United Future

Posted at 2007-08-15 21:35:19.335. Permalink.

MMP as we voted on it in 1993 has not fully yielded all the possible benefits claimed for it, this is primarily due to the two major parties not being committed to MMP and many of the voting public still not being sure how MMP actually works.

I think we need to change a number of things to make it work properly:
1. Extend working term of Parliament to 4 years
2. Change the voting thresholds to 1 electorate MP or 3% as starting basis to get seats
3. Fund all parties on an equable basis, nothing to do with size or previous seats
4. Change seating in House to alphabetical order to promote better behaviour and collaboration

Robin Gunston

Posted at 2007-08-16 11:13:54.816. Permalink.

I agree with you Robin, it's obvious that the two 'old parties seem to 'tolerate' MMP and that there are huge areas of MMP thinking yet to be discovered. I'm quite proud that a country like ours embraced the notion of a proportional political system. The problem is that the proportions are still being skewed by the media spending too much reporting time on the old parties.
As for your alphabetized seating arrangement ... I like it!

Posted at 2007-08-16 14:09:48.415. Permalink.

I'm fascinated that so many want to tweak MMP. The issue I see as most pressing is that the voters have not really grasped just how radically different it is from first past the post. I think it is up to the MMP parties to help the electorate do some more "MMP thinking" (nice phrase that Denise).

ps. does this explain the rumour that UF MPs have applied to change their names to Aaron Aardvark and Abigail Aan?

Posted at 2007-08-16 15:39:51.207. Permalink.

I think MMP is great! It allows for a far greater diversity of representation in parliament, and the old parties invariably have to seek consensus with other parties in order to govern, which can only be a good thing. People in NZ need to think carefully about who they want to have that important influence.

Robin, your proposal for a 4 year parliamentary term is an interesting one, and one I think I'd support. The last thing we want in New Zealand is politicians having to constantly run for re-election. Four year terms might discourage pandering and encourage longer term solutions to emerge.

Posted at 2007-08-22 21:24:59.086. Permalink.

MMP is streets better than FPP, however it does leave more than a couple of holes. The wasted vote being only one of these.

3. Fund all parties on an equable basis, nothing to do with size or previous seats

Equable? Based on membership?

Posted at 2007-08-27 00:29:07.276. Permalink.

MMP has one important advantage over FPP; it has made our parliamentarians a more diverse bunch so that they better reflect the make-up of the general population.

For example, the emergence of the Maori Party is, potentially, a very positive development that probably would not have occurred under FPP. That party is now in a position to contribute to, and perhaps even lead, a renaissance in Maori culture. Admittedly, they have some issues to sort out as is evidenced by some of Hone Harawira's outbursts (his praise of Fidel Castro and comments about accepting 'koha' are disturbing to say the least). Nevertheless, if, over time, this party does indeed attract the best and brightest talents within Maoridom then it could become a very constructive political force.

The main issue with MMP is, as far as I can make out, the correct threshold. Consider the Israeli experience. Their threshold is extremely low (I think that it might be as low as 1%). This has increased the number of political parties that would otherwise be represented in the knesset. The task of building a coalition government after every election has consequently become, more often than not, a nightmare. Successive Prime Ministers have had to make all sorts of deals with parties ranging from ultra-orthodox religious zealots to those on the extreme left in order to stay in power. The result has all too frequently been instability and policy paralysis.

Thus, I disagree with Robin Gunston's suggestion that the threshold should be lowered from the current 5%. His idea of a four-year term is, however, something I go along with. It would give the government of the day a greater incentive to conduct policy with a long term view in mind. The approach of the present Minister of Finance to election budgets is starting to bear an uncanny resemblance to that of Sir Robert Muldoon. Sir Robert's big mistake was that he used a series of short-term measures and expedients to try to fix long-term, deep-seated problems. This mistake is less likely to be repeated, at least to the same extent, in the case of a four-year parliament.

Robin Loomes

Posted at 2007-09-03 17:32:13.341. Permalink.

MMP. There will be 4 more elections in the next 10 years. If NZ is not careful we could/will/may return predominantly to a form of FPP under MMP with a Labour party, a National Party, A Maori Party (by List or electorate) & a Green Party that may or may not just make the 5% threshold at each election. They came in this term by just 1430 or so votes.

Parties present in parliament are the result of an existing party's electorate seat member 'waka - jumping' to form a party. The Greens leader came in via The Alliance. As we move forward and 'personality', what are cult, leader led parties loose traction as their leaders possibly dissipate means the above likelihood cannot be dismissed. Hence if a sound centrist party cannot be developed & sold to what can be a fickle general public the MMP environment could/will/may be lost to us. MMP came about to prevent the excesses that originated its necessity & we could/will/may find that the right, the left & the indigenous will have voices. The irony is that NZ is predominately a centre voting country but historical mum & dad patterns of voting are yet to be educated against to crescendo the success that MMP can bring to a small nation like ours.

Hence aUnitedFuture is important rather than a divided past & the present divisive state in the House, as important as some form of an effective opposition is under the Westminster system. United & Future parties joined to give NZ United Future. That is now spelt UnitedFuture with no pause, no gap between them. I have added the a @ the beginning! The amalgamation of 2 parties containing both liberal & conservative backgrounds does appear a virulent attempt by at least some very concerned kiwis to see MMP work to give NZ a real concerted effort to unite political minds & hearts to see the best interests of the nation rather than just 1 or either of the old party's promoted.

The point in fact is that the majority of the vast NZ public vote as centrists, either centre left or centre right. Hopefully they will be woken up to the fact that their second vote, their Party vote for the established centre party best serves the nation away from the excesses of the past, of the left & the right to give the country the stability & prosperity it & they deserve when they vote for either their past favour towards a left or right wing party with their first vote, their electorate vote. But people have to 'connect those dots'... if we want a really successful government working for NZ rather than the interests of the old party which gets in to power whether that be Labour or National.

Posted at 2007-09-03 21:43:52.436. Permalink.

Israel currently has a 2% threshold
See here or if you do not like the Wiki, from the Israeli parliamentary website here

Israel has an electoral system based on nation-wide proportional representation. In other words, the number of seats that each list receives in the Knesset - the House of Representatives - is proportional to the number of votes it received. Unlike most of the Western parliamentary democracies, the system in Israel is followed in an extreme manner, and the only limitation on a list which participated in the elections being elected is that it should pass the qualifying threshold, which is currently 2%. (Until the elections to the 13th Knesset the qualifying threshold was only 1%. During the 16th Knesset, the law changed the threshold from 1.5% to 2%.).

One of the holes in our system is that those parties whose votes tally under 5% are lost and hence worthless. I feel that some form of preferential voting would be a desirable mod to fill this hole.