Thursday, April 28, 2016

Queensland: Compulsory Preferencing And Recent Polling

Because of other distractions (see articles below) I've been a bit slow dealing with Queensland's sudden return to compulsory preferencing, but fortunately in this time a new state poll has arrived that is highly relevant to the issue.

For those who spent a couple of hours asleep last Thursday, that was about all it took for Labor to amend an LNP motion to expand the parliament from 89 to 93 seats and make it conditional on a return to compulsory preferencing.  The LNP voted against the amendment but the KAP and ex-Labor crossbenchers supported it and in the end the LNP didn't even vote against the amended bill.  It was vintage roughshod Queensland politics in its execution - moving it as an amendment meant it could be passed without prolonged discussion or a committee process, and Queensland of course has no upper house to get in the way.  It all gave the appearance of a tactical disaster for the Lawrence Springborg-led LNP (allowing such a major concession while fishing for crumbs) and again raised concerns of friends and foes alike as to whether the Queensland Opposition has all that much upstairs strategically.

The Impact of The Change

Immediate reactions suggested Labor might have voted themselves an easy win at the next election. After all, Antony Green had calculated that had voters whose votes exhausted distributed their preferences the same way as those whose votes didn't, Labor would have won an extra eight seats in 2015 and would have had a comfortable majority.  The 2PP might have been about 53.4% to Labor, 2.2 points higher than they actually obtained.  (A more accurate estimate could be found from the distributions, but probably isn't necessary.)

However, the number of Labor misses caused by optional preferencing probably wasn't really that large.  Especially at the 2015 election, at which the rate of preferencing by non-LNP voters was very high because of a successful "put the LNP last" campaign, it's likely that minor/micro-party voters who exhausted their preferences were unrepresentative.  Scott Steel (@Pollytics) on Twitter suggests, based on internal campaign research, that the winnings would have been more like three or four extra ALP seats.

Steel offered some descriptions of the sort of non-major voters who still didn't preference in 2015, suggesting they were "a different political cohort [..] more angry, more hardcore" and suggested examples like anti-asylum-seeker Greens voters, haters of organised politics, "unusual idealogues" and "a whole bunch of fad voters that think "this is the only way", even if that "only" changes from week to week".  I suspect that low-information PUP supporters could be added to the mix.

I'll add that projections don't always take account of the votes Labor disproportionately loses to the informal pile when voting is made compulsory.  However, in my view the key point is that this change is not about what would have happened last time, it is about Labor's fear of what will happen next time.  Quite aside from the waning of the anti-Newman factor, there is bound to be disenchantment from Greens voters about the environmental direction of the Palaszczuk Government, for instance over the approval of the Adani coal mine.  Voters for other parties such as KAP may have other reasons for concern.  If Greens and Others voters under LNP were to revert to 2012 preferencing behaviour, that could have put the Palaszczuk Government into opposition under optional preferencing even without any swing on primary votes at all.

There is probably nothing that Labor can do about the reversion of non-Green preferences to type sooner or later, after an extraordinary result in which 61% of KAP and 67% of PUP preferences that were distributed went to the ALP (though both parties were carrying votes from other candidates).  However, it seems that the wild swings in Green preferencing behaviour could be connected to a certain type of Greens voter - the type who will preference Labor when they detect a strong difference between the parties, but exhaust their vote otherwise.  There is strong reason to believe that under compulsory preferencing this voter type will nearly always preference Labor, and hence I see Labor's real goal here as a license to take Green preferences for granted.

(I did wonder how the Queensland 2015 election would have panned out had preferences been compulsory but had voters preferenced as at the 2013 federal election.  Labor would have done worse than they did in the real state election, with 50.1% 2PP, which highlights how extraordinary the preferencing behaviour of KAP and PUP supporters was.)

Problems With This Form Of CPV

Readers may be aware that I am not a big fan of compulsory preferencing, nor even of "compulsory voting".  I believe that a voter should be allowed to exhaust their ballot for any of these reasons:

* as a strategy to discourage major parties from taking their preference for granted
* when they reach a point where they have no opinion between the remaining candidates
* when they reach a point where they find all the remaining candidates so objectionable that they do not wish to endorse any of them over each other.

The first probably has something to do with the original support for optional preferencing as an anti-corruption mechanism.  I think the third reason is stupid since there is nothing wrong with choosing to preference the lesser evil, but I think voters should be allowed to make their own decisions on that.

However, big-picture debates about the merits of compulsory preferencing vs optional preferencing aside, what disappoints me is that advocates of compulsory preferencing are often so unwilling to propose doing anything at all about informal votes arising from unintended numbering errors.

The new Queensland legislation is among the worst cases in this regard, and shows why even a vestige of consultation would have been a good idea.  It will allow voters to leave the final candidate blank after voting for all the others, but any other omission or repetition in numbering will see a vote discarded as informal.  This applies even if the vote has a primary vote for a party that will clearly not have its preferences distributed, and even if the error involves candidates who will not be in contention for the seat.  There will be a significant increase in unintentional informal voting, though most likely the party that proposed this amendment (Labor) will be the biggest victim.

Others such as Antony and William Bowe have made the fine point that this sudden move by Queensland Labor to smuggle this change through without consulting voters at all stands so sharply at odds with the federal party's complaint about supposedly insufficient consultation in the Senate voting system reform process.  I could go on about that too, but it would get pretty ugly and ranty.  Let's move on.

Polling and CPV

The switch to CPV means that the published 2PPs from Queensland polling since the last election are now junk, since all were based on the assumption of optional preferencing.  Some polls were assuming voters would preference as at the 2015 election, some that they would preference as at some average of the last two or three elections, and some were using respondent preferencing or perhaps just plain making stuff up, but in any case it's all irrelevant now.  (A possible partial exception could be Morgan - in their very earliest state polls I suspected they might be assuming compulsory preferencing by mistake.)

How we model the 2PP under compulsory preferencing for Queensland is a very difficult question!

The newly released ReachTEL is a useful example.  After redistributing those initially undecided voters who can be prodded (in other words giving a headline figure the way other pollsters do), ReachTEL has primaries of ALP 36.9 (-0.6 compared to election), LNP 42.8 (+1.5), Green 10.8 (+2.4), KAP 3.6 (+1.7), Other/Ind 5.9 (-5 mainly down to the demise of PUP).  This could be explained largely as the PUP vote coming back to KAP and the majors, plus some of the Labor vote going to the Greens.

Based on these primaries, Labor would have a roughly 50.4% 2PP by last-election optional preferences, but the published headline by respondent preferences is 52:48 to LNP.  I'm a bit puzzled by that figure, because multiplying the 60.5% flow to Labor in question 1b by the number of minor party supporters in questions 1 and 1a actually leads only to a 51:49 (50.8 to one decimal) result to LNP, but the core point stays the same.  It's not clear Labor will do as well at converting preferences to 2PP next election even with this change as they did last time without it.  (By 2013 Queensland federal election preferences, this poll comes out to about 50:50.)

Before we get too excited about the finding of a rather weak flow of preferences to Labor, we need to bear in mind that this is based on a sample of only 260 or so minor party voters, so the 60.5% flow has at least a 6% margin of error, and could easily be up to 1.2 points out on the overall 2PP even if we assume the respondent preferences are broadly accurate.  But even at best, it's sobering stuff for Labor: preferencing intentions might already have changed back enough that all this change in voting systems does is cancel that out, if that.  The temptation to now add three or four points to all Labor's 2PPs since the election and declare that Labor have been winning by heaps all along (given compulsory preferencing) should be resisted. It's also interesting that this ReachTEL respondent-allocated 2PP is no better than one in mid-2015 under the old system with an LNP primary vote three points higher.

The ReachTEL was very similar to a Queensland Galaxy in February (which had ALP 37 LNP 42 Green 9 KAP 4 others 7).  Three Essential samples earlier this year had a slightly rosier picture for Labor when pooled with both majors on 40, Greens around 9, KAP 2 and others 10 (the latter sounds a bit high).  Morgan's volatile and unreliable SMS poll had LNP 45.5 Labor 36.5 Green 9 KAP 3 rest 6 in February, but LNP 40 Labor 37.5 Green 12.5 KAP 3.5 rest 6.5 in April.  It's likely that a cross-pollster aggregate would look very similar to the current ReachTEL, and that any plausible model of the 2PP would show things to be pretty close.  On this basis any view that the recent electoral system change has affected primary voting intention is unfounded, and it wouldn't be expected to.

The next Queensland election will be a mess to model with the creation of four new seats forcing widespread redistributions, on top of the change in the preferencing system.  It's likely that the redistributions will dampen the sitting-member-effect advantages Labor will enjoy in many of the marginal seats it is defending, but that these advantages will still exist.  I am not going to even try to work out what sort of 2PP the Opposition might need to take government until the redistribution is done.  Soon we should also have the benefit of one by-election at which we can see preference flows under the new system.

Other results

The ReachTEL asked Queenslanders for their view of the resumption of compulsory preferencing and respondents gave it the raspberry (27.3% approve, 61.6% disapprove).  This question might well be a bit wording-sensitive; for instance "This change requires you [..]" might focus voters' minds on their own burden of numbering extra squares, and not on the benefit to their preferred party (if any) of other voters being forced to.  All the same support from Labor voters is lukewarm and other voters are strongly against the change (parties like KAP stand to benefit from it, but Others aren't specifically included in the breakdown.)

The poll shows Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk with a positive net rating of +6.8 and Lawrence Springborg with a net rating of -10.4.  These are very similar results to last May's ReachTEL despite minor changes in the options available.  7.7% don't know who Springborg is; how many elections does a man have to lose?  Galaxy earlier this year found +19 net satisfaction for Palaszczuk and -3 net satisfaction for Springborg, but with a middle option of "uncommitted" as opposed to ReachTEL's "average".   Seven News has been having fun lumping the "very poor", "poor" and "average" responses together to make both leaders look bad, but comparison with Galaxy suggests "average" might be a compliment when voters are describing their leaders.

Edited in later on same day: The full results of the ReachTEL just released also include a question on approval of the increase in seat numbers.  It's a pretty neutral response given the natural "what? more politicians?" kneejerk reaction with 33.2% support 42.1% oppose, but what's amusing is that Labor voters tend weakly to support the measure and LNP voters to oppose it.  The votes of their parties in parliament were the other way round!  It's possible that some voters for both parties may have wrongly assumed the increase was a government-supported measure; in either case the LNP hardly convinced their support base of a need to add more seats (a move aimed at preventing the loss of northern seats in the redistribution).

That should do for this wrap of where things are at in Queensland polling.  When I have any idea of who's actually winning anymore, I'll be sure to let you all know.

Sunday, April 24, 2016

How Many Lower House Seats Can The Xenophon Team Win?

I have had a fair few questions about the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) and their seat prospects for the Lower House in South Australia, because my seat projection nationwide still shows only four seats for Others.  This rather dry and mathsy piece (about Wonk Factor 3/5) explains my initial attempts to model what sort of vote NXT needs in South Australia, all else being equal, to win one or more of the 11 Lower House seats in the state.  These are very broad-brush attempts that don't take account of candidate factors, because until there is specific seat-polling we don't know anything objectively about how well (or badly) specific NXT candidates are going to campaign or be regarded.  Comments based on detailed local knowledge are welcome.

In summary, I estimate that NXT probably need a statewide vote in the very high teens to win seats.  Once they get well over 20 they start to win multiple seats, and something in the mid-20s could result in spectacular seat gains that would make a national hung parliament quite likely.  However there's no reason yet to believe those higher votes will actually happen, based on what little current public polling of the NXT vote exists.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Some Recent Senate Polling And Related Claims

This article assumes, for the sake of analysis, that the Senate election will be a double-dissolution under the new Senate system.  Neither of these things are yet confirmed, but both appear highly likely.  

I thought that there had been no polling at all of the Senate races yet, and innocently told a journalist so this week, but to my surprise reports of not one but two Senate polls have surfaced (one since I made that comment).  There are also many reports of an (apparently unpublished) Australia Institute analysis that claims that from five to nine non-Green crossbenchers could get up at a double dissolution, apparently based on commissioned Senate polling from ReachTEL and Research Now.  The Research Now (an online panel poll a la Essential) polling has been published but the main thing I can find on the ReachTEL is an AFR report from a month ago (!) that had somehow escaped my notice.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Poll Roundup And Seat Betting Watch: Labor Contesting The Lead

2PP Aggregate 50.1 to ALP (+0.7 in a week)
Coalition would still probably win election "held now" (seat estimate 77 Coalition 69 Labor 4 Others)
First ALP lead on my aggregate since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister

In this issue:
A DD Is The Right Thing To Do
This week's polls
Leaderships
Issue Polls
Fishy Polls Of The Week
Seat Betting

===============================================

In another stirring triumph of tipping skills, a plurality of voters on my sidebar Not-A-Poll have correctly predicted that the Labor Opposition would recapture the 2PP lead on this site in March or April.  35.5% picked this, compared to 34.1% for May or June, 18.2% for not at all, and a dribble for various options that depended on a later election date. It's a trivially small lead, it's not an election winning lead, it's not being replicated by other aggregators yet, and it may not even last long enough to survive on the smoothed tracking, but it's still a big improvement on losing 54:46 just three months ago.

There is some rejoicing and a fair bit of schadenfreude on the left about the direction polling has moved in.  Many lefties seem amused that Malcolm Turnbull pulled a constitutional swifty to beef up his argument for a double-dissolution only to find himself in a position where it might not seem like such a great idea anymore.  With the rejection of the ABCC bill at the second reading the government has no obvious plan B; to welsh on the threatened double dissolution on account of indifferent or even bad polling would just make the PM a laughingstock.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Poll Roundup and Seat Betting Watch: Newspoll Uber Alles

(Note for Tasmanian readers and anyone else interested: my piece on the Colbeck demotion appears below this one, or click here.)

2PP: 50.6 to Coalition (-0.7 since two weeks ago) - updated from 50.5 following Essential
Closest margin since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister
Seat projection off this 2PP: 80 Coalition, 66 Labor, 4 Others 

After five weeks of reasonably static polling with the Coalition's 2PP at just above 51%, the past week saw another dip that was widely attributed to the government's unsuccessful and apparently half-hearted attempt to convince State Premiers to support state-based income taxes.

Newspoll especially got a lot of attention by finding Labor to be ahead of the Coalition (51:49) for the first time since Malcolm Turnbull took over as PM.  Much reporting - with the ABC alas the worst culprit that I noticed here - treated Newspoll as if it was the only poll in town.  In fact Morgan was the first poll to have the Coalition ahead on 2PP (two weeks earlier but not in the current week), and reputable aggregates all still show the Coalition with a slim 2PP lead.

The attention on Newspoll in the political classes to the exclusion of most others has long been disproportionate but may be becoming even more so.  As evidence that the Turnbull government was in trouble, a single 49:51 result was very flimsy. given especially that:

Colbeck Demoted To Fifth On Double-Dissolution Liberal Ticket

I am working on a belated roundup of federal polling but a quick post on today's Tasmanian Liberal Senate preselection decision is appropriate.  The state executive has confirmed a Senate preselection decision to order the Tasmanian Liberal Senate ticket in the event of a double dissolution as follows: 1. Senator Eric Abetz 2. Senator Stephen Parry 3. staffer Jonathan Duniam 4. Senator David Bushby 5. Senator Richard Colbeck 6. Break O'Day Councillor John Tucker.  There might yet be federal intervention, but in the absence of such, this article discusses what it may mean.  The Liberal preselection process does not include any member balloting or proportional representation and my understanding is it progresses by a series of votes on each position down the list.

This follows a previous preselection decision for a half-Senate election, which I did not cover here, in which Senator Abetz retained his position on top of the ticket very comfortably while Senator Parry apparently defeated Duniam for position two by one vote.  (Senators Colbeck and Bushby are mid-term so were not involved).

Aside from the state branch not preselecting even one woman to any of the six remotely winnable Tasmanian senate positions, the aspect attracting attention here is the effective demotion of Senator Richard Colbeck, who is currently Minister for Tourism and International Education, from top of the ticket in 2010 to below newcomer Duniam and Senator Bushby.  This has been widely and in my view probably rightly seen through the prism of conflict between hardliners and moderates, with the Tasmanian party being dominated by the former.  With Eric Abetz demoted from Senate leadership and all of the "three Amigos" in the Lower House being first-term backbenchers, Colbeck is now the most senior (though not the most longserving) Liberal in Canberra and topped the Coalition ticket for the 2013 election.

Monday, April 4, 2016

Legislative Council 2016: Apsley and Elwick

This is my candidate guide and preview for the two Tasmanian Legislative Council seats that are up for elections this year.  Nominations closed on April 15, and the elections are on Saturday May 7th; I expect to post live comments on the counts as per normal.  However I will be busy in the week leading up to the election so updates may be briefer or less frequent than usual.

These elections are important for the future legislative program of the Hodgman Liberal Government. At present it usually but not always has the numbers upstairs (see voting patterns).  If both seats fall to Labor, then the left will have a blocking majority on major contentious issues.  Even one Labor win would be quite significant for the balance of the chamber.

Despite the implications of Legislative Council elections for state politics, many LegCo elections are decided in a similar way to local council voting, based on personal profile, community connections and "parish pump" type campaigning.  Attempts to attack incumbents both right (Wilkinson, Dean) and left (Finch, Gaffney) over their voting records have failed spectacularly in recent years - but at least state political issues are now being discussed at all in these campaigns.