Rod Sawford is an Australian Federal MP. He swears by the reliability of an electoral predicting formula his father developed.
The Watty formula relies on three indicators - the unemployment rate, inflation and interest rates.
If two or more of these rise over a full, three-year electoral cycle, the government will lose. Conversely, if two or more fall the government will be returned.
Sawford cites figures which show the formula has proved correct for every federal election result since the 1961 cliffhanger when Robert Menzies held off Labor's Arthur Calwell by one seat. That was the first election I recall following and understanding, barely into my teens.
In 1961, interest rates had risen, inflation had fallen and unemployment stayed the same. The formula pointed to a dead heat which the election almost was. Menzies fell over the line and Watty cleaned up.
Pundit’s are wary of the formula, citing the uncertainty of Prime Minister, John Howard leading the Liberal’s into the next election and a relatively poor performance by Labor leader Beazley.
But assuming that Howard, goes the full term before the next election, his Government is in trouble. Unemployment has fallen since the 2004 election but interest rates have risen twice and inflation is nudging the 3 per cent mark.
With another interest rate rise likely and fuel prices to keep driving at inflation, there is scant chance either indicator will fall below its November 2004 levels by the time of next year's election.
Sawford says that a leadership change, in favour of Treasurer Peter Costello, will only make a marginal difference. He is already taking bets on the outcome.
I don’t know if anyone has done a comparable analysis in the US, but I don’t think it would be all that difficult.
The only issue is which indicators are the relevant ones in an American election campaign, whether unemployment rate, inflation and interest rates are the indicators.
Certainly overall economic indicators are not all that healthy, but when a government can simply print cash, they still have a few strings to pull.
So if there are any bright heads out there want to have a go, I’m willing to make it a collaborative effort to research and test the numbers.
8 comments:
That doesn't take into account black box voting machines, which tend to go Republican even when all other factors, including exit polls, indicate otherwise.
I just read somewhere that there's no constitutional right of freedom of the press in Australia. How can they sustain a democracy like that? I understand it's some kind of parliamentary government, but it's a free country as far as I know.
You see, I knew the dynamics were different and I would not have considered that aspect.
As to freedom of the press, you are right. The constitution reflects the ‘unwritten’ British constitution in that sense, relying on common law to regulate many of the freedoms.
Regardless, Australia and Britain have extremely robust media. The major inhibitors are laws of defamation; obscenity is largely a case of common usage now and is used in direct quotes.
It is not common to read of the Prime Minister described as a slimy toad, or worse. Politicians don’t sue, just as big boys don’t cry, it’s a sign of weakness.
I’d be lost without my Aussie and Brit media.
I won't give you a full rundown on the Parliamentary Monachy, but it works as well as any other. Even so I'd love dearly to ditch the royals.
Sounds like AU's Howard behaves like a bad liberal.
The toilets in Australia flush backward, or, the opposite from that here in the US.
Does that mean that liberals act like conservatives, and cons act like liberals down under?
Nice new pic, you look younger in it, less like the old grouchy librarian look, but by golly, you look a bit like a convict in this one, no insult intended (it's the clothes).
I don't give a flying fuck about your personal comments Anon.
What really dissapoints and upsets me is pure ignorance.
Prime Minister John Howard, to my eternal shame, is a great friend and supporter of George W Bush.
So, you have just managed to insult the President you claim to support with your moronic drivel.
Actually, it's the lines in the face.
I got in a long discussion with a right-wing poster on my site in which I kept talking about freedom of the press in a democracy, and the implications if the Times were to fall. I still believe that's the case, particularly with the utterly unscrupulous and secretive Bush government.
But Australia seems to do without it. Common law--and not voting for GW, maybe, and it's possible.
Thanks NYE
I doubt GW will do what many others Presidents have tried and failed - reign in the NY press.
They have always been a problem for the incumbent. The way Australian and Brit media survive is the co-dependency. The politicians need them desperately. I think this has been the case with the NY press too.
Lets face it, GW has used the Times as much as he has been battered by them.
Getting back to the point of your post, I am very interested in putting something together. I imagine that real growth in middle income brackets, tax and interest rates, and of course inflation will be the key factors.
That is my problem. The Watty Formula is very spare - with just those three indicators.
I don't know the US dynamic well enough to know if they are the same.
I guess one way would be to compare those factors with corresponding election results.
Post a Comment