Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Protest vote did not decide the outcome

By Graham Young - posted Monday, 30 August 2010


There are always winners and losers who want to blur our vision.

In this respect Labor provides the first round of election-result rationalisations to critique, reflecting the fact that Tony Abbott did better than most expected. Indeed, they were framing the result even before it had arrived.

In early August, Kevin Rudd justified his re-emergence on the basis that he needed to stop "Mr Abbott from slid[ing] quietly into the office of prime minister". Julia Gillard had used the theme the day before, saying he was trying to "sneak into the Lodge".

Advertisement

Both were worried about a protest vote campaign where a government everyone expects to win loses to an opposition people think won't. Voters use the opposition to protest and accidentally turf the government out.

This is why in the last weeks Labor was saying the election was on a knife edge, but to little avail. Just before the election, Newspoll showed 59 per cent thought the government would win and 24 per cent didn't.

So the protest vote could have been a factor. But was it?

We can test the proposition. The protest vote leaves a distinctive fingerprint, with larger swings in safe seats than marginal ones. Voters in marginals realise that their vote counts and are less likely to protest.

Plotting the results of a protest vote election produces a saucer-shaped trend, with the smallest swings in the middle and largest swings on the outside.

The results of this election produce a flattish trend line. That doesn't mean that swings were uniform. They weren't, with some of the largest and smallest swings occurring in marginals, and they went in both directions. This says there was no overall sentiment across the country and that local factors counted.

Advertisement

It's not surprising that there was no clear protest vote. Both sides were unanimous the election was going to be close. Abbott was emphatic that you "had to change the government". Had he played for the protest vote, the result may have been quite different.

Labor pin-up Maxine McKew claims that she lost because of the knifing of Rudd, and because the party turned away from the emissions trading system.

Our database of responses from the election allows us to assess these claims. Climate change was undoubtedly a factor. Out of 2,151 respondents in our last poll, 446 (21 per cent) nominated "climate" or "warming" as the issues they had wanted to hear more about in the campaign.

But out of those people most went to the Greens, not the Liberals. And of those who changed their vote from Labor last election to Greens this election, all preferenced Labor. The only seat to change hands on this dynamic was Melbourne, but it went to the Greens, who will support Labor. It changes the balance of power on the Left, but not the government.

There is more truth in the Rudd claim, but not because Kevin was well-liked. This is a proposition that can be tested in Queensland.

The median swing against the government in Queensland is 5.16 percentage points. The swing in Griffith, Rudd's seat, was 4.07 percentage points. So perhaps the sympathy vote for Rudd in his own seat was 1.09 per cent.

Or it could reflect the fact that the Liberals ran virtually no campaign (still waiting for my first Liberal letterbox drop) and that Rudd ran a positive local campaign divorced from federal issues.

This could be contrasted with that other discarded leader, Malcolm Turnbull, who in Wentworth received a swing to him of 11.53 per cent.

There was a Queensland effect, but it was small. Only 2 per cent of our sample rated it as the most important issue, although 50 per cent of those were from Queensland. They were also mostly Liberal voters in 2007.

Across the country, one reason for disliking the way Rudd was dispatched was that some voters wanted to do it themselves, meaning it was not a vote changer for them, unless it was back to Labor.

Others mention Rudd as a reason for voting against Labor because of the failings of the "Rudd-Gillard government". Then there were the complaints Gillard was disloyal, which fed the perception that Labor was manipulative. This was counterbalanced by those who thought a good prime minister needed to be ruthless.

Some approved of the achievements of the Rudd government, and said Labor wouldn't be there without him. So, a Rudd factor, but barely perceptible and moving votes in both directions.

The last claim is that it was a vote against Labor state governments. There has to be some truth in this because the two biggest swings were in NSW and Queensland, the states with the least popular Labor governments, but I'm not sure that it is sufficient.

Looking at Queensland, where the largest swing occurred, another explanation could be the ETS or the mining tax. This is possible, as generally speaking the largest swings were in rural areas, where opposition would be expected to be higher, although not in Herbert or Flynn, the two seats most directly affected by both.

All of which leaves specific legislation and poor perceptions of the Labor brand, along with the work of individual candidates, the most likely explanations for the result. Unfortunately for history, these are untidy factors and they don't fit the opportunistic narrative of public relations.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

First published in The Australian August 28, 2010.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graham Young is chief editor and the publisher of On Line Opinion. He is executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress, an Australian think tank based in Brisbane, and the publisher of On Line Opinion.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graham Young

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graham Young
Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy