More on that referendum on the voting system

Sometimes I wish I was a journalist, even if it was to clarify answers given by Jordan Williams. Well I am a journalist, but not for radio or TV.

Also, just to clarify, there are two questions in the referendum on the electoral system, to be held at the general election.You will be asked whether you want to retain MMP or change to another system. Then you`ll be asked which of four other voting systems to choose from should voters opt for change.

You can answer both questions, or one question – i.e you can answer the second question even if you don’t answer the first one, and vice versa. That’s important. If MMP is kept, it will be reformed, the second question will become irrelevant and there`ll be no 2014 referendum.

Vote for Change are banking on there being a referendum in 2014 between MMP and the favoured alternative. Spokesperson Jordan Williams was on TVNZ today. He said:

NZers should tick to change the system this election, so we actually get to see what this reformed MMP would look like. .. It would be a disaster if NZers vote to keep MMP and we hand the power over to the politicians to reform it.

Two points:
1. Politicians will not be reforming MMP – the Electoral Commission will. The Government will decide whether to adopt its recommendations.
2. There is no guarantee we will “actually get to see what the reformed MMP will look like” if we tick to change the system as the government may not hold a 2014 referendum.What if the government decides to stick with the the chosen 2011 alternative for the 2014 election should a majority decide to ditch MMP? MMP will be gone.What if the alternative system is chosen in 2014? There’s a better chance to see MMP reformed (and sooner) if we tick to keep it in 2011.

So in sum, if MMP is retained in 2011, it is after that we will get to see “what this reformed MMP would look like". If it is not, the favoured system as voted in the second referendum question should run off against MMP in a referendum in 2014. If MMP loses again, we don’t get to see MMP reformed, if MMP wins, we do.

If you want to see MMP reformed, vote for it in 2011.Got that?

Voting for electoral system change

Peter Shirtcliffe may be 80, but he has a lot of say in this new anti MMP “Vote for Change” group, and spokesperson Jordan Williams is merely helping him along a bit.

The group's rules show the committee has just two people: spokesperson Jordan Williams and Peter Shirtcliffe. However Simon Lusk is also involved.This committee holds office until the next Annual General meeting of the society – usually held in May - six months after the election. Perhaps it`ll be a post-mortem on the referendum – that’s if the group has not already been wound up.

If members want to call a special general meeting it can be up to four months before it is held, but if Shirtcliffe and Williams want to hold one, they can do so within 14 days of a committee meeting.

The group’s founding members include Peter Shirtcliffe, Aaron Hape, Annabel Young, Chris Parkin, Emma Daken and Michael Bassett – most signed up by Jordan Williams – all who support one of two electoral systems. The good news about this group is that anyone can apply to join. The bad news is that the couple on the committee can remove any member, or refuse any prospective member, for pretty much any reason – like intending to vote for change to STV. Their decision is final. Only certain "votes for change" are permitted.

Now back to the electoral systems and the possible review of MMP. The “Vote for Change” group believes the review process is flawed as it is up to the politicians to “fix” MMP. Furthermore they’ve said that those who support a review of MMP are really admitting that MMP is “flawed”.

On Morning Report, Williams said that his group is about discussing “what of the four alternative” electoral systems should replace MMP. Yet the group refuses to discuss the benefits of Preferential Voting and the STV systems.

So in reality, the group is about “which of two alternative” electoral systems – First Past the Post or Supplementary Member - should be preferred, with the result being Supplementary Member, as decreed. Those who support any other system could be deemed as acting “contrary to the aims of the society”, as their vote for change is not what Williams and Shirtcliffe propose.

As both Williams and Shirtcliffe have come out in support of Supplementary Member (SM), if other members disagree with an impending announcement to support the SM electoral system, because they support First Past the Post, will that affect their membership, will they be coerced to support SM - or will they be told to shut up.

Vote for Change – to what?

A new anti MMP campaign has gone online today. It’s called Vote for change – a group that wants a fairer electoral system than MMP. But it is unclear what they want to change to as they have not endorsed a particular alternative to MMP.

That is because some of its founding members can’t agree on whether they like the First Past The Post (FPP) or the Supplementary Member (SM) electoral system.

So what do they want?

We want an electoral system that provides certainty for voters, rather than forcing Kiwis to wait for post-election negotiations. Vote for Change wants governments to be held to what they promised, not what parties manage to negotiate in coalition agreements.

It appears they want a government without a coalition and haven’t thought through how their support for either FPP or SM assists governments to be held to what they promised. It’s also clear that they don’t want MMP

MMP allows List MPs who have been voted out by their local electorates to sneak back into Parliament on party lists.

So they don’t particularly like a lot of list MPs – if they want a reduction of list MPs they`ll support Supplementary Member, in the hope that a one party government can be formed

Under MMP, MPs need to listen to party bosses to keep list rankings, instead of listening to their electorates.

That won’t change with Supplementary Member, as those who rely on list places will be listening to their bosses more so they don’t miss out altogether, let alone worry about where on the list they`ll be ranked.

Like I said, this group have not specified a decision on which electoral system to support. The group says that once they have a “substantial membership base Vote for Change will announce its decision” - a decision to support the Supplementary Member system.

The 2011 referendum on the electoral system

Here's a few thoughts on the referendum on the electoral (voting) system.

At the general election there will be a referendum giving you the chance to have your say on the voting system. The Electoral Commission has been working on its publicity campaign and is to post out information on each electoral system starting today.

On election day you`ll be given two voting papers. One will be the standard voting paper, the other one will be a purple voting paper and you`ll be asked two questions:
• The first question asks whether you want to keep MMP (our current voting system) or whether you want to change to another voting system.
• The second question asks which of four other voting systems you would choose if New Zealand decides to change from MMP.

The four alternative voting systems you can choose from are:

First Past the Post (FPP) - the person with the highest plurality of votes in each of the 120 electorates wins – i.e. a candidate can win if he gets fewer than half of the votes, provided he gets more than the others.

Preferential Vote (PV) - the person with the highest majority of votes in each electorate wins, as the candidate must get over 50 percent of the votes to be elected.

Single Transferable Vote(STV) MPs are elected by receiving a minimum number of votes (called a quota – based on the number of votes in each electorate and the number of MPs to be elected in each electorate).

Supplementary Member (SM) - Candidates in 90 electorates are elected the same way as in First Past the Post. The remaining 30 seats in the 120-member Parliament are called supplementary seats. MPs are elected to these seats from political party lists, the same way list MPs are currently under MMP.

If at least half of voters opt to keep MMP, the second question is irrelevant and the Electoral Commission will review MMP in 2012 to recommend, with public input, any changes that should be made to the way it works.

If more than half the voters opt to change the voting system, Parliament will decide if there will be another Referendum in 2014 to choose between MMP and the alternative voting system that gets the most support in the second question in the 2011 Referendum.

The following outlines the split of electorates under the different systems – and how each system compares with the others:
Under MMP we’d have :
16 South lsland electorates
47 North Island electorates
7 Maori electorates
The remaining 50 will be list MPs proportionally allocated from closed political party lists.

Supplementary Member will lead to more North Island, South Island and Maori electorate MPs as there will be fewer list MPs. There are:
21 South Island general electorates
60 North Island general electorates
9 Maori electorates

Once all candidates who receive the highest number of votes are elected, the remaining 30 seats in the 120-member Parliament are called supplementary seats. MPs are proportionally allocated these seats from closed political party lists and are likely to be called List MPs. This system is sometimes called First Past the Post “in drag” as the government outcome is almost identical - and is why many politicos who support National like this system

First Past the Post and Preferential Voting will have even more North and South Island electorate and more Maori electorate MPs as there are no list MPs. We’d have:
•27 South Island general electorates
•81 North Island general electorates
•12 Maori electorates

So given that under FPP and PV, we’d have the same number of electorates in each island and the same number of Maori electorates, what’s the difference between the two systems?

The difference is in the way each MP is elected.

Under FPP, the person with the highest plurality of votes in each electorate wins; under PV, that MP must get over 50 percent of the votes to be elected– and here’s how they do it.

Candidates are preferentially ranked ( 1,2,3 etc) and a candidate who gets more than half of all the first preference votes (that is votes marked "1") wins – as would happen under the other electoral systems..

But it is where no candidate gets more than half the first preference votes that things change. If that was to happen under FPP and MMP, that candidate with the highest number of votes will be elected. However under PV, as candidates are ranked, the candidate with the fewest number of “1” votes is eliminated and their votes go to the candidates each voter ranked next.

This process is repeated until one candidate has more than half the votes.

The Single Transferable Vote system will have the same spread of MPs as FPP and PV but fewer electorates as follows:
• About 6 South Island general electorates with a total of 27 MPs
• About 18 North Island general electorates with a total of 81 MPs
• About 4 Maori electorates with total of 12 MPs

So each electorate will have between 3-5 constituent MPs as, with FPP and PV, there are no list MPs.

Where STV differs with the other electoral systems is that there are fewer electorates ,but up to five people can be elected in each electorate, and parties can have two candidates elected from the same electorate, so if you are a National supporter in a Labour constituency you may not appreciate ending up with two Labour MPs, a Green MP and a NZ First MP. Like PV, voters still rank individual candidates ( 1, 2, 3, etc) , but MPs are elected by receiving a minimum number of votes (called a quota).

Candidates who reach the quota from first preference votes are elected. As there are electorate seats to fill after first preference votes are counted, a two-step process follows.

First, votes the elected candidates received beyond the quota are transferred to the candidates ranked next on those votes. Candidates who then reach the quota are elected.

Second, if there are still electorate seats to fill, the lowest polling candidate is eliminated and their votes are transferred to the unelected candidates ranked next on those votes.

This two-step process is repeated until all the seats are filled.
So, if the country wants to keep MMP, then all we need to worry about is how to change it – i.e whether the threshold remains at 5%, whether MPs who lose their seats can come in off a safe list seat, whether list MPs should also stand as candidates for a constituency etc. If voters decide to change to another electoral system it’s a long drawn out process which will then need electorate boundary divisions quickly drawn up once we know what system is chosen.

Why some campaigners prefer Supplementary Member over any alternative to MMP

Stuff has reported that the Right has MMP in its sights, and has named National - linked bloggers David Farrar and Cameron Slater as part of the discussions. ACT has yet to decide what electoral system it supports, but it's leader Don Brash publicly supports SM ( Supplementary Member).

Cameron Slater ( aka WhaleOil) does not particularly like list MPs, and does not like First Past The Post (FPP). He prefers the Preferential Voting (PV) system. He was pleased that Maggie Barry won her selection for National on the North Shore on the first ballot ( meaning she got more than 50 percent of the vote), using a similar system to the preferential voting system. [update: the difference to PV is that the lowest polling candidate is dropped and rather than the candidate with the fewest number of votes being eliminated and votes reallocated, the lowest polling candidate is dropped and a new ballot held until a clear winner emerges].

David Farrar calls the campaign a pro SM campaign. Farrar prefers the SM system over FPP, thinks PV is too complicated ( despite telling a select committee of his desire for a preferential ballot to rank electoral systems on the upcoming referendum on the electoral system). He thinks SM and STV (Single Transferable Vote) have some merit">. But he prefers a run off between MMP and SM to decide our electoral system, despite considering that SM is "significantly disproportional".

So both Farrar and Slater, along with campaign leaders have discounted STV and PV as they are complicated and difficult to explain. They don't want to got back to FPP as they quite like that people such as Don Brash can get into Parliament without winning a constituency. So if any electoral system is to run off with MMP (if a majority of voters do not want MMP), it should be the Supplementary Member System .

Hence the campaign - to get that run-off.

Tomorrow or the next day, I`ll be looking at the five electoral systems in more detail, for those who think SM, STV ,FPP,PV and MMP are just strange groupings of letters.

MMP is better for New Zealand than every other electoral system. Here’s why.

warning: longer than usual post
The upcoming referendum on the electoral system next year will end up being a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) walkover, or a choice between two electoral systems: MMP and either First Past the Post (FPP), or Supplementary Member (SM). Either way MMP should remain and then be modified.

Incidentally, the ‘first past the post’ label is completely misleading because there is no fixed winning post. The system was not designed for national elections, and is unlikely to enhance democratic accountability when a significant proportion of the population wishes to vote for parties other than National and Labour. Under FPP, what you need to win a local seat is just a ‘plurality’, namely more votes than anyone else. So the more parties compete in each seat, the lower the winning ‘post’ gets, and the greater the likelihood that most of the the voting public will vote for a party other than the governing party. Consequently political scientists call this system ‘plurality rule’, a much more accurate label.

MMP is proportional in that proportionality extends to all elected members – both on the list and through constituents. The SM electoral system - a bastardised FPP system which was comprehensively rejected in the 1992 referendum - has all of the claimed disadvantages of MMP, such as the status of list MPs, plus the disadvantages of FPP, including parties getting most of the seats with a minority of the votes. SM allows for a relatively small number of list MPs which “top up” the electorate MPs.

The big difference between the SM and MMP lists is that, under MMP the list is used to offset the distortions to proportionality that are inherent in the FPP electorate system, as the party vote only determines the composition of the list seats. Under MMP the party vote determines the composition of parliament. SM, however, uses the list to reinforce those distortions, and this list gives token representation to minor parties. List MPs are way outnumbered by electorate MPs, with list MPs only providing the proportionality. This means that a smaller percentage of list MPs would lead to decreased proportionality than is currently the case, and single party government will be the norm, as it is under FPP.

The advantage of a mixed-member proportional system arises because voters can indicate a preference for a candidate without supporting that candidate's party. A good candidate in an unpopular party has a stronger chance of election.

As an electoral system, SM is closer to FPP than MMP. FPP will only survive as a functioning electoral system if a high majority of people in the electorate support the two main parties, and the voters for these parties have sufficient confidence in their party to form a single party government. In most cases since 1996, SM would have produced the same government outcome as FPP, based on current voting, although minor parties would have had fewer MPs. In 1996 SM, under a 90/30 electorate/list top-up split, as proposed by the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, would have generated the same government outcome due top NZ First’s capture of the Maori seats. But in 1999, in one of the lowest election turnouts, Labour’s share of the seats was over two percent higher than its share of the party vote and had NZ First and the Greens not crossed the threshold, that share would have been higher.

Supplementary Member is likely to lead to Māori being disproportionately represented in parliament. While it won’t affect how Maori electorate seats are elected, due to split voting it may influence allocation of supplementary seats. Overall proportionality would not exist as the “top-up seats” are likely to be as low as 30 percent of total parliamentary seats. Alternative Vote is likely to rely on second choice preferences, as is STV; FPP is majoritarian in the extreme, is disproportionate, and is likely to “waste” votes. Perhaps this was among the reasons why the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, in its 1996 report Towards a Better Democracy, recommended that MMP was ‘to be preferred to all other systems’. FPP would lead to winners being over represented and losers under represented. This is particularly the case in the Maori seats, where, for example, in 1990, Labour won all the electorates with 65.4% of the vote. More than one in five Maori electorate voters voted for Mana Motuhake, which won no seats. If voters behaved the same way, the party would not be under represented as its share of the nationwide vote, nor would it have won a supplementary seat under SM either, as its overall vote was only 0.6% ( which is also under the MMP 5% threshold).

Single Transferable Vote (STV), in single member districts, as we have in New Zealand, is better than FPP, but not as proportional as MMP. Under this system candidates are ranked and the candidate with the lowest number of votes drops out and votes are reallocated among the remaining candidates and so on until a candidate gets the majority of votes. It is unclear whether this would lead to single party or coalition governments, but it would require a national top up to guarantee full proportionality between the larger parties.This system was rejected by the Royal Commission in 1986.

MMP is the better bet provided the proportion of list seats does not go below 40% - i.e. 48 seats in a house of 120. Currently under MMP it is 70/50.When discussing the choices between electoral systems, the discussion should not be which of the electoral systems - FPP, STV, MMP, SM etc – is preferable. Rather it should be whether one supports single party government or multi-party government – or whether one considers that the party with the most votes should get the most seats. Most supporters of single party government will probably prefer FPP. But when they realise that single party governments are less likely to do what the people want and are less likely to keep their promises, FPP support starts to diminish among those that value democratic ideals. Furthermore, as FPP was never designed for national elections it cannot guarantee that the party with the most votes will get the most seats. Indeed, in 1978 and 1981, the winning party, National, got more than half of the seats with less than half the vote. In 1981, National governed with just 38.8% of the vote. Had these elections been held under a Supplementary Member system (SM), with that vote, this would have still been the case.

There has been some discussion over recent years regarding the 1990 election. That year National got 67 seats for just 48% of the vote, and Labour got just 29 seats, as New Labour got the other one. That was more disproportionate than Labour’s 1972 result. That year Labour also won 48% of the vote but got 63% of the seats and Social Credit got its lowest ever election result (6.7%). Just three minor parties have since got a higher share of the party vote, all whom had leaders with parliamentary experience. Similarly, in 1951, the UK Labour Party lost the election despite outpolling the Conservatives and winning a majority of the popular vote. In 1974, Labour won the election despite the Conservatives gaining most of the votes. So FPP fails to ensure that the party with the most votes gets the most seats. FPP is not a fair system when 21% of the electorate can vote for one party and be represented by fewer than 2% of the members of parliament, as did Social Credit in 1981.

In fact, of four electoral systems - FPP, STV, SM, and Preferential Voting (PV), not one guarantees that the party with the most votes gets the most seats because some seats are allocated to parties who have not won them based on their share of the vote. The non-proportional preferential voting system maintains the basics of the Westminster system intact, but allows second-place votes to count towards determining the winner if no party wins more than fifty percent of the vote. FFP is likely to foster majoritarian extremes. Only MMP guarantees that the party with the most votes gets the most seats, and without these extremes.

While MMP makes it easier for a greater number of parties to enter parliament, it is not without problems. In the 2008 election, NZ First got more votes than Act, United Future and the Progressives combined, yet NZ First was out of Parliament because it failed to have its threshold effectively lowered by securing a constituency seat to gain representation. The others remained in Parliament purely because they did. All four parties- along with the Māori Party, polled less than the 5% threshold. Had the MMP threshold been 4%, NZ First would have relied on the threshold for their parliamentary existence, as would have the Christian Coalition when it gained 4.3% in 1996.

Open lists; or either lowering or removal of the threshold – which would prevent the situation where Act got fewer party votes than NZ First, who got no seats - is preferable to introducing a new electoral system such as SM. Also, as the population increases, this will lead to a greater number of electorate seats – and a fewer number of list seats, if the number of South Island electorate seats continues to be pegged at 16. Currently there are 52 list seats ( down from 55 in 1996) and 70 electorates (up from 65 in 1996) – including the seven Māori electorates which currently provide a two seat overhang.

But the fact remains: To the average voter, MMP, STV, FPP, PV and SM are not electoral systems, they are merely letters without much meaning. Prime Minister John Key has said that any change to the electoral system requires a major advertising campaign. "We can't ask people to make constitutional changes without understanding what the options are."

Politics is often seen as two sections: the left and the right. Act will go with National and the Greens with Labour. Many other PR systems are like this. New Zealand is different as we have centre parties that can go either way - United Future and even the Maori Party. So the left/right splits are not so relevant, as we have seen with New Zealand First when they held the balance of power in 1996, and chose National to govern when most thought Labour would have been picked.

There are a lot of matters on our electoral system options that need to be understood. The task of making sure any possible changes are understood will fall on the Electoral Commission.

Why National supports Supplementary Member and the Greens oppose it

Heres how the New Zealand House of Representatives would have looked under the Supplementary Member electoral system, with the current seat numbers in brackets for comparison.


New Zealand National Party - 65 seats (58)
New Zealand Labour Party - 40 seats (43)
Māori Party -6 seats (5)
Green Party - 4 seats (9)
Act New Zealand - 3 seats (5)
Jim Anderton's Progressive - 1 seat (1)
United Future New Zealand - 1 seat (1)

National would have governed alone, may as well have had FPP, with no bridle on executive power.

If the five percent threshold was to be removed:
Under SM, only National and Labour would be affected, both losing a seat to New Zealand First. Under MMP, National would have 3 fewer seats, Labour 2 , the Greens 1 , with Act getting an extra seat. Three additional parties will enter parliament: New Zealand First with 5 seats, with Bill and Ben and the Kiwi Parties gaining one seat each.

Had the 2008 election been under SM, Act would have still have got more seats than NZ First- even without a threshold - and with 10,000 fewer votes.

So, does anyone else think that, in the context of discussing electoral systems, a reduction of the MMP threshold would be preferable to the adoption of the SM system, with or without a threshold.

Reforming our electoral system

Philip Temple makes a lot of sense in the Herald this morning.

National, odds on to lead the next government, has promised a referendum on MMP by 2011 on the following terms: "The referendum will give people a choice between retaining MMP without any further consideration or having a further vote on MMP alongside another electoral system or systems".

Without any further consideration means that we will be given no chance to discuss the kind of Mixed Member Proportional representation we now have, or could have in the future.

No chance to debate whether we should change or improve our New Zealand version. Because, unlike the antique First Past the Post (FPP) system, MMP can be modified to suit the needs of the electors. And it is those needs that are paramount.

You don't like the fact you can't change the party lists? You think the threshold is too high or too low at 5 per cent of the vote? These and other matters can be debated and fixed. The electoral system belongs to us, not the politicians, and we should be properly consulted on what we want before any kind of referendum is held. The National Party's "without any further consideration" suggests they have no intention of doing that.

What we need is not an ill-defined, ad hoc referendum but a new Royal Commission on the Electoral System, a generation after the last, to enable a considered examination of all aspects of the voting system - including the electoral cycle, electoral financing and the Maori seats - so that all sectors of the community can have input and influence in bringing about much-needed reform.