MMP Mark II*

24 comments on “MMP Mark II* ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Andre 1

   26 December 2019 at 7:17 am

   Why do we even have electorates?

   Seems to me it's mostly a historical artefact from the days that it took weeks or months to travel from one part of the country to another. So a geographical area electing a local representative to be their voice in governing national affairs was an efficient way to do things.

   While rapid modern travel and instant communications have reduced the need for local communities to have their person on the ground in order to have their issues considered, it still hasn't eliminated it completely. So it seems to me having MPs represent a local geographical area is still a worthwhile thing to have.

   But our current iteration of MMP gives rise to various anomalies and distortions. See Epsom, Dunne, Anderton, Maori Party overhang seats etc. While it seems to me keeping electorate seats as part of the mix is worthwhile, it's also worthwhile to eliminate ways for voters to use their electorate vote to game themselves extra representational power. Keeping overhang seats, but making the holders of overhang seats ineligible to vote on confidence and supply would do that.
   • McFlock 1.1

     26 December 2019 at 7:03 pm

     Heh – "why do we have them" vs "why should we keep them".

     I suspect electorates are a holdover from feudalism – originally the local landowners/dominators, anda general expansion of the vote but still sticking with the area principle.

     BUT

     Different regions have different needs and priorities, yet a third of the vote is concentrated in one city. So are we a nation, or are we a city that occupies the regions like an overloerd?
   • Macro 1.2

     26 December 2019 at 10:14 pm

     What McFlock says. But to add also that there is a need for some local representation at government level. One of the main tasks for an electoral MP is the representation of the needs of locals on all manner of issues to government. For instance on a personal level I had an issue with the Education Depart over my correct level of salary. My local MP communicated directly with the Minister of Education, and the issue was quickly resolved. Whereas the school and I had been battling for months to get the matter sorted.
   • DS 1.3

     27 December 2019 at 7:37 pm

     To put it bluntly, without electorates, we'd have 120 MPs from Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. Regional New Zealand – especially, say, the West Coast – would struggle to get representation.
2. Andre 2

   26 December 2019 at 7:26 am

   It's also worth reminding ourselves what recommended changes came out of the Electoral Commission review in 2012. That Judith Collins promptly shat on and flushed down the toilet. Those recommendations were:

   • Reducing the party vote threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent. If the 4 percent threshold is introduced, it should be reviewed after three general elections.
   • Abolishing the one electorate seat threshold – a party must cross the party vote threshold to gain list seats.
   • Abolishing the provision of overhang seats for parties not reaching the threshold – the extra electorates would be made up at the expense of list seats to retain 120 MPs
   • Retaining the status quo for by-election candidacy and dual candidacy.
   • Retaining the status quo with closed party lists, but increasing scrutiny in selection of list candidates to ensure parties comply with their own party rules.
   • Parliament should give consideration to fixing the ratio between electorate seats and list seats at 60:40 (72:48 in a 120-seat parliament)

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_New_Zealand#2011_referendum_and_Electoral_Commission_2012_report
3. Bg 3

   26 December 2019 at 7:51 am

   Some good ideas and my greatest gripe about MMP is the make up of the party lists. Personally I feel they are MPs that should be nowhere near parliament but through their influence on the workings of the party get a high list spot, and once in, it's almost impossible to get rid of them. Therefore the people (the voting public) can't vote them out.

   One possible solution I thought of was that everyone has to be standing on the electorate ticket, no list MPs only. And your list standing is determined by the result of the percentage of support you received, if you didn't win your seat of course.

   There's obvious flaws in this, where people can still be dropped into favourable electorates, I understand that but the people still have some influence over the make up of the list, rather than a more commonly a board. Also it makes every MP accountable to a region, so every 3 years (I'd possibly change that as well) they have to look their voters in the eye and ask them for their vote. Instead of pleading thier case to a group of a dozen or less members (or in one case, one person who holds complete sway over the party)
4. mikesh 4

   26 December 2019 at 8:06 am

   The high threshold also seems to bring the 'wasted vote' factor into play. Some voters would like to vote an unpopular party but are reluctant to do so because they fear that their vote will prove 'wasted' if that party fails to reach the threshold. In particular, this makes it difficult for new parties to get started.
5. Dennis Frank 5

   26 December 2019 at 8:36 am

   All your reasoning seems valid to me. The Green view would use biodiversity as the basic principle, so parliament ought to reflect the broader community via a diversity of political brands. I'd support either 2 or 3% threshold as a pragmatic compromise, although your citation of the Netherlands (0.67%) producing 13 parties elected impressed me!

   That vivid bar graph from Wikipedia depicting the consequent political ecosystem had an instant impact: "Hey, that looks just like a Hundertwasser painting!" Life imitating art again. I've got a wonderful small book from his initial exhibition in the Auckland Art Gallery (1970, I think) with several miniature versions amongst the several dozen included that are very similar to that diagram (they used iridescent colours, too – very rare even nowadays).

   As for the party principle of representation, I agree the practice has largely discredited it. Even in the Greens. That's why I'd prefer to include a participatory design. When I advocated regenerating our legislative chamber to enable consensus politics to be included along with competitive politics several years ago, the integral frame proved too hard for most commentators to comprehend. As usual. But that would be a way into the system for keen politicos, allowing them to bypass party conformity.
6. bwaghorn 6

   26 December 2019 at 3:35 pm

   Lowering the threshold would mean the likes of colin craig would have made it into government. I'm good with 5% .

   Mmp is working fine .
   • Andre 6.1

     26 December 2019 at 3:53 pm

     Seems to me the kooks would be a lot easier to manage and quarantine when they're out in the open compared to when they're operating in stealth infiltration mode like Paulo Garcia or Christopher Luxon.
   • Incognito 6.2

     26 December 2019 at 4:14 pm

     In 2008, the ACT Party won only 3.6% of the Party vote. But ACT got a total of five seats in the House of Representatives because an ACT candidate won the Epsom electorate; this has been called the “coat-tailing” rule.^[21] However, the New Zealand First party which got 4.07% of the list vote or below the 5% threshold was not returned to parliament in 2008.

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_New_Zealand#MMP_in_New_Zealand

     If a party has a large enough constituency, it should represent that in Parliament, IMO. You might not/never vote for them but others do. If somebody acts like a moron, in your eyes, they might still be an effective politician.

     MMP can do better, or better even, we can do better than MMP.
   • pat 6.3

     26 December 2019 at 4:17 pm

     expect we have to accept that the technocrats will always seek to moderate electorate demands regardless of system…..and why 'populism' (of any leaning) is feared…we need to be protected from ourselves….and its difficult to argue against given human history. Sadly they are slow to move and frequently too late.
   • Psycho Milt 6.4

     26 December 2019 at 6:23 pm

     I'm good with 5%.

     Of course you are – it disenfranchises a sector of the population you don't like. But your personal preferences shouldn't be the basis of our electoral system, so the question is how does disenfranchising minority voters make for a good electoral system? Good luck arguing that one.
     • bwaghorn 6.4.1

       27 December 2019 at 11:14 am

       I've twice voted for parties that missed the 5% threshold. No feeling of disenfranchisement was felt . Turns out Gareth Morgan's top didnt deserve to be in power because he was a gutless wonder . ( the new top leader might be different)
       • Incognito 6.4.1.1

         27 December 2019 at 12:08 pm

         Funny that you refer to Geoff Simmons who’s the current leader of TOP. He has just penned an article that appeared on Stuff: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/118463922/nz-fixation-on-twoparty-electoral-system-holding-us-back

         Nothing new, nothing bold, and a very cautious piece from somebody who’s got skin in the game. I’ll leave you to read what his ‘answer’ is to MMP; don’t get your hopes up.
7. Puckish Rogue 7

   27 December 2019 at 10:18 am

   Good post
8. DS 8

   27 December 2019 at 7:42 pm

   It would never fly, but we honestly need to start looking at increasing the number of South Island electorates (currently at 16) to 20 or so. That would decrease the size of the North Island electorates, so you'd have to increase the number of List MPs to preserve proportionality… increasing the size of Parliament ain't going to be popular.

   However, some of these regional South Island electorates are getting too damn big at the geographical level. The proposed boundary changes in the Otago-Southland region are a direct consequence.
   • Mad Plumber 8.1

     27 December 2019 at 10:50 pm

     The South Island electorates do need looking at as the rivers cause a natural boundary and generally there are only two crossing points which makes the time spent travelling for MP's extremely long. One benefit from all this travelling they do see the idiots on the road.

     [Changed the user name to the one you have used here previously if that is ok with you]
9. Stuart Munro 9

   27 December 2019 at 8:59 pm

   Parties are a bit of a curate's egg – good in parts, though which parts can be pretty hard to figure out. Independents are valuable if they break the deadlocks created by tacit agreement between parties, or campaign on issues parties prefer not to address. We don't seem to get true independents since MMP, and since I wouldn't characterize our governance as stellar, I'm minded to call that a failing.

   The first obvious change is to lower the 5% bar to remove the anomalies it creates.

   Term limits might serve to remove some of the most egregiously petrified deadwood that no-one would hire on a bet, like Smith & Brownlee.

   Almost as critical however is the lame-ass media, click-baiting morons who rarely or never analyze policy or produce comparisons with places that have tried such things before. Parties get up to mischief without that critical analysis, and broadly speaking current political journalists just don't produce it. Maybe we need to elect political commentators too.
10. Richard 10

    27 December 2019 at 10:28 pm

    I had an idea on this also.

    The proportional voting system would work as follows:

    Points 1 to 3 (required for system to function):

    1. The number of seats in parliament would be a potential maximum. The only way to fill them all would be if everyone on the roll voted for a party. The empty seats in parliament would be representative of the 'none of the above' vote.

    2. The threshold would be the 'natural threshold' of one seat worth of the total roll. The number of votes required for one seat being equal to the total roll divided by the maximum seats in parliament. A party would need to meet or exceed this number (no rounding up).

    3. A parliamentary majority is always half the occupied seats in the house plus one (not half the max plus one).

    Points 4 and 5 (not necessary for system to function but I like them):

    4. Compulsory voting: All voting age persons would need to be enrolled and vote. There should be a 'none of the above' box to tick along with the party boxes. Voters could also just spoil the ballot if they wish, but they must turn up even if just to say 'get fucked'.

    5. Oh and another of Bomber's favourites: election day should be a public holiday.

    If we use the following numbers for an example:

    Max seats – 200
    Total roll – 4,000,000

    The one seat threshold that must be exceeded for a party to enter parliament is (4,000,000 / 200 = 20,000 votes). A total of 19,999 would not be enough.

    If somewhere near but exceeding 3,000,000 of the roll cast a valid vote for a party, the above numbers would yield something like 150 seats in parliament, with 50 remaining empty. A parliamentary majority would then be 76. This would not work out exactly, as there would be wasted vote that didn't push the party past another seat (there would actually be a little less than 150 occupied, the difference representing the wasted valid vote as opposed to the 'up yours' vote).

    This system of course also dispenses with the electorate seats and I concede that it does not deal with how to ensure effective local representation (see Macro's comment at 1.2).
11. soddenleaf 11

    28 December 2019 at 9:27 am

    Just to point out, if you want to put the work in, just have a party primary where the members (or wider) choose the order. I'm really fed up with the Ozzie system, the overly detailed lists and forced voting, leads inevitably to a under accountable system. Keep it simple. Electorates work as you fel there in a mp who understands the local issues, or should. Trump won because people were fedup, Brexit happened similarly, people unable to provoke necessary change. Democrats will lose if like Clinton they ignore Bernie having tapped into something.
12. Descendant Of Smith 12

    28 December 2019 at 10:54 am

    I'd rather see some real change that represents the partnership in the Treaty.
    60 Maori seats and 60 non-Maori seats.

    The Maori seats distributed on broad iwi lines (though Maori themselves should determine how the seats should be allocated).

    I'd love to see this approach tested out at a council level even. What different approaches and attitudes might we see – ones that would place higher values on the environment and collectivism and benefits for Maori.

    The first colonised country in the world to give equal political rights to its indigineous population.
13. AB 13

    28 December 2019 at 11:47 am

    I would be inclined to get large donors, anonymous donors and rich self-funders out of the system first before changing much else. Have supplementary public funding kick in once an organisation/party hits a threshold of members who are contributing an annual amount capped at a level affordable by someone on the median wage. No non-individual donors allowed, i.e. no businesses, churches, unions, etc. This might help turn parties into genuinely democratic vehicles rather than fronts for special interests.

    We could end coat-tailing immediately as it just encourages corruption – but beyond that I'd like to see the financing side fixed first.
14. Wally2 14

    8 January 2020 at 7:31 am

    MMP in NZ could work with one minor modification, giving voters a second negative vote to be used against specific individuals high up on party lists.

    for instance voters may not like a previous welfare minister, or the current road safety minister who are both high up on the closed party lists. Assuming for a moment that the negative vote threshold was 10%. Then if the previous welfare minister was number 4 on the party list, but received 10% or more of the negative vote, that previous minister would not re-enter parliament, even if the party gained 60% of the vote. Whereas the road safety minister seeking re-election who got 9.5% would retain her place on the party list.

    in effective the wider voter base gets to have a say in which individuals are deemed too nasty for re-election, while still being able to maintain their preferred party, and individual vote.

    The negative vote could also influence electorate candidates, irrespective of list position, by reducing the electro rate vote garnered by them by 10% Thus no such thing as a safe seat could ensure a much hated parliamentarian confidently regaining parliament. They would have to work hard to not only con their “safe seat” electorate, it would also have to avoid generating the hatred of the entire nation.

    The only additional twists required are that the negative vote should be cast 5 months before the election in a closed ballot, only opened after the regular poll closes. Also, slagging individual opponents by politicians, Party officials and media within a month of the negative vote would need to be subject to penalty. The negative vote needs to be subject entirely to the whim of the voting public.

    On these measures I can think of at least four parliamentarians who would need to radically change their spots to regain parliament. I can confidently say that both major parties would be decimated.

    the slight cost of having two consecutive vote processes is easily accommodated as the first would easily be accommodated as part of the present signing electors up. Those that sign up on the final polling day/week would miss out on the negative vote. Thus we may ultimately end up with a much higher final voter turnout after a few cycles than the present 70 odd percent and falling turnout.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS