New Zealand’s MMP system is designed so that the party vote largely decides the overall makeup of Parliament. That simple fact creates some counter-intuitive choices for centre-right voters when National is polling in the high 20s.
How the seats are actually allocated
Each party’s total number of MPs is meant to match its share of the nationwide party vote. Electorate seats are filled first. Any shortfall is made up from the party list. If a party wins more electorate seats than its party-vote share justifies, it keeps the extras and Parliament grows by that number (an overhang). Those extra seats do not come at the expense of other parties.
National has long been dominant in the electorates. In 2023 it won 43 of them on 38 percent of the party vote. Even at 28–30 percent it is still expected to take a large number of local seats — often projected in the high 30s.
The efficiency problem at 28–30 percent
At roughly 29–30 percent of the party vote, National is entitled to about 35–37 seats in a standard 120-seat Parliament. If it still wins 38 or more electorates, it receives zero list seats and creates an overhang. The centre-right’s total representation can end up smaller than it would have been if those same party votes had gone to a partner that relies almost entirely on the list.
ACT and NZ First win very few (or no) electorates. Almost every percentage point they receive converts directly into additional list MPs. Shifting party votes from National to either of them can therefore increase the overall number of centre-right seats precisely because National is already “over-performing” in the electorates.
When the strategic choice makes sense
If a voter’s main goal is maximising the chance of a National–ACT–NZ First government (or the size of that bloc), then under current polling the more efficient use of the party vote is often ACT or NZ First. The electorate vote can still go to the National candidate, or to whichever local candidate best serves the wider numbers.
This is classic MMP strategic voting: treat the party vote as the one that decides the balance of power, and the electorate vote as a separate local decision.
When it may still be better to party-vote National
- You prefer National’s policy mix or leadership and are willing to accept a less efficient conversion of votes into seats.
- You believe National will lose enough electorates that it will need list MPs after all.
- You want a larger National caucus for stronger leverage in coalition negotiations.
- You judge the risk of ACT or NZ First falling short of the threshold (or failing to win an electorate) as high enough that the votes could be wasted.
The bottom line
At 28–30 percent, National risks converting party votes less efficiently than its smaller partners. For a right-leaning voter focused on the total strength of the centre-right, that creates a real incentive to consider ACT or NZ First on the party vote. The exact calculus shifts with every new poll and with the final electorate results, but the underlying logic of MMP remains the same: the party vote is the one that shapes Parliament, and efficiency matters when numbers are tight.
This election is certainly looking like nat local vote and act or nz1 party is 100% best options
As it has been for the last few elections. But I would party Vote NZF, not Act.
Seymour is jab happy, and next pandemic will have us all lined up and jabbed.
He is not a liberty lover and dislikes the works of Ayn Rand. Two of Ayn Rand’s books, “Atlas Shrugged” and “We The Living” should be compulsory reading in school.
Plus NZF opted us out of the WHO pandemic treaty, got English declared an official language, and Winston keeps calling out the Greens, TPM and Labour in parliament over the Maori troughing, the vaccines, low standards, climate change. Winston has made his views clear time and time again.
Winston gave us jacinda i will never forgive or forget.
Neither NZF or ACT have a local Waikato candidate standing. I guess one of them will gain my party vote and Nats get candidate vote by default.
Ash Palmer is standing for ACT in the Waikato. He is putting on a fundraiser dinner next Friday. Are you interested?
Yeah/Nah thanks Chuck, As Dylan points out with Act, they are not the best choice for me. NZF probably even if one can’t always trust the man in the pinstripe suit. Bringing “Hans Solo” (MLaws) and some of the other new candidates in helps, and I’m impressed with Kasey Costello.
Until they ditch Seymour, ACT will be the last cab off the rank.
Their share of the vote will only increase this time, because ACT seem better than National.
I knew Winston before he entered politics. That would have been around 1973.
I met him at a national Party conference at Rotorua in 1974. He was as impeccably dressed then as he is now
Never forget that the shiny suit was donkey deep in the Scampi scandal way back. Oh, that’s not talked about, but he was bought off then
The “scampi scandal” involving New Zealand First leader Winston Peters centred around a 2003–2004 parliamentary inquiry into corruption and quota allocations in the scampi fishing industry, triggering intense media scrutiny, allegations of free meals, and subsequent defamation legal battles.
Background and the Parliamentary Inquiry
The Origin: In 2001, Winston Peters received a report and a $5,000 cheque from a fishing industry figure outlining alleged corruption in the scampi quota system. Peters subsequently raised corruption claims in Parliament, which led to a parliamentary select committee inquiry (chaired by National MP David Carter) to investigate the scampi fishing industry and Simunovich Fisheries. [1]The Allegations: Media outlets, notably Television New Zealand (TVNZ), broadcast reports in 2004 alleging that Peters had accepted free meals and hospitality from Simunovich Fisheries directors (such as Peter Simunovich) during the time of the inquiry, implying a conflict of interest or compromise. [1]The Clearance: The parliamentary select committee ultimately cleared Winston Peters, alongside the fisheries figures and advisors involved, of any official wrongdoing or corruption. [1, 2]Denials and Legal Aftermath
Peters’ Response: Winston Peters fiercely denied any corruption or improper influence, labeling the allegations a “laughable beatup”. He explained that his visits to the restaurant in question involved paying cash or dealing with an accidental overcharge and subsequent minor interactions, rather than receiving corrupt favors. []Defamation Suits: Peters launched long-running legal and defamation proceedings against TVNZ and other media organizations regarding the scampi reporting. While Simunovich Fisheries itself pursued and later secured a record multi-million dollar out-of-court defamation settlement with TVNZ and the New Zealand Herald over their broader scampi investigative coverage, Peters’ individual legal actions and appeals against the broadcaster extended over many years with separate outcomes. [, 2, 3, 4]To see a related overview of Winston Peters’ career controversies and political background, you can read more at RNZ. []
To watch a discussion surrounding Winston Peters and contemporary political controversies, check out this video clip:
ters’ fish dinner sparks scampi corruption claim
NZ Herald
https://www.nzherald.co.nz › New Zealand
22 Jan 2004 — New Zealand First leader Winston Peters accepted a “free” dinner from one of the men investigated. around $28- $32.
People also ask
Why did Jim Bolger sack Winston Peters?
What has Winston Peters done?
How is Winston Peters’ health?
How old was Winston Peters?
Fishing influence trawls deep into NZ First’s past
Stuff
https://www.stuff.co.nz › Politics › Politics
7 Mar 2020 — This set the stage for the so-called “Scampi Inquiry”, which started after Peters alleged corruption in the industry during a speech inside the …
In case you forgot.
I take issue with the title of the post. ie “Why a Right-Leaning Voter Might Skip National on the Party Vote”.
Surely the discerning voter would withhold their vote on the basis that National, in most things, no longer represents the political Right.
Oops, my bad.
Update from X
If 1 in 3 National voters shift their PARTY vote to NZF or ACT, National still keeps ~40 electorate seats. With only ~20% party vote, they’re entitled to ~24 seats — the extra 16 become OVERHANG. NZF/ACT then grow on top of those 40, sharply changing the balance under MMP.
I asked Grok What happens to the 16 seat overhang?
The 16 overhang seats stay with National.
Under New Zealand’s MMP rules:
In your scenario
So the overhang does not disappear, get reallocated, or reduce National’s strength. It permanently increases National’s caucus size for that term and expands the House. That is why overhang can still help the party that creates it, even when its party vote is low — the extra electorate MPs remain.
If the left can rig the MMP election by creating a overhang with the native seats, then we on the right can do the same
I hope the voters know this closer to the election. That may be too complicated for Luxon. He will be saying two ticks blue
Luxo wants goldsmith and willis to get back in , hence his blue ticks , nats and labour both deserve to only have electorate mps and no list at all .