Written By:
- Date published:
6:41 am, September 7th, 2025 - 27 comments
Categories: by-election, local body elections, local government, Politics -
Tags: voter turnout
I left a comment about the probable Tāmaki Makaurau by-election results a couple of days ago after I was asked “Do you think that the Tamaki Makaurau by-election will be a signal of whether the TMP almost clean sweep of the Maori electorate seats will continue?”. My response was that the determinate characteristic of by-elections was that they were defined by people not voting. Not who didn’t vote. Just simply the lack of turnout. Nothing more. That is what I see having looked at the preliminary results.
The turnout in the preliminary count with 100% counted was 9,377 votes. Well less than the 25,604 valid votes cast in the last general election.
My comment said:-
By-elections are mostly determined by the people who don’t vote. In this case it will probably be an even lower turnout in what is probably a low turnout electorate, it was 64.64% in the 2023 election with a 27,885 votes of which only 25,604 were valid electorate votes (party votes were higher).
It won’t surprise me if well less than half that vote in a by-election with a pretty quiet media campaign (at least as far as I see).
My estimate of the by-election turn out is that is probably close to just 21% of the approximately 43 thousand voters in the Tāmaki Makaurau electorate.
Updated: there are special votes uncounted. I have amended the table.
Special declaration votes still to be counted are estimated to be 2,621 (21.8% of total votes). This includes an estimated 176 overseas and dictation votes and 2,445 special votes taken within the electorate.
The total estimated votes (those counted on election night plus estimated special votes to be counted) is 11,998.
That is probably lower than any recent by-elections as can be seen in the table below.
As the electionresults site was effectively dead, these are from wikipedia, with turnout figures where available (otherwise total valid electorate votes). The previous general election turnout (or total valid electorate votes) is provided as a comparison.
| By-election | By-election turnout | % | General election turnout | % |
| Tāmaki Makaurau 2025 | 11,998 | 27.1% | 25,604 | ~64.6% |
| Port Waikato 2023 | 18,728 | 35.7% | 42,657 | ? |
| Hamilton West 2022 | 15,104 | 31.4% | 40,584 | 81.2% |
| Tauranga 2022 | 20,784 | 40.2% | 43,776 | ? |
| Northcote 2018 | 20,850 | 43.6% | 37,311 | 77.6% |
| Mt Albert 2017 | 13,649 | 30.0% | 38,760 | ? |
| Mt Roskill 2016 | 17,476 | ? | 34,097 | 73.7% |
| Northland 2015 | 29,590 | 64.4% | 35,553 | 78.9% |
| Christchurch East 2013 | 13,726 | ? | 28,015 | ? |
| Ikaroa-Rāwhiti 2013 | 11,268 | 33.1% | 17,391 | ? |
By-elections have similar results to Auckland Council elections. The 2022 turnout was 35.4%, slightly worse than the average in 2022 across the country.
Local body elections in New Zealand have the handcuffs of central government that largely restricts then to postal voting, something that is increasingly fraught. Increasingly, voters don’t have mail boxes to deliver to, mail delivery, or active post boxes to drop envelopes into.
That isn’t even including the question of dealing with the current governments obvious deliberate policy to increase the population of homeless and transient voters and their ineffectual attempts to look like they are working on the rapidly escalating problem.
Local Government New Zealand have been highlighting this issue to central government for a while, and released a report earlier this year making useful suggestions for changing the slide of local body elections into low democratic participation. Most would require legislative changes.
He believes that New Zealand can no longer continue with postal posting as the status quo.
“Moving to in-person polling booth voting for local elections offers the best opportunity to ensure the future integrity of our voting system,” says Mayor Nick Smith.
“It should be a nationally consistent system that’s as close an experience for the voter as possible to parliamentary elections, with a two-week timeframe in which to vote.
“We believe this could be the single-biggest – and most fundamental – change to local elections that we can make, alongside the Group’s other key recommendations and their focus on lifting voter turnout.
Happily, speaking as a programmer with experience in elections and online coding, they also point out:-
While online voting is often suggested as a viable alternative, attempts over the past three decades to trial it for local elections have been unsuccessful – largely due to security or cost issues.
The LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group final position paper makes interesting reading. But I’d need more coffee and time to dig into it for my usual criticism. Hopefully we’re going to get some work on improving by-elections as well.
Incidentally, the electionresults.govt.nz site was a mess overnight. It essentially consisted only of the preliminary count, and was impossible to access any links with previous election results.
Even if there were a post box on every street corner, I can't see council voting turnout improve for the time being.
The biggest problem is complete disillusionment with local government, and being let down so badly by our elected representatives, finding out the hard way that decisions are pre-ordained and that 'consultation' only happens because it's a legal requirement. Then our ward councillor goes MIA for nearly 2 years, refusing to engage with her constituency.
In other words, why bother voting, because they're going to do what they want, and the citizens don't come into it.
There's also the overlap between central and local government, and candidates that run under the party banner. As an example, today there was a candidate pamphlet in my mailbox, for someone running under the ACT banner. Obviously, in my world, that automatically disqualifies him from getting my vote, and I never bothered reading his 'vision'. He votes for- and probably belongs to- a Party that openly loathes my existence and wants to make my life as miserable as possible. If he could magically fix the pipes, get more affordable housing in Wellington, AND keep rates (and rents) down, he still wouldn't get my vote, because of what he represents.
Even though Andrew Little seems to be the only viable mayoral candidate for Wellington, my negative experiences with him in his Ministerial role and the Labour governments in general mean I cannot in all good conscince vote for him in any role.
I'm usually the person encouraging everyone to vote, but for the first time ever, I'm likely to pass this time.
The key word missing from the OP’s title is “low”. The gist of the OP is that low turnout (mostly) determines local and by-elections. Not voting is always an option, and understandable, but it’s not free of consequences short- and longer-term.
Very aware of that. It's the non-voters in general elections who need to bear the responsibility for the outcome, and the same applies with local elections. I tend to subscribe to the 'don't vote, don't complain' thing, but after voting, complaining and being constantly ignored, it's pretty safe to say my vote- or lack thereof- means absolutely nothing.
That disillusionment that you articulate does resonate.
Through the years I have encouraged folk to vote, even if they support parties from the 'other' side. There is a classic trope wheeled out that the right are all down with voter disengagement. This may well be true but it misses out something.
Having something to vote for. Unfortunately that is lacking all to often when vaguely worded aspirations are undone by their actions. The crumbs that fall from the table are nothing compared to what could be on offer with MPs that act in society's best interests.
Banking reform. Radical housing reform (landlords can only rent out new builds, take the Accomadation Supplement out of landlord's pockets). Taxation reform.
What Te Arikinui Kuini Nga wai hono i te po said in her speech at Turangawaewae is exciting. “It's now 2025, we need to stop allowing external forces to hinder us. We need to walk a new path. We need a new direction. We need new solutions for the problems we’ve inherited.”
Maori coming together, pooling resources and being an even stronger economic force. I'd vote for that.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/09/06/john-campbell-the-maori-queen-speaks-and-its-a-new-vital-voice-for-nz/
I'm likely to pass this time
I passed last time, likely will do so again next time…
AI Overview: The concept of "a time to flow and a time to ebb" is a metaphorical expression of the central theme in Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, which states, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven". This passage lists various pairs of opposite activities and experiences, like "a time to be born, and a time to die" or "a time to weep, and a time to laugh," to illustrate that life is a series of divinely appointed cycles and seasons that humans must accept and navigate.
We survive by adapting to circumstances – even when it requires transcendence. Spiritual advice from Google's electronic gizmo bridges to the Bible for authority to reveal the timeless truth relevant to any identity shift one must transit through…
Would you be motivated enough to vote if the ballot paper contained the option "No confidence in any of the above" ?
And – if that option received a plurality of votes, what would you expect to happen?
I could do that, but I'm not too sure about going on a massive trek to find a post box/drop box to cast said vote. Whatever our views, that's a major obstacle to postal voting.
'No confidence' winning on the ballot does pose an interesting question. It would completely freak out the establishment of course, and that would be fun to watch.
It would require a referendum alongside to a) force that option onto the ballots, and b) what should happen in the event of a no confidence vote. I certainly wouldn't want the votes disregarded and the results based on the runner-ups, but I really don't know what might work.
"what would you expect to happen?"
MPs recalled to their electorates to get a mandate from their employers.
I doubt that the current government will have much interest in fixing the low turnout problem in local body elections. My sense, and I suspect theirs, is that the people who do turn out are at the 'sorted' end of the spectrum – with well-organised and secure lives and a direct financial interest in their rates bills.
But if anyone was interested in improving things, then in-person voting, lots of voting booths, a 2-week voting period and enrolment up to voting day would help. We should also look at setting targets for Councils of getting participation up and providing funding assistance to do that. Maybe even consider sanctions for not meeting turnout targets after a period of a couple of election cycles – it would need careful thought, even though it is in line with the current fetish for performance-based approaches to everything.
And just to note that the cost and security of online voting are related. The cost of those critical last few percentage points of security are going to be astronomical. Low cost and high security are incompatible.
Most of which is in the LGNZ final position paper. Couple of flaws in the paper though..
What about not finding a post box in time? I missed two local elections over the last two decades because the sealed envelope was done. Once I kept forgetting to take it when I went out of the apartment. The other time it was in the car for two weeks, I confidently stopped where a post box used to be twice.
That would be a good interim fix. I do go to the supermarket, usually once a week. I never go to the post office or post box.
Our mailbox is in foyer of an apartment block and you have to have a code or card to get in. The mailboxes for the 60 apartments used to be outside But it was a nuisance because of needing to empty the enormous bin of damp junk mail weekly, and the couriers trying to get in to deliver packages.
NZ Post and couriers have codes. Little junk mail unless someone pays NZ post to deliver it. Packages are left in the lobby with a cameras.
Between the two of us, we now get about 6 bits of snail mail a month. Invariably from the government or real estate agents. We get 3-4x times that in package deliveries. This means that we pick up daily when one of us leaves the building, and open the mailbox about once a week. All we ever seem to get are rate notices and bowel test kits.
Thanks.
That's pretty much three different ways of expressing the same problem. And it's correct – slogging through the potted 'bios' of the candidates you don't know anything about is a sort of masochism. The only way I can do it is by looking for certain standard phrases and cliches that indicate the person might be a Tory. It's an imperfect method. Frankly I miss the days of party tickets in local body elections, because party affiliation was the best guide to what someone thinks and what they are likely to do if handed any power.
I did see somewhere on Facebook, and I can't find it again, a list of ACT and Hobson's Choice affiliated candidates. I believe that any such affiliations need to be declared by candidates and on voting papers.
In Auckland, at least, there's this historical disinclination to openly be affiliated with a known political party, in local body elections.
The result is the formation of party pseudonyms – which you have to know how to decode – in order to work out which wider party or political philosophy they actually approximate (e.g. "Shore Action" is roughly Labour)
It's really not helpful for the majority of people who don't really follow local politics.
If we're continuing with snail mail voting, I'd also like to allow completed ballots to be posted through the overnight returns slot at the local library.
ATM, there is a returns box inside the library – but of course, that's only accessible when the library is open. And, that's often not when people can get there.
Permitting, encouraging and publicizing that votes can be posted through the overnight returns slot – would enable another trickle of votes to get through.
My library is Kobo or my over-stuffed Calibre server app that lives next to this site. No slots there 🙂
I think that there is a library at St Lukes and the one in the centre of Auckland city surrounded by road works… I haven't been near either for a decade.
My favourite bricks and mortar library is the old Mt Eden library up the road, which now stocks beers from their micro brewery and cooks occasional meals for me. I often go up there for a beer and a read on my phone to the online libraries.
I used to live in libraries and had an immense book collection at home. These days I barely see a book. My partner has some, they need far too much dusting. 🙁
But I read at least 5 times as much as I did 30 years ago, and far more widely.
So are you advocating for the pub to be a postal voting collection point?
Yes, some people no longer use libraries. But many, many do. And physical libraries are a high-use community asset, which already act as a collection point for voting papers. Allowing this to occur out of hours, would assist with the issue of lack of voting return options – across a wider day/time band. And with almost zero additional cost (all that's required is for staff to remove the voting envelopes from the overnight bin, and add them to the voting box – the return for counting aspect is already built in).
I rarely go into my physical library building (although I make heavy use of 'free' ebooks via their Libby app) – but I walk past it on a regular basis. Long before it's open during morning walks. Being able to drop off a voting paper in the overnight return slot would be a much better solution than trying to schedule a visit during their opening hours.
Library slots where I am, aren't in walking distance unless you have a lot of spare time. Which I don't because I'm working most days. Also have to be able to walk, but I have hallux rigidus which means walking distances is pretty damn painful.
Grey Lynn library is 24-27 minutes each way depending on the route.
Auckland central is 25-30 minutes each way (there is a nice hill coming back)
Mt Albert library is an hour each way.
Faster with a ebike, but it is still going to cut the better part of an hour out of the day to go to a place tat I have no need to go to.
Better off putting drop points in supermarkets. Most people get there at least once in the voting period. Have to pay for some security for the boxes.
Or just do polling booths in the usual locations on the days and in the weeks beforehand. That seems to work well for general elections. 🙂
Following this thread.
I’m appalled at the thought of politically minded people not even bothering to vote. It’s too hard, said in a whiny 6 year old voice.
What the hell are you doing here then?
We're here discussing some of the reasons for low voter turn out, and how it's got to the point where some politically minded people are chosing to disengage in the process.
I don't appreciate being likened to a whiney 6 year old. Perhaps you have something more constructive to add to this discussion? Perhaps you could make a case for voting?
It might be conserving resources.
If you feel that your vote makes no difference at the local level (and there are good reasons why people might feel that) – then you (as a politically engaged person) may want to save your energy for areas where you feel you can make a difference (e.g. select committee submissions, protest action, etc.)
Also, even politically engaged people, can be hindered from voting by voting barriers or inefficiencies. Lprent discussed how he'd missed voting, due to fewer post boxes to return the voting papers.
Nobody ever said democracy was easy.
Local government policies are not that easy to find, I'll admit that. But it's not impossible. It just depends how much you value local government democracy.
It just depends how much you value local government democracy.
And once upon a time, I did. Before spending a lot of time actively participating in council 'consultation', and reading the final reports where the concerns/wishes of just about everybody who submitted was ignored.
Example: The philistines at WCC have decided to demolish the City to Sea bridge, playing the 'seismic risk' card, despite plenty of scientific and engineering evidence that it isn't necessary. The same council that wanted to demolish the rose garden conservatory (thankfully people power reversed that.)
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=173742
The idea of 'democracy' with regards to WCC is a joke. I can't comment about other councils, but I live here. Voting is a 2 way thing, in all elections. Even when we don't have the council/government we want, those elected are still obligated to take submissions and protests seriously, and actively relook at potential projects taking into account public sentiment. Otherwise, why do we bother? Clearly, many no longer are.
It's very easy if you have lots of resources (time, health, money) to say that you 'value' local government democracy – and therefore participate.
It's much harder if you are constrained by any or all of the above – and need to prioritize where you place your effort to gain maximum impact.
If you have limited resources, why is it 'better' to spend them on local rather than national government? We all have values. But if you prioritize everything as critical, nothing is critical.
One of the issues is the allocation of resources from central government. More and more it seems the Wellington wants to control everything; see road cones, speed bumps, the bullshit about "nice to haves."
With the best will in the world your local ward councillor might really want new skate park, but without funding, it'll be way down the priority list.
It sounds as though you're agreeing that there is little value in local 'democracy'.
However, I'm talking about the personal resources of the individual voting (or not voting) – not the resources of the government (local or national)
More and better local news reporting should help but only if people are prepared to read the stuff (with lower case “s”).
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/investing-local-journalism
https://www.aut.ac.nz/news/stories/trust-in-news-report-2025
In main city elections of Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, there are very low Council budgets put aside to assist with facilities and electoral profile. This really matters for the city with 40% of our population – Auckland. The Auckland subcontractor has consistently cut corners as has been well attested. There is so much that could be done to revive the dying coals of local democracy that were built into the 1989 reforms.
The DIA advertising campaign to encourage voting is both small and stale. If central government really wanted to encourage civic contest they would fund it through its many outreach campaigns across all sorts of otherwise minor entities it looks after.
Dunedin and Christchurch have reasonable budgets set aside for elections, and retain strong civic cultures with high degrees of civic involvement across many levels. I think those two factors are related.