Talk:Opinion polling for the next New Zealand general election

Seat projections
I have no issue with adding the seat projections to the table in that way, however the discrepancy with the forecast section below that comes with excluding the assumption that the Maori Party retain their electorate is problematic. Especially when Colmar Brunton explicitly do make that assumption in their own projections.--Pokelova (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the discrepancy is an issue. The forecasts section implies some level of reasoning is involved in working out what the results would be, while the seats column in the polling table doesn't make any assumptions and just works directly off what the poll results are.  Nixinova   T   C   08:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But that seems to me to be a misrepresentation of how our electoral system works.--Pokelova (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It either does make an assumption (no party bypasses the threshold through winning an electorate seat) or just willingly gives a potentially incorrect projection. --Gbuvn (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources showing where the numbers at the "Projected seats" column come from? If yes, ok. If not, the column should be removed since that's an interpretation of sources that is not reflected in the sources themselves, and thus, WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed.  Impru 20 talk 13:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Any party could win any seat; including detailed analysis for every single poll seems pointless. Take those numbers, plug them into the seat calculator, that's what the column says.  Nixinova   T   C   19:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I've changed the col heading from "projected seats" to "equivalent seats"; does that explain it better?  Nixinova   T  <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The Electoral Commission's seat calculator includes a column for number of electorates won, and while entering a "1" in that column may constitute an unprovable assumption, it seems to me that leaving it at "0" is also an unprovable assumption (as Gbuvn says), and not necessarily a better one. Is making such an assumption somehow more useful/informative than doing otherwise? That is, is there a reason why "Here's what Parliament would look like, assuming nobody relies on an electorate" is better than "Here's what Parliament would look like, assuming electorates stay the same?" They're both assumptions, and if I had to choose, the latter seems a better (albeit imperfect) fit for what has actually happened historically -- after all, we've never had an MMP election which didn't involve a sub-5% party winning an electorate. Either way, though, we're presenting readers with a seat count that we attribute to the Seat Calculator, but which involves feeding the Seat Calculator electorate numbers (zero or non-zero) which the poll being cited does not provide. I suppose there's no reason we can't present an seat count which assumes no electorate exceptions if we want, provided it's clear what we're doing -- but is it useful? Does it benefit readers to know how many seats the poll would translate to in the absence of a factor that, historically speaking, hasn't been absent? If we can't give a proper projection because that requires assumptions (in one direction or another) that we can't back up, why give a seat count at all? Personally, I think I'd prefer just to leave the poll numbers to say what they say, and simply advise readers that exact seat outcomes cannot be definitely predicted from national polling. -- Vardion (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I share Vardion's thoughts and conclusions.  Schwede 66  19:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and removed the seat projection column altogether. It is very problematic: aside of the points raised above, it was coming to the point where sources themselves give their own projections (take the latest NCB poll, which gives a 59-36-12-11-2 allocation versus the 60-38-11-11-0 that was shown), yet those were disregarded in favour of the alternative projection! This is openly WP:SYNTH, if not outright WP:OR. Besides, the fact that pollsters may give their own seat allocations and that those are different from the projected seats means the method for projecting seats is untrustworthy.  Impru 20 talk 07:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Polling required for entering in the preferred prime minister section.
Kia Ora, I submitted a change that would allow any person that registers in a poll to appear on the preffered prime minister section. This was then deleted because they were not party leaders. The question that is generally asked is “who would you most like to be NZ’s current prime minister.” That has no mention of a party leader. All of the inclusions have polled higher than the included (polled highest at 1%) Winston peters. If people want Christopher Luxon or Chlöe Swarbrick etc. to be prime minister and that has registered in a poll then I believe that the corresponding polling number should be displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan3431 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think only people who appear regularly, or at least more than once, should be included. I also think people who never achieve a significant figure - perhaps 1% - should not be included. See Opinion polling for the 2020 New Zealand general election for a table where there was an unwieldy number of people listed.- gadfium 09:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I was the one who added Shaw, Davidson, Baker, and Te Kahika, and I agree, with you that they could all honestly be removed. At the time my logic was trying to be fair but they probably aren't worth including any more since their polling didn't go anywhere unlike Seymour's.
 * As for Swarbrick, I am open to maybe keeping her if she continues to gain steam. --Pokelova (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the people added appeared a multitude of times. Though I we want to make those rules I think we should remove Peters. Maybe we could add a minor polling section for people that gain under 5%? --Wikifan3431 — Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A minor polling section for preferred prime minister would be deeply unnecessary. If we're going to include them at all, just include them in same table.--Pokelova (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone object to what I have added to proffered PM? —-Wikifan3431 - — Preceding undated comment added 6:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , a lack of verbal objection is not the same as consensus. As I have said, I'm not necessarily opposed to including Swarbrick, but the problem with what you wrote in particular is that you don't define what it means to "register" in a poll. --Pokelova (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you think the threshold to enter should be --Wikifan3431 (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've always said that I think it should be only party leaders, I even disagreed when Luxon was unhidden because he had yet to outpoll Collins, though it seems likely that he'll be leader now anyway.
 * But if we were to set it to include Swarbrick, the minimum would have to be 2%, but then we'd have to add Bridges, so we could do 2% AND be the highest polling member of their party. But let's wait and see if anyone else has anything to say.--Pokelova (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel that party is regardless in preferred PM. I think 2% in at least 3 polls is fair (This would mean Swarbrick would have to wait for a bit to be included). --Wikifan3431 (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Any other opinions on the preffered PM pollin?. --Wikifan3431 (talk) 6:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Move Talbot Mills into main section?
Talbot Mills aren't cherry picked, they've been shown monthly, and details are given for e.g. sample sizes. Should they be put into the main section? <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  00:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that. These aren't internal Labour polls. Worth consideration. --Pokelova (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with moving the regular Talbot polls into the main section. This doesn't apply to the polls for previous elections.- gadfium 00:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That recent Talbot Mills poll should be removed. It as an internal Labour poll and is cherry picked for political gain, thus could sway the graph and is unbalanced. JurgenatorNew1 (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction: While the link in the article identified it as a Labour-Talbot Mills poll, it is actually a corporate poll that was leaked. But it was still cherry picked, with a second poll this week being leaked to state that Labour could govern. However with that second poll, the only numbers that I can see come from left wing blogger Martyn Bradbury. JurgenatorNew1 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Move Curia into the main section
The Curia polls are also the same,. I think the private polling section should be entirely merged into the main section because they're not cherry picked unknowns. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  00:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit more hesitant about Curia, they may not be internal National polls any more but they are commissioned by a plainly partisan group. --Pokelova (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Curia is releasing their results now publicly so they should go into the main section now. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  23:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * All but one have tpu dot org articles so I've moved those up. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  07:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this is OK, but should be revisited if it appears that they go back to selectively releasing them. Without knowing who funds the TPU (the "full" poll results are for subscribers), still a bit less transparent than ideal. Limegreen (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

At this point, why don't we just move the rest of the "Private polling" section into the main table and add a note to them? --Pokelova (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  01:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring
and, you are both just one edit away from WP:3RR. Overstepping this mark will result in a block. If you have disagreements, the way to sort it out is via discussion on this talk page.  Schwede 66  02:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why I stopped. There's not really any discussion to be had, parties that don't register don't need to be included in the table. Of course it'll be moot if they get incorporated into the main table as was discussed earlier. Regardless, Ted needs to declare his conflict of interest. --Pokelova (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You will note that I am merely correcting the abbreviation for New Conservative, In fact it is NC not NCP, which is just confusing. New Conservative does not even have the word party in its name, unlike Labour Party etc,  Pokelova keeps placing NCP for NC without justification. You need to deal with a person like that who is biassed or incorrect in making edits. Not for people editing correctly. Tedlawnz (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * further as you may note, I was merely stating that for factual representation, when 2 parties are exactly the same they should be treated fairly. However you will also note I said no objection to removal of both which was done. Note also the comment about Leighton to me by Pokelova displaying bias. Tedlawnz (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The justification is keeping all the abbreviations even. It doesn't look right to have the other parties with 3 letters and your party at 2. So really the only options are NCP or going back to CON, which is what Newshub appear to be doing anyway so we may take their lead on that. CON it is. 🤷
 * I note you still have not declared your conflict of interest. --Pokelova (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It is not bias to portray NCP using the same format literally every other party gets: three letters. This is completely pointless. Stop it. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  20:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

you say that there is no rule requiring us to abbreviate to 3 letters. This is true. Likewise, there is no rule requiring us to abbreviate in the way you want us to. If more people agree to the 3 letter abbreviation than oppose it, it's just tough titties for you. Doesn't matter if you're the leader. --Pokelova (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You've done it again, and Nixinova. Four reverts each. Both now blocked. Edit warring will not be tolerated and I don't even care whether one of you is right or not. If there are differences in opinion, sort it out via the talk page.  Schwede 66  02:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nixinova only did 3 though? --Pokelova (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. You are right. One of those reverts was yours (I've kept track of it on a piece of paper and the 23:48 h edit was incorrectly assigned). I shall unblock and apologise to Nixinova.  Schwede 66  03:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On paper, my goodness. --Pokelova (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I had specifically saved my last revert for after they were blocked and this was done 🙃. Also, may I introduce you to this page. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  03:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hui poll
How do we go about adding this? Make a separate table? Add it to the existing table with a note? --Pokelova (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If the full results are available (Newshub article only goes down to Act) then it should be in a different section like '&sect; Demographic polling &sect; Māori voters'. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  20:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Add Talbot Mills into Forecasts?
Just noticed Talbot Mills isn't in the Forecasts section. Was it forgotten when it was merged into the main section or is there a reason behind it? Just didn't want to add it in, in case there was a reason for it not being present :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praetorian21 (talk • contribs)
 * It hasn't been releasing regularly lately, so it may not remain useful for long. There's also a question of whether to differentiate between the polls they do for Labour and the polls they do for other clients. --Pokelova (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Collaboration
Hi all. Love this page! How do I connect with you to share my political research work? 121.74.238.39 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * For a start, I’d suggest you get yourself an account because it’s difficult to converse with someone when their IP address may change. And then there are the issues of not being able to ping you and you not being able to use a watchlist.  Schwede 66  17:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Schwede66! How's this? My name is Geoff and I am one of the founders of www.theFacts.nz. Today we shared Government Confidence ratings with permission from Roy Morgan, Taxpayers' Union, and Curia. We did not use any of this page's data, but would love to a) promote your great resource to our network and b) exchange data of benefit to New Zealand. As you can see, we've published 31 facts to date, with many more to come, including voting by age and gender. Geoffnz1 (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you've had your account for a while. Great! There are quite a few editors active on this page and if they've watchlisted this page, they might respond to your comments. I'm just keeping an eye on this page "out of interest" but don't actively edit it. Do you know how to add this page to your watchlist? Help:Watchlist explains how to do this and what it can do. All the best!  Schwede 66  09:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Schwede66. I've added it to my watchlist. Hopefully, I hear back from some of the other contributors to this page so that we can swap data insights, and I can help out. Anyone can contact me via www.theFacts.nz/support too.
 * Our mission is to inject more truth into an "opinion age" so that we can improve society and the environment. Or, as I prefer, the 4 Ps: Planet, People, Passion, Profits.
 * Out of curiousity, are you just a Kiwi who's interested in our political direction? Geoffnz1 (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Over the years, I’ve helped out with the NZ politics taskforce. Activity increases prior to general elections.  Schwede 66  18:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Schwede66, and sorry for my slow reply. It's hard as a newbie to get my head around how Wikipedia works. Long time reader, but never made or edited any content.
 * So, who owns the IP for everything on this page? I'd like to share the party vote graph on www.theFacts.nz to help promote your work. I'll provide full hyperlinks and credits back, of course.
 * Two improvement ideas:
 * 1) It often takes a while for the graph to update to match the table, e.g. the latest Taxpayer's Union Curia poll has been in the table for a while, but not the graph.
 * 2) I'd remove Talbot Mills because they are always way off every other polling company and election result. They're Labour's biased pollster. I'd also remove Horizon Research as they're super shoddy operators and also way off every reputable pollsters results. Geoffnz1 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The current graph is created and maintained by, but it is public domain. As for the rest of the page, see WP:REUSE. --Pokelova (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Pokelova.
 * Hi, @Nixinova. Love your work here! Would love to connect, promote your work wider, and swap research on political polling topics. www.thefacts.nz/suppport is the best way to reach me. This WIkipedia chat function is very cumbersome for those who aren't Wikipedia editors, compared to good ol' email.
 * Thanks! Geoffnz1 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a couple of things to keep in mind Geoffnz1. These are Wikipedia conflicts of interest and content policies. Take a look at these articles Core content policies and Conflict of interest for guidance. Hopefully these will assist you if you are editing articles. Plus if you are uncertain about anything or need assistance there is a pretty helpful community on Wiki. NealeWellington (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, @NealeWellington. It sounds like I really need to connect with @Nixinova as the lead editor of this page. It's not easy as an outsider to get my head around how all this Wikipedia backend works. Far easier just to connect over the phone or email. Geoffnz1 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just connect through Nixinova's talk page. It works a bit like email and is the same as this talk page to contact on. NealeWellington (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Party vote graph vs Preferred PM graph
Can the party vote graph be automated(?) similarly to the way the preferred PM graph apparently is? Instead of waiting for a user to manually update an image? From what I can tell, that's what's happening. 2404:4408:6749:6200:D4FA:6D15:F479:DB2 (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been in the past. 's given reason for changing it was "auto graphs don't show trend lines properly; pref PM polls show less variation so the trends are less incorrect there". --Pokelova (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely an old manual trend line is more incorrect than an fresh auto trend line. 2404:4408:6749:6200:24AA:54B9:8823:D2D6 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I update it monthly, how is that old. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  08:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They say a week is a long time in politics, so a month is a lifetime. Auto graph would be ideal. 118.93.134.14 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No organization is polling weekly yet. I'm sure Nixinova will be more inclined to update it more regularly once we get into election season next year. --Pokelova (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * six polls covered August, and five polls covered September, so its at least weekly. I would have thought being up to date is desirable. 118.93.134.14 (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Horizon Poll?!
Why are the Horizon Poll numbers being factored in here? The poll has dodgy methodology, zero credibility and only serves to muddy the waters for people who wish to understand what is really happening. I vote it gets removed from the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.234.71 (talk • contribs)

Hi all, Geoffnz1 chipping in here. The Horizon data is so out of whack with the rest, and needs to be removed until they can prove that they use best-practice research techniques.

Others Sections?
I am just wondering this page should have a section of Others just like the UK election polls page have. i just don't see any reason why this page should not have it.La lopi (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. Is the UK election polls you mentioned this one? Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election . If so I couldn't find an others section. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Events in polling table
I wouldn't list Ghahraman or Collins in the polling table as notable events. When party leadership changes, that is a big thing that justifies inclusion, but backbenchers resigning or dying?  Schwede 66  20:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)