MMP submissions

April 23rd, 2012 at 2:33 pm by David Farrar

Spent this morning at the hearings into the review of .

I’ve previously blogged on the party submissions, and these were reinforced in their oral submissions. with the exception of the threshold issue, most are calling for no significant change.

Graeme Edgeler submitted in favour of having no threshold, and there was some interesting discussion around that.

I was the only one (so far) who proposed ending dual candidacy and enjoyed when asked about electorate and list MPs saying they are “different but equal”. Yes, I was using an old US quote.

Almost everyone accepted that open party lists are impractical but the Electoral Commissioners did seem quite interested in whether to strengthen the requirement for parties to democratically rank their lists. I proposed that there should be a initial membership vote, which is made public, so the final list can be compared to it to make any changes transparent.

Tags: ,

6 Responses to “MMP submissions”

  1. Grant Michael McKenna (1,158 comments) says:

    I thought that the phrase was “separate but equal”?

    [DPF: It is, I modified it]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. SalParadise (54 comments) says:

    Did anyone bring up preferential voting in electorate seats?

    I stumbled across the Conservative Party submission today and was surprised to see we see eye to eye on a number of things. I also took the How Conservative are you? test, unfortunately I won’t be joining them anytime soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. hj (6,794 comments) says:

    I was against MMP untill I discovered NZ First doing well ( I don’t want to see villas bowled, 134 become 134A, 134B, C etc, just so developers can get rich)
    .

    In an Australian context, the Productivity Commission – hardly a hot-bed of xenophobia or populism – concluded that any benefits from migration to Australia were captured by migrants and there were few or no discernible economic benefits to Australians. And that was in a country already rich and successful and with materially higher national saving and domestic investment rates than those in NZ.”
    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/mi-jarrett-comm.pdf

    So it is better to have that relief valve than here:

    Needless to say, many among the native Norwegian population are particularly concerned about this, and this concern expresses itself through the Progressive Party, which, according to Chris Trotter, ‘brought together rural and provincial Norwegians antagonistic to the influx of non-white, non-Christian immigrants with the growing number of young, urban-dwelling Norwegians chafing under the benign collectivism of Norway’s social-democratic institutions’. The Progressive Party in fact is the second-largest part in Norwegian politics, enjoying something like 25% of the popular vote, as well as considerable public sympathy for its stance on Muslim immigration beyond that 25%. Breivik had been a member of this party, but had later left it because he considered it too inclined to compromise and moderation. Nevertheless, because of its ‘racial and religious prejudice’ ~ I quote Chris Trotter again ~ ‘essentially, the entire Norwegian political class, aided by the news media, came together to mount an effective political boycott of the Progressive Party’. Other political parties declared it persona non grata, and as a consequence ‘upwards of one quarter of the population found its political beliefs and aspirations deliberately excluded from government’ for the indefinite future.
    http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2011/08/david-round-tragic-lessons-from-norway.html

    Another reason I support MMP is that it acts as a poll for while , after the Greens gaining [?MP’s} Meteria Turie claimed support “(and) all our other policies”. She had claimed that the foreshore and seabed was to be an election issue, but they didn’t electioneer on that. Mana (widely noted for it’s position) received didley squat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. lastmanstanding (1,261 comments) says:

    IMHO List MPs are second class MPs.

    MPs without a constitunency are MPs without a home. They havent earnt their spurs by submitting themselves to a vote as to their personal ability.

    They are coat tailers nothing more nothing less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. marcw (241 comments) says:

    Why do we need a list at all? Just allocate the list seats to the unsuccessful candidates who poll highest proportionally in the electorate votes. That way candidates who miss out by a handful of votes in their electorate will probably still get some representation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. eszett (2,389 comments) says:

    IMHO List MPs are second class MPs.

    MPs without a constitunency are MPs without a home. They havent earnt their spurs by submitting themselves to a vote as to their personal ability.

    They are coat tailers nothing more nothing less.

    Such nonsense! A list MP can be farore accountable to the entire country than an electorate MP. Electorate MPs can do whatever they want as long as they know they keep their own small turf happy.

    Just look a Philip Field, he would have been voted back in easily. He didn’t care what effect his behaviour had on Labour.

    Just because some can convince a couple of 1000 to vote for him, doesn’t make one a good MP. Whereas a list MP is always accountable to the entire country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.