December 3025 Lorikeet national caucuses

Snap national caucuses were held on 2 December 3025 to elect 21 MPs to sit in the 2nd Paremata. Called by perehitini Peter Panuelo due to ideological divisions within his administration, the caucus was fought between the four major Lorikeetian political parties: Aroha Hapu, Kaitiaki Ropu, E Tu Ake, and Taiao Ropu.

The results saw Kaitiaki Ropu - the guardian party - win the election, with their leader Kenta Tamihere being appointed perehitini by Tāhā Kaito Aumākua on 3 December 3025. The results skewed towards two major parties, Kaitiaki Ropu, and the Daokan nationalist party E Tu Ake, who came in a strong second. Aroha Hapu lost the caucus decisively, coming in joint-last place alongside Taiao Ropu, who lost seats. The political experts described the result as a clear rejection of Peter Panuelo's politicisation of the government, as well as a "broadly-felt" desire to increase policing amidst a rise in domestic crime. Peter Panuelo stepped down as leader of Aroha Hapu following the election and said that he would not sit on either the Paremata or the Matahui. Aymen Grace, similarly, said she would not lead the greens into the next election, stating the party must choose a new leader to represent the progressive, grassroots movement.

Results

Summary of the December 3025 Lorikeet national caucuses

Political party		Party leader	Ideological statement	Approximate support	MPs allocated	Change
⛨	Kaitiaki Ropu	Kenta Tamihere	"A state-focused philosophy supporting public pensions, strong policing, trade protectionism, and national military autonomy, with neutrality on the monarchy."	~ 41%	9	+ 3 seats
🪶	E Tū Ake	Ral Temei	A nationalist republican philosophy advocating independence from the Holy Roman Empire, military isolationism, abolition of the monarchy, and the prioritisation of the Daokan population.	~ 30%	6	+ 2 seats
⛰️	Aroha Hapu	Peter Panuelo	"A democratic monarchist philosophy promoting communitarian economics, civic self-governance, and non-militarist national policy."	~ 16%	3	- 4 seats
🌼	Taiao Ropu	Aymen Grace	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.	~ 13%	3	- 1 seat
Perehitini before caucus: Peter Panuelo ⛰️
Perehitini after caucus: Kenta Tamihere ⛨

Electoral regulations

There were surprisingly few electoral regulations associated with the caucus. Those that were agreed to by the administration 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).