The MMP referenda
September 8th, 2009 at 8:01 am by David FarrarI’m not sure what is being considered by Cabinet, but they need to be very careful with the MMP referenda, so that people are voting on a sensible option.
There has been some suggestion previously that an initial question will be whether or not to keep MMP, and if people vote not to keep MMP, then the next question will be what is the replacement system – and MMP will not be given as an option against the replacement system – the preferred replacement system will just become law.
That would be quite simply the wrong way to do it. The current electoral system should ultimately be put to a vote against a known replacement electoral system, so people can make an intelligent choice on the pros and cons of both. You can not ditch MMP solely on the basis of an initial vote indicating dissatisfaction- because any of the alternatives may prove more dissatisfactory.
It was Churchill who once said democracy is the worst form of Government – apart from all the others that have been tried!
There is no need to spend a lot of time working out what are the appropriate questions, as it was done very well in 1992 and 1993, so I just advocate repeating that process.
The first referenda should be a two parter, and run in 2011 to maximise turnout. The questions would be.
- Do you wish to retain the present Mixed Member Proportional system or do vote for a change to the voting system.
- Please choose your preferred option to run off against MMP:
A The Supplementary Member System (SM)
B The Single Transferable Vote System (STV)
C The First Past the Post System (FPP)
D The Preferential Voting System (PV)
If a majority vote for change in Q1, then the most popular option in Q2 goes to a run off against MMP, so people are making an informed choice between the status quo and an alternative.
The second referendum would be held preferably in 2014, to again maximise turnout. That would give Parliament lots of time to devise an electoral act based on the alternative system selected. Then in 2014, if people vote for the alternative system ahead of MMP, the alternative electoral act automatically comes into force.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Absolutely right, DPF.
Simple fact is, the option of having one question the first time ’round will not work.
It would require Parliament to pass several different electoral acts – a fully worked Electoral (STV) Act, and a fully worked Electoral (supplementary member) Act, etc. all with contingent commencements.
And finally, you could come to the second referendum in 2014 and if there were multiple options (STV vs first past the post vs supplementary member?) one of them would have to get over 50%. Hell if the second referendum had MMP as an option we’d be forced to keep it even if it got zero votes if none of the others got over 50%.
A recipe for a disaster.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 8:29 am
They need to review the number of MP’s too.
We have way too many for such a miniscule population.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Actually we have fewer MPs than most countries our size, as we have no upper house.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Your suggested course of action is entirely deficient in that it makes no allowance for an adjusted version of MMP which, in my opinion would be the preferred option. A 10% threshold or a minimum of two seats, along with some mechanism to prevent defeated electorate candidates ‘sneaking back in’ on the list would be my pick. Gets rid of Dunne, Peters and Anderton, all of whom are frauds, but allows ACT and Greens to prosper.
[DPF: That doesn't need a referendum. Minor changes to the Electoral Act can be done at any time. I support lowering the threshold to 4% as recommended by the RC]
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 8:39 am
It would be easy for there to be simply a knee jerk reaction to MMP, giving it the blame for public disgruntlement with politics and politicians. But if it is replaced by an alternate system it is likely to prove in practice to have it’s own weak points. Wouldn’t it make sense to look at improving an imperfect but working system first?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 8:47 am
I cannot agree, if (and when) the public vote to do away with MMP it should not be offered as an option when we vote for a replacement.
If the public voted against it the first time it is a waste of time and money to offer it again.
Unless……..a deal has been done by Key with the Greens to make sure that MMP is always on the table……
[DPF: Well many people like me would definitely vote to retain MMP if it meant I did not know what would be replacing it. However in a two way contest between MMP and another system, I could well vote to go with the other system]
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Re the post – very well put DPF, it’s the only way it can be done.
As for this issue coming to the fore, I fret over blogosphere becoming very boring with the same old arguments from the early to mid-nineties being rehashed over and over again. I can already hear the Greens’ gnashing of teeth.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 8:54 am
“Unless……..a deal has been done by Key with the Greens to make sure that MMP is always on the table……”
- Not _another_ deal between National and the Greens big bruv? That’ll be the third after MoU, rejection of anti-smacking referendum…is a picture starting to be painted…?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Just before I shuffle off this mortal coil I would love to see all electorate seats abolished, and all 120 seats in parliament given to the winner of the popular party vote.
Surely that kind of system has a name..
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:01 am
MMP has three major flaws as far as I am concerned:
* Electorate MP’s voted out returning on the list.
* The `tail wagging the dog’ through successive governments – NZ First and Greens in particular.
* No `proper’ accountabliity to the electorate for list MP’s.
I favour STV but did like Adolfs post at No Minister a few days ago and referred to by him on this thread at 9.30am. Perhaps you should link to it Adolf.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I think the system should be designed so all of the parties I like get in and none of the ones I don’t like.
Oh wait, no, that’s what you lot think!
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:02 am
What are the rules regarding whether a referendum is binding or not, is it just on the whim of the government of the day or are there some rules around it? On a whim sounds so “Zimbabwean”.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:05 am
* The `tail wagging the dog’ through successive governments – NZ First and Greens in particular.
How much of a problem is this? From what I have seen the larger parties of the coalition seem to have the most influence most of the time. Sort of proportional to their numbers. Isn’t that the point of it?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:07 am
kaya – to have a referendum needs Parliament to pass a law. If the law that Parliament passes setting up the referendum makes the referendum binding, then it is.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:11 am
adolf..
“..A 10% threshold or a minimum of two seats, along with some mechanism to prevent defeated electorate candidates ’sneaking back in’ on the list would be my pick. Gets rid of Dunne, Peters and Anderton, all of whom are frauds, but allows ACT and Greens to prosper..”
how/where actually are act going to be able to whip up 10% support..?
..and/or 2 mp’s..?
your version is just f.p.p.-lite..
the threshld need to drop to 4%..
and ..no matter what you may think of act..and nz first..
that one got so many fewer votes than the other..
yet the one with he lowest vote has a number of m.p.’s..
and the one with 4.2% of the national vote…
was disenfranchised..
this needs to be fixed up..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:13 am
“kaya
What are the rules regarding whether a referendum is binding or not, is it just on the whim of the government of the day or are there some rules around it? On a whim sounds so “Zimbabwean”.”
Wording them in a way that means they can be binding is a good start.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Racer
“I think the system should be designed so all of the parties I like get in and none of the ones I don’t like.
Oh wait, no, that’s what you lot think!”
Remember the EFA that your party introduced Racer?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:22 am
My party?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:30 am
That would be quite simply the wrong way to do it.
I can’t recall any time I’ve agreed with you so entirely.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:31 am
What a joke. 99% of the population didnt know what they were doing the first time the system was changed, what makes you think they are any the wiser this time?
Nice way to deflect any other serious debate around election time though.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:32 am
pdm>The `tail wagging the dog’ through successive governments – NZ First and Greens in particular.
My issue with MMP is that the voters don’t always know what they’re voting for before the election. Since we’ve never had a single party with an absolute majority, then the outcome of every election has been decided by negotiations in “smoke filled rooms” rather than by the voters themselves. There has been one election where only a single vote counted… Winston Peters.
What I’d like to see are all parties form themselves in to two potential coalitions BEFORE the election, so that voters know exactly who and what they are voting for.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:38 am
How about MMP yes or no in 2011. With a second question laying out alternatives so a year later you could have another referendumn chosing between the top two.
I don’t see any point in putting three years of work into designing a law that would work with an alternate system just to have voters choose to retain MMP and keeping the status quo. And three years debating what system is best – why? We can decide on a new government in a quarter of the time.
By my timetable, after choosing a future voting system in 2012 you’d then have two years to prepare for the 2014 election. Unless of course people decided to keep MMP.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:43 am
DPF
I disagree that the process was well conducted in 1992/3. The information presented went along the following lines;
FPP – That is what we have.
MMP – Like FPP but you have a party vote [more description explaining what this was all about]
STV – It’s horribly complicated and we don’t really have time to describe it – so forget about it.
MMP was pretty much assured as the popular choice from the outset. Naturally the major parties wanted to keep FPP but the mood for change was such that they dare not endorse it because of the general consensus of “what they (parliament) want is status quo – surprise surprise”.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:49 am
That doesn’t mean we don’t have too many. I think we do.
IMO we need to look at our electoral system with a clean sheet of paper.
Why must I vote for one of several drop-kicks in my electorate when there are dozens of candidates elsewhere that better represent my views, values etc?
Why is it ok for voters to be enticed by what is promised for them by a party, rather than convinced by the demonstrated integrity and values of a candidate?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:53 am
burt, re the status quo. Can you imagine how quickly that would change if 87% of the population said they wanted a return to FPP? It would be legislated by lunchtime.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Lets get honest about this, the electorate system reflects the administrative capability of the time it was first implemented. There is no need to regionalise this process based on the ability to collect and count paper based forms.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:53 am
DPF
Absolutely agree with your prescription for how any referenda should be done. Good work. In response to rumours that National was considering a very different tack during the campaign, 08wire made exactly the same point last August, archived at:
http://08wire.robsalmond.com/2008/08/11/nationals-mmp-referenda/
- Rob
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:54 am
We can’t wait until 2014 to get rid of this mediocre system.
If you’re going to give people a list of sexually transmitted diseases to pick from, then there needs to be lot of info and public debate beforehand. For that reason alone I don’t think it should be mixed up with an election. This is an important issue and I would hate to see it play second fiddle to all the noise of a general election.
The NZ public showed a disdain for the fancy systems last time (STV etc).
DPF wrote:
If people can’t be bothered to vote in a referendum on an important issue, then I certainly don’t want them throwing a tick down after they’ve been given a lift to the polling station in the Greens van.
It would be a good thing if the people who can’t be bothered to acquaint themselves with issues, don’t vote.
Perhaps Peter Shirtcliffe and his lovely daughter could go on TV in favour of MMP. That ought to put the nails in..
cheers
Malcolm
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:55 am
getstaffed
Absolutely, give the self serving major the parties to have a guaranteed govern alone – before the ink was dry on the legislation to make it so it would be enacted. For the people by the people – [ vomit ]
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:59 am
My issue with MMP is that the voters don’t always know what they’re voting for before the election.
You never can know what you are going to get over the next three years. And different voters want different thinks out of candidates and parties.
Why is it ok for voters to be enticed by what is promised for them by a party, rather than convinced by the demonstrated integrity and values of a candidate?
If you vote for the people and party you think will use their noodles and do a good job you are more likely to get a better parliament. Better people, better parliament. Better opposition better parliament. Better parliament, better policies enacted.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:59 am
malcolm
So are you saying that you don’t understand STV therefore it is a bad system ?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Cerium
The problem with MMP is that the voters don’t really pick the MP’s. The party do that – how convenient for the party hierarchy that they get to order the list – god forbid the people choose the order – couldn’t have that could we.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Cerium wrote:
Step aside man, there’s no place for common sense here. We’re on a mission to create the best electoral system, by destroying a bad one.
cheers
Malcolm
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:03 am
IMHO MMP retains the worst of FPP, that being the electorate fiasco. Sure 600 years ago it was difficult (if not impossible) to have a national awareness of who the people involved in the party were and what they stood for. MP’s were only known at the local level and so a local representation was required. A couple of things have changed in this regard over the last 600 years but not the voting systems that work so well for local MP’s.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Lyndon/Rob – thanks. I will note that I recall some electoral reform proponents thought the 92/93 process favoured FPP as it got two bites of the cherry, and wanted a one stage process. But unless you do what Graeme suggested and design four separate electoral systems down to the last detail, and then take a vote, you can’t do it.
In terms of selecting what system runs off against MMP, one could argue for a preferential vote for the alternative systems. However I think that would make it too complicated to expect the average NZer to rank four system in order of preference.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:03 am
As governing bodies and electorates get larger we need parties, and well disciplined parties, so we know generally what (rather than who) we are voting for.
We cannot get to know the national candidates well enough but if someone stands for National and someone Stands for the Greens we have a pretty good idea of their differences.
As governing bodies get smaller (as in local councils) we do know enough about the individual to vote for the individual and hence parties do not normally contest local government because they are not needed.
But because the super city is so large do not be surprised if parties emerge to fight those elections while individuals will contest the community boards.
This is all well grounded in information theory.
The elected represented stands up for his or her electorate in caucus and in cabinet but in the end they vote according to their Cabinet – if in government – otherwise we have no idea who and what will govern us.
Loose whipping, as in the US, makes it to easy to buy your representative’s vote.
One man, $100,000 dollars.
Here, because we have a whipped parliamentary system, you have to buy the whole government.
Vote:That is very expensive – and would soon become obvious.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Lets have electorate seats only that way we can kick them out.
They are accountable to us.
List seats aren’t accountable to us.
Drop the list seats as they are party driven and not voter driven.
It would be great to be able to vote for positions on issues so we could vote for National jobs policy and Acts local govt and Labours savings policy.
Vote:Then the govt of the day would have a direction we wanted not their stealth approach.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:10 am
OK, hands up how many people have had personal interaction with their local MP over and above seeing them kissing babies at the local shops in the 12 weeks prior to an election?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:13 am
burt wrote:
Not at all. I understand STV. Actually STV is probably easier to understand for most people than MMP. As to whether you can sensibly rank the candidates beyond the first couple, I have my doubts.
Actually maybe STV has a future. People may be more familiar with it now as I understand it is used for some local elections?
I often talk politics with people (who may nor may not be interested..) and am constantly amazed at the proportion who don’t understand MMP. Perhaps in order to vote on the new system, you should first need to answer a multi-choice test on how MMP works?
Anyway, STV just looks ugly on the page. MMP on the other hand looks curvy, friendly and nice.
cheers
Malcolm
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Burt
Vote:I have had one face to face and at least three emails in the past year.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:19 am
malcolm
A lack of understanding of MMP is no surprise. The major parties make an art form of encouraging “Two ticks [insert major party name here]”
The ability to use MMP strategically to select a person and a party, which in no way need to be one in the same, has been very poorly communicated to the public.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I think the lists are one of the major drawbacks of this version of MMP. One reason for that is it isn’t clear who you are voting for on the list, as list and electorate MPs are mixed in together. I have thought of diminishing the importance of the list, but maybe the opposite is more logical.
The list could be separated more – ultimately a lot of people vote for a party and if successful for a cabinet, so why not have the most experienced on the list. And make the electorate MPs separate to this – there to represent their electorate.
So the party/list vote determines the government, if the winning list doesn’t perform they get kicked out as a whole at the next election. And the electorate vote gets the best electorate representatives.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:20 am
MikeNZ
I have had multiple emails and really I might as well have been talking to an answering machine (or a dental nurse
)
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:22 am
One vote one person seems so simple.
What’s wrong with it?
Why do we need several votes?
its not as if they are going to listen once they are in.
I like the opp to vote for a party and for an individual.
Vote:It would be nice if there were binding referenda on constitutional issues and UN treaties.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Then they don’t have to. They can put a tick in a box. It counts as a 1, but isn’t redistributed if their preferred option falls away without enough support.
[DPF: Keep it simple stupid I say. Some may then tick two boxes. Others might not vote at all as they get put off trying to decide if they prefer PV to STV.]
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Burt 7 National MP’s replied to me, 1 Green, 2 Labour and 5 ACT. (3 Ministers).
I had three email conversations (to and fro) with 6 of them.
two emails with 3 of them.
I know they are busy and do appreciate the contact.
Vote:That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t sack 112 of them tootsweet.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:29 am
How about instead of the party provided list, the highest polling MP who did not win their electorate is the next on the list?
This way, even those candidates standing in marginal seats and ministers etc who would have been highly placed, have a strong incentive to campaign in their electorate.
One of the best things about FPP I thought was that even for a sitting government that is broadly popular and wins re-election, any ministers could be removed by their electorate if they botched up their portfolio.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:30 am
As I said earlier the electorate system reflected the administrative capability of the time it was devised. If there was a local issue that needed the attention of ‘parliament’ then the local representative would discuss and take the issue forward for consideration (if it were popular and would enhance their potential for re-election at a local level).
OK, so now there is nothing to stop me having instant communication with parliament, most people can read and write these days unlike the times when the electorate system was devised. Local ‘concentrators’ of public opinion are pretty much redundant in today’s world.
So much about the way communications are delivered and received has changed, so much has changed in how well the populous comprehends and responds to national issues – yet jobs for local yes men/woman are still enshrined in the process – why is this ? Who are the main beneficiaries of this system in today’s world ?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Perhaps MMP could include a 3rd vote for Prime Minister, the outright winner of this vote would then be required to form a majority coalition. If they were unable to form a coalition, the next highest polling person would get the option. This way Winston Peters can’t choose our PM for the next 3 years.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:32 am
David Farrar (1183) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
September 8th, 2009 at 10:03 am
In terms of selecting what system runs off against MMP, one could argue for a preferential vote for the alternative systems. However I think that would make it too complicated to expect the average NZer to rank four system in order of preference.
But that’s just like the greens saying we aren’t responsible enough to choose our own light bulbs, or what we pack our groceries in.
Most people in NZ can count to 4, so if you give them 4 options and say rank these in preference 1-4 they would be able to do, to say otherwise is to say most New Zealanders are stupid, and runs the risk of having a rather large angry mob at your door.
I personally would like to see STV given a chance, it leads to clearer signalling of who the public want in parliament, and also signalling of coalition partners too.
Vote:But no matter what system is chosen, i’d like to see candidates only allowed to be on the party list or run for an electorate, just means someone can’t be voted out by their community and then get back in. I guess I think it would lead to more commitment by electorate MP’s to their community, and stronger campaigning.
Also I think we need to go back to having 2 chambers in parliament, with list MP’s being in the lower house, and electorate mp’s in the upper house(the only place ministers can be chosen from), keeping the number of MP’s the same of course though. Maybe there needs to be a formula though for assigning a quota of voters per MP, so if the population grows over that figure by 10% then the electoral commision adds another electorate at the next election and redraws the boundaries as necessary.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:32 am
burt wrote:
I agree. I’m still disappointed at the level of ignorance. Ultimately it is up to people to learn how the system works. It’s really not difficult and there is plenty of information out there.
Perhaps Jamie Oliver could do an explanation using a bacon and egg pie..
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:36 am
MMP to me has a logical conclusion of each political grouping to have two seperate parties running for party votes and electorate votes, the extreme outcome of this could be up to 60 overhang seats.
ie Nat win 50% of the party vote and 0 electorates.
Act win 0% party vote and 30 electorates.
Labour win 50% of the party vote and 30 electorates
= 90 seats for a centre right coalition
Vote:and 60 seats for the far left
September 8th, 2009 at 10:39 am
malcolm
Classic, remember when it comes to bacon and egg pie; The chicken is involved – the pig is committed. This pretty well describes the list vs electorate process.
I think rolla_fxgt nails it in his 10:32 comment. Elected representatives form the upper house. These people are accountable separately to the policy makers and general administrators which are voted for separately.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:46 am
I don’t think it makes sense to have list MPs with no direct responsibilities and the PM, vPM and ministers also with electorate responsibilities. So the winning list should be more or less the cabinet mixed with a few coalition members.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Owen McShane, how wrong you are!
“Here, because we have a whipped parliamentary system, you have to buy the whole government.
That is very expensive – and would soon become obvious.
The racing industry got the whole government when it bought Winston Peters. They got tens of millions of tax payers’ dollars in return for some petty cash to fund Peters’ campaigns and God knows what else.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:51 am
“Cerium
I don’t think it makes sense to have list MPs with no direct responsibilities ”
They are important, your level of representation in government should not be decided by your geographic proximity to others like your self
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Burt, you’ve obviously done a lot of thinking on this.
The idea of getting rid of electorates is a dangerous one. I quite like it.
But how would we vote? STV for the whole government? So just a voting paper with 5000 names on it?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 11:03 am
malcolm
Paper ? And what is dangerous about getting rid of the local muppet who claims they represent your local area then vote according to party lines once in office ?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Adolf,
Yes. because of MMP we have undermined the whipping system.
But in the end Winston’s purchase did become obvious and he and his party lost the election.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Burt, that was a sincere question. I like the idea of no electorates but couldn’t quite see how it would work.
Regarding paper. I sent a question to Elections NZ asking when they were going to sort out a cheap on-line referendum system so we could have them without the high cost. Got this reply:
cheers
Malcolm
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Forgive my cynicism but I cannot see the Nats and Labour wanting a bar of STV, have the peasants picking all those who will be in parliament, nope, cannot have that.
Just watch they will push the simplicity of both FPP and MMP, and if FPP comes back in I would give it ten years before there is another push for change.
Of course FPP would get rid of Rodders, what with all the Labour voters voting for the National candidate
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 11:37 am
“grumpyoldhori (895) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 1 Says:
September 8th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Forgive my cynicism but I cannot see the Nats and Labour wanting a bar of STV, have the peasants picking all those who will be in parliament, nope, cannot have that.”
I’d be surprised if National gets any support from the small parties on a referendum.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 11:38 am
For my 2 cents – I am pleased a referendum is being held. Every election people bitch and moan about MMP, so lets at least look at it.
I find it interesting listening to beltway media, all suggest that MMP won’t change as people don’t really have an appetite to change. This is always the case between elections after the dust has settled from the coalition horse-trading.
What I find is one of the dumbest reasons that these media boffens believe that it “shouldn’t” change is because such a large proportion of voters still don’t understand MMP after 5 elections. I would say that if that many people don’t understand it after this long – it is exactly the reason to revise it and potentially change it.
The fact that the media don’t see a reason to change would suggest any alternative is not going to get a fair hearing over the build-up to the referendum.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 11:48 am
“I’d be surprised if National gets any support from the small parties on a referendum.”
Agreed racer.
As soon as the presenters said on the news last night that there was opposition to the referendum, it was a forgone conclusion that the Greens would be front and centre on the segment.
I love the way wussel says marri.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I know what I am about to suggest is a bit of a money burning option; but this is electoral reform we are talking about, not smacking.
1. I think that the first question, asked at the time of the 2011 election should be: “Should New Zealand retain the current Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system” Y/N
2. If there is a simple majority, then the following question should be: “If New Zealand was to change from the current Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system, which of the following options is your preferred alternative? [list]”
3. When FPP wins, because it will – lets face it, the second referendum should then be placed against MMP. I say this because the alternatives to FPP and MMP are still proportional representation (PR) systems, and so adherents to PR systems will probably prefer MMP to FPP, even if MMP is their second choice. So the last question should be “Should New Zealand retain the current Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system, or replace it with First Past the Post (FPP)”
The answer to that question is the best reflection of the public will.
Again, I openly recognize that this is far more costly.. But look, if as was mentioned before, we go back to FPP, then in 10 years there will just be another referendum and it will cost more in the long term. And this is constitutional stuff, not to be taken lightly.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
What is the benefit of changing the threshold to 4%.
I can see the benefit of getting rid of electorate MPs. Those who have ministers as their MPs are probably under-represented on local issues and would hardly ever see their representitive. However, how would we ensure good representation on local issues?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Something that could be changed is saying that candidates are only allowed to be list or electorate, this would give MP’s more incentive to work hard at representing their electorate, and give the public more certainty over who they are supporting with their list votes.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
malcolm (54) Vote: 0 0 Says:
September 8th, 2009 at 11:21 am
What a brilliantly clear & concise piece from the electorasl commission – I am impressed and convinced at least this part of the public sector is non political and run by people who actually understand the issues and the requirements for a secure system that the public can trustr unlike the US experiment with the fraudulanet Diebold system.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I think DPF is absolutely right about the proper process for an MMP referendum (or referenda).
The final decision should be made at election time (as it was in 1993) to maximise the turnout and legitimacy of the outcome.
The final vote should be a simple choice of status quo (MMP) vs a single alternative. It is quite likely that a majority could prefer some alternative to MMP (and vote accordingly). But then many (up to 74%) will find that their preferred alternative is not the nation’s preferred alternative. In that case they might prefer to stick with MMP.
For example:
Q1: Do you want a change from MMP? 55% say yes.
Q2: Which alternative do you prefer:
FPP 30%
SM 25%
STV 25%
PV 20%
If that is it then FPP wins with 30% despite MMP getting 45%!
You must therefore ask the final question pitting FPP against MMP.
It might be that the supporters of alternatives (SM, STV and PV) all decide that though MMP is their second choice they still prefer it to a return to FPP, with the result that MMP wins 70-30. Or maybe all will decide that anything is better than MMP and FPP will win. The point is that we won’t know this unless people are given that choice.
I agree that there are some changes that could be made to MMP to improve it. I would be inclined to delete the provision that parties with less than 5% of the vote get a share of the list seats if only they win 1 electorate.
This is the system used in Israel. It is widely seen as a total disaster.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
ovation (22) Vote: 3 4 Says:
September 8th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Just before I shuffle off this mortal coil I would love to see all electorate seats abolished, and all 120 seats in parliament given to the winner of the popular party vote.
Surely that kind of system has a name.. – Yes an elected dictatorship
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Rather than just asking voters to tick one alternative, it might be better to use a preferential system to rank them.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
freethinker wrote
The public sector vastly over-complicates these systems. Apparently $60M has been spent creating a login system for e-government. FFS.
Here’s my top-of-head idea for a cheap on-line referendum system:
– Have three I-forgot-my-password type questions, a mobile phone number and an email address on the re-enrolment form.
– After you’re re-enrolled, you get an email to go online to check you can login ok.
– A two part login: first the questions, then a unique key gets sent to your mobile. Add a password at that stage for the next login. Questions locked out at that point
– Referendum time: Login, get a code sent to the mobile, type the code in and you can vote.
By getting the person to check their login and set a password at the time of the re-enrolment you can filter out any fraud of the setup (e.g. someone intercepting the re-enrolment forms) well before the referendum.
Give me $500k and I’ll get it sorted out by Christmas..
cheers
Malcolm
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Get quite nervous with this whole thing if some group hijack it as way which can take us back to the dark ages of FPP, where by my memory of reading the statistics the loser won 4 times. It was a fraud of a system.
IF it is run like DPF suggests and IF a serious campaign is used to illustrate how each system works, and whether it actually does work in the countries which have adopted it I have no issue. However that is a big IF.
Personally I would be in favour of fixing MMP, as fundamentally I think it is a good system, it just has some failings.
All that would require MMP to be fixed is remove the ability to bring in other members if you get elected as an independent but party still got below threshold. Reduce number of seats to 100 base, then adopt for overhangs. Something needs to be done regarding representative MPs being voted out, unsure how this could work, however there are many smart people out there I am sure there is a solution.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Jeff83,
Couple of points … one minor, one more extensive.
First up, “independent” MPs can’t bring anyone in with them … Rodney Hide was elected as an Act MP, hence his 4 colleagues joining him. But I agree with your general point – the single electorate MP exception to the threshold should be axed (and I’d also drop the threshold to 4%).
Second, I think reducing the number of seats to 100 would be a disaster. We’d either have to reduce the number of electorates (currently 70) or else face Parliaments that have significant overhangs. The former option would mean bigger electorates and even more harried electorate MPs. The latter option would screw up proportionality big time. 120 MPs isn’t too many for NZ (as DPF showed in his evidence to the Justice and Electorate C’tee a few years back).
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
s.russell – your example wouldn’t quite work like that – the electoral act contains a number of entrenched provisions. These can only be amended/repealed with a 75% vote in the House of Representatives, or a majority vote in a referendum. In your scenario, FPP only got 30%, that’s not a majority and thus the entrenched sections of the law wouldn’t change.
In theory anyway. It’d be pretty mucked up all ’round.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
In the states, they have ffp for the representative to be elected. While in congress for a law to pass it needs 2/3 vote. George Washington decided this while setting up the country and it did work rather well until now the representatives are just about all like Winston Peters, bought out by the corporate lobbyists. Make lobbying illegal like in Great Britain, let the cards fall where they might as far as party domination with the amount of representation in parliament, but for a law to pass it needs to have 2/3 majority vote, this way there would be a coalition between parties and each member would be elected. As mentioned above, listed mp’s are not representing anyone but their party and Sue Bradford would be booted out. This is all I want.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Of real concern is that we seem to miss the big picture: any consitutional change must be able to prevent parties STEALING from the taxpayer/public (quite a few dont pay taxes although think they do e.g. beneficiaries) then changing the law to clean up their mess.
All you need is a patsy Governor General to sign off any law and away you go. And although most know that the socialists tend to use this type of power to feather their own nests it is not their domain exclusively (Muldoon anyone).
Frankly having all that power and getting away with it (no court) is bloody scary …..WAKE UP FFS! We need a system to stop unmitigated power e.g. a constitution, an upper house etc and simply changing the way we vote may not be enough!
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 8:31 am
jack p – that is not how laws are passed in the US – constitutional amendments require two-thirds (as do veto overrides) but laws require bare majorities and the agreement of the President. Also, George Washington didn’t decide this.
Vote: