Legal Beagle: A little known story of the Māori seats
59 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Does the size of an electorate depend on the total number of people of any age
Yes, for the good reason that MPs represent everyone, not just those old enough to vote. Also, some populations (such as Maori and Pasifica) have a higher population of young people and this should be taken into account, which is why the calculations are done as above.
One category that the current system allows for would be a hypothetical 5-year old of Maori descent, whose parents for whatever reason tick "don't know" on their form but once adult, discovers their whakapapa and enrols as a Maori voter.
-
The reason that Stats doesn't use the electoral figure for other uses is presumably that the electoral figure is based on a yes/no classification, whereas other Māori descent figures allow for more than two values, no?
-
other census data isn’t presented in this way
because most New Zealand statistics are not based on "descent". The definition of "Maori" used in all official New Zealand statistics since 1986 was "Somebody who feels he or she is a Maori, and who is recognised as such by other people" (Pool 1991: 11), which is more accurately captured by the "reported ethnicity" question; but then the figure used is the proportion of responses (including multiple responses) rather than the proportion of individuals.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Does the size of an electorate depend on the total number of people of any age – if say Stuart Island was suddenly populated by 25,000 (or whatever the appropriate number is) 13 year olds would it create an electorate in which no one was allowed to vote? (apart from the whole lord of the flies thing that would invariably result) …. or more seriously do populations that have bigger families get more representation (per voter)?
All electorates have approximately the same number of total people. If there was an area with ~58,000 13 year olds, they'd have an electorate in which no-one got to vote.
Populations with younger overall ages do indeed get more representation per voter at the electorate vote level. Of course, party strength in parliament under MMP is based on party votes, not electorate votes, so this doesn't effect the overall make-up of Parliament very much. Of course, electorates with lower numbers of voters (such as the Maori electorates) are more likely to cause an overhang.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
The reason that Stats doesn’t use the electoral figure for other uses is presumably that the electoral figure is based on a yes/no classification, whereas other Māori descent figures allow for more than two values, no?
No. The figure that is imputed is a census-derived figure. It takes the answer to the census question about Māori descent (yes/no/don't know/don't say) and assigns values of yes or no to the don't knows and don't says
They could do the same thing when releasing the final census information, and it would people a better idea of the true make-up of the country.
-
Thanks! I've been a little worried that this might be a little nerdy, even for Public Address :-)
The nerdy end of the audience thanks you for the interesting information. I've actually just been doing an 8 week data analysis course, getting up to date on a few things I hadn't previous exposure to.
I'd say the appropriateness of the correction depends on the strength of the correlation, in as much as the estimate of actual population should be accompanied by an error range that gets smaller the more sure you are of the data. Where it becomes an issue of detail is when the error range is within the zone affecting the number of seats, but in general it is a reasonable way to figure out the true population.
The question for Stats NZ is the consistency- the reasons for when to use one figure and when to use the other. And as others have alluded, it probably falls into the judgments around numerical representations of situations requiring descent vs. situations requiring affiliation.
The orthogonal question is if seat numbers should be calculated on population (in which case the corrected data is closer to reality) or self-reporting (which would lower the threshold. But that is a matter of politics not statistics. Wanting to ponder this, I'm going to think for a few days then probably go off and simulate some census sets and see how the interplay of factors pans out.
-
They could do the same thing when releasing the final census information, and it would people a better idea of the true make-up of the country.
Yeah, but it would also lose the information contained in the non-boolean answers, which some people might find valuable. I dunno, I guess I just don't think there is a better idea of the "true" make up of the country, because I take issue with the idea of "better" and "true". I suppose I'm just a bit of a social constructionist.
-
Good points and well made.
I’m not too worried about it. It could be seen as minor redress of the situation that pertained when the Maori seats were established: only 4 seats for what was then half the population of the country. If they get an extra seat now……no biggie.
The decision would also have been filtered through all the various ‘levels’ within the governments of the day. Over the years I’ve learned there aren’t really any independent bodies free of Ministerial interference….as Ministers are typically up to their eyeballs in any appointment (or re-appointment) process……ethically sound or not.
I’m more worried about the erosion of lists seats over time by increases in the number of local seats. I see local MPs as – generally – being party hacks who are only accountable to a relatively small number of people, whereas list MPs have to stand before the entire country.
I'd get rid of the local seats entirely if it were up to me....and the Maori seats would go along with the others.
-
What would the numbers look like if they used the main Ethnicity question instead?
-
I guess the population representation thing gets messed up because Maori voters get to choose what roll they are on and for the purposes of deciding how many more people their votes represent the missing piece of data that statistic may not have is "Which roll are you registered on?" - with that they could make informed guesses about how many extra people (their kids/etc) they 'represent' - so I guess i'm confused do the Maori electorates represent all Maori? or the population that the Maori who choose the Maori voting option represent?
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
i’m confused do the Maori electorates represent all Maori? or the population that the Maori who choose the Maori voting option represent?
The Māori electorates represent the proportion of the Māori descent population who are on the Māori roll, including the same proportion of non-enrolled Māori.
If 55% of enrolled voters who are Māori are enrolled on the Māori roll, then 55% of people who are of Māori descent are represented through the Māori electorates.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
What would the numbers look like if they used the main Ethnicity question instead?
Is there a main ethnicity question? There's an ethnicity question, but I didn't think there was a question which asked you your main ethnicity.
However, if the answers to the ethnicity question were used, the number of Māori seats would be slightly lower, as the number of people who are of Māori descent is higher than the number of people who include Māori as one of their ethnicities.
-
Thanks for this Graeme. I'd never given much thought to how they determine the size of the electorates. Very interesting and useful information. It helps to partly explain why the number of people who actually vote in the Māori electorates seems really low, and that's because there are proportionately more under 18 year olds in Māori electorates (i.e. non voters) than in most other seats.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Thanks. I meant the (main) ethnicity question rather than the specific Maori ancestry one.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the number of people who are of Māori descent is higher than the number of people who include Māori as one of their ethnicities.
Really? How does that work?
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Really? How does that work?
Ethnicity is more self-identified. Someone may know that they have one Māori great-great-grandmother, but consider themselves Pākehā (or Han Chinese, or whatever), not self-identifying as Māori in any way.
The question: 'are you descended from a Māori?', however isn't a question where changing how you feel can change the answer.
Thanks. I meant the (main) ethnicity question rather than the specific Maori ancestry one.
Ah, I see where I differ. I see the ethnicity question as asking about ethnicity, and the ancestry question as asking about something different: your race, and the race of your direct ancestors.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I agree with you on that actually, now that suitable caffeine levels have been restored.
Just a bit surprised at first that the race question would get higher response than the ethnicity one. Seems like evidence against people claiming Maori ethnicity for some kind of gain as talkback would have us believe.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Ethnicity is more self-identified.
Always found that one interesting. If it's about *belonging* to a culture, then different ones of those have membership criteria and pathways that individuals interact with.
There's nothing to stop people making up identifications, but I'm not sure why they would bother in a Census - any more than people would lie in answering the disability question (though it's a cool thing to aspire to).
-
Paul Campbell, in reply to
The Māori electorates represent the proportion of the Māori descent population who are on the Māori roll, including the same proportion of non-enrolled Māori.
that makes sense ..... but without the question "which roll are you on?" does this really work? (or do the people making the estimate connect up Maori roll entries with census returns some how?) I wonder how many (if any) people on the Maori roll didn't claim descent or ethnicity ..... and if you could game the system for Maori by enrolling and not claiming
-
Sacha wrote "Nothing to stop people making up identifications, but I'm not sure why they would bother"
This census, the religion question will be really interesting in that respect: No Religion/ Not Stated is due to overtake Christian this census or next, but if people put Jedi they go in the "Not Counted" category (as I understand it). So if, as is quite possible, the Jedi total is bigger than the difference between Christian and No Religion/ Not Stated there will be all kinds of pointless speculation about the true intent of that category.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
It should be an offence to tick Jedi if you have had sex. Perhaps they could all just be counted as Sith.
-
linger, in reply to
There are two complicating factors in interpreting the total answers for the “ethnicity” question:
(i) a significant minority of individuals choose not to respond to this question at all;
(ii) individuals who list several options are counted for every option listed (which has the effect of lowering the calculated proportion of “Maori” compared to the "descent" question, which is not affected by this problem).
If you correct for these known issues, the proportion of “Maori” individuals (rather than responses) given for the two questions is not very different.
(N.B. Statistics New Zealand released a report in 2007 cross-classifying the respondents who chose to list their ethnicity as “New Zealand”, which concluded that such individuals were mostly Pakeha who were not comfortable with the label “European”.) -
Islander, in reply to
Sacha wrote “Nothing to stop people making up identifications, but I’m not sure why they would bother”
A little sidelight on that:
at one stage, people of non-Maori descent were claiming to be "Kai/Ngai Tahu" (this was in the late 1970s.)
Our tribe was the first known(yeah, that's in the world) to actually conduct a census of tribal members - in 1848.
To this day, unless you can trace your whakapapa to the Blue or Pink registry, you ARE NOT Kai Tahu - simple as that (the later registry was made after many Maori land court hearings and was produced in 1925.)Also, to this day, people claiming to be Maori/Kai/Ngai Tahu in national elections are checked out - or in any election that requires the qualification that you are of Maori descent (NOT THAT YOU FEEL KAI TAHU!)
My tipuna - up unto yea, including my mother! and myself!!- spent way too much time in the Maori Land Court making sure all was tika with our whakapapa to ever accept that kind of shit-
-
Sacha, in reply to
Thanks. The 2007 report was helpful for some work I was doing at the time, which also included tangling with prioritised ethnicity. Interesting history.
The 2010 health sector review by Donna Cormack and her colleague is worth a read.
-
Sacha, in reply to
such individuals were mostly Pakeha who were not comfortable with the label “European”
or more pertinently, not comfortable with the term Pakeha. Do wish StatsNZ would show some leadership.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.