The MMP Referendum
December 13th, 2011 at 9:00 am by David FarrarAs the result was obvious since election night, I’ve left posting until now. First the results of Part A:
- Keep MMP 57.8%
- Change 42.2%
A very clear decision, and as far as I am concerned MMP is here to stay and any future referendum on our basic electoral system should not occur for several decades. The focus should now go on how to improve MMP, and other electoral and constitutional issues.
Part B saw:
- Informal 33.1%
- FPP 31.2%
- SM 16.1%
- STV 11.2%
- PV 8.3%
The fact that so few were able to vote in Part B suggest strongly that the educational campaign and associated debate was inadequate. This is not a criticism of the Electoral Commission who had a limited budget, but more the media who failed to broadcast any serious debates on the competing systems. The best debate was on Sky News ironically.
There were other factors such as the RWC and the general election also. Plus the general satisfaction with the Government meant MMP was less of an issue as say in 1999 or 2008. I just think it is a pity we never had a decent debate about the merits of MMP vs STV.
Voters in the Maori seats were the biggest supporters of MMP (which is slightly ironic as under FPP there would be 12, not seven, Maori seats) followed by South Auckland. While not a perfect match, the pattern I see is the more left the electorate the more it supported MMP. Wellington was the next strongest area of support for MMP. Overall only 14 out of 70 electorates voted to change from MMP.
Of the four options, the highest and lowest support for each was:
- FPP – 58.1% in Clutha-Southland and Invercargill, 24.5% Wellington Central
- PV – 23.4% Waiariki, 8.4% Selwyn
- STV – 37.9% Wellington Central, 10.25 Clutha-Southland
- SM – 35.9% Epsom, 12.6% Ikaroa-Rawhiti
As a keen student of electoral and constitutional law, there are three major opportunities coming up to engage:
- The review of the 2011 election by the Justice & Electoral Select Committee
- The review of MMP by the Electoral Commission
- The constitutional review by the independent panel established as part of the National and Maori Party agreement in 2008
I’ll blog more on my thoughts re the MMP review next year.
Related posts:
- Smacking Referendum Results
- Final Referendum Result
- Electoral Referendum Bill Submission
- Maxim on the MMP Referendum
December 13th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Not sure about the “fact that so few were able to vote in Part B”. Most friends & family I’ve spoken to simply ignored Part B in case someone saw a strong second preference as an excuse to do it all again.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 9:24 am
I’m less likely to set up a business in this country now. And while we haven’t decided yet, we’re moving closer to raising the family in Australia instead of New Zealand. National might get a few things screwed down in the next 3-6 years, but 6-9 years of Labour after this I can’t really be bothered wasting my time with. A disappointing result unless you’re an unelectable communist, unelectable an anti-American muppet, an uelectable homofacist, or an unelectable 21st Century Muldoonist.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 9:26 am
I’ll warrant that a repeat referendum without the complications of being associated with a General Election that was predicted to be a landslide “one-party-to-rule-them-all” and with hindsight of Winston First and the Greens getting so many seats without winning a single electorate between them, would turn out a significantly different outcome.
It always looked like a jack-up both in the timing and in the questions asked so it is not surprising that we ended up with such a predictable outcome.
Having said that, sadly you are probably corect DPF, that we are now stuck with a system designed to compromise effective Government to an extent that is offensive to those of us who expect our Government to actually deliver on their promises and for the “losers” to have their policies consigned to the bin until they get another shot at it.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Yes, I am certain you will be much happier under Julia.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 9:37 am
I’d rather have Australian Labor policies than NZ National policies. I was talking to my uncle (who is a successful Kiwi in biotech in the USA) who wants to return to NZ (his American wife died a few years back) but everytime he visits he finds it harder to justify moving his capital – and risking his intellectual propety – under future governments who at their core hate businesses and employers and where ‘green-ness’ is the new God. He knows the USA is not perfect, but when he comes home he feels like NZ is country of children.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 9:43 am
EWS, you know that Australia has preferential voting, GST free fruit and veg and a capital gains tax right?
How about you drop the anonymity and then we can work out if this isn’t just idle talk. If it isn’t, I’ll happily drive you to the airport!
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Having the referendum concurrent with the General election ensured it was buried before the vote.
Particularly as we were bombarded with the theory from the polls that National would govern alone, the biggest factor that got MMP across the line in the beginning.
Having the referendum in ‘mid term’ would have allowed voters to judge MMP on what it was delivering and in anticipation of the probable rather chaotic Opposition with NZWorst and a shambollic fragmented opposition with half a dozen egos vieing for traction, I think a much different outcome and IMHO more accurate reflection of the true feelings ov voters would have eventuated.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 9:57 am
It is an absolute abortion of a system, just look at the nutcases it has thrown up this time. It will in future entrench unstable left wing coalitions with their mania for Political Correctness , rights, and entitlements over prudent management which will result in a slide to poverty. The current Government at the height of its popularity and with the highest proportion of the vote ever recorded by a single party can’t even manage a majority, and can scarcely form a government. The push to reduce the threshold for party representation will of course exacerbate the situation. The referendum should be held every election but I expect you are right, only when the Nation is on the bones of its arse might the people be given the option of change again.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Like all referenda in New Zealand this is not binding and I think National should look at the overwelming preference of those who expressed one for FPP with a view to returning to that voting system in 2014.
To take the 1993 electorate boundaries as a guide, with 99 seats, and taking the party vote figures, the result would have been Maori party 1, Labour 13 – 15, National 83 – 85 (depending on whether certain Labour MPs would have still won their seats – Mallard, Hipkins, Dalzell, Lees-Galloway)
By any stretch of the imagination the National party is nuts to have these one seat squeakers when we can go into the next election (and the dozen or so elections after that) with over 80 seats locked up.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 10:11 am
@ Paul
GST is sideshow that doesn’t really matter – it’s just a con for Left candidates to woo their gullible constituents – I’d take it or leave it. I have no problem with CGT – though I note that Oz has a number of exemptions. Yes, Oz has PV. Which means 50% of an electorate has to support an MP before they win their seat – and no sweet List positions for party hacks and the lame and lazy. Another 9 years of Labour+Greens will see more welfare transfers and a further drop in national productivity. It would see greater strangling holds on the ag sector – affecting tax receipts and therefore qualify of life – health, education, law and order. Another 9 years of Labour+Greens would see talented NZers move away / stay away. It would also see more dirty electoral and constitutional reforms from the Left who have no regard for bipartisanship because the ends justify the means. Another 9 year Labour government – especially of Robertson is Deputy PM – would probably see hate-speech laws for those who voice their disagreement with the gay lobby – and the dysfunction therein.
And you won’t have to drive me to the airport. I’ll be off quickly. And NZ will have one less businessman, one less doctor, and four less children raised to work and pay their taxes.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 10:51 am
And JamesS @ 10.06am proves my point @ 9.17am.
What part of the majority’s ‘yes’ to MMP do you not understand?
Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out EWS.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 11:01 am
@ DavidR
Cheers.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Here’s a suggestion for tweaking MMP: 14 staunchly right-voting electorates (Bay of Plenty, Clutha-Southland, Helensville, Hunua, Kaikōura, North Shore, Rangitata, Rodney, Tamaki, Taranaki-King Country, Selwyn, Tukituki, Waikato, Waitaki) voted for change. Why don’t we let those 14 electorates have their wish by taking their Party Vote off them so they (and they alone) can have FPP elections while the rest of us have MMP
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 11:16 am
57.8% of the people who could be bothered to vote decided that MMP should be retained. That is then end of the discussion on FPP, STV, SM and PV so the issue is the tweaking of MMP not trying to re-litigate the decision that has already been made.
It will interesting to see what the tweaks may be.
I personally would like to see:
1. That for a party to have any list MP they need to get 5% of the vote. The 5% is arbitrary but christ we do not need another Key/Banks cup of tea charade which was a farce.
2. That if a list MP jumps ship then they have to leave parliament and the next person on the list comes in.
and I am sure there are a number of other changes that make sense
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 11:22 am
@DPF: “The fact that so few were able to vote in Part B suggest strongly that the educational campaign and associated debate was inadequate.”
Actually, it suggests that a whole heap of people just didn’t care for any of the other options or didn’t feel it was worth having a preference. One presumes, therefore, that the vast majority of these people voted to keep MMP (will we find this out when the splits are published?)
I didn’t think there was anything wrong with the campaign. There was plenty of information available to anyone who wished to know about it. The simple fact of the matter is that for the vast majority of the population, they just don’t care about this stuff.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 11:28 am
I can think of a couple of tweaks -
1. Keep the 68 electorate seats (so to enter Parliament you actually need someone to vote for you)
2. Raise the threshold to a level whereby we no longer have MPs nobody voted for; 10% would be good
3. Have a mere 10 list MPs so you get a list MP for every 10% of the vote.
If there is any actual support for the Greens or NZ First or ACT or anybody else they should be able to get 220,000 people to vote for them thereby electing their leader to parliament.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 11:43 am
JamesS: What’s the point in trumpeting your ideas that are so clearly biased to supporting the party you shill for? At least make an effort to disguise your shilling by making a coherent argument as to why your electoral system would be better for the country as a whole.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 11:44 am
It would be better for the country as a whole because National would win. And win. And Win.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 11:57 am
@ JamesS – That is a very weak form of SM, which took a whopping 16% of the vote. The public voted to keep MMP.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
DPF says:
“A very clear decision, and as far as I am concerned MMP is here to stay and any future referendum on our basic electoral system should not occur for several decades. The focus should now go on how to improve MMP, and other electoral and constitutional issues”
Those whom still hold some hope of reforming the electoral system now have a result and should move on. David’s suggestion of focussing on improvements is now the only option available .
Some suggestions could be:
1. Dual listings be removed ie you are either an electorate MP or a list MP
2. Waka jumping list MP’s have to seek a fresh mandate
3. Raising the list threshold to 5% to reduce overhangs .
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
@KevinH:
1. If dual listings are removed, would anyone from labour bother competing in Epsom? You certainly wouldn’t have Parker doing it, right? Thus “good” candidates would only fight electorate seats they have a chance of winning, so poorer candidates would be left as opposition in the safe seats, meaning they stay safe – hardly a big win for democracy.
2. No problem with waka jumping list MP’s – they’re there by virtue of the party, so if they leave the party they have no mandate. Question: Should someone else come in through the list for the position they vacate?
3. Not sure what you mean here – the threshold is already 5% and overhangs occur because of the electoral seats, not because of the list threshold.
My preference is removal of the threshold altogether. Yes, you’ll get a few nutters in, but I’d argue those nutters are no worse than some of the ones that Winston pulled along with him. The biggest gain is that it takes care of the electoral seat coat-tailing discrepancy, as well as being more representative. I’d also be for a requirement of open lists for each party where all party members get a vote on list ranking.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
This referendum was totally unsatisfactory. It should have been a sep exercise with electronic voting being trialled. This is not one of john keys fIner moments. He dropped the ball badly on this
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Several things occur to me. First, I think you’ll find the grass isn’t particularly greener. Secondly, you seem to be worrying about a problem that hasn’t happened. Thirdly, Labour managed the economy just fine last time. But lastly, and this is possibly the most important point, you come across as a graceless oaf, taking their toys home rather than sharing with others. I reckon NZ will cope without you!
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
“Why don’t we let those 14 electorates have their wish by taking their Party Vote off them so they (and they alone) can have FPP elections while the rest of us have MMP ”
I like your thinking Toad. It is sort of like user pays. Why don’t we also identify all of those people who voted against the government because they opposed asset sales. We can add 10% to their taxes because of course they want to pay more in tax rather than lose assets. Then we can reduce the number of assets (or perhaps the percentage of any individual asset) sold.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
When you get twerps, dweebs and nutters in parliament it’s not because of the voting system. It’s because of the voters who voted for them. Every voting system there is, at some time, has voted in complete nightmares. Changing the system is not addressing the issue. If you want better MPs, you need to convince the public to vote for better candidates. i.e: The ones you like.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
My preference would be to
1) get rid of the electorate vote entirely and vote solely for the party.
Vote:2) any MP who leaves a party is out of parliament and the next list MP is in.
3) 1% threshold
December 13th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
I think the best plan is:
1) A lower 4% threshold- as originally suggested by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System 1986.
Vote:2) Remove the ability for a party to bring in extra list MPs if it gets below 4% but gets an electorate seat.
3) This would add considerable complexity, but I would suggest some discussion of the following:
If a party would get more electorate seats than it would be entitled to proportionally due to an electorate seat overhang the electorate votes will also count as party votes for that party, and the actual party vote on those ballots is ignored. This would practically eliminate any overhang. In this election any party vote for Act, United Future or the Maori Party was, strategically speaking, a wasted vote and therefore a bad decision. Many voters have already realised this. It will only become a bigger problem over time.
4) Also, dual listing should definitely be allowed. MPs simply wouldn’t stand in electorates they can’t win and electorate seats would lose their meaning if dual listing was disallowed.
December 13th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Poor quality MPs made it into Parliament under FPP – as well as under MMP. A better reform might be within the major parties’ candidate selection. For example a US-style primary system could be used for candidate selection so that any financial member of the party could vote for the candidate nomination. This would add interest to such contests, help improve the calibre of the candidates and help boost membership for the parties – something that has been on the wane since 1975.
There are still anomalies that a review of MMP could usefully address – such as removing the one electorate exemption from winning 5% for representation. The threshold could usefully be lowered to 2% to ensure that a good cross section of views can be represented.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
1. Rank the lists by electorate votes received (-under PV it would be number of 1st votes at the iteration that gives someone 50% of the electorate)
2. Have preferential voting in the electorate races
3 Increase the number of electorates to 90 with 30 list MPs
4 Increase the term to 4 years
5 Any person that forgoes their list position at any time over the electoral cycle is ineligible to stand in the next election
6 Change threshold for a party to get list MPs to 2 electorate seat wins regardless of party vote percentage
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
People had their chance to make and impact and persuade the public that MMP was a dog, but the pro-MMP case was better publicised, better organised and more persuasively put. So if you are opposed to MMP and it was held in place by about a 15% difference, it – to my mind – implies that the anti-MMP lobby fucked up basically.
We had a once in a generation opportunity and fumbled it. ‘But that’s MMP for you’, eh?
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
True Lee, but now with a review and the right changes to MMP we can get a better system than all the 4 alternatives put forward in the referendum.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
the anti-MMP lobby fucked up basically.
We had a once in a generation opportunity and fumbled it.
nah mate it was deliberately ignored. All the media of course wanted mmp so never said hardly anything for they’re mostly loony raving lefties as proven daily but the politicians during the campaign had total cut-through but none of them from any party put up any sustained effort whatsoever to draw people’s attention to it in any way at all. Cross-party, none of them obviously clearly and demonstrably wished to draw people’s attention to a complex issue which required thought. None of them. Ever. Just recently. Last month. In our democracy.
No, that’s not serious, is it.
Vote:December 13th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
How can a voting system which is centred on the idea that the views of NZers should be proportionally represented in parliament, and that one person should get one equal vote wherever they live in the country (safe seat or marginal electorate), be bias towards the left or right?
Why is the idea of proportional representation a left wing idea?
Vote:December 14th, 2011 at 2:22 am
7 Have a limit of 4 terms for any MP to represent an electorate or its immediate neighbours
Vote:December 14th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Sonny Blount: I could agree with numbers 2, 4, and 7. I disagree with the others for the following reasons:
1. If electorate votes are used to rank the list, then swing seats would be the places that high list candidates would want as it guarantees they get in either way. Anything that means someone stands in an electorate that is not where they live seems like gaming to me. I’d be happy with a requirement that any electorate candidate must live in the area (you’re allowed to move there if you win), however.
3. This would make it less proportional for no obvious advantage other than slightly smaller electorates. You would get more Maori seats if that’s what you’re after (there’s likely to be one more in 2014 anyway).
5. This one entrenches party loyalty past the term in which the member was elected. This seems unreasonable to me – many politicians have changed stripes over their careers, and resigning a list position and standing for a new party in the next election seems like the obvious way to do it. I completely agree that if they’re on the list and defect the party then they’re gone for the current cycle (and a new member can come in on the list).
6. This would mean we’re back to a 2-party system, so more than 20% of the vote this time around would have been wasted. While this is good for National, it’s not good for NZ.
Vote:December 14th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Lefty,
1, Under party lists, electorates are irrelevant. Prospective MPs care more about being handed a good ranking by the party heirarchy. Witness David Parker in Epsom encouraging people to vote for Paul Goldsmith, Katrina Shanks effort in Ohariu. Under FPP safe seats are much preferred to marginal seats. Ranking the lists by party votes makes strong left or right seats very attractive for a challenger from the same side of the aisle, and it is worthwhile to put your heavy artillery into marginal seats to have a go at winning it because strong performers will make it in.
3, 120 total MPs is identical to the current proportionality. The most list MPs any party required this time around was 18, there is no need for the current high number of list MPs except to increase the pary leaders power. And an equal number of list and electorate MPs makes electorate races irrelevant because for a party approaching the goal of 50%, every electorate candidate can come in on the list regardless of performance.
5, For a list MP to change parties they need to remain in their seat through the term and stand under another party at the election. But you have a point, although I think the ability for candidates to manipulate list rankings makes them irrelevant and this is the greater hazard.
6, With more, smaller seats and preferential voting, it will be very easy for 3rd and 4th parties to win seats. The Greens would win half to a dozen every time, the Conservatives, ACT, and NZF woulds have no trouble picking up 2 or 3. One person or electorate seat is a cult of personality, two or more is a political party. Winning 50% of the vote in 2 of 90 electorates requires 1.1% of all voters to vote for you.
Vote: