Written By: - Date published: 2:19 pm, November 10th, 2008 - 79 comments
Categories: activism -
Tags: MMP
The Right hates MMP. The old system, FPP, advantaged the Right by about 1.5% according to this study. In 1978, 1981, and 1993 the Right governed despite the Left having more support. Under FPP, National was the ‘natural party of government’ and that has changed under MMP.
So, the National/Act government plans to have a referendum on MMP, thinking it can use the power of government to win the public’s support.
Just as a grassroots movement was needed to bring us MMP in the first place, another movement will be needed to argue the case for keeping it. Already, the base of this organisation is being established: The Campaign to Save MMP.
From their press release:
A second referendum on the issue is not something to fear, but an opportunity for New Zealanders to show they believe in fairness in their electoral system. The Campaign to Save MMP will be an independent, non-partisan effort to inform voters of the benefits of MMP and show them the downside of other electoral systems. Our first meeting is at Auckland University Students Association executive chambers, 7pm Thursday the 13th of November.
MMP is just one of the democratic institutions and rights that will be at risk under National/Act. Do your part to help defend it.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
I think the right will settle on their preferred option and then push it with lots of money and influence. It probably won’t be FPP but something just as likely to entrench the rich or rural. Maybe supplementary member. Jim Bolger hinted at this on election night. He recognised that FPP won’t fly again but that it would be desirable to change to something other than MMP.
So what are the options so we can be fully informed?
I’m enjoying MMP more now that National has learnt to play the game. Beforehand, I think they were stuck in FPP mode.
As I recall, MMP came about not because of any perception that it was better but because of massive distrust of politicians after they got elected (Labour in particular although ironically I would support what they did).
So the perception was that MMP would give the punters more power to select “their” local candidate and take power away from the parties.
The reality of course is somewhat different and particularly the fact that the party controls the party list while the belief is that the tail wags the dog.
Beside all that, I am amazed that anyone should be concerned about the possibility of a referendum. Surely, if the people choose a different system, that is a triumph of our democratic system?
PB has it exactly right – drop the threshold and you change voter behaviour. The only reason McGillicuddy Serious existed is because people knew they’d never get in. The B&B party would never have been elected if people had thought there was the faintest chance they might be.
I don’t believe there are any genuine reasons to retain the threshold at 5% in a small democracy like NZ’s. I don’t mind seeing it stay if that’s what it takes to retain MMP, but in the ideal case I would reduce it to zero, or perhaps to the point required to field two MPs – 1.6% or so. There are three main arguments put forward, and they’re all invalid. First, the `Weimar Republic’ argument (it was brought down by anti-semitic militaristic demagoguery) is fallacious – Nazi Germany came about because of a complex set of ideological and nationalistic circumstances which began in the 16th Century, crystallised into German unity in the 19th, and the shame and humiliation of Versailles in 1918. It’s an exceptional example where (counterfactually) NO electoral system could have prevented the rise of the Nazis.
Second, the `Israel’ argument (Israeli politics is unstable and fractured) is flawed for the same reason – it’s a state constructed two generations ago by League of Nations fiat, in direct opposition to the will of the vast majority of those who lived there. Again, arguably NO electoral system could survive. It’s also important to note that there’s no regional or electorate representation – it’s proportional-only. Can’t be compared.
Third, the `lunatic fringe’ argument (if we have no threshold we’ll be ruled by the maniacs who can’t join a real party). Currently we have a bunch of wacky one-issue and niche parties who attract some small amount of support, partly because nobody believes they’ll get in. I’d put it to you that if 1% or more of people vote for a party in good faith that they might get in, they deserve to be represented – counterfactually again, Graeme Edgeler’s numbers on publicaddress show that the Kiwi Party and the Family Party could have each got a seat, and I think that’s fair enough – they do in fact represent a constituency. Yes, they might be fringe groups, but the nature of MMP is compromise. Let our elected representatives compromise and cooperate – it’ll be good for democracy in the end.
L
Janet: As far as I see, if the 2011 referendum to change the system returns favourable, There will broadly be three options:
1. Revert to FPP
2. Modify MMP or adopt a similar system
2. Adopt different system wholesale
Let me say that I don’t believe the 2011 referendum will find need for a change. But if it does:
1. I think FPP is dead and gone, so I expect that to be off the table.
2. I believe the most likely option is to adopt the Additional Member Proportional system, which means the party vote is divided only among the list seats – not the whole parliament. There are 50 party votes in NZ at present, so this would mean a party gains one for each 2% of the party vote (rather than about 0.8% as it is now). This is not strictly a proportional system, but it’s more proportional than MMP.
3. The most likely totally different system is STV, which Australia uses. You rank candidates, and a candidate doesn’t win until they beat each other candidate outright. As Steve correctly points out, it’s not really a proportional system either (though it can be with a party vote component, which would sort of mean mixed MMP-STV – I don’t know if this has ever been done before). It also produces bizarre results, usually electing the second-most popular candidate in a broad field.
But yeah. I think the whole question is moot, really.
L
… err, that should read `more proportional than FPP’.
L
I’m an advocate for MMP, however I wouldn’t mind more public discussion about the topic. At this stage the average kiwi doesn’t know enough about the MMP system or any other electoral system to make an informed decision. Referendums are tricky buggers – just drafting the question is difficult enough….
Also in reply to the comment “The Right hates MMP”, please take a look at this article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4754717a28480.html
Chris Trotter (Left wing enthusiast) openly castigates voters for exercising their democratic right…
In this way generalised statements like “The Right hates MMP” are misleading and irresponsible.
I doubt that there will be an overhaul of MMP under National without careful consideration of any alternatives (and yes, there are alternatives, STV etc). Can you imagine the political fallout of a govt that can’t successfully handle the implementation of a new electoral system? It would be political suicide. National’s promise of a referendum was made to pacify voter dissatisfaction, that’s all. John Key himself said during the election campaign that NZ will not return to FPP.
Steve makes a good point, as National was in govt more under the FPP system than with MMP. Prior to MMP (1950 – 1996) National was in govt 75% and Labour 25%, and after its inception (1996 – 2005) National 25% and Labour 75%.
This does perhaps create a certain bias against MMP for National, however the reverse could be said of Labour. With a better track record under MMP, it no doubt has a ‘vested’ interest in ensuring it remains. Food for thought…
Either way – good on the campaigners – just don’t get too carried away with generalisations…
I’d be worried if another referendum came along, since I can imagine the wealthy interests behind the “Campaign for Better Government” learning from their mistakes and spending an absolute fortune to make sure that FPP is re-instituted (or some system that returns us to two parties in parliament). It was only luck and incompetence that stopped them from winning last time. IIRC they were ahead going in to the last week of the campaign.
If FPP returns, I’ll quit voting for good, since I will no longer have any real choice among the parties.
Ag: That’s the purpose of the campaign …
L
Is a successful electoral vote dragging in list members because winning an electorate is seen as being equivalent to 5%? If it was seen as less, then the prospective MP couldn’t enter parliament under the 5% threshold rule.
And if it is seen as 5%, the %age of vote from the list cannot be uniformly subtracted or discounted without allowing different electorates to count for different %ages….if you see what I mean.
PB asked about it above, nobody has explained and I’m just trying to figure it out.
In conclusion, I reckon the whole thing was over thought and the inherent unfairness accepted as part and parcel of the package ’cause they’d thought themselves into a tangle and there were no biscuits left at that particular meeting.
Steve,
The best way to improve MMP would be removing the threshold. That would remove the undemocratic elements we saw on Saturday – tactical voting, overhangs and large wasted vote.
Are you saying tactical voting is undemocratic? I must be reading your comment incorrectly, in light of your “Smart Vote” series, which advocated for tactical voting.
Bill: No, it’s not in there for any sensible and rational reason like that. Perhaps if there were only 20 MPs …
I too support the abolition of the `hitchhiker’ rule.
L
I like STV. We have it in Wellington and narrowly voted to retain it recently after the right tried to get rid of it. It is a fairer voting system and people like John Banks wouldn’t have been elected if Akld City Council used it. But it is not proportional.
Janet: STV is fairer (after a fashion) than FPP. But it’s more or less broken because it chooses a compromise candidate, rather than choosing a diverse range of candidates and making them compromise as part of their job.
L
Lew… surely the Member Proportional system is fundamentally FPP in drag?
It has a veneer of proportionality, but if I understand it correctly a party/coalition could dominate parliament based on winning a huge number of electorates – even if each of those wins was only by a small margin.
lol I must admit seeing Additional Member Proportional System sounded rather nice and something I think most Centre-right parties would be happy about. I don’t think it would be too good democratically. I could easily see National win more electorate seats while Labour wins the Party vote. And thus simply doesn’t work and would naturally favour National surely
TimeWarp: The idea that a party could win 85% of electorates without winning 50% of the party vote simply strains credibility.
L
Lew… what about winning say 45% of the party vote but a majority of electorates? Or do I not understand that system?
GC: AMP isn’t a bad system, and is a less-bad option than FPP or STV. It is sort-of, if-you-squint proportional, and provides greater certainty and more predictable outcomes than MMP (no danger of overhang, no threshold, etc.). But only as long as a few sanity checks remain: first, the 2% required to gain a list seat remain as the only threshold to list representation; and second, that the number of list seats increase in proportion to the number of electorate seats (I’d also argue for a different split – 70 electorates and 50 list isn’t reasonable, in my view).
L
TimeWarp: You don’t. If a party wins more electorate seats than its proportion of the party vote, it creates an overhang. In your example (61 electorates and 45% of the party vote – 54 seats by right) there would be an overhang of seven seats – a parliament of 127, requiring 64 for a majority. The interaction between party vote and electorate vote creates a sliding scale which provides a check on electorate dominance. It’s a very robust system, designed to minimise the effects of gerrymandering a lot of small electorates in one region (for instance, in polities with strong sectarian or regionalist conflict) to supercede the party vote.
L
Cheers.. my understanding was there was a fixed number of electorate seats (50%) then the balance were proportional.
In contrast to MMP where the total is proportional.
Janet
November 10, 2008 at 7:43 pm
“I like STV. We have it in Wellington and narrowly voted to retain it recently after the right tried to get rid of it. It is a fairer voting system and people like John Banks wouldn’t have been elected if Akld City Council used it. But it is not proportional.”
Hmmmm… and so we get ‘populist’ mayors like Kerry P? Not so sure about your logic here? STV elects political ‘celebrities’ not good politicians IMHO.
TimeWarp: That’s Asdditional Member Proportional – also called Supplementary Member – as I detailed above. There are good wikipedia pages on all major systems which are used at present – the only one I mentioned which I don’t think is in use anywhere is a transferable-parallel vote system, where electors rank candidates and then rank parties.
L
Sweet thanks Lew… I was intimately familiar with all back in 93, Mr Monteith has killed a few brain cells since then.
The best way to improve MMP would be removing the threshold.
What so that every moron who could get a few votes would get into parliament? You think this wouldn’t happen – under your scenario the Bill&Ben Party would have just picked up a seat in the house.
national is only government now because NZF couldn’t get 0.8% more of the vote and because National voters tactically voted in Epsom.
Everyone has the option of tactical voting. In fact, Labour stuffed up by trying to win the Maori seats – if they had left them all to the Maori Party there would have been less likelihood of National forming a government. Remember, it also benefited Labour at the last election, where Dunne wouldn’t have been re-elected and Labour may not have got in.
Also, if NZF had been returned, the result would still have been the same, as Nat/ACT would have had 61 seats (enough to govern) and 62 when UF was taken into account.
NeillR: No, because people would have voted differently.
That’s the major effect of electoral systems – influencing voter behaviour. Remove the threshold, people think harder about their votes.
L
“Scribe
November 10, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Steve,
The best way to improve MMP would be removing the threshold. That would remove the undemocratic elements we saw on Saturday – tactical voting, overhangs and large wasted vote.
Are you saying tactical voting is undemocratic? I must be reading your comment incorrectly, in light of your “Smart Vote’ series, which advocated for tactical voting.”
He means exactly what he has written and its only you claiming any different.
Jeez, have you people actually stopped to think about what you’re saying. If this scenario played out the result would be:
National 64
Labour 47
Greens 9
No other party would be in parliament – is that REALLY what you want?
There is absolutely NO evidence to support that whatever. But i can tell you for a fact that if you remove the threshold then you will see the National Front, or some similar extreme organisations suddenly appearing in parliament – i’m sure no-one would like that as a scenario, it was bad enough with Peters and his reprehensible views.
NeillR: There’s a shitload of evidence, most of it from European nations who’ve had proportional representation systems with no threshold for ages.
The National Front, although contesting the 2008 NZ election (as the National Alliance with some other nutters) don’t even register on the Electoral Commission’s results page (they exclude parties who receive fewer than six votes per polling place, I believe). They’re irrelevant.
Once people know their vote (for whatever party) will count, we’ll see people genuinely vote for the party they want representing them. I don’t have a problem with the prospect of the Family Party or the Kiwi Party gaining representation, though I disagree with practically all of their politics. It takes almost twenty thousand votes to get a party over the one-member threshold. That’s a lot of people, and a constituency which deserves representation.
I think you have too little faith in the parliament to control and constrain the lunatics among its ranks.
L
“Jeez, have you people actually stopped to think about what you’re saying. If this scenario played out the result would be:
National 64
Labour 47
Greens 9″
ACT 1
maori Party 5
United Future 1
Jim Anderton’s 1
The National Front, although contesting the 2008 NZ election (as the National Alliance with some other nutters) don’t even register on the Electoral Commission’s results page (they exclude parties who receive fewer than six votes per polling place, I believe). They’re irrelevant.
So you’re trying to argue that everyone will change their vote except for supporters of the National Front (or other quasi-fascist organisations).
I’m quite happy to challenge your assumptions on the voting tendencies of Europe v NZ, because so far we haven’t made enough progress, nor had enough time-gap from FPP to be that sophisticated with our voting intentions.
For instance, if Bill&Ben had captured 3% of the vote, parliament would be reduced by one member. It wouldn’t take a genius to set up the “Underhang” Party who had only one member, to campaign on the basis of reducing the number of MP’s. For every vote above 1% they received parliament would be reduced. You reckon the electorate wouldn’t go for that scenario? I’m picking they’d get around 10% of the vote, minimum.
ACT 1
maori Party 5
United Future 1
Jim Anderton’s 1
You’re not really keeping up – the scenario was that electorate votes didn’t count – ie: the threshold would still have to be met – none of these parties would get to parliament under that system (based on 2008 results).
I’m glad Bill & Ben didn’t beat McGillicuddy Serious’s joke party record (11,714 votes or 0.61% in 1993). Having no policies <<< ending male suffrage.
Bring on the 2% threshold!
(Also: the “winning an electorate seat doesn’t release your party from the threshold” is a bit rubbish because making the NZF vs Act imbalance)
I hate edit time limits that don’t refresh.
Anyway, as for the “winning an electorate seat doesn’t release your party from the threshold’:
Current rules: fair for Act, unfair for NZ First!
Those rules: unfair for Act, unfair for NZ First!
Can’t see how this is any more democratic.
[lprent: It does. But I think that it is a client side java running that. Adds to list of things to check]
No Chris, STV is still an electorate-based system and no electorate-based system can ever be truly proportional because there are votes that don’t count across districts. It is, however, probably the second-best system for voting in electorates that I can think of, and it may be that it produces results much closer to proportional elections than FPP. That’s still not the same thing.
So here’s my wishlist for a better MMP:
* Change the threshold to 0.83%. (winning a list seat outright)
* It doesn’t matter if electorate MPs bring their buddies in or not under this system- any Party capable of winning a second seat is already past the threshold.
* A fairer electorate vote system, like STV, (rank candidates, skip any you don’t know) EV, (vote any candidates you wish “up” or “down” with a tick or a cross, skip candidates you don’t know) or Ranged Vote. (vote any candidates you wish between 0 and 100, skip candidates you don’t know)
* Mandate that parties who want a list larger than 5 MPs run primaries for their party list among their party members, giving interested voters more control over who gets into Parliament. At the moment only the Greens elect their party list. This would also help address concerns that list members are often minnows- at the very least, their own party members would have to like them.
Act doesn’t support the MMP referendum, you’ll find. Funnily enough given they would’ve exist without it and were formed into a political party only because and when MMP was introduced.