Another similar report at news.com.au has "Concern within the Labor Party is mounting, with polling revealed by the Herald Sun this week predicting a possible hung parliament."
1. The poll is a snapshot, not a prediction. 2. The poll snapshots voting intention, not seats in parliament. 3. If you say something's merely possible, that's not a prediction. 4. The chance of a hung parliament if votes cast matched the Redbridge poll is negligible.
(And 5 - the Redbridge poll only shows Labor and the Coalition irrelevantly tied on primary vote if undecideds are redistributed proportionally. By the standard method of redistributing leaning voters by leaning, Labor has a narrow primary vote lead, not to mention 2PP).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's a stoush going on about this. It's another Lower House case where the preferences will definitely never reach the candidate concerned so it is all about symbolism, but some comments about it anyway. #VicVotes
Both major parties have put Baker-Pearce 5th. However the Liberals have put him above Animal Justice, Greens and Labor, while Labor has put him above the Liberal Democrats, Family First Victoria and Freedom Party Victoria.
Labor's card has some obvious up-down ordering to make the card easy to follow (this is common). The Liberal card has no such design and appears to be a conscious ordering.
Since the last poll IND has gone from 12 to 6 and Others has gone from 6 to 12. Question is is this a result of offering voters actual ballot choices as per federal or not. Need more detail.
In theory if Others included a big chunk of ON/UAP then respondent 53-47 could even be on the high side for these primaries. But just can't see any breakdown.
Also offering full ballot paper could partly explain low Green vote.
Haven't seen primary source on this but this is another dose of Morgan's weird unprompted question about who voters trust (not a 'do you trust X?' type question which is more standard + gets higher scores.)
This is also interesting. Dishonest/liar is only about half of 18%, ie not much. But the fact that it so dominates the list if anything suggests the other stuff against Andrews is lacking traction.
In particular, heavyhandedness over lockdowns has been one of the biggest critiques of Andrews so where is it here? "Arrogance" also struggling to record an asterisk.
So the only way to vote above all else for Coalition candidates who will sit in the party room in E Vic is to vote below the line and rank top candidate below the others or not at all.
Congrats to the Victorian Liberals for discovering a new species of mess.
Also, while Guy says she will not sit in the party room it doesn't seem she has been actually disendorsed by the party. Even when a candidate is formally endorsed on the ballot paper a party can still declare they no longer unofficially endorse that candidate.
This is disingenuous garbage from Premier Andrews. His own MPs on Electoral Matters passed the buck back to the Parliament to commission a review into GTV in the previous term and his own government then failed to start that review. #VicVotes
You could only think the matter of Group Ticket Voting was not in sharp focus after at least a fifth of the parliament was elected undeservedly in 2018 - resulting in a deluge of submissions - if you were a politician with severe vision problems.
It is also hypocritical for the Liberals to say they would refer Labor to IBAC as the Liberals should also be investigated over claims made in the video. In particular, whether a desire to avoid upsetting Druery resulted in them abandoning a previous anti_GTV position.
Tweet I quote-tweeted has disappeared but there are other reports that the teals have won their appeal against the VEC over how-to-vote cards. VCAT may have overturned 2018 Sheed ruling, will be interesting to see the judgement. #VicVotes
Pleased to see this because if the VEC and previous VCAT reading of the law was correct then the law would have been a donkey. No evidence the cards cause informal voting and even if they do it only hurts the candidate using them.
For a detailed discussion of why there is no evidence these cards shift the informal rate in either direction see my article here: