The 3025 Lorikeet national caucuses were the collection of biannual electoral events, held on 14 April 3025, to apportion the 21 members of the Pāremata. Scheduled to coincide with the enthronement of Kaito Aumākua as Tāhā, the caucuses were designed by the constitutional framers to be apolitical. Caucus attendees participated in a national debate, focused on four 'ideological statements', to determine which could be developed into a national consensus, from which the Matahui determined a policy direction. The result of the caucuses was a diverse Pāremata, in which four major parties developed to fill the ideological allocations. As a result, Tāhā Kaito Aumākua appointed Peter Panuelo to serve as Perehitini, the leader of the Matahui. Members of all four parties were appointed to take up positions as guardians, leading to the precedent that the Matahui should be a grand coalition of all major parties represented in the Pāremata.
The centrist communitarian party, led by Panuelo, received the most support from attendees, resulting in that bloc taking the most seats in the new Pāremata. This bloc went on to form the political party Aroha Hapu - Community Love. Aroha Hapu, as the largest party, appointed three guardians to the Matahui. The second largest bloc was Kaitiaki Ropu, led by former Perehitini Leo Jakarta. Kaitiaki Ropu appointed two guardians, including Jakarta. The last two blocs (Taiao Ropu & E Tū Ake) obtained broadly equal support, and thus were able to appoint one guardian each. Panuelo described the grand coalition as a "diverse reflection of all Lorikeet" after the results of the caucuses were announced.
Ideological statements
Four ideological statements were put forward by the Free Daokan Society, crafted to reflect "broad sentiments" within the politically diverse FDS. The purpose of the statements wasn't to box in four 'correct' ideologies, but rather act as the first line of debate for the national caucuses. The statements were able to be refined and amended, depending on the specifics of the debates ad the sentiments of the population at large.
The four statements were:
| Icon | Statement | Party support | Caucus support | M.P.s apportioned |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ⛰️ | "A democratic monarchist philosophy promoting communitarian economics, civic self-governance, and non-militarist national policy." | Aroha Hapu | ~ 31.3% | 7 |
| 📚 | "A state-focused philosophy supporting public pensions, strong policing, trade protectionism, and national military autonomy, with neutrality on the monarchy." | Kaitiaki Ropu | ~ 28.3% | 6 |
| 🪶 | "A nationalist republican philosophy advocating independence from the Holy Roman Empire, military isolationism, abolition of the monarchy, and the prioritisation of the Daokan population." | E Tū Ake | ~ 21.3% | 4 |
| ⏳ | "A progressive ecological philosophy opposing the monarchy, advocating for social welfare, environmental infrastructure, and the complete abolition of the military to protect Lorikeet through civic and communal stewardship." | Taiao Ropu | ~ 19.1% | 4 |
The icons were chosen at random, in an attempt to give each statement a categorisable distinctive feature without indulging pre-existing political symbols. The mountain, books, feather, and hour-glass were all chosen for their political neutrality and comparative unremarkable identifiability. Aroha Hapu and E Tū Ake both retained their symbols when they formalised into political parties, with the Redland mountains becoming a key symbol of Aroha Hapu, and the falcon becoming a symbol of the Daokan nationalist movement. Taiao Ropu disregarded their symbol first, given its lack of a link to nature and the ecologist movement, and Kaitiaki Ropu remained ambivalent to their symbol, before officially replacing it with a shield in late 3025.
Electoral regulations
There were surprisingly few electoral regulations associated with the caucus. Those that were agreed to by the Free Daokan Society were:
- The Tāhā and members of his family would be unable to participate, or express an opinion on the proceedings;
- Only certain news organisations would be permitted to televise the proceedings, at designated caucuses during designated times;
- Violence of any kind would not be accepted, and participation was contingent on peaceful conduct within the caucus;
- Bribery of any kind would not be accepted, violation of which would constitute a serious crime to be referred to the police;
- All participants would have to follow the direction of the caucus chair, whose job was to gauge as many opinions as possible and oversee the rounds of voting;
- There would be two rounds of voting: an informal poll upon entry, and a formal poll upon departure. Both the informal poll and the formal poll would contain options relating to the ideological statements, as well as including an "other" box for attendees to add additional information.
There was no process for registration, nor was there any regulation that forbade participating on more than one occasion. In fact, greater participation was encouraged, provided individuals were not in violation of the caucus chair's attempts to gauge as many opinions as possible. There were a number of individuals asked to refrain from participating at busy points, especially in busy precincts, due to having already contributed significantly. Discretion of this was given to the caucus chair.
Controversially, there was no rule restricting participation based on age, with the opinions of those younger being taken into account (though this element was factored in during the allocation process). The only requirement was that the young person be able to express their opinion themselves, with surrogates being discouraged or forbidden (depending on the precinct).
Caucuses
There were seventy-five caucuses, described as "precincts", in which attendees were able to participate in debate, listen to oral arguments, and eventually cast a deciding vote. In all caucuses, attendees were asked to vote upon entry in an informal poll, which was compared with final votes when attendees left the caucus. The informal and final votes were not the only pieces of information gathered, with debate extracts, sentiments, crowd sizes, energy, and other metrics collected and used in the allocation process.
Attendees spent an average of 60 minutes in the caucus sites, before leaving to participate in the independence and enthronement day celebrations.
The Erimo-Five caucus
The Erimo-Five precinct was by far the largest caucus in the country, with over 10,600 attendees throughout the day. It was also the caucus site of constitutional framer Peter Panuelo, whose attendance seemed to attract more attendees over the course of the three-hours in which he was there. The caucus at Erimo-Five was one of three that were partially televised, with television rights only being granted to the WBC, Kaihautū, and CENN.
After Peter Panuelo left the caucus, a fist-fight broke out between two attendees. Both were arrested, with one - Vivi Mensala - being charged with aggravated assault. Both were charged with disorderly conduct. Following a police investigation, it was found that the altercation was caused by personal, not political matters. On the day, before the details were revealed, many speculated that this could ignite political violence in the new, "public debate-focused" community electoral landscape. This speculation did not materialise.
Allegations of fraud
During the day, it was reported that five men in the Heuvelberg-Twelve precinct had attempted to enter the caucus, despite having already participated in a caucus four miles down the road, at the Heuvelberg-Ten precinct. The men were asked to leave the caucus site because of disorderly conduct (having gotten intoxicated during an independence day street party nearby). Reporting was misleading, as many suggested that the men were asked to leave the caucus because they had already participated. However, according to the electoral rules (and reiterated later by the Free Daokan Society), the men were well within their rights to return and participate in the caucus for a second time. Their denial of entry was entirely due to their intoxicated state, having been deemed "unfit" to participate.
Allocation process
The Free Daokan Society invited one hundred political scientists, statisticians, scholars, historians, and academics to take part in the allocation process, predominantly from Pembroke University and the University of Bern. A few continental scholars were also invited. Their task was a complicated one: take the caucus data, which was a mix of quantitative and qualitative, and extrapolate this into a parliamentary composition that "broadly reflects the political views of the people of Lorikeet", with an eye for Lorikeet's geographical, religious, ethnic, and species diversity.
The first pieces of data started to come from the caucuses almost immediately, and so the allocation team began work at approximately 8.30 AM on 14 April 3025. Preliminary data was produced and shared with the Tāhā, though was kept closely confidential throughout.