Engineeered overhangs-solving them and wasted votes

At https://www.democracyproject.org.nz/p/democracy-briefing-politicians-must?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Bryce Edward wrote on 19/10.2026 about the problem now facing New Zealand MMP of engineered overhangs.

I posted this comment:

“
There are two related problems with MMP.  Vote splitting is appreciated but works in an unconstructive way.  Votes for under-threshold parties are discarded, disenfranchising many voters.  Vote splitting invites a false separation of candidates from their allied parties.

These two problems appear to have a simple combined fix that resolves both issues.  We need to alter vote splitting so that every voter gets a say in the allocation of seats amongst threshold passing parties, and also so that voters cannot both vote for a winning local candidate and have a party vote for a different party.

This change does not even need a change in the voting paper layout, just a change in the instructions and vote counting.

1.  The electorate vote becomes the “main vote”, a vote for a party and (if one exists)its local candidate.

2.  The party vote becomes a “substitute party vote”.  This becomes the voter’s party  vote in the event that the main vote party does not pass the threshold and the main vote candidate is not elected as the local MP.

These minor changes transform the way MMP works.    They effectively prevent any voter getting two effective votes as is now possible.  It also removes the wasted votes problem.  If a voter’s main vote neither elects the local MP nor gives a party vote  to a threshold-passing party, the the substitute party vote comes into play.  This has the same constraints as the existing party vote: if you want your substitute party vote to count, you need to vote for a party that passes the threshold.   No more wasted votes.

This change does not completely eliminate overhangs, but it makes them difficult to create artificially.  The TPM issue is worth looking at here. The need to vote both for the party and its candidate makes overhangs rare but not impossible.

This is still vote splitting, but fixed so that it works usefully.  If you vote for a candidate, it means that you want that candidate’s party in parliament or that candidate as an independent local MP.  If neither of those happen, you get a substitute party vote which you can give to a party you are sure will pass the threshold.

These simple changes look like they fix the major problems of MMP.    You no longer have the wasted votes people so detest, nor the need to vote strategically.   Artificial overhangs   become effectively impossible.  And the result is extremely party proportional.
“

Where did this idea come from?

The idea of offering MMP voters a second choice of party vote has been around for many years in Germany and in New Zealand. This website focusses on this idea. The second choice of party vote has the effect of allowing each voter to both vote for their preferred party, and if this does not pass threshold, then to have a substitute party vote to vote for a party the voter deems certain enough to pass the threshold. This removes the problem of wasted votes and allows new parties to grow without harming allied but larger parties. The second choice of party vote has various names including spare vote, substitute vote.

The problem of engineered overhangs has been apparent for many years, It was a minor issue, but one that seems now to be seen as a strategic option. It is something that could be exploited in a way very detrimental to the MMP system.

A way to reduce, but not always ellininate, overhangs is to invite only one vote from each voter, this vote being for a party and its candidate. This makes impossible engineered overhangs through vote splitting, but it takes away the vote splitting that people like, even if many do not understand how it works.

I recently realised that these two ideas could be combined. One requires one less party vote column on the voting paper, the other an additional such column. Then came a realisation that both changes could be effected without adding or removing voting paper columns. All that is needed is updated instructions and vote counting methods.

The result is the proposal described above. It keeps vote splitting, but changes how that functions. Voters vote first for a party and its candidate (if there is a local candidate). In case their chosen party does not pass threshold and their chosen candidate does not get elected as local MP, then they can express a s ubstitute party vote to apply in such situations.

Final Report: 2023 Independent Electoral Review

This report acknowledges the Spare Vote and make very positive comments about it.

The final report was released by the new Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith on 16 January 2024.


The main electoral system recommendations from this review report
included:
● Removing the one-seat threshold. This would mean that only
parties passing the party vote threshold could win list seats.
● Lowering the party vote threshold to 3.5%
● Changing the overhang rule to grant overhang seats, and to reduce
the number of list seats by the same amount, so leaving the number of seats unchanged.
● Fix the district/list seat ratio at 60:40 plus one list seat if necessary so as to always have an odd number of seats in parliament

I support the fixing of the 60:40 ratio.

But I fear that the other changes I’ve noted will replace existing problems with new ones.


The idea of the spare vote (second choice of party vote) was
acknowledged by the following paragraphs:


4.34 Some submitters advocated strongly for second-choice voting to be introduced for the party vote (that is, an optional “back up” vote for another party if your first choice vote did not pass the threshold), whether the threshold is lowered or not. They differentiated this idea from a full preferential voting system and noted it may improve voter participation rates, support sincere voting rather than tactical voting, reduce the proportion of votes that go to parties that cross neither threshold, reduce barriers for small and newly established parties, and only require a simple change to the ballot paper.

Then later:

4.58 Full preferential voting would allow voters to rank their preferred parties or candidates (for example, they could select a first, second, and third choice). If a voter’s first choice did not succeed, their vote would transfer to their next ranked party or candidate (and so on).


Second-choice voting is an example of partial preferential voting, where voters have the option of selecting a “back-up” party or candidate. Both types of preferential voting could make it easier for smaller parties to get into parliament because voters could support smaller or newly established parties or candidates without fear their vote will not count in the make-up of parliament.


4.59 We acknowledge the strong support these options received from some submitters during consultation, particularly second-choice voting.
However, we remain wary of changes that would complicate the voting process. Adding complexity to how MMP works could be counterproductive, particularly if introduced at the same time as other changes. For these reasons, we think improvements to representation
are better realised by lowering the party vote threshold without adding additional complexity.


I was pleased that the spare vote idea was acknowledged, and that the report notes some of its many advantages.


The final paragraph above was not altogether surprising. The spare vote is an idea that has received little attention so far. I would have been surprised to have a new idea, however good, accepted on the strength of a small number of submissions to a review.


But the report seems very supportive of the idea and the report remarks on the simplicity of the ballot paper changes required. So I feel encouraged.


The report was released by the new Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith, who stated that some recommendations were already ruled out. These included lowering the voting age to 16 and allowing the vote to all prisoners.

Details at

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/independent-electoral-review-final-report-released

It will be interesting to see which of the proposed changes garner enough support to be implemented.

Go to https://electoralreview.govt.nz/ for more details.