The final chapter of this book answers the question of which demographics turned out to vote in the 2020 General Election. In total, 2,919,073 people cast a party vote, out of 3,549,580 eligible voters, for a turnout rate of 82.24%. This was higher than in 2017, breaking the usual trend of declining turnout rates in Western democracies.
Turnout rate is very closely related to general disenfranchisement, hence the General Disenfranchisement Rule. As we can see in the analysis below, it’s possible to tell who is running society from the extent of their engagement in the political system. The higher the turnout rate, the higher the engagement, the more power and influence.
| Variable | Turnout rate 2020 |
| Voting Labour 2020 | 0.28 |
| Voting National 2020 | 0.69 |
| Voting Greens 2020 | 0.39 |
| Voting ACT 2020 | 0.81 |
| Voting New Zealand First 2020 | 0.10 |
| Voting New Conservative 2020 | 0.52 |
| Voting The Opportunities Party 2020 | 0.63 |
| Voting The Maori Party 2020 | -0.69 |
| Voting Advance NZ 2020 | -0.16 |
| Voting Sustainable NZ 2020 | 0.53 |
| Voting ALCP 2020 | -0.52 |
| Voting TEA Party 2020 | -0.24 |
| Voting Heartland NZ 2020 | 0.06 |
| Voting Social Credit 2020 | 0.34 |
| Voting NZ Outdoors Party 2020 | 0.28 |
| Voting ONE Party 2020 | -0.03 |
| Voting Vision NZ 2020 | -0.68 |
Perhaps more than any other measure, the correlations between party affiliation and turnout rate reveal who the true ruling class of New Zealand is. Those who turn out to vote are those psychologically engaged with the political system. They are those with a reasonable expectation that a politician might listen to them.
The top tier by this measure are ACT, National and The Opportunities Party. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and voting ACT in 2020 was 0.81; with voting National in 2020 it was 0.69; with voting The Opportunities Party in 2020 it was 0.63. These voters comprise society’s insiders – the wealthy and influential. They are the people who are in charge almost no matter what the political system is.
Immediately underneath them are New Conservative, Greens and Labour voters. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and voting New Conservative in 2020 was 0.52; with voting Greens in 2020 it was 0.39; with voting Labour in 2020 it was 0.28.
New Conservative voters are old and old people have very high turnout rates (see below). Greens voters are young but are usually from wealthy families and are usually well-educated. The significant positive correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and voting Labour in 2020 is harder to explain. In truth, Labour voters are part of the political Establishment.
The three parties whose supporters were least likely to turn out to vote were the Maori Party, Vision NZ and the ALCP. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and voting Maori Party in 2020 was -0.69; with voting Vision NZ it was -0.68 and with voting ALCP it was -0.52. It’s not news that Maori people tend to be disenfranchised, and all three of these parties have a high proportion of Maori voters.
| Variable | Turnout rate in 2020 |
| No NZQA qualifications | -0.30 |
| Level 1 certificate | 0.01 |
| Level 2 certificate | -0.10 |
| Level 3 certificate | -0.49 |
| Level 4 certificate | -0.10 |
| Level 5 diploma | -0.25 |
| Level 6 diploma | 0.73 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 0.20 |
| Honours degree | 0.42 |
| Master’s degree | 0.27 |
| Doctorate | 0.42 |
It’s well understood that the more educated someone is, the more enfranchised they tend to be. Educated people can express themselves in agreeable and persuasive ways, and tend to be more influential thereby. People with university degrees are heavily over-represented in Parliament, even among Labour Party MPs.
Therefore, it’s not surprising to see significant positive correlations between having any of the postgraduate university degrees and turnout rate in 2020.
It might be surprising to see that the correlation between having a Bachelor’s degree and turnout rate in 2020, while positive, was not significant. After all, a large proportion of the managerial class have that qualification. But the explanation is simple: most people with degrees are young, and young people tend not to vote (see below).
There was a significant negative correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and having no NZQA qualifications (-0.30). Many would have expected this to be stronger, but people in the older age groups are much more likely to have no NZQA qualifications than people in the younger age groups, balancing out the fact that older age groups are more likely to vote.
| Variable | Turnout rate in 2020 |
| Aged 20-24 | -0.26 |
| Aged 25-29 | -0.23 |
| Aged 30-34 | -0.15 |
| Aged 35-39 | -0.07 |
| Aged 40-44 | 0.27 |
| Aged 45-49 | 0.54 |
| Aged 50-54 | 0.63 |
| Aged 55-59 | 0.67 |
| Aged 60-64 | 0.65 |
| Aged 65-69 | 0.64 |
| Aged 70-74 | 0.65 |
| Aged 75-79 | 0.65 |
| Aged 80-84 | 0.64 |
| Aged 85+ | 0.65 |
The origin of the widespread dislike of Boomers can be noted in the table above. Old people are far more likely to turn out than younger ones. Even taking into account the fact that people under 18 can’t vote, old people are much more likely to vote in New Zealand than younger ones.
There was a negative correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and being in any age group under 40 years old. This shows that New Zealand is little different to other modern democracies when measured by the turnout rate of young people.
There was a strong positive correlation (0.63 or stronger) between turnout rate in 2020 and being in any age group above 50 years old. The over-50s hit the polling booths in massive proportions. If the General Disenfranchisement Rule shows us anything, it’s that Boomers are enfranchised.
The age group between 40 and 50 appears to be when, in New Zealand, the transition from liberal to conservative is made. This is also when the transition from renter/mortgage holder to homeowner is usually made. These two apparent facts are intimately related. Not until most people become homeowners themselves do they feel an interest in conserving the status quo.
| Variable | Turnout rate in 2020 |
| Percentage of males | -0.04 |
Contrary to the expectations of some – but which could be surmised by many – there is no statistical evidence that men are more enfranchised than women. Although the historical example has been one of male dominance, there is little evidence that this state of affairs exists in the present day. Indeed, the correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and being male was negative (if too weak to be significant).
This could be guessed by anyone who knew that the correlations between being male and holding any of the university degrees were all negative. However true the historical example of male dominance might be, the experience of today is closer to the opposite.
| Variable | Turnout rate in 2020 |
| Being European | 0.83 |
| Being Maori | -0.67 |
| Being Pacific Islander | -0.63 |
| Being Asian | -0.20 |
Anyone who thinks that white Kiwis and Maori Kiwis are roughly equally enfranchised would get a shock from looking at the statistics.
The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and being of European descent was extremely strongly positive, at 0.83. This is one of the strongest correlations in this entire study, of either direction. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and being of Maori descent, by contrast, was strongly negative, at -0.67.
It might be true that Maoris are technically over-represented in Parliament, in that there are more Maori MPs than the Maori proportion of the population would warrant, but that isn’t the same thing as enfranchisement. Enfranchisement is when you can reasonably expect your MP to listen to you and to take your concerns seriously, whatever their race.
Pacific Islanders are about as disenfranchised as Maoris. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and being a Pacific Islander was -0.63. This cannot be explained by Pacific Islanders being outside the bicultural system, because the correlation between turnout rate in 2020 was much less negative, at -0.20. Thus, poor education and low levels of wealth better explain the low Pacific Islander turnout.
Some might argue that Asians vote in high numbers out of a sense of duty, and are not truly enfranchised. That may be true to some extent. Nonetheless, the fact is that if Asians do vote in high proportions, they will have a significant influence on the vote (see the cannabis referendum for an example).
| Variable | Turnout rate 2020 |
| Income < $5,000 | -0.70 |
| Income $5,000-$10,000 | -0.43 |
| Income $10,000-$20,000 | -0.23 |
| Income $20,000-$30,000 | 0.16 |
| Income $30,000-$50,000 | -0.19 |
| Income $50,000-$70,000 | 0.28 |
| Income > $70,000 | 0.45 |
The correlations between income groups and turnout rate in 2020 will surprise few. With a few exceptions, these correlations follow the General Disenfranchisement Rule closely, in that the rich tend to vote and the poor tend to not vote.
Voters in every income group below $20,000 had a significant negative correlation with turnout rate in 2020. This is not surprising, as most beneficiaries will be in this category, and beneficiaries comprise a large proportion of society’s most disenfranchised people.
Voters in both income groups above $50,000 had a significant positive correlation with turnout rate in 2020. The strongest was between having an income above $70,000 p.a. and turnout rate in 2020, which was 0.45. It is people in this group who politicians listen to the most.
The general rule is obvious: the wealthier a person is, the more enfranchised they tend to be. This rule is already widely understood, but it’s useful to put some numbers to it.
It might seem paradoxical that the correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and having an income between $20,000 and $30,000 is positive, while the correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and having an income between $30,000 and $50,000 was negative. This is because those receiving between $20,000 and $30,000 tend to be students and pensioners, and therefore not really disenfranchised, whereas those between $30,000 and $50,000 tend to be minimum wage workers or in other working-class occupations, and therefore closer to the bottom of society than either students or pensioners.
| Variable | Turnout rate in 2020 |
| Working as a manager | 0.56 |
| Working as a professional | 0.30 |
| Working as a technician or trades worker | 0.01 |
| Working as a community or personal services worker | -0.33 |
| Working as a clerical or administrative worker | -0.14 |
| Working as a sales worker | -0.35 |
| Working as a machinery operator or driver | -0.61 |
| Working as a labourer | -0.30 |
The two most privileged occupations are the two most enfranchised ones. Both of the correlations between turnout rate in 2020 and working as either a manager (0.56) or as a professional (0.30) were significantly positive. Ultimately it’s managers and professionals who run society, and so it’s them that politicians listen to the most.
People in middle-class jobs had moderate levels of enfranchisement. Neither of the correlations between turnout rate in 2020 and occupation were significant in the case of working as a clerical or administrative worker (-0.14) or working as a technican or trades worker (0.01). The latter correlation might even be more positive than expected, a result of the fact that technicians and trades workers tend to be in the relatively elderly age groups, and those age groups have high turnout rates.
Working-class Kiwis were the most disenfranchised. There was a significant negative correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and working as any of a machinery operator or driver (-0.61), sales worker (-0.35), community or personal services worker (-0.33) or labourer (-0.30). Politicians don’t generally care what people in these occupations think, hence the disenfranchisement.
| Variable | Turnout rate in 2020 |
| No source of income | -0.69 |
| Income from wage or salary | -0.19 |
| Income from self-employment or own business | 0.68 |
| Income from interest, dividends, rents or other investments | 0.83 |
| Income from ACC or private work insurance | -0.13 |
| Income from NZ Super or Veteran’s pension | 0.64 |
| Income from Jobseeker Support | -0.74 |
| Income from Sole Parent Support | -0.77 |
| Income from Supported Living Payment | -0.39 |
| Income from Student Allowance | -0.22 |
The cynical will feel proven correct when they hear that the correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and receiving an income from interest, dividends, rents or other investments was 0.83, one of the strongest correlations in this study. It is people who receive an income in this manner who are the most enfranchised of all.
Also highly enfranchised are people who receive an income from self-employment or one’s own business, and people who receive an income from NZ Super or Veteran’s pension. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and the former was 0.68, and with the latter it was 0.64.
These three groups of income recipients are the people that politicians listen to the most. A high proportion of them work as managers, whether hired or inheritors.
Perhaps dishearteningly, there was a negative (if not significant) correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and receiving an income from a wage or salary: -0.19. This suggests that the people who do most of the work in our society, whose efforts keep it running, are disenfranchised, nearly significantly so.
The most disenfranchised Kiwis are those on unemployment, sickness or invalid’s benefits. These are society’s forgotten, who have the lowest status and who politicians listen to the least. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and receiving income from Jobseeker Support was -0.74, and between turnout rate in 2020 and receiving income from Sole Parent Support was -0.77.
The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and receiving income from a Student Allowance was negative, but not significantly so (-0.22). Again, this is because students occupy an usual place in the class hierarchy: disenfranchised by age, enfranchised by class. As such, their turnout rate was higher than the other non-pensioner beneficiaries.
| Variable | Turnout rate in 2020 |
| Has no religion | 0.48 |
| Is a Buddhist | -0.10 |
| Is a Christian | -0.20 |
| Is a follower of the Maori religions | -0.62 |
| Is a Hindu | -0.29 |
| Is a Jew | 0.22 |
| Is a Muslim | -0.32 |
| Is a Spiritualist or New Ager | 0.33 |
That New Zealand is a materialist society is shown by many things, and the correlations between turnout rate in 2020 and following a religion is another of those things. The religious affiliation that had the strongest positive correlation with turnout rate in 2020 was having no religion (0.48). This will surprise many who think of atheists as degenerate outsiders. In fact, the people running this society tend to have no religion.
There was a strong negative correlation between following one of the Maori religions and turnout rate in 2020 (-0.62). This is no doubt a function of the significant negative correlation between being Maori and turnout rate in 2020.
Weaker, although still negative, correlations were found between turnout rate in 2020 and being a Muslim (-0.32), a Hindu (-0.29), a Christian (-0.20) or a Buddhist (-0.10). The correlation with Christianity will surprise many, as it is generally assumed that Christians comprise a large part of the power structure in New Zealand. Although this is true, a high proportion of practicising Christians in New Zealand are relatively disenfranchised Pacific Islanders.
| Variable | Turnout rate in 2020 |
| No children | -0.03 |
| One child | -0.38 |
| Two children | 0.56 |
| Three children | 0.34 |
| Four children | -0.21 |
| Five children | -0.58 |
| Six or more children | -0.74 |
Another nonlinear set of correlations are those between turnout rate in 2020 and number of children.
Some might expect that, since people with no religion have a high turnout rate, and since people with no religion often have no children, that people with no children must have a high turnout rate. This is not the case. The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and having no children was -0.03.
The strongest positive correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and having any number of children was with two children (0.54), followed by three children (0.34). These correlations represent modal families, in the sense that most upper-middle-class families will have two or three children.
There was a negative correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and any of having four children (-0.21), five children (-0.58) or six or more children (-0.74). This reveals that two is the normal number of children to have, and that a person becomes more disenfranchised the more children they have beyond two.
| Variable | Turnout rate in 2020 |
| Own or part own house | 0.68 |
| Own house in family trust | 0.62 |
| Neither outright ownership of house nor house in family trust | -0.79 |
One of the main reasons why housing is a major issue in most Western countries right now is that it relates to the feeling of being part of society. For many people, if they don’t own a house they don’t feel like they have a stake in society, and those who don’t feel like they have a stake in society tend to not bother voting.
Reflecting this is the extremely strong negative correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and neither owning a house nor owning a house in a family trust. This was -0.79, showing that non-houseowners are one of New Zealand society’s most disenfranchised groups, despite also being a very large one.
The correlation between turnout rate in 2020 and owning or part-owning a house, by contrast, was 0.68. This is very strong, and shows that homeowners definitely consider themselves listened-to by the political establishment.
In summary, the turnout rates among the various demographics in the 2020 General Election reflect the extent to which those various demographics are enfranchised by the political establishment. ACT/National-voting, old, educated, atheist, white, homeowning managers and professionals of either gender are those primarily enfranchised by the current order, and Maori Party/ALCP-voting, young, poorly-educated, Maori and Pacific Islander, renter labourers and beneficiaries are those primarily disenfranchised.
*
This article is an excerpt from the upcoming 3rd Edition of Understanding New Zealand, by Dan McGlashan and published by VJM Publishing. Understanding New Zealand is the comprehensive guide to the demographics and voting patterns of the New Zealand people.
*
If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles from 2021 from Amazon as a Kindle ebook or paperback. Compilations of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.
*
If you would like to support our work in other ways, subscribe to our SubscribeStar fund, or make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!