Electoral Systems
June 8th, 2011 at 10:22 am by David FarrarReaders may recall how the weekend before last I was labelled a member of a sinister cabal trying to overthrow MMP – in fact I was its strategic advisor I found out to my great surprise.
This was on the basis that I had had three or four conversations over six months with the campaign organiser, totalling around 30 minutes. It seems answering my phone is now a bad thing to do.
Ironically last year I also had drinks with the Campaign for MMP head, and we chatted about the referendum. Does that make me their strategic advisor also?
What I found interesting from the non-story in the SST was the reaction from certain people. There was no debate about the pros and cons of MMP. There was just attacks that if one was involved in promoting an alternative to MMP, then you were an enemy of the state and an evil bad person. We saw this with some hysteria from Metiria Turei:
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei has criticised the motives of the men behind a soon-to-be-announced anti-MMP campaign. …
Ms Turei told 3 News Mr Shirtcliffe had admitted to her he regretted being too negative in the early nineties, leading her to believe the ‘anti’ campaign may have some more positive surprises up their sleeve this time round.
However, she was adamant that the ‘anti’ campaign was a negative campaign by definition.
“It’s anti-community, it’s anti-representation, it’s anti-women, it’s anti-Maori, it’s anti-ethnic representation,” she said.
Again motives are attacked, ironically from someone who personally benefits massively from the current electoral system.
Supporters of MMP, such as Turei, are often zealots. They are incapable of rationally arguing the pros and cons of different electoral systems. They proclaim that MMP is the only acceptable electoral system for New Zealand, and demonise anyone who might suggest a preference for another system.
The reality is all five electoral systems on offer are acceptable electoral systems. All of them are in use in various countries that are universally recognised as democratic. The moment someone tells you that only one system is acceptable, is the moment when you should stop listening to them.
Now this is very different from saying certain systems are preferable to other systems. This is in fact the exact debate we should have – what are the pros and cons of each system, and which one is preferable. And this is an individual decision, which depends on what criteria you regard as being the most important.
If the criteria that matters the most to you is having the lowest possible score on the Gallagher Index (which measures disproportionality) then MMP is likely to be your preferred system. If what matters most to you is having no List MPs at all, then FPP, PV or STV will be more attractive.
There is no one sole criteria that you must judge an electoral system off. Some of the criteria that people may use include:
- Proportionality
- Size of Electorates
- Ability to sack an unpopular Government
- Diversity of Parliament
- Stopping one party rule
- No need for policy compromises
- Minor party representation in Parliament
- No of Maori Seats
- No pork barrel politics for marginal seats
- No wasted votes
- Ability for a Government to manage fiscally
- Concerns over extremists having power
These are just a few off the top of my head. Others will their own issues also. And different people will place different importance on each issue. What some see as a positive, others may see as a negative.
As I said earlier, I regard all five electoral systems as acceptable, and don’t let anyone tell you they are not. All five systems have pros and cons. And one criticism I do have of those supporting MMP is their inability to sometimes accept the flaws of MMP. It is one thing to say the pros outweigh the cons and it is the best alternative. It is another thing to reject that it has any flaws.
I am not going to be part of any campaign for or against a particular electoral system. What I do hope to do is help engender debate and discussion on the pros and cons of the various systems on this blog.
As people know I also run a polling company. At present it is not contracted to any group involved in the debate, and it accepts clients on a first in first served basis – so if the pro MMP campaign wanted to hire Curia to poll, they could do so, and have an exclusive relationship (once you have a client contracted, you can’t do work for direct competitors). Regardless of whether Curia does any work for a group promoting a particular system, it won’t affect what I blog.
So over the next six months, I will blog a fair amount on the referendum and the options. I have a long-standing interest in electoral law, and as I said I regard all five options as valid electoral systems. I’ve not decided exactly the format I will use, but what I might do is do a blog post on each potential criteria, and evaluate the five systems against that criteria.
Now you might be wondering, yeah sure – but where do you stand on the options. Well the truth is I’ve not decided how I’ll vote at the referendum. With regards to MMP, I’m actually pretty happy with it. I certainly think it is a major improvement over FPP, and if MMP is retained I’ve got no problems with that.
I would not vote to go back to FPP. I’ll explain why in some detail in future posts.
I would not vote to go to PV or Preferential Voting. It has all the defects of MMP, but just has a slightly fairer way of determining the winner in an electorate. However I would support PV being used for the electorate vote in an MMP or SM two vote system.
If there was an option of a 70/50 (electorate/list) Supplementary Member option, I’d regard that as having more pros than cons. Unfortunately the version of SM on offer is 90/30 and I have some significant reservations about SM configured that way. On the plus side it would mean smaller electorates – but I’ll go into details later.
I’m quite attracted to STV also. Under STV you would have multi-member electorates, say with five MPs each. So Wellington City might be one electorate, and you’d probably have two Labour MPs, two National MPs and one Green MP representing it. Another electorate might be North Auckland which might have three National MPs, one Labour MP and one ACT MP. I regard STV as having more pros than cons.
So my thinking at the moment is between MMP, SM and STV.
Related posts:
- SM vs MMP
- Electoral Referendum Bill Report
- Electoral (Administration) Bill submissions
- Afghanistan Electoral System
June 8th, 2011 at 10:33 am
That’s the third time in less than 24 hours I’ve seen Metiria Turei say something absolutely bonkers.
I’m a bit on the fence with MMP, but she’s helping me make up my mind…
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:33 am
That just sounds anti-debate.
A referendum is a part of our democratic system, a good robust sensible unemotional debate is an essential part of that.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Also, I’d run a spellcheck over this one!
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:38 am
Without MMP Turei would be a lesser jerk than she already is.
Of course she has a vested interest in keeping her little/large MP’s pot alive, albeit that she does not earn it.
She could not earn anything like the perks in the real world. Only UN could afford her but that’s not a real job.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Metiria Turei is very much a fringe person who gets a free ride from the media. Note the incredibly respectful treatment she received from John Campbell on his show last night. Contrast that with his incredibly suspicious and frankly over the top questioning of the Maori MPs who dared to appear at a destiny church conference.
Quite frankly I value her opinion on MMP as much as I value the opinion of Keith Locke on foreign affairs. As much as I value the opinion of Sue Bradford on parenting. Note that these are all fringe characters who came into Parliament through MMP. One can only speculate on the likelihood of them being voted on by an electorate under first past the post.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:50 am
I was and remain an STV supporter.
Vote:MMP leaves me cold.
June 8th, 2011 at 10:51 am
I don’t care which electoral system we end up with as long as we have about 50 less MP’s, no Maori seats and no list MP’s. Surely this isn’t too much to ask? Oh yeah and did I mention no Maori seats?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:55 am
In my view MMP or Open/Closed List Proportional Representation (neither are offered in the referendum) are the only truly democratic electoral systems. The others do not have a direct translation of votes into seats on a party basis although they come close with the exception of FPP. Only being able to choose between 2-3 viable candidates personal qualities rather than parties policies is not real democracy in my view. It is difficult to put such a point well which is where MMP people come off looking intolerant. I realise other people do not hold the same views as regards democracy as I do.
I prefer MMP to List PR systems because it provides local MPs which adds to the democratic debate but open list PR does have the advantage of allowing people to get rid of MPs they don’t like anywhere in the country. I personally don’t see advantages to closed list PR although it is proportional and very simple (just one tick party vote).
MMP is not perfect and if given the chance to change it there are two very significant changes I would like to see: Eliminate the threshold so if someone gets enough votes they will get a seat in Parliament or at least reduce it to say 3%. The second thing would be to steal the advantage of STV/PV and allow people to rank their candidate and in the event of the threshold not being lowered their party vote. It is a great shame I feel how many times there is a minor party who splits the vote and makes the MP on the same side of the spectrum lose their seat. If they chose to simply tick one option instead that should simply count as a 1 which avoids most of the votes usually wasted under STV systems.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:57 am
All very balanced of you DPF although you do seem to have gone from cautiously supporting retaining MMP to now wanting a debate of the merits of various systems.
However you do miss out one important piece of information about the ‘sinister cabal trying to overthrow MMP’ what exactly are they trying to replace MMP with?
And who was it that told the SST of your involvement with the group?
[DPF: The SST phoned me asking me if I had heard that an anti-MMP campaign was launching next week. I said I was unaware of that, and detailed what I did and did not know (what I knew was very little) on background. I was extremely surprised that I ended up a major focus of the story. My general rule is to be absolutely open and honest with reporters and share what I know. I am now somewhat regretting that]
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Again motives are attacked…
__________________________________________________________________________
And so they bloody should be, along with their intent ! Can’t see that it’s any different to this current ‘attack’ on Turei.
The only thing that needs changing about MMP, is to stop ACT pulling a train on Epsom’s arse and getting 5 mp’s in by dick riding whoever the fuck National decides to install there.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Yep to Alex M. In my view, the complexities of STV are far outweighed by the representation outcomes.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Not all MMP supporters are left wingers. I support MMP, accept some of its flaws and hope that some can be ameliorated. I’m hopeful that some of the flaws will be removed or reduced when MMP is accepted as the preferred system and we get onto reviewing how it works. I also accept that some things can’t be fixed and they will come under the ‘swings and roundabouts’ of every system.
The biggest complaint from many anti MMP people is the ‘tails wags the dog’ issue and that deals are made after the result is declared, meaning that the electors might end up with something they hadn’t anticipated and didn’t want.
I accept that voters might not always like the end result, however I really like the fact that we know who are making the deals and what position they come from. In FPP days, this stuff was done between party factions, behind closed doors and the voters had no knowledge or exposure to what was going on. Our choices were severely limited to two parties, but we often didn’t know what faction would control things.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Blatent plug:
http://kiwipollguy.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/electoral-reform-introduction/
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the pros and cons of each of the systems.
[DPF: Excellent - will use your list as a topic guide]
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:16 am
In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, those that go on about the complexities of STV, are usually lazy voters. Its not that hard to understand. You just rank as many or as few candidates as you like.
Personally I think that due to STV making you think about your voting, makes it better, and those that can’t be bothered, or complain its too hard, don’t actually deserve the right to vote. If you can’t put an effort into voting, then what does that say about the effort you put into other things?
There is one qualm I have with STV, its easy enough to rank candidates in order at home, and put it in the mail, but I could see it potentially taking longer for everyone to cast their vote at a polling booth.
And the greens complaining about anti MMP forces is just crap. Surely STV would actually gain them more MP’s? Or are they scared that the Green Party will splinter and fragement when people realise the STV means that parties aren’t as nessacary, and a good independent candidate could win a seat in a multi-member electorate.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:19 am
How MMP works here is well known, so retaining it with a few improvements (hopefuly) is the safest option. I think dropping the threshold to about 3% is about right, the threshold has proven to be a bit high in practice here.
If we change systems entirely that will mean learning to use it (public and politicians) and then we will be complaining about it’s deficiencies anyway, because all systems have them.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:32 am
re OTGO “I don’t care which electoral system we end up with as long as we have about 50 less MP’s, no Maori seats and no list MP’s. Surely this isn’t too much to ask? Oh yeah and did I mention no Maori seats?”
I’m with you all the way. MMP’s so-called “fairer” representation is a highly questionable concept, rendered almost completely at the cost of competent government, and certainly at huge, unnecessary cost to us all. As governing parties are held to account by the electorate, it’s an utter nonsense that policies upon which the major party has campaigned have to be emasculated or abandoned to suit inclinations of coalition partners.
List MPs don’t represent electorates – only parties – and, in this day and age, when absolutely outlandish Treaty “settlements” have, for the third time, supposedly finalised our equalisation as “one people,” it is outrageous and an utter disgrace that racially-based seats are still a feature of our parliament.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:39 am
I’m a fan of STV as well, while still being proportionally representative it allows you to down vote candidates as well as up vote your preferred ones.
Ironically the most efficient way to run the referendum would be to use STV voting; instead of asking the voter a two-stage question, simply ask them to rank their preferred system (after an extensive education campaign).
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:40 am
I am very glad that DPF is taking a neutral stand on the referendum, and that he is so keen on an open debate. I think it is a good thing that the systems are debated rationally on their merits (who exactly supports what is not really much of an argument in my view).
My own position is similar to that of larryq. I support MMP from the right.
And yes, there are some things that can be fixed. The main thing would be scrapping the electorate seat let-out clause on the 5% threshold: parties should only get list MPs if they get 5% of the vote plus. Another thing would be a more flexible approach to boundary setting – something that MMP would allow but other systems would not.
The idea of combining PV with MMP has merit, and could be used with both electorate and party votes. That way you can vote for a small party (eg Act) without the risk that your vote will end up wasted.
I’d also like to point out that a great spin-off of MMP’s list MPs is that we get better electorate MPs. How come? Because voters can choose the best person for the electorate job regardless of party. Under FPP, PV or SM you have to vote by party even if the candidate is crap.
MMP is also the one system where every vote counts equally, regardless of where you live. All the other systems put some people in marginal seats where their votes are super-valuable, and others in safe seats where they are of almost no value.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:44 am
First, I hate the list. What ever electoral system is employed the number of list MP’s need to be reduced, or eliminate them altogether – list MP’s are only accountable to the party and not the public and that is counter to democracy IMO.
Second, not sure about this whole multiple MP’s per electorate thing. Say there are three MP’s to be selected for a large electorate and the breakdown of the primary vote between five people is 40% 30% 15% 12% 3% – why should the person rejected by 85% of the electorate become an MP? Assuming again the guy who got 3% in the first vote ended up beating the other two if secondary’s fall their way – how could that be fair when 97% don’t rank that person worthy of a #1 ranking?
TBH, I feel MMP is a crap system because of the list. I’m not fond of going back to FPP but prefer it over MMP. STV looks acceptable, but it needs to be customized to ensure that there is a cut off in multi MP electorates so that the candidates with the less than a certain percentage are ineligible.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Supporters of MMP… are often zealots. They are incapable of rationally arguing the pros and cons of different electoral systems…and demonise anyone who might suggest a preference for another system.
that’s a pretty big -and inaccurate – assumption
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Because voters can choose the best person for the electorate job regardless of party.
That’s how I vote on the electorate as a matter of principle – but how many people do that? And how many will vote for their preferred party anyway?
I guess Epsom indicates there must be quite a few that are prepared to swing their vote strategically if they see that it can give their vote more clout.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Oh yeah and did I mention no Maori seats?
__________________________________________________________________________
Which would you rather have Maori seats or an indepenedent Maori parliament/Government ala Scotland ?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:56 am
If MMP is retained, I’d like to see the following:
1. Number of MPs reduced to 90.
Vote:2. No Maori seats.
3. 50 electorate seats.
4. 40 party list seats.
5. Threshold lowered to 4%.
6. An MP can only choose to be running for the party list or an electorate, not both.
7. Not related, but have the election term extended to 4 years.
June 8th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Which would you rather have Maori seats or an indepenedent Maori parliament/Government ala Scotland ?
Are all Maori going to move to one geographical location ala Scotland as well?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
I disagree – in my opinion “a lot” of voters vote blue or red because either they objectively support that party’s polices, or they are wedded to that party’s aura/dogma (call it what you will). So the system of party votes / list seats merely reflects this modern reality that people vote mainly for party programmes.
TBH I don’t see a lot of value in this day and age in having a local MP who is an outstanding champion for my local electorate’s issues. The country is a village anyway. It is more important that we have the right team controlling the treasury IMO…
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Now, I wonder if party seats consisting of actual physical seats in the house, with paid human bums sitting on them, could not be replaced by a block of party votes that the party leader (an electorate MP) or his appointed delegate (also a list MP) can cast, any time the house votes on party lines…?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
IMHO we have far too many MPs. We have 1 per 30K of population Other countries like the UK jave 1 per 90K. 50 elected MPs is my pick. I also dont like poiltical parties. For me they are the electoral version of the gangs.
I would have independent MPs representing their constitutency. They could get together on issues but not block vote as thye do now.
They would be the peoples not the parties reps. They would make a nice change.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
I disagree – in my opinion “a lot” of voters vote blue or red because either they objectively support that party’s polices, or they are wedded to that party’s aura/dogma (call it what you will). So the system of party votes / list seats merely reflects this modern reality that people vote mainly for party programmes.
I get that, but look at all the party sycophants who have been rejected by their electorate sneaking in through the list as long as they brown nosed the right person they got a higher ranking. I reckon the number of list spots should be reduced, and make it that a candidate can only be either a list or electorate MP, not both.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
“IMHO we have far too many MPs. We have 1 per 30K of population Other countries like the UK jave 1 per 90K. 50 elected MPs is my pick. I also dont like poiltical parties. For me they are the electoral version of the gangs.”
I don’t think MPs per population is all that sound a basis to work from. At the end of the day we need just many Prime Ministers, Ministers of Finance and opposition leaders as the UK do. Heck, the Cook Islands have 24 MPs serving 19,000 people.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Anyway back on topic, I am an MMP supporter, so I will be ticking yes to MMP, but I will be giving my second vote to STV. I think it will offer not only the most proportionality of the other options (SM would maybe challenge that if it was 70/50 rather than a 90/30 split), but it will also allow for strong independents to throw their hat into the ring.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
The rabid MMP supporters who are claiming non or semi proportional systems are undemocratic are full of it.
Vote:By their logic the current system is also undemocratic because of the existence of any threshold at all and the Maori seats which they do not support removing.
June 8th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Having not heard much detail of the options being considered in the referendum this may be a silly question, but is the STV option being voted on definitely the multi-member large constituency type of STV? If so, that would definitely be my 2nd choice behind MMP. If it is just single or two-member constituencies it is really just a slightly improved version of the highly flawed FPP.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
So far I’m with this especially #6:
AlphaKiwi (303) Says:
June 8th, 2011 at 11:56 am
If MMP is retained, I’d like to see the following:
1. Number of MPs reduced to 90.
Vote:2. No Maori seats.
3. 50 electorate seats.
4. 40 party list seats.
5. Threshold lowered to 4%.
6. An MP can only choose to be running for the party list or an electorate, not both.
7. Not related, but have the election term extended to 4 years.
June 8th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
lastmanstanding: They would be the peoples not the parties reps. They would make a nice change.
That sounds familiar. Do you want something to do? What electorate?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Aitkenmike – As far as I can tell the STV system (according to the electoral commision site), proposed for NZ would be approx 30 electorates accross NZ with 3-5 MP’s for each electorate.
Also it isn’t stated, but someone else maybe able to confirm this, but will parties be allowed to run multiple candidates in each electorate if STV is chosen?
But as I’ve said elsewhere, its all a bit horse before the cart for me. It seems like no one has developed proposals of what each system will be in detail. They’ve just been told to do a referendum on MMP, and come up with some options to replace it, incase it gets voted out.
Vote:I would have preferred for fully developed proposals to have been made, and then we been told what each entailed, and then we got to vote on them, and what we voted for was what we got, not a politicians version of it. Becasue we all know that if a change is voted for, all the parties in parliament will want a say on how the new system will actually work.
June 8th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
but it will also allow for strong independents to throw their hat into the ring.
The only thing that’s stopping that now is voter habit. It’s not so much the votong system that’s the problem, it’s how it’s used by voters.
If several electorates (or candidates for them) got their act together and made themselves pivotal by smart voting then we could have this under the current MMP.
Obviously this is something I’m ken on into as I’m promoting something similar, an umbrella party within which independent electorate-centric candidates can operate.
If anyone wants to try an electorate as a virtual independent let me know.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
STV.
In reality though, we’ll likely remain with MMP. If thats the case, then what alphakiwi said.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
“emmess (881) Says:
June 8th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
The rabid MMP supporters who are claiming non or semi proportional systems are undemocratic are full of it.
By their logic the current system is also undemocratic because of the existence of any threshold at all and the Maori seats which they do not support removing.”
1) I think you’ll find the rabid MMP supporters you talk about support a lowering or removal of the threshold, but even with a threshold it’s still more proportional than the other systems
Vote:2) The Maori seats don’t affect proportionality. They have the same population as any other seat. If I’m not mistaken though, I believe that our electorate system gives a disproportionate amount of power to the South Island?
June 8th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Shazza dude, technically you are correct about the south island, but in reality, it just sets the popluation size for a seat, i.e you take the pop of the SI and devide by 7, which is I guess an easy way of setting the electorate size, rather than giving it to a committee, or even worse a minister to do.
But I’m all for getting rid of the rule giving a minimum of 7 seats to the south, as long as at the same time, as was the deal with the original rule, we get rid of Maori seats to.
So i.e it’ll never happen in our lifetime.
But further to the SI thing, I think we’re still a long way away from the point where the SI will have artificially more seats than its strictly entitled too, but someone else will be able to confirm the numbers. I vaguely remember that based on current demographic growth rates, that somewhere around 2050 there would start to become a problem of population size to seats.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
The South Island has a fixed number of electorates – 16. The North Island and Maori electorates are set at the same size as these. Unless this is specifically altered, the number of electorate seats will gradually rise over time, reducing the number of list seats.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
This explains it:
In that case if half of Christchurch headed to the North Island we would reduce the list seats even more, solving the problem of too may on the list. If we ever have another census to prove it.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
STV, with no Maori seats. Anyone with a private sector job gets two votes. Those working for the government, or on a benefit get one vote. Oh, and no Maori seats.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
It will take a long time of northern drift before the number of list seats would diminish significantly. The key aspect of MMP is to provide a sufficient number of list seats to ensure that overall proprtionality of representation can be maintained in the House of Representatives even if the electorate seats do not reflect that proportionality
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Are all Maori going to move to one geographical location ala Scotland as well?
_______________________________________________________________________________
I was thinking more of tribal lands as electorates in a Maori parliament, given that each iwi has sovereignty over their own lands and peoples. Think of it as lots of little Scotlands all over the place.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
David – your observations reminded me of the tone of the ‘anti-smacking’ debate – in which anyone who dared to oppose Sue Bradford’s opnions were labelled as ‘bashers’ by her in the media.
At least one person has pointed out that the MMP has fostered an environment in which those with ‘fringe’ opinions are represented in Parliament, so it is hardly suprising that we are hearing vocal and extreme opinions from those very people who were given a public forum by MMP – in the first place.
In general, I’d suggest that to expect anything other than the demonising of those who oppose MMP from these same ‘fringe’ people is naive at best – it’s akin to being suprised if a Turkey doesn’t agitate in favour of having Christmas early.
It is amazing how our moral codes and sense of outrage appears to be tied to our bank-balance – we are all susceptible to some degree to this – and I suspect this attempt to smear opposition to MMP is (even though they wouldn’t admit it) is one of those situations.
Ps. I’m for STV and have been since the early 80′s.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Lee I preseume you mean trying to protect their jobs.
This doesn’t seem to be out of character for Turei…
Is she always such a vocal proponent of “poor us” demographics?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
I would like to see MMP modified by removing the entitlement to list MPs if a candidate gains an electorate, but reduce the threshold to 3-4%. Gaining 3% = 3 MPs in a 120-seat parliament, which is not unreasonable. (Better than the two single-MP parties currently there.) Unfortunately, I don’t think tweaking MMP to make it an even better system is on the cards!?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
starriosky:
So if we choose MMP in the first referendum it will be reviewd.
If we choose one of the four other systems there may be a second referendum to choose between MMP and the chosen alternative. It doesn’t sound like that includes a review of MMP, so if we want to ensure a reviewed version MMP we need to vote for it first time round.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Replace the party set list, with a list ranked in number of votes received in the election, ie party lists set by the voters, this ensures every MP is answerable to identifiable voters and any of them can be removed by those voters regardless of party favour.
Any MP who forgoes their list spot in a parliamentary term should be required to forfeit standing at the next election, this is to avoid the lists being ignored by parties when retirements and resignations occur.
Keep the 5% threshold, under MMP, minor parties are going to decide governments. I can tolerate a party of some significance deciding who our government and Prime Minister will be, but not a 2 or 3% party.
Require all KFCs to be closed on election day.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Yeah, I like the idea of list seats being ranked according to electorate performance. It would give candidates incentives to campaign hard, and it would give value to someone who say, wanted to vote for the Greens or ACT candidate in their electorate but didn’t want to split or waste their vote. Instead, by voting for that Greens or ACT candidate they’re voting to improve that candidate’s chances of getting a list spot in parliament. That or PV voting in electorate voting would be an improvement.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Anarchy is always goes unmentioned in these debates. Poor anarchy.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Anarchy is always goes unmentioned in these debates. Poor anarchy.
Ben, right after NZ embraces anarchy – I’m going to steal your car.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
I worry that we are trying to make of voting system do too much, and this is forced upon us by only having a single house of parliament elected using the same voting system.
My preference would be to have two houses of parliament, as is the case in most other democracies. This doesn’t necesarily mean having more that 120 MPs.
I would have a lower house elected on a system designed to secure a majority to a single party or group of like-mined parties. This house should have the most say of the budget and proposing laws.
I would have a second house of review, elected under a system that gives more weight to the interests of minorities, be they racial, religious or opinion.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
@georgebolwing
We could sort of get that under the current system, if the parties and politicians would play ball.
Have people stand for either electorates or the list.
Electorate MPs look after their electorates, and work in parliament as back bench MPs.
Get the best of the List MPs to form a cabinet and government, without an electorate to work for they can concentrate on administering the country.
We don’t so much need a change of structure, we need a change of thinking. Remove some of the politics, add people with ability to do the big jobs.
The only way to force that (because it would need to be forced by necessity on parties) is to get enough independent MPs in parliament.
The Independents could be electorate MPs who hold the balance of power enough to get the best listies chosen rather than party mates.
Or you could also have a “party of independents” on a list who were there for their ability to run large organisations efficiently but with a social conscience.
Any system can be abused or misused, but any system can also be used smartly, if enough people have a will to think it through.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Firstly, where is Graeme? lol, he will be into this like a prop in a pub.
This topic is open to endless discussion from anybody who thinks about it for more than two seconds, unlike most of the electorate unfortunately!
I think I will tackle this one by generalising the comments made by various people on here, this way we can hopefully avoid arguments and stay on topic!
I will state here and now that i am a supporter of MMP, it needs modifications and hopefully we will get those after the referendum. my second choice is STV. I also consider myself to be centre-right.
“the MMP list sucks and isn’t democratic, the list MPs do not represent me” – partially true, you know that second tick you make after the local candidate? that determines the number of list seats a party gets, so figure out how to use it! they do represent you, they represent the party afilliations of the wider electorate. Anyhow, the current closed list forces voters to choose for a block of candidates via a party. This could be rectified by having open party lists, where we can choose which candidates get the list seats. The collective will of the people is usually fairly accurate, despite the protestations of individuals (with the exception of Germany circa 1932).
ex: that Peachey chap in National? he’s useless, so i’m going to rank Joyce, Bridges, Bennett, Collins, Lee, Parata etc, above him so that he stands less of a chance of getting in next time.
“we have too many MPs” – No, we dont, we have about the right number at 120. if there were less MPs how easy do you think it would be to get in contact with your member to discuss an issue?? not very, i suspect. How easy would it be to bend the ear of an MP when there are only 50,70, or 100 of them, doing the work that was usually done by 120? incl select committees, debates etc. Our expectations for MPs will never go down, we will always expect them to be able to serve us competently. you cut the number of staff enough, and services to the voters will decline after a tipping point is reached!
“Many MMP supporters are zealots” – yes but so are the FPP, SM, STV, PV supporters; except that only FPP has a notable support base at the moment, and who would want to hang out with a bunch of FPP supporters? they would all be drinking sherry and toasting that handsome PM Muldoon, who “is a real leader”.
“MMP has allowed extreme views into parliament” – Yes, and so what? they don’t have any real power and they should be represented if they have. Hone isn’t finance Minster, Turei isn’t the energy minister. Some have indeed come into power via coalitions, but the public voted them into that position, and you may notice that the responsibilities of office somewhat dampens their ‘radicalism’ i.e. Turia, Sharples, Hide.
whoops, got busy at work and forgot about this post! will post more after i am free!
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Further to my previous post (it’s just speculating on possibilities if you think beyond “this is how it’s done”) – our MMP is arse about face, most of the better MPs (including those with the biggest most important jobs) have electorate responsibilities.
The List MPs who could dedicate their time to running the country include the also rans, second chancers who lost electorate seats, token minorities and party consolation prize winners. I’m sure some of them do great jobs, but I don’t think it’s a sensible setup.
Instead we have farcical setups like Bill English, who has one of the most important jobs in the country, who basically lives in Wellington and has a large electorate at the bottom of the country – how much time can he go “home” let alone tend to his patch properly? I’m not digging at English specifically, just using him as an example of how we just seem to accept ridiculous allocations of MP resources.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Sorry for the extra post but the edit beat me.
Georgebowling: Nah, two houses just complicates the process without much reward. You end up with houses controlled by two different factions and nothing gets done. Just look at the US congress/senate in 94 & 2011, and the Australian senate at the moment where the Green party will hold the balance of power with just a few seats in the Senate from July 1st.
Pete George: that is a nice idea, but you may well end up with all the shitty and inexperienced politicians ending up as electorate candidates. All the talented ones and rising stars would be list MPs in order for them to actually run the country and have more influence. we would get duffers as our local MPs, not cool!
having candidates choose between the list or electorates would be a reasonable comprise i think, it wouldn’t restrict MPs to a life on the back bench if they want to serve their community.
EDIT: Pete George, perhaps having the top 3 or 4 positions as list only MPs would avoid situations like English and Key, who are hardly in their electorates enough.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Sorry! but i forgot this website!
http://www.referendum.org.nz/votingsystems
note the use of the IDEA handbook on electoral system design, that is the mainstay of modern electoral system analysis along with the works of Arend Lijphart
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Minor party representation in Parliament
Having given this a full five minutes thought I can think of no reason for this being either necessary or desirable.
As long as taxpayer funding is legislated (a disgrace but that is not part of this thread) a two party system with a ban on “whipping” except for supply forcing minor, single issue groups to work within the system instead of capturing a small percentage of the vote and holding the majority to ransom is a far better option.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
FPP for me.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Which voting system was designed AFTER widespread use of: The Internet, email, Facebook, twitter, Google, online payments, blogs etc ?!?
The answer is none.
None of the proposed voting systems recognize that the way we engage with others, with issues and with national governance has fundamentally and permanently changed.
The makes ALL of the proposed voting systems nothing other than a lick of paint when a full rebuild is needed.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Ah well typical of the ranting right wingers, get rid of the Maori seats and have an education test in Serbian for non whites in NZ.
Vote:Jesus you ranters are bloody dumb, how to get Maori to pull together, dump the Maori seats this Parliament and chuck the horis out the house.
June 8th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
kk – I don’t think the problem is necessarily with the system, it’s the way the system is used. It just needs some innovative thinking and people to believe it can be proven, now, without changing anything but thinking and application.
I’ve put up proposals to see if the ball will roll, but that’s only half of it, there’s more to come soon. No better time to try it than this election – there needs to be an alternative to National, people won’t vote them too much power so the alternative is the best of an uninspiring lot, or something new.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
MMP needs to be fixed. My 5 cents worth:
Change the list system to only supply extra MPs to balance the proportion of elected MPs along party lines, i.e. (in a 2-party system) the only list MPs will be the extra MPs required to bring the proportion of MPs in line with the proportion of votes received by the 2 parties. If the “winning” party (in FPP terms) actually got a smaller proportion of the vote, the other party will end up with a majority. Whether we round up or down to avoid a fractional MP is left as an exercise for the reader.
This modification achieves several objectives:
- Simple and direct. Voters only have to cast 1 vote, for the party/candidate of their choice. No more strategic vote splitting.
- Few (possibly zero!) list MPs. If you want the job, convince an electorate to vote for you.
- The demise of irrelevant minority parties. It might seem like a good idea to have parties with a low (5+%) support base in parliament, but experience has shown that giving them the balance of power is not a good idea. Of course, if they can muster support to get a representative elected, they are welcome to join the government or opposition.
Bad points:
- A vote for a minority party candidate that does not get elected is wasted. This may encourage people to vote for a large party instead, raising the threshold for a minority party to get to parliament. It is possible to work around this problem, at the expense of some complexity.
Bad or good depending on your point of view:
- No reserved Maori seats, but candidates in areas with a high Maori population will have to convince the electorate to elect them. Government by the people, for the people?
And I think a 4 year term would be better than the current 3 years.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
I don’t think local electorates are a particularly relevant vehicle of representation any more. When the parliamentary system first evolved in Britain, it was no doubt highly relevant as most people were rural and their lives were highly dependent on their local area. It would have made sense to have had tin miners from one area and potato growers from another each with a local representative. But now that we are in a highly urban society this makes little sense. Why should a suburban Aucklander share their representation with everyone who happens to live within a 5-10km radius of them?
This, along with issues of proportionality, is why I support MMP over other systems
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Grumpyoldhori you never let the facts get in the way of your rants do you. Did you not read how many Maori MPs there are in the house who got in without the need for Maori seats??? If the threshold for MMP was lowered to 2% then the Maori Party would still get MPs in the house too. There is no need for race based seats. Any policies based on race eventually lead to problems – just take a look at SriLanka and the civil war they had there. All because of race based policies!
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:05 am
“Grumpyoldhori you never let the facts get in the way of your rants do you. Did you not read how many Maori MPs there are in the house who got in without the need for Maori seats??? If the threshold for MMP was lowered to 2% then the Maori Party would still get MPs in the house too. There is no need for race based seats. Any policies based on race eventually lead to problems – just take a look at SriLanka and the civil war they had there. All because of race based policies!”
That’s a very poor use of an example to argue against ethnic seats. I could do the same to argue in favour of them, i.e. Singapore is a peaceful country with a strong economy, and has ethnic-based seats in parliament. Therefore, ethnic-based seats are good.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:18 am
That is a rather closeted view of New Zealand. Physical areas still matter. After all physical infrastructure is one of the few areas that the government should be involved in.
Crime in Otara may be very different from crime in Epsom. Roading issues are not the same for Dunedin and Auckland. Wellington hospital may perform very differently than Christhurch’s.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:32 am
Okay, suppose an electorate is sending 3 MPs to parliament, and you have 10-15 candidates standing. Now imagine that 100% of the voters in that electorate think, “Well, we’re electing three MPs; I think the best three people would be Anne, Bob, and Charlotte, so I’ll put them at the top. I like Anne the most, so I’ll rank her #1″. Under this situation, 100% of the voters want Bob and Charlotte representing them in parliament, but each will get 0% of first-preference votes. It’s completely inaccurate to say that Bob and Charlotte have then been “rejected” by the electorate, when the reality is that they have been “selected” by the electorate.
I’m not sure if this is mathematically accurate (anybody proficient in the maths of electoral systems feel free to school me), but I believe you can simulate STV by the following:
1. Have an election for the first MP in the electorate.
2. Rank each candidate by number of votes received.
3. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, eliminate the candidate who receives the fewest votes.
4. Hold a run-off election between all remaining candidates.
5. Repeat steps (3)-(4) until one candidate receives more than 50% of all votes.
6. Declare that candidate elected.
7. Add all remaining candidates back into the pool, and repeat steps (1)-(6) for each remaining seat in that electorate (e.g. if the electorate has 3 seats, repeat the process twice more).
Now assuming (as I said, I may be wrong about that) that that’s an accurate representation of how STV works, only expanded out to multiple stages instead of being done all at once, then which specific stage would you object to?
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 7:33 am
Simonway. That’s not quite how STV works, but the basic principle you espousing is sound.
The difference is that under STV everyone gets 1 vote, and this vote can be split. In the end, with the ranking and the counting, one-third of each person’s vote would end up going to each candidate in your example (so it’s not half of the votes, but just over a quarter of the votes that are needed to get a 3 seat seat).
The major difference STV has is that when people have have someone elected with a higher preference, they’ve only got a bit of their vote left (because enough of it stays with the winner to ensure they remain elected). This but of a vote is added to others’ whole votes to work out the lower candidates. This is how proportionality is maintained, otherwise small majorities could choose all the candidates.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 7:34 am
Criteria = plural.
Vote:Criterion = singular.
It jars and detracts from the message.
June 9th, 2011 at 7:37 am
p.s. There is a video on the referendum website about STV:
And a graphic on the STV website:
http://www.stv.govt.nz/stv/how.htm
which explain this bit of the counting system
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 8:32 am
@sonny Blount
Yeah I agree obviously location still matters. I don’t see any reason for it to be the primary vehicle of representation though. Most elections are fought on national issues. There are a number of ways to slice and dice a community: the party policies you align most closely with are far more relevant than geography, even if they are correlated.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 8:35 am
MMP as it is now could work much better if it was used much smarter. Parties aren’t likely to change unless they have to, so the change needs to be pushed up from the bottom. I suggest a 4 tier system:
1. The people
2. Electorate MPs whose priority is to represent their electorate and link to the List.
3. List MPs who are the party leadersip and admin roles
4. Government/cabinet (executive) which should be the best of the list MPs
I guess the GG should be at 5.
It won’t and shouldn’t happen overnight but it can be started. The key is quality of people, not party ideology.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 10:21 am
“3. List MPs who are the party leadersip and admin roles”
I see the idea behind this, i.e. electorate MPS concentrate on local issues and the list MPs concentrate on national issues, but the big stumbling block to this is that holding an electorate, particularly a safe one offers an MP some security. If someone abandons an electorate to take on a higher position they lose that security, and it then becomes a gamble. It seems somewhat unfair to me that the most talented MPs would be forced to take that gamble, while someone who has little more than local profile is secure.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Electorates are a sham if they are just used as a safe seat for leaders and senior ministers. MPs in high positions should have the guts to stand on their record, not trash the value of our electorate votes.
The most talented MPs should be at the top of the party lists and should have a very good chance of being elected back in anyway. No reason why they shouldn’t have to earn votes. An no reason why parties shouldn’t have to earn votes by having competence as a priority for those on the party list.
Currently both the electorates and the list are shams. We deserve far better than that.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
“The most talented MPs should be at the top of the party lists and should have a very good chance of being elected back in anyway. No reason why they shouldn’t have to earn votes. An no reason why parties shouldn’t have to earn votes by having competence as a priority for those on the party list.
Currently both the electorates and the list are shams. We deserve far better than that.”
Only we then come back to the point of who chooses the list. If a minister of finance or a prime minister are well liked by the public but not by their caucus, they’re done by the next election regardless of what the people want, as without an electorate they are entirely at the mercy of the caucus.
Heck, look at Australia, Rudd was one of Australia’s most popular prime ministers of all time just months before he was couped, and is still more popular than his party leader, yet under your system he would probably be out of parliament right now.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
How about a publicly selected list?
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
You’ve got to keep it very, very simple.
Just rank the list according to electorate votes received, assuming roughly equal electorate sizes.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Governments are an amalgamation of interests.
Local issues may affect a voter and his interests more than national ones.
I may be a low tax or a high tax guy but my interests may be affected more by the roading infrastructure in my town than by my personal tax rate.
And regardless of my overall political beliefs, how do I remove or promote the person or people responsible for decisions that affect my community. I don’t want to wait behind 3 Aucklanders for the ear of my MP.
I also view local electorates as distributed accountability by the voters of their MPs. It is the role of the people in Nelson to vet Nick Smiths performance and decide whether or not to return him to parliament, regardless of National’s performance in areas not connected with Smiths responsibilities. Where I live, I am given Peter Dunne to hold to account, and he’s going.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Where I live, I am given Peter Dunne to hold to account, and he’s going.
Then he’ll have time to find out how easy it is to eradicate possums by trapping! He could also start a downstream business, perhaps manufacturing hair pieces from possum fur.
A pity he doesn’t live in Fiordland, there’s heaps of possums there that have a good range of colours, and running trap lines up and down the wee hills there will be a good way to keep fit.
Vote:June 14th, 2011 at 3:50 am
DPR Voting combines plurality for the candidate (simple voting and counting)
and PR for the party (also simple voting and counting) – because the electoral system should not give any party more voting power than the electorate is prepared to give.
Similar to MMP, it makes a clear distinction between the Party vote and the Representative or Constituency vote, but all MPs are single member constituency MPs.
Vote: