Blogging Senate forecasts and results in the WA Senate re-election until officially declared.

Twitter: @AU_Truth_Seeker


Sunday 30 March 2014

Latest Monte Carlo simulations using updated BludgerTrack estimations

What a week it's been. Saturday night and I fnially have time for another update.

The timing of this is propitious as yesterday saw a significant move in the polling estimates produced by Poll Bludger's "BludgerTrack"

In this weekly update, the LNP 2PP moved from 49.9% to 48.2%, on the back of weak polling performance by the Government. Additional information is that the Greens vote is slightly up and the LNP performance in WA is down even more than the trend.

I have also made the following modifications to my model:
1. Wirrpanda effect
I have removed the +1% variation to LIB and -1% to NAT. While I still believe that David Wirrpanda positively increased the NAT vote, he did this in Group U. This time, NAT has drawn the much more favourable Group B. Given the fact that NAT and LIB are imperfect substitutes*, I would expect a small proportion of LIB voters to instead vote NAT instead. Rather than modelling a different "LIB-NAT Substitution Effect", I've just deleted from my model the Wirrpanda effect.
*I use the term imperfect substitutes. LDP Senator-Elect David Leyonhjelm considers NAT as a front for LIB - Certainly not true in WA!

2. Could Not Find effect
Again, I still believe that the OTH vote will be lower this time due to the focus on a Senate only election. But the model in telling me last week that just 7.8% would vote OTH just seemed unrealistically low. So rather than arbitrarily increasing the vote, I decreased the reduction (double negative, sorry) from 2/3 to 0. (ie, deleting the effect). Perhaps another piece of supporting evidence to the OTH not decreasing by much may be the higher number of groups in this election - an even smaller font than last time.

3. Double Monte Carlo
Previously, I was applying a variation to each party's vote. While this was successful in modelling each party's own vote and variations therein, the model was actually weak in modelling the total OTH vote, as applying 28 individual variations will mainly cancel itself out. Any fair scenario analysis will consider the impact of the total OTH vote varying significantly from its mean.

In my update last week, I applied the following variations to parties' votes:
LIB: +/-15%
ALP: +/-20% (I suspect I may have typoed by stating I'd assumed a +/-15% for ALP. Apols)
GRN: +/-30%
All others individually: +/-50%

This week, my revised methodology applies two variations to minor parties' votes:
a) Universal variation: +/-40% (not to LIB, NAT, ALP, GRN, PUP)
b) Individual variation: +/-30%
and where the two variations are applied multiplicatively.

This ensures that the minor party vote fluctuates, and that each individual minor party's vote also varies within the varying OTH vote.

4. Revised minor party votes
I have adjusted minor party votes to increase the number of different minor party levels. Minor party vote is based on the vote the party got last time, but arbitrarily adjusted for Group.


Major party votes:
ModelLast wk2013
LIB: 37.1%-4.5%-2.1%
NAT: 4.5%+0.6%-0.6%
ALP: 31.5%+0.6%+5.0%
GRN: 12.3%+0.1%+2.8%
PUP: 3.5%--1.5%
OTH: 11.0%+3.2%-3.6%

Minor party votes
Group
Party
Est Vote
'13 Grp
2013
A
WIKI
1.30%
L
0.75%
AE
SEX
1.13%
I
1.49%
J
LDP
0.87%
B
3.43%
C
IND
0.87%
-
-
S
SFP
0.78%
G
1.04%
N
FF
0.61%
N
0.67%
G
AMEP
0.61%
W
0.59%
AD
AJP
0.52%
T
0.74%
D
DEM
0.43%
R
0.29%
T
HEMP
0.43%
D
1.07%
E
PIR
0.43%
-
-
W
AFLP
0.35%
V
0.44%
X
GOD
0.35%
C
1.64%
AB
DLP
0.26%
-
-
AC
KAP
0.26%
M
0.30%
Z
RUA
0.26%
Y
0.29%
V
SMOK
0.26%
A
0.67%
I
VEP
0.26%
-
-
AG
ODR
0.17%
Q
0.17%
Q
SPORT
0.17%
X
0.23%
L
BAP
0.09%
-
-
H
FREE
0.09%
-
-
M
MUT
0.09%
-
-
U
REP
0.09%
-
-
AF
SA
0.09%
E
0.09%
Y
SEC
0.09%
J
0.11%
O
SUS
0.09%
P
0.10%
K
VOICE
0.09%
H
0.09%
 
Outcomes:
Despite significant change in methodology, there is surprisingly little change in outcomes. LIB is now not quite certain to win 3 Senators, while ALP is modelled winning a surprising 3 Senators on 10% of occasions. This is unlikely - it would require ALP vote exceeding 35%. While this is within the Monte Carlo simulated range, it is well beyond what is likely.

Very likely (>90% likelihood):
LIB: 3 (3rd Senator with 91% likelihood)
ALP: 2 (100%)
GRN: 1 (93%)

Unlikely:
NAT: 7%
ALP3: 6%
WIKI: 1.2%
PUP: 0.6%
DEM: 0.5%

In terms of a left-right breakdown, note that my modelling does not show NAT being elected when 3 LIB are elected - the NAT is an unlikely substitute for the 3rd LIB Senator.

No HEMP?
I am now modelling HEMP at 0.43%. This is much lower than the 1.07% it got last time. It's worth considering HEMP's vote in other states in the 2013 election:
WA: 1.07%, Group D
QLD: 0.90%, Group E
VIC: 0.59%, Group F
NSW: 0.69%, Group G
SA: 0.58%, Group S (33 groups)
TAS: 0.51%, Group K (23 groups)
WA: ??%, Group T (33 groups)
So while 0.43% is slightly less than what it polled in TAS and SA, it's not massively so and only indicative of the fact that total OTH vote is forecast to decrease at this election.


Conclusions:
The more things change, the more they stay the same. I've revamped my modelling, applied a different share of minor party vote, used latest polling data, and everything is pointing to a 3-2-1 outcome.

I'm still not getting HEMP elected in even 0.1% of scenarios, but it does tend to hoover the late-elimination minors if they can last that long. But given they're moving from Group D to Group T surely its vote will not exceed 0.7%?






19 comments:

  1. Great update, probably a bit more realistic with a higher combined micro vote and I like the new methodology.

    I have a new idea for something to test - can we test the cohesiveness of the micro vote by:

    - Setting the TOTAL micro vote to just above a quota (say 15%)
    - Reducing the major and mid parties proportionally to compensate

    What I'm curious to see is whether this always results in the election of ANY micro or whether enough leaks back to the majors (e.g. the religious parties to the Libs etc.). Furthermore, if it's a micro victory more often than not, are there one or two "anointed few" who are favoured?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great work as always. However, applying the BludgerTrack PUP swing to the 2013 result is, I am quite sure, a mistake. During the federal election campaign, a two-week advertising blitz saw the PUP vote inflate from essentially nothing to 5.5%. With most of the country spared any PUP advertising over the last six months, it's no surprise that some air has come out of their poll rating. However, that's very far from being the case in Western Australia, where PUP's Senate election advertising has easily eclipsed that of both major parties combined. I will be surprised if the PUP vote is down at all, never mind by 1.5%.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We've also seen him act like a complete tool in parliament (or rather as a member of parliament, since he's seldom in parliament)... so there's that...

      Delete
  3. I'm thinking that your estimation for Palmer is perhaps too low. The latest Morgan poll has PUP at 10.5% in WA http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5504-morgan-poll-federal-voting-intention-march-24-2014-201403240556 and while this does have a small sample size and the question asked relates to the House not the Senate, I think the PUP vote would be closer to Morgan's number than 3.5%.

    I'm hearing that Palmer is advertising a lot, including a large DVD mailout. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/latest/a/22151804/palmer-picks-up-voter-support/ One report suggests that he may be spending $3 million – more than the Liberals or Labor. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/influence-is-sir-clives-coin-of-the-realm/story-fnahw9xv-1226865659650#

    The Liberals' internal polling appears to be worrying them enough that they have set up an anti-Palmer website http://www.palmerfactfile.com.au and, according this website, are running anti-Palmer radio ads.

    While Palmer did spend a lot in Tasmania and didn't poll particularly highly at all, this may have been due to quite a lot of stories coming out about various blunders his party made (such as ringing 000 or potentially breaking electoral laws by naming candidates without permission). I have not heard of any similar mistakes being made in WA thus far (except perhaps some reports stating that his DVDs are made in China http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/22067344/palmers-election-dvd-made-in-china/ ).

    Therefore, I expect PUP will poll more in the range of 5-10%.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If PUP is paying for an advertising blitz, then I haven't seen it. I've seen a few lacklustre ads in The West and heard a few lacklustre radio ads while I was in the shops but that's about it.

    As for negative stories, yesterday's West had a front page article about how all of his election promises were undeliverable. To be honest I am not sure whether this would genuinely dissuade people considering taking their vote away from the majors, or whether this would simply feed the conspiracy nutters who think the press and the major parties are ganging up because they fear the man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting to hear from someone actually "in the field" rather than just having to rely on the occasional reports one comes across. I'm wondering whether you watch much commercial television, and if so, are Palmer ads being played with much frequency? PUP's YouTube channel has posted a lot of TV ads for this election https://www.youtube.com/user/PalmerUnited/videos?sort=dd&view=0&shelf_id=1 , but if they haven't bought much TV advertising space, then I'm not sure how effective they'd be.

      (Although, from the federal election and the Tasmanian election, Palmer seems to put the majority of his TV ads out in the very last week, and then run ads for the Palmer Coolum resort during the blackout period to keep the "Palmer" momentum going.)

      I can't see front page articles about undeliverable promises helping Palmer much at all. "Conspiracy nutters who think the press and the major parties are ganging up" are, I believe, a very small percentage of the population.

      Delete
  5. I concede that I don't watch much commercial television these days but I do record a handful of shows and skim through the ads. I remember seeing one PUP ad, spoken by their #3 candidate, pretty unimpressive. I do read the papers - very little there - and look at the West online (Libs advertising prominently).

    I don't think my media habits have changed much since the general election, back then you couldn't move without being saturated with advertising. Not this time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I disagree entirely with Anonymous's assessment of the advertising situation. I've been watching the television news every night for the past week, and there have been PUP ads on in every commercial break, amounting to more advertising than every other party combined. I have seen billboards for PUP, and PUP alone. And as noted, a DVD has been sent to every household in the state, and I've received roughly the same amount of mailout advertising for PUP, Labor and Liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Like I said, TV isn't my thing, so if that's where the fight is, fair enough. That fabled DVD never made it to my house so either I'm special or "every household in the state" is another inflated claim (not by you, Will, by PUP). I've seen one mailout from the Libs, nothing from ALP or PUP. Last election there were 5 or 6 Lib mailouts. I live in Palmyra, not way out in the sticks so my view is that advertisers are not trying very hard to get me. Again that is my own perspective as a TV minimalist which I acknowledge might not be the mainstream perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No doubt there are holes in any mailout distribution, but I got my DVD. Tonight's combined ad count for the Ten, Seven and Nine news: PUP 6, ALP 5, Liberal 2, Greens 2. Although the PUP spots are invariably 15 seconds, whereas most of the others were 30.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Truth Seeker, if I can put in a request - how high does the PUP vote have to get before your simulations start giving them a substantial chance of victory?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Newspoll in tomorrow's Australian shows for WA: LIB 46, ALP 29, GRN 15, OTH 10.

    I ran a quick 1-trial Monte Carlo simulation in my head and concluded it was time for a beer.

    3:2:1 here we go.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No PUP DVD for me, I live in central Perth. Have seen lots of Scott Ludlum's ad but I'm not your regular TV viewer, tending to avoid commercial TV and radio. No mailouts so far except the usual fake-y LIB 'postal vote' one a few weeks ago. Probably have a stack waiting for me this evening I guess

    ReplyDelete
  12. Advertising summary for the West Australian, Monday 5 days out:

    One half-page ad for The Greens.

    That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. OK, it's a very different day in The West. No fewer than FIVE separate ads for PUP. Nothing for any other party though there's one about education cuts which is pretty clearly ALP-aligned.

    Some of the ads mention Group P. It's almost as if someone's reading this blog and responding...!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad someone's paying attention. :-) Please keep up with the updates!

      Delete
    2. OK, though today is my last report as I am heading OS for a few days and won't be back until Saturday.

      Today's paper has 4 ads for PUP, one smallish one for LIB (all the way back at P24) and a larger one for the Australian Christians which focuses mainly on preference comparisons between them, ALP and GRN (and oddly a free run for FF).

      The best ad of course is page 1 which bears a big picture of Clive with the headline "APRIL FOOL". The unflattering article is followed by two more on P4.

      And... I deliberately "watched" a few hours of prime time TV last night to see what I'd been missing. Several ads each from LIB, ALP, GRN and PUP. Two had Clive speaking to camera, clearly shot in one take with limited preparation and polishing, looking very amateurish. At least Des showed a bit of decorum. There were also ads run by the MUA (anti-Abbott) and the Solar Council (not mentioning specific parties nut indicating the threat to solar power from some unnamed parties).

      Since it's now Wednesday before the election and time for TV blackout, can anyone in WA let me know if saturation ads for the Palmer Coolum Resort crank up...?

      Good luck with it all...

      Delete
  14. I reckon that the LDP will manage at least 1% - that's just my guess though.

    What is not a guess is that Aus Christians will not mysteriously drop to 0.35% - they've been getting around 1.5% for years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AC:
      Vic: Group AH: 0.5%
      QLD: Group T: 0.4%
      WA: Group C: 1.6%
      SA: Group W: 0.3%
      TAS: Group G: 0.5%
      WA-14: Group X: ??%

      so reassessing, you may be right!

      As for LDP, I disagree it will exceed 1%. This was mainly driven by accidental voting which will be less as parties will have HTV cards distributed that clearly state the Group.

      Delete