Help the Campaign for MMP, they’re Internet illiterates

53 comments on “Help the Campaign for MMP, they’re Internet illiterates ”

• Comments are now closed

1. AlbatrossNZ 1

   9 May 2010 at 2:27 am

   I remember checking out Campaign for MMPs website a while back. As part of the generation that grew up with the boring old norm, I also know we’re also a more visual generation. Their information needs to be more simpler to understand and easier to access than having to download a word document. They have good intentions though.
   • lprent 1.1

     9 May 2010 at 8:38 am

     The route to a second unnecessary (and expensive) referendum is paved with good intentions.
     • AlbatrossNZ 1.1.1

       9 May 2010 at 11:15 am

       I thought it was paved with Rob Muldoons but you learn something new everyday.
2. Jenny 2

   9 May 2010 at 9:08 am

   MMP vs. FPP

   From New Scientist:

   “The number of UK electors voting for minority parties has risen from 1 in 20 in the 1950s to 1 in 4 today, yet the existing system nullifies almost all those votes. Something fairer seems to be called for – but what?”

   First Past the Post is fundamentally flawed
   • Graeme Edgeler 2.1

     9 May 2010 at 12:27 pm

     Well that isn’t true any more. 100% of the votes were for a minority party in the recent UK election.
     • Macro 2.1.1

       9 May 2010 at 3:22 pm

       But Graeme – some minorities are more minor than others and yet get greater representation – eg Scottish Nationals 6 seats with 1.7% of the vote as opposed to the Greens with 1 seat and 1% of the vote, or the Alliance with 0.1% of the vote and 1 seat.
       Of course the real inequities are:
       Conservatives 36% of the vote – 47% of the seats in Parliament
       Lib Dems 23% of the vote – less than 9% of the seats in Parliament.
       It just isn’t a fair representation.
       • Bill 2.1.1.1

         9 May 2010 at 7:57 pm

         Yet again a comment that treats Britain as a ‘greater England’.

         Plaid Cymru and the SNP put forward candidates in their respective countries ( Wales and Scotland). As the population base of these countries is a relatively small fraction of the combined England/N.Ireland/Wales/Scotland population total, it is no surprise that their %age of votes in a British context is low.

         But then, they don’t claim to represent any constituency in England or N. Ireland nor even in each others country. But they are a legitimate and sizeable voice representing constituencies within their own nations.

         As such, I can’t see how an MMP system like the one here could ever work in Britain what with it comprising of three nations and ( for the sake of elections) a slice of Ireland.

         edit… if MMP system(s) is( are) to be adopted it would have to follow from and not precede a federalisation of Britain.
         • Graeme Edgeler 2.1.1.1.1

           9 May 2010 at 8:20 pm

           MMP (called Additional Member, but the same process) is used in elections for the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the London Assembly.

           In the Scottish Parliament, and the National Assembly for Wales, there are constituencies and regional lists. I can see no particular reason why the adoption of the Additional Member System across the UK could not occur in a similar way – there is no reason why there would need to be further federalisation for this to occur.
3. Maynard J 3

   9 May 2010 at 10:28 am

   Is that process likely to be the real one? That second question is abysmal. If there was a second referendum, it would include MMP as an option – there might be a majority in favour of changing the system, but in the final vote MMP might be more favoured.

   Say I was filling out the 2011 refrendum – I’d select to retain MMP, and then I could either ignore the second question and not be represented, or choose a lesser evil and give weight to th numbers of people selecting a different system.

   My strong message here would be DO NOT select an answer in Part B – you would only be encouraging change. If lots of people did this, MMP (as voted in Part A) could have a massive majority over any of the other options (as selected in part B).

   If you choose an option in Part B, you’re effectively voting against MMP.
   • Lew 3.1

     9 May 2010 at 10:51 am

     MJ, the process is finalised, and consensus (with which I agree) is that it’s as good as it could possibly be. The second question will be used to select the option against which MMP is measured if (and only if) a majority of ballots cast choose to change MMP in the first question. This means that, in order to be supplanted, MMP has to lose two head-to-head referenda. That’s a hard ask, and I would argue that if MMP loses both, it doesn’t hold sufficient legitimacy to be retained.

     It’s crucial that voters select which alternative system they would prefer as a contingency, because that will determine the opposition. It should mean that FPP is ruled comprehensively out at the first hurdle, and with luck (and a strong and unequivocal campaign for Pref or STV) SM should be gone as well. Not that SM in itself is bad — but as this implementation is proposed, it’s not much more than FPP in drag with token proportionality.

     If supporters of MMP don’t choose an alternative in part B, you’re leaving the choice of what MMP will run-off against up to those who do — which means it will probably be SM, which has a better chance of beating MMP than any of the other options. That’s bad strategy.

     L
     • Maynard J 3.1.1

       9 May 2010 at 12:49 pm

       As per reply to Graeme below – I will have to vote for an alternative, thus adding to the numbers who are against MMP.

       In order to work against FPP I must choose the lesser of two evils.

       If the vote was “democracy” vs “other systems of political representation (or lask thereof)” I’d vote for democracy, and tick “dictatorship” as a second choice with a heavy heart if that’s what it took to avoid “theocracy” 😉
       • Lew 3.1.1.1

         9 May 2010 at 1:10 pm

         That’s only true if you think the results of the second question indicate opposition to MMP. They don’t. This is not some matter of arguable interpretation; the question is expressly worded to make this clear.

         L
         • felix 3.1.1.1.1

           9 May 2010 at 2:45 pm

           It’s not like you to miss the point so widely, Lew – Maynard J is referring to the way the results of part B will be (mis)represented by those campaigning for one or other of the alternatives.
           • Lew 3.1.1.1.1.1

             9 May 2010 at 2:51 pm

             Yeah, but in order to do so they’ll have to purposefully ignore the fact that you need to divide the leading result of the second question by the proportion answering “no” to the first question. If the pro-MMP lobby is even remotely competent, it’ll be a very small number indeed.

             L
             • felix …

               9 May 2010 at 3:15 pm

               These people are political campaigners. They can manage that sort of purposeful ignorance before breakfast on an average day and they will.

               As fer meself I think I’ll just wait and see which campaign looks the least likely to pick up momentum.
             • Lew …

               9 May 2010 at 7:06 pm

               felix, but this is not a matter of perception. It’s the Electoral Commission they have to convince. They can talk all the bollocks they like, but if the first referendum fails, it fails — and if it doesn’t, there’s still a second one.

               L
             • felix …

               9 May 2010 at 7:39 pm

               Nah, its about convincing the public that there was more support for the winning option from part B than there really was and using this to present a seemingly stronger case in the “x vs mmp” campaign leading up to the second referendum.

               Its all about perception.
             • Maynard J …

               10 May 2010 at 9:03 am

               Took up the baton admirably Felix. All about perception, and when MMP supporters try to explain “well alternative x wasn’t actually that popular because…” you’re already losing the argument.
             • Lew …

               10 May 2010 at 11:09 am

               But the argument is not won and lost on the basis of which system people think has support — it’s won on the basis of which system actually has support. Besides, results will be reported as percentages — so all that’ll happen by MMP supporters refusing to vote for STV or Pref is that the proportion of those voting for FPP or SM will be higher.

               Perception is a factor, but a much more significant factor is the prospect of MMP supporters ending up in a run-off against SM because they thought they were too damned clever to indicate a preference for Pref or STV in the frist referendum. It’s just stupid. It’s like the bloody idiots who fouled their ballots for the s59 referendum, leading to them being discounted. Just follow the damned instructions. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s not a trick question.

               L
             • Maynard J …

               10 May 2010 at 2:07 pm

               It’s not being too damned clever, Lew, it not wanting to vote for STV, FPP, SM because I don’t like the systems. But I see your point, better to vote for the one I’d object to the least seems a smarter strategy.

               Here’s one of my favourite pieces on perceptions and polling:

               “WASHINGTON, DC—A poll released Monday by the D.C.-based firm Hahn & Associates revealed that 71 percent of Americans approve of President Clinton’s current approval rating of 63 percent. According to the poll, just 11 percent of Americans believe Clinton’s approval rating should be “significantly lower,” while 18 percent believe it should be “much higher.” “This poll is a clear public mandate for the president, as a great majority of Americans strongly support his current level of support,” White House press secretary Mike McCurry said. The 71 percent represents Clinton’s highest approval-rating approval rating since taking office.”
             • Lew …

               10 May 2010 at 2:12 pm

               MJ, think of it as a menu choice. Sure, you’d like delicious apple pie with ice cream and raspberry coulis. Me too.

               But if delicious pie was not available, which would you prefer: tinned fruit and custard, day-old toast and jam, or baked turd with sprinkles?

               I trust you wouldn’t leave that decision up to your enemies 🙂

               L
             • felix …

               10 May 2010 at 3:11 pm

               If my enemies were hoping to run tinned fruit and custard against my lovely apple pie I’d be trying to make sure they only had baked turd with sprinkles to work with.

               Give them something hard to sell.
             • Lew …

               10 May 2010 at 3:32 pm

               Felix, since they’re so damned good, what makes you think they can’t convince the electorate it’s actually triple chocolate roulade?

               L
             • felix …

               10 May 2010 at 6:03 pm

               That’s their problem Lew. Are you suggesting that it makes sense to give your political opponents the easiest route to victory you possibly can?

               Why?
             • Lew …

               10 May 2010 at 7:45 pm

               No, I’m suggesting it’s prudent that the supporters of MMP mitigate their risks so that, in the unlikely case that MMP is rejected in two consecutive referenda three years apart, we end up with a next-best option.

               L
   • Graeme Edgeler 3.2

     9 May 2010 at 12:31 pm

     If you choose an option in Part B, you’re effectively voting against MMP.

     Absolutely false.

     You’re only voting against MMP if you vote against it in the first question. Your second question vote has no impact on this.
     • Maynard J 3.2.1

       9 May 2010 at 12:42 pm

       Try to look at things outside a narrow legalistic perspective.

       If you choose an option in the second part, people who support that will use those numbers as a campaign for that option. “X number of people want this”. You are therefore effectively putting your vote against MMP.

       If you support MMP you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Don’t choose a preferred alternative and you might end up with FPP as the other option. Choose one, and you’d adding a vote to those who don’t want MMP.

       I realise from a technical perspective of counting votes it does not matter, but if everyone who supported MMP also chose an alternative, the result would be more votes for the sum of other systems than for MMP – which may not be reflective of what people want. Of course that wouldn’t matter if the vote in the first part was in favour of MMP, but if it was not, those campaigning against MMP will be able to use those results to over-inflate the popularity of alternatives.

       This also encourages gaming – should an MMP proponent vote for any option apart from FPP because they don’t want a non-proportional system as the alternative?
       • Graeme Edgeler 3.2.1.1

         9 May 2010 at 1:11 pm

         Choose one, and you’d adding a vote to those who don’t want MMP.

         No, you’re not. You’re adding one to those who would consider that option as an alternative.

         If everyone casts a vote for both questions (and history – 1992 – suggests most will) then it will be blindingly obvious to everyone that every vote cast in that second ballot is a vote between systems for the 2014 run-off with MMP.

         those campaigning against MMP will be able to use those results to over-inflate the popularity of alternatives.

         They’ll only have one alternative to MMP, and the idea that you should vote against MMP in 2014 because 60% of people wanted FPP against it in the second referendum is just really stupid. “Oh, everyone else wants STV instead of MMP, so I’ll vote for that…” Be serious.

         This also encourages gaming should an MMP proponent vote for any option apart from FPP because they don’t want a non-proportional system as the alternative?

         An MMP proponent should vote for the other voting system they want MMP to face in a prospective 2014 referendum. It should be their favourite of the alternative non-MMP systems on offer.
         • Maynard J 3.2.1.1.1

           10 May 2010 at 9:00 am

           No, you’re not. You’re adding one to those who would consider that option as an alternative.

           If everyone casts a vote for both questions (and history 1992 suggests most will) then it will be blindingly obvious to everyone that every vote cast in that second ballot is a vote between systems for the 2014 run-off with MMP.

           You are essentially voting for the campaign for that alternative system. There is more to elections than people ticking a box and prople counting ticks. But if you want to consciously talk past my point, then by all means, continue.

           Supporters of MMP will be able to explain your point easily enough (you should know that nothing, bar nothing, in referenda is blindingly obvious) but expaining is losing, innit?

           “They’ll only have one alternative to MMP, and the idea that you should vote against MMP in 2014 because 60% of people wanted FPP against it in the second referendum is just really stupid. “Oh, everyone else wants STV instead of MMP, so I’ll vote for that ‘ Be serious.”

           See above comment. I’m not talking about me changing my vote, I’m talking about my vote being used in the campaign for an altertanive, because I have been forced to vote for something I don’t want. This is not that difficult a concept for someone who can recall that funny thing before an election called a ‘campaign’.

           An MMP proponent should vote for the other voting system they want MMP to face in a prospective 2014 referendum. It should be their favourite of the alternative non-MMP systems on offer.

           A vote for your second preference = a vote supporting the campaign for an alternative that you don’t want. It’s like an STV system where your option one is ignored, and people will campaign using your option two to market that option’s supposed popularity.
4. IrishBill 4

   9 May 2010 at 10:50 am

   Showing your usual degree of tactful diplomacy I see Lynn 😉
   • lprent 4.1

     9 May 2010 at 11:08 am

     Tactful? moi?

     Nope – doesn’t seem to fit….
5. mikesh 5

   9 May 2010 at 2:04 pm

   Those who want FPP will probably vote in block for that option in question 2. Therefore if you don’t vote for anything in question 2, the second referendum, if there is one, is likely to be a run off between FPP and MMP.
   • Andrew Geddis 5.1

     9 May 2010 at 2:37 pm

     “Those who want FPP will probably vote in block for that option in question 2. ”

     Well, yes … you’d expect people who want FPP to vote for it. But note that even Shirtcliffe et al aren’t backing FPP anymore – they’re arguing that those wanting to dump MMP should back the Supplementary Member option (indeed, aside from Rodney Hide, I haven’t seen anyone calling for support for FPP). It may well be, of course, that the decision to pump SM is a tactical one – that they think FPP would fail and that SM is thus an obtainable second best option.
     • Graeme Edgeler 5.1.1

       9 May 2010 at 4:40 pm

       It may well be, of course, that the decision to pump SM is a tactical one that they think FPP would fail and that SM is thus an obtainable second best option.

       I’d have said that was a misplaced view. Supplementary Member may be more likely than first-pastt-the-post to defeat MMP in a 2014 head-to-head, but I think its chance of coming top in the 2011 poll is low. Unless the campaign is really well organised, they’ll be splitting their vote.

       Although perhaps that concern is met by their push for the second question in 2011 to be a preferential question.
6. mikesh 6

   9 May 2010 at 2:56 pm

   In that case the second referendum is likely to be a run off between SM and MMP if supporters of the latter refrain from answering the second question.
7. Rex Widerstrom 7

   9 May 2010 at 3:23 pm

   From your “ad”: STV = gerrymandering??

   To quote one of Australia’s towering poltical intellects. please explain.

   Thanks for the laugh over “stability” though. That’s the first word that comes to mind when I think of anyone from Winston Peters to Alamein Kopu. Or even when I imagine how an unelected (and unelectable) SST loon can be gerrymandered onto a party list and seemingly take control of the government’s sentencing and prisons policies.

   [Usual disclaimer: I am not advocating for a return to FPP]
   • lprent 7.1

     9 May 2010 at 4:01 pm

     STV is still based around geographic boundaries that can be game played. A parties representation in parliament isn’t based around its share of the vote, but as much (if not more) on the shape of the electoral boundaries. Hell I could game some interesting boundaries that would always favour second or even third choices.

     When in doubt, look at the political commentators waffling on about ‘marginal’ electorates. They stopped doing that here for anything apart from human interest stories for the main parties a decade ago. Of course marginal electorates do matter for the minor parties at or below the 5% party vote. Rather than have this referendum, I’d be more interested in revising the drag-in effect for an electorate win, and/or the 5% threshold.

     Stability is in the effects, not the individuals. You forgot Worthless, Rodger Douglas and quite a few others. However the stability is more in that a change of government doesn’t result in a complete shift of policy anymore, but more a shift in direction. The electorate doesn’t like radical shifts and these days has an ability to punish parties that are trying to push too far or being obdurate – and can do it without the shielding provided by the boundaries commission. All parties are keenly aware of that, and that modifies their tendencies to favour moderated incremental changes. The individuals really don’t make much difference to that
     • Rex Widerstrom 7.1.1

       9 May 2010 at 6:28 pm

       STV is still based around geographic boundaries that can be game played

       But it doesn’t have to be… NZ is small enough to quite easily accommodate “open” electorates. This concept has been kicked about a bi at (dare I say it) Kiwiblog (when the religious zealots and non-religious zealots can be kept out of the sandpit) and I must say I’m quite warming to it.

       Also unless I’m mistaken, it would be hard (not impossible, but hard) to game geographical electorates unless there were only one winner and some form of preference swapping allowed as happens in Australia. Their “proportional” voting can see even a cnadidate who wins more than 50% of the popular vote lose if he or she is dealt against by other candidates (who sometimes do so ignoring the wishes of members of their own parties).

       But the game-ability of an electorate in terms of boundaries would be significantly diminished if the top two or three or whatever were elected, and no preference swapping was allowed… or am I missing something?

       You forgot Worthless, Rodger Douglas and quite a few others

       Not forgotten so much as omitted for brevity. They’re also good examples of the biggest failure of MMP – lists appointed by a handful of people.

       All parties are keenly aware of that, and that modifies their tendencies to favour moderated incremental changes.

       A large cohort of people would argue that’s not a description of the last Labour government, particulaerly not in its last term. And another cohort (amongst whom, I suspect, would be some of your fellow authors) would argue that’s not true of the present National one either. Mining Section 4 or tthe “Super City” or “Three Strikes” are “moderated incremental change”?

       The individuals really don’t make much difference to that

       Some do, literally, nothing and thus I would argue don’t deserve to be there (Ashraf Choudray). Some have far more influence than any one indiidual ought to have (David Garrett).

       But the point really is, under any system but MMP or SM, I’m voting for a person who’s answerable to me. That candidate has to impress at least some ordinary voters as to their suitability to govern. Under MMP, all they have to do is win the hearts and minds of fellow SST fundies and then do a backroom deal with a party that itself is supported by barely 5%. Not democracy, IMHO.

       I’d swing behind MMP if we got a third vote… one that ranks the list, using STV, of the party to whom we gave our second tick.
       • Graeme Edgeler 7.1.1.1

         9 May 2010 at 10:39 pm

         They’re also good examples of the biggest failure of MMP lists appointed by a handful of people.

         Richard Worth was twice elected by a constituency. And would have been twice more but for tactical voting. He may represent a problem with our political system, but it is not the problem you assert.
         • rich 7.1.1.1.1

           10 May 2010 at 4:13 pm

           if you object to lists being chosen by a tiny number of people there is a simple solution. vote for a party that has its list chosen by the membership.
           • Rex Widerstrom 7.1.1.1.1.1

             11 May 2010 at 1:43 am

             Better by far, yes. Not perfect but an improvement. But unless every party is forced to do it that way a large number of voters have to choose between a policy platform they favour and a undemocratic process within that same party,and voting for a party whose process they favour but whose policies they may not. Hardly a perfect solution.
         • Rex Widerstrom 7.1.1.1.2

           11 May 2010 at 1:40 am

           Gahhh! Last time I echo LP’s comment before engaging brain filter 😛 Thanks Graeme.
8. gingercrush 8

   9 May 2010 at 7:01 pm

   All I want is for MMP to include Secondary votes for both the electorate and party vote. That way fewer votes are wasted. Electorally we would have seen some electorates have different results. A number of electorates get rather sizable votes for Green Candidates (and NZ First and Act votes elsewhere) and therefore essentially that vote is wasted. With a secondary vote I have no doubt Auckland Central would have been different and other electorates likely would be different as well. In the case of the party vote had NZ First voters chosen Labour or National under their secondary vote, they would have had influence rather than their votes just be distributed amongst all the parties that made it to parliament.

   STV to me would just see a whiter and less diverse parliament while giving political parties less power and causing MPs to voter-bait.
9. mikesh 9

   9 May 2010 at 10:14 pm

   “Not forgotten so much as omitted for brevity. They’re also good examples of the biggest failure of MMP lists appointed by a handful of people.”

   “But the point really is, under any system but MMP or SM, I’m voting for a person who’s answerable to me. That candidate has to impress at least some ordinary voters as to their suitability to govern. Under MMP, all they have to do is win the hearts and minds of fellow SST fundies and then do a backroom deal with a party that itself is supported by barely 5%. Not democracy,”

   It would be an improvement, I think, if list seats were required to be allocated in accordance with the percentage of the vote actually received by unsuccessful candidates, rather than in accordance with their positions on party lists. This would also ensure that each candidate would have to stand in an electorate in order to get into parliament; ie no-one would be able to enter parliament, as Don Brash did, simply as a list MP.
   • Rex Widerstrom 9.1

     11 May 2010 at 1:39 am

     if list seats were required to be allocated in accordance with the percentage of the vote actually received by unsuccessful candidates, rather than in accordance with their positions on party lists

     Now there’s an idea worth considering. I hope you peddle it during the forthcoming debate mikesh. Much as I’d like to see the lists ranked by the voters I accept that it might be too complex a task to rank a full slate of 120 (or more) candidates and only political wonks would do it – or at least do it with any knowledge of who they were ranking.

     But I’ve promoted it till now because it’s better than party-controlled lists and I couldn’t think of anything better. I think you might just have come up with a workable compromise… what do others think?
10. jake 10

    9 May 2010 at 11:23 pm

    You are supporting the campaign but you call the campaign computer illiterates for not having a flash ad for the blog sites to implement. Instead of bitching about them being ‘illiterate’ why don’t you help the volunteers? Trying to make the supporters look divided only gives fuel to the opposition and helps no one.
    • lprent 10.1

      10 May 2010 at 6:29 am

      The point is that it takes very little effort to make a banner, skyscraper, etc and have them available as resources. There are a number of sites that would be happy to put them up. These days if you’re running a campaign designed to be in peoples faces, it should be almost instinctive to make such resources early and revise them occasionally. Look at the anti-mining protest, or the copyright campaign, or even unite. If the materials are available, then sites will carry them. If they are not then they won’t. That is what I was pointing out.

      …why don’t you help the volunteers?

      I did, I demonstrated for both this campaign and for any others the basic requirement to get free advertising on websites – have resources that we can use. They don’t have to be fancy, but even basic animation is more effective than simple images.

      I’m pretty useless at doing graphics, but it took 30 minutes to build a ad and it is now running at the side of the site. It took me longer to unpack my old copy of animation workshop and install it in a virtualbox than it did to create the graphic. In fact it took longer to write the post. I used their existing graphics to show how damn easy it would be to at least get something going.

      I’m a supporter, willing to use my skills, and I couldn’t even register on the site to say that. I’m only interested in the implementation of a campaign, and not in all of the meetings etc. What I was seeing was a lack of implementation in running a campaign. So I wrote a post as a goad.

      Trying to make the supporters look divided only gives fuel to the opposition and helps no one.

      Bullshit. I was providing a little rev-up on their organizational side on a specific topic that I’m pretty competent on – and doing it early. Sure I could turn up at a meeting and say the same things or get involved in a protracted e-mail conversation. Or I could do what I did, which was to point out that the campaign needed to focus now on some basics, and in the process tell far more people about the campaign and why it needed some assistance.

      Which is more likely to be effective? Which was a more productive use of my time?

      Meanwhile, Shirtcliffe is already running skyscrapers at kiwiblog…
      • Lewis Holden 10.1.1

        10 May 2010 at 1:31 pm

        As designer of the website, I find the comments useful – however I’m just the messenger posting content as provided to me. We’ve taken the comments on board and are working on some banners for people to use ASAP.
        • lprent 10.1.1.1

          10 May 2010 at 2:01 pm

          Thank you, that is what I wanted to hear. Then I can zap my spelling error version. I think that they should find a considerable takeup by various blogs and websites….

          (I know all about the content placer issue, especially when it comes to the last minute revisions after you’ve set the site up… 😈 ).
11. just saying 11

    10 May 2010 at 9:38 am

    What about voting ‘no confidence’ for the options in section 2? Would no confidence votes be counted as such?

    I suspect this isn’t any kind of solution. Just a thought
12. Ari 12

    10 May 2010 at 1:32 pm

    You know, if there were actually a MORE proportional system in the part B system, (MMP isn’t always proportional) I might be inclined to select a good option. As it is, you’re just given a choice between four terrible options. Do I choose the worst to make a potential runoff easier? Or do I choose the best in case we’re stuck with it, and risk making the runoff harder on the okay system we have? Really hard to tell.

    edit: Does anyone know how they’re differentiating STV and Preferential, given that STV is a type of Preferential Vote?
    • Graeme Edgeler 12.1

      10 May 2010 at 5:24 pm

      STV is preferential voting with multi-member electorates – this changes it markedly. It’s a form of proportional representation. In reality, they’re about as different as MMP and supplementary member.
13. Hyacinth Broadchest 13

    11 May 2010 at 1:23 am

    Just to throw a cat among the pigeons, would you consider the re-instatement of an upper house? NZ abolished theirs quite early as being a ‘needless expense’ but this abandoned one of the checks-and-balances that were there to stop a rogue government from saying anything before the election, then unveiling a completely different agenda after the election, and forcing it through because they have the numbers.

    An upper house leads to fair bit of pork-barrel politics in the USA and in Australia, and can also lead to a deadlock, as Clinton found out early on. But it seems that all of these other voting systems are targeted at stopping the ‘1984 Labour Government effect,’ but what they do is give minority, single-issue parties huge bargaining powers behind closed doors, in rooms that may once have been smoke-filled before that became illegal. We wind up paying for a lot of un-elected, expensive people who add very little from day to day.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS