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.
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 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.
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