So, unless you're not from New Zealand, or you've been living under a rock in New Zealand (Also known as Gore), you know there's an election this year. Part of this election is a referendum on our voting system, which I think has received far less coverage than it deserves. See, in my opinion, this referendum is more important than the result of the actual election, because this decides how elections work. For this reason, I think, no matter who you support, you should make an informed decision in this referendum because this is the way we can decide on the fairest way to get the most out of our democracy.
For those who aren't aware (Because you live under an even more obscure rock, also known as Milton), we have a democracy. To be precise, a representative democracy. What does that mean? Well, in a true democracy, all the issues are decided upon by the people. By the people, for the people, and so on. In a population of over 4,000,000 people, each with their own varying viewpoint, there's no realistic way to get 4 million people voting on every issue. So, instead, we vote for the people who will represent our viewpoint, and they vote on the issues. Hence, representative democracy. It's a pretty fair system, I think.
We currently use a system called MMP, where we have 120 MPs, and each party gets an amount of seats based on their total party vote and each electorate. Which is a pretty brief way of summing it up, but yeah. I'll go into more details soonish, but first, about the actual referendum.
We're being asked two questions. Firstly, do we want to keep MMP. Secondly, if we changed from MMP, which of four systems would you want to use. If at least half of people vote to keep MMP, we won't change our system, and we'll go through a process where it'll be refined and, hopefully, improved. If at least half of people vote to change, in the next election, we'll have another referendum to choose between MMP and the system that receives the most votes in this election.
So. What are the voting systems we can choose from?
- MMP (Mixed Member Proportional)
- FPP (First Past the Post)
- PV (Preferential Voting)
- STV (Single Transferable Vote)
- SM (Supplementary Member)
Mixed Member Proportional
This is the system we currently use to elect our Parliament.
There are 120 Members of Parliament (MPs). There are 70 electorates, including the Maori electorates. Each elects one MP, called an Electorate MP. The other 50 MPs are elected from political party lists and are called List MPs.
Each voter gets two votes.
The first vote is for the political party the voter chooses. This is called the party vote and largely decides the total number of seats each political party gets in Parliament.
The second vote is to choose the MP the voter wants to represent the electorate they live in. This is called the electorate vote. The candidate who gets the most votes wins. They do not have to get more than half the votes.
Under current MMP rules, a political party that wins at least one electorate seat OR 5% of the party vote gets a share of the seats in Parliament that is about the same as its share of the party vote. For example, if a party gets 30% of the party vote it will get roughly 36 MPs in Parliament (being 30% of 120 seats). So if that party wins 20 electorate seats it will have 16 List MPs in addition to its 20 Electorate MPs.
Coalitions or agreements between political parties are usually needed before Governments can be formed.
My thoughts:
I don't see anything wrong with MMP. I'll be blunt, I'm going to vote to keep it, because I think it works. Well, I don't like the minimum 5% threshold, because it does funny things like parties piggy-backing in their list MPs based on one MP being popular in one electorate. For example, with, say 3% of the party vote, a party won't get into parliament, but if they get in in just one electorate, they can bring in 3 MPs, potentially getting more seats than a party with 4% of the vote but no electorates (Who'll get none because they don't meet either criteria). Fortunately, this is one of the things that the electoral commission will review if we vote to keep MMP.
Another downside that's commonly brought up, is the potential for a small party to potentially decide who gets to govern. Under MMP, a party or a coalition needs an absolute majority (So, at least 61 with 120 seats) to govern, so if Party A gets 58 seats and Party B gets 59 seats, and Party C gets 3 seats, they can form a coalition with either party and decide which one will govern. That's potentially a lot of power for a small party to have.
The last point I should address is the inability to properly remove an MP that an electorate doesn't want to represent them. For example, if the electorate of Bobsville doesn't want Bob Bobson to get in, under another system, they could simply all vote for another guy and he won't get in. Under MMP, he could still get in as a list MP.
But overall? I think it's worth it. In my opinion, the point of a representative democracy is to have a parliament that best represents the people and I think MMP does that best. We choose who we want to represent our particular region, then we get to choose the overall shape of parliament. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's far better than the alternatives.
First Past The Post
There are 120 Members of Parliament. Each of the 120 electorates, including the Maori electorates, elects one MP.
Each voter has one vote to choose the MP they want to represent the electorate they live in. The candidate who gets the most votes wins. They do not have to get more than half the votes.
Large parties – and in particular the winning party – usually win a share of the seats in Parliament larger than their share of all the votes across the country. Smaller parties usually receive a smaller share of seats than their share of all the votes.
A government can usually be formed without the need for coalitions or agreements between parties.
My thoughts:
For those behind on history, FPP is the system that New Zealand used to have, which was replaced by MMP, so it's likely to win the second question simply because most people who voted prior to MMP coming in in 1995 used it. However, I think it's quite a poor system. I can see the potential benefits, where you vote who you want to represent you, and they go to parliament, but the fact that it gives basically all power to the two major parties, and none to minor parties who may represent your point of view more accurately, makes it an inferior system.
Supplementary Member
There are 120 Members of Parliament. There are 90 electorates, including the Maori electorates. Each elects one MP, called an Electorate MP. The other 30 seats are called supplementary seats. MPs are elected to these seats from political party lists published in advance and are likely to be called List MPs.
Each voter gets two votes.
The first vote is to choose the MP the voter wants to represent the electorate they live in. This is called the electorate vote. The candidate who gets the most votes wins. They do not have to get more than half the votes.
The second vote is for the political party the voter chooses. This is called the party vote. The share of the 30 supplementary seats each party gets is about the same as its share of the party vote.
For example, if a party gets 30% of the party vote, it will get about 9 List MPs in Parliament (being 30% of the 30 supplementary seats) no matter how many electorate seats it wins.
This makes SM different from MMP where a party’s share of all 120 seats mirrors its share of the party vote.
Under SM, one or other of the major parties would usually have enough seats to govern alone, but coalitions or agreements between parties may sometimes be needed.
My thoughts:
This is nearly identical to MMP, except the way the list MPs work. Personally, I prefer MMP to this, but slightly, because of the fact that the party vote shapes the whole parliament, not just the excess seats. The other disadvantage to SM is that the party vote does relatively little. With only 30 supplementary seats, it counts for less. If you compare to Japan, which uses SM, they have 400 MPs, so the party vote counts for more.
The main advantage to this over MMP though, is that it removes a few of the piggybacking issues I mentioned under MMP, but like I also said, removing the 5% threshold would also fix that and I personally think that's a better solution.
Preferential Voting
There are 120 Members of Parliament. Each of the 120 electorates, including the Maori electorates, elects one MP.
Each voter ranks the candidates – 1, 2, 3, etc – in the order they prefer them.
A candidate who gets more than half of all the first preference votes (that is votes marked “1”) wins.
If no candidate gets more than half the first preference votes, the candidate with the fewest number “1” votes is eliminated and their votes go to the candidates each voter ranked next.
This process is repeated until one candidate has more than half the votes.
Large parties – and in particular the winning party – usually win a share of the seats in Parliament larger than their nationwide share of the first preference votes. It is hard for smaller parties to win seats in Parliament, but votes for smaller party candidates may influence who wins the seat because of second, third, etc preferences.
A government can usually be formed without the need for coalitions or agreements between parties.
My thoughts:
This system is very similar to FPP, except that rather than picking the one candidate you want, you pick a list of candidates and rank them. This has the advantage over FPP, where you can pick your second choice. If, say, you want Bob Bobson to get in, but if he doesn't, Tom Tomson would be your next choice, but you're really really rather not let Bill Billson get in, you can rank them like that. You're more likely to get your second choice in if your first choice doesn't make it. That makes it a fairer system than FPP, IMO.
On the downside though, it's the system Australia uses and we don't want to be a bunch of Aussies do we? :P
Single Transferable Vote
There are 120 Members of Parliament. Each electorate has more than one MP. This includes the Maori electorates. It is likely the 120 MPs would be divided between 24 and 30 electorates, each with 3 to 7 MPs.
Each voter has a single vote that is transferable. Voters either rank the individual candidates – 1, 2, 3, etc – in the order they prefer from all the candidates, OR they may vote for the order of preference published in advance by the political party of their choice.
MPs are elected by receiving a minimum number of votes. This is known as the quota and is based on the number of votes in each electorate and the number of MPs to be elected.
Candidates who reach the quota from first preference votes are elected.
If there are still electorate seats to fill after first preference votes are counted, a two-step process follows.
First, votes the elected candidates received beyond the quota are transferred to the candidates ranked next on those votes. Candidates who then reach the quota are elected.
Second, if there are still electorate seats to fill, the lowest polling candidate is eliminated and their votes are transferred to the unelected candidates ranked next on those votes.
This two-step process is repeated until all the seats are filled.
The number of MPs elected from each political party is about the same as the party’s share of all the first preference votes across the country.
Coalitions or agreements between political parties are usually needed before governments can be formed.
My thoughts:
This is nearly identical to PV except that there are less electorates but more MPs per electorate. This gives the advantage of having more chance for smaller parties to get in, which I can't help but see as a good thing, but the disadvantage of having larger, less representative electorates. For example, I imagine Otago will be one big electorate, whereas currently it's about four, and each one has unique voting patterns. It kinda demeans the point of having electorates. I honestly can't decide which of STV or PV I prefer, they both have their own advantages and disadvantages. I think STV would slightly beat out PV though, as much as I don't like the fewer electorates, I think the advantage of getting minor parties, and thus having a more diverse parliament, would be better.
So. My final thoughts? If I had to rank them based on my own preferences, I'd go MMP > STV > PV > SM > FPP. But it's not an easy question, and I urge everyone to do your own research. The referendum website has a lot of resources at your disposal and, by law, it's unbiased. Read up on them, try figure out which is best for the country, because like I said, this is a more important question than just who will lead the country, because this referendum can shape the future of elections and the democracy in this country.
No comments:
Post a Comment