NZ General Election 2020: Was It Rigged?

I am surprised by the number of people saying to me that the New Zealand General Election was rigged. For many, the results appear too cute to be real. Almost right across the board, with only one or two exceptions, a majority in each electorate party voted Labour. This includes even safe and solidly 'blue' seats held by National. I'll give you some examples; Judith Collins is the Leader of the Opposition and holds the safe Auckland seat of Papakura for National. She won on the night with a comfortable majority of nearly 6,000. However, the party vote was lost to Labour by 400.  

Selwyn is also interesting. It is a largely rural seat in the South Island, full of rich farmers. It is a safe National seat formerly held by Amy Adams who was standing down. The new candidate for National was Nicola Grigg and she held the seat with a majority of nearly 5,000. For a first time candidate, that's pretty good. However, the party vote was lost to Labour by a whopping 2,385 on the night. That's almost unthinkable in a seat considered very Blue. 

Rangitikei is its equivalent in the North Island. National to the core, the National party candidate won comfortably but the party vote was lost to Labour by 4,583. Do you see the pattern? Even if truly conservative in nature the pattern is almost always the same, National lost to Labour when the party votes are counted. Even Botany in Auckland, being contested for National and won by the high profile former CEO of Air Zealand, lost the party vote to Labour.

Those saying the result is rigged look at the cuteness of all this and then say that this should not be consistent throughout the country. Voting for a candidate different from the party is somewhat difficult. In the polling station you're given a form and it has on the left hand side of the page the parties contesting the election, and then on the right hand side of the page, next to the party name is the candidate for that very same party. If choosing one party, it is highly likely the voter will also tick the name alongside that same party. This didn't happen in so many cases, consistently people voted for Labour and then searched down the list of candidates to find the National electorate candidate. Is this credible?

Epsom is a counter example. For many elections, voters have given their party vote to National but preferred as their local member of parliament, ACT leader David Seymour and many of his predecessors before him. This was a strategic move, ensuring National had a coalition partner. Voters were being tactical and not throwing away their party vote at all. They remained National, but they gained a coalition partner for their party, who was returned to parliament as an electorate member along with others off the party list if ACT received enough party votes.

What can normally be expected to happen? In the past, when the tide was going out for National, Labour held seats went even redder, while National seats moved to the left but still held up, albeit with a smaller majority. The trend tends to be for rock solid National supporters to never vary their party vote, however examples do exist of them changing their less important candidate vote. 

Do you see where I'm going with this? The 2020 result is remarkable because across the entire country, solid National voters ditched and voted for the enemy, but nevertheless had the good sense to vote for their National party electorate candidate. Is this believable?

Clearly, while not proven election interference, close scrutiny must be given to the results. Perhaps a recount could be held in Selwyn and Rangitikei, with independent scrutineers present. If nothing is done, this could lead to further distrust of the process.

Update: it has been pointed out to me that rigging the outcome of the election would be a relatively simple affair. Here was me thinking it was complicated, that data entry operators would have to be in on it. No, ballots could simply be thrown away, or at the very least not counted at all and then thrown away later when the opportunity presented itself. But wouldn't this make the turnout look wrong?

It would, but there were two referendums being held at the same time as the general election, both on very contentious issues, euthanasia and the recreational use of cannabis. What if this led to a high turnout, say, 90% of registered voters? Say 10% of votes, all National were dumped; if included they would shift the outcome to 34% National, 8% ACT. Labour would drop to 43%. The Greens would then be Kingmakers and hold the balance of power.

The fix wouldn't be to shaft National. It would be to prevent Greens holding the whip hand. 

And what of the technological angle? It has been suggested that the most efficient approach would be to have a program running that manipulated the figures as data is entered. This would happen imperceptibly behind the scenes. Support for this view comes from observing how the election night evolved. Results were thoroughly consistent with little variation. The usual ebb and flow as electorates reported was simply absent. 

What do you think?

Important update: Dan Lacey has found out that the anti-malware program the Electoral Commission was running at the time of the election was Windows Defender Antivirus - for real - this is Keystone Cops stuff. Incredible stupidity: 

https://gab.com/danlacey/posts/105745049923598189

[updated 6:23pm 20/1/2020 version from that originally published]

[updated 9:00am 21/10/2020 version from that originally published]

[updated 8:32pm 17/02/2021]