MMP: This Time It's Binding
-
Can the 2011 referendum on MMP fix anything that's broken? And what will happen on the way to a result?
172 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
What is broken?
-
Does Peter Shirtcliffe still have buckets of money to run another disinformation campaign.
Anything with less representation will be a crime against democracy - full stop!
-
2011: Referendum
2014: Referendum
2017: First election, using new system.
Prediction: Labour to win absolute power (sic) on a minority vote. (Anti-MMP crowd: "D'oh!")
Actually my real prediction is that we'll keep MMP. But, you know, it would be funny ...
-
MMP has provided stable, effective government while at the same time limiting the effective dictatorhships we used to suffer under with First Past the Post.
It has been able to do this BECAUSE it is a fully proportional voting system.
Kiwis would be mad to throw away their ability to elect the people they want.....
I don't think they will.
The threshold could be reduced to 3% or 4% and get rid of the 1-seat exception to proportionality. Restore the 50/50 ratio between list and local. The list MPs have been doing a fine job - especially for the minor parties.....while the safe seats for the major parties have been a refuge for deadwood since 1855.
-
If we must dump MMP, then STV is the best of a bad lot.
-
If we must dump MMP, then STV is the best of a bad lot.
We fought for this democracy. We're not going to just hand it back to them. I'm not, anyway.
-
What is broken?
Well -- like Winston Peters or loathe him -- some people would say that NZ First getting twice as many votes as Act but no seats was unfair.
-
Well -- like Winston Peters or loathe him -- some people would say that NZ First getting twice as many votes as Act but no seats was unfair.
So change that.
-
some people would say that NZ First getting twice as many votes as Act but no seats was unfair.
Yes, it was. But that's because the threshold is too high.
I reckon 2.5% is about right.
-
some people would say that NZ First getting twice as many votes as Act but no seats was unfair.
I thought they both got around 3.5 - 4 % of the party vote, ACT being the slightly lower of the two ?
-
What is broken?
... like Winston Peters or loathe him ...
Yeah. Winston has been MMP's biggest flaw.
Other than that, brilliant.
Worth fighting for. -
Well -- like Winston Peters or loathe him -- some people would say that NZ First getting twice as many votes as Act but no seats was unfair.
Some people may also say that, in 1999, it was unfair that 67 electors in Tauranga allowed a pack of oxygen thieves to ride back into Parliament on his coat-tails. It all evens out in the end. :)
-
67 electors in Tauranga allowed a pack of oxygen thieves
Can I just say that’s one of my favourite expressions.
Given people (apparently) can’t understand MMP, how are they expected to get STV?
-
Given people (apparently) can’t understand MMP, how are they expected to get STV?
They won't.
-
So change that.
Sure. But the referendum can't do that. It'd be baby, bathwater, etc. That was the point of the question above.
I should note that I'm very strongly in favour of retaining MMP.
-
Sure. But the referendum can't do that. It'd be baby, bathwater, etc. That was the point of the question above.
I should note that I'm very strongly in favour of retaining MMP.
Indeed. I know you are playing devils advocate. But I'm angry that we're even being asked the question.
The point of this referendum is not: how do we make Parliament more democratic. That would be a very good question to ask.
It is: do you like that people you do not like are elected to Parliament, and should we change things to ensure they cannot, and your guys are more likely to be elected?
-
MMP: This Time It's Binding
So much for my presumptive post ... about how this isn't a binding referendum :-)
-
I should note that I'm very strongly in favour of retaining MMP.
Same. NZ is one of the more perfect democracies in the world, with a tiny bit of sensible fine tuning being all that may be needed. God help us all if we go back to FPP or to the confusion of STV.
-
The point of this referendum is not: how do we make Parliament more democratic. That would be a very good question to ask.
That would be a really bad referendum question...
-
So much for my presumptive post ... about how this isn't a binding referendum :-)
Well, yes, technically the first one only binds the government to stage a binding second referendum if required, but ... bloody lawyers.
-
get rid of the 1-seat exception to proportionality.
Why?
That makes the system less proportional, not more.
Sorry, but hating Winston isn't a good enough reason for effectively removing the vote (and that is the pratical effect) from supporters of small parties.
-
Well, yes, technically the first one only binds the government to stage a binding second referendum if required, but ... bloody lawyers.
Now they haven't released draft legislation yet, but I very much doubt this will be the case.
The upcoming referendum will bind absolutely no-one. There will be no requirement to hold a second referendum built into the law setting it up and any attempt to include one will be meaningless. There being a second referendum rests solely on whoever is elected to govern (and has a legislative majority in the House) at the next election deciding to honour any pre-election pledge to follow what the public wanted.
Sorry, but hating Winston isn't a good enough reason for effectively removing the vote ... from supporters of small parties.
It's not hatred of Winston, but dislike of ACT :-)
-
There being a second referendum rests solely on whoever is elected to govern (and has a legislative majority in the House) at the next election deciding to honour any pre-election pledge to follow what the public wanted.
This suggests an obvious political strategy: Protect MMP, de-elect National.
The problem is that Labour isn't too fond of democracy itself.
It's not hatred of Winston, but dislike of ACT :-)
Either way, its no justification for effectively taking the vote off people. After all, I don't like either Phil Goff or John Key. the electoral system should therefore be stacked so that the votes of Labour and National supporters do not count.
It's ludicrous and undemocratic - but its what threshold advocates are special pleading for.
-
I find it funny that the press/National angel on this assumes that National will win the next two elections. I mean I wouldn't put money on Labour winning in 2011 at this stage but a lot can happen in two years...
-
So change that.
Sure. But the referendum can't do that. It'd be baby, bathwater, etc. That was the point of the question above.
I should note that I'm very strongly in favour of retaining MMP.
Is it totally impossible that one of the options in the second referendum could be "the status quo"? I'm asking if the first referendum could guarantee change, or if the second, having laid out the options in more detail, could actually give the opportunity to reject change?
Also, is it impossible for one of the other options in the second referendum to be 'tinkered with MMP'?
I don't know the answer to these questions...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.