Saturday, December 17, 2011

Waitakere humour post No.2

In this post I saw it as quite funny that Labour's "two ticks" campaign was probably too much for the brainpower of  Labour Party voters out West.

I've just remembered something else quite hilarious.  All I need to do to explain it is:
  • Re-post a comment I made at The Standard in September; and
  • Publish the results from Waitakere both before and after the recount.
First, my comment from The Standard:

From the Herald:
"She said the Green Party candidate had also publicly endorsed her, telling people at a community meeting to give their electorate vote to Ms Sepuloni. The Green Party candidate got 1676 votes last election – more than Ms Bennett’s winning margin."
Bennett won with a margin of 632 in 2008. I am certain Bradford’s name on the ballot paper will guarantee some of those candidate votes will go from the Greens to Bradford, despite what a candidate says at a meeting – let’s say 500. Bradford will also, by default, pick up other disgruntled votes – let’s say 500.


So Bradford gets 1,000 candidate votes, the Green candidate gets 800 (a total of 1,800 – more than the Green candidate got last time) and Sepuloni is left wondering “what the F*** happened to *her* votes”. This wouldn’t matter so much in a seat that isn’t so marginal, but when you’re arguing over 632 votes, it will.


The other factors are this: MMP historical voting patterns show that the Right is smarter at splitting its vote. How is three left wing candidates good for enabling one left wing candidate to win? Also, Bradford is one of the best campaigners in the country. Her name, voice and campaign will ensure she gets vital candidate votes, despite her best intentions.


Most votes are won in the middle, not on the fringes. Remember Chris Trotter’s “Waitakere Man”? Sepuloni needs to take votes from those voters to win. I am quite confident she won’t do it.


Disclaimer: I don’t live anywhere near Waitakere.


PS: Feel free to call me a troll, Lynn P. Can’t see it myself.


PPS: If I am proven wrong I will gladly turn up here and admit it.
Here are the results after the special votes came in, and leading to the victory for Sepuloni.


BENNETT, Paula NAT 13,457

BRADFORD, Sue MANA 320

LYE, Jeff ALCP 330

MOUNTAIN, Danny CNSP 609

OSBORNE, Peter LIB 55

SEPULONI, Carmel LAB 13,468


TOLLESTRUP, Steve GP 1,846

And here are the results from the official website, after the recount.


BENNETT, Paula NAT 13,465

BRADFORD, Sue MANA 322

LYE, Jeff ALCP 331

MOUNTAIN, Danny CNSP 611

OSBORNE, Peter LIB 55

SEPULONI, Carmel LAB 13,456

TOLLESTRUP, Steve GP 1,855

Is that 11 more votes for Sue Bradford and the Green Party candidate after the recount?  And what was Sepuloni's majority after the specials?  I believe it was 11.  Her votes actually reduce by 12.

Bloody funny the Labour commentariat at The Standard couldn't see this coming.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure whether I'm more tired of your going on about this or Sepuloni's smug rudeness. They are getting to look pretty much alike.

Nick K said...

Going on about it? I've only done two posts and one was two lines!

Doug said...

Waitakere humor?

Evidence of dodgy voting has emerged in the battle for Waitakere.

The Veteran said...

Understand there has been quite a bit of unusual activity in the cemeteries out West as the bodies Labour dug up to vote are re-interred.