Does MMP need a rethink?

[FROSTY]

For the sake of argument lets say we are indeed in a recession.
Do you think therefore that MMP as it stands needs a rethink ?
From the plain and simple point of view of reducing the cost of governing the country.
Be it by going back to the old system of First past the post or be it by simply reducing the number of MP's to say 80 for the entire country.

The way I see it eack MP costs the country at least $140000 a year
plus their staff. say another $50000 reduce their numbers by 20 and we have a 3 million dollar saving.

[Gremlin]

We already voted to reduce MP's by 20 from 120 to 100 (or 99 or whatever).

That said, we were fucken stupid. Who fires their mate? We expected them to do so because we said so. We should have been smarter. They have a nice racket going :doh:

[MSTRS]

STV and no list jobbies....

[Mom]

STV and no list jobbies....

What he said.

[oldrider]

What he said.

What she said, the same as he said. :niceone:

[p.dath]

We already voted to reduce MP's by 20 from 120 to 100 (or 99 or whatever).

That said, we were fucken stupid. Who fires their mate? We expected them to do so because we said so. We should have been smarter. They have a nice racket going :doh:

If the Auckland supercity only needs 20 councillors, and makes up almost half of the population of NZ, then it seems hard to explain why we need 120 MPs, or even 99 for that matter.

[James Deuce]

MMP isn't the issue, the huge number of MPs is. How big is cabinet? We need to fill the cabinet posts and have one reserve each.

[Gremlin]

If the Auckland supercity only needs 20 councillors, and makes up almost half of the population of NZ, then it seems hard to explain why we need 120 MPs, or even 99 for that matter.
Good point...

Cities bigger than the population of NZ have a Mayor and 20 odd councillors.

Who's for a Mayor of New Zealand?

[puddytat]

I agree we need to drop the numbers of M.P's, but to return first past the post would be f!@#ing stupid...when was any f.p.p Govt better than what weve got now?.You end up with a dictatorship more or less, imagine the Nats( or labour) with that!! Whats left of State owned assets would be sold off by lunchtime.
Proportional representation at least lets everyone feel that they may have someone who looks after or tries to protect thier interests.I think that the parties we have now reflect a good cross section of N.Z society.

[MSTRS]

...when was any f.p.p Govt better than what weve got now?.You end up with a dictatorship more or less, imagine the Nats with that!!

True. Muldoon was close. The last dictator didn't need FPP, and is now in the UN...
Let's not have preferred party foul up this thread...

[Elysium]

This why you can sometimes envy the American system. They have two parties (the two that matter) and none this minority party crap we put up with. Though the American voting system is crap and trying to understand how it works is a nightmare.

Here the system is easy to follow and understand but the govenment can be held to ransom by a party of hippies and racists so I think we really onlyneed two parties. Though if it wasn't for MMP we wouldn't have Winston Peters.

[BMWST?]

This why you can sometimes envy the American system. They have two parties (the two that matter) and none this minority party crap we put up with. Though the American voting system is crap and trying to understand how it works is a nightmare.

Here the system is easy to follow and understand but the govenment can be held to ransom by a party of hippies and racists so I think we really onlyneed two parties. Though if it wasn't for MMP we wouldn't have Winston Peters.


The minority parties dont run the country.But they most certainly have some influence on what the main parties do which is the whole idea of the system.They know they get crucified if they overplay their hand...I think The MMP is good,could be streamlined a bit.But seriuosly the 'cost" of MPs is prolly pretty insignificant in relation to the actual cost of the whole Parliamentary system.

[MisterD]

but to return first past the post would be f!@#ing stupid...

I don't know that the voters in the UK would agree with you - after the expenses scandal over there, they have the ability to boot any MP they feel has been taking the piss and there's nothing the party can do about it. I like that.

[naphazoline]

They're all a bunch of lying,stealing,cheating,deceitful cunts,so is it REALLY going to make a difference to the country which ever way it is???

I Don't think so.


But that's just my opinion.

[idb]

I like MMP despite its faults.
STV might have the advantage of fewer votes being wasted but apart from that the status quo is OK with me.
FPP is just awful, remember that, depending on how the electorate boundaries are drawn up, the party with the most votes can still miss out on winning the election...and it happened here.

[Motu]

the party with the most votes can still miss out on winning the election...and it happened here.

Sometimes that can be a good thing.Same with MMP - a losing party can make a coalition with several smaller parties,and govern over the party that got more votes.Could of happened this last election.

You are lucky you can vote at all - if we ran this country my way there would be no voting.I would rule forever and all my family and good mates would have the best jobs.All voting systems suck.

[idb]

Sometimes that can be a good thing.Same with MMP - a losing party can make a coalition with several smaller parties,and govern over the party that got more votes.Could of happened this last election.



Yes but with the current system the ruling coalition will represent the majority of voters, this doesn't have to be the case in FPP.

[p.dath]

Ideally we want the majority of those elected to represent us to have the power, as opposed to the largest minority (which is what happens with FPP).

If that needs to be done via coalition, then so be it.

We also want a balanced power scenario, so that a small majority can't hijack the decision making process. Unfortunately MMP can create this case where two parties split the vote, and a tiny third party gets the rest, and hence the decision making power.

We also want an effective parliament that can actually make laws. FPP always delivers this, sometimes MMP does but not always. However if the country is that closely polarised between two views then perhaps we shouldn't be making drastic changes.

Overall, I do support MMP. There are pro's and cons, as every political system has, but I think MMP delivers a good mix of benefits.

[Winston001]

I prefer Single Transferable Vote STV but it is a complicated system. Used for Health Boards, it works but not every voter understands. I wouldn't now go back to FPP.

In Europe minority governments are formed where parties with less votes form a coalition which outvotes the most successful party. Eg Labour 56 MPs, National 50 + ACT 4 + Maori 6 + United 1 = Majority in the House. Its messy but does work. Hasn't happened here.

[Winston001]

120 MPs more or less is only a distraction. Yes NZ could be governed by 20 MPs - but would you really want that?

Having 120 different voices in Parliament gives us open democracy. That's 120 individuals who can be contacted, pressured by journalists, appealed to, and who can influence policies. Less MPs means less democracy.

The money saved on a smaller Parliament is illusory. The big money is in social welfare spending, health and education. Billions and billions. That is where we need to be smarter.

[puddytat]

You are lucky you can vote at all - .

Never a truer word spoken....How long has it beem since we proles have had the vote? Wouldnt be much over a 100 years would it?
It could also be taken away from us again too....due to some other issue taking over & the implementation of martial law, or due to "National security ":2guns::ar15:

[p.dath]

120 MPs more or less is only a distraction. Yes NZ could be governed by 20 MPs - but would you really want that?

Having 120 different voices in Parliament gives us open democracy. That's 120 individuals who can be contacted, pressured by journalists, appealed to, and who can influence policies. Less MPs means less democracy.

The money saved on a smaller Parliament is illusory. The big money is in social welfare spending, health and education. Billions and billions. That is where we need to be smarter.

I'm suggesting that something more like 80 would probably be sufficient. The less people involved in the smaller steps of a decisions the faster things happen.

[puddytat]

120 MPs more or less is only a distraction. Yes NZ could be governed by 20 MPs - but would you really want that?

Having 120 different voices in Parliament gives us open democracy. That's 120 individuals who can be contacted, pressured by journalists, appealed to, and who can influence policies. Less MPs means less democracy.

The money saved on a smaller Parliament is illusory. The big money is in social welfare spending, health and education. Billions and billions. That is where we need to be smarter.

Your on to it Fella...:niceone:

[Winston001]

I'm suggesting that something more like 80 would probably be sufficient. The less people involved in the smaller steps of a decisions the faster things happen.

I agree with you. However 80 or 120 doesn't really make much difference. In fact democracy is an awful system in the sense of trying to get anything done.

Anyone who has served on a committee for a club etc knows how hard it is to get agreement and action. I now refuse to do this - except I'm chairman of two organisations so am stuck with that. :eek:

The best political system is benevolent autocracy. That's where a small group of people with genuine concern for their fellow citizens run the country. A good example is....er....Sultan of Brunei....? Basically it just doesn't happen because small groups become corrupt over time.

[Elysium]

A much simpler system would be a one party communist govenment that tells us what to do.....oh wait we just had that.

[Robert Taylor]

A much simpler system would be a one party communist govenment that tells us what to do.....oh wait we just had that.

How about a one party right wing administration and work camps for unreformable socialists?

[Karl08]

MMP... mmmmm two words spring to mind- Alamein Kopu.

Hang on there's more- United Future, list MPs who claim to speak for their local communities (regardless of how low they polled on election day), the Greens and the Maori Party being courted by the major parties; and having influence that is disproportionate to the communities they claim to represent, Winston Peters and his "baubles of office" speech.

One of the issues is that maybe your average voter does not fully understand how vote effectively under MMP. Talking to people at election time is quite eye opening- most of the ones I spoke to (a wide range of incomes, lifestyles etc) hadn't really thought too much about who and what they were voting for.

There needs to be a long hard look at how young voters are being educated about voting in the MMP world. Regardless of the system we have, or dream for- I for one, am glad I live in a country where I get to vote.

Rant over.

[oldrider]

People are born Socialists and get brainwashed with "leftist" thinking by incompetent "State" school teachers!

As they grow up and start to see the real world they become educated by life and realise most workable solutions come from the right of politics.

By the time they reach full maturity of life (experienced) they are too old to pound any sense into the new brood of lefties clogging up the State education system!

Seriously, would any of you want that rabble in the Green party making all your personal life decisions for you?

Because that is what they "will do" if you give them half a chance! :argh:

Careless voting can cost us our individual freedom. :crybaby: Not good for motorcyclists! :ride:

[xwhatsit]

I had to laugh tonight as I came home from work after reading this thread earlier in the day. Parked on the side of the Manukau Rd in Epsom was a late-model VW Golf with the personalised plate: `MMPSUX' :laugh:

EDIT: I lied, it was an Audi A3 (http://www.carjam.co.nz/car/?plate=mmpsux&search=Check).

[fliplid]

I had to laugh tonight as I came home from work after reading this thread earlier in the day. Parked on the side of the Manukau Rd in Epsom was a late-model VW Golf with the personalised plate: `MMPSUX' :laugh:

EDIT: I lied, it was an Audi A3 (http://www.carjam.co.nz/car/?plate=mmpsux&search=Check).

see that car quite a bit on the back road from drury to puke. being "ignorant" (of the local political system!), it took me a while to suss wtf it was referring to!

[ynot slow]

One plus side of MMP,from others I talked to was if you knew who the main parties were merging with prior to election would help the party vote,i.e Nats with Act,Greens,etc.
And from another viewpoint,the best person for electorate could be different from party vote.Whanganui as an example 2004 elections,a few voted for Labour as mp and National as party vote(reading results),due to sitting mp having done a good job for electorate but wanted different party vote.

[Skyryder]

MMP delivers a proportional representitive system. It does no more or no less.

STV is a more complicated system that also delivers a proportianal parliment based on votes.

What the proponents of STV fail to say is which STV system they want and more to the point at what percentage is the vote transferred to another canididate.

Due to the complexity of STV the results may not be known for days.

Of course this can also be the case with MMP but not so much due to the voting results but more to do with party negotiations that take place after the election.

MMP allows for strategic voting due to the list MP. It is one of the more postive aspects that is rarely alluded too and in my opinion just one of the reasons it would be a mistake to change STV.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

One plus side of MMP,from others I talked to was if you knew who the main parties were merging with prior to election would help the party vote,i.e Nats with Act,Greens,etc.

At the time of the referrendum this was one of the postive aspects that was sold by the MMP proponents.

It is worth remembering that both the Nats and Labour were against MMP and as a result refused to announce prior to the elction their preferred coalition partner.

If memory serves me correctly it was only New Labour that announced its preferred partner prior to the first MMP election.

This trend continued with both the Alliance and the Proggessives.


Skyryder

[BMWST?]

At the time of the referrendum this was one of the postive aspects that was sold by the MMP proponents.

It is worth remembering that both the Nats and Labour were against MMP and as a result refused to announce prior to the elction their preferred coalition partner.

If memory serves me correctly it was only New Labour that announced its preferred partner prior to the first MMP election.

This trend continued with both the Alliance and the Proggessives.


Skyryder

And the Greens IMHO have played the MMP game the best,and most transparently

[idb]

Shouldn't a government be formed from the representatives that the voters actually put into parliament - not from the parties' preferences.

If that is the case, then surely it is contrary to the principles of democracy for a party to announce who they intend to coalesce with before the election?

[idb]

......

Due to the complexity of STV the results may not be known for days.

Of course this can also be the case with MMP but not so much due to the voting results but more to do with party negotiations that take place after the election.
.......


Skyryder

Take a bow Mr Peters!

[Winston001]

Shouldn't a government be formed from the representatives that the voters actually put into parliament - not from the parties' preferences.

I guess you are objecting to List MPs? One of the downsides of elections is it requires candidates to be photogenic, glib, and able to sell themselves. All qualities which ironically are shared with con artists.

Thus we do not get the brightest candidate standing from each party. Instead we get the one who looks and sounds the best. Politicians as a result tend to be second string intellectually, a bit shallow, not particularly highminded.

The List rebalances this. A List MP can be chosen from the sharp end of the party toolbox, people who may not be good at media wisecracks but are cleverer than a clever thing.


If that is the case, then surely it is contrary to the principles of democracy for a party to announce who they intend to coalesce with before the election?

Fair enough, that's the argument the small parties make. Personally I think its a bit precious and what happens is a small party has the power to be kingmaker.

[Skyryder]

Personally I think its a bit precious and what happens is a small party has the power to be kingmaker.


The above is one of less agreeable aspects of MMP. The smaller party can hold a greater share of power than its total vote.

I have always argued that the Parties parlimentary vote should also be in proportiaon to the seats that it holds. This of course would be in contradiction to the one man one vote principle and is unlikely to happen.

Skyryder

[idb]

I guess you are objecting to List MPs?
No I was addressing the argument that parties should announce who their preferred coalition partner is before the election.
I'm suggesting that the government should be assembled from the parties installed by the voters and it would be arrogant of the parties to make it known what their preferences are.

[idb]

The above is one of less agreeable aspects of MMP. The smaller party can hold a greater share of power than its total vote.

I have always argued that the Parties parlimentary vote should also be in proportiaon to the seats that it holds. This of course would be in contradiction to the one man one vote principle and is unlikely to happen.

Skyryder

I thought that that proportionality does exist.

[Skyryder]

I thought that that proportionality does exist.

Yes it does but in the case of close elections the power of a minor party becomes exagerated and out of proportian to its total vote. I simply believe that this is wrong and the power of its parlimentary vote should be in accordance with its percentage of seats not with the number of seats.


Skyryder

[idb]

Hmmm...I wonder how that could possibly be achieved?

I assume that all parties in the government would be similarly constrained, so we would be back to the original problem?

[davereid]

Its all a smokescreen designed to keep fools happy. It leaves the fool thinking the system is OK, we just need to tweak the voting.

Look at it this way.

There are three kids in the playground.

One of them beats up the other two and takes their lunch. Thats the way we used to run government - unelected power, taken by force.

Democracy is a little better.
Two of them vote that the third kid has the nicest lunch, and that its OK for them to beat him up and take it. Thats democracy.

The problem is NOT how we select the tyrant. The problem is, that once the tyrant has obtained power by democracy or otherwise there are no effective constraints on power.

Its (quite correctly) illegal for me to use unprovoked force against another, and completely unjustifiable except for self defence.

Yet, even though I dont have the right to use force, its seems that the democratic process gives me the ability to delegate to others, a right I never held !

Democracy is just a step towards a non violent government system.

Goverments will remain violent until they are forced to operate under the same rules of civilisation as normal citizens, regardless of the tools they use to gain power.

[Hitcher]

MMP would be more effective if your average voting Jo understood how it worked.

[MSTRS]

MMP would be more effective if your average voting Jo understood how it worked.

Or Joe, even...
You're not still irritated by Kate Sheppard?

[ManDownUnder]

Take a bow Mr Peters!

I'll take the bow thanks... I'll use it to send some arrows his way.

MMP be gone. STV all the way. Add some automation into the system and the calcs are done in a heartbeat. We need a set number of MPs divided into a ratio approximating the final result of the calcs.

Iterative process that takes a summary count of the votes then rolls them up starting with the least supported party.

Sub STVElectionResultMaker
While WeHaveASimpleMajority = FALSE
RedistributeVotesFromLowestPollingParty
Wend

EmailWinningParty("Congrats dude - you're the man")
EmailLosingParties("You're not going to like this...")
End Sub

Course if it's Labour getting in it's more like an STD than STV but that's just me being picky

[idb]

Or Joe, even...
You're not still irritated by Kate Sheppard?

Hehe!
For an excellent perspective on all these silly ladies and their demands for equality, Google 'Stuart Rose, Marks and Spencers, glass ceiling'.

A very wise and considered man.

I'm sorry I can't copy a link from an iPod.

[Skyryder]

MMP would be more effective if your average voting Jo understood how it worked.

My thoughts too.

God knows how they would get on with STV where logarithms are used to calculate the result.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Hmmm...I wonder how that could possibly be achieved?

I assume that all parties in the government would be similarly constrained, so we would be back to the original problem?


No we would not. You would still have a proportianal parliment represented by the total votes that each party got. This in essance is the purpose of MMP.

However the Parlimentary vote could be based of a WEIGHTED VOTING SYSTEM.

At present each vote has the same weight or carries the same power etc but in the corperatate world those with the most stock have a greater voting weight. Much the same could be applied to a political party. Those with the most seats where each single vote would count for more than those with lesser seats.

I don't know where this is used in the Parlimentary system if at all but such a system would reduce the 'ransome effect' from minor parties under an MMP system.


Skyryder

[Hitcher]

Here are a couple of quizes that some of our resident "experts" may like to attempt.

Please don't hesitate to post your scores:

http://www.elections.org.nz/app/quiz/

http://www.elections.org.nz/app/quiz/advanced.html