Do minor parties do better in the election campaign?
I noted in a NZ Herald discussion on how badly most minor parties were polling, it is taken as gospel that minor parties pick up support in an election campaign, and major parties lose support.
Now this is a pretty logical proposition, but what is the empirical evidence. Let’s start with 1996.
In 1996 Labour averaged 17% in the CB poll before the campaign, and got 28%. National averaged 39% and got 34%. NZ First averaged 22% and got 13%. Alliance averaged 12% and got 10%. ACT averaged 3% and got 6%. Christian Coalition averaged 3% and got 4%.
Conclusion: Not true in 1996. Labour got 11% more than it polled, and from the minors only ACT got significantly more than it polled.
In 1999 Labour averaged in all polls 42% and got 39%. National averaged 36% and got 31%. NZ First averaged 4% and got 4%. Alliance averaged 7% and got 8%. ACT averaged 5% and got 7%. Greens averaged 1% and got 5%.
Conclusion: Partly true in 1999. Labour and National got a bit less than they had been polling, and some minors got a bit more. Greens were the big improver but this is more because like ACT in 1996 they were a new party.
In 2002 National averaged 32% and got 21%. Labour averaged 51% and got 41%. ACT averaged 4% and got 7%. NZ First averaged 3% and got 10%. United averaged 0.4% and got 7%. Greens averaged 6% and got 7%.
Conclusion: True in 2002. Labour and National each got around 10% less than they had been polling, and all minors got a lot more except for the Greens.
In 2005 National averaged 36% and got 39%. Labour averaged 43% and got 41%. Maori averaged 2% and got 2%. ACT averaged 2% and got 1.5%. NZ First averaged 7% and got
6%. United averaged 2% and got 3%. Greens averaged 5% and got 5%.
Conclusion: Not true in 2005. Labour and National each got a higher vote than they had been polling. All minors were within 1% of their average polling level.
So the assertion that minor parties pick up support in the campaign period from major parties is far from a rule. It has only conclusively been true once in 2002. It was partly true in 1999 but false in 1996 and 2005.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 am
Yes but the more interesting analysis (and more relevant to polling today) would be the difference between the prior-to-election year and the election result. That would be a more significant difference for the minor parties I suspect.
Once people start paying attention to politics more, and start thinking strategically, then the minor parties are more likely to improve. This is a lull year in the cycle usually.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:54 am
I could look at that issue but that is different to the general proposition that it is the campaign itself which changes things as minor parties get more airtime and debates etc.
I think what happens is a bit like spending money on advertising. By itself it won’t get you more support as a minor party, but it increases the potential for support to increase if they like your message and you are new.
ACT in 1996 was new and did well. Greens in 1999 were new and did well. United Future was effectively new to most people in 2002 and did well. None were new in 2005 and they all did badly.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
DPF, but…
the Maori party may have polled badly but they got an overhang and did well. They didnt get a higher party vote but got people in Parliament. And thats what matters.
For minor parties to get a higher percentage than their polling, a major party has to bomb. Thats what happend to National in 2002. United Future took up the votes then. That could be what will happen in 2008 with the Greens and National picking up some of the Labour vote. Also I note that the Greens get more on polling day than they poll on average and Labour has got less since 1996, the year NZ first bombed and Labour picked up these votes.
It will be interesting to see your analysis based on the most recent three polls before the election…..
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 am
interesting analysis dpf..
more please..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 am
What happened to the undertaking when the MMP referendum was held, that as I understood it, we would have a referendum on the suitability of MMP after two terms?
Minor Parties would never agree to a referendum on this matter now. It is their lifeline to the Halls of Power.
They, whether they voted for, or abstained from voting for the EFB in it’s present form, enabled it to reach a Parliamentary Select Committee.
This could be the Bill where their decreasing popularity could well be terminal?
Members of Parliament that conceive and support an attack at the very roots of our democracy do not deserve to be there. I regard it as a criminal attempt to disadvantage the voters in New Zealand.
It shows you just how gutless New Zealanders are when they roll over and let a Parliamentary juggernaut run over them?
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
i would factor one more thing into your analysis..tho’..
and that is that the size of the minor party vote seems to be dependant on how close the majors are to each other..
(cf..2005..2002..)
and this fits with my call of the closer the majors are to each other next year..
the more perilous it will be for the minors..
so..really..in an ironic twist of fate..
the best news for the greens..in terms of their vote/m.p. numbers..
would be the collapse of the labour vote..
(it’s a funny old world..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
Frank – that was never promised, it was never in the law. The Electoral Act stipulated that Parliament undertake a review of MMP in the second MMP Parliament, and it did.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
was that a question..?..frank..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
Great post DPF!
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:21 am
A lot of the Labour vote is wide open for the Greens. Remains to see if the Greens wish to move away from the safely of being a pressure group with good branding to being a serious political force.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 am
Good to see some analysis of this. Of course it’s not strong heuristic, it entirely depends on the parties themselves and how they have marketed and performed, and how much difference they appear to be offering, in a direction that a proportion of the population approves.
And all of that is unknown at this point. So predictions are still going to subject to a lot of error. Personally I think there will be a slide to National and third parties. I can’t see National getting to rule outright.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:34 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:34 am
Grrr. blockquote. Grrr
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
G: Thank you for clearing the matter up. As I have said, and I have discussed the matter with with friends, that that was our understanding. We were fairly naive at the time. I have searched the web etc for precise information on the subject, but have not discovered very much.
Essentially we thought it was a trial period. However at the time we voted for FPP so democracy was served.
But is Democracy served when a minor party abstains from voting? i.e. they cannot distinguish right from wrong. They have to carry this stigma into the next election and it’s a case of by your actions (or non-actions – so shall you be judged?
So MMP could be self erasing?
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Talking about the Greens, do you think there is room in the political spectrum for a Blue-Green party. A slightly more conservative party that is more focused on the environment. Personally I think this type of party could tear it up at the polls. They would also have the advantage of being a fresh party, which sticks with the analysis of what small parties will do well.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
A Turquoise Party? It’s as mismatched as ACT, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a small place for it, if there wasn’t the stupid MMP threshold. It would probably damage the Greens and National, and no-one else.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
A new environmental party would not have the stigma associated with the current Green party, and I think there are a large number of moderate and conservative people out there that what the environment to be an issue, but think that the Greens are raging hippies.
I know all parties act like they provide a sustainable economic policy, but imagine having a party that actually sets out an agenda. Personally I just want an party filled with economists.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Matt, I can’t see it being a winner. The is a fundamental clash in thought process between wanting to conserve the environment and wanting to grow the economy. One is a brake, the other an accelerator. One is thinking having airbags is a good idea, the other thinks they’re excess weight.
I guess there is room for someone promising to save the environment AND getting fantastic growth at the same time. You could call that the Fantasy Party. They’d focus on all the ways of growing the economy which don’t impact the environment so much, like increasing tourism, or services and IT. But for NZ there’s still the elephant in the room, that most of our earnings are from Agriculture, which is basically using the environment to make profit. Felling trees, farting animals and mega tons of pesticide and fertilizer are built into our way of life. We also have not-particularly-dense living, which means the automobile is here to stay, no matter how many trees you plant in the middle of the road as hazards to motorists.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
krazykiwi: “does Labour’s evidential and appalling environmental track record ( ‘assisted’ by the Greens) look more or less appealing than what National may be able to deliver?”
You have raised what in my view, will the crux in this forth coming election: Climate warming – Carbon Dioxide – Methane Levels – Carbon Credits -Clean water – Etcetera
All emotional and appealing to politicians so the subjects will be milked for all their worth this coming election. They are all trying to Outgreen the Greens with words, not facts, in order to get traction for their respective parties.
Take my word for it. Technology is finding the answer to all these problems, and will reveal the ‘Hollowness” and naivety of Political Parties’
present Environmental Preservation Policies.
There are already breakthroughs with more to come.
It’s just that Politicians need to keep abreast of the times not regurgitate old recipes.
The Second Industrial Revolution is just around the corner and it is all created by private enterprise!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Ben, I completely agree that there is a trade-off between economic growth and saving the environment. However, I think that a Blue-Green party, following the fundamentals of economics (mainly externalities
) could do a good job.
The problem with the party would be the fact that they should support toll roads, higher petrol taxes, etc etc, and those aren’t really vote winners. However, if people are starting to get concerned about global warming, a party that is willing to given them a sensible way of doing it would be the way to go.
I expect too much I guess, political parties don’t see trade-offs, they see opportunities to get votes. Damn politics.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Ben there is an element of truth in here, but I don’t buy the argument in a wholesale sense as I there are very few objectives which are truly mutually exclusive. Setting aside the socialists/communist roots of the Greens, I think there has been a concerted effort claim that their environmental causes and economic pursuits are poles apart so as to define their ‘space’ in the political spectrum.
It would take wisdom and humility to manage the tension between the ‘purist outcomes’ of environmental and economic activities. Sadly I don’t see those attributes evidenced in our current political leaderships – most particularly with the current government.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
DPF, I think it depends a bit on how minor the minor parties are. In 1996 the Alliance and NZfirst were relatively big players. Also, it was the first MMP election and probably a funny year. In 1996, the two truly minor parties increased slightly.
Today we have two distinctly major parties and several distinctly minor parties. I think for truly minor parties (the ones that hover around the 5% mark), but don’t have a chance of getting an electorate seat, the rule works.
Talking about the Greens, do you think there is room in the political spectrum for a Blue-Green party. A slightly more conservative party that is more focused on the environment.
We had the Progressive Greens were a while back (1996 I think). They bombed.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Matt, I’m pretty sure externalities is a big core of the thinking in the traditional Green parties. The problem is that those who want an accelerator rather than a brake will simply disagree about the costs caused by their various pollutingz. “The fish will come back”, “The only thing that can affect the climate is the Sun”, “CO2 is GOOD for trees”, “No-one’s proved pesticides are harmful to people”, etc. All of which *could* be true. That our brand of Green seems to think that disposing of garbage is an externality best controlled by making people store it in their garage rather than putting it in the bin, or that fucking up roads will stop people wanting to use them, is the kind of madness that you can’t guarantee will be absent in any political party.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
The difference is that the Greens have both an environmental and a social focus that compete with each other. Green parties overseas are lot more popular as they focus on environmental policy while being more to the centre on other issues.
I read about the old progressive greens, I think they had the right idea, but they came a little bit early. The climate change issue is more important to people now than it was in 1996.
Let me be plain here, I’m not saying I’d vote for this party, I’m just saying that I think that there is some scope for a party of this nature now. Personally I’d want a party of economists, as I’m an economist and people like to vote for people they can relate with
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Krazykiwi, there has been an effort, but I don’t believe it any more than I did the effort to make Brash look more centrist, or Labour more big-business-friendly. There is a reason for those roots – Greenists are almost always the disempowered, typically either the young or the old. I’d like to hear about any really successful Green capitalists.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Hooray, finally bothered to learn how to use HTML in commentary!
Matt, I think the Green environmental and social policy are much less in competition with each other than their environmental policy would be with rightist economic policy. Also, Green parties are really only successful in Europe, which is already much more socialist, so being closer to the centre isn’t so hard for them.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Ben, agreed about polarisation. In terms of ‘sucessful green capitalists’ there are probably sucessful capitalists who are green and sucessful greenies who are capitalists. but none of us are likely to find anyone getting filthy rich by proteching snails!
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
PhilU is correct. A voters first priority will be either a right or leftwing government. If the big parties are close the safest way of getting what I want is to vote for either National or Labour. To do otherwise could jeopardize the outcome I want. However in 2002 when the National vote collapsed voters were emboldened to vote for niche parties knowing that their choice wouldn’t affect the final result.
Therefore the current collapse of the Labour vote bodes well for the minor parties and could well encourage UF and NZF to take a more independent attitude. The Greens will also be aware of this and stratigising accordingly.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Maybe I see green policy a little differently to the Greens. For example I think that congested roads should be leased to private equity companies who can set up toll booths. I also think we should tax fuel and electricity.
These policies all seem fairly regressive (which can be addressed by transferring the tax money), and so I didn’t think they would fit into the agenda of the Green party. The Greens seem more about direct regulation than adjusting industry incentives.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Matt: You make a very good point. It seems some like to take the “tax at all costs” approach when dealing with various issues, but fail to realise that such an approach further decreases the ability to fund better environmental practices. I agree that an incentive based platform that would allow for rapid transition where possible would ensure long term benefits.
If businesses have the ability to retain more of their profits as opposed to being relieved of them through adhock legislation that deals only with a sysmtom of a much greater problem, I am sure we will see the desired results achieved. I have always had difficulty reconciling how taking more money from people that you expect to fund changes actually works.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Matt, we already pay a lot of tax on petrol, even more on diesel (via RUC) and the Greens always want it to be more. I’m sure they’d disagree about private roads being good for the environment, as do I. I can’t see any connection at all. It might relieve congestion for those who could still afford to use the roads. Or it might not, it might just make using the roads more expensive and enrich road owners. It might even get worse.
That appears to be the outcome of the strategy of screwing the roads up by adding all sorts of bottlenecks and obstacles. People are more frustrated, but they’re not fooled into thinking it would be better on a bus which now can’t even go down those streets at all, and if it could would still be caught in the congestion. And of course all the stopping and starting, and crawling along is also worse for the environment, whether it’s speed humps, chicanes, or tolling booths doing it. The only winners are pedestrians, until foot taxes are invented.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Matt
I saw a webblog from a Green Conservative a while back. Basically, he held the Aristotelian / Thomist view that the state should engage in the limited enforcement of Morality ( see the quote from Aquinas below)
“Human law is framed for the multitude of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Therefore human laws do not forbid all vices from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are injurious to others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained”
Some conservatives suggest that the sole function of Government is to punish wrongdoing and think of Aquinas position as spelling out the limits of this enforcement. That leads to a fairly limited government.
The person then suggested that people have certain duties to care for the environment from this he suggested hence the state could and should punish the violation of these duties which are [a] grievous and which the vast majority can be reasonably expected to be able to abstain and chiefly [b] those which cause injury to others and [c] those that are necessary to the preservation of society
I must admit to finding this quite interesting, I sympathize with Aquinas position but had never thought if its application in this way.
Matthew Flannagan
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Hmmm, I don’t agree. We pay tax on petrol yes, but we should pay more. The cost of our fuel consumption is greater than the price we pay for it.
Also the fact that bottlenecks etc have been added to roads has nothing to do with toll roads (you don’t put a toll person on the road, you put a little microchip on a persons car during registration and ping them when they use the road), they are completely separate issues. The toll road issue is one of the value of using a road. If there is no price on using the road, then people with an extremely low value of driving will jump on and create negative externalities for all the other drivers, who have a higher value.
I just think we should pay the full cost of using our car.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:10 pm
“I just think we should pay the full cost of using our car.” Matt Nolan.
Do you actually have a car?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Brian you got me, I don’t have a car anymore.
However, I’d be just as happy to have an electricity tax and I use a hell of a lot of that. I also want them to put interest on student loans back on at a rate just above inflation and I have a huge student loan (80k).
The car argument always comes up, but my point of view holds for anything with significant externalities, I’m just a fan of the Pigovian tax.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I’d be most interested to hear, as an economist, how you would establish what the real cost of our fuel consumption is.
You actually used the words “toll booth”. But sure, you can put all sorts of expensive technology in it’s place which transfers the cost and time wasted at the tolling booth to somewhere else. I spent 12 minutes on the phone trying to pay for one use of the Tullamarine Tollway in Melbourne last time I drove on it, not to mention the mostly unused e-tag that I was forced to purchase when I lived there.
These externalities are extremely disputable. There is currently no cost involved in crossing the road as a pedestrian or cyclist, but it creates negative externality for everyone that it slows down. Should you have to stick a coin in the traffic light to cross, or swipe your barcode? Or are some externalities so unimportant as to be not worth considering, or considering en-masse, in bulk. If so, perhaps cars on the road is one of them, a relatively small cost at registration and bowser time, for the enormous benefit of being able to just up-and-drive anywhere, anytime you want.
I think the current system works, but is premised on ignoring that cost the Greens really rate, the greenhouse gas emissions. I think probably that should be factored into fuel costs, since increased emissions are directly related to how much fuel you use. I just don’t really know how it can be accurately evaluated as a cost.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Good points Ben. I agree that if we actually put up toll booths that could well increase the time involved with congestion, I’m sorry that I was so unclear.
With the greenhouse gas thing, its hard to quantify the actual costs, however our government has said it will trade carbon on the carbon trading market. As a result, the liability the country has to pay is determined by the external carbon market.
I did some work on the costs of that a while ago, and figured that petrol taxes would have to be about 30-40 cents higher per litre to cover the liability they cause. Similar taxes would need to go on electricity and the such.
Although higher prices suck, these things will need to be payed for (as the government has committed us to it), so we have to pay for it in someway. I just think it is more equitable if people who produce the most emissions pay the most, which is what the tax ensures.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
BEN:
As an economist, would you engage in doing the number crunching for political parties policies (on say taxation and monetary reform) including the flow on effects attributed to those? I ask out of self interest of course.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Good work David, interesting post.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Hi Kelvyn,
Can I ask, as leader of a minor party yourself, do you believe smaller parties poll better during election campaigns? Has your party shown up in any poll data yet? Are the rumours true that the DDP will be merging with the NZ Republican Party? And finally, are you intending to go for an electorate seat to bypass the need for the (very difficult) 5% threshold?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Hi Mick
DDP has not yet appeared in any polling that I am aware of at this stage; of course being the eternal optimist I do believe that will change.
I personally contacted a number of other minor parties to determine if we had simularities were we could work together to achieve our stated aims and objectives. Only the Republican Party responded with interest and I thank them for that. There is at this stage no plans for a merger as we have not actually had a meeting to discuss this, although I have meet with a number of the executive to date. There seems to be common ground in many respects.
We are going to approach next year’s elections in a determined way and go for not only the above 5% threshold, but certainly electorate seats as well. One rule we do have in the party, is that no candidate shall occupy a place on the list that is higher than those contesting electorate seats. After all, they are prepared to take the public scrutiny and front up.
As mentioned, we do hope to achieve a lot more publicity in the coming months, but it is very difficult indeed at this point in time.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Surely it would be better to target just one electorate seat to avoid spreading yourselves too thin?
Throw every cent and activist at it. Take a leaf out of the Rodney Hyde book and learn from the mistake of the Alliance!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Mick:
You make good sense, now to identify such a seat.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Kelvyn, I’m not an economist, I program computers.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Jim Anderton (yawn), Peter Dunn, Winston, Prebble were all MPs of the bigger parties & used their established electorate seat to form a party. They should’ve really been independents.
Perhaps the rules should change that to bring a party into Parliament you need either 5% of the votes or two electorate seats.
Because as it stands (going by the results of the last election) most people don’t take the mirror partys seriously.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Manurewa. Hunua. Manukau East. Maungakiekie.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
BEN: My apologies, I read your post wrong, after re-examining it, I see you were refering to another.
MICK: Thank you for you input.
MATT: Are you an economist?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I am an economist, it says so on my poorly written and badly set out blog
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Would you, or anyone you know of, be interested in crunching the numbers including the flow on effects of our policies? In particular, Monetary Reform and Taxation.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Kelvyn, no worries. I support some parts of direct democracy, and can think of a thousand ways computerization could help. But economics? Someone else’s problem!
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Generally as I work for Infometrics I would have to charge for work. However if you email me the sort of stuff you are after (my address is in the about tab on my blog), and if it is publicly available information, I’ll see if anyone I know at uni can have a look at it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:57 pm
BEN: Any and all suggestions that would help to compete with the deep pockets of the main players is always welcome. I have personally been funding the majority of the party’s expenditure to date, but the cupboard is getting bare.
MATT: I appreciate that very much, thank you. I shall send you an email by the days end.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
with that brilliant analysis what you say farra, the rednecks asked me if there was a chance for us in the Redneck Fascist coalition [ new party expect big thing] pivotal politic 2008, what do yous think
September 27th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
The one thing I must comment on is that Mr Alp appears to talk in plain English, not in the talk of deficit and order of the implications of sub-statue 6, paragraph 9, but he understands such talk and has the best views I’ve seen so far. Then looking at the policies of DDP, it does make sense, you see we have existed as a small sized nation and have never overcome to peak anything financially, then again records usually stay narrow overseas. I believe his monetary policy and taxation would be the best thing for all New Zealander’s ever imaginable. However you must read through the policy, which is gives even me, a Joe Blogg’s of sorts a clear understanding. Laws and Policies are usually 200-2000 pages long, though at Election Time people like Clark, English etc say we will give tax cuts, people always responds mostly with ‘How much cuts?’ though it should be ‘How many other things will be sacrificed’, and vice versa for health with labour. It has been given clearly parties now lye with an eternal like stance, health, education, tax, superannuation, it never really differs. We never get any change, it is a stability game of National for a term or two then labour and then tag your voted in. It is much the same in most Western political systems, Rep. vs Demo, Tory vs Liberal vs Minor’s who don’t get voted for because people fear change by the hype of the bigger, well P.R’d media smeared, more larger revenue gathering parties. The Maori party, Greens, NZ First, DDP, United etc all get under 12% tops if fore-casted by media, though if people complain enough stand up and vote for the logical party who will bring change and makes this a nation of an evolving nature to be proud of no matter who you are, your a kiwi and I believe Direct Democracy Party and Kelvyn Alp are the choice and answer.