Comments on: A beginner's guide to MMP (NZ election) http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/ Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:10:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Sam Clifford http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208674 Sam Clifford Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:23:33 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208674 I don't see a problem with introducing preferential voting to the constituency seats. In fact, I think it's what's needed in Queensland to give people an opportunity to elect someone other than the two big groups of dickheads we've currently got in parliament. I don’t see a problem with introducing preferential voting to the constituency seats. In fact, I think it’s what’s needed in Queensland to give people an opportunity to elect someone other than the two big groups of dickheads we’ve currently got in parliament.

]]> By: Ben Raue http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208673 Ben Raue Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:38:06 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208673 I reckon it's a good idea to make it 2 constituency MPs to pass the threshold (except for that one seat). It is much less arbitrary and more of a pattern. If you win one seat and less than 5%, then you can win up to one seat but that's it. This avoids the problem of an automatic overhang, unless that party somehow wins a seat with less than about 0.8%. I reckon it’s a good idea to make it 2 constituency MPs to pass the threshold (except for that one seat). It is much less arbitrary and more of a pattern. If you win one seat and less than 5%, then you can win up to one seat but that’s it. This avoids the problem of an automatic overhang, unless that party somehow wins a seat with less than about 0.8%.

]]> By: Ben Raue http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208672 Ben Raue Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:34:07 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208672 * the party with the lowest vote, and votes being redistributed until all remaining parties are above the threshold, then distribute the list seats. I prefer STV to MMP, but I think that would be much fairer and less arbitrary. It would also avoid the problem of people avoiding voting for parties close to a threshold out of fear that their vote would be wasted. * the party with the lowest vote, and votes being redistributed until all remaining parties are above the threshold, then distribute the list seats. I prefer STV to MMP, but I think that would be much fairer and less arbitrary. It would also avoid the problem of people avoiding voting for parties close to a threshold out of fear that their vote would be wasted.

]]> By: Ben Raue http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208671 Ben Raue Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:32:37 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208671 Is there much discussion about possible changes to the MMP system, apart from those who simply want to return to FPP? I remember Rod Donald saying before the 2005 election that the Greens supported using preferential voting for local electorates. I've always thought that the threshold can be very arbitrary, giving 6 seats to a party with 5.00% and 0 seats to a party with 4.99%, whereas a preference system could give some room to move. Eg. parties below the threshold are eliminated one by one, starting with Is there much discussion about possible changes to the MMP system, apart from those who simply want to return to FPP?

I remember Rod Donald saying before the 2005 election that the Greens supported using preferential voting for local electorates. I’ve always thought that the threshold can be very arbitrary, giving 6 seats to a party with 5.00% and 0 seats to a party with 4.99%, whereas a preference system could give some room to move. Eg. parties below the threshold are eliminated one by one, starting with

]]> By: Sacha http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208670 Sacha Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:10:40 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208670 From across the Tasman, it's looked as if parties game the system by getting one constituency MP elected and then getting a couple of list MPs even if they get less than 5% of the vote. It isn't unusual for major party voters to elect a minor party constituency MP (e.g. the Greens or ACT) so that the parliament is more likely to have groups of MPs more aligned to the major party. This gaming might be able to be reduced if there was a threshold of 5% or 3 (instead of 1) constituency MPs elected, although it may just mean that the same games will happen in more constituencies. What do people think about this? From across the Tasman, it’s looked as if parties game the system by getting one constituency MP elected and then getting a couple of list MPs even if they get less than 5% of the vote. It isn’t unusual for major party voters to elect a minor party constituency MP (e.g. the Greens or ACT) so that the parliament is more likely to have groups of MPs more aligned to the major party.

This gaming might be able to be reduced if there was a threshold of 5% or 3 (instead of 1) constituency MPs elected, although it may just mean that the same games will happen in more constituencies.

What do people think about this?

]]> By: Sam Clifford http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208669 Sam Clifford Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:04:19 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208669 Question 6's first statement is ambiguous. I got 8/9. Question 6′s first statement is ambiguous. I got 8/9.

]]> By: Idiot/Savant http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208668 Idiot/Savant Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:37:34 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208668 Geoff: <I>Also is there now a convention that the party with the most seats gets first chance to form a govt?</I> Some people (meaning: the party which expects to get more votes) are talking as if there is, and it is the stated preference of at least two parties (NZ First and United Future), but there's no such convention. One might develop, but it will take a few more elections for that to happen I think. Stargazer: <I>no, the votes aren’t discarded, they end up getting split across all parties based on the the final percentages of the party vote</I> This is one of MMP's myths, and like the myth of a second referendum, it is simply false. No votes are transferred or split. The votes of parties which fail to make the threshold are simply ignored. The mathematical effect is the same, but no votes are shifted in any way. The party you vote for gets your vote, and not any other. Geoff: Also is there now a convention that the party with the most seats gets first chance to form a govt?

Some people (meaning: the party which expects to get more votes) are talking as if there is, and it is the stated preference of at least two parties (NZ First and United Future), but there’s no such convention. One might develop, but it will take a few more elections for that to happen I think.

Stargazer: no, the votes aren’t discarded, they end up getting split across all parties based on the the final percentages of the party vote

This is one of MMP’s myths, and like the myth of a second referendum, it is simply false. No votes are transferred or split. The votes of parties which fail to make the threshold are simply ignored. The mathematical effect is the same, but no votes are shifted in any way. The party you vote for gets your vote, and not any other.

]]> By: Deborah http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208667 Deborah Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:31:23 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208667 Yes and no, stargazer. The effect of the threshold is that parties below it drop out, so that parties above it get more seats than they would have, had all the also-rans been kept in play. But in terms the actual way the seats are worked out, the votes cast for the also-rans are discarded. Elections.org.nz has the details on their FAQ page - it's the second question down. <a href="http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/mmp-faq.html" rel="nofollow"><b>[link]</b></a> Yes and no, stargazer. The effect of the threshold is that parties below it drop out, so that parties above it get more seats than they would have, had all the also-rans been kept in play. But in terms the actual way the seats are worked out, the votes cast for the also-rans are discarded. Elections.org.nz has the details on their FAQ page – it’s the second question down. [link]

]]> By: Mindy http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208666 Mindy Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:35:06 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208666 8 out of 9. Really good explanation. Thanks. 8 out of 9. Really good explanation. Thanks.

]]> By: Deborah http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208665 Deborah Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:20:30 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/10/01/a-beginners-guide-to-mmp-nz-election/#comment-208665 I don't know about that, Geoff - I think that voters are very clear that by and large, the party vote is the one which determines the government. so they don't have a sense of 'balancing' the electorate seats at all. It's just that when it comes to determining exactly which candidates from a party get into parliament, the electorate MPs get in first, and then whoever else is needed from the list. The original recommendation was for a 4% threshold, which would yield 4.8, or 5, seats). I don't know whether the 'convention' exists yet. The first MMP election led to weeks and weeks and weeks of negotiations beofre we got a government (National and NZ First). Everyone seemed to agree that the protracted negotiations were a bad thing, so in subsequent elections, minor parties have either made it clear in advance who they would go into coalition with, or have said that they would talk first to the largest party. That could change this election; the Maori party have said that after the election, they will hold hui (meetings) with Maori throughout the country to get a clear sense of who they should be going into coalition with. The Maori party could very well be kingmakers this time around. I don’t know about that, Geoff – I think that voters are very clear that by and large, the party vote is the one which determines the government. so they don’t have a sense of ‘balancing’ the electorate seats at all. It’s just that when it comes to determining exactly which candidates from a party get into parliament, the electorate MPs get in first, and then whoever else is needed from the list.

The original recommendation was for a 4% threshold, which would yield 4.8, or 5, seats).

I don’t know whether the ‘convention’ exists yet. The first MMP election led to weeks and weeks and weeks of negotiations beofre we got a government (National and NZ First). Everyone seemed to agree that the protracted negotiations were a bad thing, so in subsequent elections, minor parties have either made it clear in advance who they would go into coalition with, or have said that they would talk first to the largest party. That could change this election; the Maori party have said that after the election, they will hold hui (meetings) with Maori throughout the country to get a clear sense of who they should be going into coalition with. The Maori party could very well be kingmakers this time around.

]]>