Steven Gaskell: Helen Clark's Democracy Suddenly Needs Fixing – Funny That!

Well, here's an interesting development. Former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark is questioning whether the 2026 election might be "flawed". Apparently, our electoral system, voting rules and campaign funding have all become major concerns. Funny how these things seem to attract so much attention when the election numbers aren't going the way some people expected.

Let's start with the enrolment deadline. Clark argues that bringing it forward may have stopped some people voting and potentially influenced the result. That's worth investigating, but where's the evidence showing how many people were actually prevented from voting and, more importantly, whether it would have changed the outcome? The deadline wasn't some secret rule introduced on election night. It was part of the published electoral arrangements. If the change needs reviewing, then review it. But there's a fairly big difference between disagreeing with electoral legislation and suggesting an election itself is flawed.

Then we have the MMP overhang business. Suddenly, because National could benefit from electorate victories exceeding its party vote entitlement, the system apparently needs a rethink. Have we forgotten that this is how MMP works? Te Pāti Māori benefited from exactly the same mechanism after the 2023 election, gaining two additional parliamentary seats and taking Parliament to 122 MPs. Nobody suggested the election was illegitimate because of it. The rules were followed and the seats were allocated. So why should the same rules become a problem when another political party benefits? You can't have one set of rules for your political friends and another for everyone else.

And what exactly is wrong with strategic voting? MMP gives voters two votes. One for their local electorate candidate and another for the political party they want represented in Parliament. That's the whole point. If someone wants to vote National in their electorate and give their party vote to ACT or NZ First, that's their business. Political parties encouraging supporters to split their votes is campaigning, not electoral fraud. Voters aren't children who need protecting from making their own political choices. As for campaign donations, transparency matters, but the rules apply to everyone. If they need tightening, do it across the political spectrum. Don't suddenly discover a problem because a particular campaign has benefited the other side.

Of course, there are legitimate questions worth asking about electoral law, enrolment deadlines and political donations. Nobody is suggesting the system should be beyond scrutiny. But let's not confuse a political disagreement with evidence of electoral wrongdoing.

And here's another little detail worth remembering: the official result isn't due until 27 November, with approximately 399,365 special votes still to be processed. Perhaps we could allow the Electoral Commission to finish counting before declaring the election defective?

At the end of the day, democracy is a funny thing. Politicians spend years telling us how important the people's voice is, right up until the people deliver a result they weren't expecting. Then suddenly the rules need examining, the system needs fixing and everyone wants an inquiry.

Sorry Helen, democracy doesn't guarantee Labour a result. Sometimes the voters simply have other ideas. That's not a flaw in the system. That's the whole point of having an election.

Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.