Roy Morgan has released the results of two recent Morgan polls. The first is dated 18-19 August. The second is dated 25-26 August. They are slightly more benign for the Coalition, with the first TPP estimate at 49.5 per cent and the second at 46 per cent. The resulting aggregation follows.

The primary vote aggregation follows (with One Nation included in Other).

A number of TPP estimates can be derived from the primary vote model.

Finally, we can look at One Nation's primary vote in its own right.

## Wednesday, August 29, 2018

### Second Morrison poll

Essential Media has come in with their poll estimate of the two-party preferred vote share for the government at 45 per cent, compared with Labor on 55 per cent.

All but one of the poll-bias adjusted moving averages are starting to turn.

Moving to the primary vote model.

As always, the data for this analysis is sourced from Wikipedia.

All but one of the poll-bias adjusted moving averages are starting to turn.

Moving to the primary vote model.

As always, the data for this analysis is sourced from Wikipedia.

## Monday, August 27, 2018

### The first poll of the Morrison period

The first Newspoll of the Morrison Government was a shocker for the Coalition. According to that poll, if an election were held last weekend, Labor would have won 56 per cent of the two party preferred (TPP) vote. If we apply the cube rule, as a rough approximation, this would see Labor winning something like 101 seats of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives: a thumping majority. Winning 56 per cent or more of the TPP vote is a rare occurrence in Australian politics, which last occurred in 1966 and before that in 1931. The majority vote share in the 1975 election was 55.7 per cent.

The poll gave me a chance to test drive my updated aggregation models, following the leadership change and associated discontinuity. Obviously, with only one poll following the change of Prime Minister, this is not a meaningful aggregation, and I would want to see a few more polls before coming to a judgement on the impact of the change of leader.

One thing to note, I have further modified the TPP model in acknowledgement that the priors for the hidden voting intention model are weakly informative. To ensure they are not influencing the model excessively, I have set the value of these priors to reflect the polls immediately following the date of these priors. I have updated the code at the link above.

Let's look at the charts that come from the model.

Some of the moving averages are starting to turn, but will need more polls for this to settle. Unlike the Bayesian model, the moving averages cannot incorporate discontinuities.

Turning to the primary voting intention model (with a discontinuity), we can see.

And the implied TPP from the primary vote intention model follows.

Again, I would urge caution into these initial charts. Once we have a month or so of polling data, we will be better placed to assess the impact of the change of leadership on voting intention.

The poll gave me a chance to test drive my updated aggregation models, following the leadership change and associated discontinuity. Obviously, with only one poll following the change of Prime Minister, this is not a meaningful aggregation, and I would want to see a few more polls before coming to a judgement on the impact of the change of leader.

One thing to note, I have further modified the TPP model in acknowledgement that the priors for the hidden voting intention model are weakly informative. To ensure they are not influencing the model excessively, I have set the value of these priors to reflect the polls immediately following the date of these priors. I have updated the code at the link above.

Let's look at the charts that come from the model.

Some of the moving averages are starting to turn, but will need more polls for this to settle. Unlike the Bayesian model, the moving averages cannot incorporate discontinuities.

Turning to the primary voting intention model (with a discontinuity), we can see.

And the implied TPP from the primary vote intention model follows.

Again, I would urge caution into these initial charts. Once we have a month or so of polling data, we will be better placed to assess the impact of the change of leadership on voting intention.

## Sunday, August 26, 2018

### Model updates are coming

The change of party leader necessitates the introduction of a discontinuity in the model associated with the transition from Prime Minister Turnbull to Prime Minister Morrison. Because the current model is written in Stan, the process is similar but subtly different from when I did similar things for Rudd to Gillard, Gillard to Rudd, and Abbot to Turnbull; all back in the day when I was modelling in JAGS.

I have also taken the opportunity to repair an element of the model that has nagged at me. Because the polling data is relatively sparse compared with the unit of temporal analysis (days), the derived standard deviation on the day-to-day changes in the model can be under-estimated. Rather than have the model estimate this factor (typically with a median estimate at 0.0007 of the two-party preferred (TPP) vote-share), I have specified a standard deviation on day-to-day changes in the vote share of 0.002. For reference, 100 per cent of the vote-share is represented in the model with the number one.

At the conclusion of the Turnbull government, the TPP model follows. This model has a specified standard deviation on the day-to-day change in vote share set to 0.002.

We can compare this with the moving averages below.

It is arguable that the last poll in the series was an outlier: Ipsos at 45 per cent for the Coalition over the period 15-18 August. Most recent polls had the Coalition on 49 per cent. As the final poll in the series, it has affected the Bayesian analysis more than it has the moving averages. If we re-run the analysis without that final poll, the Turnbull trajectory for the past 9 months has been strong, and a win at the next election for the Coalition did not look inconceivable, even should the trend have continued at a slower rate from now. Obviously, the current polls still had Labor ahead, but with the Coalition recovering lost ground over much of the year to date.

Turning to the primary vote model, I have made a similar adjustment to the standard deviation on day-to-day changes in voting intention. This time from a model derived 0.003 to an imposed 0.009. The unit of analysis for this is less intuitive, being on the centered logit scale, which is highly non-linear. The results follow.

The implied TPP results follow ... they don't have the same drop associated with the most recent Ipsos poll.

I am working on the revised models for when new poll results under the Morrison leadership are released. My updated code for the two models follows. This code provides for a discontinuity- but it is still in a development and test cycle - so not yet finalised.

I have also taken the opportunity to repair an element of the model that has nagged at me. Because the polling data is relatively sparse compared with the unit of temporal analysis (days), the derived standard deviation on the day-to-day changes in the model can be under-estimated. Rather than have the model estimate this factor (typically with a median estimate at 0.0007 of the two-party preferred (TPP) vote-share), I have specified a standard deviation on day-to-day changes in the vote share of 0.002. For reference, 100 per cent of the vote-share is represented in the model with the number one.

At the conclusion of the Turnbull government, the TPP model follows. This model has a specified standard deviation on the day-to-day change in vote share set to 0.002.

We can compare this with the moving averages below.

It is arguable that the last poll in the series was an outlier: Ipsos at 45 per cent for the Coalition over the period 15-18 August. Most recent polls had the Coalition on 49 per cent. As the final poll in the series, it has affected the Bayesian analysis more than it has the moving averages. If we re-run the analysis without that final poll, the Turnbull trajectory for the past 9 months has been strong, and a win at the next election for the Coalition did not look inconceivable, even should the trend have continued at a slower rate from now. Obviously, the current polls still had Labor ahead, but with the Coalition recovering lost ground over much of the year to date.

Turning to the primary vote model, I have made a similar adjustment to the standard deviation on day-to-day changes in voting intention. This time from a model derived 0.003 to an imposed 0.009. The unit of analysis for this is less intuitive, being on the centered logit scale, which is highly non-linear. The results follow.

The implied TPP results follow ... they don't have the same drop associated with the most recent Ipsos poll.

I am working on the revised models for when new poll results under the Morrison leadership are released. My updated code for the two models follows. This code provides for a discontinuity- but it is still in a development and test cycle - so not yet finalised.

// STAN: Two-Party Preferred (TPP) Vote Intention Model // - Updated to allow for a discontinuity event. data { // data size intn_polls; int n_days; int n_houses; // assumed standard deviation for all polls real pseudoSampleSigma; // we are only going to normalise house effects from first n houses int n_core_set; // poll data vector [n_polls] y; // TPP vote share int house[n_polls]; int day[n_polls]; // day of discontinuity event int discontinuity; } transformed data { // Specify sigma in this block if you do not // want the model to derive a value for // the standard deviation on day-to-day // changes in the value of hidden_vote_share // NOTE: Also requres changes in parameters and // model blocks below. real sigma = 0.0015; // Technical note: smaller values of sigma produce // smoother (but less responsive) lines of analysis. // Technical note: because the poll data is relatively // sparse compared with the temporal unit of analysis // (days), the model derived sigma will be understated. // Technical note: from July 16 to July 18 the median // model derived sigma was 0.0007 } parameters { vector[n_days] hidden_vote_share; vector[n_houses] pHouseEffects; // speicfy sigma here for a model derived value //real sigma; // SD of day-to-day change } transformed parameters { vector[n_houses] houseEffect; // house effects sum to zero over the first n_core_set houses // this allows you to specify a "trusted" set of pollsters houseEffect[1:n_core_set] = pHouseEffects[1:n_core_set] - mean(pHouseEffects[1:n_core_set]); if(n_core_set < n_houses) houseEffect[(n_core_set+1):n_houses] = pHouseEffects[(n_core_set+1):n_houses]; } model { // -- temporal model [this is the hidden state-space model] // - comment out the next line if sigma is not model derived // sigma ~ cauchy(0, 0.0025); // half cauchy prior // - hidden daily voting intention // NOTE: the priors for the temporal model of hidden voting // intention are weakly informative and therefore should be // selected with some reference to the subsequent data hidden_vote_share[1] ~ normal(0.49, 0.0333); // PRIOR // update for discontinuity follows //hidden_vote_share[2:n_days] ~ // normal(hidden_vote_share[1:(n_days-1)], sigma); hidden_vote_share[discontinuity] ~ normal(0.44, 0.0333); // PRIOR hidden_vote_share[2:(discontinuity-1)] ~ normal(hidden_vote_share[1:(discontinuity-2)], sigma); hidden_vote_share[(discontinuity+1):n_days] ~ normal(hidden_vote_share[discontinuity:(n_days-1)], sigma); // -- house effects model pHouseEffects ~ normal(0, 0.025); // up to +/- 5 percentage points // -- observed data / measurement model y ~ normal(houseEffect[house] + hidden_vote_share[day], pseudoSampleSigma); }

// STAN: Primary Vote Intention Model using Centred Logits // - Updated to handle the Turnbull to Morrison discontinuity // - Updated to use a specified standard deviation on // day-to-day voting intentions. data { // data size int<lower=1> n_polls; int<lower=1> n_days; int<lower=1> n_houses; int<lower=1> n_parties; int<lower=1> pseudoSampleSize; // Centreing factors real centreing_factors[n_parties]; // Updated // poll data - provided in three variables // y in the next line is effectively an array of multinomials int<lower=1,upper=pseudoSampleSize> y[n_polls, n_parties]; int<lower=1,upper=n_houses> house[n_polls]; // polling house int<lower=1,upper=n_days> poll_day[n_polls]; // day poll taken // TPP preference flows from previous elections row_vector<lower=0,upper=1>[n_parties] preference_flows_2010; row_vector<lower=0,upper=1>[n_parties] preference_flows_2013; row_vector<lower=0,upper=1>[n_parties] preference_flows_2016; // day of discontinuity event (from Turnbull to Morrison) int<lower=1,upper=n_days> discontinuity; } transformed data { // NOTE: Specify sigma in this block if you // do not want the model to derive a value // for the standard deviation on day-to-day // changes in the value of hidden_vote_share // NOTE: Also requires changes in parameters and // model blocks below. real sigma = 0.009; // Note: logit scale near the origin // Note: median model derived from Jul-16 to Ju-18 was // around 0.003. } parameters { // NOTE: because the vote-share from four parties // sums to one, we only need to model three as // centred logits. We can derive the four party // simplex from the three modeled logits row_vector[n_days] centredLogits[n_parties-1]; matrix[n_houses-1, n_parties-1] houseAdjustment; // comment next line if model is not finding sigma //real<lower=0> sigma; } transformed parameters { matrix[n_parties, n_days] hidden_voting_intention; // simplex vector<lower=-0.2,upper=0.2>[n_parties] tHouseAdjustment[n_houses]; row_vector[n_days] tmp; // tmp var used to find the redundant party // -- house effects - two-direction sum to zero constraints for (h in 1:(n_houses-1)) { for(p in 1:(n_parties-1)) { tHouseAdjustment[h][p] = houseAdjustment[h][p]; } } for(p in 1:(n_parties-1)) { tHouseAdjustment[n_houses][p] = -sum(col(houseAdjustment, p)); } for(h in 1:n_houses) { tHouseAdjustment[h][n_parties] = 0; // get rid of the NAN tHouseAdjustment[h][n_parties] = -sum(tHouseAdjustment[h]); } // -- convert centred logits to a simplex of hidden voting intentions tmp = rep_row_vector(0, n_days); for (p in 1:(n_parties-1)) { hidden_voting_intention[p] = inv_logit(centredLogits[p]) + centreing_factors[p]; tmp = tmp + hidden_voting_intention[p]; } hidden_voting_intention[n_parties] = 1.0 - tmp; } model{ matrix[n_parties, n_polls] hvi_on_poll_day; // -- house effects model for( h in 1:(n_houses-1) ) { houseAdjustment[h] ~ normal(0, 0.015); } // -- temporal model - [AKA the hidden state-space model] // - day-to-day standard deviation // Note: 0.02 near the centre --> roughly std dev of half a per cent // Comment out the next line if you do not want the model to find sigma //sigma ~ normal(0, 0.02); // half normal prior - note: on logit scale; // - AR(1) temporal model with a discontinuity for(p in 1:(n_parties-1)) { // centred starting point 50% +/- 5% = zero on the logit scale centredLogits[p][1] ~ normal(0, 0.15); //centredLogits[p][2:n_days] ~ // normal(centredLogits[p][1:(n_days-1)], sigma); // - update for discontinuity centredLogits[p][discontinuity] ~ normal(0, 0.15); centredLogits[p][2:(discontinuity-1)] ~ normal(centredLogits[p][1:(discontinuity-2)], sigma); centredLogits[p][(discontinuity+1):n_days] ~ normal(centredLogits[p][discontinuity:(n_days-1)], sigma); } // -- observed data model [AKA the measurement model] for(p in 1:n_parties) { hvi_on_poll_day[p] = hidden_voting_intention[p][poll_day]; } for(poll in 1:n_polls) { // note matrix transpose in the next statement ... y[poll] ~ multinomial(to_vector(hvi_on_poll_day'[poll]) + tHouseAdjustment[house[poll]]); } } generated quantities { // aggregated TPP estimates based on past preference flows vector [n_days] tpp2010; vector [n_days] tpp2013; vector [n_days] tpp2016; for (d in 1:n_days){ // note matrix transpose in next three lines tpp2010[d] = sum(hidden_voting_intention'[d] .* preference_flows_2010); tpp2013[d] = sum(hidden_voting_intention'[d] .* preference_flows_2013); tpp2016[d] = sum(hidden_voting_intention'[d] .* preference_flows_2016); } }

## Saturday, August 4, 2018

### Polling aggregation update

The three most recent polls have the Coalition with 49 per cent and Labor with 51 per cent of the two-party preferred (TPP) vote share. My Bayesian polling aggregation model has the Coalition with 48.3 per cent to Labor with 51.7 per cent.

If we look at our moving average aggregations, these models have all moved away from the Bayesian model over the recent period. They are all more supportive of the Coalition's most recent poll results.

If we turn to the primary vote share model.

The Other vote share decline in 2018 may be connected with the fortunes of One Nation.

If we look at our moving average aggregations, these models have all moved away from the Bayesian model over the recent period. They are all more supportive of the Coalition's most recent poll results.

If we turn to the primary vote share model.

The Other vote share decline in 2018 may be connected with the fortunes of One Nation.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)