Pick the winner...

[C_T_Russell]

Each party's share of the 120 "normal" seats is determined by their share of the party vote. Those seats are essentially then allocated first to the electorate vote winners and any remaining seats to list candidates.

E.g. ACT's party vote entitle them to 11 seats, which get allocated to their two electorate winners plus 9 list MPs.

In TPM's case, however, their share of the party vote only entitles them to 3 seats out of the 120, whereas it looks like they'll win 4 electorate seats. That extra electoral candidate, over and above their party vote entitlement, is additional to the 120, i.e. we end up with 121 MPs in total.

There was some talk about it on the talkback the other day and even the hosts didnt fully understand it.
But this is what I dont get, why does the party vote even count if its under 5%?
TPM would get the 3 electoral candidates that were elected, so why does a 4th seat even count under party votes?
Seems that the 2020 election got them 2 seats, but only one of those was an electoral candidate.

Boy someone was a bit twitchy- normally can't shut you up.

Just for you sunshine as it appears research is too big an ask.

How overhang seats arise

Under MMP, a party is entitled to a number of seats based on its share of the total vote. If a party's share entitles it to ten seats and its candidates win seven constituencies, it will be awarded three list seats, bringing it up to its required number. This only works, however, if the party's seat entitlement is not less than the number of constituencies it has won. If, for example, a party is entitled to five seats, but wins six constituencies, the sixth constituency seat is referred to as an overhang seat. Overhang can result from an unproportional distribution of constituencies as well as strong region-based support or the existence of regional parties.

So what happens if there was a situation where a small party won a whole bunch of electorate seats and little party vote?
Would they need more overhang seats?