The emerging consensus to keep MMP

18 comments on “The emerging consensus to keep MMP ”

• Comments are now closed

1. George D 1

   14 September 2009 at 2:09 pm

   I’ve been looking at the past wistfully, and thinking what might have been had MMP been put in place any time between 78 and 96.

   Anyone on the left who doesn’t support a truly proportional system is very stupid and has a very short memory. I’m glad Labour is now in favour.
2. stargazer 2

   14 September 2009 at 2:21 pm

   “Phil Goff has proposed some changes to MMP”

   no he hasn’t. this was a remit from christchurch, supported by hon lianne dalziell & voted on by the conference. has phil actually made public his views on this remit? and if he has, can we have a link please?
   • Bright Red 2.1

     14 September 2009 at 2:42 pm

     On Q+A Goff mentioned the 80:40 seats idea didn’t he?
   • Ari 2.2

     14 September 2009 at 5:12 pm

     While more electorates might make FPP supporters happy, it would also increase the likelyhood of overhangs, and it would probably make electorate votes even more of a low-vote contest than they are now. Usually only the two highest candidates in an electorate even get into the thousands of electorate votes in NZ, which is not exactly a great recipe for robust candidate selection.

     Also, the changes that Labour has suggested, in true Labour fashion, are designed to lock out the more problematic minor parties and give them an advantage in forming governments. Much better to set the threshold to winning a single seat outright from the list vote- then you never have to worry about piggybacking, just the effect of below-threshold electorate MPs, the overhang, and independent MPs.
3. uroskin 3

   14 September 2009 at 2:50 pm

   80:40 seat split will also mean about 10 Maori seats. Be careful for what you wish for.
   • Graeme Edgeler 3.1

     14 September 2009 at 4:18 pm

     80:40 would mean 8 Maori seats.

     120-seats of first past the post would mean at least 12, and probably 13.
4. Jasper 4

   14 September 2009 at 3:07 pm

   The other changes that should be made
   – reduce the threshold for party vote to 4%
   – if the party doesn’t reach the 4%, but they win an electorate, then only that electorate MP can enter parliament. Therefore only Hide would be in Parliament.
   – if the party does reach 4%, and has an electorate, then they enter Parliament
   – if a list MP leaves the party, they’re booted from Parliament. i.e. Gordon Copeland
   – if an electorate MP leaves the party, they’re still in Parliament as they’re democratically elected by the people of the electorate so can’t ride roughshod over their views.
   – if an MP chooses to run in an electorate, they cannot then also have the safety net of the list to enter parliament should they not win an electorate. It should be all or nothing.
   • Edosan 4.1

     14 September 2009 at 3:43 pm

     I agree with all of those except the last one. A party might potentially want a particular individual and put them high on the list, but I don’t think that should stop that individual from also contesting an electorate if they wish, and if they feel they can handle the extra workload.
   • Graeme Edgeler 4.2

     14 September 2009 at 4:21 pm

     Yeah – with that rule, you’re basically saying that no-one from the Greens can run in an electorate. They’re not running to win the electorate, but why shouldn’t they be able to turn up to meet the candidates meetings etc.?

     Have you a particular reason why you’d like the threshold as high as 4%?
     • Ari 4.2.1

       15 September 2009 at 12:48 pm

       Well, to be fair, the Greens run plenty of candidates for electorates that are well down the list. What it would mean, however, is that minor parties winning significant amounts of list votes would need to have an exhaustive supply of candidates to run in any electorates at all, which I think is pretty undemocratic.

       Not entirely sure whether I agree or disagree with List MPs that leave or are removed from their party being kicked out in favour of the next MP. I mean, on the one hand, people voted for their party, not them specifically, but on the other hand, the list is a promise of who to bring, and people vote for that too, and it should be something that parties make an investment in and a commitment to.
       • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1

         15 September 2009 at 3:55 pm

         the list is a promise of who to bring, and people vote for that too,

         They do?

         I’d be highly surprised if more than a few percent of voters ever looked at the lists prior to the election simply because most people don’t have the time.
         • Lew 4.2.1.1.1

           15 September 2009 at 4:20 pm

           If they don’t, it’s hardly the fault of the system, is it?

           L
5. ghostwhowalksnz 5

   14 September 2009 at 3:32 pm

   I understand that some Countries with party lists allow an option to change the order of the list.
   So you can choose them in a different order to what you are given.

   Jasper , all or nothing wouldnt work as you can loose very experienced MPs and also leads to gerrymandering of the electorate boundarys. Yes they do have major dustups over whether this or that suburb should be in various electorates, the two major parties are included on the boundary commission
6. Jasper 6

   14 September 2009 at 3:38 pm

   Then experienced MPs shouldn’t need to worry about losing an electorate then should they ghost?

   What would stop an experienced MP from knowing their seat is potentially marginal, and opting for the list, thereby allowing a newcomer to run in the electorate?

   Could help with better rejuvenation, and means that the experience is still kept within the parties?
7. Maynard J 7

   14 September 2009 at 5:05 pm

   Has a joke party ever achieved representation in a modern, or at least recent democracy?

   I was thinking about what would happen if the threshold was dropped low enough that someone like the Bill & Ben party could get in. A living testament to political apathy and ignorance – I can not for the life of me figure out whether that is a fundamentally bad thing or not.
   • Ron 7.1

     14 September 2009 at 5:41 pm

     In answer to your question – “joke party” seems and apt description of ACT, I’m Jim Anderton Party and Future NZ. Oh – and NZ First, actually.
     • Maynard J 7.1.1

       14 September 2009 at 9:29 pm

       For joke parties, they take themselves damn seriously. If that is part of the joke, the Hide gets a friggen Oscar in my books.
       • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1.1

         14 September 2009 at 10:06 pm

         I can not for the life of me figure out whether that is a fundamentally bad thing or not.?

         If they get the votes I say let ’em in. Having the threshold actually encourages these votes as it’s a meaningful protest/signifier of apathy. I’m pretty sure that if the threshold was set at enough votes to earn 1 seat, then there would be less of these votes.

         But even if they get in, so what?

         Similar thing with n8zi parties, and other fringe nutters. If they have the votes then I think we are better off having them involved. These parties would be left to rant on the oppo back bench. Their supporters would at least feel included which, (not that it’s much of a problem in NZ), would prevent them going paranoid and violent.

         There is next to no chance of them having any meaningful influence on policy, any major party that relies on them will be punished accordingly. Even if they held the ballance of power, I think a grand coalition would be more likely than a “(nat or lab) + dangerously weirdo” coalition.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS