Supplementary Member Scenarios

April 29th, 2010 at 10:33 am by David Farrar

The lobby group has declared their preferred alternate scheme to be Supplementary Member:

The Put to the Vote lobby today declared supplementary member () its preferred voting alternative to MMP.

Co-leaders and said an SM-elected Parliament would mean the number of list MPs would be slashed and “listers” would be stopped from subverting the will of the people.

“Under a 120-member Parliament, 90 members would be elected by first past the post with just 30 top-up MPs. If New Zealand opted for a 100-member Parliament –– something electors voted for in 1999 –– there would be just 20 list MPs,” Hunt said.

So a 90/30 system, or an 80/20 system if the size changed.

“What’s more, proportionality would apply to list seats only so it would be virtually impossible for list MPs to stop the party that won the most seats on election night from forming the government for the next three years.

“We have recommended SM because it provides for diversity but does not undermine electorate MPs. Under our system, electorate MPs would be denied a place on party lists. This would mean a defeated electorate MP could not return to Parliament via a party list. It would spell the end to electoral double-dipping.”

This is one of the things the public don’t like. However the solution has problems also – if electorate MPs are not on the list, they have less incentive to campaign for the party vote.

“We believe SM, with the appropriate safeguards, would restore faith to the parliamentary system, lead to greater voter participation in parties and foster higher turnouts in general elections.”

The Royal Commission on the Electoral System, which recommended MMP in 1986, said SM would be “likely to build on existing levels of [elector] participation” but added that popular control of Parliament under SM would not differ much from under first past the post.

“Single-party governments would continue to be the norm because the constituency results would not be altered by the allocation of the list seats,“ the commission said.

Now I always like to look at numbers, and how the last five MMP elections would have turned out if done under a 90/30 SM system.

To model this, one has to assume that a party would win the same proportion of 90 electorates as they did of the number that existed at each election.

Here’s 1996

In 1996 under MMP National needed NZ First to get a majority. Under a 90/30 SM, they would still have needed NZ First to govern. SM rewards parties that wins electorate seats, and NZ First won a lot that year.

In 1999, SM 90/30 would have given Labour an absolute majority, meaning they could have governed without the Alliance. Arguably this means the Alliance may have never disintegrated.

And in 2002, Labour would have gained a massive majority.

2005 is interesting. National and Labour would have ended up with 53 seats each, both eight short of a majority. Lab/Gre/Prog would be 56 and Nat/ACT 54. Don Brash could have become PM if United Future and Maori Party went with them. Helen Clark would have remained PM only if she could have got the Maori Party onside – Winston wouldn’t be enough.

As Helen had declared the Maori Party last cab off the rank, it is possible one may have ended up with a Don Brash led Government with the Maori Party, ACT and United Future.

In 2008 a 90/30 SM system would have given National a clear majority.

Back in August 2008 I blogged pros and cons of SM.

I also blogged back then how SM would have worked with no change to the number of electorate seats.

Tags: , , , , ,

58 Responses to “Supplementary Member Scenarios”

  1. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Your table would be more interesting if you included the percentage of total seats received.

    e.g.

    1996: National: 33.8% vote, 44% seats; Labour: 28.2% vote, 37% seats; ACT: 6.1% vote, 2.5% seats
    1999: Alliance: 7.7% vote, 3.3% seats; ACT: 7.0% vote, 1.7% seats
    2002: Labour: 41.3% vote, 60% seats

    It seems that the main effect of switching to SM is to make National, Labour and Maori Party bigger, and the other parties smaller.

    Remind me again how this is better?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    Remind me again how this is better?

    It’s easier to influence, finance and get more reliable benefits from one larger party?

    The result of SM is to dilute the size and influence of smaller parties, so much more is decided on FPP electorates. It seems to be sort of a Claytons FPP, with a few scraps thrown to the riff raff.

    We believe SM, with the appropriate safeguards, would restore faith to the parliamentary system,

    Getting better quality candidates, and MPs who made better quality decisions with reasonable consideration of the electorate would do that. How they are voted in is less important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    A clear majority of seats with less than 45% of the vote!

    That would be a very backward step. Interesting that Shirtcliffe and Hunt appear to have given up on FPP – I gues the shambles that is going on with the UK election at the moment made that option untenable even for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    I like MMP, as it is truely representational. It has forced NZ politics into the middle which is a good compromise and means getting lunitics like Muldoon in power is a reduced possibility and targeted spending on swing seats again is a thing of a gone age.

    SM is my less favoured of all the alternatives, but does not surprise me that this is what they want, considering the interests involved.

    Interesting table though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    Whichever system is used it has to stop unelected people from introducing legislation. The anti-smacking shambles distracted the country for years and must have cost billions through wasted time and energy. All because of a person who only got around 10% of the winners vote and who came 4th – even finishing behind the Family Party. In anyone’s terms that is the flea wagging the tail wagging the dog. Wrong wrong wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Graeme Edgeler (3,277 comments) says:

    A clear majority of seats with less than 45% of the vote!

    Not really (or at least, not necessarily). You’re ignoring half the votes – why only take the list vote into account when determining proportionality of a Parliament elected under an SM voting system? You should include electorate votes as well.

    [This assumes we're talking about SM with two votes, the Royal Commission figured we'd probably go with SM with one vote]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. big bruv (13,573 comments) says:

    Any system that gives the Greens only two seats in the house is always going to get my support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    But your ACT Party (or have you given up on them bruv) would get only one seat under SM, and the ones you call the national Socialists wouldhave a clear majority!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. big bruv (13,573 comments) says:

    Toad

    Given up on Baubles Hide, not the ACT party, and while that means good people like Boscowan, Douglas and Garrett would not be in the house it is a price I would grudgingly pay to see the back of Locke, Delahunty, that idiot kid whose name I can never remember and Kedgley.

    The National Socialists having a clear majority might not be a bad idea, at least that way Neville Key would have to front up and own his socialists policies and not hide behind or use coalition agreements as an excuse/reason for being a softcock.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    Funny, at an ACT meeting in Auckland Peter Shirtcliffe was strictly for PV, the Aussie system.
    Strange that they would now go for SM. Above all, he couldn’t even explain how it works at that meeting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,066 comments) says:

    As Helen had declared the Maori Party last cab off the rank, it is possible one may have ended up with a Don Brash led Government with the Maori Party, ACT and United Future.

    When it came to negotations I think ‘last cab off the rank’ would have trumped ‘the Maori seats are racist and I will change the law and abolish them’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    It is however, slightly distortionary comparing election results from different electoral systems to a hypothetical one. Parties tend to adapt their election-strategies to the system they operate under. The percentages above would have jumped around a bit of parties campaigned on a SM platform instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    What surprises me is that SM is relatively close to MMP. It still has list members, the difference is that it is harder for smaller parties to get representation.

    It very much looks like MMP in drag. You kind of have to ask the question, why bother? Wouldn’t it be better and more efficient to tackle the open questions in MMP (party threshold, number of electorates needed to bring in party)

    The “double dipping” of elecorate seats and list seats can easily be fixed today. It is not specific to SM.

    Also if PV, according to Peter Shirtcliffe, is the “Aussie system”, is SM than the Japanese system? Or the South Korean system?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    And some voters adapt to the electoral system as well. But the MMP/SM comparison is a useful indication.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    I think the rationale for exploring other voting systems is just trying to find a ‘sweet spot’ between stability and proportionality.

    Ultimately elections aren’t about giving every person their say, they’re about getting a government where nobody has to get shot to effect change.

    In crude terms, FPP gave stable governments but at the expense of a lot of proportionality. If you were a National voter in a safe Labour seat, your vote meant in practical terms, nothing.

    MMP increases proportionality (the 5% or 1 seat rule limits it) but conversely can create less stable governments. By that we mean it is almost assured that a coalition will be required. This then gives small parties a lot of leverage and unmerited influence. I would reference the bargaining and concessions extracted by NZ First.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Simon Lyall (101 comments) says:

    The systems I prefer are ones where a voter’s influence does not depend on where they live. MMP is close to that (although with obvious problems like the 1-electorate and minimum percentage thresholds) but I find that other systems tend to be worse.

    FPP means that only a few swing voters in Swing seats matter
    SM is just FPP with a few extra seats to get things closer to proportionality.

    I think the “double dipping” “problem” is bogus. It effectively means that strong candidates (with high list places) will not stand in marginal seats or ones that the other parties control. While a good/bad candidate has some influence over the vote this is minor compared to the general lean of the electorate and nationwide trends.

    People who advocate FPP should also explain how they will be satisfied living the rest of their live in a “safe electorate held by a party they don’t support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Graeme Edgeler (3,277 comments) says:

    In crude terms, FPP gave stable governments but at the expense of a lot of proportionality. If you were a National voter in a safe Labour seat, your vote meant in practical terms, nothing.

    First-past-the-post generally leads to less stability – there are massive swings from one side to the other (e.g. socialist Muldoon to reformists Douglas and Lange etc.). Proportional systems have more stable government, characterised by slower more considered consensus change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. lastmanstanding (1,241 comments) says:

    I still reckon ole granddaddy was right. Only property owning folks who can pass an IQ and Political Knowledge test should get the vote.

    Otherwise you get the ignorant voting in the incompetent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. big bruv (13,573 comments) says:

    Graeme

    “characterised by slower more considered consensus change.”

    Except that very little of the change we have seen since the introduction of MMP has been consensual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RRM (9,670 comments) says:

    [Lobby]:
    “We have recommended SM because it provides for diversity but does not undermine electorate MPs. Under our system, electorate MPs would be denied a place on party lists. This would mean a defeated electorate MP could not return to Parliament via a party list. It would spell the end to electoral double-dipping.”

    [DPF]:
    This is one of the things the public don’t like. However the solution has problems also – if electorate MPs are not on the list, they have less incentive to campaign for the party vote.

    [Lobby]:
    “We believe SM, with the appropriate safeguards, would restore faith to the parliamentary system, lead to greater voter participation in parties and foster higher turnouts in general elections.”

    [/quotes]

    Respectfully, The above all seem wedded to the notion that geographical seats are the “proper” way of having parliamentary representation, and I don’t understand that. I have no problem with list seats “undermining” geographical electorates as they put it. My thinking is:

    (1)
    Who says I agree with everything my neighbours want? In the 21st century of motorised travel and electronic information, I am a citizen of New Zealand not a citizen of the hills above Te Aro. It is a fallacy to assume you can generalise the voices of the peasants based on which valley they all live in.

    (2)
    I feel far more affected by National issues e.g. tax rates than by any compelling local issue. Voting by way of electing a local champion seems an outmoded way of thinking IMHO. Let local government handle local issues.

    (3)
    I have never lived in an electorate where I have been able to get really excited by who my local MP is, or anything (s)he says or does. HOWEVER I read the media what the parties say and do, and I read Party websites come election time, and I know which party I want to vote for.

    (4)
    So why not abolish geographical seats and have a 100% proportional system?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    I’ve never understood this reliance on bizarre schemes to manipulate the number of members to get proportionality. Why not just make the value of each member’s vote proportional to their party’s share of the the party vote?. Eg you could have 100 total votes in parliament and allocate them fractionally so that if a party got say 10% in the polls but only three members, then those members votes would be worth 3.33 votes each. Or if the decimals are too confusing, make it 1000 total votes and just allocate whole numbers of votes to each member.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Put MMP to the Vote lobby group like (SM) because it sounds close to S&M.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    (4)
    So why not abolish geographical seats and have a 100% proportional system?

    Well, actually, there is some value in having a electorate representative. Just because you don’t get excited about them, doesn’t mean others don’t.

    It certainly creates a direct link ti the parliament, something that a list member cannot. It also enables you to talk with your representative and thus “having a voice”.

    MMP is a clear and effective compromise between the two systems, one having a proportional representation of political views across the country while maintaining that personal direct link that you have with your representative.

    Because the overall number of seats is determined proportionally, the geographical imbalance does not have that much of a significant effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. BlairM (2,307 comments) says:

    SM just seems like one of those crazy ideas that is supposed to be a compromise to please everyone, but ends up pleasing no-one. And you would still get idiots like Keith Locke being elected.

    Why don’t we just copy the Australians? FPP Parliament – proportional Senate. Stick a term limit on the Senators and you’re done. Problem solved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    I’m with BlairM… nice and simple… and fits in well with Australia when we join them in the future..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    Why don’t we just copy the Australians? FPP Parliament – proportional Senate. Stick a term limit on the Senators and you’re done. Problem solved.

    Why not stick with the system that we have? Works fine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    I’m totally over geographic representation. Might have been needed when the only way to engage with leaders was via a geographically accessible representative, and when voting management processes demanded local teams.. but all that was pre-Internet ie last millennia.

    I want people who share my values and represent my aspirations, not someone who purports to represent ‘my electorate’. Yet I’m still forced to vote for one of the 6 dropkicks in ‘my electorate’, when there are plenty others distributed around the country who better represent my values and aspirations. Why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    How to get rid of MMP? Simple, just have Peter Shirtcliffe and his attractive daughter (IIRC) campaign for MMP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    I want people who share my values and represent my aspirations, not someone who purports to represent ‘my electorate’. Yet I’m still forced to vote for one of the 6 dropkicks in ‘my electorate’, when there are plenty others distributed around the country who better represent my values and aspirations. Why?

    But you are not forced to do anything.
    You don't need to use your electorate vote if you don’t want to and you can use your party vote for the people that represent your values.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Yet I’m still forced to vote for one of the 6 dropkicks in ‘my electorate’, when there are plenty others distributed around the country who better represent my values and aspirations. Why?

    Interesting idea. There needs to be some link between your vote and the MP. Otherwise you’d just get a system where you’re forced to vote for one of 6 dropkick parties and have no influence over an individual MP.

    Are you suggesting an ‘open-electorate’ (for want of a better term) where you can vote for any MP. The 100 MPs with the highest number of votes get in. And they get a list of the people who elected them and hence who they should be talking to and representing? And when they vote in the house their vote is weighted by the number of people who voted for them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    @eszett – I’m not proposing to ‘not use my electorate vote’. I’m saying the concept of ‘electoate votes’ is outdated. As for the party vote, it’s nothing like voting for person who shares my values and aspirations. It’s a re-orderable list and the party jiggs with the list as they see fit.

    @malcolm – In short yes. There could be plenty of reasons who this is a bad idea and no doubt people will suggest some. But have we ever seriously considered something outside the known set of electoral systems? I suspect not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Sorry, just edited my comment. Same idea.

    An open-electorate would certainly dilute the power of the parties. To me the party vote strengthens the parties and weakens democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Another advantage of the ‘open-electorate’ system is it would discourage negative campaigning as there would be no direct competition. Each candidate would in effect be campaigning against all others. Consequently they would need to convince you why you should vote for them, rather than why the other bloke is a wife-beater/con-man/tree-pisser etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Spot on malcolm. Your mind appears to be traversing the same opportunities and implications ‘web’ as has my own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    I’m feeling quite concerned… it appears I’m in 100% agreement with Redbaiter, who said (on the earlier SM v MMP thread linked to by DPF):

    I reject all voting systems where the candidate is not judged personally by the electors. He/she must stand in full and clear light in front of those who will elect them… No direct votes, no seat in parliament.

    Go back to DPF’s charts of MP performance (ranked on PQs, press releases and so forth) and the bottom cohort of any measure is stuffed with list MPs, many recruited for their “diversity” (why do we need to stack lists with minority candidates? THere can only be two reasons – NZers are a bunch of moronic racists who’ll overlook an outstanding candidate if they’re of the wrong race, or ethnic candidates are inferior and need an unfair advantage. Both wrong IMO, not to mention insulting).

    What’s making me think I may be on the verge of a psychotic break, however, is that while agreeing wholeheartedly with Redbaiter I am simultaneously in agreement with Pete George above when he says:

    Getting better quality candidates, and MPs who made better quality decisions with reasonable consideration of the electorate would do that. How they are voted in is less important.

    Yes, yes, yes! Let’s make this a review of our entire system, including the parties’ processes for selecting and ranking their lists (if we’re opting for a system with lists), whether they can be recalled, how they behave in Parliament, and how they’re made accountable during their term and not just once every three years.

    The issues raised by Pete George (and a raft of related issues as well) are at least as important as our voting system but, yet again, we’re casting round for a magic spell that’ll not only fairly elect our representatives, but will somehow control them for the next three years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    The BIG disadvantage of a open electorate is that you cannot possibly know all of the people possible to vote for. If you have a 100 MPs, there would be at least 500 or more people competing on that list. How could you possibly get to know all the people on that list.
    So you will only know a handful and those who have the loudest voice.

    Parties would still have a huge amount of control over that as well, as only a party could conduct a nationwide campaign. Or people with lots and lots of money.

    You would also get big attractors, e.g. the party leaders, who would siphon a large number of votes. So you could get an MPs with a huge difference in votes.

    Of all your aversion to parties, without political parties it would be a lot harder to form a government. You complain about MMP and the need to compromise over 2 or 3 parties. Imagine what it would be like to get 50 or 60 MPs to work together without having a party organisation. How many dirty deals and compromises would have to be made to get a majority there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    No matter how “good” an electoral system you have, the end result comes down to two things:

    - the quality of the candidates
    - the quality of the votes

    FPP could work much better for me – if I thought enough voters would vote for the best candidate in their electorate irrespective of party. The biggest problem with FPP is that too many people seem to blindly vote for a party.

    We (the voters) could make MMP work better under the current structure, if we:
    - voted for the best candidate in each electorate irrespective of party
    - if we put far more pressure and examination on quality party lists

    As has been said, we can’t just wave a wand and come up with the “ideal” voting system and expect the voters, the parties and the candidates to all magically become perfect and act sensibly with the best interests of the country foremost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Peter Shirtcliffe (2 comments) says:

    We need to do 4 things: Reduce the nonsenses that go with the concept of the List MP, raise the status of Electorate MPs, allow some diversity in Parliament, and improve political accountability. SM does all this, and avoids the extremes of MMP and FPP.

    PETITION FOR AN EFFECTIVE MMP REFERENDUM: http://www.hypmedia.com/Petition/TakeSurvey.asp?SurveyID=73Hl73L246lKG

    http://www.petershirtcliffe.co.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    No matter how “good” an electoral system you have, the end result comes down to two things:

    - the quality of the candidates
    - the quality of the votes

    And as we all know the candidates don’t think much for the quality of the voters.
    And the voters don’t think much for the qaulity of the candidates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    I’m quite attracted to krazykiwi and malcolm’s idea of an “open electorate”. It’s certainly something worth discussing in some detail, I think.

    eszett asks:

    If you have a 100 MPs, there would be at least 500 or more people competing on that list. How could you possibly get to know all the people on that list.

    Most people stand for Parliament because they’re passionate about some issues. Sure, they have opinions on most things (because they have to) but there’s a handful of things on which they want to concentrate their efforts.

    So each candidate is asked to choose, say, six (as an arbitrary number) key issues on which they want to make a stand. An intending voter then comes along and queries the database for any candidate who’s indicated that a particular issue is important to them. They’ll then get a subset of candidates who have an interest in an issue (or issues) which are also important to the voter.

    After all, that’s pretty much how we do it now… there’s very few MPs with whom we agree 100% on everything, but their advocacy on issues that are personally important to us is what earns them our support.

    Of course the database could be queried in any number of ways, and would be available at special terminals in public places for those without the net.

    eszett then goes on to:

    Imagine what it would be like to get 50 or 60 MPs to work together without having a party organisation.

    You see chaos and pork barrelling. We get that now (whanau ora being the latest example of the latter). I see genuine debate and consensus. And if it took longer to get things done, well… are you suggesting we don’t have enough laws already?!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (23,359 comments) says:

    There’s another important factor in the equation – the media. If they keep trying to push their sensational simplification because it suits them to run presidential style campaigns it will be difficult to change much. We need them as much as the parties, candidates and voters to consider what would benefit the country most rather than what they think the most entertaining coverage would be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    No one has considered a dictatorship for New Zealand..

    Just a Yes No do it my way system..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. mattyroo (1,012 comments) says:

    Peter Shirtcliffe,

    At the meeting that Rodney Hide hosted a few weeks back in Auckland, where you outlined your initiative, you then stated that Proportional Representation (as they have in Oz) was your preferred system. Can you please explain why Supplementary Member is now your preferred option? What has changed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    @RKBee – Dictatorship is such a nasty, last millennia term. All that overt brute force is just, well, so indelicate. Better to have a system that affords the primary power brokers exactly what they want whilst appearing to operate under a democratic mandate. A bit like we have today :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. mattyroo (1,012 comments) says:

    RKBee said:
    “No one has considered a dictatorship for New Zealand..”

    Dont worry RK, had that bitch Klark been given another 3 years, we would be half way there already…. Well, those that would’ve stayed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    The BIG disadvantage of a open electorate is that you cannot possibly know all of the people possible to vote for

    @eszett – I don’t know you, nor do I know 99% of the commenters here at kiwiblog. However I know what most believe and what inspires and/or rankles just by interpreting the comments. One does not have to have ‘met’, to ‘know’

    In 10 mins 99.9% of NZers can find out who won last night’s Masterchef, the names of three US senators and name of the inventor of Vitamin-C.

    So it stands to reason that a simple on-line profile for each candidate, searchable by party affiliation, domicile, keywords, ethnicity, gender and favourite ice-cream flavour would allow any Kiwi to find, group, shorlist and engage with as many or as few candidates as they wish.

    C’mon man, look for solutions, not problems! If we must lead the world in something, let’s make it an modern, technology-savvy electoral system .. and let’s patent it and sell it to other countries as they see ours work a treat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    kk –

    Hear hear! Back in the 90s I was looking at various systems for all sorts of political activities, from voting to a nationwide, moderated forum. At that time most of the solutions were coming out of Europe and were hamstrung by the lack of web development technologies and the slowness of most people’s internet.

    Everyone seems to have shied away from the concept driven, I think, by the whole Diebold debacle – but that’s more deliberate fraud on the part of some electoral officials than technology failure and anyway, just because one company’s technology fails doesn’t mean another can’t invent a better version!

    In 1999 we were all set to launch the NZ Electronic Electoral Trial. It had received worldwide publicity and was perceived as possibly about to set a benchmark… and then local pollies woke up to the fact it could also be used for low cost referenda and ran a mile.

    I’d love to try again…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Just found this great quote:

    The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me.

    They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office.

    Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B.

    In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.

    – Henry Louis Mencken, American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist, acerbic critic of American life and culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    Why not do away with List MPs by applying a Party Vote as a factor to the vote of each Electorate Member according to his or her party membership.

    Take three parties from 2008 results
    National 44.93% Party Vote 41 Electorate Seats
    Labour 33.99% Party Vote 21 Electorate Seats
    Maori 2.39% Party Vote 5 Electoral Seats

    This means a National Electorate Member would have a 1.095 vote
    Labour 1.618 vote
    Maori 0.478 vote

    So 41 National Electorate votes of 1.095 reflect their 44.93% Party Vote.
    Labour Members would seem to have a stronger vote, but their are only 21 of them so still reflect the 33.99 % Party Vote.
    The Maori anomaly of seats corrects itself naturally.

    Differing party member voting powers could seem confusing but it can all be done by computer or a 10 year old school kid with a Warehouse calculator.
    Conscience votes should not exit, but be replaced by electorate polls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Peter Shirtcliffe (2 comments) says:

    mattyroo

    It’s important we suggest changes which scratch the community itches. While the Australian Preferential (not Proportional) system is my personal ideal, it is not well understood here, and our reading of it is that people want a bit of diversity in Parliament without the nonsenses of MMP, in particular the overweighting of List MPs. Supplementary member, which is working well elsewhere, looks to us like a fair and sensible compromise between the extremes.

    Peter

    http://www.petershirtcliffe.co.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mattyroo (1,012 comments) says:

    Thanks Peter. Understood now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Yvette (2,745 comments) says:

    “our reading of it is that people want a bit of diversity in Parliament without the nonsenses of MMP, in particular the overweighting of List MPs.”

    So why not have only Electorate Members with votes weighted to reflect the Party Vote?
    See 4.29 comment above

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    The BIG disadvantage of a open electorate is that you cannot possibly know all of the people possible to vote for. If you have a 100 MPs, there would be at least 500 or more people competing on that list. How could you possibly get to know all the people on that list.

    That’s true. Which is why we need to reduce the number of MPs to 20. :-). Each gets their vote in parliament weighted by the number of votes they got in the open-electorate election.

    Also let’s have online voting over a period of two weeks and give each voter 5 votes to use over that time. As each candidate reaches a threshold of votes (say 10% of the number of registered voters) they become an MP and get removed from the competition. So you vote over time and pick MPs in a sort of reverse auction. If a candidate you have picked is not getting enough votes you can remove the vote and use it again. Kind of an active transferable vote system.

    It’s possible there could be a few problems with this system but I will sort those out after a beers this evening. To be honest I’d be happy with any system which prevents idiots getting into government and which also nullifies the votes of people I consider to be idiots and amplifies my vote and those of people who think like me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Mr Shirtcliffe,

    Thank you for your efforts for NZ. It is much appreciated.

    cheers

    Malcolm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    Peter Shirtcliffe (2) Says:
    April 29th, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    mattyroo

    It’s important we suggest changes which scratch the community itches. While the Australian Preferential (not Proportional) system is my personal ideal, it is not well understood here, and our reading of it is that people want a bit of diversity in Parliament without the nonsenses of MMP, in particular the overweighting of List MPs. Supplementary member, which is working well elsewhere, looks to us like a fair and sensible compromise between the extremes.

    Peter

    We have a fair and well working compromise today. There is no overweighting of List MPs. It’s half/half.

    Why a different weighting in SM is more “fair” you’ll have to explain.

    Also, what is your problem with list MPs? If you don’t like them, then you cannot be promoting SM. Either you see a need for them or not. To say you don’t like them, but you’ll accept a little is hypocritical, really.

    MMP is a true and fair compromise between FFP and pure proportionality, combining the benefits of both. I cannot see people rejecting it for SM.

    What you truly desire is to get rid of proportionality, even though it the most democratic reflection of political will in a country.

    SM over FPP? Surely that is a better choice. But SM over MMP? I don’t believe people will go for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    hey malcolm, seem to recall you’re wellington-based? if you are, flick me an email krazykiwi.kiwiblog@gmail.com and we can do a quick ‘authentication two-step’ and then connect over a beer sometime.. cheers

    edit: Rex, I know you’re not in Wgtn, so we’ll connect another time

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. jocko (111 comments) says:

    What is the mischief these voting proposals are trying to avoid – or minimise?
    Surely (part of) the real problem is our unicameral system…..whereby we can achieve with eyes wide-open the pitfalls of an elected dictatorship…..plenty of examples in the recent past from both major parties/coalitions.
    Remember – MMP was the German solution to prevent a Hitler/NS Party being elected….and then what?
    Also MMP was the ‘solution’ to FPP parties elected on one expected platform but with private agendas not revealed until after the event.

    I’m all for a second house/delaying chamber/call it what you will..elected by another voting system for wider representation.
    How else do you provide transparency to stop MPs voting themselves increased pension rights in the middle of the night in 7 minutes flat….or, for that matter, passage of the Electoral Finace Act or calling extraordinary urgency in a single chamber to change the price of cigarettes….or whatever else, for whatever other reason.
    Is that really the way to run a modern democracy?
    To me the voting system for all its flaws (STV,SM,MMP) is a subset of the bigger democratic ideal of avoiding elected or coalesced ‘dictators’ (on bare majorities) ramming through their agendas with no counterveiling protections for the ordinary citizen without some second elected referral system….especially considering the so-called reserve powers of the Courts & G-G are such a weak reed.
    A slower process to be sure – as the Australians (US & UK) find….but more considered & consistent with achieving a longer-lasting less extreme outcome.
    Surely we’ve learned that!?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. BlairM (2,307 comments) says:

    Why not stick with the system that we have? Works fine.

    Having one chamber and no single document constitution where the PM rules as a virtual dictator is not my definition of any form of democracy that “works fine”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.