More Results Analysis

Here are some more interesting figures extracted from the polling results. Warning I am not a statistician.

No One Won

Total Population 5979
Number who Voted 3857
percent voting 64.5%

64.5% of the population voting is commonly regarded as a success. The overall figure for Auckland 3 years ago was 37.3%, this time it is 50.54%. So while Auckland massively increased its turnout, Waiheke which always turns out well didn’t increase much. That remaining 35% of voters just don’t want to turn out. Great Barrier managed 74.2%

Take a look at the table of results more closely – let me add in the people who didn’t vote for anyone – who effectively voted for no-one

Candidate votes percent of vote percent of pop
Denise Roche 2200 57% 37%
No One 2122 55% 35%
Faye Storer 1816 47% 30%
Jo Holmes 1623 42% 27%
Don McKenzie 1357 35% 23%
Jim Hannan 1348 35% 23%
Andy Spence 1330 34% 22%
Herb Romaniuk 1214 31% 20%
Paul Waldon 1122 29% 19%
Marijke Ransom 1090 28% 18%
Dorte Wray 949 25% 16%
Colin Beardon 769 20% 13%
Ewen Sutherland 471 12% 8%
Allen Davies 411 11% 7%
Graham Hooper 331 9% 6%
Charissa Snijders 315 8% 5%
Millie Watkins 306 8% 5%
Victor Martick 163 4% 3%

As you can see ‘no one’ effectively came second. Only Denise has more votes than ‘no one’ Only Denise can claim to represent a majority of islanders. For everyone else sadly there are more people who would rather not vote for anyone than vote for you. A sobering thought – please get in touch with me if you want to be part of doing something about that.

Left or Right – Progressive or Business as Usual ?

Does the Local Board represent the island?    One way to look at is would be to compare the number of votes gained by the winners (8344) compared with those gained by the losers (8471).  A near even split but probably not significant as you would expect a fairly smooth log curve distribution across the population.

I don’t hold with the concept of left or right. I think it is outmoded and diminishes peoples choices. One can be socially inclusive while being fiscally responsible for example.   However during the campaign much was said about sustainability and community resilience and we might take a look at the results from that point of view.

The Business as Usual point of view says that the last few decades have been immensely successful with growth in many industries and increasing globalisation.  The way to plan for the future of Waiheke is to expect more of the same type of pressures. That might mean

  • More tourists and growing wine, olive industry
  • More traffic
  • Increasing population on the island
  • More suburban pressures

The Progressive or ‘times they are a changing’ point of view says that the next few decades will be completely unlike the last decades. Growing debt and financial crises, growing energy costs and oil depletion, climate change all could result in a dramatically different future.  These changes have been discussed extensively elsewhere but for Waiheke they might mean

  • Reduction in international tourism
  • Greatly increased fuel costs – more expensive car and ferry transport
  • Loss of credit for investment
  • Falling house and land values
  • Business failures and rising unemployment
  • Falling population as people can not afford to live on the island
  • More extreme weather events: storms, droughts etc.

So the question is what is the view of the island on these issues and is it reflected by the local board?

Candidate votes Progressive Business as usual Progressive
Denise Roche 2200 1 0 2200
Faye Storer 1816 0 1816 0
Jo Holmes 1623 0 1623 0
Don McKenzie 1357 1 0 1357
Jim Hannan 1348 0 1348 0
Andy Spence 1330 1 0 1330
Herb Romaniuk 1214 0 1214 0
Paul Waldon 1122 1 0 1122
Marijke Ransom 1090 1 0 1090
Dorte Wray 949 1 0 949
Colin Beardon 769 1 0 769
Ewen Sutherland 471 1 0 471
Allen Davies 411 0 411 0
Graham Hooper 331 1 0 331
Charissa Snijders 315 1 0 315
Millie Watkins 306 1 0 306
Victor Martick 163 0 163 0
Total Island 6575 10240
Total Board 4787 3557

The totals come out showing that the progressives got 10240 votes compared to the baus 6575 an approximate 60:40 split across the whole voting public.  However on the Local Board the buas have a majority.

Note I’ve graded the candidates according to my own interpretation of what they said in the campaign.  I’m happy to be corrected on this.

With 20:20 hindsight we can all come up with reasons why this might have come about. Nevertheless I would hope the new board bear these figures in mind when they consider their mandate.

5 thoughts on “More Results Analysis”

  1. Fascinating analysis. I wonder what the outcome would have been had voting proceeded on the basis of a single transferrable vote? I assume that system, which yields a result that is unarguably more representative of what voters wanted (being able to equitably account for split votes and the like) would have returned a different set of board members and we wouldn’t have the current situation where the mandate is in question, irrespective of how one draws distinctions between candidates.

  2. My hunch is that Ransom and Walden should be in the “business as usual” column. They stood on the same platform as Allen Davies

    1. That was a bit of a strange alliance, but they would be ‘progressive’ in my book. And more on the lefty-greeny side if you want to split it that way. I wonder how many other people got confused by that. Probably they were trying to escape from such dichotamies…?

Comments are closed.