About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

October 4, 2017 4:00pm by David Farrar

Where do Greens do best for votes?

Whale Oil takes an interesting look at where the Greens do best in the party vote. The results may surprise you.

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment39

Uncategorized
Greens

Related Stories

2018 party donations
Stupid Greens
How the Greens could massively increase their leverage

Comments (39)

Login to comment or vote

s.russell

Whale Oil’s analysis is pretty meaningless really.

1) He observes that the Greens did poorly in poor electorates. Well of course. The Greens are not a party for poor people, they are a party for Chardonnay-drinkers who emote about poor people. This is not new.

2) He also suggests that that the fact the Greens do better in wealthier National-voting seats is evidence that Green voters prefer National to Labour. No. That is not a logical conclusion. The correlation is explained by point 1) above. The fact that other voters in those electorates like National does not mean that Green voters in those electorates like National too.
35 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 4:14pm
- BlairM
  
  Him no so smart. And yes, the Greens have always been the real party of rich white people. Yet another reason why ACT should stop chasing the few dozen urban liberals who like capitalism.
  
  18 1
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 4:52pm
  - Camryn
    
    Polling booth analysis of my own electorate would agree with that. The local theory is stay-at-home parents “guilt voting” Green to “balance out” their breadwinning partner voting National.
    
    23 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    October 4, 2017 5:00pm
- cmm
  
  But the point is the Chardonnay sucking Green supporters don’t actually want to swill it with the blue collar/white gumboot crowd.
  
  They have some common political goals with Labour and are prepared to tolerate them on that basis, but not actually mix with them.
  
  Engels and Marx were the first Chardonnay socialists: they didn’t slum it with the workers (nor did they work). Nope, they lived it up having massive parties, supported by allowances from their capitalist families.
  
  It is far easier for National to sell itself across different classes than either the Greens or Labour because National have not been trying to work class division for their political agenda.
  
  26 1
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 5:09pm
  - Tillwin
    
    Well said.
    National =National;
    Labour= WTF
    
    3 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    October 4, 2017 9:22pm
- Ross12
  
  I think the key sentence in the article is
  “The Green membership is clearly not at all the same as the Green voters.”
  I think there would be quite a few like Lance Wiggs, who in a column in the NBR pushed for a Nat/Green alliance and admitted he voted for Nicky Kaye but gave his party vote to the Greens.
  The point being it is the die hard Green members who hold back any ideas of change but there are a significant number of people out there who gave their party vote, at least, to the Greens who are not members and would like to see them take a different tact. Obviously if they want that to happen in the future they will have to become party members.
  
  7 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 6:02pm
stevedawgnz

I actually think that’s a pretty poor analysis of the trends, as it essentially ignores the interplay between Green-Labour competition for proper lefties, and Labour-National competition for centrists.

Far better is this one, despite the pathetic caption on the opening image:
http://vjmpublishing.nz/?p=4830
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 4:19pm
Rich Prick

The Green Party has, by far, the best looking women, but that couldn’t prevent their party vote from collapsing at the 2017 General Election

Funny how they start with that, then go on to explain that the Greens shed support from precisely the demographics that would be least influenced by “looks”. In short, Meteria fucked it completely.
16 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 4:28pm
- cmm
  
  “The Green Party has, by far, the best looking women”. Maybe right now that is true, but the same didn’t hold true when op-shop-dressed Bradford and co were the vogue.
  
  12 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 5:11pm
kowtow

In the top 10 he’s left out Dunedin North with 4081. Suggesting students , Turei admirers etc were still big on the Watermelons. That was a strong Labour seat , though a high profile Gnat , Woodhouse ran there , he was well thumped.
10 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 4:37pm
Huevon

Doctors’ wives…
13 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 5:03pm
DifferentPerspective

Soo…. we’re surprised that the Greens appeal to vapid virtue-signallers in the middle class?

Not really!
16 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 5:07pm
- stevedawgnz
  
  This is the equivalent of a leftie saying National voters are all selfish.
  
  Uninsightful & unhelpful.
  
  1 4
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 5:18pm
Sir Cullen's Sidekick

Greens are a party of fools led by the biggest idiot James Waste of Space Shaw who will warm the opposition benches for another 3 years.
15 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 5:12pm
- cmm
  
  Green voters/supporters are primarily female.
  
  They will keep him as the co-penis because he shuts up and listens to women as he learned to do in a two-mum household.
  
  14 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 5:21pm
  - Paulus
    
    When his new Joint leader Golriz Ghahraman takes over he will be severely shadowed.
    Unlike the fraudster she has high ambition and is a great Human Rights activist.
    And a very supportive political writer partner, for the Herald.
    
    7 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    October 4, 2017 5:34pm
    - Sir Cullen's Sidekick
      
      Julie Ann Gentleman will be the new co-co-leader.
      
      1 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      October 4, 2017 5:37pm
- Manolo
  
  Let us hope so!
  
  1 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 6:42pm
- Paulus
  
  It is in opposition that the Greens want to be so they can spend all their time bitching and complaining at everything.
  Imagine being party to Labour having to accept what the sharing agreement means and having to accept the cabinet decision even if they has a member there.
  Cabinet Responsibility.
  At the same time labour will use them unmercifully and piss all over them again as Clark did before. Do they not recognise that Labour has even less time for them than National even.
  The 93% who did not vote for them are similarly inclined.
  Chardonnay drinking middle class, well educated, principally women, Socialists.
  Generally despised by almost all.
  
  0 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 5, 2017 1:13pm
Huevon

Wellington Central needs a decent purge.
7 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 5:13pm
- cmm
  
  The only way to do that is to provide a better trough for them to put their snouts into.
  
  6 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 6:49pm
Sir Cullen's Sidekick

Folks – here is my theory of why Winnie will end up with National.

1. Winnie can’t stomach Greens in the cabinet. So he will tell Tooth Fairy to kick Greens out. Greens will say if you kick us out, we will support National. Tooth Fairy will relay this information to Winnie.

2. Winnie will have no option except to go with National.
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 5:34pm
- Rich Prick
  
  That, or Winston will lose a seat on the specials, the Greens won’t pick one up (why would the specials buck the election trend – they shed half their support as it was) and National picks one or two up from all of that and from redistributed Maori Party votes from Australia, Cindy gets her wish not to be PM, and we’re all happy.
  
  9 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 6:09pm
  - Captain Mainwaring
    
    Hope you’re right Cullen.
    
    6 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    October 4, 2017 6:30pm
  - s.russell
    
    The clear historical pattern is that Special Votes are cast by a slightly different group from ordinary votes. and that group is much more Left-Wing.
    
    In 2014, when specials were added into the count National’s proportion of the total vote declined by a full percent. Labour and the Greens got a higher proportion of special votes than ordinary votes, hence their total percentage rose.
    
    The number of special votes at this election is up a third on 2014.
    
    Maori Party votes don’t get redistributed to National. They simply drop out of the count (as far as seats are concerned) and make no difference.
    
    I’d love for National to gain seats on the final count. But the chances of that happening are extremely remote.
    
    5 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    October 4, 2017 6:48pm
    - Rich Prick
      
      The clear historical pattern is that Special Votes are cast by a slightly different group from ordinary votes.
      
      An oft repeated “fact” by the media, but only because it saw seats change hands in 2014, and that got the media fizzing. I hope I’m not wrong, but I don’t think this election will see that effect.
      
      3 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      October 4, 2017 8:24pm
- Captain Mainwaring
  
  Hope you’re right too RP.
  
  3 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 6:29pm
David Garrett

FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!

Where does this myth regarding “redistributing party votes” for a party failing to get 5% (or an electorate seat) come from?

Here’s the relevant section of the Electoral Act 1993:

section 191 …..
……
(4)

The Electoral Commission must disregard any total under the name of any party that—

(a)
has not achieved a total that is at least 5% of the total number of all the party votes received by all the parties listed on the part of the ballot paper that relates to the party vote; and

(b)
is a party in respect of which no constituency candidate who is either—

(i)
a candidate for that party; or

(ii)
a candidate for a component party of that party (being a component party that is not listed on the part of the ballot paper that relates to the party vote but is, in accordance with the details held by the Electoral Commission under any of the provisions of sections 127(3A) and 128A, a component party of that party)—

The “wasted party votes” are just that: wasted! They ARE NOT redistributed to other parties in any way shape or form (to invoke that wonderful old cliche)
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 7:15pm
- Rich Prick
  
  Yes, it’s a lazy expression, but as I understand it because the final ballots aren’t counted all votes are still in the numbers. Once the sub-5% and no electorate Parties are out of the total vote the arithmetic effect is that the proportions of votes cast against a total changes due to wasted votes disregarded. The Maori Party is significant because it involves so many votes and National benefits the most by being the biggest on the night. Of course the votes aren’t reallocated, but proportionality is. 4 out of 10 is 40%, 4 out of 8 is 50%.
  
  4 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 7:54pm
David Garrett

RP: Well, maths isn’t my strong point, but reading a fucking law – especially one as clear as that – is!

This “reallocation” myth is quite widely held…I am damned if I know where it came from…nothing the Electoral Commission has ever said – to the best of my knowledge – suggests any such reallocation…

Section 191 (4) is a clear as can be: those party votes for a party receiving less than 5% are disgregarded… ” the Electoral Commission MUST DISREGARD [those votes]…” It could hardly be plainer, surely?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 7:51pm
- Rich Prick
  
  Yes, that’s the position when all votes are finally counted and declared. We at best have an interim result at the moment.
  
  2 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 7:56pm
  - Rich Prick
    
    I should say, we at best have an interim result at the moment with Maori, TOP and the other party votes in the total vote numbers until the count is declared. Then the disregarding happens and the result is declared. My understanding is that just can’t happen until the specials are in.
    
    1 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    October 4, 2017 8:07pm
    - David Garrett
      
      RP: No, logically you are right…I guess at least theoretically, half the specials could be for TOP, so the disregarding can’t happen until they are all in…
      
      But I just don’t understand where this “reallocating votes” idea comes from, and it irritates me every time I see it…YES, I am a grumpy old prick!
      
      4 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      October 4, 2017 9:12pm
      - Rich Prick
        
        It’s a product of the simpletons in the media trying to understand what the recalculation of proportionality means. They need tangible things like vote ballots to explain it. I think they are just that simple. Or they estimate their audience by their measure.
        
        2 0
        Report
        October 4, 2017 9:32pm
- BlairM
  
  The votes themselves are not redistributed. However, because their presence lowers the percentage share of other parties before they are discarded, it gives the appearance that those votes bolster the percentage share of other parties when that happens. In reality, those votes should be regarded as if they don’t exist. It is therefore misleading when those votes are included to produce percentages for successful parties that aren’t accurate and won’t reflect their share of seats.
  
  0 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 5, 2017 6:30am
Colville

Dad works, earns lots and votes blue.
Mum stays home, ferries Sally and James to school (in the merc SUV) wearing yoga pants, drinks soy lattes and votes Green. But tells Dad she votes blue.
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 4, 2017 8:48pm
- Captain Mainwaring
  
  So right Colville. But since Jacindazilla, they’ve also gone there.
  Why did women ever get the vote? We will have them to thank for fucking the country.
  
  3 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 4, 2017 9:18pm
Catons

I pray the specials drop the Greens below 5%. Then we can have a majority National Government.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 5, 2017 8:17am
- jcuk
  
  Wishful thinking I think.
  
  1 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  October 5, 2017 9:36am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Coffee the next target

PPTA wants the worst teachers paid $87,000 a year »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 03 June 2026
Another British policing scandal
General Debate 04 June 2026
A win for democracy
Meet the Greens - ACC
Democrat says lock up the Jews
$600k on a website for a building!
Abolishing HR
General Debate 02 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour

Recent Posts

Abolishing HR 4 June 2026
General Debate 04 June 2026 4 June 2026
Meet the Greens – ACC 4 June 2026
Democrat says lock up the Jews 3 June 2026
Another British policing scandal 3 June 2026
General Debate 03 June 2026 3 June 2026
A win for democracy 3 June 2026
$600k on a website for a building! 2 June 2026
Set housing outcomes not outputs 2 June 2026
General Debate 02 June 2026 2 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour 2 June 2026
Which language should be used first? 1 June 2026

Recent Comments

General Debate 04 June 2026
David George
General Debate 04 June 2026
David George
Meet the Greens – ACC
Ghost
General Debate 04 June 2026
David George
General Debate 04 June 2026
cmm (semi-retired edition)
General Debate 04 June 2026
Ghost
General Debate 04 June 2026
pdm
General Debate 04 June 2026
David Garrett
General Debate 04 June 2026
rouppe
General Debate 04 June 2026
kowtow
Abolishing HR
Don Beckett
Abolishing HR
muzled
Meet the Greens – ACC
PaulL
Meet the Greens – ACC
rouppe
General Debate 04 June 2026
mogg

Links

"The principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple."
Not PC
When is a Free Speech Union not a Free Speech Union?
The Standard
We Are a Country That Decided Housing Was The Economy
No Minister
My Opening Statement for the UATX Caplan-Jones Immigration Rematch
Utopia
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Playing with numbers.
Kiwipolitico
A lot of fuss about a simple Bill – its purpose (to make English an official language) is spelled out in 22 words
Point of Order
A crime
No Right Turn
Another non-tariff barrier
Offsetting Behaviour
Rugby Premiership Predictions for Round 18
Stats Chat
Budget 2026
NZCPR
UK Conversion Therapy Ban, Digital ID, Rallies, Elections
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d