I need to vent a lil so just feel free to ignore the following blather.

I'm really glad people aren't hassling me for the last results of the VCP. Election's over journos have moved on, blah blah... It's good, because the data is just crap.

The post-election responses are absolute nonsense. People regurgitating what the media has told them is their reason for voting, post-event rationalisation, and all manner of people claiming they knew what the outcome would be. Most significantly, the post election responses do not match the pre-election responses.

I've re-merged and re-analysed 4 times now, and it's undeniable. Very, very unstable voters who indicated a different vote intent every survey, saying after the election they decided a long time ago or were always going to vote that way. Those who posted emotional messages about Bob Hawke dying just two weeks later saying it didn't affect them at all.


I trust the pre-election data. It's the post-election data I think is wrong.

But so much of election study is done post-election. Is it all bad? Is it all not reflective of genuine voter behaviour when they walked into the booth? That would render the entire catalogue of the Australian Election Study since the 1980's bin-worthy.

And, no, I do not have the balls to call Ian McAllister's lifetime of work (with significant contributions from others) rubbish. Even if he does plagiarize.

I am prepared to call my last two surveys rubbish.

End dilemma vent.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Welcome to thundertoot! A Mastodon Instance for 'straya