When a minor party that 92.5% of the voting population did NOT vote for, still gets to choose who the major party is that will form government, you know that MMP is a farce.
Time for a referendum, get rid of MMP, it's a broken system!
Printable View
When a minor party that 92.5% of the voting population did NOT vote for, still gets to choose who the major party is that will form government, you know that MMP is a farce.
Time for a referendum, get rid of MMP, it's a broken system!
I'll take my contrarian view. This is what MMP is all about. It is about ensuring those that can secure 5% or more of the vote (or a seat) get a voice in parliament. We have to get over this "but you didn't win a seat so have no mandate" rubbish - that is not what MMP is about.
And that is a good thing - even if we dont like the views being expressed. Negotiations after an election are always on the cards - have we not learnt anything in 21 years. That people like Maori are stupid enough not to see this (loosing Te ururoa a prime example) and the totally stupid Greens who seem hell bent on staying in opposition with their stupid rules is a function of the failure of their constituencies to see how MMP work.
We always knew one party is likely to influence the final formation of government. If that party got over 5% that does not make them a fringe party - it makes them a significant influencer. But not the leader of the government.
NZ First isnt holding the country to ransom - they (and the Greens) are just going through processes that will see the formation of our next government. That's what MMP is all about. We aren't in a First Past the Post enviroment so really after 21 years time to move on from that mentality.
It is interesting to see the different and more mature approach in Germany where they've just voted overnight in a MMP election. Merkel and her sister party with approximately 33% combined are hailed as winners and she has undisputed authority to try to put together a Government.
Perhaps because the alternative is next top ranked 4 parties (CPD 20.6, AFD12.8, FDP10.6 and Die Linke on 9.1%) trying to stitch together a coalition would be a nonsense.
Imagine National and Labour (as the top two polling parties) forming a coalition - that ain't going to happen for as long as we have this Left vs Right mentality
Can I throw in a curved ball here for debate. Would a N.Z. Frist / Labour / Greens coalition have the moral authority to govern ? Nearly 50% of the population didn't vote for any of those parties. I think if we end up getting this sort of coalition then MMP is a farce. Surely the party with the biggest share of the vote should have the preemptive right to form a government ?
And that is precisely the way the voters will see it. Winston will play around, but his negotiating will simply be to frighten National so as to extract the maximum baubles - but he knows full well he'll have to go with National to avoid a reolt. The difference between Nat votes and Labour votes is too big.
Seems OK to me FPP was like a democratically elected dictatorship with nearly half the country not needing to bother voting if they lived in an electorate not aligned with their political ideology. National might have to provide some concessions to Winston but both parties need to do what is best for their supporters or risk losing them. Way better than the old system.
Sad that TOP didn't even get halfway to 5%, never mind fear and greed won the day. Seems appropriate for this site. I see Gareth Morgan suggested a Greens National coalition (I don't think National could afford the loss of their farming voter base). maybe Gareth is a bit politically naïve he should have targeted some marginal electorate seats. No one likes ACT's policies yet they have a voice in Parliament.
All politicians from all parties are in Parliament, I would hope to make NZ a better place for everyone. It is just their ideas how this is achieved that is different.
In NZ, thats not how MMP works - we dont have those kind of rules. Any party has the right to try and form a government and that's not a bad thing. However its the party that goes to the governor general and says we can command the support of the majority of the house that's gets to be government - and tin practice lead it.
So given majority of people voted for Labour plus Greens Plus NZ first shouldn't we have a government that represents that majority?
That said I am not sure what would happen if NZ First decides it could reach a coalition agreement with both Labour (and greens) and National. I dont know who gets first dibs in that kind of unlikely scenario. I presume Labour or National woudlnt allow that as part of their base terms of agreement.
A Labour/NZ First/Greens coalition with 61 seats (potentially another with the specials*) has to find a speaker (Trevor Mallard will be putting both hands up for that job) as well as hang on with a slim one seat majority for the next 3 years - likely to be a Labour/NZ First cabinet with a Green confidence and supply deal (no Ministerial roles) as they have their colours firmly pinned to their masthead. Losing one or two MPs over the next 3 years to byelection (death/resignation/sacking), waka-jumping to the other side makes that precarious... although no party has managed re-election with NZF as a coalition partner - it's the Kiss of Death to date...
* Specials have previously gone to the left leaning parties - although advance voting looked strongly to National so I think we all need to wait and see what happens in two weeks... Winston will be...
I'd note that we have a unicameral parliament - no senate or president and under FPP, the executive had total control via the government - MMP does provide some safeguards to prevent the sort of unfettered authority and retrospective legislation by press release that we endured during the 70s - we should be glad that it does in many ways.