What if we abolished the 5% threshold?
In the thread on Destiny, someone asserted that Destiny should be represented in Parliament as they got enough votes for one MP (they did not make the 5% threshold).
This got me wondering about what the Parliaments would have looked like, if the 5% threshold had been abolished. Working backwards:
2005
Labour 50
National 47
NZ First 7
Greens 6
Maori 4 (3 + 1 overhang))
United Future 3
ACT 2
Progressive 1
Destiny 1
Likely Govt: Still Lab/Prog/NZF/UFNZ = 61/121
2002
Labour 49
National 25
NZ First 12
ACT 9
Greens 8
United Future 8
Progressive 2
Christian Heritage 2
Outdoor Rec 2
Alliance 2
Legalise Cannabis 1
Likely Govt would be Labour/Prog/Greens/Alliance = 61/120
1999
Labour 48
National 37
Alliance 9
ACT 9
Greens 6
NZ First 5
Christian Heritage 3
Future NZ 1
Legalise Cannabis 1
United 1
Likely Govt would be Labour/Alliance/Greens = 63/120
1996
National 42
Labour 35
Alliance 12
ACT 7
NZ First 16
Christian Coalition 5
Legalise Cannabis 2
United 1
Likely Govt would have been National/NZ First/ACT 65/120 or National/NZ First/Christian Coalition = 63/120. A Labour/NZ First/Alliance Govt of 63/120 is a possibility also as the chance of only a two party Government with National no longer exists.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 am
It was me. Of course, without a 5% threshold the tactical voting of those who might support smaller parties but don’t because they won’t get in, would change – I expect, for example, that ACT would have done a little better at the last election if people hadn’t been worried about them not making it past 5%.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Good post David, I think removing the 5% threshold is a good idea. Look at the other parties that might of got in, I’m all for more representation.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:56 am
I think that the threshold is there for a good reason, ensuring that there is sizeable support for a group before representation happens, and it focuses on electorate success. Also if lots of parties got less than 5% and no electorate seats then there would be less MPS and that has to be good.
BTW, David, your site is being bombarded with spam. The recent comments block is just about all spam now. You need to do something about it or it will just get worse. Talk to the guys at Inspire.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I agree DPF, I don’t see good a moral or practical case for having a threshold (we imported it from the German model which had it to block the emergence of a neo-nazi party) – if 1% or 2% of the country supports a particular party they have as much right to have their voice heard, proportional to its size, as the 41% who supported Labour.
A lower threshold or no threshold would ease the distortions around tactial voting: for example, the incentive for a major party to try to push a minor one below the threshold (ie Nat plan for the Greens in 2005) and the tendency for minor party support to sit just over the threshold or collapse to nearly nothing.
It would also help ensure the survival of minor parties through fluctuating fortunes.. currently, there is a real danger we could be reduced by 2011 to only 2 minor parties (once Peters, Dunne, Anderton, and Hide either lose their seats or retire).. there would be a stronger incentive for MPs to stand by their principles and leave major parties when they felt they went against their mandate or otherwise acted wrongly (the flipside is it might encourage more Copelands and Feilds but thats a small price).
Other countries that have a PR system genrally have lower thresholds, such at 3%.
Wouldn’t it be cool having those kooky little parties in Parliament?
Kent- why would there be fewer MPs if a lot of parties failed to breach the 5% barrier? It happens right now and there are always 120 plus overhangs. I think you need to check out how MMP works
May 24th, 2007 at 9:25 am
There are potentially other mechanisms in order to ensure fair representation. These could be allowing apparentement (parties can run combined lists); allowing ordinal party votes (ranking the parties and redistributing votes if a party does not meet a threshold); or increasing the provisions to run for the party vote (say 1000 financial members, which would cut down the number of parties competing).
If you wanted to remove the threshold, but limit the seats, then changing the distribution mechanism from Sainte-Lague to Imperiali would limit their seats, while still giving them representation (it would also over represent the large parties though).
I support removing the thresold once our political culture has better adjusted to proportional representation.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Pity STV didn’t get in back when the referendum was held (although it could have been explained in a much better fashion that it was). I guess it was also a bit complicated – MMP is simple, but then the idea of a List MP has never sat well with the electorate – yet MMP still won on the day…
May 24th, 2007 at 10:57 am
“A Labour/NZ First/Alliance Govt of 63/120 is a possibility also as the chance”
Yes the 1996 election would have delivered a centre left government had Winston kept to his word (for those who don’t remember he promised many times before the election that he would get rid of National).
May 24th, 2007 at 11:14 am
PJ – Winston was careful to never say he would go with Labour so stop sulking.
he went with National partly because NatNZF was a majority while a Lab/NZF would be reliant on the Alliance. Basically Labour just failed to get enough votes.
If Labour had got the same support as National, it is far more likely he would have gone with them.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:16 am
While we’re abolishing the 5% threshold I think we should abolish our anti-nuclear stance. No seriously. The UK have just announced they’re intending to make significant investment in renewing their committment to nuclear energy.
We should revisit our concerns on nuclear power. Yes, keep nuclear ships out, because we don’t want the weapons, but the energy is now as safe as any other form of energy, with much less waste (albeit worse waste).
Carbon neutrality was conspicuous by its abscence in the budget. NZ needs to get serious about it and get past rhetoric. Nuclear energy is a good place to start.
Or get the visual pollution anti-wind farm protestors to pull their heads in. Clean green New Zealand is a fallacy.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Martin-
Ok you’ve drawn me with your off-topic remark. There are good practical and economic reasons why nuclear is not a good option for New Zealand. we’ve been over them previously on this blog. But its a good choice for many other countries.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Interesting stuff, DPF. The obvious flaw that things would have gone differently if the system had been different is a minor quibble. Most likely the difference would have been more minor party voting, since thresholds are a major reason people don’t vote minor. The Greens, for instance, probably bit off quite a chunk of the Legalize Cannabis party, to the detriment of both parties. National and ACT surely bite each other, as do all the Christian parties. If you want dope, or ACT, or Christians, you should be able to vote for them without worrying about wasting your vote.
On the flipside, we could end up with dozens of parties that way. Both Labour and National could easily fragment (more than they already have). It’s not entirely clear why this would be worse, other than to say it would probably be less stable. Coalition agreements are already complicated as hell, and quite testing of our fragile-to-nonexistent constitution.
I would personally like to see at least one seat in parliament representing racers.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I have done a post on Big News where I have discussed what may have occurred had the threshold been the equivalent of one electorate seat, or 0.8 percent.
Nothing would have changed in 2005. Had it been 0.8 , and we had scrapped it though things would have changed, though.
Furthermore had the threshold been 4 percent, we all know who the only additional person to get into parliament would have been, dont we.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
DPF. Winston inferred heavily prior to the election that he was not going to go with National in 96 and paid the price 16 seats down to 5 seats and he has never realy recovered and could be in serious trouble next election as a party with no electorate seat to fall back on.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
The problem with lowering the threshold is that a party no longer needs to have electorate seats. But, as has been said, for a minority group, the chances of getting overwhelming support in one electorate is unlikely.
Sam, a glance at the stats suggests that if say, 10% of the vote was for parties with no electorate or below the threshold, then that is 10% of the vote for which seats are not apportioned.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I think that the threshold is there for a good reason, ensuring that there is sizeable support for a group before representation happens, and it focuses on electorate success.
The threshold exists for no good reason at all. But then let’s face it, MMP is a crock. It was all set up by the Green Party to get them into Parliament because the major parties wouldn’t give them the time of day.
Now that we have people like the Greens in Parliament, the government of this country has gone downhill majorly. The same, however, is not true of all MMP parties.
Socialists/liberals are all like that – they all advocate solutions to problems that are either non-existent or that the solution for actually causes more problems than it solves, or more problems than the original problem.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Of course if the Legalise Cannabis Party got a seat, it might have to be active in between elections, when it is typically completely asleep (or something like that).
Dropping the threshold would make an interesting difference, would probably see the likes of Epsom, Ohariu being less important, and would make things more interesting.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Patrick-
If you don’t think a party governing alone with only 35% of the popular vote is a problem, if you don’t think a party that received fewer votes having more seats inparliament is a problem, if you don’t think the votes of up to 25% of New Zealanders being effectively wasted is a problem, then it is you with the problem.
Kent -
Honestly dude check out how MMP works. First stage after counting is to ask which parties recieved over 5% of the party vote or won an elecotrate seat – the votes of the other parties are then removed – to the total party votes of the remaining parties the Sante-Lague formula is applied and the 120 highest quotients show to which parties the 120 seats in Parliament are allocated – look it up http://www.elections.org.nz
May 25th, 2007 at 9:59 am
“Of course if the Legalise Cannabis Party got a seat, it might have to be active in between elections, when it is typically completely asleep (or something like that).”
Heh – I turned up to a meet the candidates evening just before the last election – the venue was about 100metres from Michael Appleby’s home, so I was expecting a big LC turnout.
He didn’t turn up, leaving many of us to speculate he was marinading in the spa that he improbably built on the top of his hiouse, contemplating the view.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:29 am
JD – he inferred it but he never stated he wouldn’t. Blame the media for not pressing the point home.
And he did nlot lose 12 MPs just because he went with National. He also lost them for Tukugate mainly, and also for wrecking the Governement. Before Tukugate NZ First was still around 10% in the polls.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
One of the reasons a five percent threshold was installed in the German electoral system (which we copied) was that during the 1030s there were to many parties in the National Diet as a result of a purely proportional system. Politics was in disarray and that led to the emergence of a strong leader who could stick it to the troublemakers in the minor parties. The 5 percent theshold has its advantages.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
New Zealand and Germany share the same electoral system, and both have relatively few parties represented in Parliament. Look at some other PR legislatures and you’ll see far greater splintering of parties: in Israel, the largest party has less than a quarter of the seats. The result of this is much more uncertainty as to what Government will be formed – giving the post-election negotiations much more influence, with the actual seat distributions not meaning as much.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
ifemykl mbnhzx fojrkxh fhrak ndbehkw peqytcng xjrcegoap