Police investigate vote-splitting as National's MMP claim escapes watchdog scrutiny

Summarised by Centrist

Strategic voting has become a major election talking point, with National at odds with its coalition partners over a campaign encouraging supporters to split their votes. Police are now investigating a separate vote-splitting campaign following a referral from the Electoral Commission, just days before the 7 November election.

Reality Check Radio (RCR) says it began developing its Vote Smart 2026 campaign in August, promoting a strategy in which voters back National electorate candidates while giving their party vote to ACT or New Zealand First.

The aim is to exploit MMP's overhang provisions, under which parties retain electorate seats exceeding their party-vote entitlement, potentially increasing Parliament's size.

The debate intensified after former National leader Don Brash published a full-page advertorial in Thursday's NZ Herald advocating the strategy. ACT and NZ First confirmed they had authorised the advertising.

National leader Christopher Luxon opposed the campaign. He warned that encouraging supporters to vote for other parties could confuse voters and risk a Labour-led government.

ACT leader David Seymour and NZ First leader Winston Peters defended voters' right to split their votes. Seymour said a party vote for ACT contributed to the coalition's overall numbers, while Peters accused Luxon of misunderstanding MMP.

Separately, businessman Harry Mowbray's independent Split Your Vote website was taken offline following an Electoral Commission investigation into whether its advertising was properly authorised.

National confirmed lodging a complaint, describing the campaign as an attempt to confuse voters.

Mowbray said he had not initially realised his website would be classified as election advertising. He subsequently restored the website after making changes he hoped would comply with the law.

Police are now investigating after the Commission referred Mowbray's campaign to them.

"Inquiries are being undertaken and there is no further comment we can provide at this stage," Detective Senior Sergeant Andrew Compton told the Herald.

Mowbray acknowledged that his failure to respond to the Commission's inquiries in time had led to the referral.

By Sunday, 1News was examining the potential for overhang seats involving both National and Te Pāti Māori, pointing out how electorate results could affect the parliamentary balance.

Editor's note: There is an irony in the Electoral Commission's handling of the vote-splitting controversy.

The Commission has referred a campaign encouraging voters to split their votes to police over election advertising issues, yet says it has no authority to assess the accuracy of National's own campaign material discouraging them from doing exactly that.

As Centrist reported on 29 October, National's campaign brochure declares:

"Under MMP, only your party vote decides the government. Your electorate vote does not."

That categorical claim overlooks how electorate victories can trigger overhang seats, change Parliament's composition and potentially influence who forms the government.

Centrist challenged the brochure with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Electoral Commission.

The ASA declined to consider it because its jurisdiction does not cover directly distributed political brochures. The Electoral Commission maintained that it lacked the statutory mandate to assess the factual accuracy of political advertising.

The distinction is legally significant. The Commission can investigate whether election advertising has been properly authorised and refer matters to police, but says it cannot determine whether claims about how MMP operates are factually correct.

So why can election advertising end up with police over technical compliance, while potentially misleading claims about the electoral system itself escape scrutiny?

Read more at 1News | The NZ Herald

Image: Kiwichris 

Receive our free newsletter here