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)

I was very careful not to include "weasel words" and to keep entirely neutral. I am happy to merge the paragraphs, but I want to keep it how it was otherwise. I have already explained why my lead is the best option. Aubernas (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2020 (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 [2] and explicitly [3] (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)

Further information: Talk:2023 New Zealand general election § Next vs 2023

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)

Would it be good to link in the mapmaker to this talk section? iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply) 09:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Auckland should include Whangaparāoa, New Lynn, and Papakura. Wellington should include Remutaka. Also heading for the general electorates should be "General Electorates" not "Electorate Seats". It currently implies that Electorate seats are a different category to Māori seats, which they are not.Alistairk8 (talk)

I'm sure Erinthecute would appreciate this information. I also agree that the metropolitan boundaries should be extended. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey! I made the boundaries based on the maps published in the Commission Report, which exclude those electorates. Other than that I tried to keep it consistent with the 2017 map. I'm happy to make an amended version with the changes suggested, though. Erinthecute (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. This probably applies to previous elections too but it's not a major concern, so you could certainly weigh this up against any other maps you're doing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't make the 2014 and 2017 maps, but I used them as a base for this one for consistency (and they have a good format.) Erinthecute (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

So I changed the Auckland Metro inset to include Whangaparāoa, New Lynn, and Papakura, and added Remutaka to the Wellington inset. Here's the new version. I put it on imgur so it can get a once over before I put it on Commons. I changed the names of the sections to the more accurate "General Electorates" and "Māori Electorates". I also changed the colour for the Māori Party to shades of orange, the same as in the 2005/08/011 maps, to make it easier to distinguish from Labour (nobody asked for this, but someone on Reddit mentioned it last week and it's been on my mind.) Papakura in the Auckland Metro inset bothers me a little since it's significantly bigger than the other electorates, but it's not a big deal. I also chose not to put Banks Peninsula in the Christchurch inset because it would dwarf all the other electorates and, due to limited space, would make them unreasonably difficult to see. Erinthecute (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that about the Maori Party colour, far too similar. This looks good but now I'm not sure if some Auckland electorates look too small, and if the islands north of Auckland are necessary. I'll take your word on the large Christchurch electorate but that definitely surprised me, after looking at them. Great work. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking the same about some of the Auckland electorates looking a bit small. I made a version without Papakura, keeping all the other changes, and I think it looks better - Papakura is pretty easily visible on the main map anyway. If there aren't any complaints, I might use this one. Erinthecute (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Seeing both now, I agree that Papakura shouldn't be in the inset. Thanks for adding the others. Looks excellent. Alistairk8 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.180.73.177 (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Electorate and list numerical counts in the bottom right are incorrect in the map. --Korakys (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 map with labels?

Hi there, sorry to have to ask this, but not sure how to create the images myself. I wanted to see if someone with the skills could please create a map that labels the electorates? There is such images for every NZ MMP election from 1996-2017, under electorate results (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Zealand_electorates,_2017.svg or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Zealand_electorates,_2014.svg ). But the beautiful images for 2023 and 2020 sadly lack the labels. I'm worried this could make it difficult for readers to match up which candidates run where, geographically, in future - particularly after the next census / redraw by the Representation Commission. Would be very grateful if anyone could do something about this please? Sb101FV (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC) cc: @Kiwiz1338:, @Matthew McMullin:, @TheLoyalOrder:/@Jakoats02:, @Erinthecute:, @Korakys:, @Vardion:.

Alright I've started working on one. It'll be in the style of my previous map though, i.e. absent margins of victory and list seats. Putting labels on the current one makes it too busy. It can be used as an electorate indicator map (but also showing who won each electorate). —Korakys (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I've uploaded a just barely good enough for the site version. Planning to improve it later. commons:File:2020 New Zealand electorates.svg —Korakys (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Amazing, looks great so far, thank you! Sb101FV (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Resolved in 2023 talk page. Sb101FV (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2023 (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)

I don't get the point being made either. This part of the vote is a one round majority system similar to what's used in a lot of countries for which we have tables. Besides, many countries with fully proportional system still use constituencies, for example in Sweden. And in countries with both, I've always seen both columns being there in the result section. Just a few days ago, we've got the 2020 Lithuanian parliamentary election yet again.--Aréat (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What does that column actually show though? Why would that list be useful?  Nixinova   T   C   20:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I do think we ought to have both the electorate column and party column in the results table. Without it, you're basically missing like half of all votes that were cast, and having both is standard in other election articles with similar or same electoral systems. You would be able to see the differences between the parties' electorate and party list votes too. I can say for sure it would make everything clearer certainly, since it doesn't look like there's missing information. To the right of the two columns, you'd still have the current total results column still the same. All that happens is the information is presented better and in whole rather than half which is what we have currently. I'd say we should make the change. -boldblazer (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It certainly does not make anything clearer, as the electorate vote totals don't have any influence on anything other than choosing the candidate, so having a vote total synthesised from candidate votes will just confuse readers because thats not a statistic anyone uses.  Nixinova   T   C   20:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Can't this work the other way around too? The Maori Party got a seat but only from one of the Maori Electorate seats and none from the Party seats. Only having the party list votes won't explain how they got one seat. If you separate it to include the electorate column then it would properly put that in context. -boldblazer (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No it wouldn't? The total vote count from all electorates would drown out that very slim win margin in that electorate. That doesn't solve anything.  Nixinova   T   C   21:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission uses a table almost exactly like the original table that we've been using on WP for every election since 1996. Also, the electorate votes don't have any national significance - it's only significant for who wins each electorate. It also doesn't explain how National on 26.8%, ACT on 8.0%, and Green on 7.6% all ended up having nine list seats each! Lcmortensen (mailbox) 19:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

We're not bound on wikipedia to do the same as an electoral commission. The question is : if I add the election result data later on, are you going to delete it, and if so, why exactly?--Aréat (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Because there's no consensus on the talk page to include it.  Nixinova   T   C   21:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking about the argument for doing so. "Because we're always been doing it this way" isn't an argument.--Aréat (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aréat here. There isn't anything wrong with having the full information listed like in other election articles. We don't have to present it in the exact same way as an electoral commission. I think if someone just adds it, it may as well stay since it isn't doing anything wrong. -boldblazer (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to know the argument, scroll up. I don't know what else you want.  Nixinova   T   C   23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You've only said the numbers shouldn't be there because they're for the electorate. But as it's been explained by myself and others, those are results by themselves. In every other country that use constituencies either in full or as part of a mixed system, the election page on wikipedia show the national addition of these numbers as the results. Just this year it's been done in Taiwan, Mongolia, Bermuda, Trinidad and Tobago or Ireland. And I could go further back for a pretty long list. Why is it that the New Zealand election page should be the only one to hide away the national results of the vote in its constituencies? This is very misleading. Already we've got an user on this very page who was confused about "Missing votes from the table". The table as it is give the wrong view that there was only a single vote, used for both type of seats. Such a table is for example seen on the 2017 Lesotho general election in which a single vote do in fact count for both constituencies and party list. But in every single system in which there is two separate vote, the page on wikipedia reflect it by showing both votes in separate columns, like in 2017 German federal election. Why would it be deleted away for New Zealand, and only for New Zealand?--Aréat (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The examples you give do use the same table layout as NZ ... ? And that table is under the section heading "Party votes", nothing to do with electorates.  Nixinova   T   C   03:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Those example show tables with national results of system with one seat constituencies, what I'm saying is lacking here on the NZ page. As for the title section, that's nothing a change to "Overall result" can't fix, that's not the point. The point is as I've shown above, every country in wikipedia that use a First past the post system with multiple constituencies - either alone or as part of a mixed system - has on its election page a table with the full national results. Why should NZ be the single one being different? --Aréat (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

There is an article, Results of the 2020 New Zealand general election, which contains a more detailed breakdown of the election results. The sum of the electorate vote can go in that article.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 02:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Such specific page are used to place very long tables and data that would otherwise distort greatly the election page. Not for the few column in the main table. Why should half of the votes used for the election be hidden away in this page and not be seen in the main article? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find acceptable a reversed situation in which we would only show the constituency votes and say it's fine because the party list ones have been placed in the more detailled article.--Aréat (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The nationwide party vote is the most important since they determine how many seats each party gets in parliament, whereas the nationwide electorate vote has no direct influence on the makeup of parliament. Also, I've just realised the Electoral Commission doesn't publish the nationwide totals of electorate votes for every party. If you want the laborious task of adding together the individual totals of all 17 registered parties in all 72 electorates and fully referencing them, then go ahead.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That is exactly why I'm asking beforehand if such a work would be done only for it to be deleted here.--Aréat (talk) 10:54, 19 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)

Indeed. It should be represented in the infobox (just as the Mana Party was in the infobox in 2014, Māori Party and United Future in the 2017

election articles, and so on). I have restored NZ First to the infobox. (And for what it's worth, no, IP user is not my sockpuppet!!) --Hazhk (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

lead

Kia Ora everyone. I have recently rewritten the lead, because there was little difference to lead before than what it was two weeks ago. The election has happened now, and we can confirm results. So please, if you feel it to be too long, discuss here so we can take out small parts. Someone has tried to delete the whole section, which in my opinion isn't helpful. Aubernas (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The lead being massive can be solved by trimming it down, but please, STOP reverting all the edits preceding you (going from infobox data to changes in multiple sections). Just don't attempt to impose your edit, since it's the one being contested, so the onus is on you to seek a consensus for it rather than keeping imposing it (with the subsequent undoing of others' job that it implies). Write the lead separately on your own Word, then copy-paste it or whatever, but don't just manually edit a past version since you are causing some mess to the article. Impru20^talk 13:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I didn't know that was going to be an issue. I'll just copy and paste and we can work to trim it down. But please don't revert as well or you'll be a hypocrite.Aubernas (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It feels awkward to say this, but please, don't insult. Thank you. Impru20^talk 14:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

talk Didn't mean to insult you bro, sorry :). I'm currently experiencing difficulty copying and pasting what I had before, because the citations do not remain in tact, and if I attempt to copy and paste the links from below, it doesn't work. Can you help me?Aubernas (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You can work it out in your sandbox as well (I just said Word as an example, you have multiple ways to accomplish this). Impru20^talk 14:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I know, but my concern is that the citations don't work if you copy and paste the text into the article. I'm pasting from google docs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubernas (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You can work it in your sandbox as if it was the actual text you are writing into the article (with the citations included), then just copy-paste it. That should do the job for the references to work. Impru20^talk 14:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing votes from the table

Hello everyone. I was just digging around the New Zealand Election Results site and I found something that doesn't quite match. How is it that a Heartland party candidate in Port Waikato received 7500 votes yet the table in the Results section only shows that Heartland received about 1000 votes? -boldblazer (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Electorate votes ≠ party votes. They could get many votes for a Heartland candidate in one electorate, but all those people vote for a different party.  Nixinova   T   C   21:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Why not put this information in the table to avoid confusion? Have two columns, one for electorate and one for party, like in other articles about elections where there are different types of votes? -boldblazer (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

See #Table ↑  Nixinova   T   C   02:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Getting a photo of the Māori Party Co-Leaders

I've reached out to the Māori Party for an image of John Tamihere to use on this page and his own Wikipedia page. If I get a response I'll add it to Wikimedia Commons, but if anyone here can get it done faster I'd appreciate it.

I would also like to double check that getting permission from the party is enough to upload such an image, or if I should get stronger confirmation that it's fair use. Will.torkington (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I can help if you want :). Just @ me here and I will get back to you.Aubernas (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That's great. So do you have a photo we can use of John or are you able to help getting things into Wiki Commons? I also realise now that for this page we would need a double-photo of the co-leaders like the Greens. That lead me to discover that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer also does not have a photo on her Wikipedia Page. Will.torkington (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

the lead

I feel my longer and more informative lead should be the lead. I really don't want to edit war, I just don't want a lead that is too short and leaves out key information. Look at this article, 1997 United Kingdom general election. Its lead, which I think we can agree is the main thing an average person reads on wikipedia, is a good length, without going on for too long. Why do we have to apply such a short one here? it covers so many important things, such as the LGBT+ MPs setting a world record! We would be utter and complete fools not to include that in the lead. I'm 15 and I worked very hard on this, so I would like to see a lead that is full and interesting rather than one with my information largely stripped and move to the nether of the article. At this stage for me it's getting really exhausting. Aubernas (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not a great example of a good article, see the orange tag and the [cn]s all over. Five paragraphs is also in breach of MOS:LEAD. And the point of the lead is not to cover all possible aspects, it's to briefly summarise the most important information. Try to think what someone with no knowledge at all about NZ politics would want to see in the lead: the most critical facts for understanding the context of what the election is about. Then if they're still interested they can find all the other interesting tidbits related to the election results. And I know you worked hard on the lead, but your content has not been removed, merely rearranged into areas where it is better fitted; you've basically written half the Results section.
Note to readers: further discussion has taken place at my talk page.  Nixinova   T   C   03:44–48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aubernas: Hi! Thanks for your work, it's appreciated. Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS:MOS) outlines the length of what lead sections (MOS:LEADLENGTH) should be, and also outlines what the lead is meant to include: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. While the lead, based on the current length of the article, is best around three–four paragraphs, the current length of the paragraphs are too long and include too much intricate detail about voting tactics, and have several weasel word and neutrality issues. I think for everyone's sake, and to avoid any disruptive editing or edit wars, it's best that we all back off and talk this through until we can find some common ground to work on.

@Pokelova, Nixinova, and Davide King: Are we all okay to put a pause of editing the lead and find a consensus on what is to be included, and what isn't? If so, I'll tag the article with {{In use}} so people know that we're working on it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I've identified the areas of difference between the two leads on my talk page, so there shouldn't be any risk of edit conflicts if its decided some information should be re-added, so no template is needed I don't think.  Nixinova   T   C   03:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Aubernas, please hold off on re-adding the information to the page until a consensus here is made, constantly re-adding it will cause problems with edit conflicts and overwriting intermediary edits.  Nixinova   T   C   03:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nixinova: Personally, I think there's still a little bit of work to be done - especially in the second paragraph, there's quite a lot of excessive detail that isn't absolutely critical to the election (such as tactical preferences by the Greens', and listing specific minor electorates). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The Greens bit is also improperly sourced, so yes they asked for the party vote over the candidate vote, tactically ensuring candidates running against Labour would not split the vote in National's favour. should probably be removed, and taking Waiariki from Tāmati Coffey may also be too much info, but at the moment I'm gonna hold off on touching the lead until t←h↑i↓s→ is sorted out.  Nixinova   T   C   04:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I was very careful not to include "weasel words" and to keep entirely neutral. I am happy to merge the paragraphs, but I want to keep it how it was otherwise. I have already explained why my lead is the best option. Aubernas (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aubernas: Terms like "worst defeats", "superior public support", and "its vast support" don't really lend themselves to neutrality - especially when these terms aren't used in the sources. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

this is all just so stressful and depressing. all i ever wanted was a good strong lead, and no matter what I do it always gets reverted. What am i even doing here?Aubernas (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aubernas: Unfortunately, Wikipedia can be like that a lot. It's a very heated environment, and often different perspectives are equally as valid, leading to a lot of tension. Speaking from personal experience, it's sometimes best to just let it go and find a different article or topic that you're passionate about (or maybe less passionate about - we're all too passionate about everything). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't feel bad about it -- Wikipedia is all about making bold changes that are then discussed to form a general consensus (see WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS). Your edits are helpful, so please don't be discouraged from editing further.  Nixinova   T   C   04:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aubernas, could you post your proposed lead here? It would be easier for us to make changes and possibly use much of the content you've written. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip and Aubernas: If you've like somewhere a bit clearer to work on this, feel free to use my personal sandbox. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I put their proposed lead here. Press the "diff" button next to "Next revision →" to see the changes.  Nixinova   T   C   04:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm intending to edit the proposal though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip and Nixinova: Since Wikipedia:Sandbox is used by the entire project (it's already been written over lol), I've pasted the full one into the sandbox (User:ItsPugle/drafting) on my user page. I'm not trying to take ownership or anything like that, you're all perfectly free to do whatever you want to it, but it's safer from being written over there than on the main sandbox. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ItsPugle. I've made significant changes to the proposal here. Also notifying Aubernas and Nixinova. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the Swarbrick line should be removed and the surrounding lines merged into one paragraph to group the seats results all together and keep the paragraph count okay.  Nixinova   T   C   05:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that line is fine but it's more about the Green Party than Swarbrick herself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip and Nixinova: Let's see if we can find any more sources that highlight that seat. If there are, then I think we have enough evidence to qualify it's inclusion in the lead. Otherwise, we might have to remove it. Personally though, I think it's a significant thing: a smaller left-wing party took a whole electorate from the largest right-wing party in three years... Btw, I've also just added a little note after the second paragraph - we just need to find some sources for the last two sentences, especially the last since it's a less than favourable picture. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC) @Onetwothreeip: Btw, my description of NZF as a populist nationalist party is just based on the description we have on New Zealand First. I'm not fussed either way, but I think something (even "nationalist party" or "right-wing" etc) to just place it on the political spectrum might be good. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I would support "centre nationalist". Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Hm, my Googling seems to show that it's more right-wing or centre-right, than centre, and has significant populist descriptions. This The Conversation article seems quite useful here:

• The party [New Zealand First] promotes itself as centrist, but quite what that means has not always been clear.
• In short, its policies are more centre-right than they are centrist.

There's also this Time article: Under pressure from farmers and her coalition partners in the right-wing New Zealand First,....

In terms of populist, there's this page (New Zealand First (Aotearoa Tuatahi) is a nationalist populist party currently in government with the Labour Party...), this ANU report (Immediately after New Zealand’s 2017 general election, populist party New Zealand First gained a pivotal role...), and this NYT report (...by a partnership with the populist, center-right New Zealand First Party...). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with "populist nationalist" if it was accompanied with an explanation that it was a coalition partner of Labour. I would also like to say to Aubernas that I encourage them to continue to contribute, but that it would be better to go into detail further down the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Perfect, I'm happy with that. I've just added that to User:ItsPugle/drafting: Populist nationalist party New Zealand First, led by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters in coalition with Labour.... ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and we've got a new issue: the photo for Debbie Ngarewa-Packer couldn't be shown to be owned by the uploader, so it was deleted off commons. Since the 2020 general election article isn't about Ngarewa-Packer, we can't upload any files locally since it wouldn't be fair use, and I can't seem to find any CC licensed alternatives out there... ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

New MPs

Great to see us having bios for all new MPs up by the time I opened my eyes this morning (and I opened them before 6am!). Good stuff, especially considering how many there were. I've just had a look: in 2011 we had 25 new MPs, in 2014 it was 23 (plus 4 who had previously been MPs), and in 2017 it was 31 first timers (plus 2 returnees). I've just heard on the news that this time, we have 40 new MPs. What a landslide election that was!

I was wondering whether somebody would want to compile a list of newbies. That hasn't been done previously but it's useful to do for maintenance purposes. Easier to go through the articles and check for completeness if you know which articles to look for. Schwede66 06:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have put the list on the results article here. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 07:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! Thx. Schwede66 18:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

0 preamble

My interest is about 1), 2) & 3) aspects of the Infobox on the right edge and 4) Party colours as displayed throughout this page.

1) For 2020 six parties are shown. For the previous election seven parties. It might be easier to read this section of the Infobox if the parties selected were shown alongside on one another, below the preamble text.

2) The rows under each party, to my eye, differently displayed for the previous election and the current election.

The current 7 row headings are:

a) Last election 14 seats, 10.70%
b) Seats before 14
c) Seats won 8
d) Seat change Decrease 6
e) Popular vote 162,443
f) Percentage 6.27%
g) Swing Decrease4.43 pp

I suggest the following 4 row headings:
a) Last election 14 seats, 10.70%
c) Seats won 8 seats, 6.27&
d) Seat change -6
e) Popular vote 162,443, -4.43%

In other words:
Delete row 2 - with MMP, parties seem to go out of their way to avoid by-elections so as to avoid any provisions of the Electoral Act that might be triggered by a change of party.
Combine rows c) and f) so they look like existing row a)
Combine rows e) and f) to give a similar feel to rows a) and c) and give a (relevant) focus to the % change
Deprecate the words "Increase" and "Decrease"
Replace the word "Decrease" with "-" in front of the number (integer or percentage) or continue with up and down arrows. /n

I appreciate this will involve adjusting the series table that feeds this Infobox. So be it. I am sure the suggested layout will ease editing issues going forward. I am happy to be involved if someone can instruct me where to find the underlying series table.

3) The intensity of party colours to show change in Party Vote by Electorate.

The issue, for me, being at the higher rates of change all colours tend to very dark shades that, for me, make them almost indistinguishable from one another in this part of the Infobox. This leads into interest 4) Party colours themselves.

For this section I suggest:
3a) This part of the Infobox gets it own, larger, section; or
3b) The shades of colours used in the first two segments and the changes table are adjusted, where necessary, to easily see a differentiation. See 4) below for a discussion.

4) Party colours as displayed throughout this page.

I appreciate the party colours are a given external to this page. And shown in sufficient size and alongside other distinguishing information, such as Party name or the name/photo of the leader(s) the exact shade is not relevant. On the other hand, such as in these thumbnail maps and devoid of other distinguishing info, some colours in small boxes can be easily confused when getting the message across quickly is the aim.

For 2020 those that colours that seem to be similar in small parcels on screen are those for Labour and Maori. I would like to be able to distinguish between them at a glance, especially when other distinguishing information is not present.

I am sure there is definite externally sourced hex code for each colour and any change, even for good reason, may invite controversy. For example: the colours used throughout this page appear to be: \n Labour = #D82A20 (RGB = 212, 042, 032) \n Maori_ = #B2001A (RGB = 178, 000, 026) \n

From the logos registered with the Electoral Commission I selected a reasonably consistent section from each. \n

The browser app in https://imagecolorpicker.com/en/ found the dominant colours in .jpg files of the parties logos to be: \n Labour = #D82C1C (RGB = 212, 044, 028)
Maori_ = #D4061F (RGB = 212, 006, 031)
These are very close, with that for the Maori Party being a tad darker.

The browser app in https://html-color-codes.info/colors-from-image/ found the dominant colours in .jpg files of the parties logos to be:
Labour = #D72B1F (RGB = 211, 043, 031)
Maori_ = #D4292F (RGB = 208, 041, 047)
These are very close, again with that for the Maori Party being a tad darker.

But all three are slightly different from one another to suggest there is not one agree shade for either party.

I suggest, coupling this page wide issue with the Infobox issue at 3) above, that two obviously different shades are each other an which retain that difference when lightened and darkened for interest 3) above.

My suggestion for each these two parties is:
Labour = #FF0000 (RGB = 255, 000, 000)
Maori_ = #DD7979 (RGB = 221, 121, 121)
These seem to lighten well for 10% and 20% reductions. Darkening is a bit of a challenge as the colours are quite dark to start with.

I look forward to comments.

AlwynWellington (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"Pre-election standings" section

Hey! Just looking at the "general election" section, I feel as though the visual complexity of a table and prominence of the party rainbow gives undue weight to the status quo - no sources that I've seen actually make a special mention of the pre-election parliamentary organisation, and someone mindlessly scrolling down could very easily see the parliament layout and think that's the new one rather than read the impossibly tiny, low-contrast disclaimer underneath. I've gone ahead and removed the template, especially since we already describe the pre-election parliament with more relevant detail in the first paragraph of the Background section, but thought that I'd leave this little blurb here so people can see why I've removed it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Reason for revert

Yesterday, the words "two referendums" in this article were changed to "two referenda" and an edit summary said Corrected grammar (the plural of referendum is referenda, NOT referendums. That opinion is not widely accepted. Firstly,the word "referendums" is an English word, not Latin. Secondly, my revert has returned the article to the status quo usage that is widespread in Wikipedia. See the following articles Referendums by country, Referendums in New Zealand and 1894–1987 New Zealand alcohol licensing referendums. Moriori (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor corrections: Both referendums and referenda are correct English words; and articles written in New Zealand English do not have to comport with American or British English articles. In saying that, yes, we should be consistent across NZ English articles, and the current standard seems to be referendums over referenda (against my own desires). — HTGS (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

We should go off what sources use – "referendums" gives 24k results while "referenda" gives 4k results in the news tab. So, "referendums" should be used, although it is not predominant.  Nixinova   T   C   01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Updating

Changes are necessary in some of #3 Schedule to take into account that writs were issued and the election has taken place. Mcljlm (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

MPs standing for re-election as List-only MPs

Can someone please explain this table? I suspect additions have been made at some point that aren't formatted properly, but the column Electorate/List makes very little sense at this point. My impression is that every candidate in this table should be a list candidate, so maybe the entries for Genter and Garcia should have their former electorate seats listed in this column.

Further: is it also the case that this table only lists candidates who have moved to the list from holding an electorate? Or are we listing every candidate who formerly stood for an electorate in 2017 and then didn't in 2020 (i.e. Genter)? I am doubting both the clarity/completeness (what needs improving) and the purpose/usefulness (whether it should even exist) of a list like this. — HTGS (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added a line of prose. I hope that's now clear. Regarding completeness, it appears that it's not complete. David Parker had stood in Epsom in 2017 but was a list-only candidate in 2020. Schwede66 01:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Also Winston Peters stood in Northland in 2017 and stood list-only in 2020. Imo Garcia/Genter/Parker/Peters should not appear in the table. They were list MPs before the election. They stood for re-election as list mps. Alistairk8 (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Next

In the latest yyyy New Zealand general election article, there is always a word "Next" in the infobox that points to the subsequent election. And it regularly gets changed to a particular year, which is WP:CRYSTAL as we can have a snap election at any time. In the current parliamentary term, only if an early election hasn't been called by October 2022, we know that the election will be held in 2023. It takes a wee while for an election to go through the process after being called and it must be held within the time frame specified of the law. So by October 2022, we'll know that it will be held in 2023. Before then, a snap election may be held in an earlier year. Anybody changing "Next" to "2023" will have their edit reverted. Schwede66 21:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

landslide?

Much as we are proud of the Labour Party's success, it was not a landslide as usually defined. The party received 48 percent of the votes, not a majority, and only 10 seats more than the other parties (put together).

The term landslide applies where the governing party gets say 60 percent of the votes and 80 percent of the seats or more. A landslide election is one where one party takes so many seats that it leaves few or no seats to the others. That is how Wikipedia defines landslide. if that is the definition, then NZ's 2020 election was not a landslide election. A decisive victory, yes but not a landslide.

Un-balanced landslide results do actually happen in some FPTP elections. Thankfully, NZ's MMP elections are held more proportional-ly than that, and the result was more balanced than that. A different term should apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.222.51 (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Judith Collins MP.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)