Posts by Rob Salmond
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to BenWilson,
…then you have to conclude that actually a lot more people are right wing than left wing…right off the bat. Because that’s what they said they were.
Not quite, because that same sample rate Labour closer to the ideological median than National. Labour average rating is 3.46, National is 7.22. Same pattern holds for people who self-identify as a 5.
In any case, as I mentioned before, I expect the patterns of media use, political views, etc will be pretty much the same for "ideology=5" and "ideology between Labour and National," meaning we're really talking about a distinction without a difference.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to Sacha,
That might explain the FPP flavour then.
That's a really interesting point. I'd say NZ at a coalition level is in a basically FPP environment. You've got, with one exception which I'll get to, two clear teams (Nats+hangers on vs Lab+Greens), one big district, and a plurality rule within that district. The coalition with the most votes wins. Which means the classic median voter theorem applies pretty well at a coalition level.
The exception, of course, is NZF. If you think NZF is unambiguously against the current government, then it all becomes neat again. But then we all thought that in 1996. So if you're world-weary regarding NZF you're got a funny decision rule where:
Coalition + NZF > 50 = possible win
Coalition (without NZF) > 50 = certain winI don't think this wrinkle changes the basic game of "doing well among in-betweeners," though. Moves away from the centre don't make a "certain win" any more likely, and while they can make a "possible win" more likely, that has to come at the cost of a larger NZF vote and influence, and the chance they go the other way.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to BenWilson,
Interesting way of doing it, rather than just using their own self-identification itself. So you yourself are defining centrist in terms of its relation to Labour and National, which is not how the respondents did it.
In my initial post, I simply called those people "in between Labour and National," which I reckon is fair enough.
If you re-cut the numbers by self-identified 5 out of 10's on the left-right scale, I imagine you'll find pretty similar patterns.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to BenWilson,
In the data I'm using (2011 NZES), respondents were asked to place all parties on a 1-10 left-right scale, and then also place themselves on the scale.
The people I've labelled centrists here place Labour to the left of their self-placement, and place National to the right of their self-placement.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
I just think the best way to win these people is to ‘be good at politics’ rather than make all sorts of policy and value compromises that these voters almost certainly do not care about.
I agree with the first part, but for my 2c part of "being good at politics" is "taking voters' views seriously. "
Also, for the Nth time today, nobody's talking about policy compromise.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to Rob Stowell,
You could be guided by what you genuinely believe to be for the best :)
That is what guides us when we make policy.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to Alex Coleman,
On that question, there's only a small majority of *actual righties* that agree with it. It's a pretty divisive question. I get swallowing dead rats that are well and truly lost causes, but when it's a close run thing even on their side? And a majority of centrists agree with you that it's a rat?
First, the actual arguments parties run aren't generally about whether "dole = bludger" or not. That's just the opinion poll question. For me, the poll gives us how relatively receptive centrists are to left / right arguments about the morality of welfare and personal responsibility. And to my eye, it says they're more receptive to right arguments than left ones on that issue.
Second, nobody's talking about swallowing any rats. Left parties need left policies, as I said in the post. But parties do get to think carefully about what they say first when they talk to a voter. If the voter's view on an issue is likely closer to your opponent's than to yours, you might choose to talk about something else first.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to Alex Coleman,
Why assume there is a standardised Centrist view that is ‘closer’ to x than y?
I would far prefer to get better information about the individual person, and make campaigning decisions from there. That's what data-driven campaigning aims to do.
But sometimes yo don;t have better information. What then? Then you have a decision to make of "should I press this rhetorical button or not?" In the absence of better data, the group averages are a good initial guide.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
2. I think there’s often a gap between what people are thinking when they identify themselves as ‘centrist’ ie ‘I am a moderate and sensible person’, and what politicians and political analysts hear, ie ‘I am available to your party.’ A teacher who is a delegate for the PPTA and who has voted Labour their entire life or a farmer who has voted National for their entire life are just as likely to self-identify as ‘centrists’ as people who are actually swing-voters.
Yes, I agree with this. Self-identifying as as centrist is, broadly, a necessary but not sufficient condition to being a swing voter.
But, even with that qualifier, the actual swing voters hiding among the "Im a centrists" are the ones who eventually decide the election, so it's probably better to take them seriously.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to Alex Coleman,
I see that as saying 46% of centrists buy the dole=bludger thing?
Isn't that actually less than the 51% magic number?
You're reading it right right. But for me the most important part of those figures is the differences. Ccentrist views are only 7% removed from right-wingers' views, but 19% removed from left-wingers views. That means centrists think more like right wingers on that issue than like lefties, suggesting a standard leftie line on this issue will be less resonant than a standard right-leaning line. The 51% bright line only comes into play when the argument is presented exactly as "dole = bludger." Most campaigners are more subtle than that.