Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Democracy Night

779 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 9 10 11 12 13 32 Newer→ Last

  • Keir Leslie,

    But up thread people mocked the idea of throwing the gays under the bus. Pick one or the other guys.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1359 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Steve Parks,

    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?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11989 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks, in reply to tussock,

    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.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1153 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    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.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16659 posts Report Reply

  • 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?

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Sacha,

    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.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11989 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Stewart, in reply to 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?

    National are actually from the Mirror Universe?

    Amherst, MA • Since Nov 2006 • 2093 posts Report Reply

  • Joshua Arbury,

    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.

    Auckland • Since May 2009 • 217 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    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.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1153 posts Report Reply

  • martinb, in reply to Joshua Arbury,

    woulda been nice!

    Auckland • Since Jul 2010 • 158 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Joshua Arbury,

    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.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4860 posts Report Reply

  • Tim Hannah, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    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.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 224 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Tim Hannah,

    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.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4860 posts Report Reply

  • Tim Hannah, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    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.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 224 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    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.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 1571 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Tim Hannah,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18877 posts Report Reply

  • Tim Hannah, in reply to Russell Brown,

    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.)

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 224 posts Report Reply

  • tussock, in reply to Steve Parks,

    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.

    Since Nov 2006 • 469 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Homer,

    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.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 55 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd, in reply to Tim Hannah,

    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.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2962 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Tim Hannah,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18877 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew E,

    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.

    174.77 x 41.28 • Since Sep 2008 • 197 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    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!

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 4952 posts Report Reply

  • Joshua Arbury, in reply to Russell Brown,

    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.

    Auckland • Since May 2009 • 217 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks, in reply to tussock,

    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.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1153 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 9 10 11 12 13 32 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.