Comments on: Your election predictions tabulated!

By: David Rubie

David Rubie — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:14:58 +0000

Looks like Doug and Geoff Honor got the closest. I was sure the Liberals would implode in the last week of the campaign in an internecine shit fight over Howard, but the Kelly Gang were the first to snap.

I stand humbled at my own hubris – 100 seats was looking pretty good when Newspoll was 58/42

By: Jack Strocchi

Jack Strocchi — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:03:30 +0000

The exit polls seem to be showing a comfortable victory for the ALP. Time for me to exercise bragging rights. In June 2006, when Beazley was Oppo leader and the polls were neck and neck and the odds favoured the ALP, I predicted the ALP would win the 2007 election: Jack Strocchi says July 13th, 2006 at 10:16 pm

I cannot take Centrebets odds on the LN/P winning the next election seriously. The [LN/P] have to start out as less favoured because of the return swing of the electoral pendulum and the attenuation of national security and cultural identity issues.

A year later, still somewhat skeptical of the landslide polls, I predicted that the LN/P would achieve a comfortable victory:

I think that the ALP will win comfortably, around 52%-48% 2pp.

I have standard psephological reasons for making this prediction: the periodic recessional tendency of the electoral pendulumn politically outweighs the periodic expansionary tendency of the business cycle, especially when one is deep into both cycles. See the Cameron-Crosby or Ray Fair model. But this model underpredicts the size of the swing against the government. Policy differences between the two parties are minimal, as I predicted three years ago ("The Great Convergence"). Leaders are important but act as triggers or traps for underlying tendencies. So there must be some other structural factor at stake inflating the Oppositions vote. It seems that the polity, rather than policy, has changed. Norton-Quiggin's "cohort theory" of Baby Boomer partisan alignment explains the bias of the middle-aged in favour of the ALP. The Boomer children of the revolution are replacing the Doomer children of the Depression in the electoral rolls. These two "cohorts" are biased, the Doomers pro-LN/P and the Boomer pro-ALP. But the ALP's cohort are still alive and kicking whilst the LN/P's cohort are dying off. So the ALP is getting a demographic double whammy at the polls. This turnaround seems to be sufficient to explain the extraordinary situation where a government responsible for presiding over an unprecedented period of industrial prosperity, martial potency and cultural pride are facing an electoral wipeout.

By: rossco

rossco — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:31:44 +0000

Don’t forget someone has to provide the Speaker if the numbers are even. This could be offered to an Independent if there is one, otherwise it makes the numbers a bit dicey.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:40:27 +0000

I believe you are – the PM merely needs the confidence of the house. I understand that if there are only two parties, that requires an absolute majority or a defection.

If there are multiple parties, then one would need a coalition – in effect what we have at the moment, except they decided to make it permanent.

But it has been a few years since I could reliably say that I ‘knew’ any of this, so maybe I, or even both of us, is/are wrong.

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:26:13 +0000

Patrick, If you have the Coaltion on 75, that’s almost the same as murph’s prediction, which I’d put in the hung parliament catogory. As I understand it, the majority is strictly the absolute majority, i.e. the difference between the party in question and the others combined, in which case it has to be an even number. ‘Coalition by 2′ would translate to 76 seats and so on. But I could be defying convention here for all I know.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:22:07 +0000

Not consistent because Libs won’t have an absolute majority? But I know Chester won’t let Labor form government

Oh, I’ve just seen your updated table – I meant Chester to win in Solomon! Stupid en-dash getting out of place!

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:13:41 +0000

There are some big numbers above for Labor in the middle column – or is that against the Coalition? Heady heavy stuff. For us Howard-off lot, is this inspiring or cause for concern?

Bearing in mind it’s going to heat up, will you be allowing further revisions, James?

On reflection, and seeing my prediction in the above context, though possibly conservative am pleased to say I’m happy with my numbers (as David R said, I’m pretty much there already).

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:54:24 +0000

You qualify, Patrick. The rest of your numbers aren’t quite conistent, so I’ve taken the main one at face value.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:34:23 +0000

I’m late, but I think I qualify for inclusion under your terms I still remember returning to Australia three weeks before the last election and saying that a coalition landslide was coming. So I will go out on a limb and suggest Libs by 3. Perhaps Libs 75- Labor 72- Independents 2 Chester -1

By: Kevin rennie

Kevin rennie — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:10:43 +0000

You seem to have omitted Kalgoorlie from the list. There are 31, not 30 seats with margins of less than 7.0%. Kal is 6.3%. We are trying hard to get it back. For some analysis of the 2004 and 1998 elections please visit 'Labor View from Broome' and browse the psephology topic. I'm not sure what it all means but I'll keep you posted. I feel rennie's law is about to emerge. Check the laborview campaign videos while you're there.

By: Kevin rennie

Kevin rennie — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:10:18 +0000

You seem to have omitted Kalgoorlie from the list. There are 31, not 30 seats with margins of less than 7.0%. Kal is 6.3%. we trying hard to get it back. For some analysis of the 2004 and 1998 elections please visit 'Labor View from Broome' and browse the psephology topic. I'm not sure what it all means but I'll keep you posted. I feel rennie's law is about to emerge. Check the laborview campaign videos while you're there.

By: TP

TP — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:06:54 +0000

Although Flynn is in Qld, Gwydir was in NSW.

By: Will

Will — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:17:16 +0000

It is too far out the speculate. And I suspect there will be surprises. For example, Phillip Nitschke forced Andrews to preferences when he last stood for Menzies the election before last. With Andrews and his government being on the nose he could well lose Menzies.

By: Niall

Niall — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:50:26 +0000

I don’t see how anyone can ‘call’ this election until sometime in week six

By: Richard Green

Richard Green — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:33:20 +0000

Mackerras has called Labour at 89 seats, and I think has been calling Labor since the beginning of the year.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22586061-5014047,00.html

By: Vee

Vee — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:26:26 +0000

Given Antony Green got NSW election wrong by a considerable margin (I don’t remember the figures just the result) and Malcolm Mackerras was closer – I’d rather know what Mackerras thinks.

That said one election is a horrid statistic to judge an analyst by.

By: Doctor Patient

Doctor Patient — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:15:55 +0000

I don’t wish to call the result this far out but I would implore voters to cast their votes wisely. Approach it from the point of view that the two major parties are burdened with no-hopers, spivs, liars, dead-beats, cozeners, T/A abusers, trough aficionados, and, others. As you can see both major parties can’t do much at all other than to promise to wallpaper every Australian’s home with money. It is therefore the duty of each voter to elect the party that will do the least amount of damage to Australia and Australians.

I would like to make a prediction as we get closer to the election day.

By: cs

cs — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:25:33 +0000

This far out, in oreder: (1) Howard scrapes; (2) Hung; (3) Rudd scrapes.