New Zealand Election 2017

[IceAgeComing]

Both polls strongly suggest to me that Labour+Greens might just be enough to have a majority; on one they were 51% combined and the other has them 48.5%.  It would depend on whether there's any overhang (on those numbers I don't know whether ACT would cause an overhang if they won a constituency seat; if the Maori/Mana party pact works then that may well force an overhang as well) but usually a set of parties getting that close to 50% in an MMP election usually guarantees that they'll get a majority.

The other big thing for the National Party in this election is that they haven't really got any natural coalition partners that get a significant amount of support in the way that Labour has with the Greens - the small centre and right wing parties have vanished into irrelevance bar in their small electorate fiefdoms with the exception of NZ First, who aren't really the typical populist right party and seem to rather work with Labour than the Nationals.  That's not an issue when you're two or three short of an absolute majority as the National Party was in the last few elections, but when its a close race its a huge mountain that they have to climb.

I'm pretty sure that no polls have NZ First and only one poll all campaign have had the Greens missing 5%.  If the latter did then it basically makes Peters the kingmaker able to go whichever way we wanted, if NZ First miss then it basically guarantees a Labour government unless the Nationals get very close to an overall majority.  I think that both will get in though, although both will lose seats - plus Peters has the outside chance of holding Northland which would be very handy for them if they are flirting with missing the threshold.

[Polkergeist]

The march of advance voting continues unabated

http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/advance-voting-statistics

Ordinary and special votes cast within New Zealand - 9 days before election

2011:   57,347
2014:   147,560
2017:   229,259

Keep in mind there was no voting in the third last week this time

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

Both polls strongly suggest to me that Labour+Greens might just be enough to have a majority; on one they were 51% combined and the other has them 48.5%.  It would depend on whether there's any overhang (on those numbers I don't know whether ACT would cause an overhang if they won a constituency seat; if the Maori/Mana party pact works then that may well force an overhang as well) but usually a set of parties getting that close to 50% in an MMP election usually guarantees that they'll get a majority.

I'm pretty sure that no polls have NZ First and only one poll all campaign have had the Greens missing 5%.  If the latter did then it basically makes Peters the kingmaker able to go whichever way we wanted, if NZ First miss then it basically guarantees a Labour government unless the Nationals get very close to an overall majority.  I think that both will get in though, although both will lose seats - plus Peters has the outside chance of holding Northland which would be very handy for them if they are flirting with missing the threshold.

Historically, the Greens have done worse than their polling and NZ First has done better. The polling companies have apparently tried to correct for that; we'll see how they do in a week.

I talked to someone who has ties to the Labour Party and they said that Hone Harawira (Mana Party) isn't doing that well. Their party vote has collapsed, but Māori seat voters are willing to split their votes. I wouldn't count Harawira out without seeing a poll for Te Tai Tokerau though.

The Māori Party could potentially cause an overhang if they win 3 electorate seats, depending on their party vote. I think they'd have enough to get two seats regardless of whether they win one electorate or two.

ACT probably won't be an overhang. They seem to be polling about 0.6%, which should be enough, I think.

What are the odds of Winston Peters holding Northland?

Very unlikely, imo.

Also, this is what the Colmar Burton poll looks like when converted into seats:

Hard for me to say about Peters in Northland. Labour did abnormally poor in the by-election, which makes me think he might not be that strong if Labour rebounds a bit.

Also, concerning that parliamentary layout, I feel like Māori will win at least two seats.

[mileslunn]

Both polls strongly suggest to me that Labour+Greens might just be enough to have a majority; on one they were 51% combined and the other has them 48.5%.  It would depend on whether there's any overhang (on those numbers I don't know whether ACT would cause an overhang if they won a constituency seat; if the Maori/Mana party pact works then that may well force an overhang as well) but usually a set of parties getting that close to 50% in an MMP election usually guarantees that they'll get a majority.

I'm pretty sure that no polls have NZ First and only one poll all campaign have had the Greens missing 5%.  If the latter did then it basically makes Peters the kingmaker able to go whichever way we wanted, if NZ First miss then it basically guarantees a Labour government unless the Nationals get very close to an overall majority.  I think that both will get in though, although both will lose seats - plus Peters has the outside chance of holding Northland which would be very handy for them if they are flirting with missing the threshold.

Historically, the Greens have done worse than their polling and NZ First has done better. The polling companies have apparently tried to correct for that; we'll see how they do in a week.

I talked to someone who has ties to the Labour Party and they said that Hone Harawira (Mana Party) isn't doing that well. Their party vote has collapsed, but Māori seat voters are willing to split their votes. I wouldn't count Harawira out without seeing a poll for Te Tai Tokerau though.

The Māori Party could potentially cause an overhang if they win 3 electorate seats, depending on their party vote. I think they'd have enough to get two seats regardless of whether they win one electorate or two.

ACT probably won't be an overhang. They seem to be polling about 0.6%, which should be enough, I think.

What are the odds of Winston Peters holding Northland?

Very unlikely, imo.

Also, this is what the Colmar Burton poll looks like when converted into seats:

Hard for me to say about Peters in Northland. Labour did abnormally poor in the by-election, which makes me think he might not be that strong if Labour rebounds a bit.

Also, concerning that parliamentary layout, I feel like Māori will win at least two seats.

In terms of chances, what do you think the odds are for each.  I think in terms of popular vote it is truly a toss up.  I would give a slight advantage to Labour in forming government since if Labour + Greens get the majority they will definitely form government but if NZ First is the kingmaker I feel they could go either way.

[mileslunn]

Another Horizon's poll showing everything tied up,

Horizon Research
9–14 Sep 2017
38.5  National
38.2  Labour
7.7   Green
9.8   New Zealand First
0.6   Maori Party
1.4   ACT
0.0   United Future
0.9   Conservative
0.2   Mana
2.3   TOP

[parochial boy]

Is Northland actually Winston Peter's best shot as a seat? My impression that NZ First's heartland was always Tauranga/Bay of Plenty thanks to the combination of wealthy retirees + Peter's friendly Maori. Winning Northland in a by election is all well and good, but as Mark Reckless would testify, a protest vote in a by election is a very different thing to the actual general election.

[Frodo]

If Labour wins the election, I pray they do so with enough votes and seats such that they don't need Winston Peters (the Kiwi version of Stephen Bannon) as a kingmaker. 

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

In terms of chances, what do you think the odds are for each.  I think in terms of popular vote it is truly a toss up.  I would give a slight advantage to Labour in forming government since if Labour + Greens get the majority they will definitely form government but if NZ First is the kingmaker I feel they could go either way.

My new predictions Sept. 15, 2017

Labour 42% 52 Seats
National 38.5% 48 Seats
NZ First 7.25% 9 Seats
Green 6.25% 7 Seats
Māori 2% 2 Seats
TOP 1.8% 0 Seats
ACT 0.7% 1 Seat
Mana 0.3% 0 Seats
United Future 0.05% 0 Seats
Others 1.15% 0 Seats

I narrowed Labour's lead by 0.5% from my last predictions from 8 days ago, Sept. 7, 2017. Labour would have to form a coalition with the Greens and Māori to form the next government. WINston's position as kingmaker is quite vulnerable, I'd say. NZ First has been declining in the polls (I have them down 1.75% from 8 days ago. WINston is also rather toxic and many potential coalition partners would reject working with him. Basically, NZ First needs to be strong enough to be the lone party needed for either a National or Labour government. 52+7+2 gives Labour+Greens+Māori a narrow lead in Parliament. 52+9 Labour+NZ First would give the same number, but I don't think that would be Jacinda's preference. At this point, I don't see National being able to form a coalition. Māori seems to be leaning towards Labour, United Future is toast, and ACT is only 1 seat versus NZFirst's 9. I wouldn't be shocked if this is ACT's last winning election.

Is Northland actually Winston Peter's best shot as a seat? My impression that NZ First's heartland was always Tauranga/Bay of Plenty thanks to the combination of wealthy retirees + Peter's friendly Maori. Winning Northland in a by election is all well and good, but as Mark Reckless would testify, a protest vote in a by election is a very different thing to the actual general election.

I know that Tauranga was his base back in the day. He seems to be trying to appeal to the "Make New Zealand Great Again" crowd. From what I've read, Northland in general (not just the electorate) has fallen on hard times over the last decade. WINston wants to build NZ's next main port up there as a means to revitalize the area.

I'd crack up if NZ First managed to hold on by winning an electorate that wasn't Peters's Northland seat. Without polling, it's hard to really say how he's doing up there though.

[Kamala]

Is there a possibility that the Greens overtake NZFirst?

[Mazda]

In terms of chances, what do you think the odds are for each.  I think in terms of popular vote it is truly a toss up.  I would give a slight advantage to Labour in forming government since if Labour + Greens get the majority they will definitely form government but if NZ First is the kingmaker I feel they could go either way.

My new predictions Sept. 15, 2017

Labour 42% 52 Seats
National 38.5% 48 Seats
NZ First 7.25% 9 Seats
Green 6.25% 7 Seats
Māori 2% 2 Seats
TOP 1.8% 0 Seats
ACT 0.7% 1 Seat
Mana 0.3% 0 Seats
United Future 0.05% 0 Seats
Others 1.15% 0 Seats

I narrowed Labour's lead by 0.5% from my last predictions from 8 days ago, Sept. 7, 2017. Labour would have to form a coalition with the Greens and Māori to form the next government. WINston's position as kingmaker is quite vulnerable, I'd say. NZ First has been declining in the polls (I have them down 1.75% from 8 days ago. WINston is also rather toxic and many potential coalition partners would reject working with him. Basically, NZ First needs to be strong enough to be the lone party needed for either a National or Labour government. 52+7+2 gives Labour+Greens+Māori a narrow lead in Parliament. 52+9 Labour+NZ First would give the same number, but I don't think that would be Jacinda's preference. At this point, I don't see National being able to form a coalition. Māori seems to be leaning towards Labour, United Future is toast, and ACT is only 1 seat versus NZFirst's 9. I wouldn't be shocked if this is ACT's last winning election.

Is Northland actually Winston Peter's best shot as a seat? My impression that NZ First's heartland was always Tauranga/Bay of Plenty thanks to the combination of wealthy retirees + Peter's friendly Maori. Winning Northland in a by election is all well and good, but as Mark Reckless would testify, a protest vote in a by election is a very different thing to the actual general election.

I know that Tauranga was his base back in the day. He seems to be trying to appeal to the "Make New Zealand Great Again" crowd. From what I've read, Northland in general (not just the electorate) has fallen on hard times over the last decade. WINston wants to build NZ's next main port up there as a means to revitalize the area.

I'd crack up if NZ First managed to hold on by winning an electorate that wasn't Peters's Northland seat. Without polling, it's hard to really say how he's doing up there though.
[/quote]
Two things.

One: ACT tends to do well when National is demoralized and when National do badly. Much as the Greens do well when Labour are sh**t. If your natural party is in opposition, you tend to radicalise. So ACT may return in a reasonably big way in 2020, simply because there are no other plausible alternatives to National for right-wing voters, especially if NZ First are in coalition  with Labour.

Two: if Winston had run away from the fight in Northland, h ed have been called a chicken, and Winston doesn't like being called a chicken. Meanwhile, the voters of Tauranga have got wise to him, which is why they booted him out in the first place. And since then, his vote there has decreased whatever he does. That's with over half of his membership living in the electorate, by the way. So Northland is his only shot, and it isn't a great one. Their only other prospect of a gain is Whangarei, and there hat isn't happening either.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

Two things.

One: ACT tends to do well when National is demoralized and when National do badly. Much as the Greens do well when Labour are sh**t. If your natural party is in opposition, you tend to radicalise. So ACT may return in a reasonably big way in 2020, simply because there are no other plausible alternatives to National for right-wing voters, especially if NZ First are in coalition  with Labour.

Two: if Winston had run away from the fight in Northland, h ed have been called a chicken, and Winston doesn't like being called a chicken. Meanwhile, the voters of Tauranga have got wise to him, which is why they booted him out in the first place. And since then, his vote there has decreased whatever he does. That's with over half of his membership living in the electorate, by the way. So Northland is his only shot, and it isn't a great one. Their only other prospect of a gain is Whangarei, and there hat isn't happening either.

That is a good point; we've seen the Greens stumble (in part due to their internal problems) as Labour gains. ACT has been limping along like UF has (is it too soon to say "had"?). They haven't won more than Epsom since 2008. I guess it will only have been three elections, but I guess we'll see what happens in Jacinda wins.

Your first sentence about WINston seems absolutely right. Good to know about Tauranga. Whangarei doesn't seem to be biting according to a poll from there. Shane Jones is running in about second, far behind National's candidate and nearly tied with the third place Labour candidate. Poll on Wiki. I definitely wouldn't bet the farm on Winston winning in Northland. Not saying that he'll lose, but it will be narrow, I think.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

If Labour wins the election, I pray they do so with enough votes and seats such that they don't need Winston Peters (the Kiwi version of Stephen Bannon) as a kingmaker. 

Amen. I'm hoping on a Labour/Green coalition. Maybe Māori as well if Labour/Greens need two or so more seats.

Is there a possibility that the Greens overtake NZFirst?

Stranger things have happened, but I'm leaning no. Maybe a 1 in 12 chance of it happening?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Labour should put Jacinda Ahern in charge, capture that Trudeaumagic

Give this genius a medal!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Labour should put Jacinda Ahern in charge, capture that Trudeaumagic

Give this genius a medal!

You may now accept your accolades.

[mileslunn]

How does the speaker work.  Does the governing party always put one up as I am thinking if a coalition is only 61 seats the speaker would put them down to 60 seats although I am assuming they will break the ties, but do they break them along partisan lines or do they follow Denison's rules breaking them to maintain debate?

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

How does the speaker work.  Does the governing party always put one up as I am thinking if a coalition is only 61 seats the speaker would put them down to 60 seats although I am assuming they will break the ties, but do they break them along partisan lines or do they follow Denison's rules breaking them to maintain debate?

Of course someone from BC is asking this question haha. Can't say I have an answer though.

[Pericles]

In 1993 National won a 1-seat majority, which they'd have lost if a National MP became the Speaker. So they put up Labour MP Peter Tapsell as Speaker, enabling them to survive the 3 years.

[mileslunn]

In 1993 National won a 1-seat majority, which they'd have lost if a National MP became the Speaker. So they put up Labour MP Peter Tapsell as Speaker, enabling them to survive the 3 years.

Surprised Labour went along with it.  Here in BC, the BC Liberals got 43 seats out of 87 so one shy of a majority while NDP 41 seats and the Greens 3 seats.  The Greens decided to back the NDP thus a 44-43 split however one BC Liberal decided to run for speaker giving them an advantage and the BC Liberals were so outraged they booted him from caucus so if politics is as polarizing as here, I would think if an opposition party did this there would be a lot of anger.  Off course if ACT or United Future win a seat, maybe they could that would seem like a reasonable way to avoid the impasse.

[IceAgeComing]

I'm a strong believer in a form of the way that Ireland does things - the election of an impartial Speaker who is automatically elected without needing to contest a seat.  Ideally this would lead to the seat that they were elected to becoming vacant and there being a by-election in the constituency or the next person filling any list seat - would make sure that there were was no partisan change in the composition of parliament based on whoever is chosen as speaker.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm a strong believer in a form of the way that Ireland does things - the election of an impartial Speaker who is automatically elected without needing to contest a seat.  Ideally this would lead to the seat that they were elected to becoming vacant and there being a by-election in the constituency or the next person filling any list seat - would make sure that there were was no partisan change in the composition of parliament based on whoever is chosen as speaker.

I'm not a great fan of the system but for New Zealand there is an easy solution to this - ensure that the Speaker is a list MP.

[Lachi]

In 1993 National won a 1-seat majority, which they'd have lost if a National MP became the Speaker. So they put up Labour MP Peter Tapsell as Speaker, enabling them to survive the 3 years.

Surprised Labour went along with it.  Here in BC, the BC Liberals got 43 seats out of 87 so one shy of a majority while NDP 41 seats and the Greens 3 seats.  The Greens decided to back the NDP thus a 44-43 split however one BC Liberal decided to run for speaker giving them an advantage and the BC Liberals were so outraged they booted him from caucus so if politics is as polarizing as here, I would think if an opposition party did this there would be a lot of anger.  Off course if ACT or United Future win a seat, maybe they could that would seem like a reasonable way to avoid the impasse.

UF will never get another seat in the house, Ōhāriu was their only future hope of holding on to a seat, and Dunne was DOA to begin with anyway, hence his resignation.

[IceAgeComing]

I've looked this up because I thought that would be a sensible thing to do rather than just make wild assumptions based on British Columbia (which is never a good idea).

New Zealand has three ways on voting on legislation in parliament - the voice vote (done in the way that you expect; if any member objects to this though they either hold a Party Vote (where the parties usually vote as blocs with occasional individual members specifying differently, or party leaders telling the Speaker how their party has voted if there's a deeper split) or a Personal Vote (normally used more for matters of conscience rather than anything, this is a Westminster-style vote with people going into one of two lobbies to vote for or against a motion).  The Speaker has been included in the Party Vote numbers since the adoption of MMP in 1996, and the trend has been for the Speaker to vote in Personal Votes as well.  If there's a tie on a motion, the motion is defeated.  So the partisan composition of the House does not change when a Speaker is elected, so its not worth worrying about.

[Polkergeist]

Ordinary and special votes cast within New Zealand - Sunday before election

2011:   90,861 (27% of final advance votes cast)
2014:   225,513 (31% of final advance votes cast)
2017:   445,350

http://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/advance-voting-statistics

While there are some differences between 2017 & the past 2 elections, the majority of the advance votes are cast in the last 5 days.

If we assume that 70% of advance votes are cast in the last 5 days, the number of advance votes cast could be about 1.1 million.

Assuming an 80% turnout on a roll of about 3.2 million, then 1.1 million advance votes equates to about 40-45% of all votes cast.

All in all it will diminish the effect of the late swing on the final outcome.

[Pericles]

In 1993 National won a 1-seat majority, which they'd have lost if a National MP became the Speaker. So they put up Labour MP Peter Tapsell as Speaker, enabling them to survive the 3 years.

Surprised Labour went along with it.  Here in BC, the BC Liberals got 43 seats out of 87 so one shy of a majority while NDP 41 seats and the Greens 3 seats.  The Greens decided to back the NDP thus a 44-43 split however one BC Liberal decided to run for speaker giving them an advantage and the BC Liberals were so outraged they booted him from caucus so if politics is as polarizing as here, I would think if an opposition party did this there would be a lot of anger.  Off course if ACT or United Future win a seat, maybe they could that would seem like a reasonable way to avoid the impasse.

Only Tapsell went along with it. They offered the Speakers hip first to several other Labour MPs who refused, including David Lange . Tapsell was elected Speaker unopposed though, despite an attempt by Winston Peters to stop him.

[Ebsy]

Labour should put Jacinda Ahern in charge, capture that Trudeaumagic

Give this genius a medal!

God bless.