Posts by David Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: The silent minority, in reply to Lilith __,
General reports are that it is a cohort thing, but I haven't looked at it myself. That will be a particularly interesting question when the 2014 results become available soon given what happened to Labour.
-
Speaker: The silent minority, in reply to chris,
I’d like to know more about them.
Looking at it in detail, I think the results for that question are heavily influenced by, in the wake of the election as people fill out the forms, who won.
Voting won't make any difference is made up of: Labour 37%, National 14%, Greens 8%, New Zealand First 11%, ACT 3%, United Future 0%, Maori Party 16%
Voting can make a big difference is made up of: Labour 27%, National 44%, Greens 12%, New Zealand First 7%, ACT 0.8%, United Future 0.4%, Maori Party 4%
-
I did a cross tab table to make the distinction between interest and knowledge. The take-home is that for a given level of interest there are a range of knowledges, so their knowledge is not fully dependent on their enthusiasm. So raising peoples knowledge to get them to vote is not ruled out.
-
Speaker: The silent minority, in reply to Michael Homer,
This doesn’t really seem to follow, does it?
I absolutely agree causality is not established. To do that you would really need to be measuring an intervention. However, in terms of what the data suggests in terms of the space in which an individual might most constructively put their efforts, my opinion would be this is not unsupported.
It might be you need enthusiasm to get knowledge, it might be knowledge by itself makes the area feel more important so creates enthusiasm. I don't know. But in my opinion talking to people is a pretty good path forwards into that space either way.
-
Speaker: The silent minority, in reply to chris,
The percentage of abstainers in the “voting can make a big difference”
It looks to me that, once you believe voting can make a difference, believing it more strongly doesn't make much of a difference. The larger abstainers in the bar chart is just that it is a big raw number of a bigger raw column, but the percentage is about the same as the reasonable difference.
-
Speaker: The silent minority, in reply to Rob Salmond,
I'm sure there are a ton of studies testing and retesting Putnam's claims on this,
From a very quick reading, Putman made no particular claims about the internet, and
notes:
There is, of course, one space where civic engagement is alive and well, which Cortright glosses over: the Internet. A 2010 Pew study on "The Social Side of the Internet" found that Internet users are far more likely to actively engage in voluntary groups or organizations than others non-Web users. According to the data, 80 percent of Internet users (including 82 percent of social networkers and 85 percent of Twitter users) participate in group civic organizations, compared with 56 percent of non-Internet users.
-
Speaker: The silent minority, in reply to chris,
nihilists?
I haven't gone through the data, but the story I assume in lack of evidence is a mix of principled atheists who are voting at the same rate as everyone else, through to the extremely lazy.
-
Speaker: The silent minority, in reply to Rob Salmond,
For Putnam, technological change (eg. TV, internet) is a large, long-term driver of that atomisation
While I have not looked at TV, but can understand the case for it doing that, I don't think Internet is having that effect (possibly because we are now in the age of community building and networks rather than publication and distribution of a decade ago that is more similar to broadcast TV one way flow). I can justify that with:
2011 voting rate for those with access to the internet 87.45%
2011 voting rate for those with no access to the internet 87.50%And that difference is just margin of error.
Similarly, as a proxy for amount of use, the question "how often use the Internet for banking or to buy/sell something"
2011 voting rate for those who never bank or buy/sell 87.53%
2011 voting rate for those who less than once a month bank or buy/sell 88.35%
2011 voting rate for those who 1-3 times a month bank or buy/sell 88.20%
2011 voting rate for those who once a week or more bank or buy/sell 86.99%
2011 voting rate for those who left question blank 85.92%Or do they have access to mobile internet
2011 voting rate for those who have mobile internet 85.99%
2011 voting rate for those who do not have mobile internet 87.87%Basically, there is no real difference in there. My suspicion is that as the most recent "age of the internet" has become embedded with day to day lives, any atomisation from the early days has gone away.
-
Speaker: The silent minority, in reply to EliotBlennerhassett,
*effect*
A fair cop :) Though it was what language was spoken at home, rather than a pure measure of fluency.
-
Speaker: The silent minority, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
You’re assuming that sample is representative of the total population
Er, I did say "As a technical note, this is just playing with the survey results themselves, without working through the weightings to make them representative of the general population."
This is a Sunday Evenings stroll through the data. I haven't fully digested the effect the weightings have, but rough results of applying them (I just haven't yet convinced myself I have applied them correctly) suggest raising information is a pretty good strategy for what individuals can try to do to raise the vote.
