sharetrader
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Improving MMP

  1. #1
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,584

    Default Improving MMP

    I think after 20 or more years, many of us can see the weaknesses of our system of MMP. Here we go again with one party clearly in front after the election (both in electorates won and percentage of party vote) but not at liberty to form a govt. Yet we have a minor party with about 7% of the vote, and no electorate seats, in a position to appoint the parties who will govern. That's not democratic and does nothing to address the problem of FPP (which allowed minority parties by percentage of vote, to form the govt). That's not just nuts - it's dangerous.

    I suggest the way to get it working properly is to give the right to form a govt. to the party who gets the highest % vote. Then minor parties would quickly learn to promote their policies but not indicate their preference as to who they will coalesce with - as the Greens will finally realise, and Winston and United Future always knew. Only if the winning party could not form a satisfactory coalition, then the second party would have the right to negotiate with the minors. Sounds a lot fairer to me, and would satisfy the largest number of voters.

    The current system is laughable, and in theory could produce a govt. of any number of minor parties coalescing to defeat a party just short of 50%. Those with memories that work will remember that this is what Peter Shirtcliffe warned of in his campaign before MMP was introduced. He was dead right.
    Last edited by fungus pudding; 07-10-2017 at 04:21 PM. Reason: missed word

  2. #2
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Don't forget we used to have government under FPP who did not get 50% or more of the vote.

    Today the major party is at liberty to form a government - it just needs a partner or two. That it cant find one isn't a fault of the system.

    No matter what, minor parties could always decide the govt. Say Greens had an open mind. National could try to negotiate with NZ First or Greens. Both minors may say no so they are defeating a potential coalition with major party.

    I would add - remove the thresholds. If someone can get 1% of votes their voters should have some representation

    Make Early / Specials close early so these votes are tallied and verified by Election Night. None of this hanging around for 2 weeks.

  3. #3
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    2,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    SMP is the answer.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting

    MMP is a joke, and a bad joke at that!

  4. #4
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    Don't forget we used to have government under FPP who did not get 50% or more of the vote.

    Today the major party is at liberty to form a government - it just needs a partner or two. That it cant find one isn't a fault of the system.
    Yes. I made the point about minority govts. under FPP. For many voters in strongly held seats, it was a waste of time voting. That's why it was dumped.
    I still think the most popular party by party number of seats won - electorate or list - should have first right to go to the G.G. Minor parties would be unaware of competition from or negotiation with other minors and shouldn't be able to be too cocky - or punch above their weight. e.g. if Greens were open to coalition with either side of the house - Winston wouldn't be so smug, and demands from these parties would be in alignment with their 7% of the vote.
    If the dog needs a tail, it should be able to choose it.
    Last edited by fungus pudding; 07-10-2017 at 05:09 PM.

  5. #5
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    I still think the most popular party by party number of seats won - electorate or list - should have first right to go to the G.G. .
    I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. There is nothing to stop National going now to the GG. Trouble is, obviously, they don't yet have a partner to secure the majority.

    Even if they had this right, but Lab/NZF/Green still wanted a threesome the right is worthless.

  6. #6
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. There is nothing to stop National going now to the GG. Trouble is, obviously, they don't yet have a partner to secure the majority.

    Even if they had this right, but Lab/NZF/Green still wanted a threesome the right is worthless.
    The point is that if L/W and G decide to they can chop N off at the knees. As MMP becomes understood (by the parties) the minors will learn not to pin themselves to either side of the house. Playing their cards before the game starts leaves you empty handed and unable to join the game. They then would or could negotiate with the leading party - blind to what else is being negotiated. That would put most power in the hands of the leading party and the proportion of power, commensurate with their votes, in the hands of the minors. If the greens look at their history of never being in power, and Winston's position of kingmaker once again, they'll wake up to the fact they are mugs. Even Act should undo their shackles. If we ended up with a left party like labour, and a so called right party like National, and all others prepared to go either way in return for small gains, we would end up with far less nonsense in govt. After all - there are policies held by all parties that are worth consideration.
    Last edited by fungus pudding; 07-10-2017 at 05:42 PM.

  7. #7
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,584

    Default

    Regardless of what happens I hope both sides loudly reject Winston's nonsense about exempting fruit and vegetables from GST. Every now and then one or other party brings this up - and it's complete madness.

  8. #8
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    2,798

    Default

    MMP cannot be "improved" it can only be rejected and replaced with a fair electoral system where the people choose their Government, not the politicians.

  9. #9
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    , , napier. n.z..
    Posts
    1,659

    Default

    A preferential voting system is much fairer. That way, if you want to give a good candidate or small party a fair chance in an election, then that candidate gets you preferential or first vote. Now neither left or right get over fifty percent in that electorate, your first choice vote is revisited and your second choice vote is counted. In other words, if you usually support Labour (or National) but you would like to vote for the Fiddler's Ear candidate you can do and your vote is not wasted because he did not do any good. If there is not clear winner in the big ones your L/N is counted. Most electorates are counted fairly quickly but odd ones take a few days. I prefer the Swiss system - nobody outside the country knows any of their politicians because they don't matter that much - the people get to vote on all the main issues.

  10. #10
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    MMP cannot be "improved" it can only be rejected and replaced with a fair electoral system where the people choose their Government, not the politicians.
    That aint going to happen. In Canterbury we have our Regional Council still being chosen by politicians - cant remember when the last time we got to vote for them. But they still keep taxing us. Handing governance back to voters might help the water issues!

  11. #11
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    CNI area NZ
    Posts
    6,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    That aint going to happen. In Canterbury we have our Regional Council still being chosen by politicians - cant remember when the last time we got to vote for them. But they still keep taxing us. Handing governance back to voters might help the water issues!
    Boot National out, that'll sort out ECAN. It's only National and whoever is controlling them with lobbying, that keeps the ridiculous status quo there.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •