Vote for Change and Maxim endorse SM
October 31st, 2011 at 10:00 am by David FarrarNot a huge surprise, but Vote for Change has come out and endorsed Supplementary Member (SM) as the “Smart Move”. They say:
SM’s the sensible middle. It means that small parties would have representation in Parliament, able to put their policy platforms on the political agenda, but it is less likely that they would hold the balance of power and a disproportionate amount of influence.”
On Friday Maxim also came out and endorsed SM. They argue its merits in this 10 page paper.
I think it is a pity that Parliament determined that SM would be a 90/30 model rather than 70/50, as the 70/50 model is more attractive to me, than the 90/30 model.
Tags: MMP, SM
October 31st, 2011 at 10:04 am
Personally I don’t have any problem with list MPs. But the anti-MMP group seem to hate them with a passion. Why then have they chosen to endorse SM, the only alternative electoral system with list MPs?
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 10:10 am
SM: the system with all the worst features of FPP, and all the least popular features of MMP.
Vote:The only explanation for the choice is that it is a lie. They don’t want SM at all, they want FPP and have chosen to support SM because they know that FPP is a non-starter.
October 31st, 2011 at 10:17 am
Completely agree with you s.russell. I’m personally a big fan of MMP but can see why some people are not comfortable about list MPs. Seem strange to want to move to a system that still has 30 list MPs but doesn’t provide the proportionality or choice that you get under MMP. The party vote under SM is only one quarter as powerful to voters as it is under MMP.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 10:21 am
The value of SM is that it still allows for some proportionality but also delivers a clear government that is not dependent on small parties with little support.
Personally I think the whole system is broken and needs to go, but I can see why SM is better than MMP. Pretty much anything would be.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 10:30 am
s.russell:
Really? You might see it that way. I’m sure the Greens do.
But how about … SM: the system with all the best features of FPP (the winner typically gets a clear mandate to govern, without the tail wagging the dog), and all the best popular features of MMP (the smaller parties are still represented, when they might never be able to win a seat in FPP).
But I agree with DPF that it’s a pity Parliament decided to present SM with 90 electorate MPs and 30 list MPs. There’s no reason SM would need more electorate MPs than MMP does. One might think they were specifically want to hobble the SM option …
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 10:36 am
MMP would be fine if the voters determined the Party List rankings, instead of the Party bosses.
This could be easily accomplished if Party Lists were made up after the election, with the highest polling unsuccessful candidate ranked at the top of a Party’s list, and so on down.
That way, even List MP’s would have received some personal mandate from voters to be in the House.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 10:37 am
Do we as a country want our political emphasis to be primarily on “representation” – or do we expect/want competent, progressive administration from government?
MMP has proven itself to be a rat’s breakfast of a system, and it’s well-demonstrated its failings, both in its ability to stifle rational progress as well as in having vomited up some of the most unelectable of hard-left, trouble-maker MPs.
The Left will always pursue every possible advantage, even when the system is ascertainably fair. Under FPP, the electorate is divided as equally and uniformly as possible and the first choice of each electorate wins a seat. It matters not whether the total votes add up differently – the parties have equal input into the setting of electorate boundaries prior to their establishment (although the days of four Maori seats did distort the vote count.) If FPP had elected more Labour governments, they’d be trying to keep it – Labour’s main problem being that it feels entitlement to govern – and can’t understand why the electorate views its incompetence with less than any warmth.
Frankly, it’s a nonsense to pander to such stupidities as are inherent in “proportional” voting – just imagine how long our largest companies would last if they had to operate under such constraints. Success for all of us will only come from sound policies applied by strong government – not ever from the tail wagging the dog.
FPP all the way.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 10:44 am
I don’t like the list. You end up getting people that were never voted for, and chosen by dodgy means (as shown by Labour). Also the electorate portion is chosen by FPP which no-one supports, otherwise there’d be a push to go back to FPP.
I favour PV. You know who you are voting for, and every vote counts, unlike MMP where up to 4.9% of votes cast for as party that doesn’t get an electorate are wasted
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 11:10 am
Interesting that a group that actively oppose MPs who don’t win their seats coming back in off the list support …. a system that lets MPs who dont win their seats come in off the list.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 11:17 am
I think the Parliament is going to get a kick in the rear end with this referendum. They have tried to rig it so the existing MMP system gets back in. But , we’ll end up with two referenda –MMP will lose in the first and then in the second because they have not given an option for a modified MMP system it will get voted out in the second. Yes, I know they have said that there will be a review of the MMP system but we all know what the out come of that will be –very little change.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 11:26 am
Lee01
Vote:I’m not sure that you have fully thought this through. SM would pretty much wipe out Act and the Greens, but it would enhance the power of the Maori and Mana parties.
SM will mean more Maori electorates – and those parties will probably continue to win most of them, even with only 1-2% of the total vote. Combined with the handful of list seats for small parties enough this means that at most elections the M parties will hold the balance of power.
Is that what you want???
October 31st, 2011 at 11:47 am
I agree. If they said they’s drop the Maori seats and the 5% threshold then I could live with MMP. If I can get 34,000 peopel to vote for me I darn well should get a seat in Parliament
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Start getting some billboards up then
Vote:Less than 4 weeks left
October 31st, 2011 at 12:49 pm
@Chris 2 – I hear this often, but I couldn’t disagree more. If you want lists to be democratically determined, that’s fine, have an open list that can be voted on by voters of that party.
To have the list seats given on proportion of electorate votes received doesn’t really make much sense though. For example, the Greens could have an excellent candidate in my electorate of Taranki/King Country, and he or she would get about 10 votes in total, while a dropkick in Wellington Central could get a couple of thousand. To rank them on this given the demographic makeup of the seats would be silly.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 1:45 pm
I’m a fan of PV. I don’t like the lists because of the lack of direct control that voters have over their makeup. MPs voted in from the lists are representatives of policy, not of people.
It is worth going back to the election that triggered the whole debate over changing the FPP system – the 1981 election. I believe, without having any data to back it up, that Social Credit would have got quite a few more than 3 seats under a PV system. DPF, is it possible to estimate how that election might have turned out with the different electoral systems being considered today?
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 5:11 pm
@ Tigger: Yes it is, but I certainly can’t be farked doing all that maths. go to the electoral commission website for the results, then to the I.D.E.A. centre’s centre for the maths and such in their handbook. you will probably be finished about three days before the referendum, just in time! lol.
How about MMP with open lists? let’s go the whole hog and have the MPs completely at our mercy like they are in scandinavia. it’s slightly more complicated, but way more satisfying.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Do you know what i think is a pity? Is that that eyes of the government see people of two different races as better or worse.
Vote: