Further, 4% vs 5% threshold is an order of magnitude difference and proportionality is (increasingly) lost. Anderton’s legacy is one such example.

I think populist electoral representation is a win for the nation, but taking respective proportionality at a 5% threshold onto list representation is disproportionate. ie: ALCP consistently gets more list votes nationally than Progressives (and Anderton becomes Drug Czar! yeah right).

The MMP list candidates are decided by who the Party wants ‘in that order’ and while that is an open process within the party, it certainly accounts for the MP who? syndrome we have in NZ. I never cease to be amazed at how many MP’s I don’t know… never heard of, until one throws their cat in the fire. (or some such non-parliamentary act)

I think Farrar’s analysis while constructive is none the less simplistic.
To my mind the discussion needs to come back to electoral options.
(like the MMP debate/vote wasn’t bastardised by political self interest!)

STV (IMHO) at least delivers proportionality (voids strategic voting) and is transparent
STV would in my analysis (and submission on the subject) deliver greater voter participation therefor better reflect electoral choice. One of the attributes I like most about STV is its propensity for both ‘consensus’ and decision efficiency around vexing issues, climate change is one example, smacking another. [The media don't get to define issues as black/white, he said, she said. They are compelled to report much more around the subtlety of issue and thus inform the electorate].

Some would find voting Winnie ‘to the bottom of the list’ particularly attractive… (ranking who you do want allows people to effectively vote for who they don’t want. No other electoral system has offered that incentive! where have you heard that explained?)

STV – no one gets elected unless they have 50%+1 voter support… MINIMUM!
STV – no election occurs without even marginal views being accounted for and incorporated proprtionaly around the table. (ie: STV for greater dawkland solves the ethnic issues without having to canvass them, they ARE included fairly.)

Hence that is where the objective analysis needs to be done… otherwise we risk/will end up getting FPP back. Urrgh!

Thanks for stirring the pot none the less David!

Labour+UF+Prog+OR = 49+8=2+2 = 61

The other weakness in the argument is the assertion that the electorate does not tolerate minor parties exercising disproportionate power. This overlooks that very very small parties do not have to care about most of the electorate. So long as they can use (for example) fear and hatred to whip up enough resentment so 1% of the country votes for them, they don’t have to worry too much about the fact 95% of the electorate hates them. So long as they keep their 1% happy, they can be as unreasonable as they want to be if they hold the balance of power.

I suppose this can also be considered an arguement for letting people with one or more electorate MPs but <5% party vote still get extra list seats. Winning an electorate requires being able to a greater cross section of the populus to not despise you utterly. Thats the theory anyways, maybe Winston Peters shows it doesn't always go according to plan, or it at least takes people a while to catch on.

This wasn’t a Government Bill but a private members one. It was not a Government Bill vetoed by a party in a confidence and supply arrangement.

But it was wanted as a government bill.

The support party veto will generally be over something that’s not (yet) a bill. Can we get the numbers for this to pass a first reading? Ask NZF/Ask UF/Ask Greens? No? Then no introduction and no “veto”, but it’s a veto in every other sense.

Perhaps I can add another – Peter Dunne vetoed any change to the legal status of cannabis through his confidence and supply agreement.

What a lot of people forget, however, is that National and Labour could always form a grand coalition if they don’t like the alternatives. It happens in other countries with proportional representation all the time.

I’m not too bothered about dropping the threshold personally, but I don’t see any overriding reason why not (other than the NZ First not being in parliament thing). I agree with Chris Diack that minor parties do not punch above their weight generally, and if they do, they and the major party are punished.

“Labour wanted to enact Darien Fenton’s bill that would apply the minimum wage to contractors.”

This wasn’t a Government Bill but a private members one. It was not a Government Bill vetoed by a party in a confidence and supply arrangement.

homepaddock:

“MMP gives party hierachies a lot more power than FPP did because they can control the lists and it potentially gives wee parties influence which is out of proportion to their membership or voting base because they could hold the balance of power”

Pure fiction.

Labour had a highly centralised electorate candidate selection system prior to MMP. Both Labour and National under MMP have continued to centralised electorate candidate selection albeit National on a regional basis. Nothing to do with the list. Everything to do with modern elections both FPTP and MMP are all about Parties.

As for one MP holding the Country to ransom you mean like Marilyn Waring and her fellow National MP from one of the Hamiliton Seats?

MMP gives party hierachies a lot more power than FPP did because they can control the lists and it potentially gives wee parties influence which is out of proportion to their membership or voting base because they could hold the balance of power.

If you can’t get more than a couple of thousand people to agree on philosophy & principles & pay a sub you’re not a party you’re a lobby group.

The first thing you will need is an electoral finance act to shut down dissent. There is a good example of such sitting around not being used right now that you can just implement immediately.

As for the quality of MP, shall we say that they reflect the aspirations of the NZ voter. And in a similar way that a goodly proportion of NZers are no hopers, so for their elected representatives.

I do have a solution to both these problems, it an elected dictatorship. Since I am a public spirited sort of fellow, I am prepared to offer myself as a candidate. Actually, as the sole candidate, and my goons will enforce the mandatory voting rule that I will introduce…….

As I recall, there is no threshold, as I have read Israeli election result reports that mentioned this or that fringe party getting 1 seat in the parliament.

AHA! We were both sort of correct. My memory of 1 in 120 was based on the old system. According to Wikipedia, the threshold was JUST RAISED to 2 %, from what it was previously, which was 1 in 120 (0.83 %).

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel

I notice in 1999 NZF stayed in power because Winston held Tauranga. The MSM did not go on how unfair that was as they are now about ACT is in Parliament because Rodney holds Epsom.

The current situation is unfair because NZF had more support than ACT at the election, but won no seats. Do you disagree that that is unfair?

In 1999, the most unfair result is that Christian Heritage got more votes than UF and Peter Dunne combined, but were not represented in parliament.

I notice in 1999 NZF stayed in power because Winston held Tauranga. The MSM did not go on how unfair that was as they are now about ACT is in Parliament because Rodney holds Epsom.

Dunno about the MSM (nor have I noticed many complaints about Rodney, except from individuals on blogs), but I certainly heard a lot of bleating about NZ 1st at the time..

What “veto” has been exercised by minor parties over the government’s legislative programme since the introduction of MMP. Again none.

Labour wanted to enact Darien Fenton’s bill that would apply the minimum wage to contractors. They were willing to adopt it as a government bill to pass under urgency before Parliament was dissolved, but couldn’t get the numbers.