MMP Referendum

MMP Referendum

What do people think about MMP? Simon Power announced today a referendum on it at the next election.

dairyflat2009-10-20 18:39:53

Am definately for MMP. I think anybody who believes in democracy should obviously be for it (parliament represents the views of the population more). As you both say, STV seems to complex. I don't think that's good for a system. Good think about MMP is that overall it is pretty similar.

Quite. cf Tory education policy for when they get first past the post in the UK.

It happens bugger all.  Apart from a few concession before formulating a govt, but it is hardly holding the govt to ransom as some people think.

STV is just a better form of FPP.  Both systems basically have the election come down to the votes of a limited number of people in key swing seats, with everyone elses vote essentially meaningless.  Would be in favour of using STV to vote for electorate MPs, but would imagine that a lot of people wouldn't cope with (read be unable to read instructions) ranking people on one side, and putting a single tick on the other.

Winston in 96 is seemingly a pretty good example, basically held the country to random so he could get what he wanted, then when things didn't go his way he threw his toys and caused instability.

you can apply STV to MMP.  So that if your #1 choice doesn't make the 5% threshold, then you vote goes to whoever you have at #2.  So eg, of you voted NZ first last time (who got 4.2%), then your vote is wasted under the current system.  Under STV, if you voted NZ first, but at the end of the night they only got 4.2%, then your next choice would be could (say labour or national or greens etc).

Remember 96 was the first election, so there was always the likelihood of a clusterf**k.

I would call those concesssion.  Some relatively small things small parties get in order to give supply and confidence.  But all in all they bugger all say in anything.

MMP all the way. Best democratic system we have come up with so far.

Why dont you lot just have a Military Coup like the rest of the Pacific Nations...

I reckon we need 60 politicians max in this country. Our current 120 - up from 99 is just like regional councils, top heavy and so much bearocratic bullsh*t and hangers on.

I have a few issues:

STV:

It's a better system and leads to more proportionality.

I'm a little nervous about the method being the same as in the 1990s.

First you vote whether there should be a change.
Then, if this was a majority voting yes, a year later you vote for which system you prefer.
So MMP will get a second chance.

Bit of a worry that if the change vote is yes, STV might bleed off votes for MMP giving First Past the Post a chance to sneak back in.

If we are to keep MMP, the threshold for representation should be lowered from 5% to 4%.
I don't like Winston much, but NZ First should have got some seats, as they had more votes than ACT in the last election (ACT got in cos Rodney Hide won Epsom).

One aspect of MMP I don't like is that dead sh*ts entering parliament through the party list & serving on cabinet.  List MPs represent no one.  Make it that to serve on cabinet you have to win a seat.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_Member_System?wasRedirected=true
The French pulled back from full PR after some messiness with extremist parties. So now the overall proportion determines a certain set of seats e.g. 20 percent. More politicans can be voted on or out, rather than winning by virtue of their greasy status within their party.

In all seriousness, the one thing I would change is making the threshold strictly 5 percent and not after winning 1 seat.
The 5 percent is there for a reason to exclude the sort of extremist who doesn't like voting or anyone else voting either!

It's better from a workload point of view if ministers are List MPs; that way they can devote their full attention to their portfolio and not be distracted by local matters in an electorate.

That said, there are a few people on the party lists I would rather not be voting for, even when I do like their party.
But that would be no different with any other voting system, unless you were (un)lucky enough to have such an MP as a candidate in your electorate.

SO how about if you are voted in through an electorate but your party doesn't reach the 5% threshold, you alone go in.  WOuld that create a major inequality?  Effectively you go in as an independent

personally I don't think it really matters what system we use. we are voting in the same corrupt, stupid, backstabbing morons either way. The only way i see the government being any better is if we first of create some sort of "real" accountability for politicians actions.

Note that it has to be "real" accountability. Not the kind the likes of Taito Phillip Field got.

Field got 6 years jail - thats not real accountability?

Don't mean to be rude, but this sounds like an ill-informed comment.
Can you point to another democracy that does this well?

It sounds a bit utopian.

The electoral system change to MMP is a good thing.
Now parties like the Greens with around 8% support get represented in parliament; they wouldn't have won any seats under first past the post.

Whether you support the Greens or not you have to agree that is fairer.

Colvinator2009-10-22 14:32:59

That may or may not be the case, but using Phillip Field (and i'm deliberately not using the term of respect 'Taito) as an example of a lack of accountability is a little silly.

If it was missed sarcasm I apologise, but I didn't read any sarcasm in it.

I am not 100% sure on why we need electorates. Basically they are just areas of the country that are roughly 60,000 in population. If I look at it most electorates cover such large areas that issues important to people are not generalised in that electorate, most obvious is Rongotai and Chatam Islands.

Why not have a fully proportional system and to be truly democratic and representative have the threshold the % it takes to win a seat (~0.7/0.8%)
Other than the parties currently with MPs, NZ First would be in. No other party got more than 0.5%

Most local issues can be sorted with regional/city/town councils.

This would be a lot simpler, and when a MP gets kicked out of the party they don't have an electorate seat to fall back on.

I think we basically kept electorates because we always traditionally have had them. I think your idea is a decent one. I suppose one thing electorates do serve a purpose for, is ensuring representation from all the different parts of New Zealand. List MP's often do stick up for the place they are from as well, but without electorates, New Plymouth or somewhere might not have any representation in parliament. That might not be a great thing.

Not quite what I was referring too,that man was a crook and got dealt to like any criminal should. I refer to the stupid discussions and arguments that go on in parliament for the sake of a law that noone wants, or which TV station is going to host the world cup all on the tax payers dollars. There is simply no reason for a lot of the time wasting and bullsh*t that occurs.

I do not think STV is too hard to understand
and in principle it can be argued it is more "Democratic" than MMP

but regards the system it's almost meaningless if as snickety snick says we elect idiots.

essentially having two flavors of the same party is hardly useful or I'd argue particularly democratic. Paradoxically we may make society more democratic by forcing, yes forcing "Civil Studies" through the education system. Sometimes I'm partial to election by ballot or draw too, 3 year term, no political parties, get paid the average wage, once you done three year stint your free to go. As conscription or national service may democratize the military or police, so may this do to parliament.

I could also be blowing smoke out my ass too. But I venture if the current mob are truly our elected best and brightest then that is one sorry state of affairs for this once proud nation.

I agree with Wongo so I've devised a cunning plan.  Everybody on the party list has to have an electorate.  Here is how it would work.  Each electorate candidate would have a running mate.  Their running mate would be on the party list.  When it came to voting the electorate would decide whether or not to vote for the chief candidate of the pair knowing that if they got in their running mate would become eligible to go into parliament in a list position and by checking the list the electorate would know how likely that scenario was.

I call this system MMP (numpty- proofed).
 The idea is only 10 minutes old so you guys can let me know where it needs work.
stevenivan2009-10-22 22:17:05

British National Party getting seats in the European Parliament is an example of what Jambo is saying.