The Vote for Change
June 28th, 2011 at 6:16 am by David FarrarNZPA report:
A campaign against MMP was launched today, aiming to persuade voters to opt for change in the referendum that is going to be held at the same time as the November 26 general election.
The referendum will ask voters whether they want to change to another electoral system, and to tick a preferred alternative from a list of options including the old first-past-the-post system.
If a majority want a change, a second referendum will be held alongside the 2014 general election which will run off MMP against the alternative that gets the most ticks.
“Vote for Change wants a system that restores more certainty, that allows voters to easily hold governments to account and kick rascals out of Parliament”, said the organisation’s spokesman Jordan Williams, a Wellington lawyer.
“The current system lets party bosses sneak MPs who have been dismissed by their local electorates back into Parliament on party lists.”
Mr Williams said many people had high hopes that MMP would create a new era of consensus politics but instead “small groups and party bosses can now hold the rest to ransom”.
The Vote for Change website has a list of initial supporters. They include former Labour Party President Bob Harvey.
Tags: MMP
June 28th, 2011 at 6:23 am
Unfortunately credibility for a great idea flies out the door with the appearance of the name Bob Harvey, well known westy looney
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 6:29 am
A socialist supporting an electoral system that benefits socialists. What a shocker.
More surprising is that you, DPF, support this.
Do you disagree with prominent political commentator Matt Hootn that MMP has an inbuilt favouritism to the left?
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 6:45 am
They claim to be ‘a grassroots organization’ yet have the usual bunch of old rich men running things. And if they want change then change to what?
All very soft sell.
Sure MMP is not perfect but let’s fix it not throw it away.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 6:54 am
“Vote for Change wants a system that restores more certainty, that allows voters to easily hold governments to account and kick rascals out of Parliament”
Vote:That has to be the most ridiculous piece of meaningless tripe I have read in a long while.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:05 am
An attempt to get rid of the MMP lemon: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5199191/Group-launches-anti-MMP-campaign
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:08 am
What are the chances this savage animal is a bludger, either unemployed or a sickness beneficiary?
Vote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/national/5195191/Man-charged-after-baby-hurt-during-fight
June 28th, 2011 at 7:09 am
MMP needs to go.
List MPs are not accountable to the electorate, only to the political party that placed them on the list. This appalling situation is incompatible with a representative democracy.
Bill.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:23 am
There needs to be a ‘fix the list’ campaign, not just a FPP v STV v MMP campaign.
Rank the lists by electorate votes received for that candidate, no party involvement.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:24 am
Thats because the KFC voting system is used to determine party vote.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:28 am
Why the surprise? DPF is a member of the National Party, a recognised left-leaning organisation.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:30 am
We don’t need to vote for a change, we can change what we have by using it smarter and not giving the parties a free pass to use it to suit themselves.
Any different voting system will have it’s strengths and weaknesses. The biggest weakness of all the systems is how we the voters use them.
It’s quite simple to make our votes count for more if we use them wisely. Epsom has done it. The Maori electorates do it. Dunedin North will choose to become politically relevant this year.
We don’t need to wait in caase the system may eventually be changed, we can make a difference now, by changing our thinking and by changing our habits.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:47 am
I wonder whether this campaign will get much traction, seeing that they are just running as ‘anti-MMP’ rather than proposing a specific alternative. On that thesis, MMP would have to be the worst possible electoral system. It looks as though they prefer the supplementary member system, but are a bit too timid to come out and say so just yet.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Perhaps Bob Harvey believes that MMP had something to do with Norman Kirk’s death (like the CIA)
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 8:10 am
@ Pete George 7:30….Unfortunately that is not the choice before us. In this referendum the choice is MMP (As it stands now, without all the wishful thinking of your comments) or Vote for Change.
Voting for Change ensures a debate can be had and perhaps then we can debate some changes to MMP. If we don’t vote for change then we don’t get that chance.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 8:16 am
I notice that the campaign doesn’t seem to be directly advocating one of the alternatives.
My question for them is:
“I live in an electorate where the local MP is from a party I don’t support but has a majority of 10,000 , how will you ensure my vote count? ”
Which is true BTW. At least with MMP my party vote actually affects the makeup of parliament whereas my electorate vote is meaningless. On the other hand if I lived across the street (really!) my electorate vote would be very important.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 8:18 am
MMP is a crock.
There was more certainty in government under FPP. MMP allows the vocal minorities to have way and above more clout than they should.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 8:30 am
I would be less hostile to MMP if it wasn’t infected with self-serving personality cults like NZ First.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 8:34 am
Stripped of bullshit the teams for & against change line up something like this:
Side 1. The parliamentarians whose desire for power over us exceeds all other considerations. Faced with any obstacle to their “right” to dictate our lives will filibuster, legislate, stall & fudge. Oppose change & regard elections as a distraction to their agenda.
Side 2. The electorate. Cling to the strange idea that democracy means that they have a say in running the country. From time to time realise that once again parliament has gone back to ignoring them & seek to load the dice in their favour. Understand that venal MP’s have adapted to MMP & seek to reimpose control over government by changing to another system.
Let battle commence.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 8:37 am
I would be pretty much happy with MMP if the race based seats were scraped. One man parties like WinstonFirst are a distraction and I suppose the 5% could be tinkered with to do something about that.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 8:43 am
MMP would be okay if it was proportional.
Maori party seats vs party vote, Epsom “tactical voting”, NZ First in 2008 are clear examples that it’s not.
/This is not an endorsement of FPP.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 8:57 am
I look forward to the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the loons, hippies and peters cultists when mmp is kicked to the kerb. Government belongs with the winners of an election, the losers can piss off
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Simon Lyall: “I live in an electorate where the local MP is from a party I don’t support but has a majority of 10,000 , how will you ensure my vote count? ”
Your vote (probably) never counts
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 9:19 am
A measure of a society’s civilisation is how it treats it minorities. I thus have no problem with an electoral system that at least ensures that all groups in society have a proportional say in the laws of the land.
FPP clearly fails this test, at both the local level (a member of a political minority has little chance of having much impact on the outcome in their electorate) and nationally (seats will go to the two largest parties, with the odd local aberration).
As I have commented recently, I find it odd, and increasingly disturbing, that there is a view that only an MP directly elected by voters can have any role in government in New Zealand. The idea that Don Brash (who was always a list MP) or Russel Norman are ineligible for political office because their supporters don’t live in a confined geographical location is just wrong. Don’t get me wrong; I disagree with almost everything the Greens say, but they have a right to say them and the five to ten per cent of the population who want Green MPs in parliament have the right to elect Green MPs. If this is the only argument that “Vote for Change” can come up with, then they deserve to get a monumental kicking at the referendum (after, of course, exercising their right to express their ridiculous views).
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Whale says: “Voting for Change ensures a debate can be had and perhaps then we can debate some changes to MMP. If we don’t vote for change then we don’t get that chance.”
Exactly.
We can gnash our teeth / complain about the inequalities of the MMP system / complain about the fact that former MPs can be dumped by the electorate and yet find their way back via the Party List / complain about the tail wagging the dog etc, but if we want to even tweak MMP, we need to vote for change so the issues can be debated.
If we vote for status quo, Parliament will decide if there are to be any changes at all.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 9:30 am
I’m not sure that voting for change at the referendum is the best way of securing reform of MMP.
The referendum is non-binding, and will ask two questions. The first question will ask voters if they wish to keep the existing MMP voting system, or change to a different voting system. The second question will ask what alternative voting system the voter would prefer: first past the post, preferential voting, single transferable vote, or supplementary member.
A votefor change wouldsimply set up a contest between MMP and an alternative
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Same if we vote for change. We could go for Supplementary Member, and it will be parliament that decides whether it should allow back door MPs on the list, whether there should be a 5% threshold, whether we should be able to rank the list etc.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:05 am
“Voting for Change”. Jesus what a shitty campaign title. Is that really the best they could do? Obama called, he want’s his platitude back.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:08 am
@Graeme Edgeler –
Based on your suggestion, we should just roll over and allow the Politicians to decide anyway. IMO, if the electorate said (via a referendum) that we are not happy with the current system and we want to debate it, then the politicians would either listen to the majority or would get chucked out at the next opportunity.
And I believe we need to review what we have, because I don’t want any further instances such as Peters pulling red and blue cellphones from his briefcase pretending to play one party against the other. I don’t want any further scenarios where a party that has been rejected by 95% of the electorate, holds the country to ransom because a part of their manifesto is deemed to be ‘non negotiable’ and they will put their 5% with the party that will support their list of ‘non negotiable policies.’
Flea / Tail / Dog etc. But this ’5%’ can determine who forms a Government – despite the fact that 95% of the electorate didn’t support their policies.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:14 am
I’d rather STV with binding referendums and right of recall, That will put the shits up the lot of them.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:24 am
What a stinking load of horseshit. At the end of the day it’s the tit suckers in parliament that get to say whether we dump MMP despite the referendum . Turkeys and voting for early Christmases would be in the back of their minds..
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:28 am
I suspect that we are asking the refrumdum on the voting system to do too much.
“All” the voting system does is select MPs. Once they become MPs, they take on, individually and collectively, certain powers. What those powers are and how they are exercised is often the real point at issue.
For example, if we had a binding bill of rights, then no minority party could insist on legislation that was repugnant to those rights. Sure, having a binding bill of rights would give power to the courts. But the question then becomes: who is better to exercise the powers of the state and on what terms. At present, the extreme form of parliamentary sovereignty in place in New Zealand says that we should give completely unchecked power to a unitary unicameral parliament, elected for a short term.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:34 am
george
Our Parliament does have, theoretically, unchecked power. There is not much evidence of that power being abused. There are a number of mechanisms in our constitution that provide some balance. The courts do have an important role in applying the law, and Parliament has been reluctant to jump to legislate against contitutionally significant rulings. The 3-year cycle is probably the main check, as it keeps politicians in permanent campaign mode.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:41 am
I’m with PUT IT AWAY::::::: Your party either wins or it loses. If it loses you hope things will change in three years. Strong government and strict adherence to the Party manifesto presented before the election is the KEY……There will always be more socialist oriented minor parties than capitalist ones because they offer free things at the expense of the evil rich.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:47 am
No. I’m just saying this is a really stupid argument.
I would however note that there will be a review of MMP by the Electoral Commission before Parliament gets their hands on any legislation to make changes, but this won’t be the case with SM or STV or whatever. The first draft of the alternative will be as cabinet decides without prior public input.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:49 am
Whaleoil, Elaycee,
Vote:‘There are two referendum questions:
1) Should we keep MMP, and
2) What should the alternative be?
Ergo, the debate about the alternative to MMP has to be held now, and quickly. You cannot vote for change and THEN debate alternatives. The decision will have been made already. This is why it is weird to not be promoting one of the alternatives now.
The referendum law means that if the vote is to keep MMP then the independent Electoral Commission holds a public enquiry into what changes should be made to MMP. (The politicians might ignore it, but that is always true). If the vote is for change, then that enquiry does not happen (or not for another three years), because it will wait for a second referendum to be held in 2014.
The critical question now is: are any of the four choices (FPP, SM, PV and STV) better than MMP?
In my view the answer is no.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:49 am
I’d be somewhat happier with MMP if the following changes were made:
1. Ditch the Maori seats as I don’t think that they are required under MMP.
2. List MP’s must be drawn from electorate candidates only (those who didn’t win their seat) and the order of the list is determined by the percentage of votes the person received in the election. (Sonny Blount made the same comment above and it is something I have posted about on another forum)
Unfortunately, I really can’t see either of these two changes happening and I’m pretty cynical about the referendum in general.
If MMP was ditched in favour of another system, I’d probably support STV, although I could forsee some logistical issues with STV at the ballot box. STV seems to favour postal ballots.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:49 am
Where is the evidence that a vote to keep MMP implies MMP remains unchanged. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that voting to keep MMP would result in it being reviewed, with the potential that changes can be made.
The other voting systems all appear to have obvious flaws (are either not as proportional as MMP or suffer similar issues of party meddling through lists as MMP does) in their current incarnations.
As per usual “a vote for change” seems to imply “we won’t tell you what the change is, as we don’t have any arguments in that regard”.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:52 am
The referendum process is flawed. There does not seem to be much appetite for a change from MMP. Rather, there is desire for change to MMP. If the electoral commision review had been done first, perhaps an amended MMP system could have been presented as an option.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Then you really don’t want a different system. FPP/STV/PV will have at least 12 and probably 13 or more Maori seats. SM will probably have 10.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:58 am
If we got rid of list MP’s i could stomach MMP but then what would be the point of it without list MP’s?
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:59 am
If MMP is the bee knees, how come only three countries use it?…ok two plus Wales.
More countries use STV about half a dozen, SM is used by 20 countries.
Are the other side suggesting that these countries aren’t democratic?
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 10:59 am
I don’t understand why Maori seats are necessary in any proportional system.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Whaleoil points out what we all need to remember:
Anyone who’s not happy with the way MMP has allowed our MPs and the faceless men and women of the party backrooms to behave needs to support Vote for a Change, or we’re stuck with smug, indolent, answerable-to-no-one troughers for ever… their arrogance multiplied by being able to claim they have a “mandate” for the system that put them there.
Vote for a Change, then we can argue whether a rejigged MMP, STV, FPP or something unique to NZ is the better alternative. Don’t Vote for a Change and we deny ourselves that debate and entrench everything that’s wrong with politics.
Keep on keeping their eye on the ball, Whale.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 11:11 am
@Rex: Nice way to misrepresent the referendum.
The referendum does NOT allow you to “vote for a change and then argue which alternative is better”. Rather, the referendum requires you to choose which alternative you want NOW.
Thus, we’re unfortunately voting between a flawed MMP system and 4 other flawed voting systems. At least if MMP is kept then we get an independent review of it!
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Lefty Liberal.
What in your opinion would be a perfect voting system if the four being suggested are flawed? Why should we vote for the status quo when we seem to agree that it is flawed?
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Rex and Whale mislead. Leftyliberal is right.
The Hon Simon Power has said aspects of MMP will be reviewed irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.
It isn’t possible for a vote for the “vote for change campaign” to result in a mandate for any particular change to MMP because none is outlined by the VFCC.
We can sort of guess they don’t like electorate candidates who lose in electorate races coming back to Parliament via the Party list. But then the same faces often turned up under first past the post to. All political parties tend to recycle “talent” irrespective of electoral systems.
Given that Jordan Williams is involved as is National’s Karl Rove (Simon Lusk) it isn’t surprising they don’t mention the one seat exception to the 5% rule for MMP currently.
The problem for VFCC is they don’t actually say what electoral system they prefer. Instead they propose to run competitions in order for us to tell them what they should support.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Two plus Scotland and Wales and London.
Some of them aren’t particularly democratic, but this doesn’t have a great deal to do with their choice of voting system.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 11:35 am
@Banana Llama: Given that MMP will be reviewed (by law) if we vote to leave things status quo (ofcourse, as stated above, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the review will result in any changes), I believe that is the best option available for question 1 of the referendum.
As for the perfect voting system, that’s a mathematical impossibility as there are competing goals that cannot be reconciled.
Personally I think MMP isn’t too bad, and a few changes (such as ordering of lists wrt electoral votes, lowering of the 5% threshold etc.) would improve things quite a bit.
In addition, STV and SM are also not too bad – the balance in SM needs to be more similar to the current MMP to improve it’s proportionality (eg 70/50), and I don’t see any point whatsoever in above the line STV voting as it gives parties a system to game. Below the line voting only would be preferable IMO, albeit being perhaps less obvious to the voter?
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 11:35 am
STV, no party lists, and no racist seats. It’s as close as we’ll ever get to the ideal system.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 11:39 am
Let’s follow Rex’s idea & get the horse & cart in the right order. Number one is to get rid of MMP & the first step down this path is to vote for change in this years referendum.
Then & only then, in 2014 we could get a chance to pick something to replace it.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Chris Diack is still bitter he and the others in the bunker got dealt to.
He points out that Simon Lusk and Jordan care campaigning to get rid of MMP by pointing out that they shouldn’t because they helped roll Brash??? WTF?
Instead of poncing into ACT HQ and suggesting to all that Rodney and John Boscawen quit and take down the government as a possible solution to the coup how about working in a constructive manner huh? I certainly don’t consider drafting rather lengthy board resolutions with Chris Simmons to be helpful.
Surely a referendum is about letting people have a say rather than promoting any single idea. The referendum is set up so that voters can suggest a preference, the Vote for Change campaign is simply endorsing this approach without any preconceived ideas.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Whaleoil at 8:10 am
I agree with putting MMP through that process, but that’s going to take time. In the meantime we should wise up and use our MMP votes much more smartly.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
While it might be instructive to look at the experience of other countries, I am not sure that voting systems needs be a polularity contest: we should pick the most common, we should pick the one that is best for new zealand today.
Also, you need to look at voting systems in context: the US uses FPP for all elections at the federal level, but in different ways: Congressional districts for the House, state-wide for the Senate and the electoral college for the President. In Australia, at the federal level, they use prefential voting for single-member electorates in the House and a varient of STV for state-wide, multi-member elections in the Senate. The states use a variety of methods.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Tell us Whale in the stated spirit of transparency (see VFCC website) are you in the pay of the VFCC?
Mr Jordan and Mr Lusk free to campaign (in a Rovian manner or otherwise) or or against anything they want. The contest of ideas make civic society stronger.
All I noted is that the media statement mentions the “retread” issue with MMP and not the one seat exception to the 5% rule.
The one seat exception is the most often stated objection to MMP – curious it isn’t in the presser.
As for the rest Whale engages in personal attack (against the spirit of the VFCC – see the website) and lives in an alturnative universe – he speaks about stuff he knows absolutely nothing about.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
It’s a shame that Jordan Williams misrepresented MMP on National Radio this morning. His statements inferred that MMP brought us the situation that enabled Winston to play off National and Labour in the first MMP election. What he seemed to forget was that the UK faced a similar situation last year – and that was under FPP.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Ah yes, the old sneaky “secret unpublished party list” trick. Bastards!
So they want to fight the “rascals” with empty rhetoric, slogans and BS. Fancy that!
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
There’s a problem with that – do they mean they want more certainty that they can get voted in and then do what they like for three years before the government can be held to account?
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Vote for Change are certainly in a muddle. The only thing they seem to be able to say is ‘we don’t like MMP’, and the only thing that they say is wrong with MMP is it allows unsuccessful electorate candidates into Parliament through the ‘back door’ of the party list. So what? There are plenty of things that could be debated about MMP, but the referendum process has been set up to avoid that altogether.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
It’s a considerable advance on “This campaign is evil, it’s run by Whaleoil’s mates!”
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
@somewhatthoughtful (253) Says:
June 28th, 2011 at 10:05 am
“Voting for Change”. Jesus what a shitty campaign title. Is that really the best they could do? Obama called, he want’s his platitude back.
How about “Bummp off MMP” or “FFS vote FPP”
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
“FFS vote FPP” gets my vote.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
‘Bump off MMP’ is already taken – it’s a summary of Vote for Change’s policy
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
An unscientific Herald poll:
Which electoral system do you think is better?
MMP – Mixed Member Proportional
720 votes, 19.5%
An improved version of MMP
977 votes, 26.4%
FPP – First Past the Post
1351 votes, 36.6%
Supplementary Member
106 votes, 2.9%
STV – Single Transferable Vote
540 votes, 14.6%
Total 3694 votes
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
The one-seat backdoor rule will the the first thing to go if/when MMP survives. It is generally regarded in electoral comm. circles as a failure that was only included to placate some factions. getting rid of this will restore some balance to MMP as you will only get as many seats as you deserve, above the 5% rule.
on the 5% rule:
- raising it will satisfy the anti-MMP side by eliminating some smaller parties and raising the bar for entry, possibly increases quality of smaller parties? but makes parliament less democratic.
- lowering it would make parliament more democratic, but allow minor parties a share of the seats which is more accurate in terms of the number of votes they get (one or two seats). Some may not like this as they see smaller parties as a bit nutty.
On the referendum:
Whale and Rex, stop misleading people! If MMP wins in the first round then it will trigger an independent review of MMP by the electoral commission. it will then go before parliament and be submitted to the full public review/consultation process, at which point we can all tell those pollies what we want them to do and how we would like MMP to work.
Voting for change at the first round will lead to a two way run-off, which MMP would probably win as the details of it’s opponent wouldn’t have been worked out properly through the public.
It comes down to this, we can fix our current system now and get a better system sooner. OR we can change it to a new system that we don’t know how to use very well and isn’t perfected, all while having to suffer under the current MMP system for at least two more elections (taking us to the end of the decade), and then having the distinct possibility that we will go through all this again in November 2020, when we discover that we don’t like what we choose back in 2011/2014.
Though I may be totally wrong, I only have a degree in this kind of thing
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
It comes down to this, we can fix our current system now and get a better system sooner.
That makes sense to me. We have a good idea what is needed to improve it.
The alternative is to get a different system in a few years time, and a few years later we’ll realise that the parties are manipulating it to suit themselves again but it will take quite a few more years to get anything done about it.
Those wanting to limit small parties are trying to maximise their power rather than maximise broad democracy. I think most people would rather have a more responsive represntative democracy, not a “give me power for three years” version.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
@mikenmild (659) Says:
June 28th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
‘Bump off MMP’ is already taken – it’s a summary of Vote for Change’s policy
Fair enough, although they spelt it wrong….. how about ‘MMP is for chuMMPs, giMMPs and chiMMPs’
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
“how about ‘MMP is for chuMMPs, giMMPs and chiMMPs’”
Ha ha – very good.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
I acknowledge people feel powerless about the ranking of the party lists, but ranking the lists by order of best losing electorate margin just seems ridiculous to me. If for example a brilliant green candidate resided in my electorate (Taranaki-King Country) and got 2% of the vote in this predominantly right wing/farming electorate, does this make that candidate worse than an appalling green candidate from the urban liberal Central Wellington seat who got 4%?
All this would encourage is even more carpet-bagging by parties trying to arrange safer seats for their wanted MP’s.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
@aitekenmike For the record, I met the last Green candidate for the T/KC – she was a receptionist at a place I used to work at. Cute but thick as two short planks.
Good enough reason to get rid of MMP I reckon
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
hmmorightitis: that’s more of a comment on the selection policies for the Green party than on MMP, if anything it shows that MMP allows an ordinary person to stand and be judged in the court of the electorate! when you are a small party you may well struggle to find people willing to stand in a seat like T-KC.
But we could solve this dilemma over party lists aitkenmike! just introduce open/ranked lists into MMP, it would be complicated but is theoretically possible. the systems are not mutually exclusive, luckily (or perhaps unluckily).
FPP = Fuckwits Preferred Polling. possible slogans include “a vote for FPP is a vote for ‘strong leadership” “FPP, the CCP endorsed democracy” “FPP, gives you less voting power” “single party control over your life”
I couldn’t think of any good facets of FPP
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
hmmokrightitis- A cute Green Candidate? Surely you had consumed a dozen too many ‘organic’ beers??
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
If they had an alternative that gets rid of electorate seats and brings in a full proportionate system than I might vote for a change to mmp.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
There’s a great quote from Henry Ford which goes something like this: If I’d asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses.
And that’s what we’re doing debating the merits of existing systems, rather than asking if the best system even exists today. Our outdated geographic representation system is based on the ideas that (a) people needed a physically accessible MP to take their views to parliament and (b) the mechanical function of voting and vote counting needed to be geographically distributed.
Given that MP’s seldom listen to constituents much less act on what they hear (ref a), and that we’re living in the 21 century of ubiquitous internet, not the 19th century of paper and seals (ref b), I’d suggest the discussion around which current voting system is the best is valueless.
My solution is to discontinue geographic representation and give voters several votes so they can apply them to people who they choose for whatever reason. Some will like local representation, other will prefer alignment on values, or issues, or whatever. If NZers can trawl 1000’s of TradeMe listings, watchlist items of interest and ultimately make purchasing decisions, then there’s zero reason we can’t apply the same technology and methodology to learning about those who propose to serve us and we can then making voting decisions accordingly.
Oh, and let’s have 30 MP’s, limit whipping and have parliamentary votes made public.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
krazy
It would be nice to think that that’s where we are headed. Imagine a market-based democracy where being involved directly is rewarded by influence. It is technically feasible to operate a voting system over the interent to allow public participation on any issue.
It won’t happen though, because the main interest of politicians is to preserve the source of their power.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
@Diack….who said I am part of the VFCC…only you. I don’t subscribe to any rules on any website. i subscribe to my own.
So are you denying walking in ACT HQ with a cunning plan to scupper Don Brash’s coup by having Rodney and Bosco resign?
Funny if you do, I’ve had so many tell me otherwise.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Krazy, can we leave their private lives out of it, for once?
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
‘Whips’, the ‘Chamber’, ‘Black Rod’ – all sounds a bit kinky really.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
I hear it is indeed just that.
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
hmmokrightitis – cool story, except the green candidate was Rob Hamill
Vote:June 28th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
“Don the Kiwi (June 28th, 2011 at 8:18 am) – “There was more certainty in government under FP”
Yeah. Nah, that’s bollocks.
In 1978 and 1981, Labour won more votes than National did. But because of the weird way that FPP operates, National ended up getting back into power. Ok, this probably suits some of you people – but I’m guessing there’d be a lot of gnashing of teeth and mouth-frothing if it was the other way around.
Some details here:
1978: http://tinyurl.com/yl2jdam
1981: http://tinyurl.com/3rw6ny5
As for ““Vote for Change wants a system that restores more certainty, that allows voters to easily hold governments to account and kick rascals out of Parliament””
Who the f**k are the “rascals”? If you’re a leftie, it’s Don Brash. If you’re a rightie, it’s [insert name here]. That’s meaningless drivel. In effect, it’s catering to the lowest common denominator and pandering to mindless emotionalism. It’s like “I dislike XYZ, so I’m going to bring in a system that keeps XYZ out of Parliament”?
The Russians did that. Nice little experiment called communism. Killed a few tens of millions of people. Wrecked an economy. Put thousands into Gulag camps. Brought the world to the brink of WW III. But by golly, at least it kept XYZ out of Parliament!! And you can’t say the commies weren’t strong on government!!
At least with MMP, if you’re a rightie living in, say, South Dunedin, your vote still counts.
Under FPP, if you’re a National supporter living in South Dunedin – don’t bother voting. You’re wasting your time.
STV seems to the “The Great White Hope” of some of you lot. Well, think again, chums. Under STV, the four main parties will most likely be National, Labour Greens, and Maori Party/Mana Party. You might get one or two independents in.
Don’t believe me? Check out the Aussies – they have STV. http://tinyurl.com/3k7efy5
Oh, and their Federal Parliament isn’t much “better” than ours in terms of a plethora of parties.
What’s left? FPP?
Yeah, right. The system that allowed Rob Muldoon to govern this country almost single-handedly for nine years? Till he ran it into the ground and we had to go to the IMF for a bailout?
Of course, FPP won’t get rid of the smaller parties. They’ll just fade away and join the Big Two. (Just as ACT mps Douglas and Prebble were once upon a time members of Labour.) Which will be good for Labour, as quite a few Greens will re-join that party. I’m not sure, though, if National will look forward to ACT members joining up.
SM?
What the f**k is SM? (Aside from something that sounds kinky and would probably cost me $150 from a local lady down the street…)
Ok, it’s a bastardised version of FPP. I get that.
So will the voting public. Most of them are not thick and will spot a political con when they see it. Which is why SM got only 5.5% of the vote in 1993.
My money is on MMP returning. Most people are fairly comfortable with it. Most folk either remember FPP and Muldoonism, and their stomach heaves a bit – or are too young to remember and would probably see FPP as some wanky system that makes little sense in terms of fairness. And people aren’t interested in changing to STV – a system that relies on Quantum Physics to understand it’s workings – and would still piss off you righties because the Greens would STILL win seats in Parliament. SM? Forget it.
My money is on returning MMP; ironing out a few anomalies at a Review; and moving on.
As for “Vote for Change”… here guys, I’ve got $1.20 in coins. Go buy an ice block. Come back to us when you’re all growed up and can play with the adults in the parliamentary pen.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 9:41 am
@linkdown Nope, one before him. Receptionist at PowerCo. Earth mother, but hot with it. No, that doesnt make me a mysoginist
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Whale isn’t being upfront.
Is he in the pay of VFCC or not?
Actually sprat brain I quite like stable dependable Govt.
As for the voices oh oily one, try hard to ignore them – they will go way.
Vote:June 29th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
These guys are still stuck in the 90s. Kind of pathetic.
Vote:June 30th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
# Daigotsu (22) Says: “Do you disagree with prominent political commentator Matt Hootn that MMP has an inbuilt favouritism to the left?” (June 28th, 2011 at 6:29 am)
Really?
In which case how did National win 44.93% of the vote as opposed to Labour’s 33.99%, in 2008?!?!
Oh, wait, no, don’t tell me – National is really a marxist-leninist party!!!
Maybe someone should tap Mr Hooton on the forehead and tell him that “MMP has an inbuilt favouritism to people’s voting!! Ya know, that silly old concept called DE-MO-CRA-CY!!
God help us all, if this is the standard of intellectual rigour demonstrated by the pro-FPP camp.
Vote:October 28th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
I work for the government, and my take on the MMP referendum is this… The current MMP system can actually work with some minor changes. The usual (governmental) lack or forward thinking and some major cocks ups in the implementation of MMP have made the system egregiously flawed.
The fact that list MP ‘s were allowed to “party hop” back in the 90′s shows how poorly it was implemented……. a serious oversight…we voted for a party but the list MP’s were allowed to change parties …WTF?? Luckily this has been fixed now.
Now its remaining flaw is that if one party gets a single electoral member elected in one constituency. they suddenly have gained 4 list members. (Example: Epsom voters were able to foist ACT (or any other party) on the whole country)…Bollocks to that!!!
If we separate the linkage between list and electroral candidates it would solve most of the problems with MMP without the need to spend millions on creating a electoral new system. We all mostly undertand the MMP system…WE JUST NEED TO FIX IT!!!!
Currently it seems the Electoral Commission is only giving us the option of “do or die” …vote for MMP OR NOTand then consider a \relatively confusing arrray of alternatives….why not have referendum on doing away with the MMP rules where “one electoral MP = many list MP’s ” . It would be far less costly and be far less divisive. ( BTW the Maori seats should be examined in the next Claytons referendum!!!).
My 2 cents
Cheers
Vote: