MMP elections under SM
I was curious as to how the four elections we have had under MMP, would have gone under SM. It was relatively simple to redo the St Lague formula to calculate this, so below are who each election would have turned out under SM:
In 1996, National and NZ First went into a coalition with a 61/120 majority. Under SM this is still a likely outcome but they would have had 64 seats instead of 61. NZ First were not that keen to go with Labour if they were dependent on the Alliance and Labour/NZF was 56 MPs so this problem still existed.
Overall it is hard to see a different outcome under SM.
In 1999 Labour and the Alliance formed a minority Government with 59 seats out of 120. They were backed by the Greens to give them 66/120 on supply and confidence.
Now under SM Labour could have governed alone. It is possible they may have chosen to go still do a Coalition with the Alliance, but I suspect they would have been treated like the Greens – supporting players outside Government. Ironically if this had been the case, it is likely the Alliance would not have disintegrated on the Afghanistan issue. If they had not been in Government they could have oppossed troops, like the Greens did. I suspect Anderton’s ego made a bust up with Harre and McCarten inevitable at some stage, but perhaps not as early as 2002.
In 2002, Labour formed a minority Government with Progressive having 54/120 seats. They had confidence and supply from United and Greens giving them a total of 71 seats. Under SM they could have governed alone.
In 2005, Labour formed a majority Government with Progressives, NZ First and United having 61/120 seats. They also had agreement to abstain on confidence and supply from the Greens and a non formal abstention from the Maori Party meaning they could win confidence votes 61 to 50. National tried to put a Government together also which was in theory possible with National, ACT, United Future, and Maori Party having 57 seats but they could not get NZ First which would have given them 64.
Under SM, Labour, Progressive, NZ First and United Future would only total 59 seats so Labour would have been a minority Government relying on abstentions from Green and Maori Party. Arguably more likely is Clark may have gone left instead of centrist and done a Labour, Progressive, Green, Maori coalition which would give her 62 seats.
What options did National have, if this was SM? On 51 seats they need 10 to make 61. Assume ACT and United Future and they are at 55 seats. Maori Party would give them 60 but they would still be one seat short.
So under SM, the Alliance may have never disintegrated, and the Greens may have got their long desired coalition agreement in 2005, as Clark would have been unable to get a majority just with NZ First and United.
And in no case would there have been a different major party in Government.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Fascinating!
Doesn’t change too much apart from a DCM for Winston!
August 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
It gives a greater possibility that one of the major parties will govern alone which is something most NZ’ers want to avoid, having been burned by single party Governments a few times now.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Of course, under SM we might have more electorates, but I don’t blame you for doing it this way.
One possibility which you could have taken into account, was that with SM we might have a lower threshold – which may have seen the Christian Coalition elected in 1996.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
The major flaw in your thesis is that the proposal for SM, and indeed how it has operated in various countries, is that you have far fewer list seats than electorate seats. The NZ suggestion canvassed by the royal commission was 100 electorate and 20 list, from memory. You of all people will know this.
It is not a proportional system at all. Only the smaller number of list seats are awarded proportionally.
MMP was the system most opposed by the main parties because it did not favour them. FPP was their first choice, SM second, MMP a distant third and STV (which gives the voters, not the parties, the greatest power) was their nightmare.
MMP has worked exactly how it was predicted to, in that it has given us a much more representative parliament elected in almost fully direct proportion to voter wishes and it has acted as a brake on the excesses of major-party government.
We should not change our electoral system willy nilly to benefit one party or another.
MMP is far from broken, in fact it works very well. SM is almost as undemocratic as FPP. Why is it being pulled out of the hat now when it was resoundingly rejected in the 1992 referendum? Who stands to benefit? Certainly not voters.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
NZ suggestion canvassed by the royal commission was 100 electorate and 20 list, from memory.
Just looked it up again. It was 90 plus 30. And as I said, it is not a proportional system and so would favour the major parties and marginalise the small parties as happened with FPP, just not quite as badly.
As I said, you of all people will know the SM proposal was for far fewer list than electorate seats, so it is disingenuous to base these calculations on the same seat allocations as MMP has.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
So in other words, it’s all swings and roundabouts and therefore a complete waste of time. We’d be swapping a few slightly oddball minor party list MPs for a few complete wastes of oxygen from Labour or National. Yippee skippee. I’d rather have the hardworking oddballs to be honest.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Good work on this one DPF. Imagine… all those years without WInston!
August 11th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
A country can have the ratio of electorate to list seats any way it wants. It is inane to suggest that because one proposal 16 years ago was for 90/30, that one can not do it differently.
And Poneke is being outrageous by suggesting there is something disingenuous about the calculations – it is impossible to do a comparison with MMP, unless one keeps the same number of electorate seats – otherwise the boundaries would have been different. This is not a discussion about what people should have picked in 1992, but about the pros and cons of switching from MMP to SM today.
Graeme is right that an interesting scenario is what if one had a smaller threshold under SM. I would not lower the threshold under MMP to less than 4% but under SM it could be safe to go to 2% or even no threshold.
People are entitled to a view MMP is working great. But there are many who have a view it is not, and they deserve a voice. Personally I would not vote to go back to FPP. Whether I would vote for SM depends on the exact model. I would not vote for 90/30 or 100/20 but my preferred model would be 60/60.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
David what is outrageous is thinking you can just fiddle around with the electoral system and allocate any proportion of seats you think fit. My breath is taken away by such an undemocratic suggestion.
The last time we changed our electoral system, the old one was widely regarded as undemocratic (except by the two parties that benefited from it), we had a royal commission that offered alternatives in a reasoned manner, we had about eight years of public debate on the options, then two referendums, then adopted the new, considered, fundamentally democratic system we have now, 10 years after it was proposed by the royal commission.
Our electoral system should not be open to radical change on the kind of whim you are suggesting. And in fact it is not. At the very least it requires a 75pc vote in Parliament or 50pc plus one in a referendum. It should also require a royal commssion process, as we had in 1986.
The royal commission looked at SM and made the very clear point that it was not a proportional system, that it would favour the two major parties almost as much as FPP did and that it was only slightly less undemocratic than FPP:
http://www.elections.org.nz/files/2_the_voting_system.pdf
The electoral system belongs to the voters, not political parties.
[DPF: You are getting hysterical. The only undemocratic noises are coming from you, who seem to regard it as an offence to propose a change from the status quo. Well I am sorry but it is my right to propose and discuss electoral change. And it goes without saying that a majority in a referendum would have to back any change - I agree it is for the public to decide. The difference is I want to let them decide - you seem aghast at the possibility]
August 11th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Poneke: “MMP is far from broken, in fact it works very well.”
DPF: “People are entitled to a view MMP is working great. But there are many who have a view it is not, and they deserve a voice.”
I’m one of the many who think MMP is stuffed and always has been. As we know it was introduced in post-war Germany and is designed to stop a radical agenda from being implemented. To some this is a good thing however those who recall the parlous state of NZ in 83 know that sometimes a radical change is necessary.
I recall a Dutch friend’s comment who said once that MMP in Holland was a total failure until and only until, the two major parties formed a coalition. Some hope that will ever happen here.
Does anyone have any good refs I can use to research the diffs betw SM and STV?
August 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Very interesting indeed.
I personally think MMP is ok, but its major weakness is the potential for overhang. SM would be simpler, and give similar results but without overhangs.
STV is fancy but you don’t know the actual result for days in a whole country election as the computers slog through it all. One little error (deliberate?) in computer code and you could have the wrong result and never know.
Either MMP or SM would be ok, provided the 5% threshold is removed so people’s votes can actually count.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Looking at the 2002 and 2005 results supplied by Mr Farrar above, I notice that MMP gives the Green party a number of seats that is about equivalent to the proportion of the vote they received.
SM appears to give the Green Party a number of seats in parliament that is about ***HALF*** the proportion of votes they received.
So on the strength of that (very superficial analysis) SM appears to be an excellent electoral system if you don’t like the Greens very much
August 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I’d like to see a proportional system where they only get the number of politicians in the house relating to the proportion of us that voted.
They start at 100. 60% of us vote then they get 60 bums on seats. An incentive to make themselves actually apeal to voters instead of who is the least unappealing.
Alternately a “Parliment Island”. They start with 120 and every week we get to vote one off (no pay no benefits) as an incentive to the tohers to smarten their act up.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Maybe a Gladiatorial contest each week just after Thursday Question time is the way to go Murray. Hulun vs Key, Rodney vs Winston, Gerry vs Cullen….
The possibilities are endless. With real weapons, of course.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
According to this analysis, in ’99 and ’02 Labour could have governed alone. SM is preferable why???
Personally I think MMP politics in NZ is still quite immature, and that it probably takes decades to bed in properly (perhaps until the bulk of FPP dinosaurs are no longer in the house). I’d be promoting a review, but after another 2-3 cycles. Good things take time (as they say at Mainland), chopping and changing because we have shite politicians isn’t going to help. We end up just rearranging the same old shite really (like deck chairs on the Titanic methinks…)
August 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
David, I can hear Labour and the small parties now, they will be yelling
that the Nats want to go back to a undemocratic system of choosing
MPs.
Unfair, since when did politicians care about fairness if it means they
have their hands on the levers.
We could end up with a system of bouncing back between SM/FPP and
MMP depending on who is in government.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Actually David, did you just use the results for parties that actually got into parliament? It doesn’t look like you are using a 5% threshold in your SM analysis. So if you assume no threshold and either SM or MMP, wouldn’t you have had something like (guesswork):
1996:
2 list seats for the Christian Coalition (4.33%) under SM. 5 seats under MMP with no threshold.
1999:
1 list seat for Christian Heritage (2.38%) with SM, 2-3 under MMP with no threshold.
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and Future NZ both would have been close (1.1% each) but probably still short of a seat. Both would have gained a seat in MMP with no threshold.
2002:
Probably no change under SM, Christian Heritage, Outdoor Recreation NZ and Alliance all around 1.3% so probably short of a seat. Would probably have had a seat each in MMP with no threshold.
2005:
All other parties below 1% so probably no change.
Are you calculating SM based on no threshold, or still using a 5% threshold? The minor party scene would have been quite different over the past decade without the 5% threshold.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
MMP is a farce. The notion that a party can enter into an agreement with another party guaranteeing supply means the governing coalition becomes the ruling coalition and there is no effective check on the parliament. Such pre-nups should be illegal as the rights of NZ to government is bargained away. There is reason why Bills requiring appropiation require a message from the Gov General recommending provision. FPP was more honest.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Poneke, it is bullshit to say FPP was undemocratic, it as just as democratic as Proportional Representation.
It is just depends on what you view as worse, a party with support somewhat less than 50% having power, or a party with 5%+ having disproportionate power.
It is a judgement call.
SM with about a 80/40 split with no threshold would be about right in my opinion which would be an effective threshold of 2.5%
This would mean we probably have a coalition government every third election
Also, ironically I think MMP has cost minor parties support, as them having power has turned people off. If we still had FPP it is possible we could still have minor parties taken 30-40% of the vote as opposed to 15% or so. Who knows?
August 11th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Actually FPTP probably does favour National (this is supported by our own electoral history) and the following offered by off shore Labour Siren Dr Rob Salmond
http://www.columbia.edu/~kab2106/papers/rodden.pdf
In essence its an argument about the geographical concentration of Labour voters verses the more spread nature of National voters. With SM and FPTP it will be all about boundaries and where they fall. The only note I would make is that in the 1980′s Labour outperformed National on the Representation Commission which draws up the Boundaries.
The bigger argument for those wishing non proportional systems like Supplementary Member is why denying large numbers of voters the representation they voted for in the numbers they voted for them is good for democracy.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
SM is not a proportional system, it is FPP with a MMP tag on – and the tag on depends how many list seats there are. Your example is around 30 list seats which IMHO is too high.
So your figures will change depending on the proportion of list seats to electorate seats. SM will also substantially reduce the number of seats of any party that gets into party with a list vote just over the five percent threshold and no seats like NZ First and the Greens currently have – and that’s the real reason why National prefers SM.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Chris Diack,
That is not true at all.
In the UK the electoral boundaries favour Labour, this is because once a party is in power it’s MP are more likely to retain the seats. This obviously changes with the electoral tide.
But if that is your concern you should be talking about removing the Maorimander because that is a built in discrepency.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I am not at all opposed to people having a say on the issue of our electoral system, however I do hold grave fears.
I like the fact that parties are represented currently proportionate to the vote they achieve. I also don’t think “minor” parties have disproportionate influence. It all depends on who makes up government, and lets face it, concessions to smaller parties are minimal (what did UF and WP gain of value in policy terms from their current arrangement?). One could say, using some of the logic exhibited here, that it is unfair that the main opposition party do not get as much say on policy as compared with a small party in government with one-eighth the vote. But that would be absurd.
Those that point out that smaller parties have too much influence typically come from a larger party themselves and don’t like the fact that they might have to share that power. Unfortunately it seems the born-to-rule-tory attitude is in strong effect here.
I feel very uncomfortable about returning to any system whereby complete proportionality is discarded in order to favour a system that benefits two larger parties. Yes the people may ultimately decide that is what they want – but of course about 80% of the vote last election went to the two large parties – one would expect those voters to vote themselves a larger slice of the representative pie.
I don’t think we should be even promoting the idea of looking at a system that would ensure your vote only truly counts if you live in the right area or vote for one of two parties. That may sit fine with the Tories here but it certainly doesn’t with me.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Essentially I agree with Farrar for the following reasons:
1) The public was supposed to have their say on whether MMP should stay or go – MMP was essentially a medium term trial. Poneke, it was never intended to be set in stone. If the public overwhelmingly want MMP to go, then who are you to not allow this overwhelming majority exercising from their democratic rights. I want the public to have their choice and believe the wish for a suppression of this right on the basis that MMP is “the best system” so say the individual asserting it to be more undemocratic then the mischief being alleged.
2) If we are talking about true representation, then surely the Christian Heritage with 4.33% should have had at least a few seats in Parliament. But judgements about “representation” are subjective. Personally, my subjective view is that MMP should have always been set at 3.5-4% to ensure a critical mass needs to be reached (political credibility) balanced with a degree of fairness. Others may have a differing view but I dont consider them undemocratic.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
3) Overhang is also arguably “undemocratic” as it means that one party may reach 50% but despite this, because of an electoral overhang, it could lose out on the right to govern. At least with SM there is no overhang.
4) Under SM there are some positive incentives:
a) there is little/no incentive currently for 3rd parties to compete for an electorate seat, unless of course they need it for political survival. There is a pay off for a small party to contest a seat hard ie Coromandel as an example so that it can top up its electoral seats.
b) The Maori party (MP) has an incentive to compete harder for the party vote since they will receive a top up after their electorate vote. MP supporters have wasted their Party Vote by voting for the MP, which has the potential to skew the MMP outcome by a few seats (which could be crucial). If I was a MP supporter (which I’m not), I would vote Green.
c) The major parties are rewarded for their hard work in electorate seats or punished for their poor performance vis a vis the other major party.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
5) An Electorate MP has a stronger mandate than a List MP and therefore some recognition should be accorded through the electoral law system. They are accountable to their electorates which increases the chance better local performances and efforts in electorates (less focus on Wellington) since each electorate seat is important.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I would vote for SM with a 65/60 Electorate/List split of MP’s.
I would eliminate the threshold.
New parties would have a reasonable chance of getting their leader in and are therefore not shut out of the electoral process.
SM takes the good parts of both FPP & MMP.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
FPP was undemocratic in that the party who won the most seats wasnt allways the party who won the most total votes.
THis means the national party, which being the government the longest for the last 50 years of FPP had the art of buying votes in electorates by public spending ( why do you think there were so many post offices in those years.
MMP is truly the most democratic and the reality of most NZs support of centre left government has sunk in so national wants to ‘unlevel the playing field’ a bit in their favour.
Its not clear from the discussion about SM that there would still be the same two votes, one for electorate and one for party list.
IF they kept the ‘two votes system’ under SM whats the bet after a suitable period NP would want to ‘improve it some more’ by only having an electorate vote which would also be used for the list
August 12th, 2008 at 8:25 am
I like where your heads at on this one Ried.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Mr Dennis says:
“I personally think MMP is ok, but its major weakness is the potential for overhang. SM would be simpler, and give similar results but without overhangs.”
It is true that there would be no overhang in SM – but only because it does something much worse: it allows (for example) a party with 3 percent of the vote to win more seats than a party with 10 percent of the votes. This is exactly what would be likely with the Maori Party and the Greens. Under DPF’s illustrative formula, the MP could get 6 electorate seats and two list seats from 3 percent of the vote (total eight) while the Greens, with 10 percent of the vote (and no electorates) would end up with just 5.
Nevertheless, Mr Dennis is right that the potential for an overhang under MMP is a bad thing. It means (in a worst-case scenario) that National could get 51% of the vote, and 61 MPs, but still not have a Parliamentary majority because the Maori Party gets three overhang seats (increasing the Parliament to 123).
So here is a suggestion for how that could be fixed:
Change the Electoral Act and Parliamentary rules so that on a party vote, the number of votes cast by each party in Parliament is linked to its entitlement derived from the party vote at the election.
In most cases this change would have no effect, but if a party won an overhang seat it would r4estrict their voting power in Parliament. Eg, the Maori Party would presently only be able to cast three votes instead of four when a party-line vote is called (they would still have four MPs and four votes on non-party line votes).
A useful spinoff of such a scheme would be that if an MP defected or was expelled (Donna Awatere-Huata, Phillip Field etc) their (former) party would not lose a vote – because their voting strength is linked to the election result, not to the fickle loyalties of prima donna MPs.
There would be some downsides to this, but I suggest it is an idea worth thinking about.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Re ghostwhowalks2′s concerns:
Even if there were still two votes under SM it would be a profound difference to MMP. One of the most-liked features of MMP is that you can cast your electorate vote for the best candidate regardless of their party. The result is people like Nick Smith winning Nelson and Harry Duynhoven winning New Plymouth. SM would end that because winning electorates effectively decides who the government will be. Though you still had two votes, if you wanted to influence which party gets into government, you would have to use your electorate vote to do it – just like FPP.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Ok, this conversation was yonks ago… but if reid would still like to know of any books that compare STV & SM (two very different systems) I can recommend a few:
“Voters’ Choice?” by Helena Catt et al; this is a local guide to the political systems mooted in the 1993(?) referendum. Good quick overview on FPP, AV (the instant run-off vote, used in Oz), SM, STV & MMP.
“Electoral Systems: A comparative introduction” by David Farrell is an even better guide to all facets of electoral systems, including their consequences, which are more/less proportional, important factors to weigh up, etc. Lots of great examples and not much fluff.