Posts by David Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to BenWilson,
getting something completely wrong
I fully expect, that if I argue on the internet about things that I have little specialist knowledge (for example, what I know about both political science and housing markets is only that of a broadly read member of the general public) I might miss something fairly fundamental and make a complete botch of it. But the nice things about a fully documented analysis of data from start to finish is that if you do botch things early on, you just go back to the code of the early stages, change it, and rerun, and in a second or two you have inorporated the corrections into the analysis. I would much rather do something, and be right eventually, than try to be right from the very start and never achieve anything.
-
People who party voted ACT like the National Party better than the party they voted for.
People who Don't Know who they voted for are most fond of New Zealand First.
NZ First voters are actually pretty comfortable with the Greens
The Party whose voters have the lowest opinion of other parties is National (3.075739), the party whose voters had the highest opinion of other parties was the Maori Party (4.388654)Seeing how much (scale of 0 to 10) people liked the party they voted for:
Act mean=7.107143 sd=2.9481857
Green mean= 8.360465 sd=1.7473865
Labour mean=8.133059 sd=1.9057797
Maori Party mean=8.080000 sd=2.1835160
NZ First mean=7.598086 sd=2.1797133
National mean=8.438565 sd=1.5798728
United Future mean=7.000000 sd=1.5191091I would like to graph this as a relationship diagram, but the relationships are not symetric. ACT voters love National, but National voters dislike ACT more than Labour. Which makes it tricky to graph.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to Mr Mark,
Mr Mark, I've put the R code for converting the SPSS election survey to a csv file here https://github.com/thoughtfulbloke/nzes/blob/master/makeCsvNZES2011.R
It uses R, which is free, but you need to know the R language to use- though in theory you can just put in these commands and get a csv file in the same folder as the SPSS file at the end. It will need an internet connect to download an extra library to read in the SPSS file.
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to BenWilson,
I don’t see how they can be using the two main parties (autocorrect correction) as reference points, as Labour is close to what they were provided with as the centre number.
-
Fair enough, though I think defining the centre as the point between the parties takes you down a Xerox's paradox route
-
I'm arguing it is hard to see being the party of the centre (or at least the most central major party) as giving an advantage when the party of the centre has more people leaving it.
-
I found the questionnaire, 5 as centre was given to them
http://www.nzssds.org.nz/system/files/2011+NZ+Election+Study+questionnaire.pdf
-
Yeah Nah. I agree there is not a lot of point in calculating it out to a fine level of detail. But it could just as much be Labour 4.4 round to 4, centre 4.5 round to 5, and National 8.4 round to 8, and National is actually 39 units further away.
I suspect that because the census has value labels for 0 (left) 5 (centre) and 10 (right) people might have been given those as starting reference points. But even without those the evidence weighs in that people moving to National are more likely to have thought it further from the centre (with the exact amount being open to debate).
My main reason for not wanting to calculate to much detail is not so much the granularity, it is the number of people that answered both that they didn't vote and answered which party they did vote for, which suggests an error rate that means not reading too much into the data.
-
Here are the matching figures for where National is
The median rating (so the mythic median voters perception) of National among those that voted National in 2008 and National in 2011 that “knew” National's position was 8.
The median rating (so the mythic median voters perception) of National among those that voted Labour in 2008 and Labour in 2011 that “knew” National's position was 8.
The median rating (so the mythic median voters perception) of National among those that voted National in 2008 and Labour in 2011 that “knew” National's position was 7.
The median rating (so the mythic median voters perception) of National among those that voted Labour in 2008 and National in 2011 that “knew” National's position was 7.
Just to make the conclusion quite clear here people moving from Labour to National were doing so while thinking National was a greater distance from the centre As a non-political science person, I would suggest that this behaviour is incompatible with the idea median voter theory was actually important in New Zealand.
-
Among those that voted National in 2008 and National in 2011, 17.5% of them do not know where Labour is in the spectrum of left to right.
Among those that voted Labour in 2008 and Labour in 2011, 23.7% of them do not know where Labour is in the spectrum of left to right.
Among those that voted Labour in 2008 and National in 2011, 23.8% of them do not know where Labour is in the spectrum of left to right.
Among those that voted National in 2008 and Labour in 2011, 22.2% of them do not know where Labour is in the spectrum of left to right.Possibly, dyed-in-the-wool National voters are more likely to care about "the left" than anyone else.
The median rating (so the mythic median voters perception) of Labour among those that voted National in 2008 and National in 2011 that "knew" Labour's position was 3.
The median rating (so the mythic median voters perception) of Labour among those that voted Labour in 2008 and Labour in 2011 that "knew" Labour's position was 4.
The median rating (so the mythic median voters perception) of Labour among those that voted National in 2008 and Labour in 2011 that "knew" Labour's position was 4.
The median rating (so the mythic median voters perception) of Labour among those that voted Labour in 2008 and National in 2011 that "knew" Labour's position was 4.
So the people attracted to Labour from National rated it a 4, and the people that left Labour for National rated it a 4 in terms of centralism. Anyone want to explain labour equal score for people coming and going in terms of the centre being attractive?
Attached is the actual distribution of Labour ratings among those that were not "didn't know": red is labour to labour, blue is national to national, purple is national to labour, and blue and red dashed is labour to national
