Results thread 2014

[Omegakai]

Originally Posted by Spink

Students will drink free alcohol and come to anything vaguely considered a party but they won't thank you for it.

cant have been free, that would have broken at least 2 laws.

[Spink]

Well you could argue that they paid with their integrity.

I dunno actually, I'm just sensationalizing it.

[Ab]

Stats from the nation's hardest-working numbercruncher David Farrar:

• Labour won the party vote in only five general electorates, down from 14 last time
• National beat Labour by 23.4% nationwide, 22.7% in Auckland, 13.7% in Wellington, 24.9% in Christchurch, 25.0% in provincial NZ and 40.9% in rural NZ
• Labour’s party vote dropped by 3.4% in Auckland and Wellington and 2.4% in Christchurch
• Greens got 16.6% party vote in Wellington. Conservatives got 5.2% in rural NZ
• Internet Mana went up 0.5% the three main cities but dropped 3.3% party vote in the Maori seats. Maori did not like selling out to Kim Dotcom.
• The best party vote for National was Tamaki at 66.6%
• National got over 50% party vote in 35 seats while Labour were below 20% in 23 seats and unbelievably below 15% in 13 seats!
• NZ First got over 5% in 66 of 71 seats
• Greens got 28.1% party vote in Wellington Central
• The Conservatives got over 5% party vote in 19 seats (typo)
• Labour came third in the party vote in four seats – Bay of Plenty, Helensville, Tauranga and Wellington Central

Something something Christchurch:




Or, as was posted at The Standard:

As for Christchurch, here’s hoping another earthquake flattens the place. They need to be taught a lesson.

[StN]

Those jokers be speaking like WhaleOil...

[Lightspeed]

That's the new status quo.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by Omegakai

While its feasible to easy commit voting fraud in our current system, I don’t believe it is wide spread to the volume that would have affected the outcome of this election. As you would require 1000’s of people to be doing it.
In any case a recount won’t for sure pick up those fraudulent votes
Also I think if the margin is with in X amount this triggers an electoral recount anyway

Originally Posted by Omegakai

I think you should vote, and there should be an option to abstain with reasons. that way you get votes and you data on why people didn't vote at the same time

I like the idea of compulsary voting, with an option on the voting paper to abstain.
I also think there needs to more in workplaces & universities & winz offices about the election and how and when to vote.

Winston is definitely better in opposition, but if I had a choice I would rather him not there at all. And you have to assume that is why the government want to talk with him. Better to have him on your side than against you.

And yes national will form a coalition with the other parties to keep them happy (playing the long game for the next election), but they have a lot less power to influence. Although I guess that is a good thing. A <1% party shouldnt be able to ransom the leading party.

Im interested in online voting, and the security of it.
Imagine if you had it this time, with Kim Dotcom there. I could imagine it would have created a lot of interest in hacking groups to try and get into the system.

[CCS]

You guys are missing the point. You can make voting compulsory if you want, but being enrolled is already compulsory. The first hurdle hasn't even been crossed yet. Look at Spink's links. Those stats aren't people who voted - they're people who couldn't even be fucked abiding by their legal requirement to enrol.

Originally Posted by blynk

I like the idea of compulsary voting, with an option on the voting paper to abstain.

I think you mean there should be a No Confidence option.

A <1% party shouldnt be able to ransom the leading party.

You think that would happen?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by CCS

You guys are missing the point. You can make voting compulsory if you want, but being enrolled is already compulsory.

Indeed. What's needed is the belief that it's worth voting.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Indeed. What's needed is the belief that it's worth voting.

Do you think that could be enforced by law?

[Lightspeed]

How do you mean?

[blynk]

Originally Posted by CCS

You think that would happen?

If you had the right person/party. Yep.

[Spink]

What do you as a country even do if 20, 30, 55% of the country votes no confidence in that theoretical situation where it is an option?

[CCS]

Originally Posted by blynk

If you had the right person/party. Yep.

Such parties represent one seat. This term, Act and UNF won't be able to hold National to ransom.

Can you think of a time they have done so in the past?

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Spink

What do you as a country even do if 20, 30, 55% of the country votes no confidence in that theoretical situation where it is an option?

It was a 77% voter turnout this year. If you want, you could describe the 23% who didn't vote because they're too fucking lazy as No Confidence.

The question is, do you want the No Confidence option as a statistical means of separating the Can't Be Fuckeds from the Genuinely Don't Believe In Any Of The Parties? Or do you want it to be more meaning, ie No Confidence reaches a certain threshold and we go back to square one and have another election?

[Ab]

There are sensible but dogmatically lefty voters who wouldn't vote for National because they're dogmatically lefty, but they wouldn't vote for LabourGreenWinstonInternana because they're sensible. There's nowhere for their vote to go, so I guess a lot of them didn't vote.

[Spink]

I feel better just assuming they're mostly can't be fuckeds and not wasting the money on analysing it.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Ab

There are sensible but dogmatically lefty voters who wouldn't vote for National because they're dogmatically lefty, but they wouldn't vote for LabourGreenWinstonInternana because they're sensible. There's nowhere for their vote to go, so I guess a lot of them didn't vote.

Pretty much. My flatmate is a life-long leftie and says he didn't vote this time or last time. He won't admit it, but he's disillusioned with Labour and couldn't stomach voting for them. He won't vote further left to Green and National are a sworn enemy.

[Lightspeed]

The majority of the right voted that way because they believed myths like NZ isn't rich, then there is the vanishingly small minority of voters on the right who actually benefit from National being in power by virtue of their economic position.

[Ab]

It's not so much that people thought they'd benefit from National remaining in power; it's that they thought they would be HURT by LabourGreenWinstonInternana taking power.

The latest Westpac McDermott Miller survey of consumer confidence shows 46 per cent expected good times for the next three years under a National government.

But under a Labour-Greens government just 14 per cent would have expected good times ahead, while 40 per cent would have expected bad times.

When only 14% of people think they'll be better off with you in charge, you ain't gonna be put in charge.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

It's not so much that people thought they'd benefit from National remaining in power; it's that they thought they would be HURT by LabourGreenWinstonInternana taking power.

If they've believed that it's because it's the only story that's out there - a benefit of a unified right vs a segmented left I suppose. It doesn't tell us much about what would actually happen though.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

The majority of the right voted that way because they believed myths like NZ isn't rich, then there is the vanishingly small minority of voters on the right who actually benefit from National being in power by virtue of their economic position.

I like how you presume to know the reasons why any one (let alone the majority of the right) voted in any particular way. I also enjoy reading how anyone who didn't vote the same way you did either did it for personal benefit, or because they're stupid. That's a fantastic way to view the world.

[pxpx]

Lightspeed you truly are fucking delusional.

[Spink]

Don't feed the troll.

[Farmer Joe]

I voted Green but if they didn't exist I wouldn't have voted Labour. That's pretty fucked.

[The Edge]

I think the situation was the same as in 2002 - apparently a lot of voters then saw that Labour was going to win, so there was no point in them voting as it wouldn't change anything.

[Ab]

The converse also holds true though - "oh, my team looks like it's going to win easy, I don't need to go out and vote"

[Savage]

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Savage

I like how you presume to know the reasons why any one (let alone the majority of the right) voted in any particular way. I also enjoy reading how anyone who didn't vote the same way you did either did it for personal benefit, or because they're stupid. That's a fantastic way to view the world.

Thanks, that's exactly my point. Except the way I said it before got deleted.

[Spink]

Lightspeed's posts now word filter to

[Lightspeed]

Shit and jizz, eh?

[Spink]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I guess you're right afterall

[Lightspeed]

I tend to think dialectically, if I think I'm right, I've made a mistake somewhere.

[Spink]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I think your DBT needs some revision, you're slipping frequently.

[Lightspeed]

And yet, my sense is I'm the one considered at fault for threads turning to shit.

[Spink]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Stop... twisting... the... knife

[crocos]

For each general election since 1957 the voter-turn out percentage has dropped on-average 0.75% each election.
The net trend over the last 100 years is 0.26%, so that is a significant acceleration.

People have commented that this year was the 3rd lowest turnout in the last 100 years. That little bon mot treats 1978 as the lowest turn-out year with 69.2%. However in the next general election over 361,000 names were removed from the electoral roll as duplicates; Allowing for that, 1978 becomes 79.9%, making the last three elections the lowest turn-out in the last 100 years at 74.2% (2011), 76.5% (this year) and 78.7% (2008)

That said, the lowest voter turn-out since records began is 60.6%, in 1884.

30.2% of the eligible population - over 1 million people - either didn't vote or didn't enroll.

Greatest percentage of seats held by any party was 69.07% in 1990 with National. Labour's highest was 1935 & 1938 each with 66.25%

No real point to this rambling collection of facts other than damn, makes you think.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Spink

Stop... twisting... the... knife

Clean up, isle Spink.

[Spink]

isle show you how to spell that correctly if you like.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I'm not so sure mine is an opinion. Perhaps you could give me a sensible definition of what the center is evidenced by what occurs elsewhere.

As a starting point I am sure you'd agree with me if the USA was used but thinking wider on a population-weighted basis for western-style democracies I really do think I am on safe ground.

If you want to use an NZ-only definition of center then I'd agree with you.

I guess you'd vote for the Conservatives in the elections back home eh?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Spink

isle show you how to spell that correctly if you like.

lolz