Australian Federal Election 18th of May 2019

[mileslunn]

Have they counted second choices or just first.  I would think most Greens would have Labor as second so that should close the gap a bit but probably not enough to win.  At this point either L/NP majority or hung parliament, Labor majority seems next to impossible even if votes counted break their way.  So strong likelihood Morrison stays on as PM.

[mileslunn]

Have they counted second choices or just first.  I would think most Greens would have Labor as second so that should close the gap a bit but probably not enough to win.  At this point either L/NP majority or hung parliament, Labor majority seems next to impossible even if votes counted break their way.  So strong likelihood Morrison stays on as PM.

Yeah all the projections take into account the 2 party preferred

  :Have they actually counted second preferences or just projecting based on polls?  Agree Labor realistically has no path to victory, but just curious as polls might be closer once counted if they haven't already.

[mileslunn]

While a polling error for sure it seems roughly the same size as Brexit.  Of the three provincial elections we've had this year in Canada all had bigger polling errors even though one got winner correct.  Last two UK elections saw bigger polling errors and a number of European have so is a polling error this big unprecedented for Australia?  I am thinking with a two party and mandatory voting such polling error would be less likely as when two parties easier to pick up shifts while with mandatory voting you don't run the risk of one party doing a better job than another at getting their supporters out to the polls.

[mileslunn]

While a polling error for sure it seems roughly the same size as Brexit.

Consistent error on one side of the line suggests systematic bias. If the error were sometimes on the side of conservatives, it wouldn't be systematic error.

Australian polls are quite simple. Liberals win on election day, and every single pollster between elections says they lose. Every single one.

Any reason for that?  In countries where voting is not compulsory that makes some sense as usually parties on left do better amongst younger voters who don't show up as often but if compulsory seems less likely.  Also often when a polling error pollsters try to figure out what went wrong and overcorrect, UK perfect example where Tories overperformed in 2015, Labour in 2017.

[mileslunn]

Any reason for that?

As you've noted, there's a few elections that were the other way. Canada's election in 2015 was one, strangely. Polls showed a conservative minority but that's not what we saw. Something like 10-15 percent for a Liberal victory. Pretty much every 'tossup' broke their way, which is very unusual, I've never seen that before or since.

I got that one wrong due to estimating the usual liberal bias.

I think polling is done pretty poorly. There are all kinds of ways to distort a poll, and most polls I've seen tend to be done by organizations with an axe to grind. The problem is that polling is seen as a way to shape the narrative rather than reflecting on the actual views of the electorate.

Until polling returns to being a reflector rather than a tool to manipulate people, we will see bad polling done.

Also often when a polling error pollsters try to figure out what went wrong and overcorrect, UK perfect example where Tories overperformed in 2015, Labour in 2017.

It shouldn't be a matter of 'overcorrecting'. Again, polling should be a reflection not a narrative shaper. I've done ok every election since 2015, which was a bit of an aberration. Only one I truly missed on was the House election, which Republicans lost due to the mortgage deduction. That's why they lost their blue state high cost of living seats.

Actually in Canada final polls were spot on in 2015.  Polls earlier at times showed Conservatives ahead but that was largely due to split on left (they always stayed in the 28 to 35% range) and NDP support dropped and swung over to the Liberals well before election so that one was correct.  Several provincial misses though.

As for bias, political polling is mostly a loss leader so that would huirt their bottom line so probably something else.  Besides if biases you would expect pollsters on both sides not always one.

[mileslunn]

I am sure both Labor and pollsters will do a post-mortem.  What is odd here is exit polls were wrong too.  Often exit polls are right even if pre-election are wrong see UK 2015 and 2017 or Netherlands 2017 where pre-election polls were off but exit polls were different and spot on whereas here exit polls missed it too.

[mileslunn]

If you think that it is a simple case of pollsters always over/underpolling one side, deliberately or not, then it is because you have no idea of how polling actually works (in part because it is hardly in the pollsters own interests to always get it wrong - their own financial viability relies on actually being vaguely credible).

It's not just one poll. It's *every* poll for the last five years. There's a difference. Systematic bias on the part of pollsters is the best explanation given the amount of error and the consistent error of +1, +2 for Labor.

One problem Australia has and maybe this is the reason is for preferential votes, you can rank them yourselves or go by party rankings.  UAP put L/NP ahead of Labor in rankings and it seems biggest errors were areas they were strongest so that is perhaps one possible explanation whereas pollsters go on the assumption every voter will rank individually never mind parties only publish their rankings close to e-day so would only work in final polls if you ask people will you use party or individual ranking, not further out.