The threshold
November 28th, 2011 at 4:45 pm by David FarrarNow that MMP is confirmed, attention will turn to how can one improve MMP. A big issue before the election result was whether the threshold should include gaining an electorate, or just be the 5% party vote. A related issue is should the 5% threshold be lowered or increased.
It is worth noting that not a single MP entered Parliament through the electorate seat threshold. The only List MPs are with National, Labour, Greens and NZ First – who all made 5%. I suspect this result will take some of the sting out of the issue.
Related posts:
- The one seat threshold
- What should the MMP threshold be?
- If there was no threshold
- Debating the Threshold
November 28th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I think the threshold has proven to be too high for New Zealand. I think 3% is a better balance.
Note that in this election it would have made no difference based on the results – but it is unknown if it would have changed the way people may have voted knowing it was a more achievable target.
If the threshold was 3% last election Winston would have got in (fair enough) and we might have had enough of him by now so he might have missed this time.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
The threshold should be lowered to 0.83% – unfortunately this means NZFirst would never have left parliament; but still the best result.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
iiq374 -I favour it being as propotional as possible but I think that may have to be balanced against what is palatable to the electorate – the politicians will give the electorate what it wants won’t it?.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
For a start MMP isn’t confirmed as less than 10% of the votes have been counted. I agree, however, it’s highly unlikely that it will be overturned.
I did a quick count of what would happen if it was dropped to 1/120 = 0.83%. Based on the last 15 years, the only “new” parties would have been the Christians in ’96-’02 and Legalise Canabis in ’96 and ’99. Everyone else that would have gotten in have gotten in via other means at some stage (eg NZ first in 2008).
I’d thus support dropping the threshold altogether. This would have allowed the Conservatives in this time, who got more votes than Mana, UF and Act combined yet got no seats.
[DPF: An issue you overlook is that is there was no threshold, far more parties would have bothered to stand, and many may have got 0.8%]
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
The key part of MMP is the P.
I think both thresholds could be changed, to make parliament more proportional to the party votes cast:
(1)
The party vote threshold should be (1/n * 100/1)%, where n is the number of seats. MMP does not need a little kicker at the bottom to keep minority political movements out of parliament for no good reason. If perchance we ended up with one Communist MP or one Skinhead MP – well, (s)he probably won’t be back for another term!
(2)
Vote:The electorate seat threshold should be abolished – MMP should allow minority political movements to win a voice in parliament, but it should not amplify their voice disproportionately. (The number of Act list MPs who rode in on Rodney Hide’s coat-tails last time was out of all proportion to the number of party votes given to Act.)
November 28th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Interesting to see, of all the electorates, on advanced votes, the good people of Epsom are the ones most heading of our dear leader’s advice in this matter, with 53% voting for change, and 24.5% wanting SM (FPP was the winner even in Epsom though, with 25.1% of the vote) Good on ‘em for consistency.
Further, it’s interesting to see the Maori electorates all know exactly what they want: 80% voting to keep MMP and most not bothering with the second question.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
@DPF: You may be right WRT more parties standing – we had 22 in ’96 though and most of them (14) got less than 0.3%. The 5% threshold hasn’t stopped “silly” parties (bill & ben for example) from registering though.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
You last paragraph is just 99% spin and totally ignores the previous elections where the make-up of Parliament would have been different had the threshold been lower.
Let’s not forget that if there had been a lower threshold then in the term just finished NZ First would have had a larger number of seats than ACT – and depending on where you sit that statement is a good reason for keeping the threshold or doing away with it. If we want a more representative democracy we should at least lower the threshold.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
The “sting” may be taken out of the issue given this elections results… although I suspect that Brash has a point when he suggested that a lot of potential Act voters may not have voted Act as they were wary of their votes being wasted with polls showing Banks behind in Epsom (notwithstanding that many wouldn’t have voted for Act because of the disgraceful state of the party!)
The point is that the threshold does have the potential to affect not only how people vote, but the outcome of elections and the make-up of parliament.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
I think we should introduce PV for both party and electorate votes and retain the 5% threshold. If your first preference party doesn’t get 5%, your vote is transferred to you second preference party. That way people will be willing to vote for minor parties without being afraid of wasting their vote. (This also lowers the influence of polls.) So it effectively lowers the threshold for entry, but still prevents a fragmented parliament.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
I think the biggest issue with the threshold is how it causes the polls to influence votes. Individuals don’t want to see their votes wasted, so once winston hit 4% in the polls it attracted alot more votes to him as people did not feel like there vote was going to be wasted.
Vote:The solution we discussed while watching the results was proportional voting for the party vote, maybe only allowed to pick a number 1 and number 2. So that your first vote can be for the party whose ideology you truly believe in and the second as a back up vote in case they dont make it.
November 28th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Israel has a nationwide proportional system (i.e. you just vote for your preferred party), they currently have a 2% threshold. There are 14 “parliamentary groups” (parties) in the current Knesset (parliament), and the ruling coalition consists of 7 parties.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Currently we have Parties in Parliament, and likely in Government, that attracted 0.61% and 1.07% of the vote, yet a Party that received 2.76% of the vote has gained no representation at all.
So why not abolish the threshold completely, and also abolish the “coat tails” provision that encourages the sort of rorts that have occurred in Epsom, Ohariu, and (since the implosion of the Alliance until this election) Wigram from occurring?
That would be fair and representative. Much as I despise the Conservative Party’s social policies, if the likes of United Future and ACT are there with a much lower percentage of the vote, so should be the Conservatives. The people who voted for them deserve to be represented (despite them being people whose views I largely do not like).
And I would agree with PV for the electorate vote.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
My take is the threshold should be 0.83% as iiq said above, more accurately the same as one electorate seat.
Sure it’d mean that mean Conservatives would have got 3 seats & most likely legalise marijuana one ( I suspect their vote would double if it was likely they would get a seat ) but I don’t see that as an issue.
The risk is a splintering of parliament, though I think NZ has become more accustomed to proportional representation & would vote accordingly.
You could maybe round it up to 1.5% or ~30k votes, so a single seat would still require an electorate, but two seats could be list or electorate/seat combinations.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Percentage threshold lowered but not abolished. Say to 3%.
Vote:Electorate seat threshold abolished.
Yes. Different thresholds will lead to different party behaviours and to an extent voters voting.
Both do strategise depending on the odds.
I am in favour of MMP and the only real problem it has is the individual electorates are too large.
November 28th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
One problem that would need to be addressed is the “kingmaker” or otherwise having the tail wagging the dog.
Perhaps have a threshold not for representation in parliament, but for represented parties getting a confidence & supply vote. Perhaps make that 5% (or 3%).
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
So why not abolish the threshold completely, and also abolish the “coat tails” provision that encourages the sort of rorts that have occurred in Epsom, Ohariu, and (since the implosion of the Alliance until this election) Wigram from occurring?
And what “rort” are you talking about then? Parties are free to stand who they want and campaign how they want as long as its legal – oh is that what you’re against, legal campaigning?
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Currently and in the new parliament we have one party that has never been able to convince a single electorate that they have someone trustworthy enough to represent it.
The threshold should be altered to ensure only parties with elected electorate members are able to enter parliament and those electorate members must outnumber the list MPs of that party.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Totally agree Toad. It was travesty that Peters wasn’t in the last parliament whilst receiving far more votes than Act who had 6 members.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Do you actually engage your brain before hitting the post button? The number of MP’s that came in with Rodney was exactly proportional to the number of party votes cast – that’s the point. The argument is whether an electorate seat should get you around the threshold, and whether there should be a threshold at all, because it unfairly cuts out a party that can gain an electorates-worth of votes across the country.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
MT_Tinman: Haha. Basically you want to force Labour to do a deal with the Greens.
I’d like to see a non-partisan debate about MMP, not a debate where people try to doctor the system so that their preferred parties benefit.
Preferential voting for electorate and party votes!
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
IMHO
1. Keep the 5%
2. 100 seats.
3. If you lose the electorate you cant come back on the List. ( the people rejected you moron).
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
If we had no threshold small parties would multiply like rabbits. Dozens of parties with no hope of getting 5% would jump in to the race if they only needed 0.8%. And many would get in. The 1986 Royal Commission was absolutely right in rejecting that scenario. We do not want to become like Israel, or Italy before they changed their system.
But I agree with Tas and others about PV for the party and electorate votes (twould be stange to have it for one but not the other). The combination of that with abolishing the one-seat threshold let-out clause would eliminate almost all of the silly games, bizarre deals and distortion from worrying whether your vote will count or not. It would make sure that
Vote:a) people could cast a vote for the party they REALLY wanted and
b) be assured they would still have a say if it did not get 5% and
c) Parliament would not become infested by micro-parties with wacky agendas.
November 28th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
DPF, or others
Are you able to provide comment on whether a preferential vote for the party list vote (as brought up on an earlier thread) may realistically be considered within the “terms of reference”? Or would this be considered an entirely different voting system?
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
You notice toads pathetic attempt to paint the electorate vote below 5% as an issue of the right only? he downplays jims effortfs, ignores that winston did it first and complelty evades the fact that the greens relied on it until specials came in the one time anyome was dumb enough to give them an electorate. in fact i recall the greens talking how it was good we havr the ‘coattail, method when it suited them.
But of course the greens deplore deals when others do them but do them all the time themselves.
democracy is only good when it works for them, otherwise they prefer coordinated vandslism.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Is that strictly true? I thought the proportion is adjusted once the wasted votes are discarded, like the 4+% for NZ First. So you actually get more seats the more votes are wasted?
Also, I favour the 3% target . It’s a lot harder to win an electorate seat so why should it be easier to get more MPs in on the party vote? You’ll see all minor parties abandon local representation…
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Having no threshold would be a disaster for stability.
Look at Australia. Gillard has to cobble together support from 4 independents/one-MP parties and it’s a disaster. Fortunately, under FPP it doesn’t happen very often in Australia.
Look at Israel. The largest party in their parliament has 28/120 seats. Labour has more seats than that! Imagine Labour getting an even lower vote and Goff being PM. National had 27 seats in 2002. And Israel has a 2% threshold, not 0.83%!! God knows what would happen with a one seat threshold.
The electorate loophole allows small parties to get in without upsetting stability. They only get in by doing a deal with a major party, which means they are forced to behave and support the party they made a deal with.
Preferential voting for both electorate and party votes! And leave the system otherwise unchanged!
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Electorate seats should be raised to , say, 70.
The List should be reduced to 30 so that we have only 100 MP’s – in line with the referendum some years ago.
Remove the threshold, so that party votes would be divided between the 30 seats available.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Get rid of the 5 percent threshold. It will remove all the bullshit we get every election where major parties turn minor parties into their bitches. It also prevents the pollsters from scaring people into ‘wasting’ their vote.
The simple fact is that the wasted votes gives the other parties a disproportionate advantage. Here I was thinking that people voted for MMP so their vote wasn’t wasted and that everyone’s vote was equal. The 5 percent threshold fucks up MMP.
Just remember that in 2008 over 153,000 votes (6.5%+) were wasted.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Don the Kiwi:
There are 70 electorates at present. It will increase again at the next census.
I like the 100 MPs idea. One percent=one seat.
But mainly I want preferential voting for electorate and party votes!
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Spam (471) Says:
November 28th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
One problem that would need to be addressed is the “kingmaker” or otherwise having the tail wagging the dog.
But this seems to be a feature of the 5% threshold which makes it harder to get smaller parties off the ground and makes it more likely that there are fewer third party options meaning someone like Winston has a higher chance of holding the balance of power. This of course is why Winston is championing the 5% threshold because he knows it’s in his interests to keep it. He is an established political player who has repeatedly scored over 5% and his desire is to limit the competition. The 5% threshold should be abolished in order to reduce the likelihood of any one party being able to hold government to ransom which is Winston’s goal for 2014.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
@MT_Tinman: The Greens won an electoral seat in ’99.
I don’t see the argument of “no threshold = lots and lots of small parties”. For a start, history shows this to be incorrect (in ’96 there were 14 parties that got less than 0.3% of the vote, and just 8 parties that got more than 0.8%). Secondly, if there were lots of small parties, then necessarily the vote is split between those lots of small parties and each of them is unlikely to make the effective 0.83% threshold. Thirdly, it’s hard to support allowing 3 parties in parliament who managed to win electorates (which in at least 2 cases was won with less than 50% of the electorate vote) while ignoring another party that got more votes than them combined in the party vote.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
# Bevan (3,620) Says:
November 28th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
So why not abolish the threshold completely, and also abolish the “coat tails” provision that encourages the sort of rorts that have occurred in Epsom, Ohariu, and (since the implosion of the Alliance until this election) Wigram from occurring?
And what “rort” are you talking about then? Parties are free to stand who they want and campaign how they want as long as its legal – oh is that what you’re against, legal campaigning?
Being legal does not necessarily make something not a rort. A rort is something dishonest, it is when you take advantage of something unfairly. I have no problem with the likes of Banks and Key doing a deal over Epsom. It’s within the rules. Similarly, the Maori seats allow Maori to split their vote and take advantage of the overhang. But these kinds of activities are not what the system intends. They are loopholes and the system should be amended to achieve a fairer result.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Weihana:
Winston is adept at playing any system, even FPP. I’m cautious about basing our electoral system around him.
But yes, a fragmented parliament leaves more possibilities to work around any one annoying party.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
iiq374 says:- “The threshold should be lowered to 0.83%”
In theory, if you want truly proportional representation, then this is correct, as it represents 1/120th of parliament. I suppose you could abolish the electorate vote and retain the party vote and simply publish open lists. The Israeli Knesset has a 2% threshold and a whole heap of minor parties. Even Likud and Kadima as the two major parties only poll just above the 20% mark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Israel (Scroll down to see 2009 Parties and seat allocation)
Personally I think a 4 – 5% threshhold is about right, but I would outlaw inter-party collusion such as we saw in Epsom and Ohariu.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
leftyliberal:
More parties would register and more of them would get over 0.8% if they and the public thought they had a chance of getting in.
Look at Israel, where the threshold is 2%. Do you want that here? Do you want to go further with a 0% threshold?
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
But this seems to be a feature of the 5% threshold which makes it harder to get smaller parties off the ground and makes it more likely that there are fewer third party options meaning someone like Winston has a higher chance of holding the balance of power.
Vote:Which is why I suggested removing confidence & supply from minor parties.
November 28th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
tas,
“…it’s a disaster.”
Can you be more specific? What is disastrous about Australia and Israel? They seem to get on just fine. If it’s so bad why do so many of us leave to live in Australia? Can you provide some concrete examples about why it’s so bad in these countries and how this is a consequence of having small parties in Parliament.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
I think the threshold should be changed.
Let’s move it from 5% to, say, oh I don’t know, just picking a figure off the top of my head; let’s move it to 28% – this means that National wins the election unanimously!
Perfect result, in other words.
The point I am trying to make is – everyone knows the Tories are “born to rule” so let’s cut to the chase an entrench that.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
tas,
There would always be an effective threshold which by default would be the equivalent of one seat in Parliament. That is what many here are advocating and I support them.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
@Scott Chris/tas: The Israeli Knesset uses Proportional voting, not MMP, so you basically have 120 list seats. With only 50 list seats, NZ is unlikely to be anywhere near as fragmented as the majors will likely keep taking the majority of the electorates, ensuring that between them they control the majority of the seats in the house.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
FPP is fantastic in most respects – representatives are elected based on their performance and ability to convince the voters in their electorate. The only “bad” thing about FPP is the non-proportionality.
I would like to see a voting system with one vote per ballot (no opportunity for “tactical” voting), for the candidate of your choice. Registered parties that do not have a candidate in the electorate have a box on the ballot with just the party name. Once candidates are elected on a FPP basis (so votes for parties not standing in an electorate are ignored), all the votes (except votes for independent candidates) are allocated to parties and the required number of list MPs for each party is determined so that the proportion of MPs reflect the proportion of votes cast. All list MPs are “overhang” MPs. I guess we will never have more than 20 or 30 of these. That allows us to have a much smaller parliament (which is one of the illogical things requested by old right-leaning people).
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Weihana says:- “What is disastrous about Australia and Israel?”
The fragmentation of power simply helps to preserve the status quo. Great if you’re a conservative.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Ultimately we want the government to represent 100% of the country. Democracy only guarantees that it represents 51%.
What kind of government is more likely to represent the whole society: A single-party government that gets 51% of the vote on its own or a coalition of 10 parties each getting 5.1% of the vote?
The reason minor parties need to be kept in check is that they do not represent the interests of wider community. Major parties are forced to have broad appeal and balanced policy. The threshold keeps out parties that do not have broad appeal. They either need to represent 5% of the population or be able to win a FPP contest in some electorate.
I am totally against removing the threshold. I think lowering it to 4% is OK. But I think preferential voting for party votes and keeping 5% is the best solution. It ensures broad appeal and gets rid of the wasted vote phenomenon.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Spam,
Which is why I suggested removing confidence & supply from minor parties.
I disagree. Having representation in Parliament is largely worthless if it does not include the right to decide on who governs. I support giving minority interests their full democratic rights, not a facsimile thereof.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
To explain further: One party gets zero list MPs, the others get only the required number to fix their percentage. It is possible (with just a few large parties) to have only a couple of list MPs per party. In today’s world, the Greens would get their 12 or so (because they are spectacularly bad at getting people to vote for their candidates), and Labour would get a few. National would not get any.
And we still need a threshold….I guess 5% is OK, leaning towards less rather than more.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I really don’t like the argument that if you aren’t elected in an electorate, you shouldn’t make it in on the list. Lots of good MPs, from various parties, stand in electorates they aren’t likely to win – to campaign for the party vote and give it a go. Losing by a small margin doesn’t mean the people have rejected you, it just means you weren’t the most popular candidate. I strongly disagree with the idea that electorate candidates shouldn’t be on the list.
Nobody would put their hand up to challenge – not decent candidates anyway, and electorates would fall into permanently electing one party’s candidates. What National candidate would stand in Rongotai, for example. I really hope this does not become a part of electoral law.
I’m ambivalent about the threshold and coat-tailing. My main problem is the overhang. I’d like that to be outlawed somehow.
Perhaps if a party recieves more electorates than it’s rightful share of the party vote, the other parties should take a split of the remaining seats. So this time, National, Labour, Green, and New Zealand First would have gotten a share of 114 seats, accounting for 1 seat each Act, UF, Mana and 3 for Maori. It’s a small problem now, but it could get bigger.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
The most important thing to do is to take the party lists off the party heirarchy.
Let the electoral commission publish the lists ranked on number of votes the candidates received in the general election.
Make any MP that forgoes their position on the list to allow a person below them into parliament ineligible to stand in the next election.
With 120 individual MPs who are not wholly beholden to their parties (as all the National and Labour MPs are, their electorate races matter to no more than 1 or 2 out of nearly 100 MPs), minor parties no longer hold disproportionate power, a majority of 120 MPs do. National and Labour wouldn’t have to go after Winston for their votes, they could try to get a few MPs from the other major parties to cross the aisle on each issue
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Weihana:
It doesn’t happen very often in Australia. So I’m not arguing that Australia is a disaster. But in this one term we are already seeing an unstable and unpopular government.
I’m not to familiar with Israeli politics, but it sets the eyes rolling of most of the israeli diaspora I know. They definitely do have a fragmented knesset and frequent changes of government and frequent premature elections. Moreover, Israel raised their threshold and have attempted to change their electoral system because of instability.
Is that concrete enough for you?
Fragmented parliaments are bad! I hope we have established that now and we can put thoughts of a one-seat threshold to rest.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
tas,
What kind of government is more likely to represent the whole society: A single-party government that gets 51% of the vote on its own or a coalition of 10 parties each getting 5.1% of the vote?
Neither are likely to represent the whole country. That’s impossible. But I would consider the single party and the 10 party coalition as equally representing 51% of the country. Such a coalition would also be forced to have broad appeal because their policies would have to satisfy all 10 coalition partners. If anything the coalition would be more representative because a single party is often filled with MPs who are towing the party line in hopes of rising through the party ranks without regard for what their particular electorate actually wants.
Further, a government is not intended to represent the whole of the country. They are supposed to represent the majority. But Parliament should represent the whole of society because if it doesn’t then a majority in Parliament may not be the same thing as a majority of society. Having Parliament represent society accurately requires a high degree of proportionality.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
I agree with Spam. Letting a clown like Winston destabalise the country in the name of democracy is lunacy. Letting someone like that anywhere near the reins of power because he convinced the oldest 6% (do that many people really have Alzheimers??) to vote for him is an insult to the other 94% of the country.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
@Grendel 5:50 pm
I specifically mentioned Wigram, and by implication Anderton’s rort with Labour. That was no better than the Epsom and Ohariu exercises in the current election. Both right and left have run the rort.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
6.8% of morons voted for the venal Peters. That’s democracy for the rest of us.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
The next thing that needs to changed is electorate races need to be done with preferential voting instead of the FPP races we have now.
This would allow seats to shift along the spectrum rather than shift to the other side when one side splits their vote. Peter Dunnes recent career has relied on Shanks voters who don’t want Chauvel to win the seat and vice versa.
It also gives a better chance for Greens and ACT to win seats off Labour an National and therefore poor performing MPs to be dumped by their supporters who don’t necessarily want the seat to cross the aisle.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
@Maaik 6:27 pm
It is not that the Greens are “bad” at that. It is just that since the 1999 election they have made a strategic decision to prioritise the Party vote over getting electoral candidates elected – i.e, they have not tried to get people to electorate vote for their candidates, because that is not a priority under MMP.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
tas,
Are frequent elections a bad thing? Israel is a highly developed nation with a growing economy. It manages to defend itself amongst a sea of enemies who want to destroy them. Seems the political turmoil does not prevent them doing what is necessary.
In any case, as an alternative I like your idea of preferential voting for party lists which would enable me to pick a preferred choice whilst having a backup so as not to waste my vote.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
I am also not liking the idea of not allowing electorate MPs to stand on the list, because this would lower the quality of challangers for electorates as it would be much more of a risk than going on the list. Perhaps if the rule only applied to incumbent electorate MPs?
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
There is no need for 60 list MPs to achieve proportionality.
There should be at least 80 electorate MPs with 40 list MPs. This would mean the top half of the Nats non-electorate winners would get in and the top quarter of Labours.
And the threshold should be an electorate seat. With greater numbers and therefore smaller seats with preferential voting it is an easily achievable target for a focused group, effectively 0.63% of the country.
With equal list and electorate MPs, virtually every electorate race has been a waste of money except where the threshold comes into it. Every losing National MP gets into the house on the list anyway.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Following on from my post at 6:15pm – I think the threshold should be decided the day AFTER the election; that way on election night we could ask each party whether they intend to be patriotic and support policies in the best interest of New Zealand (ie: renounce all they believe in and all they campaigned on to the stomach churning disappointment of all their supporters) or the day after the election the threshold is decided and lo and behold the left wing loons fail to make it and National wins another term. New Zealand is saved. Phew!
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
@tas: Again, Israel has 120 list seats. NZ has 50, some of which will be taken by the major parties anyway. Thus, a lower threshold in NZ is unlikely to cause the stability issues you mention. Further, many small parties would allow multiple options for the leading major party to pick and choose from.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
What about a system where list seats are divided into say five regions, proportional to the population – 2 for the SI, such as Lower South Island, Upper South Island etc. And then the electorate seats pretty much as they are. Just an idea…
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
> FPP is fantastic in most respects – representatives are elected based on their performance and ability to convince the voters in their electorate. The only “bad” thing about FPP is the non-proportionality.
Proportional representation systems *disproportionally* assign power to smaller parties, the kingmaker is a feature, not a bug.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
leftyliberal
Did you not read David’s reply to your post re parties polling under 5%. If there was no threshhold a variety of new parties would splinter off as is the case in Israel and most would be legitimate parties representing known factional interests in the political scene and likely fronted by electable people with some degree of funding. This is a far cry from the myriads of micro parties such as the Communists, Workers Unity, Bill and Ben etc etc who are populated with either fanatics or nut jobs. They were always with us even under FPP when there was zero chance of winning a seat.
If we lowered the threshhold to 2% we will get the same number of Parliamentary parties as Israel and the same fragile coalitions that collapse at the whim of one extremist coalition partner that can’t get their way. If we stick with MMP (which it looks like we have) then we have to accept the tradeoffs between a higher threshold and fewer parties leading to more stable coalitions but a higher wasted vote versus a lower threshold and more unstable coalitions with up to 7 parties governing together.
I favour perhaps a slight lowering of the threshold to maybe 3-4% and abolishing the electorate seat threshold waiver. That would still bring in the Maori Party as they always have appeal in the Maori seats. It would reduce the risk of overhang but not eliminate it entirely. I favour banning dual campaigning – ie electorate and Party List. The most egregious aspect if MMP is defeated electorate MPs returning on the list. A candidate must choose one of the other and take their chances.
Finally I would open the lists to registered party members to vote on (similar to the US primary system). A voter must choose their registration and once chosen they can only vote on that chosen party list (ie prevents Labour members voting on National’s list). You can switch party affiliation any time you want but once you have voted in an election year list selection process you cannot then switch to another party to take part in their list selection vote.
I think those 4 reforms will make MMP more liveable and workable.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Weihana:
Sure, a perfect government is impossible, but that’s not an argument to stop trying for the best possible. I completely disagree that a coalition of small parties will as broad an appeal as one large party.
Major parties have more centrist and balanced policies than the minor parties. That is no coincidence. As a result there is a certain amount of consensus. And many National voters would put Labour as their second preference and vice-versa. That’s good. It means that National and Labour represent more than just the interests of their voters.
Minor parties have more extreme policies. That is also no coincidence. They refuse to work with one another and strongly disagree on things. I doubt the Greens’ policies appeal to ACT voters or vice-versa. That’s bad. It means that these parties fail to represent the interests of the whole country.
Weihana again:
I agree that they aren’t the end of the world, but that doesn’t make frequent changes of government a good thing. Likewise, a return to FPP wouldn’t be the end of the world, but that doesn’t make it a good thing.
Israeli governments frequently don’t last one term, let alone multiple terms. I think it is hard to argue that that is in the best interests of the country. And, while Israel is better than the dictatorships that surround it, it has its fair share of problems.
Good! I’d like my proposal to be seriously considered.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Being legal does not necessarily make something not a rort. A rort is something dishonest, it is when you take advantage of something unfairly. I have no problem with the likes of Banks and Key doing a deal over Epsom. It’s within the rules. Similarly, the Maori seats allow Maori to split their vote and take advantage of the overhang. But these kinds of activities are not what the system intends. They are loopholes and the system should be amended to achieve a fairer result.
Right, so your issue is?
Thats a hell of a lot of words saying nothing right there.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
@kiwi in america: I did read it and have replied to his comment. I take your point regarding increase in small parties splitting off from larger parties, but I don’t necessarily see a problem with that – at least it allows that particular faction to be accountable to the voting populace rather than wrapped up with all the other pros and cons of the larger entity.
As for stability, Israel is not a good example as they’re list-only. I’d agree if we had direct proportional voting only.
I’d support open lists for sure.
I don’t see the advantage of candidates having to choose between the list and electorate, however – would this mean lower quality opposition candidates in safe seats – at least until NZers wake up to the fact that vote splitting may well be the norm under MMP?
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
“but I would outlaw inter-party collusion such as we saw in Epsom and Ohariu”
How would you enforce this in practice? The reality is you need an electoral system that itself minimises the amount of collusion that can be undertaken, and to my mind MMP is not the system for that.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Kiwi in america,
The most egregious aspect if MMP is defeated electorate MPs returning on the list.
I don’t quite get this complaint. Voting is about being represented, it shouldn’t be about some voters having a personal vendetta against a particular politician and trying to get them ousted from Parliament. If they get in on the list then they deserve to be there by virtue of the fact that their party put them there on the list. The fact that I may not want a particular local MP does not negate the vote of others who vote for a particular party and thereby give that party a mandate to bring in a losing electorate MP if that person is on their list.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Don The Kiwi
Vote:Hey sport join the insane right. Beat kids, kill law breakers hey go further inflict a Nazi regime on NZ is what you stand for. You are mad.
November 28th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Other than in byelections, electorate seats are irrelevant. If a party gets 35%-40% of the Party vote in a general election, but not win a single electorate, it would still almost certainly lead the incoming Government.
The preoccupation with electorate seats is a legacy of FPP, which has now for once and for all been consigned by the referendum to oblivion. Time to move on.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Whatever changes are made in the review, they should be directed at reducing the power of parties and increasing the importance of Electorate MPs. Only the latter are directly endorsed by the voters, and they have the universally-recognised responsibility to represent the regions that make up a sovereign entity.
Tip O’Neil: “All politics are local”.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
tas,
National and Labour represent more than just the interests of their voters.
I believe just about every politician sincerely believes that what they advocate is in the best interests of the nation. Whether or not their policies are good for the nation in actuality is independent of how popular the idea is or how much consensus is achieved. I don’t intend this as an argument against democracy just pointing out that what National and Labour represent is populist ideals which do not necessarily accord with what is good for the country just because many people believe it to be so.
Minor parties have more extreme policies. That is also no coincidence. They refuse to work with one another and strongly disagree on things. I doubt the Greens’ policies appeal to ACT voters or vice-versa. That’s bad. It means that these parties fail to represent the interests of the whole country.
I don’t know about John Banks but at least as originally envisaged the ACT party and the Greens should find significant common ground on social freedom (as opposed to economic freedom). I believe some in the ACT party supported a first reading for Turei’s medical marijuana bill. I don’t think it’s fair to characterize them as extremist. They may not be centrist parties but they are capable of reason and compromise.
Further, as representatives of minority interests they provide an effective check on populist movements which can often threaten the rights and interests of minorities. In my view they have a moderating influence as opposed to the kind of influence that would see government taking more extreme action.
I agree that they aren’t the end of the world, but that doesn’t make frequent changes of government a good thing.
Good point.
I’d like my proposal to be seriously considered.
I’m actually starting to think it’s a bloody good idea and one that may find broad appeal. Eliminating the threshold is more unlikely and while I’m still inclined to support eliminating the threshold there are fair arguments against it.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
@toad
Vote:‘
Not everyone loves the quality of candidates selected by party hacks. That is the issue.
November 28th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
toad:
I disagree. Firstly, local MPs have their uses. And, without electorates, they’d all live in Wellington. Just because your party the Greens don’t have local MPs doesn’t mean the rest of us agree.
More importantly, electorates allow the party lists to be opened up. For example, Damien O’Connor is much more appealing to the electorate than Andrew Little and the voters got to signal that by effectively putting O’Connor at the top of Labour’s list and Little at the bottom, despite the party thinking otherwise.
I think the nature of electorates needs to change to reflect this more. Here is a simple scheme that might accommodate this.
Electorates no longer directly elect MPs and parties no longer rank their candidates. Instead candidates are ranked according to how many electorate votes they get. So party X might get 25% of the vote giving them 30 MPs. The candidates are ranked by how many electorate votes they get–so the 30 party X candidates who got the most electorate votes get in. “Winning” an electorate doesn’t guarantee getting a seat, it just guarantees a high placing on the party ranking.
Obviously this scheme has several flaws that need to be fixed. But I think it has some merits. It opens the list, which gives the voters more say and parties less. All candidates must stand in an electorate and can be rejected by voters. It also removes the overhang problem that makes MMP non-proportional.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
There’s a reasonable case for the electorate seat loophole, given that one of the problems of a low threshold is the potential for “extreme” parties. If a party is able to win a plurality in an electorate seat, that indicates that it is at least somewhat mainstream.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Weihana:
I agree, ACT and the Greens are perfectly reasonable parties that should have representation. The Maori and Mana parties are the only ones I think fall into the special interest category. I definitely think minor parties have a place in politics. I’m just arguing that there are compromises to be made and I think that anything below a 3% to 4% threshold is too low. I think my proposal of PV party votes is a good way to lower the barrier to minor parties without creating an excessively fragmented parliament.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
@Nichlemn 8:41 pm
No, it doesn’t. In recent years it indicates there is either a Labour (Wigram) or National (Epsom, Ohariu) inspired rort going on. UF’s, ACT’s and Mana’s Party votes would indicate they are NOT “mainstream”. But they should still be represented to the proportionality of their Party vote. Arguably, ACT should be represented by Brash, not Banks, because Banks only got there through an electorate rort, and Brash as Party Leader was much more representative of what the ACT Party stands for than Banks ever will be.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
@ James stephenson –
Vote:Like, whatever biartch.
Another minor party polled a little higher than act in 08 and that translated into no seats at all on the house for them. So the proportionality is completely lost in some cases.
November 28th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Nichlemn, toad:
I would also argue that electorate deals like in Epsom/Ohariu/Wigram/Coromandel are as much a feature as a bug of the electorate loophole. It means that these minor parties are somewhat beholden to a major party, which means they won’t cause mayhem in parliament like Winston Peters did from 1996 to 1999. They are bound to support their main party on confidence and supply at the very least, which ensures stable government despite minor parties holding the balance of power. National can safely rely on ACT and UF.
It’s basically saying parties under 5% are allowed in as long as they won’t cause trouble.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
is rort the word of the day in green camp toad, is this part of the greens attempt to own the language per the Curran method?
what is your position on the rort of a candidate from one party suggesting you not vote for them but vote for someone else? is that ‘rort’ worse if the party has claimed all along it does not do deals and finds deals dodgy?
Fwiw i think its all fine. unlike the convenient loss of memory of the left i recall when MMP came in, they talked about blocs and how in one bloc one party might pursue the party vote, the other the electorates and bloc members may choose to not compete against each other.
it was also pointed out that a small party could push for one seat and get their list seats off that alone, even below 5%. it was considered fine and part of the rules then, and it was when anderton did it, winston did it and when the greens were relying on it till specials came in. for some reason its only been a ‘bad thing’ since 2008.
oh and by the way, the reason the greens do not pursue the electorate vote is becuase it would lose you party votes, becuase people would see what your candidates are actually like, instead you keep them part of the blur of the collective and hide away the biggest nutters. of course you can always resort to coordinated vandalism, have one leader say they knew nothing about it and hide the other leader away so she can never answer the question and therefore never be accused of lying.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Here’s two questions to stir the pot:
“What would the pollsters and media coverage be like if the 5 percent threshold was removed?”
“What would the voter turnout be like if the 5 percent threshold was removed?”
I reckon that:
Vote:- The media wouldn’t be picking on the minor parties as much;
- People wouldn’t be relying on the polls as much as the margin of error would reduce their credibility and people would vote the way they want rather than strategic trade-offs; and
- The voter turnout would be a lot higher – especially for the major party supporters.
November 28th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
@Grendel 8:58 pm
I accept that the Greens were relying on it in 1999, because that is what the law allowed then and still allows now. If Greens had got extra MPs in Parliament in 1999 solely on the basis of the Coromandel electorate seat I would have welcomed it, because that is the way the electoral law was and is written, but still been embarrassed because that is not the way I think it should be written in the interests of democracy and fairness.
Then, and now, I support no threshold, and no electorate coat-tailing. That way the people get MPs in the proportion they vote for them.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
RRM, i agree (and i am an ACT voter).
however is the solution to say the party with 2% of votes and 1 seat does not get their 3 list seats or lower the threshold so that the 2.8% party vote and no seat also gets in?
in my opinion one of those gets a more proportional response (ie the much lower threshold), the other makes it less, and increases the wasted vote aspect.
its odd that the most vocal proponents of MMP (usually greenies who think they will never go below 5%) who have said that its ‘fairer’ as everyones vote counts, want to change it so that less votes count. under STV or PV the only way your vote is wasted is if you choose to waste it. under MMP its very easy to have your vote count for nothing.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Grendel:
Don’t think the solution is a free-for-all. We should just have preferential voting for party votes, so, if your first choice party doesn’t clear 5%, your vote still counts, but is transferred to your second choice party. That way you don’t get wasted votes and you don’t get a fragmented parliament. That’s win-win if you ask me.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
@Grendel 9:07 pm
Not me. as a “greenie”. I’ve been arguing all through this thread to change it so more votes count – eg so NZF in 2008 and Conservatives in 2011 got representation in Parliament – even though I despise the policies of those parties more than those of National and almost as much as ACT.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
toad wrote
Currently we have Parties in Parliament, and likely in Government, that attracted 0.61% and 1.07% of the vote, yet a Party that received 2.76% of the vote has gained no representation at all.
So why not abolish the threshold completely, and also abolish the “coat tails” provision that encourages the sort of rorts that have occurred in Epsom, Ohariu, and (since the implosion of the Alliance until this election) Wigram from occurring?
Totally agree, and I also like the idea of some sort of transferable party vote, so a second choice can be nominated
Regards
Vote:Peter J
Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz
November 28th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
so toad do you support removing of the ‘coattailing’ ability on its own, or only in exchange for a much lower threshold?
and whats the official position of the party? do they want to allow more competitors the opportunity to get into parliament?
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
@Grendel 9:44 pm
What I have expressed on this thread are my personal views. The Greens’ official position is:
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
wow so much to say so little.
more people voting? they going to push for 16 year olds again?
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
@Grendel 10:34 pm
That’s not Green policy either, although I support it. If you can leave school and work full-time and pay tax, you should be able to vote. No taxation without representation.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
STV with huge electorates, say 8 in the Sth Island and 12-16 in the Nth Island would be the way to go.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
We live in dynamic times (I have that on the highest authority) and there should be a dynamic threshold. Suggestions
T = WFP + 1 where T is the threshold and WFP is the percentage of votes attained by Winston First Party.
T = WFP – (SM x Y) where WFP is the total number of votes received by Winston First Party, SM is the aggregate of money taken by WFP and not returned and Y is the number of years that it has been outstanding. (Applied to Labour that would leave them in a negative situation although I seem to recall that although they legalised the taking, they may have repaid it all the same.
We should also have a performance factor where eligibility for list seats is influenced by the number of resignations during the previous term. So, list seat thresholds go up where
– an mp resigns during the year because they throw their toys out of the cot when they lose
– an mp resigns or is sacked for unwelcome sexual overtures
– misuse of parliamentary funds
– lapdancing at christmas functions
– heavy fisted misuse of travel allowances
It should not all be negative and we need to reward courage and devotion to duty. Damien should have got a bonus seat for being honest with his gaggle of gays comments.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
On a side note of the list, it would be nice if this was placed more in voters hands somehow.
I surprisingly agree with the majority of posters here, quite a well written thread. I definitely would be in favour of
- PV for electorate seats, if you are an elecotrate MP you can’t get in on the list.
Vote:- Reducing the threshold so the coat tails provision is no longer relevant. I too think its unjust that UF and Act get representation but the Conservatives (whose view I entirely oppose) do not.
November 28th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Would also be useful for youthrates, don’t take tax off people till they’re 18.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Why is everyone claiming the referendum result has been determined. It has not. Only the votes cast before election day have been counted and published to date.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
‘No, it doesn’t. In recent years it indicates there is either a Labour (Wigram) or National (Epsom, Ohariu) inspired rort going on. UF’s, ACT’s and Mana’s Party votes would indicate they are NOT “mainstream”.’
They are “mainstream” in the sense that while they might not win many votes, a reasonable number of voters at least tolerate the idea of returning them to Parliament. Something like the National Front would never be able to win an electorate seat even if it could get to 1% of the vote or so, because they’d be too reviled to either win on their own or get a deal from a major party.
Vote:November 28th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Correct Swampy. And as for an “independent” review (with several major issues already totally ruled out), Ha ha. And as for politicians voting for reforms to put power in the hands of voters and reducing party power Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
As for reducing the threshold to 0.83% or less that is insanity, Tas is totally correct with the fragmentation and instability that will result and why the original Electoral System Commission did not even go there. Think about it – there are plenty of single issue nutters who could muster 1 fellow nutter in 120 voters (in fact even more likely a fanatic nutter will vote than the average citizen, in this election they would only have needed to convince one in 212 possible voters). And because it’s a feature of MMP these tiny parties will regularly be in the position of wagging the dog/kingmaker. And don’t think single issue nutter(s) would respect the majority will and risk collapsing a government and a new election – they’re nutters for a reason and they know their fellow nutters will put them back in. Just wait till you get MP Brian Tamaki of the Lord’s Will party or Sue Bradford of the Unemployed Workers party or Huey knows what, permanently entrenched and regularly holding the decisive vote.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:12 am
I don’t really see what the issue here is with “coat tailing”. You need to go back to why it was introduced: the intent was that a party needed to show a strong support base before they could be elected. That meant diffuse support across the country (5%) or strong support in a single consituency (an electorate). Meeting either test presumably meant you couldn’t be too extreme.
Most people’s objection appears to be that particular parties they don’t like got in, or parties they do like didn’t get in. That’s complaining about the result, not about the process. I haven’t yet seen what people don’t like about the proces….
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 5:17 am
PaulL 12:12 am
But ACT and United Future don’t have “strong support in an electorate” – look at their tiny Party votes in Epsom and Ohariu. It is National that has strong support in those electorates, and ACT and UF are there essentially as a result of a rort to give National additional MPs in excess of their proportion of the vote. Same with the Progressives and Wigram in previous elections after the Alliance imploded – essentially just gave Labour and additional 1 or 2 MPs.
I see it as a rort, whichever “side” does it.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 7:17 am
The only reason ACTs party vote was so small is that the media told them that they would lose Epsom and therefore their party vote would be wasted.
And the only reason Dunne gets in is because with the FPP electorate voteing, National supporters do not want to let Charles Chauvel through the middle.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 7:20 am
There is no reason for a small party or ‘nutter’ MP to hold the balance of power on parliamentary votes. National simply need to get a Labour MP to vote with them on that occasion or vice versa.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 7:55 am
PaulL @ 12:12 –
Fair enough and that sounds sensible. But shouldn’t it be for the voters, not the electoral process, to decide if someone is “too” extreme to represent them?
The country is a village, I don’t think electing a local champion to Parliament is as important now as it has been in the past. Why not let a diffuse 1% of support around the country equate to one seat?
And Sonny Blount that’s pretty radical, almost sounds like crazy talk. You think someone might be persuaded to do something that’s good for the country even though the other side suggested it; instead of just sticking blindly to their ‘Blue HATE Red, Red HATE Blue’ tribal allegiance?
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 8:05 am
toad
There is no overhang as a result of Ohariu and Epsom, no extra seats – propotionality is maintained.
The only place where we have consistently got overhangs and a distortion of proportionality is in the Maori seats with voters voting tactictally. Do you consider this to be a rort?
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 8:10 am
I prefer 61 electorate seats and 40 list MPS with a 2.5% threshold.
Vote:Parties who achieve less than 2.5% see their votes voided, thus increasing the % of the successful parties (in getting more than threshold) until the 40 list MPS are achieved.
Simple and easy to understand and even better we lose 20 bottom feeding MPS who offer little value currently.
November 29th, 2011 at 8:37 am
toad again lets the facts get in the way of Gween spin – in the cases of both ACT and United Future, their candidates actually won electoral seats. Voted in by electorates, against candidates representing other parties. A clear choice. No dispute. They won their seats fair and square.
But in the case of the Gweens, candidates were not voted in by an electorate nor ranked by the voters in the electorate but rather they were selected and ranked behind closed doors by party faithful. The truth is, the Party votes (coupled with the ‘behind closed doors’ ranking process), determined who made it as a Gween MP.
THAT is the rort. The same rort that allowed dissidents such as Bradford / Locke / Kedgeley / Tanczos / Delahunty etc to suck off the public tit for so many years. And that’s just another reason why MMP has to be changed.
The threshold should be that representation in Parliament is conditional upon a party candidate winning in his / her electorate.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 9:13 am
In what way is that a rort elaycee? Someone still has to party vote to install a list mp. And surely it is your respinsibility as a citizen to read & evaluate the list of the party you think you want to vote for?
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 9:28 am
@Elaycee: Fair and square they won, yes. Would they have won if Goldsmith, Shanks and Key had not offered them their support? This time around the rest of NZ voted fairly and squarely to ensure that none of their nasty list MPs (like the leader of Act for example) didn’t make it in. I note, however, that the party vote was reasonably consistent with the number of MPs they got, so proportionality was maintained for Act and UF this time around.
As for the Greens, their list selection process is actually one of the most open and transparent among all the parties: Their members (all their members) vote on the order, with a small amount of balancing based on open and transparent rules done later. That Delahunty (the only one in your list left) gets high on the list suggests that she is supported within the Green membership. Anyone can join the Green membership in order to vote in their list, so you could have if you’d wanted to have a say. I note that Delahunty also was placed a close third in the electorate vote (Coromandel) receiving some 1600 votes more for her electorate vote than she did for the party vote, perhaps suggesting that around 1/4 of the electorate support her more than they do the general green policies.
@Grendel: From my limited perspective it seems that most supporters of MMP on the left seem to also support either no threshold at all or a lowered threshold?
@tas: Agreed that if we are to have a threshold, PV would get rid of the lost vote. Personally I prefer no threshold as it simplifies things for voters.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 9:56 am
My preferred reforms:
MMP
- Party vote and Electorate vote ranked via PV as 1,2,3 (anything beyond that is a hassle for the voter and statistically insignificant to the result) It stops wasted party votes like Conservatives this year or Winston in ’08. It also means third parties could compete in electorate contests without being spoilers, this should improve the quality of electorate contests and candidates.
- Retain the 5% threshold, allows parliament to have meaningful blocks with sufficient numbers and resources to support genuine policy debate.
- Stop the coattailing rule – the results for Mana, United, Act, and Maori parties is a huge endorsement by the electorate for this change.
- Not fussed about the option of being able to stand either for an electorate or list. I suspect the effect of introducing such a rule would be a flight to the ‘safe seats’ and a bunch of MP’s standing list only. This means the closest electorates would end up with the crappest candidates.
Other:
Vote:- 4 year electoral term.
- 100 seat parliament – 50 list, 50 electorates – adjust the size of the electorates to their fixed number rather than just keeping adding electorates over time.
- Independent treasury funding, based on representation, for all parties to properly cost policies and compete on a fair playing field.
- All parties required to have democratic list ranking process for members and democratic leadership primaries (only the Greens do this currently).
November 30th, 2011 at 2:48 am
The only reason ACT polled as low as they did is because due to the 5% threshold and media scaremongering about them not coattailing in Epsom, led voters to make ensure that their vote was not wasted.
Vote:November 30th, 2011 at 8:24 am
I’ve posted a list of options for changing MMP to my blog here:
http://blog.darkmere.gen.nz/2011/11/options-to-change-mmp/
I think I’ve captured most of the suggests posted to this thread.
Vote: