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 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 » Show All
Adam: yes, there has been a redistribution. I’m gathering that’s why Peter Dunne has had trouble getting re-elected: his seat of Ohariu-Belmont is now just Ohariu.
Mary,
They should have 10% of the say. That is what proportional representation is about. Everyone gets a say in a proportion of the Parliament. If you simply exclude those who vote for a minor party you are excluding a significant proportion from having any representation at all. Unless they win 50% of the vote, the major parties are minorities too. The point is that usually when a major party and a minor party vote together (such as National, ACT and UF), then they are a majority.
Mary Hannah Wide, you could turn that around and ask why 43% of voters – Labor voters – influence the government of the other 57%
National ahead by 1003 votes in Auckland Central…i wonder what the odds were on a National victory there you’d have made a killing if they go on to win that seat.
No Glen 46% of National voters and 3% of NZ ACT voters decide that National forms government with the support of NZ ACT.
This election system is too complicated for my poor brain
From what I understand there is a normal 70 electorate FPTP setup. OK I get that and then a “List” with 50 extra seats. But how does National with 46% get 18 “list” seats and Labour with 33% get 22 “list” seats? Wouldn’t it make sense that National get 46% of the 50 “list” seats 23 and Labour 33% of them 16. Green with 6% of the vote should get 3 seats out of 50 and yet somehow they have 8 seats
Or perhaps and even “fairer” system there should be 70 electorate seats and 70 list seats
Itep.
You are talking about the primary vote. But the way preferencing works is everybody is asked a simple question. If your first choice cannot win who is your next choice and so on down the list. There the END result is that the successful candidate is voted for by GREATER then 50% of the voters in any particular seat. It cannot work any other way. That is the beauty of preferential voting.
It is the END result you need to concentrate on, not the first round.
1077 votes ahead lol hahahahah Tizard must be livid oh boy 90% of polling booths in id call it National now
Robert Key must be feeling like this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60og9gwKh1o
Thread at Kiwiblog is interesting reading, though we’re currently beating them 207 comments to 162.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/11/election_results_thread.html#comments
But that still disenfranchises everyone who doesn’t want to be governed by either of the major parties.
Yes they have had a redistribution.
http://www.elections.org.nz/mapping/report/proposed_electoral_districts_2007_all.pdf
So I have to draw a new set of maps – and I haven’t even started Canada yet.
Of course everyone is CAPABLE of making an informed judgment, but some people JUST DON’T CARE, and I think it is important that democratic institutions including the electoral process itself respect that ‘view’ or ‘lack of view’. Hence voluntary voting, and optional preferential.
What if someone comes to the rational conclusion that they don’t want to vote? Or don’t want to preference someone? Shouldn’t THAT rational decision be respected?
They can do so by voting informal.
Agree with you there ShowsOn.
Have they found the ‘Bradley Effect’ at long last?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10541828
I have posted the electoral maps in Google Earth format on my blog, if people want to look at them. Might be helpful for you Adam, if you change the colours to have 100% opacity you can easily do a “print-screen” and make a copy to do what you want with them.
Bob Katters Hat,
It works something like this.
Ther are 120 seats in the house. If National get 50% of the vote they are eligible for 60 of those seats. If they have already won 40 in the ‘electorates’ then they get another 20 from their ‘list’. If Labour get 50% of the vote they are eligible for 60 of those seats. If National won 40 of the 70 electorate seats then Labour won only 30. So they then get 30 ‘list’ candidates in the house. This is how parties with higher electorate percentages can get less list candidates. But the end result is that the parliament is balanced based on the popular vote – I think.
That is my very simple interpretation. May be wrong though.
# Johnboy (712) Vote: Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“Breaking News: TV3 Reports that Helens makeup artist was seen leaving her house in a B Train with six inch paint brushes, airless spray equipment, buckets of polyfilla and a couple of spare heads falling out the back.”
classic comment on kiwi blog cruel though
Elf, just because I get to have a say in Labor-Liberal doesn’t mean I am represented. Sure, it is better than FPTP where me voting Green means I’m completely locked out of having any say, but the fact remains that I didn’t choose to vote for either of those parties. 10% of the population prefer to have a Green, and I doubt that there’s many Greens voters see the Labor MP their preferences may have elected as their representative.
Thanks Ben. There are also some nice outline maps at the Elections NZ site which should be easy to work from.
Ben,
I don’t disagree with you and I am not really advocating PR as a foolproof method. It has holes! BUT, when put next to FPTP and MMP it is light years in front.
They’re still forced to go to the polls. That’s unfair, and doesn’t respect their will.
Further to Elf’s response to BKH, think of the list seats as “top-up” seats, they aren’t elected independently of the list seats.
Since FPTP electorate seats don’t get distributed proportionally, the list seats are there to restore propotionality. So if a party gets a disproportionately high number of electorate seats, they get less list seats to restore that proportionality.
Right on ShowsOn
I like how quickly you jump from one argument to another without acknowledging that nothing you’re saying makes sense.
The government did not get 90% of the vote.
The better question is, why does 43% get to govern for 100%? You say “10% having influence” as if it’s a bad thing. Why should 10% of Australian’s views not be represented in Parliament?
Im sure several people in WA didnt feel like voting at all in the 2008 election, they didnt like anybody…
Ben and BKH
Actually when you stop to think, maybe MMP is not such a bad system eh?
Yeah, but the advantage with mine is you can zoom in and out however as you wish, and you don’t need to get rid of the bits inside such as roads and towns etc etc. Anyway, they are always up there for anyone who wants to use them.
They are in the Senate Oz.
It depends on your view of democracy and the role of legislatures as to how large the holes in PR/MMP are. If you view the role to be to provide stable, majoritarian government then preferential/FPTP is the way to go. If you view the legislature as the forum that is a microcosm of the spectrum of views and wishes of the community then I think PR/MMP is more democratic.
Both are equally valid opinions to hold.
They probably don’t like paying taxes either, but they recognise they have a social obligationto do so. Voting should be seen the same way.
I agree, MMP isn’t that bad. My main beef is the tendency for unknown list MPs to be elected on party tickets, particularly when a party is basically a front for a single person (like Peter Dunne, Jim Anderton, Winston Peters). That’s why I much prefer PR-STV, Hare-Clark, whatever you wanna call it.
Exactly as I was going to say Adam.
No but if democracy is about freedom and choice why should people be forced to vote if they dont like anything on offer?
93% of the vote counted, Nat+ACT+UF is still 65 of 122. Are we calling it?
I would.
I am also calling Auckland Central for National who are ahead by 1246 with 97.6% of polling booths in.
If they don’t like anything on offer they should stand themselves. If they are not inclined to do that, they can vote informal. Being “forced” to spend half an hour going to vote once every three or four years is hardly an imposition.
William called it roughly half an hour ago.
He also pointed out that interestingly Roger Douglas is back in parliament and a possibility to reenter Cabinet.
What Glen and Mary seem to ignore is the question as to why a party with one extra vote should be entitled to ignore everyone elses voting intentions. Theres never a bleat when the final 10% of the Liberals (or Labor) controls an outcome. Betrays some not very democratic leanings I suspect….. Always simpler when the ‘right’ people sort things out eh what?
If no party exists that you can bear to vote for, then that’s the fault of people not to create those political parties, there’s nothing you can do about that. And in the end people have a choice to vote informal if they really can’t bear to vote for anyone. Although personally I’m not that fussed about compulsory voting in Australia.
But you can’t compare that to when 10% (or 5%) actively choose to vote for a different party.
Have any in the media called it?
Why should they be even forced to vote informal, by not voting they have sent a message to the pollies to lift their game.
Key said he doesnt want him in Cabinet.
Ben, agreed. I too have an issue with the ‘unelected’ parliamentarians. It is perhaps too simplistic to let this colour my view of the MMP ’system’ as a whole.
ITEP. My view of democracy is that a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” is a pipe dream and was first spoken of by a politician who wanted to get elected in a faraway land that has since turned septic tank. Democracy is really just another name for a system where we all get to have our say and ‘think’ it makes a difference to the ‘beauracrats’ who ACTUALLY run the country.
Some New Zealanders are happy to see the end of Winston…
# Banana Llama (51) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 8th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“Winston giving his speech, threw a bit of a tanty with media lmao!
“this is not the end”
Oh yes it is my friend, pack up your (s word) and GTFO!”
Why would anyone want unstable government? We elect politicians to represent us in order to get things done, to improve the country, and put in place policies that help increase living standards (health, education). I don’t think unstable government is conducive to creating those things.
Exactly. And people pay taxes because they expect a return in terms of services. Over time they can decide if what they got in return was worth it.
But if someone is compelled to vote for a candidate they hate, what have they received in return for doing so?
‘Beauracrats’ don’t run the country.
Reading Kiwiblog, I gather Key has ruled out a cabinet post for Roger Douglas?
That’s what you think ShowsOn. I don’t think minority governments are necessarily unstable. It just means there needs to be more of a consensus on policy formation. Under PR/MMP WorkChoices would never have passed as it never should have.
Have you watched ‘Yes Minister’ Itep???
If they are good at what they do they do.
ITEP.
uhhuh
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 » Show All