I think this data confirms my suspicion that what we have really seen in this election is a disillusionment with party politics. Politics has become about marketing a brand - we are invited to choose between Labor and Liberal on much the same basis as we are invited to choose between Woolworths and Coles.
I spoke to a lot of people prior to the election. I live in a safe Liberal seat and was known to be promoting an independent candidate who went to the polls on two major local issues: population growth in Mt Barker and Chinese apple and pear imports. The general tenor of their remarks was that they felt that they really had no one to vote for.
A number told me afterwards that they voted for the Liberal candidate because they could see that there was a possibility that if they voted independent they might end up with the Greens.
What all this highlighted is that the vast majority of the electorate still do not understand how the preference system works but more importantly that their vote does not reflect a commitment to the brand labor or liberal just as very few people have a commitment to the brand Coles or Woolworths.

Thanks, Graham. Your analysis generally rings true to me. Do I take it you are counting the Labor loss of Denison as NOT caused by climate change politics?

Personally, I feel that climate change was probably a small factor.
Even Penny Wong said on election night, after being asked, that failing to push forward an ETS bill was their undoing... she denied this saying something to explain ... thre is a great division in the community about climate change ... the planet is cooling. Gud. Most other countries are not going ahead with any ETS and or Cap N Trade. Republicanism... well a much larger percentage of people want to remain a constitutional monarchy..the last referendum the Republican model included not just getting rid of the term 'Crown' and the Queen from our shores, but also that the PM had the right to get rid of President, that the people had voted in. A politician's republic and Kevin's resignation is just an example how a government can rid a politician (let alone a President) who has previously received the support of the people. No - the Labor made mistakes, some of their own making. However, 600,000 informal votes did not help solve the situation. A new poll, well maybe both parties will make up a better campaign.

In an earlier blog posted 13 August 2010 Who has the higher 'emotional intelligence', Julia or Tony?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10811

I argued the religion and family factors could be an important factor is this election.

Today (30 August 2010) in the Australian Financial Review there was an extensive post election analysis by John Black using SPSS. Black said that the switch from pro-family, pro-Christian Kevin to atheist Julia led to an average anti Labor swing of 7.2% in the top 4 Pentacostal seats in Australia compared to a national average of 2.1%. On the other hand in the top 4 atheist seats Julia had a pro-Labor swing of 3.3%. On balance Black concluded the impact of Christian and family factors cost the ALP more seats than it gained.

I feel vindicated.

I have to wonder whether there would've been an even greater swing against Labor had Gillard been an advocate of same sex marriage as well as declaring herself an atheist. On thinking over the result, at least the majority of Australians are not to be governed by a fundamentalist religious minority, else we would have an Abbott government by now.

Hi Tom,

I didn't look at Denison in the article, but given the small swing to the Greens and the large swings away from Labor and Liberal it's quite probably climate change played a part there. But if Wilkie goes with Labor, as I think he will, it is probably similar to the Melbourne result in terms of shifts in political power. Labor loses, but still keeps the support of the seat through the independent.

Graham