Reforming MMP
I think that after fifteen years of getting used to a new political system, very few New Zealanders are entirely happy with MMP. It is certainly more democratic than the old first past the post system, which distorted election results and even saw Labour win the popular vote in '78 and '81 but still lose the election. However, there are huge issues with the undemocratic nature of list MPs and how they are selected, as well as the fickle nature of the 5% threshold.
Some minor tinkering with MMP would eliminate these problems:
1. Introduce Preferential Voting for the Party Vote;
MMP was supposed to eliminate the phenomenon of a "wasted vote". However, any vote on a party which fails to reach 5% is still wasted. Preferential voting would eliminate this, and eliminate the barrier to voting for a party perceived to be "not making it". A good laissez faire voter could vote 1 - Libertarianz, 2 - ACT, 3 - National safe in the knowledge that, should their first two preferences fail, at least their vote would help stave off the commies. (In fact, I am surprised that the Libertarianz have not thought about, or campaigned for, a change like this);
2. Abolish double candidacy;
If you go on the party list, you shouldn't be allowed to stand for an electorate, and vice versa. This gets rid of the problem of all those mediocre Labour MPs who got turfed out in the provinces getting back on the list and hanging around parliament like a bad smell, to nobody's benefit.
That would be the least I would hope for. But I think we can do even better...
3. Apportion list MPs according to the number of electorate MPs from the largest party;
At the moment, list MPs are elected on the premise that there should be fifty of them. However, if that number were determined by the number of electorate MPs elected from the largest party, it would see proportionality retained with the need for (usually) significantly fewer list MPs.
For example, if applied to the 2008 election, National was the largest party with 41 electorate MPs and so would get no list MPs. Labour would be topped up with 10 list MPs to give them 31. The Greens would have 6 in from their list. ACT would add 2 to Epsom to give them 3 MPs. The Maori Party, having won more electorates than their party vote, get none from the list and remain at 5 MPs. And Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne would have no change either. The result would still be proportional, and the government would be the same, although the Maori Party's overhang in this case makes it much more precarious (Which is why the Maori seats should not exist). Proportionality is achieved, but with only the need for 18 list MPs instead of 50.
But I think we could go even one better than that...
4. Get rid of List MPs altogether and give the party leaders a proportional vote on confidence and supply;
Why have list MPs at all? The key element is the proportionality, and if the votes are vested in the party leader, then proportionality is retained. On confidence votes, and money bills, this would mean Phil Goff would cast ten votes, Russell Norman would be the solitary Green MP with six votes, and Rodney Hide would cast three (it might make leadership coups in ACT more difficult!). On all other votes in the House they would have just one vote each.
Any of these changes would make for a significant improvement to our electoral system.
While we are at it, there are a few other things which we could do:
5. Ditch the Maori seats;
It's appalling that these anachronisms from the 19th Century still remain a blight on the New Zealand political system. They cost National the election in 1946 and currently form an undemocratic overhang corrupting the proportionality of our parliament.
Ideally, there would be no race-based elements at all in our system of government, but I am sympathetic to the idea that the indigenous people of New Zealand should have no barriers to representation. I see no problem with having, say, a 10% threshold of Maori voters, which would ensure that parties with strong Maori support would be able to retain seats in parliament.
6. A Legislative Council/Senate
We need some sort of safeguard to stop our House of Representatives from passing ridiculous laws like the Electoral Finance Act, and scrutinise laws properly. The select committee system is not enough - it's still foxes in charge of the henhouse. An elected Senate would fill the gap. I envisage 20 Senators, with two elected at-large every year for a single, term-limited ten year term;
7. An elected Governor General
Why not put it to the vote?
Some minor tinkering with MMP would eliminate these problems:
1. Introduce Preferential Voting for the Party Vote;
MMP was supposed to eliminate the phenomenon of a "wasted vote". However, any vote on a party which fails to reach 5% is still wasted. Preferential voting would eliminate this, and eliminate the barrier to voting for a party perceived to be "not making it". A good laissez faire voter could vote 1 - Libertarianz, 2 - ACT, 3 - National safe in the knowledge that, should their first two preferences fail, at least their vote would help stave off the commies. (In fact, I am surprised that the Libertarianz have not thought about, or campaigned for, a change like this);
2. Abolish double candidacy;
If you go on the party list, you shouldn't be allowed to stand for an electorate, and vice versa. This gets rid of the problem of all those mediocre Labour MPs who got turfed out in the provinces getting back on the list and hanging around parliament like a bad smell, to nobody's benefit.
That would be the least I would hope for. But I think we can do even better...
3. Apportion list MPs according to the number of electorate MPs from the largest party;
At the moment, list MPs are elected on the premise that there should be fifty of them. However, if that number were determined by the number of electorate MPs elected from the largest party, it would see proportionality retained with the need for (usually) significantly fewer list MPs.
For example, if applied to the 2008 election, National was the largest party with 41 electorate MPs and so would get no list MPs. Labour would be topped up with 10 list MPs to give them 31. The Greens would have 6 in from their list. ACT would add 2 to Epsom to give them 3 MPs. The Maori Party, having won more electorates than their party vote, get none from the list and remain at 5 MPs. And Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne would have no change either. The result would still be proportional, and the government would be the same, although the Maori Party's overhang in this case makes it much more precarious (Which is why the Maori seats should not exist). Proportionality is achieved, but with only the need for 18 list MPs instead of 50.
But I think we could go even one better than that...
4. Get rid of List MPs altogether and give the party leaders a proportional vote on confidence and supply;
Why have list MPs at all? The key element is the proportionality, and if the votes are vested in the party leader, then proportionality is retained. On confidence votes, and money bills, this would mean Phil Goff would cast ten votes, Russell Norman would be the solitary Green MP with six votes, and Rodney Hide would cast three (it might make leadership coups in ACT more difficult!). On all other votes in the House they would have just one vote each.
Any of these changes would make for a significant improvement to our electoral system.
While we are at it, there are a few other things which we could do:
5. Ditch the Maori seats;
It's appalling that these anachronisms from the 19th Century still remain a blight on the New Zealand political system. They cost National the election in 1946 and currently form an undemocratic overhang corrupting the proportionality of our parliament.
Ideally, there would be no race-based elements at all in our system of government, but I am sympathetic to the idea that the indigenous people of New Zealand should have no barriers to representation. I see no problem with having, say, a 10% threshold of Maori voters, which would ensure that parties with strong Maori support would be able to retain seats in parliament.
6. A Legislative Council/Senate
We need some sort of safeguard to stop our House of Representatives from passing ridiculous laws like the Electoral Finance Act, and scrutinise laws properly. The select committee system is not enough - it's still foxes in charge of the henhouse. An elected Senate would fill the gap. I envisage 20 Senators, with two elected at-large every year for a single, term-limited ten year term;
7. An elected Governor General
Why not put it to the vote?
Labels: Blair Mulholland
posted by Blair at
Monday, May 09, 2011
12 Comments:
1. Preferential party vote: A good idea.
2. Candidates local and list - I think the concern here by saying incumbent MPs in local seats can't be on list, but candidates from other parties can be on both. This lets local people reject a drongo on behalf of all New Zealand while at the same time allowing worthy people who didn't win to be available for election both locally and nationally. This makes it win / win.
3. The 120 MPs was also very much about having enough people to do the jobs that need to be done - both in government and opposition. There was also the element of wanting a back bench big enough that they were not dominated by a few in the cabinet...as used to happen when we only had 97MPs and half the governing one-party caucus was in the Cabinet. This was part of what made it possible for the PM of the day to act like a dictator. Especially in the National Party where the leaders picks Ministers all by him/her self, whereas in Labour the caucus elects the Cabinet and the leader allocates the portfolios. We need at least 120 MPs for these needs to be met.
4. We can't get rid of list MPs for the reasons above...and also because they don't necessaily always agree. Having Russell Norman as the only Green MP, for example, would make it Russel's job to physically manage the needs of all Green voters everywhere. He can't do that. No one can. The range of policy areas is far too broad for any single person to hope to cope. We absolutely need the physical bodies there to live and work around the country - as they do - representing their voters. Also, doing as you suggest plays into the hands of those saying the "party bosses" dominate and list MPs are a rubber stamp. List MPs are elected as a group by the party vote. No party votes...then you get no list MPs. if anything, the Green party demonstrates just how well list MPs do work...as their MPs are sprinkled around the country and make a good fist of representing people locally. Most list MPs have a local area they try to service.
5. I'd only ditch the Maori seats if Maori voted with a 75% majority to ditch them in a referendum of the Maori roll.
6. Upper House / Senate - what basis would representation be on? It can't be by popular vote as that's what we do already in the Lower house. So who gets the advantage and can override voters?
7. Elected Governor-General: Don't care as long as they remain as powerless as the present one. :-)
"Ideally, there would be no race-based elements at all in our system of government, but I am sympathetic to the idea that the indigenous people of New Zealand should have no barriers to representation.
By dictionary understanding of the word 'indigenous' would indicate that Maori are not an indigenous people of NZ. They came from somewhere else - so surely they would be indigenous to the land they came from.
If we accept the premise they are indigenous to NZ, then that would make anyone who was born here indigenous too.
There now, I feel better knowing that I am an indigenous Kiwi.
I think we need to bring in a system of primaries to select electorate candidates. If this was also made preferential then it would be pretty simple to make the party list rankings the next however-many names that fail to gain candidature for an electorate.
How about making the cabinet members list only; 1-12 would cover the front bench , all the rest make their stand in am electorate only.
How about we review the number of electorates so that constituents who need help have a reasonably even chance of getting it, and if that means lifting the numbers of electorates drop the numbers of list members?
How about changing the Maori seats to be on the List; the number to be determined by the number of citizens who actually vote (to easy to rig registrations).
Retain the 5% threshold for party representation, but dump the idea that winning a seat entitles you to a buddy or two.
Dump the idea that a member on his own gets to be a party with all the related perks.
James McGehandephi
Linuxluver - 2. Your suggestion would be difficult to justify on grounds of fairness - why can't incumbents go on the list but third party also-rans can? They should be standalone choices at large on the list. You get one chance per election, not two.
3. I was not suggesting the list of electorates remain at 70. Had FPP been retained, there would be 106 electorates.
5. Maori have already rejected the Maori seats, over half of them are on the general roll. It's clear that those on the Maori roll are there because they like the Maori seats, so a referendum on the Maori roll is redundant. The people of New Zealand as a whole should decide, because it is their country, not Maori alone.
6. What's wrong with the popular vote electing senators? All of them would be at-large, and elected two at a time. Of course, a Senate could not change the government or reject money Bills.
James Stephenson - if there was preferential voting in the electorates, primaries would be unnecessary. And you want to avoid "losers" going on the list, which is why you should only allow people to stand for one or the other.
James McGehan - I don't see the point of making the cabinet list only - if you are going to do that you may as well go the whole hog and have a separation of powers like the Americans.
If you have a threshold of 10% of Maori voters, that would allow the Maori Party list seats in proportion to their vote without the need for gerrymandered ghetto electorates.
Well said Blair. Especially the last one.
Clint never fails to amaze me, he has a Million bright ideas for a country he walked out on.
Except this entry was written by Blair, Mr Snuggles - not Clint.
Also, I agree with your idea about having Senate. Linuxluver made some excellent points above too.
Excellent post Blair. Are the Nats going to have a referendum on this at the next election?
although the Maori Party's overhang in this case makes it much more precarious (Which is why the Maori seats should not exist)
So if Act get four seats and 2% party vote, should the seats they get not exist either due to overhang? Some rationale!
big news - you are correct in that my sentence would not be rewarded with a passing grade in any Stage 1 logic class. If seats are based on geography rather than race, however, overhang is much more rare at least in New Zealand's case anyway (probably wouldn't work in Canada). I think that's what I was getting at.
Sorry, in my quest for brevity I lost clarity.The biggest gripe about MMP that I hear is that the List MPs are faceless unknowns and this leads to a feeling that the List vote is secondary in value. The reverse is the case, so the question is how do we overturn the Presidential style List contest and get the voters thinking about just who will be driving the winners? Given that policy and supervision of the big ministries is a full time job, why not delete the electorate niggles and do a proper week's work with a proper day off and see if that improves the outcomes? And we reduce the size of the full cabinet, therefore fewer BMWs etc etc
James McGehan
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home