Party diversity

September 6th, 2011 at 9:25 am by David Farrar

I blog at Stuff:

A number of blogs have done their own analysis of the different party lists, but they have all made the same fatal mistake. They have looked only at the party list, and not at what electorates a party will win. For what counts is not what number someone is at on a party list, but whether that ranking will get them into Parliament. For example, 20 is a great rating on National’s list but a lousy one for the Greens.

On the latest Fairfax poll I find:

National would have 21 female MPs, which is 30% of their caucus

Labour would have 11 female MPs, which is 34% of their caucus

And overall:

So overall on the current poll ratings Labour does slightly better than National with female MPs and Pacific MPs, but National does slightly better with Maori MPs and Asian MPs.

The full blog post details the projected number of female, Maori, Pacific and Asian MPs for National, Labour and the Greens on the Fairfax poll. It also looks at how many MPs of Maori descent in total there would be in Parliament.

Tags: , , ,

11 Responses to “Party diversity”

  1. Longknives (4,390 comments) says:

    You should be a Test Cricket Statistician David!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (7,581 comments) says:

    Diversity is politically correct claptrap.

    It is style over substance which modern government and life in general seems to be about. Spin and bullshit.

    I want competence ,quality and honesety in my representatives,not diversity.

    It is exactly this type of light weight thinking,ie diversity matters,that brought Britain so low. Be warned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. leftyliberal (642 comments) says:

    DPF: You mention 40 electoral seats, yet the other day had 41 listed in the Nats list as “safe” electorates? Is one (or more) of these not considered safe? There might be some interesting dynamics with some of them who you list as making it in on the list who are also in electorates that have the potential to swing this year – eg Leonie Hapeta in Palmerston North by your numbers makes it in on the list, and this may influence the vote in Palmerston North to go with the incumbent as a way of getting two “local” MPs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. David Farrar (1,853 comments) says:

    LL: For the Stuff post I used the iPredict predictions, which currently have Labour picking up Te Tai Tonga, Tamaki Makarau and West Coast-Tasman. I’m not saying these will happen – but they are the only source of public data on electorate races.

    As you note which electorates a party wins, can affect the composition of the caucus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. eszett (2,331 comments) says:

    Bit of a spin really. So National does slightly worse with twice as many MPs. Not a glowing endorsement.

    You really want to compare like with like, you would need to look at the diversity in the top 20, top 40 and top 60 in each list.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Julie from THM (11 comments) says:

    David this is really disappointing. You’ve re-done your figures from the weekend in a way that is even more disingenuous than your last misleading post.

    And you claim that all the other blogs have made the fatal error of not including the electorate seats, despite the fact that I have made the significant effort of including the electorate seat calculations for both Labour and National (and will do so for the Maori Party when that’s available).

    The only reason the figures look rosier for National when you go to 70 MPs is because they ranked a whole heap of women at the bottom of their list.

    Luckily there is a series of blog posts that covers the electorate seats as well as the list rankings for the major parties, and looks at percentages by top 5, top 10, top 20 etc. Strange that you seem to have missed it given this is the second election it’s been done for, but here it is for your readers:
    http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2011/05/womans-place-index-for-2011.html

    (scroll down to the bottom for the 2011 ones, 2008 analysis is at the top).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. emmess (1,367 comments) says:

    I think if National were to get in the mid 50s and Labour in the high 20′s i.e. 2:1
    40 electorates to 25 is not realistic
    That is the loser party doing better than proportional in FPP seats
    I am sure given the non-existence of polls in marginal seats, a mathematical formula could give a rough estimate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. hmmokrightitis (1,506 comments) says:

    I do love this – I suspect for the vast majority of voters this is care factor close to zero. Hows about do a good job, rather than bring sex of the resource doing the job in to it? Or colour, or preference, or whatever. Do a good job, get the rewards. Whenever Im hiring Im looking for the skills and fit with goals and outcomes, not whether some quota is being filled.

    No brainer really :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Brian Smaller (3,981 comments) says:

    Diversity allows Labour to round out it’s ranks with gay teachers and unionists, not just teachers and unionists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. geo_kiwi (43 comments) says:

    I think it will matter in electorates where a large portion of the population is of the same ethnicity as the candidate. Asenati Lole-Taylor, a NZ First candidate, is contesting the Mangere East electorate.

    It may help in Asenati’s case, that she apparently has strong community ties in Mangere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    I think any one of National’s female MPs is better than the entire Labour Wimmin’s Caucus, so why would they need any more of them? You could argue that it was detrimental to democracy, as it’s unfair to completely destroy one’s opposition. This way, some sort of balance in the force is maintained. :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.