Final election results: How did the prediction go?

The unofficial official results are out. (Hat-tip kiwiblog.) Votes, % of total votes and number of seats for the main parties are:

National Party 1,053,398 44.93 58
Labour Party 796,880 33.99 43
Green Party 157,613 6.72 9
ACT New Zealand 85,496 3.65 5
Mäori Party 55,980 2.39 5
Jim Anderton’s Progressive 21,241 0.91 1
United Future 20,497 0.87 1
New Zealand First Party 95,356 4.07 0

My 6 November prediction was:

“National 45%, Labour 36%, Greens 10%, ACT 2.5% (with Epsom), NZ First 2.5% (without Tauranga), Maori (3% with 7 seats), others 1% (with Ohariu and Wigram).”

So, I was 0.07% out for National, 2.01% out for Labour; a whopping 3.28% out for Greens; 1.15% out for ACT; 1.57% out for NZ First; and 0.61% but 2 seats out for the Maori Party. Also, picked Ohariu, Wigram and Tauranga correctly.

Not too bad, but not one of my best efforts. Should have picked that more Labour voters would stay home. But what went wrong with the Green vote?

Did more Labour voters stay home? We’ll see when the NZES analysis comes out. We know that 78.8% of registered voters went to the polls, a couple of per cent less than 2005. This sounds good but is not great for NZ. There has been declining participation for some time.



8 Responses to “Final election results: How did the prediction go?”

  1. adamsmith1922 Says:

    Good pick overall

    I think the Greens have a real problem. There are many people who believe in the environment, but have a real problem with much of the economic agenda and the way the Greens present issues.

    They come across very poorly at times.

    In addition they constantly claim to want feedback and to consult and yet they always come down to a hard left position.

    If the Greens acted more like a Green Party and less like a home for those to the left of Labour then they would get further

    They need to move to the centre.

  2. Around and About on Final 2008 Election Results « The Inquiring Mind Says:

    […] Jafapete comments here. JP appears to have been on the money as regards the Nats %, but off regarding the Greens. […]

  3. underground Says:

    The Greens cannot just be an environmental party, because how would they vote on non-environmental issues? Abstain? If so, they would be a waste of space, as they would not even contribute to 90 per cent of parliamentary debate. As a left-wing environment-focused party the Greens are doing very well anyway, they certainly don’t have a “real problem”.

    I don’t think an environment only focused party would do very well anyway, as even for greenies the environment is not the only concern they have and vote on a range of issues. I for one would not vote for a centrist Green party concerned with only the environment. Most Green supporters also support their social and economic policies. Single issue parties always fail. Are there any examples to the contrary?

    If there were more people on the right who were genuinely concerned with the environment they should start a blue-green party, or demand the current right wing parties take environmental issues seriously. Till then the Green party will continue to get more votes than Act, NZ First, or United Future. They must be doing something right!

  4. Inventory2 Says:

    Agree with Adam’s comment. Given that Greens couldn’t get more than 6.7% in this election with a significant swing against Labour, the party faces an anxious future. In all probablility this will be Jeanette Fitzsimons’ last term, and she seems to be the last of the moderates in the Greens’ leadership – they are looking more and more than a hard left-wing option. Being frozen out of influence again will not help them develop a profile, and without an election seat to fall back on, they are in danger of following Peters into oblivion.

  5. StephenR Says:

    they are in danger of following Peters into oblivion.

    You might’ve missed the increase in seats from 6 to 9? Or do you think their support is soft and will just migrate back to Labour once they sort their lot out?

  6. Inventory2 Says:

    StephenR – yes, I do think the Greens’ support is soft. Clearly, they gathered some support from Labour – people who couldn’t bear to vote National, but their increase in vote was pretty small – 1.42 percentage points, from 5.3% in 2005 to 6.72% this year. But the bottom line is that the Greens have achieved little when Labour, their “preferred partner” has governed, and they will achieve even less in opposition, albeit with an enlarged caucus. Because the Greens’ major problem is not the size of the caucus; it’s the personnel.

  7. StephenR Says:

    “it’s the personnel.”

    Catherine De La Hunty? 😉

    They actually achieved several things, but nothing major. Pretty good effort for a party not even in coalition, but none the less they *should* be ruing what could have been.

  8. dave Says:

    My top 10 picks are hereAll were accurate. I only picked the Greens to have 8 seats. That was my 11th pick, fortunately …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: