Now that the country has voted resoundingly to keep MMP, it is invited to suggest ways to improve the system. The Electoral Commission has begun the discussion with a paper that raises a few familiar questions for public comment but the review need not be confined to them. The commission says it is keen to hear any ideas. It should hear plenty.
After 15 years and six elections, just about everyone has something they do not like about the system. For many it is the idea of list MPs, who are chosen entirely by party officials and never need subject themselves to a popular vote. Others see that as a strength of the system. It allows parties to bring into Parliament people who represent minorities, or people with expertise who are not willing to undergo a personal electoral ordeal.
The party list system is an obvious irritant of MMP. The reality that voters can soundly reject an electoral candidate, just to see them return on the list is an affront to voters on many counts. An in 2011, the Ohariu electorate was the worst example; Peter Dunne won the seat for the umpteenth time, but his challengers in the electorate namely Charles Chauvel (Labour), Katrina Shanks (National), and Gareth Hughes (Greens) all returned to Parliament via the list.
And then you had this doozy; whilst Patrick Gower from 3News got his knickers in a knot over Ohariu and Epsom and supposed "dirty deals" as he called them, we blogged about Kevin Hague, the Green Party's West Coast-Tasman candidate gleefully announcing via Twitter that he hadn't even voted for himself! That such bizarre things can happen makes a mockery of the MMP system. Incidentially, we regard Kevin Hague as one of the better ond more moderate Green MP's.
The other issue that seems to arouse much comment is that of threshholds, about which the Herald's leader writer has this to say:
The MMP review can also expect to hear criticism of the threshold exemption for small parties that manage to win a single electorate. It is in the interests of major parties to make room for a certain ally to win an electorate because the seat becomes additional to their proportional allocation. The ally might be then awarded two or more seats on a party vote well below the 5 per cent threshold. Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne, Rodney Hide and now John Banks have prospered on this oddity.
There is much pressure from lobbyists for smaller parties to reduce the threshhold from the current 5%. Our personal view is that 5% is an appropriate threshhold, and that it should be retained. There is merit however in reviewing the entitlement of parties who win one seat to bring in additional MP's from their list. And we note that Hone Harawira is missing from the list of those who have "prospered"; likewise Winston Peters who only survived in 1996 when he won the Tauranga seat whilst his party scored only 4.26% or the party vote.
We are going to give this some thought in coming days with a view towards making a submission. Accordingly, we'd value a range of opinions to consider. Given that we seem to be stuck with MMP for at least the immediate future, we may as well try and make the best out of a flawed and imperfect system of representation.
7 comments:
I thought I would share a paragraph of my MMP review submission:
The arguments against dual candidacy centre on the idea that if a candidate is “rejected” by an electorate, they should not be allowed through the “back door”. I would argue that one candidate losing the plurality does not necessarily constitute being “rejected”. For instance, in marginal or near-marginal seats, a candidate may receive the second-highest candidate vote. A swing against this candidate or party does not constitute a rejection, and there are ultimately still a large number of voters who want them as their electorate MP. Having this candidate as a list MP is a good alternative, and must be recognised as still being positive for the electorate and its voters.
I know that's long, but I think the idea of preventing electorate candidates entering on the list is an ill-thought out one. It would result in electorates becoming fortresses for certain parties and MPs, in my opinion. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction. If List MPs are not allowed to stand in electorates, they miss the opportunity to be invited to candidate debates, and the quality of candidates will drop.
Take the example of Chris Finlayson - he was never going to win Rongotai, but stood anyway, campaigned for party vote, attended debates to debate Annette King, etc. What is the benefit in outlawing this?
Katrina Shanks, Charles Chauvel and Gareth Hughes would probably still have targeted the Ohariu electorate for campaigning, even if party list rules meant that their name was not on the electorate ballot paper.
I don't agree that it was a resounding vote to keep MMP, more of a slim victory ti keep MMP, from a wider electorate who long alo lost trust in their Parliamentary representatvies. Look at how many prospective voters didn't even bother to leave home on the day.
MMP, does nothing but drag this country down.
back after a week away and 1 TV lost it's signal and the other smells of burning plastic .. anyway:
"Now that the country has voted resoundingly to keep MMP" say what?
we have 2 parties with 22 MPs and ALL are list MP's meaning NONE were wanted as individuals, not even 3 leaders invloved
Ditch the additional members on the back of an elected member. Drop the threshold to 4% or even 3%. Sure loonys will occasionaly get in on both the right and left but even loonys have a right to representation.
I believe that a repêchage system would be best; have electorates and a party vote. MPs elected to the house from electorates are seated as normal, but the list seats are not allocated by the parties but rather by the amount of support each candidate got in a constituency.
Letting the total amount of votes every candidate receives fully determine the order of election would reduce the list ranking to the status of a tiebreaker between candidates who got the same number of votes.
Standing in a constituency exposes candidates to the real issues of their area, and serves to reduce the impact of the more erratic parties, as voters would be considering which candidate was better, not which party slogan made them feel better.
"Anonymous" talking about repêchage is Grant McKenna- I couldn't get the sign-in to work.
I'm inclined to reduce the threashold to equivilent percentage of one seat. I think this will allow more minor parties in which will counter each other and hopefully prevent the tail wagging the dog type scenarios we have had in the past. thoughts?
Post a Comment