Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Right. From the graph alone, we don't know specifically which of the 110 bills contributed most to the split, which makes it hard to attach meaning to the dimensions or to any absolute numbers (were those to be provided). Still, to the extent that members can vote independently, presumably any bill that produced a 100% disagreement along party lines between the largest parties (thus strongly contributing to the principal component) would not be that trivial, but rather represent core party values. (100% disagreement for one-man bands, OTOH, is less informative, for the reasons you've mentioned.) The thing is, if I've guessed the scales correctly, then there were very few if any such bills out of the 110 presented.
-
Paul: You make it sound so neopaleolithic.
-
Nah, it means that TV delivered pretty visuals instead of analysis.
But it's sometimes difficult to remember that that isn't an intrinsic weakness of the medium. -
(Of course, it could be that I'm wrong about the scale divisions being units -- but if so, then the lack of any numerical scale is also a rather important problem with the graph!)
-
Ben:
There's no space between [Labour and National], Unless you believe in the 'Colossal divide between Labour and National' theory. [Which Ben doesn't.] I think center parties do wield great influence, but they are very hard to hang onto for that reason.
A few days ago, No Right Turn posted a principal components graph of distance between parties based on final bill voting. On the face of it, there does seem to be a huge gulf between (on the one hand) National/ACT, and (on the other) Labour/Prog/(and for the duration of the coalition, NZF and UF too), on the 1st principal component. It follows that this dimension summarises bills on the issues or principles on which those parties are most consistently divided: possibly (free-market vs social welfare). Certainly, this is the largest party difference in the data.
There is also apparently a large difference between Maori/Greens and ... almost everybody else, but especially National & UF, on the second principal component -- which presumably represents issues most strongly differentiating National from Maori.
These two dimensions account for about 74% of the variation among parties.
So, does this mean you're wrong? Not necessarily.
There seem to be several problems with this use of PCA. (Which I hasten to add is not I/S's own analysis, so I/S is not responsible.)(i) The more trivial graph problem is that the scales are unequal: the vertical dimension is exaggerated, so it is not easy to get a true measure of party "distance" from the graph.
The more serious problem is that PCA exaggerates the level of difference, through not presenting the similarities:
(ii) the PCA is of data for 110 bills. In theory there could be a huge amount of variation. But actually... well, there are no numbers on the scales, but if the divisions are units (equivalent to one standard deviation of spread on one bill's votes), then ... hang on, even PC1 has a range of only 8 units! This suggests that for the huge majority of bills, there were no overall differences between the parties. So, these dimensions account for most of the party difference ... but the overall difference was relatively small. -
Audio seems incomplete?
(currently ends:
"they need to go back to magic school for a refresher-") -
Craig wrote:
You're just asking to be told in great detail [...] exactly what I do wank off over
Really, no need, you've already told us on another thread:
Yup, a complete sentence expressing a grown-up idea gives me a woody every damn time
-
*sigh*
See what happens when you promise an "adult-themed Halloween"? -
... So, following from our comparative religion discussion above, would that now be one book or three? Or should we treat a single-volume trilogy as a trinity, so recognising both counts?
-
Ah, buggrit. Having now done the requisite Googling on Wrightson, I probably should correct myself on a few points. (Still, I s'pose I didn't do too badly, given I haven't seen the books in over 25 years.)
(i) It's the Wirrun series. (NZ English rules, ok?)
(ii) The official starting point for the series isn't The Nargun and the Stars, but The Ice is Coming. (I know the main character Wirrun doesn't appear in Nargun; but I've always regarded Nargun as kind of a prequel to the others, given that the nargun feature heavily in the plot of Ice.)(iii) And one thing I didn't know, but am kinda happy about, is that the trilogy of Wirrun novels was later republished in one volume as The Song of Wirrun.