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

BAYGON, I cant see why anyone would think that a vote for an independent instead of Liberal would mean a vote for the Greens. The Lower House ballot papers are not usually that long that most people cant number all boxes - I did, and that's with two preschoolers busy trying to pushover other booths (sometimes with people in them). The Senate was another matter. I usually try to number through, but had already uprighted two booths that had been empty and thought I had better cut my losses!

Perhaps the independents that are incumbent as well as those that stand a fighting chance should band together some resources about how to vote properly - including how to decide your own preferences (which any true independent should support).

I must say Graham,you assiduously do your homework.The protest vote may not have decided the outcome but it was a factor.In the Labor heartland for example,how many knew that their seat was marginal?

In many of these seats where education is not valued,a 60 minutes expose of a gung ho Latham would be more than enough to return a blank ballot paper.

Time will tell,but I don't think that the Coalition will be keen to go back to the electorate soon.In fact with the GFC looking worse next yr,they may be better off letting Labor win and be on the nose even more. Labor will be forced to an early election late next yr if in power,because of the influence of the independants.

So if I were Tony Abbott,I'd do a deal with the independants to let Labor rule for now,but to jump ship when the economy gets really nasty,thus getting a workable majority in both houses.

I disagree with the premise of this article. I believe that the number and diversity of protest votes led to this unfortunate, unintended outcome.

People protested about: Rudd's removal, Julia Gillard's atheism and lack of children and her ears, Tony Abbott's ears and constant policy changes, the modifying of the mining super tax, the imposition of the mining super tax, the soft treatment of boat people, the hardening of treatment of boat people, the possibility of a carbon tax, the scrapping of a carbon tax, the negativity against same sex marriage, the advocating of same sex marriage, the demolition of Malcolm Turnbull, the unmarried status of Gillard, the blokey image of Abbott, etc.

There was so much protesting that common sense flew out the window!

methinks david that you protest too much!
However, the point David makes will need to be rebutted Graham - If there was such an incoherent antipathy towards both parties would that not be consistent with your findings?
Your central thesis is that we can identify a protest vote by looking at what happened in the blue ribbon seats. But surely that would only make sense when there was a strong and particular antipathy to a particular party or set of policies.
As David has illustrated there was really no central narrative under which a protest vote could gather - hence the impossibility of identifying a protest vote using the analytical tools at your disposal.

Hi Baygon, you have to use the definition of protest vote as I have used it. Otherwise the debate becomes meaningless because any decision not to vote for a party could be to be a protest.

So a protest vote is one where you vote against the party that you want to win expecting that they will win anyway but hoping to send them a message. That is the phenomenon that leads all political parties to generally say they are the underdog.

Voters weren't voting this election to send a message, they were voting on the issues and personalities. So I don't really disagree with David G, we are just talking about different things.

Hi Graham,

I scrutineered in Bonner,(Bonner changed hands) at Gumdale school booth on Saturday. It is traditionally a strong Liberal booth. There the results, as expected, didn't mirror the rest of the community and may have some indication of the patterns in Liberal areas. The conservative Liberal candidate received 66% of the first preferences. Out of the 5000 votes 450, 9% (Less than the 11% nationally) were to the Greens and of those 70 - 75% preferenced Labor. Oh and there were only 40 informal votes 0.08%.

I've seen many media reports saying voters rejected both parties. I'm not so sure.

To me these figures suggest Liberals don't appear to have rejected The Liberal Party in the same way Labor voters rejected The Labor Party. I know my view is ancedotal. Is there anyway of undertaking such analysis?

Keith I think you are getting to the nub of the problem. Graham, seems to have used data from vote that was gained in each electorate. I see a few problems with this - the redistribution after 2007 meant that the profile of some electorates had changed significantly.
One way to compensate for this is to focus on booth results (this is also the strategy parties use in planning their campaigns.) the trouble is all we can get from the AEC website (or more precisely all I could find) is two party preferred by polling booth.
Graham - I take your point that you and David are talking about different things. However, one may wonder whether or not the protest vote in the way you describe it gives us any relevant information. Indeed one wonders if it is possible to draw any firm conclusions simply by interrogating the poll results.
(as an aside why is it that thread seems to have lead to an attempt at a rational discussion? We are on page 2 and there has been no vitriol)