Boundary changes

Boundary changes

The new electorate boundaries which will govern the election came out yesterday, and I have now had a little time to digest the final changes. Here are my three reactions.

1. Meh
One of the nice things about MMP is that the tortured process of cutting the population up into little chunks no longer has any major influence on the election result. The party vote is what matters, and the party vote has nothing to do with the electorate boundaries. (This is even more true in New Zealand than in many other PR countries, because of our single nationwide district for handing out list seats, and also because our boundaries are drawn by a mainly non-partisan Commission, limiting the opportunities for silly gerrymandering that we see in the US sometimes.) So any huffing and puffing about boundaries really is anorak-only territory.

2. Big picture: A small win for the left.
Until now, New Zealand had 70 electorates. Now we have 71. One National-leaning electorate (Waitakere) has disappeared, and is replaced with a new National-leaning electorate (Upper Harbour) and a new Labour-leaning electorate (Kelston). So the number of National-leaning electorates remains unchanged, while the number of Labour-leaning electorates goes up by one. Hooray!

(Astoundingly, the seat-warmer at Kiwiblog disagrees, proclaiming a complete, humiliating failure for the left. Which is the obvious thing to do when the number of left-leaning seats goes up by one but the number of National-leaning seats does not change.)

3. Swings and roundabouts in the weeds
The people who care most about the boundary changes are electorate MPs, and people who want to be electorate MPs. Looking at those people as a whole, even focusing in on left-leaning MPs only, it is a case of swings and roundabouts:

The final tweaks in the Auckland Isthmus, for example, leave Phil Goff better off than before, make little net difference to David Shearer (losing some good red territory to Mt Roskill, but gaining other red territory from Auckland Central), and make Jacinda Ardern's task in Auckland Central harder. One gain, one on-the-one-hand vs on-the-other-hand, one loss. Net effect on Labour: zero.

In the Hutt Valley, the changes help Chris Hipkins in Rimutuka, and make Hutt South more marginal, but still with a four figure paper majority for Trevor Mallard. Net effect: Zero.

Christchurch was always going to have a large-scale change following the post-earthquake population movements. By my count, the "paper lead" in each of the electorates hasn't switched in any particular electorate. Little net effect.

So, now that we have the electorate semi-sideshow out of the way, it is onwards and upwards in the Party Vote campaign.

Filed under: 

Commenting on this Blog entry will be automatically closed on April 22, 2014.

Comments

jacklin says:

I really like this particular work you have done here, really nice and true! This is exactly how boundary changes and there comes a time when you are static at one only and then there is this dramatic change. Looking for online writing assignments, I ended up reading this amazing work, really happy about it!

jacklin says:

I also wrote an article on a similar subject will find it at write what you think. Hero Instinct

mp hssc result 2017 says:

We are suggesting you to keep on visiting our site as we will give you the latest information all the time

mp hssc result 2017 says:

mp hssc result 2017
We are suggesting you to keep on visiting our site as we will give you the latest information all the time

jacklin says:

I prefer merely excellent resources - you will see these people in: Memorial Day in 2017

Add new comment