Written By:
mickysavage - Date published:
7:22 am, October 25th, 2024 - 23 comments
Categories: act, david seymour, elections, electoral commission, electoral systems, nz first -
Tags:
Statistics NZ has released its analysis on the number of electorates for the next election and the results are going to cause anguish to those who think they have a god given right to remain in Parliament.
Something unusual has happened. The South Island population has increased by a greater proportion than the North Island.
Electorate seats are set by measuring the South Island population, dividing it by 16 and then working out how many electorates there should be in the North Island based on that quota. And to complete the process the balance are made up by list seats.
Historically the South Island population has grown by less than the North Island population. Hence the gradual addition of seats to the North Island.
But the latest Census suggests that a reversal has happened to this trend. And the result is that the North Island has to give up a seat.
The dominant trend, which is a surprise, is that inner city Auckland and Wellington have experienced a decrease in their populations. Those anti intensification protesters have done a good job.
The seats that are well below their minimum population level are, in order, Mt Albert, Epsom, Rongotai, Maungakiekie, Auckland Central, Pakuranga, Tāmaki, Wellington Central, Palmerston North and Kelston.
They are 8% or more below the ideal size which is approximately 70,000.
Here is the Statistics NZ Map showing in blue electorates that are below quota and in orange seats that are over quota.
Clearly Auckland inner city electorates are too small.
The Northland electorates will need to decrease in geographical size and the North Shore inner city electorates may move northward.
Out west New Lynn and Te Atatu could also move northward. The good people of Mangere may need more electors and Pakuranga is in the same boat.
But it is inner city where the greatest change needs to occur.
Andrew Geddis has suggested we could get rid of Epsom. Its population could be taken up by Auckland Central, Mount Albert, Mount Roskill, Maungakiekie, Tamaki, North Shore and Northcote. These seats could accommodate 50,000 or so of Epsom’s population and be on quota. Oversized electorates could mean that very little adjustment to these electorates would be necessary apart from absorbing Epsom into their respective ranks.
Of course the other option would be to increase the size of Parliament. The number of seats have not grown since 1996 despite the country’s population growing by 39%.
But this would be an anathema to Act as well as NZ First so I am sure it will not happen.
Geddis’s suggestion is elegant and logical. How the Electoral Commission responds will be a test of its integrity.
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
They'll probably get rid of Kelston and divide it between Epsom and Tamaki in some sort of custodial arrangement.
When you've got an 'Emperors New Clothes' kind of government, anything's possible!!
It may well be "an anathema to Act" but we shouldn't be at all surprised if self-interest rears it's dopy little head and fights to retain Epsom.
Whereupon we can all officially refer to it as "The Rotten Borough of Epsom".
That is what I thought. 🙂
Pipsqueak Seymour would have a change of heart and 'concede' we need a larger parliament. His ideology is remarkably pliant when it comes to expediency. Oh how I would laugh if his electorate disappeared. He never acquired it by fair means in the first place.
And he loves spending money!
would be ironic ay, with him continuously running round squawking and whining about wasted money, if he wanted an extra seat added to parliament with all the costs associated rather than the logical answer of canning the Epsom seat.
Is it the government's decision, or the Electoral Commission's?
It's the EC that makes the decision but the major parties have observers and can make submissions on every interim decision.
Whether the EC is neutral is often in question. It usually seems to be National that gains with any electoral boundaries alterations.
If National and ACT were confident of the future of ACT as a party receiving 5% of the vote each and every election, and the EC can find no more reasonable outcome …
"The South Island population has increased by a greater proportion than the North Island"
primarily because of people fleeing Wellington, returning to Christchurch after the rebuild.
Epsom's not going anywhere. Given this government's disdain for Wellington, it'll be Rongotai or even Wellington Central that goes. If section 36 of the Electoral Act wasn't entrenched (and I'm glad that it is entrenched) then they could just tweak the permitted variance up to 10% or more to dedicate seats to ACT and ideally force a right-win overhang.
The thing is that Epsom can be split into multiple electorates. Rongotai is at the edge of the island and can only eat into Wellington central who in turn would have to eat into Ohariu or Hutt South. There are a lot of geographical features in Wellington that make make natural boundaries that would be really difficult to split between.
It has to be Epsom. If there is a goddess in the world.
If said goddess is a just and noble goddess it has to be #1 on the list. Mt Albert..gone burger
Bring back the country quota, I say.
"The country quota was a part of the New Zealand electoral system from 1881 until 1945, when it was abolished by the First Labour Government. Its effect was to make urban electoral districts (electorates) more populous than those in rural areas, thus making rural votes worth more in general elections."
More MPs for the South Island, smaller electorates for MPs to cover, more SI cabinet ministers than the one we have at the moment, and a perpetual right to rule for the Right!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_quota
Nice summary as always mickey.
Firstly can it as part of its statutory powers independent of government get on with the reorganizing and secondly who is the responsible minister here ?
According to the piece by Andrew Geddis (linked in OP), the decision rests with the Representation Commission, which is supported by the Electoral Commission.
https://www.oag.parliament.nz/2024/election-2023/part2.htm
Do we dare hope that it will happen?
Epsom?
Isn't that where cafes can't charge patrons more than $3 for lunches?
So can we get a Queenstown-Wanaka seat out of this?
That's the way the demographics are heading.
Unfortunately National will fight it tooth and nail. You should dig out the submissions to the last review, it was considered but National argued against, angels dancing on the head of a pin doesn't come close. Although then it wasn't an extra seat, so a Central Otago seat made the coastal Otago seats a bit redder and split some blue power bases.
But bring it on, we might get a hospital too.
No.
Invercargill has to keep eating more of rural Southland, to the point where it should probably just take the name too. Taieri will get the rest of Clutha.
The longer-term question… if Selwyn continues to expand, Timaru might get kicked southwards in terms of electorates. A Timaru/Oamaru/Wanaka seat… now that gets interesting.
There is another solution: increase the South Island quota to 17 seats. This would do wonders in terms of shoring up the Dunedin electorates, and also make some of the South Island seats less geographically mad.
I would note that the major alternative to scrapping Epsom is to merge Mt Albert and Mt Roskill.
Wonder if all those empty houses and conversions to B&B in wealthy suburbs end up showing as population drops.