Posts by Steven Peters
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
I think the high 5% threshold subverts the intent behind MMP, that is, to provide a more nuanced direct representation of new and small parties, and special interest groups in the polity. However, I think the ideal of the or potential of MMP is subverted by the politics. National does not have a buffer on the right? NZ First is their obvious buffer to retain power, and National is NZ Firsts obvious buffer into it.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Yes we do have eight parties now, but I cannot see where the quote you use of me saying it is. But anyway , what I did say was "Outside of the Maori electorates, we only have four parties of significance in the house". We may indeed end up with six parties in the house , as you suggest, but only four are of significant numbers (more than one or two).
Of the Maori electorates, the Maori party is going backward in terms of seats, and Mana is definitely not a certainty to survive, as it was formed as a reaction to the Maori/Nat coalition, and when this goes, probably Mana will too.
As far as Act, and United Future go, well, at least one will go.
Four parties in the house increasing diversity?. There used to be three under FPP.
A genuine increase in the diversity of representation in parliament of the nz electorate , one would have thought, would mean a decreasing dominance of the two main parties in parliament , but that doesn't appear to be happening, the number of seats they hold is increasing over time. Reading the Royal Commission concerning the goals of the MMP system, I don't think that was their intention, or desire. But maybe I am misreading it. Am I Graeme?. -
What I was endeavoring to show is that in the MMP era, the share of seats going to the major parties, Nat/ Labour, is increasing. The share therefore going to 'other parties is decreasing. In theory, MMP should have delivered the a result opposite to this.
The share of the seats going to medium size NZ first and the greens is increasing, compared with other small parties. Therefore 'very small' parties decreasing.
I am awaiting with interest to see what the final Proposals to parliament are, from the Electoral commission. I predict they will not lower the party threshold, although they should. Even if they do, it will not be by much, but 3% would be a big improvement.
-
"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"
I cannot agree with you entirely about this, Ben. I found a good table on Wiki 'Elections in New Zealand', from which I was able to calculate that during the MMP era, the seats going to Nat/Lab has gone up from an avg 82.6 in the first three elections, to 97.3 in the last three.
It also shows electoral turnouts continuously dropping, to a low of 74.2% in 2011. -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
MMP is the best system for NZ. I wish to stick by the Royal Commissions findings, and ostensibly electoral commission, the independent bodies (I have my doubts about the latter) called upon to advise parliament about what would be a fair and effective electoral system. .
The problem is, with the high MMP threshold, a roadblock to small constituencies (say less than 10% of electors/electoral population - you would need to capture 40% of those voters to cross the threshold proposed, a very big ask). Sure they suggest lowering it to 4%, its still a roadblock - just lower.. It prevents minorities, and other new and developing political forces emerging.I think the number of MP's not in labour and National is dropping over time, as a proportion. Election participation rates are also dropping.
My main gripe is with the electoral commission, because it proposes to 'drop' the PVT threshold to 4% (the original level very cautiously mooted in 1988) , yet it wants to abolish the one seat threshold it recommended. These two thresholds were seen by the RC as integral to each other, interdependent in their mind, to maintain proportionality given the relatively high 5% PVT they set. They even spoke of it as a single threshold in two parts. Therefore, it is not an evolutionary step they are proposing, but devolution, in that it will make parliament less proportional, which conflicts with a fundamental aim of MMP.
FPP was undemocratic. So is the FPP lite we are heading for, under the guise of MMP.
most new parties in the House seem to become extinct, at varying rates, under the present regime.
The exceptions are NZ first and the Greens. If you are happy with the left right spectrum, and the continued cosy club of either a 'populist nat. or labour led government, then this is as good as MMP need get. But it could offer NZers more than that, IMHO. -
You equate diversity with the number of MP's who do not belong to National or Labour. That is a necessary condition for diversity, not a sufficient one. It is the number of parties in parliament, representing the diversity within the the electorate (ethnic, class, age, interests, ideology etc), that is important for a better democracy. our parliamentary democracy is a party system, not an MP system.
Minorities are not effectively represented by the big parties - their first loyalty is to the party, and its discipline. As the Royal Commission put it, somewhat obliquely 'Since the identification of the individual representatives with their groups is likely to have a strong bearing upon their effectiveness as representatives, democracy also recognizes the need for the direct and fair representation of diverse groups by members of those groups. However, the mere presence of a group in the legislature does not guarantee political effectiveness' (p 88).
The facts illustrate we are heading towards a four party parliament, who as you suggest will be more 'populist'. That is not a genuinely democratic response to the widening diversity in our society, which MMP was designed to respond to effectively, not through populism. Populism has its reference point as middle NZ, which will marginalize minorities, and difference. After all, we have had a lot of practice.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Outside of the Maori electorates, we only have four parties of significance in the house, which will align around the 'old and tired' left (Labour/Greens), and Right (Nat/NZ First) block, to form governments in future. Back to FPP, lite
Act is probably history anyway, and Ohariu (United Future 1 MP - very small party) is a close run race with Labour and arguably relies on a nod from National
That leaves Maori and Mana (the latter a very minor party), and the Maori party (only 3 MP's) has problems of its own re succession, and continually falling voter support (which is not surprising, as what long term future can there be in a Maori Party/ Nat coalition - it may be they have achieved their main aim, getting the seabed and foreshore returned from the Labour Party)
.
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. -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Yes so the Greens split from the Alliance, which was their springboard into Parliament in 1996. Act on the other hand, was a genuinely new party to enter parliament under MMP. That would make ACT the only genuinely 'new' party to have entered parliament under MMP that was not resulting from a split from a party already within the MMP system.
How does this make the Royal Commissions, and arguably Electoral Commissions, desire to see MMP create opportunities for new parties to enter parliament through elections? 4 out of 10, I would (generously) give them - fail. -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
Oops - Freudian slip. I used the abbreviation above NF and was in fact meaning NZF (New Zealand First), not the (ahem)... no, I wont go there.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
My point was to directly contradict your claim that the minor parties stand only for “middle NZ”.
I don't see where I make this claim. In fact I believe the opposite.
however this brings me to an important point. They say the study of politics, and hence electoral systems, is a 'science'. It may be good at number crunching votes and formula's, but beyond that, i have my doubts (but I digress).
One of the flaws in the Royal Commission, and the Electoral Commissions Proposals, is their very loose use of what should be very well defined terms. Being loose with your terms leads to inaccuracies , misunderstandings, and masks the reality. Terms used in these reports such as 'minor parties, 'small parties', 'smaller ' 'new parties', 'main parties', 'large parties' and even 'extreme parties' , the latter being a particular subjective term. I think it would have been fruitful, and still would be, to set up a typology of these terms, so we all know what they may/do mean, and what we mean when we try and discuss these issues rationally - to ensure we are speaking the same language.
I wont attempt a typology here, but off the top of my head, I see Nat and Lab as governing main parties, NF and Greens also as medium parties. Act (whose days appear numbered) and United Future are very small parties (with only one MP each).
The Maori Party is a small party, Conservative medium (on the basis of their party vote) , Mana, very small.
Actually this brings me to another important point. Someone mentioned that most 'new parties' were the result of MP's already in Parliament defecting from their 'parent' party (and good on them!). That is probably spot on, given the 'road block' of the party vote threshold, preventing genuinely new parties entering the parliament from outside, and not predetermined by existing political structures.
If someone is interested, perhaps they could post a list of these defections. I cannot think of a single new party that has entered the house from outside, since MMP started in 1996, with the possible exception of the Greens.Regards
Steven