Oz Politics Blog

I have a prototype of an election tipping competition up and running.

So far I have only written code for the winner of the lower house, and I only have the NSW State Election up.

Available soon will also be the winner of a set of marginal seats, and the number of seats each party will get in the upper house.

It is being written in a very general manner, so new elections can be added at any time.

Please note, this is still in test. I hope to have it fully operational in the next week. If everything goes to plan, the tips placed on this test system should be retained to the final system.

Please let me know if it does anything unusual.

Update 26 February: I now have the NSW Legislative Council tipping page working.

Update 27 February: the Federal House of Representatives 2007 tipping page is up.

Morgan’s latest prediction had Labor receiving 57 per cent of the national two-party preferred vote. The Coalition received 43 per cent.

Update 24 February: On the following graph, we can speculate that a trend is emerging: Rudd’s lead is being whittled away bit by bit. Of course it is highly unlikely such a decline would continue indefinitely at the current rate (leaving Howard in the lead from around November, and well positioned for an early December election). If the declines continues until May, it will be back at the level Beazley sustained for much of last year. I suspect decline beyond this Beazley threshold would be a much more difficult challenge for the government.

The primary vote predictions were 38 per cent for the Coalition, 48 per cent for Labor, and 7 per cent for the Greens.

This is the second Morgan poll in a row where more voters thought Labor rather than the Coalition would win the next Federal election.

Morgan also included some interesting anecdotal reporting:

Coalition Party supporters cited economic management as an important issue: “The interest rates under Labor last time we huge”, “The Liberals are much better economic managers — it’s not all about who can spruik the most about climate change”, “The Liberals have moderate policies. The economy is the best it has ever been, with low unemployment” and “I consider the country to be in a good financial position — we only have 4.5% unemployment so why would we want to change?”

Prime Minister John Howard remains very popular among Coalition supporters: “I like John Howard — he comes across as very fair, he makes the tough decisions and sticks with them”, “I think John Howard has done a fantastic job. He is a quiet achiever — he’s not about image, he just does his job”, “I feel more secure with John Howard’s experience” and “John Howard is the right man for this country.”

Supporters of the ALP cited dissatisfaction with Prime Minister John Howard: “I’ve had enough of John Howard, he is a liar”, “I am anti-nuclear, anti-war and therefore anti-Howard”, “I think John Howard has lost the plot — I am very dissatisfied with the IR laws”, “I am against John Howard’s IR laws, they take too much out of the family-man’s pocket and therefore devalue the family unit” and “I have a profound dissatisfaction with John Howard and his Government — we need to become a more compassionate community.”

Many other electors cited the performance of Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has convinced them to support the ALP: “I think Kevin Rudd is an honest man”, “I like Kevin Rudd’s industrial relations policies — he is more supportive of the family”, “I like Rudd, I believe he has leadership potential”, “Kevin Rudd seems like he is on the ball”, “The ALP has a good new leader — I like Kevin Rudd, he seems like a nice person and seems human” and “Kevin Rudd is likely to do a better job than John Howard.”

The usual opinion poll graphs are here. You may need to hit the refresh or reload button on your browser to see the latest graphs.

Update: Michael Costello has a good op. ed. in this morning’s Oz on Rudd’s honeymoon in the polls.

The sealed section in today’s Crikey included the following analysis:

7.4% of Bennelong voters who supported the PM in 2004 say they intend to back the ALP at the next federal election. If this figure stays the same between now and the poll, these people will deliver around twice the swing needed to lose Bennelong and will put the PM put out to pasture.

The Crikey Morgan Poll taken last week has identified exactly where the sands are shifting. IR is the killer. Out of the shifting 7.4%:

• 59% (all Bennelong electors 38%) think Mr Howard should retire before the next Federal Election compared to 34% (all Bennelong electors 55%) who think he should contest the election.
• 83% (all Bennelong electors 59%) disagree with the Government’s industrial relations reforms compared to 10% who agree (all Bennelong electors 26%).
• 73% (all Bennelong electors 49%) think Kevin Rudd would make a better Prime Minister than John Howard (23% compared to 47% of all Bennelong electors).
• 87% (all Bennelong electors 75%) approve of the way Mr Rudd is handling his job as Opposition Leader compared to 7% (all Bennelong electors 11%) who disapprove.
• 38% (all Bennelong electors 47%) disapprove of the way Mr Howard is handling his job as Prime Minister compared to 45% (all Bennelong electors 44%) who approve.
• 56% (all Bennelong electors 38%) think the ALP will win the next Federal election compared to 40% (all Bennelong electors 46%) who think the Coalition will win.
• 87% (all Bennelong electors 51%) would like the ALP to win the next Federal election compared to 7% (all Bennelong electors 40%) who would like the Coalition to win.
• 67% (all Bennelong electors 62%) think the Government should ask the American Government for David Hicks’ immediate return to Australia compared to 33% (all Bennelong electors 31%) who think Hicks should remain in US custody to face trial.
• 27% (all Bennelong electors 29%) think Australian forces should continue to fight in Iraq compared to 66% (all Bennelong electors 64%) who say Australian troops should be returned home.

Oh dear! Where to begin?

7.4 per cent of 394 people (the total sample), suggests the shifting voter element of these comparisons was based on a sample of 29 people. I am not comfortable with comparative statistics based on such small sample sizes.

Statistical theory depends on the central limit theorem (CLT). With small sample sizes (N less than 30), the central limit theorem cannot be assumed to apply, and reliable population estimates cannot be calculated. Because the CLT may not apply, we cannot assume that sample means would be normally distributed around the population mean, nor can we estimate the standard deviation (σ) of a population from the standard deviation (s) of the sample.

If we assume the sample size was not a problem, the 95% confidence interval (at 50-50 per cent) is around +/- 19 per cent (using the t-statistic). Many of the above differences are not statistically significant.

I found the comparison of shifting voters to all voters problematic, as the sample mean for all voters comprises a number of distinct and different voter groups (e.g. Liberal and Labor voters). The total population means are also affected by the shifting voters with whom we wish to make a comparison. Were the sample size sufficient, I would have been more interested in the individual comparisons of the shifting voter group with both the long term Liberal and Labor voter groups.

Finally, that old maxim applies: correlation is not causation.

Let there be no confusion: I am not arguing against the proposition that IR will be the killer issue in the next election. All I am saying is that these statistics do not provide a sound basis to come to that conclusion. I would classify these statistics as interesting, worthy of further investigation, but not a compelling argument that IR will be the killer issue in the next election. Hopefully a polling organisation will undertake a more robust analysis of this issue in the near future. The Government may well have an insurmountable problem if that more robust analysis confirms these findings.

The average probability from the five bookies for a Coalition government following the 2007 election is 49.1 per cent. It was 49.5 per cent last Thursday.

Don’t forget that in probability terms a betting market that has Howard ahead 55-45 is not all that different to a betting market that has Howard and Rudd each on 50-50. For much of 2006, the betting market was saying that Beazley would have won 9 elections out of 20 (were the same election repeated 20 times). The betting market is now saying that Rudd would win 10 elections out 20.

The usual graphs are here. You may need to hit the refresh or reload button on your browser to see the latest graphs.

In yesterday’s Crikey the father of Australian psephology, Malcolm Mackerras, predicted a double defeat for Howard in the seat of Bennelong and the Liberal/National Coalition at the 2007 Federal Election.

Let me be the first pundit to predict that the Liberal Party will lose this year’s general election as a whole, and Bennelong in particular.

…

It will become conventional for commentators to say that the Howard defeat in Bennelong in 2007 followed the precedent of the defeat of Stanley Melbourne Bruce in 1929. However, there will be a major difference. In 1929 there was a snap election, the earliest federal election ever. The defeat of Bruce in Flinders was the big shock of the night.

By contrast, by election day in 2007 almost every pundit will be predicting that the Howard Government will be defeated and that Howard will also be defeated in Bennelong.

Will this be one of Mackerras’ two out of three that he gets right, or will this be one of the clangers?

Update: Simon Jackman has an amusing take on Mackerras’s self-aggrandising style.