Did the Electoral Commission cause Labour to lose Tāmaki Makaurau?

This image from The Facts is very powerful. It shows how much of an outlier the result at Manurewa Marae was. Now maybe it is just a coincidence, and that everyone who voted there would have voted the same way elsewhere and still voted.

But the fact the TPM candidate was the chief executive of the marae means we can never be sure. The vote margin at the Marae is eight times more than the margin of the overall electorate.

What we can safely conclude is that there a non-trivial possibility that the decision of the Electoral Commission to place a voting both at the marae, despite knowing its chief executive was a candidate, cost Peeni Henare the seat. Is it 10%, 50% or 90% likely – I don’t know. But it is certainly not zero.

Any possibility that a decision by the Electoral Commission impacted an electoral outcome is very serious. Their job is to run elections., not influence them. And the impact goes beyond the one seat. As TPM won more seats than their party vote, their winning of TM means that they gained an extra seat in Parliament, increasing the total seats from 122 to 123.

The Post reports:

All options are on the table when it comes to looking into the Electoral Commission’s part in Manurewa Marae being used as a polling booth.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith on Wednesday said he was taking advice regarding an inquiry or review into the Electoral Commission, but “all options are on the table”.

On whether there needed to be some sort of Parliamentary inquiry into the Electoral Commission, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on Tuesday said, “that’ll be a decision for the Parliamentary Services Commissioner” – presumably referring to Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche.

On Wednesday, Luxon revealed he had now “asked for a range of options and mechanisms … there are genuine questions around policy and conduct to answer for”.

I think there does need to be an inquiry. Confidence in the Electoral Commission is vital, and it seems that they prioritised voter turnout over fair elections. It was the wrong decision.