Why Kerry lost
October 12th, 2010 at 7:00 am by David FarrarThe impending loss of Kerry Prendergast has some saying that it was due to a bad campaign. But in fact my analysis suggests it was more tactical voting on the left. Kerry in fact got a significantly higher proportion of first preferences in 2010 than 2007.
In 2007 Kerry got 17,910 first preferences, which was 34.9%. She lifted that significantly in 2010 to 21,597 first preferences or 41.0%.
So Kerry’s vote went up by 3,687 or 20.6% relative to her 2007 vote, an absolute lift of 6.1 percentage points.
So I’d say Kerry (probably) lost for three reasons:
- The STV system was better used by the left, with their preferences staying with other left candidates
- There was only one really viable alternative – not three as in 2007
- Celia Wade-Brown did run a good campaign (and other Council candidates campaigned on her behalf)
UPDATE:
I now have fuller details of the preliminary results. As each candidate was eliminated, this is how his votes went:
- Mansell dropped out first with 535 votes which went 10% Kerry, 21% Celia, 54% Others and 15% wasted
- Bernard dropped out second with 1161 votes which went 13% Kerry, 28% Celia, 45% Others and 14% wasted
- Brian dropped out third with 5891 votes which went 15% Kerry, 41% Celia, 21% Yan and 23% wasted
- Jack Yan dropped out fourth with 7,341 votes which went 24% Kerry, 46% Celia and 29% wasted
There were 2,140 people who voted for Jack Yan but did not give either Kerry or Celia a preference.
Related posts:
- Celia favoured to win
- Kerry squeaks home – for now
- Full Results for Wellington City Council
- The Porirua Mayoralty
October 12th, 2010 at 7:39 am
DPF,
Or a more obvious deduction – that she is a polarising personality. Perhaps people either love her or loathe her, so she is not second (or even third?) choice of those who do not give her #1
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 7:44 am
Good analysis. Kerry ran a FPP campaign, Celia Wade-Brown ran a STV campaign. Suggests that Kerry is a more polarising figure.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Two other possible factors that would apply to urban councils:
1. Tendency to vote in an ‘opposite’ manner to the incumbent central government to provide some ‘check’ on central government.
2. The Labour Party machine which includes salaried union officials will get right behind left wing candidates with support. The National Party does not get involved, although individual members would often be involved. In particular National’s paid staff (there are only a handful) AFAIK did not drop everything and get on the local election trail.
IMO C&R in Auckland bungled badly, with a tattered image, problems attracting candidates, and a focus limited to the old Auckland City area.
It makes me wonder whether National should get directly involved with local politics at least in Auckland, but I think on balance National is better to stay out of local politics.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Bit premature aren’t you? On stuff this morning they were saying more of the specials supported Prendergast than expected…
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:11 am
1. In 2010, there were 6 candidates, and Kerry was pretty much was the only candidate from the centre-right; in 2007, there were 11 candidates, and there were other centre-right candidates. This, I suspect, more than accounts for the difference.
2. Voting Kerry last is not “tactical voting” if you don’t want her elected.
3. The STV system was also used well by the right, with all their preferences staying on the right with Kerry.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Voting Kerry last is tactical voting if you do not want her elected. Tactical does not mean wrong.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Odds of Wade-Brown winning on iPredict boosted up to almost 100% recently but is now down around 60 – what caused that i wonder?!
https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=MAYOR.WADE-BROWN
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Almost 200 special votes issued either not returned or disallowed, I’d suggest.
[DPF: But they have minimal effect. Celia needed 52.3% of specials to win, and now needs 52.8%]
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 9:46 am
I’m dubious about the idea of tactical voting – ultimately you come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is rank the people you want in the order you want them, and leave a blank beside the clowns.
I hope Kerry’s loss sends a big WELLYWOOD message that the long-suffering public don’t like jumping through expensive resource consents hoops to add a window to their poxy old villa, while the local Wellywood elite can do a backroom deal with the mayor and by-pass the whole system. If the planning system is so flawed that it needs to be by-passed, then fix it for everyone – not just the mayors friends.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 9:53 am
as I said earlier .. get the bikes and horses out
Vote:I wonder if she will be asking the Govt for a few extra $billion like Lenny B has
October 12th, 2010 at 9:54 am
I saw her on backbenchers .. is she related to the mad Delihunte (whatever her name is)?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 10:21 am
I had understood the generally accepted definition of tactical voting to be voting contrary to your real preference in order to achieve a more favourable outcome (e.g. voting Labour because the Alliance won’t reach 5%, or voting Nikki Kaye to keep Judith Tizard out, even though you really liked Scott Uren (the ACT candidate)). But if you’ve a different definition, I’m not really taking issue with your underlying argument (that they voted intelligently.)
[DPF: Yes I am using tactical as intelligent. Sometimes it means not going with your true preference but not always]
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 10:31 am
I think the specials may be closer than anticipated given a couple of lobby groups that actively supported Predergast.
That said I agree with your summation.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:07 am
The argument about tactical voting is really one about definitions, and I have to side with Graeme Edgeler on this.
According to my definition, with STV there is no such thing as tactical voting: the surest way to get what you want is to vote for exactly what you want, ie to rank the candidates according to your real order of preference. There is no other way to vote which can possibly give you a better chance of getting a preferred outcome.
This is in contrast to FPP where, as Graeme points out, you might decide to vote for your second choice on the basis that they might win wheras your first choice cannot.
It is an advantage of STV that it means (if C W-B wins in Wellington) that more than half of all voters prefer her to KP. By contrast the winner of the Clutha contest did so with just 31% of the vote.
If it is tactical voting to rank your least liked candidate last then every vote is a tactical vote and the term loses meaning.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:11 am
If Celia wins, then it doesn’t mean people on the “left” voted “tactically”. It just means that a (bare) majority of voters preferred her to Kerry. In the case of an election for a single person, STV is clearly the system that best reflects what people want, so no fancy tactics are required.
Vote: