Hard News: Democracy Night
773 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 31 Newer→ Last
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
So they vote for a candidate they know won't win that seat (and who will go into parliament anyway) and therefore insure that that attempt to game the system actually works.
Well, it's a giant ball of "who the hell knows?" as long as we have a secret ballot. Our legislation and social customs also tiresomely frown on waterboarding as a methodology for studying voter behavior.
Ultimately I think we can be so damn clever about voting "strategically" or "tactically", we end up being very very stupid. Yes, thousands of people might just have voted for Parker and Hay because they thought they were the best candidates. Cray-crazy, isn't it?
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
The results were pretty much what the polls were suggesting
The hell they are.
The poll of polls I’ve seen had national at 51 or 52, and that should be +-2%. They’re probably only getting 47 after specials, which demonstrates a massive flaw in polling methodology (or a one in a thousand oddball, which it isn’t, because this always happens, worse for the Greens).
The polls lie for National and the Greens. Always have, always will.
True. Although apparently the iPredict one got it right. But otherwise the polls do have that consistent bias. I assume it's from the method of calling land lines to survey. Nevertheless most commentators seemed to allow for this somewhat in their predictions, and so did I. Hence, I wasn't surprised by the result. I would have been very surprised if the Nats got over 50% in reality.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Cray-crazy, isn't it?
In that electorate and given the widely-publicised consequences, yes it is. The right seem to have no such problem holding their noses.
-
3410,
New Zealanders returned National yesterday because:
a) National is closing the wage-gap with Australia.
b) The "brain drain" has slowed under National.
c) New Zealanders may be generally against asset sales, but they can live with it, since 85-90% of the shares will remain in the hands of Kiwi mums and dads.
d) New Zealanders don't want to work an extra two years just to save the GST on bananas.Anyone seeing a pattern here?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
In that electorate and given the widely-publicised consequences, yes it is. The right seem to have no such problem holding their noses.
And nobody in Epsom was obliged to make spite-fucking ACT their electoral mission. Just as people who voted for Green candidates in Auckland Central, Christchurch Central, Waitakere, Waimakariri or any other marginal "stole" votes from Labour.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
New Zealanders returned National yesterday because:
a) National is closing the wage-gap with Australia.
b) The “brain drain” has slowed under National.
c) New Zealanders may be generally against asset sales, but they can live with it, since 85-90% of the shares will remain in the hands of Kiwi mums and dads.
d) New Zealanders don’t want to work an extra two years just to save the GST on bananas.Anyone seeing a pattern here?
National are actually from the Mirror Universe?
-
Personally I'm annoyed that more Green party voters didn't give their electorate vote to Jacinda Ardern, because I think that getting rid of Nikki Kaye would have sent a really important message to National about a certain rail project.
But then I'm more interested in transport matters than most.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Well, it’s a giant ball of “who the hell knows?”
Craig, my original "WTF" question about Epsom was more rhetorical, than actually wanting an explanation. I was grumpily voicing my displeasure at fairly thick-headed political judgment by those voters.
And yes, no one was obliged to tactically vote to be rid of ACT, but we're entitled to register surprise at them not taking the opportunity. The other electorates you mention aren't the same situation.
-
martinb, in reply to
woulda been nice!
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I’m annoyed that more Green party voters didn’t give their electorate vote to Jacinda Ardern, because I think that getting rid of Nikki Kaye would have sent a really important message to National
Even if you ignore the rail project, the sentiment sums up what I have been trying to say nicely.
Thanks Josh. -
Tim Hannah, in reply to
If I chose to be annoyed I'd rather be annoyed at people who party voted for parties I don't like. Those buggers gave National a second term, which is surely a greater sin than electing Nikki Kaye.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Those buggers gave National a second term, which is surely a greater sin than electing Nikki Kaye.
It is an equal sin, 50% of the seats are electorate seats.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
It is an equal sin, 50% of the seats are electorate seats.
And 100% of them (generally, with exceptions at the margins) are proportional.
If Kaye had lost to Ardern with no change in Party vote the number of seats National and Labour held in Parliament wouldn’t change.
If you're going to dream about different outcomes, dream big.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
I get you’re grumpy, Steve. But since you voted for National (any vote not for Labour is a vote for National/Key, right?) you gotta fall on your own sword first.*
Already voted…
Party, Mana*this is a metaphor, and not a fresh one. please do not attempt to fall on anyone’s sword. or anything. even a well-sharpened metaphor.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
If Kaye had lost to Ardern with no change in Party vote the number of seats National and Labour held in Parliament wouldn’t change.
There would be great symbolic value in a Labour MP reclaiming Auckland Central. Ardern is a talented enough politician to make the seat her own if she got the chance.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
There would be great symbolic value in a Labour MP reclaiming Auckland Central.
Sure, but there would have been more symbolic value in Labour being able to form a government with support from the greens and all. And if that had happened Ardern would almost certainly have won Auckland Central.
I'm not sure why the reaction to losing an election is focusing on the small things your friends arguably made mistakes about rather than you and your allies losing an election.
(Full disclosure, yes I wish the left voters had acted differently in Ohariu, Epsom and even Auckland Central, but I wish more that a few National voters had acted differently.)
-
tussock, in reply to
The more people who would be willing to tactically vote to be rid of ACT for the left, the more people you'd have to assume would be willing to tactically vote to keep them in for National. Given that it's a National seat, there's only one realistic result there.
-
More visualisations for Auckland Central, Christchurch Central, Epsom, Mana, Mangere, Manukau East, Mt Albert, Ōhariu, Rongotai, and Wellington Central again, with the top five parties at each booth.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
I'm not sure why the reaction to losing an election is focusing on the small things your friends arguably made mistakes about rather than you and your allies losing an election.
Yup. You lot know I'm solid Labour, and I think there is no point wrangling over the distribution of left votes when the central problem is that there weren't enough of them.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Sure, but there would have been more symbolic value in Labour being able to form a government with support from the greens and all. And if that had happened Ardern would almost certainly have won Auckland Central.
If that had happened we wouldn’t have been having this discussion. But it didn’t come within reach. Everybody who voted for those parties had already made their contribution in pursuit of such an outcome via their party votes, but they had an opportunity to procure a particular additional outcome – the election of an Auckland Central MP who is an articulate advocate for the CBD rail loop, and other “Auckland issues” where the parties have common ground.
If you were a Green party voter in Auckland Central, giving your candidate vote to Ardern was the next best thing you could do to lend weight to public transport investment, and to give Len Brown an important ally.
It really did make sense -- especially given that the Greens had been quite clearly saying they weren't targeting electorate votes.
-
My brother lives in the Epsom constituency and votes left, but held his nose and voted Goldsmith in the attempt to keep out Banks. After several years of seeing Banks in action as Auckland mayor, it is a bit surprising that other residents of the area that vote left didn't also hold their noses and vote right.
-
The Poisson Chalice in Chchch Central...
All I can think of is,
they did put something
in the water for a long time here!Hue 'n' cry...
Chlorine is 'pale green'
guess that's what happens
when ya mix blue and yellow! -
Joshua Arbury, in reply to
Thanks Russell that's what I was attempting to say. Especially relevant as the Greens are big PT supporters. Oh well Nikki is only 500 ahead with 6000 special votes on Auckland Central to be counted.
Stranger things have happened.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
The more people who would be willing to tactically vote to be rid of ACT for the left, the more people you’d have to assume would be willing to tactically vote to keep them in for National.
Not at all. The National voters who voted Goldsmith had a different set of factors to deal with. The obvious one being that Goldsmith actually had a chance of winning.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
it is a bit surprising that other residents of the area that vote left didn’t also hold their noses and vote right.
Good on your brother. And while I understand there being some unease about such a vote, it isn't even really a 'vote right'. In such a situation, the left vote they want to cast isn't ultimately going to achieve anything, and the tactical vote they make is actually for the good of left causes.
If I were in Epsom, I would have seen a vote for Goldsmith not as a 'vote for the right', but as a "Fuck you, ACT. Sincerely, the left".
Post your response…
This topic is closed.