The Electoral Pendulum
Last election Labour got 2% more support on the party vote but it was a near exact tie on the electorate vote with National and Labour not just winning 31 seats each, but receiving a near identical proportion of total electorate votes with National 40.38% and Labour 40.35%.
Now I have put together in excel a little pendulum to calculate what sort of margin is needed in the electorate vote for a seat to go from Labour to National, assuming a standard swing. Of course you never have a standard swing, but it is the only thing to go with. I am using the 2005 election results but adjusted to take account of the 2008 boundaries.
How I have done the calculation is if for example National has a 6% lead in the electorate vote, I take that to be that National gains 3% (half of 6%) at the expense of Labour. You then divide 3% by the overall National electorate vote last time of 40% and apply it to the actual National vote for that electorate.
The bottom line is it means one can look at a poll result, and see what seats would change hands based on the gap between National and Labour on the electorate vote. Now only One News Colmar Brunton publish specific electorate vote results, and their last result was National 52% Labour 34% or a lead of 18%. For other polls one can take the party vote margin as a rough guide to the likely electorate vote margin, as the two tend to follow each other quite closely unless there is a freakishly low party vote result like for National in 2002.
So what are the the seats most vulnerable for Labour, to National. In order they are:
- Taupo -2.6%
- Rotorua -1.1%
- Otaki 0.9%
- Hamilton West 3.2%
- West Coast-Tasman 4.1%
- Palmerston North 13.2%
- Auckland Central 14.1%
- New Plymouth 14.8%
- Waimakariri 16.6%
- Port Hills 17.2%
- Wellington Central 17.6%
- Maungakiekie 22.2%
- Hutt South 24.6%
- Waitakere 25.8%
- Mana 26.6%
- Rimutaka 28.8%
- Dunedin North 29.2%
The negative figures for Taupo and Rotorua indicate they are already National in terms of a paper majority on the new boundaries, and that Labour would need to score more votes nationwide than National to retain those seats on a standard swing.
A 10% electorate vote lead for National would see five seats go to National on a standard swing. At 15% lead it is eight seats and at 18% it is 11 seats. Now on top of those seats, Labour also look likely to lose two (arguably three) seats to the Maori Party so if there is a 18% gap in the electorate vote, Labour would be reduced to 17 or 18 electorate seats and National would have 43 electorate seats.
Now again, swings are never standard. Candidates and regional variations all have an influence. But the pendulum does show what seats may be first to swap hands.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:32 am
The only pendulum I want to see at this election would have a honking big blade on it and there be a pit involved.
Labour in the Poe.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Does anyone know which MPs who currently hold those seats have opted not to go on Labour’s List. I might almost want to start feeling sorry for them … joking.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Does the pendulum account for the recent boundary changes? At a guess I would say no as Hutt South picked up (Red voting) Naenae from Rimutaka, while (Blue-ish voting) Belmont went from Ohariu-Belmont to Rimutaka. I would calculate that they are at least equal, if not slightly closer in Rimutaka.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Yes it is based on the new boundaries, by allocating out polling places and also proportional allocation of special votes.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:46 am
The main electoral pendulum swinging against Labour is going to be a further series of scandals that will be revealed. Unfortunately no one party comes out untarnished.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:00 am
West Coast now a National seat? Boy have times changed!
May 16th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Wouldn’t it be expected that the number seats that go to National will be more than a uniform swing would predict?
In wealthy seats the National vote is almost as high as it can go.
In very poor seats the Labour vote will not dip that much or at least Labour voters will stay at home
So in a lot of the suburban seats such as Waimakariri, Port Hills, Hutt South, Maungakiekie and Waitakere shouldn’t the swing be larger than average and possibly enough to take for National given about a 15% swing nationwide?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Do you have no conception about MMP at all? If Labour and National each got 40% they would still get 40+% of seats in the house. The only time the electoral seats would matter if NZ was still under FPP system, if the a party won more electorate seats than percentage, like the Maori party did in ‘05.
What are you proposing here? That Nats are going to win a whole lot electorate seats which won’t mean anything in the balance of the parliament if they also don’t capitalise in the party vote?
This is another useless expedition into statistics which does nothing to inform or improve on current discourse about the NZ political sysem. Stop thinking in FPP terms and start fighting an MMP battle and ALL parties will benefit.
[DPF: You should a lack of understand of how politics really works, as oppossed to a textbook. Of course electorate seats generally do not affect the overall number of seats but none the less they are of significant importance to parties and of great importance to MPs. Losing electorate seats greatly harms a party]
May 16th, 2008 at 11:46 am
No J J W, we all understand MMP. But don’t you think it would be a bit embarrassing for Labour to fail in the electorates by getting only 18 seats compared to National’s 40? Even a little bit?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I understand MMP much better these days. What it means is that smaller parties sell out their constituents in pursuit of power that would otherwise allude them.. and the large party with the least scruples offers them that power. Viva la democracy!
May 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Wellington Central only slightly more vulnerable than Hutt South and far less so than Hamilton West (where, I’d imagine, income levels would be roughly comparative)?!
Are our public servants really that brainwashed?!
May 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
MMP is a weird system. Frankly there is no purpose in voting a Labour or National MP in an electorate seat anywhere – you can’t influence the election outcome by doing it so your vote is effectively wasted.
The only use of the electorate vote is to get a minor party or independant candidate in. In many cases you then end up with two locals for the price of one, as the Labour or National candidate is in anyway on the list.
As people get more used to how the system works, we should hopefully see more minor party seats (greater diversity of views) until parliament reaches such an overhang that the system needs to be revised.
In my opinion the party vote should only dictate how to allocate the seats left after the electoral seats are filled, which would be clearer and fairer. However until the system is changed, use it to get in good minor party & independent candidates rather than throwing votes away on National and Labour candidates.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
JJW
We all understand MMP perfectly well. David is only making the point about the likely disparity in electorate seats. Labour reduced to 17 electorate seats means a higher proportion of their MPs will come from their list. Whilst this has no practical implications on the overall majority of a likely National led government in the new parliament, there are issues I believe that will arise due to the public’s perception of the usefulness of electorate vs list MPs. Voters generally view the electorate MP as THEIR MP. It is normally to that MPs office that constutients go, particularly lower income constituients. Some list MPs share their non-parliamentary offices with fellow party electorate MPs and in those situations, workloads tend to even out. If these swing numbers hold out, Labour will reduced to a handful of electorate MPs from Labour’s working class urban strongholds and nowhere else.
Whilst some list MPs have done an admirable job at becoming an expert in the issues of particular groups (eg Pansy Wong and Asian voters) and have been able to operate as such at a national level, it is still a truism that most list MPs constituent workloads are less than their electorate MP colleagues. Given that people prefer to deal with an MP from the party they identify with, a result like this has some real implications for the constituency workloads of what will be Labour’s rump of electorate MPs.
There is also an ideological consequence from David’s prediction if it pans out. Labour’s right wing have tended to take their chances as electorate only MPs. Sometimes this is out of necessity due to low list rankings given the penchant for Labour’s Head Office to play PC policeman (sorry person) by ranking candidates from preferred minority groups (gays, Muslims, Pacific Islanders) and its trade union mates. In the list of electorate MPs who would lose to National with an 18% swing, 4 are identified with Labour’s right wing (Harry Duynhoven – New Plymouth, Clayton Cosgrove – Waimakariri, Damien O’Connor – West Coast Tasman and Marty Gallagher – Hamilton West) and you could argue Darren Hughes – Otaki was likely in that camp as well. This has ramifications post election after Clark steps down and the caucus choose her successor. A greatly reduced Labour caucus arising from an 18% swing ideologically would be more to the left than the current caucus and so is more likely to choose a fellow traveller. The smart money would be on Goff but he has always been seen as being on the right of the party despite his senior Cabinet ranking.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
KIA is right about the losses in the electorate seats only exacerbating what it inevitably going to happen
Labour will swing dramatically to the left after the severe spanking coming there way later this year
It take a least the best part of decade for them to start to come to the senses
May 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
KIA – damn good point re Clark’s successor and the likely makeup of the caucus that chooses him or her – one I admit I hadn’t even considered. It certainly does open up a whole new vista of speculation on who they might select. Louisa Wall our next Leader of the Opposition, perhaps?
May 16th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
KIA – you’re on it. O’Connor lost West Coast last time and was saved by the Tasman (Rowling Area). My read at present is that he is not on the list and is ‘gone burger.’ What is going to be interesting is if the swing happens the right weakness will be exposed in Labour leaving:
Laila Haire & Andrew Little and the cloth cap brigade
A few academics trying to hang onto their 60/70’s ideology and
The Rainbow Connection……please let the games begin. We may see Palmer, Moore and Bassett trying to helpout.
Further to David’s comment on the swing: I am hearing informal comment around voting National for electorate MP’s and ACT for party vote to ensure the benches are changed to the right. This however may change if Key either:
shows some testicular fortitude and/or
releases policy
both of which I suspect will come much closer to an election.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Southtop: Good to hear people are working out how to actually use MMP, rather than “two ticks for National”.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Labour’s right leaning MPs survived the post 4th Labour Gov’t purge by the sisterhood by ensuring that they always had the necessary number of financial members to give them the 3rd local (or LEC) delegate on the Labour electorate selection panel to match the Constitutionally mandated 3 Head Office delegates. Clark and Co could demote them down the list all they wanted but the electorate seats were their protection. Clayton Cosgrove used to boast that if he couldn’t win the hearts and minds of his constituents then he didn’t deserve to come back into Parliament on the list and so he’s never even put his name forward for list consideration. As long as they kept the requisite number of financial members they could largely prevent a Head Office purge of right leaning MPs from electorate seats.
MMP, through the power of the list, has the effect of protecting the more ideologically extreme flank of Labour because their electorate MPs are more exposed to the real centre of NZ politics as they must be accountable to a geographically bound group of voters. If a left leaning Labour MP is in favour with the heirarchy then he/she gets the List safety net. Electorate MPs from the right could thumb their noses at Head Office and could fight somewhat against the leadership because under MMP, National voters could safely vote National on the list but keep a seemingly moderate local Labour MP in power. That tactic has worked well for the last 3 elections and has kept the right’s numbers in the Labour caucus at sufficient numbers that Clark is forced to at least listen to them. In their hearts, the sisterhood wanted all Mike Moore and Rogernomics supporters who didn’t fully recant to be exiled.
Labour’s poor polling now will see the loss of the very MPs that have acted as an anchor on Clark’s crew from lurching even futher to the left. When you combine this with the resignations of moderates like Sutton, right leaners like Samuels and experienced lefties like Maharey, the results come post November inside their caucus will not be pretty and, as Rex points out, the resulting Opposition front bench will be more likely from the further left than the current Cabinet. This will make it easier for a Key Ministry to more easily dominate the ideological landscape of NZ politics giving them a good moral mandate to underpin the electoral mandate they will undoubtedly receive.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
The Labour right is of course a meaningful concept at all since JT lost his seat
We had Cosgrove blocking the Canadian purchase of the AIA shares
Goff holding hands with Arafat
I am sure there are a lot more examples people can think of
May 16th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I understand that Clayton has requested to be on the list this year…
May 16th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Rex, your earlier comment about Wellington Central reminded me of Mike William’s comments at the last election – that for all the public servants in Wellington Central, voting National would be like a turkey voting for an early Christmas! I guess that was true to some extent, but with most them now losing 40 percent of all pay increases back to the government I think sentiment has turned.
Property values are also heading South and there is a noticeable drift of private sector workers to Oz. One of my workmates can’t find any flatmates for her flat now the landlord raised the rent. Apparently it is a tenants/flatters market at the moment.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:24 am
Horis
You are correct.
Emmess
Cosgrove and Goff have all done the bidding of their master. Many in the Executive have succumbed to the hubris that seems to infect some who attain Cabinet office. When you add this to classic 3rd term-itis and the left’s inherent Realpolitik (the end justifies the means), we end up with the EFA and other acts of corruption and abuse that have led to the Clark Administration’s litany of shabby and tawdry conduct.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:13 am
To Paraphrase YakeeKiwi: Hulun has ensured that her middle ground electorate friendly centre MP’s will get reamed leaving her/laybore with a bunch of commies and teachers.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Same thing expat.