logo
The science that could explain the federal election result

The science that could explain the federal election result

So voters switch sides, pushing policy back towards the ordinary voter's view. The more extreme we go in one direction, the more extreme the pushback – think of Tony Abbott winning a landslide in 2013 then, after an austerity budget, being turfed out less than two years into his term.
If you buy that, expect 2025 to be Albanese's high-water mark.
Thermostasis 'helps to explain why sometimes views appear to regress – some voters think immigration or feminism have 'gone too far',' says Dr Jill Sheppard, a senior lecturer in the School of Politics at the Australian National University.
But it doesn't explain our politics as well as it does America's because our party system means leaders are limited in their ability to 'overshoot' public views and become too extreme. 'You'll lose your job before voters get a chance to turn on you,' Sheppard says.
Explanation two: Long-term structural changes
Sheppard and Ian McAllister, distinguished professor of political science at the Australian National University, are part of a team tracking political sentiment via the long-running Australian Election Study.
From that perch, McAllister doesn't see a thermostatic electorate constantly pulling policy towards the centre; he sees an electorate 'moving gradually to the centre-left'.
The study puts this shift about 0.5 points (out of 10) from right to left since 1996 – and closer to 1 per cent if you just look at young voters.
Before Saturday's election, Dutton said he expected younger Greens voters would 'mature politically' into Coalition supporters. But this idea – that voters change how they vote as they age – has long been called bunkum by political scientists. Instead, it is who you cast your first adult vote for that significantly sets the tone for the rest of your voting life.
This has long-term structural implications. In 2022, the Coalition had the lowest recorded vote share among voters under 40 for a major party in the history of the Australian Election Study. 'I'm sure when we get our 2025 data, it will be even more pronounced,' says McAllister.
Loading
But we are also seeing a dramatic increase in 'electoral volatility'. Voters are much more willing to change their vote, and to vote for minor parties. In 1967, 72 per cent of all voters said they hadn't changed their vote in their lifetimes. In 2022, that had fallen to 37 per cent.
This hurts both parties, but it hurts the Coalition more. Labor voters tend to move to the Greens, their preferences flowing back to Labor; Coalition voters tend to move to other minor parties or independents.
And there's a third trend McAllister sees – perhaps the most-fascinating.
We can often focus more on politics than policy with the expectation voters don't care that much about the details. But this is changing. As voters become more educated, they start to take a keener interest in policy itself. 'It's been one of the big changes we've seen over the past 30 years,' says McAllister.
Loading
Between half and two-thirds of voters say they base their vote on policy, not politics. Given how policy-lite our current politics are – a quarter of voters said there was no difference between the parties at the 2022 election – there seems an obvious strategy here for either party to win voters back. Just write good policy!

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Labor left with ‘no choice' but to force super tax after weak GDP figures in March, shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien declares
Labor left with ‘no choice' but to force super tax after weak GDP figures in March, shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien declares

Sky News AU

timean hour ago

  • Sky News AU

Labor left with ‘no choice' but to force super tax after weak GDP figures in March, shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien declares

Labor has been left with 'no choice' but to go after citizens' earnings with its proposed super tax as slow growth plagues the nation and hurts tax revenue, shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien has declared. Join to watch the full interview with Ted O'Brien on Business Weekend at 11am (AEST). The Albanese government's proposal to double the tax rate on funds in super balances above $3m and target unrealised gains could soon be legislated as the Greens' approval is all the bill needs to go through the Senate. It comes as recent GDP figures showed Australia was headed back towards per capita recession territory with growth slumping to just 0.2 per cent in the March quarter. The super tax proposal has faced fierce backlash from the Opposition, economists and leaders in the business community. Mr O'Brien is among those and tore into the Albanese government's fiscal management on Sky News' Business Weekend. 'The only reason they're doing it is they've lost all discipline on fiscal responsibility,' the shadow treasurer said. 'Debt (and) deficits (are) going out of control and they've got no ambition for the Australian economy.' He criticised Treasurer Jim Chalmers who lauded the 0.2 per cent growth, arguing the uncertainty from Donald Trump's trade war meant any growth was a decent outcome. 'We heard it last week from the Treasurer after the national accounts came out. What, 0.2 per cent growth in the quarter? Seriously? Lower than last time!' Mr O'Brien said. 'At a yearly basis it's running at less than half of the long-run average of growth and the Treasurer is happy about that. '(There is) no ambition for growth of the Australian economy and when you have no ambition and you overspend, you have no choice but to go after the earnings, the money of your own citizens. 'That's what this super tax does.' Labor's plan to tax unrealised capital gains has drawn backlash from Aussies concerned about small businesses, farmers and startups as many put assets in their self-managed super funds or use it as a low tax investment vehicle. Wilson Asset Management founder Geoff Wilson said by forcing Aussies to pay taxes on paper gains it will hinder investment in Australia. 'Both Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers - and probably most of the government - are gaslighting the Australian people by saying: 'Look, this will only impact a very small percentage of people that pay the additional tax',' Mr Wilson told Sky News. 'That's correct, but what it'll do is actually impact about how $4.2 trillion in superannuation is invested. 'We anticipate that the money will come out of self-managed super funds (SMSF), which is about $1.1 trillion, and billions of that will go into the housing market and push house prices up . ' He cautioned Aussies who use their SMSF as a low tax investment vehicle will be discouraged from funding projects and businesses in the Australian market. 'People won't want to take risk on their superannuation in the self-managed super funds,' Mr Wilson said. 'The angel investors and the startups and the small companies in Australia that find it hard to raise capital, particularly at this point in time - that tap's going to be turned off.'

J.D. Vance chastised Europeans on free speech. He wasn't wrong
J.D. Vance chastised Europeans on free speech. He wasn't wrong

Sydney Morning Herald

timean hour ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

J.D. Vance chastised Europeans on free speech. He wasn't wrong

There is a counterfactual fantasy, not much indulged but not dismissed entirely, in which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese went to his second election in the brief 'vibe shift' between Donald Trump's triumphant return to the US presidency in 2024 and his clumsy tariff whammy in 2025. Perhaps, if the Australian election had taken place before 'Liberation Day' the outcome would have been different for Peter Dutton. More likely, it would not. In any case, such imaginings are of no use to the Coalition. It's as helpful to them as the reverse counterfactual is to the Social Democrats I spoke to in Germany this week. Germany held its election in February. The incumbent government was led by a chancellor from the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the German analogue of the Labor Party. Perhaps if the election had come after Trump's global tariff day, the SPD might also have retained power. But as the German election was set for February, only 20 per cent of German voters chose the SPD. The Social Democrats now have a lower primary vote than the Alternative for Germany (AfD), an economically conservative-turned-far-right party that has made immigration control its primary platform. If the Albanese government cared to take the German experience as a cautionary tale – a possible but avoidable future – it could reflect that what occurred there is just part of a pattern rolling through the Western world. These trends come to Australia late and slowly. But they do seem to come eventually. US Vice President J.D. Vance described what was about to happen to Germany at the Munich Security Conference in February. He warned that European governments must listen to and respect their citizens, even when the message is not agreeable to the official and intellectual classes. And in this context he urged the conference to bear in mind that 'when political leaders represent an important constituency, it is incumbent upon us to at least participate in dialogue with them'. The problem is one of free speech. The precise amount of it which should be permissible, the dose which inoculates against social strife and what constitutes an overdose which would poison the social waters. Germany has taken the homeopathic approach to free speech, hoping that a minuscule amount, heavily diluted, will cure what ails the nation. Vance's words generated indignation among European leaders and officials. But it spoke from the soul of many voters. Days later, the German public delivered a historic high primary vote for the AfD. The gulf between what is said and what is thought was dramatically exposed by democracy.

J.D. Vance chastised Europeans on free speech. He wasn't wrong
J.D. Vance chastised Europeans on free speech. He wasn't wrong

The Age

timean hour ago

  • The Age

J.D. Vance chastised Europeans on free speech. He wasn't wrong

There is a counterfactual fantasy, not much indulged but not dismissed entirely, in which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese went to his second election in the brief 'vibe shift' between Donald Trump's triumphant return to the US presidency in 2024 and his clumsy tariff whammy in 2025. Perhaps, if the Australian election had taken place before 'Liberation Day' the outcome would have been different for Peter Dutton. More likely, it would not. In any case, such imaginings are of no use to the Coalition. It's as helpful to them as the reverse counterfactual is to the Social Democrats I spoke to in Germany this week. Germany held its election in February. The incumbent government was led by a chancellor from the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the German analogue of the Labor Party. Perhaps if the election had come after Trump's global tariff day, the SPD might also have retained power. But as the German election was set for February, only 20 per cent of German voters chose the SPD. The Social Democrats now have a lower primary vote than the Alternative for Germany (AfD), an economically conservative-turned-far-right party that has made immigration control its primary platform. If the Albanese government cared to take the German experience as a cautionary tale – a possible but avoidable future – it could reflect that what occurred there is just part of a pattern rolling through the Western world. These trends come to Australia late and slowly. But they do seem to come eventually. US Vice President J.D. Vance described what was about to happen to Germany at the Munich Security Conference in February. He warned that European governments must listen to and respect their citizens, even when the message is not agreeable to the official and intellectual classes. And in this context he urged the conference to bear in mind that 'when political leaders represent an important constituency, it is incumbent upon us to at least participate in dialogue with them'. The problem is one of free speech. The precise amount of it which should be permissible, the dose which inoculates against social strife and what constitutes an overdose which would poison the social waters. Germany has taken the homeopathic approach to free speech, hoping that a minuscule amount, heavily diluted, will cure what ails the nation. Vance's words generated indignation among European leaders and officials. But it spoke from the soul of many voters. Days later, the German public delivered a historic high primary vote for the AfD. The gulf between what is said and what is thought was dramatically exposed by democracy.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store