I am voting for STV
November 23rd, 2011 at 9:00 am by David FarrarI will be voting to change New Zealand’s electoral system from MMP to STV. Having spent many months considering the pros and cons of the five systems, I believe STV is the best system for New Zealand. It retains proportional representation, does away with List MPs, weakens the powers of party hierarchies, and effectively turns every electorate into a marginal seat.
Before I go into the full list of reasons why I think STV is the best system for New Zealand, let’s start with the pros and cons of MMP. As always I stress no system is universally good or bad. It is a trade off.
Good aspects of MMP
- Almost all votes count
- Votes are equal
- Proportional
- Fair to minor parties
- Increased diversity
MMP is definitely an improvement over FPP. But there are aspects of it I don’t like.
- List MPs are indirectly elected through party lists, rather than receiving a direct mandate from voters
- Party leaders and hierarchies have become far more powerful through their ability to rank the list
- MPs who get rejected by voters, can remain in Parliament
- Two classes of MPs – electorate and list, which receive different funding, status and treatment
- Stability of Government. In all five terms we’ve seen a Government minor party implode under the strain. NZ First 96 – 99, Alliance 99 – 02, United Future 02 – 05, NZ First 05 – 08, Maori Party and ACT 08 – 11.
- Minor parties are encouraged to be extreme to attract votes as there is no downside to alienating most voters
- The vast amount of time and energy spent on tactical voting, and coverage of it
So why am I backing STV? First a summary of how STV will work.
- 24 – 30 electorates with 3 – 7 MPs per electorate
- Just one vote for candidates
- You rank candidates in order of preference, or accept the recommended preference order of a political party
- Surplus votes from candidates get transferred to the next preference, as do votes from candidates who are eliminated as lowest polling
Here’s what I like about STV
- It is still a proportional system where basically all votes count, and treats votes equally. It is not as pure a proportional system as MMP, but it is definitely still proportional, not semi-proportional such as SM.
- All MPs get elected directly by the voters. No List MPs whose main accountability is to their party.
- While a party can list its preferred order, voters can ignore them and rank candidates as they see fit. Voters can over-turn a party ranking.
- Better access to electorate MPs. While electorates are larger, there are multiple MPs in each. 120 rather than 70 electorate MPs makes them more accessible.
- Every seat will have a National and Labour MP. Almost inevitably every (general) seat will have at least one National and one Labour MP. That means people can choose to go to the electorate MP they are most comfortable with.
- There will effectively be a cross-party caucus in each seat of MPs from National, Labour and sometimes a minor part. On common issues affecting their area, they will be able to work together to advance change as all of equal status.
- All seats are marginal! Well, not quite. But what I mean is that in every seat there is the potential for National or Labour (or a minor party) to gain an additional MP. This means every seat will be contested vigorously. Even in a safe Labour area like South Auckland, you will have say one definite National MP, five definite Labour MPs and a battle for the 7th seat.
- The quality of candidates should be greatly improved. Under FPP you can put up a donkey in a safe seat and they get elected. Under MMP a baboon can be a highly ranked List MP and they are impossible to dislodge. However with almost every seat under STV being competitive, parties will be incentivised to select candidates who actually appeal to their local communities, rather than reward unelectable unionists and the like.
- Under MMP minor parties make it on 5% of the vote, which encourages parties like NZ First to appeal to a narrow segment, without concern for how much they offend the rest of the country (such as their attacks on Asian immigrants). Under STV a minor party will generally only get elected if people who are not first preference voters for them, are willing to still give them a reasonable ranking, so it should encourage less extreme policies.
So I am voting for change in Part A and voting for STV in Part B. I am firmly convinced that STV will be a superior electoral system for New Zealand, retaining many of the good aspects of MMP such as proportional representation, but getting rid of many of the bad aspects of MMP.
Incidentally STV does not advantage National, and in fact on the modelling done of 2008 and 2005 elections probably mildly disadvantages it. My preference is based on what is good for New Zealand, not what is good for National.
November 23rd, 2011 at 9:05 am
I support FPP; my reason for doing so is to eliminate the opposition and have a permanent Tory government ha ha
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:05 am
First Past the Post is the one for me.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:10 am
A system is proportional where its votes correlate to the results of the election. People’s first preference votes in STV do not do this. A proportional system such as MMP will rate around 1 on the various disproportionality indexes. Only where the index is at one does one person = one vote. Because we have a high threshold New Zealand does not always deliver proportional results and we vary between 1-3 normally.
STV systems have an index rating averaging around 9.
STV is not a proportional system. Even were you to consider second and third preferences as people’s real votes (which I suspect you will not find a Green supporter in agreement with) it still would not fall within a 1-3 threshold due to the number of people that refuse to rank beyond 1 and thus drop out of the count.
[DPF: You are wrong, STV is a proportional system. To quote Wikipedia:
The single transferable vote (STV) is a voting system designed to achieve proportional representation through preferential voting.
STV is the preferred choice of the electoral reform lobby groups in the UK and Australia]
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:11 am
I will vote to Keep MMP. STV is not as proportional as MMP, your votes are not as equal as they are under MMP and there are more wasted votes.
Also, you don’t really discuss above the line voting much in your analysis above. 96% of people vote above the line in Australia which means that most of the benefits that you say STV has over MMP will not accrue. If people do vote below the line then that brings a whole heap of other problems such as: invalid votes if people stuff up the numbering of aprox 50 different people, candidates from the same party fighting against each other in electorates, pork barrel politics as MPs look to curry favour inside their own electorates.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:13 am
Also, you say MMP is “definitely an improvement over FPP”. I agree. Why then are you putting MMP at risk by voting for change, when the second referendum in 2014 is clearly going to be MMP vs FPP? Vote for MMP and STV.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:14 am
Good post, DPF. I agree STV is the best alternative to MMP. I prefer MMP but there isn’t much in it.
I think you may have overstated the difference between the 2 in some respects. Highly informed and motivated voters get a degree of choice not available under MMP because they can rank candidates. But my understanding is that where the system allows parties to publish their own rankings, there is a lot of donkey voting – people just tick the ranking list for their own party because it is easier than ranking candidates. And if you don’t allow that, you have a problem of people not bothering to rank more than the top 3 or 4 candidates.
It’s also, to my mind, less transparent. The more MPs you have per electorate, the more people you get elected who are not anyone’s first choice. I don’t really see much difference between that and the issue under MMP of MPs losing electorates but coming back on the list, particularly if candidates are effectively being ranked by the parties rather than individual voters.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:22 am
I will vote to Keep MMP … If people do vote below the line then that brings a whole heap of other problems such as: invalid votes if people stuff up the numbering of aprox 50 different people, candidates from the same party fighting against each other in electorates, pork barrel politics as MPs look to curry favour inside their own electorates.
You still get a vote in the second question!
Also, we wouldn’t have the invalid votes problem they have in Australia, because there’s almost no way we’d require exhaustive voting. You could number as many as you wanted, and if you accidentally put two 12s, your numbers 1-11 would still count.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:22 am
so when you list your candidates.. can you stop at two?
eg
1 National
Vote:2 ACT
3 screw em
November 23rd, 2011 at 9:23 am
STV is not propotional across the entire country like MMP. Minor parties would be expected to have significantly less representation under STV. STV is considered proportional in each electorate only, and is therefore “very coarsely” proportional as the vote is split between only 3-7 people in each electorate. It is somewhat analogous to having MMP but with a threshold of 15% to 33%*. In other words minor parties are out. In reality there will be a fair bit of heterogeneity between electorates so minor parties will pick up some seats, in particular Maori, but no doubt the greens would get a seat or two from some of the larger urban electorates.
The only way STV could become proportional is if you had a single electorate for the whole country. In this case it would effectively the same as an open list MMP system.
*100/3 = 33% to 100/7 = 15%
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:25 am
Most people aren’t going to bother voting below the line. There are too many people who don’t understand “one for the party one for the person” so I fail to see how an even more complicated system would be beneficial.
Vote:I would prefer to keep MMP but with mandatory Primaries for selection of list candidates.
November 23rd, 2011 at 9:25 am
The only reason we ended up with the dog that is MMP was because of the excesses of FPP. The latter seems to provide certainty but favours campaigns based on lies & delivers government by the executive of the successful party. The fact that 84.7% of the participants in the 1992 referendum voted to get rid of FPP should give an indication of its worth.
My only concern is that STV & SM could split the vote for change.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:26 am
New Zealand electoral system referendum 2011
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:28 am
so when you list your candidates.. can you stop at two?
eg
1 National
2 ACT
3 screw em
Yes, but National would probably have more than one candidate. Not numbering the whole lot doesn’t actually screw em, however, as your later preferences are only ever used if all the lower preferences have been elected, or cannot possible be elected.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:30 am
It won’t – you get to vote on whether to retain MMP, and your second vote is “what would you replace it with?”
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:30 am
Actually I just realised my numbers above were slightly wrong. The effective threshold is:
100/(3+1)=25% to 100/(7+1)=12.5%
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:32 am
STV is better in my view
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:32 am
I am very sorry DPF I did not think of checking Wikipedia I will throw away my politics degree and recommend Vic scraps its electoral systems paper Nigel Roberts teaches so we can rely on Wikipedia instead.
[DPF: Are you telling me that Nigel Roberts has said STV is not a proportional system?
Incidentially boasting of having a pol sci degree is really really funny]
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:35 am
Graeme – thanks.. i think lol
This system must make it hard for small parties. I guess they just target specific seats?! how is ACT! going to run an effective campaign in 30 electorates??
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:35 am
I voted already (have to work on Saturday), and chose SM.
I actually found it very hard to choose, even after having watched all the videos on the election site and read about each system. Still was hard to imagine how it might have affected outcomes.
In the end, I went to maxim.org.nz and checked out the “Kicking the Tires” PDF that they have that discusses the pro and cons of each system. They have a second paper there on why they think SM is the best (which was also ‘reprinted’ on Stuff).
So, yeh, it was SM for me. I don’t see it as being that important right now as, if the people do want a change, we’ll be asked again what system we want, and then the Govt can ignore it and keep on going the way we are (as per the ignored referendum on smacking).
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:42 am
Graeme – I understand that there is a second part to the referendum question. I’ve actually already voted to Keep MMP and then for STV in Part B.
What I was trying to say is that there are problems with both above the line and below the line voting. Even if people don’t have to rank ALL the candidates (and I think this issue is still up in the air when you consider that under Schedule 2 of the Electoral Referendum Act 2010 it says that “a candidate must receive a minimum number of votes” under STV and that under PV “To win, a candidate must have 50% of the total votes cast plus 1 vote”) then that still causes problems. If people don’t rank all the candidates then their ballot could easily be exhausted and therefore their vote wasted. Also, people voting below the line encourages MPs to compete against candidates from their own party and also encourages MPs to spend a lot of time in their electorates on local issues and not on national issues.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:42 am
Nice summary, thanks for posting this.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:43 am
All the proportional systems favour entrenched leftwing governance and extravagant wastage as minor parties are paid of for their support. FPP delivers strong governance based on manifestos and policies. FPP for me………The biggest lies told by minor parties is that “they want to keep the bastards honest.” the reverse is inevitably the case.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:45 am
This doesn’t help:
The Prime Minister is going with SM
Leighton Smith with PV
The Whale with SM
YOU STV
So I’m thinking I will might just go with FPP. At least it gets rid of people like the Greens.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:46 am
@dime the likelihood is looking at STV in Australia ACT would have to fight to get one electorate seat in Auckland and they would probably never get beyond that unless they formed a permanent coalition with National and ran under a joint ticket. Only 6 MPs were elected outside the two major parties over there at their last election and they have a lot more MPs than us.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:47 am
Robb Carr said…
I will throw away my politics degree and recommend Vic scraps its electoral systems paper Nigel Roberts
Yep, such papers should be dropped from being taught at University? WHY? It is fucking useless really and a waste of financial resources to fund such courses. Financial resources should be diverted into more worthy courses at University where its desperately needed (science, engineering, technology) .I just read LibertyScott’s blog summary on New Zealand electoral system and I can have some basic understanding of it. I’m sure I don’t need to pay for a half-semester to enrol for something that one could just go to the library and get a book and read about it. One doesn’t need a brain to understand all that. I say, make Nigel Roberts’s lectureship position at Victoria redundant.
I know Robb Carr doesn’t like my suggestion as it will make his field of expertise irrelevant & redundant really.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:51 am
I prefer SM.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:51 am
The only really ‘bad aspect’ of MMP is that a party with only single figure support can have an overwhelming influence on government because in a marginal marginal majority situation its support is vital to keep someone in power.The way to fix this is simply to raise the threshold to something sensible like 15%. Problem solved.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:51 am
Please post analysis of PV and why it isn’t in your opinion a valid option. I am choosing between STV and PV.
@GL. That was stupid. If a majority vote to keep MMP there will not be a second referendum. If a majority vote for change, at the second referendum you can still vote to keep MMP.
I am hoping that there is a vote for change, and in the intervening three years the proposed ‘tinkering’ to MMP will be nutted out so we can see exactly how MMP will work. At the moment there are vague murmurings of ‘tinkering’ and everyone thinks “oh they’ll fix it then”. Yeah right.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:52 am
I’ve decided to plump for S&M over Sexually Transmitted Virus. Fairer to minor parties, but not as intractable as More Maori Politicians.
STV condemns us to a perpetual 2 party system.
And abolish the Maori seats.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:53 am
@ Falafulu Fisi
Stick to the topic and don’t be an idiot. I am sure you dont spend the majority of your time learning about the mechanics of voting systems in a politics degree.
Robcarr is correct and so is DPF. See my post above.
STV is proportional – in each electorate, but not across the country. So DPF is technically correct to say STV is proportional but it is not proportional as most people would understand it – i.e. proportional across the country, like MMP is (bar the threshold).
So, once and for all, STV with multiple electorates (as is proposed) does NOT deliver proportional representation to parliament.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:54 am
Dead right, Scott Chris: Lets abolish the racist Maori seats.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:56 am
Fletch – the referendum on smacking was a CIR (citizens’ initiated referendum), which means that it is non-binding on the govt. To be honest I don’t know why we have CIRs that are non-binding – they are a glorified opinion poll.
This is a govt referendum and if 50% vote to Keep MMP there will be a review by the Electoral Commission of MMP (that is already in the legislation), if 50% vote to change then parliament (in all likelihood) will pass legislation to set up a binding referendum which well be MMP versus the top-polling alternative.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:59 am
Scott Chris – SM is more favourable to minor parties than STV? Are you being serious? That is not a view shared by the electoral commission, political scientists and most commentators on this referendum. It really depends how STV is instituted. But so long as there aren’t too many 3 and 4 member electorates there will certainly not be a “perpetual 2 party system”.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:01 am
Scott – Also, if you aren’t a fan of Maori seats you should vote to Keep MMP because MMP will have the fewest Maori seats out of any of the systems (SM will have 9, PV/FPP/STV will have 12).
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:04 am
Swan said…
Stick to the topic and don’t be an idiot. I am sure you dont spend the majority of your time learning about the mechanics of voting systems in a politics degree
I know that, but why would anyone learn or enroll in a politics degree when one can just read about it? I’m sure that I can walk into a Uni bookshop and buy all the political science prescribed readings (or textbooks) for year 1 to final year course and read about those topics? Are you saying that I must have some prior understanding as a pre-requisite before buying up political science text books to read? I don’t think so.
If I have to enrol in a political science degree, it is because I want to get engaged in pub talk about politics.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:07 am
@ Falafulu Fisi
Stick to the topic. If you can’t please explain why political science is a special case – i.e why you cant go into a uni bookshop and read about science, engineering, latin, philosophy, medicine, commerce etc.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:10 am
Falafulu – You can go and buy the textbooks for any subject and just learn the material. If a criteria for a university course was that you couldn’t possibly learn it yourself then there probably wouldn’t be any courses left at Uni. If there were subjects at Uni that you couldn’t possibly learn yourself then how would anyone pass those subjects and how would they find lecturers who knew what they were talking about to teach them?
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:13 am
STV is a fantastic system. It also allows voters to participate to the extent that they want to – i.e., rank one candidate, or all the left wing candidates, or right wing candidates or a mix of both. For all the bullshit about it ‘not giving us a result on election night’, Winston Peters can take months to form a government. We might as well get a more reflective system if we’re going to have to wait anyway.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:15 am
I’m sure somebody will correct me if I’m wrong… but wasn’t it National Party policy at one time to abolish these racist maori seats? Just one more of their lies I think…
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:16 am
I will be voting for SM.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:18 am
@GL it depends on the nature of the minor party which they are most able to gain a seat in.
Under STV minor parties can get elected if they are capable of focussing all of the energies into just one seat and have a few strong charismatic leaders to get elected so only parties that have equivalents of Peter Dunne, Rodney Hide, Pita Sharples, Janette Fitzsimmons etc get elected and it is a lower bar to do it than under FPP making it more likely they get in than currently in our electorates.
Under SM a minor party could run a nationwide campaign and still get elected meaning they could campaign on National issues rather than local ones. So for parties which might not have good electorate MPs but can sway the public generally on a few issues (like the current Greens) they would find it easier under SM than STV.
In general STV allows more minor parties in and it certainly distorts the vote less but that does not mean it is the easier option in every case. While the Green Party pushes on party campaigns all the other minor parties currently in Parliament have gone for the electorate seat method primarily so that is a sign STV would be easier.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:18 am
Swan, I’m raising here is relevant to the topic and to answer your question? The founding fathers of the US didn’t have political science degrees and yet they came up with the best system (ie, US constitution) that mankind ever known (even though it is not perfect). I’ve noted that majority of the left are experts in this useless field of study. Look no further than most of our leftist parliamentarians of today?
You said…
uni bookshop and read about science, engineering, …, medicine,
Are you serious? How about if I recommend you some titles in those fields that you can go and buy them from the Uni bookshops and see if you can go past the first page?
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:24 am
swan
The point he’s making is that pol “studies” is a complete and utter waste of time. Just like aromatherapy, colourtherapy, nasal inhalation therapy and the study of goat entrails.
Therefore, the taxpayers of this country should not waste any money supporting its pursuit and in removing it, we would actually be doing a favour for those who would otherwise pursue it because they are too fucking stupid to realise what a waste of time and money it is. They would be far better employed taking on a paper round or digging a series of random holes in the back yard and then filling them in.
I agree entirely with FF’s point. If you want an example of the stupidity that political courses attract, look no further than the fuckwit Goff.
OTOH, engineers, scientists, science teachers, doctors and accountants do useful stuff.
You can of course, as you say, go to the uni bookshop to read about real disciplines such as those you mention, but to actually learn the subject matter and to be able to apply it, most require an academic environment.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:27 am
@robcarr – with the very high chance that most people will be voting above the line, the chances are that the Greens method of getting support will still be effective (albeit most probably less effective than under MMP). In the end political parties are and will continue to be the framework for our political system and most people vote for parties (and their leaders) rather than individual politicians in their electorates. Therefore, I think voters would very likely vote for their favourite party above the line. The chances that smaller parties have in the situation of people voting above the line depends on:
Vote:1. their level of support in the electorate
2. how big the multi-member electorate is (how many seats are up for grabs)
3. The preference deals they have done with other parties so that (for example) the surplus labour votes go to the greens
November 23rd, 2011 at 10:33 am
@falafulu fisi & @thedavincimode
Fine consider it dropped. Though I do know one political science grad, and he is bcoming a very successful builder, using skills he picked up whilst working his way through uni. So at the very least it gives you time for other pursuits!
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:41 am
GL said…
Falafulu – You can go and buy the textbooks for any subject and just learn the material.
That’s correct. But there are certain domains (or fields of study) that you just can’t do that and political science isn’t one of those.
When I became interested in economics/finance a few years ago, I decided not to enroll in a formal B.Com/MBA degree program to learn about the subjects, but try to read as much as possible about them. I simply went to the Uni Bookshop and bought most of the economics/finance textbooks to read so I can understand the basics. Now, I don’t read economics/finance textbooks anymore since I’ve already familiarize myself the subjects. I now read peer review economics/finance publications, even I know that latest papers which I assume that most practitioners or academics are not even aware of them. Sure one can just buy economics textbooks and read about it without a prior formal study, but that can’t be applied to heavily number-crunching stuff in economics/finance as one needs prior knowledge in certain topics.
One of the economics textbook (or recommended reading) I bought from Auckland Uni bookshop, is Econometric Analysis (4th Ed), by W.H.Greene. This is not a book that one can just buy it to read unless you have a prior knowledge of advanced Matrix Linear Algebra, Statistics, Probability Theory and Calculus. There’s a few practicing economists/financial analysts that can understand this book.
This brings me back to my main argument? Do I need certain prior knowledge to buy up political science textbooks to read? If so, would it hinder my ability to read and understand the concepts if I don’t have that prior knowledge? If not, then why teach such degree program while in fact, the more worthy courses in other Uni Department are crying out for more funding?
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:45 am
I thought Danyl’s post on this was spot on. The general public is not interested enough, and dare I say it not intelligent enough, to figure out MMP after 6 elections under it. How on earth will they figure out STV? We shouldn’t be changing electoral systems on a whim, and unless a vast majority call for it. At the moment MMP is easily leading. It should remain the system and be modified and then let’s just get on with reforming the economic backside of this country.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 10:50 am
I’m voting to get rid of MMP. What to replace it with is a problem.
As stated John wants SM. The word of the oracle was enough for me but then this oracle says STV. But Whale says SM.
Best of all James (first post) states clearly what any voting system must produce.
So, apart from FPP, which system is likely to give us a competent, capable; aka National, Government?
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:05 am
[DPF: You are wrong, STV is a proportional system. To quote Wikipedia:
The single transferable vote (STV) is a voting system designed to achieve proportional representation through preferential voting.
STV is the preferred choice of the electoral reform lobby groups in the UK and Australia]
Notwithstanding the unquestionable authority of Wikipedia, the simulations you ran here previously show the system is far less proportional than MMP. It’s not a question of is it proportional or is it not proportional. The question is to what DEGREE is it proportional. Clearly from the simulations you cited here previously STV is a means to eliminate the minor parties. They had either one or no seats in Parliament despite being supported by 5-10 percent of the population. The Maori Party only got in because they have special electorate seats and we know the political right wants those on the chopping board as well.
You even state here that
“Under MMP minor parties make it on 5% of the vote, which encourages parties like NZ First to appeal to a narrow segment, without concern for how much they offend the rest of the country”
So clearly your goal is not proportionality, it is to disenfranchise “narrow segments” because you feel they don’t deserve representation because they offend you and the rest of the country. But so what? Proportional representation is about ensuring that Parliament represents the entire country, not just most of the country. Most of the country gets to pass legislation by constituting a majority in Parliament, but Parliament itself should represent the entire country.
This desire of many to eliminate minor parties is fundamentally anti-democratic in my view. It’s rigging the system in order to produce a desired result rather than trying to ensure Parliament is as accurate a representation of the people as practicable.
“Stability of Government. In all five terms we’ve seen a Government minor party implode under the strain. NZ First 96 – 99, Alliance 99 – 02, United Future 02 – 05, NZ First 05 – 08, Maori Party and ACT 08 – 11.”
And yet life as we know it has not ceased to exist. I much prefer a system where the major parties have to negotiate with minor parties rather than the more dictatorial system of FPP with PMs like Muldoon.
What would be a good change, however, is to eliminate the 5% threshold thus making it easier for third parties to get into Parliament which would increase the coalition options for the two major parties.
[edit: I should make clear that I appreciate you are advocating for STV, not FPP which I just mentioned here at the end. But the result is the same when it's a two party system (after the Maori seats are eliminated) because we only have one legislative chamber and either National or Labour will be able to do whatever they want without compromise]
[DPF: You are totally wrong. The model for 2008 showed National would do worse under STV and would need the Maori Party to have governed - something it didn't need under MMP]
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:09 am
But under MMP the votes of the voters in the Maori seats count twice, if they vote for Maori Party/Mana in the electorate seats and Labour on the list, it double the left wing vote.
Vote:At least under the other systems, the Maori voters are removed from the general role which means the left wins less general seats, balancing outs the overall results between right and left.
There is also the issue of there being alot less voters in each of the Maori electorates than general electorates but that is another story.
November 23rd, 2011 at 11:14 am
What would be a good change, however, is to eliminate the 5% threshold thus making it easier for third parties to get into Parliament which would increase the coalition options for the two major parties.
Oh what a MARVELLOUS idea!! Yes, lets do that! We could all be ruled by activists/separatists/nutjobs then and the majority will just have to toe their line. That’ll teach them!!
Hey, wait a minute….. why have a parliament at all? Why shouldn’t we just encourage everybody to come and have their say on a government-funded YouTube channel and use the worm to establish policy?
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:23 am
MARGINAL ELECTORATES UNDER STV
There are a lot of great posts above about the merits and demerits of STV (and it has both), so I don’t want to simply repeat. So here’s one consideration that has not yet been examined…
STV, along with all the other alternatives to MMP are fundamentally based on electorates: elections are won or lost electorate by electorate, and the total vote across the country does not count (or only counts a little in SM).
That means votes do not count equally. It also means that election results are critically dependent on how a bunch of bureaucrats have drawn up the electoral boundaries. This is especially the case with STV as there fewer electorates. Whenever you do this you are setting yourself up for peverse results – such as the party with the most votes getting fewer seats.
DPF makes some good points in his post. I agree wioth many, though not all. But as the authour of the analysis he blogged last week on how the 2008 election might have worked under STV I have to disagree with him on one crucial point: He says “All seats are marginal”. Actually no, most are not.
A typical case is the notional 5-member Western Central electorate (covering Whanganui, Taranaki and parts of the King Country and central plateau). It would take a titanic left landslide for the combined left to outpoll the combined right in this region. National is virtually guaranteed (once preferences are redistributed) to ALWAYS win three out of the five seats. But there is a big enough rump on the left to likewise guarantee that Labour will ALWAYS win two of the five seats (the right would have to win 67-33 to get a fourth seat).
The same pattern is repeated in most of the provincial electorates, and inverted in some of the city ones where Labour would always win three and National two.
The thing I really hate about this is it means most voters become irrelevant to the result: they are stuck in what are effectively safe seats where they have very little chance of influencing the overall result. This is one of the key reasons why (though I may vote also STV in Part B) I will be voting to keep MMP in Part A.
I WANT MY VOTE TO COUNT!
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:25 am
To my mind the big problem with STV is that it’s perfect for political geeks and wonks, but overly complex for most voters.
Those that live for politics will have wet dreams about being able to spend half an hour in the polling booth ranking all the candidates down to the last position.
But most voters won’t have more than a cursory understanding of the candidates, and I don’t have any confidence the majority will have any insight into how to intelligently make their vote.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:25 am
No, you want insurance to back losers. I don’t get why rearranging boundaries is OK under any other system but suddenly not under STV. At least with STV everyone is accountable to someone.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:27 am
I’m with DPF on this & have already cast my special vote from the US.
I think some of the comments here against the proportionality of STV miss the mark… first, it doesn’t really make sense to judge the proportionality of STV on first preferences or to compare it with MMP’s party vote threshold. To the extent that STV attempts to get at the issue of proportionality, fundamentally it does so by saying that first preferences aren’t the only way to think about what proportionality means.
STV, by choice, is concerned about results after redistribution, and from that perspective I see its proportionality as largely a design issue. If electorates are designed such that the vote threshold is roughly the same across the country, then after redistribution each elected member will be elected with roughly the same number of votes. The total votes for each party will be approximately the average threshold times the number of seats – so something close to proportionality ensues. Concerns some have expressed about people not voting below the line don’t change my view about this at all. A decision not to vote below the line is a decision to accept choices someone else makes for you. It doesn’t change the fundamental argument.
But even these arguments (compelling though they are
) don’t quite do STV justice imo. I think the very notion of proportionality as most people think about it is bound fundamentally to the idea that we have to be represented by parties. STV, however, effectively says that that’s not the only way to think about what constitutes a good outcome. It assumes instead that we are represented by *individuals*, and tries to answer the question of what is the best way to choose those individuals such that the diversity of opinion present in the community is properly represented in parliament. And from that perspective I think it does a good job. In particular, I like the fact that it gives a decent chance not just to smaller parties, but also to independents, which MMP certainly doesn’t.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:32 am
STV – also known as “Survival of the Tamest”.
Vote:It advantages bland politicians who offend no one.
Sure it takes out the extremes – think beige.
Most people have a hard enough choice between two politicians without having to rank them 1-12- especially if they don’t recognise 9 of them.
November 23rd, 2011 at 11:37 am
You say, DPF, that STV “… weakens the powers of party hierarchies…”.
The hell it does. By giving voters the option of ticking a box to accept the party’s ranking it leaves the power with the party. As others have opined, most voters will tick that box because it is simplest. Voters have struggled with STV in local body or DHB elections.
On the other hand, if one doesn’t want to accept the party’s list, the system is open to manipulation as the recent Wellington City Council election showed with strategic STV voting by the Greens.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:44 am
emmess – would hardly consider the Maori Party as a fixed part of the left wing bloc seeing as they are currently supporting a National govt on confidence and supply and their leaders are ministers within a National-led govt. Regardless though, the overhang has only been 1 MP after 2005 and 2 MPs after 2008 so hardly a massive boost to the left.
What would be a massive boost to the Maori/Mana party is having FPP/PV/STV. That would mean 12 electorates with just Maori voters. It is likely, under this scenario, that Maori/Mana share of the seats would be significantly higher than their share of the overall vote.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:49 am
So DPF, what you are saying is that you are STV positive?
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:50 am
GL says @9:13 “the second referendum in 2014 is clearly going to be MMP vs FPP?”
Really? That is what proponents of retaining MMP would like the “battle” to be as that one has been run before and won by MMP (albeit narrowly).
I think you’re jumping the gun to believe it will be MMP vs FPP. Despite DFP’s advocacy here for STV, there is significant support for SM, which retains some proportionality and is likely to more often than not stop the tail wagging the dog.
Nothing is perfect, and MMP in its current form certainly is not.
In this first referendum, even those who support MMP should vote for change, if only to indicate their second choice in the subsequent runoff. They still have the option then of voting to retain MMP, so nothing lost. It’s a pity that a review of MMP has been indicated only if MMP gets over 50% this Saturday. I recommend voting for change and then pushing for the modifications to MMP to be made clear in time for the 2014 referendum rather than confirming MMP and not knowing exactly what you are confirming.
On second thoughts, maybe MMP supporters should not vote for change on Saturday, as I have indicated, as that could well lead to STV as the preferred option so we just end up with a different breed of dog still with a very wagging tail. We need a Manx cat system!!
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:50 am
# Dave Mann (777) Says:
November 23rd, 2011 at 11:14 am
What would be a good change, however, is to eliminate the 5% threshold thus making it easier for third parties to get into Parliament which would increase the coalition options for the two major parties.
Oh what a MARVELLOUS idea!! Yes, lets do that! We could all be ruled by activists/separatists/nutjobs then and the majority will just have to toe their line. That’ll teach them!!
Calm down, you’re being ridiculous. Legislation still requires the approval of a majority of Parliament. The so-called “nutjobs” cannot pass legislation without the consent of a major party.
Hey, wait a minute….. why have a parliament at all? Why shouldn’t we just encourage everybody to come and have their say on a government-funded YouTube channel and use the worm to establish policy?
Because running the country is a full time job and I don’t have time to equip myself with all the information that I expect a government minister to equip themselves with.
I do, however, favour more direct participation in democracy particularly with regards so-called conscience votes on important social issues.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:51 am
Do I need to remind you Labour lite never lies? Tui ad coming.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:51 am
“But even these arguments (compelling though they are ) don’t quite do STV justice imo. I think the very notion of proportionality as most people think about it is bound fundamentally to the idea that we have to be represented by parties. STV, however, effectively says that that’s not the only way to think about what constitutes a good outcome. It assumes instead that we are represented by *individuals*, ”
OK – yes propotionality is tied to the concept of parties, and not intrinsic. That is true. But for all intents and purposes, the party system is utterly entrenched in NZ (as well as most democracies around the world). And it is not because of MMP that a party system exists, it was entrenched well before MMP arrived.
STV with only one electorate would get rid of the need to distinguish between parties and individuals. It would also get rid of the arbitrary nature of geographical electorates. STV with only one electorate is effectively the same as open list MMP without a threshold. That will bring it back to individuals, if thats what people want, AND maintain proportionality.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:56 am
“STV with only one electorate”
Is that what’s going to happen? Really? Nah.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Weihana I know its not going to happen if you tick STV
But if we retain MMP and it is tweaked to a) give open lists and b) remove the threshold we will get effectively the same thing by another name.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 12:01 pm
@Weihana…. I was being sarcastic. I know its supposed to be the ‘lowest form of wit’ and all that, but it was a joke, mate (or matess or whatever)…
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 12:06 pm
@fruitshop
I do agree with that. Not sure that there will be 12 candidates, but even if there are, if you don’t recognise them, don’t rank them (or rank them bottom). It’s unlikely the system will get beyond the 4th or so ranking…
In the last Porirua local body elections, there were large numbers of candidates. I ended up having to take an “elimination” strategy.
1) Identify the Labour affiliated candidates ad rank them bottom.
2) Identify the Labour affiliated candidates that didn’t disclose that fact (e.g. Litea Ah Hoi of Dumb-Ass-Coconut fame) and rank them bottom.
3) Identify the candidates I wanted to vote for and rank them top
4) Put the remainder in the middle (pretty much randomly)
It is a hassle but the only other choice for me is PV which works quite similarly except there are more electorates with one winner each. Still waiting to hear independant pro’s and con’s of PV over STV.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Is STV not the system that saw Wellington end up with a moon bat Green mayor that nobody voted for as first choice?
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 12:09 pm
@Manolo, so that was your impression too? I thought so…
These fucking National Socialist assholes and their slimy lying leader have broken so many promises and deceived our country and its voters in so many ways that its hard to remember all the specifics.
It honestly beats me why anybody would still be stupid enough to vote for these pricks after the betrayals and sell-outs of the last three years.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 12:10 pm
rouppe
Under STV if you dont want someone to be voted in (aka the Labourites, closet and open), you should not list them at all.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Ridiculous. You’d then have to rank something like 200 candidates to rank. Everyone would just flop to the party (above the line) option and democracy would suffer.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 12:22 pm
@s.russell
Actually STV is not just about electorates as there is more than one person elected per electorate. The number of elected representatives per electorate is massaged to try and balance out the problem you describe. That is why there are 3-7 elected reps in electorates.
Changing the number of winners also changes the threshold which is calculated as:
Available votes in electorate
——————————– + 1
(Winners + 1)
it’s in the detail on the referendum website.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 12:35 pm
“rouppe (386) Says:
November 23rd, 2011 at 12:11 pm
STV with only one electorate
Ridiculous. You’d then have to rank something like 200 candidates to rank. Everyone would just flop to the party (above the line) option and democracy would suffer.”
Depends how easy/flexible it is made. For example it would be good if you could easily vote (as random examples):
– National, except Steven Joyce and Johnathon Coleman
– Don Brash 1, National List From 2 onwards
– National 1-20, Act 1-10 (as 21-30), National 21+ (as 31 onwards)
i.e. mix and match the lists instead of simply either a party vote tick, or having to list out every individual.
Electronic voting would obviously help
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Actually thinking about it, you could come up with a pretty simple voting form that achieves the flexibility required. You would need a 3-4 column ranking sheet.
Column 1: Individual or party list you want to rank
Column 2 & 3: If a party list, part of party list you want to rank “from” and “to” (blank if entire list)
Column 4: If a party list, any exclusions you want to make (Candidate numbers).
That would be power to the people…
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Yes they do. Gallagher Index for the last few Northern Ireland Assembly elections (108 members, six per electorate) is about 7, iirc, based on first preference votes. So a little less proportional than MMP, a lot more proportional than FPP.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 1:27 pm
@ robbcarr and also all you other debaters
Robb, were you even paying attention in Nigel Roberts’ class? were you even there? I was. If you were then you might have seen this particular link (scroll to page 57 which is about proportional systems): http://www.idea.int/publications/esd/upload/esd_chapter3.pdf
I would invite everyone here who is interested in the stats or just wants to learn about the options on offer in, admittedly scary, amounts of detail
the I.D.E.A. handbook on electoral systems
http://www.idea.int/publications/esd/#pubTabs
STV as a possible replacement, but I am definitely voting to review MMP and get rid of some of it’s more shitty features
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 1:30 pm
simonway,
Obviously there are examples where it will produce proportionality, but it is not intrinsic to the system.
Electorate based systems (STV and FPP) will give better proportionality where voter preferences vary significantly with geography. This is likely to be the case in NI more so than NZ
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 1:35 pm
@Batman
We have been through this. STV is proportional at the individual electorate level, to the extent that the discrete number of MP’s in an electorate can be split proportionately. It does not produce proportional representation at the level of parliament where there are multiple electorates.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Good on you for coming out for a proportional system.
But I was wondering, if the vote goes to keeping MMP, would a system life that for Baden-Wurttenberg be a suitable fix for some of your MMP worries?
There’s a full description here: http://www.landtag-bw.de/en/16.html
The way i understand it, people get one vote. That vote is counted as a vote for the local candidate, and its also counted as a vote for a party. (So it ends tactical split voting)
The weird bit though is that the list MPs are made up of local candidates who poll well, but don’t get in. So every potential MP has to contest a local seat. A strong (but unsuccessful) showing gets the candidate on their parties list. So it would take a certain amount of power away from parties to make their list.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Why should a developed country like NZ get held to ransom by King makers – like Winston has gloried in previously.
Your vote should count and the party with the most votes should get to lead the Govt with – what ever the better system is that achieves that outcome.
MMP does not do this – it has to go.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 2:40 pm
# Dave Mann (779) Says:
November 23rd, 2011 at 12:01 pm
@Weihana…. I was being sarcastic. I know its supposed to be the ‘lowest form of wit’ and all that, but it was a joke, mate (or matess or whatever)…
…or whatever.
Sorry, hard to catch sarcasm online sometimes.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 2:43 pm
“Why should a developed country like NZ get held to ransom by King makers – like Winston has gloried in previously.”
Because 61 seats (or whatever the exact number is) is required to pass legislation and to form a government.
If two parties with 40-50% can’t get along and require the support of the minor parties then they should have to negotiate with them in order to secure an actual majority. Otherwise known as democracy.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 2:50 pm
“the party with the most votes should get to lead the Govt”
Not if they cannot get a majority of Parliament to support them on confidence and supply.
edit: This rejigging of the electoral system is nothing more than an attempt to get a party in Government when it has less than 50% support by simply disenfranchising 5-10% of the population and redistributing their vote amongst the major parties which they do not support. Morally and ethically bankrupt.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 3:32 pm
The real solution is to split NZ into say 4 or 5 autonomous self-governing regions, radically downsize central government to perform an agreed set of basic functions. The central govt would receive a fixed amount of the income/business tax (much lower than it is now) but the regions would have the ability to levy income/business taxes and set the rates of such taxes. Thus you have regions competiting (for example) on the business tax environment or the level of public transport services they provide, or any number of other permutations. Regions could also challenge any legislation by binding referendum.
Other than that I have to laugh at MMP syncophants who don’t think people could possibly number 1 to 10 on a ballot.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Ive voted already in this election. Wellington electorate. I voted SM. I’m tired of parties like NZ first deciding the balance of power. But I know MMP will be retained because people cant be stuffed reading around these systems. Great piece on STV by the way, wish id read this before I voted, would have been better informed although I was already pretty informed.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 4:57 pm
There is one aspect about STV I don’t understand, and that how surplus votes are managed.
It’s my understanding that votes surplus to elect a candidate are reassigned to the voters’ next choice. (This is a similar way to how the lowest candidates votes are reassigned.)
For example, Let’s assume an electorate with 3 candidates for 2 seats, and 600 voters. Candidates need 300 votes to achieve the threshold.
The Western booth has 250 votes: Mickey, Donald, Scrooge.
The Eastern booth 200 votes: Mickey, Scrooge, Donald.
The Southern booth 100 votes: Donald, Mickey, Scrooge.
The Northern booth 50 votes: Scrooge, Mickey, Donald.
Initial counts are: Mickey(450), Donald(100), Scrooge(50).
Mickey gets in, no problem, using 300 votes. There’s a surplus of 150 votes for Mickey which are assigned to the voter’s second choice.
If 250 of the 300 used for Mickey come from the Western booth and only 50 from the Eastern booth, then this surplus of 150 will be assigned to Scrooge.
Mickey(300), Scrooge(200), Donald(100).
Donald is now the lowest polling candidate and Scrooge will get in.
If 200 of the 300 used for Mickey come from the Eastern booth and only 100 from the Western booth, then this surplus of 150 will be assigned to Donald.
Mickey(300), Donald(250), Scrooge(50).
Scrooge is now the lowest polling candidate and Donald will get in.
How is it determined which votes count toward the candidate and which will be the surplus assigned to the voters second choice?
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Excuse me Weihana,
Democracy is when the party with the most votes is able to form a Govt.
“Minocracy”
is when a very low number of elected representatives have a disproportionally high right to dictate who and how a Govt is formed.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 5:40 pm
polemic,
You are excused.
An important aspect of democracy is rule by the majority. “Most” does not necessarily mean a majority.
But more fundamental than this is the concept that everyone should have equal participation in the development and passage of legislation into law. That means Parliament should represent everyone whereupon a true majority can then make a final decision on what becomes law. This is only true when Parliament is proportional, otherwise certain people are not represented and therefore have been disenfranchised of their basic democratic rights.
The formation of coalitions between larger and smaller parties to secure a majority of Parliament does not give those smaller parties the right to “dictate” legislation or government. It simply means that the larger and smaller parties will have to negotiate to reach a mutually agreed upon arrangement.
This is one thing I do like about John Key. He is prepared to work with various other parties, even when he doesn’t have to, in order to promote moderate government which pleases as many people as it can. This is the spirit of MMP and John Key certainly deserves credit for that.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 5:49 pm
@Brian (Shadowfoot) 4:57pm
I don’t think it’s specified explicitly anywhere, but the method used for council & DHB elections and the most common way, is that all 450 votes are *all* counted towards Mickey – with a weighting of 300/450, and *all* votes are assigned to the second – with a weighting of 150/450.
Scrooge would get an extra 66.67, and Donald 83.33.
If one more person voted Mickey > Donald > Scrooge, the weightings would be 300/451 and 151/451, so Scrooge would get an extra 66.96 and Donald 84.04.
Vote:The vote has 42% of the effect that a Donald > Scrooge > Mickey vote would have had.
November 23rd, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Brian,
TWF is correct under STV all votes are counted at one location so counting (of individual votes) is not undertaken at individual polling booths. With the computer software used it can allocate the preferences in the same proportions as the voters make
This makes counting STV (and PR) slower and results will take longer to get than with MMP, SM or FPTP
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 7:41 pm
@Inky_the_Red Thanks for that. It makes a lot of sense.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 7:52 pm
I like SM but having had a look at what countries have it there are only Japan, Mexico and South Korea that I would describe as ‘normal’
Vote:when you see Venezuela, The Palestinian Authority, Kazakhstan et el, I get a bit concerned.
November 23rd, 2011 at 8:48 pm
@ Pauleastbay: I’m interested which of these countries you would describe as ‘normal’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list#List_of_countries_with_open_list_proportional_representation
Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Indonesia, Iraq, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland
Which use Open list party-proportional voting of some description, somewhat similar to the version of MMP/STV that @swan is talking about, though swan is taking the idea further.
You don’t need STV to: – make all MPs get elected directly by voters – let voters rank candidates as they see fit – improve quality of candidates – get roughly geographic spread of labour and national MPs – reduce importance of party hierarchies – get rid of rejected MPs.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Proportional representation systems of whatever stripe all suffer from the same fundamental flaw which is that they *disproportionally* assign power to the third largest party. They go against their very raison d’etre.
Furthermore, proportional representation leads to compromise policies and these are generally bad policies. If a policy is no one’s idea of what will work, then why should it work? And if it fails, no one learns anything because no one agreed to it.
Plurality voting systems allow bad policies and bad parties to be decisively removed from power much more easily.
They also nearly always give rise to situations in which a relatively large change in who forms the government is produced by a small change in the vote. This means that small changes in public opinion can count for something. Proportional representation systems are insensitive to such changes and what counts is changes in the opinion of the leader of the third largest party. Being sensitive to small changes in public opinion means that all members of the government are at serious risk of being removed and that is a very good thing.
The fact that plurality voting systems make it easier to remove bad policies and bad governments is reflected in their relative simplicity. Many NZer’s still cannot properly explain MMP. STV is even harder to understand. And how is electoral representation by committee supposed to work?
For these reasons and more, I’ll be voting for FPP.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 9:50 pm
@Brian
“if it fails, no one learns anything because no one agreed to it.”
I think you will find that *parties representing a majority of voters* agreed to it. That’s the whole point. If no one agreed to it, it wouldn’t happen. Besides, who leans anything when a policy introduced by an elected dictator fails? voters on balance never agreed to it, so have nothing to learn.
If National/Labour thought power should be distributed proportionally, they would go into coalition with Labour/National, not the minor parties. On legislation, they often do work together too.
It’s also funny you should criticize PR for not giving a party on 40-50% of the vote *proportional* power, and instead advocate giving them 100% power, as if that were more proportional.
Vote:November 23rd, 2011 at 11:36 pm
We make the following mistakes consistently when discussing and evaluating electoral systems.
We have more ‘diversity’ of input with 120 MPs rather than 6 parties. An MP within Labour or National should be perfectly able to be more Green, Maori, or Liberal in the policies they vote for and advocate than any minor party MP. And they should be free to disagree and vote against other MPs from their own party.
The most important function of democracy is to remove people from power rather than to ‘proportionally’ represent voters. A Prime Minister does not run a country entirely on their own and by their own decisions, all the Ministers necks should be on the block for their performance regardless of how happy people are with their party or leader. We should be able to vote Nick Smith or Mallard out at the same time we keep Key or Goff. And MPs with 30 or 40 year careers for being onside with the party president offer little value.
So if we rank the systems by these criteria we have imho:
The ability to remove an MP from power:
1. PV
2. STV
3. FPP
4. SM
5. MMP
The function of allowing MPs to be independent of their party heirarchies:
Vote:1. STV
2. PV
3. FPP
4. SM
5. MMP
November 24th, 2011 at 12:25 am
STV is easier for voters to understand in that there is only list of candidates to rank and no separating the candidate and the party vote like MMP, which still confuses many.
Vote:November 24th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Brian (3) Says:
November 23rd, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Proportional representation systems of whatever stripe all suffer from the same fundamental flaw which is that they *disproportionally* assign power to the third largest party. They go against their very raison d’etre.
I disagree. The Green Party is the third largest party in Parliament and it does not have power disproportionate to its share of Parliament and it never has.
A party only holds the balance of power if it can tolerate going with either major party. If it is to the left of Labour (i.e. the Greens) or to the right of National (i.e. ACT) then it generally cannot do this. The only parties which have had the ability to go either way have been NZ 1st, United Future and the Maori Party. These parties can only go either way because they lie somewhere between the two major parties. i.e. they are centrist parties.
If these parties are centrist it is untenable to suggest that government will be led astray by extreme factions. By definition a centrist party is not extreme and must have policies comparable to the two major parties.
The reality is that most people simply do not like Winston and they do not like him having any influence whatsoever. But not so much because he is very extreme but because he is viewed as destablizing and untrustworthy. People voted for him in 1996 to get rid of National but he went with National anyway and exacted a high price from National for that coalition.
The problem would seem to be more Winston than the MMP system. It seems ridiculous to change the electoral system because an untrustworthy politician may get into power, do the opposite of what his voters expect and destablize government. This can happen under any system.
Further, it would seem to me that the most extreme government policies in recent history came under FPP with the Muldoon Government and the subsequent neo-liberal reforms of the Lange government. Such wild swings in power would seem to be much more likely under FPP where one party holds an absolute majority.
On the other hand MMP promotes moderate government by forcing parties to compromise with each other so that change is slow and cautious rather than dramatic. While it is arguable that coalitions are more prone to political destablization this would seem a relatively small price to pay for restrained government that must negotiate in order to enact legislation and policy.
Moreover, if the 5% threshold were eliminated this would make it easier for third parties to get off the ground and would make it much less likely that one party alone would hold the balance as was the case in 1996.
Vote: