politicalowl

The Glug Election Indicator performed creditably in picking the United States election result. It had George W. Bush a 56.6% chance of remaining President which translates in to a prediction of a 50.3% national vote for Bush. That was lower than the 51.1% shown by the current actual figures but substantially closer than the 49.4% prediction of Messrs Zogby and co. If you are wondering how a 56.6% chance of winning becomes a predicted vote of 50.3%, we assume a normal distribution with a standard deviation of 1.5 percentage points. That is the standard deviation which the University of Iowa found applied to its Iowa Electronic Markets on political elections. (See  So Who is the Underdog ) in our Election Diary archive. The Glug indicator, incidentally, predicted that the Liberal-National Coalition in Australia was a 77.8% chance of winning. That assumed a two party preferred vote of 51.2%. The final figure was 52.7%.

There have been three predictions of cliff hanger election results by political journalists and opinion pollsters in English speaking democracies this year. And three clear cut wins by incumbent governments have made the pollsters and the other pundits look less reliable than astrologers. Consider this wonderful document posted on the web site of Zogby International – the much quoted American polling guru. Released:  November 02, 2004 Our Call Zogby International's 2004 Predictions (as of Nov. 2, 2004 5:00pm EST) 2004 Presidential Election Electoral Votes Bush 213 Kerry 311 Too close to call Nevada (5) Too close to call Colorado (5) Zogby International Finds: Bush at 49.4%, Kerry at 49.1% The nationwide telephone poll of 955 likely voters was conducted (November 1-2, 2004). The MOE is +/- 3.2 (as of Nov. 2, 2004 5:00pm EST) ZOGBY INTERNATIONAL 901 Broad Street, Utica, New York 13501 USA 1600 K Street, Suite 600, Washington,DC, 20006 USA NY phone 3...

11th October, 2004    - Richard Farmer   With the wonders of hindsight I can see what an excellent job the Coalition did on the Greens. I should have factored the attacks on radical Green policies into my calculations. Because of them the vote for minor parties went down and down with it went Labor’s chances. The Greens did not even manage to pick up the votes of those who this time deserted the Australian Democrats. Greens and Democrats combined in 2001 totalled 10.4% of the House of Representatives vote. That figure this time was down to 8.1%. The only significant newcomer to the minor party ranks was Family First and their preferences helped replace the losses that the Government side lost from the collapse of One Nation. John Howard now has the opportunity to really put his stamp on the future of Australia. For his first three terms his agenda was hampered by a hostile Senate. From 1 July next year when the Senators elected on Saturday take office the L...

11th October, 2004    - Richard Farmer   As we consign the election diary to Glug’s archives some brief comments by Simon Longstaff of the St James Ethics Centre - (comments chosen because they incorporate my own views) - on what we can expect over the next few months might be appropriate. Mr Longstaff was writing after an election several years ago about the idea of "truth in politics". Does the concept involve an oxymoron? Or, should we give politicians the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word? And if politicians are not to be believed, then what (if anything) does this say about the health of our democracy? I suspect that very few people enjoy telling a deliberate lie. Yet, if history is anything to go by, a reasonable part of what is promised during the campaign will turn out to be impractical (or unpolitic) to deliver. Whoever wins, we might reasonably expect to count the usual list of broken election promises in a few years’ time. This is on...

9th October, 2004    - Richard Farmer   The best guide early guide as we sit at home tonight watching the television coverage of the election count will be the proportion of the vote gained by the minor parties and independent candidates. If their total vote is only 15% as the major polls predict this morning then John Howard will be staying on as Prime Minister. If the pollsters have underestimated the third party support by five percentage points or more as they have in past elections then the result will be a cliff hanger. On the face of it the two major pollsters tell vastly different stories. In the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald AC Neilsen predicts a two party preferred vote for the Coalition Government of 54% to Labor’s 46%. Such a vote would see Howard returned with a huge majority. Newspoll in The Australian has it 50:50. Actual voting anything like that would make a hung Parliament a real prospect. On first preferences AC Neilsen has the vote for...

8th October, 2004    - Richard Farmer   If you are really hoping for a Labor victory tomorrow then give yourself heart by reading the very first entry in this election diary on  1st July, 2004 . It tells the story of this year’s Canadian election. Or think back to the Victorian State election when Jeff Kennett ended up being beaten by the then relatively unknown Steve Bracks. On both of those occasions the pollsters were very, very wrong.

6th October, 2004    - Richard Farmer   John Howard has his own secret weapon in the second preferences game. The Family First Party, which has come from nowhere to having candidates in more than 100 electorates, will be directing preferences to the Liberal and National Parties. The Prime Minister me with Family First officials this morning and told the press that there was "a broad commonality" of interests between his Coalition and the newcomers. "They are an organisation concerned about the role of the family as I am", he said. Mr Howard’s interest in Family First makes me think that they will be the surprise package in Saturday’s poll. Look for them to poll well.