General Election 2020: Bruce Crocombe

I received the following in my inbox today. It is a complaint laid before the Ombudsman about the General Election 2020.

Post: The Ombudsman, PO Box 10152, Wellington 6143

Summary of Actions required to satisfy my complaint regarding the 2020 Elections:

Stop the election 2020 Ballots, and all associated documents, being destroyed in April 2021.

The “Certificate of Results” forms should be made available to the Voting Place Managers, Justice of the Peace and Returning Officers to validate their signatures. The “Certificate of Results” should posted on the Electoral commission website for public scrutiny (alongside the other two already available, computer generated documents).

Reasons for my concern:

I was a Convener for the 2020 elections. The polling station I voted in was set up in a way to promote Maori views and promote the Labour party narrative that “this is a COVID election”. I laid a complaint to the returning officer who forwarded it to the electoral commission. That complaint was not even answered. Due to this lack of action I furthered my investigations. I became aware that the election process has many failures which led to these elections being illegal. In my discussions with others I was concerned that their observations also questioned the integrity of the election.

Who is affected by my observations and concerns?

This affects me personally as I now consider that this election win was gained by fraudulent activity. My faith in democracy is crushed! This affects the integrity of the people working in the voting places, Justice of the peace and scrutineers. It also affects all voters who may have had their vote ignored, swapped or never had it counted. It affects all New Zealand who did not vote for this Government.

My Complaint: There is no way to check that the vote count in the electorate polling place on 17th of October 2020 is reflected in the final results published on 5th November 2020.

My observations have covered the entire voting arena however am focusing my complaint on what I consider to be the most critical flaw. There is no way to check that the vote count in the electorate polling place on 17th October 2020 is reflected in the final results published on 5th November 2020. The integrity of the process, from voting to publishing results, does not allow a manual audit trail. It appears to be designed to impede any audit, stop observational assessments to be made on voting trends and allow easy access (at many stages) for fraudulent activity.

Actions I wish to be taken in the interests of this being an open, auditable, government Election:

1st

Stop the Ballots, and all associated documents, being destroyed. [As per section 189 of the Electoral Act 1993 - “Despite subsection (2), a packet or parcel may not be destroyed so long as the packet or parcel is, or may reasonably be expected to be, required for the purposes of an investigation into, or a prosecution of, an offence against this Act”].

An “Execution of stay” should be imposed on the ballots, and all associated documents, as they are legally allowed to be destroyed six months after the election. Ie. 3rd of April 2021 if they (sneakily) take it from the original election date. 17th April 2021 if from the actual date of the election.

These forms should be made available to the Voting Place Managers, Justice of the Peace and Returning Officers to validate their signatures, then posted (alongside the other two already available documents) on the Electoral commission website for public scrutiny.

I wish the public to view and copy for analysis all of the preliminary vote counts done by the Polling Place Managers and recorded by hand on the “certificate of results” forms.

2nd

I wish to firmly establish that this is not a request for a recount! It does not follow any existing pre described procedure. The objective is not to correlate the ballot count to the “Certificate of results” The object is to manually compare the many “Certificate of results” counts generated by the polling places to the “spread sheet” compiled electronically and printed of from the “Election Management System” (CATALYST). Then to compare the totals calculated from the “Certificate of results” to the “Official results certificate” for each electorate.

The information on each electorate’s forms should match that recorded on the computer generated spreadsheet. If not, a forensic audit of the actual ballots should be undertaken by an agency independent from any Government pressure as this would be a case of Government sponsored election fraud!

3rd

This is an investigation into a part of the electoral process. It should be done independently from any electoral commission interference, under the scrutiny of well briefed Conservative and Labour Party scrutineers. An independent party must manage the procedure (outlined in the 2nd part) to be followed. Do not allow the Electoral Commission to redirect or change the focus the process.

There is absolutely no reason that this additional document cannot made public.

The information (“Certificate of Results” form) represents ‘open Government’, is part of the election process and does not in any way compromise the publics privacy. The scrutineer’s handbook states that the results of the early count can be disclosed after 7 pm on Election Day (if you can get a copy of it). This information is not deemed sensitive after this time. The very same information, all be it printed from a computer data base, is available on the Government web site.

Evaluation Brief:

1) Compartmentalisation of vote counting – That is, the votes are handled in parcels, which will not allow tabulation of these parcels with other parcels during the preliminary count, Official count or recounts. Votes are counted, recorded then all information secured for that count. I understand the electoral process and am clear that counting the votes is deliberately compartmentalised in this way to control the availability of information. This was further compounded when additional voting places were set up. This stops people working in the process from observing more than one count and forming an opinion on voting trends. It means that any observations made in one voting place cannot be shared to get an overall electorate assessment. There is no way to get an evidence based assessment of results in one voting place (two counts and specials), or a total for the electorate. All people are forced to accept the computer controlled data without audit.

2) Confusing and illogical ‘access to information’ requirements – Photography is allowed to copy voter sensitive data, yet no photography is allowed of the “Certificate of Results”? The only way to get these results would be to copy them by hand from the “Certificate of Results” form. No mention is made that this can be done however it is previously stated that you cannot touch forms. They need to be presented to you. They are locked away ensuring the tabulation of results is only done by computer. A manual audit trail is made impossible. The Electoral Act 1993 provides for results to be challenged through recounts and petitions on certain grounds. It does not allow for manual tabulation of electorate count totals! It does not provide for auditing a sample of votes. There is also no mandate for forensic audits of samples of ballots (if the name and address is correct they are accepted). When the Electoral Commission is questioned they include confusing references to the naming of forms and redirect your attention to the computer generated data. When comparing the Electoral Act with the procedures outlined in the Electoral Commission web site gives actions happening differently and out of chronological sequence.

3) The “Election Management System” i.e. the vote tabulation software, is supplied by CATALYST. NET LIMITED, NZ Company Number 952897. Its program is “open source” meaning that the programming can be changed by the owner. Catalyst is also on the internet for the duration of the election hence open to hacking or nefarious access. There is nothing secure with this system and the assurances of security, given by the electoral commission, are not backed up with any tangible evidence of security or audit trail.

4) Performing an Audit. Vote counting is compartmentalized so no voter trends can be observed. The only opportunity to audit the integrity of the election results being keyed into the “Electoral Management System” and the numbers being presented to the public as “Election Results” is blocked. Access to the “Certificate of Results” form is restricted as no photographic copy can be made. There is no allowance for a manual tabulation of numbers independent from a computer. Official counts and recounts are also compartmentalized and strictly controlled to stop the totaling of all votes so no integrity audit can be done.

5) The Electoral Act 1993 is written without any references to manual or computer handling of data. There are also no references to a means to audit tabulated election data. This is a very concerning failure of process. An evaluation of the Act is included with this complaint.

6) The Electoral Commission Web site. An evaluation of the Electoral Commission Web site is included with this complaint.

7) The Scrutineers hand book. An evaluation of The Scrutineers hand book is included with this complaint.

Definitions (from the Electoral Act 1993) of the three forms completed during the course of elections.

1) “Certificate of results” is the form filled manually to record the count done on Election Day for either advance votes, counted after 9 am, or for votes cast on polling day, counted after 7pm.

These votes are (generally) counted in the polling place, and each certificate signed off by the Polling Place Manager and a Justice of the peace.

The “certificate of results” forms are lodged with the Clerk of the House in accordance with section 189 of the Electoral Act 1993 and are not available.

2) “Official results certificate” is the certificate “EMS82-FINAL Official Results Notification Form 2020 General Election and Referendums” that is printed from the “Election Management System” Catalyst, on completion of the final count on November 5th 2020. Each certificate shows the result totals for each electorate.

The “Official Results Certificates” can all be found on the Electoral Commission Web Site How are general election votes counted? | Elections 2020 certificates of results (ZIP, 26MB)

3) Two spread sheets breaking down the Candidate and Party vote count can also be generated from the “Election Management System” Votes Recorded at each Voting Place (electionresults.govt.nz)

Publishing all three forms is perfectly feasible as none of these forms in any way compromises the voter information or the vote cast. They report only vote placement statistics.

Evaluation – full

Assessment of relative correspondence:

1) Compartmentalisation of vote counting –

2) Confusing and illogical ‘access to information’ requirements –

3) The “Election Management System”

4) Performing an Audit.

5) Comparison between the Electoral Act 1993 and Electoral Commission Interpretation

6) The Electoral Commission Web site.

7) The Scrutineers hand book.

Copies of relevant forms are available (via links in the document) on the internet.

Copies of relevant correspondence available:

E mail trail to returning officer, forwarded to Electoral commission.

E mails to/from electoral commission.

Foot note - Other incidental observations:

Ballot boxes, though sealed on the top, can be accessed through the base.

One security company is hired for the whole country. Total control of security allowing for strategic placement of personnel (for both security and nefarious purposes).

Some voting centers took ballot boxes home ‘for security reasons’.

Colmar Brunton polling results were not reflected in Nation Party and other privately undertaken polls.

Massive media bias throughout the build up to the election by Government “financially bailed out” compliant (all major) media outlets.

Many electorates had election results which were contrary to the observational assessments. Not “a bad looser syndrome”, more like a betrayal of observational trend analysis. I.e. South Island going red, Auckland Central going Green, Upper Harbour going Labour….. All difficult to explain “wild card” results.

New Zealand Political Failure

Boris Johnson may be facing a leadership challenge in the UK if the latest virus policy becomes real. They're now talking about lockdowns every winter, without end. Yeah, every winter and then it'll be all year round. I say this often -don't encourage politicians, they just start getting ideas and their ideas are always bad ones. 

In New Zealand, politics has failed the country. Back in the day (violins please), politicians didn't make politics their career. They generally got involved bit by bit, either through whatever their profession was, the unions or business. In other words they had a life before politics. Not now, everyone in parliament is a bed wetting, born to rule numpty who thinks it's a good idea to have their hand in the taxpayers pocket. That's their life choice, they have no other life. And everyone is to blame, National, Labour, ACT, Greens, the lot. Basically, parliament is the enemy. MMP has worsened the situation as now you just can't get rid of them. The cat comes back, it won't stay away. You want examples? Gerry Brownlee and Damien O'Connor, there's two for you (both have lost their electorate seats at some point but stayed in off the list). 

What's the answer? Wholesale change. A new party based on sound core principles and the money to see things through has to take over and actually do what is needed to be done. This is not a cheap undertaking and is very time consuming, but I see no other way around it. The political class has failed, so a vote for Judith Collins, or Simon Bridges will still get the same result as a vote for Ardern. The result is still failure. 

Failure? Yes, here's a short list: 

- crumbling infrastructure 

- plummeting education standards 

- hospitals falling apart 

- complete inability to defend territorial waters 

- circuitous bureaucracy which doesn't actually get anything done 

- economy on the brink of collapse and no idea how to reverse the trend (how about let business get on and do business - shock suggestion) 

I'm sure you can add to the list, this was just off the top of my head. On the individual level, clearly you have to look after the nuts and bolts of your daily lives, so don't carry too much debt. Don't spend money you don't have to. But wider than that, we have to organise, and yes I've been political practically my whole life and I'm prepared to devote time to the task. But please don't suggest joining one of the existing rabble as I just don't see that working. Here's a blog post I did on what it'll take to get over that all-important 5% threshold. https://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2020/10/new-zealand-politics-getting-over-that.html

NZ Election 2020: More Statistics

Here's an interesting statistic, I hope you're sitting down: 2020 party votes 

Kaikoura: 

Labour 44.3% 

National 30.1% 

Rangitikei: 

Labour 44.3% 

National 30.1% 

What are the odds? Two electorates on separate islands are almost identical, both rural and returning reelected National MP's.This looks too cute to be real, it has the appearance of machine generated results.

Getting Greens Below 5% Threshold

New Zealand is saddled with a political party that represents anachronistic political ideologies, a party of wreckers with their snouts in the trough. That party is The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (I'll just call them Greens). They offer nothing constructive.

How to get rid of these people? The task will not be an easy one but it is achievable. That's because as the decades have passed, voters have grown up and abandoned the Greens. These days they're perpetually below 10%, stuck close to the all-important 5% threshold which would see them exit parliament if absent an electorate. Currently, they have one electorate seat, that of Auckland Central plus nine other members of parliament off the party list.

Who or what are the Greens? They're communists re-branded; red becomes green. Politically, they like to position themselves as having a monopoly on all things environmental (they don't). In recent years they've started to misrepresent themselves to the public by saying they're in government. They're not in government and never have been. That makes them shameless liars too. 

Before I get to what can be done about the Greens, a little primer on how NZ's Mixed Member Proportional system or MMP works in effect. 

When NZ adopted its electoral system in the mid 1990's it was believed it would solve the recurring problem of minority governments. It didn't do that at all and minority governments became the norm just as they had before. But MMP turned out to be worse than its first-past-the-post predecessor. That's because any party making the 5% threshold could hold the whip hand. A party with tiny support got to dictate the direction of the country. This condition was particularly evident when in 2017, Labour and tiny NZ First formed a minority government that had a smaller proportion of the popular vote than the opposition National party. Labour and NZ First got to govern through the Greens offering their confidence and supply vote in the House of Representatives. What a shambles.

But wait, things are looking up. The Greens are now vulnerable. They're still in opposition but have an understanding with the ruling Labour government. This gives them a couple of ministerial positions outside cabinet, so long as they don't criticise. They're muzzled. Silenced but not in government. Neither Arthur nor Martha. 

The Greens won't see any benefit. Labour will claim credit for anything positive, while Greens won't be able to let rip as any opposition party is expected to do. They'll come across as neutered. Time then to take action against them.

I can imagine people thinking, that's not very nice. Well no, it isn't but that's the way MMP works. It is a negative system, learn how to use it. Yes, a negative system. I'll give you a theoretical example to illustrate.

Let's say one major party has 30% support while another much smaller party has 6% going into an election. Both are safely in parliament because they make the 5% threshold. To be the government, the much larger party must get to at least 40% and then look for a coalition partner to get itself into a winnable position. Why not 50%? That's because of wasted votes which can be as much as 10% of all votes cast (these are votes for parties which fail to make 5% or which cannot win an electorate seat). 

So that 30% party works its butt off and manages to achieve 43%. They then need the 6% party to get itself into government. That 6% party has just sat there and done nothing but it gets rewarded. That's what makes MMP a negative system.

It gets worse. What should the 30% party do knowing its efforts will be coat-tailed by the much smaller party? It is actually more effective to drive that smaller party below the 5% threshold, making votes for it wasted. Then all this large party needs to form a government is find a party with a lone seat or two, with a small voter base. This in effect is what has happened, with the Maori party and ACT both performing this role.

To remind the reader, MMP is a negative system.

How to get rid of these communists, given they offer nothing, coat-tail others efforts and are enemies of civilisation. Three broad approaches appeal:

1. Organise a band of fifth columnists and have them join the Greens to wreck the party from within. Do this by having them promote every wackadoodle and extreme viewpoint the party comes up with. Help elect extremist elements within the Greens to high position within the party, and see the party turned off by the electorate and thus become unelectable. This is quite achievable as the party harbours these extremist elements in any case. It wouldn't be hard to fan the flames.

These fifth columnist elements should operate in semi-autonomous cells and have regular virtual meetings with external controllers to keep them on track with the primary goal, and to ensure these infiltrators do not become seduced by the party they've joined.

2. Separately, establish an alternative party for young people. While the Greens desperately try to attract new first time voters, they are actually a party established by boomers that reeks of privilege. The Greens are hypocrites, selling utopia to gullible people. Of course when these voters get older and enter the workforce, they soon learn that life is not the way the Greens see it and they soon change their support to a more mainstream party. This new party established by and run by young people would cut off the oxygen supply for the Greens.

However, this approach would be expensive to set up, and young voters are unreliable. Think about this then and how to ensure they wouldn't later merge with the Greens. 

3. Harness the conservative conservationist vote. Some within Greens stay within the party even though they're not communists. That's because they do not see a viable environmental alternative. These people realise that capitalism allows for growth, that simply taxing and throttling enterprise won't work in protecting the environment. These voters want markets to work within a framework that protects, not exploits nature. They're somewhat more pragmatic and realise mining, industry and agriculture is necessary to maintain standards of living. 

This approach is workable and could be successful. It'd work better if this new party could win an electorate seat. Boomers would be its core support, along with later generations, it would be able to fund itself and stay focused on its goal of crushing the Greens and replacing them with a better brand. In time, once the Greens are out they could reverse merger and take over the whole environmental ground politically, within a market economic framework.

My approach is part destruction, part construction. Social media marketing needs to be effective, and it has to be said that environment parties have not been good in this area, including the Greens. To be successful the game has got to be played harder and smarter.

What are your ideas?

NZ General Election 2020: Was It Rigged?

Update as @ 27/07/2025: we now know that the below blog post was 100% correct. 2020 was the year of stolen elections. In the US, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard has recently revealed the scale of the treasonous coup launched by the Obama White House, to undermine 2016 President elect, Donald Trump. I believe, the NZ election held just before the US Presidential Election in 2020 was a practice run for the real thing, the rigging of the 2020 US presidential election. Further, that all of the drama during 2020 was an exercise to effect the removal of Donald Trump. We only now know this was the case because Donald Trump was NOT assassinated in 2024, and he was duly re-elected.

I am giving this update prominence as there has been a recent daily lift in visitors to my blog and this post is top of the list. People are starting to connect the dots. I feel vindicated. At the time I wrote the below post, I only had suspicions, but now we know the truth. And my call for a recount cannot be held as all the ballots have been destroyed. Yeah - 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]

Complete Failure of NZ's Electoral System

Back in 1996 New Zealand ditched its traditional first-past-the-post electoral system, and put in its place mixed-member proportional (MMP). There can be no doubt; in a year when NZ has its eighth MMP general election, the system has been proven an outstanding failure.

How did this happen? Why did this happen? The answer to that can be found in the way MMP is structured. MMP is based on the system they have in Germany. It was used there to prevent one party coming to power. You may recall Germany's troubled past, and the rise there of a genocidal regime which resulted in the holocaust and WWII. But NZ doesn't have that kind of background, it didn't need a system to prevent what happened in Germany happening in Aotearoa.

It gets worse, given NZ's small size, the type of electoral and regional diversity Germany has, doesn't exist in NZ. Oh, I hear you say, yes it does. Err, I reply, no it doesn't, one region doesn't go to war with another and NZ doesn't have principalities. You get the idea.

So NZ embraces MMP and things...don't change that much. NZ was assured the advantage of MMP was it would deliver majority governments (where the government commands 50% or more of the popular vote). It didn't happen, what happened is NZ still received minority governments, except many of its representatives had never, could never win an electorate seat. That's the reality. And politicians who lose their electorate seat, come back in off the party list, they get to keep their jobs. It's like the cat came back, it wouldn't stay away.

Not only that, but voters never get what they voted for. The election is more like a beauty contest, you vote for whoever takes your fancy and trust them to deliver something in coalition negotiations. And what you do receive is likely to be nothing.

Then in 2017 things turned worse. The coalition between Labour and NZ First actually had fewer votes than the Opposition. Incredible but true, the coalition is propped up by the Greens, who get a pay-off in the form of ministerial positions, but avoid accountability by actually being in the government with their feet under the Cabinet table (putting a bob each way in effect).

Now the latest polling has the Greens on the precipice, just 20,000 votes away from failing to make the 5% threshold as they cannot win an electorate seat. NZ First are polling well under the 5% and they may fail to get a seat (they also have none at present). NZ has in a very short space of time, found itself right back where it was with first-past-the-post, in a close head-to-head contest, Labour vs National.

What may result, and is quite likely in fact, is one of the two will govern NZ alone, no need for a coalition agreement, and after receiving far fewer than 50% support. Where to after that? Over time I predict a splintering of political support after this period of consolidation.

To understand what I'm banging on about, consider the supermarket aisle and the soft drink selection (soda or pop for those in North America). In the early days selection may have been simple and purely price driven. That's where NZ is right now with MMP. Then as tastes change and competition heats up, new brands emerge to compete for shelf space. Now when you head down that aisle the consumer is barraged with choices. This is what I believe will happen under MMP in NZ after the price or value driven phase.

That final stage presents real dangers as we're not really talking about consumer choice. We're talking democracy, freedom Westminster-style and it could be lost. Here's how this could happen, admittedly this is more speculative, there are far too many permutations to be accurate, but read on:

1. Phase one; multiple brands with at least a seat or 5% support are far more valuable. It makes sense to segment the market, by region and political belief; town vs country, christian vs atheist, environmentalists vs industrialists - ripping the country apart - you get the idea.

2. Phase two; fifth columnists are more valuable than consensus builders. Wreckers trump builders. Reverse mergers can occur whereby party faithful from one party join the enemy and wreck the other party from within. (There is no law in NZ saying an individual cannot belong to more than one party, although most parties have their own rules preventing it. It's hard to stop spies, and in time will become impossible).

3. Phase three; secret coalition deals end up with the elite running everything. Voters will not know if a secret deal exists or not. Voters will choose a brand to their taste, but later find that party is loyal to another party altogether. Imagine buying cherry Coke only to find it turned into classic Coke. This is a distinct possibility in this MMP environment.

It's all very undemocratic and I predict it will spell the end of NZ. It will pull itself apart, critical infrastructure will be ignored in order to chase the latest fad, defence will be ignored as it offers no immediate pay-off. In the end NZ will be annexed by Australia as it can't afford to have such a weak southern neighbour.

And how soon will this happen. Originally I thought this would be in the lifetime of my grandchildren. But things are happening so fast now, I think it may be in my lifetime. Not that long then.

Heartland Party

I have written before about the need for New Zealand to have a strong political party promoting regional interests. Now is the time to form such a party.

Why right now? We have an almost impossible situation; the leader of NZ First went to Turkey in his capacity as Foreign Minister, and when there at a critical time, he fell asleep. This is the state of government in New Zealand - asleep.

Then we have the Greens with their ultra left-wing agenda, refusing to be in coalition with the government but wanting all the baubles and bangles nonetheless. It's outrageous.

There have been attempts to get parties off the ground, one most recent that comes to mind is the Conservatives which was largely backed by Colin Craig. It didn't work, face it, NZ does not vote for conservatives, the country is centre/left and will remain so.

Recently we have Vernon Tava and his version of the Greens. Problem with that, it is essentially a single issue party with a claim to be less left than Greens. It'll likely fail. There is the possibility that the whole exercise is an attempt by the Greens themselves to head off anyone looking to occupy their ground (National's Blue Greens setting up separately for instance), who knows.

Where is the potential? Think about this; there are 5 million people in New Zealand, 3.5 million of them outside Auckland. A regional party would be the voice of those 3.5 million people. That's a voter base that could rock.

I'm prepared to join such a party, but what does it need to be successful? By my estimate, at least 2,000 members. Yes, 500 are needed to register but that isn't enough. I arrive at my figure by looking at the 71 seats in NZ right now and figuring how each electorate could function as campaign entities. That means at least 28 people in each being active. 2,000 members in total.

Is this a pipe-dream? Possibly, but something has to be done or NZ is going to sink. Call me or contact me using the contact form on this page if you think you're up to it and want to make a difference.

MMP Not Working

There have been recent polls which show a trend back to the two horse race of National and Labour. The two previously dominated the electoral landscape under first-past-the-post in New Zealand. I am not sure how long this trend will continue exactly, but it will end and then I predict a splintering or segmentation of the electorate. That's because the influence of smaller parties is more powerful, meaning a vote for a smaller party is worth more. A lot more, so long as they can win an electoral seat or get over the 5% threshold.

I talk about the failings of the NZ Government and the electoral system in my book Snob's Guide to New Zealand: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1727804147. It's available on Kindle and in paperback from Amazon.

We are also witnessing the development of an unchallengeable political class which rules permanently. National are a good example of this, their leadership team seem to have been around forever. Labour are not as bad but they still have the likes of Damien O'Connor who seems to not know how to get a real job.

The reason the same faces keep popping up is due to the way MMP works. The party decides their own rate of renewal by selecting people for their party lists. Those in the know get preferential treatment, but often those receiving top spots are the very ones with no new ideas and who should be demoted. In a first-past-the-post system even a prime minister can be removed by challenging them and beating them in their own seat. This cannot happen with MMP as the prime minister would be back in parliament as they're always number one on their party list.

At the moment NZ has the worst of all worlds; the same old two party set-up has emerged, and the ruling class decide who will be the member of parliament, voters no longer get a direct say in their selection.

Snob's Guide: MMP Deeply Flawed

New Zealand's Mixed-member Proportional (MMP) electoral system is deeply flawed and Snob's Guide to New Zealand explains how and why.

The chapter, Government and Electoral System explains succinctly and accurately exactly where NZ is headed. It's a must read for anyone interested in the reality of MMP and why it is so inferior to a first-past-the-post system.

How serious is the problem? Very serious and I'm not even slightly exaggerating.

Here is the link to the Paperback on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1727804147

Snob's Guide on Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07J9XRCWK