Dunedin has two electorates and five MPs. There are three list MPs who base themselves in Dunedin — one from ACT, National and the Greens.
Both electorate seats are held by Labour, and have been for generations.
MMP was supposed to bring proportionality and democracy, but instead has led to disproportionate weight being given to small parties (Greens and ACT) and the preservation of MPs on the list. This means MPs remain in parliament, even when kicked out by their electorate.
MMP would have led to a coalition in Canada — instead of a clear majority. I disagree with Garth George regularly, but occasionally he is correct.
Surely this political circus, this game of musical chairs – and it’s not the first by a long shot – will encourage many voters once again to question the irreparable drawbacks of the mixed-member proportional representation system under which we have suffered for 15 years.
One can only hope that in the poll to be held with the general election, MMP will get the heave-ho and a clear preference will be shown for some more enlightened system.
At best we would see a return to first-past-the-post, at worst a change to a supplementary member system.
Both would allow us to get rid of a lot of the dead wood created by party hacks and politicians thrown out by their electorates and returned to Parliament on the list
via Garth George: Rise of radicals a wake up call – National – NZ Herald News.
Cameron Slater argues much more bluntly, after Liane Dalziel (Christchurch Labour MP) chose to stand for her electorate alone and not be on the list.
Lianne highlights one the major weaknesses of the political system in New Zealand. MPs can get kicked out by their electorate and keep troughing by being reelected by party hacks in some shabby backroom and regurgitated on the voters who have rejected them.
If “Patsy” can recognise that list MPs are scum we might finally be getting somewhere.
(For non Kiwis, Cameeron is one of the main members of the Vast (New Zealand) Right Wing Blogosphere. He cheerfully holds the Left, and Labour in particular, in contempt.)
My Son had an English assignment to draw a poster for First Past the Post. His teacher then gave an pro MMP slogan straight out of the left playbook: “I;d rather have 120 MPs in a democracy than 99 in a dictatorship”
I suggested “when we get rid of the scum we don’t want it back — vote FPP”, or No representation without accountability — vote FPP… Subverting the political agenda of stupid high school teachers is one of the unwanted tasks in raising teenagers in the People’s Republic of Dunedin.
Interesting post. Don’t agree with much of it, though.
MMP gave me a vote that actually lets me elect people I want. Under FPP I managed to reach the age of 30 without *ever* electing someone I had voted for. I always seemed to end up living a safe seat for the OTHER party. I have no wish to return to any of that.
That problem still exists. About six percent of the electorate is disenfranchised in each election because their party does not meet the threshold: this has led to the removal from parliament of the Alliance and NZ (Winston) First
Interesting you see MMP as dominated by the small parties. This must be a “Princess and the pea” sort of thing. I know the Greens ONLY have Metiria Turai on the South Island – based in Dunedin. How you think one MP can “dominate” the South Island is an interesting perspective. I’d say she was there to represent the people of the South who vote for the Green Party. I’m sure they are happy she’s there for them.
One of the interesting things I notice in discussions about MMP is how concerned some people are about MPs for parties they don’t even vote for. For me, I’m most concerned with the MPs from the party I voted for…and any other MPs can be the “problem” of whoever voted for that party. It’s their business. But there does seem to be this tendency to denigrate MPs from parties people don’t agree with any anyway. I don’t get that.
Most parties in NZ are now small. Their selection processes are variablY democratic
Then there is the accountability meme you raise….about people not elected locally getting on the list. I don’t see that as a problem either. In my local electorate, pretty much any of the candidates standing from a significant party would be good MPs. Unfortunately FPP only lets one person win…and that’s a shame and a loss to the districts concerned. MMP often allows more than one person from an electorate be elected via the party vote – which is, in effect, used to elect multiple members from a single national electorate. But the benefit to places like Dunedin or Horowhenua or Nelson is that MMP lets these places have Mps from more than one party. I love that. It means if the local MP is a complete drongo who I KNOW won’t listen to a word I have to say, I can go to someone else locally based. First Past the Post *never* let me do that.
My local MP is a moron. He also has more effective power than the list MP who is National. Nothing has changed
On the acountability front, MMP beats FPP by miles. Back in the old days, my one little vote only had any effect at all in just ONE electorate. It had no effect at all in any of the others. The *best* I could hope for – and only once *ever* achieved – was to elect the person I wanted locally. If the MP in the neighbouring electorate was a complete twat….there was nothing at all I could do about it. But with MMP, my party vote has *national* effect. It can help to elect multiple MPs from all over New Zealand. Plus I also get my local vote….just like I always did.
Two ticks is definitely better than one. Especially when the MMP tick is the one that lets me vote nationally…..and not just in my one little electorate.
The funniest thing I can think of is a National Party voter in a safe Labour seat in Dunedin, or a Labour Party voter on Auckland’s North Shore, voting to get rid of MMP ….and thus ensuring their local vote never again is in any way relevant to the future fortunes of the party they support as their local seat will always go the other way.
That’s just silly…yet there appear to be people that muddled. Life is strange.
I generally give my electorate tick to a person who is unlikely to win, precisely because I live in the precious people’s republic of Dunedin. However, I would quite happily give up that second tick if we could get either sensible coalitions (and at time that would be National + Labour) and get rid of the fringe parties. For example, National is compromising to a party that represents the wishes of the Maori aristocracy on issues it should not (if we believe in one rule for all, and egalitarianism) and at times relying in ACT or even Labour to get legislation passed.
Shipley said that the main skill a PM now needs is the ability to count. MMP is set up for minority government, and the resulting compromises and dilution of responsibility means no one is accountable. Since we live in a constitutional monarchy (that works best with majority rule — which is why Harper one in Canada, by the way) it makes much more sense to have the ability to get rid of the bastards and keep them out of power than to have the kind of cobbled together coalitions we have suffered under for the last decade or so.
The best example if institutionalized silliness I can think of was Winston Peters being minister of finance. And that was a direct result of MMP
I can’t see any new system ever being instituted in Canada; when it works for them, i.e. when they benefit from it, all parties in Canada are in favour of FPTP; they only bitch about it when they’re powerless, basically.
FPTP isn’t perfect, and it doesn’t give “the majority” what “it” “wants”, i.e. it gives the group which gets the biggest share of the popular vote, the right to form the government. And why shouldn’t it? People always say “60% of the people voted against X party”; but no, they didn’t; they voted for more than one other party, and so, X won. If you don’t like it, get behind one other party, and defeat X.