The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Chicken's liver says Gallop will win > Comments

Chicken's liver says Gallop will win : Comments

By Graham Young, published 25/2/2005

Graham Young argues that Geoff Gallop will win the Western Australian election by default.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Well done, Graham, you got the WA result right. In your view, as I understand it, the result confirms the theory, outlined in earlier OLO essays, that governments don't win, oppositions lose. That is, Geoff Gallop does not deserve any credit for good economic management and winning the vote, because it was Colin Barnett who lost the election, by running on the "wrong" issues and being a generally unattractive person.

I have expressed my scepticism about the superficiality of this theory in previous forums on the basis that it lacks any explanatory value. It might be useful to dig a little deeper than the easily recognisable "kitchen sink" issues that are usually the subject of opinion polling, and the "oppositions lose" framework that does not tell us anything useful, and try to learn something from the WA result that could be applied in the future.

For example, in a previous OLO forum I raised two factors, almost unique to WA, which I thought might affect voter opinion in that state: the first is electoral malapportionment, implemented and supported by the conservative parties, that makes WA the only state in Australia without "one-vote-one-value"; and the second is the substantial and very obvious right-wing bias in the only daily newspaper in Perth, the West Australian.

Both these factors ostensibly advantage the WA Libs, but for the first time in my memory, they were extensively covered in the mainstream national media in the two or three weeks leading up to polling day, and the commentary was predominantly negative. Could it be that Western Australians are finally fed up with the conservative bias that infects their electoral system and their local daily news, and expressed their dissatisfaction at the ballot box?

I would be interested to see any post-election polling that addresses these issues, and whether party affiliations show any correlation. Voters might be more intelligent than political parties and pollsters give them credit for. Congratulations Geoff Gallop.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Sunday, 27 February 2005 5:52:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grace, I don't think I've ever advanced the idea that "governments don't win, oppositions lose", and in fact I can't think of anyone who ever has. My general approach is the reverse - Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. But that doesn't mean that everything an opposition or government do during an election campaign is irrelevant. In this election the government campaign was competent, and therefore not particularly interesting to write about.

I can say pretty categorically that the issues you raise are not ones that concerned voters, at least in terms of casting their votes. If they had been you would have thought that electors would raise them when asked what the issues were for them in voting, and they didn't.

The malapportionment is one that has now been embraced by the government as well as the opposition, so I would have thought, irrespective of the polling, it couldn't be an issue. The bias of the West Australian may have annoyed some voters, but I think worrying about newspaper bias is an elite preoccupation - most voters get their news from TV.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 28 February 2005 11:46:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham - thanks for clarifying your theory. I expressed it inexactly, but I don't think precisely in reverse.

You go on to say, "I can say pretty categorically that the issues you raise are not ones that concerned voters, at least in terms of casting their votes. If they had been you would have thought that electors would raise them when asked what the issues were for them in voting, and they didn't."

Did the opinion polling to which you refer actually ask people to give a view on these particular issues? I am assuming from what you have said that your conclusions are based on "focus groups" rather than direct questioning.

However, such supposedly free-ranging group discussions are still likely to be based on what people have heard and read elsewhere, and be swayed by group consensus, so that familiar topics like economic management, leadership, health and education, and of course the issue du jour, the canal, are likely to "frame" the discussion to the exclusion of less obvious factors.

That is, even though people did not independently raise the issues of electoral malapportionment or media bias, this does not mean that they were not persuasive. Hence my interest in post-election polling, where we are more likely to find out the reasons why people voted the way they did.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Monday, 28 February 2005 1:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grace,

If people do not raise an issue it is highly unlikely to have been persuasive. The research to which I refer is our own qualitative research which you can access from http://www.ozelections.com. It is based on one online focus group and 136 qualitative surveys.

The sort of research you are suggesting appears to centre on asking people whether the issues that you nominate were persuasive for them. You might get a positive response, but if you did it is most likely to be because you made the issue an agenda item for the respondent, rather than it being the real issue. How could something be "persuasive" for a voter if it is not top of mind? You can't be persuaded by something you hadn't thought of.

BTW, the canal was an issue, but as a negative for Barnett. It was mentioned four times when we asked about election issues - three times negatively for Barnett. When we asked for hesitations about voting for Barnett it was mentioned 14 times. Of course it framed the discussion, but I hope you're not suggesting that politicians' promises should be ignored in terms of the discussion.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 28 February 2005 4:16:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham - thanks for referring me to your research site, I was not aware it existed. However, as you know doubt expect I would say, I am not persuaded that one small focus group with Janet and Fred etc, and a limited questionnaire with 136 responses really tells us very much, beyond giving some sort of indicator of the result. But I am more interested in the "why" rather than the actual outcome.

You say, "How could something be "persuasive" for a voter if it is not top of mind? You can't be persuaded by something you hadn't thought of".

Well, Janet and Fred, and 136 others might not have thought of the issues I suggested, but that does not mean many others did not. I am not convinced that your sample was really representative (of opinions, not outcome), particularly given the questionnaire respondents were self-selecting, as I understand it. Further, an issue can explode into consciousness a couple of days before polling day, if given enough media attention. If your polling ran over a period of weeks, then it would have undervalued any late surge on other (new) issues.

You say, "Of course [the canal] framed the discussion, but I hope you're not suggesting that politicians' promises should be ignored in terms of the discussion." Not at all, Graham, and that is not my point. I remain interested in any post-election polling that might show why voters elected Gallop (not why voters rejected Barnett, which is clearly of more interest to you).

Here's a further query. I read somewhere else (correct me if I'm wrong, as I can't source it) that Liberal Party polling suggested Gallop was viewed as "indecisive". I am not sure what this means and how it was derived, but it is a loaded concept. Was this the reason Barnett decided to go all out with the improperly costed canal project, to make him look "decisive" by comparison. If so, it would appear to have been a major mistake by the party strategists
Posted by grace pettigrew, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:11:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grace, you don't seem to grasp how qualitative polling works versus quantitative. 136 separate responses is more than enough to get a feel for what people are thinking. In an election campaign, to be absolutely sure of the strength of feeling, and what groups it primarily affects, you would follow qual up with quantitative polling, but you can tell a lot without doing that.

If out of 136 people no-one mentions media bias, then you can be absolutely sure it wasn't an issue. They may be self-selecting, but so what? They actually select from a group - internet users - which is likely to be more attuned to this as an issue, rather than less attuned. If a reasonable percentage had mentioned it, then it would deserve further investigation, but no-one did, so you can eliminate it.

It's also unlikely that the issues would have changed significantly over the course of the campaign - they hardly ever do. Don't forget this analysis contains tacit knowledge gleaned from researching maybe ten other election campaigns over the years, as well as strategising a number.

I don't disagree with your suggestion re: the canal and Gallop's alleged indecision. In fact it was contained in my analysis before the election, and I did a blog piece on it this morning at http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000516.html. Noel Crichton-Brown also wrote some sensible analysis of it as an issue over at Crikey!

Textor Crosby are getting the blame for it, but I'd be surprised if they would have made a mistake like that.

BTW, the reason Gallop won is because he hadn't done enough wrong to lose. The research shows that people weren't terribly enthusiastic about him, but they had no reason to switch. Gallop actually ran his campaign against Barnett, more than for himself.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 4:06:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While voting is not completed, it seems to me the informal vote is quite high. Is this right? If so, does it reflect a "plague on both your houses" attitude. Who lost votes to the "informals" if I am right.
Posted by rossco, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 7:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham - There is nothing mysterious about qualitative versus quantitative polling, and I am no raw prawn. Space does not permit, but there is a lot more that could be said about relying on 136 self-selected respondents and one small focus group to make categorical judgments about why people voted in WA (as distinct from making guesses about a binary result). Perhaps Peter van Onselen might like to comment from an academic perspective.

I do not accept that your survey results show that media bias and electoral malapportionment can be "eliminated", any more than old growth forests for example, and we will have to agree to disagree on this. I maintain that political opinion polling is at a very superficial level in this country and deserves better methodology, including post-election polling. My guess is that the latter does occur at some level by the parties but is not released for public consumption.

I am interested in your comment that Textor-Crosby are being held responsible for the indecision/canal fiasco. Textor is widely credited as the originator of "push-polling" in this country, which says a lot about his methodology as a pollster. As for Crosby, if the WA result is anything to go by, his efforts in the UK might just backfire. And I find it hard to take NCB seriously. His integrity has been savagely attacked on Crikey as you would know, and this somewhat undermined his commentary.

Having said all that, this has been an interesting discussion, and I have learnt something more about Textor-Crosby. I hope the Liberal Party does too.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 8:07:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grace, I think your confirmatory bias is showing. Academics do studies on even fewer samples. For example Barbara Pocock's recent report "Only a casual… How casual work affects employees, households and communities in Australia" was based on a sample of 55 self-selecting unionists. That wasn't raised at the time by anyone as a reason for dismissing her conclusions.

You're dead wrong about the state of opinion polling in this country. It is as good as anywhere else in the world, and in fact our On Line Opinion research is leading edge. We don't do exit polls here, but that is because they are basically a waste of money. News organisations, which do them in other countries often do so because the count is so excruciatingly slow. Here you know on the night. Political parties don't do it because come the election they've researched the electorate within in inch of its life and there's nothing more useful for them to find out. And they aren't necessarily very accurate - look at the last lot from the US.

You're very quick to jump on Crosby Textor. I said "I'd be surprised if they would have made a mistake like [the canal]." Today's newspapers tend to confirm that it was a couple of federal ministers who came up with the idea on the spur of the moment. Tex was probably pulling what little hair he has left out of his head at the time.

You're also wrong about Textor and push polling, which is not to say that no-one has push polled in Australia, but that the Canberra alleged "push poll" was nothing of the sort.

For the record Mark Textor is the best professional political pollster in the country, and Howard's election wins are a demonstration of it.

Of course I'd accept your dismissal of Crichton-Brown. If it's in Crikey it must be true! No need to deal with the substance of what he says. I'm not an NCB fan, but that doesn't mean he can't make sense.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 11:33:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham - it's too easy to throw around allegations of bias in this discussion. I am not and never have been a member of a political party, but I note you are the former vice-president and campaign chairman of the Queensland Liberal Party.

You have persisted in confounding my argument about opinion polling to find out WHY people vote, as distinct from which party is likely to win. Your 136 self-selecting respondents were asked which party they were likely to support, and provided a pretty good result indicator. However, you do not know any more than I do, why they voted this way, and one small focus group will not give you those answers with any confidence.

I have suggested that parties should do (if they don't already) some post-polling surveys to find out the WHY. You have confused this with exit polling to find out which way people voted, particularly in the USA which has voluntary voting. Exit polling makes little sense in this country as we both know because results are provided so quickly on the night.

You might believe that your opinion polling "is as good as anywhere in the world", by which you probably mean the USA, but I do not agree with you.

As for Textor and push polling you are either very naive or deliberately misleading. I invite readers to google "textor push polling", or go straight to Ken Parish's article on your own website, concerning push polling at the 1994 NT election, at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1790, or to the comprehensive ABC Background Briefing on push polling and Mark Textor at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s19393.htm.

Do you deny that following Liberal Party push polling in the 1995 ACT by-election, Mark Textor and Andrew Robb settled a defamation suit from the ALP candidate Sue Robinson for somewhere around $8000? Have you read any of the submissions or transcripts from the 1995 Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (lapsed) inquiry into push polling?

Finally, it was you who first made positive reference to Crikey in relation to NCB, so your comment about my alleged pro-Crikey bias is a bit rich!
Posted by grace pettigrew, Thursday, 3 March 2005 8:43:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grace, you say it is too easy to throw around allegations of bias, and then you accuse me of being biased. That's a bit rich isn't it? In case you aren't aware the term "confirmatory bias" refers to the tendency that we all have, me included, to see what we want to see.

You say "Your 136 self-selecting respondents were asked which party they were likely to support, and provided a pretty good result indicator. However, you do not know any more than I do, why they voted this way, and one small focus group will not give you those answers with any confidence." This suggests that you either didn't read our report or just didn't understand it. The 136 didn't predict the numerical result of the election, and the principal point of the survey is to ask people why they are doing what they are doing, not to count how many of them are doing it! Our quantitative measuring supports the qualitative.

You also seem to have a little trouble with the issue of push polling. None of the material you provide gives any evidence that Mark Textor personally push polls, although it does prove that Gary Morgan and Charles Porter conduct them. According to Ken Parish in his article, so does the ALP.

And I didn't accuse you of a pro-Crikey bias, I've just noticed that you aren't interested in exploring the actual facts and frequently seem to rely on someone else's opinion as absolute proof. So, instead of advancing an argument on its merits you cite some source and say, in effect, because it has been published it must all be true! I was being ironic.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 4 March 2005 12:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham - it is really pointless arguing with you about who is biased, so I will not waste any more of my 350 words. I repeat my opinion that your polling does not explain with any confidence why people voted the way they did, and my disappointment that political opinion polling in this country is so limited, superficial, and methodologically weak. It has been reduced to a marketing exercise, not much better than branding shampoos, and USA-syle push polling, introduced to Australia in the early nineties by Mark Textor, the Liberal Party's "push polling guru", is just one sad exemplar.

I note that you have not denied the push polling defamation payout by Textor and Robb, and instead throw in a red herring about Morgan and Porter conducting the poll. They did not pay out because they were just the functionaries, acting under instructions from Textor and Robb, as we both know. Readers can make up their own minds on the widely published evidence about Mark Textor and push polling.

Finally, since we are both quoting Crikey favourably, here is an recent extract from Christian Kerr: "...The Libs had their special ops boys on the ground and in position [for the WA election]. And Colin Barnett had Team Blue...A hush-hush-HUSH kitchen cabinet of experts...The Libs heavy brigade were all deployed - from Mark Textor down - but Colin Barnett chose to listen to Team Blue...They had a finger in the Grand Canal...but who were Team Blue?"

It would seem that Textor was on deck for the WA election, but he was not responsible for the Grand Canal, as you suggested earlier. What was he doing then?
Posted by grace pettigrew, Monday, 7 March 2005 10:10:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sigh. Grace, I never suggested that Mark Textor was responsible for the canal. I said that some were blaming him and I doubted that it was his idea. "Textor Crosby are getting the blame for it, but I'd be surprised if they would have made a mistake like that."

Just because he gives advice doesn't mean that it is followed, and just because someone in a campaign he advises push polls doesn't mean he did it.

A pollster who has a polling operation set-up to push poll knows he is push polling. It is quite different from normal polling. For example, they ring as many people as they can and they only push the propositions at people whose vote is undecided. They don't bother analysing the results.

We therefore know that Morgan's and Porter's operations must have been aware of what they were doing. Hardly a red-herring.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 7 March 2005 6:08:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Double sigh, Graham, you have again misrepresented the way I responded to your own statements, and unsurprisingly, given your allegiances, you are unable to conduct a rational debate on push polling. No worries, I did not expect to convince you of anything, and will leave this thread to be archived for future reference.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 10:02:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy