Votes per MP

September 19th, 2005 at 6:00 pm by David Farrar

I’ve done a quick analysis of how many votes each party needed to get an MP. In descending order they are:

Progressive 24,624
United 18,535
Green 17,270
NZ First 17,048
Labour 16,649
National 16,524
ACT 15,537
Maori 10,122

Could almost call it a Maori Party gerrymander as the overhang means their votes count almost twice as much as the other parties.

Now you could claim that is far enough won the electorate vote in four electorates. Well yes they did, but the number of votes cast in each Maori seat is only 16,000 – less than half the average in general seats.

No tag for this post.

11 Responses to “Votes per MP”

  1. tim barclay Says:

    I do not know why this is so. Unless there is a very low vote for Maori seats. This non vote in the maori seats needs a very hard look when National comes up with its plan to abolish them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Sinner Says:

    Gerrmander. nice choice of words. Can’t wait to hear “Gentleman Don” rail against this in his next Orewa speech.

    it’s going to be a bitter and contested next few years

    the Kerr/Whitlam precent keeps presenting itself to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Lin Nah Says:

    Don’t you mean Progressive needed 14,754 to get one MP. The rest is just wasted votes. The party vote isn’t wasted if like Act, he managed to get another MP or two in with him.

    While you are looking at numbers, how many MPs of asian decent do we have?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Bill Says:

    “Almost call it a Maori Party gerrymander”.
    No flies on you.

    An Auckland SE Asian exclusive electorate should be an easy set up and equally valid.
    Cute chicks, good food.

    That sensational euphemism ‘overhang’ …..is ideologically sound claptrap.
    As if the word is sufficient obfuscation to hide this corrupt political construct from being seen as the racial rort for ‘special’ NZeders that it is.
    Nice work if you can get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Emmess Says:

    Why are the Maori seats calculated on the total number of adult Maori not the number of electors on the Maori roll?

    Electors on the Maori roll 188 487

    Total Maori electors 340 418

    371,690 / 54,308 = 6.84 rounded to 7 Maori electorates

    2,497,596 / 54,308 = 45.99 rounded to 46 North Island general electorates

    http://www.elections.org.nz/electorates/reviewing_electorates.html

    Given that there are Maori seats, there should only be 3 or 4 Maori seats

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Graeme Edgeler Says:

    Emmess: “Why are the Maori seats calculated on the total number of adult Maori not the number of electors on the Maori roll?”

    Well Emmess, for one, it’s not calculated on the total number of adult Maori; just like the general seats it’s calculated on the total population (apportioned between the general seats and the Maori seats). This is perhaps because MPs also represent people not old enough to vote.

    Because Maori are on average younger than non-Maori (with a greater proportion of Maori being aged 0-18, than non-Maori) this results in there being fewer Maori voters per electorate.

    Overall, of course, this is to the disadvantage of Maori: despite being over 15% of the population, Maori make up less than 15% of eligible voters, and it’s these numbers that matter when one looks at the all-important party vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. pacman Says:

    Do these seats not change in size to reflect the population? If say 75% jumped to the general role would it be possible you could win a Maori seat with only 2,500 votes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Gaz Says:

    Thanks to the MMP system there are now proportionally more maoris in parliament than there are in the population (are radicals over-represented?), so I really can’t see why there have to be special brown seats at all. Or is it just another case of maoris taking more and more, and using the treaty as an excuse?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. gd Says:

    Actually Gaz If you consult any dictionary you will find its called racisim Only those who support this racisim are to clever by half to own up to their duplicity

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Graeme Edgeler Says:

    Pacman, yes they do change to reflect changes in population (and changes in the roll of choice) – this is main reason why the Maori electoral option is only run every five years (in conjunction with the census).

    Once it is known how many Maori will be on each of the general and Maori rolls after the Maori electoral option has been run the number of North Island and Maori seats is determined and the boundaries redrawn.

    That is why your concern of 75% jumping to the general roll cannot happen, and also why Metiria Turei’s proposal to run the Maori electoral option between elections should be opposed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Graeme Edgeler Says:

    gd it is not called racism – I think you will find it is called democracy. A number of Maori sought election, and so did a number of nan-Maori. The people of New Zealand chose the Maori in disproportionate numbers over the non-Maori, as was their right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote