Sunday 22 September 2013

End of the line

The Infographinomicon will be on hiatus for a while, as far as new posts are concerned. Election results will be updated soon, and the results added to the running total on the right. My pre-Infographinomicon predictions will be uploaded and backdated, but not added to the running total. The missing NSW rundown will hopefully be replaced [Editor: Nope]. Other edits to fix typographic or grammatical errors might eventually occur.

Until the next election (probably the SA state election), adieu. You have been a great audience.

- the PsephologyKid.

Saturday 21 September 2013

Post-Election - Senate

Senate Results:


I am once more out in the field, so this data may be a little out of date. However, by inserting the state-specific AEC data here (15/09/2013) into Antony Green's Senate calculator here, quotas and preference flows are calculated to give the following results:



This gives us a vibrantly coloured Senate requiring quite a bit of deal-brokering on the part of the Liberal-National Coalition:



The Coalition is five votes short of half, and thus six votes short of a majority. With some minor concessions they could normally rely on support from the FFP, PUP, DLP and perhaps LDP. The last two votes, then, will require deal brokering with the AMEP, ASP and Xenophon. Given the lack of policies among the AMEP and ASP outside of their particular issue of interest (Motoring and Sports respectively), it seems likely that these two will be the most common legislative enablers for the Coalition.

Prediction Results:


In terms of predictions I was expecting this:


With these seats already determined from 2010:


State (and Territory) by State (and Territory):


ACT
Predicted: ALP (1), Coalition (1)
Result: ALP (1), LIB (1)
Score: 2/2 (2/2)

NSW
Predicted: ALP (3), Coalition (3)
Result: LIB (1), ALP (2), NAT (1), LDP (1), DEM (1)
Score: 4/6 (6/8)

NT
Predicted: ALP (1), Coalition (1)
Result: CLP (1), ALP (1)
Score: 2/2 (8/10)

QLD
Predicted: ALP (2), Coalition (3), Tossup (1)
Result: LNQ (3), ALP (2), PUP (1)
Score: 6/6 (14/16)

SA
Predicted: ALP (2), XEN (1) Coalition (3)
Result: LIB (2), XEN (1), ALP (1), GRN (1), FFP (1)
Score: 4/6 (18/22)

TAS
Predicted: ALP (2), Coalition (3), Tossup (1)
Result: LIB (3), ALP (2), GRN (1)
Score: 6/6 (24/28)

VIC
Predicted: ALP (2), GRN (1), Coalition (3)
Result: LIB (2), ALP (2), GRN (1), AMEP (1)
Score: 5/6 (29/34)

WA
Predicted: ALP (2), GRN (1), Coalition (3)
Result: LIB (3), ALP (1), ASP (1), GRN (1)
Score: 5/6 (34/40)

34/40 gives me 85%, which is pretty poor even though you expect the Senate to throw up a few surprises. I think this pretty well demonstrates that House of Representatives primary vote polling cannot be used as a reliable analogue for voting intention in the Senate as a result of the greater number of parties on the white ballot. Also, simple quota calculations and estimations of transferable vote are probably not complex enough to deal with the counting process, and in future Antony Green's ever-useful calculators should play a lager role in my predictions.

And finally...


Last week we looked at the potential for the ALP to block the repeal of the Carbon Tax in the current Senate and, depending on the next Senate, trigger a double disillusion. Given this many groups to make deals with, it is unlikely that the Coalition will be prevented from passing the repeal after mid 2014. To block, the ALP would nead at least 38 votes. That is 25 ALP, 10 Greens and three others who will not be swayed by Coalition deals.

The New South Wales Democrat is one, since the Democrats' Climate Policy includes:
18. The use of taxes, levies and 'polluter pays' instruments designed to reduce and limit greenhouse gas emissions, as well as encourage business innovation in environmental efficiency.
The Dems may be open to changes on the Carbon Tax, but not a full repeal.

On the other hand, the LIB, LNQ, NAT, FFP and PUP candidates already support a repeal. The DLP does not state its position, instead proposing nuclear fusion as the way of the future. Nuclear fusion is something of a Holy Grail of energy production - cheap, efficient, safe, clean, capable of high base-load power output, and out of our reach at the present time. The LDP opposes "either subsidising or unfairly taxing any particular source of energy", though this is largely linked into ambitions for nuclear fission plant development, and they do not specify whether the Carbon Tax is considered 'unfair'. Xenophon opposes the Carbon Tax, prefering his own system of incentives rather than penalties.

Let us assume, then, that the DLP side with the conservatives on principle, Xenophon sides with the conservatives on pragmatism and the LDP do oppose the Carbon Tax. That leaves the Senate vote thusly:



In this case the ALP needs both the AMEP and ASP candidates to side with them. Being single-issue candidates, this means doing deals on motoring and sports respectively. And, being in power, the Coalition is far better placed to negotiate. [Editor: Also, minor parties that effectively lucked their way into a seat are not going to want an election any sooner than they can avoid.]

In short, do not expect a double disillusion any time soon.

Saturday 14 September 2013

Post-Election - House of Representatives

What has passed...


It is ironic that in an election with such a foregone conclusion, I should recieve the lowest score the I can remember. Here is the results table:


These results provided by the AEC 14/9/2013. Counting is ongoing and results may change.

These results give the following House of Representative results:

Coalition - 91 (60 Liberal (including 1 CLP), 22 LNQ and 9 Nationals)
Labor - 54
Other - 5 (1 Greens, 1 Palmer, 1 Katter, 2 Independents)

A clear Coalition victory, which should have been no surprise to anyone. However there were enough surprises to smash my predictions down to not-so-respectible 127/143 (~88.8%). So, lets get down to the usual broody, intraspective navel-gazing that inevitably follows my eqally inevitable mistakes.

That leaves 16 errors: Barton, Blair, Brand, Capricornia, Chisholm, Fairfax, Greenway, Hindmarsh, Indi, Lilley, Lyons, McEwen, Melbourne, Moreton, Parramatta and Perth.

Fairfax, Indi and Melbourne are local curiosities not playing part in the wider game of red vs blue. In Fairfax I had anticipated that, should Palmer outpoll the ALP, their preferences might push him over the top. While I had expected the ALP primary vote to perform as low as it did, Palmer's high vote surprised me. I think this illustrates the high protest vote in the community in general, and in my opinion stands as another example of the folly of compulsory atendance.

Melbourne demonstrates the power of incumbency. Until last election, the Greens were largely seen as a protest vote. Things have changed since then, and the Greens are being viewed more and more as a viable party in both houses perhaps partly the result of taking the seat of Melbourne, but this was not the first lower house seat the party has won. This change is visible in the (ultimately meaningless) polls released by the media, which often include the Greens as well as the Liberals and ALP. A large swing against the Greens was expected this year, which I think is at least partly the result of protest voters switching allegiance to Palmer and "the Kat in the Hat", Bob Katter. This swing was noted in Melbourne, but with only a 1% swing this was not as big as I had predicted.

Lastly Indi saw the demise of Liberal would-be-minister Sophie Mirrabella to Independent Cathy McGowan. I frankly have no idea why McGowan is doing so well, but that is the nature of the game. I cannot scope out every Independent in every seat, so I just have to swallow this mistake.

Those are the easy ones, the "minor parties" that can occasionally throw a spanner in the works.

That leaves Barton, Blair, Brand, Capricornia, Chisholm, Greenway, Hindmarsh, Lilley, Lyons, McEwen, Moreton, Parramatta and Perth unaccounted for. I have historically failed to develop a means of determining which seats are likely to recieve the largest swings. There are no historical patterns, there is no obvious correlation with margin, and now it appears that arbitrarily allocating an increased swing to historically unpredictable seats works marginally better.

This is what I did, however, for Bass, Blair, Braddon, Chisholm, Dobell, Lingiari, McEwen, Page, Parramatta, Perth and Richmond, which was successful for Bass, Braddon, Dobell, Lingiari, Page, and Richmond and unsuccessful in Blair, Chisholm, McEwen, Parramatta and Perth, which is as near as dash it 50% success. Irritatingly it would be roughly as ineffective, based on this year's results, to discard this approach as to persist with it. I will have to look further into this, and play around over a few more elections to resolve this.

Now we have to work out what went wrong with Barton, Brand, Capricornia, Greenway, Hindmarsh, Lilley, Lyons and Moreton. Brand, Greenway, Lilley and Moreton were predicted to fall to the Right on the grounds of the predicted swing, and until I can formulate a better means of predicting this I have to accept these losses. Brand has always been Labor and I should have been more cautious on that front. Greenway and Moreton somehow picked up votes for Labor. Lilley lost some votes, but was at least in part saved by Wayne Swan's familiarity among the general public. In general I think I need do develop some way of factoring in incumbency, since (with the exception of Palmer winning Fairfax and Mirrabella losing Indi to an Independent) only four of the errors I made occured where an unexpected change occured. The majority of mistakes resulted from a failure to succumb to the expected change.

Capricornia was misjudged as safe early on. In hindisght this looks foolish, and precluded it from analysis prior to the election. That just leaves Barton, Hindmarsh and Lyons. I cannot explain these seats changing hands at this time, with large swings unobsevered elsewhere. Lyons experienced a swing in excess of 13%.

In summary, I need to be more wary of minor parties rising on the back of protest votes, I need to refine my means of predicting where the largest swings will occur, and I need to factor in incumbancy.

... and what is yet to come.


And now that we know even more certainly that the next Prime Minister is indeed Tony Abbott, I will engage in that very thing I so recently derided -- speculation on the leadership of the Australian Labor Party. However, I maintain that this time is different because the position of leader is already in flux.

It has become clear that the challenge will be between Bill Shorten and Anthony Albanese. Mr Shorten is a popular politician, with many people at large hoping that he would step in during the depths of the Rudd-Gillard leadership troubles. However he also carries the baggage of being deeply involved in the removal of Rudd and then Gillard. Obviously Shorten has at least some power in the caucus, and may well command the votes among the party members as required under Rudd's leadership reforms.

The alternative, however, is widely favoured as the best move politically. Albanese was apointed deputy under Rudd, and given that the ALP wishes to demonstrate a break from the old conflict of Rudd vs Gillard vs faceless men, someone with some claim to precieved legitimacy might smooth the way.

Whoever takes on the job will have to bring stability, as Albanese is suggested to be better at, and be able to take the fight to the Coalition, which is Shorten's forte. Normally I would expect Labor to go through several leaders as the Libs did after 2007 to erase any links and perceved links to the old regime. (In the case of the Liberal Party, it is ironic that such fresh faces as Dr Nelson and Mr Turnbull cleared away the memories of the Howard years merely to install one of his closest ministers, Mr Abbott, to face the 2010 and 2013 elections.) However, if there is one aspect of the past that the ALP needs to shed, it is the image of the "revolving door leadership" and back-room powerbrokers. Therefore I am tipping the next ALP leader to be the contender for PM at the next election, barring any catastrophies.

Importantly, the next leader of the ALP may have some say in determining the date of the next election, and thus whether there is time for another change of leadership.

The Coalition has vowed to repeal the Carbon Tax on day one of Parliament. However, the Senate will not change until mid next year, and with the Greens opposed to a repeal, the ALP has two choices. They can support the repeal on the grounds that it is clearly the will of the people and that the Coalition has a mandate to repeal the law, and then prosecute the case that the Coalition is not serious about climate change. Alternatively, they can oppose the repeal on the grounds that it is a good law and that a transition to a carbon trading scheme is imminent.

In that case, the Coalition can back down or try again with the new Senate. The risk here is Section 57 of the Constitution, which states:
If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor‑General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously...
The old double-dissilusion clause. If Labor plays for this and succeeds, we could have another election as soon as mid next year. It is a difficuly play to make, though, and will rely heavily on the Senate results.

The Senate resuts which will be the subject of next weeks post...

Saturday 7 September 2013

Down to the wire

The House of Reps has been seen as a foregone conclusion -- not that I disagree -- and many commentators I am listening to in my election-night bunker are saying that the only question is the magnitude. However there is another, far more significant question: Who holds the balance of the senate. So, just before we get down to the actual, official figures, here is my prediction for the senate seats:

A federal NewsPoll indicates the following primary votes by state:

NSW (including ACT):

LABOR: 35%
COALITION: 46%
GREENS: 8%
OTHER: 11%

Queensland:

LABOR: 30%
COALITION: 48%
GREENS: 5%
OTHER: 17%

South Australia:

LABOR: 31%
COALITION: 44%
GREENS: 10%
OTHER: 15%

Victoria:

LABOR: 33%
COALITION: 44%
GREENS: 12%
OTHER: 11%

Western Australia:

LABOR: 30%
COALITION: 51%
GREENS: 11%
OTHER: 8%

Crikey also reports on a ReachTEL poll that apparently (once rounded off) gives the following primary votes for Tasmania:

Tasmania:

LABOR: 28%
COALITION: 48%
GREENS: 11%
OTHER: 13%

I could not find polling for the Territories (ignoring the ACT section of the NSW report above). In the Territories, both senators are up for relection, and normally these are one Coalition and one Labor. I'm using the National Primary Vote of roughly 33% ALP, 46% Coalition, 21% other. With two places to fill (i.e. n=2), each candidate needs more than 100%/(n+1) = 33% votes to win a seat. Labor and Liberal candidates are likely to get this streight out, but if not the sizable other vote will boster both sides, so I'm assuming one of each in the ACT and NT.

As for the states, n=6 so each candidate needs 100%/(n+1) = ~14.3% of the vote.

Assuming the primary vote (normally calculated for the House of Reps) is indicative of votes in the senate, this straight out gives Labor 2 senate seats in each state and the Coalition 3. With the carry over senators from 2010, the senate so far looks something like:
Red = ALP || Green = Greens || Black = DLP || Blue = Coalition

However, given the greater choice in the senate, the primary votes will be unlikely to be quite that high, potentially costing the ALP a Tasmanian seat, and possibly in Queensland and WA as well, and the Coalition one in SA and Victoria. However, when the "others" drop out, this will probably come back.

SA and Queensland also have a large enough "other" vote to collectively get one person into the senate in each state. The "other" vote is naturally difficult to predict, since it could represent one strong alternative or many no-hopers. In Queensland this is largely split between Katter's and Palmer's respective parties. If Palmer drops out first, preferences flow to the Greens. If Katter falls first, this will favor Palmer. I think Katter will poll lower than Palmer, but will be boosted by ALP overflows before Palmer gets any LNQ bonus, giving the final Queensland seats to Katter or the Greens. My prediction, is "tossup", with a possibility of Katter, Greens or Palmer.

Nick Xenophon is the only other "other", in my mind, who will harvest enough support for a seat. He does well off ALP, Liberal and National overflows (with the Nats preferencing him above the Libs!), who will be shorter of reaching the last seat than he, and thus push him over the line.

New South Wales will have less Coalition overflow from their third seat than Labor will have from its second, and the LibNat bloc wil give support to the ALP before the Greens. The Greens, therefore, will need a lot of support from "others". As low as the ALP scores in the preferences, the Greens score lower. I think Labor gets this one.

In Tasmania, Labor will be spent after taking two seats, meaning the Coalition needs to gain 60% quota, or the Greens need 20%, from the "others". I suspect this is a Greens win, but I'm calling this a tossup.

In Victoria the Greens will outpoll all "others", based on the primary vote data, and unless there is a heavy flow to either major party to bolster their overflows, this should be a Greens win.

WA Labor favours the Greens, and may give the Greens a close-to-quota vote from overflows. The Greens are likely to carry this one too:
Red = ALP || Green = Greens || Grey = Independent (Xenophon) || Black = DLP || Blue = Coalition || X = Tossup

This will give the Liberal party 36 senators, Labor 28 and the Greens 8 (giving a left-wing bloc of 36). Throw in one for Xenophon, one for the DLP and two unknowns (neither of which I expect to go to the Coalition). To hold the balance of power, the Coalition will need to make a deal with the DLP (not a big ask) and win Tasmania (a somewhat bigger ask).

I am therefore expecting a ballanced Senate, giving Abbott's now apprently inevitable government a lot of power, but still requiring a little backroom dealing.

Friday 6 September 2013

Another Prediction of Coalition Victory

Somewhere in the Pilbara
18:39 Local Time

Your erstwhile host locks himself in his mining-camp bunker with a laptop, a wifi connection, a cup of tea in a paper cup, and cable TV flicking between Sky Election 1, Sky Election 2 and the Election 2013 channel (on Sky).

Against this tense backdrop, he attempts to crack his fingers and, failing to elicit the desired sound, cracks his neck.

As the television babble dies down to an incoherent background babble of conservative, elderly white men, the PsephologyKid gets down to work...

And so, here is the House of Representatives as it currently stands:

Data from the Psephmeister

Which hangs something like this:



A hung parliament.

Two polls released today by Galaxy and ReachTEL put the primary vote at 47:53 two party prefered in the Coalition's favour. This is pretty consistent with the other polls released lately (e.g. these), and when normalised by Kevin Bonham's Experimental Aggregator (updated with unnerving punctuality) this is sitting at 46.6:53.4. (I also have it on Sky News' authority that Newspoll will release a 46:54 poll tomorrow in the Australian)

The 2010 election was (just) won by Labor with 50.12% of the 2PP vote (Wikipedia), which suggests a 3.5 percentage point swing to the Coalition. (Or a 7 pp total adjustment, which some people call a swing). Newspoll was giving the ALP a 50.2% 2PP vote before voting day 2010, which is a 3.2 pp swing to today's figures.

Taking a uniform 3.5% swing to the Coalition would give us the following results (assuming a simmilar swing against Greens, but not Katter or continuing Independents, and assuming retiring Independents (who were in conservative seats anyhow) go to the Coalition as well):


Giving the Coalition a majority of 86 out of 150 seats:


Now for a little more of the nitty-gritty. Here I outlined 44 seats to watch, including O'Connor which we will return to later, but ignore here.

Let's assume there is no pro-ALP swing tomorrow sufficient to deliver fresh seats to Labor. We can then strip away any of those 44 held by the Coalition. This leaves us with 23: Bass, Blair, Braddon, Canning, Chisholm, Corangamite, Deakin, Denison, Dobell, Eden-Monaro, Greenway, La Trobe, Lilley, Lindsay, Lingiari, McEwen, Moreton, Page, Parramatta, Perth, Petrie, Richmond and Robertson.

Now take out those we have already passed over to the Coalition, and we have 12: Bass, Blair, Braddon, Chisholm, Denison, Dobell, Lingiari, McEwen, Page, Parramatta, Perth and Richmond. These require further analysis, along with Banks, Brand, Lyne, and Reid (which we have passed to the Coalition despite not being on the short list), and all the seats held by Independents, Katter and the Greens.

Bass, Blair, Braddon, Chisholm, Dobell, Lingiari, McEwen, Page, Parramatta, Perth and Richmond are probably going to see larger swings than elsewhere. Some people are predicting a 6% swing, Blair, Chisholm, Dobell, Lingiari, Page, Parramatta and Perth would all fall under this swing, so I think there is a fair chance that most of these will cross the line. This is a big ask for Bass, Braddon, McEwen and Richmond which may still suffer those ever pressent, abberant super-swings. I am leaving McEwen with the ALP based on its margin, and putting Bass, Braddon and Richmond as tossups.

Banks has been Labor since it was founded in 1949. There is no evidence in recent results to suggest a slow transition to the Coalition, and its current position may well be about as right-wing as the seat can go. Call this a tossup, I'm informally tipping the ALP to hold this seat so often touted as a certain Liberal win. Brand is 100% ALP at the state level, dispite the massive anti-Labor swing earlier this year, and has always been Labor. Counter to common opinion, I'm calling this an ALP hold. Reid has been Labor since it was founded in '22, and its current 2PP rating is the lowest for Labor in a long time. I feel this seat is as close to changing as it will go. Safe ALP.

Melbourne is one of the Greens' best shots, and has been good for them for a while. Yes, the Greens hold this seat, but only just. If the seat's how to vote cards go as I expect, and factoring in the smashing the Greens are expecting, Melbourne will probably slide back to Labor. Then again, independently thinking Liberal voters may hate Labor enough that the Greens could get a little boost by out-polling the Libs. Then again again, even when winning the seat in 2010 the Greens could not outpoll the Liberal Party. In short, I'm giving Melbs back to the ALP, and leaving the Greens with no seats in the house of reps.

New England and Lyne have retiring Independents in strong Nationals seats. Two wins for the Coalition.

Fisher is currently Independent, but he was elected as LNQ. Peter Slipper is a long-term incumbent, but the swing to the Coalition will probably work against him. Calling this a tossup, but guessing this is a Coalition win.

Dobell, on the other hand, has an ex-ALP Independent who may pick up the Labor-disliking, left-leaning vote. Tossup.

Denison has an Independent whose margin is against the ALP. People looking to not vote for either major party will probably favour the status quo, along with anyone who prefers the major party that drops out first. This one stays Independent.

Katter has held Kennedy forever. In an election where both the LNQ and ALP are struggling to appeal, in a seat where politician-hating is a common hobby, the Kat in the Hat will be back.

Finally, I want to look at Fairfax which is Clive Palmer's best bet (and his own seat). If the ALP drops out before Mr Palmer, he will get the bulk of their support and may win the seat. However the seat has been LIB/LNQ since 1990, Coalition since foundation in 1984, and a LNQ primary vote twice that of the ALP I don't see the Labor vote being large enough to bolster Palmer over the LNQ. (Nor do I see Palmer outpolling the ALP, but who knows?) Safe LNQ.

That give us this prediction:



Another prediction of a clear Coalitin victory in the lower house. I get no points for that. I do get a possible 143 points for the seat-by seat predictions, though, so lets see what happens tomorrow.

If I get the time before polls close in the eastern states, I'll try and get some Senate predictions online. Otherwise, see you after the vote!

'Twas the night before voting...

Ladies and gentlemen, I apologise for my silence over this most tense of electoral weeks.

Detailed electoral predictions to follow, with a matter of hours until polling booths open in some areas. However, I have not found any method of refining generic swings into seat-specifics. As a result, my predictions will largely follow a traditional application of the general reported swing to the pre-election pendulum, but I will also consider the factors highlighted here and elsewhere on this blog, an explain in detail why my predictions are what they are.

In the mean time, feel free to download and print out these Australian electoral images. Normally I would be sitting at home with a pot of tea and images like these to colour in as seats fall. This year I will miss most of those luxuries, but I'll still be filling in the boxes to watch one party or another creep over the line.

First up, here is the electoral map:


The map is always good fun, but with some seats being many, many times the size of others it is worth also using a more ballanced table, below. I normally colour the progressives (ALP, Greens etc) from the left and conservatives (Liberal, National etc) from the right and see who crosses the cntre line first. However, others may prefer to label each box, which allows you to handle independents more effectively. Either way, here is the simplified table:

Pretty basic, but it does the job.


And for the senate, here is a state-by-state breakdown, with the carry-over senators already filled in. (I have put the DLP in the middle, although they will back the Coalition).


And again, a first-over the middle chart:

And finally, the legend for carry-over senators: