Keep the threshold
No Right Turn has responded to my earlier post on the "wasted vote" by suggesting that the 5 percent threshold under MMP be reduced to 0.8 per cent, the amount to get one MP in Parliament. It would also mean that there would not be the need for the required one elected member in lieu of a 5 percent threshold requirement. But it would also mean that National, Labour, the Greens and NZ First will have fewer MP s and will be joined by United Future, Act, The Progressives, and new parties CHP, the Maori Party, the Alliance, possibly Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and Destiny NZ after the next election. ( Note, Outdoor Recreation has joined with United Future.,
With a bit of encouragement we could well see a National Front MP in Parliament if their supporters get a sniff of a possible 1 per cent. Gee, we could even have a union register as a political party.
Hands up who wants that mix. Imagine Question Time. Imagine a select committee consisting of Matt Mc Carten, Brian Tamaki, Tim Barnett, Muriel Newman, Meteria Turei, Paul Adams, Ewen McQueen, Craig McNair and Clem Simich. Lotsafun. Not much agreement. Imagine all the private members bills from fringe parties being voted down at the second reading and wasting time.
The threshold is there for reasons: Democracy and governance being two. We don’t want fringe parties in Parliament. That is why the MMP Royal Commission in 1996 recommended a threshold - 4 percent. In the end 5 percent was decided on.
If the threshold was 0.8 percent, we`d have the smaller main parties having just as much influence on the political process, with the 1 percent parties having so little influence they may as well not be there.
(Yes, I know the Progressives are polling less than 1 percent but we are talking about low polling newcomers and Jim Anderton isn't exactly a newcomer, he is an elected MP and was the Prime Minister's best man.)
Reassigned votes will have much more clout - albeit unintended - in the current political climate, even if they are described as "wasted votes".
The "wasted vote" of the current MMP system is better than a minimal threshold. We just need to minimise how many people waste their votes. The former leads to a vote for someone other your preferred party and the latter would lead to "wasted MP's" who have no influence in the House - and paid for by our taxes.
Some would say we have enough of them as it is.
1 comment:
adjusting the MMP threshold to the recommended 4% is the logical and required tweak to reduce the strategic voting while ensuring that one electorate seat doesnt drag a untested bunch of list ning nongs behind what could be a marginal electorate vote. WinPeters and PetDunne are a case in point. These two brought in some dunderheads who have contributed very little but like UF have held the country to ransom threatening to throw the toys out of the cot over legislative initiatives such as "class D" for evidential drug evaluation. Such twittish behavour should be avoided. It makes New Zealand look intellectualy backward. A lower threshold would restore some equity and enhance canvassing of issues at the margins. 4% is an order of magnitude easier to pass 'the ballot box test'than 5%. However it wont make any substantial difference for the major players... other than make choosing partners for good governance much easier and logical.
Else we should have the electoral resolution we never had tested,(it was denied) and put MMP up for the promised review and compare it to STV (since we voted FPP out twice).
Post a Comment