Referendum stats

December 14th, 2013 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The breakdown by the 70 electorates is interesting. The turnout by group was:

  • Below 30% – five electorates
  • 30% to 35% – five electorates
  • 35% to 40% – seven electorates
  • 40% to 45% – 14 electorates
  • 45% to 50% – 30 electorates
  • Over 50% – nine electorates

In terms of the no vote, the breakdown was:

  • Below 50% – two electorates
  • 50% to 60% – 11 electorates
  • 60% to 70% – 29 electorates
  • 70% to 80% – 19 electorates
  • 80% to 90% – 3 electorates
  • Over 90% – 7 electorates (Maori seats)

In terms of overall stats:

  • Not Vote 56.10%
  • Vote No 29.48%
  • Vote Yes 14.25%
  • Informal Vote 0.13%
  • Invalid Vote 0.03%

And comparing the results (the desired percentage voting with them) the petitioners got with previous CIRS:

  1. Reform of justice system 91.8%
  2. Firefighters 87.8%
  3. Anti-smacking law 87.4%
  4. Size of Parliament 81.5%
  5.   67.2%

So it is the closest result of any CIR. No other CIR was below 80% and this was below 70%.

Tags: ,

23 Responses to “Referendum stats”

  1. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    This is the only one that is about a genuine political issue. Smacking, firefighters and general moans about the justice system don’t count.

    If you were to poll all New Zealanders about their attitude towards public ownership, you would probably get an even closer result. The way it came out is due to the government’s incompetence with the sales as much as the question of public ownership.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Spam (588 comments) says:

    In the context of the last general election, what the referendum actually means is that people really, Really, REALLY don’t want “asset sales”.

    But given the choice between “asset sales” and a Labour / Green government, they picked asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    well the government said it wouldnt listen so why the fuck should i bother, people seem to be clutching at straws to try and say why the result is unimportant. It just shows apathy that national will do what they want until the public get tired and chuck them out, same thing happens when labours in power.
    Rising interest rates are the biggest threat to national but they wont do shit to touch the property market so troubles brewing

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    But given the choice between “asset sales” and a Labour / Green government, they picked asset sales.

    No. They wanted a moderate National government that wouldn’t sell assets. National would have got an absolute majority in the last election if it hadn’t been for that stupid policy.

    It’s not hard. A moderate centre right government is the natural party of government in New Zealand. What puts people off is the far right ACToid neoliberal derp. If National could find a way to remove all the Actoids from its supporters and backers (say by stranding them in Antarctica), the party would be a shoo in to win almost any election held.

    National’s problem is that a significant portion of its backers and members are far right fanatics like Matthew Hooton, and New Zealand doesn’t want those far right fanatics. Unless they leave National alone, there will be another “Hollow Men” episode and then another one. The far right are a cancer within the National Party – the only reason that they aren’t in the same boat as other minor groups of nutters such as New Zealand’s Nazis and the legalise pot people is that they have money.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    no one at my work bothered to vote, including me. we all vote national. none of us give a crap about the govt selling some shares.

    this stunt was a waste of money and a flop.

    i would rather have voted on “should shearer and the aussie ginga go to prison for sabotaging the share offering?”

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Moreover, even if you like the idea of mixed ownership, the government’s policy was still a stinker, because this was not the right time to sell, and, as predicted by critics, they’ve received far less than they should had the sale been conducted competently.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    no one at my work bothered to vote, including me. we all vote national.

    Oh tell the truth, Dime. It’s because none of you could read the voting paper. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Johnboy (16,583 comments) says:

    Im really pissed that the Liarbour/Ginga traitors have buggered my share prices.

    Is guilty of sedition followed by rapid execution still an option in peacetime?

    If it’s only during wartime can we quickly/briefly declare war on Samoa or somewhere? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    This makes for ominous reading:

    http://thestandard.org.nz/at-least-225000-nats-said-no-to-asset-sales/

    How do you explain that away Farrar?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Ah Tom, such a try hard. There is an assumption that the figure of 225K is right, first off. Second, who says they wont vote Nat again? Hell, I disagree with some of their policies and Im still voting Nat.

    And as for “The way it came out is due to the government’s incompetence with the sales as much as the question of public ownership.” Yeah, Im calling bullshit on that. After the gweenlab sabotage (well documented elsewhere) the price dropped before listing, nothing to do with incompetence.

    As the share prices post list would show you, the price at list was a good one for the country. But then I guess you’re a SM expert, right? No, Tom, not that SM, the other one…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Michael (909 comments) says:

    Even with 400,000 less registered voters in 1999 than there are now, the referendum for tougher sentencing (arranged by the group that would become the Sensible Sentencing Trust) got twice as many votes – still the biggest endorsement of a referendum in New Zealand’s history. So the Greens should be signing up to harsher sentences on that basis. Hell, even their Justice spokesman at the time (Nandor Tanczos) voted ‘Yes’ in that referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. OneTrack (3,107 comments) says:

    “So the Greens should be signing up to harsher sentences on that basis”

    But they wont be, will they. This was just an utterly cynical attempt to overturn the result of the last election.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. bringbackdemocracy (427 comments) says:

    What is surprising is the low turnout considering it was promoted by three political parties, unions and Grey power.
    Compared to the anti-smacking referendum. 1,470,755 voted NO, to get rid of that undemocratic and unnecessary law and should be ignored according to the hypocrites Norman and Cunliffe and yet the 895,322 who voted NO in this referendum should be listened to.
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1312/S00216/double-standard-of-labour-and-greens-schizophrenic.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    I suppose Key is the most consistent, not caring what the public thinks on any referendum issue at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Ah Tom, such a try hard. There is an assumption that the figure of 225K is right, first off. Second, who says they wont vote Nat again? Hell, I disagree with some of their policies and Im still voting Nat.

    You didn’t read it did you? The 225K is a minimum, and it is in line with polls on the issue.

    Yeah, Im calling bullshit on that.

    You don’t get to call bullshit, since you are always spouting it.

    Now go away and let the grown ups talk.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    “Oh tell the truth, Dime. It’s because none of you could read the voting paper.”

    Yeah, let the grown ups talk…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    OK So it is the closest result of any CIR. No other CIR was below 80% and this was below 70%. However, a few of those stats are a bit meaningless, like that 87% for the firefighters was off the back of a 27% turn-out.

    14% of New Zealand voters support asset sales. Simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    Bollocks to your 14%.

    Two political parties poured resources into maximizing an anti-government-policy protest vote. They managed below 30%. Does that burn any differently than the last general election?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. freemark (580 comments) says:

    “14% of New Zealand voters support asset sales. Simple.” Those 14% are probably the ones who pay all the tax, provide all the jobs, pay for their kid’s education, pay for their own healthcare, and don’t cost us all $Billions in Welfare & Justice. Those votes are worth at least 10x those of bludging smelly ignorant hippies and their EcoCommunist masters. That’s without even including those of us who realise it’s just a WaterMelon stunt therefore wanted no part of the WeferWendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Zapper

    ““Oh tell the truth, Dime. It’s because none of you could read the voting paper.”

    Yeah, let the grown ups talk…”

    So good I said it again for you. Gold :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. itstricky (1,831 comments) says:

    Those 14% are probably the ones who pay all the tax, provide all the jobs, pay for their kid’s education, pay for their own healthcare, and don’t cost us all $Billions in Welfare & Justice.

    I’ve got a violin out the back. I’ll just go and grab it for you. And whilst I’m out by the garage I’ll look for a stone tablet so you can inscribe in it just how much more important than every other human being on earth you are, particularly all those scum suckers who have had dividends effectively “taken off” them, and given to those who could afford them at the time. Sweet deal for the 14%.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Left Right and Centre (2,979 comments) says:

    Simple – vote and be in to win one of five new 4WDs.

    And for the foreigners that use banknotes for loo paper – vote and be in the draw to have your extended family fast-tracked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    No other CIR was below 80% and this was below 70%.

    Actually the CIR was pretty decisive. The no votes outnumbered the yes votes by 2 to 1. So much for Key’s claim that he had a “mandate” for asset sales.

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