- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.nz
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.nz
I find the detail of this Wikipedia page to be amazing. It was shared 2 months ago (thanks @SamC). The main things that have changed since then are a continued slight dip in Labour/National and a slight rise in Maori/ACT.
If you have the time and energy then remember to read the policy proposals by the parties that you don’t like as well as the parties that you do like.
You must log in or register to comment.
National/ACT have definitely opened up a lead of around 5% in the last month or so. But that is a very slim lead, especially when the margin of error is considered.
Probably the most similar election to this in recent times is 2005. I definitely think the chance of a polling error (either way) is higher than usual, because there are probably a few more swing voters than usual. We’re also seeing stronger support for the smaller parties than almost any other MMP election.
Even if the polling is accurate, the election could turn on a few events/policies, again in either direction. And there’s the NZF factor - it will definitely make things “interesting” if they get above the 5% threshold.
Anyway, my view is that National/ACT are favourites right now, but it’s still anyone’s to win. It’s funny how a lot of people seem to assume that it’s more or less a forgone conclusion!
Edit: another piece of trivia - the last 6 Prime Ministers who took office during the parliamentary term have gone on to lose their next election. So Hipkins has some history to overcome!
It’s funny how a lot of people seem to assume that it’s more or less a forgone conclusion!
It’s interesting, because I’ve read several times over the years that one of the strongest predictors for an election isn’t just counting up who people say they’ll vote for but rather who they think will win.
Everyone I talk to seems to think a National coalition will win, regardless of their political leanings. I certainly do because of this, even though though polling suggests it’s far from a forgone conclusion. Elections can be so much about a general mood of the country on the day.
Yes, this is referred to as the “bandwagon effect” and there is some evidence to suggest it does happen.
However, with a lot of these things, it’s probably only making a difference at the margins. It might influence someone who is completely on the fence, e.g. if they couldn’t decide between National and Labour, they saw National seemed to be winning, so went for them. But most people do tend to think carefully about who they vote for rather than be influenced by something “superficial”.
This is really interesting. Is it something to do with people wanting to feel as if they’re on the winning team, even though you can effectively declare you’re voting for someone and there’s still no way for anyone to prove it*?
* Although the recent trend from the past couple of elections of people photographing their completed ballot papers and posting to social media really needs to be clamped down upon, imho.
This is really interesting. Is it something to do with people wanting to feel as if they’re on the winning team, even though you can effectively declare you’re voting for someone and there’s still no way for anyone to prove it*?
Yes, pretty much this. Deciding who to vote for can be a pretty difficult and complex decision. People end up relying on “short cuts”, so something like the bandwagon effect happens. There’s even evidence that shark attacks can influence how people vote.
This is not scientific and is going purely by my memory but I don’t recall any small party getting the numbers the polls predicted. It’s always lower. People say they are going to vote for smaller parties but when it comes to voting they go for labour or national.
@BalpeenHammer @SamC it’s more noticeable with left wing small parties though? I notice it a lot with my boomer rellies.
It can happen but last time Greens did better than expected based on polls
My takeaway from looking at these results is that both major parties are a bit shit. I don’t think coalitions on either side will help much either, and people are always too scared of voting for someone different (e.g. TOP) to do anything about it.
My takeaway is that people of NZ are sick and tired of falling house prices, low unemployment, competent management of the economy, stronger unions, competent management of unexpected natural disasters and terrorist attacks etc. They are sick and tired of signing free trade deals with the largest economies in the world.
They are just done with all that want to get rid of anybody who had any part in that.
Its going to be interesting to see how elections play out over the next 20 years or so as more and more people raised on FPP age out of our voting pool. In another 5 years people who first voted since 1998 will be between 18-60 years old and may be the majority of the voting populace by then (depending on how turnout rates change).
I suspect that those voters are more inclined to see coalitions as a normal and good thing for representation so we might see the two broad parties split a little bit and become more focussed. Labour are a centre-left and centrist party slapped together. National has elements of being centre-right, far-right and religious fundamentalist.
If those two parties split and really adopted those identities proper I think it would give voters more choices to find parties that really represent them. What could happen in a scenario like that is more coalitions forming around the centrist parties - rather than what can happen at the moment where an ostensibly centrist voter’s party choice is dragged far further left or right than the voter intended due to the outsized influence small parties can have if its the only way to form a government.
ie in some ways 20+20+20 is better than 55+5.
I much prefer this idea. As it currently stands I find it very hard to vote as it seems no party is quite what I’m after. More choice could be interesting, my only concern being that we’d just end up with more compromise and less progress.
I’d love to see a more data driven government that ran small experiments based on science rather than ideology. For example I assume most people agree child poverty is bad, but it ends up being a big debate about who’s ideology is right to fix it. Run some experiments. See what works. Look at what’s operated internationally. I would love to see politics as a more collaborative activity but at the moment they mainly seem to focus on owning the opponents rather than working together.
I think you would see more compromise, but the truth is that happens already - so instead of the compromise being adopting some of Act’s most extreme positions (anathema to me) or vice versa with the Green’s (something many farmers might rage against) the compromises would be to not go too far, not do too much.
In a way it would see the sort of change that Jacinda Ardern favoured - slow and steady, take the people with you rather than the sort of change that David Seymour would champion which is more I have the power right now so all this is happening right now.
For a lot of people that sort of stability would be beneficial - but for others, including people who need change most, it would happen far slower than it might now. So its really whether you want rapid change that swings from side to side until it stabilises into an electoral compromise over several elections, or one election and more minor change over a single term.
I find it really interesting that National have a pretty consistent lead in the party polling, but Hipkins has a consistent lead in preferred PM
Kiwis like charismatic leaders. I’m not saying Hipkins has an awful lot of charisma, but Luxton appears to have a negative amount.
It’s quite common for the incumbent PM to be most preferred PM until they lose!
People only see two potential governments, and are sick of the one we have, so a National led government seems like the only option.
But even the staunchest National supporters wish there was someone other than Luxon to lead the party.
National’s problem is that the most ambitious people to take over from Luxon now (after getting rid of everyone else) would be either a return to Collins which would fail, Willis or Bishop.
Willis has had a few gaffes, including the biggest policy to date on the tax shift and under the microscope it’d be interesting to see how she held up. Bishop is one of those people who if you like him, you like him, but if not you find him immensely unlikeable.
National has a real shortage of likeable candidates, dont they?
National have also had a lot of oxygen in the first half of this year with the various missteps from Labour. They’ve also got a crap ton of money that they’re throwing in blanketing the country in their billboards. They’ve probably only been up a week or so and im already sick of them all.
What will be interesting is seeing how Luxon/Willis perform in any face to face debates with their counterparts. I suspect Hipkins may thrash Luxon on likeability and actual ideas/communicating them. When Luxon’s being challenged on something he quite literally starts to turn red and can get noticeably short tempered.
Willis I think is debsoc trained so would probably fare better, but since becoming deputy a lot of the policy ideas she’s promoted seem a bit factually / implementably dubious so whether she actually has a deep understanding of things is probably in question and may not do so well if a debate was on issues/facts.
Probably a bad sign for Labour that I can’t off the top of my head think of who their deputy is at the moment - although that’s also a bad sign for National because the reason they are so heavy into Luxon/Willis is because of how unlikeable the former is!
Seeing the two lines dancing around each other is pretty cool.
