2008 NZES

Variable Frequencies


The following links display frequencies from questions asked in the 2008 New Zealand Election Study and the full dataset is available at the bottom of the page.  The questionnaire can be downloaded from here. Other detail concerning sponsors and collaborators can be accessed from the NZES website.

The dataset contains 3042 respondents, of whom 636 are an oversample from the seven Maori electorates. Part of the data is a three-wave panel to 2002 (948 respondents). Among the freshly-sampled respondents, the response rate was about 40 per cent.

The data is weighted by education (adjusting down the proportion of university educated), age, gender, and voting as recorded at the 2008 election.  Sample size is weighted down to reflect the size of the general electorate sample, rather than the total sample. Voting data has been validated and corrected from the marked electoral rolls.

IMPORTANT: TURNOUT ANALYSIS IS NOT RECOMMENDED
However, there are serious problems with the validated data.  Comparing our validated sample, including both respondents and nonrespondents, to the official figures, we noticed that nonvoting was about 4 per cent higher in our sample, and that special votes were undercounted by about the same degree. This is well outside the limits of sampling error (and with no non-response error to give any 'benefit of the doubt').  We confirmed that the marked rolls themselves are the source of this error with independent analysis of one of the worst-affected electorates, and pointed this out to the Chief Electoral Office. After investigation of several electorates that we had highlighted, they have reported:

'the under-recording was due to electorate headquarters staff not consolidating one or more certified rolls used to record special votes in electorate headquarters onto the master roll'.  They were 'unable to confirm this now, as the certified rolls have been destroyed by the Clerk of the House in accordance with s. 189 of the Electoral Act'. 

This was a final recording error, and the Chief Electoral Office assures us that in all other respects the processing of the special votes was as it should have been, and that the official figures are the corrrect ones.

From the point of view of the NZES, this remains a serious problem. The Chief Electoral Office has told us it will address the problem for future elections. But the data to correct the error in 2008 is lost.  (Worse, although to a lesser degree, our validated data from 2002 and 2005 is subject to the same errors).

An error of 4 per cent in the sample may seem small, and, indeed, the removal of this margin spread across the votes cast for political parties in our sample is unlikely to do significant damage.  But from the point of view of analysis of nonvoters, the problem is severe because of differential response rates. NZES data from 1999, before this problem appears to have emerged, indicate that, then, voters had a response rate of 50 per cent and nonvoters only 25 per cent.  Extrapolating this to a hypothetical sample of 1000, in the original frame we might expect 44 special voters wrongly classified as nonvoters, and 207 true nonvoters. Applying the expected response rates, we might expect 22 wrongly classified special voters, and 52 true nonvoters.  The extent of error in the sample of nonvoters is therefore 2/7, too high for any comfort.  Since 1999, response rates have fallen, we suspect more so among nonvoters, so the problem could be worse.

Now that it is clear that the data to correct this error no longer exists, the NZES will continue to work on the problem. Those electorates affected can be identified and deleted from the sample (a strategy already being used for work on turnout drawing on the 2002 and 2005 samples).

Electorates dropped from turnout analysis of the 2002 and 2005 elections

In the longer run, we may seek to impute vote among those respondents affected if a sufficiently robust predictive model can be specified.  

The dataset now on release may therefore be improved upon in the future, but other than for the matter of turnout we would not expect anything to change except marginally.  For the time being, we do not recommend any analysis of turnout from the 2008 NZES. The alternative strategy of relying on reported vote has been considered, but with the data unweighted there are very few self-reported nonvoters - 3.4 per cent of the general electorate sample (N=77).  (There are more in the Maori electorates, but these are oversampled).  To weigh the general electorate nonvoters to their level in the official data would require multiplication by 6 or 7, an extent not to be recommended.

Section A
New Zealand Politics and You


Section B
The 2008 Election Campaign


Section C
Issues, Problems, Parties and Leaders


Section D
What are Your Opinions?


Section E
Party Preferences and Voting

Section F
Government and the Electoral System


Section G
Representation and Participation

Sections H, I  
You and Your Background, Your Spouse or Partner


The 2008 NZES as an spss-saved file (zipped)