One is strategy.  Bush's stragety of an issue-free right-wing family values platform has proved successful.  The conservative Christian movement is recognized as having delivered the election for the conservatives in Australia.  The NZ election, which was addressing actual issues despite its obvious vote pandering, degraded to Rove-style attacks at the end: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/event/story.cfm?c_id=1500891&ObjectID=10345476

I am also concerned by how close all these elections are.  To have a squeaker in the US is a lot, but twice, and then in many other nations around the world?  Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, so to speak.  I dont trust all those "outstanding" votes in the NZ election.  I wouldnt be suprised if they turn the country over to Brash.  

Editor:

As a US citizen, I don't have a vested interested in the NZ general election, but I have appreciated reading coverage to see how democracy can work.  After the issue-free posturing and smear campaign of the 2004 US general election, it has been refreshing to see opposing politicians spending some of their time addressing issues and drawing lucid policies differences.  Then I read with concern about the orchestrated right-wing attack on Prime Minister Clark at Canterbury University.  What is apparent from the coverage in your paper, a well-organized group of ideologues decided that their public spectacle, designed solely to drown out political conversation and embarrass the opposition, was more important than allowing the public to hear a major foreign policy speech from the head of the government.  And after having taken over the event, they used their spotlight not to advocate opposing positions, but only to launch a vicious personal attack.  

I thought I was reading coverage of a US political campaign.  We will see shortly if Mr. Brash has the integrity to condemn this affront.  But a word of warning to the New Zealand electorate:  If these tactics succeed, they won't be merely a distraction from future political campaigns.  They will be the campaigns.

While I wouldn't breathe a sigh of relief yet-- negotiations with minor parties could break down, and "Prime Minister Brash" could still happen-- I think what Clark managed was wonderful. It would have been a landslide, I think, if she had managed to come up with a coherent tax policy to counter National's tax cut promises, but Labour still managed to win a plurality of votes and has a good shot at staying in power for a while.

However, for me, I'm a little concerned about the loss of power for minor parties. Through the MMP system, NZ has managed to have "third parties" play a real role in the government, and I think that's excellent; the more voices heard, the higher quality government. The Greens aren't spoilers, they're respected politicians (of course, if they want support from United Future, the Greens won't have any cabinet positions, so perhaps this time a vote for a Green candidate was a wasted vote...).

This election seemed so focused on National vs. Labour, though, that I wonder if maybe the trend is going back to the two-party system. Most of National's gains came from the minor parties, not from Labour. I think it'd be rather saddening if that trend continued.