Posts by David Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I suppose it’s possible that in taking any action National could risk losing voters, but it’s hard to see where they’d go
Maybe the Conservatives, whose only distinguishing feature from National (in my view) seems to be a focus on morality, but if they got over 5% that would not actually be a bad thing for National. A more real concern would be moving people to the "not voting" category, where two votes moving to non-vote is the same effect as one vote moving to an opposing party. Now, how many people might feel strongly enough about this issue not to vote is another question entirely.
-
From today, Dunedin Botanic Gardens
-
Just harkening back to the very first comment (about tirades). For the most important issues question, most of the entries were in uppercase. While I assume this is just a transcription thing- like who transited it, you can rank the parties by how many of the voters issues were written in ALL CAPS
Party percent_shouting
Internet_Mana_Party 88
Green 89
Labour 92
NZ_First 92
Māori_Party 93
Conservative 94
National 94Which I am sure has no analytical merit what so ever, but it is entertaining that it matches the way the parties are order in Left to Right (or Poverty vs Economy)
-
With my fundamental opinion that the left/right median voter theorem is rubbish when applied to multiple interests MMP New Zealand, I feel thoroughly vindicated by looking at the direct movements between National and Labour.
The people that moved from Labour to National between 2011 and 2014 did not think the parties had significantly shifted position, but thought that they themselves had changed.
The people that moved from National to Labour thought that they themselves had moved to the right and Labour had moved to the left, putting them further from Labour in 2014 than when they voted for National in 2011. -
Speaker: What we think and how we vote, in reply to Mr Mark,
Mr Mark, here are the raw numbers of
(who they say they voted for in 2011), (who they voted for in 2014), raw number
so that people can use the raw number to calculate either the percentage of the 2011 figure or the percentage of the 2014 figure.I will also note that I have not checked the 2014 figures for this yet but in the 2011 figures there was around a 5% (from memory) disagreement of people with their 2008 selves about who they voted for- a small set of people in 2011 put a different answer to who they voted for in 2008 than they put in 2008. So there is some naturally occurring error in these numbers.
vote2011,vote2014,count
ACT,ACT,6
ACT,Conservative,4
ACT,National,6
ACT,No_Vote,2
ALCP,Another_party,1
ALCP,Internet_Mana_Party,1
ALCP,National,1
ALCP,No_Vote,1
ALCP,NZ_First,1
Another_party,ALCP,1
Another_party,Another_party,2
Another_party,Conservative,1
Another_party,No_Vote,1
Conservative,Another_party,1
Conservative,Conservative,19
Conservative,Green,1
Conservative,Internet_Mana_Party,1
Conservative,National,2
Conservative,No_Vote,3
Conservative,NZ_First,5
Democrats_for_Social_Credit,NZ_First,1
Do_not_know,ACT,1
Do_not_know,Another_party,2
Do_not_know,Conservative,6
Do_not_know,Green,20
Do_not_know,Internet_Mana_Party,3
Do_not_know,Labour,31
Do_not_know,Māori_Party,10
Do_not_know,National,33
Do_not_know,No_Vote,23
Do_not_know,NZ_First,15
Green,Conservative,5
Green,Green,144
Green,Internet_Mana_Party,3
Green,Labour,27
Green,Māori_Party,2
Green,National,13
Green,No_Vote,10
Green,NZ_First,13
Green,United_Future,2
Labour,Another_party,1
Labour,Ban_1080,1
Labour,Conservative,7
Labour,Green,77
Labour,Internet_Mana_Party,10
Labour,Labour,431
Labour,Māori_Party,15
Labour,National,57
Labour,No_Vote,41
Labour,NZ_First,53
Mana Party,Another_party,1
Mana Party,Green,5
Mana Party,Internet_Mana_Party,11
Mana Party,Labour,4
Mana Party,Māori_Party,4
Mana Party,No_Vote,3
Mana Party,United_Future,1
Māori_Party,Green,13
Māori_Party,Internet_Mana_Party,6
Māori_Party,Labour,15
Māori_Party,Māori_Party,42
Māori_Party,National,6
Māori_Party,No_Vote,11
Māori_Party,NZ_First,8
National,ALCP,1
National,Another_party,1
National,Conservative,28
National,Green,27
National,Internet_Mana_Party,1
National,Labour,35
National,Māori_Party,5
National,National,946
National,No_Vote,65
National,NZ_First,33
National,United_Future,3
No_Vote_or_Too_Young,ACT,2
No_Vote_or_Too_Young,Another_party,1
No_Vote_or_Too_Young,Conservative,4
No_Vote_or_Too_Young,Democrats_for_Social_Credit,2
No_Vote_or_Too_Young,Green,30
No_Vote_or_Too_Young,Internet_Mana_Party,3
No_Vote_or_Too_Young,Labour,36
No_Vote_or_Too_Young,Māori_Party,1
No_Vote_or_Too_Young,National,54
No_Vote_or_Too_Young,No_Vote,36
No_Vote_or_Too_Young,NZ_First,13
NZ_First,Ban_1080,1
NZ_First,Conservative,5
NZ_First,Green,5
NZ_First,Internet_Mana_Party,4
NZ_First,Labour,19
NZ_First,National,9
NZ_First,No_Vote,13
NZ_First,NZ_First,81
United_Future,Conservative,3
United_Future,Labour,2
United_Future,National,3
United_Future,No_Vote,1
United_Future,United_Future,1 -
Health and education linked, against a bundle of things with no clear theme. Let's call it issues vs people for the moment.
I'm away from my analysis code until the end of the week, so numeric specifics are going to have to wait.
-
While the Māori Party and Mana seem far away in terms of their voters interests, I wouldn't necessarily say that stops a merger- If it worked it would just pull the points together. At the moment National seems to contain people who voted for economic growth and people voting for stability, and those interests aren't always going to align.
Absolutely I could make the labels bigger, but then I will also need to spend the time positioning them to fit- for the above graphs I was just dropping them in be the dots.
-
I reran the PCA excluding all but the 50 terms that showed the greatest variation between parties, PCA1 was indeed the Poverty-Economy continuum, PC2 seems education and health related, PCA3 (not shown) was environment and separates out the Greens and Labour, PCA4 was land sales/immigration (NZ First), PCA5 was morality (Conservatives).
-
On my todo eventually list is check previous ones to see if they had the free text option, and see what the terms analysis shows.
-
The correlation between use of economy and poverty by party voters is -0.64. Of course no one knows if that is “good” correlation for this kind of data or not, because this is kind of being made up as we go along.
I would say the two terms are not exactly polar opposites (and they needn’t be) but they do tend to sort out the groups if you use either term. A better model might be landmarks that people are placing themselves around than a sliding 2D scale.
Economy has the greatest variation in terms use between parties, poverty the second greatest, so they do seem to be distinctive.
