The final results of the November 8 election were released this afternoon after the 250,000 special votes were counted.

In the end National lost one MP and the Greens gained one MP. Labour were only 40 votes off getting another MP and National lossing a second MP.

It is interesting to note the large differences between the election night results and the special votes.

Overall National lost 0.52% of the total votes once the specials were included. The majority of this was transferred to Labour (0.22%) and the Greens (0.29%) who gained. What is more interesting is the party vote % of only the specials.

If the specials were the election results (i.e. the Nov 8 votes didn’t count) the make up of the government could be quite different.

National polled 4.84% lower, Labour 2.05% higher, Greens 2.70% higher, Maori 1.38% higher. It is interesting to note that those who casts specials – i.e. those away from home, or overseas appear to be more left leaning then the majority of the country.

After running some more calculations this is how the results would of ended up if only specials counted. As you can see the overhang is gone. And the Maori Party becomes the King Maker. We could have had a Labour Government back.

National Government: Nat 52 + Act 4 + UF 1 + Maori 5 = 62/120.
Labour Government: Lab 45 + Prog 1 + Greens 12 + Maori 5 = 63/120

The funny thing is the special votes seem to more accurately reflect the polls in the lead up to the election then the actual election result.

Will National get over 50% of the vote? NO

Will National + ACT + United Future get over 50% of the vote? YES – JUST.
(note: they may be able to get over 50% of the seats without needing 50% of the popular vote)

Will the Maori party be the king maker? NO

Will Labour + Green be greater then that of National? NO

Will Green get over 10%? NO

Will Labour get over 35%? NO

Will National get over 45%? YES – JUST

Will the Gap between the parties be less than 15%? YES

Will Ron Mark win Riumataka? NO

Will NZ First get 5%? NO

Will Roger Dogulas be back? YES

Will Labour lose Auckland Central? YES

Will the Maori Party win all 7 Maori Seats? NO

This post will be updated around every 30 minutes.

9pm – First upload of graphs. Features results over past hour since Advance Votes confirmed.

9.30pm – Last half hour has seen the gap closing again. Minor parties are beginning to rise.

10pm – Gap is still closing but probably not fast enough. Most results in now.

10.30pm – 95.8% in. National will be the new government.

11pm – 98.9% in. Didn’t go the way of the left at all. 50.04% went to National + Act + United Future so popular vote is differently for the right. The world may be heading left (Australia, United States) but NZ has gone right.

11.30pm – 99.9% in. HELEN CLARK HAS JUST RESIGNED AS LEADER OF THE LABOUR PARTY.

Major Party Percent:

Minor Party Percent:

Seats in the House:

Will National get over 50% of the vote?

Will National + ACT + United Future get over 50% of the vote?
(note: they may be able to get over 50% of the seats without needing 50% of the popular vote)

Will the Maori party be the king maker?

Will Labour + Green be greater then that of National?

Will Green get over 10%?

Will Labour get over 35%?

Will National get over 45%?

Will the Gap between the parties be less than 15%?

Will Ron Mark win Riumataka?

Will NZ First get 5%?

Will Roger Dogulas be back?

Will Labour lose Auckland Central?

Will the Maori Party win all 7 Maori Seats?

Tomorrow is anything but certain.

This is a summary graph of the political polls over the past three years. Look at the recent end. National is dropping. But so is Labour. Who is rising? The Greens and Act. What does that mean?

a) The minor parties matter!

b) A vote for Act or National will result in a right wing government. A vote for the Greens or Labour will be a left wing Government.

The choice is yours! This election is not all over. It is not a done and dusted result. It is wide open and your vote matters.

Rock the Vote. November 8 2008.

Find out who you are most aligned to: http://pundit.co.nz/content/election-quiz

My Results:

Green Party 71%
New Zealand First 68%
Progressives 66%
Labour 59%
United Future 56%
National 41%
Act 29%

The detailed comparison with the Greens:

Crime and Punishment 0%
Economy and Taxes 100%
Education 50%
Employment 100%
Environment and Energy 88%
Family and Morals 38%
Foreign Policy and Trade 100%
Government and Leadership 88%
Health Care 75%
Race Relations and Immigration 88%
Welfare and Superannuation 75%

From: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10539439

With regards to the Maori Seats, Overhangs, 5% thresholds, electorate seats and United Future trying to take a line on removing them:

“United Future has been one of the more anomalous features of the political landscape since the introduction of MMP. In 1996 and 1999, Dunne carried his electorate, Ohariu-Belmont, but his party’s shares of the vote (0.9 and 0.5 per cent respectively) would not have seen it in Parliament otherwise; in 2002, United Future got eight MPs, partly by feasting on the remains after National’s massacre and partly because an electronic worm in a leaders’ debate responded positively to Dunne’s repeated intoning of the phrase common sense.”

…

“By the last election United Future’s boilover of support had noticeably cooled: the party got three MPs, one of whom has since defected. And in the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey, it is at the very bottom of the party-vote pile, on a paltry 0.2 per cent.

Right now, Dunne is the very last person in our politics who should be complaining about a party’s over-representation in the House on the strength of its showing in electorate contests. That same poll has Maori Party support at 2.4 per cent well short of what it needs to get list seats in Parliament, but some 12 times as much as United Future can muster. Dunne has always had a wildly inflated sense of his place in the scheme of things, as his tantrum on election night in 2005 famously demonstrated, but numbers like those should give even him pause for thought.”

This is MMP:

“The influence that the Maori Party may exert in the formation of the next Government will strengthen the argument of those who feel that, under MMP, small-party tails are wagging large-party dogs. But that does not, of itself, argue for the abolition of the Maori seats. NZ First, Act, United Future and the Progressives have all, at different times and to different extents, exerted influence disproportionate to their mandate. That is MMP.”

…

“There is an argument to be had as to whether a party-vote threshold, perhaps lower than the existing 5 per cent, should have to be crossed before local success can deliver a seat in Parliament. But the need for that discussion arises because of all the minor parties and the different demographics of their constituencies. It is not an issue raised by the case of the Maori Party alone.”

I personally think that the 5% rule should be removed and if you win enough votes to get a seat you get it. Or if this is going to bring too many “randoms” into parliament and create 12 headed monsters then make it 3 MPs like they do in some other MMP countries. (I also think no party should be able to get over 35% of the vote but lets not go there).

And from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10539435

“It seems strange that the media still promote poll results as if it’s merely a contest between National and Labour. It’s actually between a Clark-led centre left coalition and a Key-led centre right coalition. At present it’s too close to call.”

…

“Smith’s unguarded comments expose a nasty side of the Nats that won’t be lost on the Pacific Island and other migrant communities.

If the publicity of these comments even knocks 1 or 2 per cent off National’s vote it may be the difference between winning and losing, and certainly puts it at the mercy of the Maori Party.

It will make it harder for the Maori Party to convince its supporters that National has changed its spots and be considered a possible coalition partner. Maori voters overwhelmingly prefer Labour over National.

National’s post-election price to the Maori Party was always going to be high. Polls show the size of Parliament will increase to at least 125 seats and therefore make it almost impossible for National and its right-wing allies to get a majority without the Maori Party.

National would probably have to repeal the foreshore and seabed legislation and guarantee the future of the Maori seats for the Maori Party to risk its electorate base. It’s a big ask, of course, but after nine years in the wilderness I think the Nats would trade their grandmother if they had to.”

…

“Clark and Key understand that they are almost certain to have to deal with the Maori Party if they want to be prime minister. If we believe the polls, Clark’s best chance of keeping her job is if the number of MPs in Parliament is increased above 120 because of an overhang.

If that happened National and its allies would just fall short of a majority of MPs. This would only happen if the Maori Party won more electorate seats than its party vote percentage allowed. Ironically Labour’s slim chance to remain in government may happen if the Maori Party defeats it in the seven Maori electorates and National won’t repeal the seabed and foreshore legislation. How delicious.”

And ironically at the end of the day it could be Labour losing the Maori Seats that keeps them in power. Politics, nothing is ever clear cut.

From Kiwiblog comments:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_least_surprising_decision_of_recent_times.html#comment-498529

Over the last few months National have rolled out policies to gut the Resource Management Act, abolish the energy-efficient homes initiative and oppose energy efficiency standards, build more new roads at the expense of public transport infrastructure, allow foreign insurance companies to compete with ACC, undermine collective employment bargaining, strip workers of most of their employment rights for the first 90 days in employment with a small employer, require domestic purposes beneficiaries to look for part-time employment, and provide tax cuts that deliver very litle for those at the bottom of the income scale. All these run contrary to Green policy.

And which of them are about creating wealth? Allowing foreign insurers to compete with ACC, undermining employment bargaining, stripping workers of their emplyment rights, and National’s tax cuts are all about redistributing wealth – from those who have less to those who already have more”. Gutting the RMA might create more short-term wealth, but at what long-term expense?

The Greens gave an undertaking to indicate a major party preference to the electorate – we think that is only fair so people know what they are voting for.

Frankly, with the policies National rolled out, Labour could have unveiled no new policy and still would have been the Greens’ preferred choice I think. Of the 12 criteria the Greens assessed Labour and National against, National beat Labour on only one – fresh water quality – and that was only because this has deteriorated so badly under Labour’s watch, rather than because National has any policy that will improve it.

If only those blind people following populist speakers would for once listen to sound policy and debate.

The pain of having automatic advertising on site.

Edit: There are at least two ads:

First Section: Helen Clark cleans up John Key with facts and cutting straight through the spin. John Key tries to suggest the current economic crises is a result of Labour without realising that International Factors have a bigger influence. John Key will not stop cutting Helen Clark off and states to Mark Sainsbury that he will just keep talking louder unless he is given ability to talk – not a good look.

Section Two: No clear winner.. John Key maybe.

Section Three: John Key implies that we shouldn’t be a leader on Climate Change because we are only 0.4% of world emissions. Well ponder this… Why be Nuclear Free when we are only a fraction of the size of the world?

Section Four: Somehow they get stuck in 1981 Springbok Tour. John Key states he didn’t have an opinion gets eaten by Helen Clark.

Section Five: Education. John Key rules out universal allowances talks about standards. Doesn’t really get anywhere. Much like the rest of the debate. They should mute the mic of the person who isn’t speaking.

Section Six: I’m almost asleep. This is actually quite boring. They get hit by a question about smaller parties. I still think that it should have been everyone over two hours maybe.

Summary: So much for a debate. It was terrible. And didn’t help much. However, the You Tube idea was great lots of young people involved. I would give John Key the win… The smilling assasin.

I say no.

And I’m sick of people saying it is.

And saying that the National Party will be the knight in shining armour to save us.

The reality is that we are doing pretty well.

Excerpts From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Zealand%27s_international_rankings

• Political freedom ratings – Free; political rights and civil liberties both rated 1 (the highest score available)
• Global Peace Index – 4th, at 1.35
• Corruption – In a three-way tie for least corrupt, at 9.4 on index
• Economic Freedom – 5th equal freest, at 81.6 on index
• Failed States Index, 172/177, being one of the few “sustainable” states in the world.
• Global Prosperity Index – 5th country in overall
• Ease of paying tax – 9th easiest
• Top Country Award – New Zealand has won the honor two years in a row (2007, 2008) by Wanderlust Magazine.

National Party tertiary education spokesman Paul Hutchison said students should be able to decide for themselves whether they wanted compulsory membership of student associations.

“I’m aware there are concerns by some that say there isn’t strong accountability for the money they get,” he said.

“All the time, I hear murmurings of there being inappropriate usage of student levies by the unions.”

It was important that accounts were “absolutely transparent” to show that each student dollar was being spent well on students, he said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4707318a6530.html

Dr Hutchison has stated three times this year that he wants to see Students’ Associations become voluntary. Yet it is not a National Party Policy.

For the record Dr Hutchison and National:

• Students’ Associations are incorporated.
• They are required to be externally audited.
• They are required to be registered with the companies office
• They are required to hold AGMs and keep their books open.

So where is this inappropriate use and mismanagement? The reality is there isn’t any. If there was there would be lots more cases of fraud. Which there isn’t.