Kiwiblog

Simon Power has announced the process for referenda on the electoral system, and I am very pleased with the final process.

I blogged a few weeks ago that I was very concern that there seemed to be some talk of having people vote only once on retaining MMP, without knowing the alternative. But the Government has announced, well basically, exactly what I advocated (which I am sure is merely because it really is the common sense way to do it).

The process is:

1. Parliament passes a law enabling a first referendum to be held in conjunction with 2011 election
2. The first referendum will have two questions – the first question being do you want to continue with MMP or have an alternative system
3. The second question will be to select your preferred alternative – the options are likely to be STV, FPP, PV and SM
4. If the first question is a vote to retain MMP, the second question is academic and that is the end of it.
5. If the first question votes for change, then a second referendum will be held giving people a binary choice between MMP and the preferred alternative (the highest ranking option from the second question)
6. The second referendum will be held at the 2014 election
7. Enabling legislation for an electoral system based on the alternate electoral system will be passed prior to the 2014 election, and it will automatically come into force if the alternative system wins
8. The 2017 election would be run under the new electoral system, if there is a change

As I said, it is really good to see there is a fair process – basically a mirror of the 1992/93 referenda.

I find it interesting that in my unscientific blog poll, 47% back MMP, 23% STV, and only 20% FPP. Personally I think it is highly unlikely that we would vote to return to FPP.

A run off between STV and MMP could be interesting as they are both proportional electoral systems, but operate very very differently.

Wellington City voters have elected to remain with STV, but with a razor thin margin of 524 476.

The voter turnout was a low 33.2%, and the the votes for STV was 50.54% and FPP 49.46%.

Put another way, 16.73% of Wellington City residents voted for STV and 16.37% for FPP.

Poneke has voted for STV in the Wellington referendum, despite earlier calling it a failure.

I blogged my views in March:

Now I actually support STV in many types of elections. In fact I introduced constitutional changes to InternetNZ so that candidates are elected by what is effectively STV, not FPP. National uses a form of STV for its internal elections for candidates and the board. I like and support STV in situations where it works well.

STV works well when the voter has a relatively small number of candidates to choose from, and they know most or all of the candidates. When you know the candidates you can quite easily make an intelligent choice about ranking X No 1, Y No 2 etc.

However STV is an unmitigated disaster for DHBs and a partial disaster for Councils. …

With regard to Councils, it is not quite as bad.  I actually like STV for voting for the Mayor. There is only one position to fill and it is possible to fairly sensibly rank say half a dozen candidates for Mayor. I like being able to express a second and third preference should my first preference fail to be elected.

But then when you come to wards, it becomes near useless again because again not even the political geeks can sensibly rank say 15 people competing for three Council positions. And so we have a 10% fall in turnout over two elections.  If you want to keep STV then you need small one person wards.

I could advocate STV for the Mayor, and FPP for Council but that may be too confusing.  So if WCC is to have one electoral system only, then FPP is best.

My position has not changed. Sadly I am going to vote for FPP.

However my preference would be to have smaller single Councillor wards, as if that happened then I think STV would work fine for both Mayor and Council.

The Weekend Herald reports John Key as saying he does not favour a return to FPP, but is leanign towards SM which is a semi-proportional system.

“I’m leaning towards Supplementary Member,” Mr Key said. “It allows for proportionality while ensuring it’s not the dominating factor. You get the best of MMP without it being overpowering. That is the reason why.”

I also don’t support a return to FPP, but think both STV and SM have merit. MMP has worked well in many ways, but there are areas where it does not. I think the biggest weakness is the huge power given to so called centrist politicians such as Peters. There is no doubt he would have been sacked from his Ministerial role by now, if it were not for MMP.

For those who do not know how SM works, it is very similar to MMP but with the vital change that the allocation of list MPs is done by having them supplementary to the electorate MPs. In practical terms it means that under SM every electorate won by a party is a net gain for thet party. Under MMP if you win an additional electorate, you get allocated one less list MP.

SM is used in around 16 countries including Japan, Georgia, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Anyway it is worth taking a look at SM, the pros and cons of it. No electoral system is perfect with only positive attributes. So what are the pros and cons of SM:

Pros of SM

1. Could not be simpler to implement – the only change is how List MPs are allocated by the Chief Electoral Officer.
2. Retains party lists, allowing parties to use them to have more diverse MPs
3. Minor parties who make 5% retain a presence in Parliament
4. Reduces the “tail wagging the dog” syndrome where minor parties gain power massively in excess of their share of the vote
5. Makes it less likely you will need as many as four parties to form a Government
6. Increases the chance the Government will be known on election night, and not decided by who is the best negotiator
7. Will make Government less able to ignore the public mood on controversial issues such as anti-smacking bill, as losing electorate seats is far more devastating under SM than MMP.
8. Would be safer to reduce the threshold for representation from 5%, as minor parties less powerful
9. Unlike FPP, every vote will still count towards gaining more MPs for your party
10. Removes the problem of over-hang (ironically by sort of making every electorate seat an over-hang seat)

Cons of SM

1. Is only a semi-proportional system, therefore one could end up with a situation where a Government received less votes than the Opposition. This is also possible under MMP with overhang. Under SM it is more likely than under MMP but less likely than under FPP.
2. Increases the chance a party can form a Government by itself (some will say this is a pro)
3. Encourages pork barrel politics as marginal seats become far far more important under SM than under MMP
4. Favours parties which can win electorate seats
5. Over time electorates would grow in importance as number of List MPs declines – unless the size of Parliament as a whole grows, or the number of electorate seats is frozen.

There are probably more pros and cons that these ones. Feel free to add them below.

Poneke blogs that Wellington City Council should ditch STV – an issue they are going to consult on. I agree.

Now I actually support STV in many types of elections. In fact I introduced constitutional changes to InternetNZ so that candidates are elected by what is effectively STV, not FPP. National uses a form of STV for its internal elections for candidates and the board. I like and support STV in situations where it works well.
STV works well when the voter has a relatively small number of candidates to choose from, and they know most or all of the candidates. When you know the candidates you can quite easily make an intelligent choice about ranking X No 1, Y No 2 etc.

However STV is an unmitigated disaster for DHBs and a partial disaster for Councils.

Even the most politically active geek has no idea who 80% of the candidates for the DHB are. Trying to rank 30 of them in order based on who wrote the best 200 word bio is just insane, and it is no surprise turnouts are so low.

If one insisted on keeping STV for DHBs, then you would need very very small wards with one vacancy per ward.  That way you may end up just raking say four or five people for one local spot – something which might be possible if they are fairly well known locals.  Of course whether you want to have geographical segmentation like that for DHBs is another issue.

With regard to Councils, it is not quite as bad.  I actually like STV for voting for the Mayor. There is only one position to fill and it is possible to fairly sensibly rank say half a dozen candidates for Mayor. I like being able to express a second and third preference should my first preference fail to be elected.

But then when you come to wards, it becomes near useless again because again not even the political geeks can sensibly rank say 15 people competing for three Council positions. And so we have a 10% fall in turnout over two elections.  If you want to keep STV then you need small one person wards.

I could advocate STV for the Mayor, and FPP for Council but that may be too confusing.  So if WCC is to have one electoral system only, then FPP is best.