Kiwiblog

Not a huge surprise, but Vote for Change has come out and endorsed Supplementary Member (SM) as the “Smart Move”. They say:

SM’s the sensible middle. It means that small parties would have representation in Parliament, able to put their policy platforms on the political agenda, but it is less likely that they would hold the balance of power and a disproportionate amount of influence.”

On Friday Maxim also came out and endorsed SM. They argue its merits in this 10 page paper.

I think it is a pity that Parliament determined that SM would be a 90/30 model rather than 70/50, as the 70/50 model is more attractive to me, than the 90/30 model.

TVNZ has announced that One News will host three election debates. They are:

1. Mon 31 October – major party leaders
2. Wed 16 November – minor party leaders
3. Wed 23 November – major party leaders

Now it is great that we have three debates scheduled to help people make informed votes on who governs New Zealand for the next three years.

But where are the televised debates on the electoral system referendum, which will decide our electoral system for the next 50 years or so?

Surely if we have 270 minutes of prime time devoted to the election debates, we should have at least that much time on TV for debating the electoral system?

I hope TVNZ and TV3 announce a number of electoral referendum debates. It is only 32 days until we vote on whether or not we keep MMP or have another referendum in 2014. Radio NZ has led the way with a high level debate, I hope they will not be the only broadcaster to do so.

Radio NZ is hosting a debate on MMP and the electoral system referendum. The debate will be moderated by Julian Robbins and Philippa Tolley.

The debate will be held on Wednesday 26 October starting at 6 pm and you can be part of the audience at Te Papa’s Soundings Theatre. It will be broadcast on National Radio after the 8 am news on Sunday 30 October, and also available online at radionz.co.nz/Insight.

The panel for the debate is

• Rt Hon Jim Bolger, former Prime Minister
• Hon Michael Cullen, former Deputy Prime Minister
• Hon Ruth Richardson, former Finance Minister
• Jeanette Fitzsimons, former Green co-leader
• Sandra Grey, Campaign for MMP
• Jordan Williams, Vote for Change
• Professor Nigel Roberts

I think it will be fascinating to listen to, and find out who supports which system, and why. Fitzsimons will be MMP of course. I understand both Bolger and Richardson may actually agree on their preferred option! And not sure where Cullen sits.

I blog at Stuff in my “By the numbers” blog on the case for and against MMP.

There is a public forum in Hamilton tonight on the MMP referendum:

Sandra from Campaign for MMP and Jordan from Vote for Change will both be speaking, and I will be also. I’ll be covering what may have happened in the last five elections under different electoral systems.

I suspect we may end up at House afterwards. Feel free to come along if interested. Useful to let Wintec know if you are attending though.

Maxim have a handy wee paper by Steve Thomas on the five electoral systems on offer in the upcoming referendum. They don’t say which one is their preference. It’s a good guide to the pros and cons of the various systems, so I’ve embedded it below.

Their summary of the five systems are:

MMP

MMP provides well for electorate representation and the representation of interests, and can provide for reasonably stable government.21 The strength of MMP is the flip-side of its drawbacks. It enables more parties to be elected to parliament, which is great for the breadth of representation, but it also gives parties a lot of power. It can also create bargaining instead of debate among parties, and a weakened accountability of the government to voters. It can also encourage interest groups to act in unhelpful ways.

FPP

FPP is simple to understand and it usually produces clear results. FPP delivers strong, stable, single party majority government most of the time, and there is usually no confusion about which party can form a government. It is easy for voters to dump a government and elect a new one since parties generally do not negotiate together to form a government.20 But, as New Zealand’s experience indicates, instances of highly disproportionate election results weakened the legitimacy of electoral outcomes and the Cabinet’s tight control over legislation and parliament weakened the public’s trust in government.21 It can also be difficult for minorities to be represented, either because safe seats make it difficult to dislodge a popular candidate or because it is difficult for minority candidates to win enough concentrated support in one electorate.

PV

PV provides for strong electorate representation, through the election of local MPs, which usually leads to the election of single-party majority governments. That said, PV gives minor party candidates a fighting chance of winning a seat when second and subsequent preferences are used to help elect a candidate. However, it is still harder for minority candidates and parties to be represented in parliament under PV because it is not a proportional system. Further, PV can sometimes produce electoral outcomes that might not be considered entirely legitimate if the most popular candidate on first preferences does not win—although this point is debatable. While PV would enable voters to more clearly express their preferences for certain candidates it could also introduce some new ways for parties and candidates to engineer electoral outcomes, as parties would advise supportive voters how to vote to give them the best advantage.

STV

STV is an attractive system in principle since it enables voters to indicate exactly which candidates they would like in multi-member electorates. STV enables voters to choose both between and within parties, meaning that parliament ought to reflect a wider diversity of opinions within society.22 The use of multi-member electorates also means that electoral outcomes will be more proportional.

The theoretical advantages of STV have to be weighed carefully against the practical issues with using it and the way voters tend to interact with this relatively complex system. For example, it could undermine the cohesiveness of political parties as candidates from the same party would compete against each other for election. The option of voting above-the-line can also give parties more control over which candidates are elected and in which order. In this case, many voters would not actually end up individually choosing their local MPs. In short, the advantages offered by STV could be eroded by measures to make it easier for voters to understand and use.

SM

In trying to blend two styles of voting system, SM has some of the benefits and some of the drawbacks of both. It is neither a completely proportional system, nor does it guarantee that one party will win a large enough majority to be able to govern alone.

In terms of representation, SM has the potential to achieve a good balance between national and local representation of interests. Electorate representation would be strong, creating good ties between parliament and voters, but a quarter of parliament would also be made up of list MPs who tend to be able to represent minority interest groups well.

Because there would be more electorate MPs under SM than under MMP the major parties would benefit, but there is also a chance coalitions would be needed to form a government and that minor parties would have more representation than they typically do under single-member electorate systems, like FPP.

The document is below.

EMBARGOED Kicking the Tyres

Ryan Malone blogs on the MMP referendum:

Is the MMP referendum shaping up to be a big fat non-event?

Electoral reform was a big deal back in the early 90s when the two referenda were held. The protagonists argued their case in the media and waged extensive advertising campaigns. It was an old school fight, with threats and personal insults. Those were the days.

With the indicative 2011 referendum fast approaching, we’re yet to see anything remotely close to those lofty heights. Why?

One explanation is that people just don’t care. For some, this is no doubt true. They couldn’t give a toss one way or the other. But this is too simple (and boring) an explanation.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that the anti-MMP campaign just hasn’t turned up to the fight. As an objective observer with no connection to either camp, in my view the pro-MMP group (fronted by Sandra Grey) has made all the running in terms of media and advertising, while the anti-MMP group (fronted by Jordan Williams) is badly lagging. To give but one example, in the Wairarapa (where I live), the pro-MMP group has been running a weekly column in the local newspapers for some time. There is a prominent sign on State Highway 2 urging people to retain MMP. And from the anti-MMP group? Nothing as far as I can see. Not a peep.

There is a significant mismatch of resources, combined with a near total lack of coverage by the media.

The Vote for Change group is the only group I know of advocating for change. Those lined up to advocate for MMP are:

1. Greens
2. CTU
3. NZDWU
4. SFWU
5. NZEI
6. NZNO
7. NDU
8. Campaign for MMP
9. NZ Aged Care Assn
10. Labour
11. RMTU
12. MUNZ

No business group has lined up to register, and no political party that supports change. So the only voice for change is a one small incorporated society against eight unions, two political parties, one lobby group and the dedicated Campaign for MMP.

Now this wouldn’t be so much of an issue, if the media were doing full or half page stories on the five electoral systems, and the pros and cons of each. But they are not. And the broadcasters have done nothing much to date as far as I can see.

This referendum is probably the last one for 50+ years on the  basic electoral system. It will be a shame if it is a decision by default, rather than informed choice.

Why has National decided to keep to the sidelines in the referendum? Probably for the same reason, business groups have. They know that opponents of change will often play the man, not the ball, and call them undemocratic and power mad etc.

My hope is that coverage of the referendum will improve in the days ahead. But I suspect it is too late. After the RWC, most attention in the next five weeks will be on the election rather than the referendum. I think the debates and the media coverage should have started around January of this year.

Vote for Change has announced:

Vote for Change today announced the winner of its recent competition that asked New Zealanders to design advertisements for the upcoming referendum on our voting system.

The overall winner was Nick Cross, a Wellington student for his poster entry.  Mr Cross will receive $2,500 for attracting the most votes from Vote for Change’s members and supporters, in addition Mr Cross won campaign team’s award of $5,000 for the best entry.

The winning entry and finalists can viewed at www.VoteforChange.org.nz/competitions .

Well done Nick. His winning entry is below.

University of Auckland says:

Dr Geoffrey Pritchard and Dr Mark C. Wilson, members of the Centre for Mathematical Social Science at the University of Auckland, have created a simulator intended to voters to compare the 5 proposed electoral systems in a quantitative way, by allowing them to compute quickly, for a given polling scenario, the party seat distribution in Parliament under each system.

The simulator is here.

Its a useful resource, and it is great they have provided it. However it is also a good example of the difficulties you can get when you take an academic approach to an issue, rather than a more practical approach.

This is best shown by way of example. The simulator predicts that the 2002 election, if held under FPP would have had a result of 110 seats for Labour and 10 for National.

Now in 2002 National actually won 21 electorate seats out of 69 or 70. So this model is saying if there were 50 extra electorate seats, National would win 11 fewer seats!!

Why? Because they have come up with a formula based on the last 50 years or so of FPP elections, which they applied to the party vote figures for 2002. They ignored the actual electorate vote. It is a classic academic approach.

The more pragmatic approach, which is what others have done, is to say well if National won 21 electorate seats in 2002 out of 70, then if there 120 seats, their estimated number of seats would be 21*120/70, which is 36 seats.

For the same reasons, the model doesn’t predict the Maori Party would have won any seats in 2008 under FPP (as they had a low party vote), even though the Maori Party won 5/7 Maori seats, and hence if there were 12 Maori seats, one would expect they might have won 10/12, not 0/12.

So it is a useful resource, but it should not be treated as particularly authoritative in terms of alternate scenarios. Of course no alternate scenario is ever authoritative.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has responded to my blog post where I agreed with him on keeping the one electorate seat threshold, but advocated the party vote threshold should be 4%, rather than abolished.

He notes my position is the same as the Royal Commission which said:

the Commission considers that the [4%] threshold is a justifiable and desirable means of preventing the proliferation of minor parties in the House. Such a proliferation could threaten the stability and effectiveness of government.

I/S says:

Which probably sounded good back in the safe, conformist, 2-party world of 1986, where we hadn’t had a coalition government for over fifty years, and political difference and dispute was seen as threatening. But to modern eyes, it seems quaint – not to mention sniffily undemocratic. To point out the obvious, we currently have 8 parties represented in our Parliament, and in the past have had as many as 9. And it hasn’t threatened the stability or effectiveness of government one bit

First of all I would disagree that there hasn’t been an impact on stability and effectiveness. Clark went early in 2002 due to the collapse of the Alliance as one example.

But the measure is not how many parties get into Parliament, but how many do you need to *all* agree to be able to pass a law. Here’s what the situation would be under 5%, and no threshold since 1996:

1996 – Nat/NZF would not have been a majority and would have needed either ACT or Christian Coalition or both United and Legalise Cannabis to govern. Was hard enough to be stable with Winston, let alone needing either Graham Capill or the Legalise Cannabis Party to agree to the budget.

1999 – Labour/Alliance needed Greens to pass laws, and no change at 0% threshold

2002 – Labour/Progressive/UF had 62/120 seats. With no threshold they would be 59 seats. UF had ruled Greens out so they would need either Christian Heritage, Outdoor Recreation, or Alliance to support.

2005 – The only change would be Destiny would have one MP

2008 – National would not be able to choose to pass laws either with ACT or Maori, but only if both agreed. That to me would not be stable or effective.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that our political culture doesn’t support destabilising, winner-take-all, toys-out-of-the-cot tantrum politics. Winston Peters tried that in 1996, the electorate punished him for it in 1999, and our parties have learned their lesson:

Actually with no threshold, there is no chance of a party being wiped out, so I think they would be more likely to have tantrums. Falling under the threshold would no longer be oblivion.

The second reason is mathematical: a “proliferation of minor parties” actually increases stability and effectiveness, by increasing the number of possible majority coalitions, thus reducing the bargaining power of any one party.

You have more combinations, but you need more parties to agree to form a Government. I do not think a six party Government is more stable than a two party Government. Israel has shown us this many times. This is not some crazy theory – they have the empirical evidence – which is why they have raised their threshold.

We have a good example of this in the current Parliament: ACT can’t “hold the government to ransom” and demand big policy concessions because National has an alternative majority with the Maori Party. Meanwhile, the Maori Party can’t “hold the government to ransom” because the National has an alternative majority with ACT. The two parties effectively act as a check on each other’s demands.

And here I/S is just wrong, because the very thing he lauds (the ability to choose ACT or Maori) would not happen under no threshold. National would have had 55 seats, ACT 4, Maori 5 and United 1. You need 62 to govern.

Having an extra 3 or 4 kibble parties at the bottom end simply increases the balance; if one of them doesn’t like your policy, then you go to another. You’re only in trouble if they all don’t like your policy, in which case its probably well-deserved

Nope under a no threshold scenario, if even one of the kibble parties disagrees, then you’re stuck.

The other argument I have against no threshold, is it will encourage extremism. Again not just a theory – look at Israel. With no threshold you can gain a list seat with 0.4% of the vote or 10,000 supporters. Now the way you get your 10,000 votes is to come out with crazy extreme policies (for example a law change so husbands can not be charged with raping their wives) that may repeal 98% of the country but appeals to 0.4%.

And no threshold will encourage extremist parties, and reward them with a seat. And if that seat is needed to form a Government, they will then get some sort of policy win.

As I said I think one can debate a 3% v 4% v 5% threshold, but I believe a threshold is desirable and necessary.

Meanwhile, this illusion costs us in democratic terms, by effectively disenfranchising (at the last election) 6.5% of the population. DPF would probably counter that those people and their views and votes aren’t important. I disagree.

Well they always have the choice of voting for a party likely to be in Parliament. No party perfectly represents my policy views. I choose to vote for the party that I deem most able to fulfil my policy desires.

If you take the view that every person must be able to get their preferred party into Parliament, then why stop at a 120 MP house where the effective threshold is 0.4% if there is no statutory threshold. You could argue for a 500 MP House, so that even parties with 0.1% of the vote get to be represented.

Idiot/Savant at NRT blogs:

With ACT cutting a deal in Epsom, and Peter Dunne cutting one in Ohariu, MMP’s “electorate lifeboat”, which sees parties gain list seats in parliament if they gain a single electorate, has come in for a fair amount of flack. And today, Labour leader Phil Goff has reminded us all that he opposes it, and that he wishes MMP to have a strict 5% threshold, with no exception for electorates. I think this is exactly the wrong position to take. Why? Because the “electorate lifeboat” improves proportionality.

Phil Goff’s stance is pretty naked self interest. He only opposes it, so ACT will lose representation in Parliament. Goff’s view of a good electoral system is one which gets rid of Labour’s opponents.

My concern is that a future Labour Government will make unilateral partisan changes to the Electoral Act, as they did with the Electoral Finance Act. Simon Power set the model for bipartisan co-operation on electoral issues, but will Labour return his generosity? My concern again is that they will think National were suckers for giving them a say on electoral law, and that they will revert to type as we saw with the Electoral Finance Act and the retrospective legislation to retain Harry Duynhoven as an MP.

Proportionality, remember, was the entire point of MMP. We wanted parties to be represented in direct proportion to the votes cast. The 5% threshold undermines this, but the “electorate lifeboat” provides a way around it. Without it, the Parliaments of 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008 would have been less proportional, and less representative, thanks to the exclusion of (respectively) of NZFirst, the Progressives, United Future and ACT. That would have been bad for our democracy.

Sometimes the lifeboat gives perverse results, as in 2008 when ACT gained 5 MPs while NZ First gained none despite receiving more party votes (4.07% vs 3.65%). This is obviously unfair. But you don’t remove unfairness by increasing it. The appropriate response to this situation is to give parties in NZ First’s situation representation, not deny it to both.

Even though personally I do not want NZ First in Parliament, I agree (somewhat) with Idiot/Savant. I support the threshold being lowered to 4%, as the Royal Commission recommended, even though this would have led to NZ First staying in Parliament.

I don’t support eliminating the threshold entirely, which would lead to a party on 0.4% gaining representation. I think this would lead to an Israel type situation where miniscule extremist parties have massive say in who forms the Government. Israel has learnt from their mistakes and has been increasing the threshold.

So in my opinion 5% is too high a threshold and no threshold is too “low”. I could possibly be convinced of say 3%, but in the end I think one should stick with the Royal Commission’s model as closely as possible, in the absence of strong reasons not to.

Goff’s – and Labour’s – position is not founded on democratic principles. Instead, it is driven by naked self-interest – most obviously, by a desire to remove ACT from the political equation …

Indeed.

From the Centre for Mathematical Social Science blog:

New Zealanders will vote in a referendum in November asking whether they want to change the current voting system used for deciding the makeup of Parliament.

Dr Geoffrey Pritchard and Dr Mark C. Wilson, members of the Centre for Mathematical Social Science at the University of Auckland, have created a simulator intended to voters to compare the 5 proposed electoral systems in a quantitative way, by allowing them to compute quickly, for a given polling scenario, the party seat distribution in Parliament under each system. It is written in Javascript and the source code is publicly available. The assumptions made are detailed in the FAQ.

Try the simulator now!

Some of their assumptions around Maori seats are questionable, but still a useful tool.

Vote for Change is offering $10,000 for the best user generated ads.  $5,000 for the best ad (as judged by vfc) and $2,500 for each of two categories (video and non video) as voted by member of their facebook page.

Entries can be submitted to www.facebook.com/voteforchangenz (that is where entries can be submitted and voted on).  Deadline for entry is 7pm Sunday 24 July.

T&C are at http://www.voteforchange.org.nz/competitions/.

This is one of the entries so far. If you think you can do better, then submit away. And remember you can vote and get your friends to vote on which entries they like the most.

And this is another entry.

Alan McRobie (who advised the 1993 independent Electoral Referendum Panel) writes in the Herald:

If a majority of voters support MMP there are four changes that might usefully be made to improve its public acceptance.

First, parties should be required to win at least two electorate seats before they qualify for a share of list seats. Had this applied last election Act, which won fewer party votes than New Zealand First, would have had only one seat instead of the five it was awarded.

I disagree. I would lower the threshold to 4% (which would have seen NZ First remain) rather than increase the threshold for electorate seats which would merely encourage even more strategic voting.

Second, candidates should be permitted to stand either for an electorate seat or on a party list, not both.

This would remove what many see as “double-dipping”, aptly described as “voted out on Saturday; back in on Monday”.

Again I disagree. If you ban people standing on both, then it means that all the electorate candidates will concentrate on the electorate vote instead of the party vote.

I would deal with the Saturday to Monday issue in a different way, such as not allowing an MP who was the electorate MP and lost, from coming back via the list.

Third, sitting list MPs’ enthusiasm for standing in byelections in constituency seats should be dampened. It is somewhat bizarre to see sitting list MPs contesting byelections as has happened in Mt Albert, Mana and Te Tai Tokerau.

Here I agree. I would support a change that a List MP has to resign from their list seat, in order to stand as a candidate in a by-election. Jim Anderton I think has a bill proposing that.

Fourth, serious consideration should be given to introducing the alternative vote (preferential vote), at least for the party list vote. Although MMP results in proportional representation, wasted votes still occur when parties which fail to reach the 5 per cent threshold are excluded.

That is a novel idea. So those who voted for NZ First could then have their second choice count. I think it would be too confusing to have people rank all parties standing, but you could allow a 1st and 2nd preference.

Personally I think you could also use AV for the electorate vote.

Despite the recent statement by the Prime Minister that National “would not campaign for any position in the referendum” Parliament has loaded the options in favour of single-party majoritarian governments.

Nonsense. They have kept the exact same options from the 1992 and 1993 referenda.

NZPA report:

A campaign against MMP was launched today, aiming to persuade voters to opt for change in the referendum that is going to be held at the same time as the November 26 general election.

The referendum will ask voters whether they want to change to another electoral system, and to tick a preferred alternative from a list of options including the old first-past-the-post system.

If a majority want a change, a second referendum will be held alongside the 2014 general election which will run off MMP against the alternative that gets the most ticks.

“Vote for Change wants a system that restores more certainty, that allows voters to easily hold governments to account and kick rascals out of Parliament”, said the organisation’s spokesman Jordan Williams, a Wellington lawyer.

“The current system lets party bosses sneak MPs who have been dismissed by their local electorates back into Parliament on party lists.”

Mr Williams said many people had high hopes that MMP would create a new era of consensus politics but instead “small groups and party bosses can now hold the rest to ransom”.

The Vote for Change website has a list of initial supporters. They include former Labour Party President Bob Harvey.

John Pagani writes at Stuff:

First Past the Post was awful, but MMP’s flaws have been worse than I hoped.

Party lists have mostly been rubbish, especially in the big parties.

Anonymous party officials have too much say and their party list choice are inadequately transparent even to members of their own parties.

I agree with John’s concerns over transparency of list ranking in the major parties. But I disagree that the party lists have been mainly rubbish. In National they have given us Katherine Rich, Chris Finlayson, Don Brash, Hekia Parata, Tim Groser, Steven Joyce etc.

There are too many MPs who can’t win a marginal seat but cling on through the list because of their special skill at palace politics.

This is what NZers really don’t like – defeated electorate MPs coming back on the list.

Parliament is more diverse if you keep a score of ethnicity, gender and other outward characters; I’m not sure thinking within parties is more diverse. Having fresh or unconventional ideas is a good way to get bounced down the list.

When there are more locally elected representatives, there are more MPs who have room to speak and act independently. A little courageous independent thinking is a good thing.

This is very true. Electorate MPs can take a more independent line. A List MP trying to do so will have a short future.

I like the idea that MPs should have to persuade a group of voters to get elected. One way to rehabilitate MMP would be to increase the number of electorate MPs, to around 90 or 95 out of 120.

It’s a nice idea but it would break the proportionality of MMP. If there were 95 electorate seats, in 1996 Labour would have a one seat overhang and in 1999 Labour would have had a nine seat overhang. In 2002 Labour would have a 10 seat overhang.

The other thing we need to do is get rid of the messy two-ticks business. By the time of the 2015 election more people will have only ever voted under MMP than voted under First Past the Post. Yet unacceptably high numbers of people still don’t understand how the two ticks work.

Separate votes for electorate and party votes invite cynicism and manipulation. Voters in Epsom should decide whether they want to vote for National, or vote for John Banks and in doing so help to bring in other ACT MPs. We should not have parties trying to figure out whether to stand, and instructing their own supporters to vote for another party. That’s a circus.

I disagree. I like the fact that you can split your vote and give your party the party vote, but vote for the best local MP regardless of party.

People who despise democracy are planning a big campaign against MMP later this year. They want to return to the days when governments could break promises with impunity. They want to buy government instead of winning it by winning a battle of ideas.

Remember what I said in my last blog post on this topic? The attacking of motives rather than debating the issues?

Also I would contend that while MMP has had many benefits, one of its weaknesses is in fact that it is easier for parties to break promises under MMP. If you form a majority single party Government then there is no excuse for not implementing your manifesto. If however you have to do a deal with other parties to forrm a Government, then it is inevitable that you must compromise on your manifesto.

If I had confidence MMP would be truly reformed I would vote for it. I’m weighing the alternative. If it’s just worse versions of party lists, I’ll give the alternatives a miss. If MMP’s advocates are too opposed to reform, I’ll pick another system. What I won’t be picking is the status quo.

There are reforms you can make to MMP to make it better. But there are also some thing you can’t change about MMP without breaking it – such as having a higher proportion of electorate MPs.

Readers may recall how the weekend before last I was labelled a member of a sinister cabal trying to overthrow MMP – in fact I was its strategic advisor I found out to my great surprise.

This was on the basis that I had had three or four conversations over six months with the campaign organiser, totalling around 30 minutes. It seems answering my phone is now a bad thing to do.

Ironically last year I also had drinks with the Campaign for MMP head, and we chatted about the referendum. Does that make me their strategic advisor also?

What I found interesting from the non-story in the SST was the reaction from certain people. There was no debate about the pros and cons of MMP. There was just attacks that if one was involved in promoting an alternative to MMP, then you were an enemy of the state and an evil bad person. We saw this with some hysteria from Metiria Turei:

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei has criticised the motives of the men behind a soon-to-be-announced anti-MMP campaign. …

Ms Turei told 3 News Mr Shirtcliffe had admitted to her he regretted being too negative in the early nineties, leading her to believe the ‘anti’ campaign may have some more positive surprises up their sleeve this time round.

However, she was adamant that the ‘anti’ campaign was a negative campaign by definition.

“It’s anti-community, it’s anti-representation, it’s anti-women, it’s anti-Maori, it’s anti-ethnic representation,” she said.

Again motives are attacked, ironically from someone who personally benefits massively from the current electoral system.

Supporters of MMP, such as Turei, are often zealots. They are incapable of rationally arguing the pros and cons of different electoral systems. They proclaim that MMP is the only acceptable electoral system for New Zealand, and demonise anyone who might suggest a preference for another system.

The reality is all five electoral systems on offer are acceptable electoral systems. All of them are in use in various countries that are universally recognised as democratic. The moment someone tells you that only one system is acceptable, is the moment when you should stop listening to them.

Now this is very different from saying certain systems are preferable to other systems. This is in fact the exact debate we should have – what are the pros and cons of each system, and which one is preferable. And this is an individual decision, which depends on what criteria you regard as being the most important.

If the criteria that matters the most to you is having the lowest possible score on the Gallagher Index (which measures disproportionality) then MMP is likely to be your preferred system. If what matters most to you is having no List MPs at all, then FPP, PV or STV will be more attractive.

There is no one sole criteria that you must judge an electoral system off. Some of the criteria that people may use include:

• Proportionality
• Size of Electorates
• Ability to sack an unpopular Government
• Diversity of Parliament
• Stopping one party rule
• No need for policy compromises
• Minor party representation in Parliament
• No of Maori Seats
• No pork barrel politics for marginal seats
• No wasted votes
• Ability for a Government to manage fiscally
• Concerns over extremists having power

These are just a few off the top of my head. Others will their own issues also. And different people will place different importance on each issue. What some see as a positive, others may see as a negative.

As I said earlier, I regard all five electoral systems as acceptable, and don’t let anyone tell you they are not. All five systems have pros and cons. And one criticism I do have of those supporting MMP is their inability to sometimes accept the flaws of MMP. It is one thing to say the pros outweigh the cons and it is the best alternative. It is another thing to reject that it has any flaws.

I am not going to be part of any campaign for or against a particular electoral system. What I do hope to do is help engender debate and discussion on the pros and cons of the various systems on this blog.

As people know I also run a polling company. At present it is not contracted to any group involved in the debate, and it accepts clients on a first in first served basis – so if the pro MMP campaign wanted to hire Curia to poll, they could do so, and have an exclusive relationship (once you have a client contracted, you can’t do work for direct competitors). Regardless of whether Curia does any work for a group promoting a particular system, it won’t affect what I blog.

So over the next six months, I will blog a fair amount on the referendum and the options. I have a long-standing interest in electoral law, and as I said I regard all five options as valid electoral systems. I’ve not decided exactly the format I will use, but what I might do is do a blog post on each potential criteria, and evaluate the five systems against that criteria.

Now you might be wondering, yeah sure – but where do you stand on the options. Well the truth is I’ve not decided how I’ll vote at the referendum. With regards to MMP, I’m actually pretty happy with it. I certainly think it is a major improvement over FPP, and if MMP is retained I’ve got no problems with that.

I would not vote to go back to FPP. I’ll explain why in some detail in future posts.

I would not vote to go to PV or Preferential Voting. It has all the defects of MMP, but just has a slightly fairer way of determining the winner in an electorate. However I would support PV being used for the electorate vote in an MMP or SM two vote system.

If there was an option of a 70/50 (electorate/list) Supplementary Member option, I’d regard that as having more pros than cons. Unfortunately the version of SM on offer is 90/30 and I have some significant reservations about SM configured that way. On the plus side it would mean smaller electorates – but I’ll go into details later.

I’m quite attracted to STV also. Under STV you would have multi-member electorates, say with five MPs each. So Wellington City might be one electorate, and you’d probably have two Labour MPs, two National MPs and one Green MP representing it. Another electorate might be North Auckland which might have three National MPs, one Labour MP and one ACT MP.  I regard STV as having more pros than cons.

So my thinking at the moment is between MMP, SM and STV.

Hat Tip: Whale

Jim Anderton has had an op ed published in the NZ Herald, which demonstrates a total ignorance of MMP. It is unbelievable that an MP could get the most basic things so totally wrong. The key aspect is:

But the most critical factor, crucial to victory, is the National-held “marginal seats”, many of which have been traditionally Labour-held seats. Their importance in any election result has been largely ignored. We only need to look to recent state and federal elections in Australia to see how important these seats are in determining the outcome.

Both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott spent what seemed like a disproportionate amount of their time in marginal seats. They knew only too well how important those seats were.

Marginal seats are oftetn pivotal to election victory and that’s where New Zealand’s election next year will be won or lost.

I might forgive a first year politics student for getting things so horribly wrong, but not an MP. Yes marginal seats are crucial in Australia – that is because they determine the election – whomever wins the most electorates wins.

But NZ has MMP. And apart from the occasional minor overhang, wining electorate seats does not gain you mroe overall seats in Parliament, as you get fewer list seats if you do. Your totla number of seats is determined by your share of the party vote.

Currently, the National-led coalition Government of four parties has 16 more seats in Parliament than the Labour-led opposition of three parties. How many more seats does Labour have to win to be in a position to form the next government by having more seats than National?

The answer is only nine seats – if the nine seats are won by Labour off National and Labour wins all its current seats.

In Labour’s favour, National has nine “marginal” seats which would be lost to Labour with a swing of less than 3 per cent.

Anderton is horribly wrong. so wrong, I don’t know whether it is stupidity or worse. If Labour won nine more electorate seats, then they would have nine fewer list seats.

What Labour need to win is to lift its party vote by 7%, not to win nine more electorate seats. Winning electorate seats is desirable, but Anderton fails POLS101 by making such moronic errors. And winning more party votes happens in all seats, not just nine marginal seats.

As far as the “party vote” is concerned, the clear evidence is that where a major party is picking up electorate seats from its opponent, it is also increasing its share of the party vote.

Actually it goes the other way around. If you increase your party vote in a seat, then the electorate vote tends to increase. But you need to increase your party vote in all seats.

If the party vote grew by 14% in the nine marginal seats, and stayed the same everywhere else, then the overall growth in the party vote would be around 2% only.

Anderton also makes some other errors, or over-states his case:

For example, Roy Morgan polls over the past six months show National and its support parties tracking downwards, with the latest (October 17) showing their support has dipped to 55 per cent from a high of 58.5 per cent in July. Meanwhile, Labour and its support parties have slowly but steadily tracked upwards – support now at 45 per cent compared to 41.61 per cent at the 2008 general election.

The 45% for the opposition includes NZ First who are not in Parliament and who have not made the threshold.

On that Roy Morgan poll Labour and the Greens would win only 51 seats out of 123 – which is fewer seats than they got in 2008.

More importantly, the confidence rating for the Government is down from a 72 per cent approval level late last year to the current 60.5 per cent. The disapproval rating over the same period has increased from 16.5 to 24 per cent.

Find me one other Government in the world with a confidence rating so high after two years in office. A net approval rating of +36% is staggeringly high.

Of course National can lose the next election. As they say a week can be a long time in politics. But Anderton’s op ed is literally garbage – it is a FPP analysis of an MMP election. If he was a student at university he’d get a F.

The Electoral Referendum Bill has also been reported back. Major aspects are:

• Comes into force 1 Jan 2011
• aligns advertising rules with Electoral Act, including $300,000 spending limit
• MMP to only be reviewed if people vote for it to remain, not if they vote for change. So any run-off referendum will be with the current version of MMP
• Order of alternate voting systems to be alphabetical
• ballot papers will not be counted on E Day, but the results of advance votes will be known which should indicate the likely result
• The SM option has been defined as a 90/30 option. This is quite significant as it means it will be significantly less proportional than MMP. My preferred SM option would be 70/50 as MMP currently has. On the plus side a 90/30 system will have smaller electorate seats.

The question in Part A has been modified to be:

Should New Zealand keep the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system?

The options are:

• I vote to keep the MMP voting system
• I vote to change to another voting system

The select committee has done a diligent job with the bill. Politically I believe a majority will vote to retain MMP, especially with the SM option being significantly disproportional.

Peter Shirtcliffe from the Put MMP to the Vote Campaign is running a caption contest.

Submit your caption or captions (you can use one or both blank spaces) either as a comment on this post, or by e-mail to Peter.

The winning entry (as judged by Peter) will win a bottle of quality Champagne or an iPod Nano – you decide.

If you’re an MMP supporter, there is now an official website for the pro-MMP campaign, and an associated Facebook group.

Have just filed my submission, which is copied below. Submissions close tomorrow – you can submit online here.

Overall the bill is pretty good and has the basics right, but there are a number of ways it could be improved (in my opinion) and the submission focuses on that.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR
TO THE ELECTORAL LEGISLATION SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE ELECTORAL REFERENDUM BILL

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
2. I have over 15 years experience with the Electoral Act.  As a former parliamentary staffer I advised National Prime Ministers and Opposition Leaders on the Act.  I have been an electorate campaign manager and a national campaign staffer, requiring intimate knowledge of the Act. I also have blogged extensively on electoral issues.

   Executive Summary
   

3. I support the Electoral Referendum Bill as an appropriate measure to allow New Zealanders to decide whether to continue with MMP or choose another electoral system, and urge the Select Committee to pass it.
4. I do propose some changes, for the consideration of the Select Committee, and the Government.

   Meaning of Referendum Advertisement
   

5. Clause 30(2) provides for certain publications not to be treated as a referendum advertisement. The definitions are drawn from the Electoral (Finance and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill.
6. For both bills, I believe the current definitions may end up capturing as advertisements, expression of views that should not be considered an advertisement.
7. Specifically I propose that Clause 30(2)(b) have the word “solely” replaced by “primarily” in relation to news selected by an editor, as the test of “solely” is too narrow.
8. I also propose that Clause 30(2)(f) relating to an individual publishing his or her views on the Internet delete the words “on a non-commercial basis” as this could capture bloggers who have advertising on their blog. They key test is that the views are his or her personal political views.

   Registered Promoters
   

9. I support the requirement for a promoter to register with the Electoral Commission if they spend greater than $12,000 on referendum advertising during the regulated period. This is a welcome additional transparency measure.
10. I do not support there being an expenditure limit on a promoter. There is no more important decision for voters than the choice of electoral system, and Parliament should not restrict individuals from promoting their views.
11. The New Zealand voter have shown they are very capable of not being overly influenced by high spending campaigns, and in fact often such campaigns have in fact become counter-productive. I have faith in the media, and others, to shine sunlight on any referendum campaigners.
12. I also note that any expenditure limit would be trivial for a person or group to get around. Overseas experiences have shown this clearly.
13. Clause 37(1)(d) specifies the contact details of registered promoters and their agents must be provide to the Electoral Commission. I recommend the clause be amended to specify that the contact details must at a minimum include full names, dates of birth, physical address and contact phone numbers so the identity is fully transparent. This also applies to Clause 43(2).

    Scope of MMP Review
    

14. I welcome the proposed review of MMP, should the vote be for retention.
15. I propose that the scope of the review include the 5% maximum tolerance from quota for electoral populations. Without pre-arguing the issue, there is a strong case for a larger tolerance under MMP.
16. I also propose that the review explicitly include any recommendations made by the 1986 Royal Commission, which are not in the current Electoral Act. . This includes the proposal that Maori parties are exempt from the (5%) threshold for representation, in exchange for an end to the Maori seats, so would remove 56(3)(a). If the Royal Commission recommended it, I believe it it is worthy of reconsideration.

    Form for referendum voting paper.
    

17. I believe it would be preferable for the four options in Part B to be ranked through a preferential ballot, rather than have one option selected through first past the post.
18. If voters vote for change in Part A, then the run off option in Part B may be chosen for the next referendum with as little as 25.1% of the vote.
19. One may end up with considerable tactical voting if FPP is used in Section 2. If a voter is very opposed to one option being selected, they may then vote for not their preferred option, but the option the polls tell them is most likely to beat out their least preferred option.
20. To use an actual example, let us say Jane dislikes FPP and whatever happens does not want that as the run off option. Her preference may be STV but the polls shows STV has 20% support, PV 18% SM 30% and FPP 32%. Tactically she may choose to vote for SM to stop FPP winning, rather than her true preference of STV.
21. A preferential ranked ballot in Part B will allow people to rank options in their true order of preference. There is a risk it will be a bit more confusing to ask voters to rank four options, rather than select one, but this can be mitigated by allowing them to only rank one or more options.
22. Also voters may choose to learn more about all four systems, if they realise they have to rank them, than just go for the system they feel they already know something about.

    Date of Second Referendum
    

23. While this is outside the scope of this bill, I feel it would be useful to air this issue, as the Select Committee can make a recommendation in the commentary of the bill.
24. Initially I concluded that both referendums must be held with general elections to maximize turnout. We saw in 1992 a rather low turnout of 55% as that referendum was held separate to an election.
25. Upon further reflection I have concluded that the initial referendum that this bill establishes should remain timed to coincide with the 2011 general election. As it is an indicative referendum only, and one with multiple options, it would suffer from lower turnout if run as a stand alone referendum.
26. However I believe the second referendum would attract a very high turnout, even if held apart from a general election – for example in early 2013. As the vote would be binding, and would be to change the basic electoral system of New Zealand, I believe it would have a high turnout, even if standalone. I note that the stand alone 1997 referendum on compulsory superannuation had an 80% turnout, only 5% less than the 85% turnout in 1993.
27. The strongest reason however for a standalone second referendum is that without the distraction of a general election, there will be a much greater focus on the referendum, and the two options, and associated implications. A decision to change electoral systems will probably be a once in a lifetime decision for most voters, and it deserves having its own space and time to get as many voters as possible educated and informed on the choice they have, rather than have it as a minor side-show to the general election.

    Drafting of Alternate Voting System
    

28. Should voters vote for a change from MMP, the preferred alternative needs to be made into a statute that will become the new Electoral Act if it is voted for in the second binding referendum.
29. I support the proposal by Graeme Edgeler that the Electoral Commission be tasked with producing the first draft of the alternate voting system, just as they have been tasked with doing the first draft of a review to MMP if MMP is retained.
30. Parliament would still make the final decisions as to how the alternative voting system will precisely work, but by having the Electoral Commission do a first draft, it will make any changes by Parliament transparent. Details such as the number of electorate and list MPs in an SM electoral system will be critical details.

    Counting of the Votes
    

31. I appreciate the desire to reduce costs by having the referendum votes counted after election night, and also the desire to have the results of the general election given priority.
32. However the proposed law removes some of the safeguards we have around voting, such as scrutineers and striking out of multiple voters. I believe the safeguards these provisions give us outweigh the concern over cost.
33. Hence I propose that the referendum be counted on election night, following much the same processes as the general election, except that any counting at a polling place only commence once the general election ballots have been counted.

In summary I urge the Justice and Electoral Committee to recommend the Electoral Referendum Bill be passed, with amendments as highlighted above.

David Farrar

The Put MMP to the Vote lobby group has declared their preferred alternate scheme to be Supplementary Member:

The Put MMP to the Vote lobby today declared supplementary member (SM) its preferred voting alternative to MMP.

Co-leaders Peter Shirtcliffe and Graeme Hunt said an SM-elected Parliament would mean the number of list MPs would be slashed and “listers” would be stopped from subverting the will of the people.

“Under a 120-member Parliament, 90 members would be elected by first past the post with just 30 top-up MPs. If New Zealand opted for a 100-member Parliament –– something electors voted for in 1999 –– there would be just 20 list MPs,” Hunt said.

So a 90/30 system, or an 80/20 system if the size changed.

“What’s more, proportionality would apply to list seats only so it would be virtually impossible for list MPs to stop the party that won the most seats on election night from forming the government for the next three years.

“We have recommended SM because it provides for diversity but does not undermine electorate MPs. Under our system, electorate MPs would be denied a place on party lists. This would mean a defeated electorate MP could not return to Parliament via a party list. It would spell the end to electoral double-dipping.”

This is one of the things the public don’t like. However the solution has problems also – if electorate MPs are not on the list, they have less incentive to campaign for the party vote.

“We believe SM, with the appropriate safeguards, would restore faith to the parliamentary system, lead to greater voter participation in parties and foster higher turnouts in general elections.”

The Royal Commission on the Electoral System, which recommended MMP in 1986, said SM would be “likely to build on existing levels of [elector] participation” but added that popular control of Parliament under SM would not differ much from under first past the post.

“Single-party governments would continue to be the norm because the constituency results would not be altered by the allocation of the list seats,“ the commission said.

Now I always like to look at numbers, and how the last five MMP elections would have turned out if done under a 90/30 SM system.

To model this, one has to assume that a party would win the same proportion of 90 electorates as they did of the number that existed at each election.

Here’s 1996

In 1996 under MMP National needed NZ First to get a majority. Under a 90/30 SM, they would still have needed NZ First to govern. SM rewards parties that wins electorate seats, and NZ First won a lot that year.

In 1999, SM 90/30 would have given Labour an absolute majority, meaning they could have governed without the Alliance. Arguably this means the Alliance may have never disintegrated.

And in 2002, Labour would have gained a massive majority.

2005 is interesting. National and Labour would have ended up with 53 seats each, both eight short of a majority. Lab/Gre/Prog would be 56 and Nat/ACT 54. Don Brash could have become PM if United Future and Maori Party went with them. Helen Clark would have remained PM only if she could have got the Maori Party onside – Winston wouldn’t be enough.

As Helen had declared the Maori Party last cab off the rank, it is possible one may have ended up with a Don Brash led Government with the Maori Party, ACT and United Future.

In 2008 a 90/30 SM system would have given National a clear majority.

Back in August 2008 I blogged pros and cons of SM.

I also blogged back then how SM would have worked with no change to the number of electorate seats.

Grant Robertson just started his speech on the S92A bill by saying he will join in the Simon Power lovefest. And Grant is right, the House has been having a Simon Power lovefest for the last four hours – a but a justified one.

The House unanimously passed the MMP referenda bill, and speaker after speaker praised Simon for the process. While some advocated for spending restrictions on campaigners, the fact the bill was passed without dissent spoke for itself.

Then we had the S92A copyright file sharing bill, and again every speaker said that the proposal developed by Simon was a huge improvement over the status quo, and was reasonably balanced.

Having been involved in this issue myself, I have to say that I agree – it is a very complex area, and the Government has done well to come up with a workable model. I still think the Internet suspension provision should go, but we’ll have that debate at select committee. Pleased to see the House unamiously pass the bill.

Fairly rare for a Minister to get two bills in a row passed unanimously, and to praise from all parties. Also good to have constructive speeches from all parties.

Back to the MMP referendum, two questions for people.

1. Should the voting at the first referendum for an electoral system to go up against MMP in the second referendum be a simple plurality option (tick one option, most ticks wins) or a ranked preferential option (ranks the four systems 1 to 4, and none get over 50%, drop off least popular option and redistribute preferences)?
2. Should the second referendum be held at the 2014 election, or held before 2014 as advocated by this petition?

I generally regard a preferential voting system as superior, but it can make things a bit more complex and put people off. However if we are asking us to pick a preferred option out of four, then is it too much to think they should be able to rank them?

The timing of the 2nd referendum is finely balanced. One wants a very high turnout for a binding constitutional change. However I think as it is a binding vote on a binary choice, we would have a high turnout even if held outside a general election. The first referendum would suffer from a low turnout if done stand alone as it is not a final vote, but the second one less so.

It occurs to me that one would get a better debate on the second referendum, if it was not held at the same time as a general election. The contest for Government will dominate the media.

So I think there is merit in looking at whether the 2014 referendum (if there is one) can be held in late 2012 or early 2013.