Who will win the 2011 election?

[oldrider]

This situation could happen under any other system.
You're the only one looking confused.

So many men, so many opinions, mine is that MMP was designed to prevent progress and foisted onto Germany after WW2 to do just that!

So good old New Zealand takes it on board .... yeah right! There are better systems and FPP is not one of them either!

[shrub]

So many men, so many opinions, mine is that MMP was designed to prevent progress and foisted onto Germany after WW2 to do just that!:

Well that didn't work, did it? Bloody Germans refusing to listen...

There are better systems and FPP is not one of them either!

I disagree. As a mechanism to provide representation of the majority, MMP works really well. It needs tweaking, and my mods are:

1. The 5% threshold should apply regardless of whether a party gets an electorate seat, that way you'd avoid an unpopular party bringing in MPs on the coat tails of someone who has been gifted a seat (as could easily have happened with Act).
2. There should be limits and constraints placed on being a list MP and standing for a seat so you don't get unpopular people turning up on the list when they get voted out.
3. The system the Greens use whereby the position a candidate has on the list is determined by the vote of the party members should be adopted.
4. Parties should be required to state their coalition preferences before the election and be held to it.
5. If a list MP resigns or is kicked out of their party they leave parliament.

I also like MMP because it's reasonably simple and most people understand it well enough to be able to make an intelligent decision. The fact that they don't is immaterial.

[oneofsix]

I also like MMP because it's reasonably simple and most people understand it well enough to be able to make an intelligent decision. The fact that they don't is immaterial.

I disagree. The media like to try and make us believe we, the others of we that is, don't understand it. They like to report the elections as FPP but they also like the long drag out and deal making of MMP so they confuse themselves but I think most people understand it well enough. OK so there were some surprises over the deal with ACT but as one cartoon it put it may be that was a smoke screen for what Nat wanted anyhow but were too afraid to go to the country with. But after the Epsom tea party who didn't know something like that was coming, ignoring the mis-information put about and smoke screens wasting police time.

[shrub]

I disagree. The media like to try and make us believe we, the others of we that is, don't understand it. They like to report the elections as FPP but they also like the long drag out and deal making of MMP so they confuse themselves but I think most people understand it well enough. OK so there were some surprises over the deal with ACT but as one cartoon it put it may be that was a smoke screen for what Nat wanted anyhow but were too afraid to go to the country with. But after the Epsom tea party who didn't know something like that was coming, ignoring the mis-information put about and smoke screens wasting police time.

The Epsom tea party was National playing the public which means they can get away with unpopular policies because "it's not our fault, those rough Act boys made us do it".

There are a lot of benefits to STV, and it would definitely be a good option, but it's too complicated which is why the next most popular after MMP was FPP. MMP can work well and with a few tweaks would be a good compromise. Ultimately there is no perfect system and we have what we have so we need to work with it.

[MisterD]

Well that didn't work, did it? Bloody Germans refusing to listen...

Not to prevent German progress, but to avoid a takeover by extremists in the way Mr Hitler did. As was pointed out elsewhere (the other KB, I think) the "kingmaker" is not a fault of MMP, it's a feature.

1. The 5% threshold should apply regardless of whether a party gets an electorate seat, that way you'd avoid an unpopular party bringing in MPs on the coat tails of someone who has been gifted a seat (as could easily have happened with Act).
2. There should be limits and constraints placed on being a list MP and standing for a seat so you don't get unpopular people turning up on the list when they get voted out.
3. The system the Greens use whereby the position a candidate has on the list is determined by the vote of the party members should be adopted.
4. Parties should be required to state their coalition preferences before the election and be held to it.
5. If a list MP resigns or is kicked out of their party they leave parliament.

1) If you're going to do that, then the threshold should be lowered. ACT would only have got an extra MP if their share of the party vote was high enough. The problem is not that ACT get representation, it's that a party that polls >3% but no electorate, doesn't.
2) I'm not sure about that, I can see the merit in standing a bright prospect you'd want in on the list, in a tough-to-win electorate to gain experience.
3) I'd rather see the difference between electorate and party votes used to rank the list.
4) Why should this be treated any differently than any other policy? I don't see it as a major problem and I don't think the intersection of short memories and Winston's untrustworthyness is sufficient reason for legislation.
5) That's the case now, it's only electorate MP's that get to hang around.

I'd also say that along with lowering the threshold, the Maori seats should be consigned to history.

[shrub]

1) If you're going to do that, then the threshold should be lowered. ACT would only have got an extra MP if their share of the party vote was high enough. The problem is not that ACT get representation, it's that a party that polls >3% but no electorate, doesn't.

Personally I think 5% is about right. It's hard to get over 5% without reasonably widespread and durable support that generally needs to have a basis in broad ranging and robust policies whereas it's not hard for a party to get 3 - 5% if they jump on a popular bandwagon like race or if enough cash gets tipped in.

2) I'm not sure about that, I can see the merit in standing a bright prospect you'd want in on the list, in a tough-to-win electorate to gain experience.

I am going to accept you're probably right on that one. The Greens are very unlikely to win an electorate seat because they don't have a broad enough appeal (yet), so do they have candidates that will never get into parliament and list members that do? The problem is a situation like Epsom where you have two closely linked parties running for the same seat resulting in 2 members in government representing that seat.

3) I'd rather see the difference between electorate and party votes used to rank the list.

Yeah, that is one option, but the problem is you won't know the makeup of the list until after the election.

4) Why should this be treated any differently than any other policy? I don't see it as a major problem and I don't think the intersection of short memories and Winston's untrustworthyness is sufficient reason for legislation.

I think it's more than just Winston. Helen Clark hinted that the Greens were going into government with her but at the last minute snuggled up with Peter Dunne and Winston on condition that the Greens were kept out despite the Greens actively supporting Labour and a lot of Green voters voting for Labour.

I'd also say that along with lowering the threshold, the Maori seats should be consigned to history.

That's a really hard one. I agree that race based seats should be a thing of the past, but without them Maori would be seriously under-represented. I personally really struggle with having a specific Maori party and race based seats - maybe one or the other, but not both.

[Swoop]

I wouldn't wear it near high voltage overhead power lines either mate!

You never know, going by previous posts' it might make an improvement.

[oldrider]

Well that didn't work, did it? Bloody Germans refusing to listen...



I disagree. As a mechanism to provide representation of the majority, MMP works really well. It needs tweaking, and my mods are:

1. The 5% threshold should apply regardless of whether a party gets an electorate seat, that way you'd avoid an unpopular party bringing in MPs on the coat tails of someone who has been gifted a seat (as could easily have happened with Act).
2. There should be limits and constraints placed on being a list MP and standing for a seat so you don't get unpopular people turning up on the list when they get voted out.
3. The system the Greens use whereby the position a candidate has on the list is determined by the vote of the party members should be adopted.
4. Parties should be required to state their coalition preferences before the election and be held to it.
5. If a list MP resigns or is kicked out of their party they leave parliament.

I also like MMP because it's reasonably simple and most people understand it well enough to be able to make an intelligent decision. The fact that they don't is immaterial.

Well, I could live with a trial of your suggestions .... it needs to be constantly improved by an independent (if that's possible!) body!

I would allow a bit of post election leeway but I agree it should be well sorted pre election so the voters know what they are voting for!

As it is we just vote to give them permission to do whatever they like post election ... takes away their accountability to the electorate and makes them focus on and be loyal to each other!

Totally agree with number's 2 and 5!

[MisterD]

Personally I think 5% is about right. It's hard to get over 5% without reasonably widespread and durable support that generally needs to have a basis in broad ranging and robust policies whereas it's not hard for a party to get 3 - 5% if they jump on a popular bandwagon like race or if enough cash gets tipped in.

Sure, but then why should however many idiots in one electorate get an MP, but not the same number of idiots across the country? One of the reasons why I voted for STV.

Yeah, that is one option, but the problem is you won't know the makeup of the list until after the election.

Hell, with MMP we don't know what Government policy is until after the election! Does anyone really vote based on knowing list rankings before polling day?

[shrub]

Hell, with MMP we don't know what Government policy is until after the election! Does anyone really vote based on knowing list rankings before polling day?

Yeah, but that is more a sign of duplicity of the parties than a failing in the electoral system and most people base their voting decisions on feelings which is why we have a charming but vapid PM who is incredibly popular despite having done almost nothing substantive since taking control.

I was thinking about MMP, and one of the things I like about it is the ability I have to vote for both a party and a candidate. In my electorate Lianne Dalziel is the candidate, and she has been incredible. We are in a very badly hit area (fortunately my house is almost undamaged though) and she has been beating the pavement, holding meetings and generally working her arse off for her constituents. Overall I prefer the Greens policies to Labour's, but because of how Dalziel performed I voted for her. The local Green candidate represents most of what I struggle with about the Greens - a vegetarian woman with a disability who rides a bicycle, so I didn't vote for her. I do like the Green's policies, especially their economic policies and their perspective on business, so I voted for the party.

Under MMP I got to pick who I want to represent me AND the party I think has the best ideas. Under STV I would have struggled to come up with a second choice, let alone 3rd or 4th. I much prefer the Greens to Labour, National or NZ First, so do I give my first choice to a candidate I would rather not have because I like her party? Or do I give my first choice to someone who I think does a good job as a person but represents a party I'm not that fussed on?

[oldrider]

Yeah, but that is more a sign of duplicity of the parties than a failing in the electoral system and most people base their voting decisions on feelings which is why we have a charming but vapid PM who is incredibly popular despite having done almost nothing substantive since taking control.

I was thinking about MMP, and one of the things I like about it is the ability I have to vote for both a party and a candidate. In my electorate Lianne Dalziel is the candidate, and she has been incredible. We are in a very badly hit area (fortunately my house is almost undamaged though) and she has been beating the pavement, holding meetings and generally working her arse off for her constituents. Overall I prefer the Greens policies to Labour's, but because of how Dalziel performed I voted for her. The local Green candidate represents most of what I struggle with about the Greens - a vegetarian woman with a disability who rides a bicycle, so I didn't vote for her. I do like the Green's policies, especially their economic policies and their perspective on business, so I voted for the party.

Under MMP I got to pick who I want to represent me AND the party I think has the best ideas. Under STV I would have struggled to come up with a second choice, let alone 3rd or 4th. I much prefer the Greens to Labour, National or NZ First, so do I give my first choice to a candidate I would rather not have because I like her party? Or do I give my first choice to someone who I think does a good job as a person but represents a party I'm not that fussed on?

Under the STV system you are not compelled to vote for anyone that you don't think worthy if you only want to support one of the candidates that's it, done and dusted but you do have to be concerned about what everyone else might do!

Or have I got that wrong ... they tinker with everything so bloody much!