Talk:Elections in New Zealand/Archive 1

Untitled

A very good article, most impressive. ping 07:01, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Moriori 07:13, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Merge columns in table?

I propose that the "Liberal" and "Reform" columns should be merged from 1931 onwards and the "National" column moved underneath to reflect the fact that National was a merger of these two parties... it seems to me to be slightly misleading at the moment. Here's a test table, comments and suggestions please! porge 21:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Election	Date(s)	Official turnout	Total seats	Liberals	Reform	Labour	Other
				(National)
1853 general election	4 Jul - 1 Oct	Unrecorded	37	-	-	-	37
1855 general election	28 Oct - 28 Dec	Unrecorded	37	-	-	-	37
1860-1861 general election	12 Dec - 28 Mar	Unrecorded	53	-	-	-	53
1866 general election	12 Feb - 6 Apr	Unrecorded	70	-	-	-	70
1871 general election	14 Jan - 23 Feb	Unrecorded	78	-	-	-	78
1875-1876 general election	20 Dec - 29 Jan	Unrecorded	88	-	-	-	88
1879 general election	28 Aug - 15 Sep	66.5%	88	-	-	-	88
1881 general election	9 December	66.5%	95	-	-	-	95
1884 general election	22 June	60.6%	95	-	-	-	95
1887 general election	26 September	67.1%	95	-	-	-	95
1890 general election	5 December	80.4%	74	-	-	-	74
1893 general election	28 November	75.3%	74	51	-	-	23
1896 general election	4 December	76.1%	74	39	-	-	35
1899 general election	6 December	77.6%	74	49	-	-	25
1902 general election	25 November	76.7%	80	47	-	-	33
1905 general election	6 December	83.3%	80	58	-	-	22
1908 general election	17 Nov, 24 Nov, 1 Dec	79.8%	80	50	-	-	30
1911 general election	7 Dec, 14 Dec	83.5%	80	33	37	-	10
1914 general election	10 December	84.7%	80	33	41	-	6
1919 general election	17 December	80.5%	80	21	47	8	4
1922 general election	7 December	88.7%	80	22	37	17	4
1925 general election	4 November	90.9%	80	11	55	12	2
1928 general election	14 November	88.1%	80	27	27	19	7
1931 general election	2 December	83.3%	80	51		24	5
1935 general election	27 November	90.8%	80	19		55	6
1938 general election	15 October	92.9%	80	25		53	2
1943 general election	25 September	82.8%	80	34		45	1
1946 general election	24 November	93.5%	80	38		42	0
1949 general election	30 November	93.5%	80	46		34	0
1951 general election	27 December	89.1%	80	50		30	0
1954 general election	13 November	91.4%	80	45		35	0
1957 general election	30 November	92.9%	80	39		41	0
1960 general election	26 November	89.8%	80	46		34	0
1963 general election	30 November	89.6%	80	45		35	0
1966 general election	26 November	86.0%	80	44		35	1
1969 general election	29 November	88.9%	84	45		39	0
1972 general election	25 November	89.1%	87	32		55	0
1975 general election	29 November	82.5%	87	55		32	0
1978 general election	25 November	69.2%	92	51		40	1
1981 general election	28 November	91.4%	92	47		43	2
1984 general election	14 July	93.7%	95	37		56	2
1987 general election	15 August	89.1%	97	40		57	0
1990 general election	27 October	85.2%	97	67		29	1
1993 general election	6 November	85.2%	99	50		45	4
1996 general election	12 October	88.3%	120	44		37	39
1999 general election	27 November	84.1%	120	39		49	32
2002 general election	27 July	77.0%	120	27		52	41

I wouldn't object to such a change, I think. I would suggest a minor format change for the headers (which I've experimentally made to the table here), but the change seems to make sense. It does make it clearer that National is a continuation of Reform and the Liberals, certainly. -- Vardion 02:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I have implemented this new version of the table porge 10:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The only problem is that Liberal and Reform didn't merge into being National until 1936. There was an agreement not to stand against each other from 1931 (and they were in government together), but they were not the same party. Can this please be fixed or noted? --Gregstephens 01:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A potential difficulty here is the working out exactly which candidates were United and which were Reform. As you say, they didn't stand candidates against each other, and in many tallies, candidates from both parties were simply categorised as "Coalition". The only tallies I've been able to find which divide the Coalition into United and Liberal candidates are rather unreliable, and tend disagree with each other. My preference would actually be to do something like this (table cut short for brevity, of course):

Election	Date(s)	Official turnout	Total seats	Liberals	Reform	Labour	Other
				(National)
1922 general election	7 December	88.7%	80	22	37	17	4
1925 general election	4 November	90.9%	80	11	55	12	2
1928 general election	14 November	88.1%	80	27	27	19	7
1931 general election	2 December	83.3%	80	X	Y	24	5
1935 general election	27 November	90.8%	80	19		55	6
1938 general election	15 October	92.9%	80	25		53	2
1943 general election	25 September	82.8%	80	34		45	1

... but that requires reliable statistics about the actual results, which I haven't yet been able to find. (As I say, the statistics I have found are contradictory, and the official election results from that period did not record party affiliations.)

So basically, I agree with your point, but my preferred solution to the problem is problematic. (Unless you happen to have some statistics, that is.) -- Vardion 02:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No I can't find any stats which lists them seperately, prehaps then a footnote? --Gregstephens 03:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I've finally sorted out who belonged to what party. (The issue of independents was confusing the matter — coalition-aligned independents seem to have been variously counted as "Coalition", "Independent", "Independent Coalition", "Independent United", "Independent Reform", and "Independent Coalition United"). Anyway, I've modified the table accordingly. Does that look suitable? -- Vardion 03:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, but add a footnote to the table to explain why it is formatted in this way. :) porges 03:36, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- Vardion 04:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Moving

I propose we move the page to Elections in New Zealand to bring it into line with the other politics of New Zealand articles, as well as the Category:Elections in New Zealand. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:16, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

support please do so. --LeftyG 00:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Overseas vote

Does anyone know when the overseas vote was first introduced? --130.195.86.37 00:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

1935 election

On New Zealand general election 1935 it states that the United/Reform coalition had 19 seats. Yet, the current version of this page has 7seats and 9seats. Which is 16. A previous version [1] has 7 seats and 10seats. Which is 17. Something, somewhere is wrong. They all have Labour on 53, and other parties holding 10. So I presume that 17 is thus correct, given that Parliament was 80 seats. I am thus changing it back to 7 and 10 on this page and will do so on the 1935 page as well. --LeftyG 23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of confusion surrounding this issue, made worse by the fact that party allegiences were somewhat fluid at the time. But I believe the 25th New Zealand Parliament article, which I've just addressed, has the correct figures — 9 members of Reform, 7 members of United, plus three independents who were aligned with the coalition but not actually members of either party. (ie, the coalition was actually Reform + United + independents, not just Reform + United). That gives the required total of 19. -- Vardion 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Something still needs to change as it adds up to 81 seats not 80. --LeftyG 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Which does? The way I count it, we've got 53 Labour + 9 Reform + 7 United + 2 Country + 2 Ratana + 7 Independents (3 supporting the coalition, 4 not). Doesn't that add up to 80? I think if we update the various pages to match the 25th Parliament page, it'll all work out correctly. -- Vardion 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my maths obviously isn't as good as it was, or my cache is screwing with me.--LeftyG 00:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been having some cache issues as well — it's probably that. I've fixed the figures on New Zealand elections and New Zealand general election 1935. -- Vardion 01:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Electoral System

This article doesn't really go into detail about the system itself such as the thresholds, the use of Sainte-Lague, and so forth. I will write this if it is wanted (by other people). Just where about in the article? Or should I set up a new article (Electoral system of New Zealand)? --GeLuxe 02:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would probably be best to put the more technical aspects in a separate article — particularly as this article covers the whole history of New Zealand elections, rather than just the system used today. This article summarises and links all elections, while a description of the current MMP system would only be applicable to the most recent ones. It would be good to have, though. -- Vardion 22:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Electoral system

"New Zealand has a multi-party system due to proportional representation." While it is true that all governments to date since MMP have been coalitions, this does not constitute a "system". There is no reason in principle a party could not be popular enough to achieve a majority. In fact they are always trying to. --Hugh7 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

History of the vote

The History of the vote section is quite long, how about moving it to its own page? That way it could be in both the NZ election stuff and the NZ history stuff. Thoughts? I'll leave this for a few days before I do anything. --Midnighttonight 03:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. See History of voting in New Zealand. Alan Liefting 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Timing of elections

I have rewritten to reflect the fact that the PM's ability to determine the election date is open to abuse, and is not the norm internationally. I think there is a law saying that elections have to occur within a certain period of time after the previous one (three and a bit years, presumably), which is the main reason why there hasn't been a late election since WWII. I will try and find out about this, but if anyone knows off the top of their head, could they make an edit reflecting this?

I will also edit the electorates section to acknowledge the existence of list seats. --Helenalex 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The ability of the PM to call an early election may not be the norm internationally, but in Britain I think it is unusual to go the full term of 5 years, unlike here where an early election is still the exception (though there have been some of course) Hugo999 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Byelection Page

How about a line on the general elections / referenda portal / box to go to "Byelections in NZ" - the results of them and hence the Byelection page is more important than the various referenda Hugo999 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all by-elections are important, but I agree anyway. --Helenalex 22:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Move

So, this page has been randomly moved. Do we move it back, or do we fix the spelling and then hunt down all the pages linking to it? IdiotSavant (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the current title ("elections in New Zealand") is better, as it's the standard title for such pages. —Nightstallion 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, but it would have been nice to have some discussion first. I guess we should just try cleaning up after it. IdiotSavant (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elections in New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081120150302/http://www.elections.org.nz/rules/local-elections/local-elections-2007.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/rules/local-elections/local-elections-2007.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elections in New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_politics_story_skin/34506
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527022404/http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/resultsdata/elections-dates-turnout.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/resultsdata/elections-dates-turnout.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Electoral roll

Should there be a distinction between the General roll and the Māori roll here?

Tamathapaul (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure; that appears to be missing. Note that it's the "general roll", though (lower case). Schwede66 06:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)