Talk:Party lists in the 2014 New Zealand general election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

New Zealand: Politics Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Laser Kiwi flag#Lucy Gray|Lucy Gray]] The anchor (#Lucy Gray) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Up and down

Instead of plus and minus signs, I suggest using {{gain}} and {{loss}}. This can reduce the confusion caused by a positive gain resulting in a lower number, which is a higher list ranking. Adabow (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National list

Fanx, regarding the removal of those candidates who were not on the official list, we need to think about the best way forward. As it stands, we have three National candidates who appear in results tables as having contested an electorate who are no longer shown on this page. There are other problems arising from the shortening of the list, too. I wonder whether we should in some way reflect who wasn't on the official list without removing them completely. Any thoughts? Schwede 66 04:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was an oversight on my part. Probably a sub-list of candidates who were originally on the National list but not on the official list would be appropriate. Fan

| talk | 06:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How have we handled it in the past, just ignored the official list probably? Maybe we could list the extras but put an asterix/footnote next to their list ranking that states that the electoral commission's official list stops at 65? Mattlore (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a restriction to 65 list members imposed by the Electoral Commission? Schwede 66 23:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2011 election Labour had 70 on their list, and National had 75 (in 2008 National had 72, and Labour 77). In the past we have stuck precisely to the official list - not that I recall any previous such case where prospective list candidates were so unceremoniously dumped. Any prospective candidates that the parties wish to mislead into believing they've been given the nod is a matter for the parties themselves - and those candidates they've strung along with the promise of a list position. It could also be that some of those on the phantom list decided a 70+ list ranking wasn't worth anything so perhaps some demurred. If there was a restriction on the number of names a party could submit I suspect there would have been a lot of noise about it, and many more National candidates for safe seats declining a list position as National were the only party with any realistic chance of exceeding their list. Instead we find that every National MP returned had a list rank, and the only party that habitually returns non-list candidates is Labour. Fan

| talk | 01:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall previously that the party lists printed and distributed by the electoral commission prior to the election were capped, so it will be interesting to see when the E9 is released this time if the list is actually back to having 74 candidates. Mattlore (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the proof, Despite the table listing 75 list candidates for National, the "maximum number on the published list is 65" (bottom of the page) [1]. Based on this I think we should return to listing all 75 candidates, rather than only the 65 that are published. Mattlore (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. The table of that page shows that National had 75 list and 64 electorate candidates. On that basis, they should be all included. All agreed? Schwede 66 04:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as proof there are only 65 on the list and that there may be a restriction on list size, whereas you take it to mean they will only publish the first 65 names. If it turns out you are correct when E9 is published then we can add them back in, until then the official list shows only 65 names so it should stay as that in the meantime. We should not be in the business of predicting what the Electoral Commission means by this, particularly since in previous elections full lists up to 77 names have been published. It does seem peculiar that EC would publish information that is patently untrue - I still have the party lists as mailed out with my Easy Vote card - and it still says that there are 65 candidates in National's list. All it says is, "Any list seats to which a party is entitled are filled from its list of candidates in the order they appear here, after deleting any candidates who have won electorate seats. Candidates who stand for an electorate only will not appear here." Nothing about truncating lists to save ink, or paper, or Maui dolphins, or any other spurious reason. If anyone can produce a 2008 or 2011 paper Party List document from EC that shows only 65 names when the party list on their (EC's) website now shows more then we might have a case to include this phantom list before E9 is released - until then it should stay as it is, and where the burden of evidence suggests it should be. Fan

| talk | 04:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fanx, if you follow this link here[2] you will see that in 2011 the EC also published only 65 list candidates for National and Labour, despite as we know, the full party lists being 75 and 70 candidates long respectively. I don't see any reason why this will be different this year, but I guess we will find out next week. Mattlore (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The E9 is here, I'll restore the full list. Mattlore (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2014 by party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140517115827/https://www.greens.org.nz/node/33249 to https://www.greens.org.nz/node/33249

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2014 by party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this article, and other similar ones

The name of this article is "Candidates in the New Zealand general election [year] by party", while other articles in the series are called "Party lists in the New Zealand general election, [year]". I think it would be good if all the articles had the same format for their title. If so, which title would be best? This latest one is I presume so titled because it lists candidates of unregistered parties, that is, it isn't just about party lists.

Which title would be preferred? Would people mind me changing either the title of this article, or the past ones, to make them all consistent? HenryCrun15 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to rename this article to conform with the majority. Presumably this was named to be similar to the "Candidates in the New Zealand general election [year] by electorate" pages, or because originally there were both Candidates ... [year] and Party lists ... [year] pages (2005 has See also candidates by party and party lists.) Fan

| talk | 17:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm also in favour of uniformity. The scope of the article should match the article name and candidates of unregistered parties accommodated elsewhere. Schwede 66 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support this article to be moved – No reason for one to have this title version and another to have a different title version. A requested move could be used in case others have conflicting opinions. J 947 18:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electorate only candidates

I suggest we remove all candidates running in electorates but not opting to contest a party list from this page, to bring it in to line with all other elections. I think these pages should only include list candidates given that is what the title of the page describes as its purpose. It also seems ridiculous to include non-registered parties and independents as they are ineligible to contest the list anyway. Kiwichris (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Schwede 66 11:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually oppose this one, because I often find that the list of MPs (and electorate candidates only) generally very useful and interesting. Yes, all the other pages have gotten rid of them but I propose to bring them back. To avoid recentism among interested editors and to avoid a page view spike in this one... :). J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely bringing information on a page in to line with its purpose supersedes "useful and interesting". Independents, electorate only, and unregistered parties are all contained on this page for those who are interested. I feel we are doubling up on information needlessly and making the page too cluttered. Kiwichris (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And given that the article title says "Party lists in the New Zealand general election", I thought it strange that you even asked for permission, Kiwichris. Anything beyond party lists is simply beyond the scope of this article. Schwede 66 03:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Kiwichris (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Key and David Cunliffe

Both of these members left Parliament during the course of the term but due to the terms of the Electoral Act 1993 were not required to be replaced. I added their departures to this page based on the precedent set by @Gadfium in May last year when Jacinda Ardern left prior to the election. @Ajf773 reverted my changes because no replacements were needed. I see these list pages as a place to record the initial electoral result and later changes for party list candidates. I'm not sure why the lack of replacement means we should not record this for Key and Cunliffe, but thought I would start a discussion here before simply restoring my changes. —idiosyncritic 20:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the tables should show this detail. Schwede 66 21:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if to be consistent across all articles. Ajf773 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will revert to my change. The only other cases I can recall of electorate MPs leaving without replacement (in the MMP era) are Ardern and John Banks and they are already listed in this way. —idiosyncritic 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]