MMP Referenda
October 20th, 2009 at 4:08 pm by David FarrarSimon Power has announced the process for referenda on the electoral system, and I am very pleased with the final process.
I blogged a few weeks ago that I was very concern that there seemed to be some talk of having people vote only once on retaining MMP, without knowing the alternative. But the Government has announced, well basically, exactly what I advocated (which I am sure is merely because it really is the common sense way to do it).
The process is:
- Parliament passes a law enabling a first referendum to be held in conjunction with 2011 election
- The first referendum will have two questions – the first question being do you want to continue with MMP or have an alternative system
- The second question will be to select your preferred alternative – the options are likely to be STV, FPP, PV and SM
- If the first question is a vote to retain MMP, the second question is academic and that is the end of it.
- If the first question votes for change, then a second referendum will be held giving people a binary choice between MMP and the preferred alternative (the highest ranking option from the second question)
- The second referendum will be held at the 2014 election
- Enabling legislation for an electoral system based on the alternate electoral system will be passed prior to the 2014 election, and it will automatically come into force if the alternative system wins
- The 2017 election would be run under the new electoral system, if there is a change
As I said, it is really good to see there is a fair process – basically a mirror of the 1992/93 referenda.
I find it interesting that in my unscientific blog poll, 47% back MMP, 23% STV, and only 20% FPP. Personally I think it is highly unlikely that we would vote to return to FPP.
A run off between STV and MMP could be interesting as they are both proportional electoral systems, but operate very very differently.
Tags: FPP, MMP, PV, referendum, Simon Power, SM, STV
October 20th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
DPF
Vote:I made a mistake in your poll, Please correct me if I am wrong.
I didn’t think you had a Swiss option but you made a comment somewhere that you were surprised we didn’t pick it.
if it had been identified as that I would have picked that.
perhaps another post on the options?
October 20th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
We have two and a half years until the next election.
That is plenty of time for the 3 best alternatives to MMP to be found and presented at the next election.
WHY does this process have to be so long and drawn out?
And who gets to decided what the alternatives will be?
How about the public having a say for a a change instead of some Royal Commission or eminent legal professor type?
The Government could set up a website where people could debate the pros and cons of different alternatives and then have the public vote on the best ideas.
NOW That would be democracy!
Vote:Delivered in a timely fashion and at little cost.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Parliament passes a law. It will be interesting to see if the Government has support. I suspect it does not.
[DPF: Bzzt. Wrong. Labour have said they support the referenda]
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Hang on….
So if we vote to do away with MMP at the first referendum why the fuck would it be on a ballot as one of two choices in the second referendum?
I smell the hand of the Greens in this.
[DPF: Because you need to know what you are replacing it with. For example I might vote to replace MMP with STV but would not vote to replace MMP with FPP. You need to give people a clear choice between two detailed options - not just a general do you want change without knowign what that change is]
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Lincoln said “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”
This implies participation.
The only participation that this option offers is two miserable ticks 3 years apart.
This was the problem last time, the options were poorly thought out and the media hi-jacked
the MMP option, and an uninformed public voted for it the absence of any other real information.
Our democracy is just that. It is ours! Not the politicians.
Vote:Why not ask the people what is needed?
October 20th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
That’s it democracymum, those nasty pollies are all thumbing their noses at you!
I seem to recall around the time of the referendum that brought in MMP, TVNZ at 6pm asked someone seemingly at random on the street whether he’d be voting for the Status Quo (FPP) or MMP, and why.
His response – MMP, because THE PRESENT SYSTEM SUX, BEY!
His vote is worth the same as yours.
Vote:Asking the general population of lay people to decide what sort of electoral system we want is a non-trivial exercise. I see nothing wrong or malign about taking a bit of time to allow people to think very carefully.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Interestingly with STV the Nats have a private members Bill in the ballot getting rid of STV in the DHB elections because it is “too confusing”.
For STV to work well one would need substantially bigger electorates and fewer of them.
The Nats preferred option: Supplementary Member – which isn’t really proportional – would result in no Government being able to government (save a grand coalition between Labour and National) without the Maori Party.
MMP is here to stay methinks.
Sensible approach to the process issue by Justice Minister Simon Power.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Agree totally with you here DPF. This is why referendums are hard – you need to make sure there is actually a majority who want what is voted for. We could just put four options on the ballot, we’d then end up with an option selected that might have only 26% support. For arguments sake, 74% of people want PR of some sort, but that is made up of 25% MMP, 25% STV, 24% SV. 26% support FPP. So we get FPP. Is that really what the people wanted?
The process you outline is clearly the fairest option, and one that genuinely lets people choose. It is very similar to the process many countries use to select their President – an open contest of a bunch of candidates. If any one candidate gets > 50%, then they’re in. If none get a majority supporting them, then the top two candidates have a run off.
In terms of why with the election and not sooner – better turnout, and lower cost are both good reasons.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I think we need to go right back to the drawing board regarding our system of government.
Too many people now feel so cynical about the process – that they have disconnected from the democratic process entirely.
We need a robust democracy – a new type of democracy that allows for representation of ideas and not just constituencies.
The world has changed, we need a new way of doing things, and quickly instead of this pendulum approach that we now get with MMP and formely FPP.
People discarded FPP because they did not like politicians ramming through legislation without consulation.
Under MMP we still have politicians ramming through legislation, except now they have to do it by bargaining away the voice of the majority to broker deals with the smaller parties.
NZ was the first in the world to give women the vote – this would have been a great opportunity to create a new participatory form of Government that sets us apart from other countries.
Unfortunately once again our democracy is left in the hand of politicians, which IMHO is not where it belongs.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
The referendum is bullshit, it is quite clear that the gutless Nat’s have done a deal with the minor parties to ensure the survival of the current corrupt system
[DPF: Yes of course they have. How dare National do the right thing and actually allow people to have a sensible meaningful vote on options, rather than just bias the referendum a certain way]
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
IDEA:
How about replacing Private member’s bills with ideas put forward by members of the public via a Government website.
Every year the Government could take 6 of the best ideas and debate them in the house.
Why do we need still need a system that relies on MPs to put forward these types of suggestions for smaller pieces of legislation?
Why not cut out the middle man? Faster, cheaper active involvement from the public.
Even Dancing with the Stars has more effective participation than our present democracy which is hundreds of years old.
Isn’t that the definition of stupidity – doing the same thing over and over and expecting a differenct answer?
The PM is keen for us to set our country apart with initiatives like the cycleway – how about one that shows us off to the rest of the world as the ultimate partipatory democracy, using all the digital tools of the 21st century to empower the voice of the people?
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
The process they have announced seems clear and fair.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Any chance that we’d get a preferential vote on the options?
That way if your preferred option doesn’t win you still have a chance to get something other than the system you dislike the most.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Will any of the options involve reducing the numbers of MPs? As I see it, we have way too many MPs in parliament- if the new Auckland council is to have only 20 councillors, I can’t see why we cannot have 60 or 80 MPs.
Will any of the options involve devolving resposnibilities away from Wellington and back to the regions? The Auckland Governance Royal Commission talked at length about this. It would be good if our opinions on this could be obtained.
As Wellington pollies will be the ones proposing the options presented, I don’t hold out much hope that we will be given a proper choice- but lets see if they are up to the task.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Yes I see that David Labour is going to support it. But I doubt if the minor parties will. And the vexed question of the maori seats will rear their ugly head. There is a curse on any Government that brings in constitutional change. It has unknown surprises usually against the party that brings in the change. As for Labour I am not sure they will support things in the way the Government wants. It will not be a blank cheque.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
@homepaddock 5:22 pm
An STV vote in a referendum! Yes, I would support that, with bells on! Far more democratic than what is being proposed, although Simon Power has done far better on this than I had expected.
@big bruv 4:27 pm
Yes, the Greens are all over this. We have John Key eating from our hands. That is why we are seeing the ETS and ACC being gutted as well. Dream on, bruv.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
tvb: I would expect that there will be no change. That is a win-win for Key – he gives people the choice, they decide no change is what they want, and he then gives that to them. He doesn’t really need Labour’s support for that, nor to do any horse trading with them to achieve it.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
What choice is he going to give us? The current system that seems to work ok or an STV or FFP system with a single chamber. The latter is going to produce unchecked single party, single chamber rule. Everyone decided they didn’t like the sort of governments they got from this last time – unless you are proposing to create an upper chamber it simply is unsustainable and I suspect unwinnable at referendum.
BTW I think this is a very courageous move to advocate this debate, a whole heap of extraneous issues re governance in NZ is going to crop up, following on from the strong regional weak local auckland model they are going with, republicans will be to teh fore and the whole role of government will come up. It will be an interesting debate.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
“How dare National do the right thing and actually allow people to have a sensible meaningful vote on options,..”
Vote:Are we talking the same National Party, once led by Jim Bolger, the intellectual father of this abortion called MMP?
October 20th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
DPF, do you know what would happen say 55% of people vote that they don’t want MMP in the first question, yet 45% vote for mmp in the second question which happens do be twice the number of the next most popular choice?
I really see this as being the most likely outcome.
I do find it interesting how national selectively honour their pre-election promises. So far, all the pre-election promises that have been honoured have been ones to try to stay in power rather than deal with the real problems this country faces.
[DPF: Actually as far as I know National has only broken one promise - only 80% of the tax cuts were implemented. There are still two years to go for some of the others.
As for your Q, MMP is not an option in the second question - it is a choice between alternatives to MMP]
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Why is MMP an abortion Manolo? Because it actually gives people the government they vote for?
As for BB, nice to see you would sell the actual meaning of democracy and due process for a six pack, however DPF has summed up your view nicely.
Personally the Nats have done this very well. Due process, as should be with the proposal for electral reform, is being followed. I suspect and hope that MMP is here to stay, but STV wouldnt be to bad either.
Good to see that all polls point to FPP being a thing of history, which is very positive.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I struggle to see how any of the other systems are proportional, they all seem like variations of FPP. The only difference I can see betweeen FPP and the others is how each electorate gets their mp elected. A real proportional voting system would allow people with shared ideas/principles to be represented in parliament proportionally.
I may be wrong in my understanding(please correct me if i am) but all these systems apart from MMP are designed to represent people based on where they live, not what they believe in.
The funny thing about this change that national obviously desire is if mmp is removed then national will have to back track on their promise to remove maori seats. Maori will not get proportional representation like they can under mmp without the need for separate seats.
[DPF: STV is proportional. SM is semi-proportional (but not much). FPP is not. PV is not proportional]
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Did the people of NZ vote for Winston Peters to decide the result for himself in 1996 and 2005?
Can you remember his red phone, blue phone gag or weeks of deciding whose gifts were better?
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
lets start with no urgency unless there is an urgency like tsunami or people dying.
Vote:it’s just a lie.
When parliament sits under urgency it just means they aren’t going to deliberate properly to me.
I expect them to write good sound law not hashups as they do.
Infact one of my gripes with the setup we have is they don’t serve us properly in this matter at all.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
“DPF, do you know what would happen say 55% of people vote that they don’t want MMP in the first question, yet 45% vote for mmp in the second question which happens do be twice the number of the next most popular choice?”
@CharlieBrown – the second question (in the first referendum) is a preferred alternative (SM, FPP, STV, etc), so MMP won’t be in it anyway.
Also Supplementary Member is semi-proportional – the proportionality is confined to the list seats.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Member )
STV can produce quite proportional results, but it really depends… (source: Electoral systems : a comparative introduction. David M. Farrell, chapter 6)
Both of these systems would tend to see minor parties with votes of 100,000 or so getting perhaps 2 or 3 seats max (IMO).
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
@sonny blount: for every “bloody winston” kingmaker-government (1996, 2005) there’s one where it wasn’t down to kingmakers (1999, 2002, 2008 – ok, so I can’t count).
The 2005 result could not have seen National in stable govt anyway. A boat with arch-enemies Rodney & Winnie together, along with the new Maori party would’ve been more of a four-headed monster than any coalition Labour could have ever set up… A Lab-Green-Maori party coalition would’ve been a little too cozy for Clark & Turia as well.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Winston: what I was going to say!
I don’t see any particular evidence that National really want FPP back. It is, however, telling that the two parties that would benefit most from a change in system (National and Labour) are the two supporting this.
Really, there are three different philosophical questions about what we value in a democracy, how you answer them tells us what system you’d like:
1. How important is it that the views/principles of those elected to parliament represent the views/principles of the population?
2. Should someone elected to parliament represent a broad swathe of the population (i.e. an electorate) and be able to pull a majority of those “normal NZers”, or is it sufficient that a large proportion of NZers support them (i.e. 5% across the whole country)
3. Do we want groupings of people by party affiliation, with a relatively common policy platform of those standing within that party, or would we prefer groups of individuals, each of whose beliefs we judge individually. That is to say, do we like party lists, or are we focused on each individual MP representing their electorate
Most of the complaints I see about MMP come down to the existence of party lists (and therefore, of some MPs who are seen as answerable to their party hierarchy rather than to an electorate); and the ability for minority views to get represented (particularly the Greens, but also ACT even though they do hold an electorate).
The main arguments in favour of MMP or some other form of PR are that we should make sure everyone has a representative – not in the sense of “I have an electorate MP”, but in the sense of someone who shares your beliefs and represents those in parliament.
In short, I don’t understand what problems people think MMP has that would be solved by moving to another system. Most of the problems people are complaining about are either to do with politicians (particularly the deal making involved in forming a coalition, and the power of parties) or with representative democracy (the concept that governments, once elected, can do what they like until the next election). A change of electoral system won’t fix either of those things.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
The main thing this scheme doesn’t (on the surface) allow for is an improved MMP.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
@MikeNZ: do you mean direct democracy? Because that would be out of the scope of this referendum.
FYI, Switzerland has Full Proportional Representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland) – so MMP without the electorate seats. The difference is that the party vote (of 200 seats) is taken on a smaller scale than the Party vote in NZ – ie: the 26 cantons of Switzerland.
So it’d be like, say, someone ticking Labour in West Auckland/Waitakere – they’d be voting Chris Carter, Lynne Pillay & David whats-his-name (and so on) in, rather than just the national list with Clark, Cullen, etc.
This was one of the options that wasn’t put forward in 1992/3, probably because NZ (and all other English-speaking folk) tend to like having electorate MPs around. It would reduce people’s issues with List MPs, but also reduce proportionality quite a bit.
@PaulL: “Most of the problems people are complaining about are either to do with politicians (particularly the deal making involved in forming a coalition, and the power of parties)…”
And conveniently ignoring that minor parties in coalitions – seen to be the tail that wags the dog – almost always do worse in the post-coalition election.
ie: NZ First in 1999 (kept on by Winnie’s seat, a margin of 90 votes or so) & in 2008,
Vote:The Alliance/Progressives in 2002; the Progressives in 2005 (bye bye Matt Robson),
United Future in 2005 and then in 2008.
I guess everyone has a minor party that they love to hate.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
So it seems that all the options being brought forward would reduce proportionality… hense reducing democracy. Why don’t people just wake up and realise that electorate seats are worthless, how many people can point to times when mp’s have represented their electorates even if it goes against party policy?
I really hope one of the options that gets proposed would be something that does away with electorate seats full stop. That way people would be represented by what they believe in, not by where they live.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
The big problem is that if the system changes there may not be representation for the minority parties and those with minority views… Not too sad about the Greens – But it would be a travesty to lose the Act party!
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Interesting to see those who champion MMP as democracy, are you the same people who have pissed and moaned about the tail waging the dog for the last nine years?
Your precious “democratic” system of government has seen the Greens, NZ First, The Mowree party, United Future, Anderton and to a lesser extent ACT all having far more influence than they deserve or were given by the people of NZ.
Of course DPF thinks the proposal floated by the Nat’s is a good idea, he thinks that every idea the Nat’s float is a good one.
Make no mistake people, the gutless Nat’s and the rest of the troughers have decided that they want MMP to stay, what the public want is irrelevant to them, the referendum will be worded in such a manner as to ensure the survival of this corrupt system.
[DPF: If you keep lying I will keep calling you a liar and a moron. I savaged Simon Power's decision on Peter Ellis last week. I criticised twice Anne Tolley's deal with unions on league takes. I attacked what the Nats were proposing six weeks ago in terms of the referenda. It is only because they changed their proposal (to what I advicoted) that I am now praising it. Only a moron can be surprised that I praise something when they do exactly what I said they should do]
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I’d rather P.A.Y.E was abolished as well as consumer based taxation, come the end of the year i wonder how many people could afford to save one third of their yearly wage and pay their taxes? the effect this would have on the country’s governance would be far more electrifying.
Vote:Good to see we get a referendum on MMP though.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
freedom is the ability to choose.
ACT, Greens even NZF give people choice. If we only have the national/labour party again there will be no choice and no freedom.
if you have no choice then you have no freedom
Vote:if you have no freedom you are a slave
and a slave is not accountable for their actions
October 20th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
democracymum> my thoughts exactly.
Vote:October 20th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I would just like to congratulate the National Government for creating a fair referendum.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 12:57 am
You disagreed with it strongly. You stated you were “gutted”, and “think the Minister made the wrong decision”; you “really hoped he would finally be the person to do the right thing”, and the decision was “a classic argument of form over substance…”
This falls somewhat short of a savaging … I’d quite like to see one of those
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 3:04 am
I agree that this is a fair process for deciding on our electoral system. Bravo to Simon Power and the government for not bowing to the demands of those who wanted to stack the deck. I hope and expect that this commitment to procedural fairness will extend to the question wordings.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:50 am
Makes a change for New Zealand re: having a government that isn’t constantly stacking the deck huh.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 6:13 am
“hope and expect that this commitment to procedural fairness will extend to the question wordings.”… good luck, they certainly did their best to stack the deck against the smacking referendum, and when the results still showed overwhelming support for a change in the law gutless spineless socialist john key ignored it. Make no mistake, national are only doing this for personal benefet, nothing to do with whether this is better for the country or not.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 6:20 am
People that believe mmp allows the tail to wag the dog are ignorant. Firstly, their is no emperical proof that this is the case. Winney tried his best in 1996 but even he got booted from power pretty promptly.
Secondly, if this was the case, and mmp was removed which would effectively kill of the other parties, the people who make up those parties will move into the big two and form their own particular wing of that party. This will be very similar to the USA. The downside of this is the public will have less of an idea of what a government will do and we will have repeats of the muldoon and lange(not that this govt was bad but alot of people seem to think so) government.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 8:52 am
bloody oath, course it’s all about brown noising.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:09 am
It seems one of the biggest grouches with MMP is the party list.
Easy answer people, join a political party and DEMAND that they hold primaries for who goes on the list and the ranking.
In other words political party members would list from one to fifty the people they want on the list.
Never happen though, being Kiwis we would rather bitch and whine after the event.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:21 am
Is a modification of the current MMP going to be an option (e.g. no 5% by-pass etc)?
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 10:25 am
Everyone is ignoring the most obvious point: DPF is the real power behind the National Party, the shaper of policy, the arbiter of arguments, the determinant of decisions, which is why his ‘suggestions’ are acted upon. And I, for one, welcome our new Kākā loving overlord. I’d like to remind him that I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in his vast vineyards and fields of hops, barley, malt and rye.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
grumpyoldhori – the Greens already do it.
Vote:October 21st, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“If the first question is a vote to retain MMP, the second question is academic and that is the end of it.”
Vote:Can you confirm that this is the process in the 2011 referendum? If I vote for MMP any vote I make for an alternate is ignored at the count. And if so, does my MMP vote count or is the whole ballot considered spoiled?
October 21st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Garethw – I thought this actually meant “If the majority vote to retain MMP, then the second question is irrelevant”. If you vote to retain MMP, but the majority vote to dump it, then your vote for your preferred system (eg: STV) would still be counted. Can anyone confirm otherwise?
Bigbruv –
“Your precious “democratic” system of government has seen the Greens, NZ First, The Mowree party, United Future, Anderton and to a lesser extent ACT all having far more influence than they deserve or were given by the people of NZ.”
So you’d rather that Labour or National have far more influence than they deserve or were given by the people of NZ? ‘Cause that’s what you’ll get under FPP/PV/SM or even STV.
“Interesting to see those who champion MMP as democracy, are you the same people who have pissed and moaned about the tail waging the dog for the last nine years?”
All electoral systems are democracy. Voting in representatives every three years and having the power to vote them out is democratic. Some are better at reflecting the will of the voters than others… and reflecting minority views, whether that be NZF/Act/Maori/Green/etc.
Vote: