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.