Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
because (in the last election) there would've been two less maori electorates?
I didn't do the numbers that way, but I suspect that applies too (it's harder to work out, as who is to say that 5 Maori seats would be split 3-2 between the Maori Party and Labour - it could be 4-1).
Instead, I re-did the numbers of the basis that a whole bunch of extra voters suddenly appeared in the Maori electorates, and voted in the same proportions as those already there.
-
The reason the Maori Party end up with an overhang is that they don't get the required level of party vote, not just in Maori seats but in all seats, to bring in a member from the list.
That's not a reason. It's a description. An overhang is when a party doesn't get enough party votes to account for all its electorate seats. (You can also say an overhang is when a party wins too many electorate seats compared to its party vote share).
And it avoids the question "what's the reason the Maori Party didn't get the level of party vote required to avoid overhang?" And I suggest the answer to that question is "because electorates are drawn with respect to population, rather than voting age population, and this (along with enrolment and turnout, which are influenced by voter age) means that the Maori electorates have vastly fewer voters in them."
I've done the numbers (and am inclined to turn this into a fully argued post) and if the Maori electorates had the same number of voters as the general electorates, there would be no overhang.
-
I should add that, despite the fact that the Maori electorates are inherently more likely to cause overhang than the general electorates, the system is still weighted against them.
Maori electorates and general electorates represent the same number of people overall, but in 2008, the average general electorate was responsible for electing 1.849 MPs (1 electorate MP (duh!), and 0.849 list MPs). Because of lower enrolments and lower turnout, the average Maori electorate was responsible for electing 1.051 MPs (1 electorate MP, and 0.051 list MPs).
In short, I completely dispute Angus's numbers.
I'm not sure what it shows - and I wouldn't set up the system another way - but Angus's assumptions (that turnout is equal and demographics don't matter) mean his numbers are way off.
-
It doesn't matter that the last 2 seats went to the Nats and the Greens - the overhang effectively advantages the Maori Party.
No, it disadvantages the Maori Party. We have a 120 seat Parliament. The Maori Party won 5 of those seats. That's 4.17% of Parliament. But we have an overhang. Which means the Maori Party get 4.10% of Parliament, despite winning 5 seats.
MMP with overhang is not PR and favours whoever utilises the overhang. Its not due to any inherent bias, just some Maori voters are a good deal smarter than the rest of us.
Actually, inherent bias does have something to do with it. People of Maori descent make up 18% of the population, yet 12% of the voting age population (numbers from last time I made this argument, when I checked). However boundaries are drawn with respect not to the voting age population, but to the electoral population, which includes non-voters, especially children. Because of the relative youth of the Maori descent population, the number of eligible voters represented in each Maori electorate is substantially less than in the general electorates (32,809 enrolled per Maori electorate at the last election vs 44,534 per general electorate).
Because of this (particularly when compounded with the lower enrolment and turnout in Maori electorates) Maori electorates are inherently more likely to cause overhang.
Had the 2008 election (same turnout) seen the Maori Party win 80% of the votes in each of the Maori electorates (and none in the general seats), with absolutely no vote-splitting, there would have been a Maori electorate-caused one seat overhang (at a more realistic 55% it would have been a three-seat overhang, still with absolutely no vote splitting).
-
If somebody was to start a South Island party and run an electorate campaign down there, they'd also get an overhang.
Someone did start a South Island Party. They did run electorate campaigns, but they didn't get or cause an overhang.
The Maori seats are a taonga and not for the rest of us to decide on.
The Maori seats didn't exist when the Treaty was signed. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusion, but the premise doesn't seem quite right.
-
There are also 2 overhang seats from the Maori electorates.
The "normal" situation would be that there are 70 electorate MPs, and 50 list MPs. There are two overhang MPs, making 52 lists overall. The two extra list MPs - the overhang MPs - are from the National Party and the Green Party.
-
The Maori electorate votes tactically and in 2008 under MMP effectively elected 15 MPs (13PR + 2 overhang).
You know there aren't 13 Maori seats at the moment, right?
Also, only 39.3% of Maori Party party voters split their votes. 83.6% of ACT party voters split their votes, as did 66.7% of Green party voters and 81.9% of New Zealand First party voters.
[ah statistics...]
That said:
Well that's really over-reaching based on no data.
We do actually have the data, and my interest has been piqued, so I might do some analysis tonight.
-
I'm sure Ive heard several times, including from one direct source, that Rodney Hide has been speaking out against MMP also.
Rodney Hide has been pretty upfront about it. It think he mentioned in on Q+A (maybe The Nation) a while back. I don't believe that's the only place he's said it (speeches and the like as well). The good thing is, of course, that he only gets one vote, the same as Peter Shirtcliffe and John Key and you and me.
-
Samuel - I imagine National are quite happy with MMP. I've long-suspected that the promise of a referendum on MMP was something they came up with to assuage party members, many of whom will bail up MPs at every committee meeting and party function, asking why we haven't had that referendum. It's a big deal for some of them, and not a big deal either way for the MPs, so why not, if it keeps the party machine contented?
-
I think it was Graeme who pointed out that without MMP there would actually be many more Maori seats
It was, and I'm wondering what impact it might have on the debate. I noted - only half-jokingly - on the Dim-Post recently:
Those pushing for an alternative have a problem – the average person who wants rid of MMP is pining for the good old days, but the status quo ante isn’t an option.
The 1993 election – our last under FPP – had 99 MPs, and a fixed 4 Maori electorates. We’re not going back to this. A prospective FPP system will have 120 MPs, including 12 (probably 13) Maori electorates. All we need is Sandra Grey to dog-whistle.