This was on track to happen next month but we're here already. #ResolvePM is the first Voice poll to have the Yes vote below 50% forced choice. (49-51, down 4).
There is also a 42-40 lead for Yes with undecided allowed (which I suggest the forced choice Q shows to be meaningless).
Don't agree with this wording (doubt it makes much difference): Voting yes/no is not compulsory (at least not enforceably); participation is. As previously noted informal vote has been negligible in referendums in recent decades but cannot be sure it will be so this time.
Note that the state figures are an amalgamation of two months' data in which the average forced-choice Yes vote would have been around 51. So Resolve also has a merged sample with Yes ahead overall but losing 3 states (however most polls have had SA ahead of nat avge).
State samples in all specific polls should be treated with high caution, especially when combined sample sizes are modest. For this, aggregation across multiple pollsters is necessary for serious commentary.
All (non-rejected) polls graph (2-answer preferred with forced choice prioritised) is now again looking like accelerating decline. However Resolve which seems to be the worst poll for Yes has most recent reading and Essential which seems the best lacks recent data.
So while that graph is suggesting Yes at only 52.5 I think a model that assumed there could be house differences between pollsters would have it slightly higher.
This. Unprecedented things can happen (several did in 2022 federal election) but if Yes wins it will revolutionise understanding of how referendums pass (and probably how to poll them), while if No wins history will have seen it all before.
Utting Research ALP leads 61-39 with a primary of 52% but there are headlines hyping this as suggesting hope for the WA Liberals. Hope that in an election held now they might win as many seats as the Nationals?
Cook net +16 (42-26)
Mettam net -2 (31-33)
Cook leads as better Premier (skews to incumbents but less so when a leader is new) 50-24
Haven't seen full article but Utting are usually robopolls and sample size is modest (800).
Would be interested to see results from other pollsters perhaps a few months down the track when the McGowan goodwill factor fades but 39-61 is not in any way encouraging for the opposition parties even if it is +9 on 2021.
It's not clear to me whether the 4 seats referred to are meant to be the 4 Labor won on primaries or the 4 that finished Labor vs Green with Labor winning but either way it's an exceptionally deceptive claim and should be deleted. #springst
One could say that all Labor winners where the Greens were excluded received Greens preferences in the 2PP count but that ignores many where Labor had crossed the line if not on primaries but at least before the Greens were excluded.
There are also others where it was not mathematically possible for Greens prefs to decide the result.
It saddens me to inform the house that on May 26 something claiming to be a newspaper published something claiming to be analysis by somebody claiming (probably correctly) to be John Black.
So we are supposed to believe that in for instance Kingston (ALP 49.2 Lib 25.85) the outcome was determined by the primary votes for minors and indies and the way "they allocated" [sic] their preferences.
In Kingston Labor needed less than 3% of preferences to win. There is no minor party or IND whose voters' preferences flow 97% to L-NP even if the minor party or IND tells its voters to vote that way.