By Vienna Richards
Update: this post was originally posted 27th October 2008. With the recent announcement that there will be a referendum on the electoral system at the next election, this has been reposted.
(Auckland-28 October 2008) I’ve been reading some misinformed articles lately that seem to read more like a political party campaign rather than a genuine analysis and backgrounder of why NZ switched to MMP as an electoral system. As a political science student once upon a time, the radar went off. So let’s revisit a portion of New Zealand’s political history.
New Zealand’s Chief Electoral Office:
In 1993 New Zealanders voted in a referendum to change their voting system from the traditional first-past-the-post (FPP) method to Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP).
Criticism of the voting system intensified after the 1978 and 1981 elections. On each occasion the Labour opposition actually secured more votes overall than National, but the latter won more seats in Parliament and remained in government.
As a political science student in the early 90s at Auckland University, I recall the public disillusionment many voters felt towards First Past The Past system. I was one of them.
There is considerable evidence to suggest that New Zealanders are becoming more and more disenchanted with the country’s political system and its politicians, largely, one suspects, because people felt increasingly helpless and ineffective whenever they attempt to try to influence decision makers.
(Alan McRobie, 1992, referring to First Past the Post electoral system)
Alan McRobie, acted as senior political science advisor to New Zealand’s Electoral Referendum Panel, which organised the public education campaign in the lead up to the 1993 electoral referendum. He brings 30 years studying and teaching about democratic electoral systems. His study of electoral systems was one of our required readings as political science students.
With the considerable dysfunction between pre-election promises and post-election performance over the past seven years it is little wonder that electors have little faith in the honesty and integrity of their elected representatives.
(Alan McRobie, 1992, Electoral System Options: Three Proposals for Reforming the Electoral System)
The last time single party rule was under First Past the Post: the National Party.
Following National’s landslide election victory in October 1990 the issues of electoral reform have not died away. The new government’s huge parliamentary majority, and its obvious determination to complete the transformation of the state begun under the previous Labour government – even to the point of using its majority to force its legislative changes through Parliament against the better judgement of many of its own backbench members – has maintained, and even heightened public interest in the question of electoral reform.
First Past The Post Electoral System
Minuses
- First Past The Post fails to produce a Parliament that adequately reflects the electoral preferences expressed at the ballot box. For example, in 1978 and 1981, Labour won more votes than National (who secured only 39.8 and 38.8 at each election respectively) yet National was awardedmore seats in Parliament.
From 1951 to 1990, National ruled as single party NZ Government for 9 out of 13 parliamentary terms under First Past The Post. The highest number of votes ever cast for National was in the 1951 general election: 53.9 percent.
In 1990, National won 47.8 percent of the votes and they were able to rule with 69.1 percent of the seats in Parliament. Compare this to Labour’s seats under First Past the Post.
Labour’s highest polling was 48.4 in the 1972 election yet they won only 63.4 percent of the votes. In 1987 Labour won 48 percent of votes yet only 58.8 percent of the seats.
- First Past The Post disadvantages independents and minor parties
- It poorly serves Maori and other minorities
- First Past The Post makes for powerful single governments but at the cost of being largely insensitive to the wide range of opinions present in the electorate, as well as within the political parties themselves.
- First Past The Post is considered an “extremely unsophisticated method of choosing a country’s government.”
- It is an electoral system developed before the emergency of highly organised political parties. When voters were required to only choose from between candidates standing as individuals and independents it worked reasonably well, says McRobie.
Pluses
- Makes for powerful single party governments even though single party rule has seldom reflected the votes cast at the ballot box.
Mixed Member Proportional
Minuses
- Under MMP, candidates would be permitted to seek election both in an electorate and on a party list. This opens up the prospect of a candidate, rejected by his or her electorate, says McRobie, “entering Parliament by the back door.”
- Parties select the candidates and determine the order of their party list. The Royal Commission had recommended parties open up their selection processes so that voters have a real influence on the rank-ordering of a party’s list candidates.
Pluses
- MMP would significantly increase the number of women, Maori and other minority groups in Parliament because parties would have to take these factors into account when drawing up their lists and determining the order within the them.
- Note: the more individual constituency seats a party wins the fewer the number of party list seats will be awarded. This reduces the number of MPs who fail to win their electorate seat coming in the back door so to speak.
The Royal Commission’s Proposal
Sixty MPs would be elected from single member districts( like FPTP) while a further sixty would be elected from rank-order lists prepared by each party before an election. These “party list” seats would be allocated in a manner that ensured that the final composition of the House of Representatives accurately reflected the overall popular vote accorded to each party that won at least 4 percent of the total valid votes cast in the election.
(McRobie, 1992, Electoral System Options)
Is it possible to ever rule as a single party government under MMP?
Single party governments would be much less likely (though this would be possible where a party enjoys clear majority support) and parties would normally need to negotiate coalition agreements to form a government. As a result of aggregation of interests and integration of the political community should be much more readily achieved.
What’s An Alternative Electoral System?
Single Transferable Vote (STV)
It’s an electoral system that’s already being used in New Zealand by district health boards elections and in local body elections by some local councils namely:
In a nutshell, McRobie argued that it is a more elector-sensitive than MMP because electors have the power to discriminate both between candidates from different parties and candidates from the same party.
Under STV electors vote in multi-member electorates by numbering some or all candidates in order of preference. Each vote cast can elect only one MP but if an elector’s first choice wins more support (or less support) than the vote quota he or she needs to be elected, the vote is not then automatically wasted as it is with the simple plurality system, because it can then be transferred, in turn, to remaining candidates in the order of preference indicated by the elector, until all vacancies are filled. “Wasted” votes (votes which do not help elect a candidate) are therefore much lower with STV. In the 1989 Tasmanian House of Assemby elections, for example, 87.5 percent of votes cast actually helped elect an MP.
Apparently according to McRobie, under STV in particular, moreso than MMP, politicians would be forced to become much more responsive to the range of views…
across the electorate because electors would be able to discriminate effectively between candidates and parties. This, in turn, should also produce much more considered decision making, including consideration of a wide range of views before final decisions are made.
My own experience voting under STV is that voting instructions, in other languages, other than English and Maori, need to be provided. Otherwise, it runs the risk of appearing confusing to voters for whom English is a second language, as well as taking more time to complete the voting papers. That’s due to the preference ratings you need to allocate to candidates.
Keep the voting process as straightforward, and as easy to complete as possible, I say, if you want people to participate in a democracy. We already have a challenge in the western world, in particular, to get people interested in voting at election time, particularly among the young and those who feel disenfranchised from Parliament.It’s interesting to note that in countries where its citizens are denied the right to vote, or vote without threat of intimidation, such as Afghanistan and Myanmar for example, those citizens willingly sacrificed with their blood and their lives for the right to vote.
I have never forgotten that horrible day in September 1999 when citizens in East Timor, now known as Timor Leste, were gunned down during a protest against anti-democracy factions. I was working at the APEC Leaders Forum that day in the media centre for foreign affairs. World leaders were in attendance from China, Russia, Japan, Korea, USA namely President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Australia’s PM, the late Korean President, all the South Pacific nations, England’s foreign affairs secretary the late Robin Cooke…a long and impressive list of the world’s most powerful who’s who . The big story back then was that people in East Timor lost their lives exercising freedoms for which they were denied. The media attention helped generate swift and immediate action from the US, to protect the lives of East Timorese and prevent further loss of life,. New Zealand and Australia were key players in aid and military protection for East Timor, as it was known then.
My point is this: we take too much for granted in the western world when it comes to voting in a democracy, New Zealand included. So the lesson here is: whoever you vote for, make sure you vote. Because others, in far flung parts of the world, spilled their blood for something you take for granted. And that’s just plain wrong.
Related Post: NZ Public Invited To Have Their Say
CNN Top Stories
Analysis: Why NZ dropped First Past The Post Electoral System
By Vienna Richards
Update: this post was originally posted 27th October 2008. With the recent announcement that there will be a referendum on the electoral system at the next election, this has been reposted.
(Auckland-28 October 2008) I’ve been reading some misinformed articles lately that seem to read more like a political party campaign rather than a genuine analysis and backgrounder of why NZ switched to MMP as an electoral system. As a political science student once upon a time, the radar went off. So let’s revisit a portion of New Zealand’s political history.
New Zealand’s Chief Electoral Office:
As a political science student in the early 90s at Auckland University, I recall the public disillusionment many voters felt towards First Past The Past system. I was one of them.
Alan McRobie, acted as senior political science advisor to New Zealand’s Electoral Referendum Panel, which organised the public education campaign in the lead up to the 1993 electoral referendum. He brings 30 years studying and teaching about democratic electoral systems. His study of electoral systems was one of our required readings as political science students.
The last time single party rule was under First Past the Post: the National Party.
First Past The Post Electoral System
Minuses
Pluses
Mixed Member Proportional
Minuses
Pluses
The Royal Commission’s Proposal
Sixty MPs would be elected from single member districts( like FPTP) while a further sixty would be elected from rank-order lists prepared by each party before an election. These “party list” seats would be allocated in a manner that ensured that the final composition of the House of Representatives accurately reflected the overall popular vote accorded to each party that won at least 4 percent of the total valid votes cast in the election.
(McRobie, 1992, Electoral System Options)
Is it possible to ever rule as a single party government under MMP?
Single party governments would be much less likely (though this would be possible where a party enjoys clear majority support) and parties would normally need to negotiate coalition agreements to form a government. As a result of aggregation of interests and integration of the political community should be much more readily achieved.
What’s An Alternative Electoral System?
Single Transferable Vote (STV)
It’s an electoral system that’s already being used in New Zealand by district health boards elections and in local body elections by some local councils namely:
In a nutshell, McRobie argued that it is a more elector-sensitive than MMP because electors have the power to discriminate both between candidates from different parties and candidates from the same party.
Apparently according to McRobie, under STV in particular, moreso than MMP, politicians would be forced to become much more responsive to the range of views…
My own experience voting under STV is that voting instructions, in other languages, other than English and Maori, need to be provided. Otherwise, it runs the risk of appearing confusing to voters for whom English is a second language, as well as taking more time to complete the voting papers. That’s due to the preference ratings you need to allocate to candidates.
Keep the voting process as straightforward, and as easy to complete as possible, I say, if you want people to participate in a democracy. We already have a challenge in the western world, in particular, to get people interested in voting at election time, particularly among the young and those who feel disenfranchised from Parliament.It’s interesting to note that in countries where its citizens are denied the right to vote, or vote without threat of intimidation, such as Afghanistan and Myanmar for example, those citizens willingly sacrificed with their blood and their lives for the right to vote.
I have never forgotten that horrible day in September 1999 when citizens in East Timor, now known as Timor Leste, were gunned down during a protest against anti-democracy factions. I was working at the APEC Leaders Forum that day in the media centre for foreign affairs. World leaders were in attendance from China, Russia, Japan, Korea, USA namely President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Australia’s PM, the late Korean President, all the South Pacific nations, England’s foreign affairs secretary the late Robin Cooke…a long and impressive list of the world’s most powerful who’s who . The big story back then was that people in East Timor lost their lives exercising freedoms for which they were denied. The media attention helped generate swift and immediate action from the US, to protect the lives of East Timorese and prevent further loss of life,. New Zealand and Australia were key players in aid and military protection for East Timor, as it was known then.
My point is this: we take too much for granted in the western world when it comes to voting in a democracy, New Zealand included. So the lesson here is: whoever you vote for, make sure you vote. Because others, in far flung parts of the world, spilled their blood for something you take for granted. And that’s just plain wrong.
Related Post: NZ Public Invited To Have Their Say
Filed under: Analysis, Breaking News, Business, Community, Current, NZ General Election 2008, NZPacific, Opinion & Commentary, Politics | Tagged: Vienna Richards, NZPacific, labour party, auckland university, national party, nz parliament, NZ electoral system, First Past The Post versus Mixed Member Proportional electoral systems, elections, democracy, first past the post electoral system, MMP, STV or single transferable vote, political parties, mixed member proportional representation, FPP, minor parties in NZ, alan McRobie, political science, political studies, NZ House of Representatives