Pretty self-explanatory. I hear people talk about the invalidity of polls on the grounds that they don’t include undecided voters – but I’m pretty sure those undecided voters are a large proportion of the increasing number of New Zealanders who don’t vote:
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
 | Jacquelyne Taylor on Low hanging rotten fruit |
 | ropata on More poll chart porn |
 | Che Tibby on More poll chart porn |
 | Panama on Talkback bait |
 | NeilM on Low hanging rotten fruit |
Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.
This kind of decline is consistent across pretty much every stable western democracy, but I think the more interesting narrative is looking at the causes of the upticks.
’84, ’96 and ’05, for me probably constitute our most competitive and/or motivated races. Maybe the MMP referendum will help lift turnout in broadly the same way?
Comment by Phil — July 4, 2011 @ 2:41 pm
No, I think this year it will be lower than 2002 – the polling numbers are similar for the big parties, but there’s much less going on amongst the minors (Mana/Maori are not important for non-Maori voters).
Comment by marsoe — July 4, 2011 @ 2:48 pm
Actually this chart underplays the extent of non-voting, as it’s based on votes as a proportion of those *registered* to vote. And although it’s compulsory to register to vote in NZ, only about 92% of those eligible to vote do actually register. So, for the 2008 general election, the ‘real’ voter turnout was only about 75% (as opposed to the 79% in this chart).
Comment by Bryce Edwards — July 4, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
“And although it’s compulsory to register to vote in NZ, only about 92% of those eligible to vote do actually register. ”
Before Graeme Edgeler eviscerates you, better look at this: http://www.elections.org.nz/study/news/2008-media-releases/enrolment-records-set-2008.html
In 2008, registration was at 95.31%.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 4, 2011 @ 2:53 pm
I’d say this one will be low – first term government, no real excitement from the base on either side, and kind of a foregone conclusion. My prediction – new low water mark.
I think part of the problem is that the non-voters tend to cluster in the middle. My theory is that this is part of the reason that US politics has become so polarised – there are motivated people voting at either end of the spectrum and very few real voters (i.e. people who turn up and vote) in the middle.
Two things go on:
- the voters who actually vote (and aren’t tribal) tend to be more sophisticated – so parties need to have better messages, and some of the media needs to be more sophisticated
– part of the process is about drumming up turnout – which means motivating the base. Otherwise known as pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Interesting if we’re heading that way.
Comment by PaulL — July 4, 2011 @ 3:06 pm
“My theory is that this is part of the reason that US politics has become so polarised – there are motivated people voting at either end of the spectrum and very few real voters (i.e. people who turn up and vote) in the middle.”
I think it’s pretty much accepted that this is the case in the primaries – which is why candidates run left/right in the primaries, then tack back to the center for the general election.
Comment by Andrew Geddis — July 4, 2011 @ 3:08 pm
This graph would be better if the y-axis started from 0.
Comment by derp de derp — July 4, 2011 @ 3:09 pm
<iI’d say this one will be low – first term government, no real excitement from the base on either side, and kind of a foregone conclusion. My prediction – new low water mark.
English flogging off whats left of the family silver not enough to bring out the punters, you reckon?
This is f*ucking bad for Phil Goff.
Comment by Gregor W — July 4, 2011 @ 3:40 pm
Oops – HTML and expletive fail.
Danyl – Crying out for an edit fuction, for the love of God!
Comment by Gregor W — July 4, 2011 @ 3:42 pm
Gregor W
Just breathing seems to be f****** bad for Phil Goff.
Comment by Adolf Fiinkensein — July 4, 2011 @ 3:57 pm
This graph would be better if the y-axis started from 0.
Comment by derp de derp — July 4, 2011 @ 3:09 pm
i’d rather see the x-axis start at 0 actually
Comment by amc32 — July 4, 2011 @ 4:18 pm
The indifferent non-voters (as opposed to principled, conscious ones) are – generally – the hedgehogs on the highway of life.
“Two moons!”
Comment by Steve — July 4, 2011 @ 5:16 pm
What is the difference between blue and red bars?
Comment by Amy — July 4, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
Amy: Blue = National won the election, Red = Labour.
Comment by Simon Poole — July 4, 2011 @ 6:09 pm
Err, it might be more accurate to say “National/Labour formed the government”, from 1996 onward.
Comment by Simon Poole — July 4, 2011 @ 6:10 pm
New Zealand hasn’t been having elections for that long. Plus, the number of the year is kind of arbitrary, so the starting point isn’t as important as the length of time. 0% isn’t arbitrary, however, it’s 0, and it allows for easier visual comparison of the numbers.
Comment by derp de derp — July 4, 2011 @ 6:46 pm
I gather that USian pollsters get around this problem by having a ‘likely voter’ model: “Do you know where you’re closest polling booth will be?”, “Who did you vote for last time” etc etc. The results they report are only from the ~50% of the sample that they consider to be likely voters (guess it would be 80% here). Since our pollsters (so far as I can tell) just chuck out undecideds I guess they don’t bother with this
Comment by david winter — July 4, 2011 @ 6:50 pm
The Dimpost used to be the sort of delightfully silly blog where the x-axis would start at zero
Comment by kahitakea — July 4, 2011 @ 6:50 pm
Gregor: “English flogging off whats left of the family silver not enough to bring out the punters, you reckon?”
Not for me, but I’m a bit right wing (well, actually a lot right wing). If he actually had plans to flog off the family silver that’d get me out to vote….for him. Right at the moment, he has some sort of pansy half-way privatisation that keeps government control, and promised to reinvest whatever proceeds he got into some other company that shouldn’t be government owned either.
But horses for courses I guess.
I think the important point here is that the privatisation they’re suggesting is pretty weak and not likely to get anyone excited. At least in my opinion. And the lack of traction that Phil Goff is getting might be because of that. Or might be because he’s kind of uninspiring. Hard to tell.
Comment by PaulL — July 4, 2011 @ 9:43 pm
I can’t believe I didn’t work that out for myself…sigh!
Comment by Amy — July 4, 2011 @ 9:56 pm
It’s my theory that voter participation declines as the media tell people it doesn’t matter who you vote for. In 1984 or 1987 you sure as hell knew there was a difference between the two parties. If you believed anything you read in New Zealand right now, you’d have no clue.
The Dimpost used to be the sort of delightfully silly blog where the x-axis would start at zero
Each of the bars are labeled, so it’s fairly explicit here. A zero base would obscure information rather than reveal it.
Comment by George D — July 4, 2011 @ 11:55 pm
I would have said that voter turn-out is inversly proportional to their feelings of social stabilty. The more upset you get, the more likely you are to vote to change it.
What this shows to me is that over the years more and more people are content with their lot and see no great defining cause. I dont think the Hon. V Don. sideshow is going to invert the bell curve any time soon. Sure they will drive voters into each other hands but those voters were probably outliers anyway.
@danyl , not only is there no edit function your clock is still an hour out. Posted at 11:44pm
Comment by Andy C — July 5, 2011 @ 12:44 am
What surprises me is the number of people who take the time to answer the poll. I spend enough time on the phone to get the company name and then ask not to be phoned again, then say my goodbyes and clear off.
Comment by annie — July 5, 2011 @ 9:05 am
@ Andy C. Surely if that was the case voter participation would have risen during the 1990s when unemployment (and a variety of other social ills) rose? Now I wonder how this would look if you plotted it against the rise in inequality in NZ…
Comment by Amy — July 5, 2011 @ 9:16 am
@ annie. Participating in a poll (e.g. a Colmar Brunton or Roy Morgan one, not a stuff.co.nz poll) could have more influence than voting.
Politicians pay close attention to these polls. If the government announce plans to do something controversial and they suddenly drop 10% in the polls they’re going to think twice about doing it. And when you’re polled you’re 1 voice out of 1000. That’s a much bigger influence than when you vote and you’re only 1 out of maybe 2 million.
Comment by Newtown News — July 5, 2011 @ 9:54 am
I have thought for ages that voter turn out will be an historic low this election. A lot of John Key supporters don’t really like National, so I think they’ll solve this cognitive conundrum, presumably to their satisfaction at least, by simply not voting. Another tranche of nominal National supporters will think the whole thing is in the bag, and not vote either.
A noticeable minority of labour voters have given up on Goff and the current senior leadership matrix of the labour party, which they perceive as an uninspiring bunch of self-serving managerialist who can’t be bothered even trying to win this election – so they’ll return the favour and not even try to vote.
I think we’ve seen enough in actual results from Auckland elections to now know there is a considerable anti-National swing in Auckland that isn’t being accurately picked up in nation-wide polls. Whether this (7% or so?) swing is due to Labour/left being better motivated with getting out it’s core vote or it actually represents a genuine Auckland wide swing time will tell. My guess is Steven Joyce’s authoritarian arrogance towards to everyone in general and that huge Auckland sleeper issue of public transport in particular is single handedly responsible for a genuine and large anti-government swing across Auckland.
Generally speaking, in motivating Aucklanders to vote against him in a low turn out election Steven Joyce is creating some bad news indeed for John Key.
Comment by Sanctuary — July 5, 2011 @ 10:25 am
And a quick P.S. – Given how easy it is to enrol and vote in this country, especially compared to the United States were all sorts of vile racist practices, gerrymandering and vote rigging occurs to try and prevent people having their say, it is an indictment of not just politicians but of the media and each and every citizen that we don’t have turnouts in the 90% range.
Enrolling and voting takes about ten minutes of your day once every three years, and voting and the peaceful transitions of government is a wonderous right and little miracle refused to the large majority of the world’s population.
Not voting simply due to laziness, ignorance or neglect is something you should be ashamed of.
Comment by Sanctuary — July 5, 2011 @ 10:34 am
Not voting simply due to laziness, ignorance or neglect is something you should be ashamed of.
Indeed, agreed entirely. There are people who don’t deserve to vote, and they select themselves out of the polling booth. In Australia they’re herded into it, and many conduct the aptly named ‘donkey vote’ and just number their candidates randomly, spoil their ballot, or tick down the list. What you do see however is widespread low-level civic engagement in the 2-4 weeks before an election, as those who have ignored most things for years seek to gain information about who to vote for. I think it evens out alright.
I think we’ve seen enough in actual results from Auckland elections to now know there is a considerable anti-National swing in Auckland that isn’t being accurately picked up in nation-wide polls. Whether this (7% or so?) swing is due to Labour/left being better motivated with getting out it’s core vote or it actually represents a genuine Auckland wide swing time will tell. My guess is Steven Joyce’s authoritarian arrogance towards to everyone in general and that huge Auckland sleeper issue of public transport in particular is single handedly responsible for a genuine and large anti-government swing across Auckland.
If Labour can mobilise their activist base in Auckland, I think they’ll win this election. That is a huge contingent if, of course. Turnout in much of Auckland is likely to be weak, and that represents a few hundred thousand Labour voters. Given that the margin is likely to be slim whoever wins, it’s possible. I think public transport and the City are weak issues, but that general discontent with the malaise NZ is seen to be in may push people back to Labour, who are seen by some to have presided over better times. Give it another few years and the Auckland’s disconnect with South of the Mumbais could have opened up large. This Government doesn’t get Auckland, despite having a PM who is almost as firmly metropolitan local as the last one.
Comment by George D — July 5, 2011 @ 11:40 am
I think we’ve seen enough in actual results from Auckland elections to now know there is a considerable anti-National swing in Auckland that isn’t being accurately picked up in nation-wide polls.
Given that polling companies put a great deal of effort into their polling methodology, and stratify results to ensure an accurate representation by geographic region, gender, age and ethnicity, among other things, I’d say (in the nicest possible way) that you’re talking out your arse on that point.
Having made frequent trips from Wellington to Auckland with my work, it strikes me that passionate feeling about the SuperCity (in particular), on both sides of the argument, resides almost exclusively in Wellington and the small handful of Auckland political elite. Most “everyday Aucklanders” seem, to me, to not actually care much.
Comment by Phil — July 5, 2011 @ 1:28 pm
I’m OK for Labour supporters to be relying on Auckland bringing it home for them. I think it’s very wishful thinking, but right at the moment there’s probably not a lot else keeping them going. I’m not seeing it, but who am I to dissuade them.
Comment by PaulL — July 5, 2011 @ 3:05 pm
“My guess is Steven Joyce’s authoritarian arrogance towards to everyone in general and that huge Auckland sleeper issue of public transport in particular is single handedly responsible for a genuine and large anti-government swing across Auckland.”
Perhaps also Wellington and Kapiti then: http://architecture.org.nz/2011/06/29/lets-not-get-pwned-by-the-ronster/
Comment by Sam — July 5, 2011 @ 3:51 pm
“Most “everyday Aucklanders” seem, to me, to not actually care much.”
They might when they find out what it’s all cost (hint from anecdotal evidence so far it’s waaaaay more than Rodders said it would). They might take their anger out on John and Bill as well since Rodney has been rolled out of convenient scapegoat range for practical voting out purposes. . . .
Comment by nommopilot — July 5, 2011 @ 4:36 pm