ACT and NZ First Push Back on National's Split-Vote Warning

ACT and New Zealand First have hit back after National warned voters against strategic voting.

ACT leader David Seymour said both votes belong to the voter and that choice should be respected, according to RNZ. He said voters are often busy but not stupid. He said it is never wise to talk down to them.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters called National's comments "very, very ill-informed". He said it was the wrong message.

The row followed an appearance by former prime minister Sir John Key at National's campaign launch. Key warned voters not to split their vote. He said they should not try something they think is clever that is the "opposite of clever".

The idea being discussed was for voters on the right to give their party vote to a smaller party and their electorate vote to the National candidate to create an overhang. The party vote decides each party's share of seats in Parliament. The electorate vote picks the local MP. An overhang happens when a party wins more local seats than its party vote would give it. Under MMP, New Zealand's proportional voting system, that kind of split is lawful. Voters decide how to use each vote.

Seymour spoke as ACT leader, MP for Epsom and Deputy Prime Minister. His caucus includes Deputy Leader Nicole McKee, who is Minister of Courts, and Brooke van Velden, MP for Tāmaki and Minister of Internal Affairs.

ACT also kept up its policy announcements during the dispute. On 28 September 2026 it published 'ACT's plan to increase supermarket competition' under Seymour's name. On 27 September 2026 it published 'Debt doesn't disappear under Labour's student loan plan', also under Seymour's name.

The broader context here is simple. National wants to maximise its party vote. Its support partners want to protect theirs. Appeals over seats and split votes cut across that contest.

In my view, National's warning is about control and predictability. If supporters give both votes to National, seat numbers and coalition talks are simpler to manage. Talk of manufactured overhangs makes that harder. It also risks wasted effort in target seats. The pushback from Seymour and Peters is about legitimacy as much as numbers. Small parties under MMP depend on the party vote. They cannot afford to have supporters told that splitting that vote is foolish. They need to defend the right to split.

Looking at what this means for the campaign, the friction is public and early. Coalition partners often disagree on tactics. The test is whether voters hear a clear offer on how a government would be formed, or three separate pitches pulling in different directions. Discipline matters. So does autonomy. That balance is hard to hold through a campaign.

For Press Gallery watchers, the language matters too. Seymour stressed respect for voters. Peters dismissed the warning. Neither leader wants National, or its surrogates, setting the rules for how voters on the right should use their two ticks. They will set their own.