Wasting Time
Public submissions for changes to the MMP system are now open until the 31st May but the MacDoctor will not be bothering to make one. Besides my general laziness, there are two other reasons for this. The first is that the two most worthwhile changes – altering the number of seats in parliament and the provision of the Maori seats have been left out of the review. The former means that we can make no more than cosmetic changes to most aspects of MMP because reducing or expanding the number of MPs makes a great deal of difference to the argument around thresholds and ties the number of electorates to close to the current number. It would be difficult to increase the number of electorates, for instance, without reducing the proportionality of MMP.
The other obstruction, the inability to remove the Maori seats, means that increases to the threshold and scrapping the electorate lifeboat rule unfairly disadvantages those small parties not on the Maori roll. It also means that there will be a perpetual overhang in parliament.
Be that as it may, the second reason that the MacDoctor will not be bothering with a submission is that the outcome is already fairly certain. Sadly, for those advocating an increased threshold; this is not going to happen. The minor parties all have a vested interest in lowering the threshold. Left wingers will all want the threshold lowered, ostensibly because it makes MMP more democratic, but really because a lower threshold favours left wing politics. Witness that fact that National’s margin is quite tight despite having nearly a 20% lead on Labour.
I predict the final figure will either be a bland, do-nothing 4% or, possibly, 3% – giving the Conservatives a chance to be in parliament and ensuring Winston’s longevity.
I doubt that the electorate lifeboat will disappear, but there may be some rules around overt agreements between parties. As I have said, one can’t successfully argue the cessation of the electoral lifeboat rule while retaining the Maori seats, which are fought, essentially, on an FPP basis. This gives the Maori roll-based parties a greatly increased chance of gaining electorates compared to the other minor parties.
There is some move afoot to try to prevent candidates who fail to gain an electorate from coming in via the list. While this may be popular with the public, who mistakenly see it as some form of cheating, this is actually a monumentally stupid idea. All it will mean is that minor parties will cease to stand candidates at all and major parties will run the risk of losing decent candidates just because they lost a marginal seat. Bearing in mind the rather shallow political talent pool in this country, the result will be that parliament will become progressively dumber (hard to conceive, I know).
Related posts:
- An alternative to MMP John Key has promised a referendum on MPP at the...
- Mitigating Democracy The MacDoctor has made it clear on a number of...
- Viewpoints Tuku Morgan voices his opinion that: The Government’s denial of...
- Bad Reason for a Bad Idea Garth George broaches the issue of Maori seats in local...
- And Seats For All… I guess it was only a matter of time before...
Feb 14 12 5:33 pm
It’ll be 3%, for the conservatives – and they’ll go straight from nowhere to government in 2014.
Feb 14 12 7:17 pm
I hope so, as long as they stick to the bottom line for going into coaltion which they put forward at the last election – binding citizens initiated referenda. This is a backstop our political system urgently needs, a means of saying to our government “you WILL do this, no ifs or buts”.
Feb 14 12 9:06 pm
Binding CIR and with a proviso that no activist judge or court can overturn a result stemming from such Referenda.
Feb 14 12 9:20 pm
Exactly
Feb 14 12 10:04 pm
One nonsense statement after another. Fortunate indeed you won’t be submitting. Where did you get the idea that political parties can be on the Maori roll? What does that even mean?
Feb 15 12 4:18 pm
That’s what I like about your comments, Judge, your arguments are so nuanced.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
Every other commentator seems to understand what I mean by “Maori roll-based parties”, but just in case you are not intentionally being obtuse, I mean parties who rely solely on winning electorates on the Maori roll. Obviously a party can’t be on the maori roll, that would be absurd.
Having separate Maori electorates slants the system away from true proportionality, in exactly the same way as if I created a small electorate around the Daktory and allowed all the stoners to be on a separate roll. Dakta Green would then almost certainly win the seat.
Abandoning the threshold completely would have exactly the same result but would be truly proportional and a much cleaner way of encouraging minority participation.
Feb 15 12 7:15 pm
You didn’t say Maori roll based parties you said:
“the electorate lifeboat rule unfairly disadvantages those small parties not on the Maori roll.”
That’s utterly ridiculous. Anyhow, interpreting what you’re saying, I guess that means you’re advocating getting rid of Epsom, as that distorts the system against parties not based on silly rich white people.
Feb 16 12 8:00 am
Yes, I did express that badly. It should read “not advantaged by electorates on the Maori role”, although that is very cumbersome. My apologies for confusing you.
Epsom, of course, is not comparable. It seems to have escaped you that the Epsom electorate does not have a demographically selected voters roll. As usual, my point went right over your head.
Feb 16 12 8:42 am
Makes no difference in terms of outcomes. Those on the Epsom roll would likely be more homogeneous than those on the Maori roll, and Epsom’s existence and voting patterns have distorted election outcomes given that its voters throw a lifeline to a party that everybody else loathes.
Feb 15 12 7:39 am
Left wingers will all want the threshold lowered, ostensibly because it makes MMP more democratic, but really because a lower threshold favours left wing politics.
“Ostensibly?” There’s no ostensibly about it, removing (not lowering) the threshold genuinely is more democratic. Conservatives seem to have an enthusiasm for binning the votes of a proportion of the electorate for no good reason , which explains a lot about various other of their views.
Feb 15 12 4:38 pm
I actually agree and am in favour of removing the threshold. But I still think that the underlying reason why left wing politicians will vote for a lower or zero threshold is because it suits them, not because it is the right thing to do.
And, yes, I am aware that I am terminally cynical…
Feb 15 12 1:05 pm
Next election we will see a major problem with MMP. National will be the most popular party by far but won’t be able to muster a majority coalition.
Feb 15 12 3:25 pm
So will Kiwis accept that blatantly unfair and undemocratic outcome?
Feb 15 12 4:31 pm
Many would say that this would not be undemocratic or unfair as it truly represents the choices of the people. However, it would certainly be an interesting government – and probably unworkable.
Actually, I don’t think that National will “lose” the next election. I think that ACT has 3 years to reinvent itself and take itself back to around 3% and the Conservative party has 3 years to campaign itself past the 5% threshold – mostly by stealing votes off Winston, if they are clever. Even if National slide a little over the next 3 years, they should still be able to form a government in 2014. Crunch time will be 2017, because I suspect Key will have left by then – probably using the inevitable raising of the super age as his “excuse”. There is no obvious replacement for him as yet.
Feb 16 12 7:46 am
I thought Stephen Joyce was being groomed as Key’s replacement as we speak. Can’t quite work out why though – a leader with less charisma I cannot imagine.
Feb 16 12 7:53 am
Precisely.
Feb 16 12 7:44 am
<i>National will be the most popular party by far but won’t be able to muster a majority coalition.</i>
Or to put it another way, National and any remaining allies will fail to get a majority of the vote so won’t be the govt. Well, maybe, but how that amounts to a “problem” with MMP is anybody’s guess.
Feb 15 12 11:44 pm
Ahem, I was almost in agreement with you Judge, as I too found that part of the post somewhat ambiguous. And then you spoiled it all by your last sentence. But as I resemble that remark, well, apart from the “rich” bit, I am now deeply offended. And you forgot “upper middle aged”. But on second thought, I do agree that Epsom is a bit of an anomaly. Heck, it must be bedtime…
(Sorry, can’t seem to place this comment correctly).