A hypothetical. Discuss.

So what would the implications of this kind of election result be? (As should be obvious, this is not a news report, but a hypothetical scenario...)

LABOUR RETURNED FOR FOURTH TERM, NATIONAL REJECTS RESULTS

Prime Minister Helen Clark's Labour Party was today returned to office for a fourth term, following the General Election held yesterday.

Counting late into the night showed a Labour Party result of 39.2% and 47 seats, behind the National Party's 43.6% and 52 seats. The Greens received 5.5% of the vote, winning seven seats, and New Zealand First scored 5.2% and six seats, with Winston Peters making a remarkable comeback in Tauranga, winning his old stamping ground by 2,400 votes on election night numbers.

The Maori Party won the same five Maori seats it won in 2005, and scored 4.2% of the Party Vote, entitling it to no additional list seats but creating no overhang. Close contests in Te Tai Tonga and Ikaroa Rawhiti did not see Mahara Okeroa or Parekura Horomia defeated, contradicting poll results published Thursday.

On the centre right, the ACT party was returned to the new Parliament with Rodney Hide comfortably winning his Epsom seat, and bringing in one additional MP with 1.4% of the vote.

In the parliament of 120 seats, the centre-right held 54 seats. The centre-left held 60 seats, with the remaining seats held by New Zealand First.

Helen Clark fronted the media from her house in Mt Albert this afternoon, having spent the morning forming agreements for a Labour-Progressive-Maori Party-Greens minority coalition government (with 60 seats) supported on confidence and supply issues by Winston Peters' New Zealand First caucus. Winston Peters would continue as Foreign Minister, Helen Clark said.

"The people have spoken. There is a clear majority for continuing the progressive policies that Labour-led governments have implemented since 1999," Helen Clark said.

"This government will start work on Monday. Labour's manifesto and the agreements reached last night and this morning will guide the new Cabinet's plans to keep building a fairer and more prosperous New Zealand.

"I acknowledge that Labour did not win the most votes out of the two major parties. But what counts in a democratic election is every single vote of every single Kiwi, not just the biggest party size. I hope that everyone in our politics acknowledges this very important truth," Clark said.

National Party leader John Key responded quickly to Helen Clark's announcement. "The National Party won this election and only the MMP voting system has left this tired, arrogant government in place for yet another three years. New Zealand will continue to slide backwards, if this result is allowed to stand."

Asked if his remarks meant that National did not accept the legitimacy of the new Government, Mr Key refused to comment further and ended the media conference. Other National MPs also refused to comment on the record, though one Auckland MP expressed concerns with Mr Key's statement.

Rodney Hide, the ACT Leader, had a different response. "Under MMP it is the coalition that counts. Kiwis voted for slower growth, higher crime and more waste in government. That's their business. I don't agree with it, but National and ACT didn't get enough votes to govern." Told of Mr Key's comments, Mr Hide laughed. "That's just National Party arrogance again. They've lost this one, fair and square - and that's all there is to it."

Agencies, etc.

Discuss.

Comments

[Graeme]

The Maaori Party won 4 seats in the 2004 election. And there's no way we'd know which way they'd swing that quickly in a tight race like that. The article also only implies Jim Anderton wasn't an overhang, and implies that Peter Dunne was hit by a bus before voting - maybe the John Key character knows that Dunne was deliberately killed to stop him supporting National - perhaps that's why he doesn't think it was legitimate?

How about this election:

National 50.4% (61 seats)
Labour 39% (48 seats)
Progressive 0.4% (1 seat, 1 overhang)
Greens 5.6% (7 seats)
Maaori Party 3.1% (7 seats, 3 overhang)
Act 1.5% (no seats)

Centre right 51.9% of the vote - 61 seats.
Centre left (as your article describes it) 48.9% of the vote - 63 seats.

The people have spoken?

[Lew]

`Opposition refuses to acknowledge government as legitimate' has four potential outcomes:

1. National challenges the election in the courts. Presuming they can't demonstrate that the election was unlawfully won by Labour, they lose, and get to choose one of the following options. Since the only argument in the hypothetical is `we got more votes than Labour so we should win' this case would be laughed out of court.

2. National MPs refuse to sit. This would be the principled position if they genuinely thought they'd been wronged so badly. This might cause quorum problems and should result in a generation of non-National governments.

3. National MPs suck it up and sit, making it clear that they're doing so under duress. This would be the most effective stance for them to win the next election.

4. National and associates attempt to overthrow the government by force. Never going to happen.

Being a sore loser never helped anyone's political fortunes.

L

[Graeme]

Lew:

1. Its not possible to challenge the election in court. You can only challenge electorate contests, not the party vote.

If National files an election petition with rock-solid proof that Labour Party members corruptly destroyed a hundred thousand National Party party votes it still wont change the make-up of Parliament.

2. The quorum of Parliament is two. A minister and someone in the chair.

5. You forgot this one - try to get the Governor-General to call a fresh election. Perhaps by showing him the proof that Labour had Peter Dunne killed :-)

[Lew]

Graeme: Yes, duh, I omitted the most obvious of all.

1. If so, that's a fairly major constitutional hole. I'd expect 5 here.

2. Officially that's so, but a government lacking any opposition would be a farce. I guess this would result in 5 eventually too.

Cheers!
L

[burt]

Jordan

Tells the chaps it's time for a snap election and test this scenario asap. As you have written it, and remembering it's a hypothetical, your logic is sound on the grounds of majority coalition takes the reigns. The words you penned for Rodney Hide pretty much sum it up.

However I think that if push came to shove Winston First and National would jump into bed quicker than ... a quick thing.

[Policy Parrot]

Jordan - you didn't add that you won Hunua!

This result is right on the margin, as it stands. CL 60 seats to CR 54 + 6 NZF. In fact, it is possible that a National-led government could be formed if the Speaker's position was offered to Tariana Turia.

Not that I'd wish for that outcome, but one could concede its possibility. Either way, any government elected on these results could conceivably change hands without an actual election, if the PM was unaware of any change in the mood of the House.

[George Darroch]

I've decided I want Labour out, under most scenarios.

There are a number of areas of policy where I think Labour will introduce and entrench changes I and others are very uncomfortable with. I'm talking environment, immigration, human rights. The changes made by a National led Government, while unpalatable, I feel can be rolled back after 3 or even 6 years. These are changes that will have real opposition - Labour will oppose them. The changes Labour is making have no opposition, outside the Greens and Maori Parties. Yes, short term pain, but I'm looking long term.

[searching]

You can challenge the party vote.

see
http://www.elections.org.nz/rules/results-overview.html

Election petitions

The only way to challenge the election of an electorate candidate is by election petition, as set out in the Electoral Act 1993, Part 8. A petition may be brought by a voter or a candidate and is heard by three High Court Judges. It must be brought within 28 days of the Chief Electoral Officer declaring the official results.

Only the party secretary of a party contesting the party vote can challenge the election of list candidates. To do this, they bring a petition to the Court of Appeal.

[Graeme Edgeler]

searching - you cannot challenge the party vote via an election petition.

The election petition commenced in the Court of Appeal to which you refer is not a challenge to the party vote, it is a challenge to the allocation of list seats. For example, if at an election the Chief Electoral Officer had accidentally (and erroneously) calculated the 5% threshold by working out 5% of the total number of votes cast, rather than 5% of the valid party votes, and this stopped a party from entering Parliament then that would be up for scrutiny, or if he just mucked up the calcuation and accidentally gave Labour an extra list seat that should have gone to National.

Section 258(2) of the Electoral Act 1993 states:

"The petition may seek a review of the procedures and methods used to allocate seats to political parties under sections 191 to 193 of this Act, and the return of members of Parliament consequential upon that allocation."

Just to make absolutely sure, section 260 states:

"no decision shall be subject to challenge on the grounds—
(a) That the vote of any elector should have been disallowed because he or she was not qualified to vote in the electoral district in respect of which he or she cast his or her vote; or
(b) That the vote of any voter that was disallowed should have been allowed; or
(c) That a candidate or candidates, or the agent of any candidate, was engaged in a corrupt or illegal practice; or
(d) That corrupt or illegal practices prevailed at the election."

Those are all bases upon which an electorate result may be challenged.

As far as the party vote is concerned, you can only challenge the mechanism by which those party votes become list seats, nothing more.

[dave]

You have missed out Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne winning seats. So yes, very hypothetical. 99% Impossible, actually.

[Clint Heine]

This scenario is being very generous to Labour. I think 4 terms or any Government is too much. Although soon we won't have any Kiwis left to vote going by the growing exodus to Oz and Britain.

[Clint Heine]

Ahh replace "or" with "of".

[Millsy]

Geez Heine, you make it sound like a mass exodus with people fleeing every day. Its NOT THAT BAD. Anyway, there are just as much people coming in, from the UK and South Africa.

Anyway, Jordan's scenario while do-able will create an environment of hostility never seen before in New Zealand, and will quite possible kill off MMP and the Labour Party for good.

[burt]

Jordan

I think majorities of parties excluding the party who received the most votes would be more acceptable if the 5% threshold was lower, perhaps 1.6% to deliver two seats. In this environment you will get more diverse representation which can only be a good thing for delivering a balanced parliament. For example Winston's 5.2% might drop to 1.7% with 3.5% going to a grey power party, giving them 3 seats. This could completely change the balance of the equation as you have it above. ACT standing as a list only party would probably still deliver 2 MP's and Epsom would probably return to National.

Overhangs are a consequence of a half baked electorate/party voting system, the presence of overhangs should not be used to make the party vote less effective (by having a high margin like 5%) or we simply have FPP as the pig it is, but with some lipstick on it. So what if we end up with 130 MP's one election and 123 the next.

[Clint Heine]

Whatever Millsy. Say that to all the expats over here and in Oz. None who actually really want to come back. Glossing over it won't change it one bit.

[BoomTownPrat]

What a load of bollocks. I've seen more believable plots on Shortland Street!

[BoomTownPrat]

Your naivety is breathtaking. The assumption that the Greens (bitter and twisted having been fucked by Labour for 9 years), The Maori Party (last cab of the rank) and NZ first (90% of NZ first want a change of government) would jump into the sack with a decimated labour Party within 24 hrs is a freakin joke. Plus you discount Dunne, who currently is nursing chaff marks on his wanger from excessive humping of Keys leg!

The funny thing is, I actually suspect that this is your best chance for government.

That internal polling must be pretty bad for you to cling onto this pipe dream!

[Clint Heine]

And the dream just got worse as Sir Roger is going to give Jordan a roasting in Hunua!

[Reg]

Clint,

Do you think Roger Douglas could push Jordan into third place? I'm afraid I don't know the area particulary well.

[Clint Heine]

I do Reg. I really think so. The media don't really know Jordan that well so it will be a media campaign on what the wily old Roger will get up to. Good on him too I say.