Electoral SM

Written By: - Date published: 7:08 pm, October 12th, 2009 - 5 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

Philip Temple makes some good points in the Herald today:

The Minister of Justice, Simon Power, indicated that he would soon present a paper to Cabinet on the proposed referendum on MMP. Presumably this will hold true to National’s election promise, that it will be held “without any further consideration”. Meaning no consultation with the voters, no review or inquiry, no select committee hearings.

That is not good enough. For it is about now that we should remind ourselves, and the Government, that the voting system belongs to us – the voters – and not the politicians. That it is unacceptable for the National Party to simply tell us what kind of question we will be getting in the proposed referendum, and when, and what might happen afterwards.

Key has previously indicated, like Shipley before him, that he would prefer Supplementary Member system. This is what Temple has to says about that:

In a display of seeming flexibility, they agree there should be a “degree” of proportionality in our voting system and suggest Supplementary Member as a replacement for MMP. As its abbreviation indicates, however, we would be submitting ourselves to a degree of electoral sado-masochism in adopting a system that is nothing more than a proportional sham – FPP with knobs on.

We would be lining ourselves up with countries with much shorter democratic histories such as Armenia, Kazakhstan and South Korea. It was also the electoral option least favoured by New Zealanders in the “preferendum” held in 1992 to ascertain which alternative voting system we preferred.

Power has apparently been sent away to decide whether or not there should be one referendum with two questions at the next election. That wasn’t what their policy said, and would presumably be tried as a way to slide in SM. We could be up for getting rorted again.

As for National’s dedication to their policy, stated by Key as the reason for holding a referendum in the first place, Power should be asked whether it is still National’s intention to begin a constitutional process to abolish the Maori seats which was in the same policy.

5 comments on “Electoral SM ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ron 1
    12 October 2009 at 7:23 pm

    I see Paul henry started the anti-MMP campaign this morning. Apparently the introduction of MMP was when “everything started going downhill”.
    Captcha registers

  2. RedLogix 2
    12 October 2009 at 7:26 pm

    The irony is of course how the Nats ran a deeply cynical and dishonest ‘attack on democracy’ around the relatively innocuous EFA.

    I always said that those who make loud, false allegations, will eventually be shown to be guilty of far more egregious behaviour themselves.

    • Boris Clarkski 2.1
      12 October 2009 at 8:26 pm

      Ah, no.

      National is composed of decent human beings who have the nation’s interests at heart. The contrast with the previous government and the Parties currently in Opposition, couldn’t be more striking.

      National may make mistakes, sure, but the electorate can rely upon their good intentions. This is a wonderful, wonderful change from the previous nine years of malfeasance and oppression.

  3. Rob A 3
    12 October 2009 at 9:25 pm

    I agree that any referendum should be more than a yes no question, or at least a first yes no referendum would have to lead to a second, educated vote.

    The worrying thing tho (and suprising for me) is the only recent poll I could find had only 45% for MMP and 42% against. Also interesting there is the age split in responses showing that the older generations are perhaps putting on thier rose tinted glasses on for the old days………but thier vote counts too.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.