Since 1996 we have voted under the MMP electoral system. Until now the need to highlight the difference between the current and previous electoral system has not been necessary. This time the ‘bright on the right’ have become aware that in 2026 things are different. The National Party leadership don’t see it that way. They are running a campaign for ‘two ticks blue’, asking for both your electorate and party vote.
They ignore the reality which is a matter of simple mathematics. With less than a week to go the means to get a win this way is just not there. That’s not to say it is not possible – anything is possible – but a betting person would only do so hoping for a large wad of cash in the unlikely event it did happen. The number of extra party votes required above what the polls are showing are highly unlikely to eventuate. People like Harry Mowbray, Don Brash and former National MP Maurice Williamson have seen the writing on the wall for some months. They have reached the conclusion that there is more chance of Megan Markle being voted the most popular woman in England than there is of National obtaining the number of party votes required to win the election. They are right. The consistency in the polls cannot be ignored.
The three mentioned above are encouraging people to split their votes: electorate to National, party to ACT or NZ First, which is exactly what this household has done. This method of voting (which is what MMP was designed for) gives a more definite path to the coalition returning to power. National, not unsurprisingly, prefer not to see it this way. They are continuing to promote the opposite view of 'two ticks blue' to return the coalition to power, which is a false belief. Based on the polls, '2 ticks blue' is highly unlikely to add a single additional seat for National.
Why are they doing this? The first reason is pretty self-explanatory: it is the party vote that determines the number of seats a party is entitled to in parliament and National wants to be the largest party. The second, and arguably more important reason is that it has internal leadership backsides to protect. The two most important being the liberals Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop assuming (based on polling) that Bishop will lose his electorate seat of Hutt South.
As current polls stand, National is projected to have zero list MPs. They may not like it but their only way to retain power is with a strong coalition – hence the push from many encouraging split voting.
On Saturday morning National decided to continue the hissy fit it began last week. In doing so, it managed to insult/offend both individuals and a huge number of potential voters on the right. National has complained to the Electoral Commission about Harry Mowbray’s split vote website (his son Nick is the party’s biggest donor, so go figure) and they have accused Don Brash of confusing voters with advertisements encouraging split voting.
They have accused both ACT and NZ First of “disappointing behaviour “. So David Seymour backing the National candidate in Nelson is disappointing behaviour is it? Winston backing Chris Bishop in Hutt South is disappointing behaviour is it? Why have they done that? John Key, once more poking his nose in, told voters in Epsom to dump David Seymour in favour of Paul Goldsmith; yet another one whose backside needs protecting. When it comes to disappointing behaviour, I say to Luxon and National ‘go look in the mirror’.
A win in Epsom, or indeed Tāmaki, further reduces their chances of gaining list MPs. Their strategy is baffling. National have got themselves into this mess and are now flailing around in a most unbecoming manner. This is one of the worst campaigns National has run that I can remember. Quite honestly, it reflects their performance in parliament. They also refuse to address why their party vote is so low. Instead of recognising the fact, they are trying to convince people ‘two ticks blue’ or else you’ll get a Labour-led Government – when the opposite is the case. Apart from themselves, who do they think they are trying to fool?
To say Brash’s advertising is confusing voters is patently ridiculous. WE HAVE ALREADY WORKED IT OUT. We know what the real risk is and where it lies. When National gets back into power, on the back of ACT’s and NZ First’s popularity, it needs to take a long hard look at itself and remind itself where its initial popularity came from. A clean out of the liberal leadership would be a good start. The party has lost its political compass and is now paying the price. Without change, the mechanisms used in this election will be repeated again and again.
If you want to have an honest discussion with voters you must deal in facts:
1. National’s predicted party vote is too low to bring any list MPs into the next parliament.
2. It is so low that it risks the coalition losing the election.
3. Voters on the right want ACT and NZ First to have a bigger say in the next government.
4. Those same voters feel let down by National not living up to its promises.
5. Luxon is not liked by the majority of voters on the right.
6. Voters on the right understand split voting and realise it is the only way the coalition will win the election.
National’s persistent call for ‘two ticks blue’ to avoid a Labour-led coalition being elected, is at best misleading and at worst a lie. They are putting party before country. I have no doubt Luxon and Key are driving this, supported by the liberals in the ranks. They are the ones that can be held responsible should the coalition lose the election. Every party is entitled to campaign for the party vote but to do it in a manner that risks the winning of the election puts National in a place it has never been before. It has lost the respect of its voter base. For that it, and everyone on the right, could pay a heavy price this Saturday. I hope and pray it doesn’t happen.
