Final election results due out today

Written By: - Date published: 8:52 am, October 4th, 2014 - 109 comments
Categories: election 2014, labour, national - Tags:

Click for a larger view

Click for a larger view

By 2 pm today the Electoral Commission is expected to announce the final results in the 2014 election.  The announcement could be interesting.  There are potentially 330,000 special votes to be counted and if they break the same way special votes did last time then a few interesting things could happen:

  1. National could poll a smaller percentage than it did last time.
  2. Labour could end up on about 25.2% of the vote although with no further seats.
  3. And this is a prediction I will sort of stick my neck out on, the Green’s Steffan Browning may come in for whoever is last on National’s list.

The estimated number of special votes cast is considerably higher than last time, 330,000 as against 240,000.  This probably and hopefully represents the concerted last minute effort activists put in to getting people enrolled to vote.

Something that has struck me as I poured over previous results is how poorly Labour is performing when its its electorate vote tally is compared to its party vote tally.

This is an issue that goes to the core of MMP campaigning.  In 2008 I was David Cunliffe’s New Lynn campaign manager.  We ran a strictly two tick campaign and put out a lot (five pamphlet drops) of party vote material.  David won the electorate vote by 4,000 and New Lynn was one of the few electorates in the country where Labour won the party vote.  Last time (2011) David won the electorate vote by about 5,000 votes but Labour lost the party vote.  Net effect, Labour went backwards in the electorate.

The following table sets out what has been happening over the last few years at a national level.  I am pretty sure the result this time is going to be even worse for Labour.  The figures are the percentages of the total vote the major parties achieved in the party vote and the percentages major party candidates achieved of the total electorate vote.

Election National candidate % National party % National difference % Labour candidate % Labour Party % Labour Difference %
2002 30.54 20.93 9.61 44.69 41.26 3.43
2005 40.38 39.10 1.28 40.35 41.10 -0.75
2008 46.60 44.93 1.67 35.22 33.99 1.23
2011 47.31 47.31 0 35.2 27.48 7.72

National are managing their campaigns well.  Apart from the blowout in 2002 they get about the same overall party vote as electorate vote.

But for Labour clearly it needs to review things.  And when the figures are crunched for this election I suspect the situation will only be getting worse.

There are some big local electorate campaigns being run in marginals where Labour wins or goes close but then fails badly in the party vote campaign.  The party’s interests would be much better served by running a party vote campaign and surrendering the electorate seat.

Anyway will check at 2 pm to see if I can claim bragging rights or if I need to eat humble pie.

109 comments on “Final election results due out today ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. bearded git 1
    4 October 2014 at 9:04 am

    yep the way you could hardly read “party vote labour” on labour’s hoardings says it all about the weird mindset labour got itself into.

    i think there should be many signs next time that simply say “Party Vote Labour….” in massive letters and after this “for (an important policy)” in smaller letters

    BTW 25.2% for Labour represents about 20% more than English got in National’s nadir

    • Lanthanide 1.1
      4 October 2014 at 9:36 am

      “i think there should be many signs next time that simply say “Party Vote Labour….” in massive letters and after this “for (an important policy)” in smaller letters”

      Probably a good approach, since there still seems to be this idea that “Labour had no policy”. I think that’s largely coming from those that:
      1. Always vote National and so have blinkers on
      2. Didn’t actually pay any real attention to the election

      No point trying to change #1, but #2 could be attacked. That’s what I really liked about the 2011 Labour TV ads – they were short, punchy, with a distinct branding and were about their 5 flagship policies. The 2014 ads were boring and feel-good happy-happy but uninformative.

      • Ant 1.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 9:57 am

        Agree Lanth, particularly on #1, I’d talk with people who would criticize Labour for having “no policy”, who would then go on to criticize Labour policy by way of John Key soundbites…go figure.

        • Karen 1.1.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 10:23 am

          The advertising campaign was appalling.
          I agree with Lanth about the TV ads and and Bearded Git about the billboards.
          I also had a problem with the pamphlet design (I delivered these throughout the electorate) .
          The candidate one that went to all households did not emphasize the importance of the electorate vote, and should have had 3-4 important pieces of policy written in a simple and bold form. The one that was delivered to households where there were floating voters and Labour supporters looked like one of the real estate cards that fill letterboxes these days, and the names of the recipients were so pale and insignificant that I suspect the card was thrown out with the junk mail.

          There are very few people interested enough in politics to read through screeds of policy detail. There aren’t very many that even compare the various party policies on subjects that will have a major impact on their lives. I find this frustrating but there is no point in just railing about this. Labour need to lift their game re communication and it needs to start as soon as the review is over.

          Mickey – I hope you are right about the specials. I have an additional wish and that is that Trevor Mallard loses his seat.

          • Kiwiri 1.1.1.1.1
            4 October 2014 at 11:53 am

            Trevor Mallard loses his seat

            The party collectively needs to more loudly tell Mallard and Cosgrove to exit.

            • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1.1.1.1
              4 October 2014 at 1:21 pm

              We have what is called a representative democracy, ie we elect people to represent us.
              So are you saying the Labour party itself should not be representative ?

              Cosgrove was opposed to Helen Clark being leader back when it was Mike Moores seat.

              • Kiwiri …
                4 October 2014 at 1:32 pm

                Ok then:

                The party collectively, as well as representively, need to more loudly tell Mallard and Cosgrove to exit.

            • Jim 1.1.1.1.1.2
              4 October 2014 at 1:57 pm

              Sorry Karen and Kiwiri, Trevor got in by 790 votes.

              • Kiwiri …
                4 October 2014 at 3:45 pm

                No need to say sorry to me, but do say sorry to Labour’s party vote in Hutt South which has dropped significantly more since the previous election:

                2011: National’s party vote was 1,759 more than Labour’s

                2014: National’s party vote is 6,745 more than Labour’s

                Happy for someone to verify these figures.

      • bearded git 1.1.2
        4 October 2014 at 12:17 pm

        agree lanth. it wouldn’t be a bad idea to use the same tv advert campaign style as 2011 again. Goff nearly won remember.

        This would be cheaper as much of the work already done, and 6 years on nobody could say it was stale/over-used.

        • Lanthanide 1.1.2.1
          4 October 2014 at 2:06 pm

          “Goff nearly won remember.”

          I used to (largely) think like that, but it’s really not true.

          National were 1 seat away from not being able to sell the assets – they had 62 with Act and UF and 65 if you count MP.

          I have no doubt that NZFirst or MP would have still gone with National to form a government, so in that sense Goff didn’t “nearly win”.

          • swordfish 1.1.2.1.1
            4 October 2014 at 2:44 pm

            Spot on. The Right Bloc as a whole (including Colin Craig’s Conservatives) beat the Left Bloc (and even the broader Opposition Bloc) by a wide margin in the 2011 popular vote. Important not to deceive ourselves on that.

  2. Craig Glen Eden 2
    4 October 2014 at 9:12 am

    Labour has not run a proper Party vote campaign since 1999 which is just unbelievable because it is so basic to winning in MMP. Labour’s BillBoards hardly feature the Party vote Labour message and even when they do you cant read it when driving by. If you cant read what’s on a billboard when diving by there is no point in having Billboards. Pictures of Multiple MPs served no purpose at all and look like the Billboard had been tagged when approaching from a distance.

    Labour has to understand the need for soft media and messaging that starts 18 months out before and election. NZ society is celebrity struck until Labour understand basic’s like the stuff I have mentioned above you can kiss good by to Labour being in Government. Lastly Labour’s MPs have to stop there fighting and do what’s best for the party instead of playing the Wellington game. Its time for our MP’s to start connecting with voters on a much greater level, you want to represent the people then be one of the people.

  3. mac1 3
    4 October 2014 at 9:13 am

    I met Browning last night in the pub. He seemed philosophical. I hope he gets in- he is a politician who has improved his performance and who cares very much.

  4. Sirenia 4
    4 October 2014 at 9:37 am

    Heard a suggestion that National will get an extra seat this time as eligible specials favoured them?

  5. Weepus beard 5
    4 October 2014 at 9:51 am

    Finally my vote will be counted. Yay! It’s like I’ve been silenced until today.

  6. Pasupial 6
    4 October 2014 at 9:58 am

    If the GP gets Browning in, it seems most likely to be at the expense of the MP (Marama Fox). There are no outstanding specials in the Maori electorates (you’d expect some overseas votes at least, but given the lower turnout in these seats I assume that the specials were counted on the 20/9). I expect UF to sink even lower in the party vote as well making Dunne’s overhang even more evident.

    Hopefully everyone, who has been able to, has been out scrutineering. Illness has prevented me doing as much as I’d have liked on that front.

    • karol 6.1
      4 October 2014 at 10:09 am

      Also, some say Andrew Little may lose out today. This Andrea Vance article on the possibility of Nash standing for Labour leadership:

      The newly elected Napier MP is biding his time to see if former union boss Andrew Little will throw his hat in the ring. Little’s political future hangs in the balance until tomorrow, when the official election results are declared.

      If Little, a former EPMU president, did make it back to Parliament on the list, and decided to enter the primary contest to choose the leader, Nash would not run, a source said.

  7. felix 7
    4 October 2014 at 10:02 am

    As others note, labour’s pv campaign was pretty much invisible. I was in hamilton through much of the period and I didn’t see a single billboard with cunliffe on it. Even on sue moroney’s turf ffs.

    It ain’t rocket surgery, people. You don’t ask, you don’t get.

    • Cancerman 7.1
      4 October 2014 at 10:43 am

      Think this could have been a lack of funds regarding lack of signs.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 10:54 am

        An additional dozen or so Cunliffe signs, ~$1K including framing etc, shouldn’t have been too hard to raise in each electorate.

    • Colonial Viper 7.2
      4 October 2014 at 10:52 am

      The poor party vote campaign was almost a mirror image of the 2011 one where Goff was basically invisible, and there were no “two ticks” style signage. This year Cunliffe signs were not visible in too many areas, and instead of signs saying “Vote Labour” we had something called “Vote Positive.”

      I looked on my ballot, but I could not for the life of me find something called the ‘Positive Party’ to vote for.

      • Rodel 7.2.1
        4 October 2014 at 11:30 am

        CV I realise that you are being humerous and justifiably cynical but there may well be some out there of lesser judgement who took the ‘vote positive’ message literally.

        I can also appreciate Cunliffe and Co. wanting to present a positive message to the voters but it wasn’t received well.

        • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 11:41 am

          There is an idea in brand marketing which says, if you have to label yourself “trustworthy” that’s a problem right there.

    • Richard 7.3
      4 October 2014 at 11:23 am

      Not a labour sign anywhere in Tokoroa did I see either. Oh I think I saw ONE for Jamie strange. I’ll take that back.

      Was piss poor advertising by labour, this election, piss poor.

      Agreed.

  8. The Lone Haranguer 8
    4 October 2014 at 10:58 am

    Hey, so we can assume that some of the party to electorate variance is due to folk party voting Green and electorate voting Labour.

    The real question is, are the “surplus” Labour electorate votes just Green supporters being strategic (they know there no point in voting for their electorate candidate), so that 5% isnt actually Labour core, or is it core Labour vote, who deserted and gave their party vote to the Greens.

    If its the former, then Labour is sort of screwed unless it does a deal with the greens, and if its the latter, then they need to work on winning those votes back and positioning Labour as THE party of the centre and left.

    • mac1 8.1
      4 October 2014 at 11:21 am

      Not in this electorate, TLH, where there was only 200 fewer Green candidate votes than some 3000 Green party votes.

      One Green voting friend said he voted for the local Green candidate, even against that candidate’s advice to vote elsewhere, because he didn’t want his candidate to poll ‘poorly’.

      The chance was therefore diminished that the local electorate, a very large one in terms of area, could have had a Green and a Labour MP which would have happened in 1999 with the big swing against the Nats, had half the Greens of the time voted strategically.

      In the end, though, the new Nat candidate won this 2014 election by a country mile and my Green friend would argue that a Green two tick vote served his wishes best. Maybe this will change in 2017.

      The point is, though, that few Green voters seemed to have voted strategically here.

      • Colonial Viper 8.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 11:43 am

        Neither Greens nor Labour were strategic about this election, from an MMP point of view.

        • left for dead 8.1.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 12:04 pm

          Good morning CV,how do I join the Peninsula/Anderson bay Labour party branch,I’m on the peninsula.

        • left for dead 8.1.1.2
          4 October 2014 at 12:14 pm

          Good morning CV,how do I join the Peninsula/Anderson bay Labour party branch,I’m on the peninsula.
          edited,sorry this should have gone into openmike

        • ghostwhowalksnz 8.1.1.3
          4 October 2014 at 1:16 pm

          Yes , this is the correct analysis.

          Time for Greens to forget the electorate vote completely, if you give supporters one choice then the party vote has a chance to go above 10-11%.

          • alwyn 8.1.1.3.1
            4 October 2014 at 2:16 pm

            They won’t be invited to any of the joint candidate meetings if they don’t run for an electorate seat. This will reduce their chances of getting their message across and will probably reduce, rather than increase, their party vote.

  9. Kiwiri 9
    4 October 2014 at 11:10 am

    And I was working and travelling through at least three electorates and hardly saw a billboard with Cunliffe.

    Bumped into a few Labour people waving signs in the early morning as well as late afternoon – the Cunliffe signs were hardly to be seen or, if there happened to be one, it was greatly outnumbered by those of electorate candidates.

    Whether by design or unintentionally, that was just plain piss poor or stupidly sinister.

    When approaching a cluster of billboards, I found myself asking under my breath: where is Cunliffe? where is Cunliffe?

    From what I was seeing, the 2014 billboards of the party leader seemed to be as scarce as, or perhaps even scarcer than, the 2011 election!

  10. Disraeli Gladstone 10
    4 October 2014 at 11:19 am

    “David won the electorate vote by 4,000 and New Lynn was one of the few electorates in the country where Labour won the party vote.”

    http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-31.html

    “Labour Party 10,160
    National Party 11,650”

    Tell me, Mickey. Since when was 10,160 a bigger number than 11,650?

    Or were you just hoping that no one would bother to check?

    • mac1 10.1
      4 October 2014 at 11:26 am

      “In 2008 I was David Cunliffe’s New Lynn campaign manager. We ran a strictly two tick campaign and put out a lot (five pamphlet drops) of party vote material. David won the electorate vote by 4,000 and New Lynn was one of the few electorates in the country where Labour won the party vote.”

      Give the full quote, Benjamin, or get your brain into gear, Disraeli.

      This is a misleading quote that you gave, or you need to read with understanding ffs.

    • greywarbler 10.2
      4 October 2014 at 11:55 am

      Dissraeli Gladstone
      Don’t waste our time with your knee jerk facts that don’t get checked for ver-a-city (I break the word into syllables so you can recognise it and look it up.)

    • Disraeli Gladstone 10.3
      4 October 2014 at 12:15 pm

      My apologies. I completely misread the paragraph and I’ve seen other people claim Labour won New Lynn in 2014, so my mind went straight to that conclusion. Well, that’s my fault for trying to be a smart alec on a Saturday morning.

      Sorry, Mickey!

  11. Richard 11
    4 October 2014 at 11:19 am

    330 thousand votes for Labour. be a nice dream wouldn’t it.

  12. wyndham 12
    4 October 2014 at 11:28 am

    Driving between Auckland and Taupo it was a sea of blue billboards with a smiling John Key and ‘Party Vote National’.

    • Kiwiri 12.1
      4 October 2014 at 11:51 am

      One thing has to be clearly acknowledged – National had significantly more money and, among many things, more billboards to buy.

  13. Tanz 13
    4 October 2014 at 11:50 am

    On the specials, there is a chance Colin Craig and co might make it in. They got thousands and thousands more of the party vote then either Act or UF on the night of the election. The Greens will win more support at the expense of Labour, as will NZ First. Mallard will keep his seat, but only just…good.

    • bearded git 13.1
      4 October 2014 at 12:26 pm

      there would have to be some very weird special voting for Colon to get in. Not likely at all.

  14. Clean_power 14
    4 October 2014 at 12:17 pm

    I suspect Trevor Mallard will be in Parliament representing Labour until he retires at the age of 92. It seems the Labour Party and his voters love the man!

    • ghostwhowalksnz 14.1
      4 October 2014 at 1:12 pm

      He is just 6 years older than Key !

      What is wrong with being older anyway, are you are all for age discrimination- until its your turn.

      • Murray Olsen 14.1.1
        5 October 2014 at 12:25 am

        If by the time they get to Mallard’s age all they’ve managed is to close a few schools and win a bicycle race against a marine mammal, they are far too old. Mallard needs to go. I don’t really care what excuse is used.

  15. lurgee 15
    4 October 2014 at 12:48 pm

    We ran a strictly two tick campaign and put out a lot (five pamphlet drops) of party vote material. David won the electorate vote by 4,000 and New Lynn was one of the few electorates in the country where Labour won the party vote.

    By a whopping 60 votes, no less! What happened to the 3,000 people that voted Cunliffe but not Labour?

    If that happened to Grant Robertson, it would be viewed as evidence of skulduggery and disloyalty.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 15.1
      4 October 2014 at 1:09 pm

      ” What happened to the 3,000 people that voted Cunliffe but not Labour?”

      Heard of Greens ?
      New Lynn runs right into the Waitakeres around Titirangi. That should tell you something.

      nationals support parties is miniscule these days so they have no credible second choice in most electorates.

  16. Andrew Welsh 16
    4 October 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Hang on, as a Blue voter my view is the word from the left during the campaign was “an overwhelming mood around NZ for change”, this was vocalised by Cunliffe, IM and websites such as TDB. There was an almost incredulous reaction that you lost, IMO too much crediance on what your Party leaders were saying and not enough notice paid to middle NZ. When will Labour release its own internal polling as it appears they were way out compared to say Colin James etc?

  17. Lanthanide 17
    4 October 2014 at 2:01 pm

    National loses a seat to 60, Greens gain a seat to 14. Labour unchanged, but their vote is now 25.13%.

    • karol 17.1
      4 October 2014 at 2:05 pm

      And it means the Nats lose their outright majority.

      • Lanthanide 17.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 2:07 pm

        Yes, but doesn’t change much for the policy prescription because David Seymour will vote for everything that Key tells him to – in fact it gives National a sliver of wriggle-room in that they can say “Act forced us” for any harsh right-wing gloss that goes onto a policy.

        As much as Dunne is derided, he did have the sense to vote down the RMA reforms.

      • mikesh 17.1.2
        4 October 2014 at 2:42 pm

        Presumably, with the overhang in Ohariu, they now have 60 seats in a 121 seat parliament.

  18. Kiwiri 18
    4 October 2014 at 2:05 pm

    Little keeps his seat, Browning in, Maori Party’s coat-tails provokes outrage by the National Party.

    Official Final Results and a good list here of all successful MPs here:

    http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/successfulcand.html

  19. Jim 19
    4 October 2014 at 2:09 pm

    I was shown quite a bit of electorate by electorate analysis on party vote verses electoral vote, and comparing with previous elections on Thursday night. Its quite hard to analyse because of electoral boundary changes. There does how ever appear to be large discrepancies between electorates, but not in the electorates that standardistas would have predicted. A lot more work needs to be done in this area to fully explain the low party vote compared to electoral vote.

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      4 October 2014 at 2:11 pm

      Yep this needs to be followed up very closely…I’d like to know what % of people only put one tick down, for starters, and what that tick tended to be…

      • Murray Olsen 19.1.1
        5 October 2014 at 12:35 am

        I suspect that the NAct candidates in working class electorates are such douchebags that no one will vote for them, but people want to be rich as well. They’ve bought the neoliberal bullshit but don’t like the quality of the local messenger.

    • karol 19.2
      4 October 2014 at 2:17 pm

      Overall, Green Party vote dropped by 0.9% compared with 2011. Labour dropped in party vote by 2.35%

      NZ First went up by about 2%.

      UF, ACT & Maori Party went up a fraction.

      Conservatives dropped by about 1.3%

      Nats went up dropped by 2.7%

      • alwyn 19.2.1
        4 October 2014 at 2:31 pm

        I assume you mean 2011 rather than 2001. The numbers don’t make any sense otherwise.
        What do you mean by “Conservatives dropped by about 1.3%”. They got 2.65% in 2011 and 3.97% this time. That is an increase, not a decrease.
        In general one would have to say that the centre-right and centre parties went up and the left all fell.

        • karol 19.2.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 2:33 pm

          Yes I fixed the 2001 error. Ah yes- got the Cons the wrong way around. that explains where some of the drop from the 3 main parties went to.

    • boldsirbrian 19.3
      4 October 2014 at 3:22 pm

      @Jim (19)

      The analysis of Party Vote vs Candidate Vote always seems to be based on some common ‘truth’ that a candidate is failing the Party, if the percentage they receive personally is greater than the percentage won for the Party.

      This could be a factor, but it is such a simplistic analysis that it deserves a little scrutiny.

      The first thing I note is that this simplistic analysis always seems to be part of discrediting a particular candidate.

      I suggest that a far more likely reason for a greater electoral vote than party vote is NAME recognition. And this could come from several factors:
      1. A long term MP …. Winston Peters, Peter Dunne, Annette King
      2. An MP who has held senior office ….. Phil Goff, David Shearer, Winston Peters
      3. Any MP, usually a bank bench MP who has no Cabinet role, but has a lot of time to spend helping constituents. ie A really GOOD MP who is liked and has a personal following. I will not name anyone in particular, because it probably applies to many.

      It would be just idiotic to claim that those MPs who have won a large electorate vote are “traitorous” to the Party, and should be ‘put out to pasture’, unless there is some other evidence that they really have not been pushing the Party vote.

      Because these MPs may be among the very best of MPS, and if they were to be replaced by a new MP, it will be extremely likely that the Party vote would stay exactly the same, and a good MP lost.

      For a Party like Labour, which has seen a decline in the Party vote, there has not been a significant opportunity to introduce “new blood” into caucus. For this reason, it is not surprising that the electorate votes are greater than the Party vote.

      I am not suggesting that some candidates may not have done enough to campaign for the Party vote. But I do suggest that it is not likely to be the most important factor overall. However it fits in conveniently into a narrative that wants to see some caucus MPS ‘booted out’, ‘expelled’, or even seemingly stoned to death? There may be very good reasons to see the end of some in caucus, simply to maintain a rejuvenated party, but I think the “Low Party vote” story will be the very wrong way to justify that desire.

      I hope the Party reviewers also have more sense as well than to be just stuck in the “Low Party Vote = ‘Bad Candidate’ cliche), but I have noted that there was a hint of this from David Cunliffe at one point. A shame.

      • Colonial Viper 19.3.1
        4 October 2014 at 6:25 pm

        You’re missing the big picture. Which is that large, long standing sections of the Labour Party caucus are a major impairment to the labour movement.

        • boldsirbrian 19.3.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 11:39 pm

          `
          @ Colonial Viper (19.3.1)

          large, long standing sections of the Labour Party caucus are a major impairment to the labour movement

          That may very well be true. But that is an entirely separate argument. What you say needs to be argued on whatever evidence you have that they are an impairment. My comment did not either agree or disagree with your statement

          I will repeat what I said in my comment, that you presumably missed:

          “There may be very good reasons to see the end of some in caucus, simply to maintain a rejuvenated party, but I think the “Low Party vote” story will be the very wrong way to justify that desire.”

          Mr. Botany (B.)

  20. Deb Kean 20
    4 October 2014 at 2:09 pm

    Radio NZ seemed convinced that Labour would lose big in the specials. I could only think “how bizarre!”

  21. bearded git 21
    4 October 2014 at 2:11 pm

    It’s really only ACT and Dunne that are keeping these sods in power on these new numbers.

    and if Hone had got 700 more votes….

    • Olwyn 21.1
      4 October 2014 at 2:23 pm

      Yes!! I was just going to say the same thing! Two more MP’s on the left would have been brilliant at this juncture – and just 700 votes in it. I’d sort of had my fingers crossed that the specials would unexpectedly push Hone over the line, even though I knew it was unlikely.

      • Lanthanide 21.1.1
        4 October 2014 at 2:33 pm

        “Two more MP’s on the left would have been brilliant at this juncture – and just 700 votes in it. ”

        It would only be 1 more MP on the left. You’d be swapping Kelvin Davis for Hone in the electorate. Then whoever has the 120th seat would be bumped out in favour of Laila Harre, and I’m assuming the 120th seat is National but it could easily be NZFirst, Greens or Labour.

        • Olwyn 21.1.1.1
          4 October 2014 at 2:40 pm

          Thanks for the correction – I wrote a bit hastily. But one more is still one more, depending of course on who Laila would have replaced.

          • Lanthanide 21.1.1.1.1
            4 October 2014 at 3:28 pm

            Actually more accurately, you would be bumping current list positions 119 and 120 out, and replacing them with Hone and Laila.

            Labour would still have 32 seats (before taking into account the above) because Davis would just be replaced by someone else from the list.

            Hone and Laila both had enough party vote to get them in on the list, thus bumping MPs #119 and #120 out. Dunne is an overhang because he didn’t win enough party votes for his own list placing, hence why he takes seat #121.

            • Olwyn 21.1.1.1.1.1
              4 October 2014 at 3:43 pm

              Thanks 🙂 I saw your thought experiment @ 9 on the “National Lose Majority” thread. It is interesting how our version of MMP plays out, with some counter-intuitive results arising at the margins.

      • Kiwiri 21.1.2
        4 October 2014 at 2:36 pm

        if Hone had got 700 more votes

        A big thank you ought to be communicated to Kelvin Davis and the Labour strategists for this?!

  22. music4menz 22
    4 October 2014 at 2:12 pm

    The final result is so closely allied to your predictions that one could readily leap to the (obviously incorrect) conclusion that the Electoral Commission leaked its results early.

    • Tracey 22.1
      4 October 2014 at 2:20 pm

      dunne supported by 4500 nzers gets to ddtermine our govt as does seymour with 16000 fellow kiwis.

      greens and labour fucked up those seats… seemingly some in labour are pleased cos now they can try to be leader…

      beware tony blair look a lkke nash.. that he is spinning how he won his seat is a big clue his character… lp may just have found teir john key.

    • weka 22.2
      4 October 2014 at 2:23 pm

      Or one could leap to the conclusion that micky is an experienced political commentator.

    • alwyn 22.3
      4 October 2014 at 2:38 pm

      From the way Mallard and Harawira were behaving it would appear they were told about the result, at least in their electorates, before the official announcement today. Whether party leaders were told the overall result is not so obvious.
      The Greens always go up on the specials, particularly the ones cast overseas. The cynic in me says that people who aren’t going to have to live with the results are quite happy to vote for the loony-tunes brigade. I of course don’t think people with no real connection with New Zealand shouldn’t be allowed to vote. It is a happy case where my beliefs coincide with my political preferences.

      • bearded git 22.3.1
        4 October 2014 at 2:41 pm

        maybe they want a country with rivers you can swim in to come back to?

        I have this feeling that with the economy tanking and people feeling betrayed (rock star bollocks) a drover’s dog might win for Labour next time

        • Murray Olsen 22.3.1.1
          5 October 2014 at 1:16 am

          Expats have often seen what a mess NAct type policies have made in other countries. In my case, I saw the extremes of inequality in Brazil and a corrupt Key type government (PSDB) intent on selling everything off at state and federal level. I don’t want the Aotearoa I come back to in a year’s time to be like that.

          Expats are also not exposed to 24 hours of Key cult propaganda material per day.
          As far as no real connection to the country is concerned, I have to wonder what connection Key feels. I’m sure he’s happier in Hawaii.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 22.3.2
        4 October 2014 at 3:29 pm

        Be careful what you wish for: you, for example, have no real connection to reality, let alone New Zealand.

      • weka 22.3.3
        4 October 2014 at 5:13 pm

        alwyn, what makes you think that GP overseas voters have no real connection with NZ?

    • mickysavage 22.4
      4 October 2014 at 6:56 pm

      Music4menz

      I followed a suggestion by Swordfish, presumed the result would be similar to last time and extrapolated the result from there. My presumption that special votes would favour the left was thankfully well placed.

  23. Jane 23
    4 October 2014 at 2:20 pm

    On final results of Hone had won then Peter Dunne could have been the ‘kingmaker’ https://imgur.com/Znl51zl

    If Hone had won and Dunne had lost then Labour + Greens + Internet Mana + NZ First + Maori would be tied with National + Act
    https://imgur.com/yNrjYge

    All it would have taken for Dunne to lose would have been Greens not running a candidate.

    • tussock 23.1
      4 October 2014 at 4:59 pm

      All it would’ve taken for Dunne to win without a Green candidate would have been National asking people to vote for him like they do for ACT in Epsom, and they (and NZ First) did for Kelvin Davis in Te Tai Tokerau where the Greens did not stand a candidate. QED.

      You can’t imagine only one party would play the game. That’s not how it works.

    • sabine 23.2
      4 October 2014 at 7:34 pm

      Nope, the Greens are not responsible for anything in this election. I was told so on more than one occasion.

      This Dunne thing fucks me up on so many levels i could just spit. Spit!

      Sometimes it is not so important to win, than have someone else loose. That the Greens could not see this in Ohariu and Auckland central, and that Labour had to run a candidate in Te Tau Tokerau is just mind boggling.

  24. r0b 24
    4 October 2014 at 2:23 pm

    Micky’s predictions spot on, new post up…

  25. NZJester 25
    4 October 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Well according to Breaking News National has lost 1 seat and the Greens have gained 1 taking away Nationals majority to be able to govern alone and means of passing anything without another parties vote.
    Unfortunately with their willing puppet parties that will do what ever National says it unfortunately changes things only a little.
    I’m guessing National ran around stitching up those deals quickly with those minor parties before the final results came in as they guessed this was a strong possibility and they didn’t want them to know they had more power than they thought.

  26. bearded git 26
    4 October 2014 at 2:35 pm

    Roll on a byelection….somewhere where the Nats can lose….pleeese

    • alwyn 26.1
      4 October 2014 at 2:38 pm

      New Lynn, anyone?

    • karol 26.2
      4 October 2014 at 2:45 pm

      Papakura? New Plymouth?

      • alwyn 26.2.1
        4 October 2014 at 3:03 pm

        I do like to see an optimist Karol. The National majority in Papakura is 5,000 and in New Plymouth it is a whopping 10,000 votes. Just how do you think Labour could get back New Plymouth?
        Even if I was tongue in cheek the Labour majority in New Lynn was only about 4,500.

  27. bearded git 27
    4 October 2014 at 4:42 pm

    Interesting to see if Key will gut the RMA on a 61-60 vote? Assuming Dunne sticks to his guns, and Key really doesn’t have too much leverage over him with the way parliamemt is balanced now.

Links to post