2019 Federal Election Discussion

[love_the_life]

A polling clerk level 2 (the base one) is paid about $450 for the day's work - this is the total amount payable regardless of how long the day goes. You get there at 7am and after 6pm you start the count. I was down to do it again this year but pulled out as we thought we might have to be away. Last time I didn't get home till after 12.30 am as there was a problem reconciling the number of ballot paper records. Other friends I know are home by about 9.30 pm. So over a 12 hour day at any calculation. For the run of the mill polling official there is a bit of reading but no actual training. Apparently some officials in the ACT were giving incorrect information to voters for the senate.

I should add, you don't do it for the money.

 

[Hvr]

So Melissa Price "asked for a new challenge" and is now moved away from Environment - mustn't have been challenging enough for her.

Given the LNP don't consider the environment at all important they probably don't even need a minister. The mining minister will take advice from the companies who want to mine and consider that sufficient.

 

[serfty]

Sorry @OATEK I misread:
View attachment 166340

Indeed "held by" is accurate.

This is what I see:

 

[sjk]

Labor lost the election because it cuddled too far left & the Greens, class warfare etc.

I'd love to know the "scientific" foundation for this narrative constructed on the basis of a handful of seats changing hands and a relatively minor shift in the primary vote at the aggregate level.

At what degree of statistical significance can you demonstrate it to be different from some random story plucked out of some random person's cough?

Can you also "scientifically" identify the "mandate" that has purportedly been delivered to the new government? Even at the individual seat level I reckon that's close to impossible, nationwide, no way.

This sort of "sensing the tea leaves" divination is precisely why the media got things so wrong pre-election.

True science to me lacks bias and displays an appropriate degree of humility. Maybe it's different in geology?

 

[RooFlyer]

I'd love to know the "scientific" foundation for this narrative constructed on the basis of a handful of seats changing hands and a relatively minor shift in the primary vote at the aggregate level.

Who said anything about science? It's an opinion.

True science to me lacks bias and displays an appropriate degree of humility. Maybe it's different in geology?

If you want me to talk about rocks, I'm always up for that . Sedimentary, metamorphic or igneous? I'm biased towards igneous, but here we are talking about the election. Humility? Guilty: a bit short on that if late, but thems the breaks I'm afraid.

Did I ever tell you about my favourite rock? Tourmalised greisen. I still have it on my mantlepiece 38 years later....

 

[drron]

I'd love to know the "scientific" foundation for this narrative constructed on the basis of a handful of seats changing hands and a relatively minor shift in the primary vote at the aggregate level.

At what degree of statistical significance can you demonstrate it to be different from some random story plucked out of some random person's ****?

Can you also "scientifically" identify the "mandate" that has purportedly been delivered to the new government? Even at the individual seat level I reckon that's close to impossible, nationwide, no way.

This sort of "sensing the tea leaves" divination is precisely why the media got things so wrong pre-election.

True science to me lacks bias and displays an appropriate degree of humility. Maybe it's different in geology?

Absolutely no science in politics.
In politics everyone who states an opinion is biased.Most are unaware of their bias.I have always stated where I am at so people know my bias though most misinterpret it.
With your post you are demonstrating your bias.
As to your points the Greens stated that this election was about Climate Change with an emphasis on the Adani mine.The Greens vote didn't change.But neither did the Liberals.The 2 parties with the biggest increase in votes were the UAP and ON.Nationally their combined vote went up just over 5%.Neither of them wanted more action on Climate change nor wanted Adani stopped.
A 5% shift in the National vote is not a relatively minor shift in the primary vote.

 

[sjk]

With your post you are demonstrating your bias.

Perhaps you could let me know what it is, then. I only just gained the right to vote in Australia, but didn’t feel strongly either way.

My quibble is with people’s interpretations of the numbers and claims like “the electorate” wants to prevent the government from having a Senate majority... mind reading in aggregate.

I don’t find your take on the CC/Adani issue at all convincing. Nor numerate.

 

[drron]

Perhaps you could let me know what it is, then. I only just gained the right to vote in Australia, but didn’t feel strongly either way.

My quibble is with people’s interpretations of the numbers and claims like “the electorate” wants to prevent the government from having a Senate majority... mind reading in aggregate.

I don’t find your take on the CC/Adani issue at all convincing. Nor numerate.

Well having been a candidate in a Federal election as well as being a Campaign director in federal,state and local government elections as well as a scrutineer I really believe a 5% swing nationwide is a really significant swing.
The last line suggesting that the Adani/CC issue is not as some believe is an obvious indication of bias on that issue.
Look at all the posts.Pretty easy to see many who support the coalition believe those that support the ALP/Greens are biased.The reverse is just as true.

 

[sjk]

Well having been a candidate in a Federal election as well as being a Campaign director in federal,state and local government elections as well as a scrutineer I really believe a 5% swing nationwide is a really significant swing.
The last line suggesting that the Adani/CC issue is not as some believe is an obvious indication of bias on that issue.
Look at all the posts.Pretty easy to see many who support the coalition believe those that support the ALP/Greens are biased.The reverse is just as true.

Yeah, nah, I disagree with all the posts that read too much into the numbers and claim some sort of insight into the mindset of the electorate. It's just because this thread happens to have more of them on one side than the other that you end up perceiving bias.

If you can't see possible reasons for a swing to UAP other than Adani/CC, then I guess I can't help you with that.

As for ON:

"One Nation only ran 15 candidates in 2016; this time it ran 59. The party actually suffered negative swings in nine of the 15 seats where it ran in 2016, so its “swing” is only explained by an ability to nominate more candidates."

 

[leadman]

Did I ever tell you about my favourite rock? Tourmalised greisen. I still have it on my mantlepiece 38 years later....

Galena, you need galena!!!!!! We have all been "lead" astray with this thread............

 

[cove]

I like quartz with a big vein of gold in it.
Make Australia great again?Next year Keep Australia Great? Hard to pick slogans.

 

[Quickstatus]

Absolutely no science in politics

I wouldn’t worry about whether opinion is right or wrong
I would worry about how wrong the pollsters were. Remember Turnbull used sequential poll results as the basis to oust Abbott. . And Labor based their prepoll celebratory “win” on the polls

The pollsters were supposed to have a robust statistical basis for their product. They and not opinion makers should look at their scientific method

Notionally the coalition has to win 2 seats to stay in Govt due electoral boundary redistribution not just maintain the status quo - which they did

The poll that mattered showed a 51:49 split. So it’s important to recognise that the other side (from whichever side you are on) have a significant voice as well.

What is 1% of the total electoral roll?

 

[OATEK]

Yeah, nah, I disagree with all the posts that read too much into the numbers and claim some sort of insight into the mindset of the electorate. It's just because this thread happens to have more of them on one side than the other that you end up perceiving bias.

If you can't see possible reasons for a swing to UAP other than Adani/CC, then I guess I can't help you with that.

As for ON:

"One Nation only ran 15 candidates in 2016; this time it ran 59. The party actually suffered negative swings in nine of the 15 seats where it ran in 2016, so its “swing” is only explained by an ability to nominate more candidates."

ON pulled massive swings where they mattered, in Adani/Coal country. The national vote only really matters to those looking at the broad direction of politics, but when it comes to an election where you get your votes is vital. In this election the swings in seats that matter have been quite high in places, and an election is about the number of seats you win, not the number of votes you get nationally. Even the Senate is broken into pseudo electorates (States & Territories).

The thing about inferences based on the election this year was the expansive policies of Labor who expected to win an additional 10-15 seats and a clear majority, based on their policy directions. That they didn't does give some insight into the mind of the electorate - the majority of which seem to have preferred a more steady as she goes approach rather than remaking society in just about every quarter of society.

 

[vetrade]

The pollsters were supposed to have a robust statistical basis for their product. They and not opinion makers should look at their scientific method

I think this is the key if pollsters are to retain (regain?) credibility. The old expression "bulls^*t in; bulls^*t out" comes to mind. Information which has come to light since the polls suggests there were deficiencies in the type of data collected, the ways in which it was collected and probably how the results were interpreted and presented too - so it was a fail all round.

Edit: I think pure statistical analysis may well be inappropriate when you are dealing with a myriad of (often poorly defined) possible data sets based on personal opinions and preferences rather than repeatable hard facts. To be manageable at all for analysis, the data needs to be allocated to certain subgroups but, insofar as pollitics is concerned, there's little way of knowing if those subgroups are accurately representative

 

[Quickstatus]

It is quite amusing that the pollsters suddenly discovered deficient methodology in their polling.

 

[RooFlyer]

What about exit polls? I thought they were wrong too? Shy Tories?

 

[tgh]

Sudden discoveries are not unknown in politics..viz… Anastasia's recent epiphany

 

[theblank]

Given the LNP don't consider the environment at all important they probably don't even need a minister.

This is not true at all. Its unlikely that any Australian, on either side of poltics would consider the environment unimportant. Its being drilled into our mindset as children since the 70's.

Just because the LNP dont subscribe to Climate politics as much as The Greens would like just means that the politics are questionable. In any case we are still a slave to the Paris Agreement anyway, so whats the problem.

 

[RooFlyer]

Given the LNP don't consider the environment at all important they probably don't even need a minister. The mining minister will take advice from the companies who want to mine and consider that sufficient.

It's hyperbole like this that makes my day.

 

[Isochronous]

This is not true at all. Its unlikely that any Australian, on either side of poltics would consider the environment unimportant. Its being drilled into our mindset as children since the 70's.

Just because the LNP dont subscribe to Climate politics as much as The Greens would like just means that the politics are questionable. In any case we are still a slave to the Paris Agreement anyway, so whats the problem.

Agreed. One of the sad things about the hyperventilating over global warming is that it squeezes out attention and funding for a whole range of other environmental issues whether it be water pollution, litter, plastics, smog, endangered species, etc.