Votes by age and income

Interesting charts showing voting patterns for parties based on the average age and income of the area they voted (most probably live in the same vicinity) – from Age, income, and votes

This gives us an approximate indication of the age and income of those voting for different parties.

Might as well say it: the older and the richer your area, the more likely you are to vote National, and the less likely you are to vote Labour. At the same time, even in their weakest spot, National still score 22%, which indicates just how favourable the ‘baseline’ is to them.

If Grandma is pulling in six figures, odds on she’s not pulling for Winston.

We call it the Swarbrick quadrant.

While Greens have put a lot of emphasis on speaking and advocating for the poor that’s a demographic with a low vote turnout. Perhaps it’s environmentalists who are their well off supporters.

About that concentration of the Green’s in the bottom right… This is not saying most of the Greens vote comes from the young and rich (see health-warnings below). What it’s saying is that the Greens do comparatively better in areas where the population is on average both young and richer.

The specific places captured in those boxes are for the most part Wellington Central and Auckland’s inner west (Grey Lynn, Kingsland).

 

There is also relatively strong support in Dunedin North for the Greens, but I suspect that is less from scarfies and more from staff and their families.

Method

Each of these heat maps shows the relationship between: the percentage of the party vote each party received at each polling place in 2014, and the average age (for the total population, not just eligible voters) and average household income of the StatsNZ Area Unit (read: suburb) the polling place is located in, according to the 2013 Census.

I did the analysis at an area-unit and polling place level because that’s as granular as you can get. But I can’t stress this enough, this is a guide only. All the polling places and suburbs here have a lot of internal diversity, so don’t make too much of the trend. As a helpful tweep pointed put, there’s a lot of ecological fallacy risk here

The underlying data comes from a database I’ve rigged up using information published by the Electoral Commission.

More details, plus heat maps for the minor parties (Maori and Mana tend towards poor,  ACT towards rich and leaning young) in Age, income, and votes.

Dunedin North

I have checked the votes per polling booth for Dunedin North in 2014 and it roughly matches these heat maps.

National did best in more affluent suburbs like Maori Hill (52%), and in rural areas like Hampden, Palmerston, Dunback and Waikouaiti. They did poorly in lower decile areas like Brockville (22%), Port Chalmers (about 15%) and strong university areas.

Labour did well in South Dunedin, Pine Hill, Halfway Bush, Bradford and particularly Brockville. They did poorly in rural areas like Moeraki, Dunback and Herbert.

Greens did well in university polling booths and suburbs popular with university staff like Opoho and St Leonards, and also in alternative living areas like Waitati, plus at Age Concern They did poorly in poor areas like South Dunedin and Brockville, and also in rural areas.

NZ First oddly did poorly at Age Concern, and in university areas and affluent suburbs. They had stronger pockets of support in Brockville, Halfway Bush and Hampden, Moeraki and Long Beach.

 

 

1.2 million flag votes already

There seems to be a lot of interest in the flag referendum, with 1.2 million votes returned in the first week. This is 50% higher than at a similar stage of the first referendum.

fri_10_03_stats

Date Votes received
07 March 167,772
08 March 60,691
09 March 361,778
10 March 382,800*
11 March 228,800*
Total (Cumulative) 1,201,841

Source: Electoral Commission

The total vote count in the first referendum was 1,393,615.

It’s good to see a high level of early interest. Time will tell whether people are keen to vote early, or if more people are keen to vote.

cbb-1904-govt-nz-750x202-ref-two

Whatever your choice, if you haven’t voted yet then consider taking part in our flag choice. This may be the only chance you get, I don’t expect another opportunity in my lifetime.

Koha for votes?

An interesting issue arose out of Duncan Garner’s inteview of Simon Lusk around the use of koha or a form of financial encouragement to vote.

Garner wrote: Lusk goes public on ‘koha to vote’

Many people have asked me does political operative Simon Lusk pay people, on behalf of clients, to get a certain voting outcome – as I said on TV3’s Story last night.

This is his response he just sent me:

Get out the Vote, especially in local government elections, can have a real impact on results because so few vote, and so few minorities vote.

Local government, on the other hand, is relatively easy to run a legal Get out the Vote campaign. Provided you are not paying for votes or offering anything in exchange for a vote, or treating, there are few rules around GOTV, and small turn out changes alter results.

The one group in New Zealand that has the ability to mobilise a big database of people quickly and effectively is Iwi. Thanks to the Treaty settlement process Iwi now have extensive databases of members who they can easily mobilise. At local government, iwi can quickly mobilise people to ensure their members Get out the Vote, and get their candidates elected. Assembling a team of 50 or 100 iwi members to Get out the Vote is straightforward, legal and effective if it is possible to raise some koha.’

(That is edited)

This raised some discussion in the Social Media thread today but it deserves it’s own post.

Jaspa:

From Lusk’s statement, I suspect something a bit more dodgy is at play here, and I suppose it’s the whole idea that has me gobsmacked.

Just thinking about it today has given me a strange possessive (? if that is the right word?) feeling about my right to vote and the fact that I would never sell it, for anything.

As the RNZ article says “But that statement didn’t answer key questions: How much was paid? By whom? And for what purpose? “

Pete Kane:

Three things here:

1. Were people ‘paid’ (if ‘koha’ for expenses still must be declared) to canvas/work in some way? (A problem if yes and not declared.)

2. Were people given a ‘koha’ to participate in the form of vote? (Big problem.) Were people given a ‘koha’ to participate in the form of vote – with implied (big, big problem) guidance or even clear ( HMP rock breaking problem) ‘guidance’ as to how said vote is ‘best’ cast?

3. Did Lusk admit to being hired by a third party to campaign for an election outcome (either Party Vote or TTT or both)? Was this declared under the EFA requirements?

Note: In the pragmatic sense – it’s really Mana/Internet vs Labour, National and NZ first here. Wouldn’t have a clue how the Greens might approach this (although Nicky vs Lusk?). So not easy – but I would think there are people, not only from Internet/Mana interests, but political and legal academia, just sneaking a little peep at all this.