Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 611

How the election polls got it so wrong

The federal election has been run and won, and many are asking the question as to why the polls did not predict Labor’s thumping win. A minority Labor government was the popular pollsters’ outcome, or a slender Labor majority at best.

But Labor trounced the Coalition with 91 seats won to 42 at the time of writing, to now take up sixty per cent of the lower house chamber. And it achieved this with only a little more than a third of the primary vote. In fact its primary vote was up just two percentage points from its 2022 win, to an underwhelming 34.7%, yet it has added 14 seats to its previous majority.

Compare this to Julia Gillard’s 2010 38.0% first preference vote, which only secured minority government. Or to Tony Abbott’s emphatic majority in 2013, requiring a significant 45.6% primary vote to win 90 seats. There is a clear upward trend in the ratio of seats won to primary vote, for the victor.

And with the Coalition’s share of the primary vote a clear rejection at just 32.2%, support for the two major parties is plummeting. 

We also saw at this election, 138 of the 150 seats decided by preferences, including 15 seats that flipped on preferences after being behind on the primary vote. That, with the Labor two-party-preferred vote a whopping 20 percentage points up on its primary vote to 54.9%, reveals the extent to which preference votes contributed to the Coalition rout.

The significance of preference vote flows from minor parties and independent candidates is now more pronounced than ever. Which certainly creates havoc for pollsters. Trying to predict outcomes from national primary vote swings is becoming increasingly more difficult. 

The problem is, polls focus on primary votes. But if future polling is to become more accurate, it needs to be recognised that preferences decide outcomes today, and polling methodologies must evolve accordingly. 


Source: Australian Electoral Commission

But preference flows are not linear, and can vary significantly between electorates depending on the candidate and party profile. Which means a lack of data and modelling to accurately forecast vote flows. Unless more sophistication is introduced into the polling process, we should continue to expect the unexpected in future elections.

The fact that Labor was able to secure its huge majority with just over a third of the primary vote, highlights its ability to attract second, third, and lower order preference votes. And being able to jump over leading candidates after primary votes, including in Peter Dutton’s own seat of Dickson, displays a unique preference effect whereby the 'least disliked' candidate can prevail over the 'most liked'.

One interpretation of Labor’s low primary vote converting to a significant two-party-preferred result, is that a broad left of centre bloc exists in the electorate after distributing preferences. Differing political parties and groups exist because of different ideologies and values at a primary level, but can be aligned at higher levels on shared ideologies. And this election result reflects a more substantial alignment on the left side of politics via Greens, independents, and minor party preference flows.

This is the uniting effect of preferential voting: the bringing together of entities on a similar ideological page. Resulting this time in not just a Labor victory, but also a shift in aggregate voter sentiment on the political spectrum.

For the Coalition, the implications of the election results are such that it must shore up its base and lift its primary support. And at the same time appeal beyond its base to strengthen the preference equation. The challenge will be to determine to what extent it must pitch a more centrist approach to raise its competitiveness in a preferential voting system, without compromising its core political values.

A competitive opposition is essential for a healthy democracy to keep the government of the day in check, and be ready to step in as an alternative government.

For Labor, even with a supersized majority, it must not stray too far from centrist politics lest it weakens the majority bloc it heads up that has coalesced under preference votes.

The merits or otherwise of our preferential voting system have long been debated. The vagaries, challenges, and issues it throws at pollsters, voters, and political entities are intriguing, but must be adapted to, because it has been part of our voting system for a long time now, and it isn’t going away any time soon.

 

Tony Dillon is a freelance writer and former actuary.

 

  •   14 May 2025
  • 6
  •      
  •   
6 Comments
Chris
May 16, 2025

The time has come for the ballot paper to include (if you choose to) a box that can be ticked "No preferences to be allocated"

JohnS
May 16, 2025

If you want to not use your vote to its full value, that is a possibility in council and state elections

But, if you don't allocate preferences, then you are not using your vote to its full value. If your first choice doesn't get in the final two candidates, then your vote is wasted.

By allocating preferences, you give a chance for your second choice to be elected, without preferences, you don't get that added value.

Be my guest to give away part of the value of your vote, but I ALWAYS allocate preferences, so that i can (for example) show my support for a candidate that won't win, but who I like some of their policies, before preferencing either labor or liberal ahead of the other (the most likely highest vote candidates)

People fought hard for our right to vote, we shouldn't diminish that value (or worst, as in america, not even turn up to vote)

Steve
May 16, 2025

Gee. Preferences made a difference. Big deal. Did any pollster not expect the large contingent of green & teal voters (first preference) would not send their next preference to Labor? When the major parties only get low 30's primary vote, of course the preferences matter. The only surprise is that the experts were so unprepared? Honestly, who pays these clowns.

Varo
May 18, 2025

Preferences should be optional not compulsory. There are candidates one would not vote for. Under the current system we have no choice. For your vote to count you have tick all boxes even if you think one or more candidates are not the person of your choice.

Phil Kneale
May 18, 2025

The problem with the preferential system is that it's so easily rorted. Remember the "preference whisperer" (not sure if he's still around) who advised small parties & independents how to game the system in the Senate.

In the House of Reps, most voters blindly follow their favoured party's "how-to-vote" card, regardless of whether it aligns with their own preferences. Many people would be shocked to learn who their vote ended up going to.

AlanB
May 19, 2025

We should assign zero confidence to polling companies because some time ago they switched to using panels of people when it became no longer feasible to use old style phone or street polling techniques. People apply to join these polling company panels to earn redeemable rewards, vouchers or prizes in exchange for completing surveys and polling questionnaires. There are significant problems with self selected panels being unrepresentative of the general population in terms of age, location, gender and socio-economic status. Such panels can also be stacked by parties. Sample sizes are small. Panel poll results are weighed by polling companies to achieve what they believe are representative opinions, which means some opinions will count more than others. The polling business model is fraught with known flaws and potential faults and so inevitably the results are predictably inaccurate and unreliable. Yet media companies continue to pay these polling companies for useless polls, slavishly reporting imagined and misleading trends. As predicted in this article, already unreliable polls will become even less reliable with the vagaries of preferential voting. The only certainty of polls is their unreliability.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

2022 election survey results: disillusion and disappointment

Reader Survey on the Federal election 2022

Preference votes matter

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

How the typical Australian Family could save $844,350 in taxes

The value of a testamentary trust is not determined by wealth alone. Depending on circumstances, it can reduce the tax burden on inherited income, create efficiencies and help build intergenerational wealth.

Latest Updates

Fixed interest

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Economy

Are we in a recession?

What if the warning signs are already everywhere? From supermarket aisles to company failures, investors are being bombarded with recession signals. But most face a different risk that can be just as dangerous for portfolios. 

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs - Division 296 actuarial certificates

The tax bill might be yours, but the event that caused it may not be. A key Division 296 calculation can sometimes attribute earnings in ways that many SMSF trustees won't instinctively expect or fully appreciate.

Property

The first impact of negative gearing reform is not the tax bill

Negative gearing changes formally begin in 2027, but the first consequences may already be here. A subtle shift is quietly influencing who can borrow, how much they can access and which property strategies still stack up.

Economy

The oil market is running out of easy answers

The biggest threat to markets may not be what investors are watching. The numbers have stopped adding up and supply is harder to measure, with forecasts becoming simple guesses. A more fragile reality is being masked.

Investment strategies

The state of investor knowledge in Australia

Australians are investing more than ever, yet a surprising divide is emerging between those building wealth effectively and those making costly mistakes. Surprisingly, the gap has little to do with income, age or starting capital.

Taxation

Complexity and capital gains

A case study shows that the ‘30% minimum CGT’ is a poorly conceived tax that adds significant complexity to an already over-complex system. A less complicated model would create a much fairer progressive tax scale.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.