I'm told that it was a very close game and that New Zealand beat France by a single point despite being such heavy favourites going in that one Irish bookmaker paid out assuming no chance of a French victory. So the closeness of the game then should have been a surprise, right?
If a rugby loss would have substantially affected election outcomes, then we should have seen all kinds of action on PM.National and PM.Labour the night of the game. Instead, here's trading:
There was absolutely no trading during the world cup, nor was there much immediately after the result.
Seamus tells me that despite the All Blacks being ahead for the first part of the game, France got within a point around the 48 minute mark. And for a period near the end, Seamus put better than even odds on France winning. If a French victory would have substantially affected National's re-election chances, there would have been substantial trading when France got within a point, then again when victory was assured.
Why bother with all the armchair election speculation if we have market traders telling us that it really didn't matter? I can't see anything distinguishable from noise on the vote share market either.
For argument's sake: have you considered that the rugby mad New Zealand traders were all too distracted to trade (in fan zones, bars, stadium, maybe without a mobile to trade on)?
ReplyDeleteI second Anonymous; there doesn't seem to be a lot of trading on Sundays, there was a shorter than 1 hour window when the loss was considered a real possibility (to even think of trading), and most normal people would pay more attention to the actual game than to the prospect of making a few bucks during that hour. Thus, I wouldn't use the lack of trading as evidence that the result didn't matter for the election (or otherwise).
ReplyDelete@Anon, Luis: No way given the standing order book and its relative thickness. Even a single trader who believed that RWC affected election results could have pushed things around against the book, then undone the trades by pushing back against the book when uncertainty had been resolved.
ReplyDelete@Eric I guess people have a life.
ReplyDeletePeople did plenty of live betting on the TAB, which discounts the "people are too focused on the game" hypothesis. Then again, for most people it is more fun to bet on the outcome of the game that you're watching than an event which may have a small correlation with its outcome (and easier too).
ReplyDelete@Eric: Here is some large-N work suggesting sporting results do indeed influence elections.
ReplyDeletePress release:
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/malhotra_voting_7_10.html
Paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/25/1007420107
you are bad boy Eric,in the rugby elections,
ReplyDeleteit is about emotion not results.
The electorate decided months ago.
Rob: happy to grant that all kinds of odd things go on in voters' minds. Indeed, will be giving a public lecture on it in a month's time. But it isn't plausible that ity had much effect here this time round.
ReplyDeleteTransactions costs. Substantial transactions costs.
ReplyDelete"Seamus tells me that despite the All Blacks being ahead for the first part of the game, France got within a point around the 48 minute mark."
ReplyDeleteWill Seamus verify this, or did you actually sneak a look at the game? :-)
@V
ReplyDeleteI can verify that I provided that information to Eric. Whether he took a sneak look at the game or not, I cannot say. But if so, he has done a good job of maintaining his "bah humbug" facade during the entire tournament. I threatened him with visits from the ghosts of World Cups past, present and future, but to no avail. I accuse him of being guilty of the sunk-cost fallacy: we have paid for the tournament anyway, so the best response was to forget that and enjoy it while it was on.
When I got back to the hotel room in Queenstown, Susan had the opening of the game on. Then I booted up the computer and started Season 4 of Big Bang Theory. I do not regret the choice.
ReplyDelete