Thursday, September 22, 2005

Someone had to do it

We've all seen the "Jesusland" map, satirising the differences between "red states" and "blue states" in the wake of the 2004 US Presidential election. Well, with a similar (but far more longstanding) divide between town and country in our own, more recent elections, someone just had to do a local version...

Though possibly it could have been Latteland versus Sheepistan...


I'm sure the west coasters will love being referred to as latteland!

Posted by Stephanie : 9/22/2005 02:53:00 AM

And the Maori Seats?

Posted by Nick Eynon : 9/22/2005 09:14:00 AM

how can Ohariu Belmont be neutral territory? Surely it is the capital if Jesusland?

Posted by The Doorman : 9/22/2005 09:43:00 AM

This is an electorate-vote map, but I have seen a party-vote-per-electorate map, which has a blue country with red urban dots. But they do not incorporate the party votes of the Maori seats either, I don't think. Would someone be able to roughly factoring the Maori seat party votes into the overall party-vote map, and making us another map? eg through dividing their numbers between the non-Maori electorates they cover?

Posted by Anonymous : 9/22/2005 09:47:00 AM

The Right's advantage is in Sheepistan, but MMP requires holding Latteland. Expect to see the Right campaigning against MMP Prebble's already been at it. Labour may just hand the Right victory on a plate by continuing to dismantle the welfare state and appease the capitalists.

Posted by Anonymous : 9/22/2005 11:27:00 AM

I think a better map would have white as its base, and the relative colours influencing it, so that most electorates would become purple, or a brownish colour if you took the minor parties into consideration.

Take Northcote for example, where overall the right only beat the left by about 3000 votes. To colour the whole electorate blue is nonsensical.

Posted by Moneo : 9/22/2005 12:14:00 PM

Can my island, Waiheke, be New Canada's capital? We have the best wines and cafes.

Posted by Hans Versluys : 9/22/2005 01:11:00 PM

Do you really think epsom should be the capital of Jesusland?

Nothing to do with religion there.... (based on politics anyway)

Posted by MikeE : 9/22/2005 02:45:00 PM

Sorry, but the Jesusland map is simply not transportable to NZ for a number of reasons. Here are a few:
- Party vote isn't accounted for.
- The more religiously conservative (esp Pacific Island) electorates in west and south Auckland are Labour.
- Most Nat MPs are socially liberal, or at least secular conservatives.
- ACT is even more socially liberal than National. Epsom is possibly one of the least Christian electorates in NZ.
- Those social conservatives who are in Parliament are just as likely to be in left parties (eg Anderton).
- The rural electorates might be socially conservative, but it isn't a US-style conservatism that is rooted in evangelical Christianity.
- Don Brash himself abandoned religion.
- To the best of my knowledge, even evangelical Christianity in NZ isn't very political. And many Christian movements, if they are in politics at all, are closer to the left (eg the Anglican church, Ratana).

The right-left axis in NZ has far more to do with economics/income and ethnicity than with religious perspective and morality issues. In the US, the opposite is the case, so much so, that there is an INVERSE relationship between how wealthy a state is and whether it's Republican (almost a perfectly inverse relationship, in fact!)

Posted by Habib : 9/23/2005 08:40:00 AM

I'd have to disagree with the labelling too. Yes, Ohariu Belmont is capital of Jesusland, which means Epsom is Rodnesia, or some
such label. However, yes, I like the idea of New Canada!

As for Habib:
-No, I wouldn't say that National was as balanced during its last parliamentary term as it was during the nineties. The 2002-5 Nat
caucus did pander overmuch to
social conservatives;
- isn't there a social/pragmatic conservative split? Jim Anderton
is a pragmatic conservative, and
certainly not socially conservative on issues outside drugs, sex work and euthanasia;
- evangelical Christians in NZ
are political. The Maxim Institute,
anti-abortion groups, pro-belting
groups, United Future and the
Society for Promotion of Community
Standards are all staffed by
evangelical Christians.

Craig Y.

Posted by Anonymous : 9/23/2005 09:01:00 AM

I don't know whether to be impressed or insulted that someone used "New Canada" as some kind of label.

I'll just laugh it off as humour, for now.

Posted by Geoff : 9/23/2005 11:20:00 AM

It's a compliment. We're Australia's Canada, apparently, according to one recent US satirical tome...

Craig Y.

Posted by Anonymous : 9/26/2005 11:09:00 AM

There are a lot of divisions within an electorate, too. I've done a booth-by-booth map of the Wellington region (, and there are a few intriguing patterns that crop up.

Posted by Tom : 9/29/2005 05:40:00 PM

Urban = Turban.... ie tolerant of other ethnicities

Suburban = Saharan.... ie intolerant of all life

(except possibly camels, and i can't get a link in with that except for some reference to humps...)

Posted by bush whacker : 10/02/2005 05:39:00 PM

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. Posted by DeepRed : 10/04/2005 07:55:00 PM

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. Posted by DeepRed : 10/04/2005 07:57:00 PM

As the author of the NZ Jesusland v0.5 beta (and I emphasise the word beta) I'd have to agree with Craig Y's pointing out of the 'satirical tome'. That tome just happens to be "America: The Book" by Jon Stewart of The Daily Show fame. I believe Clive James once made a similar reference some years ago...

If anyone has a scan/JPEG/GIF of the party vote map, it'll be much appreciated if someone can upload it somewhere and point me to a Web link of it.

10/04/2005 07:55:18 PM

Posted by DeepRed : 10/04/2005 08:00:00 PM