On the one hand its simple. If you like the current political leadership and what it has initiated over the last three years, then give them your party vote. And if you don’t, give it to the largest opposition party.

Or, give it to one of their guaranteed coalition partners.

And as for your candidate vote, and here I’m a little old fashioned, give it to the person you think will best represent your electorate in Parliament. Yes, liking, trusting, your local candidate matters. (Although you might want to reconsider if the voting promises to be close and your preferred candidate has no chance of getting in. In which case it might be choosing the next best).

On the other hand, voting this election isn’t simple.

For with both major parties polling about 30%, and even with their guaranteed partners’ numbers (ACT and, probably, NZ First for National; and Greens and, probably, Te Pati Māori for Labour) they still might not have a majority.

Some would say if you like National but not their partners, then give your party vote to National. Or conversely, if you like ACT’s policies, then give them a vote and they will have more leverage in their coalition bargaining with National. Similarly with Labour and the Greens. Or split your vote between parties and candidates you like.

But one of the problems National has is that, for the first time since MMP began, the public perception over the last three years is that on a number of crucial issues the tail (ACT, NZ First) has wagged the dog (National). The perception is the Prime Minister has been outplayed by the leaders of ACT and NZ First.

Indeed, one of the National Party’s negative billboards, playing on a Pākehā fear of Māori aspirations, thinks the same tail-wagging-the-dog scenario would come about if one voted for a Labour coalition that included Te Pati Māori.

Or, similarly, the negative advertising playing on the fear of the Green’s fiscal competencies and the role of their leader as a potential finance minister. Both scenarios assume, without evidence, that Labour’s leader will be as inept as National’s has been in coalition management.

I find negative advertising by any party appalling, and more so the messaging that feeds rather than alleviates fears.

One can, of course, cast a vote on the basis of the parties’ policies. You can visit https://policy.nz/2026 to see and compare party policies. Or you can go to one of the many groups you care about to see what they recommend. One of the groups I follow, and who meet here at St Luke’s, is the Child Poverty Action Group.

However, most people (so say those who research these things) tend to vote on the basis of 2 or 3 issues they care about, and then the attributes of the leader. Who the leader is matters to people.

Which is part of why both major parties are only polling 30% or less. Their leaders lack charisma. Indeed, the minor party leaders have a lot more charisma, particularly the leader of the Opportunity Party, whose party may well cross the 5% threshold and get seats in parliament.

Personally speaking, I have been thoroughly unimpressed by most of what I’ve heard in this election season. ‘Fixing the Basics’ or ‘Better Starts Now’ or ‘Making NZ Affordable Again’, are all, frankly, boring. And arguing about taxes is so predictable, as is moaning about gangs, or tinkering with health or education.

I long to hear something inspirational and aspirational. That invites us all into a grand project - to give of our time, energy and resources - to making Aotearoa NZ a wonderful place for all people. And that isn’t about putting our needs first, but putting ourselves at the service of the good of the whole planet first. A vision that is innovative. A vision that is challenging and risky. A vision that calls us to our better selves.

Glynn

Image: Unsplash Photo by Towfiqu Barbhuiya