ACT do not have disproportionate representation, they have proportionate representation (ie, they got about 3.65% of the vote and get 3.65% representation in parliament).. NZ first do not have proportionate representation (ie, none), and the maori party have disproportionate representation (5 instead of 2 or 3).

Agree – 90,000 NZF people have no representation in Parliament, while one wealthy electorate has disproportionate representation in Epsom.

So what you are saying is remove Maori seats and make special race based concessions on the list vote. Are you always wanting to meddle with rather than level the playing field.

Don’t know what you mean by always. In the specific case of the pro-Maori bias in the electoral system, it is clear it is strongly entrenched and will be very difficult to remove outright: When pressed at the leader’s debates last election, even ACT conceeded the Maori seats (or some equivalent system) would have to stay for awhile.

Given all that, the least we can do is get rid of the disproportionate representation Maori get from being able to effect an overhang. The mechanism I pointed out (which was also suggested by a Royal Commission, which apparently means its infallable) would achieve that. While I don’t think doing so would dangerously affect proportionality, I would agree its a slippery slope, mostly as adopting an alternative to outright elimination of the proMaori bias in the election system may in some way appear to give it long term legitimacy. However I would also note that in at least one of its dimensions, the said slope it is angling downward toward an election system less biased proMaori.

So what you are saying is remove Maori seats and make special race based concessions on the list vote. Are you always wanting to meddle with rather than level the playing field. The whole point of an list based system is that it provides proportionality, slippery slope you walk when you try and use it to achieve some form of compensation for something else that is not really measurable.

The Royal Commission recommended a 4% or 1 seat threshold for MMP. They also recommended the abolishment of the Maori seats.

Instead parliament, namely National and Labour, ignored the Royal Commission and kept the Maori seats.

I support MMP but think there is a number of minor changes that could be adjusted. The Threshold and Maori seats are 2. Firstly the 1 seat threshold has been abused (by the Greens (1999 although they did just get above 5%), Progressives (2002), United Future (2005) and ACT(2005 and 2008) and of course NZ First (1999)). In Germany they have a 3 seat threshold, NZ would be better. A 4% threshold for a party would encourage support for parties.

As for Maori representation.

Maori seat were at least in part created to ensure that European Settlers would not be in minority in parliament (or it predecessor). After Labour pact with Ratana the seats were pretty safe Labour. Under FPP this benefited Labour as they would always have those 4 seats. However it also benefited National as large number of smaller margins in electorates beats big wins in a few.

Now under MMP that is not the case. In part the high number of Maori Party MPs is based on Population Demographics. Did you know that the population size of electorates is based on the population, not the population over 18. The proportion of Maoris are younger and hence they are allocated more seats than if the allocation was based on the population over 18. I am not sure if it would mean fewer Maori seats in the 2008 election or not, it could have.

As the Maori electorates are large, I don’t think this is a way of allocating Maori seats. If there was threshold, as recommended by the royal commission there would be 3 Maori Party MPs and no overhang in the parliament. I am not sure that this would help.

I think it may be possible to construct a system where people who take the Maori option could have some sort of separate list allocation. I also think that the elected Maori representatives could be assigned back to regions to represent the Maori voter there. I’m not sure how this would be done.

Actually I am in favour of all list MPs being assigned to represent a region (as an alternative to the the local electorate MPs) or to a community with greater New Zealand. The person elected may state a preference of who she or he will represent but the final allocation will need to planned. Why should an mostly urban Wellington seat have 3 MPs and a rurak South Island set have just one. End of the aside

The think about MMP it could be a whole lot more flexible. The fact that the previous government said it was all working well doesn’t mean they were right. It also doesn’t mean that it

For Maori representation, instead of the Maori seats you add an additional reduced threshold for votes coming entirely from the Maori vote. So the thresholds for getting seats in parliament would be:

1 electorate seat OR

if (your party vote)>(0.05* total number of maori + nonmaori party votes) OR

if (your party vote ONLY FROM MAORI ROLL)>(0.02*total number of maori + nonmaori party votes)

Such a scheme would let the likes of the Maori Party get in, but reduce the chances of overhang mps. It would not let Bill and Ben, Legalise Weed or any similar group in.

The greens havn’t had much of an effect on things other than stirring up irrational debates, Labour were extremely left in the last government anyway. All ACT has achieved this government is to try and keep national to their word on Maori seats. What national party policy supporter can complain about how ACT have behaved this term so far?

The most obvious recent case of the tale wagging the dog is John Key and the Maori party this term, and this would continue under an electorate based system. John key has been completly untrue to his word on Maori seats, and seems to be gradually abandoning what core national supporters believe in.

I think people tend to get hung up on the very few policy concessions the minor parties get in governments. In the big stuff like budgets and social policy, the major party usually gets the sole say.

What do ya mean? I now realise I spelt principle wrong, is that the point you are trying to make?

I wouldn’t piss on my principal if he was on fire, he was a wanker.

How about putting aside a small bloc of seats (5 maybe?) to be divvied up amongst all the parties which get 5 to 20% support and this way entitle them to sit on select committees etc and have an input but without being in the position to wag the dog?

Dave, that’s pretty close to National getting at most 5 seats in 2002 – when they got 21% of the vote.

Two parties with 80-90% between them can do whatever they want. They don’t have to pander to anyone. If National wants to pass a reasonable law and the only way they can do it is with ACT support and they insist on something unacceptable, or with Maori Party support and they insist on something different but equally unacceptable, then National should get Labour support.

Better than first past the post? Yes. But so would be any majoritarian system. If we had to change from MMP, I’d go with regional electorates – say 8-12 MPs each, on open regional party lists – South Auckland might get 12 MPs and elect 7 Labour, 3 National, one Maori Party and one Green. One vote only, with nationwide proportionality maintained for parties, by having the last 20 or so spots picked up by the best losers. Everyone would have an electorate, and no-one would be there only because they were highly-placed by some list-ranking committee (open lists mean you can use your vote to help re-order the list of the party you’re voting for, but putting your party vote tick next to the name of a particular candidate).

But I’m not really pushing that, and will very likely be supporting MMP.

To have parties with just 5% voter support or less fully represented in the parliament and thus able to crucially influence the balance of power is, I think, an unsatisfactory thing and is every bit as undemocratic as if they had no representation at all.

How about putting aside a small bloc of seats (5 maybe?) to be divvied up amongst all the parties which get 5 to 20% support and this way entitle them to sit on select committees etc and have an input but without being in the position to wag the dog?

This ludicrous situation where two major parties with 80 or 90% of the vote between them have to pander to fringe dwellers, nutty religionists and racists is most unsatisfactory.

@kaya-
Yet it would seem this is exactly what so many people who call them the apartheid party intend on doing. Instead of actually addressing the issue of one group enjoying a hegemonic position in society and through this dominance subordinating and marginalizing others, they attempt to go for the knee jerk reaction to such a word as apartheid.

The confusion is in your own statement where you somehow try to link the race based, special rules and laws in NZ for Maori (that do not apply to any other citizen) to the oppressive regime in South Africa. There are no laws exclusive to any other citizen that Maori are excluded from. These examples are not linked except by the sharing of the same word.

To try and link these completely different examples of use of a word is disingenuous at best and deliberately shit stirring at worst.

If only the National government had the balls to abolish them. If only.

Interested in your thought on STV? A return to FPP would seem moronic. With SM I think setting the mix of list and electorate seats would be contentious and quickly become a hot button campaign football. I also think SM allows stealthiness in the setting a threshold like the 5% threshold we have under MMP, which makes me wary.

It is wrong that ACT and maori party get seats when NZ First with a vote greater than either of those have no seats.

It is wrong that the Greens have a greater proportion of votes than ACT and maori combined, and yet have 8 seats to their combined 10.

Maori seats are wrong. MMP is wrong.

Getting rid of MMP would make this better how?

Under ACT and the Maori Party would still have more seats than NZF despite having less support. The Greens would still have fewer seats the ACT and Maori combined, despite greater support.

You list three things you think are wrong with the current system and then appear to suggest the solution is to change to a system that would makes all* those problems worse!

*there would be more Maori seats under FPP or SM