MMP Referendum
The Sunday Star-Times reports that National is likely to hold a two-stage referendum on MMP, if elected.
It would be the height of hypocrisy for supporters of MMP to argue that the public should not get a chance to determine our type of electoral system. That would be the worse kind of elitism.
Now of course one should not be changing the voting system every three years. But we are about to have our sixth election under MMP, and it is timely to give the voters a chance to confirm their choice in 1993/94, or modify it.
Now personally I would not vote to return to FPP. If the choice is between MMP and FPP, I would vote for MMP. But that in no way means I want to deprive my fellow voters of the chance to vote differently to me.
And there is the possibility one could end up with being able to choose between say MMP and STV.
Winston Peters is against the public having a say. I miht take the liberty to quote his party’s fundamental principles at him:
Electoral reform will be determined by the electors. The Government’s duty will be to ensure the fair representation of all views and the holding of appropriate referenda.
Of course he ignored this with the Electoral Finance Act, but surely he is not seriously arguing against the public having their say on the method of election MPs?
A UMR poll found around 67% of NZers want a referendum on MMP. However MMP itself has 42% support to 39% for FPP.
However it should not be seen just as a choice between MMP and FPP. STV, could be considered again as could SM.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Interestingly, whilst New Zealand needs a referendum (or a 75% vote in Parliament) to abandon MMP for First Past the Post, we could move to Supplementary Member with a bare Parliamentary majority.
I’m not proposing this, and I’m with you DPF over the process (with at least two referenda before any change). I’d choose MMP over FPP, but it is not undemocratic to ask how people want to vote (can we add indicative referenda on the threshold, term of Parliament, and the voting age too?).
EDIT: And can I add my two cents for one-vote regional list-based proportional (effective threshold only). I’d probably still go for MMP, but STV is pretty moronic when you’ve a strong party structure.
[DPF: Also interesting that if one went to SM, the only thing which would change is how the List MPs are allocated]
May 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Any system that does not allow the public to remove a MP they do not like is wrong, at the last election I looked down at my ballot paper and thought “whats the point” every one of the bastards on the list (Green, Lab, Nat and NZ First) was going to be in the house irrespective of how I voted.
The public have had enough of minor parties influencing what happens in NZ, their (the minor parties) influence far outweighs their mandate.
However Key is on to a winner with this, if the public want FPP then that is what they should have, along with the referendum on MMP he needs to promise a royal commission into corruption that would include government, police and the public service, these policies along with tax cuts will be all he needs to promise to win the election in a landslide.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I wholeheartedly supported the introduction of MMP way back because it seemed unjust to me at the time that (as I saw it) two main parties should devide up the vote between them and nobody else could get a look in. I think this was probably a common sentiment and that is why it got voted in.
But, my god, how things have developed. I never envisaged the polarisation of the country that has followed, nor did I envisage how thoroughly the mainstream of society is able to be now held to ransom by sectarian interest groups, nutters and outright opportunists.
There has got to be a fair way to give every viewpoint a voice, but without this idiotic situation where no party can govern in its own right because it needs the support of a fringe element which has only (say) 10% support. This typically means that 10% of the country is able to effectively dictate – or at least heavily influence – the way the country is run, and that is sheer madness.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:56 am
MMP is responsible for allowing many tax funded moronic moonbats too float around parliament in the corridors of delusion and privilege.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Can someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I have always been told that the introduction of MMP was conditional upon a referendum after some specified time. Six years?
If this is so, then we should have the referendum, and that we haven’t yet had it is another indication of the arrogance and untrustworthiness of the current bunch of politicians.
MMP was always a mistake. The country was (once again) the victim of a left wing propaganda campaign that completely shut out the only real workable option to FFP, which is the single transferable vote.
BTW, let’s have three referenda- the other two should be on 1) reducing the number of MPs and 2) term limits- no longer than two terms for anybody.
I’m sick of government, I’m sick of politicians, I’m sick of their endless regulations and I’m sick of lining their pockets (and those of their corrupt cronyist mates). I want politicians out of my face. I want some law and order. I want a few records kept on land transfers, births deaths and marriages, and I want an effective defence force.
I want to pay a bit for those functions, and keep the rest of the money I have earned. Most of all, I want to be left the hell alone. I do not need people like Sue Bradford telling me how to bring up my children. Just get to hell out of my face, get off my back, and let me get to hell on with life. Interfering do gooding thieving arseholes. You really want to do me some good then vapourize yourselves..!!!
May 18th, 2008 at 10:15 am
STV would have its own benefits, but would still have weird parties floating around. Having parliament elect cabinet is another option, although a fairly radical change to Westminster; it would mean that the PM gets elected by parliament, then nominates a cabinet member- and if parliament refuses them by electing someone else, then that other person is elected- and yes, I do know that that was what Anthony Wedgewood Benn suggested- try to evaluate the idea, without thinking of the proposer.
It would be better to have a whole series of constitutional discussions rather than just focus on one aspect of the political system.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Winston doesn’t have a track record of listening to people. His mantra is ‘what’s best for Winston is best’. MMP was designed so as to ensure there could never be another Hitler in Germany. The Royal Commission that recommended the establishment of MMP in NZ also recommended a 4% threshhold and the Maori seats abolished. None of those recommendations were accepted so, at the very start, MMP was bastardised. Then voters were lead to believe they would have a say after six years as to whether the system should continue. That morphed into a Select Committee review and what List MP would ever vote for an early Xmas. The outcome was entirely predictable.
So, let the peoples voice be heard and what in hells name is wrong with that? Oh sorry, stupid me, the result might just mean that Winston is out of a job and unemployable and we can’t have that can we ….
I actually prefer the Aust system of preferential voting as providing a moderating influence on outcomes.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Would this be the referendum we supossed to have after giving this MMP dog a walk in first place?
May 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am
As supported by Dave’s comment above, IMO, the MMP referenda was a vote against FPP, not a vote for MMP.
The public information campaign at the time was woefully one-sided – that’s why Shirtcliffe and Fernyhough were forced to fund their own alternative perspective.
I don’t actually believe that most of the electorate are capable of making a rational decision on the issue, not because they’re thick but because 95% are not at all interested in politics except when it either directly affects them or that one time every 3 years when they turn their attention to it for 5 seconds. They just don’t think about it very often and because politics is complex, and electoral systems especially so, you need to devote a lot of headspace to understand the implications and most just simply won’t tear themselves away from their daily activities for long enough.
To me the central issue with MMP is that it’s designed to prevent radical reforms such as those made in the Douglas era. As I’ve said many times, it was introduced in post-war Germany to prevent anything like the Nazi Party ever rising again. As demonstrated with Douglas however, radical changes are sometimes necessary, so the bottom line for me is that any new system must allow for that to happen.
I don’t actually see any evidence that policy-making has improved as a result of the proliferation of small party representation, and finally, the only successful MMP govt occurred in Holland when the two major parties got together in a coalition. Think that will ever happen here?
May 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am
If we get this referendum I hope that it is not in an election year as we will need to spend big money to dispel the lies of years of pro-MMP bullshit and get our people out on the streets to get us back to FPP. It is no surprise that the best government in the history of New Zealand was hobbled by this leftist electoral law. We need FFP and a decent right-wing government to get this country back on track and make sure we can give it the medicine it needs.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am
The concept is simple – the people want their parliament back. It has been hijacked by a bunch of professional politicians who are driven by ideology, not what is good for the country. Key doesn’t have to present the solution, just the opportunity to have a say and he picks up another 5%. People are sick of the Winstons, the Bradfords etc – they want value for money from the whole process of government and at the moment they are being treated with contempt. You can only kick a dog so many times before he bites back.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:39 am
IF MMP was a vote against FPP, then it was only an indication of the lengths we will go to as a nation to avoid taking control of our own lives. What kind of lazy ass fool would whine about the giant ping pong game that was being waged between Labour and National in favour of the stickball tournament now played by the current teams?
What is required is at least two more equally powerful parties to vote for. In today’s left-wing dominated, humanitarian ideals at all costs environment, that just isn’t possible. In NZ, MMP filters out serious political threats to the status quo and supports small pockets of extremism. Until the population begins to grow to ten times what it is now, or there is a major international war, or the next “ism” that surpasses capitalism and socialism is born, that simply isn’t going to happen. MMP too, shall pass. Clearly it is just a layby on the highway to voter maturity.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I agree with Roark that the referendums should be held outside of the Parliamentary election cycle. This will allow for a robust debated around the election process with out it getting involved in all the other debates that occur in election year. The only downside side to this would seem that there could be a chance of voter apathy to the referendums and so only a highly focused politicized group could force its views on the rest of the voters.
What was the voter turn outs in Wellington and Dunedin when their City Councils held referendum’s on STV.
I know here in Christchurch, I was involved in a get the voter to vote campaign at the time of Christchurch’s referendum on STV , we found a lot of people understood that there was a Regional Council by election but did not understand the second voting paper that was in their voter pack. I guess a lot more people voted than would have because they had some explanation to the background to the referendum. The explanation was more along the lines of who was promoting the STV idea as they already had the pamphlet from the council.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am
MMP is a dog. It gives unelected MPs, accountable only to party bosses, huge power over my life.
So much for democracy.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:09 am
and
You are mistaken. The idea of a second post-MMP referendum was something dreamed up by Jenny Shipley when she was Prime Minister (i.e. after we voted in MMP). She said it a few times and the media and others have been treating it as Gospel ever since.
We were not promised a referendum on MMP when it was chosen. We did not choose MMP thinking we would have another say after a couple of elections.
It is one of the enduring myths of New Zealand politics.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:12 am
The Swiss allow the voters of party lists to to tick either the order of the list provided by the party or they can change the order to suit. As well they dont have a cutoff point for small parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland
May 18th, 2008 at 11:13 am
As Graeme points out – the referendum was a myth. But the Act did require a parliamentary review after five years. That took place and nothing came from it.
Bring on the referendum! It won’t pass as it will just look like National and Labour getting together to end democracy. Further, I can’t see any minor parties supporting this proposal and, as it would require Cabinet approval and possibly legislation, it will never happen.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:16 am
>nor did I envisage how thoroughly the mainstream of society is able to be now held to ransom by sectarian interest groups, nutters and outright opportunists
NZ used to have a system of coalition government. The coalitions were called National and Labour, and organised themselves and presented their policies to voters before the election. The only people who didn’t make it in to parliament under that electoral system were those people who were just too weird to fit in to either National or Labour… namely Social Credit and whatever Anderton was calling his cult party in those days.
Now the coalitions form after the election so that voters often have no idea who they’re voting for. Power has passed from voters to a handful of party leaders, and from mainstream NZ to the sort of people who vote for Winston Peters.
At the very least, I’d prefer the parties to form themselves in to prospective coalitions before the election. Tell the voters which of National or Labour they intend to support, and then give people a choice: A team or B team.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
National is right to give New Zealand its MMP referendum.
MMP is undemocratic and it has given the minor parties a disproportionate amount of power.
MMP has made a mockery of our once proud democracy!
This is my 5 point plan for a new system…
An election result that is apparent the day after the election.
(We look like Zimbawe when we can’t form a government for weeks and weeks)
An election result that is decided by the voter, and not by backroom coalitions.
(Our democracy is now decided outside of the electoral ballet, and by shady little
‘I’ll scratch your back you scratch mine deals” like the Greens Anti Smacking Bill
Eg. if we still have coalitions, they should be automatic and decided by the proportion of vote allocated
Less power held by minor parties.
These parties should have to block vote, ie get together and form a consensus on an issue, and not individually.
Altogether they make up about 17% of the vote and yet just one party under MMP holds 80% of the power.
Representation of everyone in parliament, not just small pressure groups with their own agendas
(We need job sharing, so more mothers can participate in our democracy, not childless lesbians telling
me how to run my family)
Finally I think we need to get rid of list candidates. No-one should be in parliament unless directly voted by and held responsible to the voters.
In addition I would like to see the following:
Candidates qualifications to run portfolios included in election manifestos, so that we don’t repeat the mistake of having a
Dental Nurse being the Minister of Justice, or a History Teacher being the Finance Minister.
The election date being set the same for each election – ie not determined by the current government.
A 10 point plan for each parties manifesto, deviation by more that 10% should result in another election
The debating chamber should run from 10am – 6pm and not in the evenings, as who with a family can participate given the type of hours required to be an MP
I don’t think any government should be able to offer bribes via a budget in an election year.
These changes I think would bring back balance to our democracy, and put the power back with the voter where it belongs.
New Zealand was the first country in the world to give women the vote.
There is no reason with a bit of commonsense and imagination, that we couldn’t come up with our own unique parliamentary system that is fair and equitable.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:25 am
“It is one of the enduring myths of New Zealand politics.”
Thanks Graeme. I wasn’t around at the time.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Mum
Don’t be ridiculous, what you propose is preposterous !,………. how on earth would the “childless Lesbian” be able to run her hidden anti family agenda if she had to play by those rules
May 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
DPF: “It would be the height of hypocrisy for supporters of MMP to argue that the public should not get a chance to determine our type of electoral system”
Not at all. There should only be a change to electoral arrangements when there is a clear demonstrated need. Why isn’t National outlining the need.
What is also odd about this is again it demonstrates National’s tin ear. I don’t know whose advice this is but it appears to no more than looking back to the past with fond memories.
If one were being less than charitable one might suggest that the National is seeking a change in electoral arrangements because its up in the polls but more importantly aside from Bolger it struggles to exhibit the skills necessary to build a broad coalition in Parliament for its programme. This of course requires National to outline a programme more detailed than just Labour’s programme plus fibre. Actually this centre-right electability problem (post Thatcher, Reagan and Douglas) isn’t unique.
Assume National does form the next government which is likely do they really want to be arguing about electoral systems while trying to get public attention for their programme to address the basic needs of New Zealanders. And what of the risk that such a debate is actually dominated by the politics of the moment.
There are some myths about electoral systems too. It’s true that FPTP gave us Roger Douglas whom with others in the 4th Labour Government acted to save the New Zealand economy. However FPTP also gave us Muldoon and most of the policies that led to the economic crisis in the first place. FPTP Governments had no record of making incidental adjustments to economic policy to ensure long term prosperity.
FPTP accentuates both wins and losses by ensuring that large numbers of voters don’t get the representatives they voted for. There is no necessary link to good or bad economic policy.
If John Key is faced with an economic crisis he too would be wisely cut some leeway in Parliament to put in place a programme to address it – or else he can call an election and seek a direct mandate for that programme.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I believe that far too few NZers value their vote – regardless of the system that the vote is cast under. Here’s my plan:
On polling day give every voter the option of a vote or a lotto ticket. This would ensure that those who value their vote at almost nothing would be voluntarily removed from the electoral process, and the value & significance of everyone else’s vote increased.
In fairness this idea came up over a light hearted discussion but it did help me think more clearly about the value of our one-person one-vote system.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Chris Diack …. I hope you are stating a personal view rather than ACT policy because that would make a mockery of their much vaunted liberterian principles … denying people the opportunity of having their say. And clearly you missed the whole point of Key’s statement. Its not about MMP vs FFP. If the voters decide in the first referendum to revisit the electoral system then the second referendum will canvass various options.
And what’s so threatening about all that ….. unless you believe that politicians have a divine right to rule.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
This is fan-fucking-tastic
Now we know what John Key has been saving up his political capital for
Now come 2017 – when a motley collection of leftist parties may have had there first chance of getting their slimy mitts of the levers of power again. this will never happen.
The left will be forced to modernize and recoalesce into a serious party for the 21st century like Kevin Rudds Labor to have a decent chance for the 2020 or 2023 elections
May 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I can say hear hear to most of has been written above. MMP has been a disaster: we may have lost a constitution by default under it. Do we have government now or rule by those at the top and their associates?
May 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
If we’re going to think about electoral systems, we need to understand what we are talking about.
1. We can either choose to reflect a range of views (with a system such as MMP), or we can choose to constrain the views that will be represented only to those that are “mainstream” (as FPP does). We shouldn’t pretend that we would like all views represented, and then complain when the MPs representing those views exercise them. I’m OK with an argument that we don’t really want views represented unless those views are capable of winning 40%+ of an electorate, but we should be clear if that is what we are saying.
2. If we’re going to prattle on about “unelectable” MPs getting in on the list, we should be very clear about what the alternative is. Under FPP we still got plenty of “unelectable” MPs – you had a choice of the Labour candidate or the National candidate. The Labour candidate might be a better bloke, but if you wanted a National govt you had to vote for the bludger time serving National candidate. Under STV I still think this problem exists. The only electorate-based system it doesn’t exist with is with a system that allows multiple Labour candidates, or multiple National candidates, to stand in an electorate. Remember also that one person’s “unelectable” MPs is another person’s “just like me”.
3. Think about how the Maori vote should be represented. If we are trying to only allow “mainstream” views by requiring that any MP must be able to win an electorate, why do we allow the creation of electorate that have people with a very limited set of views? If the Maori electorates were disestablished, a number of “non-mainstream” Maori views would disappear. Is this good or bad? If it is OK for specialist Maori views to exist, why not specialist Green views? Maybe we should allow self-selecting “Green electorates” to be formed? Is this different than what MMP already gives us?
4. Should we mandate a primary system instead, so that the party members can choose their lists? Would this make the MPs on the list sufficiently accountable to their constituency? Should we require more party members before you can form a party, meaning you need to represent a wider range of views?
5. How do we deal with the problems of marginal electorates? Under FPP a very small number of marginal electorates controlled the outcome every election, and a very small number of swing voters within those marginal electorates. Cue pork barrel politics, which Australia currently has. Is that really the type of electoral system we want? Who gets advantaged by it?
I worry that people are basing their discussions on a rather shallow knee-jerk reaction to some views or MPs that they don’t like, rather than a conscious decision about the alternatives.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Referendas are actually a massive risk for the right at any time the media is so completely controlled by the left. As it is in NZ today. For any referendum system to work, there has to be either a non partisan media or a media that presents both sides.
To its great misfortune, NZ has neither of those two requirements. Any advocate for any cause to be addressed through referenda is only shooting himself in the foot if he does not recognise the issues will be severely clouded by NZ’s heavily partisan media.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
“If we’re going to think about electoral systems, we need to understand what we are talking about.”
Oh yeah, and you’re of course just the man to help all us dumbfucks understand.
“1. We can either choose to reflect a range of views (with a system such as MMP), or we can choose to constrain the views that will be represented only to those that are “mainstream” (as FPP does).”
Straight off, with that fatuous attempt to denigrate the argument against MMP, you’ve ruined your plan to project your commentary as objective. You’re clearly a believer in MMP and that’s what you’re arguing for. Your objective is not to “help us understand”. Your objective is to convince us that MMP is a good thing. I can live with the patronising arrogance, but leave the deceit out if you don’t mind.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
davidp, I think you have hit the nail on the head with regard to the coalition question. And also, looking back on things a bit, it seems to me that in the FPP days, there was more representation of minority views than we realised. If you wanted to ‘make a difference’ on a specific issue (gays, conservation, maoris etc) then the way to do this was to join a main party and then work from within to effect change. The obvious move would have been to choose a party that roughly adhered to your values in other ways so that you had more in common with its overall policy than not.
Now, of course, virtually no party at all stands a chance of getting anything done without the support of gays, conservationists and maoris and not only is this the case, but they must be seen to be actually kissing their arses (or in the case of gays.. oops, sorry, we won’t go there) before they can even begin to form any policies about what is really important in running a country.
In this way, the fringes have mutated into the dominant force and the silent majority are well and truly silenced. Democracy? I think not.
Or maybe I am now the fringe, rather than vice versa. I hadn’t considered that one. Maybe the huge majority of New Zealanders think that homosexuality and lesbianism are the most viable lifestyle choice, that the environment is far more important than humanity and its progress and that society was much better off under a tribal warfare system than under democracy. Actually, now that I mention it, maybe I am on the fringes of society. Anybody interested in forming a political party with me?
May 18th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
RedBaiter, if you are so stupid that you couldn’t work out I was supporting MMP, then I guess you could call it deceit. I thought it was pretty obvious. The suggestion that I was trying to be objective is your one not mine.
Please explain how FPP allows a wide range of views into parliament – seeing as that was one of the main objections to FPP, and one of the main reasons why we got MMP in the first place.
I hear people whinging about how we have all these little parties with weird fuck views in parliament. Excuse me if I find that faux surprise a little pathetic – it was exactly what MMP was designed to achieve. If people are now saying that they don’t want lots of views represented, then I am fine with that. But pretending we care about having lots of views represented, but complaining about having lots of little parties, seems a bit disingenuous to me.
I’d be interested to discuss the other points I made – or do you only count to 1 these days?
May 18th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The reason we had a referendum in 1993 was because there was evidence of huge public dissatisfaction with the FPP system. From the mid 1980s, through to the mid 1990s NZ was essentially a one party state with two neoliberal, privatising parties that people disliked (privatisation in particular was intensely unpopular). There was an essential lack of choice for voters – the system had failed.
Now there is choice, and most voters are content with the current system. So why hold a referendum when we already know what the result will be? It would be a waste of time and money.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
More lies from Woger.
The public HATE MMP Woger, it will be soundly defeated and the days of your corrupt PM and party cobbling together a coalition with all the other fringe left wing losers will be over.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
There are some myths about electoral systems too. It’s true that FPTP gave us Roger Douglas whom with others in the 4th Labour Government acted to save the New Zealand economy. However FPTP also gave us Muldoon and most of the policies that led to the economic crisis in the first place. FPTP Governments had no record of making incidental adjustments to economic policy to ensure long term prosperity.
I think this is an excellent point that is often glossed over when critisising or praising either system. Most of the issues people point to as a downside of either system are usually problems of the parliament of the day.
The assertion that MMP leaves us held to ransom by minority interests ignores the much greater power of floating voters in key electorates under FPP or the example of small party’s in the 93-96 parliament. Were we to return to FPP without abolishing the Maori seats, I doubt we’d see minortiy interests become irrellevant as people seem to be claiming.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Ross Miller:
Its not a philosophical issue to ask National to outline the need to examine the electoral system – they have not done so.
I am sorry Ross but this National announcement is the worst sort of politics.
It amounts to: “yes, we will have a referendum … it will be a very good referendum with all the bells and whistles….. but….. well we don’t support a return to FPTP (unless its forced upon us)…. actually we think New Zealanders won’t go back (but they just might) …. we think some form of proportionality is good ….. just not too too much … and we are not sure what system …. we need to have a referendum because it’s good that electoral systems are adopted by referendum”
It’s really a bit pathetic.
National needs to demonstrate the need for the change that results in the necessity to hold a referendum. Frankly they struggle because really the “need” is that they are not good at building popular and parliamentary support for their programme.
I have a hunch that the need to adopt Labour’s programme +fibre has much more to do with New Zealanders innate small “c” conservatism when times are reasonably good than any particular electoral system. We saw similar behaviour from New Zealanders in the 1960’s. In the 1970’s and early 1980’s both parties resisted the need to adjust to a changing world. In the mid 1980’s to early 1990’s governments responded to crisis. Note however that National’s return to conservatism and away from radical reform ended a full three years prior to MMP.
Also Ross look closely at the announcement regarding the second referendum. It shows National is running scared. If they are in Government and are unpopular, they know the referendum will actually be a vote on them. It may well incentivise turnout against them at a general election. If they hold it before a general then it will most certainly be a referendum on them. If they are politically successful but a bit arrogant much like Labour was for its first and second term, voters might well use the referendum as a message about the tone of the government as much as it’s programme.
Key should have dumped this policy – it’s nutty.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“The public HATE MMP Woger”
Did you not read the post bruv? MMP itself has 42% support to 39% for FPP.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Roger nome:
“From the mid 1980s, through to the mid 1990s NZ was essentially a one party state with two neoliberal, privatising parties”
Aside from the impossibility of being a one party state with two parties … it was the most excitement one could have with one’s clothes on.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Chris:
I actually agree with most of what you said. I disagree with you saying that Ruth Richardson, and Bill Birch weren’t into radical reform though – just look at the “Mother of All Budgets” and the “Employment Contracts Act”. Both were straight out of the IMF third world development handbook.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
“Aside from the impossibility of being a one party state with two parties”
That’s why I said essentially. If there’s only two parties to choose from (if you’re not going to throw away your vote on a minor party that has no chance of getting into Government) that are advocating all the same policies then there’s a lack of choice. It defeats the purpose of democracy.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Roger, perhaps the IMF were telling us something about the state of our country?
May 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Woger
It the public are so in love with MMP then why do an overwhelming majority want a referendum?
May 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
PauL:
I agree that the fiscal deficit needed to be wiped out – I just think that National didn’t need to crash the economy and impoverish hundreds of thousands of people to do it.
The benefit in particular didn’t need to be cut so drastically and suddenly. Spending in many other areas could have been cut more incrementally as well, then the economy wouldn’t have crashed. Also, National didn’t need to totally eliminate workers rights with the ECA either (many surveys show there was no bargaining happening in the majority of instances, and the Employment Court was a very expensive, litigious and drawn-out process, meaning only employers and skilled, well-paid workers accessed it.
We also need to remember that the National Party campaigned and won on the basis of “no more privatisation”. But then we all know what happened to the railways after that.
This is my point – both Labour and National were so far to the right of mainstream public opinion at the time and people felt like they had no choice. That’s why we got MMP – despite a massive campaign funded by Business Round-Table campaign against it.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I think its a great idea by National to get the electorate thinking about we really want, are we happy with the status quo, do we want change, do we want something completely new?
And academics & experts are all well & good telling us what sort of system we should have, but why can’t the average kiwi joe come up with a system if its robust enough?
Personally I support us going to a full STV system, with 60 electorates with the top 2 candidates elected from each seat to form a 120mp parliament. None of the list mp b.s, they’re a waste of time, space, and money! It could even be quite interesting if parties were made to run more candidates than seats available, then the parties wouldn’t be able to completely control who will win their nominations, even though they could say who they supported the most.
I think this would lead to a good amount of varied representation, without the drop kicks some of the minors bring with them, and indeed might even get more parties into parliament with 1 or 2 seats. On current form it would mean still having Jeanette Fitsimmons (assuming she’d finish 2nd in Coromandel), Winston (2nd or 1st in Tauranga) Anderton (Wigram), Rodney(1st or 2nd in Epsom), etc etc, and it would give people more ownership of the electoral system, and make mp’s answerable to their voters more.
I also think we need to have 4 or 5 year terms, limit of 2 terms for a PM or President what ever system we choose, along with their cabinet, and a fixed election weekend on a New Zealand Day or similar (Waitangi if we can’t agree on another national day of significance).
May 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Bruv:
“If the public are so in love with MMP then why do an overwhelming majority want a referendum?”
I imagine there are many issues that the public would like a referendum on. That’s because most people trust the public ahead of politicians – and for good reason.
I would normally support a referendum as well, but if it’s just going to be a waste of time and money then what’s the point?
FPP favoured the National Party during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s because there were always several left wing parties – meaning the vote was split, and National won most of the elections with less votes than the left wing parties had between them. i.e. in 1993 they won with just 36% of the vote, whereas the Alliance and Labour had over 50% of the vote between them. It was essentially an undemocratic system which favoured the plutocrats. Now National want to return to that. Presumably they’re hoping that, with the public currently favouring them, they can campaign for it via their rich mates and return to the “good old days”.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Chris Diack … so it’s offical then, ACT supports the retention of MMP and will oppose any referendum offering the people the chance to have their say. ‘As Ye sow, so shall Ye reap’. Your call. Good luck.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Woger
“The benefit in particular didn’t need to be cut so drastically and suddenly” yes it bloody did, where there was no real gap between the minimum wage and the dole most of the lazy bastards chose the dole.
“I just think that National didn’t need to crash the economy and impoverish hundreds of thousands of people to do it”
Another out and out lie from Woger, the economy was not “crashed” by the Nats and you bloody well know it, I can see why you are so keen to reinvent history as your bloody useless bunch of wankers are attempting the same economic sabotage as Labour did in 1990 (I seem to remember Clark & Cullen being a part of that govt)
May 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Woger
I don’t suppose for one minute you would notice the irony in what you have just written, how dare you of all people go on about the Nat’s wanting to “skew” the playing field their way.
You and your corrupt fucking mates introduced the EFA in a blatant attempt to remove the rights of people to speak out against the government.
It is so bloody typical of the left to piss and moan when they think that things are not fair yet when they get their grubby little hands on the controls all bets are off, if anybody doubts this just remember that Trotter thinks it is OK for the left to cheat and steal just as long as they maintain power, we also have a PM who is on record as saying she will “do whatever it takes to stay in power”
May 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Bruv:
It’s common knowledge that the 1990-1991 recession was due to government spending cuts. Relative poverty increased three-fold between 1990 and 1996, whilst the inflation-adjusted median income level was stagnant.
It was drastic, radical reform. Though I agree that reform needed to happen, it should have happened incrementally – as happened in Australia. Though I suspect that, like Douglas before her, Richardson was worried that if she didn’t cut deep and fast, she would be voted out and the reforms would never happen – thus the economic and social upheaval that resulted.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Roger, funny that you are saying the left couldn’t get their shit together and so split the vote. Yet there were definitely periods where Labour won with less than half the vote too. Does that concern you, or was that just fine.
And, by the way, the ECA didn’t remove all workers rights.
So, now ignoring your attempt at side tracking into your reinvention of history, and your attempts to attribute motives to National that aren’t there, do you have anything to say about why MMP is better than FPP or STV? Are you happy with the power that minor parties get under MMP? Are you convinced that the people that get into parliament under the list system are all worthwhile.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Firstly, why on earth did National announce this when its party doesn’t really support a change to FPP? To appeal to FPP supporters until after the election? I was considering voting National at the election. I’ve never done so since 1990 and I`m not going to now.
If National were to win the election and go in with a minor party in coalition government, let’s say the Maori Party, it will be good to see how such a referendum will affect collective cabinet responsibilty, given the National policy to eventually get rid of Maori seats. Maori will never get rid of dedicated representation under FPP. And why should they? Anyway, the electoral system is entrenched, but the Maori seats are not. Additionally, returning to FPP will basically return to select committees being a rubber stamping exercise.
If there was a mood for change – ie: the first referendum was passed, that’s when things star to get difficult as it will then be a choice of electoral systems, and the average Kiwi would not know what they were voting for. Ask the average Kiwi the difference between SM, STV, MMP and FPP and even after a public communication campaign, most will give incorrect answers. I`d suggest most people who read this blog would, too.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
dave, it is an attempt to appeal to the public. There are a bunch of people who want a referendum, giving them one drags their votes in. The belief is that those who don’t want a change of electoral system won’t object to a referendum – they aren’t promising a change, only to hold a referendum. Result: votes with no risk. It is good political logic.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“Yet there were definitely periods where Labour won with less than half the vote too. Does that concern you, or was that just fine.”
No party since 1951 has won an absolute majority of votes. However, there have been elections where Labour got more votes than National, but lost the election (1978 and 1981), or situations that were near-misses (in 1954 National won a comfortable majority in seats, but only outpolled Labour by about 1000 votes across the entire country, and in 1957, Labour only got a two seat majority, despite comfortably winning the popular vote). In 1993 you had National 35%, Labour 34%, Alliance 18%, NZ First 8%. The vast majority of the country hated National’s guts, but they got back in with a one seat majority.
Note the trend for all these “undemocratic” elections to go one way. A key factor was the Maori seats acting as a pro-National gerrymander (it took reliably Labour voters out of marginals and into ultra-safe seats). Under MMP that is no longer an issue, due to the party vote, but the problem would return under FPP.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Paul:
“funny that you are saying the left couldn’t get their shit together and so split the vote”
I disagree that diversity of opinion should be seen as a weakness. In fact it’s one of the strengths of democracy. And so in a democracy it should be encouraged and rewarded – not punished as it was under FPP.
“And, by the way, the ECA didn’t remove all workers rights.”
There was some other statutory legislation brought in to replace the protection that unions once gave workers – but as I said, they usually meant nothing because most people couldn’t afford the Employment Court and were discouraged from using it. So for all intents and purposes there were no employment rights for most workers.
“do you have anything to say about why MMP is better than FPP or STV?”
I’ve already outlined why I think MMP is more democratic than FPP. I would be interested in having a debate about STV versus MMP though.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
roger nome said “Now there is choice, and most voters are content with the current system. So why hold a referendum when we already know what the result will be? It would be a waste of time and money.”
roger nome – I conducted an unscientific poll at my golf club today. Firstly, let me point out that the club I play at is very “blue-collar” – all the doctors, lawyers, accountants and dentists play at the “other” club in town where the subs are twice as high! Anyway, of the twelve golfers I sampled (my four, and the groups on front and behind), no-one is content with MMP. The breakdown from last election was four National voters, seven Labour voters and a single person who blushed when he admitted he voted for Winston! The Inventory-CGC poll today suggests that National will have an emphatic victory later in the year – the Winstonite has seen the error of his ways, and only two of the Labour voters will remain loyal – and one of them is wavering! All thought another referendum was a great idea.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Ross Miller
No one appointed me as a spokesperson on their behalf – grow up.
For what it’s worth I would hazard a guess that ACT has no problem with referenda as a device to cement in constitutional arrangements.
However before one goes strait to the device or mechanism one is really obliged to outline the mischief one is trying to remedy.
National has not outlined what it considers to be the problems with the current electoral system.
I think politically this, like a number of their policy commitments will come back to bite them when in Government.
Who knows perhaps New Zealand will be so prosperous and the new Government so lacking in a programme that we can afford duelling political scientists and business moguls arguing over the details of competing electoral systems, with PM key telling us all how he relishes this exercise in democracy and how stimulating the debate is. Just imagine the community engagement as we are all leisured enough to join down market golf clubs and debate the merits of each system round the nineth hole.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Roger, you are continuing to make assertions that simply aren’t true. The employment court consistently found in favour of workers, to the extent that most employers settled just about any complaint out of court, due to their certainty that they would lose when it got to court. There seemed to be no consideration of whether the worker was in fact doing their job, every consideration of the slightest and non-material failure of process. Your spin is wildly inaccurate.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
>>Note the trend for all these “undemocratic” elections to go one way. A key factor was the Maori seats acting as a pro-National gerrymander (it took reliably Labour voters out of marginals and into ultra-safe seats). Under MMP that is no longer an issue, due to the party vote, but the problem would return under FPP.
Hello, now it’s a pro-left wing gerrymander
And you lot are a fighting tooth and nail for them to stay
Why didn’t Labour get rid of them when they had a chance
>>In 1993 you had National 35%, Labour 34%, Alliance 18%, NZ First 8%.
Didn’t you just say it was a two party one party state?
You can’t have it both ways
May 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Chris, if a substantial proportion of NZers want a referendum, and National is prepared to give it to them, why does National need to justify it? They aren’t leading public opinion here, they are giving the public something that they want. Labour has been doing this for the past 3 terms, and generally doing a good job of it. Look at the polls, give the public what they want, and no need to justify yourself. Only in the last couple of years have they realised that they have achieved nothing in power, and started to try to push their real agenda. And suddenly it turns out that a) nobody wants it, and b) they don’t have the intellectual horsepower to convince anyone of it.
Why you think National should be held to a higher standard I don’t know. However, the third parties should be held to a higher standard – ACT, the Greens, even Jim Anderton – they need to argue why their policies are good. Winston, of course, shouldn’t have to – we already know what he stands for.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
As I am a bit older than many here I well remember that over the years my vote has been a complete waste of time since I have never voted for either National or Labour. The worst example came when I think it was 21% of the population voted for a party and they got either one or no seats in the house. Probably just as well with their crackpot policies but we are talking about principles here. Whereas with MMP I have two votes and one of them works to some purpose.
So I am confirmed for either MMP or STV and the referendum should have two questions. The second to take effect depending on the result of the first. 1] FPP or not 2] MMP or STV
Though judging from my ignorance, like many, of my local hospital board candidates I hate to think how STV would run on a national basis. For most people it would be like filling in a lotto card without the possible but unlikely benefits.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I am surprised that David Farrar and others close to the National Party actually support MMP…Surely it is obvious that all the possible co-alition parties except ACT are LEFT of Centre and that NATIONAL only has a chance of power is if they get 50% of the vote. They might do it this time. If they don’t there will be no referendum. The present lopsided chaos will continue.
The virtue of the system was heralded as being that the small parties would KEEP THE BASTARDS HONEST. Instead we got non stop corruption with Winston and Dunne refusing to criticise it and in the case of the former vigorously defending the perpetrators. National’s former leader BOLGER is responsible for foisting this nonsense on us at the end of his term, unless we can get back to FPP ,the only practical system, then National will be rarely in power and when so only for one term. MMP is much like our socialist education system, no winners, no losers, except in reality we don’t achieve anything and we are all losers.
[DPF: I support MMP over FPP because it is better system. It might well be better for National to be back under FPP, but I don't decide my views on the basis of what is better for National]
May 18th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Paul:
From some work I’ve done previously.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
PaulL, whats the chance the first referendum will be passed and the second referendum not held at all, we`d want a change but won’t be given an opportunity to decide what that change is. … so why have a referendum just because of political expediency on the part of a Party ( possible government) who want proportionality
The ( National ) government want some proportionality. SO it has a ” are you satisfied with FPP” referendum – implying that if you`re not, we go back to FPP, then telling them that , no actually, we don’t want to go back to FPP, but we want to give you some other PR options
Instead, why not have a one stage referendum instead, after a PROPER education campaign, the question being which electoral system do you prefer, with MMP being one of the options..
May 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Bullshitter Nome says
Paul:
From some work I’ve done previously.
never laughed so hard in my life. The plagiarist who takes pride in lying and reinventing history , claims to quote from “work I have done previously…” The liar certainly rates himself. Pretentious prat.
No point arguing with a liar, because he just invents new bits of history based on a scientific “it’s common knowledge…”
May 18th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
dave, re proper education campaign… this from a 2000 survey:
Source: http://www.elections.org.nz/files/review_of_mmp.pdf, pp10. Are we more educated about the benefits of MMP today? I think not.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Imagine Labour campaigning at the 2011 election, that they will ignore the referendum results
Very Machiavellian JK
I like it
May 18th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
>In 1993 you had National 35%, Labour 34%, Alliance 18%, NZ First 8%. The vast majority of the country hated National’s guts, but they got back in with a one seat majority.
Left wing voters apparently hated Labour to such an extent that they would rather have a National government than vote for a Labour government. It was a conscious choice… why complain later that the result should have been different than the one intended by that choice?
May 18th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Now BullshitterNome if you read the post:
getstaffed (1326) +0 Says:
May 18th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
That is work done. Researched and presented from an actual study, not a quote from a contributor to the Lower Standard blog. as you did the other day as proof of point.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Bok- if you don’t beleive me, go down to your local university, and sit there for an hour or so reading the following:
McAndrew, I., Morton, J. and Geare. A. (2004) The Employment Institutions, in: Employment Relationships: New Zealand’s Employment Relations Act, Rasmussen, E. (ed) Auckland University Press, Auckland.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
That’s the problem nome… folks here don’t believe you because you have been regularly caught lying. No amount of citing other reputable folks can save you from the mire of your own making.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
As I sit here reading the lies of Woger and Co one thing suddenly struck me, in a few short months we will no longer have to put up with the bullshit and outright lies of the socialist trolls, they are facing AT LEAST nine years on the opposition benches.
That has put a rather large smile on my face, for at least nine years we will be able to reply to their pissing and moaning with either
1. Diddums..or 2 We won, you lost, eat that!
That alone should be enough to keep a few thousand kiwis on this side of the Tasman.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
“you have been regularly caught lying”
That’s a lie. I’ve gotten some facts marginally wrong when I’ve tried to recall them off the top of my head, but I’ve never lied.
My experience is that with some intellectually weak people here, the ideological dogma is so entrenched, that when ever they’re presented with a fact they don’t like, they’ll just stick their fingers in their ears and start shouting abuse and smears. You, with Bok, big bruv, dad4justice and Redbaiter appear fall into that camp.
Why can’t you just put foward a rationally thought out counter-argument, like an adult?
May 18th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
This shows why some education is needed on PR systems before referendums
there is little interest in the electoral system
• few respondents had a comprehensive understanding of the mechanics of MMP
Then
• a majority of respondents feel MMP has been a disappointment
Given that a majority have little interest or understanding of MMP, its hard to see on what basis apart from gut feeling based on complete ignorance they feel it has been a disappointment. Its a bit like voting John Key as Prime Minister because he has a nice smile even though its not Helen Clark’s fault that shes got crooked teeth.
May 18th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I can understand your sensitivity to elitism, Dave, as the folks who hate MMP are the wealthy, self-appointed elite who hold ordinary people in contempt. Getting rid of MMP would see their favourite political vehicle – the National Party – restored to its favoured position under FPP as the largest minority most people didn’t vote for, but with 100% of the power.
Please don’t attempt wrap yourself in a cloak of democracy while trying to defend a move that would effectively strip up to 30% of Kiwi of their existing ability to elect the people they REALLY want to represent them.
National stands revealed as the party that hates democracy. I hope voters bear this in mind when they go to the polls. If they vote for National, this may well be the second last election in which their vote actually counts toward representation.
Elitist? It’s worse than that. Hunt and Shirtcliffe would have the National Party do their dirty work and campaign to take away from 30% of Kiwis a vote that actually counts toward representation by the party of their choice.
Dress that up however you like…….it still stinks to high heaven. This is a risky strategy by National who have long been seen by most people as the people’s enemy……a status that has abated lately, but the recovery is clearly fragile.
Hunt claims MMP has been a disaster despite NZ seeing its best decade in 40 years with MMP in operation. Maybe MMP can’t claim credit, but it sure as hell hasn’t got in the way, either. in any case, arguing democracy be sacrificed for higher profits for the few is just one more example of the sort of elitism you’re trying to deflect in your post.
It won’t work. A naked grab for power is still a naked grab for power.
[DPF: Translation - You don't trust the people to be able to decide.]
May 18th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
roger nome do you ever stop sticking the knife in you cowardly creep!!!
May 18th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Hey dad. Good to see you. So what do you think about MMP vs FPP? Do you think FPP would hurt your party’s chances of being elected?
May 18th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Don’t hey dad me you cowardly gutless creep. I bet you won’t sling the same amount of shit – face to face you little jerk !!!
[DPF: 20 demerits. Roger Nome was talking on topic re the issue of the post, and there was no need for unprovoked abuse of him]
May 18th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Nome, I have no interest in debating with you. From watching other combatants I’ve decided that it is a manifest waste of keystrokes and electrons. You have regularly been fisked for lying and have elevated contortion of the truth to suit your own pre-determined outcomes to a new art form. But keep at it mate – you do the Right a favour with every post.
May 18th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
That’s a rather negative tone to take dad. Shame, I was hoping for better from you today. Could you answer my questions?
May 18th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Come come discussions on electoral matters are not the occasion for abuse.
Let’s grant PaulL’s ‘bread and circuses’ argument – that the nimble Nat’s can offer a referendum because voters want one, without the need to justify why changing the electoral system is necessary.
But if we were searching for a problem that changing the electoral system would fix – what would change for the better.
Would the global warming scare go away? Would we be closer to our trading markets? Could we defeat food miles? Would the welfare state be more efficient? Could we pay less tax but get even more from government in terms of goods and services? Would more NZers from abroad return home?
Would politicians be smarter, better, faster, wiser? Would we have less politics in politics? Would more people vote? Would political parties be better bigger more democratic? Would parliamentary debate be meaningful, intellectual and profound?
Would food that tastes good not be fattening? Would we be safer in our beds? Would petrol be cheaper along with houses while incomes are higher?
What is it that a change in the electoral system would achieve?
May 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Chris
“Come come discussions on electoral matters are not the occasion for abuse”
They are when we (the voter) have been abused by Labour for the eight years and wankers like Woger tell us that nothing need change.
May 18th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“Now there is choice, and most voters are content with the current system.”
Into ESP too Roger … speak for me do you?
How can anyone be content with a system that allows a non-elected member of a party that only got 10% of the vote to force the government to pass a law that >80% of the punters didn’t want?
Don’t be too hard on Roger ‘Parklight’ Gnome guys … he’s National’s best weapon against Liarbore!
May 18th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
[DPF: 20 demerits. Roger Nome was talking on topic re the issue of the post, and there was no need for unprovoked abuse of him]
Bloody hell people call roger a c**t and get nothing? Oh well double standard is part of life in kiwiland.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
D4J
“Bloody hell people call roger a c**t and get nothing?”
Nothing wrong with a statement of fact.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Chris, I personally see no reason to change the system. It does exactly what it was intended to do. However, I also have no objection to letting the people vote – I strongly suspect that they will vote to keep what we have.
To vote for FPP is essentially to vote that one of the two big parties will dominate politics, for marginal seats, and for views that couldn’t get mainstream representation being stifled. There are too many examples of badness from those days – parties losing the popular vote but winning the election, electorate gerrymandering to hang on to power, and the inability to say “I like National, but I really don’t like the candidate they put up in my electorate.”
To vote for STV or SM or PV is to take a plunge into the unknown. Many people are disenchanted with politics, but I am not sure they are so silly as to think that a change of system will fix our problems.
I personally believe that kiwis will stick with the devil we know.
Considering the problems we have – ultimately they are problems of representation. The politicians we have are the people we elect, not some group foisted upon us from on high. But we generally seem to agree that they are a bunch of bozos. So the things that I see as problems that need fixing are:
a) I’m not convinced the people on the party lists really represent the parties. I feel that they are sometimes set by the hierarchy rather than the members. Conversely, the members don’t necessarily represent the people who vote for that party – so allowing members to pick the list may end up with a far more radical group than the voters would like. A hard question, but one that may need answering
b) The quality of people who put themselves forward for parliament is sometimes not high. As to whether this reflects a dearth of talent in NZ, whether all the good people went overseas, whether people feel that parliament is really a waste of time and their efforts are better spent elsewhere, whether the pay is too low, or whether NZers just like to elect people like them (that is to say, average, with some brilliant and some plain dumb), I don’t know.
c) The level of conformity on some party lists. A lot of people in NZ vote Labour – is it really true that they are all teachers, union officials or people of alternate sexuality? It is important that a parties MPs stand for the views that the party stands for, but surely there is room for a variety of views within the party – particularly within the big two parties?
d) The lack of variety of our minor parties, and the lack of principle. Winston, Jim and Peter appear to stand for little other than for being in power. ACT used to stand for something (at least, I thought so) – that something being personal and economic freedom. I’m not clear whether ACT have lost that, have become more radical than they were or needed to be, or simply cannot decide what their bottom line policies for this election are. The Greens again in theory have a clear vision – based around environmental issues, but seem to have drifted into hard left nanny state intervention. My view is that third parties don’t need to have, nor should they have, complete worked through programmes for every area of policy. They need a few key issues that they care deeply about and have detailed and authoritative policies on, and some general philosophies on the remainder that control how they will vote. They should be prepared to trade away pretty much all of the general stuff so as to get their core policies. I would like to see more minor parties vying for the public’s attention, but I suspect that most people don’t see the point – too many of them have become personality cults rather than advertisements on how to get things done.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
“Nothing wrong with a statement of fact.”
Yeah right , you would know what is fact or ficton, as you are under different rules to me – eh big boy bruv.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
With every recent poll showing clear majority support for MMP, where is the public demand for any referendum? Even the vanity poll run by Hunt and Shirtcliffe showed that 37% reckoned MMP has been good for NZ while 19% reckoned it was bad and the rest were neither here nor there. It isn’t elitist to suggest there is no case for a government-ordained referendum. It wasn’t long ago that an attempt to petition for a non-binding referendum on MMP disappeared for lack of support. They didn’t come anywhere near getting the signatures of even 5% of voters. No one was interested.
Many commenting here seem to be motivated by a clear desire to return to a system that will remove people they don’t like (but whom others voted for) from Parliament. They best tone down that sort of talk or people will pick up on the idea that many in the National Party would support this referendum process for purely anti-democratic reasons…….however else they may try to paint it.
No…This will look like what it is: The National Party trying to initiate a referendum process so their millionaire buddies can exercise their “freedom of speech” and flood all media with scary , negative, reality-free messages, just as they did in 1993. When was the last time anyone here saw a naked baby crying on a stainless steel trolley because we have MMP?
I’m left wondering why National hates people who don’t agree with them SO MUCH they want to take their vote that counts away….and leave them with the pretend vote that FPP allowed. To the people who will lose their votes under National’s plan, this move will go beyond being merely objectionable. It will be seen as overtly hostile to democracy. Not a good look for the Nats.
The lack of public demand for a referendum is what gives the game away…..
I also note that people here still think the EFA prevents freedom of speech. How? I can say anything I want…have been and plan to continue…and no one will be prosecuting me…..or any of you. What you or I can’t do is amplify our speech with a few million dollars and drown everyone else out. Democracy is about people and votes – not money.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Check out this classic quote from Winston Peters (about National cbecause they want to two-stage referendum on MMP) “They’ve got no belief in the democratic process and any device that can remove public opinion from the decision-making process, they are keen on.”
Then look at the EFA which Winston voted on despite his own party Principles.
ps Steve why are you afraid of referenda, is because you don’t trust the intelligence of the voting public, or because the present system allows us to disregard the intelligence of the voting public?
Or is it in this case, that it is a National initiative?
How would you have felt about a referendum about the need to reform electoral law, for example, rather than one vague sentence in Helen Clark’s first speech as new PM last time she was elected, followed by the behind-closed doors rort and cut and paste smorgasborg of international electoral laws which lead to the systematic abuse of power we saw just before last Christmas?
To amend what you said: “I’m left wondering why Labour hates people who don’t agree with them SO MUCH they want to take their vote that counts away … and leave them with the gagging order that the EFA allowed.”
Personally I like the idea of increased citizen participation in our democratic process between elections. Who knows? it might even keep our politicians honest.
Unless of course, we are comfortable with venal and sdishonest power-brokers, in which case, MMP is a superb model to follow.
Lee – MWT
May 18th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
“The National Party trying to initiate a referendum process so their millionaire buddies can exercise their “freedom of speech” ”
Hahah, same old tired old worthless commie shit. Ever heard of Owen Glenn?
“The lack of public demand for a referendum is what gives the game away…..”
The lack of support for the Labour government is what tells you that people in this country have had it up to here with the left. ….and their fucked up MMP system.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
PaulL, “the polititicians we have are the people we elect” and here lies the main problem with MMP PaulL , most of the bloody polititicians are not elected by the people. God, you just have to look at all the wasters on the Liarbore list to know why MMP is a crock of shit.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
For those who commented on ACT before – I see Rodney with a press release today that (amongst many other things – very good press release) supports a referendum on MMP.
http://www.act.org.nz. Pledge card, pledge 19.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Side Show Bob: I would argue that the problem isn’t the wasters on the Labour list, rather the morons who vote for them despite the wasters on their list. What are those people thinking?
May 18th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Steve Whithers
Where do you get youw figures from?
http://www.elections.org.nz/files/review_of_mmp.pdf,
NZ does not like, want or approve of MMP. Spin as much as you want but when 90 plus percent of the country says that they want tougher sentences, your lot says that they did not understand the question. My God man, the polls tell you that your corrupt party is history. how can you stand the stench of decay, while defending the crims?
May 18th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
PaulL … thank you for your 7.23. Congrats then to ACT for their ‘me to’ to Key’s proposal. This whole thread has been instructive with comments from the extreme left and the extreme right all opposing giving people the right to choose. I am reminded of the only comment from Mike Moore that I ever agreed with … “The people are right even when they are wrong”. To argue against this proposal is elitism at its most stark and ugly.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
That (why are you against referenda?) was a rhetorical question – present leftist political philosophy is based on De Tocqueville’s ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ theory which suggests that a democracy is inherently dysfunctional because it is designed to adhere to the wishes of an unintelligent or easily -influenced electorate. http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/980.html The answer – ‘educate, or dictate’ what is best for the majority, and adhere to a philosophy which tells you that the masses are intrinsically unfit to know what is best for them. Hence a hatred of referenda.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“I see Rodney with a press release today that (amongst many other things – very good press release) supports a referendum on MMP.”
Interesting. I see Rodney becoming a National MP in an FPP environment (listening to him lately he’s already starting to resemble one). Maybe he has this in sight already?
May 18th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Roger – too many drugs tonight? I cannot imagine Rodney fitting into National. And he has no interest in an FPP environment – he just agrees that the people should decide electoral matters.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Paul:
“I cannot imagine Rodney fitting into National.”
You’re talking about the party that Don brash lead not 3 years ago. Rodney certainly isn’t too right wing to be in National if that’s what you’re trying to get at.
“And he has no interest in an FPP”
That’s a bit presumptive isn’t it? Surely he’s worried about losing Epsom. It would definitely be much safer for him if he belonged to National.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Chris Diack wrote: ” Its not a philosophical issue to ask National to outline the need to examine the electoral system – they have not done so.”
Wrong Chris. We need a referendum to keep the promise made when MMP was introduced — that we would get a chance to vote on it again after it had been tried for a few years.
I believe we got MMP because of the Business Roundtable’s ill-judged the campaign against it. They were morally right, but tactically wrong.
The Roundtable put up a decent, respectable, successful, intelligent and very prominent businessman to head the campaign. The Roundtable worked hard and put money up, but many working folk prejudiced against the Roundtable thought if Big Business opposes MMP so strongly, it must be good. The more vigorous the Roundtable campaign the more employed people and their families opposed MMP. The resultant bugger-you vote tipped the scales in favour of MMP, which interestingly, was adopted from Germany. It is almost identical to the system under which Hitler rose to power without a majority of the German people voting for him (that came later). That’s the sort of power it can give to small minorities.
If the people do want MMP, surely we can have a system where everyone in Parliament is put there by voters, not by political party officials. But really MMP has failed. It’s given us Winston Peters, Possum Dunne. Keith Locke, and a lot of other idiots.
How would you like the All Blacks picked on an MMP system? Or a school football team for that matter? You can stuff round for ever making a team exactly representative or choose the best one. Not do both.
We need the best people for Parliament, and electorate votes are the best way to find them.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“It would be the height of hypocrisy for supporters of MMP to argue that the public should not get a chance to determine our type of electoral system.”
And if anyone believes that the campaign of disinformation that would emanate from the right is anything by truthful and fair, let alone with the interests of democracy needs their heads read.
the economic elite of the right decried the loss off apparent freedoms under the EFB, they are trying to screw the people with this.
Anything less than MMP or STV will see undemocratically elected governments.
But bring on Key and his economic nirvana. Borrow for the tax cut bribes, see interest rates rise with inflationary tax pressures and of course a return to TRUE minority governments a la Piggy Muldoon and his twice minority govt. Oh yeah this is going to be nothing but a right wing hell hole for the next 3 years, if the people will let it go that long.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Roger: you always attribute negative motives to those on the right. Rodney doesn’t fit into National because he is too socially liberal. National doesn’t have a lot of room for that. Sure, if we had FPP back then he might consider it, but I very much doubt he would see that as a good outcome.
Suggesting that Rodney wants that as an outcome simply because it would make his life easier is ridiculous.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
PaulL:
Don Brash was pretty socially liberal too, and he was the leader. i.e. He voted for prostitution law reform if I’m not mistaken.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Sorry Roger, not buying. You’ve never demonstrated any particular ability to read people. I think you’re flat out wrong.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Is there no support for a good old-fashioned preferential voting system with single member electorates like we have here in Australia federally, and in all states and territories except Tasmania? Although I think the A.C.T. has a weird system also.
Sure you can still end up with a hopeless federal government like we now have under “Rudderless Kev”. But multi-member electorates seems very “woossy” and indecisive to me.
Rudd ended up with 53% of the vote (after preferences); Howard with 47% of the vote (after preferences).
The seats in the House of Representatives (after preferences) ended up being are: ALP: 147; Liberal/National Party Coalition:99 and two independents.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
democracymum
re your comments way back in the day in which minority “parties should have to block vote”.
Are you taking the piss, drunk or just arrogantly stupid.
You have no right using the pseudonym, you have no concept of Democracy, have you ever heard of anything less democratic than a party elected by the people forced to vote for values and issues they do not represent.
From the rest of your post, I assume that arrogance is possibly the best description.
As for your Dental Nurse jibe, pre tell how was the illustrious economic marvel Robert Muldoon, a qualified Accountant, to be remembered by the electorate other than failed leftist think big policies and more or less economic ruin – just a thought.
I mean we’d hate the ‘people’ to have a voice now wouldn’t we.
A descriptive theory of political representation such as MMP or STV is understandable by the public, they see themselves mirrored in the house of representatives, white, brown, asian, PI, gay, transgender, deaf, green, right, male female etc etc. A delegated system re FPP and the inner party workings associated with this may indeed foster a form of meritocracy, however as proven time and time again this too can not lead to good government.
It’s a simple choice between representation via a reflection of society or representation in terms of political elite.
I am very sorry for those whom somehow feel less democratic or ‘under-represented’ in govt over the last few years, welcome to the world of everyone and anyone whom wasn’t white middle class male for the last 100 years. I do have one fucking small violin that I am willing to break out for you. I mean how dare a transgender person present themselves in Parliament, we all know Accountants and Bankers are proportionally more important and thus have a greater right to power.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Paul – Just a bit off speculation, so don’t get too worked up. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if Rodney ends up in the National Party, if National’s push for FPP is successful.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Wow, it’s like watching rabid dogs in a busy market-place trying to decide who next to bite . Beautifully expressed grammar, though.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Roger, it’s more populist talk hidden as ‘policy’ with the view to painting the govt as the bad guys.
It’s the ultimate back hand insult to the people. We’ll give you the voice, while allowing our ‘overlords’ to run a massive misinformation campaign. It’s disingenuous and insulting.
It would be a real shame to see any real policy in which the people could differentiate the govt from the right.
How bloody easy is it to be in opposition. Only Sat morning I heard Key’s criticism of the Govt re the poll claiming that the govt had done nothing to sort out interest rates or the rising cost of petrol. I’d love to know which of this new deities powers, will from the 9th floor of the Beehive he wield over the global petroleum markets – this i’ve gotta see. Fuck I’ll vote for the rich prick if he thinks he can control oil prices. Just like S Power thinks labour has failed to ’stamp out crime’. Bugger me these bastards are really getting my vote if they can ’stamp out crime’ and control global oil prices.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Cut the fuel duty which is increasing in real terms as base gasoline prices rise.
Change the Reserve Banks mandate to look at broader mix of economic indicators that just inflation thereby allowing crippling interest rates to be cut before they take the interanl economy to the brink of collapse.
Simply maths buddy.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Jack5:
1. Promises, Promises.
There was no such promise to hold another referendum on MMP actually if NZers went for it – political myth – check previous comments.
2. Campaign for Better Govt.
Actually it was quite a good campaign – they put the case when no one else was prepared too. I love ward room warriors.
3. MMP gave the world Hitler
Check your facts.
4. MMP – held to ransom by the minors
No evidence of this here. Winston’s such a poodle that both Labour and National will have him as Foreign Minister. According to Muldoon the Government was held to ransom by Waring … is that what you mean?
5. Picking a rugby team or the All Blacks by MMP
That’s just it – we are not picking a sports team – it’s a House of Representatives – there is no ideal or best team – assuming that can objectively apply in politics.
Your best people may not be my best people.
6. ACT supports a referendum
Indeed. But ACT cites no particular advantage or problem solved by changing the electoral system.
I am still waiting for evidence about how changing electoral systems will raise our standards of living and address the fundamental concerns of NZers. Why National would want to go down this path when it will have it’s hands full is beyond me.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:20 am
There seems to be little mention of SM (Supplementary Member system). The current MMP system could be made into a much simpler SM system very easily (I think that is what DPF was alluding to in the first post). One vote for your electorate MP and one vote for MPs to be chosen from the Party lists (this could stay at the current 54?) – so no topping up to try to ensure proportionality and no overhang. A 5% Party vote would result in around 3 MPs instead of 6 as at present.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Expat.
Simple Maths buddy, any cut or removal in duty/tax on fuel will only be temporary. At the rate that international oil is increasing, using the right wing line of cutting tax will be null in void within months to a year. This DOES NOT STOP fuel rising, it’s temporary.
Simple Maths buddy. Key can not control hedge funds speculating on West Texas Crude (which was partly responsible for the spike recently), despite what his increasing band of disciples believe of his powers.
Did you fail to mention the inflationary pressures of too great a tax cut, thus increasing interest rates and keeping the dollar high with foreign purchasing of the Kiwi with high interest rates? Was that Simple Maths enough for you?
It’s all perspective sunshine, there is no right or wrong answer, just perspective.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Chris Diack … re your 11.36. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever claimed that MMP gave the world Hitler. The reality is however that Hitler gave the world MMP … the framers of Germany’s post WW2 constitution were determined to prevent a single Party taking control so they came up with a system that effectively guaranteed the Free Democrats and now the Greens would always hold the balance of power …. and if that’s not the dog wagging the tail then tell me what is.
Sure Germany is relatively prosperous but you can argue that is in spite of MMP rather than a result of.
The very nature of MMP almost guarantees a proportion of ‘nutters’ in Parliament. National and Labour (and I guess to be fair ACT) have the mechanisms and will to deal to their nutters. Other Parties don’t.
Is the NZ Parliament a better place through MMP. Possibly and possibly not. But now that we understand MMP and all its weaknesses and if if there is a better system then I for one have an open mind and am prepared to consider it and, having considered it, vote accordingly.
Not an entirely earth shattering position.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Ross:
1. Read the thread again, someone up above was claiming that MMP gave us Hitler, which was of course wrong.
2. Agree that if there is a better system we should use it. Do you have one to suggest? I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone describe one yet
Paul:
1. Too great a tax cut? According to Cullen any tax cut at all is too great. Is that what you mean? It sure is what you used to say
2. It may not stop fuel rising, but it makes it cheaper, no?
3. Did you forget to say “Labour good, National bad”?
Anthony:
1. What advantage does SM have other than halving the representation of minor parties?
2. Do you think halving the representation of minority parties is a good thing?
3. Why?
May 19th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Ross Miller
It’s really like taking candy from a baby.
1. Germany – Held to ransom by the Free Democrats and the Greens.
Check your facts – grand coalition between Christian Democrats (and the Bravian Sister Party) and the Social Democrats. The second such grand coalition since the war.
One man’s ransom is another’s leverage.
You also ignore the possibility that good policy can emerge from small parties.
2. MMP puts nutters in Parliament.
Nutters = your subjective judgement.
That given, yes but only proportionately – as opposed to previous dis-proportionate numbers.
Like the poor, the nutters will always be among us and a number will always be elected to parliament.
3. The endless search for a “better” electoral system.
A fools errand. What is it that needs fixing that will be fixed by a different electoral system?
May 19th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Yes, Ross I agree with your “now that we understand MMP and all its weaknesses and if if there is a better system then I for one have an open mind and am prepared to consider it”
Further to this, after seeing what happens in practice with MMP creating this tail-wagging-the-dog scenario, it seems a ludicrous outcome of MMP that any party which only achieves 5% of the vote should have any representation in Parliament at all – let alone be in a position to dictate terms to a major party.
This experiment clearly hasn’t worked and its time to face up to the fact and deal with the problem. Government is growing like a multi-headed monster and the state is consuming ever more of our money and resources while delivering less and less worthwhile services to the people that it is meant to serve.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am
paul
The parliament at the moment block votes under MMP
To reduce the leverage of smaller parties, they would form a mini parliament and come to a consensus
Which was suppose to be the point of MMP
Question: Given the large number of women in our society who are parents – how many are in parliament?
Question: Given the number of lesbian women in the NZ population – how many are in the government?
Don’t tell me MMP is working, it is not. And given that NZ is still a democracy (just) I will use whatever name I want
May 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Mr Key said people had been promised a referendum and they should get one.
Who promised them this referendum? No promises were even made.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:36 am
democracymum: your solution presupposes a problem. Why do we want to reduce the leverage of smaller parties? Do you believe that the votes of their supporters should count less?
Which parties do you see as being smaller? After the upcoming election, would Labour go to the larger parliament or the smaller? If we send all the parties to the smaller parliament we end up with what we have now.
Also consider this new perverse outcome it creates (well known from the way that some family owned companies are controlled).
Small party, say Winston First, gets 10 seats. Some other minor parties get a handful of seats – giving a total seats for this smaller parliament of 19 seats. So every time this smaller parliament meets, Winston First will dominate it.
Now imagine that the balance of power requires 5 votes. You’ve gone from a situation where the largest party (say, National) could pick and choose minor parties, thereby weakening their power, to a situation where Winston First’s 10 votes get magnified to 19 votes, which is always sufficient to control parliament (assuming that National and Labour always choose opposite sides – which they seem to, despite the fact that they often agree).
Italy is famous for this – small holding company has 51% of the votes in large company. Another small holding company has 51% of the first holding company. Another small holding company has 51% of the second holding company. Result, 13% of the ownership has control of the company.
In short, don’t like your idea at all. I see it as undemocratic, and as giving the opposite outcome to the one you want.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
David Mann:
“…..after seeing what happens in practice with MMP creating this tail-wagging-the-dog scenario, it seems a ludicrous outcome of MMP that any party which only achieves 5% of the vote should have any representation in Parliament at all – let alone be in a position to dictate terms to a major party”
Gosh where is the evidence for this – in fact all the evidence in New Zealand suggests otherwise.
The fact is those supporting a shift way from MMP (to less proportional systems of political representation) can offer no problem that this shift will fix.
Not one example of a problem fixed by changing electoral systems!
Indeed those on the centre-right who advance this nonsense are actually admitting that they do not think that their fellow citizens can be persuaded to voluntarily vote for their policy prescription in sufficient numbers so their solution is to disenfranchise other votes to ensure they do not get what they voted for. It’s an admission of total political failure – a lack of confidence in the innate common sense of their fellow citizens.
What a travesty.
It is this sort of thinking that will ensure that centre-right interest in changing the electoral system will probably ensure no change to MMP – the moment voters get a whiff of this in the argument surrounding a referendum they will be dead in the water.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Chris Diack attributes some comments to me I didn’t raise, eg ACT’s position.
No-one said “MMP gave the world Hitler”. But it’s a fact that’s how he gained power with the backing of a minority of Germany’s voters. Germany’s MMP system from then is virtually unchanged, and thus New Zealand’s is virtually the same.
Check your OWN facts!
The rugby team selection analogy: the point was that proportional representation focuses on accuracy of representation rather than selecting the best.
CD: “Your best people may not be my best people.”
I’m damn sure they’re not. That’s the point about an election. Letting the people pick the best not leaving the choice to party hacks. MMP, with its Continental origins, seems to parallel Continental courts. Unlike us, few have juries. They don’t trust the ordinary man and woman in the street.
CD: “I am still waiting for evidence about how changing electoral systems will raise our standards of living and address the fundamental concerns of NZers.”
And hasn’t our economy flourished under the change to MMP? Private debt blown out. Chronic balance of payments imbalance. Inflation threatening to zoom out of control again. Our artificially high kiwi dollar choking our export industries (except for dairying in the middle of a gold rush).
MMP has given us a bizarre country fiddling with social welfare measures like child smacking while the economy burns. All driven by people inelectable if they face the vote of ordinary Kiwis: Red Keith Locke, far-left Bradford and most of the the other Greens are good examples of those who can’t win an electorate seat.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
John Key hates democracy ’nuff said. I also wonder what he thinks about human rights often talking about Singapore in relation to New Zealand. Singapore is a brutal and heinous despot backwater with one of the worst Amnesty International rap sheets in the region.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
PaulL, surveys have shown a lot of voters still don’t understand MMP, with people thinking that their electorate vote counts for something. With SM both votes count. It is a lot easier to explain.
I agree with others that there is something about having to stand in an electorate that usually prevents nutters from being elected, but I also agree that MMP has brought some more interesting politicians into parliament. SM achieves a better balance in my opinon.
Anyway, the Maori seats and consequent voting behaviour they foster undermine the current version of MMP and mean it is not proportional at all. It therefore needs reform or replacement.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Brite tiger, I hear Helen talking about China all the time. Does that alone mean she hates democracy? – no it was the EFA