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!

In theory anyway. It’d be pretty mucked up all ’round.

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Perhaps MMP could include a 3rd vote for Prime Minister

This is the system used in Israel. It is widely seen as a total disaster.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

Good morning Malcolm

Thank you for your email.

The Chief Electoral Office has prepared a draft strategy that looks at possible options for piloting electronic voting for general elections and referenda. The draft strategy is not Government policy and the Government has made no decisions on it.

However, you may find the draft strategy interesting, especially in relation to the possible costs of developing secure and reliable voting systems which would maintain the public’s current high confidence in the administration of Parliamentary elections and referenda. The draft strategy is available at http://www.elections.org.nz/administration/ceo-corp-info/draft-long-term-strategy-for-voting-technology.html

kind regards

Erica Cooney
Senior Advisor Legal
Chief Electoral Office
Ministry of Justice (Tāhū o te Ture)
Tel (64+4) 498 2325 Ext 50325
Level 9 | Sovereign House
180 Molesworth Street
P O Box 3220 Wellington
http://www.justice.govt.nz

cheers

Malcolm

But in the end Winston’s purchase did become obvious and he and his party lost the election.