12.40am. If the election had been single-member first-past-the-post on current boundaries, the result would have been National 41 seats, Labour 21, Maori 5, minor parties 3. Make that preferential, and give Labour 75 per cent of Greens preferences and split the others evenly, and there’s little change: National 40, Labour 22, Maori 5, minor parties 3.
10.55pm. Regarding that ninth Green Party seat, Antony Green writes: “Unlike Australia, they do not count special (absent, postal etc) votes progressively, but as a lump in about 12 days time. It will be two weeks before they do the final allocation of seats.” Strong Green performance on special votes has been a notable feature of past elections.
10.45pm. Green Party leader Jeanette Fitzsimons addressing supporters. Haven’t mentioned them much because the result has left them marginalised. The party has gained two seats, from six to eight, although Fitzsimons is holding out for an ninth. Not bad, but less than the polls had indicated.
10.38pm. Labour and NZ First principals venting about the media, in time-honoured fashion.
10.33pm. Peter Dunne confirmed in his speech 10 minutes ago that he would back a National government, and there’s no doubt left that that’s what we’ll be seeing.
10.28pm. However, Labour has taken the lead in Christchurch Central, where they trailed earlier after winning by 23.7 per cent in 2005 – though I can’t speak for redistribution effects.
10.20pm. Nikki Kaye has won for National in Auckland Central, in what seems to be the biggest electorate seat boilover. Labour won by 9.3 per cent in 2005, presumably on different boundaries.
10.14pm. Remember that when Elections NZ says 90 per cent counted, they mean 90 per cent of booths counted. The ones outstanding are presumably big ones, mostly in Auckland. So the current 45.6-33.6 gap might narrow a little further than you’d think.
10.01pm. Peter Dunne home and hosed in Ohariu, Maori seats now definitely 5-2. Only question is how things are looking beyond 61 seats. National still slowly losing ground, but will win at least 58 seats, ACT NZ looking very good for five, maybe only four if they’re unlucky. No question that we’ll be seeing a National-ACT NZ government.
9.48pm. Antony: “The best estimate I see for the new Parliament is 58 National, 5 ACT plus Peter Dunne – Right with 64, then 44 Labor, 8 Green, Jim Anderton, giving the Left 53, plus 5 Maori. 122 seat Parliament.” Third on the ACT NZ list is Roger Douglas, Treasurer in David Lange’s Labour government in the 1980s famed for his free-market reforms, who could well be back in cabinet.
9.45pm. National vote edges down enough to cost them a seat, so make that National 59 and ACT NZ 5.
9.37pm. We’re likely looking at an overhang of two, so 61 will be a majority with an independent Speaker. Current figures suggest National 60 and ACT NZ five, although the former are fading a little.
9.33pm. Little change in Te Tai Tonga with a big advance in the vote, so the Maori seats are firming up as five Maori Party and two Labour Party, with a very remote possibility that Labour might yet make that 4-3 with Te Tai Tonga.
9.30pm. Big advance in the Ohariu count, but the vote has changed very little, so Peter Dunne should be home.
9.28pm. National Party down to 46.7 per cent with 56 per cent counted, so the prospect of majority government is diminishing.
9.21pm. Antony sticking with his 45-35 prediction.
9.20pm. New Zealand First surely gone now, fading to 4.3 per cent with 47.4 counted.
9.19pm. Labour beginning to gain a little on the National Party as the southern Auckland vote comes in.
9.18pm. Maori seats. Labour home in Ikaroa-Rawhiti; probably done enough in Hauraki-Waikato; only slightly behind in Te Tai Tonga 44.2 to 41.8 per cent, but with 60.3 counted the Maori Party candidate is probably home. Other four seats held by the Maori Party.
9.15pm. Local observers excited the National candidate is ahead in Auckland Central, and in the hunt in Christchurch Central.
9.13pm. Silly woman on Radio New Zealand complaining that UNZF and Progressive Party are in parliament with a small share of the national vote. Of all the criticisms to make of MMP …
9.11pm. Peter Dunne back down from 33.2 to 32.6 per cent in Ohariu with 26.1 per cent. Still likely to win with Labour second on 29.7 per cent, though worth keeping an eye on. It’s probably only his own seat that’s at stake: party’s national vote is 0.9 per cent, whereas they would need at least 1.5 per cent for a second seat (more if NZ First makes the threshold).
9.04pm. National vote count up to 34 per cent, and the National vote still a strong 47.8 per cent. However, ACT NZ is looking at five seats and far the most likely result is a National-ACT coalition. Antony Green discusses talk of Peter Dunne being made Speaker.
8.58pm. Count in Ohariu up to 19.6, Peter Dunne gains a bit of ground from 32.1 to 33.2.
8.54pm. Antony: “Really looking like National 45%, Labour 35% at this stage. National plus ACT still looking at just reaching a majority.”
8.53pm. Commentators on 3News expect NZ First to lose ground when special votes are admitted.
8.51pm. Assuming NZ First don’t pull a rabbit out of the hat, it’s looking like the vote for excluded parties will be 6.5 per cent, meaning the National Party will need a bit under 47 per cent to get a majority.
8.50pm. Labour looking increasingly safe in the Maori seat of Ikaroa-Rawhiti, leading 51.3 to 41.6 with 28.2 reporting.
8.44pm. Antony confirms that the booth votes should even up the vote in the terms I suggested earlier, to about 45-35 in favour of the National Party. Booths currently coming in are very small ones. City booths later on should see Labour and the Green Party go up (from 31.3 and 6.3 at present, to the National Party’s 48.7).
8.43pm. Jim Anderton has opened up a handy lead in Wigram, 42.4 per cent to 32.4 per cent National.
8.42pm. 15.2 per cent of booths in from Ohariu, and Peter Dunne has faded a little further to 32.1 per cent, against 29.2 per cent Labour and 28.3 per cent National.
8.35pm. Maori Party still looking good in Te Tai Tonga, leaving two of the seven in doubt but favouring Labour.
8.29pm. Labour still looking good in the Maori seat of Ikaroa-Rawhiti: leading 49.7 to 43.7 with 12.9 counted (that’s 12.9 per cent of booths, not votes).
8.27pm. No great change in Ohariu with count up from 4.3 to 8.7 per cent.
8.21pm. Commentator on Radio NZ makes the point that the higher NZ First gets without crossing the threshold, the lower the vote the National Party needs for an absolute majority. At present the NZ First is almost exactly where the National Party would want it – 4.5 per cent.
8.17pm. Count in Ohariu up from 4.3 per cent to 6.5 per cent, and Peter Dunne is up from 33.2 per cent
8.15pm. Much as we saw in ACT, we appear to be in a lull between the entry of “advance” votes and booth votes in significant numbers.
8.10pm. Peter Dunne of United Future NZ is down on raw figures from 45.9 per cent to 33.2 per cent in Ohariu with 4.3 per cent counted. He may have suffered from the redistribution which changed the name of his seat from Ohariu-Belmont. At the moment it’s a tight three-horse race: Dunne 1197, National 1032, Labour 1001.
8.03pm. Antony: “The advance votes tell us National will win. But did the gap between National and Labor tighten at the end of the campaign? If it did, then it might be closer. Will Labor plus the Greens come close to National plus ACT? It doesn’t look like Peter Dunne or Jim Anderton will do anyhting other than elect themselves.”
7.58pm. No change in Maori seats: the Maori Party leads in five, but trails slightly in Ikaroa-Räwhiti and Hauraki-Waikato.
7.50pm. Antony on the advance vote: “in 2005, Labor rose from 36.8% to 41.1% at the end of the count, National from 43.5% to 39.1%, Green 4.8% to 5.3%, NZ First 6.1% to 5.7%, United NZ 3.0% to 2.7%, Maori 1.6% to 2.1%.” Does that mean the current raw figures of National 49, Labour 31.5, Green 6, NZF 4.5 should be adjusted to National 44.5, Labour 36, Green 6.5 and NZF 4?
7.48pm. Winston Peters now getting thrashed in Tauranga, and NZ First national vote has faded a little to 4.6 per cent with 4.6 per counted.
7.45pm. ACT NZ on 3.3 per cent so far, and I imagine would go higher with big Auckland booths, compared with 1.5 per cent (two seats) in 2005.
7.41pm. TVNZ projecting a slight National Party majority with 63 seats out of 123, the remainder going 40 Labour, 8 Greens, 6 Maori, 4 ACT New Zealand, one each for Progressive and United Future New Zealand. Even if the National Party is reined in a little from here, they could surely rely on backing from ACT NZ.
7.34pm. Antony (hell, just read his blog): “Models are looking better for Labor than the raw vote, but still not enough to prevent a change of government.”
7.30pm. Antony reckons we’re in for “quite a wait” to see if the National Party wins a majority – but if those are the stakes, it seems there’s very little prospect of any kind of Labour government being formed.
7.28pm. However, Labour leads 730-632 in Ikaroa-Räwhiti. Maori leads of varying sizes in the other five.
7.26pm. Antony projects five of seven Maori seats going to the Maori Party, but the first one I’ve looked at is the one reckoned Labour’s best chance of hanging on (Hauraki-Waikato), and Labour’s lead is only 490-475.
7.24pm. Antony Green reports: “Early models are matching votes up in line with current percentages, which would point to a National majority government.”
7.19pm. Very early results provide hope for NZ First: they’re bobbing around the threshold mark, and Winston Peters leads in Tauranga 236 votes to 224.
7.18pm. National vote with 3 per cent counted: National 49, Labour 32, Green 6 per cent, NZ First 4.5 per cent.
7.17pm. Jim Anderton comfortably ahead in Wigram with 2 of 64 booths reporting.
7.15pm. Peter Dunne only slightly ahead in Ohariu, with 2 of 46 booths reporting.
7.12pm. Antony Green says the “first advance votes” are in line with the polls: National high 40s, Labour mid-to-high 30s, Greens 7 per cent, NZ First 3.8 per cent.
7.10pm. It doesn’t look like they’re providing booth-level figures for tonight’s count either, which pretty much leaves us completely in the dark. In 2005 the early count looked diabolical for Labour to the untrained eye, but that was because rural booths were coming in early. If any media outlets are making the effort to match booth results, I would be pleased if someone could bring it to my attention.
7.02pm. Curses to the NZ Electoral Commission, which claims to have CSV files of booth-level results from 2005 on its site – but all the links are broken. Let’s hope it gets a lot better from here.
7.00pm. A quick guide for beginners. New Zealand has a proportional representation electoral system, which normally means the non-local observer need look no further than the national vote. However, mixed-member proportional brings the complication that minor parties must clear one of two hurdles to win seats proportional to their vote share: either they must win 5 per cent of the national vote, or win at least one constituency seat. The minor parties in play are:
- The Green Party, who current polling suggests are sure to clear 5 per cent. Notwithstanding party leader Jeanette Fitzsimons’ win in Coromandel in 1999, they will probably need to.
- New Zealand First, closely associated with its troubled leader Winston Peters and presumably in big trouble. Peters lost his constituency seat of Tuaranga in 2005, but his party scored 5.7 per cent of the national vote despite a 4.7 per cent swing. In spite of everything, Peters might have some hope of recovering Tauranga with the retirement of one-term National Party MP Bob Clarkson.
- The Maori Party, believed likely to capture most of the seven dedicated Maori electorates (it currently has four), potentially causing a significant overhang (see below).
- ACT New Zealand, the free-market party led by Rodney Hide, who retained his seat of Epsom in 2005 with 42.3 per cent of the vote against the National Party’s 33.7 per cent.
- United Future New Zealand, led by Peter Dunne, who is very likely to be re-elected in his seat of Ohariu.
- Progressive Party, led by veteran Jim Anderton who polled 46.6 per cent in his seat of Wigram in 2005.
In normal circumstances, the parliament will consist of 63 general electorates, seven Maori electorates and 50 list seats. However, these numbers can be increased in the event of an overhang, which occurs if a party wins more constituency seats than it would normally get from its share of the national vote. This is almost certain to be true of the Maori Party, which might win as many as seven seats despite having a national vote of between 2 and 3 per cent according to the polls. The Progressive Party constituency seat is also likely to be won from a negligible national vote that wouldn’t account for a seat. Taken together, that could lead to an overhang of between two and five seats, for a total of up to 125 seats rather than 120. As such, attention here will be focused on the national vote; Tauranga, Epsom, Ohariu and Wigram; and the Maori electorates.
6.10pm (NZ time). Welcome to my live coverage of the New Zealand election count. I’m getting in early here to advertise the fact that I’m doing this – polls in New Zealand do not in fact close until 7pm.
557 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 » Show All
Nationals ahead in Auckland Central by about 500 votes now up from 100 a min ago.
59/43 now
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/electionmain.asp
Nader strikes again.
The Darth Nader effect it should be called.
The variable in Italy is a very high level of tolerance for corruption and incompetence.
No its because Labour couldnt convince those who cast ballots for the Greens to back them instead.
Why should Greens voters and all those who vote for minor parties get 2 votes while those who vote for major parties only get 1 its undemocratic!
Thankfully NZ has FPTP for half of its Parliament.
Those who vote for major parties get the same opportunity as any other voter. If the major party is excluded before the minor party then their preference determines who wins the seat.
I don’t think people want governments that can’t do things. That seems to be counter intuitive. They wouldn’t bother voting at all if that is what they actually wanted.
How do they get “two votes”?
Everyone in NZ gets “two votes”. One for party, one for electorate.
Yes, thank god that the majority of votes in most electorates are thrown out the door.
See I always thought democracy was government for the people BY the people. Not for the people by a certain amount of them. That’s why I don’t get the “stability” argument. As if the government is some other class entirely who dictates our every whim as opposed to a place where the views and opinions of the country are represented and debated.
Bah it is undemocratic to give some people 2 votes and others just 1.
That’s why FPTP while for its weaknesses is still the most democratic way of electing people, and why majorities are discussed in terms of votes ahead of the 2nd most popular candidate.
No they dont Itep because their votes in a preferential system get locked in whereas those who vote Green get to vote Green and then Vote Labor that’s why they get 2!
ShowsOn. They can do things with the support of other parties. What you’re seeking to do is deny substantial portions of the public with representation in the parliament.
Who represents their views? You think their views are worthless. I don’t.
Nikki Kaye (NAT) ahead by more than 1000 votes in Auckland Central what an upset that would be.
Man, I have been sitting here watching this for too long. You miss the point. MMP is undemocratic because half the parliament is UNELECTED! There is nowhere in the world who believes anymore it is a worthwhile system. NZ only introduced it because the system they had (FPTP) did not deliver good Government. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
MMP should die a sad lonely death.
Key has said he will change it and that would be an excellent idea. The only supporters of it are the small parties who otherwise would not get a voice.
Glen, so in an electorate where the Greens outpoll Liberal do you think the Greens still get 2 votes?
No then the Liberals get 2 votes and that’s unfair/undemocratic on those voting Labor as they only got 1 vote.
On my screen she’s 270 ahead
And why is a system where you churn through a lot of governments and have a lot of small parties better than a system of elected dictatorship where most people are alienated from a small number of parties?
Except you keep ignoring the fact that most peoples votes are ignored…
But once the Liberal candidate has been excluded the Liberal vote gets reduced to 0 and the other vote (whoever they preferenced) gets increased by one.
It doesn’t mean they voted twice. I don’t understand what you’re saying Glen.
I have her ahead by 858 on 58.5% of the count Adam what do you have???
People don’t get two votes in preference voting! Everyone has one vote, but for some people the vote moves from one person to another. Jesus, how ridiculous to say that Greens voters somehow have more power in a preference system!
I’m a supporter of PR, though not too keen on MMP. There are many problems with MMP, too many to go into here. One feature that is rather bizarre as to how MMP operates in NZ, is that party’s that win electorate seats are not subject to the 5% threshold rule. I don’t see why these parties should have special consideration. If MMP was to be refomed in NZ, this is a feature of it that would need to be changed.
Oh not really, I am just one of those old fashion types that think government has a legitimate role in getting things done, and government’s constantly falling apart due to fracturing coalitions doesn’t aid that.
My preferred system is an executive government removed from a legislature, then a proportional representation based legislature. But in systems where the executive is derived from the legislature, I prefer the Australian system where the lower house is biased in favour of the major parties to help create a solid working majority.
I do support voluntary attendance at voting and optional preferential though. So I think those two things bring us somewhat closer.
Their views are represented by whoever they give their second preference to.
I live in a reasonably safe Liberal seat, featuring a candidate I didn’t vote for. Who represents MY view?
Itep but how does it get reduced to zero???
They give that vote to another party ie that person then got 2 choices or two votes rather than just one!
Glen, in the UK in 1997, Labour got 43% of the vote, which gave them 63% of the seats. Do you consider that to be a democratic outcome?
No ShowsOn, I support compulsory voting and compulsory preferencing.
Noone represents your views which is exactly the flaw of the system.
“They give that vote to another party ie that person then got 2 choices or two votes rather than just one!”
They don’t have two votes. Their vote moves from the Greens to Labor. It ceases to be a Greens vote. The Greens don’t benefit from that vote at all. Thus they only have one vote. It’s why it is called a “Single Transferable Vote” (the name applies to both single-member preference voting and preferential proportional).
Why on earth do you support compulsory preferencing! That means people have to preference party’s they HATE just to make a formal ballot. How is THAT representing their actual views?
No, that’s the nature of democracy. The view’s of the entire electorate are measured, and whoever gets more support wins.
I guess the founding fathers would say that the Senate is the back up opportunity where everyone receives some representation.
No Glen, they still only get 1 choice, or the same number of choices anyone else is given. I completely don’t understand your argument.
Your counting each time their preferred candidate is excluded as an additional vote. It’s not. It’s all one vote.
Yes.
The Tories got far less of the vote than Labour so they won a large majority.
Nobody in that 1997 election got their vote counted twice, hence it was democratic.
Each person got one vote, and it counted only once. That is fair and democratic in my book.
He is represented by his party’s Senators. If NZ had an upper house they wouldn’t need a PR lower house.
Also i am in favour of non-complusory voting.
The crux of it is this.
FPTP risks a minority Government (i.e. minority popular vote gets majority of seats – therefore minority wish governs the majority)
MMP risks minority party holding balance of power (i.e Government policy becomes unbalanced due to minority party having undue infuence – therefore very small minority directs government of the majority)
Both suck big time. Australias PR has hairs on it as well but it is a much more democratic system At least the result is a majority Government voted for by the majority.
Is it just me, or has every website in NZ suddenly stopped working?
ShowsOn, that’s your view of democracy, not mine. My view of democracy is that every individual is a rational, thinking agent capable of informed judgment. Disenfranchising large portions of people from the legislature is an insult to these individuals and undemocratic.
The Senate was not set up on a proportional representation basis so that’s not what the ‘founding fathers’ envisaged. It was initially FPTP, then preferential then proportional. Originally the party getting the highest vote in a state would win all 6 seats in a state, leading to extremely lopsided chambers.
It’s rooted for me too William, they really didnt plan on all these aussies pressing refresh every 20seconds did they lol!
That is apart from the compulsory voting which is not at all democratic!
Yes Adam, having a PR Senate helps. There’d be no need for 2 houses if the lower house had some system of PR.
Elf, in Australia the Government is rarely voted for by a majority of the people. Name the last time the Government was elected with greater than 50% of the primary vote.
I’ve got the same problem William, I lost the NZ election results site and my RNZ audio feed.
What happened to New Zealand?
Are they ok?
Elections NZ is working for me.
The point remains that Senators have no say in forming government, which means much of the governing is taken away from that house. It isn’t the same to have a PR Senate when you continue to have an elected dictatorship in the house of government.
Duh, Itep. That is the point. With PR, the primary vote is never used, it always goes to preferences. EVERY seat is won by a majority of the votes (once preferences are considered).
This is much fairere than FPTP where in NZ a seat could be won with as little as 35% of the popular vote.!!!!
electionresult.govt is still working, but the main Elections NZ website is down.
Do I gather there has been a redistribution since the last election?
Yes but they won the most votes so they should win the seat.
You are giving all those people who backed a minor party another choice on who they want so why should minority groups decided election results…
The DLP helped the Libs for years as have the Greens since 1990, it isnt democratic and it isnt fair.
Ben:
Why should 10% of the voters – the Greens – influence the government of the other 90%
National ahead in Auckland Central by 993 votes with 82.9% of polling booths in, she’s looking good lol Greens and Labour split their vote
!
Even commercial radio got chopped.
But your statement “at least the result is a majority Government voted for by the majority” is incorrect. It is not a government voted for by the majority. e.g. in Australia last election 43% wanted a Labor Government, 7.8% a Green Government etc. etc.
Dear me. I thought the Tizard family were entitled to a seat by hereditary right.
Mary is right!
As is the case here only 3% of NZders who backed ACT will end up deciding that National forms government….
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 » Show All