Posts by Andrew Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to Sacha,
Here ya go: https://www.3news.co.nz/Politics/3NewsReidResearchPoll.aspx :)
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Sorry if that sounded like I was telling you to suck eggs! I know that you know exactly how MMP works!
Mainly wanting to make the point that providing seat ranges would require many more assumptions than just 'all electorate seats are held' - the potential number of party seat scenarios must be almost endless.
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Hey Graeme
I actually don't think you could do it that easily, because seats are distributed proportionally to parties over 5% or with electorate seats. For example if NZ First's range put them under OR over the 5% threshold, that would influence how all the other seats are distributed, so the ranges themselves would be variable. There are just so many assumptions and possibilities, that presenting a seat-range may open the story up to even more accusations of bias.
Presenting a range for the party vote %s is probably simpler, then people can use the Electoral Commission website to work out what might happen if x party got this %, or lost one seat, etc, etc
-
Hard News: Poll Day 2: Queasy, in reply to Sacha,
Hi Sacha
Yes, that's what Colmar Brunton do.
-
Hard News: Poll Day 2: Queasy, in reply to BenWilson,
Hi Ben and Bart
The poll report on the Colmar Brunton website provides the random sampling margins of sampling error for results of 50%, 10%, and 5%. Roy Morgan do this in table form as well on their website (or at least did when I last looked).
Also, a chart in the Colmar Brunton report graphically displays that margins of sampling error for each individual party vote result at each poll, and shows where results have changed significantly since each previous poll. You can see, for example, that National has a larger margin of error than the likes of the Green Party or NZ First.