KEY POINTS:
If this article about the smaller parties in Parliament were proportional, New Zealand First would warrant 308 words, the Greens 286, the Maori Party 114, United Future 146, Act 81, and the Progressives 65 - based on last election's party vote.
The Maori Party might deserve an extra
50 words or so because it overshot its MP entitlement by winning extra electorate seats, and maybe United Future would deserve a little less because one of its MPs defected during the term.
Similar proportionality extends to Parliament. The smaller the party, the fewer its resources, the less opportunity to participate in question time, and the fewer speaking slots in debates.
The effect is that smaller parties are often more disciplined in making the most of what they can with the little they have got.
It makes them more inventive, creative and forceful in seeking profile-raising issues especially in election year.
The Greens are so good at it individually, it seems they operate like a group of silos pushing their own causes rather than running with a whole-of-party approach.
New Zealand First's success is random, and depends on whether irascible leader Winston Peters is having a good day or not.
The Maori Party does very well for a new party but its novelty value has worn off and staying disciplined under stronger campaign pressure this election will be a challenge.
Act has just given a bravura display of positive (for it) profile-raising with saturation publicity over the return of Roger Douglas to active politics.
The competition is tough and we can expect a strong contest tomorrow for their share of the action when the new digital Freeview channel TVNZ7 is launched (midday) with a "Kingmakers" debate of small party leaders.
Well, almost all of the small party leaders. Political conceit promises to keep one of them away. Peters does not like being part of the small-party club with the Greens (who polled 0.4 per cent less than his party last time) the Maori Party, United Future, Act and the Progressives.
If Peters follows the pattern of the last election, when he could lay legitimate claim to be leading the "third" party, he will appear only in leaders debates that include Helen Clark, against whom he appears human, and John Key, against whom he appears experienced.
It may seem good sense for Peters to remain above the fray of the small-fry if, as is likely, one of his strong selling points this election is going to be his value as an elder statesman.
In practise the unhappy truth for all small parties is that their performance may well bear no relationship to their eventual influence.
A party with a handful of MPs may be much more crucial in forming a Government than a small party that has performed well and attracted more support. Size doesn't necessarily matter.
It happened after the 2002 election with the two centre parties, New Zealand First which had 13 MPs and United Future, which had nine.
United Future was a more attractive option for Labour and it signed a quick confidence and supply agreement. New Zealand First was left in the cold, as were eternal wallflowers, the Greens.
The "size doesn't matter" rule for the minnows does not apply to Labour and National. The largest of them to cross the finish line will almost certainly get the first chance to form a government.
New Zealand First and United Future's position of dealing with the largest party creates a powerful force in election year. The unavoidable irony for both parties is that that undertaking delivers exactly the sort of contest they don't want, a two-horse race between the big parties.
Today's Herald DigiPoll results suggest that it may be happening already as the gap between the two big parties narrows, from 18 percentage points last month to just 10.6 points now.
For New Zealand First, the risk of a two-horse race is the lesser evil compared with enduring another campaign plagued by the unanswerable question "who will you go with?" or the notion that New Zealand First would simply go with the party that offered Peters the best job.
It would be possible for Labour to form a government if it wins fewer votes than National - with the support of the Progressives, the Greens and the Maori Party which are less encumbered by their own pre-conditions than United Future and New Zealand First.
The Maori Party was vulnerable to attack from Labour last election campaign for refusing to rule out teaming up with National's Don Brash. But there is no value in it adopting the same position as New Zealand First and United Future on coalitions without destroying its fundamental aim of being an independent Maori voice.
Greens co-leader Russel Norman has described the notion of dealing with the biggest party as a matter of pragmatism over principle and questions why people would vote for either New Zealand First or United Future instead of the main parties.
Well might he complain. Without an electorate seat, his party is in grave danger of parliamentary obliteration in a two-horse race, and the party drops to 3.9 in today's poll.
United Future's Peter Dunne, who like Peters is a minister outside the Government, is now suggesting that the smaller parties could enter their own multi-party talks after an election as well as talks with a larger party.
He sees that as a way to maximise bargaining power, to ensure that all parties negotiating for Government formation are not each obtaining the same policy concessions.
It is an idea that builds on co-operation that the small-party club (minus NZ First) has developed this term over such issues as sedition laws, civil liberties and most recently on China issues.
They like to call themselves "the MMP parties" on the basis that they make MMP work. It remains to be seen whether MMP 2008 works for them.
