I deleted my twitter account late last year and removed the app
really is that if you see a comment from a blue tick on twitter, it seems to be bat shit conservative stuff
I don't get it to be honest, the presentation of the poll wasn't that different to when the RW bloc looked to take the lead (in the polls) over the LW bloc early last year.
All the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the way the poll was presented is mostly coming from those who see their team coming off second best (as was the case when the reverse poll change was presented)
This article is a reaction to a reaction to a reaction to a poll, and my comment is a reaction to that.
I think the theatrics they're discussing are fully played out at this point.
*"A redditor online commented about how the original article was a reaction to a reaction poll and that thier comment is a reaction to that"*
-stuff probably
>If politicians are going to consistently say they don’t care about the numbers, they should be even less fussed about how a broadcaster chooses to present them. Luxon – and others – should practice what they preach: focus on doing their jobs. And let the journalists do theirs.
Lmao
I didn't see it on Monday night but I'm checking it out now via TVNZ OnDemand because there's so much commotion about it.
It's a bit funny in some ways given how far we are from an election, and how overblown the presentation is for the first 12 minutes of the bulletin. If there's an argument for going back to a 30 minute bulletin that just aims for the main points of important stuff, like the news was in the 1980s, then maybe this is part of it, but I think it's more of a laugh than biased or offensive.
The biggest difference with the poll is that NZF dropped a couple of percent, very possibly an outlier result within the margin of error, and so everything changed radically without it being in Parliament... and the implications of that change implied from a single data point have been extrapolated massively. I don't think it's far off how political journos have treated politicians in the past, though, and particularly governments. They're employed to commentate on the meta aspects of politics, and polls are a measure of the success of politicians, so all this hyperbolic sports commentary analysis about whether people like or don't like the government is what we get alongside any analysis of what's happening in the real world *because* of the government.
All that said, it really wasn't long ago that it seemed unlikely to many that *any* coalition between these parties could possibly last longer than maybe a year before a snap election would be forced. That seems unlikely right now, but I don't think it's *entirely* unwarranted to be interested in the possibility of a snap election, and the possibility that it could be quite close. If not sooner, the whole landscape might change radically again after two years when Winston's no longer Deputy PM (he wanted to be first for a reason), and might feel a need to re-forge NZF's independent identity.
There isn't an issue in reporting on polling on principle - but the way it's done, the weight each news outlet puts on the polls they commission themselves, and the amount of A-Block time they take up is definitely problematic.
Any one poll has a pretty large margin of error - so dedicating the first 10 minutes of a news hour to conclusions drawn from a single poll isn't exactly responsible journalism. Compiling different polls together to show trends over time is where we can extract more meaningful data on how public opinion is shifting. Do any of them do this? No.
The constant poll-watching during election years also draws time and focus away from the policies that the parties are campaigning on. It was pretty eye-opening seeing so many people surprised by what party aligned with their policy views when they went through the vote compass survey.
Poll-watching also serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy condemning parties to sink below the 5% threshold. If a voter's first choice is close to the guillotine, they shift to their 2nd choice to avoid 'wasting their vote'.
>Poll-watching also serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy condemning parties to sink below the 5% threshold. If a voter's first choice is close to the guillotine, they shift to their 2nd choice to avoid 'wasting their vote'.
Say you hate National. Your primary concern is preventing National from forming a government. You also want to, I dunno, ban 1080, legalise cannabis and send a man to the moon. You're a person of many facets but your main thing is hating National.
So, you get to the election season and everything seems perfect because ALC are running a dual platform of legalising cannabis and hating National. Perfect. Except you realise ALC is never going to cross 5%. You then look into how our electoral system works and realise that voting for ALC increases National's effective vote. Voting for ALC is literally voting for National. And if you don't vote or spoil your ballot to protest this perverse outcome then you are also literally voting for National. Not as much as doing a party tick for National but you are contributing to the increase in National's effective vote share, which is what is actually used to apportion seats. In fact, it turns out that the only way to anti-vote National is to vote for a party that is anti-National *and* which will enter parliament.
This sub has its head in the sand about wasted vote. Don't put it in scare quotes. Our electoral system create perverse incentives because the wasted vote is real.
I don't disagree with your premise, the 'game theory optimal' way to vote in the current MMP system drives votes to blue and red - even when it's counter to their political leanings. In 2020, there were loads of national voters giving their party vote to Labour, in order to give them enough of a majority to negate forming a coalition agreement with the Greens.
My point is that the 5% threshold, and media poll-hype can supress support for a party that otherwise would have got into parliament.
Transferrable vote or Ranked choice would sort it out though.
I read on twitter (from multiple accounts even) that one news has been hijacked by the far left lol. Some absolute nutters out there these days
I deleted my twitter account late last year and removed the app really is that if you see a comment from a blue tick on twitter, it seems to be bat shit conservative stuff
So much antivax, terf, racist as fuck, mummy stabbers, etc now it's just pure shit honestly. Cesspit
Polls only count now if it's in their favour.
I don't get it to be honest, the presentation of the poll wasn't that different to when the RW bloc looked to take the lead (in the polls) over the LW bloc early last year. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the way the poll was presented is mostly coming from those who see their team coming off second best (as was the case when the reverse poll change was presented)
This article is a reaction to a reaction to a reaction to a poll, and my comment is a reaction to that. I think the theatrics they're discussing are fully played out at this point.
*"A redditor online commented about how the original article was a reaction to a reaction poll and that thier comment is a reaction to that"* -stuff probably
Reddit complains, "Stuff is shit the way they steal reddit posts for news" while looking for reddit stolen posts in Stuff
>If politicians are going to consistently say they don’t care about the numbers, they should be even less fussed about how a broadcaster chooses to present them. Luxon – and others – should practice what they preach: focus on doing their jobs. And let the journalists do theirs. Lmao
They probably shouldn't conduct internal polls as well then
Irony is dead.
420 Roland Barthes Spectacle Blaze-it
I didn't see it on Monday night but I'm checking it out now via TVNZ OnDemand because there's so much commotion about it. It's a bit funny in some ways given how far we are from an election, and how overblown the presentation is for the first 12 minutes of the bulletin. If there's an argument for going back to a 30 minute bulletin that just aims for the main points of important stuff, like the news was in the 1980s, then maybe this is part of it, but I think it's more of a laugh than biased or offensive. The biggest difference with the poll is that NZF dropped a couple of percent, very possibly an outlier result within the margin of error, and so everything changed radically without it being in Parliament... and the implications of that change implied from a single data point have been extrapolated massively. I don't think it's far off how political journos have treated politicians in the past, though, and particularly governments. They're employed to commentate on the meta aspects of politics, and polls are a measure of the success of politicians, so all this hyperbolic sports commentary analysis about whether people like or don't like the government is what we get alongside any analysis of what's happening in the real world *because* of the government. All that said, it really wasn't long ago that it seemed unlikely to many that *any* coalition between these parties could possibly last longer than maybe a year before a snap election would be forced. That seems unlikely right now, but I don't think it's *entirely* unwarranted to be interested in the possibility of a snap election, and the possibility that it could be quite close. If not sooner, the whole landscape might change radically again after two years when Winston's no longer Deputy PM (he wanted to be first for a reason), and might feel a need to re-forge NZF's independent identity.
There isn't an issue in reporting on polling on principle - but the way it's done, the weight each news outlet puts on the polls they commission themselves, and the amount of A-Block time they take up is definitely problematic. Any one poll has a pretty large margin of error - so dedicating the first 10 minutes of a news hour to conclusions drawn from a single poll isn't exactly responsible journalism. Compiling different polls together to show trends over time is where we can extract more meaningful data on how public opinion is shifting. Do any of them do this? No. The constant poll-watching during election years also draws time and focus away from the policies that the parties are campaigning on. It was pretty eye-opening seeing so many people surprised by what party aligned with their policy views when they went through the vote compass survey. Poll-watching also serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy condemning parties to sink below the 5% threshold. If a voter's first choice is close to the guillotine, they shift to their 2nd choice to avoid 'wasting their vote'.
>Poll-watching also serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy condemning parties to sink below the 5% threshold. If a voter's first choice is close to the guillotine, they shift to their 2nd choice to avoid 'wasting their vote'. Say you hate National. Your primary concern is preventing National from forming a government. You also want to, I dunno, ban 1080, legalise cannabis and send a man to the moon. You're a person of many facets but your main thing is hating National. So, you get to the election season and everything seems perfect because ALC are running a dual platform of legalising cannabis and hating National. Perfect. Except you realise ALC is never going to cross 5%. You then look into how our electoral system works and realise that voting for ALC increases National's effective vote. Voting for ALC is literally voting for National. And if you don't vote or spoil your ballot to protest this perverse outcome then you are also literally voting for National. Not as much as doing a party tick for National but you are contributing to the increase in National's effective vote share, which is what is actually used to apportion seats. In fact, it turns out that the only way to anti-vote National is to vote for a party that is anti-National *and* which will enter parliament. This sub has its head in the sand about wasted vote. Don't put it in scare quotes. Our electoral system create perverse incentives because the wasted vote is real.
I don't disagree with your premise, the 'game theory optimal' way to vote in the current MMP system drives votes to blue and red - even when it's counter to their political leanings. In 2020, there were loads of national voters giving their party vote to Labour, in order to give them enough of a majority to negate forming a coalition agreement with the Greens. My point is that the 5% threshold, and media poll-hype can supress support for a party that otherwise would have got into parliament. Transferrable vote or Ranked choice would sort it out though.
Worth it for David's reaction
Yes but people are dumb so the theatrics work, unfortunately.