Analysis by Keith Rankin.
Role: Economic historian.
Keith Rankin, 10 July 2026 – National currently has 43 electorates seats, which represents 36% of all seats in a 120-seat Parliament. If National was to get 30% of the party vote and to retain all its electorates, it would be entitled to 36 seats in total (37 seats in practice, given some ‘wasted’ votes); although if Opportunity were to just miss out, that number would probably rise to 39 seats.
With 37 entitled seats, and all electorates retained, there would be a National overhang of six seats. Such an overhang could help the National-led coalition to retain power; albeit without Nicola Willis and Paul Goldsmith.
(In 1993, National got 35% of the vote, entitling it to 35 seats in a 99-seat Parliament. It won 50 seats, meaning that if that election was held under MMP, National would have had a substantial overhang. But it still would have lost that election, because there would have been fewer bigger electorates; only FPP – First Past the Post – saved National’s bacon in 1993.)
Labour presently has 17 electorate seats. Other parties have 11. The distribution of electorate seats may well not change very much in 2026.
The Arithmetic
Total seats are determined by party vote percentages. But electorate seats are determined, in New Zealand’s experience, mainly by the two-party National-Labour swing. (New Zealand voters are generally encouraged to consider the MMP electorate vote as a party vote, even though technically it’s a personal vote. Journalists tend to say things like ‘voting for National in the Tukituki candidate vote’, rather than ‘voting for Wedd in the Tukituki candidate vote’.)
What is new this time is that the two-party National-Labour swing is looking more muted than usual when one of those is struggling. Both parties’ polled percentages are in the doldrums. This means that, while National may lose a small number of electorates, it probably won’t lose many.
So, if National gets 30% of the vote, it may well be the least unpopular party in the new Parliament. But it will need to lose seven electorate seats in order to get Willis back into parliament; and eight to save Goldsmith.
Given that National will almost certainly lose some of its electorates – including my own of Waitakere (formerly New Lynn) – National will be unwise to pursue an overhang strategy. National may lose six electorates, just enough to lose its overhang but not enough to gain any list MPs.
Clearly National’s best strategy is to try to get its party vote up to 36%, which should gain National two list MPs. But 36% seems like a tall order. National only got 38% in 2023, when it easily outpolled the next largest party.
(And what if National’s Melissa Lee wins Mt Albert from Labour? The winner in Mt Albert – a four-cornered contest this year – may only need to get 30% of the electorate vote. Lee got 33.5% in 2023, and nearly won.)
Another trick might be, in electorates where current MPs have retired, for the new candidate to ‘have a cup of tea’ with the Labour candidate Gary Payinda, and campaign for the party vote only. For example, Lloyd Budd in Whangarei; though such a budding politician would probably be reluctant. Further, there are only four electorates in this situation.
(Though if Christopher Luxon is pushed, I suspect that he would be a late withdrawal as a candidate; National could then choose to not contest Botany. Then Melissa Lee could ‘fall on her sword’, and endorse Labour’s Helen White to win Mt Albert. Maybe not. Another issue; I see that Labour are running medical doctors in at least two electorates, Whangarei and Napier. These men, I presume, are desperately needed in their communities as doctors.)
A further trick might be to put pressure on an electorate MP to resign soon after the election – maybe Penny Simmonds who is now a superannuitant – so that Nicola Willis could take her place. While the by-election strategy worked for Andy Burnham in the United Kingdom, I can think of only one similar case in New Zealand; Robert Stout.
(Sir Joseph Ward – Prime Minister 1906-1912 and MP for Awarua, south of Invercargill, from 1887 to 1919 – did try to win the Tauranga seat in a 1923 by-election, but failed; and his Party was then in Opposition. But Robert Stout – another former Prime Minister [NZ’s youngest before Jacinda Ardern] – did shift from Dunedin to Inangahua to win the 1893 by-election; but he was too late to push Richard Seddon out of the Premier’s job. Having challenged Seddon, he was not invited into Seddon’s Cabinet. Inangahua was not to the urbane Stout’s liking; he became MP for City of Wellington in the 1893 general election.)
My guess is that, if National does get to form a government (after the 2026 election) despite having no list MPs, then David Seymour will be insisting on becoming Minister of Finance. Or Shane Jones? New Zealand First might have more leverage than Act. Jones would at least move the government away from stultifying neoliberalism, much as Bill Birch eased the pain in 1994.
Re Nicola Willis, it is interesting that the electorate of Wellington North looks like being a three-cornered contest. Jonathan Pitts might just win for National. He could then be asked to stand-down in favour of Nicola Willis; for him, that would be the pits, and Willis might not win the subsequent by-election. Should she fail to get back into Parliament, Nicola Willis could succeed Ruth Richardson at the New Zealand Taxpayers Union; as soon as Ms Richardson retires, that is. In that role, Willis might have more influence and less responsibility than she has at present.
About the writer:
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.