Predictions?
Predictions.
Predictions:
Previously I have waited a lot closer
to election day before finalising my predictions, often posting the
eve before. This election, however, I will attempt to give my
predictions a week early so that next week's post can be the
post-election analysis and the weekend after that we can transition
speedily into the April WA senate re-elections. This schedule should,
hopefully, give us enough time to attempt some analysis of the data,
consider the implications and cast some predictions before April 5.
Also, in the interests of full
disclosure, I should state that (as of last Thursday) I am signed up
to conduct letter-boxing and the handing out of how to vote cards for
Your Voice (Legislative Council Group X). That said, if I allow my
own political biases to influence my predictions it will only serve
to skew my calculations and cost my accuracy record, so if anything
my vested interests are in being impartial.
Shall we begin?
Legislative Assembly:
Most of our analysis has been focussed
on the lower house, so lets start here. There are 47 seats to call,
which means we can call a maximum of 2 tossups. Looking back on the
post from two weeks ago,
I short-listed some seats to watch:
- Fisher, Frome and Mount Gambier are held by Independents
- Adelaide, Bright, Dunstan, Light, Newland and Unley are held by one major party but generally lean to the other
- Colton, Frome (again), Hartley, Little Para, Newland (again), Mawson, Mount Gambier (again) and Unley (again) are not strongly affiliated with any party
- Adelaide (again), Ashford, Bright (again), Colton (again), Dunstan (again), Elder, Florey, Hartley (again), Light (again), Mawson (again), Mitchel, Morialta, Mount Gambier (again), Newland (again) and Wright are within the marginal (< 6%) range of the pendulum.
Also of note are the three seats from
the weekbefore
that were not consistently Liberal or Labor based on past trends:
Adelaide (again), Bright (again) and Light (again).
This gives us 19 seats to watch:
Adelaide, Ashford, Bright, Colton, Dunstan, Elder, Fisher, Florey,
Frome, Hartley, Light, Little Para, Mawson, Mitchel, Morialta, Mount
Gambier, Newland, Unley and Wright. The remaining 28 are reasonably
uncontroversial and are called as follows:
As it happens, all of these seats are
projected to fall this way based on their lean (determined two weeks
ago) and by all 5 reliable maps from three weeks ago. With 6/6
sources backing these predictions, these are the easiest of the easy
to call.
I have not factored in the pendulum
yet, but by definition these seats are all held by there predicted
winners by at least 6% and in most cases over 10%.
The electoral boundaries of this state
are supposed to be redrawn each election to correct the balance so
that the state-wide vote roughly reflects the seat-by-seat make-up of
the parliament. As such, the two party preferred vote should be
roughly analogous to the end result (note that SA is just about the
only place to do this).
The February polling
by Newspoll has the vote at 46-54 favouring the Libs. This is a two
percentage point swing from the pre-election polling of 2010
(48-52)*. Using the baseline predictive model used by most media
outlets, an across-the-board swing of 2% to the Libs will see Asford,
Bright, Elder and Hartley changing hands, giving the Libs 22 seats,
Labor 22 and 3 Independents.
Time to dust off the hung-parliament alarm bell? |
While I am loathe to accept a uniform
swing in all seats, lets assume that no Liberal-leaning or
Liberal-held seats are going to go against the trend. This is an
assumption that has messed me up more than once, but I have no
predictive tool to identify these contrary seats so I've got nothing
better.
Of the remaining 13 seats, 3 are
Independent vs Liberal seats in need of closer attention. The rest
are listed as uncertain because of their past trends and/or their
margin. Lets assume that seats that are of uncertain history but with
a safe margin can be called based on that margin, and conversely that
seats with a narrow margin but firm historical leaning can be
expected to follow the previous results. In other words, where one
measure has identified the seat is close, we will have to rely on the
other indicators for a clue. This settles 8 seats:
The Independent battles need to be
assessed individually. Given that Mount Gambier always has been
Independent since adopting the name in 1997 (Many consider this seat
a continuation of Gordon) it is possible this will continue. The
Independent vote always seems to out-poll the ALP then scoop up the
preferences for a narrow win, often for a candidate overlooked by the
Libs, so the 0.4% margin between IND and LIB does not necessarily
make this a certain loss to the Liberal Juggernaut. Incumbency will
assist Don Pegler. The swing expected swing from ALP to LIB might
give the Libs the edge, though, undercutting the ALP-flow on. That
said, most ALP voters who go on to boost the Independent might be
more likely to switch to Pegler than completely leap the ideological
fence.
There is hardly any chance the ALP will
out-poll Pegler – last election Labor's 2,724 primary votes were
dwarfed by Pegler's 7,482. I'm going to assume most of the people
disaffected with the ALP will still be retained by Pegler for an IND
win, but my prediction is a tossup.
Is this the end of the ancient grey one? |
In Frome, Geoff Brock out-polled both
major parties and, even with a loss of first-preference support, is
further boosted by almost everyone. Confident win for Brock here.
In Fisher, Bob Such had the highest
Independent margin from 2010, almost out-polling Labor and Liberal
combined. That said, the Liberal candidate Sam Duluk has been playing
a very high-profile campaign against Such. Such has been rather
high-profile in the parliament, however, sitting on several
committees. I again expect an Independent win.
It is odd that, in a campaign where
both parties have been reasonably likeable and approved of (cf. last
year's federal election) the Independents are expected to do so well.
However, I am calling Fisher, Frome and Mount Gambier all as
Independent retained:
That just leaves Hartley
and Mawson.
Both are Labor leaning, though slight, both are marginal, and both
were found to be ALP in full average of seat histories map, the 10%
opacity layer map and the VDTA, but Liberal in the history average
since 1993. Hartley has a 0.1% margin, so I'm willing to call that
Liberal. Mawson is 4.5, and may well resist the swing. I could call
this my second and final tossup, but there is something nagging me
about Ashford's 0.6% margin. I'm going to call Mawson ALP and move
Ashford to the tossups.
Final guess. Unless I change my mind, of course... |
Mount Gambier is either going to be a conservative IND or a Lib. Although state and federal politics has seen conservative Independents
back the Labor party in the none-to-distant past (probably because the Labor party will take their threats to cross the floor more seriously), I suspect any errors I have made will only favour the Coalition who, while possibly struggling to take the house outright, should have no difficulty in forming an alliance -- something Steven Marshall has explicitly not ruled out.
So, tell me, where did I go wrong? Post
your predictions and correction below. Or, you know, don't. It's easier to claim you were right all along that way.
Blind guesses at the Legislative
Council to follow shortly.
TL;DR: Predictions as per final image. With the exception of Ashford (relegated to Tossup due to a small margin) the certainty of each prediction is greatest when they can be assigned in the earlier charts, with the more dubious results added in the final graphic.
TL;DR: Predictions as per final image. With the exception of Ashford (relegated to Tossup due to a small margin) the certainty of each prediction is greatest when they can be assigned in the earlier charts, with the more dubious results added in the final graphic.
*Although the TPP result favoured the
Libs and the ALP retained power, the boundaries were not drastically
altered to compensate since the reason for this was determined to be
a curiosity of the election rather than a demographic shift.
No comments:
Post a Comment