Auckland’s election result was not so bad

50 comments on “Auckland’s election result was not so bad ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gingercrush 1

   14 December 2011 at 3:29 pm

   Mt. Albert and Auckland Central do have to be a worry though.

   Auckland Central looks like Labour’s vote went to be both the Greens and National. Mt. Albert it simply looks like more went to the Greens rather than to Labour. Otherwise, it just appears Labour lost more votes in already strong National-held electorates.

   National didn’t really increase the vote meanwhile NZ First and the Greens vote grew considerably (much in the same way United Future and NZ First grew in 2002). That is what I find most frustrating. Because in 2002 Labour and the Greens were effectively on 48% and Progressives were 1.7%. The danger 2011 shows for National and the right is that at what should have been our greatest hour we’re still just over 50%. I suspect most of Dunedin’s vote simply went to the Greens. Dunedin South one needs to remember now covers a number of country areas.

   Though actually if you look at every MMP election the left or right have only been able to get 50% and a bit.
   • mickysavage 1.1

     14 December 2011 at 3:48 pm

     By my calculations the National vote in Christchurch went up 7.43% and in Dunedin by 4.3%.  The Green vote went up 4.7% and 7.1% respectively.

     In Auckland Central the Green vote went up by 7.3% and in Mt Albert by 6.15%.  The National vote went up by 2.1% and 1% in those seats.
     • mik e 1.1.1

       14 December 2011 at 4:36 pm

       in dunedin the local national machine has been very high profile with a very prominent building on the main street + Cars that have very attractive advertising.Woodhouse has got around the electorate and kept the National party in the news.
       Labour and the left need to lift their game down here.
   • lprent 1.2

     14 December 2011 at 3:59 pm

     Auckland Central has a rapidly moving population and quite young population. Most of the population growth is in apartments sold to younger voters who happily split their votes. It is a problem for Labour on the party vote.

     Most of Labour’s emphasis in that electorate has wound up on the electorate vote – as you can see. Labour’s electorate vote held up with help from Green voters, but their party vote went to the Greens. Good for the left if you want an overhang. Not so good if it doesn’t come off. 

     Turn out was down about thousand.

     Mt Albert was down by about two thousand. The electorate had gone from having a PM to just an MP, so I was expecting to see a drop – and you can see it in the electorate vote. I saw one after Helen became leader of the opposition – leader effect. That is also probably mostly why Mt Roskill went up. It does carry through to the party vote as well. 

     The challenge in Mt Albert has always been to keep National party vote from growing too much. But this time as you say left vote leaked to the greens. They ran a party vote only campaign and that actually works quite well for them because they preach the vote splitting mantra..

     The greens  are getting a lot smarter in their campaigning. In some ways that is good (because they have been pretty dumb and focused on stunts in the past). Does make it harder campaigning against both them and National.

     I don’t know much about the Mt Albert campaign this time. I pretty much limited myself to e-day target selection because I didn’t want campaigning pressures. 
     • nadis 1.2.1

       15 December 2011 at 9:57 am

       What is “e-day target selection”?
       • lprent 1.2.1.1

         15 December 2011 at 10:11 am

         Figuring out who you want to remind that it is election day and that they should get out and vote.

         There are about a million Kiwi’s who were enrolled and who didn’t vote in the 2011 election. Believe or not people actually forget to vote. Having someone knocking on their door or phoning them up helps a lot to get them to the polling booth.

         Labour has done this for a long time and it works. Labour vote is far more affected by the number of people turning out to vote than Nationals.

         Obviously we don’t like reminding National voters to vote, so we’re selective about who we’re going expend effort on.

         There are some pretty specific rules about what can and cannot be said, what can be worn, and what can be done.
         • nadis 1.2.1.1.1

           15 December 2011 at 12:03 pm

           thks.

           Has anyone tried to do an analysis of how many people are registered to vote but live in Australia or further offshore?

           For instance I remained registered in a Wellington electorate for 15 years while living overseas – probably voted in just one or two elections in that period.
           • lprent 1.2.1.1.1.1

             15 December 2011 at 1:43 pm

             The electronic roll has a mailing address that many people actually use. I’ve tagged it in my targeting code to indicate people that aren’t likely to actually be present in the electorate (and that should be handled differently). I gather that the electoral commission does the same.

             There are people who don’t do that and their mail goes to parents or flatmates or friends or the like. That is usually a bad idea because people move and you can get dropped from the roll.

             The way that electoral commission drops people from the roll is using the mail system. They periodically send e-mail to every voter and if the mail bounces (gone no address) then they will eventually remove people from the roll. It is easy enough to update your mailing address online at http://www.elections.org.nz

             There are numbers of overseas in most areas, especially around student towns. They aren’t that high. Your 15 years is one of the longest I know off because there is a requirement that you have to be back for at least a short period every few years to be able to vote and most people who are offshore for a long time tend to fail that requirement at least some time (don’t know the details).

             I don’t know if the electoral commission looks at the border control databases to see if people do come back into the country within the required timeframes. They probably should if they don’t.
2. insider 2

   14 December 2011 at 3:29 pm

   “Auckland’s election result was not so bad”

   That is such a sad headline, and I don’t mean in an unhappy way.
   • mickysavage 2.1

     14 December 2011 at 3:38 pm

     Silver lining insider, silver lining …
     • Tigger 2.1.1

       14 December 2011 at 3:51 pm

       If we are to win we need to be realistic.  I keep hearing that Labour were ‘decimated’. We weren’t.
       • aerobubble 2.1.1.1

         15 December 2011 at 10:59 am

         Key was always going to win, he was way ahead all the time, well that’s the way I heard it.

         Facts differ from the MSM take though.

         Key lost because now he is one seat away from oblivion, his hold on power is down, and all it takes is a leadership threat.

         Key is out of touch with the needs of the NZ economy, those that voted National did so more out of desperation to keep their lifestyles.

         However peak oil is a threat to our primary exports, a game changer.

         Our tax system is weak and allows for more debt capacity that is safe in the world economy.

         Free trade means we cannot be a back water yet National voters want us to remain a back water less they have to give up their tax advantages against their foreign competitors (who pay pay CGT).

         So how has Key won? He gets to do what, sell assets that most people think is wrong even those who believe in asset sales (just not at the bottom of the market! when the world banks are printing money).

         Its ludicrous how pathetic Key is.
     • insider 2.1.2

       14 December 2011 at 4:22 pm

       I know that was the intent, it just came across as completely demoralised – kind of like saying ‘well at least it didn’t rain’ after being hammered by an innings and 34 runs. You’d have been better with “Signs for the future for Labour in Auckland vote” or similar
       • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.1

         14 December 2011 at 7:11 pm

         Lefties are crap at spin, generally speaking. Thats a compliment. Sort of.

         See what I mean!!! 😛
3. Jill 3

   14 December 2011 at 3:51 pm

   Thank you for highlighting the successful campaigns in South Auckland which included tried and true methods of street corner meetings, sign waving, hoardings on every fence we could find (painting the town red), but also the new street captains project in which we mobilised union members to do small tasks such as leaflet deliveries in their own neighbourhoods, giving them small blocks they could do after work, and then on Election Day giving them packs with lists of all enrolled voters in their streets to go and encourage them to vote.
   The literally hundreds of volunteers came back brimming with amazing stories of the lengths they went to to give our people the opportunity to vote. Most of all they felt really good that they had done it as door knocking is quite a scarey prospect. It helps they were visiting their own neighbours.
   We also have great candidates. In Mangere we have a relatively new MP in Sua William Sio who has huge community support. He was of course deputy mayor of Manukau City, a former trade unionist and fighter for democracy.
   In Manurewa, Louisa Wall, former Silver Fern and Black Fern (won the Rugby World Cup twice!), is the first Maori MP in a general seat in South Auckland since Winston Peters won Hunua for the Nats in the 1980s, and she is the first Labour woman to win a general seat in South Auckland — ever. That may be because she is the only one to have been selected! First time up in the seat, she increased the majority George Hawkins had to 8600. She is young, with a sharp intellect, and tells it how it is. You should have seen her in the markets and in the shopping centres. She
   has a genuine love for our people — a sign of a true leader. Watch this space!
   • seeker 3.1

     14 December 2011 at 11:07 pm

     Thanks for posting this comment Jill and telling South Auckland’s stirring story. You have lifted my heart after the last couple of weeks and thanks too to South Auckland for mounting such a strong, passionate campaign. Amazing.

     Have been admiring Suo William Suo for a while now. His commitment, wisdom and integrity shines through. Likewise Louisa Wall, who I think was a cracking Labour selection. Both show a genuine love for people- (oh that more in the National government did) which I think should be a real prerequisite for a leader.
     I think the South Auckland spirit is a beacon of light for Labour, sincere thanks.
     • lprent 3.1.1

       14 December 2011 at 11:11 pm

       Agreed
4. muzza 4

   14 December 2011 at 3:54 pm

   Whats even worse about Central Auckland is that Nikki Kaye is the epitome of a party stooge. Many communications with her…bright girl, but quite simply under the spell.

   Could be a good time to see the rise of the truly neutral independents, because the political landscape it simply a mess with oxygen thieves who should be nowhere near the public decision making process…that applies to all parties…

   I will be hoping to get something better out of Jacinda Adern, if I have to deal with a party MP. Let’s see if she can extrapolate herself from the stink that is party stoogery
   • Anthony 4.1

     14 December 2011 at 4:11 pm

     Kaye works pretty hard for her win, Seen Kaye more times than I can count around the area, seen Jacinda once or twice ever.
   • Cactus Kate 4.2

     14 December 2011 at 4:41 pm

     Muzzy you have a very short memory.

     Much to the horror of her caucus colleagues, Nikki opposed mining. I think you need to revisit the definition of the word stooge and maybe apply it to her opponent.
     • McFlock 4.2.1

       14 December 2011 at 4:55 pm

       Nikki opposed mining on Great Barrier Island. The NIMBY MP.

       That bit of the mining plan was always going to be the hardest sell, anyway: a hippie retirement community in Auckland’s back yard. Tui moment.
        
       It was the standard enviro-spiking tactic, just like the snail relocation – stack up a few areas, then drop the one with biggest opposition as part of a “compromise”. But the majority of the plan is still implemented (well – the entire thing was a bit much for them to chew. Hopefully the asset sales plan will be the same).
       • ghostwhowalksnz 4.2.1.1

         14 December 2011 at 7:57 pm

         Apparently Nikki has a hideaway on GBI…….. Farrar goes there a lot as well… the island that is…..maybe there is a connection here…or maybe friends with benefits
     • muzza 4.2.2

       14 December 2011 at 7:56 pm

       Curious those bloggers who alter a name to something it’s not – Tells much about the responder, that they lack basic manners…

       Anyway, yes Nikki Kaye went against Gt Barrier safe in knowing that it was never a serious mining option (at that time anyway), and because it comes under her electorate – WOW, tough stuff..And do you really think JK would have let Auckland Central go straight back to Labour, if there was mining on Barrier, cos thats exactly what would have happened…there are too many negatives for them to go anywhere near Gt Barrier…It was hollow rhetoric from NK, as part of the transparent political game lead by Kate Wilkinson backed by JK etc, while using the mining issue as a massive focus group session…
       • Akldnut 4.2.2.1

         14 December 2011 at 8:50 pm

         Can almost guarentee that she did it with the full consent of her leader.
         She’s just a party stooge who apart from that one incident has done virtually nothing.
5. Waldo 5

   14 December 2011 at 4:28 pm

   I haven’t looked at the numbers, but wouldn’t some of the rise in Sth Auckland be due to the collapse of the Pacific party?
   • mickysavage 5.1

     14 December 2011 at 4:47 pm

     Gazza it probably would have helped but I would guess much if their vote went to the Conservative Party and helped in the increase of NZ First’s vote.

     Using the back of a local envelope and presuming PP’s votes went to the Conservative Party, then to NZ First and then returned to Labour this would have accounted for maybe 5 percentage points of the Mangere increase but only modestly in Manurewa and Manukau East.
   • vidiot 5.2

     14 December 2011 at 4:48 pm

     Very good observation – looking at Mangere, 2700 votes in 2008 for PP – which is less than the increase in LAB party vote in 2011.
6. vidiot 6

   14 December 2011 at 4:46 pm

   Just as well Mickey’s a lawyer & not an accountant, his maths is off, way off.

   Take Mangere 2008 – Party Votes for LAB 15,446 vs 2011 Party Vote for LAB 17960 – difference is a 16.2% increase (2514 votes). If you look directly at the candidate votes – 12651 vs 18177 – again (5526) a 43% increase in voter support for the candidate. Also interesting to see voter turnout was up for that seat.

   Perhaps you need to get Marty back on the numbers ?
   • mickysavage 6.1

     14 December 2011 at 4:48 pm

     The change is the increase in the percentage of the total vote gained.  It is not affected by turnout.
     • mickysavage 6.1.1

       14 December 2011 at 5:55 pm

       The formula used is
        
       change =(2011Labourvote/2011total)-(2008Labourvote/2008total)
        
       A change in turnout does not affect the change in the percentage.
        
       My maths is fine thanks.
       • vidiot 6.1.1.1

         15 December 2011 at 9:36 am

         No, your math is lacking.

         Using your exact formula on Mangere results – http://electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/electorate-22.html vs http://electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2008/electorate-22.html.

         Change = (17960/25525) – (15446/25353)
         Change = (0.703624) – (0.609238)
         Change = 0.094386

         Now if you change your formula to:
         Change =(2011Labourvote/2011total)/(2008Labourvote/2008total)
         Change = (17960/25525) / (15446/25353)
         Change = (0.703624) / (0.609238)
         Change = 115.4925%

         So how did you get 10.2% ?
         • mickysavage 6.1.1.1.1

           15 December 2011 at 9:48 am

           You are including informal party votes in your calculations.  I took them out and used the total valid votes figure instead.

           Calculations for Mangere are:

           2008 –  15446/25074=61.6%
           2011 –  17960/25007=71.8%

           Change is 10.2%

           All analyses that I see strip out the invalid votes.

           As Lynn says it is a bit of a crude measure in some respects but it gives a reasonable sense of what happened and allows some understanding of voting trends.
   • lprent 6.2

     14 December 2011 at 6:31 pm

     As Micky says – why would you introduce a extra factor into a comparison. 

     If you’re after accuracy then I could also suggest several other ways that would fix the problems in your comparisons.

     Micky’s ones however are rough but effective measures to look at differences between electorates and between elections in a meaningful way.

      
7. PJH 7

   14 December 2011 at 6:17 pm

   Generally, Pacific, Maori, and ethnic minority voters are not inclined to vote for the Greens. So Labour has done well in those seats where those groups predominate: the South Auckland seats (Pacific, Maori), Roskill, Botany and Pakuranga (ethnic minorities). With Pakuranga the comparison is best made with other blue suburban seats where Labour dropped more than in Pakuranga this time, eg, North Shore, having had very similar levels of support in earlier elections.
   Labour tended to lose most to the Greens and National where the Pakeha middle class predominates; I suspect the Labour caucus had this in mind yesterday.
   This is probably the strongest reason for variations in the Labour party vote across the city, over and above the strictly local effects such as that in Auckland Central.
8. DS 8

   14 December 2011 at 7:04 pm

   Dunedin wasn’t actually too ugly relative to the rest of the wider South Island. The oddities of the Dunedin South party vote was a reflection of some horrible booths out at Mosgiel (contrary to populr belief, Dunedin South is no longer simply “South Dunedin”), and that Dunedin South’s middle-class tends to be Blue, rather than Green. Dunedin North is still less generically Red, but its middle-class (dominated by the University) tends to be Green, rather than Blue. 
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     14 December 2011 at 7:08 pm

     And don’t forget that Dunedin North numbers were also hit by the retirement of a well known, long serving MP (Pete Hodgson).
     • ghostwhowalksnz 8.1.1

       14 December 2011 at 8:05 pm

       Isnt this all academic- National made a stunning recovery from a even more hideous thrashing (20.9% in 2002) so the only way is up for Labour in 2014.
       and National aint going to get another RWC or Canterbury Earthquake for a dead cat bounce
       • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1

         14 December 2011 at 9:01 pm

         Yep. Goff did far far better in 2011 than English did in 2002. I feel that Goff was in too much of a rush to step down (or perhaps everyone was in too much of a rush to move in).
     • lprent 8.1.2

       14 December 2011 at 9:06 pm

       Always happens..
       • ghostwhowalksnz 8.1.2.1

         15 December 2011 at 8:41 am

         English stayed for a year…. and is still around 10 years later and he supposedly had marketable skills…cough
9. Armchair Critic 9

   14 December 2011 at 10:46 pm

   Your post abounds with faint praise micky, and faint praise ain’t a good thing. Look for the positives, Labour can’t afford to be too negative.
   In terms of the political parties it was a good election for NZ First, and the Greens. OTOH it was a bad election for Labour, ACT and the Maori Party. In the middle I’m putting National, who improved their party vote, but not by quite enough.
   In terms of political blocs the election was a bad for the right and showed a shift away from them. Like the RWC the favoured team won, but the margin was unexpectedly small. The mainstream narrative around the result conflates “the left” with “the Labour Party” and allows the illusion to be created of a solid mandate for the policy direction of the government. In fact with only minor shifts in voting patterns the government would have looked completely different. However…
   A brief side point – who was in charge of Labour’s election campaign? I tried hard to not be too negative about it, but in hindsight it was not good enough. Next time Labour must pursue the party vote like their lives depend on it, the focus on the candidates, at the expense of the leader and the party, was wrong.
   Back to what I wanted to say – “the left”, as a bloc, are fractured at the moment. With 14 Green Party MPs and Winston Peters back in Parliament, with unfinished business, Labour risk not being seen as “the Opposition” for the next term unless they get their act together, and quickly. Not because National will win the next election, they won’t, (unless there is a snap election within the year), but because the votes National loses will go to NZ First, back to moron parties like ACT and UF, and most of all to the disillusioned non-voting camp.
   It would be good to see Labour leading the left to a victory at the next election, rather than letting National lose it through unpopular policy. Labour need to:
   Start the election campaign now, especially the fundraising. I think it will be an early election, which is why I refer to the “next election”, rather than the “2014 election”. A by-election in either Auckland Central or Christchurch Central in 18 months time would be a nightmare for National.
   Oppose the government, after all Labour are the opposition.
   Unleash all of their talent. To this end, David C has to be Finance Minister. Otherwise I won’t split my vote next time, it will be all Green instead.
   Unify behind the leader the caucus selected
   Reconnect with the rural electorates, for two reasons. Some farmers are Labour supporters, but they are quite secretive about it because they are expected to vote National. And small provincial towns have reasonable numbers of people to whom Labour’s policies and principles would appeal. The narrative that their electorate is a National stronghold discourages them from voting, and the idea that their MP belongs to a party who does hold the same interests means they have no desire to engage with their MP.
   Find the good things from the 2011 election and roll them out across the country.
   Campaign for the party vote – unashamedly.
   Finally – ignore John Pagani. And Chris Trotter.
   On a technical note, I’m not sure whether your analysis compares apples with apples (it may well do). I voted Labour party vote and Green electorate vote. In my eyes that makes me a Labour voter this election, in accordance with the MMP electoral environment. The idea that people’s voting preference is determine by their electorate vote is, IMO, a hangover from FPP. Can you confirm the basis for your figures?
   • mickysavage 9.1

     14 December 2011 at 11:17 pm

     Thanks AC. good comments.

     To respond …

     1. If you include NZF in the left block then it was a good result and surprisingly close.
     2. Mallard was Labour’s campaign manager. With the benefit of hindsight it is clear that all the John Key billboards were a play for the party vote and not doing the same with Goff cost us dearly.
     3. All electorate candidates should be told to campaign for the party vote, no matter how marginal the seat. After all nothing else counts.
     4. I agree Labour is very vulnerable right now.
     5. Labour does need to start the campaign now through a couple of policy campaigns, eg no asset sales.
     6. Yes to David C being finance spokesperson, wholeheartedly.
     7. Agred we need unity.
     8. The provinces and country is where the next election will be won.
     9. I agree about Pagani. I am afraid he may be chief of staff though …
     10. The analysis is based on the change in the proportion of the party vote only.
     • Armchair Critic 9.1.1

       14 December 2011 at 11:40 pm

       1. NZF could only be considered to be in the left bloc on the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” basis. I don’t consider them to be “of the left”.
       2. It’s the party vote that counts, Labour knew that in 2002. There’s no excuse for forgetting or thinking otherwise.
       3. Yes, it’s teamwork. Winning the party vote gets you and your colleagues into parliament, whereas winning the electorate vote just gets you into parliament. Of all the parties it is Labour that should know and live the value of working collaboratively and collectively for the greater good. Not vociferously campaigning for the party vote goes against the spirit of the party.
       4. The vulnerability will come from indecision. Much as I dislike much of what Winston Peters says, I acknowledge that he says it in a convincing manner and in a way that people understand. Labour have had three years for introspection. Now to the barricades.
       5 – 8. tick
       9. Oh shit. John Pagani – another good reason to give the Greens two ticks.
       10. Ta.
       • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1

         15 December 2011 at 12:55 am

         1. NZF could only be considered to be in the left bloc on the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” basis. I don’t consider them to be “of the left”.

         NZF had 2 policies which would have really counted in this election as a bridge to Labour. No asset sales. And $15 minimum wage.

         The rest was detail which could have been worked around for the most part, even though as you say, NZF are not “of the left”.
     • muzza 9.1.2

       15 December 2011 at 2:54 pm

       Cunliffe for Finance, argh, NO.

       The bloke does not even understand how the national debt is un-repayable, because he does not understand that our RBNZ/OoDM are private. Until he can get his head around the fact that Treasury can issue/purchase bonds directly with itself ( including the amount interest the loan would require to service it in total, over the duration of the bonds life), which is then as a total amount seeped into the system via public works infrastructure projects etc – This way the total repayable amount of the loan is in existence, and hence can be paid back, unlike currently where the priciple is loaned (by private banks, through our private RBNZ/OoDM, to the Public Treasury (govt), and the interest repayable on top of the priciple….where is money coming from to pay off the loan plus the interest (does the money supply magically expand organically?) – I think he mumbled something about fire up the printing press, when we met with him – Finance spokeman, again = NO

       Of course John Key understands all this, which makes him much worse than those who are simply too ignorant/stupid or unable to get their head around this issue!
   • Colonial Viper 9.2

     15 December 2011 at 12:47 am

     Reconnect with the rural electorates, for two reasons. Some farmers are Labour supporters, but they are quite secretive about it because they are expected to vote National. And small provincial towns have reasonable numbers of people to whom Labour’s policies and principles would appeal. The narrative that their electorate is a National stronghold discourages them from voting, and the idea that their MP belongs to a party who does hold the same interests means they have no desire to engage with their MP.

     +1 Thanks for the insight. I hope the Wellington heads get this.
10. In Vino Veritas 10

    15 December 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Manukau, Manurewa and Manukau East. Surely no one should be surprised Labour increased in these electorates? These are electorates where many get to vote themselves an income, or at the very least, transfers from the government that are greater than the tax that they pay.
    • lprent 10.1

      15 December 2011 at 1:20 pm

      Does that explanation of self-interest explains why the Labour vote dropped a lot between 2005 and 2008?

      No?

      Do you ever turn on your brain before you write these dumbarse statements? Or do you expect us to keep correcting your unthinking bigotry forever…

      I swear that I find many right wingers think with the glands until challenged. That is a bias from observation here. IVV seems to get his from the obsessive group-think of the right.
11. In Vino Veritas 11

    15 December 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Thanks lprent. Sorry, but I thought I’d just join the crowd and make a few dumbarse comments, there are plenty flying about. Bigotry is not the sole property of the right wing I might add.

    I have a question though. Are you saying that those people in the electorates noted above, are not likely to vote for the party that gives them the most financial assistance?
    • lprent 11.1

      15 December 2011 at 3:42 pm

      Bigotry is not the sole property of the right wing I might add.

      Oh I’d agree. But there is a lot less of the unthinking bigotry which is what attracts my bile.

      Are you saying that those people in the electorates noted above, are not likely to vote for the party that gives them the most financial assistance?

      Simplistic and the wrong question. Because the answer is maybe. Voting behavior is pretty damn complex and there are a lot of factors that go into peoples decisions.

      Ummm a simple answer for the simplistic. In these electorates you probably have the highest population of active church goers in the entire country. Those often overlap with the group of people who benefit from the welfare systems (as you’re trying to dog whistle to). People, especially church goers, will often vote in accordance with reasons related to their perception of morals instead of their economic interests.

      Now if you asked ….are more likely to vote for the party…. then I’d say yes. But it is just a probability based on an attribute, one amongst many attributes.

      When I’m doing profiling with canvass information I’m typically doing it on a matrix with hundreds of factors in the mix from public and electoral information. It winds up with predictive probabilities for individuals.

      Like your prediction, it is also guesswork. Just better organised, based on far more data and orders of magnitude more accurate according to the people who do contacts based on it.

      But I wouldn’t make simple minded assertions like yours. Having such assurance of being right is the role of bigots who know bugger all.

      BTW: If you ask people who campaigned in the 3M’s in 2008, you’ll find that they said that the local crime rate and the ‘anti-smacking’ changes made a bigger difference to local voting than almost any other set of factors.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS