Does MMP need a rethink?

**ynot slow** · 7th June 2009, 10:41

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** · 7th June 2009, 10:57

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** · 7th June 2009, 11:03

Originally Posted by 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.

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?** · 7th June 2009, 12:21

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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** · 7th June 2009, 12:36

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** · 7th June 2009, 12:38

Originally Posted by Skyryder

......

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** · 7th June 2009, 19:54

Originally Posted by idb

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** · 7th June 2009, 21:06

Originally Posted by Winston001

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** · 7th June 2009, 21:17

Originally Posted by Winston001

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** · 7th June 2009, 21:21

Originally Posted by Skyryder

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** · 7th June 2009, 21:53

Originally Posted by idb

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** · 7th June 2009, 21:59

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** · 8th June 2009, 08:52

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.