Party spending in 2011
March 22nd, 2012 at 1:49 pm by David FarrarThe Electoral Commission has released the party spending returns for the 2011 election. I have done a table of them, and the votes they got and hence the cost per vote.
| Party | Party Vote Expenditure | Votes | Expend per Vote |
| Conservative | $1,878,337.22 | 59,237 | $ 31.71 |
| ACT | $617,035.18 | 23,889 | $ 25.83 |
| Social Credit | $34,676.21 | 1,714 | $ 20.23 |
| Greens | $779,618.38 | 247,372 | $ 3.15 |
| Labour | $1,789,151.95 | 614,937 | $ 2.91 |
| Mana | $60,082.31 | 24,168 | $ 2.49 |
| Māori Party | $72,172.56 | 31,982 | $ 2.26 |
| National | $2,321,216.06 | 1,058,636 | $ 2.19 |
| United Future | $27,718.87 | 13,443 | $ 2.06 |
| Alliance | $2,407.16 | 1,209 | $ 1.99 |
| Libertarianz | $2,759.55 | 1,595 | $ 1.73 |
| NZ First | $155,902.86 | 147,544 | $ 1.06 |
| ALCP | $4,003.00 | 11,738 | $ 0.34 |
The Conservatives spent a massive $31.71 per vote. They actually spent more money than Labour, yet still only got 2.7%. This is proof once again that the impact of money on elections is quite modest.
ACT spent 79% of what the Greens did, yet got just 10% of their vote. Also Social Credit spent a large $20.23 per vote.
Of the two big parties, Labour spent more per vote – $2.91 vs $2.19 for National.
The ALCP were the most cost effective getting a vote for every 34c, followed by NZ First who spent $1.06 per vote.
Note that this is just what the party spent on their party vote campaign. I’ll also do an analysis at some stage which includes the taxpayer funded broadcasting allocation.
Interesting that no party spent up to their limit. National spent up to 88% of their limit, the Conservatives up to 79% and Labour 64%.
Related posts:
- 2008 Spending and Votes
- Union spending in the campaign
- How the Maori Party votes
- Conservatives now registered
March 22nd, 2012 at 2:00 pm
where did NZ First get 150 grand
Vote:March 22nd, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Social Credit still exist?
Vote:March 22nd, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Yeah, go to Dunedin, they have a bit of a following there.
Vote:March 22nd, 2012 at 2:30 pm
shoreboy57 – full name is Democrats for Social Credit.
They campaigned full on in Dunedin and got 11% (188) of the total DSC vote, both candidates were nice guys but with some funny money ideas – maybe they have good ideas but virtually no chance of trying them.
But presumably they didn’t run in all electorates.
Vote:March 22nd, 2012 at 2:32 pm
On those spending figures….. so much for Labour being “bankrupt”.
Vote:March 22nd, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Winnie is lucky he got all that free advertising on the back of the tea pot debacle.
Vote:March 22nd, 2012 at 3:19 pm
How much of the Greens budget was for “removable” stickers?
Vote:March 22nd, 2012 at 4:53 pm
thor42, there is a body of opinion that the CTU and affiliated union losses reported in last year’s accounts were directly related to the Labour campaign. If there is any credence in that opinion, the Labour Party (while undeniably asset-rich) may well be totally cash strapped and resorting to driving the union movement into negative cash-flow positions as they dive into the union fee pot for oxygen.
Vote:March 22nd, 2012 at 5:08 pm
ACT didn’t spend all that much in total, but also clearly are an example of how having an incoherent message (and a leadership team nobody wants to buy) is a problem, irrespective of how much you spend.
Vote:March 22nd, 2012 at 7:23 pm
“This is proof once again that the impact of money on elections is quite modest”
Well… that’s overstating it perhaps. Basically, it shows that you can spend a lot of money and still screw up (Conservatives & Act). The remaining parties fall reasonably close to even a simple linear regression in terms of “money spent” and “votes obtained” (even Social Credit).
[DPF: Yes if you exclude the data that doesn't fit, then of course you get a regression. Conservatives did not screw up - they ran a decent campaign, and spent heaps of money and got very few votes]
Vote:March 22nd, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Since the Conservatives got over twice and many votes as ACT, I think John Key picked the wrong party to have a cup of tea with.
Vote:March 22nd, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Cost per vote figure is quite meaningless by itself.
If you look at cost per seat in parliament, which is the actual outcome that you want to achieve, NZ First is the most effective, with $19.500 per seat.
ACT on the other hand spent a whopping $620k to get a single seat, 10 times as much as Mana.
ACT…………617,035
Vote:Mana…………60,082
Greens………55,687
Labour………52,622
National…….39,343
UF…………….27,719
Maorri……….24,058
NZF…………..19,488
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:41 am
Not necessarily – it could just be that THAT particular conservative party had a unique nutty flavour that sent people running; and ANY amount of spending however big or small would have earned them a similar result?
Vote:March 23rd, 2012 at 12:56 pm
[DPF: Yes if you exclude the data that doesn't fit, then of course you get a regression. Conservatives did not screw up - they ran a decent campaign, and spent heaps of money and got very few votes]
You get a significant result on a simple regression either way you do it. When you leave ACT and the Conservatives in, they just appear as extreme outliers.
I’m not sure I see why cost per vote is such an important index (perhaps you could explain – genuine question). I might spend $10,000 dollars and get 10,000 votes ($1 per vote), you spend $1,000,000 and get 20,000 votes ($50 per vote). At the end of the day, you still won and the money appears to have mattered.
Vote:March 23rd, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Ah yes this is all very interesting but doubtless the most effective spending was the $8 ACT would have spent on a cup of tea that got them 1 seat in parliament and NZF 8 seats in parliament.
Vote: