Archive for the ‘Election 2008’ Category

e-campaigning in 2008 election

December 28th, 2009 at 3:51 pm by David Farrar

A comprehensive study done by the VUW Chair in e-Government on the use of new media by political parties in the 2008 election. 122 pages, so not light reading.

Tags: ,

Maori Party 2008 Campaign

September 30th, 2009 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Bryce Edwards blogs a summary of the Maori Party’s 2008 campaign.

Tags: , ,

Edwards on ACT

September 27th, 2009 at 8:01 am by David Farrar

Bryce Edwards reviews ACT’s 2008 election campaign.

Tags: , ,

Edwards on EFA

September 20th, 2009 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Bryce Edwards continues his excellent summaries of chapters on the 2008 election campaign, with one on NZ First.

Also people will be interested in a draft of an article on how the Electoral Finance Act impacted on third parties last year.

Tags: , ,

2008 election epolitics

July 30th, 2009 at 11:31 am by David Farrar

Another must read from Bryce Edwards:

How well were electronic forms of politics utilised in last year’s general election? How effectively did the political parties and electorate candidates use websites, email, social networking in their campaigning? What about bloggers and the mainstream media? These questions are addressed in a chapter by Peter John Chen about ‘the role, use and impact of online media in New Zealand’s 2008 election’, published in Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the fourth of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in).

Most of the focus is on how parties and candidates used online media, rather than the role of blogs by non candidates. Still very interesting. Labour gets caned for their 2008 e-campaign. No surprise as they had three different websites running.

They also reveal Labour spent around 10% of its advertising budget online and National spent zero.

Tags: ,

Big donations in 2008

May 4th, 2009 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The Electoral Commission has published the list of “big” donations each party received in 2008, big being over $10,000 in value. So which parties got the most big money?

  1. Labour got $431,917 in big donations. Their biggest individual donor was the Vela Family who gave them $100k. The unions gave $117,500 and individuals (mainly from arts/culture sector) gave $134,830. Also a total of $60,000 from corporates and lobby groups, $10,587 from Helen Clark and $9,000 anonymously through the Electoral Commission.
  2. ACT got $315,906 in big donations. John Boscawen gave $101,000, Alan Gibbs $200,000 and $14,906 from Virtual Bucket Ltd!
  3. National got less than half as much as Labour in big donations. They got $207,001. John Key put in $30,000, some other individuals $30,001, $70,000 from corporates and a lobby group, and $77,000 anonymously through the Electoral Commission.
  4. Greens were 4th largest for total big donations on $184,693. These were all individual donations with MPs putting in 70,725 and others $114,238.
  5. NZ First got (assuming this return is accurate – the last three years were not) $111,999. The Velas gave $100,000 to their favourite boy and Sir Patrick Hogan also gave his thanks with $11,999.
  6. The Family Party had $88,044. Destiny Church handed over $10,926, Paul Adams $41,037 and an Elias Kanaris $36,081

National’s level of “big” donations is very small. Part of that will be that some gave in 2007 (2011 will be interesting) but part is that the vast majority of National’s revenue comes from smaller donations. The members alone contribute between $1.5 and $2.0 million a year in small donations I would estimate.

Also somewhat amusingly, NZ First broke the law – again! They received a $2,190 donation from a foreigner on 22 October 2008. As it exceeds $1,000 it has to be paid to the Electoral Commission within 20 working days. They only paid it over on 12 December 2008.

Labour also received an overseas donations in excess of $1,000. They got $10,000 which they had to give up.

Tags: ,

Candidate Expenses and Donations

April 6th, 2009 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Bryce Edwards has some analysis of the candidate expenses and donations.

  • Total candidate expenditure is $2.26m
  • Total disclosed donations to candidates is $1.26m
  • Average spent for a winning candidate is $12,836
  • In only 38 out of 70 (54%) electorates, did the candidate spending the most money win!!
  • The top five spending candidates all lost – Russell Fairbrother, Paul Adams, Nicky Wagner, Ron Mark and Stephen Franks
  • Only 2 of the top ten winning candidates won their seats, and only seven of the top 20.

Bryce also has calculated the average spending per candidate for each party.

The amount spent by candidates on Internet advertising was interesting for me. The top spenders:

  1. Charles Chauvel $5,551
  2. Jills Angus Burney $2,658
  3. Brendon Burns $2,250
  4. Pita Sharples $,2000
  5. Aaron Gilmore $1,318

What did Charles spend $5,551 on?

Tags: , ,

Electoral Finance Act repeal

February 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm by David Farrar

Last week Radio NZ reported:

The Government has begun consulting political parties on an interim electoral finance regime.

The National Party promised before the election last year to repeal the controversial Electoral Finance Law passed in 2007 by the former Labour government.

A spokesperson for Justice Minister Simon Power says the Government is talking with other political parties ahead of drafting the interim regime, to be introduced to Parliament in February.

The Government aims to have it passed through Parliament before 26 February – the end of National’s first 100 days in office.

Under the interim rules, only the section of the 2007 law relating to donations will be retained and relevant sections of the 1993 Electoral Act will be reinstated.

The spokesperson says the Government hopes to have new electoral finance laws in place before the next election.

There are two phases involved in changing our electoral laws. The first is a simple repeal of the Electoral Finance Act, to turn the law back to what it was. This repeal has an explicit election mandate and is a relatively simple law change. It is slightly more complicated by the fact the extra disclosure provisions around donations will be retained in the Electoral Act, but that means there can be no accusations that the EFA repeal is designed to allow large donations without transparencyin the interim.

The Government plans to do the first phase quickly, by the end of February. That suggests no select committee hearings.

That would be wrong if that was the end of the story. But it is not. Phase One is simply going back to the old accepted law. There is an explicit election mandate to do so. It is saying the starting point for future law changes should be the old accepted Electoral Act, instead of the Electoral Finance Act.

But Phase II is the critical phase. You see while the Electoral Finance Act was an abomination that should be be permanently reviled, the old Electoral Act is also a rather flawed Act. In fact the tragedy of the EFA is there were many worthwhile reforms they did not do. Labour just drafted a law designed to screw over its opponents and critics, and shattered the normal conventions around major changes. They also had no election mandate or even public policy process around drafting the law.

It is with Phase II that National must act with integrity, totally opposite to Labour. They need to ensure that both the public, and the other parties have meaningful input into electoral law changes. And it is important that there be both public consultation and multi-party consultation. Consulting with Phil Goff, Russel Norman and Jim Anderton is not a substitute for letting the public have their say – and I don’t mean just a select committee submission once the law has been drafted.

What would I like in terms of public consultation? Well let’s start with the fact we want any law probably passed by September 2010, so there is at least 90 days before it would come into effect in the 2011 election year. That means that you would probably look to have a bill enter Parliament in early 2010. So in reality 2009 – this year – is the year that meaningful public consultation should occur on desirable law changes. How might these take place?

  1. Select Committee Review of 2008 election – this will happen automatically and will be a useful collecting point of all the complaints over the EFA.
  2. Issues Paper – ideally the Government would intially publish some sort of issues paper, and invite feedback on key issues. One might even have some seminars to discuss key issues.
  3. Options Papers – after an issues paper, you might have an options paper. This would set out some clear options for each of the major issues.
  4. Proposed Policy – then again in an ideal world the Government, after consulation with parties, would publish a proposed policy on which law changes would be made. This would allow people to clearly understand and comment on the likely shape of the law
After that, then one could introduce a bill to Parliament. It wouldn’t mean that everyone agrees with every part of it, but that there are no surprises, and everyone has had a chance to have input. They would also of course be able to make a select committee submission.
Now the main problem with my “ideal” process above is it may take too long. A proper period for each distinct consultation can take months as you need time to draft the paper, to approve the paper, to allow comments and feedback on it, to summarise the feedback and then to make decisions on it to start the next consultation. So some phases may get merged together I guess.
Another unknown is whether the review will be just around electoral finance issues, or of the entire Electoral Act. I hope it is of the entire Electoral Act.  The Act is actually still an FPP Act modified for MMP. In an ideal world I’d like to rewrite it from first principles. But again probably too ambitious for 2011. Electoral law reform should be an ongoing but generally incremental process.
It is good Phil Goff has said he supports changes to the EFA. While there will always be disagreements on details of electoral law, it would be good if the bitter partisanship triggered by the outrage known as the EFA subsides. Who knows – one may even be able to get a unanamious vote in favour of its repeal as an interim step?
Tags: ,

Parliamentary Library Election Analysis

December 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pm by David Farrar

The Parliamenary Library has done a 17 page analysis of the election. It’s got some very interesting comparisons with other Parliaments back to 1981 and a demographics analysis.

Tags: ,

Final Results of the 2008 Election Media Study

December 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm by David Farrar

I blogged on the 6th of November some fascinating findings from the preliminary results of an academic study of media coverage of the 2008 election.

The study is based on an analysis of the leading New Zealand newspapers and television news programmes (TV1 and TV3 evening news) over an eight-week time period. The final results are uploaded here as a pdf – new-zealands-media-coverage-of-the-2008-election-study-final-results

The results:

Overall Media coverage:

Labour 38%, National 34%, Maori 8%, Greens 7%, NZF 6%, ACT 4%, UFNZ 2% and Progressive 1%

Negative Media Coverage

  1. National 38%
  2. NZ First 37%
  3. Labour 36%
  4. Progressive 31%
  5. ACT 26%
  6. United Future 21%
  7. Greens 18%
  8. Maori 17%

So National had a higher proportion of negative stories than NZ First!

Net Positive less Negative Coverage

  1. Greens +14%
  2. Maori +13%
  3. United Future +1%
  4. ACT -2%
  5. Labour – 10%
  6. Progressive – 12%
  7. National – 16%
  8. NZ First – 16%

This suggests to me the Greens and Maori Party were not held to the same level of scrutiny as other parties.

What I found interesting was the further breakdown that found news stories were more negative on National, but analysis stories more negative on Labour.

They also compared total media coverage to the result a party got at the election. The difference between the two was:

  1. Maori +6%
  2. Labour +4%
  3. NZ First +3%
  4. United Future +2%
  5. Greens +1%
  6. Progressive 0%
  7. ACT -0%
  8. National – 11%

Then we have the tone of media coverage of the leaders. And the net positive over negative was:

  1. Anderton +14%
  2. Turia/Sharples +9%
  3. Dunne +5%
  4. Clark +3%
  5. Fitzsimons/Norman -4%
  6. Key – 7%
  7. Hide – 15%
  8. Peters -19%

In the preliminary report, Key and Hide had more net negative coverage than Winston. The re-emergence of the Owen Glenn affair obviously resulted in a change for the last two weeks.

A breakdown by media, finds that Key got much more negative coverage on TV than Helen Clark.

In terms of issues, the major ones were:

  • Economy 28%
  • Law & Order 10%
  • Tax 9%
  • Maori Issues 7%
  • Education 7%
  • Immigration 6%
  • Health 6%
  • KiwiSaver/Super 6%

A very interesting, easy to read report.

Tags: , , , ,

2008 Election Results Analysis

December 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm by David Farrar

As there won’t be many posts over the weekend, due to my temporary location of Great Barrier Island, I’ve uploaded for the serious politics geeks my 41 page analysis of the election results by electorate and region, including changes from 2005. Hopefully keep you a bit busy during the drought :-)

2008-final-election-results

The file is around 3 MB and in MS Word. Almost every piece of data you can want is in there. I have not yet added on the split voting statistics though.

Tags:

Split Voting

December 1st, 2008 at 8:17 am by David Farrar

The Chief Electoral Officer has published the E9, which has the official statistics from the election. You used to have to wait months for this to be published. I think it must be a record to have it out within just a week of the final results.

Apart from the detailed results per polling place, they have the vote splitting statistics. The summary tells us 70.4% did not split their votes and 29.6% did split. Of the larger parties, these were the percentage who split their votes (voted for a different electorate candidate to their party vote):

  1. National 14.5%
  2. Labour 22.5%
  3. Maori 39.3%
  4. Green 66.7%
  5. United Future 75.8%
  6. Progressive 77.6%
  7. NZ First 81.9%
  8. ACT 83.6%

National’s low level of vote splitting will help explain why they won so many more electorate seats than Labour. Now let us look at how those who split their votes, did so:

  1. ACT – 72.6% voted for the National candidate, 4.9% Labour cand, 16.4% ACT cand
  2. Green – 10.5% National cand, 47.2% Labour, 33.3% Green
  3. Progressive – 16.8% National, 43.3% Labour, 22.4% Progressive
  4. Labour – 5.0% National, 77.5% Labour, 6.1% Green
  5. Maori – 6.5% National, 18.7% Labour, 60.7% Maori
  6. National – 85.5% National, 3.5% Labour, 4.2% ACT
  7. NZ First – 20.1% National, 43.2% Labour, 18.1% NZ First
  8. United Future – 50.1% National, 12.3% Labour, 24.2% United Future

With the two largest minor parties (in Parliament) we see that 73% of ACT voters voted for the National candidate while only 47% of Green voters voted for the Labour candidate.

We also saw twice as many NZ First voters voted for a Labour candidate than a National candidate.

Also most importantly 86% of National voters supported the National candidate, while only 78% of Labour voters supported the Labour candidate. Even if you exclude the Maori seats this only increases to 79.6%.

One can also look at the split voting in each electorate. A few interesting ones:

  • In Epsom, Rodney Hide got 89% of the ACT voters, 16% of the Greens, 21% of Progressives, 16% of Labour, 33% of Maori Party and 70% of National – over 15,000 National Party voters voted for Rodney.
  • In Mangere 73% of Labour voters voted Sua, and 15% Field.
  • In Nelson Nick Smith got 95% of the National voters, 22% of Labour voters and 19% of Green voters
  • In New Plymouth Harry Duynhoven narrowly lost despite getting 94% of Labour voters, 13% of National voters, 19% of ACT voters and 80% of Green voters.
  • In Ohariu Peter Dunne got 91% of United voters, 44% of National voters and 16% of Labour voters. In 2005 he got 34% of Labour voters.
  • Otaki was a hard fought battle. Nathan Guy got 92% of the National vote and 4% of the Labour vote. Darren Hughes got 91% of the Labour vote and 6% of the National vote.
  • In Tauranga Peters got 90% fo the NZ First voters but only 6% of the National voters and 46% of Labour voters. Sime Bridges got 88% of National voters and 11% of Labour voters plus even 5% of NZ First voters. He even got 27% of Green voters – double what the Labour cand got. Simon also got 30% of the Maori Party voters.
  • In Wellington Central Stephen Franks got 84% of National voters, 77% of ACT, 4% of Labour and 6% of Greens. Robertson triumphed because on top of his 76% of Labour voters he got 57% of Green voters.  A quite large 16% of Labour voters chose Kedgley over Robertson.
  • In WIgram Jim Anderton get 86% of Progressive voters, 58% of Labour voters and 21% of National voters.

It’s great fun analysing these statistics. Now if only we could get split voting stats per polling place!

Tags: ,

MPs now official

November 27th, 2008 at 8:53 pm by David Farrar

The Chief Electoral Officer has announced that as there have been no applications for judical recounts, he has returned the writ declaring the sucessful electorate MPs and the list MPs.

The MPs will be sworn in on Monday 8 December.

Tags:

Kids Voting 2008

November 27th, 2008 at 9:29 am by David Farrar

Local Government NZ, along with NZ Post, ran a simulated election amongst secondary school students alongside the general election. This is a great civics initiative and 13,000 voted.

And those who want a smaller Parliament will be delighted with the results – a Parliament of only 107 MPs!

How is this possible? It is an obscure feature called underhang – the opposite of overhang. Let us look at the results:

  1. National 28.4%, 36 seats, 29 elects, 7 list
  2. Labour 25.0%, 32 seats, 16 elects, 16 list
  3. Bill and Ben Party 11.7%, 15 seats, 0 elects, 15 list
  4. Greens 11.2%, 14 seats, 0 elects, 14 list
  5. Legalise Cannabis 10.5%, 13 seats, 0 elects, 13 list
  6. Maori Party 4.9%, 6 seats, 6 elects, 0 list
  7. ACT 1.9%, 2 seats, 1 elect, 1 list
  8. NZF 1.0%, 1 seat, 1 elect, 0 list
  9. United Future 0.7%, 1 seat, 1 elect, 0 list

Now the Bill and Ben Party only had two candidates (Bill and Ben!) on their party list, so there would be an underhang of 13 MPs for a Parliament of 107. This means to form a Government you need 54 votes. So what would the Government be?

You could do National 36 + ALCP 13 + Maori 6 = 55

More likely is Labour 32 + Greens 14 + ALCP 13 = 59

The electorate seat won by NZ First was actually in Tamaki, so their sole MP would be a Doug Nabbs.

They have given results for each electorate also. Below are the seats where a different party would have won the electorate vote if the kids were the real electors:

  1. Auckland Central – Labour
  2. Bay of Plenty – Labour
  3. Dunedin North – National
  4. Invercargill – Labour
  5. New Lynn – National
  6. Rimutaka – National
  7. Tamaki – NZ First
  8. West Coast-Tasman – Labour
  9. Whanganui – Labour
  10. Wigram – National
  11. Ikaroa-Rawhiti – Maori

It is great to see the kids encouraged to take part in mock elections and vote. The results do show though why the Greens are bonkers with their campaign to lower the voting age to include 16 and 17 year old schoold students.

Tags: , ,

2008 Election Results – Green Party Vote

November 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm by David Farrar

1

Wellington Central

20.6%

2

Rongotai

17.0%

3

Dunedin North

15.8%

4

Auckland Central

15.5%

5

Port Hills

13.8%

6

Christchurch Central

11.2%

7

Mt Albert

11.0%

8

West Coast Tasman

10.9%

9

Nelson

9.4%

10

Ohariu

9.1%

11

Mana

8.4%

12

Ilam

8.2%

13

Dunedin South

8.0%

14

Hutt South

7.7%

15

New Lynn

7.6%

16

Coromandel

7.6%

17

Selwyn

7.5%

18

Northland

7.3%

19

Christchurch East

7.2%

20

Hamilton East

7.2%

21

Te Tai Tonga

7.2%

22

Kaikoura

7.0%

23

Waitaki

7.0%

24

Wigram

6.9%

25

Epsom

6.9%

26

Northcote

6.7%

27

North Shore

6.6%

28

Palmerston North

6.5%

29

Waitakere

6.5%

30

New Plymouth

6.4%

31

East Coast

6.4%

32

Tukituki

6.0%

33

Whangarei

6.0%

34

Rimutaka

5.9%

35

Wairarapa

5.7%

36

Otaki

5.6%

37

Napier

5.5%

38

Maungakiekie

5.5%

39

Rangitikei

5.4%

40

Waimakariri

5.4%

41

Tamaki

5.3%

42

Whanganui

5.3%

43

Rodney

5.2%

44

Clutha Southland

5.1%

45

Hamilton West

5.1%

46

Rotorua

5.0%

47

Taranaki-King Country

5.0%

48

Helensville

4.9%

49

Bay of Plenty

4.9%

50

Tauranga

4.6%

51

Taupo

4.5%

52

Mt Roskill

4.3%

53

Invercargill

4.3%

54

Rangitata

4.2%

55

East Coast Bays

4.1%

56

Tamaki Makaurau

4.0%

57

Te Atatu

4.0%

58

Waikato

3.9%

59

Pakuranga

3.6%

60

Te Tai Hauauru

3.5%

61

Te Tai Tokerau

3.5%

62

Hunua

3.4%

63

Hauraki-Waikato

3.2%

64

Ikaroa-Rawhiti

3.2%

65

Papakura

3.0%

66

Waiariki

2.7%

67

Botany

2.4%

68

Manurewa

2.2%

69

Mangere

2.0%

70

Manukau East

1.8%

The Greens did exceptionally well in Wellington achieving 20.6% in Wellington Central and 17.0% in Rongotai. Also above 15% was Dunedin North and Auckland Central.

In eight seats they got over 10%, and in 23 seats, over 7%.

Their median seat was Wairarapa on 5.7%. This is less than their average of 6.7% so their strong seats drags them up considerably.

Their worst seats were Manukau East and Mangere.

Tags: ,

2008 Election Results – National Party Vote

November 24th, 2008 at 8:50 am by David Farrar

1

Helensville

63.7%

2

Epsom

62.6%

3

East Coast Bays

61.4%

4

Botany

61.2%

5

Hunua

60.6%

6

Tamaki

60.2%

7

Clutha Southland

59.9%

8

Pakuranga

59.7%

9

Taranaki-King Country

59.5%

10

Rodney

59.0%

11

Bay of Plenty

58.7%

12

North Shore

58.1%

13

Waikato

57.4%

14

Selwyn

54.9%

15

Tauranga

54.3%

16

Taupo

53.6%

17

Ilam

52.8%

18

Rangitikei

52.4%

19

Kaikoura

51.8%

20

Northland

51.7%

21

Coromandel

51.7%

22

Papakura

51.5%

23

Waitaki

51.4%

24

New Plymouth

50.5%

25

Northcote

50.4%

26

Rotorua

50.3%

27

Tukituki

50.2%

28

Whangarei

50.0%

29

Hamilton East

49.5%

30

Waimakariri

49.4%

31

Wairarapa

48.7%

32

Rangitata

48.6%

33

East Coast

47.6%

34

Invercargill

47.5%

35

Napier

47.3%

36

Whanganui

46.3%

37

Ohariu

46.3%

38

Hamilton West

46.0%

39

Otaki

44.8%

40

West Coast Tasman

44.1%

41

Maungakiekie

42.5%

42

Nelson

42.5%

43

Mt Roskill

42.1%

44

Te Atatu

41.5%

45

Waitakere

41.2%

46

Palmerston North

40.7%

47

Rimutaka

40.7%

48

New Lynn

40.1%

49

Auckland Central

40.1%

50

Wigram

37.9%

51

Hutt South

37.8%

52

Port Hills

37.7%

53

Christchurch Central

37.6%

54

Mana

36.7%

55

Christchurch East

35.7%

56

Mt Albert

35.7%

57

Wellington Central

35.4%

58

Dunedin South

34.2%

59

Rongotai

31.4%

60

Manurewa

30.3%

61

Dunedin North

29.4%

62

Manukau East

24.2%

63

Mangere

16.4%

64

Te Tai Tonga

11.1%

65

Te Tai Tokerau

9.3%

66

Tamaki Makaurau

7.4%

67

Hauraki-Waikato

7.2%

68

Te Tai Hauauru

6.6%

69

Waiariki

5.5%

70

Ikaroa-Rawhiti

4.9%

On a percentage basis Helensville had the best party vote for National at 63.7% followed by Epsom and East Coast Bays.

Six electorates got over 60% party vote, and 28 electorates got over 50% party vote. 49 electorates got over 40% party vote.

Waimakariri in 30th place was the highest polling seat of those National did not win but contested. Auckland Central in 49th place had the lowest party vote percentage of the seats National did win.

The median electorate is Napier on 47.3%.

Apart from the Maori seats Mangere, Manukau East and Dunedin North were worse for National on 16.4%, 24.2% and 29.4%.

Tags: ,

2008 Election Results – Overall Results

November 23rd, 2008 at 7:20 pm by David Farrar

Party

Party Votes

% of all Party Votes

% of effective party vote

National

1,053,398

44.93%

48.08%

Labour

796,880

33.99%

36.37%

Greens

157,613

6.72%

7.19%

ACT

85,496

3.65%

3.90%

Maori

55,980

2.39%

2.55%

Progressive

21,241

0.91%

0.97%

United Future

20,497

0.87%

0.94%

SUB-TOTAL

2,191,105

93.40%

100.00%

NZ First

95,356

4.07%

Bill & Ben

13,016

0.56%

Kiwi

12,755

0.54%

Legalise Cannabis

9,515

0.41%

Pacific

8,640

0.37%

Family

8,176

0.35%

Alliance

1,909

0.08%

Democrats

1,208

0.05%

Libertarianz

1,176

0.05%

Workers

932

0.04%

RAM

465

0.02%

Republic of NZ

313

0.01%

TOTAL

2,344,566

100.00%

Right

1,138,894

48.58%

Centre

76,477

3.26%

Left

975,734

41.62%

R – L

163,160

6.96%

National is I think the first party to ever get more than one million votes – around 164,000 more than in 2005. Labour got around 138,000 fewer votes than in 2008. The Greens got 37,000 more than 2005 but their percentage of the votes is less than what they got in 2002.

There was a very large 6.6% wasted vote. This saw National’s 44.9% of the total vote become 48.1% of the effective vote, and hence they got 58 seats.

The Bill & Ben Party beat all the other non parliamentary parties, except NZ First. Neither Kiwi, Family nor Pacific make 1%, let alone close to 5%.

Tags:

2008 Election Results – Overall Changes

November 23rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm by David Farrar

Party

Party Vote Change %

2008 Party Vote %

2005 Party Vote %

National

5.83%

44.93%

39.10%

Labour

-7.11%

33.99%

41.10%

Greens

1.42%

6.72%

5.30%

ACT

2.14%

3.65%

1.51%

Maori

0.27%

2.39%

2.12%

Progressive

-0.25%

0.91%

1.16%

United Future

-1.86%

0.81%

2.67%

SUB-TOTAL

-5.28%

93.40%

98.68%

NZ First

-1.65%

4.07%

5.72%

Others

1.17%

2.48%

1.31%

TOTAL

100.00%

100.00%

Right

7.97%

48.58%

40.61%

Centre

-7.31%

3.26%

10.51%

Left

-5.94%

41.62%

47.56%

R – L

13.91%

6.96%

-6.95%

You can see above that National climbed 5.8% above its 2005 party vote and Labour dropped 7.11%.

Overall the right vote went up 8.0% and the left dropped 5.9%. Also the vote for centre parties that made the threshold dropped 7.3%.

So overall the right vote went from 7.0% behind in 2005 to 7.0% ahead in 2008.

Tags:

Final 2008 Election Results

November 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm by David Farrar

The Chief Electoral Officer has published the final results of the 2008 election.

National has lost one seat to the Greens, so Cam Calder becomes MP in Waiting and Kennedy Graham joins the House. He is the brother of Sir Douglas Graham, and this may be a record for siblings to represent different parties.

Those who followed my advice on iPredict that the National to lose one seat stock was under-priced, should be happy today.

The final (and provisional) results are:

  1. National 44.93% (45.45%) – 58 (59) seats
  2. Labour 33.99% (33.77%) – 43 seats
  3. Green 6.72% (6.43%) – 9 (8) seats
  4. ACT 3.65% (3.72%) – 5 seats
  5. Maori 2.39% (2.24%) – 3 seats + 2 overhang
  6. Progressive 0.91% (0.93%) – 1 seat
  7. United Future 0.87% (0.89%) – 1 seats
  8. NZ First 4.07% (4.21%) – 0 seats

There were 2,103,842 votes counted on election night the final count is 2,356,536 – so an increase of 252,694.

Lots more analysis to come.

UPDATE: Have just applied the St Lague formula. National was at massive risk of losing a second seat as they hold Spot 120.  Labour are in 121. National’s quotient is 9160.0 while Labour’s quotient is 9159.5.

If Labour had 40 more voters turn up (that is less than one voter per seat), then Damien O’Connor would be back in Parliament and Aaron Gilmore would have missed out. Or if 22 people who voted National had voted Labour, then Labour would have 44 seats and National 57.

That is about as close as it can get. National could still pass laws with either Maori or ACT on 57 or 58 seats, so wouldn’t have changed the dynamics.

Tags:

Young holds New Plymouth

November 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm by David Farrar

The Taranaki Daily News reports that National’s Jonathan Young has held onto New Plymouth by 100 votes or so. His election night majority was 314. Congratulations to Jonathan.

The fact the newspaper can publish this the day before the Chief Electoral Office publishes all the final results, shows how wrong their policy is to keep all the final results secret until the last one is done. Election results should be disclosed the moment they have been certifed and checked as correct. There is no redeeeming value in having the Chief Electoral Office keep them secret so it can release all 70 of them at the same time.

Each electorate gets through its final count at a different pace. Once the final count has been certified, and sent to Wellington, then it should be published as soon as possible after the Chief Electoral Officer has verified it.

By delaying the final counts, you get two classes of citizens. People like me have had progress reports from people on the ground scrutineering at some of the counts. So I know stuff such as the fact the majority in one marginal seat has grown to almost 1,500, not shrunk. But this should be public to everyone – not just a few insiders.

It would also allow those three candidates affected by the party vote count (National’s Cam Calder, Labour’s Damien O’Connor and the Greens Kennedy Graham) to have a pretty good idea by now of whether any of them are in or out.  Why keep them waiting another day just for the sake of a stage managed announcement?

I’ll be adding to my list of desired electoral law changes, that the Chief Electoral Office should release all results the moment they are certified correct, and not hold them back for one big announcement.

Tags: , ,

Scoop’s electorate predictions

November 20th, 2008 at 10:27 pm by David Farrar

I blogged the predictions Scoop made before the election for the electorates. Figure one should see how they went. This was the original article. I am only scoring seats which were seen as close.

  • Waitakere: This considered, it is difficult to predict for whom the Waitakere bell is likely to toll. Be ready to see a close result within 1000 votes either side. Prediction: Wins for National’s Key,and Labour’s Cunliffe, Carter, and Pillay. Wrong. Score 0/1
  • Auckland Central: Prediction: Tizard will lose Auckland Central by around 2000 votes. Correct. Score 1/2
  • Maungakiekie: Look for National to win Maungakiekie by around 1500 votes.. Correct. Score 2/3
  • Hamilton West: Prediction: Too close to call. Incorrect – Macindoe by 1,500. Score 2/4
  • Taupo: Prediction: As credible and affable as Mark Burton is, his political days have already peaked and Taupo looks set to become blue. Correct. Score 3/5
  • Tauranga: Prediction: Look for Pankhurst to poll third behind Winston Peters, who in turn will lose to Bridges by at least 3000 votes. Correct even though was over 10,000 votes. Score 4/6
  • Rotorua: Prediction: Look for National’s Todd McClay. And he did. Score 5/7
  • New Plymouth: Prediction: Do not be surprised if the result in New Plymouth is closer that one would expect. Harry will be back, but National will comfortably outpoll Labour here in the all important party vote. Incorrect – Harry’s gone. Score 5/8
  • Palmerston North: Prediction: Polish the shoes Iain, you are Parliament-bound.. Correct. Score 6/9
  • Otaki: Prediction: Don’t worry Darren, you’ll lose your support-base but at 19 on the Labour list, you’re back in with a grin. Correct. Score 6/9
  • Wellington: In Wellington there will be no change worth getting excited about. Labour is heading for comfortable wins in Rongotai (Annette King), Wellington Central (Grant Robertson), Mana (Winnie Laban), Hutt South (Trevor Mallard), and Rimutaka (Chris Hipkins). Correct for WC and Rimutaka so 8/11
  • WCT: Prediction: Damien, you have a slim chance thanks to Auchinvole. Damien lost. Score 8/12
  • Waimakariri: Prediction: Cosgrove by a whisker thanks to Waimak still being a bloke’s kind of place. Correct. Score 9/13
  • Chch Ctl: Prediction: Too close to call but if the Cantabrians are not feeling too parochial, then Duke, you might just get the nod! Correct. Score 10/14

10/14 isn’t too bad, and Scoop also gets big kudos for actually making hard predictions.

Tags: ,

Special Vote Count

November 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm by David Farrar

Unlike previous years, the Chief Electoral Officer will not be releasing the final count (including specials) progressively as each electorate is finalised. They will all be released this Saturday.

However some electorates will have observers there for the count of the specials. This may give some indication as to the overall trend. Therefore, if anyone out there gets any info on how the specials have gone locally, could you e-mail them to me. If I get half a dozen or so, then I should be able to make some predictions on how many list seats, if any, will change hands due to the specials.

Tags: ,

The Maori Seats

November 17th, 2008 at 12:32 pm by David Farrar

Labour won the party vote easily in all seven Maori seats. Their party vote ranged from 45% to 57%, and the Maori Party ranged from 21% to 34%. Waiariki was closest with an 11% gap and Ikaroa-Rawhiti had a 31% gap.

In 2005 Labour ranged from 49% to 58% and Maori Party from 18% to 31% so not much change on the party vote.

National in 2005 got from 2.7% to 7.4% in the Maori seats. In 2008 it was from 5.5% to 10.9% so a very small improvement there.

The electorate votes we start from Te Taik Tokerau in the North. Hone Harawira won it by 3,600 in 2005 over Dover Samuels. This time he has a 5,500 majority.

Pita Sharples evicted John Tamihere from Tamaki Makaurau by 2,100 in 2005 and holds it over Louisa Wall by a massve 6,300.

In Waiariki, Te Ururoa Flavell won by 2,900 in 2005. In 2008 he doubles that to 6,000.

Nanaia Mahuta held onto Tainui by 1,860. The boundary changes to Hauraki-Waikato did not favour her, so she did well to hold on by 1,046.

In Te Tai Hauauru, Tariana Turia won by 5,000 in 2005 and this time he rmajority is almost 7,000.

The big battle was in Ikaroa-Rawhiti. Parekura held off Atareta Poananga by 1,932 in 2005, and Poananga’s former partner, Derek Fox, challenged in 2008. But Fox fell short by 1,609.

Finally in the South, Te Tai Tonga was held by Mahara Okeroa in 2005 by 2,500. New Maori Party candidate Rahui Katene beat him by 684 votes in 2008.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Could specials change any electorates?

November 17th, 2008 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

I’ve previously blogged on whether specials may change any allocation of List MPs. The other question is whether any seats held by narrow majorities could change due to specials. The answer is yes, but unlikely.

The most marginal seat is New Plymouth – Jonathan Young got 48.6% of the vote to 47.6% for Harry Duynhoven. There were 32,029 valid votes. There are 2,351 known specials for the seat and we estimate 1/70th of the 32,000 overseas specials, so the numebr of specials is predicted to be 2,808.

The specials would have to be 6.1% better for Labour and worse for National for Harry to win. Or in other words they would need to go Harry’s way 53.7% to 42.5%.

In Auckland Central Nikki Kaye beat Judith Tizard by 1,181 votes. However there are a large 6,420 specials plus overseas votes. Niiki beat Judith 43.0% to 38.8%. Judith would need to win the specials 49.5% to 32.3% to close the gap.

In Christchurch Central, Nicky Wagner would need specials to go her way 53.3% to 32.2% – 12.1% better than on the day.

New Plymouth looks to be the only seat which could seriously change, and even that isn’t very likely.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

National – Maori Party Agreement

November 16th, 2008 at 7:57 pm by David Farrar

Well John Key did it, he has 70 votes to 52 in Parliament, and has forged an agreement with the Maori Party that makes Labour’s chance of winning in 2011 a lot harder.

The agreement is here.

  • Establish a group by 2010 to review constitutional issues, including Maori seats

Oh this will be fun. I love constitutional issues. There are so many – the Crown, the Treaty, the Bill of Rights, a written constitution, the Electoral Act etc etc.

  • National not to remove the Maori seats without the consent of Maori, and the Maori Party not to seek to entrench them in the current term.

Absolutely predictable.

  • Review the Foreshore & Seabed Act by end of 2009. If there is a repeal, All NZers will be guaranteed access to foreshore and seabed.

Labour’s legislation was wrong. I will not be surprised if the eventual agreement is to scrap it, but to legislate for access rights for all NZers.

  • Pita Sharples to be Minister of Maori Affairs, and Associate Education and Corrections
  • Tariana Turia to be Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, Associate Health, and Associate Social Development and Employment

I think Sharples will be a very good Maori Affairs Minister. There is some potential for conflict in Corrections between what National/ACT want to do, and what his instincts might say. But also areas of commonality such as the privately managed prison that had rave reviews from local Iwi.

  • Maori Party to agree on Chairperson of Maori Affairs Select Committee, who will be a National MP.

If Georgina and Tau both make Cabinet, then I would guess this could be Hekia. But if one of the two existing Maori MPs misses out, then that one.

Incidentially there may be five Maori Ministers – Georgina, Tau, Paula, Pita and Tariana.

  • All Maori MPs and MPs with an electorate larger than 20,000 sq kms to get a third Out of Parliament staff member

I would rather decisions like this are made through the Parliamentary Service Commission. But this was recommended by the Goulter review, and two offices are not enough for some of those large electorates.

Quote of the day goes to Hone Harawria:

“In three days, National offered us more than Labour did in three years,” said one of its MPs, Hone Harawira.

If Labour had gone with the Greens and the Maori Party in 2005, they wouldn’t have had to put up with effectively condoning Winston’s antics.

Tags: , , , ,