# 2011 New Zealand General Election **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 1, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542 "2011-11-01T20:26:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![maggenpye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecc23a/32.png) [@maggenpye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/maggenpye)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/21 "2011-11-07T23:41:24Z")
> [@Cunctator](#): > > Will this election finally see the end of Winston Peters? Well, he’s not going for an electorate seat, because he knows he wouldn’t get it. But, as the pundits all say, you can never write him off completely. [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Apart from the voting system, what are the salient issues in Kiwi politics this year? Budget, taxes, jobs, what? [/QUOTE] Asset sales is a biggie. The incumbents (National) want to sell up to 49% of some state owned enterprises, the major opposition (Labour) are publicising the fact that the Nats have included the maximum sales income into their budgets without reducing the dividends received. Labour wants to set in place an incremental increase for the retirement age, eventually ending up at 67 years instead of 65, telegraphing a move that won’t begin until 2020. The Nats are saying they won’t increase it (this term). Labs also want to introduce Capital Gains tax, but this doesn’t seem to be getting as much attention as it deserves. Nats want to sell stuff, Labs want to do some short term borrowing both estimate the budget will be back in black by 2014 (just in time for the next election). Then there’s the usual; jobs, welfare, infrastructure, environment all getting a look in. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/22 "2011-11-07T23:59:51Z")
> [@lisiate](#): > > Well we’ve only got one prior example to go on. > > In [1987](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_1987) the incumbent Labour government was returned with a slightly increased majority following a World Cup win. > > Given that National was already polling at around 55% before the Cup started it’s hard to see how they could have got much more of a bump really. As an aside, no party has ever won more than 50% of the vote in New Zealand’s history (even including the FPP elections). The record is 48.7% by Labour in 1972. So if National can maintain their poll numbers on the night it’ll be a first. You also have the 1999 election. The All Blacks lost and National got voted out of office. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/23 "2011-11-08T00:31:18Z")
…I am fast becoming disillusioned with the media in this country: the coverage of this years election has been a disgrace. The TV 1 debate between John Key and Phil Goff was an absolute joke: with the constant cuts to the “political commentators” (should have read partisan hacks), cutting them off when they were getting interesting and asking stupid questions. Then we have the astonishing decision to use National Party colours for their election logo. Yesterday [this was published](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10764316) in the Herald. I was at the Green Party launch: not as a supporter, but as a[freelance photographer.](https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.230408093688366.58836.174587205937122&type=1) This was not a vitriolic speech: and to call it that in an insult to vitriol. The media have the ability to frame the debate with just a few words, a changed camera angle and the repetition of a meme. Its a responsibility that IMHO they are taking too lightly: they should report the story, not become the story, or try to shape it. ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/24 "2011-11-08T00:47:33Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > You also have the 1999 election. The All Blacks lost and National got voted out of office. True that, although 1987 remains the only other example of an All Blacks world cup win… > [@Cunctator](#): > > Will this election finally see the end of Winston Peters? I doubt it, he’s been out of Parliament since 2008 and yet NZ First still manages the fourth highest numbers in the [most recent polls](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2011) I’ve seen. Admittedly they’re only at around 2% though. Personally I won’t count Winston out till he’s shuffled off this mortal coil. As an aside does anyone know of a decent polling blog for the NZ elections? Something like the excellent 538 would be awesome. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Apart from the voting system, what are the salient issues in Kiwi politics this year? Budget, taxes, jobs, what? **maggenpye** ’s pretty much summed it up. Economic matters in general seem to be the biggest issue. National want to stand on their mad economic management skillz (despite being the worst performing [government in at least 50 years](http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/10/nationals-economic-record.html)). Labour are frantically arguing that hocking-off all the remaining state-owned enterprises (power generators and the like) is a short sighted move at best that won’t change anything structural. **The minors** Looking at the Greens policy through the link provided by **Jaguars!** it seems that they’re pretty similar to Labour on the taxation and no asset sales points. The Maori party propose to make the first $25,000 of individual income tax free (the Greens advocate just the first $10,000). The Mana party says I should update my browser, but then advocate a full employment policy, with an increased minimum wage and the abolition of GST. This will be funded by a ‘Hone Heke’ tax on all financial transactions. Act want to sell all state assets, and cap government spending at 29% of GDP. Oh and we should mine wherever we want. New Zealand First want to ban all foreign ownership of NZ land and simplify the tax system. I didn’t bother with reading Peter Dunn’s policies. ---
**Author:** ![Bizzie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/46a35a/32.png) [@Bizzie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bizzie)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/25 "2011-11-08T00:53:16Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I am fast becoming disillusioned with the media in this country: the coverage of this years election has been a disgrace. Bit late to the party, ain’t ya? Or do you think the media coverage of previous elections to be superior? I honestly can’t see why you would. All televised political debates tend to be ‘jokes’ - nobody expects to hear sound, logical arguments from political adversaries in a television environment. With that in mind, I thought Goff had a little more substance than Key, who played to his strengths as the smiling assassin. > [@](#): > > Yesterday this was published in the Herald. I was at the Green Party launch: not as a supporter, but as a freelance photographer. This was not a vitriolic speech: and to call it that in an insult to vitriol. The media have the ability to frame the debate with just a few words, a changed camera angle and the repetition of a meme. Its a responsibility that IMHO they are taking too lightly: they should report the story, not become the story, or try to shape it. Not sure what you are saying here - are you including Robyn Malcolm as part of the media? ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/26 "2011-11-08T00:53:44Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I am fast becoming disillusioned with the media in this country: the coverage of this years election has been a disgrace. > > The TV 1 debate between John Key and Phil Goff was an absolute joke: with the constant cuts to the “political commentators” (should have read partisan hacks), cutting them off when they were getting interesting and asking stupid questions. Then we have the astonishing decision to use National Party colours for their election logo. > > Yesterday [this was published](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10764316) in the Herald. I was at the Green Party launch: not as a supporter, but as a[freelance photographer.](https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.230408093688366.58836.174587205937122&type=1) This was not a vitriolic speech: and to call it that in an insult to vitriol. The media have the ability to frame the debate with just a few words, a changed camera angle and the repetition of a meme. Its a responsibility that IMHO they are taking too lightly: they should report the story, not become the story, or try to shape it. Oh hell yes, I’ve basically limited myself to National Radio and blogs I like during this campaign, for blood pressure reasons. And are you really surprised about the Herald’s coverage? I thought everyone knew that they’re basically part of the National party (not that the Dominion Post’s any different). ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/27 "2011-11-08T01:08:31Z")
> [@Bizzie](#): > > Bit late to the party, ain’t ya? Or do you think the media coverage of previous elections to be superior? I honestly can’t see why you would. > > All televised political debates tend to be ‘jokes’ - nobody expects to hear sound, logical arguments from political adversaries in a television environment. With that in mind, I thought Goff had a little more substance than Key, who played to his strengths as the smiling assassin. I actually do think that the coverage has been worse this year: the TV networks aren’t even putting in an effort to appear impartial. I’ve seen good televised debates before, and I’ve seen bad ones as well, but the TV One Debate was a disgrace. [Gordon Campbell says it best here:](http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2011/11/01/gordon-campbell-onthe-tvnz-keygoff-debate/) > [@](#): > > I know, election campaign debates are said to hinge on issues of style over substance. That’s the nature of so called “ presidential” election campaigns. But I didn’t think journalists and political scientists were supposed to capitulate to that process quite so comprehensively as they did last night. > Viewers can see who looks nervous. They can be left to figure it out for themselves if someone is being negative, or positive. What they may not have at their fingertips – and which the two separate panels of journalists/scientists plus two presenters presumably possess – is expertise about the claims being made by the two participants. The ‘experts’ didn’t provide political expertise last night. They gave fashion tips. On the score, it doesn’t matter whether Key or Goff won last night. The real losers were the viewers. > [@](#): > > Not sure what you are saying here - are you including Robyn Malcolm as part of the media? …why on earth would you think I said that? The Herald writer called Robyn Malcolm’s speech vitriolic: I watched the speech and it most definitely wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Mondegreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/91b2a8/32.png) [@Lord\_Mondegreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Mondegreen)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/28 "2011-11-08T01:13:31Z")
> [@lisiate](#): > > A reasonable criticism. I fear that a large proportion of voters would cast donkey votes under STV, putting their favourite candidate at 1 and just ranking the rest in order. In the ACT (Australian Capital Territory - not to be confused with the NZ ACT party) we use [Robson Rotation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robson_Rotation) to counteract this. Different ballot papers have the candidates in different orders. ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/29 "2011-11-08T01:37:59Z")
That’s a genius idea. Still, I can’t help thinking that we’d see a bunch of confused voters wondering why their ballots look different… ---
**Author:** ![Jaguars](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jaguars/32/5879_2.png) [@Jaguars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jaguars)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/30 "2011-11-08T01:40:42Z")
Yeah, NZ does its best to follow overseas tabloids (Perhaps they need to clarify the difference between ‘best practice’ and ‘most widespread practice’ ) Things were much better when Paul Holmes was around, Eh? 😛 I just spent an hour trying to work out how an STV election is counted. Its quite a complex undertaking, with ‘votes’ potentially transferring from person to person quite a bit. I guess the clue is in the name. Anyway, my worked example fell apart when I transferred the excess votes from the frontrunner and found I hadn’t tracked where the frontrunner voters’ second preferences lay… …that’ll teach me for trying to be informed. Anyway, If we did end up with that form of voting, do you think we would have to rank \*all \*candidates, or could we just put say 1, 2, 3 on a 10 person ballot and call it a day? ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/31 "2011-11-08T02:33:06Z")
> [@Jaguars](#): > > Anyway, If we did end up with that form of voting, do you think we would have to rank \*all \*candidates, or could we just put say 1, 2, 3 on a 10 person ballot and call it a day? It depends on the system. We use STV for the Senate in Australian federal elections. Voters have to rank all candidates for their vote to be valid (although the vast majority of voters use a short-cut and let their preferred political party do the ranking for them). We also use STV for the Legislative Council (upper house) in NSW state elections. There is a minimum number of preferences that voters have to indicate (from memory, I think it’s 15), but after that it’s optional for voters to indicate any further preferences. If, during the count, preferences beyond the 15th are required and a ballot paper does not display any, then it is “exhausted” and removed from the count. From the information [here](http://www.referendum.org.nz/stv#in-detail) it looks like the STV system proposed in New Zealand will require voters to mark only a first preference. They can do more if they want. ---
**Author:** ![Jaguars](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jaguars/32/5879_2.png) [@Jaguars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jaguars)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/32 "2011-11-08T02:46:18Z")
Aha. Ta muchly. ---
**Author:** ![Bizzie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/46a35a/32.png) [@Bizzie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bizzie)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/33 "2011-11-08T09:39:23Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Gordon Campbell Best politico in the country. > [@](#): > > …why on earth would you think I said that? The Herald writer called Robyn Malcolm’s speech vitriolic: I watched the speech and it most definitely wasn’t. Sorry bout that - I thought you weren’t [including Malcolm] but had to make sure. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/34 "2011-11-08T10:04:48Z")
> [@lisiate](#): > > I fear that a large proportion of voters would cast donkey votes under STV, putting their favourite candidate at 1 and just ranking the rest in order. See, this misses the hidden fun of STV … It’s the bastard you place last on your ballot, the political mud sucker that you can ensure has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting your vote. The absolutely most undeserving. In extremis, the shadenfreuden of discovering your last preference was the first eliminated candidate in the distribution. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/35 "2011-11-09T02:37:18Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > See, this misses the hidden fun of STV … It’s the bastard you place last on your ballot, the political mud sucker that you can ensure has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting your vote. The absolutely most undeserving. In extremis, the shadenfreuden of discovering your last preference was the first eliminated candidate in the distribution. Yes, I agree. I enjoy doing that too. ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/36 "2011-11-10T02:31:47Z")
Heh, that does sound fun. I often find myself a little sorry for the lowest polling candidates, particularly those who appear to have only been voted for by themselves and their Mums. Then I remind myself that they’re aspiring politicians and therefore almost certainly power-hungry monsters by definition. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/37 "2011-11-11T05:13:29Z")
> [@Jaguars](#): > > I just spent an hour trying to work out how an STV election is counted. Its quite a complex undertaking, with ‘votes’ potentially transferring from person to person quite a bit. I guess the clue is in the name. > > Anyway, my worked example fell apart when I transferred the excess votes from the frontrunner and found I hadn’t tracked where the frontrunner voters’ second preferences lay… …that’ll teach me for trying to be informed. I constructed this example for my brother-in-law at the last federal election in Australia. You may find it helpful: > [@](#): > > Example of a Ballot Count using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) Method > > Assume the following situation: > > There are 500 voters. > There are 3 positions to be filled. > There are 5 candidates (A, B, C, D, & E) on the ballot paper. > All ballots are formal. > Voters are required to indicate preferences for all the candidates. Therefore there is no ‘exhaustion’ of ballot papers as a result of optional preferences. > > Calculating the quota: > > The first step is to calculate the quota needed for election. The quota is defined as the total number of formal votes divided by one more than the number of positions being filled, plus one, with any remainder being ignored. This produces a quota equal to the minimum number of votes such that, if each of the successful candidates obtained this number, it would not be arithmetically possible for any other candidate to obtain the quota. To demonstrate: > > Let the total number of formal votes cast be T > Let the number of positions to be filled be n > Q, the quota, is such that if each of the n successful candidates obtains Q votes, the remaining votes (namely T-nQ) must be less than Q: > > T – nQ \< Q > nQ + Q \> T rearranging the inequality > Q(n + 1) \> T factorising Q > Q \> T ÷ (n + 1) > > In this example T = 500 and n = 3, so Q = (500 ÷ 4) + 1 = 126 votes > > The quota of 126 votes remains unchanged throughout the count. > > Counting the first preferences: > > The next step is to allocate the ballots to each candidate according to the first preferences expressed. Assume that the first preferences were: > > A 230 > B 100 > C 50 > D 80 > E 40 > > Total 500 > > Candidate A has received more than a quota and is elected. He retains his quota of votes (126). His additional votes above the quota (termed his ‘surplus’ votes) are transferred on to the remaining candidates according to the second preferences marked on the ballots by the voters. The question then becomes: which of the 230 ballot papers that A received are to be deemed the ‘surplus’ ones? The fairest way to do this is to examine all of candidate A’s ballot papers and to transfer his first preference votes at a reduced value (known as the ‘transfer’ value). This is calculated in the following way: > > Candidate A’s surplus = Total votes – Quota = 230 – 126 = 104 > Transfer value of candidate A’s votes = Surplus ÷ Total votes = 104 ÷ 230 = 0.4522 > > Assume that the 230 first preference votes for candidate A flowed to second preferences in the following way: > > 10 for candidate B > 20 for candidate C > 60 for candidate D > 140 for candidate E > > Therefore the number of votes transferred would be calculated as: > > To candidate B: 10 x 0.4522 = 4 > To candidate C: 20 x 0.4522 = 9 > To candidate D: 60 x 0.4522 = 27 > To candidate E: 140 x 0.4522 = 63 > > Note that, in transferring votes, fractions of votes are ignored. > > After the transfer of candidate A’s surplus votes, the count looks like this: > > A 126 **elected** > B 100 + 4 (transferred from A) = 104 > C 50 + 9 (transferred from A) = 59 > D 80 + 27 (transferred from A) = 107 > E 40 + 63 (transferred from A) = 103 > > Total 499 > > At this point we check to see if any other candidate has now reached a quota as a result of the surplus transferred from candidate A. If another candidate has reached a quota, the same process of transfer of surplus votes takes place. This process continues until all the positions have been filled, or there is no other candidate who has reached a quota (as is the case here). If so, we move to the next phase of the count. > > Exclusion of candidates: > > When no further candidate has reached a quota, the candidate in the count who has the lowest number of votes is excluded. His votes are then transferred on to the remaining candidates according to the preferences on the ballots. In this case it is candidate C who is excluded. Assume that all of candidate C’s 59 ballots are examined and: > > The 50 first preference votes flowed to second preferences: > 10 for candidate B > 40 for candidate D > > The 9 transferred second preferences flowed to third preferences: > 9 for candidate E > > No transfer value calculation is required here because candidate C is being excluded. > > After the exclusion of candidate C, the count looks like this: > > A 126 **elected** > B 100 + 4 (transferred from A) +10 (transferred from C) = 114 > C 0 **excluded** > D 80 + 27 (transferred from A) + 40 (transferred from C) = 147 > E 40 + 63 (transferred from A) + 9 (transferred from C) = 112 > > Total 499 > > Another round of transfers: > > Remember that the quota is 126 votes. The exclusion of candidate C and the transfer of his votes has now enabled candidate D to obtain a quota, with a surplus. This surplus now has to be transferred. Again a transfer value is calculated: > > Candidate D’s surplus = Total votes – Quota = 147 – 126 = 21 > Transfer value of candidate D’s votes = Surplus ÷ Total votes = 21 ÷ 147 = 0.1429 > > We now examine the preferences of the 147 ballots allocated to candidate D. By this stage of the count we may be looking at voters’ fourth and fifth preferences. Assume that the 147 ballots ultimately flow to preferences: > > 57 to candidate B > 90 to candidate E > > Therefore the number of votes transferred would be calculated as: > > To candidate B: 57 x 0.1429 = 8 > To candidate E: 90 x 0.1429 = 12 > > After transfer the count looks like this: > > A 126 **elected** > B 100 + 4 (transferred from A) +10 (transferred from C) + 8 (transferred from D) = 122 > C 0 **excluded** > D 126 **elected** > E 40 + 63 (transferred from A) + 9 (transferred from C) + 12 (transferred from D) = 124 > > Total 498 > > Final step: > > Although candidate E has not obtained a quota, he is elected, because he has more votes than candidate B and there is only one position left to be filled. Note that that total number of votes in the count has gradually fallen due to the rounding down of votes during the transfer process. > > Final Outcome: > > The successful candidates, in order of election, are A, D and E. > > Candidate B, who had the second highest number of first preference votes, has missed out on gaining a position. This is because of the strong lower preference flows to the minor party candidates. The majority of candidate A’s supporters preferred candidate E over candidate B. And while candidate C’s voters mostly chose candidate D as their second preference, they ultimately also preferred candidate E over candidate B. This example emphasises just how important voters’ lower preferences can be in determining the outcome of the final positions. ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/38 "2011-11-11T09:41:35Z")
Well you’ve just confirmed my bias against STV with this part of your explanation: > [@](#): > > Candidate A has received more than a quota and is elected. He retains his quota of votes (126). His additional votes above the quota (termed his ‘surplus’ votes) are transferred on to the remaining candidates according to the second preferences marked on the ballots by the voters. The question then becomes: which of the 230 ballot papers that A received are to be deemed the ‘surplus’ ones? The fairest way to do this is to examine all of candidate A’s ballot papers and to transfer his first preference votes at a reduced value (known as the ‘transfer’ value). This is calculated in the following way: > > Candidate A’s surplus = Total votes – Quota = 230 – 126 = 104 > Transfer value of candidate A’s votes = Surplus ÷ Total votes = 104 ÷ 230 = 0.4522 There’s no way in hell that the charming retired folks who act as as vote counters in New Zealand elections could cope with this. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/39 "2011-11-11T23:58:54Z")
> [@lisiate](#): > > There’s no way in hell that the charming retired folks who act as as vote counters in New Zealand elections could cope with this. The counters here manage to handle preference distributions quite easily for the single-member House of Representative seats where the Preferential Voting system is used and there is no need to calculate transfer values. I’m sure the NZ equivalents would cope too. They don’t have to worry so much when it comes to the STV count for the Senate. Keep in mind that the vast bulk of voters (95% plus) vote “above the line” i.e. they mark only one square on the ballot paper and thus activate the preference sequence that their preferred political party has already pre-lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). These preference sequences are coded into the AEC’s computers and the count is done electronically. The ballots of the obstinate 5% (amongst whom both \*\*penultima thule \*\*and I are numbered) are more complicated to deal with. I think they have to be entered into the computer manually. Make them earn their money, I say! ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542/40 "2011-11-16T20:36:30Z")
Well we’re now nine days out and the biggest election news is the unauthorised tape of John Key and John Banks having a cup of tea in front of the media. Here’s a [transcript](http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/inevitably-2/). Oh and I hope the electors in Epsom leave Banks hanging and thereby shut ACT out of Parliament. Menawhile the polls seem fairly consistent. I think wikipedia’s [page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2011)is pretty good for this. Going by the graphical summary National seem steady on around 54%, Labout have been slipping to 28 % and the Greens slowly rising to about 11%. No other party is above 5%. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2011-new-zealand-general-election/601542.md?page=3)