More Senate polls
Morgan released some more Senate specific polls late last week. The summary of their results is below. You can read the full details on the Roy Morgan website – although I have to say found some of the assessments by Morgan of the likely outcomes based on the poll results rather hard to understand (not least in Queensland, where I have a very direct interest of course), so I’ve given my own assessments of what the outcomes would be and what the full Senate picture would be.
As a reminder, a party needs 42.9% to win 3 seats in a state, 28.6% to win 2 seats and 14.3% to win one seat. This almost always means the final seat, and sometimes the final 2, are uncertain and will rely on the flow of preferences. Minor parties have almost always had to rely in part on preferences to win their seats. In the Senate, the flow of preferences can be fairly accurately predicted once the parties’ preferences are officially lodged a few weeks from polling day (except to some extent in Tasmania, where more people write out their own preferences below the line). However, until the preferences are registered, one can only make informed guesses as to where preferences will flow. My assessments are based on such guesses.
* In New South Wales: ALP 45.5%, L-NP 37.5%, Greens 7%, Democrats 2.5%, CDP 2%; Family First 1%, One Nation 1%, Other 3.5%. This would result in three NSW ALP Senators and two L-NP Senators. The final one is a line ball between Greens and L-NP – both would be about 2% short of a seat. I’d probably just favour the Liberals in this situation, using an assumption that more of the ‘Other’ vote will be right-leaning rather than left-leaning, although its impossible to know for sure what the make up of the Others is.
* In Victoria: ALP 42%, L-NP 37%, Greens 10.5%, Democrats 5%, Family First 3%, One Nation 0.5%, Other 2%. This is the second best primary vote for the Democrat after Queensland, but it is hard to see how a result like this on election day could deliver anything other than three Victorian ALP Senators, two L-NP Senators, and one Greens Senator.
* In Queensland: ALP 41.5%, Liberal 31%, Greens 6%, Democrats 5.5%, Pauline Hanson 5.5%, Nationals 4.5%, Family First 2.5%, One Nation 0.5%, Other 3%. These figures are similar to the previous Morgan Senate poll on Queensland, which I wrote about here. This would result in two Queensland ALP Senators and two Liberal Senators. I find it hard to confidently pick who might get the other two. The Libs and Nats are running a joint ticket now, so one can add their two votes together. The key seat on the joint ticket is the third spot, which is the National’s Ron Boswell. Pauline Hanson in the wildcard here – both in where she gives her preferences and who preferences her. Assuming no major party preferences her, she won’t win, but if she gets preferences from Family First, One Nation and a few ‘others’, she will stay in the count and the Liberal/Nationals will drop out. If Family First preference Ron Boswell before Pauline, he will stay in and Pauline will drop out. Which also comes back to where she directs her preferences – I would assume this would be Boswell before Labor or Dems/Greens, although it’s harder to be sure with this one. This would give the Coalition a third seat. With the Democrats and Greens so close together, (and Labor sitting just below three seats) preferences from the “Others” will be critical in deciding which of these two will drop out first. It would also leave a line ball call between Labor and the Dem/Green for that final seat.
All of that is a long winded way of saying, my best guess on these polling figures (which may in themselves be a fair way from what actually happens on election day of course), is 3 Coalition, 2 Labor and a toss-up between, Labor, Green or Democrat for the final seat. (In case anyone isn’t aware, that Democrat is me, so readers can factor in my self-interest to this assessment.)
* In South Australia: ALP 46%, L-NP 33.5%, Greens 7%, Family First 4.5%, Democrats 3%, One Nation 1%, Other 5%. This would result in three South Australian ALP Senators, and two L-NP Senators. The final seat will depend largely on where Labor, and to a lesser extent Family First directs their preferences. If Labor preference to the Democrat, there is an outside chance they could win it, and if they preference Family First it gives them a reasonable chance, but I would still say the Greens are the most likely on these figures.
* In Western Australia: Liberal 42%, ALP 37%, Greens 9.5%, Democrats 3%, Nationals 1.5%, One Nation 1.5%, Family First 1.5%, CDP 1%, Other 3%. This would result in three Western Australian Liberal Senators, two ALP Senators, and one Greens Senator
* In Tasmania: ALP 45%, Liberal 30%, Greens 17.5%, Family First 2.5%, Democrats 0.5%, Other 4.5%. This would result in three Tasmanian ALP Senators, two Liberal Senators, and one Greens Senator.
Once one adds in the 2 ALP and 2 Coalition Senators who will be elected in the Territory (there is an outside chance that a Labor or Green could be elected instead of a Lib in the ACT, but it’s a long-shot), that leaves the following as my best guess result from the 40 Senate seats up for election:
ALP 18, Coalition 17, Greens 4 plus one too close to call in Qld between ALP, Green and Democrat. Assuming the last Queensland seat goes to Dem or Green, but the last NSW one goes to the Libs, this would be a gain of 4 to Labor, a loss of 3 for the Coalition and a net reduction of 1 in minor party representation.
The final Senate numbers in this scenario after July 1 next year would be Coalition 36, ALP 32, Greens 6 or 7, Democrats 1 or 0, Family First 1. 39 votes are needed to pass legislation, which would mean Labor could pass legislation without the support of Family First, but would still need the Democrat vote if it was a Democrat elected.
However, it is still finely balanced, so even one seat shifting from the predictions above (which is quite likely given the less reliable nature of Senate polls and the occasional vagaries of preference flows), could make a significant difference to what life is like under the next Senate.
I have assumed that Greens and Democrat preferences will flow to each other ahead of other relevant parties, and Family First preferences will go to Coalition before other parties and vice versa. Labor preferences are harder to predict, as they could go first to any of Greens, Democrats or Family First, and may well be different in different states. However, apart from maybe SA, this is unlikely to matter much with the above figures.
31 Comments, Comment or Ping
Derek
Andrew,
Roy Morgan seems to be discounting your chances saying the final Qld seat is between “National Party, the Greens or Pauline Hanson once preferences have been allocated.”
I don’t think they are taking into account your advantage of incumbency. I agree its too close to call on those figure. It really does depend on where those additional Labor votes will flow after they take their two seats.
Sep 10th, 2007
philip travers
Let no-one say your not a realist about what may happen in the election..it all seems a very narrow window to stay honest to your own endeavours, the Democrats and the electorate.The other Candidates for the Democrats in Queensland will need remarkable qualities, which the electorate probably expects of Democrats,but are not so easy to find,more so in the practice of political reasoning.So if they have no experience in assessing the nature of people issues and expenditure ,and no experience in the nous requiring subjects,as other Parties fall over themselves to be relevant..is it just clarifying a position on matters that have their own tendencies..and outcomes!? More a whole series of contestable views and validities than a purpose built question. If I was playing piano with orchestra in the background with a tribute singer to Pavarotti ..there would be a similar nervousness about at least meeting a standard..rather than assuming a being that resonates.Therein lies the problem for the Democrats to apply the art of reasonableness that allows its potential voters to have all the composure that should be the electorates natural right.Composural resonates isnt my strong point,and a long aria it will be.The Democrats must try to establish the Art of Senatorial standard.. to be.Hit those high points Senator,and let those who will stand with you know the fates are worthy of their best energetic realities,for the others are fairly clear that the Democrats are limited! But are they!?
Sep 10th, 2007
red crab
polls dont mean much because they tend to be corrupt .they tend to mostly say what the govt wants them to .
my prediction for the senate this election is that there will be a lot more votes go to the minor partys .the libs will loose a lot because they have not been seen to stand up on the big issues making them look like rubber stamps when they are supposed to be looking after there electrate first and trying to gain for them.
labor will not do that well in the senate either because the ppl dont want the govt to have control of the senate againe for some time.
you will do better than you think .
Sep 11th, 2007
CORAL
Well, I hope the Greens and the Nationals don’t get the remaining seats.
Now that Peter Beattie has quit, I think it will improve the position of Labor. Rudd probably told him to get out.
A Liberal politician on the National Press Club address said Labor preferences would go to the Greens.
I wonder how we can keep the Greens’ candidate out, without also keeping John Howard in?
Sep 11th, 2007
paul walter
I’d prefer Bartlett or a Green. What faction does the third Labor candidate belong to?
A week is a long time in politics and few are countenancing a drift back to the Coalition, but
stranger things have happened…
Any way, am a Croweater. A youngish Green, a old hand peace activist ( for the Dems ) or the likeable, hapless Sen Kirk now below the Right’s Don Farrell, as I understand it.
Sep 12th, 2007
al loomis
mr b, remember that the proles are expected to change occupations several times in a lifetime, with job insecurity and unemployment mixed in. low-level pollies must be in a similar state of anxiety.
the dems could have been champions of real democracy, an ideal that would appeal to youth as the environment has recruited to the greens. they didn’t seize the opportunity, and were ultimately revealed to be grubby little power brokers.
you might do better as an independent. the party has no ideals, very little organizational power, and if you cut loose from it, your personal history and energy may get you in. i hope so, better an independent than a party hack.
Sep 12th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
al l;
While your criticism of past actions by the Democrats has some validity, I think you are being rather harsh. There’s no doubt that a desire by some in the Democrats in the past to be seen as ‘players’ or ‘relevant’ made them lose sight of what the party was about. But you shouldn’t underestimate the very real and practical gains the party has achieved at a national level, nor the uniqueness even now of the Democrats’ commitment to particpatory democracy. No doubt the practical application of it falls well short of what you would see as ideal, but Australia isn’t exactly fertile ground for this stuff – indeed I’d say we’d probably be the worst of the English speaking democracies in that respect. Even though our basic electoral system is more democratic that the UK, US or Canada (but not New Zealand), our avoidance of referenda and the barely disguised contempt by many in the media and the business community for community engagement is very strong.
Even basic things the Democrats have pioneered in Australia (and are still unique in amongst Parliamentary parties as far as I know) like having our parliamentary leaders elected by the membership and all members able to vote on determining policy have made us a continual target of derision in the media and elsewhere. I’ve always found that hard to figure, given all 3 major parties in the UK have a signficant form of member involvement in choosing party leaders, and the US of course has its widespread use of primaries for pre-selection, as well as referenda in many states.
In any case, I’m not sure whether I’d do better as an independent – I suspect not. But even if I would, it is a simple fact that I wouldn’t have got into the Senate without the party and in particular the efforts of many of the members within it over many years. It would be the wrong thing to do to cut loose from it now just because the party it hasn’t been travelling as well. In any case, in Queensland the party is doing fine.
Sep 12th, 2007
ken
Democracy and power are negatively correlated. Anyone thinking otherwise is just not being eitehr historically informed or is indeed biologically naive. One only needs to observe the decision making at the political level of local gvoernment to see that. This level of gvoernment is streets ahead of any otehr in ternms of community engagment, by both design and proximity, but decision making is more oftne than not taken on the basis of the views of the elcetd memebers irrespectiev of that engagement. Despiet Mr Bell’s stridnet anti bureacrat viwes offciers decisoin making are in my experince almost always more aligned with community views than elected officlais (except of course where they have to implement their masters wants viz the NT fiasco).
So Just as the principles of justice, equlaity and wealth distribution dinminish in direct proportion to the higher ones power in socilaist states, so the same principles diminsh in the same proportion the higher one approaches power in liberal market econmomies.
The greatest thing we do have is the capability to cumulatievly, despite the best efforts of whatever group of interest groups hold sway and are attaehced to the gravy train at the time, to as a community take the probverbial baseball bat to incumbetns when the level of cumulatiev action reacehs its tipping point.
If our beloved senator or mr al loomis ever reached these same levels they would behave in exactly the same way, its part of the other triangle of innate drviers of behaviiour that our frined Mr maslow conveniently doesnt mention.
Having said that the democrast processes as described above have stood the test of time and do have the greates memebr involvment, but that doesnt equate to community engagment, merely engagemnet with a small non representative population.
Sep 12th, 2007
philip travers
Senator,Andrew..you cop some unfair shit sometimes on your very own creation.I notice tonight, the wonderfully exact ABC PM. programme was going on about Bligh having meet the business community and found they could live with her, although as a statement of a precise nature from PM. myself or business people that will remain conjectural.I think, some business people prefer to think that whoever is elected represents both an electorate and a Ministry as of Bligh, and then decide that is being responsible enough.I however have a soft spot for sawmillers in our area,at least, who have engaged in real conversation with conservationists..and at times both have lost out.The shame of Tasmania with Gunns underpins the frailty of accepting that Labor is in power an alternative rostrum-nostrum to real conservation groups.Labor may think it routes its non political opposition if it takes over the role of community organization,but, its contempt whilst doing so lends itself to being a political opposition.Bligh engaging in the self-reference isnt a substitute for community organization on dams or day light saving..and the two distinct subjects actually have more in common.I bet you could stick a proverbial knife in Senator, if you found some commonality with Police on matters dams and daylight saving on a functionality basis.Thus reducing some foolhardy business input.
Sep 12th, 2007
CORAL
That’s about right, Ken, except I’m not sure Andrew would behave in the same manner as John Howard if he became PM. In fact, I’m reasonably certain he wouldn’t.
As for the Liberal capitalists behaving like communists – I think that’s pretty spot on.
Derek:
I think we must vote for Andrew and Pauline if we hope to keep Nationals and dangerous Green extremists out.
If we are to avoid further dominance by two possible coalitions (Liberal/National and Labor/Green), that’s the only way we can go if we want more independent thinkers in the Senate.
If they hate one another, that’s their prerogative.
Sep 13th, 2007
dembo
The polls aren’t discouraging.
Sep 13th, 2007
philip travers
The John Howard Steel Poll juggernaut is now justifying itself,in front of a audience entering the views of election time and the end of the year silly season.Superannuation on the end of the pole fluttering around in the wind as fiddlededum team takes on the biddlededum team of the ALP.The Knights of Howard encouraged by a meeting of intentions ,bear no real malice against him and are ready for the traditional knights with ramming polls joust.Up hill and down Australian descent,past, give way signs ,speed limits, and population figures on City and town signs they will go,via TV internet and leaflets,and letters from chief sitting members.Ready to talk to mums in all the Australian varieties women as the permanent thinking class of households,caravans worthy flats and tents.Emissions and decisions, poetry flowing from the resourceful well fanged mouth of Howard.The Steel Poll election, already causing the bunyips, traditional deros, school waggers, madam lashes, wine bottle quartet talent clubs, misdemeanor boys and girls clubs, the cotton t-shirt mirror gilding apprentices,Professors are-plenty Hec Fee mass jumbo want a plumbo job go crews,the return of the ancients one last wave good-bye association of older merit coo-ees repressed.. on stand-by brigades,dads for sanity besides fathers day marchers, and then single men as proponents of what do you really want from us Shakespearian Elite silent anger clubs, a mathematician or two with degree but forced to count his toes again and again,and farmers for a future somewhere clubs,yes, arguing incessantly amongst themselves is this all the population of voters,or are their others not yet nookeyed into the great event that shapes our very near future!? So many language and understanding problems amongst them..Howard s English is seen as the saviour…saveloy….save your breath…..save your ..I think I have lost the plot! Too much to now remember,so much to decide to place… forgot!
Sep 13th, 2007
muzzmonster
red crab, how can you say the polls mostly say what the government wants them to? How on earth do you explain the current situation – and any time the government is behind in them? Are they the “few” times they don’t?
And Andrew, I’m pretty sure the Tories in England now have their leader elected by party members, though it seems a somewhat abbreviated process that I must admit I don’t fully understand.
Sep 13th, 2007
Aron
Using the senate preferences from last time at Cassandra, http://www.um.com.au/cgi-bin/cassandra it really does look like Dems need to outpoll Greens – a rather big ask at the moment, though close call in Qld. But then I suppose Family First probably won’t be in the favourable position they had last time – or Hetty Johnston either? Any idea whether the ALP would prefer working with Greens or Democrats? It may well come down to major party vote and preferences too.
What happened to the South Australian Democrat vote? Wasn’t it higher than the Greens last time? I really wonder about the reliability of Morgan. They got it wrong last time in 2004, after all.
Sep 14th, 2007
Aron
It seems to me on reflection upon those figures that the 10% undecided Senate vote is going to be very important! Hopefully the Democrats can swing those voters our way with a strong Senate campaign/message. I think educating voters about the role of the Senate is crucial, and tying in with GetUp!’s ’save the senate’ campaign would be crucial here too.
Sep 14th, 2007
CORAL
“A Current Affair” conducted its own poll on Wednesday, and John Howard performed very well.
That’s a conservative viewing audience, which includes me. I didn’t bother voting, but if I had, my answer to another term of Howard would have been “No”.
The results of polls depend on who is asked, who has the most money, who has the strongest feelings on an issue, and who knows that their preferred candidate is about to take a fall.
The conservative viewers know John Howard is about to take a fall, so those who wanted to have him again made sure they did the voting.
The rest of us went out or changed channels.
John Howard is hoping for a leadership challenge so he can get out before the axe falls. He’s invited one once.
Let’s give it another couple of weeks … or three … for Peter Costello to be forced into the “fall guy” role.
Sep 14th, 2007
Marilyn
Coral, the Greens are not dangerous extremists – what a silly idea that is.
As for the 9 poll – only asked if you would vote for the coalition of John Howard was the leader.
A meaningless poll indeed.
Andrew I hope you get back in because the senate needs you and it is possible that Ruth could be elected here on those figures. We like our democrats in SA usually – except Meg.
Sep 15th, 2007
togret
Coral, can I ask what it is about Pauline (Hanson?) that makes her worthy of your vote?
Sep 15th, 2007
CORAL
togret:
I think voting for Andrew and Pauline would keep Nationals and Greens out. Please re-read post #10 which explains.
Marilyn:
The Greens at a global level will become very dangerous. I suggest we just wait and see. Keep thinking about it in the meantime.
Sep 16th, 2007
togret
Coral, so your sole reason for voting for Pauline Hanson is that she isn’t a National or a Green? I’m just wondering if you agree with whatever her policies are? Seems a dangerous waste of your vote if you don’t agree with her- why not vote informal, and deny her any affirmation if you don’t agree with her? If you do agree with her, why?
Sep 18th, 2007
paul walter
No, Coral.
The Greens are not “dangerous” ( how many times do we have this out). They are “dangerous” only to the vested interests they challenge, who would ruin what little of the environment they have not already ruined, if that meant making a quick buck for themselves at the expense of the rest of us.
Think.
Out of the Greens and the guy who runs Gunns, who would you trust to give you a truthful answer, as to whether OG logging and a dioxin pulp mill was bad for the environment?
Sep 18th, 2007
CORAL
togret:
My goodness! You don’t appear to know very much about voting strategy. I guess you still haven’t re-read post #10 with any degree of understanding.
paul walter:
You’re only looking at the small picture. Try looking at a bigger one.
Try thinking a bit further out of the square and extrapolate a bit on what the Greens might do globally.
I rarely expect to get a truthful answer from anyone with a vested interest in anything associated with money.
Sep 19th, 2007
muzzmonster
Actually Paul, I’d probably trust neither of them.
Sep 19th, 2007
togret
Too shy to say you agree with Pauline, hey, Coral?
Sep 19th, 2007
CORAL
togret:
You clearly don’t understand what I’m trying to tell you.
Don’t bother putting words into my mouth, or making assumptions, thanks.
Sep 20th, 2007
Tom
Don’t count the Greens out in the ACT. Kerrie Tucker has a real chance, she is well known here and Canberra has a unique demographic which i think is quite disappointed in both major parties.
I can’t help but weigh in on the green debate with Coral. Have a look through Hansard, the party that most commonly votes with Senator Bartlett is the Greens! Surely if SB doesn’t get it you would prefer them to Pauline Hanson (yes I have read post 10, I do understand the electoral system and that number in her box will only encourage her racist ill conceived views! – please explain.)
Sep 20th, 2007
CORAL
Andrew is a bit Green; but the Greens are extremely, even dangerously, Green and have other affiliations worldwide.
The word “racist” seems to be bandied about at will these days. Pauline is running as an Independent – and therefore cannot do much damage to all of the fearful folk on her own.
Sep 21st, 2007
paul walter
Belated muzz -post.
Wouldn’t trust “either”?
Hard to trust ANY.
Sep 27th, 2007
dibo
“In Queensland: ALP 41.5%, Liberal 31%, Greens 6%, Democrats 5.5%, Pauline Hanson 5.5%, Nationals 4.5%, Family First 2.5%, One Nation 0.5%, Other 3%. These figures are similar to the previous Morgan Senate poll on Queensland, which I wrote about here. This would result in two Queensland ALP Senators and two Liberal Senators. I find it hard to confidently pick who might get the other two.”
chalk up a third to labor – they’re only 2% short of a third quota, and unless everyone preferences around them and leaves them hanging i can’t imagine them falling short. greens and dems numbers together are close to a quota as well 1.5% or so, but they won’t get overquotas from labor.
however, the libs and nats between them are 8 points short of a 3rd quota there – it’s a long way from there to a 3rd seat. hanson’s 5.5% isn’t enough. you’d think that the greens/dems would be in the running to nick the third ‘conservative’ seat as a fourth for the left? what delicious irony that might be…
Sep 27th, 2007
CORAL
I think it’s still too close to call, dibo. The Greens and the Democrats have a good chance of winning at least one of the seats – hopefully not the Greens.
Sep 30th, 2007
Paul Kavanagh
In Victoria the Democrats have benefited from an avalanch of positive media over the past three weeks, notably but not exclusively;.
1. (my) letter in The Age detailing our success in Albert Park in polling the highest Democrats vote in Australia for years.
2. Feature article in The Sunday Age by political editor, Jason Koutsoukis, extraordinarily positive about the important role of the Democrats in the Senate, esp when compared to the Greens.
3. Feature letter by Lyn Allison (and another letter by various Dems members) in the Sunday Age highlighting Democrats’ achievements.
4. Numerous references in AFR/ other newspaper editorials about how underated the Democrats are.
5. Wide TV, radio and prnt coverage for Lyn/ Democrats regarding the new citizenship test.
6. Feature portrait article (and two photos) of Ruth Russell in The Age – very positive indeed.
7. Really positive story/ portrait of Jenny Williams, SA Dems candidate, in The Age – with her photo.
8. Coverage of young Dems candidates in many local papers esp. candidates Laura Chipp, Richard Grossi and Tim Wright.
9. Great story/ photo of Laura Chipp in MX magazine.
As a result the Democrats chances must be improving in Victoria.
Oct 3rd, 2007