Trying to win via overhang
The Green Party are once again showing their commitment to principles are incredibly expendable when it comes to political gain. They are now trying to engineer an election result which would result in a Government which had more votes cast against it, than for it.
Now to appreciate the hypocrisy of this, one has to look at MMP and the major principle or virtue of MMP. It is a proportional voting system where a party gets representation in Parliament in proportion to party votes cast for it. The Greens have strongly supported MMP, and one of the reasons so many supported it was because of the 1978 and 1981 situation when National formed a Government despite having less votes than Labour.
Now the Greens are trying to engineer a deliberate over-hang situation, which would result in a non proportional result. This is their suggestion that Maori roll voters should give their party vote to Greens and electorate vote to Maori Party in order to create an over-hang.
First we need to look at how over-hang happens. It happens when a party wins more electorate seats than its share of the party vote would entitle it to. It is hard to eliminate entirely unless you abolish electorate seats. We currently have an over-hang of one seat as the Maori Party won four electorate seats and their party vote only entitled them to three seats.
It is also possible that this election could see ACT, United Future or Progressive with over-hang if their leaders retain their seats but their party vote is around 0.7% or less.
So we already have over-hang, but it is what I call accidental over-hang. The Maori Party, ACT, United Future and Progressive all want to increase their party vote.
But what the Greens are calling for, is for Maori roll voters to vote in such a way to ensure over-hang, to gain parties of the left more seats in Parliament than their party vote entitles them to. Here is how it works. Let us say the Maori Party wins all seven Maori seats. Now if they get 6% party vote, then the Maori Party will have eight MPs – one list MP and seven electorate MPs.
The Greens are saying, those Maori Party voters should give their party vote to the Greens. Now in an extreme example if those 6% all gave the Greens their party vote, then the Greens would gain an extra eight List MPs, while the Maori Party would still have seven MPs – all overhang seats. That means a Parliament of 127.
And this could change who gets to form the Government. Let’s say National gets 51% of the vote and 62 MPs. They should get to be the Government under MMP – this is exactly what MMP is meant to guarantee.
But by this strategy of deliberate vote splitting to ensure over-hang, then Labour, Greens and Maori Party could gain 65 MPs instead of the 58 they would have on the party vote only, and get to form a Government which only a minority of NZers voted for.
So whenever the Greens talk about any sort of principle when it comes to MMP or electoral law, you should remember that they are proposing a plan which is without principle and designed to secure power for the left, even if that goes against what the majority of NZers want.
Now some people could say, hey this is a loophole in MMP, and one should exploit any loophole you can find. The fact is though this loophole is more a design issue (can’t really easily fix it), and one which no party up until now has tried to really exploit. For the last 12 years various people have tried to convince National to try and do what the Greens are talking about. How it would be done is National splits into two parties – one contests the party vote and no electorates, and one contests electorates only. They would be seperate parties but co-operate together like the Libs and Nats in Australia. This would result in National getting 30 seat overhangs. Labour would then probably do the same and you’d basically have a meltdown of the MMP system (or a 190 seat Parliament!).
So the consequences of what the Greens are trying to do are severe. They are not only trying to frustrate the will of the voters, but they endanger MMP. For let me tell you that if they actually succeeded with their plan, and engineered a deliberate over-hang which changed the election result, the backlash would be nasty and massive. MMP would go, as the main rationale of MMP would have been discredited. Now FPP supporters might like that, but for the Greens as supporters of MMP to act in such a way is unprincipled and shameless.
The Greens, like all parties, are entitled to ask voters on teh Maori roll to vote for them with their party vote. But that should be on the basis of wanting Green party policies implemented and/or to get more Green MPs into Parliament. But they are not doing that. Instead they are arguing on the basis of overhang, that people should vote Green:
The question that Maori voters are asking though is that if the Maori party wins 6 electorate seats (it thinks it can win seven) is it worth also giving a party vote to the Maori Party? Last election each seat in Parliament was worth about 20,000 votes. So the answer is yes, a party vote for the Maori Party can deliver another parliamentary seat but only if there are about another 140,000 votes to go with it and help it climb above the seat overhang the Maori Party is expected to have. In other words, Maori voters who are leaning towards the Maori Party would need to give 7 times as many votes to the Maori Party to get one seat in parliament as they would to the Green Party.
They should abandon such arguments and retain a shred of principle. An MMP election should be decided by which parties get the most party votes. If they want to use overhang to gain power, then they should support the SM electoral system which effectively does precisely that.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
David, how could you, you know the Greens truly believe in ethics and morality ! Perhaps they have had a temporary attack of Trotteritis.
I also think this could be self defeating, I would expect (but who knows ?) a significant backlash against a party that tries this sort of stunt. One good reason I expect that national has avoided this in the past. So I would encourage the Greens to do this, it does show their true nature quite clearly. I wonder if our little toad will show up and defend the idea ?
June 7th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Would this be as unprincipled as using a loophole in a law you don’t believe in (say for example the EFA) to try to shut down a democratic organisation (say for example the EPMU)?
[DPF: They won't be shut down - their spending will just count as part of Labour's cap]
June 7th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
What is democratic about an organisation that would take my union dues and donate a part of them to the Labour party without my consent?
June 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Loophole in the law, Ferdinand? Closing off free speech to a portion of the population was the INTENT of the law. You lose.
“What is democratic about an organisation that would take my union dues and donate a part of them to the Labour party without my consent?”
You get to vote for the person who takes your money without your consent.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
No wonder the Greens are against free speech, with the EFA in place those apposed are not able to speak out against this type of crap.
The Watermelon party really are taking the piss, first they abuse our electoral system to get Comrade Norman into the house and now they want to rule with a minority government.
You can see their desperation and motivation, they are desperate to get back in as they can see the whole climate change con is losing steam and they are motivated by the reality that this may be their last chance to fuck our economy which is their ultimate goal.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
The Green Party have had it so good for the last few years that they have begun to believe that saying something makes it so. In fact they have begun to make assertions which sound like the opening line of a Tui ad.
‘We are independent of Labour’ (Yeah Right.)
‘We honour our Party List’ (Yeah Right.)
‘We have a special relationship with the Maori Party.’ etc.
I think the Greens actually believe that the Maori Party represents some kind of mythical ‘back to nature’ ‘hey, we’re all in it together, so let’s all be friends.’ kind of telly-tubby land version of thier mixed up liberal fantasy-land, and that in some kind of bizarre hug-in, that Maori and Green parties’ eyes are going to meet over a crowded room and realise they are ‘just the same’. I mean, hey, don’t they stand for the same things? like mutual respect, equality, like nature, and stuff? renewable energy, the foreshore and seabed, and shit? Surely then, given they sahre the same philosophical roots, they are destined to be together, right?
Except, our perceptions are different, really. Could it be that the Maori Party might see themselves as a group who have overcome colonialism of the mind and of the economy, in order to redress the wrongs that were visited on them in the past?
Could it be that having hitched their wagon to Labour and having their dreams trashed, they are less likely to fall for the same sentimental BS from the Greens?
Could it be that the Maori Party was born from a realisation that the system they were trusting in was exploiting them economically, but as much, by every other mental trick that they had at its disposal?
Could it be that the Green Party, merely represents a new insidious and self-deluded white middle-class form of mental colonialism, and as much as it might wish to convince itself that it is on the ‘side’ of Maori. Maori are not such naive savages that they will be fooled by the intellectual equivalent of beads, blankets and mirrors from the rather out-of-touch, post-modern colonialists that is the green movement.
Lee – MWT
June 7th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Can you imagine the headlines?
“Greens solicit party vote in attempt to gain majority”
Oh, erm… how about
“Greens gain extra MP due to vote percentage”
Oh, that doesn’t quite get across the fact that their obviously rorting the electoral system (again). I would say that this is more of a side effect of the Maori seats rather than a flaw in MMP – leaving MMP over this would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Something that National appears to have no problem doing.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
They’re doing it because like all lefties they believe the ends justify the means.
The Gweens weally weally care and they just have to get in to control the evil selfish ones (stamp foot).
Anything is justified when your head is as fucked as that.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
It can’t be coincidence that this idea is promulgated just a few days after Kedgely and Mugabe have been in Rome at the same function. After discussing the similarities between Green and Zanu agricultural policies, Kedgely probably asked Mugabe about his extraordinary electoral success.
I predict that it will only be a matter of days before Greens are roaming the streets of Wellington beating up anyone not wearing a Green uniform. Which means anyone who has washed their clothes recently, and isn’t wearing a giant hat that looks like they’re balancing a beehive on their head. Or isn’t posing in an Official Hoodie Day hoodie.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Speaking of Mugabe, anyone else see 3News today – Mugabe is putting the squeeze on food supply, so basically, if you don’t vote for Zanu PF, you starve. I’m not one for strong language usually, but on this occasion it’s justified – Mugabe is an absolute, grade-one arsehole!
June 7th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
So when does undermining the electoral process count as treason?
June 7th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
The Maori party are not amused:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0806/S00014.htm
A clear outbreak of foot in mouth disease, will someone please alert MAF and get some vets in to do a few mercy killings and burn the bodies! Not a trace must remain.
June 7th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
A political party using every trick in the book to get/stay in the corridors of power….DPF, that’s politics.
[DPF: Maybe so, but it undermines the Greens claims to be somehow above that sort of stuff. And as I say, it is very shortsghted as they will undermine MMP if they suceed]
June 7th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
May I suggest hanging the Greens?
June 7th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Instead they are arguing on the basis of overhang, that people should vote Green
Thats the key clause in this post. However I think the Maori Party is a bit more principled than the Greens. And if you look at rel=”nofollow”> this Frogblog post done just 90 mins later, you`ll see why, in the Green’s discussion of UnitedFuture’s tax policy.
Which is exactlywhat the Greens advocated earlier that same day. Watering down what is right to influence votes. Theres an H word for that kind of behaviour.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
The Greens tend to abuse the settings of law by tricky means. So they do in many European countries, right now they play that tricky game in New Zealand. Somehow this party turns out to be the follower of old Moscow imperialists and internationalists. And their secretary general is, as I am inclined to believe, is the climate-liar al Gore, who got the Nobel Price by accident.
Their trying to win by overhang is nothing else than an attempt, to get into better position by betraying the citizens of New Zealand. I hope, citizens will stop them, to show the boarders of law to a very mysterious party.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
This has got Russell Norman written all over it. Through this sort of manipulating Norman is building a constituency for getting rid of MMP. Play on – mate the tsu-nami is waiting to sweep MMP away and your party with it.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
“Through this sort of manipulating Norman is building a constituency for getting rid of MMP.”
In favour of what Tim?
June 7th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
First past the post would probably win though I personally favour supplementary member system with the maori seats retained.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
No party should try to rort the voting system by splitting the vote. If one of the major parties did it, there would be outrage – and rightly so.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I just can’t understand who would still consider voting for these idiots. Are there that many people in NZ smoking too much?
June 7th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
1. It isn’t a loophole, it’s a design feature – designed to stop individuals and groups very closely linked to political parties subverting party vote spending limits.
2. That’s a nice theory DPF, but how then would that be EPMU advertising? If it has to be approved by the labour party financial agent, and bear his name and address, and the money spent on it counts as a donation to the Labour Party, then isn’t it Labour Party advertising?
Never. Well, basically never, anyway.
[DPF: Well Graeme in previous election Labour has authorised and approved out of its spending cap election adverts done by its affiliated unions]
June 7th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
So DPF, how is this different from the National voters of Epsom voting for ACT’s Rodney Hide but giving their party vote to National?
Rodney Hide winning the safe National seat of Epsom is a deliberate attempt by the Epsom voters to keep ACT in parliament and get the 2% ACT receive in the election counted but still give their vote to National.
If that isn’t ‘engineering’ a result I don’t know what is.
[DPF: Graeme answers later on how that actually makes a result more proportional not less. I would also make the point that National did not encourage people to split their vote - quite the contrary it contested the seat vigorously and lost]
June 7th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Actually, it wouldn’t, the total size of Parliament would remain 120 (some sort of ‘underhang’?). Proportionality would be maintained across 90 seats instead of across 120. National would then get its 30 electorate seats on top of its proportional share.
And if every party operated like this, it would be identical to supplementary member (still with no overhang, with 50 supplementary seats).
[DPF: Umm no. Let us say there are only two parties Nat and Lab and they form Nat P, Nat E, Lab P and Lab E. Nat P and Lab P would share 120 seats between them. And Nat E and Lab E would share 70 seats between them. That is assuming Nat P and Lab P got all the party votes and Nat E and Lab E won all the electorates. I am assuming Nat E and Lab E would be on the party vote ballot but not seeking such votes]
June 7th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Rocket boy – its different from Epsom (or Tauranga, or Wigram, or Ohariu) because ACT still only gets 2% of the seats in Parliament (and NZF its 4.3% in the year it mattered for them, and the Progressives their 1%, and United Future their 2.5% etc.).
Now personally, I’d get rid of the threshold, but the Epsom scenario does not undermine the proportionality of MMP – it actually enhances it.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Fight fire with fire.
All National safe seats should campaign for electorate vote National and party vote ACT. All Labour safe seats – Party vote National, fill ya boots on ya electorate vote. All marginal seats, electorate vote National, party vote ACT or National.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Rocket Boy: very different – unless ACT get under 0.7% (very unlikely). The point is that ACT still only get as many seats as their votes entitled them to.
The real problem here is the Maori seats – doing something like this with the normal electorate seats would be much harder. Relying on parties to just not abuse the electoral system is probably not going to work long-term. Although I guess the Germans have had MMP for many years without this problem.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I think we need to accept the overhang as a consequence of having a half baked electorate/proportional voting system. To take some kind of principled stance that an overhang is wrong is to deny the effectiveness of the proportionality aspects of MMP.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Graeme, not following you. I’m pretty sure that if National split into an electorate only party and list party, the electorate party would get 30 odd seats with no list votes. So all 30 are overhang. The list only party would get enough list seats to make them proportional to their list vote – so 30 odd list seats? Am I missing something here?
June 7th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Graeme makes a good point about reducing the threshold, I would like to see it at about 1.66% which represents two seats. 5% is designed to avoid the overhang, the very thing about MMP that allows an electorate based system to be proportional.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Rocket Boy… so you’re saying a split vote campaign is wrong all round, or only in Nat/ACT’s case?
June 7th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Clintheine, I am saying if DPF complains about the Greens/Maori ‘engineering’ a result he should have a good look at Epsom & ACT.
The thing I don’t understand about ACT and Epsom is who are the voters of Epsom helping? If ACT did not exist then does anyone believe that ACT voters would not support National?
Really what is the point of ACT? Squatting in a safe National seat and a miserable 1.5% of the vote (at the last election).
June 7th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Generally I don’t have much time for the Greens who overall seem to be a bunch of wierdos at worst and fruit loops at best.
But even I cannot see Jeannette Fitzsimons supporting this sort of rubbish. Maybe even Keith Lock wouldn’t stoop to it. The rest well………..in boots and all I would think. However without Fitzsimons support wouldn’t it all fall over or would she be forced to resign and let Sue Bradford take over?
As an aside I briefly saw Lock talking about the dangers of Tazers on one of the news bulletins this evening. Don’t these people understand that the best way not to be shot or Tazered is to do what a policeman tells you to do – simple really and no danger to innocent and sensible people.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“Actually, it wouldn’t, the total size of Parliament would remain 120 (some sort of ‘underhang’?). Proportionality would be maintained across 90 seats instead of across 120. National would then get its 30 electorate seats on top of its proportional share.”
Sorry Graeme, we’ve had this discussion before and it does work as DPF explains, just redone the calculations on the electoral office calcualtor and got 153 seats as the answer for the scenario I put in.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Ferdinand @ 6.14 pm
“Would this be as unprincipled as using a loophole in a law you don’t believe in (say for example the EFA) to try to shut down a democratic organisation (say for example the EPMU)?”
Ferdinand, I don’t believe in the tax rates we have in NZ but I comply with them. Does that make me unprincipled?
June 7th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
We have an electoral system that can create an overhang that big, 153 seats.
Lets go for it!
June 8th, 2008 at 12:04 am
If we could get all the right thinking people on this blog to join the Greens and vote Sue Bradford and Keith Locke in as co-leaders we might get rid of the Greens for good.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:31 am
DPF – you actually said “How it would be done is National splits into two parties – one contests the party vote and no electorates, and one contests electorates only.”
To get on the party vote ballot, you have to be a registered party and submit a list – based on your post (as distinct from your comment) I assumed Nat E would either be an unregistered party, or a registered party which did not submit a list. I didn’t see how Nat E could both “contest electorates only” and submit a list. Under the scenario outlined in your clarification you would be correct, and there would be an overhang.
PaulL:
Yes. I’ll explain.
1984:
We have had a similar discussion, but this differs in one important respect (assuming DPF’s scenario as originally written).
Overhang occurs where a party that is contesting the party vote receives more MPs via electorates than it’s party vote would entitle it to. E.G. at the last election, the Maori Party won 4 of the 69 electorates, but its party vote was only high enough for it to ‘earn’ 3 MPs out of the 120. Thus 1 overhang.
However, where an electorate is won by someone who is not standing for an party that is also contesting the party vote (that is, it is won by an independent candidate, or a candidate for an unregistered party, or a candidate for a registered party that has not submitted a list), no overhang is created. For example, had Derek Fox won Ikaroa Rawhiti in 1999 (he came within a few hundred votes) he would not have created an overhang, he would have got his seat, and the parties contesting the party vote would have been fighting over the other 119 (e.g. a party with say 55% of the party votes would earn 65.45 seats in the 120 seat Parliament, rather than the 66 seats they’d be entitled to had some party-vote-contesting party won it). In fancy-pants terms, the Saint-Lague calculation would have stopped at the 119th quotient (rather than the 120th it goes to normally).
If all the electorates were won by independents, there would be no overhang. The party vote calculation would determine 50 seats only – a party with 10% of the vote would get 5 seats, not the 12 it would normally be entitled to.
Some scenarios:
1. Normal – the National Party wins 40 electorates and 40% of the party votes. They get their 40 electorate MPs and 8 list MPs to take them to the 48 MPs they are entitled to in a 120 seat Parliament.
2. Nat P (a registered party that has submitted a list) contests the party vote only, Nat E (either a separate registered party that did not submit a list, or an unregistered party) only runs electorate candidates and is not on the party vote ballot. Nat E wins 40 electorates, and Nat P wins 40% of the party vote. Nat E gets 40 electorate MPs. Nat P gets 32 list seats (40% of 80 seats). Overall the Nats have 72 MPs in a 120 seat Parliament. There is no overhang.
3. Nat P and Nat E are both registered parties, and submit party lists. Nat P wins no electorates, but 40% of the party vote. Nat E wins 40 electorates, but gets no party votes. Nat P gets 48 list MPs. Nat E gets 40 electorate MPs. Overall the Nats have 88 MPs in a 160 seat Parliament. There is a 40 seat overhang.
1984 – the calculator gave a result at variance with my analysis, because when you added Nat E as a separate party on the Elections NZ calculator, you were impliedly stating that Nat E was a registered party that has submitted a list and was contesting the party vote: my analysis assumed that this was not so (based on my interpretation of DPF’s scenario). The Elections NZ on-line calculator is not set up for a situation where independents win electorate seats.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Could say the same about United and Progressives who are propping up a certain Govt now Rocket Boy.
Apart from the fact ACT has more members and support than both parties, and actually stand for something rather than being a small embarrassing appendage.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:45 am
“They are now trying to engineer an election result which would result in a Government which had more votes cast against it, than for it.”
While I appreciate the principle behind the idea that a Government is more legitimate when it has a plurarility of the votes, I must point out you cannot vote against a party, you can only vote for them.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Under the Electoral Act 1993, sure. Where it was pro-Labour advertising Labour has to give their permission (and counted it as an election expense). And where it was still Andrew Little’s name and the EPMU’s address on the advertising, and where the EPMU was entitled to promote such advertising (as they were under the Electoral Act 1993).
Under the EFA it is very different. If the EPMU is registered as a third party it can promote $60,000 of “Don’t Vote National” advertising and $60,000 of “Vote Labour” advertising. It needs authorisation (i.e. permission) from the Labour Party financial agent to run the “Vote Labour” stuff, but it is still EPMU advertising – with Andrew Little’s name and home address on it (albeit EPMU advertising that Labour must account for in its expenses).
If the EPMU cannot register, then it cannot run $60,000 of “Don’t Vote National” advertising and $60,000 of “Vote Labour” advertising. It cannot promote more than $12,000 of election advertising. It cannot even ask the Labour Party financial agent’s permission for authorisation to run $60,000 of “Vote Labour” advertising. It cannot run advertising with Andrew Little’s name and home address on it. Instead, the Labour Party runs advertising, it has Mike Smith’s name and home address on it. The EPMU might foot the bill, but the advertising is not EPMU advertising – it is Labour Party advertising.
There might be a very good reason for all of this (indeed I point to one “It isn’t a loophole, it’s a design feature – designed to stop individuals and groups very closely linked to political parties subverting party vote spending limits.”) but you cannot just say “the EPMU’s spending will just count as part of Labour’s cap” – it won’t be the EPMU’s spending. If it’s the EPMU’s spending, and it’s on election advertising over $12,000 then they are breaking the law. It is Labour’s spending, and Labour advertising.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:09 am
I’ll add in relation to the analysis of overhang and underhang above, that it is not necessarily completely ‘out there’ for something like this to happen. At some point in the future, the Maori Party might just decide that maintaining registration as a registered party is too onerous (and largely pointless if they’ll never earn a list seat), and de-register.
They could still maintain a registered logo and compete in the Maori electorates as members of the Maori Party.
And any seats they won would not be overhang seats (wouldn’t 7 seats out of a 120 seat Parliament be better than 7 seats out of a 124 seat Parliament?).
At the moment they won’t – not only are they still hopeful of getting list seats, but registration is a pre-requisite for a broadcasting allocation – but this may change.
[DPF: I have been trying to think of how one can prevent overhang. There seem to be two possible ways. The first is to expand the size of Parliament until it is proportional again. This would not be popular! Another is to have a party forfeit its most marginal seat to the second place getter if they have overhang. A more radical way would be to abolish the electorate vote but still have electorate seats by having each party choose the seat they wish to "hold" in order of ranking through the St Lague formula!]
June 8th, 2008 at 3:36 am
The Green party really is on a roll. Corrupting our electoral system for the good of Gaia.
Too bad it won’t work. The only part of nature they’ll be familiar with next year is speaking into the wind. No one will hear what they have to say and one will care. Nice.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:38 am
One will care, not.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Surely the Maori Party know that to enter into this sort of Faustian pact with the Greens would forever mar their chances of a coalition with National. Their political capital would go straight out the window, and they’d become another Labour footstool like the Greens, just sitting there with legs wide open waiting to be used and abused by Helen and her successors.
If the Maori Party want to have any sort of impact for their people they need to carefully maintain an ability to work with either National or Labour. The Green’s can’t/won’t adopt that sort of flexibility, so sure they can propose these sort of screw-the-scrum tactics. But the Maori aren’t as wacky as the Greens.
I’d expect that the Maori Party are quite aware that they’ve had good deals out of National in the past (Doug Graham did excellent work for Maori) and that National’s ethos of getting ahead is going to be better for their people than Labour’s offer to entrap them as permanent inter-generational beneficiaries.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Your first wouldn’t work in any situation where an independent or unregistered party won a seat. If it really is something we want to do, however (and I’m far from convinced it is), I’d say the best solution would be to reduce the voting strength of the overhung party within Parliament – e.g. in this Parliament, while they’d still have four MPs, when a party vote was called for the Maori Party would only get to cast three votes. There’d still be a 121-seat Parliament, but proportionality would have been maintained.
It doesn’t fix everything (independents and unregistered parties would still trouble), and it would be particularly annoying for Jim Anderton if he was ever a sole overhang – maybe the minimum voting strength should be one?; of course, your second option would be even worse for Anderton – the runner-up in Wigram is generally the National candidate!
June 8th, 2008 at 10:15 am
1. EFA
Mr Edgeler:
Or EPMU members could form a North Island Fair Wages 2008 Inc and South Island Fair Wages 2008 Inc and registered as third Parties. These legal persons are not involved in the administration of the affairs of any registered party and could co operate closely with the EPMU and other unions to run a campaign the cost of which could be divided proportionately between the registered third party partners campaigning together.
2. The Greens chess board politics
On the broader issue I am amazed at how poor the Greens political tactics are. This I can only put down to the Green “up and comer” Russel Norman.
The tactics have all the hallmarks of “old left” political thinking. First the scramble to get Dr Norman burning carbon on taxpayer funded flights and using his access to Parliamentary recourses to run the Green’s campaign. The image that this sort of stuff conveys is very very bad for the Greens – it’s not the politics of Morris Dancing or Kum Ba Ya. Its tough-man stuff.
Regarding the proposed Deal over Maori Party party list votes, voters are pawns to be shift about a chessboard by parliamentary parties. Again very “old left” thinking.
First, it wont work.
Maori voters ignored Labour and voted for the Maori Party – but didn’t give them everything. What this shows is that voters don’t like being told what to do – voting is the only real power all voters have over politicians; why allow Pols to tell you want to do with it. And you certain don’t allow the pols to parcel your vote and trade it.
Second, there are real differences between the Maori Party and the Greens. The Greens would happy nationalise carbon credits of forests owners for example. The Maori Party would probably prefer to see those credits belonging to the owners. The Green Party is in short not a defender of any system of sub national property rights. Indeed it’s their analysis that property rights are a major source of all the ills in the world. On the other hand, Maori Party understand property rights because a part of the Maori story in New Zealand is having these ignored, reduced and removed without compensation. T
Take a concrete example: quota management in fisheries. The Greens would happily trample on this property rights based conservation system – the Maori party would not because Maori are substantial owners of quota and big players in fishing.
Likewise seabed and foreshore; the Greens nationalise and Maori party support property right if recognised in law – and no taking without fair compensation.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Graeme Edgeler
They could still maintain a registered logo and compete in the Maori electorates as members of the Maori Party.
And any seats they won would not be overhang seats (wouldn’t 7 seats out of a 120 seat Parliament be better than 7 seats out of a 124 seat Parliament?).
Interesting point. If the Maori Party’s ‘surplus’ party vote (the party vote of those split voters that voted MP for electorate) is split roughly the same as other voters, then yes. However, if another party benefits (gains proportionally more list seats), then the MP electorate voters clearly have a preference for that party over other non-Maori Party parties. Therefore the ‘both votes counting’ effect is of benefit to MP voters (although perhaps not to the MP directly).
I think – happy to be shown any error in my logic.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:22 am
ErrolC – you’re pretty much right, but it works that way under both scenarios:
1. Maori Party submitting a party list, but earning no party votes (so having 7 overhang); and
2. the Maori Party not submitting a list, so earning no party votes (having 7 seats, but no overhang).
In each, the Maori Party gets the electorate vote, and some other party (say the Greens) gets the party votes.
Assume that the Greens would have gotten enough Party votes by themselves for 7 seats. And then assume that with all the extra votes from Maori Party electorate voters, they’d get another 5.
Under scenario 1, it’s Maori Part 7 seats, Green Party 12 seats. 108 divided between the rest (in a 127 seat Parliament).
Under scenario 2, it’s Maori Party 7 seats, Greens probably 11 seats, and 102 divided between the rest (maybe 3 less for each of National and Labour in a 120 seat Parliament).
June 8th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Imagine the headlines if it actually happened
Green and Maori Parties do on purpose what George Bush did accidentally in 2000
June 8th, 2008 at 11:40 am
How is “a party that is contesting the party vote” defined? Do you think Jm Anderton’s likely to fit it this time? Is there any penalty for duplicity involved?
June 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
ref Graeme 11:22am
That is why the Greens would rather the Maori Party not had a list. Given that it does, if the few of you that feel so strongly about the prospect of an overhang, just vote the Maori Party as your list vote. If enough did that this will reduce any overhang
June 8th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
1984: “How is “a party that is contesting the party vote” defined?”
It’s not – that was my shorthand for registered party that has submitted a list.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
There doesn’t then appear to be any significant obstacle to somebody doing the DPF scenario, if you’re prepared to go that much trouble its a clerical task to enter a list with the electoral commission.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
This is why MMP is wrong and FFP is a far better system.
Anyone with a basic understanding of game theory will realize in these situations you can end up with a result 80% of voters didn’t want. This would damage democracy.
But from the Greens no surprise on that front.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
You’ll be upset that National lost, however it does not follow that MMP would go. Your party would be losers of a legally abiding election and as such be in no position to dictate any change to the voting system.
If Labour/Greens/Maori holds power after the election with a total 47% support and a majority of seats, that there is 47% of the populace who will be happy with the result. They will not be calling for an end of MMP.
National supporters, maybe 51% of the electorate will be peeved. There will be some nastiness, people of a particular bent will write hard-edged articles and rant on the net about stolen elections and unfairness. Racists will use the opportunity to blame the Maori. But for all the nastiness National will still be in oppostion and not able to change electoral law.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Here’s a job for a researcher.
Of all the seven runners up in the Maori seats, what was the highest number votes got by the highest polling of those runners up?
Of all the fifty eight (58 I think) other electorates where there were fifty eight runners up, what was the average vote count of those runners up?
Give me the two figures, then say after me;
“Racially based electorates are bad in Southern Africa but are wonderful in New Zealand.