Australian Federal Election 18th of May 2019

[Wisconsin+17]

Adma, there was a late break in the polling. Ekos as late as October 10th, showed a conservative majority government. I've never seen a ten point break in a little more than a week, all of it going one way.

Still not sure what to think about it.

[Wisconsin+17]

Imagining a 'systematic' left bias is pretty naïve

What else would you call it? Just looking at the polling aggregates, every poll since about 2014 has said Labor victory. The only two exceptions are both elections. That's not one poll but about 50.

At that point we can estimate a (at least in the Australian context, of about a 1-2 percent systematic error in favor of Labor lean.

Given a sample without systematic bias, we'd expect 25 +/- 8, so there would be no more than 37 polls. The chance of all 50 being Labor without systematic bias is, what, 3.5 standard deviations there about? A tenth of a percent or so.

[cp]

Adma, there was a late break in the polling. Ekos as late as October 10th, showed a conservative majority government. I've never seen a ten point break in a little more than a week, all of it going one way.

Still not sure what to think about it.

By Oct 10 that EKOS poll was a clear outlier. The shift happened two weeks earlier following the conclusion of the debates, which are a pretty clear demarcation point for voting intentions. Also, 10-point swings inside a week have happened in UK 2017, Alberta 2015, BC 2013, Spain 2004, and many others besides.

Imagining a 'systematic' left bias is pretty naïve

What else would you call it? Just looking at the polling aggregates, every poll since about 2014 has said Labor victory. The only two exceptions are both elections. That's not one poll but about 50.

At that point we can estimate a (at least in the Australian context, of about a 1-2 percent systematic error in favor of Labor lean.

Given a sample without systematic bias, we'd expect 25 +/- 8, so there would be no more than 37 polls. The chance of all 50 being Labor without systematic bias is, what, 3.5 standard deviations there about? A tenth of a percent or so.

Like I said, the impact of the media is just as likely an explanation for the underperformance of Labor on election day (we are within the margin of error; swing voters, swayed by a compliant press, could easily account for the difference).

Regardless, your argument implied a global systematic bias against right wing parties. Miles rightly pointed out that doesn't hold water.

[Wisconsin+17]

AB 2015 was a bonkers election. I don't think anybody, including Albertans had a bloody clue what was going on.

By Oct 10 that EKOS poll was a clear outlier. The shift happened two weeks earlier following the conclusion of the debates, which are a pretty clear demarcation point for voting intentions. Also, 10-point swings inside a week have happened in UK 2017, Alberta 2015, BC 2013, Spain 2004, and many others besides.

2013 was funny. I changed my prediction very little. Polls screamed Liberals are toast, etc, etc. My perception of that 'shift' is that the electorate barely moved, but the pollsters certainly did!

[Wisconsin+17]

Regardless, your argument implied a global systematic bias against right wing parties. Miles rightly pointed out that doesn't hold water.

Shrug, I predicted a Liberal majority government here. All I did was study the actual history of the polls. Told all my Australian friends that it was business as usual, and to GOTV because it was damned close.

The only time I've had my lunch eaten was in the 2015 Canadian election. That's a lot of elections over the years.

[cp]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, sweet pea

[Wisconsin+17]

Hey, you want to blame Murdoch for Labor's asswhooping here, go right ahead. But the election is basically the same as it was before. No change.

That would seem to indicate pretty settled preferences. Too early to dig into the substance of the returns to make better predictions. Wouldn't it be more simple to say that than blame 'Rupert Murdoch?'

[cp]

Blaming Murdoch would be, as I said, quasi-conspiracy theory nonsense ... Just like blaming global systematic polling bias would be.

Stick to the facts. Get back to the polls.

When are the Senate results coming out?

[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.

[Former President tack50]

Imagining a 'systematic' left bias is pretty naïve

What else would you call it? Just looking at the polling aggregates, every poll since about 2014 has said Labor victory. The only two exceptions are both elections. That's not one poll but about 50.

At that point we can estimate a (at least in the Australian context, of about a 1-2 percent systematic error in favor of Labor lean.

Given a sample without systematic bias, we'd expect 25 +/- 8, so there would be no more than 37 polls. The chance of all 50 being Labor without systematic bias is, what, 3.5 standard deviations there about? A tenth of a percent or so.

The problem with systematic biases is that they exist until they suddenly don't. For all we know, polls might overreact and underestimate Labor next time. Or keep overestimating them. Or be spot on.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. The ALP should have learned long ago that 'cultural' politics is a net vote and seat loser for them. The nature of the Australian culture war is such that they can't disengage totally, but they should avoid allowing it to dominate. This isn't a matter of 'Left' or 'Right', of course (not that any Australians here will need that note, but people from elsewhere might).

2. Relating to the above, attempts to expand the map for the ALP - to move into rich Liberal territory where the electorate is leery of Liberal positioning on 'cultural matters' - basically don't work. What tends to happen is that they fall between two stools - the party is just too disliked by enough people in such places to stand much chance of actually breaking through federally, while the policy and rhetorical maneuvering required loses votes and seats elsewhere. Better to let other forces exploit Liberal vulnerabilities: Labor's primary vote is often low enough in those areas that this is what happens anyway.

3. A brutal observation but this is a brutal result so: the politics of the environment are too important to be Political and there's an urgent need to find a way out of what has already been a very costly (mostly for the environment!) trap; this is not an Australia-specific comment, it applies everywhere. It is possible to persuade Country People and people in resource-dependent regions and localities to support measures that will improve the environment (or at least reduce damage), but only when approached on their terms. This is going to be particularly difficult in Australia for various reasons, but things are too serious to not at least try.

4. It's not possible to overlook Shorten's personal unpopularity, of course. Particularly given the electoral system: compulsory voting and single-member seats with preferencing greatly increase the impact of leaders on electoral outcomes.

5. The conduct of certain people in this thread has been an absolute disgrace. If you cannot behave then please kindly f**k off back to reddit or another hellhole platform where goonish barbarianism is the order of the day.

[cp]

Besides if biases you would expect pollsters on both sides not always one.

Then why were polls for the last five years, 50/50 for Labor with the only exceptions being both elections? Sheesh if a blind American can see it, surely Australians can.

For the same reason the polls were off for BC 2013, UK 2017, US 2016, and so on.

Which is to say, there was no one 'reason'. A multitude of factors, some local and contingent, some more structural, effected these results.

A damned good inquiry ought to be made, not least by the Labor Party, as to what went on today. Until then, however, everything is blind conjecture.

[parochial boy]

If polls are wrong, it is in no small part thanks to changes in electoral sociology, living arrangements, methods of communication and media consumption habits which make it much harder to pollsters to get it right by using their traditional models.

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).

[Wisconsin+17]

3. A brutal observation but this is a brutal result so: the politics of the environment are too important to be Political and there's an urgent need to find a way out of what has already been a very costly (mostly for the environment!) trap; this is not an Australia-specific comment, it applies everywhere. It is possible to persuade Country People and people in resource-dependent regions and localities to support measures that will improve the environment (or at least reduce damage), but only when approached on their terms. This is going to be particularly difficult in Australia for various reasons, but things are too serious to not at least try.

As a country person, you aren't going to sell rural people on climate change by passing bills that screw them especially hard. Are you willing to let go of climate taxes on carbon and preferential treatment of alternative energy? Until then, you're never going to see rural people vote for Labor.

[CumbrianLefty]

This time though, even the exit polls were wrong. Unlike the UK in 2017 then, but like us in 1992 - no surprise that the comparisons are already being made with that one.

(there are also parallels with Oz the following year, of course)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If polls are wrong, it is in no small part thanks to changes in electoral sociology, living arrangements, methods of communication and media consumption habits which make it much harder to pollsters to get it right by using their traditional models.

We live more individually and less collectively than we used to. Opinion polling is based to a huge extent on the assumption that voter behaviour is driven primarily by the latter...

[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.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[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.

[cp]

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.

Now *that's* a sensible hypothesis.

There's a narrative that helpfully feeds into that idea: a populist surge reinforcing weakening conservative coalitions while liberal/progressive parties struggle to (re)assemble durable voter blocs behind them.

[Wisconsin+17]

My hypothesis is that the bias against One Nation is the source of the error. The polling error is equivalent to their improvement in the polls.

[DavidB.]

Yeah. Zero action on climate change is always a big plus.

This, but unironically.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yeah. Zero action on climate change is always a big plus.

This, but unironically.

Says the person with the Netherlands in his avatar......

[cp]

My hypothesis is that the bias against One Nation is the source of the error. The polling error is equivalent to their improvement in the polls.

... That was not your hypothesis.

[Wisconsin+17]

That was not your hypothesis.

That's an explanation as to how and where the systematic error arose.