Electoral Referendum Bill Report
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:51 pm by David FarrarThe Electoral Referendum Bill has also been reported back. Major aspects are:
- Comes into force 1 Jan 2011
- aligns advertising rules with Electoral Act, including $300,000 spending limit
- MMP to only be reviewed if people vote for it to remain, not if they vote for change. So any run-off referendum will be with the current version of MMP
- Order of alternate voting systems to be alphabetical
- ballot papers will not be counted on E Day, but the results of advance votes will be known which should indicate the likely result
- The SM option has been defined as a 90/30 option. This is quite significant as it means it will be significantly less proportional than MMP. My preferred SM option would be 70/50 as MMP currently has. On the plus side a 90/30 system will have smaller electorate seats.
The question in Part A has been modified to be:
Should New Zealand keep the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system?
The options are:
- I vote to keep the MMP voting system
- I vote to change to another voting system
The select committee has done a diligent job with the bill. Politically I believe a majority will vote to retain MMP, especially with the SM option being significantly disproportional.
Related posts:
- Electoral Referendum Bill Submission
- Republic Referendum Bill selected in ballot
- MMP Referenda
- The MMP referenda
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Agreed. That just about seals the deal – MMP will see off SM. Certainly the iPredict share price for “MMP to be retained” has just jumped up (partly because I just brought some more shares myself!)
SM was always going to be a bad electoral system (at 70/50 MPs) but at 90/30 MPs the disproportionality would just be far too awful for even many who are unconvinced with MMP.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I am one of very few people who will admit to voting for MMP in 1993.
And I was WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!. SInce then I have had to endure the tail wagging the dog Minority groups tramping all over the majority and weak gutless pollies giving in to appease the useless and the corrupt Think Luigi.
Until NZ gets rid of MMP we will continue to struggle under the minority rule where a tiny fraction over ride the wishes of the majority who pay the bulk of the taxes to see them wasted by the minority on their corrupt causes.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 3:05 pm
$300,000 cap will help National choke out small parties and to reduce their reliance on them in future.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
lastman
I also voted for it, I also admit that I was wrong.
I stupidly thought that MMP would mean that the bastards might actually listen to us.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
What would the threshold be for parties like the Greens?
I do hope that any new system makes it harder or damn near impossible for those bastards to be in the house.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Righto, so where do we vote for the politicians to be in bondage?
Vote:Seriously though, an SM system will just be FPP in drag. I couldn’t vote in 1993 but I can tell you now I am glad that MMP is the system that got chosen. Any way to allow more views to be heard is good, and MMP does just that. Just because you disagree with the greens doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have a voice. Ditto for ACT.
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:32 pm
So big bruv, you thought MMP would mean parties listening to you and doing what you wanted? Foolish thought. MMP means parties listening to ordinary New Zealanders and doing what the majority wants. Very bad news for extremists. Although it least it allows them to be heard and to argue their case. If they can convince the majority THEN they can get their way. So, big bruv, keep up the good work!
As for the tail wagging the dog, has anyone here realised that ALL of the four alternatives to MMP would allow the Maori Party to win lots more seats on the back of just 3% of the vote? Now that would really mean some tail wagging!
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
As for the spending, I think it makes less difference than political parties think. Look at that woman in California who lost the governor’s race after spending over $US100 million of her own money. Voters aren’t so dumb. The Brethren money proved that yet again. It’s a non issue.
Anything that stifles our freedom to say what we want in whatever form should be rigorously resisted.
I’d love to be able to vote for half the number of MPs we have now on double their pay, a limit on the number of terms they can serve and much more accountability.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 4:18 pm
I can sort of understand them not wanting to reframe things if MMP runs off against an alternative. This is added incentive to vote to retain it.
I don’t mind saying I voted for MMP in ’93, I agree with gazzmaniac – I think it provides improved representation, but it could be improved further.
Many of those who don’t want MMP actually don’t want democracy, they want themselves (or who they back) to win and retain power and want to exclude everyone else.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Like in 1978 and 1981, when Rob Muldoon governed, despite having the support of less than 40% of the country?
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 5:48 pm
$300,000 spending limit
= criminalisation of free speech + huge inbuilt advantage for incumbent
National really are leftist lowlifes.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 6:21 pm
“As for the tail wagging the dog, has anyone here realised that ALL of the four alternatives to MMP would allow the Maori Party to win lots more seats on the back of just 3% of the vote? Now that would really mean some tail wagging!”
Yes, I don’t think a lot of the pro-FPP crowd are digesting this possibility. While minor parties were incapable of winning more than two seats here under FPP, that doesn’t mean that will always be the case. With the Maori Party able to win 7 seats (and more under SM), it gives the Maori Party a strong chance at being the sole kingmakers.
The British election and Australian election (which is essentially FPP with preferential electorate voting) have demonstrated that third party/independents can hold a lot of power under FPP if the race between the two major parties is close. MMP at least gives the main party the ability to neutralise the minor parties against each other (i.e. New Zealand First/United Future used to neutralise the Greens and vice versa, the Maori Party and ACT) which effectively blocks off the ability to wag the tail.
Under FPP, it’s highly likely that there would be no way of moderating a sizeable minor party such as the Maori Party.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 6:36 pm
SM has also been defined as two vote SM.
Interesting things to note:
1. Parliament thinks it can bind its successor
2. The declaration that there would be a 90/30 split is fundamentally inconsistent with the bill’s common asumption that there will be a fixed number of general electorate seats in the South Island unless Parliament abandons the principle that all electorates should be the same size.
Under supplementary member as described in the select committee report, there will be a set number of South Island electorates, and a set number of North Island + Maori electorates; each additional Maori electorate will mean one less North Island electorate, even if the North Island population is growing substantially faster than both the South Island population, and the Maori electorate population. Although it goes in reverse to: if half the population of the North Island were to move to the South Island the select committee’s SM system would see no change in the number of South Island electorates or the number of North Island electorates.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Hey what would happen if the EFA deemed hours donated to electioneering by say unions, as political donations?
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Paid hours donated by a union to a political party for electioneering are party donations, and have to be declared.
That is, if the EPMU donates paid EPMU staffer time to the Labour Party to (for example) deliver pamphlets (or if it pays others to do this) this is a donation of a service, and if it exceeds the disclosure level ($10,000 at present, $15,000 soon) it must be declared.
Free time donated by individuals, whether union members or not, is treated differently.
[DPF: The murky area is where a union doesn't direct its staff to work on Labour's campaign but lets it be known that they can take as much time as they want helping Labour campaign, during work hours, and can use union resources (cars, phones) to do so]
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Graeme
How often are these hours declared?
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Indeed. And on both those occasions Labour got more votes than National, yet National “won” the election. Without pronouncing on which winner would have been worse than the other, that is not democracy in action.
And, in 1993 (the last FPP election) the Government got an outright majority with only 35.1% of the vote. 65% voted to turf out the Government and it still got back in. Again, that is not democracy in action.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 8:43 pm
“Free time donated by individuals, whether union members or not, is treated differently.”
Reason I ask Graeme is cause the lefty part of Monday Politics raised it today on Nine-to-Noon.
I think BB has a good point, are they required to declare such?
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I have no idea. How often are they donated?
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Given the huge number of EPMU employees who flooded the Mana electorate in the last few days of the campaign I would love to know if Faafoi declared their time as an election expense.
I wonder if there is any way of finding out if the EPMU staff were paid or not?
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 9:29 pm
“I wonder if there is any way of finding out if the EPMU staff were paid or not?”
Oh bet they weren’t BB. That’s not the point though. They’re contributing, in their employment capacity, to a political outcome.
That’s not allowed, in anyway, under democratic processes.
Oh no.
Vote:November 22nd, 2010 at 9:34 pm
They won’t be an expense (generally only covers advertising). They may be a donation. His returns don’t have to have been filed yet.
Vote:November 23rd, 2010 at 8:42 am
It’s certainly a good question about whether union staff working on parliamentary election campaigns are doing so as part of their job. And I have no idea what the answer is in terms of some of the big unions like EPMU and SWFU. But I know for a fact that in terms of Matt McCarten’s Unite-endorsed campaign in Mana, the union employees were made to take annual leave if they wanted to help campaign.
Vote: