I voted for MMP in the early 90s mainly because, under First Past the Post, so many votes were wasted. Most seats were safe, so votes for a losing candidate changed nothing, and nor did spare votes for a winning candidate.
Under MMP, every party vote helps to elect another representative. Every vote counts.
Under the old system, consecutive First Past the Post governments went badly off the rails. There was nothing you could do when MPs who later formed ACT took over Labour, and then National promised to get rid of them but behaved even worse.
First Past the Post was awful, but MMP's flaws have been worse than I hoped.
Party lists have mostly been rubbish, especially in the big parties.
Anonymous party officials have too much say and their party list choice are inadequately transparent even to members of their own parties.
There are too many MPs who can't win a marginal seat but cling on through the list because of their special skill at palace politics. There are too many talented candidates who are marginalised because their talent is a threat to time-serving insiders with more sway on the list committees.
Parliament is more diverse if you keep a score of ethnicity, gender and other outward characters; I'm not sure thinking within parties is more diverse. Having fresh or unconventional ideas is a good way to get bounced down the list.
When there are more locally elected representatives, there are more MPs who have room to speak and act independently. A little courageous independent thinking is a good thing.
Too many MPs get into Parliament despite their talent, rather than because of it. It's too hard to get rid of non-talents.
Even the best lists are riddled with decay. National's 2008 list, which brought in Steven Joyce and Tim Groser, also brought in Melissa Lee, who is a nice person but never had to speak to a room full of voters to win a place in Parliament. When she did, the results were bad. There are more examples coming this year and there is nothing you can do to stop it. You really want me to vote for a system that selects people who don't, and can't, win elections?
In a democracy it's a good thing that people who like the thinking of Hone Harawira or Roger Douglas have a representative to express their views. The downside is that you get Hone Harawira and Roger Douglas.
I like the idea that MPs should have to persuade a group of voters to get elected. One way to rehabilitate MMP would be to increase the number of electorate MPs, to around 90 or 95 out of 120.
Then, most major-party MPs would come in through electorate seats. Most list MPs would be from small parties, where competition for places is hotter and it's harder to hide non-performers.
The other thing we need to do is get rid of the messy two-ticks business. By the time of the 2015 election more people will have only ever voted under MMP than voted under First Past the Post. Yet unacceptably high numbers of people still don't understand how the two ticks work.
Separate votes for electorate and party votes invite cynicism and manipulation. Voters in Epsom should decide whether they want to vote for National, or vote for John Banks and in doing so help to bring in other ACT MPs. We should not have parties trying to figure out whether to stand, and instructing their own supporters to vote for another party. That's a circus.
No, what people want is to cast a vote for their preferred candidate. Parties will always mess around with their local selections, but at least gerrymandered candidates should have to prove some local electoral appeal. Really bad local candidates do lose their seats. Just ask Rodney Hide.
People who despise democracy are planning a big campaign against MMP later this year. They want to return to the days when governments could break promises with impunity. They want to buy government instead of winning it by winning a battle of ideas.
The way to deal with them is by supporting more democracy, not less. No one should ever choose an electoral system because they think it's the best way to produce the policy outcome they want; you should choose the system that best produces what the people want.
If MMP wins the referendum this year, there'll be a review. We're likely to get some fake reform, such as getting rid of the exemption that allows parties to bring in MPs by winning an electorate seat. That reform will make it harder, not easier, to make every local vote count.
If I had confidence MMP would be truly reformed I would vote for it. I'm weighing the alternative. If it's just worse versions of party lists, I'll give the alternatives a miss. If MMP's advocates are too opposed to reform, I'll pick another system. What I won't be picking is the status quo.
» Follow NZStuffBlogs on Twitter and get fast updates on all Stuff's blogs.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Does anyone actually know the wording of the question we are going to be asked about MMP during the election, and have we been told ahead of time what the other options are and what the potential modifications are?
Obviously a very confused man. How he ever advised Anderton and Goff is a complete mystery to me, becoming more mistress with every blog.
For a start, I don't see having a Parliament full of demagogic, electorate-winning, orators is a sensible objective. That was how we got it full of lawyers, teachers and unionists. Give me a range of normal people any day. Lange was great at the Oxford Union but a disaster as leader of his party.
If Pagani thinks the party list process is not transparent why didn't he work to improve the Labour Party's process and make it more transparent? Come clean on the reasons and we will see plainly the forces that will certainly work to subvert any alternative voting system that might be implemented. Certainly the list will be no more democratic than the party itself and his claim is an indictment of it.
Agree that big party's lists are rubbish because if an electorate mp gets voted out he gets back on the list. Make it if you loose your sear you're a goneburger for the new term.
How does John know we are likely to get fake reform of MMP. How about trying it first and making sure it is sensible reform that results.
Good Column John.
And I agree a systems is needed that represents the choices of the people... i.e. is very hard to be hijack by internal party factions.
Well, I did not vote for MMP just because I envisaged what would happen. Sadly my fears have been fulfilled. Having said that I am not sure that FPP is the right option.
My option would be for some form of Alternative Voting/STV. However I do think MMP could be improved first by requiring the 5% threshold to be reached before members can scurry into parliament on the tails of a single constituency MP. That would put an end the the nonsense in Epsom and Ohariu Belmont.
Secondly any MP rejected by an electorate should not be able to use the party list to get back in. Finally something needs to be do about the party lists to weed out the time servers and the bum lickers many of whom disappear into obscurity once in parliament.
Perhaps one way is saying that other than ministers, list MPs get only 50% of the salary of constiuency MPs since their work load is lighter.
WOW, John...3 mentions of ACT in there and a Roger Douglas quip!, well done...no mention I can see about Andrew Little stacking up Union officials/leaders on the list?...no mention of George Hawkins's dust up about Little stacking up the Labour MP to contest his seat being a Union lacky and he will not stand down if a Union lacky was picked.
Ahhh but yes, lets talk about ACT eh? as Labour have done nothing wrong with the list and indeed having a Union leader ready to take over the party...I hope he does, as the Union movement in NZ seen with scepticism and indeed fear from every part of society.
Hobbit Movie anyone?....Yes the unions in NZ are great :)
My biggest bug about MMP is that List MPs are allowed to retain their seat in parliament if they leave the party.
The seat belongs to the party, not to the MP. The MP wasn't voted in. Therefore, if a list MP leaves his/her party, they should be replaced by another list MP from that party.
I reckon there's merit in the idea of having primary elections, where people vote for the makeup of party lists before the general election. Some parties (the Greens) already do this, but maybe it should be a mandatory part of all party lists.
I was agreeing with you up to the point where you described people against MMP as anti-democracy. What was flagrantly more non-democratic than the passing of a law (Bradfords Anti Smacking Bill)that over 80% of the population didn't want, was introdauced by a minority party and supported by a minority government all brought about to ensure "supply" (read: remain in power)? As for list MP's - is there a bigger waste of taxpayers money?
Not with a bang or even a whimper
You can't beat Wellington (on a good day)
'Happy' Gilmore's political career likely to be brief
Labour's crazy new energy policy
Time to call Tiwai smelter's Bluff
Is car park tax National's 'lightbulb moment'?
Backtracks on climate change cause little heat
Lesbian teen fights criminal case over girlfriend
Teen's judo injury one of worst in the sport
Teens and 'worst burglary in decade'
Dissenter raises trade deal questions
Scratchie winner plans to be wise
'I did too much drug damage' - Pitt
Well-regarded lawyer convicted over theft
MMP is more democratic than what we had with FPP but a party should not get extra reps in Parliament because it won an electorate which is in itself the reward, and 100 is more than enough members in total (30 NI electorates, 20 SI electorates, 50 list).
You have no confidence "MMP would be truly reformed". It needs tweaking but not substantive reform.
For someone on the Left you don't seem to realise the Left will be far better off under MMP. How many Green seats would there be under FPP for example?
On Epsom - National are going for the party vote there only. Having Act will help them so you can't blame them. The public rhetoric may be that they are trying to win it, but this is realpoltik in action.
I agree that it is hard to get rid of non-talent. How about a rule that if any politician loses her/his seat s/he can not go back on the list and must give way to the next person from that party?