Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Why should MMP over time, in theory, have resulted in something opposite to that trend?
Indeed, I can't think of a theoretical mechanism, and since the facts would contradict it, I don't see why I'd bother. Explaining why the opposite happened might be useful, but it's hard to prove. I said National and Labour broadened their support after they got the hang of MMP, which is some of the story (and I think it's a good thing about MMP that this happened). But declining turnout might also be part of it, I don't know. That could have bitten Labour even harder than it bit 3rd parties.
Now we're in the interesting situation of National being way ahead of the pack, but the pack being bigger than National, and they are without a buffer on the right. So National's strategy may be a long term fail. The only direction they can grow is left, and if Labour is growing to the right, National could end up cornered in the battle for the center. Basically, all they can do at this point is hold, which is what they have been doing.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
Steven, from what you've said we want the same thing for reasons that are similar in some ways, different in others. At this point in time, nearly 20 years down the track, what the electoral commission recommended doesn't matter too much to me. We now have 20 years of actual data to see how this system has worked out in our actual case. We can make way more informed decisions about MMP now than we could back in the early 90s.
I cannot agree with you entirely about this, Ben.
Since I crunched my numbers from the same table you're using, you'll need to explain what you're disagreeing about. I said it jumped from 0.57 per electoral cycle to around 30. Here's the numbers, from that table:
FPP Era:
1+1+2+2+1+4 = 11 MPs elected in the 1938-1993 period. There were 19 elections, so the average elected per election was 11/19 = 0.57. I notice a minor math fail, there were 3 independents who also got in '38 and '43, so correct 0.57 to 0.63. That's still less than one per election, on average.MMP Era:
39+32+41+23+21+28 = 184 elected in 6 elections, so 30.7 per election.Ratio improvement (going from FPP to MMP) of non-Nat/Lab in parliament = 30.7/0.63 = 48.7. Yes, that's nearly 49 times as many MPs elected per cycle.
You are right that this number has been trending down across those 6 elections, as has participation. No disputes there. I'm not sure that it's the electoral system that is to blame for this, though. This has been a trend elsewhere in the developed world, too.
It's very concerning. My opinion is that this is driven by economics more than any other factor, that the nation is in economic decline, with a growing divide between haves and have-nots. People start to feel that no political group represents them, and even if one did, it would not help them. But I have not made a study of this.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
You equate diversity with the number of MP's who do not belong to National or Labour.
No, I really don't. But I don't think that number is of no significance in the diversity of our political landscape. Diversity is hard to quantify, because you have to specify every kind of difference that is relevant, and how much difference, and how many with that difference.
I'm becoming unsure whether your gripe is with the PVT or with MMP. It seems to me like you're saying that MMP was worthless without a much lower threshold, and we might just as well still have FPP.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
From my understanding, MMP was a new voting system that was designed to respond to the increasing diversity in NZ. Somehow I don't think four parties was what they hope for when they designed it. I think there were even four parties (or more ) under FPP.
The forces of reaction against a genuine multiparty democracy seem ubiquitous.It's delivered greater diversity. The moment MMP was brought in, the number of MPs who were not in Labour or National jumped from an average over the previous 55 years of around 0.57 (yes, that's less than one, on average) to around 30. That's an extremely significant improvement in alternative party support.
The number of alternative parties is an interesting statistic, but you have to realize that politics is an endlessly evolving beast. The big party machines have learned how to work with MMP over the last 6 election, and their behavior has changed significantly, as have the demographics of their support. Generally, they've widened, become more populist. The number of parties in Parliament is not the only measure of diversity of representation.
Those points made, I still think that the PVT cuts down diversity. But let's at least be realistic about how different MMP is from FPP in that respect. FPP routinely blocked very large groups from any representation, often over 10%, and in one case (1981, Social Credit), over 20% of the population voted for them and only got 2 seats.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
I don't get the point you are making after you say' But the minor parties are voted for by all sorts of people' in para 2.
My point was to directly contradict your claim that the minor parties stand only for "middle NZ". That's simply completely wrong.
The proposal by the Electoral commission to 'reduce' the threshold to 4% (the figure originally recommended by the RC) is not a political system 'designed for the future', as you suggest.
It was designed for the future, at that point. It also didn't pan out that way. We don't have 4%, instead we have 5%. That's what happened. That's the reality on the ground. We're not living in an alternative universe, where MMP was done how the EC said. So, practically, going to 4% from 5% is a change.
This isn't rocket science. You have to do considerable mental conniptions, and are doing them, to somehow convince yourself that 4% is the status quo. It's not, never has been, and if it did become the status quo, it would be an improvement on what we are currently living under. And I agree, it still would not be good enough. But improvement is improvement.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
Could you clarify your last sentence, for me, I don't get you point. Thanks.
No problem, although before I do, I'd like to clarify something else, again. We want the same things in the end. I don't think a 1% drop is all good, all that's ever needed. I just don't think it's worth nothing either. I've said repeatedly that I think there should be no PVT at all.
So, that last point. It's not really that hard. Humans look ahead before they do things. They don't like to waste their efforts, rights, resources. Seeing that something will be wasted in one direction, they don't go in that direction. So the number found in that direction isn't an entirely reliable guide to how many people would be found there if there wasn't a waste.
Barriers influence human behavior. So you can't really judge what the behaviour would be like after removing the barrier by what it was beforehand. A road block stops people going down a road, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't go down the road if it was open.
Yes, if a road had been always blocked, it would be guesswork to say how much used it would be when opened.
You claim it would only help "Middle NZ". I dispute both whether this is true, and whether it is relevant. Middle NZers are still people, they still have rights, and they can have diverse views. But the minor parties are voted for by all sorts of people. Is Mana a party appealing to "Middle NZ"? Some Christian parties are almost entirely the choice of Pacific Islanders. NORML is probably mostly supported by stoners. Maori Party is nearly entirely targeting Maori people.
Also, the political system needs to be designed thinking of times in the future, not just now. So it's important to try to remove your own prejudices against whoever you think might be immediately advantaged or disadvantaged. That can and has all changed.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
We basically want the same thing, Steven. I'm just prepared to say a small improvement is worth having whereas you think it's stalling something bigger. I can't really prove you're wrong, I just have low expectations for what is possible in NZ constitutional politics at this point.
why do you say a drop from 5% to 4% 'means a lot'.
Because it makes more effective the votes of tens of thousands of people. Also, the value of it might not be linear on the proportion of the drop, because it is, after all, a binary threshold. The impact on voter behavior could be more than past data would indicate. Things that poll around 4% might have got far less due to voters seeing no point whatsoever when their choice would get no power at all.
I'm not sure it's an FPP hangover - it was something Germany did, so we did it too (scaled for the size of our House).
We scaled the one-seat-threshold? What was the German threshold?
Though I think it wasn't until 2002 that he got in on Party votes (the famous worm), other elections he was always there on his electorate vote.
I checked back before I said "United Future, 2005", in the first place. That was the only time that UF got "topped up". Every other time, either they got only the Dunne seat, or they got over 5% (once, in 2002).
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
What the OST has done is allow one party to maintain another in a parasitic relationship, which is not, to my mind, acceptable.
There's always going to be deals between parties. I'm not convinced by this point - I don't think ACT is necessarily parasitic on National. I see that they're simply strongly aligned.
The only defectors under MMP have failed to use the coat-tails mechanism.
United Future, 2005? Mana 2013 (I hope!)
I just don't think that the OST does enough to justify keeping it, given that various problems it has.
I'll give that it's a stupid hack, always was. A hangover from FPP, when local representatives actually mattered. However, now, it's the only little valve there is for parties less than 5% in size. They won't always be people I despise.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
I cannot think of a single party that is empowered by the one seat threshold. If there is one, who is it?
Over the last 17 years, it has variously advantaged NZF, ACT, Alliance, Progressive, UF. The party vote threshold has also threatened the Green party with oblivion 4 times, and wiped out NZF in 2008.
What is the difference between most seats, and key seats, Ben?
The key seats empower the small parties.
Is it the possibility of coat tailing that weakens the major parties, or simply of defection, which points to the divisions within the party itself.
I'd argue that coat tailing makes defection more attractive, since it offers the chance of running a whole party. It obviously appealed to Brash, even though he was nowhere near canny enough to think that putting himself in as the Epsom candidate might be wiser for his future (and ACTs). But I'm not sure history backs me up - defection seems to have become less common under MMP. Probably because being a strong electorate MP is not necessary any more for large party success, and is a disappearing trait.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
Going from 5% to 4% is a 20% drop. 20% less people would need to vote for a minor party, for it to get representation. That's a substantial move. I'd rather there was no threshold at all, beyond the "have to get enough for one seat" ie 0.83%. But moving toward that is a good start. People might start realizing how completely arbitrary the value is, that it really is the "How many NZ people do we want to exclude from representation" factor, which has been steadily coming down for over a hundred years.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 412 413 414 415 416 … 1066 Older→ First