Pushing the boundary

I don't want to reinvent the wheel here, so I enthusiastically recommend Anthony Green's two pieces on the NSW redistribution, avaiable here and here.

Redistributions are always a sensitive topic.  Political careers can be all but wiped out in an instant when a seat is abolished, and the scramble for pre-selection in a new seat can be, to say the least, unedifying.

Anthony Green goes through what he believes the changes before the next election might be, and I'm not going to disagree with him.

What I did want to do was look at three implications that flow from this situation

The first is Gerrymandering. In short, Gerrymandering is the process of redistributing districts to your electoral advantage.

The NSW constitution demands the following:

However, the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 imposes an even sharper burden of 3%:

For obvious reasons, that 3% has over the years proved challenging for the redistributors. In electorates numbering approximately 50 000 voters, 3% equates to just 1 500 voters - a slim margin, to say the least.

NSW, unlike Queensland, has been spared the spectacle of electoral boundaries being constantly redrawn to the political advantage of the ruling party.  In NSW, the electoral boundaries are redrawn by the Electoral Commissioners:

This body is non-political, which means that the redistribution is (at least in theory) done with the interests of the voters at heart.

The legislation nominates the following considerations:

This should, hopefully, spare NSW the indignity of blatantly political decisions illegitimately influencing the result of elections.

The second issue is the redistribution process.  The Commissioners invite contributions from interested parties, and unsurprisingly the parties tend to have a view about how the distribution should be undertaken. You will also be shocked to hear that, contrary to all expectations, those suggestions tend to result in a political advantage for the party making the submission.

In any event, it is difficult to imagine that the commissioners are truly influenced by the submissions. The task of creating electoral boundaries that are not only within 3% of the correct proportion as well as taking account of sensible boundaries must be challenging enough without paying any regard to partisan submissions from the parties.

The only issue that the government has real control over (and the third issue I want to touch on) is the number of seats. This is a decision that continues to be made on political grounds, although the extent to which it can actually influence the actual result of an election is a little less certain.

As Anthony Green notes, the size of the legislative assembly has been reduced twice in recent years - from 109 to 99 in 1988, and from 99 to 93 in 1991.

It may be that the O'Farrell government, rather than chosing to take seats away from members, simply choses to increase the number of seats. This would create enormous headaches for the commissioners, but no doubt that is of little concern to the Coalition.

No doubt there are squadrons of Coalition staffers busy gaming out this issue, and then trying desperately to find a legitimate reason to justify the changes. Most likely there are a great number of MLA's in marginal seats sweating the result and campaigning internally for changes that would suit them.

Nothing like a behind-the-scene internal drama to convince politicians to take their eyes off actually governing. But I suppose that MLA's (who, let's be honest, just vote the way they are told) have to have something to keep themselves busy between elections.

By the by

Some things mean so little and yet so much at the same time.

The Nationals will win the by election in Clarence, and they will do so at a canter.  Anthony Green, Australia's greatest election savant has declared it to be so, calling the seat a "Certain National Party retain".

Not that he needed to be a savant to make that call - the Nationals dominated this seat in March. Steve Cansdell's TPP vote v Labor of 81.8% made was the 5th highest in the state, trailing only Davidson, Ku-Ring Gai (both lodged deep in Sydney's North Shore), Pittwater (Sydney's Northern Beaches) and Hawkesbury (a seat the Libs have held since 1950).

In fact, the ALP didn't even manage to grab 2nd place.  An Independent by the name of Richie Williamson nabbed second spot with 17% of the first preference votes.

Table from NSW Electoral Commission

From Anthony Green's blog

In this article on SMH, Williamson indicated that was willing to discuss running for preselection as the Nationals candidate. I've done some searching and I've been unable to ascertain if Williamson was at any time a Nationals member  In any case, this Northern Star article explained that Williamson ran for preselection for the Nationals this October as a part of a crowded field, as is common when a by-election is contested.

The first candidate discussed in that article was business owner Stuart George.

From Anthony Green's blog

In the event, pre-selection was won by Chris Gulaptis.

From Anthony Green's blog

Whilst a number of stories suggested that Williamson was planning on running as an independent, he is not listed on the NSW Electoral Commission's site:

The absence of Williamson is not the only difference.  Labor also have a new candidate by the name of Peter Ellem. He is a newspaper editor and advisor to a federal member Janelle Saffin.

So - Labor is not going to win the seat, but will there be a swing to Labor? And, if so, how much?

It's important first to consider just how different by-elections are to general elections. Sometimes, as in this case, the sitting member has been forced to resign in disgrace.  In others, the member has received a better (usually Canberra based) offer. Obviously that can create more than a little resentment from the electors.

Further, in a by-election the opportunity to "send the government a message" is often difficult to resist. The by elections between the 2007 and 2011 general elections are good examples - the voters vented their bile towards the Labor party, with catastrophic results for that government.

Finally, by-elections tend to bring out a larger than usual number of unelectable independents, which often muddy the water.

The biggest problem for the Nationals, however, will ironically enough be the simply massive margin Cansdell won with earlier this year.

Put simply, that kind of margin is out of the question in this by-election, given the massive anti-Labor vote in March that will have dissipated somewhat.  The Labor vote will be further assisted by the absence of a Williamson, who may well have been a convenient home for Labor voters who couldn't in good conscience vote for Labor again, but could not bring themselves to mark the Nationals box with a "1".

It is also worth noting that Cansdell's TPP margin in 2007 was a far more modest 26%.

Taken from Anthony Green's blog

The Labor vote will increase.  Whilst the Nationals will most likely also benefit from Williamson's absence, the margin will cut - possibly dramatically.

Which brings me back to how I kicked off this posting.  The Nationals will, as I have said, win at a canter.   There is absolutely no "story" in the result.

That said, there is no doubt that "Big swing against Coalition" is a tempting story, especially when run in the context of the number of groups that O'Farrell has been pissing off since he got into office.

The real problem for O'Farrell will not so much be the result but the possibility that another piece of bad news could start to build a narrative of NSW being very unhappy with the new Coalition government. It doesn't matter right now, but we have seen federally just how quickly a pattern where a government are seen as undesirable can become gospel truth, almost before anyone notices.

Neither O'Farrell nor the Nationals candidate for Clarence will be able to stop the stories about the reduced margin being written.  But O'Farrell will need to start looking for ways to change the story, or else he could find himself in charge of a government that has lost the trust of the electorate.  And that trust is not won back easily.

The by-election will mean nothing, but it has the real potential to mean a lot. Should be interesting viewing.

Keeping Fears in Cheque

The Labor line that has been getting the most running of late is "Don't give Barry a blank cheque".


It's a multi-faceted slogan, and I think it is a very effective one. Like all the best slogans, it seems like it will be effective with every category of voters who Labor are still courting.


Best of all, it hits those voters right where they need to be hit.


I'm not going to try and predict the effect on dead-certain Labor or Liberal voters, because they are not going to change their vote at this stage.


First of all, disaffected Labor voters - people who have always voted Labor but now think "It's Time". To these voters, the slogan says "The Coalition are going to win - if they win both houses, they will destroy the state." For someone who is perhaps not comfortable with voting Coalition in the first place, this is a powerful fear, and one likely to bring some people back across.


The true swinging voter, who has no affiliations? Judging by the polls, just about every single one of these voters is already in the Coalition column. This slogan suddenly gives them something tangible to fear from the Coalition. When combined with the "What isn't he telling us?" line, it is capable of provoking some significant fear for these voters.


It's almost a devil you know argument - "We don't really know what this guy stands for, and you want to give him BOTH houses?"


The swinging voter probably isn't voting Coalition because he/she doesn't like Labor policies. Just because the swinging voter is sick of Labor being in power doesn't mean that it wouldn't be nice to have them providing some balance to the Coalition.


How about people who usually vote Liberal? There is nothing positive that Labor can say to these people that will have any effect as they hate Labor already. This slogan, however, might give this group of voters a moment's pause about their vote.


On one hand, it may give the voter a chance to think about voting for a different party. Not the Greens, presumably, but maybe a minor party - given that this slogan is all about the Upper house, it may push the Liberals a little further down the preference list, at least among those voters who actually take the option to preference their Upper House Ballot.


I haven't seen anyone mention Howard's time in control of both houses, but I would have that many people would go straight to that. And, before you know it, we're finessing some WorkChoices memories.


Even more so though, the slogan is saying to those Coalition voters "The Coalition has this one wrapped up. Why not just stay home and tidy up the garage rather than go out and stand in that queue. A $55 fine? Money well spent."


For me, the above paragraph is the real genius of the slogan. Everyone wants to back a winner, so for Labor to explicitly concede defeat would seriously damage their vote.


This slogan will bolster and encourage Labor voters ("Even though we're going to get creamed, your vote could not be more important"), quietly encourage apathy in Coalition voters ("We're going to lose, so why should you bother with voting?") and gives swinging voters a very tangible fear from the Coalition ("Just imagine what they'll do!").


Of course, the real question is whether it's going to make any difference. You can have the best slogan in the world, but if no one is listening anyway then it's not going to make a bit of difference.


PS This will be my last post pre-election. Get out there, exercise your democratic right, then tune into Anthony Green on the ABC and watch the carnage. Hopefully there'll be enough time for dinner and some red with friends before they resume normal programming.

Interest Rates

I think it is more than a little amazing how chronically disinterested in this election people are.


Admittedly, my interest in politics is relatively new.  Four years ago my political interest was in its infancy, and I can't profess that I had a huge interest in the election where Debnam was humiliated by Iemma. That said, I do remember chuckling most heartily at "More to do, but we're heading in the right direction."


My interest in politics was really ignited by observing JWH being unceremoniously dumped not only out of the lodge but also out of Bennelong.  I almost went into meltdown with interest in the 2010 Federal Election and the ensuing drama.


I approached this 2011 NSW election more than a little excited.  I was looking forward to reading about the parties brawling through the media, stories leaking, scandal, fusses over nothing, plus of course excitement and niggle on #NSWvotes.  And maybe someone like Mark Latham to really stir things up.


Instead, the whole thing appears to be a bit of a squib.  Frankly, no one seems very interested.


No one appears to be blogging very enthusiastically (except for those people who only blog to drum up support/rail against an ideology/piss people off).  #NSWvotes is more than a little dull - the usual trolls doing what trolls do, people retweeting stuff journos have tweeted, and people asking Barry O'Farrell questions (many of which, to his credit, he or his staff answer).


The media seems to be, at best, disinterested.  Reporting what is being said, but without any real enthusiasm or excitement.  Anthony Green has, as usual, provided an absolute deluge of analysis and statistical information, but I often wonder if I'm the only one reading it.


Why is this?  Could it be the fact that the coalition are now almost unbackable favourites to triumph ($1.02 on Centrebet, Labor $13.00)?  I'm sure that's part of it.


Much like a sporting event, most people like it to at least be competitive.  Labor have been sunk for so long that their loss seems not only inevitable - it seems like it has already happened, and all we're waiting for is the formality of an actual vote.


It may well be that this election is the kind of election that only the "purist" enjoys - the process itself has to entertain, because the "tension" over the result certainly won't.


On one level, I suppose this is a great shame for O'Farrell - as opposed to remembered as hero (in the same way that Rudd would be if people didn't think him an unbearable twat) it seems he will (at least for the moment) be the man who was in the right place at the right time to knock off a long expired Labor government.


He has copped a lot of flack for running a "small target" campaign, but one can't fault its effectiveness.  I wrote previously (at ) about the way that all he needs to do is not give people a reason not to vote for him, and most people who aren't firmly part of the Labor or Green base would back the Coalition.  Judging by the polls that strategy seems to be working very well.  


Labor will no doubt say that it's not fair that a man who is "hiding" things (their words) could be elected, but all he's doing is (very effectively) taking advantage of Labor's weakness.  And Labor has no one to blame for that but themselves.


Anyway.  I'll be watching the ABC with considerable interest next saturday.  I'll have all the Labor seats on a board and will closely cross them off as Labor are slaughtered.  And if anyone wants to play with me, I'll pick a time for when Anthony Green calls it for the Coalition.  I just hope I'll have someone to play with.

Betting on it

There has been some interesting chatter recently about the betting market for the NSW election.  I always take very careful note of what the betting agencies are offering - after all, they more than anyone have no partisan interest, and the amount of money they have riding on the result means that the odds they offer are (presumably) untinged by emotion or sentimentality.

It is in the bookmaker's interest to make sure that the actual favourite is priced as the favourite - if not, it is likely they will loose money.

The one thing that must be borne in mind, however, is this.  Once a bookmaker takes a disproportionate amount of money on one "runner", they will shorten the odds to prevent a monetary loss.  This does not necessarily mean that the prospects of this runner are any better than they were a day ago - but because the bookmaker now wants to discourage betting on this runner, they will shorten the odds.

Whilst the betting company has no sentimentality, the betting public certainly does.  For example, I would expect that when Australia plays in a sporting event the Australian betting public bets more on Australia than, say, a bookmaker in the opponent's country.  Consequently, all things being equal, the odds on an Australian win should be shorter with the Australian bookmaker.

Having said that all that - I doubt it makes a huge difference for political betting, although divergent odds on different major betting company websites suggests that that view may be premature.

Anyway.  I've made a spreadsheet on google docs which you can see here: http://bit.ly/gdecpv

It lists the NSW electorates, names the current member's affiliation, and then lists the winner as predicted by Sportsbet.com.au.

Frustratingly, Sportsbet is only offering odds in 38 electorates, and they're listed in black in the "Sportbet tip" column.  It's not even only the "close" competitions that are in the market - of the 38 markets, 8 have one runner where the odds offered are $1.05 or less.

I've filled in the remaining 55 electorates using Anthony's Green's tips and some guesswork, and they are all marked in red. Surprisingly, there are some very tight competitions that are not on the Sportsbet market - there 7 seats presently held by the ALP with a margin of 10% to 15% that have no market.  

Of those 7, six are left in the ALP column.  One (Kiama) is left marked for the Coalition because Anthony Green said so, apparently because a redistribution makes it s bit more Liberal.

So, what did this spreadsheet reveal?  When the Sportsbet market is combined with my guesses, the ALP win 26 seats, the Coalition win 61, the Greens win 2 and 4 seats are won by Independents.

Of course no one expects a uniform swing - Kogarah has a margin of 17.7% and Sportsbet tips it to move to the Coalition, whilst Toongabbie with a margin of 14.5% is tipped to be retained by the ALP.

That said, if we get out Anthony Green's Election calculator out and plug in numbers, what swing spits out the ALP winning 26 seats?  Roughly, 12.2%.  That's about a 60/40 two party preferred split.

Even if I move all 6 of the 10% to 15% ALP seats into the LIB column and make it 67 to 20, the swing is still less than 15%

60/40 a shellacking, by any measure.  Probably too much for Labor to be back in power in 4 years time.  But the swing "predicted" is still far less than the numbers we're seeing in the polls, which which have tipped swings of as much as 18%.

Of course the only poll that matters is the one carried out in polling booths on 26 March.  But I think we learn far more looking at the Sportsbet market than we ever will looking at a Newspoll.