One of the quirks of MMP is that it lessens the importance of winning individual electorate seats. In American Elections, owing to different Electoral College votes assigned to each state, the outcome of entire elections can rest on a single state. It’s because of this that Barack Obama and John McCain each have over 20 field offices in Florida, while neither one has opened a single office in South Dakota. In New Zealand however, it is rare that the result of a single electorate seat will have too large an impact on the results of the wider election. In 2008 however the dynamics of the race suggest that local results in a number of key electorates will play a vital part in deciding who forms our next Government.

The first of these important seats is Tauranga, home of Winston Peters and possibly New Zealand First’s only way back into Parliament at the end of the year. A party either needs 5% of the vote or to win one or more electorate seat to be able to receive a proportional share of the 120 nominal seats in the house. The polls at the moment suggest that New Zealand First could have a hard time making it over the 5% threshold. A New Zealand Herald Poll from 26th July gives New Zealand First just 4.1 percent of the vote. A Colmar-Brunton poll from 18th July gives them just 2.4 percent. The best result in any recent poll for NZF has them on exactly 5% from a Roy Morgan poll in late July.

It’s important to note that all of these polls were conducted before the various scandals around Winston Peter’s use of secret trusts and secret donations broke. What impact these will have on the parties’ poll numbers remains to be seen. It could be a negative one as the party’s hypocrisy on the issuer of accountability drives away voters or the scandals could cause a rallying of the New Zealand First vote to defend Peters from a media beat up on “our Winnie”.

If their current level of support continues however, New Zealand First is in a dangerous position and Winston Peters needs a win in Tauranga to ensure his parties political survival.

When it comes to winning Tauranga, Peters has a lot of experience. He first won the seat in 1984 and was able to hold onto it until he was eventually beaten by National’s Bob Clarkson in 2005. Clarkson went on to be one of Parliaments most colourful and eccentric MP’s, earning himself the derisive nickname “Burqa Bob” from opponents, after he told reporters that any women wearing burqas should “go back to Islam or Iraq”.
In 2008 however Clarkson is not running, instead Peters will be running against former National Party Tauranga Chairman Simon Bridges.  Bridges is in many ways a far tougher opponent for Peters than Clarkson is. At just 31 Bridges is less than half Peters’ age and is a relatively fresh face in the New Zealand political scene.

As a former crown prosecutor he has a good record of service to the community and speaks with weight on law and order issues. More importantly Bridges has been running on a theme of change. His campaign website proclaims that “A vote for Simon Bridges this election is a vote for the future”. Such sentiment will ring true with voters in Tauranga who have had 9 years of the same Government, and years of Winston Peters as their MP. It is easy to understand why Tauranga voters, suffering through the slowing of the economy and a jump in violent crime rates would be attracted to a candidate promising fresh ideas and a good record on law and order.

Bridge’s appeal as a candidate was confirmed in a recent Colmar Brunton Poll of the Tauranga race.

According to the Poll, Bridges has a 20 point lead over Peters, winning 48% of respondents compared to Peters 28%. When interviewed about the poll, Helen Clark said she did not think it would give Peters much cause for concern, after all he has been down before and always finds a way to fight back. While the unflappable Peters may not panic when he sees these numbers, it is a definite indicator that he is in for a fight if he wants to win back Tauranga.

If Bridges wins Tauranga and New Zealand First doesn’t make it over 5%, the effect on the overall Election would be dramatic. Peters and his party would be a valuable coalition partner for either National or Labour. Despite tensions between his party and National, Peters has promised to negotiate first with the party that receives the most votes, which is almost certainly going to be National. If National can’t get enough votes to govern alone, it will need to turn to people like ACT and New Zealand First to make up the numbers, as their task of making it into Government will be a lot harder if they don’t have the option of going with New Zealand First.

For Labour, who would probably have a much smoother relationship if they did go into Government with Peters, losing New Zealand First would be a significant problem as it further cuts down their options for recreating a 2005 like deal to get back into power.

New Zealand First is not the only minor party important for any potential coalition deal to be involved in an all important electorate seat battle this year. Just as in 2005, ACT needs to win the seat of Epsom if it is going to have any presence in parliament after the election.

Earlier in the year when Sir Roger Douglas announced his return to the party, ACT faithful were filled with optimism. Sir Roger himself in an interview with me predicted ACT could get as high as 6 or 7 percent.

Current polls however suggest such success is a pipedream. Despite the zeal of the party’s followers, ACT’s poll numbers are disastrous. The latest Roy Morgan poll has them on an awe-inspiring 2.5 percent, the poll before that had then at 0.5%. By comparison, The legalise cannabis party got 0.4% in a Colmar Brunton poll recently. So with ACT polling about as well as the dope-heads, they need an electorate seat or they can kiss goodbye to parliament.

The best chance ACT has of winning this is in Epsom, a notoriously right wing (think Fendalton) electorate where party leader Rodney Hide was able to score an upset win in 2005. This year Hide looks to be on track to take the seat again, facing the man he beat for the seat, National’s Richard Worth. Worth finds himself in a tricky position, as winning the seat could potentially cost National a coalition partner it needs to win the election.
ACT and New Zealand First have been at each other’s throats in Parliament this year, they differ on almost all aspects of policy and political philosophy. Yet both parties find themselves in a similar position this election, both facing oblivion if they prove unable to hold their electorate seats. If either party disappears, it could prove a deciding factor in the election.