Voting system lobbyists still boxing at shadows

Relevant offers

Politics

Treaty obligations to stay in SOE sales law McCully email thief could be Kiwi PSA disappointed Key won't discuss cuts Delays in privatising ACC work account No background checks on Education ministry staff Labour fears for Kiwis in ministry shake-up The one-seat threshold Today In Politics: Thursday, February 23 Police complaint over election programme McCully's emails revealed

OPINION: There is little more fundamental in the political life of a nation than the electoral laws that determine how politicians are chosen.

But the upcoming referendum on the future of MMP is in danger of becoming an also-ran issue at this year's election to voters far more concerned about the state of the economy, the revival of Christchurch and – fingers crossed – the nationwide tour of the Webb Ellis Cup.

Perhaps things will become more focused once the Electoral Commission's education campaign gets into full swing but, at the moment, it is hard to detect any great excitement out there over the issue.

For that reason at least, it was good to see the Vote for Change group (aka the anti-MMP league) kick off its campaign this week as a counterpoint to Sandra Grey's campaign for MMP. The group is yet to settle on a preferred alternative to MMP, however.

The referendum will ask voters to choose between keeping or getting rid of MMP and then which of four options they would favour; supplementary member (SM), first-past-the-post (FPP), preferential voting (PV) and single transferable vote (STV). If a change is favoured, the top-ranking alternative will run off against MMP in 2014.

Until Vote for Change chooses an alternative, the pro-MMP lobby is essentially boxing at shadows. For now, it is a useful tactic. Those who favour MMP must defend it against all alternative systems, which will accentuate the current system's negatives.

At the same time, the anti-lobby may be hoping it can draw together proponents of all the options.

But, at some stage, it will have to get off the fence. All the signs are, from the preference of spokesman Jordan Williams and other prominent members of the group – and from the prime minister's albeit lukewarm preference – that SM will get the nod.

And it is likely, then, that many who favour proportional systems will leave as quickly as they joined.

Because while SM can claim to be a partly proportional, the proportionality is a fig leaf on a FPP system. It is a counterfeit, four-flushing, phoney option for a true proportional system.

Under the proposed SM system, there would be 90 electorate seats and 30 list seats. Only the list seats are distributed according to the party vote – or support a party gets in an election.

As the table shows, the net effect in 2008 would have been to give National a huge boost; and for this reason SM is known around the world as a "winner's bonus system".

Assuming voting patterns were the same, National would have ended up with 57.5 per cent of the seats for its 45 per cent of the vote. Labour would have won 33 per cent of the seats for its 34 per cent of the vote and the Greens would have won just two seats; 1.6 per cent of the 120 seats for 6.72 per cent of the vote. On the other side of the ledger, the Maori Party would have won 5 per cent of the seats against a party vote of just 2.39 per cent.

The anti-MMP lobby is presumably hoping the element of proportionality in SM will win over some voters who would feel queasy about a return to FPP.

But with SM favoured by less than 5 per cent in recent polls, and with FPP still the favourite of some 33 per cent, the latter would make a more logical rallying point.

The danger for Mr Williams and his team is that they will not be able to rally all those FPP supporters to the SM banner; that is their first challenge.

Personally, I think SM is a quack remedy for a system that is not ailing and I will be voting for MMP. If it wins, I will join those pressing for the Electoral Commission's review to remove the one electorate seat threshold for a party to be eligible for allocation of list seats. Why?

I don't mind if candidates who lose in an electorate seat come back in on the list; if that means Parliament keeps MPs of the calibre of National's Chris Finlayson or Labour's Shane Jones.

I am not a subscriber to the theory that MMP allows small parties to wield too much power. Yes, they can – in unusual circumstances (such as NZ First in 1996) – choose which of two big parties should form the government.

But, even then, the government represents more than 50 per cent of the voters; something which rarely happened under FPP.

And it is normally obvious from the clear public statements of the political leaders which party they will support and any mystery is more theoretical than real. If ACT voters have not worked out their party will back National, or Green voters do not know that in all but extreme circumstances they are voting for a Labour-led government, then they are not listening.

Nor is the argument that the minor party's tail wags the government dog particularly convincing. The history of the Alliance, NZ First, ACT and now the Maori Party is that policy gains are mostly moderate, often popular, and that the tail often gets wagged to death – or flies apart under the stresses of being down the back end of the government.

- © Fairfax NZ News