Methodology

For more information contact: Dr Helena Catt, Chief Executive, Electoral Commission, catt@elections.govt.nz, tel +64 +4 +474 0676.

Used, understood, trusted and valued

The Electoral Commission vision is that New Zealand’s electoral framework and processes are widely used, understood, trusted and valued.Of course many others, as well as the Electoral Commission, have a role in reaching this vision. Using data from the 2005 New Zealand Election Study postal survey we report on current levels and how they compare to 2002.  This data, and more detailed analysis used to identify target groups, will be used in planning the Electoral Commission’s education and information work.

Used:

Turnout data is more appropriate than the survey data.  In 2005 95.2% of age eligible people were enrolled compared to 94.2% in 2002.  Over half of those not enrolled are under the age of 25.  In 2005 77.1% of age eligible voted compared to 74.6% in 2002.  Whilst turnout is high by international measures, New Zealand is experiencing the same overall downward trend since the 1970s as is being seen in other developed democracies.

Understood:

Overall the results indicate good levels of understanding of MMP, in particular the importance of the party vote (Table 1) and the components of the threshold (Table 3).  Since 1996 there has been a decline in the proportion who say they do not know which vote is most important or think that the electorate vote is the most important (Table 2).  Analysis of those who gave the wrong answer and said that they ‘don’t know’ indicates that education and information needs to be targeted towards younger people (thirties and younger), Maori, Pacific Islanders and those with lower levels of formal education. 

More people think that MMP is easy than think it is hard although over a quarter were unsure (Table 4).  Those who report that MMP is hard to understand have the same profile as for those who tend to give the incorrect answer, plus some in the over 60s age group. More broadly more people agree than disagree with the statement that politics is so complicated that they cannot understand what goes on (Table 5).  This is a key component of efficacy and probably has a large impact on turnout rates.

Knowledge about aspects of electoral law was also good with over two-thirds knowing that the term of parliament is not four years and that enrolling to vote is compulsory (Table 6).

Trusted:

The survey does not ask about trust in electoral law or administration.  When asked how much trust and confidence they had in parliament, more were on the positive side of the scale than the negative, but a third were close to the centre (Table 12).  Very few said that they did not know on this question.

Valued:

MMP is seen as fairer than FPP (Table 8) although the margin was greater in 2002 than in 2005. There is strong support for the idea of proportionality for large (Table 9) and smaller (Table 10) parties.  The second most common answer in relation to proportionality was that they did not know, pointing to a need for more education and information about the ideas behind MMP and what proportionality means.

More broadly the vast majority think that it is a citizen’s duty to vote (Table 11) and again few say that they do not have an answer to this question.

Efficacy

Efficacy is the main idea we take from political science to assist us in understanding voter motivation. Those with high efficacy get involved in politics and those with low efficacy do not.  It is a state of mind, a habit and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once people start to participate then their participation and their efficacy will be higher and likewise those who get into the habit of not participating will not build efficacy. Those with high political efficacy have the following three inter-related beliefs:

• I think politics is easy to understand
• I am interested in politics
• I believe that voters can make an impact on political decision 

We can gauge the impact of these attitudes when we look at the views of non-voters, voters who said they thought of non voting and the other voters.  Consistently a higher proportion of voters than non-voters gave high efficacy answers  and vice versa (Table 13, Table 14, Table 15).  Those who thought about voting have views that are closer to the non-voters than to the voters.

The tables are available in the .pdf document under Downloads to the right..