I will discuss other electorates after talking to the team up north. But here are the main results from Selwyn, for parties gaining over 100 votes (full results are here). Last elections results for Rakaia (now Selwyn) are here for comparison.
Parties | Candidates | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
National Party | 18,339 | ADAMS, Amy | NAT | 20,076 | |
Labour Party | 8,536 | COATES, David | LAB | 9,830 | |
Family Party | 122 | DENNIS, Samuel | FAM | 441 | |
Jim Anderton’s Progressive | 634 | MAIN, Philippa | JAP | 1,197 | |
United Future | 376 | NORMAN, Victoria | UFNZ | 227 | |
ACT New Zealand | 1,245 | WATSON, Ivor | ACT | 480 | |
Kiwi Party | 172 | WILLIAMSON, Eleanor | KIWI | 264 | |
WOODS, Bill | IND | 528 | |||
Green Party | 2,390 | ||||
Mäori Party | 127 | ||||
New Zealand First Party | 1,036 | ||||
The Bill and Ben Party | 171 | ||||
Party Informals | 147 | Candidate Informals | 367 | ||
TOTAL | 33,412 | TOTAL | 33,410 |
Selwyn is a National seat, and always has been. Quite a few National voters have moved to Act this year however, due primarily to the Emissions Trading Scheme (Act had 869 votes in 05). There has always been Labour support here, but it has dropped significantly this election (from 11,338 in 05), apparantly moving to National, Green and Progressive. It is hard to compare however due to boundary changes and the fact that there was a higher turnout in 2005.
The higher number of informal candidate votes than party votes suggests people are fairly sure which party they want to vote for, but less certain about which candidate they prefer. On the other hand, it could just mean that those who wanted to waste their vote had a joke party to go with (B&B), but no joke candidate, so many B&B voters just spoilt their candidate vote, as those numbers pretty exactly make up the difference…
I received 319 votes from non-Family Party voters (assuming all Family Party voters voted for myself, not necessarily correct). From what I gather speaking to voters, I expect most of these voters gave National their party vote. Those voters I have spoken to wished to secure a change of government, and didn’t want to waste their party vote, but they preferred Family Party policy to that of National.
Bill Woods didn’t do that well, despite being the former mayor, but he had little publicity.
I am very pleased with my votes for a first try, being ahead of the United Future and Kiwi candidates, and close behind the Act candidate and Bill Woods. It will take a lot of work to topple Amy Adams, but that will be a job for the next election now that my name is out there! I was about the most local candidate on offer, most others being recent imports into the area, and I think this gives me a good base to work from.
There is a lot of misunderstanding out there around MMP, and around the policies National had on offer. Many people I spoke to wanted to fix the smacking law, and get rid of the ETS. However they were under the impression that National would do those things, and were surprised to find National policy was to keep them. Some wouldn’t believe me, I’ll have to carry National policy documents with me on my rounds next time! There was a strong faith that National would provide change and fix the policies that annoyed everyone, but few voters had actually looked into their policy. Furthermore, most people thought voting for Amy Adams would help National in some way, not realising that this was a wasted vote as she’d be in on the list regardless. It could be argued that it would actually be better for National to even vote in Coates, as he would have kicked out a more experienced Labour MP, providing National with some advantages in the house!
To take this electorate in future will be a lot of work, as you first have to teach people how MMP works, then teach them National policy, before you can even get on to your own. But it is certainly doable, as National always places a good candidate here that is reasonably high on the list, this being regarded a safe seat – this was Ruth Richardson’s electorate, and Jenny Shipley’s. Logically, it makes little sense to vote for the National candidate here. But to persuade 15,000 voters, half the electorate, will be an interesting challenge for next election.
November 11, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Well done Samuel! You were part of a dynamic Family Party Team wanting first to get rid of Labour – WELL DONE.
During the next three years there are opportunities to provide “coalition support” from outside of Parlaiment. When the honeymoon is over for National and Act, they will need the Family Party as part of the coalition within Parliament. Even working with the Maori Party meanwhile will be helpful to keeping politics sane and away from the heretic element we have just suffered taking us further away from GODZONE!
November 11, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Did Family stand anyone at all in the Wellington region? It’s where all the political journos are, so if you are visible in Wellington it can get you so much more publicity.
Big blunder by Family Party if they didn’t.
November 11, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Thanks heaps for the encouragement Ian.
Sam, no, but it isn’t a big blunder – it simply means we didn’t receive an application from a good potential candidate down there in the short time we had to organise this election. The Family Party has only existed for one year. We have achieved a massive amount in a short space of time. We should have many more candidates all round the country by the next election.
If you have any suggestions for improvements, don’t just criticise, we have three years now to plan our next campaign. If you want to see a Christian party in next election, contact the team, we’d love your support.
November 12, 2008 at 1:22 pm
The Family Party has only existed for one year. We have achieved a massive amount in a short space of time
Care to elaborate on those achievements?
November 12, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Forming a political party and gaining votes from around the country, with a median of 1.6% of the total electorate vote wherever we stood candidates, is an excellent achievement in one year.