Voter transitions 2011 2014

Written By: - Date published: 10:25 am, May 22nd, 2017 - 31 comments
Categories: election 2011, election 2014, science - Tags: , , , ,

A very useful visualisation from Peter Ellis at Peter’s Stats Stuff (go see the post for interactive version, plenty more, and also the provisos that relate to this data). One of the main takeaways is that only half of the “did not vote” block is persistent, the other half varied from election to election. That and the fact that more of the 2011 returning non voters more went to National in 2014 than to Labour. Lots to think about there.

31 comments on “Voter transitions 2011 2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    22 May 2017 at 10:41 am

    To me the most intriguing illustration is NZFirst seems to draw small portions of support from all parties. Quite a sweet spot.

    • David Mac 1.1
      22 May 2017 at 10:52 am

      I wonder if that is due to our aging population of all political persuasions and appealing to 55+’s is the sweet spot.

  2. lprent 2
    22 May 2017 at 10:46 am

    Interesting. I’m really surprised about how non-voters move in and out of voting. But this is self-reported so there is going to be a high observer effect.

    That non-vote to vote National in 2014 is significiant. I’d take a bet that a lot of that was self-reporting again. The winner effect.

    There is one vote axis that isn’t there. Dead vote – but in a self-reported system that isn’t likely to be high.

    • David Mac 2.1
      22 May 2017 at 11:11 am

      I agree lprent. If guessing I would expect the ‘did not voters’ to remain relatively static. The ‘Ahhhh I just can’t be bothered’ crew. It appears this is not the case.

      It seems about half of them just need a strong enough reason to tootle down to the school and vote.

      • David Mac 2.1.1
        22 May 2017 at 11:40 am

        Creating and selling one compelling reason to vote will win the election.

        A commonly held view amongst those that could vote left is: “Ohhh you’ve misunderstood me, I’m all for helping people, it’s when the person receiving the help appears to be doing next to nothing to help themselves I lose heart.”

        Whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter. What matters is how do you win the vote of someone that thinks like that?

        I think we can all see the pointlessness of arguing whether an affordable house in Auckland costs $500k or $650k. Anyone that pulls on overalls to go to work is never going to have one at either price. The ticket price is not the emotional hot button. The way to get someone’s attention is with the entry price.

        “How much money do I need to get a place?”

        I think a policy that addresses the concerns of those that could vote left and in doing so attract broad appeal is something that has been proven to work in the past. Late 50’s early 60’s the housing boom was pushed along by the government assisting with financing people into houses.

        Something in the order of a $20k deposit saved, choose one off a neighbourhood plan.

        The spin-off benefits of people owning their own homes is huge. Crime plummets, health rises. General wellbeing blossoms.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1
          22 May 2017 at 12:27 pm

          The spin-off benefits of people owning their own homes is huge.

          Is it owning the home or just having a home?

          Indications from people who are now being kicked out o state housing after being there for decades is that it’s just having a home that counts. In other words, Labour would probably do better just by making all those houses that they want to build as state houses rather than affordable houses that they’re looking at selling. It still gets people a lifetime home if done right.

          • David Mac 2.1.1.1.1
            22 May 2017 at 12:42 pm

            Yep, I see your point Draco. I lived in social housing in Sweden for several years a while ago, fab….strangely most still pined for a place of their own.

            If you own your own bit, you’ve got skin in the game, you are society. It fosters pride.

            If drawing sketches of Narnia from the back of the wardrobe, yep, birthright houses for everyone. Cool, count me in.

            If winning in September is the goal, I’m not sure it’s a winning strategy.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.1.1
              22 May 2017 at 2:27 pm

              If you own your own bit, you’ve got skin in the game, you are society. It fosters pride.

              If you’re part of society then you would still ‘own’ it and you’d have pride in your society.

              • McFlock …
                22 May 2017 at 2:35 pm

                Not so much – it reminds me a bit of the folks who would say things like “I pay your salary” and assume it meant they could control what I did.

                I can see the appeal of being able to hack a hole in your own wall or get a pet without asking anyone’s permission.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  22 May 2017 at 2:57 pm

                  Not so much – it reminds me a bit of the folks who would say things like “I pay your salary” and assume it meant they could control what I did.

                  Are you saying that you think that some creeps would want to tell you how to live just because it’s a state house?

                  I can see the appeal of being able to hack a hole in your own wall or get a pet without asking anyone’s permission.

                  You actually do have to get permission to hack a hole in your wall and there’s rules around having pets as well. There shouldn’t be any other rules applied just because it’s a state house though.

                  • McFlock …
                    22 May 2017 at 3:08 pm

                    Well, yes they do. Especially under tory govt.

                    But additionally, if I owned my place I wouldn’t need to get permission to put in a cat flap, or strip the wallpaper, or not take out the rubbish for a while, or rip up the carpet, or get a cat, or change the stairs, or rip out the bathtub an install a spa bath, or create an ornamental garden instead of a lawn, or paint the roof green.

                    Some of those might require a standard building consent for safety reasons or other impacts on neighbours/whatever (which is as it should be, negative externalities and all), but the point is that I don’t have to ask permission from someone simply because they own the property I want to fuck around with.

                    There’s a lot to be said for owning your own home.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      22 May 2017 at 3:51 pm

                      Well, yes they do. Especially under tory govt.

                      Then put in place rules that stop them doing that.

                      And yes, that does mean putting limitations on government but then we should be doing that any way.

                      But additionally, if I owned my place I wouldn’t need to get permission to put in a cat flap, or strip the wallpaper, or not take out the rubbish for a while, or rip up the carpet, or get a cat, or change the stairs, or rip out the bathtub an install a spa bath, or create an ornamental garden instead of a lawn, or paint the roof green.

                      And why would you need to do that in a state house?

                      Again, it’s about putting in place the right rules that allow people to do such things. Just so long as they don’t destroy the house it shouldn’t be a problem.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 May 2017 at 4:06 pm

                      Well, yes they do. Especially under tory govt.

                      Then put in place rules that stop them doing that.

                      And yes, that does mean putting limitations on government but then we should be doing that any way.

                      Assuming I could rewrite the rulles, there’s always the question of the next tory government rewriting the rules back again.

                      But additionally, if I owned my place I wouldn’t need to get permission to put in a cat flap, or strip the wallpaper, or not take out the rubbish for a while, or rip up the carpet, or get a cat, or change the stairs, or rip out the bathtub an install a spa bath, or create an ornamental garden instead of a lawn, or paint the roof green.

                      And why would you need to do that in a state house?

                      Again, it’s about putting in place the right rules that allow people to do such things. Just so long as they don’t destroy the house it shouldn’t be a problem.

                      Again, even assuming I rewrote the rules to suit myself, there’s nothing stopping the next tory government from rewriting them back.

                      Even in a state house, in this day and age you still need to ask the landlord for permission to make alterations. That is why private home ownership still has its attractions. Maybe that would change if we could guarantee that tories would never be in power again, but that raises more issues than it solves.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      22 May 2017 at 7:16 pm

                      It’s not about writing the rules to suit yourself but simply making them right and that does mean limiting government. Done right, the Tories won’t be able to change them.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 May 2017 at 11:43 pm

                      Well, when that happens, get back to me.

              • David Mac …
                22 May 2017 at 5:55 pm

                With hard earned achievement comes pride, it’s an emotional thing Draco. The force that pushes us all along. The pursuit of feeling good.

                You seem to be an expert on what society should be doing for me but I’m not seeing much of what I should be doing in return. I’d love a free house but I fear all the builders will be fishing.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  22 May 2017 at 7:14 pm

                  You seem to be an expert on what society should be doing for me but I’m not seeing much of what I should be doing in return.

                  Really? you seem to get it here:

                  I’d love a free house but I fear all the builders will be fishing.

                  Society cannot be separated from the individuals in it nor the obverse.

                  • David Mac …
                    22 May 2017 at 7:34 pm

                    Yeah…..if I give you a house in 5 years you’ll be demanding I paint it for you.

                    if it’s yours you’ll paint it yourself. I’ll be fishing.

          • aerobubble 2.1.1.1.2
            22 May 2017 at 2:43 pm

            Money talks. Improvished, poorly paid, have little to look forward to. More so in Nz since the media narrative is monied people have a voice. Govts usedo believe keeping the population housed, fed well, accessing health, having security, education, meant they would be available in war time, and for bettering their position in peace time. THen the neo-lib declared fees for education, health, stopped social housing, and media, even Labour now recoil from bringup how badly run NZ is, well we’re doing so well stiff ourserves on housing, health, on future prospects, geez the only way out is a doing it yourself on your individualistic owesome, no.8 wire…,

            Sure social housing would be great, but when the buildings are one story high, it aint the solution to go all swedish loving, its a civics problem, when councils draw up land they design for one story homes with curvy roads and cars. Not for long term decades later when pop. rises and boundaries need to be merged, buses need direct routes, etc, etc. The idea of citizens living close to shops, schools, retail harms the systemic interests of car industry, real estate agents, builders makups, etc etc.

            Build a new, dense city in S.auckland before they carve up the land and build sprawl, oops, too late.

    • Wayne 2.2
      22 May 2017 at 11:31 am

      It is obvious what happened in 2014, and it was widely reported at the time. A number of voters were very annoyed at the whole Mana Internet thing and the stunt at the town hall that they were determined to vote National. That also included non-voters, who are not all Left as is sometimes supposed.

      • David Mac 2.2.1
        22 May 2017 at 12:12 pm

        Alas, to a degree, I agree. Wasn’t obvious to me. The prospect of Kim having leverage in the Hive may well of prompted voting action from the ‘can’t be bothered right across the political spectrum.

        Rather than a compelling reason to win an election, that order of events became a compelling reason to lose one.

        That energy can be steered in either direction.

    • dukeofurl 2.3
      22 May 2017 at 11:52 am

      The story mentions they dont account for ‘left the country’ as well.

  3. james 3
    22 May 2017 at 11:10 am

    Thats really interesting.

    This years one will be more so.

  4. greywarshark 4
    22 May 2017 at 11:20 am

    It seems that the Other is about the same size as NZFirst and Greens. If some of the alternative parties that are credible have their interests taken on board, it could be a valuable though small boost for a small party.

    The artistic way the graphic is drawn with colours intensifying only near their end isn’t helpful in tracing where they have come from.

  5. Paul Campbell 5
    22 May 2017 at 11:43 am

    How come there’s a ‘too young to vote’ category and not a ‘dead’ one ….

    I guess it’s part of ‘others’ but that means you can’t meaningfully compare ‘others’ on each side

    • Paul Campbell 5.1
      22 May 2017 at 11:52 am

      Ah I see he’s recording ‘self reported votes and, well, dead men tell no tales ….

      Nevertheless one should be careful about comparing both sides (the missing data could be reconstructed using exit polling data and demographic info)

  6. dukeofurl 6
    22 May 2017 at 11:49 am

    I would have thought the 2011- Too young to vote portion would have a higher -Did not vote in 2014.
    As they dont have the voting habit, which comes from knowing where the polling places are , having the time to do so etc.

    Each year 63k voters turn 18, and we know a high portion dont vote, in 3 years that 190k who would be in the ‘too young to vote’ category.

    The reason why NZ first shows up strongly is that they were the only party to have a significant increase in % party votes , ‘other parties’ was the same .

  7. David Mac 7
    22 May 2017 at 12:31 pm

    If those dying between the 2 elections were not factored in I would expect NZ First to have a fatter ‘Did not vote’ line.

    • Paul Campbell 7.1
      22 May 2017 at 12:33 pm

      Because the graphs depend on self reported voting, and the dead tend to not report much, that information is likely missing

      • David Mac 7.1.1
        22 May 2017 at 12:51 pm

        Yes, sorry you had to repeat yourself. Not sure why the bleeding obvious escaped me. Please don’t ask me the time when I’m holding a drink.