Talk:2020 New Zealand general election

Background, timeline, current standings

@Lcmortensen: Interesting how you can purge things from this article without valid explanation, and i'm the the one who has to begin a discussion.

Background

Having a brief background on the pervious election is at least common among wikipedia election articles. see: Next Australian federal election, 43rd Canadian federal election, Next German federal election etc. Even if this wasn't a common practice, I still think its useful to have a brief description of the previous election for context. We even had it in some form in the 2017 election article. It should stay.

Timeline=

The timeline isn't quite as common as an election background, however both the Next Australian federal election and 43rd Canadian federal election articles have this practice. I just think its useful and harmless to have information on major events in parliament, especially since such events can drastically affect election results. This one is more debatable.

Current standings

The removal of this is completely unjustified. Even the 2017 election article had a table of the previous election result. This definitely should not have been removed. Clesam11 (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Background - no objection to this now - just seems to be repeating information already in the lead.

Timeline - this is better placed in the 52nd New Zealand Parliament article, since it doesn't relate directly to the election. Remember that everything that swung the 2017 election happened within the regulated period (last three months) - before then it looked like the election would be a repeat of 2014.

Current standings - there was a list of current standings in the 2017 article; it was included in Parties and candidates. The article for this election already includes this information under the heading Potential parties and candidates, and under Background - no need to repeat for a third time.

Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lcmortensen: The timeline I can understand being removed. However, when it comes to current standings, that table also included any seat changes, something the parties and candidates table doesn't. That, once again, should stay. I don't understand why you want to remove valid information that reflects changes in the seats in parliament. Clesam11 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the current standings table gives a visual explanation to how the Labour came to be in government, showing which parties came together to form the government. Clesam11 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need "current standings" for a parliament that is only 33 days old? If you want a visual explanation, stick with a layout of the House.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That would make sense if that parliament was dissolving tomorrow, haha. Over time there will likely be seat changes, this table represents that. You completely ignored what I said about seat changes. This layout of the house doesn't not mention or visualize seat changes.Clesam11 (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Over time there will likely be seat changes - remember Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: likely is not equal to almost certain. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 23:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting very frustrated. The current seats column is used to show seats as of current, as in, post-2017 general election. Because seats can change that column is necessary, I am not claiming to predict the future and you know that. Stop removing this.Clesam11 (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lcmortensen: Are you seriously going to claim in your edit description that we haven't been talking about this? Give me one valid reason why a current standings table is not appropriate. Clesam11 (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lcmortensen: You refuse to communicate with me and are reverting my edits without explanation. Clesam11 (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Clesam11:. I have told you again and again - the table is not required in the article because no seat changes have yet to occur. A picture of the house layout and the prose is sufficient explanation. Don't add stuff about things that could potentially never happen. No other New Zealand election article has a table on how the party fared before the election. Pleae don't revert again otherwise this will go to higher authorities for edit warring. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 00:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, can I have some clarification on how someone is going to know if a seat change has occurred, or if a by-election has taken place? Are they going to guess? Your argument isn't even just flimsy, it makes no sense at all. The "current seats" column was displaying the current seats in parliament, claiming that it violates Wikipedia's crystal ball policy is ludicrous. The current standings table displayed currently available and acurate information, there was absolutely no prediction or speculation involved AT ALL.

Your edits are not at all justified by claim of crystal ball violation and I will be reverting them again. Consequently a higher authority will make their judgement and i'm at terms with that. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think I was in the right. Clesam11 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Clesam11 here: the inclusion of the table doesn't necessarily imply any speculation in changes in composition in the future; its relevance to the article is that it shows the current composition of the House of Representatives. Might it be redundant to the infobox? Yes, but the inclusion of such a table is far from without precedent. Mélencron (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

From New Zealand general election, 2011:

"At the 2008 election, the National Party had 58 seats, the Labour Party 43 seats, Green Party 9 seats, ACT and Māori Party five each, and Progressive and United Future one each. During the Parliament session, two members defected from their parties – Chris Carter was expelled from Labour in August 2010, and Hone Harawira left the Māori Party in February 2011. Carter continued as an independent, while Harawira resigned from parliament to recontest his Te Tai Tokerau electorate in a by-election under his newly formed Mana Party. Two MPs resigned from Parliament before the end of the session, John Carter of National and Chris Carter, but as they resigned within 6 months of an election, their seats remained vacant.
"At the dissolution of the 49th parliament on 20 October 2011, National held 57 seats, Labour 42 seats, Green 9 seats, ACT 5 seats, Māori 4 seats, and Progressive, United Future and Mana one each."

Use prose for if and when the change does occur - no table needed and much more room to explain the changes. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 01:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lcmortensen: It's hard to keep track of what your criticism is. You've gone from accusing me of predicting the future, to saying visualizing the information with an infobox is unnecessary. Either way, you've reported me and at this point a higher authority can make their judgement. Let's leave it at that Clesam11 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Clesam11: If people didn't ramble on and followed with what has gone before them, then there would be no need to have this conversation. In summary, you can at least draw one conclusion: I DON'T WANT THE TABLE! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 01:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Table format

@Clesam11: regarding your reverts on my edits to the tables on this page, I'm just seeking your rationale to format the tables this way. I think the way they are now (without lines) actually makes them more difficult to read, progressively more so the longer the table. It also runs counter to all precedent set on previous election pages. Thus, I feel such a change should be discussed properly and changed only if a consensus is reached. Kiwichris (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Clesam removed the lines, but then reinstated them with the edit summary "Tidy wikitable". The table now overruns the right side of my screen worse than it did before. Akld guy (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Akld guy: Sorry to hear that! That's likely an issue with the size of your monitor/screen resolution. It's mostly an issue with fitting large amounts of information in a wikitable (ideology column, multiple leaders, etc.) Feel free to adjust it to fit your monitor better if you'd like.

@Kiwichris:I guess its a matter of personal perspective; I find the seat projections much tidier and clearer to read in that format, not to mention it's been in that format for a couple of months now with no complaints. If it is to be changed to the standard wikitable format, i'd at least like it to look tidier than it did with your edits (columns being similarly proportioned, etc.) Thanks. Clesam11 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Does it have to be vertical? It'd be more compact in a horizontal format, IMO, but I get that the UK articles also do it this way. Mélencron (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mélencron: That's actually good idea. I've noticed the Swedish and Norwegian polls have a different approach to summarizing coalition possibilities that could work better. We could give it a go! Clesam11 (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

One thing I probably should have mad clearer is that I was also referring to a template (Template:2020 NZ election forecasts) which is hosted on this page. My suggestion is that it replicate the established format used in Template:2017 NZ election forecasts with the lines to make it clearer and easier to read. Kiwichris (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Clesam11: As the co-leaders of the green party are co-leaders, should both individuals pictures be displayed in the right hand table? --pwapwap (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pwapwap: Absolutely, I doubt anyone would have a problem with that. I think that nobody has bothered to update it, rather than it being an explicit choice/preference haha. Feel free to set that up if you're keen! Clesam11 (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

2020 general election

What is the latest date that a snap election can be called that can be held before year's end? Or in other words, when do we move this article to 2020 New Zealand general election? Schwede66 20:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I would think snap elections couldn't be held only a month out and there has been no interest or even mentioned of a 2019 snap election. On Snap election#New Zealand it says that the 2002 election was held 43 days after it was announced. 43 days from now is 24 December and I highly doubt any elections would be held around Christmas/New Year, especially since no mention of elections has been made yet, so it's probably safe to move the page now.  Nixinova  T / C   07:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

List-only MPs

So what is the scope for the List-only MPs section? I had always been under the impression that it was for electorate MPs only contesting on the party list. Right now it includes Paulo Garcia and Julie Anne Genter who have only ever been list MPs and have announced they aren't contesting electorates. The former seems worth mentioning as it is a noticeable change, but the later isn't really much of a change at all. Kiwichris (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We have sections for list MPs in election and electorate articles. I suggest that it's sensible to think of them having different scopes:

• In an electorate article, the scope are those who contested the electorate but got in on the list instead.
• In an election article, the scope could be those who are on a party list only. Schwede66 21:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe this section should only be for incumbent electorate MP's who are not contesting their seat, but still on the party list. This would include Adams, Bennett, Faafoi, Wall and Tolley but not Garcia and Genter. Ajf773 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. That's similar to the argument that list MPs aren't proper MPs. Schwede66 04:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course they are proper MP's. But why is it to be noted that MP's who formerly contested electorates they didn't win, should contest the list only the following election? Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

They are members of the current parliament and are going into the election on the list only. Schwede66 17:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

But they aren't giving up an electorate seat. They're just going back for re-election as a list MP. Ajf773 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we encourage others to chip in. Schwede66 04:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Put Advance NZ in infobox?

Kia ora folks,

I'm not going to do this unilaterally but now that the Advance NZ has been registered and has a seat in Parliament, should they be on the infobox? --MerrilyPutrid (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Parliament.nz still has him listed as Independent, so I don't know if one can say that ANZ does have a seat in parliament technically.--Pokelova (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Pokelova, if his profile is updated to say he's no longer independent then he should be added.  Nixinova   T   C   07:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why the requirement for the Parliament website to be updated exists. A member of Parliament is very clearly a member of Advance NZ, and if that's the ground for inclusion on the infobox, then they should be included. But additionally, the Independent Coalition wasn't on the 2014 election infobox. So should the ground for inclusion at this stage be "won a seat at the last election" or "holds a seat"? I think it's good to establish this now so as to avoid edit wars in the future. --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

He's currently an independent MP, he's contesting the next elections an Advance NZ candidate. Ajf773 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the last time we had this situation was with Brendan Horan at the 2014 election. He got expelled from New Zealand First, was in parliament as an independent for a while and then set up the NZ Independent Coalition. That party went into the 2014 with Horan as a sitting MP but going by the infobox just prior to the election, they were not included. And that, to my mind, was the right decision and we should do the same again. Schwede66 05:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Take down

This page should be taken down at once. It is clearly a potential vehicle for political campaigning. And frankly, whoever found a flattering photo of that Thatcherite vampire Collins is undermining the platform. Seriously, take down. Leonotopodium (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete your account.--Pokelova (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I will if this page remains in its current form. Leonotopodium (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It will remain, so go ahead. Stick to botany.--Pokelova (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Trying to comply. Get "It is not possible to delete user accounts, as all contributions must be assigned to some identifier; either a username or an IP address." Leonotopodium (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Your best option is to ask to get blocked. On your talk page; that’s better than here (I’ve put your page onto my watchlist). Schwede66 17:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

2023 New Zealand general election

Discussing here before the page is created. I think the next election article should be titled 2023 New Zealand general election straight away instead of Next New Zealand general election. I do know that WP:NCELECT says For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next ..., however this is more aimed towards e.g. UK elections which seem to happen randomly, unlike here. NZ has a de facto triennial election cycle and this hasn't been broken for 70 years; not even a pandemic has nudged the election date too far. Moving straight to 2023 would help prevent links being broken or confused, as any external or even internal links to the "Next" page will point to a completely different page every three years (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Next New Zealand general election: none of these links point to their expected pages, and off-wiki it would be a whole lot worse). The "2023" date is even used by official sources such as [1] and explicitly [2] (The next general elections are in 2020 and 2023.), so "2023" is definitely the WP:COMMONNAME at least. And in the extremely rare chance a snap election is held in 2021 or 2022 we can just move the page there, no biggie, the links will be very easy to fix, and external ones will still work.  Nixinova   T   C   21:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It's likely it would be held in 2023, but you don't have a Fixed-term Parliaments Act as is the case with the UK, so the date is not set in law, and as you say there's always the chance of a snap election. Regardless of tradition, elections in NZ are held on a date decided by the prime minister and the prime minister can always decide to go to the polls early for whatever reason. Really we can't be 100% certain the next election is in 2023 until the end of 2022, so I think we should stick with the current name until a bit closer to then. This is Paul (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree as per WP:CRYSTAL. Next New Zealand general election is the right page name and once the election date is confirmed, we can then move the page. I would suggest that the page be created after we've had our general election, though, just so that we avoid confusion. Schwede66 02:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The map

I'm think the metro area boundaries are quite overrestricted. Remutaka isn't included in the Wellington-specific map, even though it is a Wellington electorate just as much as Hutt South and Mana and it was included in the last two election maps. New Lynn isn't included either, even though it is very much still an urban electorate. There are also others that are debatable such as Whangaparāoa and Banks Peninsula. What do you think? YttriumShrew (talk), 06:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was just me! The Auckland and Wellington insets look very odd without those two electorates, to my eyes. As you say, Remutaka was included in the last two maps, and nothing about it has changed except the spelling. The last two maps also include Hunua at the bottom of the Auckland inset, and at a glance it was similar to size to or even bigger than the current version of New Lynn.MW691 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Political spectrum

From my ignorance, is it true that actual Labour Party is on centre-left? I think it is centre-right, and National Party is a right party.--2802:8000:8AC:AA00:DCC0:4EF4:27BD:2BCF (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

In the context of New Zealand politics, the centre lies between the Labour and National parties. In an international context, it may well be that the centre is to the left of Labour. See for example political compass.-gadfium 04:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

How accurate is that site? Trump is only two squares away from National and thats, y'know, nowhere close to the truth.  Nixinova   T   C   06:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nixinova: I'm not making any claims for political compass. I used it as an example of a site that doesn't appear to be fringe that shows the OP has a case. I think we should use the NZ context when assessing political positions.-gadfium 08:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Table

I don't get why my edit of the table was reverted. According to the section on the electoral system "Each voter gets two votes, one for a political party (the party vote) and one for a local candidate (the electorate vote). ". There should thus be two columns, like with german elections, right?--Aréat (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The table was correct already. The first-past-the-post bit is only for the electorates, not the party vote.  Nixinova   T   C   07:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and the table I added didn't mix the two. One column for the electorate on the First past the post system, and another for the party vote. There's two different votes per voters, so different numbers, right? Or maybe there is something I didn't get. But if there's really two different sets of votes, it should be shown, like on 2017 German federal election.

 Summary of the 17 October 2020 election for the House of Representatives

Party		First past the post			Proportional			Total seats	+/-
		Votes	%	Seats	Votes	%	Seats

--Aréat (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Electorate votes don't matter outside of their electorate, so they shouldn't be in a table dedicated to totals. I'm assuming the "Constituency" is just a sum of the votes for that party's candidates in each electorate right? That has no meaning overall which is why its absent from this table.  Nixinova   T   C   08:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the case for German elections as well but constituency votes are displayed anyway for completeness. If you follow the logic that the votes shouldn't be displayed because they have no effect outside of each individual constituency, then no vote totals should be shown for elections that use only single-member constituencies, ie general elections in the UK. Erinthecute (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand First?

This party is mentioned in the lead as part of the outgoing coalition but neither the lead nor the infobox, nor as far as I can see the rest of the article, say what results it got. Was it dissolved or did it just fail to win any seats, or something else? Maybe a knowledgeable editor could add a line and an infobox entry? 83.159.74.201 (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)