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.
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.
Voting For A Lizard
From So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish by Douglas Adams:
[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of
pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards
and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
Labour Youth
After a short delay thanks to everyone being busy with university exams, we're back with our second clear breach of Parliamentary funding rules by Labour, and this one is just plain creepy.
Remember, the rules are clear. The Parliamentary crest must be displayed on anything that is paid for by Parliamentary Services, and it must be the same size as the Party logo. The Electoral Commission have also made it clear that even Parliamentary funded material MUST be authorised by the party.
This particular piece of electioneering was distributed on university campuses around the country at the start of the year. It's a timetable designed for students to enter their classes in to, so that they can carry a piece of the Labour Party around with them all semester.
Now, I've yet to see a single person ever do this, but that's besides the point. Just look at how tiny they've made the Parliamentary Crest. And if you look closely, you'll see that the full crest isn't even there! That isn't a problem with my scanner, it's the same on the origiginal. It's printed so small that only the inside "NZ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES" text is present. No outline and no crown on the top.
Front
Inside
Back
However, not only does this piece of Labour Party advertising breach Parliamentary rules, it's also just plain creepy. The 40's style image, the Nationalistic language, even the colours. Does it remind anyone of anything?
"Youth Are Serving The Leader"
"Every Girl Belongs To Us"
Parliamentary Funding
Inspired by Whale Oil's recent pushes for transparency in Parliament, we thought we'd join in with some clear breaches of Parliamentary funding rules.
A Parliamentary crest must be displayed on each piece of material that is Parliamentary funded. Critically, the crest must be the same size as any party logos.
Thanks to our own sources (who needs Whale Oil?), we'll bring you one outrageous waste of taxpayers hard-earned money per day for the next wee while.
To kick us off, here's what Labour have been campaigning with on campuses around the country:
Front
Back
Complaints will be being made to Parliamentary Services.
Urgent Debate Continued
And on it goes...
Watch here: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/SeeHear/PTV/
And join in the discussion below:
Voting In Maori
I'm currently watching the Auckland Reorganisation Bill go through Parliament with Rodney Hide sitting in the chair (in front of the table, not the speaker's!).
The opposition are stalling with numerous ammendments. Pretty standard practice when the urgency is opposed. They've just voted on ammendment number 96. The ammendments all seem to have been submitted in George Hawkin's name, and mostly involve changing dates around.
The interesting thing is that Labour, Greens and Maori Party are casting their votes in Maori, requiring a translation, meaning the voting takes even longer. Very clever!
Interestingly, the Progressives (cast by proxy by Labour) are voting in Maori. :D
Edit:
Perhaps someone should start voting in sign language? Then they'd have wait to get an interpreter!
Edit 2:
Chris Tremain just asked the speaker whether it was really necerssary to take a party vote as his interpretation of the rules was that it was at the speaker's discretion.
Trevor Mallard required suggesting the speaker be recalled to resolve the issue (a common time waster) which had Chris quickly back-peddling on his suggestion.
Edit 3:
If Labour we're really smart, they would suggest some ammendments that worked the other way (ie: they wanted them to fail) to see if they could get the government to accidentally oppose them.
Edit 4:
Progressives now voting in Maori too (still via proxy).