Draft Submission on Size of Parliament Bill
May 29th, 2006 at 1:06 pm by David FarrarLike No Right Turn, I’m planning to put in a submission against the bill to reduce the size of Parliament to 120 MPs.
My current draft is below. Feedback is welcome from people on it.
SUBMISSION TO
Justice and Electoral Committee
REGARDING
Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill>
FROM
David Farrar
Thorndon
Wellington
1. This submission respectfully asks the Justice and Electoral Committee Secretariat to recommend to the House that the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill not proceed.
2. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
3. I only represent myself in this matter.
4. For over 10 years I have been professionally involved in electoral issues, including the Electoral Act, electoral boundaries, electoral administration, and analysis of election results. I consider myself highly knowledgeable on electoral systems, and specifically the New Zealand electoral system.
5. The major reason I oppose this Bill is because reducing the size of the House of Representatives to 100 MPs, as outlined in the Bill, will over time break the MMP electoral system.
6. Other reasons for opposition are
a. The size of the House is small amongst countries of our population size.
b. It would allow the Executive to dominate the House more easily.
c. It would reduce the number of MPs available for Ministerial roles.
d. A compromise to reduce the probability of overhang may see the size of Electorates increase.
e. Parties would have fewer List MPs, and this would lead to a less diverse Parliament.
f. The Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended a House size of 120, preferably as much as 140.
g. Expected Cost Savings would be relatively small.
7. Overhang
8. The number of electorates is basically governed by the relative populations of the South and North Islands. The Maori option also has some effect but the general rule is that if the North Island population grows faster than the South Island population, then the number of electorates will increase after every census.
9. The number of seats grew, due to this uneven population growth, from 80 in 1966 to 99 in 1993.
10. Under MMP the number of electorate seats increased from 65 in 1996 to 67 in 1999 and 69 in 2002.
11. The number of electorates is recalculated after each five-yearly census. Using the medium growth assumptions of Stats NZ, I project the following number of electorates in the next 20 years:
2006: 71
2011: 73
2016: 74
2021: 76
2026: 77
12. If however the South Island followed a low growth path and the North Island a high growth path then the no of seats would be:
2006: 73
2011: 78
2016: 82
2021: 86
2026: 90
13. I think this clearly demonstrates that any reduction to 100 MPs, as proposed in the Bill, would be unsustainable as there will not be enough List MPs to allocate to parties to prevent over-hang.
14. In the 2002 election Labour got 41.3% of the vote, which in a 100 MP house meant they should have 43 seats. However they won 45 electorate seats so in 2002 they would have had an overhand of two MPs.
15. We have already seen over-hang for the first time in the 2005 election with the Maori Party having one more seat than its share of the vote would normally entitle it to. Over-hang is generally seen as undesirable as it makes The House less proportional, and proportionality was a major rationale of MMP.
16. Size of the House compared to overseas Parliaments
17. Some people assert that the size of the House making up the NZ Parliament is large compared to other countries. I have gathered data from all 30 OECD countries, and the eight countries expected to join the OECD in 2007.
18. The results are set out in the table below:
19. The size of the NZ Parliament, per 100,000 residents is ranked 17th out of 38, or just about dead centre.
20. In absolute terms the size of Parliament at 120 is 30th= out of 38. Our population is also ranked 30th out of 38.
21. However even this simple comparison is somewhat unfair to NZ. Because very large countries always have a very low MP to population ratio, and very small countries a relatively high ratio. This reflects that there is a maximum and minimum size for a Parliament, for it to be an effective law maker.
22. If the US wanted a ratio equal to NZ, it would need a Congress of 9,000 representatives and Senators. Likewise for Iceland to have the same ratio as NZ, it would have a Parliament of only nine MPs.
23. Therefore the best comparison for NZ, is to look at countries of a similar population. Now of the seven countries with a smaller population than NZ, none of them have a lower MP to population ratio..
24. If we take countries with a population of between four million and ten million, we find NZ has the smallest Parliament and is ranked 9th out of 11 for ratio of MPs to population.
25. Therefore I conclude that overall NZ has a small Parliament relative to countries of our size
26. It is also worth noting that NZ is one of the few countries with no provincial or state governments. This puts NZ in an even more favourable position.
27. Executive domination of the House
28. One of the good features of MMP has been the increased role for and importance of the House. The days of not having the House meet for six months, and then just rubber stamping legislation are long gone.
29. The Executive in recent years has tended to number 26 (currently 29). In a 120 member House 61 votes are needed to pass legislation. If Cabinet decides on an issue, all Ministers are obliged to support it at the Government Caucus meeting. Reducing the House by 20 members will make it almost inevitable that the Executive will form a majority of the Government Caucus.
30. No of MPs available for the Executive
31. The size of the Executive, has grown significantly over the years. It is currently 29 which is an all time record. A century ago it was only seven.
32. A new Government has to fill the Executive roles, two or three of the four Speakerships, and perhaps eight to ten of the 18 Select Committee Chairmanships. This is a total of around 40 roles.
33. Even with a 120 MP House, a new Government often will have only around 40
No tag for this post.
May 29th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Point 39: “one electorate takes 11 hours to drive through”.
Vote:I believe Helen Clark may have a solution to this one.
May 29th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Well, we agree on this.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
I thought you could not reveal publically submissions you are going to put before a select committee it being a breach of privilege to do so.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
What a very good summation of this silly piece of kneejerk legislation.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Sensible, clear and I hope they pay attention.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
If you’ve never heard the MP promoting this piece of leg, Barbara Stewart, interviewed it’s hilarious. She justifies it primarily by a poll which showed people want less MPs. Wow, the public don’t like MPs – I never would have guessed.
Nice work, David.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
It’s a draft, not final Tim.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Mr. Farrar is wrong on this, and the fact that so many lefties like NRT agree with him should be enough to alert him to this. I searched through his submission for some reference to the real benefits of having more MPs, but I couldn’t find any except for the nauseatingly PC reference to “diversity”. Reduce them to fourty or less I say. I need these free loading regulating self serving parasites with their fingers in my wallet and their legisation stealing from my bank account like I need a hole in the head. In the past, NZ got along just fine with a lesser number.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Interesting reasons, DPF. I think your diversity reason is the most important one, and the real reason behind the drive to drop the number – to reduce diversity and put the power back in the hands of the big two parties.
For a very small party, having 1 extra person in parliment is quite important. For Labour or National it’s mostly irrelevant. They’ve got their hardcore 10-20 most key players in very safe positions, and everyone else are just chorus. But with a small party probably everyone they have in parliament are crucial players.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
So, redbaiter, if the left generally wanted to decrease the number of MPs you would be railling on about how we should stick with the status quo? Now I know your argument isn’t quite that simplistic, but the fact that it is the first thing you mentioned seems to suggest otherwise…
I think diversity is important – a good democracy is about more than just simple majoritarianism.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
You said…
Vote:3. I only represent myself in this matter.
Suggestion:
Remove the word “only”. That word makes it sound like your opinion isn’t worth as much.
May 29th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
In Australia a constant refrain from both sides of politics is that they believe themselves to be the most overgoverned country in the world. Occasionally NZ is cited as an example of a better way of doing things. Yet on DPF’s table Oz ranks below NZ. Why’s that?
Vote:The comparison above is misleading, as it appears to include only numbers of federal elected representatives. Throw in the Australian state upper and lower houses and you’ll find that NZ ranks way below Australia. The same would apply to any other federal examples in the table.
You’ll often hear Australian political commentaters refer to THE parliament, rather than simply parliament. They’re not just being pompous (although some of them certainly are), it’s a way of qualifying which of their many parliaments they’re referring to.
May 29th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
43. The current 121 MP House has 39 women in it. A House of 101 would have only 29 women, 50% of those MPs dropping out would be women, reducing the percentage in the House from 32.2% to 28.7%.
Is that right? I suggest it would be the electorate (and the parties) that would decide how many women Parliament would have. Instead you’ve plucked figures out of thin air to support your argument. Under a 100 seat parliament, there may well be 39 or more women MPs. It would depend on how many women decided to stand.
You seem to imply that proportionality can’t exist with 100 MPs. Why not? So we can’t have 50 electorate seats and 50 list seats? Yeah, right.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
43. The current 121 MP House has 39 women in it. A House of 101 would have only 29 women, 50% of those MPs dropping out would be women, reducing the percentage in the House from 32.2% to 28.7%.
Is that right? I suggest it would be the electorate (and the parties) that would decide how many women Parliament would have. Instead you’ve plucked figures out of thin air to support your argument. Under a 100 seat parliament, there may well be 39 or more women MPs. It would depend on how many women decided to stand.
You seem to imply that proportionality can’t exist with 100 MPs. Why not? So we can’t have 50 electorate seats and 50 list seats? Yeah, right.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
39. A reduction in the number of electorates would significantly increase the geographical size of some of our rural electorates
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Who cares about “diversity” anoungst MP’s…for what purpose? If Governments restricted to its proper role of rights protection it shouldn’t matter whos doing the job as long as they are competent.
Idealy Government should be like a nightwatchman with an answering machine …there to do a job but invisible to people going about their business, neither thought of nor needing to be thought of…
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
A guy is walking along the beach. He kicks a bottle on the sand and a genie pops out.
The genie says; ;its you usual genie scenario my friend, but with a twist. You only get one wish
and whatever you get, your mother in law gets double’
The guy thinks for a moment and says ‘OK, give me a million dollars and beat me half to death’.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
You comment shows exactly how thoroughly you have mastered this topic, redbaiter.
From now on, we shall call you ‘Master Baiter’.
[has anyone done that one before? if not why not?]
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
ross
You appear to have no idea about an electorate MP’s work load. They do drive round their electorates, if they don’t show their faces they don’t get elected. Why do you think O’Connor kept getting the West Coast seat? One change I would like to see is the list MPs spending more time supporting their electorate buddies in the field, running clinics and the like.
A problem NZ has in general with its small population base is having enough compitent people to fill roles which sometimes have profound implications. We do operate on a resonably equal footing in international fora, for example. I think 2nd to the point about diversity is the point about a big enough pool of capable people.
Another point backing up tyhe executive dominance issues is that how since MMP legislation has relied on multi part support and therefore been much more representative. Despite the “dictatorship of the prolotariat” laments we hear on this forum that really is not possible under MMP but it could become so with fewer MPs.
Anyway, I hope this submission and others like it get the publicity they deserve.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I think your arguments are a mixture of politically
Vote:correct waffle and tripe. Your mate NRT no doubt welcomes your support because this system entrenches Labour in power, especially since National has destroyed its logical allies. Have a look at the electoral map the more seats crammed into the main cities the greater the socialist representation. As for the nonsense about diversity of representation I can’t see that token Moslems,Transvestites, and rastafarians etc has advanced the efficiency of Goverment Business in any way. I’m with Redbaiter..Get rid of some of the drones. Jeez No wonder National seem so bereft of winnable strategies if this is what their key supporters come up with.
May 29th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Dero your suggestion is in the realms of utter fantasy. The left are obsessed with power and will never promote any idea that conflicts with that obsession. What is manifested here is the struggle between left and right in its most simplistic terms.
The left always want more and more power, and the right are (or should be) intent on preventing them from obtaining that power. The right should be focused on reducing the size and reach of the monolithic government edifices that the control freak left always build, (or always yearn to build).
Instead, once again, we see the National party, (or at least one of its spokesmen) due to ideological confusion, not knowing which end of the field they’re playing from, or perhaps not even knowing where the goal posts are. (BTW Lyndon, is the imaginary “we” a sign of typically collectivist schizophrenia?)
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
An article you may want to look at is: Taagepera, Rein. “The Size of National Assemblies.” Social Science Research 1, no. 4 (1972): 385-401.
Vote:Taagepera argues that the ideal size of any legislative body is the cubic root of the population size.
Given the population of NZ is 4,116,900 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10384047), then the ideal size of Parliament is 160 MPs.
May 29th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Redbaiter said ‘What is manifested here is the struggle between left and right in its most simplistic terms.’
If this was the case, then why would DPF, who I think we can at least agree is of the right, be making the submission he is?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Redbaiter and baxter, just for clarity, what are your arguments that diversity is bad, or at least not something worthy of encouraging? To me this issue is the most crucial in this debate, so some genuine arguments would be very interesting.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
No, ‘baiter, the imaginary “we” is not a sign of the imaginary “typically collectivist schizophrenia”.
I was just a rhetorical choice I made to facilitate making a universal joke of your nickname.
What I really want is for everyone to chuckle every time they see it. Which will only happen if you live up to the ‘Master’ and continue to make comments like these ones.
I mean, I can kind of see where you’re coming from, but I can’t think of any way to get there involving logic, the topic, and David’s post.
This may just be my point of view and I don’t object to you saying whatever you like. But still.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed but four of the seven MPs on the Justice and Electoral Select Committee wouldn’t have made it in if we had a 99 MP Parliament if you’d like to highlight that for them
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Ben, no, they are arguing that votes in cities should not count so highly because (according to them) city dwellers don’t agree with their views.
Gets us back to the “blades of grass you own” voting system of the past which is, of course, a much fairer mechanism of representation and one that the US Senate uses so it must be “a good thing”.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Lyndon, it’s a quip that certainly has been made before lots of times.
Noddy, that may be, but I’d rather hear it from the horse’s mouth.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Ben
Well baxter sez:
“Have a look at the electoral map the more seats crammed into the main cities the greater the socialist representation”
and redbattey sez:
“The left always want more and more power, and the right are (or should be) intent on preventing them from obtaining that power”
In this context that reads to me like representation should be prevented from counting too much…
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Ben, don’t ask RedBaiter to define anything, he is utterly incapable of understanding political thought outside of “fuck ‘em all, the cunts”.
Tell us Red, exactly what do you stand for again?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Sensible stuff David… you should take a roll call to add to 3. I only represent myself in this matter.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Redbaiter – I referred to several benefits of more MPs such as a better talent pool for Cabinet, and the Executive less able to dominate Parliament. You also ignored that main issue which is simply MMP will not work with 100 MPs.
Woppo – I made specific reference to the fact that NZ does not have state or provincial governments. Also if you read the commentary you will see that Australia doesn’t really rank better as you can only compare countries of a similiar population size.
Ross – Read the submission more carefully. I am referring to specifically the 2005 election results based on if this bill had been law. These are not figures plucked out of the air but reflect the 20 List MPs elected in Spots 101 – 120.
You also appear not to have read the bill. The bill seeks to reduce the number of list seats only. This is a submission on a specific bill, not a general paper on the size of Parliament.
Turning to your other point, you are quite wrong. MPs do indeed drive through their electorates on a very regular basis. Not to sightsee, but to attend local events, hold clinics etc.
Baxter – you are confusing support for MMP and the size of the House. This is not a bill on getting rid of MMP, it is on the size of the House and to my mind it is stupid to set a size of Parliament which will break the electoral system voted in by NZers. As for diversity I think there is a big difference between saying diversity generally is a good thing, and saying you support particular MPs being there just because they are diverse.
Greg – fascinating. So China would have around 1,000 person Parliament and a small pacific country of 75,000 would have a 50 MP Parliament.
If anyone has a copy of Greg’s article in hard or soft copy I’d love a copy.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Germany has a further 1833 legislators at the lander lever. This excludes the Senate who are members of the executive (except for Bavaria who abolished their’s in 1999 so that doesn’t count).
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Your analysis of MPs per population ratios ignores the state parliaments and legislatures.
Vote:The US for example has according to my studies 7401 state representatives and senators, which combined with the total in Congress gives it 2.66 MPs per 100,000 population.
May 29th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
The cube root? Wow. Maths can do everything.
DPF: http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=csd
Seems to be what you’re looking for.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Canada has 743 provinicial and territorial legislators, bring the total to 1161 legislators or 3.59 legislators per 100,000 population.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Peter – The analysis shows that for a country of our size, we already have a small Parliament compared to others. I noted that with state parliaments it would be even worse, but didn’t feel the time taken to count up state reps in 38 countries would be worth it.
However the figures for Germany and the US are useful and I will add to submisison or use as part of oral sub.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
I have to say I can’t make head or tail of it. Seems to me that the cube root law is more of an observation of international averages than an actual justification of any particular size.
As a political question, I think it’s really not something maths can answer. People who favour autocratic rule will say the optimal parliament size is 1 seat. People who believe in maximizing participation would probably believe that we should have referenda on every issue, possibly with compulsory voting. Everyone else will be somewhere in between.
But the observation is very interesting, that parliament size is usually proportional to the cube root of the number of voters. I suppose there are generally perceived to be diminishing returns from more representatives. I would have thought that would lead to an asymptote rather than an unbounded progression. Wierd.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I noted with interest your comment,”The days of not having the House meet for six months, and then just rubber stamping legislation are long gone”
Vote:Why is was a recent as 1998-99 that the House didnt meet for 6 months.
And armed with the proxy votes of some Mps who were ‘work shy’ the rubber stamping only lasted 3-4 months.
May 29th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
McPhee – can you be precise and tell us what were these six months the House did not meet in 1998/99?
And as someone involved with Government back then, there was no rubber stamping at all when dealing with ten indpendents or so. I doubt there was ever a more challenging time to try and pass legisaltion.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Regression is likely to give you the best idea of the “appropriate” size of parliment (and you have done all the work in pulling the data together). Taking the population sizes and total number of seats in your table above and log-transforming both, a linear regression explains 83% of the variance in the scatter, following the relationship:
Seats = exp(-1.7492 + 0.4495*log(Population))
Under this, the “expected” number of seats is 159 seats. A 99 seat parliment would be a fairly major departure from the relationship, but not as far from the relationship as some other countries.
In contrast the relationship between cube root of the population and the number of seats explained only 56% of the variance (sorry Greg).
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
At one level, National is advantaged from a smaller and/or FPP parliament.
But the public perception of them for advocating such a course for this reason, would make it hard for them to do well in MMP elections.
Thus their actual self interest (in the environment in which they compete) is to pretend to be happy with MMP and for there to be a diverse parliament.
Thus it’s important for this to be the new perception. (just as it’s important to be seen as capable of working with Maori when in government, so there is no cultural/societal division, while also trying to occupy the full and final settlement sector of the political spectrum for electoral reasons).
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Picking the number of seats based on mathematical averages is one method. Or we could want be be ‘better than average’, meaning more or less seats depending on your definition of ‘better’.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
“Redbaiter – I referred to several benefits of more MPs such as a better talent pool for Cabinet, and the Executive less able to dominate Parliament. You also ignored that main issue which is simply MMP will not work with 100 MPs.”
You have to do more that offer the opinion that something is “better”. The opinion must be validated by some comparison or some reasoning process. Saying a hat is better because it is yellow cuts no ice with people who may dislike yellow as a colour.
For example-
“It would allow the executive to dominate the house more easily” – This assumes that the reader agrees that such domination would be a bad thing when this is not necessarily so.
“It would reduce the number of MPs available for Ministerial roles”.- same thing applies.
“Parties would have fewer List MPs, and this would lead to a less diverse Parliament”. Same once again, and also, there is no proof that having a diverse parliament is a benefit. I for one do not even know what you really mean by “diverse” and I find what you say about women and Maoris especially grating. For god’s sake, its so PC, so nineties… so socialist……
Secondly, saying that other countries have greater or lesser ratios is merely stating a fact, and does not define any real reason why any particular quantity is advantageous..
Thirdly, I did not refer to the fact that 100 MPs or less would break the MMP system because I believe implementing that system was a massive error of judgment. If we were bent on change STV would have been my preferred option. I say lets break MMP and have done with it. So your “major reason” is worthless to me.
And what the hell is wrong with something being popular with the damn electorate FFS..??? So elitist…
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
It seems fairly obvious that there should be a relationship between population and effective representation. I agree a logarithmic relationship is more likely than a cubic one, with electorate MPs being directly related to population size, and the number of list MPs being based on a set proportion of electorate MPs to make the total (that will increase over time with pop. growth)
Basically we just want a system that works for us, is not unweildy (too many MPs), or lean in terms of talent and hands to the pump (too few MPs).
Ideally picking a lower bound of effective representation from that regression analysis is what NZers want from the referendum -if anything to reduce the number of lightweight MPs that do SFA for the country, and are there for the perks.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
I rather like the suggestion that this bill is rubbish in that the only thing is has going for it is that the “people” generally (the electors) are in favour. Ho ho ho, like that has ever had much of an influence.
I actually support the bill, and for a very important reason. Close to 90% of the elctorate voted for a referendum on reducing the number of MPs, and, rightly or wrongly, they should have been given that opportunity. For Labour as it was at the time, to deny that very clearly expressed wish was thoroughly undemocratic. So the outcome is wrong, it can be corrected in time. It would serve a very good lesson to parliamentarians that they are our servants, not our masters.
Cheating, thieving bastards they may be, but I reckon all electors deserve the chance to at least show that they are OUR cheating, thieving bastards.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Actually, the more I think about this issue, the less I give a damn. It probably won’t make much difference, and the differences will probably be quite unpredictable. A more granular system swings both ways, just in a granular fashion.
Only the little parties will be affected. It could lead to more Green and less ACT, or vice versa. Whatever. Ultimately the thresholds are responsible for most of the granularity, and they are here to stay, it seems.
I can’t imagine there will any net saving to the country in dollars but this could be a populist act, a nice, pointless little concession Labour can make.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Excellant draft submission DPF, could not agree more, very well thought out, rarely do I totally support your POV, this is one such time.
Well Done
Nigel
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 9:29 am
DPF,
“MMP will not work with 100 MPs”.
Right, you would know that for a fact? When was the last time NZ had 100 MPs under MMP? That’s right, never, so we don’t know if it would work or not. I don’t see any reason why 50 list seats and 50 electorate seats couldn’t work.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Or for that matter, 60 electorate seats and 40 list seats. I remember the doom merchants who said that MMP wouldn’t work either.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Interesting submission. I like the way you lay it out and make it clear for its readers what you are actually arguing.
Re point 35, I wouldn’t put in a joke, nor would I talk about the inevitability, which sounds like hopelessness, of an ever-increasing executive. Could you not make a point about Executive members not having enough time to do justice to their portfolios if they have to take on more of them (isn’t that what a reduced Executive would mean?)
Re points 43 and 44, this is a bit disingenuous as it reflects the ranking of women and Maori on the party lists and not directly caused by the structure of the House. Women and Maori are not getting elected in the electoral seats and we can debate long and hard the reasons for that. But make the point it anyway
I trust you’ll keep us posted on whether you are invited to make an oral submission?
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Thanks all for your comments. I’ve made quite a few changes based on feedback and used quite a bit of material quoted here.
Have just e-mailed the submission in. Deadline isn’t until 14 July so lots of time for others to do so.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
David I’m glad you took advice on board and made some changes. The efforts of Redbaiter and myself were not then in vain….Your proposals and rationalising in the first instance were consistent with building a beauracracy as in Goverment Departments, hospitals, universities etc…Most right wing people would instead study the example of our most successful companies, ones like G>P>G Infratil and the Hart controlled companies who have small boards and pick the best irrespective of whether they are representative of diverse groups or not.I fail to see what the odd large electorate has to do with it. I am sure that some Aussie Politicians have electorates many times the size of any of ours.
Vote:May 30th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
It’s been a very interesting exercise reading the various comments. I have come to the conclusion that no matter how many or how few MPs we have nobody will be happy. What is more important before we settle the number, is the form of MMP we practise. Although it is democratic it has shown over the last couple of parliaments that representation has been fragmented enough to hinder some clear discussion and therefore sensible legislation being passed. Many times bills have had to be changed to the extent of making them unworkable, to get them passed. There is no perfect solution to this but a start would be….. The threshold for getting seats raised to 10% and electorate seats to stand on their own and not qualify a party with a rediculously small percentage of votes(therefore low support of the people of New Zealand) eg 2%,from cluttering up seats in Parliament. This way we should at least get complete legislation and not the half-baked laws we get now.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 9:25 am
By the cube-root rule (reasonably well established in comparative electoral and legislative studies), NZ should have a parliament of about 159 MPs. Anywhere from 126 to 201 would be within the usual empirically observed variation. So, yes, the current size is already on the small side, and 100 would be ridiculously small.
Using an exponential relationship, rather than a simple ratio of voters:MP allows us to predict the optimal size for the US House to be 664 rather than 9,000! (The “normal” variance would put the USA’s minimum expected size at 527, still much higher than 435, where it has been stuck since 1910 (when the population was only 91 million).
See the comparative graph at the link I gave above.
Note that I would suggest NZ increase to at least 150 or, at worst, stay at 120, independent of the electoral system. But with MMP, a small parliament means either very large districts (electorates as you say) or compromising too much on PR. MMP perhaps demands an optimally or even over- sized parliament even more than do “pure” FPTP or PR systems.
The argument that a cabinet would dominate such a small parliament is also a serious one (though less so under any kind of PR/coalitional system than with FPTP and single-party cabinets).
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 9:57 am
Thanks for comments Matthew – I will use the 126 to 201 range in my oral submission.
Vote:May 15th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
pantera13
Vote:May 15th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
pantera13
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
gay teen blog
Vote:none
http://www.sexfunbeach.com/crazygirls/4/index.html
June 26th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
gay teen blog
Vote:none
http://www.sexfunbeach.com/crazygirls/3/young-guy-anal.html
June 26th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
gay teen blog
Vote:none
http://www.sexfunbeach.com/crazygirls/3/young-guy-anal.html
June 26th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
gay teen blog
Vote:none
http://www.sexfunbeach.com/crazygirls/4/index.html