What People Are Saying

The 4% party vote vote threshold originally proposed by the Electoral Commission was possibly right for the first time, but we have matured and successfully steered our way through a few MMP elections now, and so it has again with time become far too conservative. Which means if the Review Committee still feels as if there should be a threshold in principle (even though still quite arbitrary) then it should be looking closely in the range of 1% to 3%.
Michael Orchard
51 weeks 1 day ago
Now that we have MMP there is, or ought to be, a clear distinction of function between list and electorate seats. For a local electorate MP community of interest should be a primary consideration in boundary changes rather than a strict redistribution on the basis of population because the number of MPs a party gets is solely based on the party vote. Thus electorate boundaries would need to be altered less often as disparity of population matters less under MMP.
David Calderwood
51 weeks 1 day ago
I support dual candidacy. The electorate vote is a local contest. It goes against the spirit of MMP if a candidate is forced to leave Parliament altogether because it is rejected by a single electorate. This is how the system works under FPP. Voters rejected a change to another voting system such as FPP at the 2011 referendum.
Geoffrey Miller
51 weeks 2 days ago
Dual candidacy should be kept. Much of the best presentation and examination of competing ideas comes about when two or more capable MPs contest a marginal seat. Having the fallback of a list position probably makes an MP much more willing to be a part of such a vigorous contest. If dual candidacy is banned, I fear most of the best MPs will simply find their way to a safe electorate seat, dulling and dumbing down the political debate.
Andre Terzaghi
51 weeks 2 days ago
Voters should be able to alter the order of list candidates. The political parties have already selected the candidates. As a list of list candidates is already given out with the voting papers, it should not be difficulat to print an extra one so that each voter can grade their party candiates - as few or as many as they prefer. These lists can be attached to the voting paper. The voters' grading will select which candidates sit in Parliament.
Mrs. Honor S. Hurly
51 weeks 1 day ago
Many people object to seeing a candidate defeated in an electorate only to see them return in the list. This is a failure to understand what the function of electorate MPs and list ones are. Electorates are valuable if you want to represent a population and list ones if you want to concentrate on policy and governance. Therefore it is a party issue rather than a system one.
David Calderwood
51 weeks 1 day ago
I believe that the threshold should be raised to about 7%. Recent experiences in Europe and other countries have demonstrated the weaknesses of many and fragmented parties in their Parliaments, with a resulting inability to take decisions on critiocal issues. In my view it is more important that the NZ system promotes stability than achieving diverse representation.
Peter Hays
51 weeks 1 day ago
I believe that any list member who contests an electorate seat that they have previously held, and loses it, should be removed from the list. (I do not recommend that the same penalty apply to newcomers who have never held that electorate seat, as their losses are more likely to reflect the popularity of the incumbent than their own performance.)
Daniel Copeland
51 weeks 1 day ago
I propose a stadial progression in the allocation of seats. I’m proposing that the lower threshold be set to 2.5%, so that a party needs 1 in 40 New Zealanders to vote for their party for their party to obtain 1 seat. A second lower threshold would be 4% to gain 2 seats. The existing 5% threshold would remain. The seats gained by these lower thresholds would be subtracted from the 120 seats and then the Saint Lague allocation occurs as per normal.
Benjamin de Geest
51 weeks 1 day ago
Removing the one electorate seat threshold would make the system fairer by establishing a consistent threshold to entry for all parties (the party vote threshold). This would ensure that all parties compete on a level playing field. It would also ensure that the electorate votes of voters in particular seats do not assume a greater significance than any others - everyone’s electorate vote would have equal value. This is an important issue of fairness.
Sonja Mitchell
1 year 1 day ago
Abolishing dual candidacy would not, as some contend, result in candidates being forced to "face the electorate" - it would simply result in at-risk candidates (including virtually all high quality minor party candidates) not contesting electorates at all, retreating to the safety of the list. Even if a candidate has little chance of winning an electorate and/or is safe on the list anyway, their presence on the ballot gives voters a choice that they would not have if the candidate was list-only.
Thomas Robinson
1 year 1 day ago
Ultimately, I think it is more important for voters to have clear choices between different parties (rather than individuals) so that they can cast a Party Vote confident that the party they have selected will represent the values it stands for, regardless of the particular List candidate(s) from that party who gain seats in Parliament.
Katia De Lu
1 year 2 days ago
I believe that the current threshold could be halved without undermining the rationale for its existence, but with significant benefits for the proportionality and representativeness of Parliament.
Thomas Robinson
1 year 1 day ago
No voters shouldn't order party lists. Absolutely not. Currently the party can put bright people or people from minority groups on their list that the general populace wouldn't vote for. Popular candidates aren't necessarily the best candidates.
Linley Smith
1 year 2 days ago
There are arguments for and against dual candidacy but it would be simpler not to allow it. A party cannot put up a candidate in two electorates in the hope of getting the candidate into parliament in one of them, and so it would be better if a candidate had to choose between an electorate or the list.
Jonathan Jepson
1 year 5 days ago
The State should not have too much control over the internal organisation of political parties; as vehicles of political values and ideologies, parties must be able to retain significant control over their internal organisation. Lists should remain closed, but all parties should be encouraged to work towards better internal democracy in their list ranking processes. It’s up to the each party whether to respond to calls for better internal democracy.
Robin Campbell
1 year 6 days ago
I would like to see dual candidacy removed. I believe in MPs having responsibility for and accountability to a local electorate. List MPs do not have either of these and it seems patently wrong for a candidate who fails to win an electorate seat being able to enter Parliament via a Party List. If a way can be found for List MPs to be assigned to an electorate I would be in favour of this.
Eric Green
1 year 1 week ago
I agree the current system whereby a defeated electorate MP can be returned via the party list is unsatisfactory. However, there are many reasons why a MP may not be re-elected as an electorate MP It is too simplistic to say that a MP has been "rejected" by the electorate. In many cases it may simply be a rejection of the party with which that MP is affiliated, rather than an indictment on the qualities or work ethic of that MP. To impose a total prohibition is not fair, I favour a more nuanced approach.Candidates who lose an electorate should be skipped on the party list if their own electorate vote is lower than their party’s vote in their electorate.
Alexander Ho
1 year 1 week ago
Candidates standing for an electoral seat should not be able to be a list candidate as well because if they do not win the electoral seat they are rejected by the electorate. Being on the list as well gives an unfair advantage.
Chris Pile
1 year 1 week ago
I don't see how voters could order party lists but it would be nice. The problem is that most people further down on the list are not well known so voters would not really know their talents. It seems that political parties selecting them is the only way.
James Andrews
1 year 1 week ago
Candidates standing in electorate seats and on the party lists? NO! If a candidate has already been rejected as an electorate representative, Why should he be given a second chance as a list member?
Kay Follas
1 year 1 week ago
Parties can make their decisions about dual candidates. Chris Finlayson was never going to beat Annette King in Rongotai but he flew the flag for National well. It is stupid to suggest that just because he lost in Rongotai he should not enter Parliament. Likewise with Keith Locke. The people decide who they want as an MP by the electorate vote or party vote. It is our choice.
Brendon Bonner
1 year 1 week ago
The main weakness in the current operation of the MMP system is that people who are not actually elected get into Parliament solely by virtue of their position on a party list. This is not satisfactory. Members of Parliament are supposed to represent first and foremost the people of NZ, not the party who selected them.There is often virtually nil public scrutiny of the person who finishes up as an MP.
Tom Bougher
1 year 1 week ago
There seems to be no pressing case for changing the level from the current 5%. A reduction to 4 % looks like tinkering, and would right no significant wrong. Reducing the level risks increasing fragmentation, raising the level will narrow the breadth of representation. For the size of our population the balance is about right.
J R H Andrews
1 year 1 week ago
The one-electorate seat threshold should remain as it is considered that the current system is well documented and relatively understood by New Zealanders. The one-electorate seat threshold allows for further diversity and representation in Parliament should a party not achieve a 5% threshold. It is considered that together, the one electorate seat and 5% threshold strikes a good balance to achieve diversity without causing instability.
Sarah Dowie
1 year 2 weeks ago
I am strongly against a situation where a candidate can be elected to a seat, and then even though their party gets less than 5% of the proportional vote, they drag in other "MP's" with them. I hope you will bring in a rule where if the successful candidate is the only one elected for a party - and the party fails to attain 5% - then that candidate is on their own.
Kara Lipski
1 year 2 weeks ago
Political parties must be free to decide their own destinies. Voters can judge the parties on their ordering of candidates. Legislative intrusion into party organisations is a slippery slope. If voters had to order the candidates on election day, the process would become dangerously complicated and bad for that reason.
Richard Featherstone
1 year 2 weeks ago
An overhang should occur, that is fair. The issue with this is that I can foresee in time that either Labour or National will have an overhang, this is a serious issue. I think firstly increase the size of electorate population variation to 10% is a good idea, secondly, Parliment may have to expand, if the overhang ever becomes more the 5MPs.
Rion Gulley
1 year 2 weeks ago
The list is put up as a 'Party Package' and helps define what the party stands for and what is important to the Party. The Party can also seek to choose the race/gender balance it wants and this could be distorted if voters could ialter rankings.
Keith Cullum
1 year 2 weeks ago
Every potential MP must stand for an electoral seat and those who miss out then become the "list MPs". This ensures that good people who stand before an electorate get into Parliament via the list. This means that some electorates then have two MPs looking after their interests which is fair enough in my thinking. Those who go on to the list have to work to get there. The party doesn't then have to select a list - the electorate does at the polls on polling day. Those who go on the list therefore are those who miss out on an electorate seat but who gain the most votes in the polls compared to their party colleagues who also missed out.
Alan Jermaine
1 year 3 weeks ago
Home » The Issues

By-election candidates

Skip to content top

Reasons for having by-elections

By-elections in New Zealand occur to fill electorate seats made vacant in Parliament by the resignation or death of a sitting electorate member.

This does not apply to list members. If a list member’s seat becomes vacant, the next available person on their party’s list fills the position. Filling a list vacancy in this way enables a party’s representation in Parliament to remain proportionate to its share of the party vote.

New Zealand's experience

New Zealand’s electoral rules do not prevent either list members or electorate members standing as candidates in a by-election. While it has always been the case that a sitting electorate member can stand in a by-election this has never happened.

Under MMP a sitting member (list or electorate) can stand in a by-election without first resigning their seat.

There is no statutory obligation on a list member to resign their list seat first, or even if they win the by-election. However, if successful in a by-election, not resigning would prevent their party from gaining an additional member in the House from the party’s list.

If the sitting list member is unsuccessful in the by-election, they remain a list member of Parliament.

List members now frequently contest by-elections. In the 2008-2011 Parliament, four by-elections were held (Mt Albert, Botany, Mana and Te Tai Tokerau). In three of these, sitting list members contested the electorate.

In the Mt Albert by-election in 2009, three sitting list members (John Boscawen, Melissa Lee, and Russel Norman) stood as candidates.  In the Botany by-election in early 2011, no sitting list member contested the seat. In the remaining two by-elections during the 2008-2011 Parliament, only one sitting list member stood as a candidate in each by-election (Hekia Parata in Mana, and Kelvin Davis in Te Tai Tokerau).

No sitting list member was successful in winning an electorate seat in any of these by-elections.

Top