MMP Review Submission
The MMP Review Submission deadline is today.
I'm not sure if ACT on Campus are making a submission, but here is my personal one:
1) Should the 5% threshold be kept or changed? Why? If you recommend change, what should it be and why?
I believe that the 5% threshold is fundamentally undemocratic and should be abolished entirely.
The main excuses given to justify a threshold (at whatever level) are that a lower/no threshold would allow extremist parties to enter Parliament and that it would allow a large number of smaller parties to enter Parliament leading to fragmentation making it more difficult to form a majority in Parliament.
However, neither excuse justifies completely ignoring the vote of a section of society.
Without an official threshold there would be a natural threshold of whatever percentage required to gain one seat.
If a party is able to gain the support of enough voters to be eligible to one seat, they should receive that seat.
Just because you (or I) believe a party to be extreme, should not give us the right to exclude them from the democratic process as is essentially done now.
Similarly, fragmentation is a straw-man argument. Many Parliaments overseas operate minority governments (not just minority-led with partners) and in reality, the National and Labour Parties are the two parties closes to each other philosophically and if neither of them can form a government they can figure out for themselves if they would prefer a new election or wish to work together (as we saw with a Grand Coalition in Germany recently).
2) Should the one electorate seat threshold be kept or changed? Why? If you recommend change, what should it be and why?
My response to this question should be read in conjunction to my response to Question 1.
I view the one seat threshold as a necessary evil given the 5% threshold.
If the 5% threshold were removed entirely, the one seat threshold would be irrelevant.
This would be my preferred outcome.
If the 5% threshold is not removed entirely, my preference on what happens to the one seat threshold depends on what level the threshold changed to (or left at 5%).
If the threshold were reduced to 3% or lower, I believe the "evil" of the one seat threshold outweighs the "evil" of the 3% threshold, and so the one seat threshold should be removed.
However, if the threshold were to be set at more than 3% (3.1%, 3.5%, 4%, remain at 5%, etc), then unfortunately the "evil" of the % threshold still outweighs the "evil" of the one seat threshold and so the one seat threshold should be retained.
The argument that a party requires at least a minimum number of MPs to function in Parliament is a ridiculous argument.
I imagine many voters are better represented by Peter Dunne, John Banks or Hone Harawira than if their preferred party had received no seats and their vote had been completely wasted.
3) Should list MPs continue to be able to stand as candidates in by-elections? If so, why?
Yes. Of course.
4) Should dual candidacy be kept? If so, why?
My preferred outcome is outlined in the following question, but if this is not adopted, then yes, dual candidacy should be kept.
The only argument against dual candidacy is that people who lose electorates are able to enter Parliament via the list.
If the ability to stand for both were removed, this would not affect who entered Parliament, it would simply change how parties structured their candidate selection.
Candidates that the party wished to get in to Parliament but who lived in marginal seats would simply not stand as an electorate candidate and stand only on the list to avoid any "risk" of not getting in.
5) If you recommend change, what should it be and why?
I believe that New Zealand should abolish electorates entirely and elect MPs based solely on their list position.
Electorates are a hangover from First Past the Post and even earlier when politics was a community affair, people wanted a "local" MP and MPs were an important source of help for people to go to.
I believe the advisory role played by local MPs should be left to local councils and that members of the public should approach Ministers/Departments for government related issues and approach an MP from their preferred party for help on policy issue.
I also believe that parties would assign MPs to cover specific areas of the country anyway - they don't need the electoral commission to work out these arbitrary lines for them - in fact the minor parties in Parliament are forced to do this anyway as they don't have enough MPs to assign one to each electorate anyway.
6) In an election, should voters be able to alter the order of candidates from the list order decided by political parties? If so, why?
No. Absolutely not. If members of the public want a say in the matters of political parties, they should join that political party.
Members and volunteers of a party, who work hard for their party for years and volunteer for MPs and candidates during election campaigns, should not have their views overridden by voters.
While I personally believe that a party should hold a vote of their party membership to determine their list ranking, I don’t believe this should be required of all parties by law.
7) What should happen when a party wins more electorate seats than it would be entitled to under its share of the party vote?
The party should receive the number of seats which its party vote entitles it to (this includes receiving no seats if the party only gets say 0.1% of the vote).
These seats should be allocated to the MPs who won electorate seats in that party, in the order they were placed on the list.
So if a party wins 5 electorates and is only eligible to have 4 seats, the lowest ranked candidate of the 5 who won electorates should not receive a seat.
8) [Population growth leads to more electorate seats and fewer list seats which could affect proportionality over time.] Is this a problem, and what should be done to fix it?
Yes this is a problem.
My preferred solution is to abolish electorate seats completely.
If this is not adopted, I believe that the number of electorates should be fixed and the population of each electorate should simply grow.
If this is not adopted, I would prefer to see the size of Parliament grow than to reduce proportionality.
The requirement of a minimum number of seats in the South Island should also be removed.
I’d also note that I support a larger Parliament overall – say 200 MPs.
New Zealand’s Parliament is small by most international standards.
A greater number of back benchers would also help to limit the power of parties and of cabinet over the ruling party.
9) Other issues.
I believe that an MP that leaves their party should be free to continue to operate as an independent MP, or join a new or different party.
Many argue that an MP that leaves their party is not being loyal to the voters of that party and has therefore affected the proportionality of Parliament.
However voters vote for a party list, not just for a party.
It is equally possible that a party has changed position on an issue, forcing an MP to leave their party as they disagree.
An MP in this situation could legitimately argue that they are more accurately reflecting the views of the people who voted for that party, or at least a portion of them.
Whether the leaving MP or the remaining party more correctly represent the will of the party’s voters is an issue that cannot be determined by legislation or by Parliament.
Whether they remain in Parliament should therefore be decided by the voters at the following election.
Greens Are Nasty Not Nice
The so called "nice" party have once again proven that just under the services they're actually nasty and dangerous:
Russel Norman has already changed his story from "the Greens had no involvement" to "the actions are those of individuals, not the Green Party" and is claiming he had no idea about it, despite it being the partner of his EA who organised the crime.
My first thought about this story was the similarity to the Exclusive Brethren in 2005, when the Exclusive Brethren told Don Brash they would be making some leaflets to distribute to warm people about the Green's policies.
The Greens later claimed that Don Brash was behind the entire thing and that he lied when he said he didn't recognise the leaflets (what, they thought he designed them for the Exclusive Brethren too?).
But then I realised - the Exclusive Brethren paid for their own leaflets, distributed them all themselves, and broke no rules or laws while expressing their own political opinion.
By contrast, the Green Party have been plotting this crime since at least October, secretly defaced private property under cover of darkness and blatantly ignored electoral law.
I wonder whether the media will hound the Green Party about their nasty behaviour for the last two weeks of the campaign - or does that only happen to right wing politicians?
UPDATE: Russel Normal has admitted that his EA (not just the EA's partner) has known about this planned crime for months, but still claims he had no idea about it.
UPDATE II: The Greens are down 2% on iPredict today already - that's 3 MPs gone for them.
NZ First Break Electoral Act Again
Last week Winston Peters announced he wasn't standing in an electorate, to focus on winning party votes.
Unfortunately, the New Zealand First constitution requires every candidate to stand in an electorate.
In fact, Rule 46b of their constitution specifically states: A List candidate must first be selected as an Electorate candidate.
Kiwiblog and Whale Oil picked up on this problem and when a journalist asked Winston Peters about their constitution he claimed it had been changed in 2008.
Everyone else seemed happy to leave it there, but I wasn't.
I checked the Electoral Commission's website, and guess what, the old constitution was still listed there.
So I wrote to the Electoral Commission, on behalf of ACT on Campus, and asked the following questions:
1) Are you aware of a change to the New Zealand First constitution?
2) Has any updated version of the NZF constitution been submitted to the electoral commission?
3) If no change has been made to the NZF constitution, what is the punishment for NZF breaching its own constitution at this election?
4) If a change has been made to the NZF constitution, but if this change has not been submitted to the electoral commission, what is the punishment for NZF for failing to provide the new constitution to the electoral commission?
I received a reply stating that an updated copy of the New Zealand First constitution was provided to the Electoral Commission on the 2nd of November 2011 and that:
"Section 71B of the Electoral Act 1993 provides that a copy of the party and candidate selection rules are to be supplied to the Electoral Commission within one month of the date on which the rules are adopted by the party. However, Part 4 of the Electoral Act does not provide any penalty for a party that does not provide the rules within this timeframe."
It seems Winston Peters just can't help himself from breaking the Electoral Act.
The State Of Journalism At TVNZ
Today was the release of the PREFU - the public presentation of the government's books before the election.
Today was also the first day of TVNZ's daily election liveblog:
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/election-2011-october-25-4482481
So how did they go?
Number of updates about each party:
National - 7
Labour - 12
Greens - 5
ACT - 0
Maori - 1
Mana - 1
Alliance - 1
Yep, they even managed to discuss the announcement of a few Alliance Party candidates who have no hope of getting elected!
Good to see TVNZ's journalists continuing on in their fair and balanced way.
OUSA Are Idiots
Yesterday OUSA amended passed amendments to their constitution brought about because of the passage of the Voluntary Student Membership bill.
This isn't surprising - most students' associations around the country have been doing the same thing to ensure they comply with the new Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Act.
But OUSA have tried to be tricky, and ended up just making themselves look like idiots. Complete and utter idiots.
One of OUSA's amendments is as follows:
"Member" or "member" means:
(a) a student at the University who has not opted out of membership by way of notice in writing
Basically OUSA are trying to amend their constitution to make membership of OUSA opt-out. Students would 'become members' upon enrolling and be required to inform OUSA that they don't wish to be members to be let out.
Of course, s229A of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Act says:
Membership of students associations voluntary
No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.
An Otago student has quizzed various members of OUSA's Constitutional Review Committee, to try and find out what OUSA are thinking and their responses indicate that this amendment is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the intention of the law and create an opt-out membership system.
Some quotes from committee members include:
"Basically they've adopted an opt-out model via the constitution for the purposes of having a mandate. They're not requiring anyone to be a member of OUSA, you can pull out, so they're not breaking the law. I found this very strange, but I spoke to the legal mind who gave it to them, and it's quite convincing as to whether they can do it - though I'm sure it will piss VSMers off."
"They're not requiring someone to be a member, people can opt out at any stage. So it's not a breach of the VSM law which says you can't be required to be a member, nor coerced to be a member. And it's not illegal to point to a group of people and say "you're all members of my incorporated society". Several rate payer associations already do it - including the Dunedin one. Basically OUSA is following the Ratepayers model - they represent all people within a group, but those people can opt out of membership and still use all the services etc."
"It's certainly against the intent of the law that was passed. It will be a legal test to see whether it's actually against the law. The advice comes from the law school, and while it wriggles around the law, I'm not sure it breaches it ... It's the model that UCSA has used for over a decade successfully, and I'm not sure if the new legislation prevents it - because it uses the term 'required', and they'll use the opt-out with no loss of services to say that there are no requirements for you to be a member."
"It's really playing VSM at its own game. The membership becomes irrelevant in terms of cost or what you can access. The only reasons to not be a member are philosophical ones ... It's also going to help them achieve the contract they want from the university, as there's no question of people being denied access to student services through membership. Whether or not it will fly in terms of public relations is another question of course."
"I don't see a contradiction. You are a member by default, you're not required to be a member however, so you can opt out of membership at any time. Required to be a member would mean entirely that - you have to be a member of the students association while attending the institution. No doubt there will be a legal challenge, but OUSA is hopefully following my advice and looking to Wellington for some decent advice here and avoiding the honorary solicitors. The distinction between being a member and not being a member is entirely philosophical, as there's little practical difference between the two."
"I said that the argument is that they're not required to be members because they can opt out with no penalty at all. There certainly isn't anything illegal about an incorporated society making a whole bunch of people members of their society without their consent - lots of organisations do this in NZ already. It's not my construing, it's OUSA and several high powered lawyers. This hasn't come from me. I think it's an interesting solution, whether or not it's legally right I have no idea about - you can go argue with professor geddis if you want. Morally I definitely agree it's dodgy and certainly goes against the intent of parliament."
So OUSA's entire plan for their operation in a VSM environment operates on the assumption that if students are allowed to leave OUSA then they are not requied to be a member.
I see where they're going with this - the law says that students must not be required to be a member, not that they must not be required to join.
The problem for OUSA is required does not mean required to remain, it means required. At any time. Ever.
Whichever law student gave them this idea should probably drop out and try studying for a BA instead and whichever lawyer wrote these amendments for OUSA should probably look for a new job.
As if OUSA's idiotic interpretation of the word required wasn't bad enough, they've completely disregarded this section of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Act:
229B Undue influence
A person must not exert undue influence on any student or prospective student with intent to make that student or prospective student—
(a) become or remain a member of a students association; or
(b) cease to be a member of a students association; or
(c) not become a member of a students association.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that telling people they are automatically a member of your organisation when they sign their enrolment form would count as exerting undue influence on someone to become a member of a students association.
OUSA do seem to be aware of this problem though as another constitutional amendment said:
The Association will not at any time exercise undue influence in encouraging students at the University to remain members. Therefore, the Association will not restrict the privileges and rights of membership to members only.
Sorry OUSA, but saying in your constitution that you wont exercise undue influence over students doesn't mean that you aren't, or exempt you from any law that prevents you from doing so.
We suspect OUSA is about to become the laughing stock of the education sector, and no doubt be hearing from the Otago University Council, the Education Minister, the Registrar of Incorporated Societies and the Charities Commission in the very near future.
Audrey Young Rejects Coup Talk
New Zealand Herald Political Editor Audrey Young said late last night that she was confident she would lead the New Zealand Herald political team into the election on November 26.
She was responding to questions from ACT on Campus put to her after talk that the APN board could move to replace her with Derek Cheng, a current Herald press gallery reporter.
She has fallen well short in recent Neilsen Research polls of her targeted readership figures and appalled some readers recently by airing her own views on liberalising heroin laws.
"I've got no doubt that the APN board supports me,"' Audrey Young said.
The all-powerful APN board could stage a coup simply by changing the rankings of the press gallery list.
It is scheduled to meet next on October 15.
Conservative Party Incompetence
Depending on how you write a question in a poll, you can get any result you want. So if someone refuses to release the question asked in a poll, even if it's from a reputable polling company, then you (and the media) should probably just ignore it.
I've written about devious polls on this blog already, and Colin Craig, the new leader of the Conservative Party, was one of the culprits then:
So it's really no surprise to find that he's up to it again:
Now, let's put aside the fact that Craig has realised he would get trounced by Banks in Epsom if he stood there and let's ignore his ridiculously optimistic poll results with him easily winning one of the safest National seats in the country, because there's actually a much bigger (and hilarious) problem with Colin Craig's poll.
Lockwood Smith isn't standing in Rodney at the 2011 election
That's right Lockwood Smith announced last year that he will only stand on National's list at this election. Mark Mitchell, has been selected to contest the seat for National instead.
Now, Colin Craig might argue that the fact that he's not going against the incumbent is actually good for him. But if he's so stupid as to decide which electorate to run in based on a poll that compared him to the wrong candidate, then I don't hold out much hope of him running much of a campaign.
Finally, there is one other possibility, that Craig did run a poll comparing himself to Mark Mitchell, and that he either got that mixed up in his press release. or the media got it mixed up when writing their stories. But still, what a mess, and if Craig released the original poll question it couldn't have happened.
Either way, the media have really failed on this one. If they've written down the wrong National candidate, or if they've been given the wrong National candidate, the fact that no-one involved in writing, editing and posting that article had any idea that Lockwood Smith wasn't National's Rodney candidate is a poor indictment on the state of our journalists, the fledgling APNZ, and all the media who copied the story to their papers.
Sink Or Swim For The OUSA: Moving On From The Era Of The Logan Edgars
There is one certain question that will be addressed by the upcoming OUSA elections, and that is: who shall replace Logan Edgar? Edgar is a President who won office and then gave us the punchline to the joke that was his campaign of empty slogans and irrelevant promises. As if to put the messages I'm about to express to justice, media coverage and accounts of his actions lend to the impression that the seriousness that must come with the leadership of the OUSA is lost on him. For Edgar, it appears the association is nothing more than a dialysis machine to keep his fragile ego alive.
Though, and it might come as a surprise to Edgar, it is not all about him. The Executive have much to be grateful with the Edgar presidency; his immaturity has hidden the culpability of the Executive who must think he's easy prey. An overall view of this muddled situation is clear to see: the Executive maneuvers itself into a comfortable position and Edgar pretends to be a revolutionary hero while the history of our association burns.
Students who will make the effort to vote in future elections for the Executive and the President, and thus express their confidence in the future existence of our association, will have a major decision in front of them. Why? This will not be an ordinary election. We will not just be deciding who will represent us as a figurehead of this university's student body, we will also be deciding who will lead our association as it sails into stormy seas. Contributing to the storm, will be voluntary membership.
There have been many reasons given against voluntary membership, but none are all too hardy to stack up against it. Neither have those very reasons roused the silent majority the compulsionists thought were behind them. Let us not be fooled: the OUSA will be the victim but the villains won't be found on the front benches of Parliament - though no doubt they will be made to be scapegoats. It will be the student leaders who took advantage of compulsory membership's bounty of coerced wealth who should be blamed. It is compulsory membership which has made possible the wreckless spending, self-righteous attitudes and alienating partisanship the OUSA have been able to undertake with impunity. As a result, a vast amount of the student population at Otago no longer see the relevance of the OUSA. The OUSA, and student associations in general, have dispensed with their friends, and now when it needs friends most, none can be found.
It is important to understand what voluntary membership will mean for our association: it will be the transfer of power from the Executive to the students and nothing could be more frightening to those who derive power from the current arrangements. Voluntary membership is not a threat to the organisation of student bodies, just to those who abuse the trust of those bodies.
Apathy, voluntary membership and future viability are the issues that aspiring and incumbent leaders alike must take seriously in their campaigns in the next student elections. Ultimately, the political spectrum in the impending student election will not be between the left and the right; it will be between competent, proactive leadership at one end and mocking, self-serving leadership at the other. More importantly, the triumph of one over the other will be a telling referendum on the future of this student association.
If students want no more OUSA, they will either vote for Logan Edgar or his equivalent. If students love the OUSA, then those candidates who accept the principles of voluntary membership and display mature, competent leadership will continue the life of our association. You will know who to look for by how relevant the issues they represent are to the future of the OUSA and what you, as a member, want from it.
It is no easy task being at the top. It must be said that despite the product we get from our leaders, it takes admirable courage and dedication to go through with the job and to put one's reputation on the line. But our current leaders have been found wanting. No student election at Otago will ever be as important at this one. Logan Edgar has been elected and we have had a laugh and a giggle. But now its time to get to work and restore the OUSA to full health.
Second ACT
In the 15 years since ACT was elected to parliament we have achieved a great many things. Sometimes by implementing our own policies and often by creating debate on fresh ideas and having our policies implemented by Labour or National.
But today we reboot the ACT Party. It's time to turn the page on ACT I and move on to ACT II.
I'm very proud of the list that the ACT Board have selected this weekend. It's a forward looking list, a clear break from the past and represents the future of the ACT Party.
Join me here from 2.30pm (announcement at 3.00pm) for live coverage of the announcement of the ACT list for the 2011 election.
Scum Electorate MP's - A Defence of MMP
Prominent blogger Whaleoil calls List MPs “Scum”. This reflects a popular conception that electorate MPs are more legitimate as they are directly elected by electorates as opposed via party list. I explore this view, as well as offer my view on the role of our electoral system in democracy and whether we should retain MMP
Before I begin it is important to note these views are my own and do not represent ACT. I would however, like to think my views with respect democratic representation are aligned to many of the younger people within ACT.
This year in addition to our triennial vote for the people and parties we want to represent us, we get a chance to vote on the voting system itself. There is a referendum on whether we are happy with MMP. If we aren’t happy a follow up vote will be held to determine whether to replace MMP with an alternative. This is an important constitutional decision.
Predictably groups are lining up to either defend MMP, or to agitate for change. Putting aside the grumblings from people who are opposed to what they see as “gaming the system”, I would categorise these people into two groups: Those that want effective government and oppose MMP, and those that want effective representation and support MMP.
I fall into the later group. I do so because the point of democracy is not to deliver strong government – dictatorships can achieve that. The point of democracy is to ensure the voice of the people is heard (and not subsequently ignored through poor representation).
Proportional representation is important to ensure people are represented fairly. The more proportional a system, the fairer it is. For this reason I support removal of the entry threshold entirely – though the improvements that can be made to MMP are a different topic.
Many of the advocates of change – Prime Minister John Key among them – support a system called Supplementary Member (SM). SM has an element of proportionality in that some MPs are elected based on the proportion of votes a party receives. But, and this is an important distinction, the overall makeup of Parliament is not proportional to the percentage of votes a party wins. Proportionality is distorted by separately elected electorate MPs which are generally won by the two large parties. Of course this system would lead to fewer coalition arrangements which is the big appeal to those who favour strong government. It’s far easier to govern when you don’t need to consult with others – even if you only won 40% of the vote.
The effect of lower proportionality is to reduce the appropriate representation of those who may vote for smaller parties. They may have a place in Parliament under a system such as SM but they will not likely have influence that their percentage of votes suggests they should (in the form of house votes). Disenfranchising people in this way is not a price I am willing to pay for strong government.
A key gripe from people that oppose MMP is that it is difficult to vote out an unpopular MP. Sometimes MPs will lose electorate contests but return via their party list. This has happened 21 times since MMP was introduced. For need of a label, let’s call this “Return of the Unwanted MP” scenario. The typical remedy espoused is that those defeated in electorates should not be eligible to be elected as a list MP. I see a flaw in this concern and remedy.
It is true that an MP in this position, such as Jeanette Fitzsimmons in 2002, has been “rejected” in the geographically defined electorate they were standing in. However they have not been rejected by the more representative (and therefore more important) general electorate of New Zealand. Enough people voted for the Green party in 2002 in full knowledge that Fitzsimmons was on the Greens list.
Why should the Green voters across the country have been denied the representation of Fitzsimmons because voters in Coromandel did not share their views? List MPs help to ensure that communities of interest are represented. Not all communities of interest are lumped into relatively arbitrary geographic areas. The truth is that geographic electorates are a poor proxy for the views of the general electorate.
Fundamentally the problem with the belief that “Return of the Unwanted MP” scenario is a bad thing, lies in the idea that an election is an opportunity to vote out those we disagree with. Elections aren’t about voting against people or parties, but rather they’re about voting for people or parties you want. You vote against people and parties by voting for someone else. But to do that you need to be able to vote in that contest of course.
Ironically, electorate contests don’t allow this. By their very nature electorate contests are closed affairs – open only to those that live within their confines. However the elected representatives are by no means closed to the general populace. To illustrate this, I don’t like Jim Anderton as a politician or his policies. However I have never had the opportunity to vote for someone else in Wigram because I do not live there. That did not stop Jim Anderton being able to promote and implement policies as a minister that I disagreed with and that affected me. Shall I call him a Scum Electorate MP?
The point I make is that it will be inevitable that people are in Parliament that we do not want to be there. However, I believe it is fairer when they are there as a result of a contest we all have a part in. The party vote aspect of MMP is something we all get an equal say in. The results (putting to one side the threshold) deliver equal opportunity for representation. I believe MMP should be retained and will be voting for this. I hope you do too.