Vote Compass helps Australians see where they stand on the political spectrum. Here's what the data shows
After five weeks of campaigning, commitments, debates and discussion from politicians, we need to cast our ballot tomorrow. But which party stands where?
ABC Vote Compass helps visualise how your views on social and economic issues align with politicians and provides information about the candidates in your electorate.
More than 1.2 million people have used the tool this in election cycle.
It generally takes about 10 minutes to fill out the 30-question survey.
Vote Compass has been designed by political scientists at Canada-based Vox Pop Labs to help improve electoral awareness and start important conversations about public policy.
It makes it easy to compare your views, not just to the major parties, but to your friends and family, and start discussions about the big issues this election.
Election essentials:
Find out where your
What does your Vote Compass result mean?
On your results page, you'll see two graphs.
One is a plot on a two-dimensional graph that calculates your alignment on a social and economic scale.
Here's how to think about what the "compass" means:
If you're higher on the chart, your views on the included issues are more socially progressive. If you're lower, then you're more socially conservative
If you're on the left side, you're more aligned with the economic "left", while if you're on the right, you're on the economic "right"
Vote Compass uses your answers to calculate your alignment on a social and economic scale.
(
ABC News
)
The other plot will show the extent of your agreement and disagreement with the parties and candidates on the policy issues included in Vote Compass.
You can weight your results based on which issues you rank as more or less important.
Further down, you can explore how your answers compare question by question. Click on the party or candidate to see an explanation of their position.
If you've identified your electorate, you'll be shown a list of the candidates campaigning for your vote, as well as a link to
Vox Pop Labs founder Clifton van der Linden says the idea behind Vote Compass is to help people understand how they align with political parties on public policy.
"It is simply meant to help Australians have a sense that they are well-informed about the broad range of policy issues that are salient in this campaign and about the positions that the parties hold on those issues," he says.
Dr van der Linden says Vote Compass doesn't tell you how to vote or who to vote for, nor does it try to predict how people will vote.
Read more about the federal election:
Want even more? Here's where you can find all our 2025
Catch the latest interviews and in-depth coverage on
Cost of living rises to the top, housing dream harder to achieve
The responses to Vote Compass also provide an insight into attitudes on issues.
The cost of living came out on top as the most important issue for Vote Compass respondents, followed by the economy and finance and government operations.
The cost of living was also highlighted as a
About 45 per cent of Vote Compass respondents say they are finding it difficult to cope on their current income.
Vote Compass data shows 90 per cent of respondents think it is more difficult for young Australians to buy a house today than it was for previous generations.
This follows
In regards to solutions to the housing crisis, Vote Compass data shows 62.7 per cent of respondents said there should be more government intervention.
Almost 50 per cent of respondents agree there should be fewer tax breaks on investment properties while about 27 per cent disagree.
However, the data shows respondents are split on whether there should be other changes to tax policies.
About 43 per cent of respondents do not think the government should change its tax policies to discourage people from using housing as an investment while 36 per cent are in favour of changes.
This finding is from a weighted sample of 124,988 respondents.
Amid the housing crisis, migration levels have been a talking point during the campaign, but experts say migration is a small part of the puzzle.
The data shows roughly 49 per cent of about 340,000 respondents want "many fewer" or "somewhat fewer"
That's a significant change from 2022's Vote Compass results, in which 49 per cent of respondents said Australia should welcome "somewhat more" or "many more" immigrants.
Nuclear, young voters and the US factor
The ABC has been reporting on findings from Vote Compass findings throughout the campaign.
About 47 per cent of respondents said they strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed
Vote Compass data suggests there has been a shift in views since the last election.
This year 36 per cent of respondents told Vote Compass much more should be done to reduce Australia's carbon emissions. That figure is down from 2022 when 61 per cent of participants said much more should be done.
This year gen Z and millennials will make up the largest voting bloc for the first time.
According to Vote Compass responses, the
The data shows 67 per cent of generation Z women identified as left or moderately left, compared to 52 per cent of women from other generations.
US President Donald Trump's tariffs announcement has meant the United States has featured throughout the campaign.
About 47 per cent of Vote Compass respondents believe
The Lowy Institute recently found Australians' trust in the US had dropped since Mr Trump's return to the White House, but Australians still
About Vote Compass data
Vote Compass is an educational tool designed to promote electoral literacy and civic engagement. While not a conventional public opinion poll, Vote Compass responses can be analysed using statistical methods similar to those used in polling to try to adjust for sampling bias.
Responses have been weighted by gender, age, education, language, religion, place of residence and past vote to account for the selection effects of the sample,
Loading
Having trouble seeing this form? Try
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
18 minutes ago
- ABC News
Australia and allies call on Israel to let aid into Gaza
A joint statement from Australia, Britain, Canada and their European allies says "urgent action is needed now to halt and reverse starvation" in the Palestinian enclave. ( Reuters: Hatem Khaled )
West Australian
30 minutes ago
- West Australian
Marco Rubio says Palestine recognition plans by Australia and European nations as ‘largely meaningless'
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has dismissed Australia's plan to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN next month as 'symbolic' and 'largely meaningless,' saying such moves are driven by domestic politics and won't determine the region's future. Mr Rubio said real change depended on actions and developments within the region itself, rather than external declarations or diplomatic gestures from western countries or Australia. 'It's largely meaningless,' Mr Rubio said, when asked about the Israel-Palestine conflict in an interview with WABC radio overnight. 'It's symbolic, and they're doing it primarily for one reason, and that is their internal politics, their domestic politics. 'The truth of the matter is that the future of that region is not going to be decided by some UN resolution. 'It's not going to be decided by some press release by a prime minister or a president from some country. 'It's difficult and it ain't easy, but that's a fact. But all these statements are meaningless … they're not going to change anything.' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced on Monday, following a Cabinet meeting, that his government plans to join other nations in recognising Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in September. It marked a significant shift in foreign policy after previously stating a string of set conditions would have to be in place first and would align Australia with nations such as France, the United Kingdom, and Canada — which have either formally recognised Palestine or signalled their intention to do so. The Prime Minister, however, was quickly criticised by the Opposition, who argued recognising a Palestinian state while the terrorist group Hamas remained in control only 'rewarded' them, was largely 'symbolic' and did little to address the humanitarian crisis on the ground. Mr Rubio also said the future of the conflict will ultimately be decided by events and actions on the ground, not by external governments. 'It's going to be decided by: when will the day come when Palestinian areas are not governed by terrorist organisations? Because that's truly what this comes down to,' the top US diplomat said. Foreign Minister Penny Wong told a Canberra press conference on Monday that she had called Mr Rubio, who is her US counterpart, before Australia announced its decision to recognise Palestinian statehood as a courtesy to the ally. On Wednesday, Sussan Ley also condemned the PM for being 'distracted' by Palestinian recognition instead of focusing on Australians. 'He's clearly distracted by what he's been talking about now for weeks with respect to Palestinian recognition that is actually not going to make the world actually not going to make the world a safer place, not going to free hostage, not going to deliver aid, not going to deliver the two-state solution,' Ms Ley told Sunrise on Wednesday morning. It comes as concerns grow about whether Hamas will truly be disarmed in Gaza with a new survey published on Wednesday showing support for the Palestinian Authority stands at just 22 per cent, while nearly 60 per cent of Palestinians express support for Hamas. Ms Ley had revealed on Tuesday that the Coalition resolved in a shadow cabinet meeting to revoke unconditional recognition of Palestine if elected at the 2028 federal poll. While maintaining their long-held support for a two-state solution, Ms Ley said the Coalition believed recognition could only occur once Hamas was demilitarised. US President Donald Trump last month criticised the UK and Canada for recognising Palestine, saying it rewards Hamas while the group blocks ceasefire talks and holds hostages. Australia's decision breaks from its key ally the US but it also leaves Washington and a few others like South Korea and Germany as international outliers, holding out on recognition. It also comes as Mr Albanese hasn't rescheduled a meeting with Mr Trump since their planned G7 sideline in Canada was cancelled by the US President in June, with questions raised about whether recent recognition might jeopardise the possibility of talks at next month's UN assembly in New York. In a blitz of media interviews on Wednesday morning, Treasurer Jim Chalmers backed the Albanese Government's recognition decision, stressing it aligned with international momentum toward a two-state solution. He said Australia was working closely with global partners who all wanted Hamas excluded from any future Palestinian government and for the Palestinian Authority to meet the assurances it gave. 'This is all about making sure that we are making a contribution to the international momentum and progress which is being made on this question,' Dr Chalmers said. 'This is about isolating and excluding Hamas from the future government of a Palestinian state. 'The Palestinian Authority has made a number of commitments on this front. 'We will continue to work closely with our friends around the world to see that outcome, to see this progress and to keep the Palestinian Authority up to the mark on the commitments that they've made around some of these key questions. Dr Chalmers also acknowledged the complexities ahead and said the government is realistic about the challenges in achieving peace. 'We're not naive about how difficult the coming months and years will be but if you come back to the principle here, the most important thing is that we see peace in the region,' he said. The PM's shift in position came after about 100,000 pro-Palestine protesters marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on August 3, which led to the closure of the bridge to raise awareness about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Why I'm worried our retirement system isn't ready for us
Any serious conversation about the long-term economic sustainability of our country must confront the design of Australia's retirement income and care systems - particularly how they interact with housing, income support, and aged care. As policymakers, captains of industry and economists prepare for this month's economic reform roundtable, much of the attention will focus on productivity, tax reform, and workforce participation. But there are three areas that require immediate policy attention: the age pension assets test, Commonwealth ent assistance (CRA), and the growing backlog in the home care package system. New research provides compelling evidence for reform across each of these domains. First, the age pension assets test has no alignment with modern asset distributions. It fails to account for the reality that many older Australians are "asset rich, cash poor" with significant equity tied up in the family home. Under the current system, these individuals can access the pension while those with modest superannuation savings are penalised. This creates two major inefficiencies. It discourages prudent saving and disincentivises "rightsizing" into more suitable housing. Research shows the pension means test is a key structural barrier preventing seniors from moving into safer, more manageable homes. Reforming the test to treat housing wealth more equitably - without unfairly penalising homeowners - could free up 60,000 homes nationally, increase mobility, and reduce long-term pension costs. It's important to understand that over the past 30 years, capital city median house prices have increased by 600 per cent but over the same period the allowable assets to receive a full age pension have increased by only 178 per cent for a single home owner and 193 per cent for a couple. This tells us that housing markets have evolved in recent years, yet the age pension practically remains frozen in time, meaning older Australians are left disadvantaged. Second, CRA is no longer fit for purpose. Originally designed as a modest supplement, it has failed to keep pace with rent inflation or housing market changes - particularly in the private rental market and retirement villages. Older Australians who do not own their home are increasingly vulnerable to rental stress and homelessness, especially women over 55. As Australia's aged population swells, demand for income support that truly reflects housing costs will only grow. So, reforming CRA isn't optional - it's essential if we're to stop it lingering as the policy relic it has become and restore fairness to our retirement system. Finally, the backlog in home care packages continues to leave almost 100,000 older Australians without timely access to basic care. Research shows that delayed access not only worsens health outcomes but also drives higher system costs through avoidable hospital admissions and premature entry into taxpayer-funded residential care. This means accelerating access to home care is not merely a social good - it is fiscally prudent. Australia's retirement systems were built for a bygone era. Reform isn't about slashing support - it's about re-targeting assistance to make it fairer, more efficient and sustainably fit for today's needs. These are not fringe issues - they are core to Australia's economic future and Treasurer Jim Chalmers' roundtable must ensure they are on the agenda. Any serious conversation about the long-term economic sustainability of our country must confront the design of Australia's retirement income and care systems - particularly how they interact with housing, income support, and aged care. As policymakers, captains of industry and economists prepare for this month's economic reform roundtable, much of the attention will focus on productivity, tax reform, and workforce participation. But there are three areas that require immediate policy attention: the age pension assets test, Commonwealth ent assistance (CRA), and the growing backlog in the home care package system. New research provides compelling evidence for reform across each of these domains. First, the age pension assets test has no alignment with modern asset distributions. It fails to account for the reality that many older Australians are "asset rich, cash poor" with significant equity tied up in the family home. Under the current system, these individuals can access the pension while those with modest superannuation savings are penalised. This creates two major inefficiencies. It discourages prudent saving and disincentivises "rightsizing" into more suitable housing. Research shows the pension means test is a key structural barrier preventing seniors from moving into safer, more manageable homes. Reforming the test to treat housing wealth more equitably - without unfairly penalising homeowners - could free up 60,000 homes nationally, increase mobility, and reduce long-term pension costs. It's important to understand that over the past 30 years, capital city median house prices have increased by 600 per cent but over the same period the allowable assets to receive a full age pension have increased by only 178 per cent for a single home owner and 193 per cent for a couple. This tells us that housing markets have evolved in recent years, yet the age pension practically remains frozen in time, meaning older Australians are left disadvantaged. Second, CRA is no longer fit for purpose. Originally designed as a modest supplement, it has failed to keep pace with rent inflation or housing market changes - particularly in the private rental market and retirement villages. Older Australians who do not own their home are increasingly vulnerable to rental stress and homelessness, especially women over 55. As Australia's aged population swells, demand for income support that truly reflects housing costs will only grow. So, reforming CRA isn't optional - it's essential if we're to stop it lingering as the policy relic it has become and restore fairness to our retirement system. Finally, the backlog in home care packages continues to leave almost 100,000 older Australians without timely access to basic care. Research shows that delayed access not only worsens health outcomes but also drives higher system costs through avoidable hospital admissions and premature entry into taxpayer-funded residential care. This means accelerating access to home care is not merely a social good - it is fiscally prudent. Australia's retirement systems were built for a bygone era. Reform isn't about slashing support - it's about re-targeting assistance to make it fairer, more efficient and sustainably fit for today's needs. These are not fringe issues - they are core to Australia's economic future and Treasurer Jim Chalmers' roundtable must ensure they are on the agenda. Any serious conversation about the long-term economic sustainability of our country must confront the design of Australia's retirement income and care systems - particularly how they interact with housing, income support, and aged care. As policymakers, captains of industry and economists prepare for this month's economic reform roundtable, much of the attention will focus on productivity, tax reform, and workforce participation. But there are three areas that require immediate policy attention: the age pension assets test, Commonwealth ent assistance (CRA), and the growing backlog in the home care package system. New research provides compelling evidence for reform across each of these domains. First, the age pension assets test has no alignment with modern asset distributions. It fails to account for the reality that many older Australians are "asset rich, cash poor" with significant equity tied up in the family home. Under the current system, these individuals can access the pension while those with modest superannuation savings are penalised. This creates two major inefficiencies. It discourages prudent saving and disincentivises "rightsizing" into more suitable housing. Research shows the pension means test is a key structural barrier preventing seniors from moving into safer, more manageable homes. Reforming the test to treat housing wealth more equitably - without unfairly penalising homeowners - could free up 60,000 homes nationally, increase mobility, and reduce long-term pension costs. It's important to understand that over the past 30 years, capital city median house prices have increased by 600 per cent but over the same period the allowable assets to receive a full age pension have increased by only 178 per cent for a single home owner and 193 per cent for a couple. This tells us that housing markets have evolved in recent years, yet the age pension practically remains frozen in time, meaning older Australians are left disadvantaged. Second, CRA is no longer fit for purpose. Originally designed as a modest supplement, it has failed to keep pace with rent inflation or housing market changes - particularly in the private rental market and retirement villages. Older Australians who do not own their home are increasingly vulnerable to rental stress and homelessness, especially women over 55. As Australia's aged population swells, demand for income support that truly reflects housing costs will only grow. So, reforming CRA isn't optional - it's essential if we're to stop it lingering as the policy relic it has become and restore fairness to our retirement system. Finally, the backlog in home care packages continues to leave almost 100,000 older Australians without timely access to basic care. Research shows that delayed access not only worsens health outcomes but also drives higher system costs through avoidable hospital admissions and premature entry into taxpayer-funded residential care. This means accelerating access to home care is not merely a social good - it is fiscally prudent. Australia's retirement systems were built for a bygone era. Reform isn't about slashing support - it's about re-targeting assistance to make it fairer, more efficient and sustainably fit for today's needs. These are not fringe issues - they are core to Australia's economic future and Treasurer Jim Chalmers' roundtable must ensure they are on the agenda. Any serious conversation about the long-term economic sustainability of our country must confront the design of Australia's retirement income and care systems - particularly how they interact with housing, income support, and aged care. As policymakers, captains of industry and economists prepare for this month's economic reform roundtable, much of the attention will focus on productivity, tax reform, and workforce participation. But there are three areas that require immediate policy attention: the age pension assets test, Commonwealth ent assistance (CRA), and the growing backlog in the home care package system. New research provides compelling evidence for reform across each of these domains. First, the age pension assets test has no alignment with modern asset distributions. It fails to account for the reality that many older Australians are "asset rich, cash poor" with significant equity tied up in the family home. Under the current system, these individuals can access the pension while those with modest superannuation savings are penalised. This creates two major inefficiencies. It discourages prudent saving and disincentivises "rightsizing" into more suitable housing. Research shows the pension means test is a key structural barrier preventing seniors from moving into safer, more manageable homes. Reforming the test to treat housing wealth more equitably - without unfairly penalising homeowners - could free up 60,000 homes nationally, increase mobility, and reduce long-term pension costs. It's important to understand that over the past 30 years, capital city median house prices have increased by 600 per cent but over the same period the allowable assets to receive a full age pension have increased by only 178 per cent for a single home owner and 193 per cent for a couple. This tells us that housing markets have evolved in recent years, yet the age pension practically remains frozen in time, meaning older Australians are left disadvantaged. Second, CRA is no longer fit for purpose. Originally designed as a modest supplement, it has failed to keep pace with rent inflation or housing market changes - particularly in the private rental market and retirement villages. Older Australians who do not own their home are increasingly vulnerable to rental stress and homelessness, especially women over 55. As Australia's aged population swells, demand for income support that truly reflects housing costs will only grow. So, reforming CRA isn't optional - it's essential if we're to stop it lingering as the policy relic it has become and restore fairness to our retirement system. Finally, the backlog in home care packages continues to leave almost 100,000 older Australians without timely access to basic care. Research shows that delayed access not only worsens health outcomes but also drives higher system costs through avoidable hospital admissions and premature entry into taxpayer-funded residential care. This means accelerating access to home care is not merely a social good - it is fiscally prudent. Australia's retirement systems were built for a bygone era. Reform isn't about slashing support - it's about re-targeting assistance to make it fairer, more efficient and sustainably fit for today's needs. These are not fringe issues - they are core to Australia's economic future and Treasurer Jim Chalmers' roundtable must ensure they are on the agenda.
