Comments on: Time to change from MMP… to anything. https://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2011/05/time-to-change-from-mmp-to-anything/ Bleak theology: hopeful science. Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:55:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Will S. https://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2011/05/time-to-change-from-mmp-to-anything/#comment-4781 Will S. Mon, 09 May 2011 02:47:10 +0000 https://pukeko.net.nz/blog/?p=1445#comment-4781 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. 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.

]]> By: Steve Withers https://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2011/05/time-to-change-from-mmp-to-anything/#comment-4775 Steve Withers Fri, 06 May 2011 11:27:38 +0000 https://pukeko.net.nz/blog/?p=1445#comment-4775 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. <strong>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</strong> 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. <strong>Most parties in NZ are now small. Their selection processes are variablY democratic</strong> 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. <strong>My local MP is a moron. He also has more effective power than the list MP who is National. Nothing has changed</strong> 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. <strong>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</strong> 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

]]>