ignore independents not clearly aligned to a party, but in some cases they made statements on confidence clear enough to assign them to a party (in some cases I have even braved to assign Bob Katter!). Zali Steggall only said her "preference" was to deal with the Coalition, soI ignored that.
The reservation attached to this indicator is that a government reliant on crossbenchers who give it confidence is more vulnerable than one that has a majority in its own right. And indeed one government that started out with a margin of confidence of two votes actually fell without losing any seats along the way. The closest elections by this measure were 2010 tied with 1913, 1961, 1940 and 1974. The least close were 1931, 1934, 1975, 1917 and 1977. 1931 was not so well picked up by the indicators above, because the Country Party was on the crossbench. 4. TWO PARTY PREFERRED RESULT FOR GOVERNMENT Here I've used the AEC 2PPs for 1983 onwards, just the shares of major party primary votes for the few first-past-the-post elections, and for the remaining years the average of 2PPs computed by various authorities and posted by David Barry here.
The main issue with 2PP is cases like 1998, in which a government uses personal vote effects and sandbagging to win reasonably easily despite losing the 2PP. After all parties know the 2PP does not decide elections by itself and that what decides elections is winning seats. Nonetheless, attempts to run a seat-focused strategy at the expense of 2PP quite often come up short. Another issue with 2PP is that early elections often had uncontested seats and there is no right way to deal with those. In some cases the uncontested seats were much more on one side than the other so leaving them out gives one side a 2PP advantage. A third issue is malapportionment. The Coalition had a malapportionment advantage at times prior to the 1970s; this was especially apparent at times during the Menzies years. Often the malapportionment was not deliberate but a product of lax review schedules and overly generous variation allowances. Some Coalition wins in this time were less close than the 2PP makes them appear. The closest elections on this criteria are those where the government actually loses the 2PP (even if these are not the closest 2PP results), so the closest five were 1998, 1954, 1961, 1969 and 1990. The most lopsided were 1931, 1943, 1966, 1929 and 1975. It's notable that four of the top five here came after the previous government had collapsed on the floor of the House. 5. SWING TO CHANGE RESULT ASSUMING UNIFORM SWING This one produces some interesting results. Sometimes governments win by a few seats, but win the seats they need comfortably. Sometimes governments win comfortably in seat terms, but have a lot of close seats go their way. This one asks: how much worse would the government need to have done on a uniform basis in order to lose or at least reach a deadlocked parliament? Australia hasn't had a deadlocked federal parliament for any length of time, but it's doubtful a government would last long in one with a permanent floor minority if it provides the Speaker. For this one I've had to make a lot of assumptions concerning who would and wouldn't provide confidence (as with method 3) and I've also had to cut some corners concerning non-classic seats. In lopsided results especially, the pendulum gets crammed with contests where one of the majors fails to make the final two and so there is no 2PP result. I've usually assumed that these seats would not fall with any swing, but I've made an exception for Wentworth 2019 where Kerryn Phelps is a reasonable proxy for Labor (at least to the point of assuming a 2PP swing of, say, 2% would have seen her retain the seat). The main issue with this indicator is that a win that is comfortable in seat terms but close in uniform swing terms is still further from defeat than one that is less comfortable in seat terms, because an event affecting many seats is less likely than one affecting a few. However the other indicators will pick up that. The closest results on this indicator are 1961 (the infamous if overrated Communist preferences story!), 1940, 2010, 1993 and 1954. 1993 is a surprise inclusion - although Keating's ALP won re-election with a seat result of 80-65-2, there were _eight_ seats they won with less than 50.5% 2PP, making this a closer win by this method than the one-seat margin in 1913. The least close come out as 1931, 1966, 1955, 1975 and 1934. 1931 comes out as a huge outlier here on a margin exceeding 13%, but this is likely to be exaggerated by the numerous non-classic contests. In any case, that helps cancel out the artificially narrow majority of the Lyons Government because it did not need Country Party support. David Barry's site was immensely useful for this section, as were the pre-1925 pendulums on Wikipedia. Any errors in use of the data aremine.
THE CLOSEST AND LEAST CLOSE ELECTIONS After all this I get the following ranking for the closest tenelections:
1. 2010: Labor wins a government in minority under Julia Gillard after weeks of post-counting and negotiation. This result is the furthest into the red in seat terms, the only one where a government has not had more seats than the opposition, one of the weakest positions on confidence and not much to write home about on the 2PP front either. Plus one more seat loss and it wouldn't have happened at all. 2. 1961: The credit-squeezed Menzies government survives with 62 voting seats to 60 after winning the last seat by a whisker and losingthe 2PP.
3. 1940: The first Menzies government survives for part of a term after losing its majority and being reliant on two crossbenchers. Although this is a minority government and not a majority as in 1961, it ranks as less close than 1961 in confidence terms because the parliament was smaller, and also the 2PP was slightly higher, as was the margin by which chaos was avoided in the last seat won. 4. 1913: Joseph Cook takes office by a single seat, only to throw it away a year later when his attempt to get a bigger majority is ruined by World War I. The only one-seat majority doesn't rank as high as it might because in those days the parliament was smaller. 5. 2016: Malcolm Turnbull underperforms in a long and tedious campaign and eventually struggles to a two-seat majority with a minor 2PP win and a substantial crossbench. 6. 1954: Robert Menzies' government comes back from a horror budget and some of the worst polling ever seen with a free kick from the Petrov affair right at the end (though by then he was probably winning anyway). Menzies' majority is seven seats but he loses the 2PP and is very close to defeat in swing terms. There's a case for moving this one below the next few because of uncontested seats affecting the2PP (see comments).
7. 1974: A close call for Gough Whitlam at his only re-election attempt as PM (he'd been sacked before the second one) - he stays in with a five-seat majority. 8. 1969: A calamitous collapse for the Gorton government which survives a massive swing with a seven-seat majority despite losing the2PP.
9. 1990: The Hawke government loses the 2PP and only holds off Andrew Peacock with an eight-seat majority. 10. 1998: Although John Howard gets back with a 13-seat majority, his is the worst winning 2PP for a federal government, and on a uniform basis another 1% of swing would have been the end of it. TEN BIGGEST THUMPINGS The following are the ten least close elections on my rankings: 1. 1975: The post-Dismissal election sees the Labor Party smashed by Malcolm Fraser's Liberals. Although not the biggest win in 2PP or swing-to-change terms, it is the biggest win in terms of government majority and the third biggest on confidence margin. 2. 1917: Billy Hughes leaves the Labor Party, merging with his opponents to form the Nationalists, who thrash the Labor remnants in a lopsided wartime election. Again not so huge on 2PP or swing-to-change but an enormous majority in seat terms. 3. 1943: The other wartime pasting; this is John Curtin's Labor government cleaning up the rabble of the Fadden-Hughes coalition which had collapsed mid-term in the previous parliament. A little less overwhelming in seat terms and swing-to-change terms than 2PP terms, perhaps because of malapportionment. 4. 1931: Joseph Lyons comes to power in a landslide after Joseph Scullin's Labor government collapses under the weight of the Depression and internal chaos. The biggest win in confidence and 2PP terms and way ahead of the pack on swing-to-change (though probably inflated there as noted above). However gets marked down on the other indicators and avoids being top of the list because the Country Party didn't join the government. 5. 1977: Another massive win for Malcolm Fraser as Labor wastes an election by maintaining its rage with Gough Whitlam. 6. 1966: Harold Holt's thumping win against a dated and xenophobic ALP under Arthur Calwell (who only five years earlier had been very competitive). This ranks second, albeit a distant second, on my swing-to-change measure. 7. 1934: Joseph Lyons retains office against an ALP still reeling from its Depression loss. Although Labor got a big swing back on 2PP at this election, the swing-to-change measure suggests that the 2PP result flattered the Opposition. 8. 1925: A thumping win by Stanley Melbourne Bruce's Nationalist-Country Coalition, ranking fourth largest in terms of government majorities. 9. 1929: Finally another Labor win and this is Scullin taking office after Bruce's government collapsed. The fourth-biggest win by 2PP but little better than average on the swing-to-change measure. 10. 1958: Menzies had two very easy wins in the 1950s, 1955 and 1958, in both of which the swing-to-change measure suggests an even easier win than the 2PP suggests. There's a strong case for including 1955 in this top ten too - the 2PP was blighted by uncontested seats. It will be noted that only two of the ten biggest wins are by Labor. Labor's next biggest wins are 1946 (14th) and 1983 (16th). 2007 doesn't even make the top half, perhaps because of personal vote effects from the 2004 drubbing.WHAT ABOUT 2019?
Here is the detailed scorecard for 2019: * 7TH CLOSEST ON GOVERNMENT MAJORITY * 9TH CLOSEST ON GOVERNMENT LEAD OVER OPPOSITION AND EXPECTEDCONFIDENCE MARGIN
* 17TH CLOSEST ON 2PP * 20TH CLOSEST ON SWING TO CHANGE On the 2019 post-election pendulum, the closest Coalition wins were Bass (0.41), Chisholm (0.57), Wentworth (1.31 vs IND) and Boothby (1.38). But even assuming the Coalition lost all of those, it would probably still have governed in a 73-71-7 house, at least initially, though the whole thing would have been a total mess and could well have led to a mid-term change of government or a fresh election. It takes a much bigger uniform swing of 2.69% to knock out another seat, Swan, at which point the outcome is anyone's guess. So on the swing to change measure, this was actually a typical federal election result, and on 2PP it was only slightly closer than the median. My rankings have 2019 11TH (and a long way clear of 10th). That places it around the 25th percentile. Checking the frequency distribution for AFL games,
this means elections as close as 2019 happen as often as 12-point defeats. So Labor didn't lose by a kick; rather, they lost by twostraight kicks.
Posted by Kevin Bonhamat 2:34 PM
2 comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share
to Twitter
Share
to Facebook
Share
to Pinterest
Labels: 2019 federal,
analogies ,
close elections
,
federal , fluff
, landslides
, measuring
closeness
,
pseph
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 WONK CENTRAL: THE HARE-CLARK RECOUNT BUG AND THE WANGARATTA CASE Welcome back to WONK CENTRAL, this site's sporadic series of articles that have been deemed too mathsy, too quirky or too niche for remotely normal human consumption. In this case, it's clearly all three. In this episode we take a very close look at the HARE-CLARK RECOUNT BUG (which could also be called the Hare-Clark Countback Bug, but "recount" is the term confusingly used for countbacks in Tasmanian law). What is it, why don't we kill it, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? The impetus for this article is a recent court case in Victoria, in which a candidate disadvantaged by the bug in a Wangaratta Council countback in 2017 took legal action but lost.
Among other tries, the plaintiff (a local doctor, former soldier and Australian Country Party candidate in last year's state election) claimed that the use of a countback method that disadvantaged him deprived him of the human right to take part in public life. For various reasons, the judgement didn't get into the weeds of whether the countback system in use was fair or whether there was any better alternative. Therefore, let's go there here. THE SYSTEM AND ITS ORIGIN The principle behind recounts in Hare-Clark and other similar multi-member systems is that when there is a casual vacancy, the new member who fills that vacancy should, to the greatest extent possible, be a like-for-like replacement for the member who has resigned or died. (See a good general explanation on the PRSA (Vic-Tas) page .) The argument for this is that this best preserves the intention of the original voters. The method by which this is done is - in simple terms - TO REDISTRIBUTE THE VOTES THAT THE DEPARTING MEMBER HAD AT THE POINT OF THEIR ELECTION AMONG THE CANDIDATES CONTESTING THE COUNTBACK. (In practice it is a little more complex than that, because of adjustments to bring the departing member's votes to quota or as close to it as possible, but the idea that it is _only the departing member's votes_ is the most important point.) This system of countbacks, with minor changes along the way, goes back 100 years. In the very early days of Hare-Clark in Tasmania, casual vacancies were filled by single-seat by-elections. However these frequently changed the composition of the House, a
bigger issue in finely-balanced proportional-representation parliaments than in single seat systems where large seat margins are common. (A further reason not to use single-seat by-elections, that they would tend to replace minor party MPs with major party MPs, had yet to become as apparent as it is today). The countback system, "given to the Committee in evidence by a certain Mr Samuel Bind, Coach Builder of Burnie", has been hugely successful at delivering like-for-like replacement at party level in Tasmanian state politics. In 100 years of it, there have been just three cases where its use has resulted in a change of partycomposition:
* DENISON 1983 , a well-known case in which Democrat Norm Sanders' seat was taken by independent Bob Brown. Both had been high-profile anti-dam campaigners and Sanders' voters had tended to preference Brown higher than Sanders' very low-profile Democrat running mates. * BRADDON 1961, a much less well-known case in which ex-ALP independent Reg Turnbull resigned and his countback went to a Labor candidate rather than his independent running mate. * CLARK 2019 (recount for Denison 2018), in which former Labor MP Madeleine Ogilvie, who had contested the election as a Labor candidate, won Labor MP Scott Bacon's countback but then chose to sit as an independent. (See detailed coverage.)
The first two cases are simply examples of the system giving voice to a voter view of like-for-like that happened to cut across party (or independent group) lines. The third highlights a possible weakness of the system - using defeated candidates from a previous election to fill vacancies may mean that vacancies are filled by candidates disenchanted by losing to within-party challengers. However it can't be too common an issue, since this is the first time such an MP hasdefected.
The system, clearly successful based on its major objectives in Tasmania, has been exported to local councils. But local councils often don't have strong party systems, and the system seems to have been more criticised in council contexts, especially outside Tasmania. SO WHERE'S THE PROBLEM? The problem canvassed in Dr Fidge's unsuccessful Wangaratta appeal involves the way in which countbacks can favour some candidates who failed to be elected in the original election over others. The cases in question involve a countback for a vacating member (who may have resigned or died) where the vacating member was elected at a later stage of the distribution of preferences. In this Wangaratta case the quota in the 2016 election had been 1971 votes in a race for 4 seats. The primary votes wereKen Clarke 1950
Dean Rees 1524
JULIAN FIDGE 1271
Dave Fuller 1004
Ruth Amery 920
Ashlee Fitzpatrick 876 Greg Mirabella 835 (there's a familiar name!) George Dimopoulos 619Russell Stone 447
Luke Davies 406
Nobody had quota so Davies was excluded. This put Clarke over quota with a very small surplus, which was followed by the exclusions of Stone, Dimopoulos and Mirabella. Mirabella's exclusion gave Rees a small surplus. After all this the remaining candidates were:Amery 1603
FIDGE 1553
Fuller 1448
Fitzpatrick 1296
Fidge had already fallen to fourth. Fitzpatrick's #1 votes now took Amery to 2061 (well over quota) and Fitzpatrick's remaining votes put Fuller over quota as well, with Fidge left in the count unelected in fifth place with a final tally of 1734. We can note from this that Fidge attracted a strong primary vote but, in this field, fewpreferences.
THE 2017 COUNTBACK
Councillor Amery died suddenly in 2017 and her place was filled by countback of her 1971 votes (this total is reached by slightly reducing the value of her votes received from Fitzpatrick to bring Amery down to quota, although they were not reduced in value in theoriginal count.)
Amery's 1971 votes included her 920 primaries, which in theory could have flowed next to any of the six countback candidates. But they also included 1051 votes that had been #1 votes for Davies, Stone, Dimopoulos, Mirabella or Fitzpatrick - but not Fidge because he was never excluded. On the countback, all these 1051 votes returned, at least initially, to the candidate they had been #1 votes for. After throwing all Amery's votes to the candidates, votes stood at:Fitzpatrick 652
Mirabella 445
Dimopoulos 323
Stone 285
Davies 165
Fidge 95
Fidge was first excluded from the countback and Fitzpatrick went onto win.
Even had the other candidates not got any of their first preferences back (ie had only Amery's first preferences been used in the countback), Fidge would not have won. Only 10.3% of Amery's primary voters had preferenced him above the other five countback contenders and Fidge would have been eliminated in last place or second-last anyway. Also, had the countback been just of Amery's primary votes, Fitzpatrick would still have been the initial leader, and would probably have won the countback. And even had Fidge polled a better share of Amery's primaries, his performance on preferences in the original election suggests he still would have struggled. So in this case there is not a real question of the countback having failed to pick the most like-for-like replacement. It is, however, a great illustration of how it _could_, with Fidge's opponents getting an average of 210 votes back at the start of the countback that Fidge had no immediate access to. If the idea is to find the best like-for-like replacement for Amery, why is a vote that is, say, 1 Stone 2 Amery fully relevant to that consideration, while a vote that is 1 Fidge 2 Amery is irrelevant? Sure, the former was among the votes that elected Amery while the latter was not. However, worse than this just being an accident, Fidge is being punished in the countback for getting too many votes in the original election! The other thing worth noting here is that Fitzpatrick (who won the recount easily) was also slightly disadvantaged by the bug. In the original election she gave 458 of her primaries to Amery, but in the countback she only got 368 back. WHY NOT REDO THE WHOLE COUNT WITHOUT THE VACATING MEMBER?A 2014 review
of the Victorian submission picked up a range of other discontents about using the original election to conduct recounts. Especially, countbacks can often elect obscure candidates who polled poorly in the original election, especially where a councillor is elected on a vacancy then quits, triggering a second countback. The Municipal Association of Victoria submitted: _"Currently, if a councillor resigns, the only votes that are counted in a countback are the votes forming part of the resigning councillor’s quota. Presumably this was designed before the advent of computers to reduce the labour intensiveness of conducting arecount._
_
_
_The drawback of the current approach is that it does not deliver the most democratic result or reflect the voting intention of all of the electors who cast a vote in the particular contest.__
_
_For example, if Councillor X was elected over candidate Y by a small margin (eg. 1 vote) for the last_ _position to be elected in a particular ward at the general election, in a subsequent recount, the only_ _votes which would be counted are those votes which comprised Councillor X’s quota. This would almost certainly lead to an outcome where some other less-preferred candidate to candidate Y was elected, despite candidate Y sitting on 99.9% of a quota. I.e. even if candidate Y won 49% of Councillor X’s quota compared to candidate Z winning 51%, candidate X would be elected despite candidate’s Y original votes (one vote short of a quota) remaining untouched and uncounted on the table. This produces an anomaly where votes for candidate Y are disenfranchised and votes for Councillor X are given a disproportionate and unnecessary influence."__
_
As the link to the Tasmanian history above shows, the MAV's submission is wrong about pre-computer labour intensiveness as a factor. Rather, the original aim was like-for-like replacement as a replacement for by-elections with the express aim of preserving the stability of party numbers, and there is no evidence that a countback of all the votes was ever canvassed. The MAV's submission is also overdoing it in saying that the candidate disadvantaged by the bug will almost certainly lose. In a case like Wangaratta, the candidate starts without direct access to about half the votes. But if they poll well enough on the remaining votes to survive the initial cut, they can then start picking up preferences from the #1 votes of excluded candidates in the countback. A candidate who is strongly preferred by primary supporters of the vacating candidate can still win. Indeed, when I went looking through Tasmanian recounts I hadn't looked at before for an example of this, the _very first one_ I checked was pretty relevant. In Break O'Day at the 2018 council elections, John Tucker (now a state Liberal MP) was elected late in the piece, and Margaret Osborne was the last unelected candidate left in the count, missing out by less than a tenth of a quota. Osborne was fully disadvantaged by the recount bug, and five of her opponents were not disadvantaged by it with a sixth partly disadvantaged. However Osborne won the countback very easily. An important difference was that a smaller share of the available votes in that case were affected by the bug. It's also a little misleading to refer to candidate Y's original untouched votes. The reason is that not all of those votes started with candidate Y. In a full countback, the order of exclusions might change and some of those votes might never reach Y in the first place. And it's _very_ misleading to call candidate Y's voters disenfranchised. One is not disenfranchised just because one's vote landed with a candidate who didn't win in the original election or because one gets no say in who replaces them; it just means elections have winners and losers. But in any case, this opposition to vacating-candidate countbacks gained currency and the Victorian Government was intending as of 2018 to replace them with full recounts, a course opposed in submissions by the PRSA (Vic-Tas) and Victorian Electoral Commission. I'm not exactly sure where the proposal stands now but the issue may have been overtaken by the Victorian Government's current, and even worse, idea of reverting to single-member wards for most councils. Aside from labour issues (irrelevant if ballots are data-entered) there are two big problems with redoing the original count with the departing member's votes redistributed: 1. IT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF LIKE REPLACING LIKE In a contest where a candidate has narrowly beaten a politically opposing candidate for the final seat, a full countback for that candidate's seats will often elect the opponent. While it can be argued that this is the revised intention of the voters, the unwelcome aspect of it is that it may deter an incumbent from resigning in a case (such as a scandal or ill health) where resigning is a good idea. The principle of like replacing like usually encourages incumbents who should resign to do so, knowing that someone similar should replace them and the balance of their council or parliament should not be affected. 2. IT CAN "UN-ELECT" ORIGINAL WINNERS In a full countback it can sometimes happen that a candidate who won in the original election, and wants to continue, ceases to be a winner. This could have happened to Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim, and who knows what the High Court would have done about it. It did happen to Melbourne City Councillor Michael Caiafa, albeit with Group Ticket Voting nonsense a factor in that instance. A good Hare-Clark example is Denison 2010. Elise Archer (Lib) outlasted Richard Lowrie (Lib) by 61 votes. Archer then went on to outlast Andrew Wilkie (Ind) by 315 after Greens preferences did not flow quite strongly enough to Wilkie. In a recount minus some originally elected candidate other than Archer, it's possible Lowrie would have edged out Archer at the key point because of changes to the values of votes, thereby "unelecting" Archer. It's also possible that having done this he would have eventually lost to Wilkie, so (for instance) a Labor vacancy could cause a Liberal seat to fall to anindependent.
WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN A FULL COUNTBACK ANYWAY? The court finding presents as factual background that Fidge not only got more primary votes than Fitzpatrick, but also had more votes after the distribution of preferences (1734-1296). But the latter is a useless statistic, because Fidge's total of 1724 includes votes he received from Fitzpatrick after her exclusion (and also, since Fitzpatrick was excluded, her final score in the preference distribution was actually zero). We know that in the original count Fidge was 258 up on Fitzpatrick when she was excluded, but that does not mean he would beat her in a full countback with extra votes addedto the count.
The relevant question regarding a full countback is the point at the original count where Davies, Stone, Dimopoulos and Mirabella had been excluded and Amery, Fuller, Fitzpatrick and Fidge were competing for two places. In a full countback, the 1599 votes that originally went to Amery would have been distributed to other candidates and ultimately settled with one of Fuller, Fitzpatrick and Fidge. At this point Fidge was 106 ahead of Fuller and 258 ahead of Fitzpatrick. We know that Fidge was a much weaker performer than Fitzpatrick on Amery's primaries, and also that Fidge performed very weakly on Fitzpatrick's primaries compared to both Amery and Fuller, getting only 10.8% of them in a three-way throw. If Amery's preferences flowed anything like Fitzpatrick's, then the most likely result of a full countback would be both Fitzpatrick and Fuller jumping Fidge and Fidge finishing fifth again. Another possibility in theory would be Fitzpatrick jumping both Fidge and Fuller without Fuller passing Fidge, in which case Fuller would beunelected.
OTHER SOLUTIONS
Besides full countbacks, which I think should be rejected for the reasons stated above, here are some other possible options for filling Hare-Clark and similar casual vacancies:PARTY NOMINATION
This is the procedure used (subject to what is usually a state parliament rubber stamp) for the Senate. It is appropriate for the Senate because the regimented ticket order with above-the-line votes flowing down the ticket means that some positions on any ticket are likely to be uncompetitive and parties are likely to nominate ticket-fillers rather than serious candidates for those positions. Another arguable advantage for federal politics is that parties can run star candidates for risky Lower House seats and still have the option of using them to fill Senate vacancies if they fail. However, for Hare-Clark the point against it is that the party is appointing a candidate with no electoral mandate, while the original election provides a way of picking a candidate with a mandate from the election's voters. (That said, in Tasmania parties sometimes deliberately run filler candidates to concentrate their vote in their incumbent MPs, and then struggle if those fillers are later elected oncountback.)
MIXING IN THE LEFTOVER QUOTA To avoid the issue of unelection it's sometimes argued that the votes from the leftover quota (in this case the votes Fidge finished with and a few from surpluses of Fuller and Amery) should be included in the countback as well as the vacating member's final votes. However, this violates like-for-like replacement, probably much more seriously than full countbacks do. JUST USE THE VACATING MEMBER'S PRIMARIES (AND PERHAPS THE SURPLUS VOTES THEY RECEIVE FROM CANDIDATES WHO MAKE QUOTA BEFORE ANYBODY ISEXCLUDED)
This solution would get rid of the countback bug and put all countback contestants on an equal footing in the race to be deemed the most like-for-like replacement for the vacating member. But it also disadvantages those voters who voted 1 for a candidate who was excluded early and preferenced the vacating member, since their vote no longer has any impact on the replacement of that member. In some cases, that can be most of the vacating member's voters. It increases the problem of countback candidates winning with a verysmall mandate.
INCLUDE VOTES FOR FAILED CANDIDATES THAT WOULD HAVE FLOWED TO THE VACATING MEMBER HAD THOSE CANDIDATES BEEN EXCLUDED BEFORE THE VACATINGMEMBER WAS ELECTED
This seems like an obvious try but it is fraught with messy problems. One is that for a vacating member who was elected early in the exclusion process, the countback may end up swamped with votes for unsuccessful candidates and become much less representative of the near-quota of voters who voted for the vacating candidate. Another is that many votes of this type will have gone on to elect somebody else so those voters would get two bites of the cherry. A third is that whether or not a vote would have flowed is obvious enough if it is a second preference for the vacating member but can be difficult toidentify otherwise.
(Oddly, what's suggested here does happen to a limited degree in cases where the last candidate is elected without quota because of exhaust. The final losing candidate has their votes thrown to try to bring the vacating member up to quota, a peculiar procedure which can help reduce the impact of the bug on that losing candidate. To give an idea of just how weird this piece of quota-fetishism is, it can result in votes being included in a departing member's recount _when the voter put the departing member last_.) IT'S NOT A BUG, IT'S A FEATURE! Lastly there's the suggestion that there is actually nothing much wrong with the recount procedure as it stands and it actually should be as it is. I've seen people say this pretty often, though I don't remember the arguments used or who exactly made them. Anyone of this mind is welcome to have a go in comments. I can't promise a Fields Medal to anyone who provides a satisfactory improvement to the recount procedures, but the number of Hare-Clark junkies who would consider the solver of this problem Very Clever could well number in the dozens! A few electoral commissions would be interested too ... Posted by Kevin Bonhamat 8:48 PM
4 comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share
to Twitter
Share
to Facebook
Share
to Pinterest
Labels: casual vacancies,
Hare-Clark ,
Hare-Clark recounts
,
local government
,
recount bug
,
Victoria ,
Victoria councils
,
Wangaratta ,
wonk factor
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 DID A LATE SWITCH-OFF FROM SHORTEN CAUSE LABOR TO LOSE? _(Note for Tas readers and anyone else interested: Scott Bacon recount thread is here)_
Nearly four months after the election, Labor and its supporters are still having great trouble working out what happened. Ahead in the (faulty) polls for an entire term, well ahead in them for much of it, Labor managed to lose to a government that had seemingly imploded nine months earlier. There are basically three possible explanations. The first is that Labor should have won the election, but that at least some central parts of its policy platform were wrong. The second is that Labor should have won the election and that its policies were sound, but it was let down largely by tactical issues. The third, about which little has been said, is that Labor could not have won anyway. (The idea here is that voters no longer care about governance scandals or internal party turmoil so long as they like the PM and the basic way that he is leading.) A version of the second theory - and by the way, I don't subscribe to _any_ version of the second theory - says that Labor's policy mix was OK but Labor was undone by spurious "death tax" scare campaigns and a massive advertising spend by Clive Palmer against Bill Shorten. (Those arguing this tend to oversimplify things as if the United Australia Party did little in the campaign but attack Shorten.) Adherents of this theory seem to have taken succour from findings of arecent ANU study
that has been reported as finding that Labor lost because the Coalition made net primary vote gains in a volatile environment during the campaign, and also that a big part of Labor's failure to do likewise was voters switching from Labor to other parties because they became more negative towards Bill Shorten.Read more »
Posted by Kevin Bonhamat 2:16 PM
2 comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share
to Twitter
Share
to Facebook
Share
to Pinterest
Labels: #auspollfail, 2019
federal
, Clive
Palmer ,
debunkings ,
federal ,
Morrison ,
Opposition Leaders
,
pseph , Shorten
, volatility
, vote
switching
SATURDAY, AUGUST 31, 2019 NOT-A-POLL: BEST STATE PREMIERS OF THE LAST 40-ISH YEARS - FINALSTAGE 2
A very long year ago today I started a new series of Not-A-Pollvoting
for this site's choice of Best State Premier in every state and, eventually, the whole country. It's been going so long that some of the original contestants, including the current leader, are no longer in the original 40 year window, but I'm going to just retitle it andignore that.
The votes are in for part 1 of the final for the state winners and the Coalition winner (the latter being an open-primary consolation prize on account of the roughly 80-20 left-right bias in readers on psephology websites). And here theyare:
Don Dunstan 34.83% (70 votes) Nick Greiner 18.41% (37 votes) Daniel Andrews 11.94% (24 votes) Neville Wran 11.44% (23 votes) Jim Bacon 8.96% (18 votes) Wayne Goss 7.96% (16 votes) Katy Gallagher 3.98% (8 votes) Clare Martin 1.49% (3 votes) Geoff Gallop 0.99% (2 votes)Total Votes: 201
Read more »
Posted by Kevin Bonhamat 6:23 PM
No comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share
to Twitter
Share
to Facebook
Share
to Pinterest
Labels: Bacon ,
Dunstan , fluff
, Not-A-Poll
, state
Premiers
WHY I DON'T PREFER ABOLISHING ABOVE THE LINE VOTING This week I sent a submission (not yet posted) to the Victorian Electoral Matters committee, concerning the
2018 Victorian election. Primarily, my submission called for the abolition of Group Ticket Voting in the Victorian Legislative Council and its replacement with a Senate-style system or similar. This follows a farcical, gamed-to-death 2018 election in which ten micro-party MLCs were elected from primary vote shares eight of them would not have won from under any other system, including two from less than 1% of the vote. In the event that Victoria won't abolish Group Ticket Voting completely, I suggested the state at least clip its wings a little by: * allowing an above-the-line preferencing option, so that votes that were just-1 above the line would still be distributed by Group Ticket, but voters could choose to distribute their own party preferences asin the Senate.
* banning preference trading and a range of related consultantactivities
* bulk-excluding all parties that fail to clear a primary vote threshold of 4% at the start of the countRead more »
Posted by Kevin Bonhamat 1:45 PM
4 comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share
to Twitter
Share
to Facebook
Share
to Pinterest
Labels: debunkings
, electoral
reform
,
Ginninderra
, group
tickets
,
Hare-Clark ,
Mackerras ,
proportionality
, pseph
, purists
, Tasmania
, Victoria
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2019 EXPECTED SCOTT BACON RECOUNT RESIGNING MP: SCOTT BACON (ALP, CLARK) RECOUNT FROM 2018 STATE ELECTION FOR REMAINDER OF 2018-22 TERM CONTEST BETWEEN MADELEINE OGILVIE AND TIM COX OGILVIE LIKELY, BUT NOT CERTAIN, TO WIN OGILVIE MAY SIT AS INDEPENDENT AND SHARE EFFECTIVE BALANCE OF POWER WITH SUE HICKEY, OR MAY REJOIN LABOR. RECOUNT UPDATES WILL NOW BE ADDED AT THE TOP PREVIOUS PARTY-HOPPING CASES: As noted below Ogilvie's (under unique circumstances for Tasmania) is the first case of a Lower House MP deserting their party mid-term and sitting with a different party status in 38 years. However prior to that, this was a more common event. Here is a not necessarily perfect list since World War II: * CARROL BRAMICH (1956) Labor to Liberal (policy tensions and internal issues). Re-elected as a Liberal. * REG TURNBULL (1959) Labor to IND (kicked out after refusing to resign as Minister). Re-elected with massive support, later Senator. * BILL HODGMAN (1960) Liberal to IND. Defeated. * TIM JACKSON (1960) Liberal to IND (leadership change fallout).Defeated.
* CHARLEY AYLETT (1963) Labor to IND (quit after being disendorsed).Defeated.
* KEVIN LYONS (1966) Liberal to IND (preselection issues). Later formed Centre Party and was re-elected. * NIGEL ABBOTT (1972) Liberal to IND (policy dispute). Defeated. * DOUG LOWE (1981) Labor to IND (leadership change fallout).Re-elected.
* MARY WILLEY (1981) Labor to IND (leadership change fallout).Defeated.
* MADELEINE OGILVIE (on recount 2019) Labor to IND (multiple factors) All of the Bramich, Turnbull and Lowe/Willey cases precipitated stateelections.
There is also the case of GABRIEL HAROS (Liberal) who lost preselection for the 1986 election and ran as an Independent, and probably other similar cases. It is interesting to note the weak performance of some of these independents at elections. In the 1964 election Bill Hodgman (Will's grandfather) managed only 475 votes and Charley Aylett only 102. This didn't stop Bill Hodgman going on to become a two-term MLC for Queenborough (1971-83).Read more »
Posted by Kevin Bonhamat 6:15 PM
5 comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share
to Twitter
Share
to Facebook
Share
to Pinterest
Labels: Clark ,
Hare-Clark ,
Hare-Clark recounts
,
Labor , Ogilvie
, Scott Bacon
,
Sherlock ,
state , Tasmania
, Tasmania
2018 ,
Tim Cox
TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2019 2019 FEDERAL ELECTION: POLLSTER PERFORMANCE REVIEW Welcome (belatedly) to another of my regular pieces that I do after all the election results are finalised and, um, we can't really give this one its usual title this year. Normally it's called "Best and Worst Pollsters" (see the comparable articles for 2013and 2016
)
but this year that title isn't really appropriate. This year was the year of the great Poll Fail,
and when it came to final voting intention polls at least, they all went down together. The story for seat polling turns out to be a little less clearcut, but not that much. For all the complaints about "too many polls", the frequency and diversity of Australian polls had been declining at state and federal level in the four years leading up to this election. At this election there were only five poll series conducting national polls, and of these two were conducted by the same pollster (YouGov-Galaxy conducts both Galaxy and Newspoll polls). I usually include three categories but this time I'm not going to take tracking too seriously. As usual the first cab off the rank is ... LEAST WORST FINAL POLL I usually say the final poll should be the easiest one for the less accurate pollsters to get right, because pollsters can look over each others' shoulders and consider corrections if everybody else is getting something vastly different. Thus there have been some prior cases where polls that differed from Newspoll for some time have jumped into line with it in their final poll. This year unfortunately it seems that some pollsters may have taken this concept a little too far - either that or multiple pollsters got to around the same 2PP coincidentally and then decided to self-herd from that point.Read more »
Posted by Kevin Bonhamat 9:40 PM
2 comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share
to Twitter
Share
to Facebook
Share
to Pinterest
Labels: #auspollfail, 2019
federal
, Env
Research Counsel
,
Essential ,
federal ,
Galaxy , Ipsos
, Lonergan
, Morgan
, Newspoll
, poll
accuracy
,
pollster awards
,
pseph , ReachTEL
, seat polls
, uComms
TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2019 EMRS: LABOR DOWN, BUT WILL THE OTHERS VOTERS PLEASE STAND UP? EMRS JULY RAW FIGURES: LIBERAL 38 LABOR 30 GREENS 16 OTHERS 16 ALSO RETRO-RELEASED EMRS MAY: LIBERAL 38 LABOR 34 GREENS 13 OTHERS 15 ALSO RETRO-RELEASED EMRS MARCH: LIBERAL 38 LABOR 34 GREENS 14 OTHERS14
POSSIBLE "INTERPRETATION" FIGURE FOR JULY POLL: LIBERAL 41 LABOR 32 GREEN 13 OTHERS 14 (MAYBE) LIBERALS COULD RETAIN MAJORITY IN AN ELECTION "HELD NOW" (13-9-3 OR 13-10-2), BUT THIS WOULD PROBABLY DEPEND ON WHAT HAPPENED WITH SUEHICKEY.
Tasmanian pollster EMRS has released a poll of Tasmanian state votingintention
,
and has also released the two previous polls in the series (which were not released at the time they were taken; the last released poll wasin December
).
The polls show a general pattern of a slim lead to the Liberal Government, support for which in the series crashed not long after the March 2018 election, but this particular poll has that gap widening to eight points, with Labor dropping four to 30%. Labor also polled 30% just after its election loss, and prior to that we have to go back to March 2017 to find it polling worse. The main beneficiaries are the Greens, who EMRS has long tended to have too high compared to their actual support at elections, but there is also a trend of "Others" continuing to rise, although less than 7% voted for "Others" at the last election. Who are all these people saying they would vote for someone else, and what are they thinking? The Labor slump would raise some concerns - as at federal level the party is currently struggling to work out what it stands for, and much of its oxygen on issues is being taken by Sue Hickey. However, at this stage it is just one reading and we need to see the next one to see if it's a blip or a lasting loss of enthusiasm.Read more »
Posted by Kevin Bonhamat 2:48 PM
No comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share
to Twitter
Share
to Facebook
Share
to Pinterest
Labels: EMRS ,
Hare-Clark ,
Lyons , Preferred
Leader scores
,
pseph , Rebecca
White ,
Tasmania ,
transparency
, Will
Hodgman
SUNDAY, AUGUST 4, 2019 2019 HOUSE OF REPS FIGURES FINALISED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------DONATIONS WELCOME!
If you find my coverage useful please consider donating to support the large amount of time I spend working on this site. Donations can be made by the Paypal button in the sidebar or email me via the address in my profile for my account details. Please only donate if you are sure you can afford to do so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The 2019 House of Representatives results have been finalised, a
joyous event that tends to arrive unheralded two to three months after every federal election. Although all the preference throws had been completed and uploaded some time ago, the final figures importantly include the two-party preference flows by party. Normally I say that this is very useful for assessing the performance of polls. At this election the polls failed dismally, mainly because of failures on the Coalition and Labor primaries (except for Ipsos which failed on the Greens primary instead of Labor); nonetheless there will be a final review of them here fairly soon. This article is a general roundup of other matters regarding the House of Reps figures.PREFERENCE SHIFTING
The final 2PP result is 51.53% to the Coalition and 48.47% to Labor, a 1.16% swing to the Coalition. There was a very large shift in the preferences of Pauline Hanson's One Nation. One Nation preferences flowed only 50.47% to Coalition in 2016 but 65.22% to Coalition in 2019 (even more than the 60-40 split believed to have been assumed by Newspoll after considering state election results). Overall, preferences from parties other than the Greens and One Nation also flowed more strongly to the Coalition by a few points (53.93% compared to 50.79%) but this was caused by the United Australia Party flowing 65.14% to the Coalition. Excluding the Greens, One Nation and UAP, Others preferences (50.7% to ALP) were 1.5 points stronger for Labor than in 2016. It is also interesting that Katters Australian Party preferences flowed 14 points more strongly to the Coalition, very similar to the shift for One Nation.Read more »
Posted by Kevin Bonhamat 1:57 PM
No comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share
to Twitter
Share
to Facebook
Share
to Pinterest
Labels: 2019 ,
2019 federal
, 2PP
, Animal Justice
Party
,
Bass , close seats
,
crossbench preferences,
crossbenchers
, federal
, Green
preferences
,
Macquarie ,
marginals ,
One Nation
, One
Nation prefs
,
pseph , United
Aus (ex-PUP)
Older Posts
Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)SEARCH THIS SITE
SUPPORT WELCOME!
Donations to help me spend more time working on this site or recognise work I've done are very welcome. You can use the PayPal button below or email me for bank account details. Please only donate if you are sure you can afford to do so. How much do you wish to send? 5 $5.00 AUD 10 $10.00 AUD 20 $20.00 AUD 30 $30.00 AUD 50 $50.00 AUD 75 $75.00 AUD 100 $100.00 AUD 200 $200.00 AUD 500 $500.00 AUD 1000$1,000.00 AUD
ABOUT ME
* Kevin Bonham
Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia
"Ego as big as Texas and about as flexible as a steel bar." - Ian Rist (Tasmanian fox conspiracist) ... "a spectacularly awful person with the morals and ethics of a snake." - Matthew Sweeney (chess troll) ... "great defender of logging" - Adam Burling (forest recidivist) ... "eminently undesirable" - Van Badham ... "an eminent member of our society" - Rosemary Armitage MLC ... For far too much more (including disclosure statement) see here.For email link
click on profile. Site updates (and other things) posted to Twitter:@kevinbonham
View my complete profile NOT-A-POLL: BEST STATE PREMIERS FINAL PART 1 Best State Premier/Chief Minister Of The Last 40-ish YearsNick Greiner
Daniel Andrews
Neville Wran
Jim Bacon
Don Dunstan
VoteView Results
Crowdsignal.com Best State Premier/Chief Minister Of The Last 40-ish Years NOT-A-POLL: ALBO LEADERSHIP How will Anthony Albanese go as Labor leader? Will lose the next election and never become PM Won't make the next election Will win the next election Will lose the next election but become PM laterVoteView Results
Crowdsignal.com How will Anthony Albanese go as Labor leader? NOT-A-POLL: POST-ELECTION CHALLENGES How many of the 191 federal MPs just elected will be unseated by challenges lodged within the 40-day window?0
1
2
3
4-5
6-9
10 or more
VoteView Results
Crowdsignal.com How many of the 191 federal MPs just elected will be unseated by challenges lodged within the 40-day window? POSTS UPDATED IN LAST MONTH OR SO (OTHER THAN CURRENT ELECTION PAGES) * Scott Bacon Recount (Sep 10-11) UPCOMING/CURRENT/RECENT ELECTIONS * Senate Button Press * Queensland Senate Count* Reps Postcount
TAS STATE ELECTION POLL AGGREGATE (ARCHIVED) Predicted seat result for the 2018 Tasmanian state election based on aggregated polling. Updated Feb 27 (EMRS)SELECTED POSTS
* How Can Polling Disclosure and Reporting Be Improved? (June 2019) * The Miracle Is Over: 2019 Australian Poll Fail (May 2019) * Federal Newspoll Records Page (frequently revised) * Field Guide To Opinion Pollsters (new edition - frequentlyrevised)
* Hobart Council Voting Patterns 2014-8 (Aug 2018) * Why Is Seat Polling So Inaccurate? (July 2018) * "Margin Of Error" Polling Myths (Aug 2018) * The Importance Of Keeping #politas On Topic (July 2018) * Polling And The Mt Wellington Cable Car (2014-8) * The Keating Aggregation 1990-3 (March 2018) * LegCo Voting Patterns 2014-8 (March 2018) * What Happened When The Previous Government Moved To Change Tasmania's Donations Laws (March 2018) * How Often Are Federal Newspolls Released? (July 2017) * How Many Federal Electorates Have You Visited? (Jan 2017, withupdates)
* 2016 Federal Election Best And Worst Pollsters (Sep 2016) * Senate Reform Performance Review Part 2 (Aug 2016) * Senate Reform Performance Review Part 1 (Aug 2016) * Track Record Of Last-Election Preferences (Sep 2015) * What Kills State Governments: Age Or Canberra? (July 2014) * Unpopular State Premiers Have Dire Historic Fates (Dec 2013) * Tasmanian Lower House: 25 or 35 Seats? (Mar 2013) * Why Preferred Prime Minister/Premier Scores Are Rubbish (Dec 2012)LINKS
* Poll Bludger
* The Tally Room
* Adrian Beaumont (own site) * Adrian Beaumont at The Conversation* Mark the Ballot
* David Barry's Australian Election Statistics* Ross Leedham
* Grahame Bowland
* Psephos (Adam Carr's Election Archive)* On Elections
* Peter Brent at Inside Story* Free Range Stats
* Buckleys & None
* Boilermaker Bill
* australianpolitics.com (Malcolm Farnsworth)* ABC Elections
* International Elections (Henry Schlechta)* Nick Casmirri
* Alizarin Indigo at Daily Kos* Le Rayon Vert
* Andrew Catsaras
* Infographinomicon
* The Poll Cruncher (use for testing poll MOEs and changes) * Wayback archive of my posts on Tasmanian Times (which I have left) * Tasmanian Electoral Office * Tas Parl House of Assembly results page * Tas Parl LegCo results page * Yes PM youtube classic about internal polling * Chesschat. (Excuse: I post pseph stuff in the politics section) * Electoral-Vote.com (US)SITE ARCHIVE
* ▼ 2019 (66)
* ▼ September (3) * Australia's Closest Federal Elections (2019 Wasn't... * Wonk Central: The Hare-Clark Recount Bug and the W... * Did A Late Switch-Off From Shorten Cause Labor To ...* ► August (6)
* ► July (4)
* ► June (7)
* ► May (18)
* ► April (8)
* ► March (8)
* ► February (6) * ► January (6)* ► 2018 (114)
* ► December (7) * ► November (15) * ► October (8) * ► September (7)* ► August (8)
* ► July (9)
* ► June (4)
* ► May (8)
* ► April (5)
* ► March (23)
* ► February (8) * ► January (12)* ► 2017 (77)
* ► December (7) * ► November (10) * ► October (8) * ► September (6)* ► August (8)
* ► July (6)
* ► June (4)
* ► May (4)
* ► April (7)
* ► March (7)
* ► February (5) * ► January (5)* ► 2016 (86)
* ► December (3) * ► November (7) * ► October (5) * ► September (7)* ► August (6)
* ► July (15)
* ► June (14)
* ► May (6)
* ► April (7)
* ► March (7)
* ► February (6) * ► January (3)* ► 2015 (86)
* ► December (7) * ► November (7) * ► October (3) * ► September (6)* ► August (8)
* ► July (8)
* ► June (6)
* ► May (9)
* ► April (8)
* ► March (12)
* ► February (5) * ► January (7)* ► 2014 (86)
* ► December (8) * ► November (11) * ► October (6) * ► September (9)* ► August (5)
* ► July (7)
* ► June (4)
* ► May (4)
* ► April (4)
* ► March (17)
* ► February (6) * ► January (5)* ► 2013 (88)
* ► December (6) * ► November (5) * ► October (4) * ► September (11) * ► August (11)* ► July (9)
* ► June (8)
* ► May (6)
* ► April (6)
* ► March (8)
* ► February (6) * ► January (8)* ► 2012 (27)
* ► December (8) * ► November (13) * ► October (6)LABELS
* pseph (478)
* Tasmania
(205)
* federal
(186)
* Newspoll
(170)
* ReachTEL
(161)
* state (158)
* aggregation
(151)
* Essential
(140)
* Morgan
(114)
* 2PP (94)
* Shorten
(86)
* Galaxy (81)
* Abbott (79)
* netsats
(78)
* Hare-Clark
(71)
* Turnbull
(63)
* Senate (61)
* Greens (57)
* debunkings
(56)
* 2016 federal
(55)
* Ipsos (55)
* betting
(47)
* 2013 federal
(46)
* Preferred Leader scores(45)
* One Nation
(40)
* media coverage of politics(40)
* EMRS (38)
* Legislative Council(38)
* fluff (38)
* same-sex marriage
(38)
* 2019 federal
(36)
* Bass (33)
* group tickets
(33)
* post-counting
(33)
* Senate reform
(32)
* Tasmania 2018
(32)
* Will Hodgman
(32)
* federal leaderships(32)
* Victoria
(31)
* fishy polling
(31)
* live coverage
(31)
* 2014 state
(30)
* Lyons (30)
* Not-A-Poll
(30)
* seat polls
(30)
* Labor (29)
* Queensland
(28)
* Braddon
(27)
* by-elections
(27)
* PUP (25)
* Liberals
(24)
* rant warning
(24)
* Nielsen
(21)
* netsats and 2PP
(21)
* Gillard
(20)
* silly greens
(20)
* Franklin
(19)
* NSW (19)
* Rebecca White
(19)
* swings (19)
* Denison
(18)
* Victoria 2018
(17)
* pendulum
(17)
* poll accuracy
(17)
* Morrison
(16)
* candidate guides
(16)
* local government
(16)
* 2016 Senate
(15)
* Bryan Green
(15)
* Lonergan
(15)
* internal polling
(15)
* legislation
(15)
* predicting vote share(15)
* recoveries
(15)
* Rudd (14)
* Xenophon
(14)
* commissioned polls(14)
* micro-parties
(14)
* preferences
(14)
(14)
* Morgan Gallup
(13)
* Section 44
(13)
* South Australia
(13)
* incumbency
(13)
* Australia Institute(12)
* Hobart (12)
* Hobart City Council(12)
* Nick McKim
(12)
* Palaszczuk
(12)
* Western Australia
(12)
* house effects
(12)
* liberty
(12)
* skew-polling
(12)
* Jacqui Lambie
(11)
* NSW 2015
(11)
* Wentworth
(11)
* bush lawyering
(11)
* election design
(11)
* parliamentary voting patterns(11)
* Giddings
(10)
* NSW 2019
(10)
* Newman (10)
* bounces
(10)
* general
(10)
* personal votes
(10)
* respondent prefs
(10)
* 2019 Senate
(9)
* Howard (9)
* Keating
(9)
* LGBT(I)
(9)
* Mayo (9)
* Tasmanian Times
(9)
* Victoria 2014
(9)
* double dissolutions(9)
* forestry
(9)
* freedom of speech
(9)
* how-to-vote cards
(9)
* polling methods
(9)
* projecting vote share(9)
* pseudoscience
(9)
* silly lefties
(9)
* wonk factor
(9)
* #auspollfail
(8)
* Colbeck
(8)
* Daniel Andrews
(8)
* Lisa Singh
(8)
* Nelson (8)
* Opposition Leaders(8)
* Queensland 2015
(8)
* Shooters Fishers and Farmers(8)
* Warringah
(8)
* below the line voting(8)
* bouncing
(8)
* federal-state drag(8)
* marginals
(8)
* minority government(8)
* modelling methods
(8)
* poll failure
(8)
* site review
(8)
* Budget (7)
* Ehrlich Awards
(7)
* Family First
(7)
* Hanson (7)
* Hare-Clark recounts(7)
* Herbert
(7)
* Hockey (7)
* Julie Bishop
(7)
* Lismore
(7)
* NXT (7)
* Pembroke
(7)
* Tasmania Senate
(7)
* Tasmanian federal
(7)
* Whitlam
(7)
* Wilkie (7)
* YouGov (7)
* crossbenchers
(7)
* informals
(7)
* leakage
(7)
* policy fail
(7)
* sophomore effect
(7)
* state leaderships
(7)
* threatened species(7)
* Animal Justice Party(6)
* Bob Day
(6)
* Eden-Monaro
(6)
* Green preferences
(6)
* Hawke (6)
* JWS Research
(6)
* Lambie Network
(6)
* Longman
(6)
* Mediareach
(6)
* Napthine
(6)
* Queensland 2017
(6)
* Senate recounts
(6)
* Super Saturday
(6)
* Tony Mulder
(6)
* Treasurer polls
(6)
* attribute polling
(6)
* casual vacancies
(6)
* disqualification
(6)
* homophobes
(6)
* leaderships
(6)
* mobiles vs landlines(6)
* plebiscites
(6)
* same-sex marriage polling(6)
* spills (6)
* state Premiers
(6)
* the war on opt-in polling(6)
* three-cornered
(6)
* 2017 WA
(5)
* ACT Senate
(5)
* AMR (5)
* Abetz (5)
* Ashgrove
(5)
* Baird (5)
* Ballina
(5)
* Barnaby Joyce
(5)
* Batman (5)
* Canning
(5)
* Cowan (5)
* Dutton (5)
* East Hills
(5)
* Foley (5)
* Hickey (5)
* High Court
(5)
* Hodgman
(5)
* Indi (5)
* Kim Booth
(5)
* Lambie (5)
* Liberal Democrats
(5)
* Mackerras
(5)
* Montgomery
(5)
* Nic Street
(5)
* Nicholls
(5)
* OPV (5)
* Scott Bacon
(5)
* VIC Legislative Council(5)
* annual poll review(5)
* booth analysis
(5)
* errors in published polls(5)
* herding
(5)
* hypotheticals
(5)
* mimophants
(5)
* pollster awards
(5)
* postal plebiscite
(5)
* postcounting
(5)
* preselections
(5)
* terrorism
(5)
* ABC (4)
* Bob Ellis
(4)
* Bowen (4)
* Brenton Best
(4)
* Bronwyn Bishop
(4)
* Clark (4)
* Coalition
(4)
* Corangamite
(4)
* Cowper (4)
* David O'Byrne
(4)
* Druery (4)
* Higgins
(4)
* JSCEM (4)
* Jo Siejka
(4)
* KAP (4)
* Keay (4)
* Kerryn Phelps
(4)
* Kooyong
(4)
* Latham (4)
* Leyonhjelm
(4)
* Lindsay
(4)
* Malcolm Roberts
(4)
* Mark McGowan
(4)
* Melbourne Ports
(4)
* Metapoll
(4)
* NSW Legislative Council(4)
* NSW state
(4)
* Nationals
(4)
* New England
(4)
* New South Wales
(4)
* North Sydney
(4)
* Ogilvie
(4)
* One Nation prefs
(4)
* Pearce (4)
* Prahran
(4)
* Queensland Senate
(4)
* SA 2018
(4)
* Trump (4)
* USA (4)
* Whiteley
(4)
* asylum seeker polling(4)
* button press
(4)
* cable car
(4)
* chess politics
(4)
* close seats
(4)
* divide by five
(4)
* electoral law
(4)
* exclusives (so there)(4)
* exhaust
(4)
* exit polls
(4)
* extinction skepticism(4)
* honeymoons
(4)
* independents
(4)
* marriage equality
(4)
* postal voting
(4)
* proportionality
(4)
* recounts
(4)
* robopolls
(4)
* savings provisions(4)
* spiffy polling
(4)
* 2014 (3)
* 2018 spills
(3)
* ABS (3)
* Adam Brooks
(3)
* Albanese
(3)
* Andrea Dawkins
(3)
* Andrew Bartlett
(3)
* Apsley (3)
* Barnett
(3)
* Bhathal
(3)
* Bob Brown Foundation(3)
* Boothby
(3)
* Brexit (3)
* Canavan
(3)
* Centrelink
(3)
* Chisholm
(3)
* Colin Barnett
(3)
* Collins
(3)
* Community Engagement(3)
* Constitution
(3)
* CoryTories
(3)
* Derwent
(3)
* Elwick (3)
* Fremantle (federal seat)(3)
* Gutwein
(3)
* Guy Barnett
(3)
* Hidding
(3)
* Hinch Justice Party(3)
* Hobart 2014
(3)
* Huon (3)
* Janet Lambert
(3)
* Just voting 1
(3)
* Kearney
(3)
* LNP (3)
* Larissa Waters
(3)
* Launceston (seat)
(3)
* LegCo 2019
(3)
* Lockyer
(3)
* Maiwar (3)
* Mersey (3)
* Mildura
(3)
* Molan (3)
* Murchison
(3)
* NSW Senate
(3)
* Newtown (NSW)
(3)
* Nikolic
(3)
* Renewable Energy Party(3)
* Research Now
(3)
* Ron Christie
(3)
* Rumney (3)
* Rylah (3)
* SA-BEST
(3)
* Senate calculators(3)
* Senate polling
(3)
* Senate term lengths(3)
* Steele-John
(3)
* Steve Martin
(3)
* Steve Mav
(3)
* Sturt (3)
* TURC (3)
* Tas electoral history(3)
* The Entrance
(3)
* Tim Cox
(3)
* Weatherill
(3)
* Windermere
(3)
* Woodruff
(3)
* YouGov Galaxy
(3)
* anti-discrimination(3)
* blocking majority
(3)
* compulsory preferencing(3)
* conscience votes
(3)
* crossbench preferences(3)
* election guides
(3)
* electoral reform
(3)
* eligibility
(3)
* gaffes (3)
* last-election prefs(3)
* projecting seat share(3)
* recount bug
(3)
* religion
(3)
* semi-optional preferencing(3)
* site policy
(3)
* tactical voting
(3)
* transparency
(3)
* uComms (3)
* waffle (3)
* "Don't Mess With Marriage"(2)
* "evidence-based"
(2)
* ACT (2)
* ACT 2016
(2)
* Adelaide (state seat)(2)
* Adriana Taylor
(2)
* Anita Dow
(2)
* Anning (2)
* Armitage
(2)
* Balmain
(2)
* Barton (2)
* Benambra
(2)
* Bennelong
(2)
* Berejiklian
(2)
* Bernardi
(2)
* Brunswick
(2)
* Budget bounce
(2)
* Capricornia
(2)
* Cassy O'Connor
(2)
* Christensen
(2)
* Clive Palmer
(2)
* Coogee (2)
* Cormann
(2)
* Courtney
(2)
* Dawson (2)
* Deakin (2)
* Doug Chipman
(2)
* Downer (2)
* Dubbo (2)
* Elise Archer
(2)
* Ella Haddad
(2)
* Env Research Counsel(2)
* FIDE (2)
(2)
* Farrell
(2)
* Farrer (2)
* Ferguson
(2)
* Finch (2)
* Flinders
(2)
* Flynn (2)
* Forrest
(2)
* Fraser (2)
* Gaffney
(2)
* GetUp!
(2)
* Ginninderra
(2)
* Glenorchy
(2)
* Goodwin
(2)
* Grey (2)
* Harriss
(2)
* Hinch (2)
* Hobart (LegCo seat)(2)
* Hobart 2018
(2)
* Hunter (2)
* Hutchinson
(2)
* Ivan Dean
(2)
* Jaensch
(2)
* James Walker
(2)
* Jane Howlett
(2)
* Jen Butler
(2)
* John Alexander
(2)
* Kate McCulloch
(2)
* Keep Sydney Open
(2)
* Keneally
(2)
* Kevin Midson
(2)
* Kiama (2)
* Kristie Johnston
(2)
* Launceston
(2)
* Leonie Hiscutt
(2)
* Liberal
(2)
* Licia Heath
(2)
* Ludlam (2)
* Macarthur
(2)
* Macquarie
(2)
* Mawson (2)
* McConnel
(2)
* Medicare
(2)
* Melbourne (state seat)(2)
* Miranda
(2)
* Morwell
(2)
* Muir (2)
* Neroli Ellis
(2)
* Nietzsche
(2)
* Orange (2)
* Ovens Valley
(2)
* Parry (2)
* Pascoe Vale
(2)
* Patten (2)
* Perth (federal seat)(2)
* Peter Hodgman
(2)
* Petrie (2)
* Petrusma
(2)
* Plibersek
(2)
* Prince Sir Duke Um What?(2)
* Prosser
(2)
* Redcliffe
(2)
* Reid (2)
* Richard Griggs
(2)
* Richmond (Vic seat)(2)
* Rob Valentine
(2)
* Rockliff
(2)
* Rosevears
(2)
* SA Legislative Council(2)
* SA Senate
(2)
* Sarah Lovell
(2)
* Scott Jordan
(2)
* Section 15
(2)
* Section 282
(2)
* Sexton Marketing
(2)
* Shane Broad
(2)
* Simon Behrakis
(2)
* South Brisbane
(2)
* Speakership
(2)
* Springborg
(2)
* Standen
(2)
* Sustainable Australia(2)
* Tania Rattray
(2)
* Transport Matters
(2)
* UMR (2)
* USA 2016
(2)
* United Aus (ex-PUP)(2)
* Upper Hunter
(2)
* Victoria Senate
(2)
* Voter Choice
(2)
* WA Senate
(2)
* WA Senate 2013
(2)
* Wayback
(2)
* Wayne Swan
(2)
* Werribee
(2)
* Windsor
(2)
* abortion
(2)
* above the line
(2)
* advertising
(2)
* banks (2)
* candidate debates
(2)
* candidate screening(2)
* citizenship
(2)
* climate polling
(2)
* conspiracy theories(2)
* count errors
(2)
* deposits
(2)
* development debates(2)
* disclosure
(2)
* donation laws
(2)
* donkey votes
(2)
* early elections
(2)
* economic management(2)
* fake polls
(2)
* fivethirtyeight
(2)
* floor majority
(2)
* forum moderation
(2)
* gun control
(2)
* hate speech
(2)
* health (2)
* hung parliament
(2)
* ignomedia
(2)
* joint sittings
(2)
* majorities
(2)
* margin of error
(2)
* media (2)
* modelling
(2)
* non-classic seats
(2)
* office of profit
(2)
* opacity
(2)
* party-hopping
(2)
* penalty rates
(2)
* phone vs online
(2)
* pokies (2)
* poll design
(2)
* polling re Muslims(2)
* post-DD reallocation(2)
* preferencing
(2)
* pulp mill
(2)
* records
(2)
* redistributions
(2)
* refugees
(2)
* reports
(2)
* result projections(2)
* sample noise
(2)
* scaling
(2)
* scandals
(2)
* science
(2)
* shockjocks
(2)
* size of parliament(2)
* skepticism
(2)
* snails (2)
* special counts
(2)
* spill (2)
* strategy
(2)
* uniform swing
(2)
* upfront exclusion
(2)
* verification
(2)
* vetting
(2)
* voter privacy
(2)
* voting records
(2)
* "dinosaurs"
(1)
* #politas
(1)
* 1993 federal
(1)
* 2004 federal
(1)
* 2007 federal
(1)
* 2016 NT
(1)
* 2019 (1)
* 2CP selection
(1)
* 2PP losing streaks(1)
* 30 Newspolls
(1)
* 538 (1)
* ABC computer
(1)
* ABCC (1)
* AEC (1)
* AGB McNair
(1)
* AWU (1)
* Abbott birthers
(1)
* Alan Jones
(1)
* Alex Turnbull
(1)
* Amanda-Sue Markham(1)
* Andrew Bolt
(1)
* Anna Reynolds
(1)
* Armstrong
(1)
* Aussie Battler
(1)
* Bacon (1)
* Barwon (NSW)
(1)
* Bass (Vic seat)
(1)
* Basslink
(1)
* Bayes (1)
* Bayswater
(1)
* Bentleigh
(1)
* Billy Gordon
(1)
* Bilyk (1)
* Bob Brown
(1)
* Border Force
(1)
* Branch-Allen
(1)
* Breen (1)
* Brexit/Trump
(1)
* Brian Mitchell
(1)
* Brindabella
(1)
* Brindley
(1)
* Brisbane (seat)
(1)
* Brough (1)
* Buckingham
(1)
* Burdekin
(1)
* Bushby (1)
* CDP (1)
* CFA (1)
* CPV (1)
* Campbelltown (NSW)(1)
* Canberra (seat)
(1)
* Centre Alliance
(1)
* Chandler
(1)
* Christian Democrats(1)
* Claire van Ryn
(1)
* Clarence
(1)
* Coalition leakage
(1)
* Condorcet
(1)
* Cook (1)
* Corbyn (1)
* Cornish
(1)
* Craig Garland
(1)
* Cumming
(1)
* DLP (1)
* Daley (1)
* Damon Thomas
(1)
* Danby (1)
* Dark Mofo
(1)
* Darling Range
(1)
* Darren Clark
(1)
* Dastyari
(1)
* Dave Sharma
(1)
* David Johnston
(1)
* David Llewellyn
(1)
* Dean Winter
(1)
* Democrats
(1)
* Di Natale
(1)
* Dickson
(1)
* Dismissal
(1)
* Dobell (1)
* Droop quota
(1)
* Duniam (1)
* Dunkley
(1)
* Dunstan
(1)
* Durack (1)
* ENGOs (1)
* Electoral Act (Tas)(1)
* Electoral College
(1)
* Fairfax
(1)
* Feeney (1)
* Ferny Grove
(1)
* Fightback!
(1)
* Fiona Nash
(1)
* Fisher (1)
* Fisher (state seat)(1)
* Flanagan
(1)
* Fluoride Free WA
(1)
* Flux (1)
* Forde (1)
* Forestry Tasmania
(1)
* Frankston
(1)
* Fraser Brindley
(1)
* Gaven (1)
* Geelong
(1)
* Geelong (seat)
(1)
* Giles (1)
* Gilllard
(1)
* Gilmore
(1)
* Gosford
(1)
* Goulburn
(1)
* Governor
(1)
* Greenway
(1)
* Greg Hunt
(1)
* Griffith
(1)
* Gunner (1)
* HCV (1)
* Hare quota
(1)
* Hartsuyker
(1)
* Harvey (1)
* Hastie (1)
* Hawthorn
(1)
* Heathcote
(1)
* Helen Polley
(1)
* Hewson (1)
* Hillary Clinton
(1)
* Hinchinbrook
(1)
* Hindmarsh
(1)
* House of Reps
(1)
* Hughes (seat)
(1)
* Independent Australia(1)
* Ipsos. Essential
(1)
* Jarvis (1)
* Jason Clare
(1)
* Jennifer Houston
(1)
* Joe Bullock
(1)
* John Rau
(1)
* John Short
(1)
* John Tucker
(1)
* Kakoschke-Moore
(1)
* Kallangur
(1)
* Kennedy
(1)
* Kennett
(1)
* Kenny (1)
* Kent (1)
* Ketter (1)
* Kevin Andrews
(1)
* King (1)
* Kingborough
(1)
* Kogarah
(1)
* Kristy Johnson
(1)
* Kurrajong
(1)
* Lamb (1)
* Lapoinya
(1)
* Lilley (1)
* MH-370 (1)
* MMP (1)
* Macalister
(1)
* Mackellar
(1)
* Macnamara
(1)
* Malcolm Fraser
(1)
* Mallee (1)
* Marshall
(1)
* Maryborough
(1)
* Matthew Groom
(1)
* Matthew Guy
(1)
* Mayoral elections
(1)
* McCormack
(1)
* McCrindle
(1)
* McEwen (1)
* McGirr (1)
* McGowan
(1)
* Meg Webb
(1)
* Melbourne
(1)
* Melton (1)
* Michelle O'Byrne
(1)
* Miranda Devine
(1)
* Mirani (1)
* Mundingburra
(1)
* Murray (NSW seat)
(1)
* Murrumbidgee
(1)
* NBN raid
(1)
* NEG (1)
* NIMBYs (1)
* NSW 2055
(1)
* NSW Labor
(1)
* NSWEC (1)
* NT Senate
(1)
* New Zealand
(1)
* Newgate
(1)
* Newland
(1)
* Newspoll clock
(1)
* Newspoll truthers
(1)
* No Land Tax
(1)
* North Korea
(1)
* Northcote
(1)
* Northern Territory(1)
* November Frog
(1)
* Oakeshott
(1)
* Orlando
(1)
* Page (1)
* Parkinson
(1)
* Pauline Hanson
(1)
* Peacock
(1)
* Penrith
(1)
* Perth (1)
* President (LegCo)
(1)
* Pumicestone
(1)
* Queensland 2018
(1)
* Quick (1)
* Ramsey (1)
* Rec Fishers
(1)
* Rennick
(1)
* Rhiannon
(1)
* Richo (1)
* Ripon (1)
* Robertson
(1)
* Rodney Flowers
(1)
* Ross Hart
(1)
* Russell Northe
(1)
* Ruthenberg
(1)
* Ryde (1)
* SF+F (1)
* Saffin (1)
* Sam McQuestin
(1)
* Scanlon Foundation(1)
* Scullin (PM)
(1)
* Section 329
(1)
* Sex Party
(1)
* Shanahan
(1)
* Sharkie
(1)
* Shelton
(1)
* Sherlock
(1)
* Siewert
(1)
* Singh (1)
* South Barwon
(1)
* South-West Coast (seat)(1)
* Sports Party
(1)
* Steggall
(1)
* Stephen Smith
(1)
* Steven King (councillor)(1)
* Storer (1)
* Strathfield
(1)
* Susan Lamb
(1)
* Swan (seat)
(1)
* Sydney (electorate)(1)
* Taber (1)
* Tamworth
(1)
* Tanya Denison
(1)
* Tasmania 2006
(1)
* Tasmania federal
(1)
* Tasmanian Electoral Act(1)
* Ted Mead
(1)
* Telereach
(1)
* Theresa May
(1)
* Tilley (1)
* Tim Morris
(1)
* Townsville (seat)
(1)
* Traeger
(1)
* Truss (1)
* Tudge (1)
* Tunrbull
(1)
* UK 2015
(1)
* UK 2017
(1)
* UK Labour
(1)
* Van Badham
(1)
* Vica Bayley
(1)
* Victoria councils
(1)
* Victorian Socialists(1)
* WA (1)
* WA Legislative Council(1)
* Wagga Wagga
(1)
* Wangaratta
(1)
* Wanneroo
(1)
* Watson (1)
* Western Sydney
(1)
* Whelan (1)
* Whitsunday
(1)
* Wightman
(1)
* Wikipedia
(1)
* Williamson sacking(1)
* Winston Peters
(1)
* Wollongong
(1)
* Wyatt Roy
(1)
* Yan Yean
(1)
* Yerrabi
(1)
* Yetis (1)
* Zimmerman
(1)
* analogies
(1)
* appalled!
(1)
* authorisation
(1)
* bad op eds
(1)
* big data
(1)
* birthers
(1)
* blank ATL boxes
(1)
* blocking supply
(1)
* blowouts
(1)
* bonkban
(1)
* boycotts
(1)
* breakway party polls(1)
* building heights
(1)
* campaign events
(1)
* casting votes
(1)
* census data
(1)
* chairing conventions(1)
* close elections
(1)
* compulsory voting
(1)
* confidence
(1)
* conservation
(1)
* corflutes
(1)
* count methods
(1)
* culture wars
(1)
* curtains
(1)
* dead cat
(1)
* deficit levy
(1)
* devils (1)
* disendorsed still on ballot(1)
* disendorsements
(1)
* disrupted seats
(1)
* drugs (1)
* early vs late postals(1)
* education polling
(1)
* election dates
(1)
* election predictions(1)
* election watching
(1)
* elector polls
(1)
* electoral fraud
(1)
* energy policy
(1)
* expulsions
(1)
* extinctions
(1)
* extremists
(1)
* face-to-face
(1)
* factions
(1)
* fairness clause
(1)
* fake candidate
(1)
* fake electoral signs(1)
* family violence
(1)
* far right
(1)
* federal electorates(1)
* fee-for-service
(1)
* female representation(1)
* fish polling
(1)
* fixed quota
(1)
* forced exclusion
(1)
* foxes (1)
* gambling
(1)
* gimmick parties
(1)
* gossip (1)
* harvesting
(1)
* hashtags
(1)
* ignosheep
(1)
* immigration
(1)
* inclusive gregory
(1)
* independent liberals(1)
* issue polls
(1)
* landslides
(1)
* last place votes
(1)
* live counting
(1)
* lobby groups
(1)
* logging
(1)
* majority government(1)
* marriage equality polling(1)
* measuring closeness(1)
* medevac
(1)
* metapseph
(1)
* millenials
(1)
* ministers
(1)
* minor parties
(1)
* misquotes
(1)
* misreporting of polls(1)
* missing Newspoll
(1)
* modelling vote share(1)
* moderation
(1)
* monster swings
(1)
* mushrooms
(1)
* narrowing
(1)
* number all boxes
(1)
* onions (1)
* open letters
(1)
* orchids
(1)
* overconfidence
(1)
* peer review
(1)
* pendulums
(1)
* personal economy
(1)
* philosophy
(1)
* poll drought
(1)
* poll-denialism
(1)
* poll-tickling
(1)
* polling history
(1)
* pony polls
(1)
* posts attacked by trolls(1)
* precautionary piffle(1)
* preference flows
(1)
* preference harvesting(1)
* preference shifts
(1)
* priming
(1)
* probability
(1)
* probability models(1)
* profile
(1)
* projections
(1)
* protestors
(1)
* proxies
(1)
* purists
(1)
* push-polling
(1)
* quasi-parties
(1)
* question design
(1)
* quolls (1)
* quota (1)
* quota fetish
(1)
* quotes (1)
* ratting
(1)
* rediscoveries
(1)
* referenda
(1)
* release cycle
(1)
* religious extremism(1)
* retirements
(1)
* retro-aggregation
(1)
* reverse engineering(1)
* revolving door
(1)
* rogue polls
(1)
* rounding
(1)
* rural indies
(1)
* sandbagging
(1)
* satire (1)
* scare campaigns
(1)
* scrutineering
(1)
* seat betting
(1)
* secret policies
(1)
* senate reform polling(1)
* silly preferencing(1)
* simulations
(1)
* skew (1)
* social media
(1)
* spill bounces
(1)
* splits (1)
* stacking
(1)
* strategic voting
(1)
* student politics
(1)
* surpluses
(1)
* tax cuts
(1)
* tax polling
(1)
* taxation
(1)
* thylacine
(1)
* ticket position
(1)
* tipping points
(1)
* topicality
(1)
* trolling
(1)
* trolls (1)
* turnout
(1)
* unelection
(1)
* union polls
(1)
* upper houses
(1)
* upsets (1)
* volatility
(1)
* vote switching
(1)
* vote uniqueness
(1)
* voter identification(1)
* voting age
(1)
* welfare
(1)
* wilderness
(1)
* wise voting
(1)
* wood waste
(1)
* worst PM
(1)
FOLLOW BY EMAIL
All copyright. Not financial advice.Credit if using ideas from site. Auth KB 410 Macquarie SH 7004. Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.
Details
Copyright © 2024 ArchiveBay.com. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | DMCA | 2021 | Feedback | Advertising | RSS 2.0