ReachTEL (Liberal-commissioned – beware!) Lib 51.5% Labor 22.7% Green 17.7% Other 8.1%
Outcome if reliable: Liberal majority government (probably 13-15 seats)
Welcome to ReachTEL, a new player in the lonely Tasmanian state opinion poll market! It would be nice to extend a less equivocal welcome, if only out of sheer relief at writing about a poll that isn’t marred by the endless problems with EMRS, but alas, things aren’t that simple. At least, not when the Mercury article reporting it starts with stuff like this:
The Tasmanian Labor Party faces a rout at the next election, with new polling showing the Liberals are assured of forming a majority government.
If this piece appearing under the name Matt Smith is to be believed, all you need to do to be assured of government in this state is to release an opinion poll, which you commissioned yourself, saying that you are winning bigtime, a year and a half from the election, and hey presto, you’ve got it in the bank. May as well save the money, replace the Tasmanian Electoral Office with the Smith Electoral Office and send for the Governor now.
In fact, even if this poll release did not require caution because of it being commissioned by a party, its findings would still not prove the Liberals were certain to win the next election. They would just say that at the moment their position appears very strong.
Daft mainstream coverage aside, the poll’s sponsorship is the main obstacle to taking it too seriously. The polling is essentially internal polling, in that the party had no prior commitment to release it, but has chosen to do so after seeing (and liking) the results. We cannot know how many other polls the Liberals might have done through any number of pollsters, and whether this is consistent with other results that they have not released, or just the best of the bunch. We may also suspect, at least until proven otherwise, that the timing of the poll – reported as conducted on a single night – could have aimed to capitalise on a bad news cycle for the state government, making it less reliable than the results of polls taken at more regular intervals. Despite this, the Liberals are to be commended for at least releasing much more detail of their internal polling than is usual for releases of this kind.
Parties seldom release polling they have commissioned themselves – accurate or otherwise – without a motive for doing so. In the Liberals’ case, there has been a drift away from them in EMRS polls that has caused people to start to mutter (very prematurely) about the possibility of a hung parliament, and even about Will Hodgman’s leadership. The Liberals would rather have the focus on attacking the government and would hence prefer that they be seen to be going well. This poll is consistent with that purpose. (In other cases, parties may even release polls that show them to be doing badly, in order to manage expectations coming up to a nasty by-election, for example.)
You would not know anything about the EMRS poll drift over the last year or so from reading the Mercury coverage, which contains the following error:
The Liberals’ polling is, in part, consistent with EMRS polling in August that showed the Liberals had 55 per cent support, Labor 22 per cent and the Greens, 18.
Actually, the August in which such results were recorded was 2011 (around the Liberals’ EMRS peak), not 2012. The comparable result for August 2012 is 49-27-22-3, meaning that the ReachTEL sample has a Liberal result that is 2.5 points higher, Labor and Green each 4.3 points lower, and the rest 5.1 points higher.
I’ve pointed out routinely that EMRS overstates the Green vote by using unsound assumptions when redistributing its high undecided rate. In this case, that alone explains the difference between the two Green figures, and ReachTEL’s figure is much more likely to be correct. However, EMRS also tends to understate the Labor vote for the same reason. So, in a poll with a much higher Other response than EMRS’s, ReachTEL has the Liberals up and Labor probably, in effect, a long way down on the EMRS August sample.
There are major differences between EMRS and ReachTEL in their polling methods. The polling method used by ReachTEL is not stated in the story, but ReachTEL typically uses recorded voice polling with interactive options (so-called “robopolling”), a method noted for generating low response rates (requiring a lot of scaling) but being relatively cheap to run. While the accuracy of robopolling is often disputed, my impressions of the efforts by JWS and ReachTEL in Australia so far have been that they are not bad at all, and that a neutrally-commissioned robopoll by these companies is many times more useful than the average EMRS. A good example of ReachTEL’s recent performance was the Melbourne state by-election, in which it got the Green vote correct to within 1.6 points and the Labor vote correct to within 3.2 points, off a sample of only 403 voters and for a kind of electoral event that is extremely challenging to poll for. ReachTEL has released recent polling of the Denison federal contest, which can be found here.
ReachTEL asks its questions in a superior manner to EMRS. The undecided rate is kept down by asking, as part of a single question, “if undecided, to which do you have even a slight leaning?” Indeed, I am not sure if there is even a possibility for a voter to record themselves as undecided, short of hanging up the phone. Any lack of an undecided option, however, may manifest itself in unsure voters picking the option “other”.
The “other” vote in this poll is quite curious. Statewide it is 8.1%, but with Denison way out in front with 21.9%, Lyons 8.4, Franklin 6.7, Bass 6.1, Braddon 5.3. (These figures add up to almost 10%, so I assume the samples are “raw” and some kind of scaling is employed to get the state result.) This resembles a pattern seen in EMRS polling except that the figures for “other” are much higher than for EMRS’s “independent”, even at times when the EMRS rate is boosted by Legislative Council election contamination. It is very doubtful that these “other” voters are all just some of those tagged as “undecided” by EMRS by another name, since if this was the case Denison would have shown much higher undecided rates than other electorates in past polling. Although EMRS removed their electorate sample sizes from their reports after May 2010, making this difficult to confirm, it did not appear up to that point that that was happening. So my take on this is that there is a statewide background ReachTEL “others” rate of about 5.5%, varying little by electorate, and a Denison-specific rate of about 13.5% that is connected to the Wilkie phenomenon. (See note above on possible scaling to perhaps explain why these add up to 19 for Denison and not 21.7.)
A Denison voter asked how they will vote in the 2014 state election, after all, cannot know at this stage whether or not Andrew Wilkie will be a candidate. Furthermore a voter who voted for Wilkie, if asked to choose between Labor, Liberal, Green and Other, is quite likely to select Other, even if they do not know that any particular Others might be running. However, this apparent ReachTEL figure is higher than rates for “Independent” that EMRS have been getting in Denison. There are many possible explanations for this, but I’m more inclined to believe the implied ReachTEL result, given the problems with EMRS understating votes for non-party candidates in the past. So it seems like there are almost a quota of voters in Denison who are waiting to either give Wilkie a consolation prize should he lose his federal seat, or else vote for a high-profile Wilkie-like independent, should one be found.
It’s hard to say whether the remainder of the “others” voters are mostly glorified don’t-knows or whether there is also an undercurrent of “none of the above” sentiment in all electorates that is higher than shown by EMRS. In any case, in electorates other than Denison there is probably not enough of it yet to elect anybody, so at this stage it only matters if these voters will lean strongly to a particular party come election time, and even then, it may not matter much.
Given that the ReachTEL Liberal figure is not far above the recent EMRS Liberal figures, it could be argued that there is really little difference between the polls at all, except that the softest Labor voters are hiding in the ReachTEL “others” column. I doubt this, because if it is true then those who are “undecided” according to EMRS (even when asked to express a leaning), but who do have a view according to ReachTEL (let’s call these voters “extra-soft”) skew strongly Liberal. To have the mildly soft voters breaking evenly, the extra-soft voters skewing Liberal and the ultra-soft voters skewing Labor would be quite odd.
So my interpretation of the ReachTEL poll is that it does show a genuine difference to the August EMRS poll, of a level equivalent to a five (or so) point Labor-to-Liberal swing. But as the Liberals are both the commissioners of the polling and its political beneficiaries, we can’t take for granted that such a swing has actually happened (on any lasting basis) since then.
The ReachTEL electorate samples (published in the paper version) need to be treated with extreme care, not only as the poll is Liberal-commissioned but also because they are quite small (230-241 votes each), and they do not add up to the state figure. All the same, even making allowances for these things, they are consistent with the picture shown in every EMRS poll for some time, that the Liberals are on track for majority government. If the figures in ReachTEL’s electorate samples were reproduced exactly at an election – unlikely as that is – Lyons, Bass and Braddon would probably all go 3-1-1 (Bass is almost 4-1-0 but the Liberals would probably miss the fourth because of leakage). Franklin could go either 3-1-1 or 2-2-1 (Liberals would suffer from leakage from the massive Hodgman surplus, and Green preferences might help Labor a bit more than in 2010) and Denison would go 2-1-1-1 if there was a Wilkie-style independent available (if not, the fifth seat could go anywhere.)
What is surprising is that even in this very favourable sample, which the Liberals liked so much that they have released it publicly, the electorate breakdowns would not assure the Opposition of winning more than 13 seats if reproduced at an election. And that is even with the breakdowns taken as if perfect, without even discussing the large margin of error in such small samples or the vagueness introduced by the high “others” rate.
Lastly, March 2014 is a long time away, and should the state coalition go the distance then the current double-whammy of Green-supported Labor governments at both state and federal level may well be a thing of the past. The broad left should not, however, get more than the faintest flicker of hope up on any account. A Liberal outright victory is not “assured”, least of all by polling paid for by themselves, but it is still overwhelmingly likely.
First published: 2012-10-08 04:00 AM
Mark
October 7, 2012 at 09:53
I must admit to the cocking of one eyebrow when I read the pollster’s name, “ReachTEL,” believing there could a separate story just in the name. Thanks for the head’s up.
TGC
October 7, 2012 at 10:57
Wonderful analysis
Megan Tatham
October 7, 2012 at 12:05
An independent candidate for Denison would be a great thing, possibly more than one would be even better, we need people of integrity who aren’t party puppets.
I would love to see someone of the calibre of Barbara Etter standing in Denison.
Mike Adams
October 7, 2012 at 12:47
I was a little worried when seeing that 62.9% of the 230 interviewees in Bass decided to go Liberal.
Not so much their choice of party, but 62.9% of 230 is 144.67 people. How does one interview two thirds of a person?
Greg James
October 7, 2012 at 13:26
A neighbor recently showed me similar results for the ALP, that would substantiate the above polling commentary. Like the good Doc says, these polls are only released when the sun is shining and the dippity doo-dah has been released.
Dr Kevin Bonham
October 7, 2012 at 16:41
Well spotted Mike Adams (#4) – many of the electorate percentages could not have been produced by dividing any whole number by the number of voters in the sample, not even with the assistance of rounding.
A possible explanation for this is that the responses within the electorate samples have been scaled to make each sample more representative. However, since such scaling was a possible explanation I gave for the disparity [i]between[/i] the electorate samples and the state results, that would leave [i]that[/i] disparity unexplained. So there is something all a bit mathematically curious going on here and this is another reason to treat this poll release with caution, pending any explanation from the pollster.
Nick Adams [ReachTEL]
October 7, 2012 at 16:44
Hi all,
Firstly, thanks for the analysis Dr Kevin.
Dr Kevin & Mike – our results are individually weighted to reflect the population demographics in each of the electorates and then, the state as a whole. This explains why the state results are not just a simple cumulative average or sum of the parts. It also explains why we didn’t/can’t interview two-thirds of a person Mike 🙂
In relation to the neutrality of the poll – we take great care to make sure that questions are structured in a neutral, unbiased way. The questions used in this poll were stock-standard as with the many other polls we have conducted over the years. Our website lists the exact, word-for-word questions as read out to respondents. Word would get out very quickly if the questions were “push polling” or otherwise biased and it’s just not worth it to damage our brand like that.
Feel free to jump on our website to see our other polling work or to ask us any other questions you may have – http://www.reachtel.com.au. I’ll do my best to response to any other questions that may come up.
Cheers,
Nick Adams
Services Manager
ReachTEL Pty Ltd
bob Palendrome
October 7, 2012 at 17:19
I pray to whatever deity is listening that the polling is correct and we can be rid of the trotskyites as soon as possible.
If all the Libs do is stay out of the way then it will be an infinitely better state government than the bunch of self serving losers which currently find themselves in positions beyond their usable level of intellect.
TGC
October 7, 2012 at 20:40
#5 Five independents could provide some chaos.
Simon Warriner
October 8, 2012 at 00:12
re 9.
First: as opposed to the cascading cluster fuck happening now? (sorry about the language but it is what it is)
Second: Five independents could provide some intelligence, independence of thought, accountability, ability to recognise a conflict of interest when it is gnawing on their legs, and maybe, just maybe, the ability to treat the electorate as intellignet adults.
Third, yes you are correct, it could be chaos. However the present system has failed after numerous attempts at electing party hacks. Stupid is repeating mistakes, can changing the nature of our representatives really be that big of leap?
Dr Kevin Bonham
October 8, 2012 at 00:14
Thanks Nick (#7). The five electorates all have very similar enrolment, or at least did as of the last election (with the one with the high Others vote, Denison, in the middle). On that basis if your weighted state results are producing an Others figure that is that much different to the average Others figure for the five electorates, either the weighted state results or the weighted state results are inaccurate as a measure of the percentage of voters holding particular views. I wonder if the issue here is that the weighting method produces greater errors (of up to a few points) when applied individually to relatively small samples.
If 8.1% is the most accurate state figure for Others then some or all of the electorate figures for Others cannot be right. We’re not exactly talking about sheep stations here (the discrepancy would average 1.6 points per electorate for Others, 0.9 points per electorate for Labor and the Greens and 0.2 for the Liberals) but I do wonder at least if the 21.6 for Others in Denison is excessive.
TGC
October 8, 2012 at 10:30
#10 Point Second: It ain’t necessarily so! And it would mean a four year wait to undo the damage- I know- we wait that long anyway but there is hope of some collegiate restraint not likely with ‘independents’ running their own race.
Karl Stevens
October 8, 2012 at 10:34
I think the reason this system has failed is because there are only so many games possible on a tennis court and most of them involve racquets and balls. All of Tasmania’s formative decision making occurs somewhere else, such as Canberra and the board rooms of the two big miners. We get to elect people who decide what to do with trees and how to deliver sewage? Big deal! Most of us have had to become completely insulated to protect us from further damage done by our elected representatives. The government has entered into a parasitic relationship with not only business but with the general population. Electing your next parasite is a game for fools and over-educated UTAS bunnies.
max
October 8, 2012 at 12:04
If we elect independents, hopefully that is what we get, no hidden agendas and no party politics or kow-towing to big business. If an independent fails to perform, then at the next election he is history, not like party politics where the candidates are often proven failures.
lmxly
October 8, 2012 at 12:41
Can anyone point me to the evidence that independents represent the interests of those who elect them more effectively than members of existing parties? I know that party hacks etc are not very effective (excuse the euphemism!) but how can I be sure an independent will be better? I would need evidence that this is so, before committing my vote.
TGC
October 8, 2012 at 12:50
#13 How many remember Sad Sack?
David Obendorf
October 8, 2012 at 13:20
Elect authentic and articulate individuals with some grey cells between their ear-lobes; that is, if any with calibre bother to nominate in your electorate!
If a mediocre pack is wheeled out come March 2014, just don’t vote for any of them. Push a blank ballot paper in the box.
Politicians that pretend to be one thing to get elected and then change into another species after the election aren’t worth a deliberate vote. And you’ll only kid yourself if you vote for [i]the best of a bad bunch[/i].
john hayward
October 8, 2012 at 13:27
Given a choice between the ebola of the Lara Labs and the terminal gangrene of the Abetz Party, most sensible people would prefer the induced coma of a hung parliament, while we pray for a martian invasion.
John Hayward
Justa Bloke
October 8, 2012 at 14:18
I agree with Karl (#13). Whoever wins the election, the identity of those who rule over us remains the same.
The power to have any significant effect on the economy does not reside with Parliament.
For those who are touting the value of electing independents, I challenge you to name one independent in State Parliament (either House) in the last 100 years who has made an impact on Tasmania’s economy or who has even tried to do so.
Peter Henning
October 8, 2012 at 16:49
#13 & #19. Exactly right. We have moved well into an era where political parties “represent” the interests of career politicians, and have become organisations designed exclusively to gain power and to hold on to power for its own sake.
The rapid breakdown in the “rusted-on” voter syndrome we have seen taking place, especially in the last decade (and accelerating), is testimony to the fact that more and more people are seeing political parties as entirely self-serving.
Currently, increasing voter discontent with parties is resulting in large swings at elections, as demonstrated in the last State elections in Queensland and NSW. The base support for the Labor-Liberal alternatives now resides somewhere about 30% each, with about 40% of the electorate now “unstuck”. Not too long ago it was unusual for the base support of one of the two major alternatives to be below 40%.
This trend is not going to go away because the “rusted-on” voters are being reduced in a number of ways in addition to disillusionment within their own ranks. They are dying out without being replaced. Inter-generational voting patterns have been in gradual decline for years, but that process is now speeding up.
The latest cohorts of young voters have much less attachment to notions of “party identification”, such as trade unionists and their families had for the ALP for much of the 20th century. The Labor Party, for example, is no longer seen by large numbers of young people in the casualised labour force as “their” party, because it does nothing to represent them. And so on.
What seems to be happening at the moment is that large sectors of the electorate vote for the party they dislike least, not for the party they support, but are just as likely to shift their vote at the next election or vote one way at federal level and another at State level.
How this will play itself out in the near future is difficult to predict, but there are no signs that any political party, including most categorically the Greens, are interested in a democratic “representative” role or function. All the signs suggest a strengthening of the already well-established paradigm of parties seeking voter support at election-time by false and misleading campaigns to gain or maintain power, but without any intention of implementing anything except those things required to maintain power.
More importantly, the declining faith in political parties – and in career politicians – is in the process of being transferred to the political institutions which the political parties have turned into their playgrounds in their abominable struggles with each to retain power.
That is a different issue, but one which has plenty of historical precedents over the last 2,500 years of recorded history. Usually, in such circumstances, when political institutions become completely detached from the public they get replaced one way or another by something else, for better or for worse.
Leonard Colquhoun
October 8, 2012 at 18:47
I’m with Comment 19’s main point (even though I can’t name many “independent” MPs).
I have a hypothesis about the good media which the status of “independent” MP gets: better the drongos we don’t know (very much, or even anything, about), than the drongoes which we do know. Or, it’s the “can’t be any worse than who we’ve got” attitude.
Oh, yes, they can, as millions who trusted various instances of regime change would testify (if they were alive to do so).
(There’s good reason to reckon that post-Assad Syria may well be far worse than what it replaced. Until they died of malnutrition, or from being wrongly ethnic, there were many an old African who [very quietly] said “I wish the British were back”.)
Perhaps, if those who keep hoping in, hoping for, or bleating about “independents” joined the mainstream party nearest their values, and did the hard yards (I wonder what the metric equivalent is?) within that party, they, and we, would be better off.
Karl Stevens
October 8, 2012 at 23:46
Leonard Colquhoun 21. Your attempt to link Syria and Tasmania failed. Sorry. Rather than ‘joining the mainstream party nearest their values’ maybe people could learn bridge or take-up table tennis. That would have as much bearing on their future as one of the confused, compromised and perception-driven political parties.
Justa Bloke
October 9, 2012 at 11:43
Comment #21 assumes that there are democratic processes within parties that facilitate (or at least make possible) the influencing of party policies and practices at parliamentary level.
This is quite simply not the case. No number of hard metres can have any effect unless accompanied by loads of hard cash.
A.K.
October 9, 2012 at 12:14
If you can find any, vote for independents who will introduce a referendum style government so the people get the say and make the decisions. The system we have now was designed for the 18-19th century when the masses were classed as illiterate, un-knowledgeable and brainless slaves needing to be controlled by the supposed elite. The elites still feel the same way, but the people are much more evolved than those running our state and any who are put forward by party politics.
The only solution, is to start a party which will get rid of the party system by people electing those to operate specific portfolio’s according to their actual experience and success in those fields. Make them legally accountable for their claims and promises, then we have the start of a real people run system, all made possible by the internet and designed for this centuries capabilities and standards.
By having voluntary online discussion and voting for decisions not covered by candidates policies, it becomes the peoples choice and we would have to live with those choices. Much better than living with the ones we are given now.
TIGER
October 23, 2012 at 06:24
Kev , how about an article on our non-representative sham democracy ?