Pollytics

Politics, elections and piffle plinking

How the 2007 election doubled the Greens vote everywhere.

There’s a Victorian state Newspoll out this morning via The Oz that has the Coalition leading the ALP on the primary vote by 40/35, but with the two party preferred running 52/48 the other way. This comes about because the Greens vote is sitting on a high of 19.

That’s all good and well, but here’s something much more interesting. If we trace the Greens vote from 2005 through to the present day for the States of  NSW, Vic, Qld, WA and SA,  what we find is a massive structural change occur in the level of Greens support across Australia right after the 2007 federal election. To highlight the change, we’ll also run a combined State trend before and after the 2007 election, as well as the Greens vote at the federal level over the period. We’ll use Newspoll as the raw data (click to expand):

greenstrends

It’s worth noting that Newspoll only started putting the Greens in their polls as an up front, read out option in their voting intention question part way through the series here, just before the 2007 election.  Yet it doesn’t really make a lick of difference, as the election results for the Greens (which are in these series as a substitute for that month’s Newspoll observation) always fell within a point or two of the polls leading up to an election result anyway, at any time since 2005. We’re dealing here with a structural jump in the Greens vote of more than 6 points over the few months following the 2007 federal election, but a change that occurred across all levels of Australian politics. It’s  a change far beyond what any small wording difference in Newspoll could produce.

We often wonder about the impact that Federal politics has on State politics and vice versa –  but here we have a Read More »

Bligh looking to remove optional preferential voting

Today, the Courier Mail reports that Qld Premier Anna Bligh has asked Attorney-General Cameron Dick to look into whether optional preferential voting at the state level is leading to an increase in the informal vote in Qld – presumably with the view of replacing OPV with the compulsory preferential model we have at Federal elections.  I’m sure that compulsory preferential voting having the consequence of boosting ALP electoral prospects in Qld with a large Green vote has nothing at all to do with it.

No siree – cynics we ain’t. <cough>

There is no doubt at all that optional preferential voting existing at the state level increases the size of the informal vote at the federal election in those states. Our most recent look at it for the 2010 election result was here – and pretty much every man and his dog that has ever looked at it has come to the same conclusion.

But it’s also worth looking at what effect OPV has on State election results. At the moment, NSW and Qld are the two states running optional preferential systems for state elections, with NSW introducing it in the early 90’s and Qld introducing it in 1992. If we track the level of informal voting at state elections for the last 25 odd years, it’s interesting to note that NSW and Qld – the two states with OPV – have the lowest levels of informal voting among all the large states:

informalstate

But as we know, by having two systems, the trade-off is an increase in the level of informal voting at the Federal level – which we can see by comparing the State and Federal elections in Qld: Read More »

Polling at the moment

You may have noticed that we’re not paying much attention here at the moment to political polling. The reason for that is that since the polling machines started winding back up, the results they’ve produced have been a bit odd. Not necesarrily wrong mind you, but just odd. We’re seeing Satisfaction/Approval ratings and Better/Preferred PM changes not being particularly consistent with voting intention changes and some of the relationships not being particularly consistent with history.

Mumbles highlights one of these odd things with a difference popping up between respondent allocated preferences and 2010 election preferences for instance. Another couple of examples can sort of be done visually, where we can look at how the government’s two party preferred and primary vote leads stack up against the PM net satisfaction and Better PM ratings for the first 3 polls after every government re-election since 1993 (so we knock out 1996 and 2007 as they were new governments, and we can’t use 1998 because of the One Nation effect stuffing up the polling – as it always does with these things, which is why I always leave it out).

First, the table of the data being used (it’s Newspoll data where the early years are my calculations of TPP from election preferences, as Newspoll didn’t publish many TPP results back then)

tableoct26

Now the charts: Read More »

More Morgan Reactor testing of US mid-term ads

We have a new batch of US mid-term ads that have been run through the Roy Morgan Reactor audience response testing (using US citizens and with the technology deployed online) – giving some pretty interesting results, especially by party breakdown. Looking at the latest batch of ads, they’re all “Vote for me! Vote for me!” type stuff coming from the following candidates:

  • Bobby Bright, Democrat, Alabama’s 2nd Congressional district
  • Bill Owens, Democrat, New York’s 23rd Congressional district
  • Jim Marshall, Democrat, Georgia 8th Congressional district
  • Chet Edwards, Democrat, Texas 17th Congressional district.
  • Cedric Richmond, Democrat, Louisiana 2nd Congressional district
  • Blanche Lincoln, Democrat, Senate, Arkansas
  • Christine O’Donnell, Republican, Senate, Delaware

What is really interesting, especially from an Australian perspective,  is that the first four Democratic candidates are effectively running as Republicans or independent conservatives in spirit if not name, with all of them deliberately bagging Nanci Pelosi and hawking their various conservative wares (NRA membership, Chamber of Commerce endorsements etc) – the Jim Marshall one had me giggling away. As one would expect, they receive more positive responses from Republican voters than Democrat ones. It goes to show just how different US politics is compared to our own.

Like last time, you can see the ads and their audience response broken down into three cohort types:

By Party

By Gender

By Age

The whole set of ads run to just over 4 minutes.

As an aside, with the last two ads from Christine O’Donnell – who has had a rather controversial history of late – do you reckon that sort of vapid personalised cliche-as-advertising would ever work for a female candidate in Australia? Well, assuming you didn’t start it like O’Donnell did with the line “I’m not a witch”.

Insulation Fire Risk – The data is in

Back in February of this year when a debate popped up in the media over the insulation program – if one loosely defines “debate” as screeching “OMG!! YOUR HOUSES ARE ALL GOING TO BURN DOWN”  – we thought that it might be worthwhile for someone to take their underpants off their head and have a squiz at what the data actually said.

What we found was that under every possible scenario, the government insulation program – far from increasing the rates of fire occurring from installing insulation – actually reduced the rate of fires and likely reduced the rate in a quite substantial manner.

Ultimately, the data strongly suggested that the insulation program actually made the industry safer in terms of fire risk. Some folks found that surprising since it went against the hysterics – but it’s only really surprising if you weren’t paying attention. The industry before the program was completely unregulated everywhere except in South Australia. As the program rolled out, increasing amounts of regulation aimed specifically at making the industry safer was implemented – purely in an attempt to manage some of the broad risk involved. So the initial result wasn’t particularly surprising at all when you look at the broad picture.

The original analysis was with preliminary information that was incomplete – but we attempted to control for a few issues to make a set of broad estimates that we thought would be relatively robust and accurate. Over the last week or so, the complete data has been released in various places and after crunching the numbers again with the complete data, we find that reality falls pretty much in the middle of our earlier estimates.

One of the problems we had in February was in trying to estimate the timeliness in the relationship between getting insulation installed and when a fire broke out as a result of that negligent  insulation going into your roof. If you had a dodgy installation, is it more likely that any fire would occur sooner rather than later, and if so, by how much?

That was the big question.

It’s also something we can start to answer.

What we need is the number of installations for each month of the program, as well as the number of fire incidents each month linked to the insulation program.

We can get a proxy for the monthly installation numbers from the  report of the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts References Committee that looked into the Energy Efficient Homes package here on page 19 of the report (on page 13 of the pdf file).

It’s only a proxy because it doesn’t measure when the insulation was actually  installed, but when the money was claimed for the installation by the installer from the government.  There might be a few days or a week or so lag in these numbers – but that difference is ultimately meaningless anyway, as we shall see.

The other piece of data we need is the number of fire incidents reported by month. We can get that from the government’s Home Insulation Safety Plan website.

When we compare the two series, this is what we get – fire incidents on the left hand axis, installation claims on the right hand axis and the month on the bottom axis:

installation1

As we can see, it took a few months of growth in the installation numbers before we started to see a dramatic increase in the number of fire incidents. Similarly, when the program was stopped in February, it took about 6 months for the fire incidents to wash out of the system and return to normal.

What’s normal I hear you ask?

In previous years, around Read More »

Andrew Leigh’s maiden speech

When Andrew Leigh made his move to Parliament, one of the big questions that many of us had was whether Australian economics’ great loss might turn into our great political gain?

I think the optimists still outweigh the pessimists by about 2 to 1 (and it’s pretty obvious which side I come down on here!), but whatever your view – he made his maiden speech in Parliament today and it went a little something like this:

It is hard to imagine a greater honour than to represent your friends and neighbours in our national parliament. Each of us brings to this place the hopes and dreams of the people who chose us. I am keenly aware both of the incredible opportunity the people of Fraser have bestowed on me, and the very great responsibility to them which that opportunity entails.

Let me begin, then, by telling you about my electorate of Fraser, and the city of Canberra in which it lies.

Fraser rests on the right bank of the Molonglo River, stretching north from the office blocks of Civic to the young suburbs of Bonner and Forde on the ACT’s northernmost tip. Because the leaders of the time decided that a capital city must have its own port, the electorate of Fraser also includes the Jervis Bay Territory, home to a diverse community, and a school where kangaroos graze on an oval overlooking the Pacific Ocean.

In the electorate of Fraser, some locations carry the names given to them by the traditional Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who used what is now modern-day Canberra to hold their corroborees and feast on Bogong moths. Other suburbs are named after Australia’s great political leaders. For the people of Canberra, a nation’s proud history is embodied in our local geography.

Thanks to far-sighted decisions by generations of planners, Canberra’s hills are largely undeveloped. This means that many residents have the pleasure of looking up from a suburban street to see a hill covered in gum trees. From the Pinnacles to Mount Majura, the Aranda Bushlands to Black Mountain, our city’s natural environment offers ample opportunities to exercise the body and soothe the soul.

Economists like me are trained to believe in markets as the best route to environmental protection. And I do. But I also know that smart policy will only succeed if there is a will for action – if we believe in our hearts that we cannot enjoy the good life without a healthy planet.

As vital as our natural environment are the social ties that bind us together. In an era when Australians are becoming disconnected from one another, Canberra has some of the highest rates of civic engagement in the nation. Canberrans are more generous with our time and money, more likely to play sport with our mates, and more inclined to participate in cultural activities. Part of the reason for this is that we spend less time in the car than most other Australians, but I suspect it also has something to do with the design of Canberra’s suburbs.

During my time in this parliament, I will strive to strengthen community life not only in Canberra, but across Australia. In doing so, I hope to follow in the footsteps of my grandparents – people of modest means who believed that a life of serving others was a life well lived. My paternal grandfather, Keith Leigh, was a Methodist Minister who died of hypothermia while running up Mount Wellington in Hobart. It was October, and the mountain was covered in snow – as it is today. Keith was 59 years old, and was doing the run to raise money for overseas aid.

My mother’s parents were a boilermaker and a teacher who lived by the credo that if there was a spare room in their house, it should be used by someone who needed the space. As a child, I remember eating at their home with Indigenous families and new migrants from Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Cambodia and Sri Lanka.

That early experience informs my lifelong passion for Australia’s multiculturalism. With a quarter of our population born overseas, Australia has a long tradition of welcoming new migrants into our midst. Earlier this year, I attended a prize-giving ceremony for an art competition run as part of Refugee Week. First prize went to a Karen Burmese woman who had woven a traditional crimson tunic. Because she didn’t have a proper loom, the woman had taken the mattress off her bed, and fashioned a loom from her pine bed base. It is hard not to be overwhelmed by the courage and spirit of Australia’s migrants.

Near my home in Hackett, the local café is run by the three sons of James Savoulidis, a Greek entrepreneur who opened the first pizzeria in Canberra in 1966, and taught Gough Whitlam to dance the Zorba a few years later. Elsewhere in the Fraser electorate, you can enjoy Ethiopian in Dickson, Indian in Gungahlin, Chinese in Campbell, Vietnamese in O’Connor, or Turkish in Jamison. Canberrans who are called to worship can choose among their local church, temple, synagogue, or mosque. And yet I’ve never heard a murmur from my religious friends about the fact that the local ABC radio station broadcasts on the frequency 666.

My views on diversity and difference were also shaped by spending several years of my childhood in Malaysia and Indonesia. Sitting in my primary school in Banda Aceh, I learned what it feels like to be the only person in the room with white skin. And as I moved through seven different primary schools, I got a sense of how it feels to be an outsider, and the importance of making our institutions as inclusive as possible.

But clearly the experience didn’t scar me too much – because at 38, I’ve spent more than half my life in formal education. Sitting in Judith Anderson’s high school English class, I learned to treasure the insights into the human condition that come from the great storytellers – the works of William Shakespeare and Jane Austen, George Orwell and Les Murray, Leo Tolstoy and Tim Winton. Studying law, I learned that open government, judicial independence, and equal justice are principles worth fighting for. And picking my way through the snow drifts to attend Harvard seminars with Christopher Jencks, I came to appreciate the importance of rigorously testing your ideas, and the power of tools such as randomised policy trials (a topic about which members can be assured I will speak more during my time in this place).

In the decades ahead, education will be the mainspring of Australia’s economic success. Great childcare, schools, technical colleges and universities are the most effective way to raise productivity and living standards.

Improving education is also smart social policy. First-rate schooling is the best antipoverty vaccine we’ve yet invented. Great teachers can light a spark of vitality in children, a self-belief and passion for hard work, that will burn bright for the rest of their lives.

As an economist, much of my research has been devoted to the vast challenges of reducing poverty and disadvantage. I believe that rising inequality strains the social fabric. Too much inequality cleaves us one from another: occupying different suburbs, using different services, and losing our sense of shared purpose. Anyone who believes in egalitarianism as the animating spirit of the Australian settlement should recoil at this vision of our future.

But my research has also taught me that good intentions aren’t enough. As a professor-turned-politician, one of my role models is the late great US Senator Read More »

Morgan Reactor and US midterm political ads

You might remember Roy Morgan’s Reactor technology as the real life audience response tracking system that Channel Seven used in its coverage of the leadership debates in Australia at the last election – otherwise known as the Polliegraph. Morgan has deployed that technology to track US audience response to a number of political ads currently showing in the US as they head toward their midterm elections.

Unlike the Polliegraph, where audience members were all in the same room – this was deployed online with people across the US using a digital slider to give positive or negative reactions to the advertising as they were watching it.

This week’s clutch of propaganda political advertising contains TV spots from the following:

  • Meg Whitman – Republican candidate for Governor of California
  • Jerry Brown – Democrat candidate for Governor of California
  • Carly Fiorina – Republican nominee for Senate  - California
  • Barbara Boxer – Democrat nominee for Senate  - California
  • Sharron Angle – Republican Senate nominee Nevada
  • Harry Reid – Democrat Senate nominee Nevada
  • Ron Johnson – Republican Senate nominee Wisconsin
  • Russ Feingold – Democrat Senate nominee Wisconsin

The links below take you to a video and stream of the audience reactions that looks like this:

USreactor

You can view the audience response broken down into a number of demographics  – so choose your poison:

By Party Support

By Gender

By Age

Roy Morgan also ran another batch of ads for audience response the week before – these ads came from: Read More »

Odd things in the Green vote

A funny little thing about the Greens vote popped up last week when I was trying to estimate the size of the donkey vote at the recent election. Where the Greens candidates sit on the ballot paper has an impact on the size of the vote they receive, beyond a standard donkey vote.

Essentially, the closer to the top of the ballot a Greens candidate was, the larger was the change (on average)  in the primary vote the Greens received – so Greens candidates closer to the top of the ballot got a larger swing towards them than Greens candidates at the bottom of the ballot.

The pattern operated in such a way that even if we remove all of the seats where the Greens were 1st on the ballot paper (the standard donkey vote), we still see the same relationship play out.

As regularly happens with these things, I initially stumbled across it by accident. As also regularly happens with these things, I initially thought it was just a quirky little spurious correlation of the type that we regularly see in social science data. Correlation is sometimes simply accidental with this stuff.

Yet the relationship was particularly strong and it kept bugging me – so I went back through previous elections and found the same, exact pattern. What differed over the last 3 elections for the Greens was the strength of the relationship, but not the direction or nature of the relationship itself.

To start with, let’s just run 4 scatter plots of the ballot position of Greens candidates against the swing they received for the 2004, 2007 and 2010 elections using seat level data, as well as a scatter plot of those three election results all pooled together. The bottom axis is ballot position (whether they were the first, second, third candidate on the ballot etc), while the vertical axis is the swing received. (click to expand)

ballotpos1

What we notice is that the 2007 result, while still having a slight linear trend in the right direction, is pretty weak (both visually and statistically). The 2004, 2007 and pooled results however, are all statistically significant.

But if the general relationship between ballot position and swing was true, would we expect the relationship in 2007 to be weak?

Well, yes, we probably would. The reason why we would expect such a thing is because of the underlying variation in the data. In both 2004 and 2010, the Greens experienced a sizeable national swing towards them –  2.23% in 2004 and 3.97% in 2010. Yet in 2007 they experienced only a very small swing of 0.6%.

Similarly, if we look at the variance of the swings at the seat level, the standard deviation of the swing in 2004 was 1.96, in 2010 it was 2.48, while in 2007 it was a lowly 1.32.

So in both 2004 and 2010 there was not only a large swing, but larger variance underneath those swings compared to the 2007 result. To track relationships between data, you need variation in the data itself. With relatively small variation in the 2007 data, we would generally expect to see a weaker relationship if such a relationship was actually true.

If we pool the results from all three elections, what we find is that even though the 2007 result in isolation shows a weakish relationship, when pooled with the higher variance 2004 and 2010 results, the pooled result still exhibits a relatively strong relationship. Interestingly, if we look at this pooled result – we can control for the standard donkey vote to see if it’s just the first position on the ballot that matters or if it’s something deeper.

To do this, we’ll create two sets of data – the first being Read More »

Did Greens HTV Cards win Labor any seats?

The AEC has released the preference distribution data from the election, so it’s worth having a bit of a squiz at the way preferences flowed from the Greens to the ALP, as there’s some interesting little bits in there.

To start with, it’s worth looking at the broader picture on the vote side – so the primary vote and the primary vote swing for the Greens and the ALP, by state and territory, came in like this:

primvotes

That gives us a bit of a feel for the results – so in places like NSW we had the swing away from the ALP being much larger than the swing towards the Greens, while in places like Victoria we saw the opposite occur, where the swing to the Greens was much larger than the swing away from the ALP.

So we have a pretty non-uniform result across the States and Territories in terms of the magnitude of the Greens picking up votes at the net expense of Labor.

On the preference side of things, the flow of Greens preferences to the Labor Party at the national level reduced by nearly a point, from 79.96% at the 2007 election down to 78.84% in 2010. If we break those Greens-to-Labor preference flows down to the state and territory level, we find that only the NT had a particularly large change – with flows dropping by 4.3% since the last election:

greenprefflows

NSW is an interesting case, where not only did the ALP take a pretty big hit on their primary vote, but the preference flow from the Greens to the ALP also dropped – suggesting that the ALP really was quite on the nose  and not just suffering a protest vote from the left end of the spectrum.

In terms of the two party preferred, we can look at how many points of ALP two party preferred that Greens voters ultimately delivered to Labor at the election. Read More »

Gibbons throwing poo

As Australia enters a period where we are going to have one of the largest battle of ideas for decades, the noisiest newspaper in the country  – once proudly considered the national broadsheet – has been transformed by its current leadership into such a farcical shadow of its former self, that it has resorted to that most pathetic of tactics that we in the blogosphere are all too familiar with; trolling the internets.

The outing of Grog’s Gamut and the petty, vindictive thuggery and implied threats behind it, speak much more about the character of the paper and the journalist involved than it does about any vacuous nonsense over imagined rights of anonymity online. If you want to be anonymous, you can – and no amount of bleating from some half baked, well dressed, shit sheet is going to change that any time soon. Speaking as someone that did it for years, it can be done.

Yet we’ve had not just one article on this tawdry rubbish,  we’ve had a rolling series of articles churned out by this newspaper and its usual suspects over the last few days, with a special collection still to come.

Jay Rosen called it a war on bloggers while the paper itself has laughably called it a debate.

Yet this is not a debate any more than its a war – it’s just a bunch heritage media gibbons throwing poo.

Often this mob will take issue with a blogger over some particular point, or indulge in one of their well known hissyfits and drive by smears – we’ve seen this happen for years with this newspaper. But after the original, sad little article that outed Grog – something certainly deserving of debate – the follow up stories have been singularly defined by their complete absence of any real content; well, once you remove the glorious self justifications and gratuitous fantasies of being the nation’s public interest netcop.

These clowns are trolling the internet.

They’re trolling you.

They’re trying to stir up shit to drive online eyeballs, and so far there’s a lot of people falling for it.

These actions aren’t the mark of leadership in Australian journalism, it’s the mark of a declining newspaper desperate for attention.

It’s also the type of pathetic unhinging we thought was inevitable.

As the saying goes – don’t feed the trolls.

In better news, now that Parliament has returned and political business ramps back up to normal levels, the blog can start doing what it does again. Yes, the break was lovely – thanks :-P