Dropping the 5% threshold
August 25th, 2004 at 3:15 pm by David FarrarNRT proposes dropping the 5% threshold for parties to gain representation in Parliament.
I think this would be a very bad thing to do, for two reasons.
The first is that it will greatly encourage extremism in politics. The large parties will generally avoid extremist policies as they can not afford to alienate too large a segment of the population. A small party doesn’t mind if the percentage of the population who detests them goes from 30% to 90%, if it puts their support up from say 1% to 3%. They have absolutely nothing to lose from going as extreme as possible, if it means they get a seat in Parliament they would otherwise not get. The 5% threshold acts as a counter to encouraging extremism.
The second reason is that the lack of a threshold would not only encourage extremism, but greatly reward it. It will become less and less likely that two or even three parties can form a Government, and the small 1% parties will hold the balance of power. They will gain influence well beyond their share of the vote and even get to decide who will be in Government.
So getting rid of the threshold will both encourage and reward extremism on both the right and left. And this has real effects. Certain middle east peace initiatives never happened because the extreme religious parties in the Knesset held the balance of power.
Israel, is a country around our size, with also 120 MPs. 24 of the 120 seats are held by parties that get under 5% of the vote.
No tag for this post.
August 25th, 2004 at 3:40 pm
Agree totally.
Vote:August 25th, 2004 at 3:43 pm
Extremism is a subjective term.
It’s called democracy. 5% is an arbitrary figure. Why not 4? Why not 3? Just abolish it for consistency’s sake.
Who knows, then the Libertarianz might get in
Vote:August 25th, 2004 at 3:43 pm
I support having a threshold, but I am not sure it’s quite at the right level. I would be happy to see it at 3.5 or 4%, but wouldn’t want to see it much lower for the reasons you outline.
Of course, for every example there’s a counter-example. My memory is that the parliament of Sweden doesn’t have a simple threshold, and there are a couple of xenophobic right wing parties but nothing destroying govt stability. I could be mistaken on that though…
Vote:August 25th, 2004 at 3:48 pm
Me too.
One reason the Germans have this threshold (or rather, that the Americans imposed it on them) is to prevent nutbars getting traction.
NRT thinks that even nutbars deserve representation. And I agree to a limited extent. But 5% isn’t much of a hurdle. Our parliament is extraordinarily diverse as it is, compared to any other democracy I can think of.
Vote:August 25th, 2004 at 4:02 pm
Totally agree – the 5% limit was a deliberate, considered response to PR and MMP systems overseas in places such as Israel and Italy.
And Chris, having MPs at all is hardly fully democratic. We live in a representitive democracy, and that entails a variety of compromises, including a relatively coarse representation of our views. That isn’t always a bad thing.
Vote:August 25th, 2004 at 4:52 pm
I also agree with the threshold – the hurdle needs to be reasonably high otherwise there will be 20 special issues parties all drawing their party funds off the taxpayer. Equally they will all get time during elections to bombard us with political ads.
Vote:August 25th, 2004 at 5:08 pm
Agree 100%, they would be better off looking at 4 year terms & fixed election dates I think.
Vote:August 25th, 2004 at 5:17 pm
I disagree with the threshold but I would go further and abolish electorate seats. Just because one part of the country is nutty enough elect the likes of Peter Dunne and Winston Peters locally we are now stuck with all those who sailed in on their coat tails (and this even when they don’t get 5% nationally). Have 125 list seats instead, and minority Governments. The reason we got rid of FFP was the fact it resulted in extremist minority rule that laughed in the face of democracy. I’d rather have 1 nutter trying to influence policy on the sidelines rather than 66 in Government.
Vote:August 25th, 2004 at 9:36 pm
change the list, not the threshold
NRT wants to drop the 5 percent threshold for the next election. He wants to drop it to 0.83 percent, which will get one MP in.
I disagree. Lowering the threshold will let the loonies in, give them the balance of power, and there would be greater …
Vote:August 25th, 2004 at 10:54 pm
4 year terms and fixed election dates are very good ideas.
Chris – 5% is arbitrary but it seems to be working well. One can argue for 4% which is what the Royal Commission advocated.
Vote:August 25th, 2004 at 11:30 pm
Jordan – Sweden has 349 seats. 310 are from 29 multi member constituencies and 39 are proportional top ups.
To gain representation a party needs either 4% nationwide or 12% in a multi member constituency.
They have only seven parties in Parliament, like NZ. Their makeup is:
Social Democratic – 144 seats
Vote:Moderates – 55
Liberals -58
Christian Democrats – 33
Left – 30
Centre – 22
Green – 17
August 25th, 2004 at 11:39 pm
If we keep the threshold, the Electorate MP rule that gives parties not making 5% of the party vote should be changed. NZ First kept an influence in the 1999 Parliament because of this rule. Of course, because I don’t like NZ First is not a good reason to change, but I do think it is rather unfair for say, Christian Heritage (who I also don’t like) gaining 4.7% of the party vote, while NZ First with a comparable gained representation just because Winston held Tauranga. The Electorate MPs who win their seats fair and square should keep them of course – I just don’t think others should be let in on the coat tails of such MPs.
PS I do think that the Parliamentary term should be entrenched – it would be a limitation on the power of the HOS.
Vote:August 26th, 2004 at 1:20 am
The Christian Coalition who I think Lewis is referring to got 4.3% of the vote in the 1996 election. I think they deserved some seats.
Jordan, why 3.5% or 4%? You can’t just set a figure… why that? Same argument applies for why 5%?
I think if enough people – 1.3% of the country or whatever it is to get a seat in Parliament – vote for a party, then they are entitled to have a representative to represent those views. That might mean Destiny NZ get in, it might mean the reformed Communists do, it might mean the National Front – I don’t really care. They’re entitled to their views, and they should have those views represented.
Interestingly, the 1986 Royal Commission also argued for dropping the 5% threshold for Maori parties – what do people think about that? That would make it easier for Tariana et al to get in… and stay in.
Vote:August 26th, 2004 at 9:58 am
Chris – as I said having no threshold both encourages and rewards extrenmism and can lead to very unstable government. Those 1% parties inevitably hold huge power beyond their share of the vote.
And anyway the reformed communists are already in Parliament, except I don’t think Keith Locke has reformed much
The lack of threshold for Maori parties was proposed, only if the Maori seats were abolished. Could be a fair trade off.
Vote:August 26th, 2004 at 10:52 am
I’m not so sure about the idea of no threshold for Maori parties David, woudn’t that promote Maori extremism and comments about preferential treatment for Maori.
Vote:The Maori seats at least do not effect the proportionality of parliament, they just re-direct one sector of the community.
Changing the threshold for Maori parties would alter the political landscape by favouring Maori parties and you also have the problem of how would you define a Maori party ?
August 26th, 2004 at 12:53 pm
According to http://www.knesset.gov.il Israel has one faction with two seats, three with three seats one with five seats and two with six seats. if these minor parties all act together they would just have enough seats to form a majority government with the largest party (Likud, 40 seats) but individually they have negligible power. The big difference betweeen Israel and NZ is the fragmentation of the major parties. Bill English has been universally dumped on for letting the National vote drop to 27 seats (barely double NZ First’s 13) but compare that to the Israeli Labour parties 19 (contesting second place with Shinui on 15). The threshold has nothing to do with this.
Vote:What’s undeniable is that the threshold is leading to tactics which distort natural voting (eg National lets Rodney win a seat, Christians merge with United so as to leverage Peter Dunne’s seat, etc). If you’re really worried about a proliferation of vey small parties then I would suggest changing to STV (as in Ireland).
August 27th, 2004 at 2:10 am
“The Maori seats at least do not effect the proportionality of parliament”
Nigel, where have you been for the last 6 months? Your statement is grossly untrue. This will be shown when the Maori Party achieve a clean sweep of the Maori seats at the next election (a likely scenario) and create a huge overhang in the house ie. possibly only 3% of the total vote but 7 out of 120 seats. Hello!?
Vote:August 27th, 2004 at 7:59 am
Greyshade, isn’t that an advantage that different groups work together? I think I’m with DPF on this one.
You always can get in parliament if you can get people to vote for you directly. That way there is a direct link between representation and voters.
The problem is with voters who are spread geographically. They have to cross the 5%.
But such blocks can always become part of a larger party. Having one of your guys in parliament might not accomplish a lot by itself. If you’re part of a bigger party, you proof you can work together, and you might actually accomplish something.
Vote:August 27th, 2004 at 9:10 am
Paul, I’ve been mostly in the US. The Maori Party could create an overhang as David/You pointed out & I didn’t know about that scenario.
.
Vote:That would indeed break the proportionality of parliament.
It’s what United are doing on a bigger scale. Here’s hoping an Auckland party does not appear
August 27th, 2004 at 1:49 pm
An Auckland Party? Oh no. But they’d only have two policies – spend the entire roading budget on Auckland, and move the capital to Auckland.
The Maori party pose an interesting problem for MMP. If they capture the Maori seats, it is highly likely that they will distort the proportionality of Parliament. I calculate they’d need around 5.83% of the party vote in order to stop this from occuring, a level I’m not sure they’d acheive. Such a situation could only increase the calls for abolition of the Maori seats.
Vote:August 27th, 2004 at 10:43 pm
If you want a response as to why you shouldn’t change the 5% rule, I have one word for you: Weimar.
Vote: