Will National have the most friends in 2008?

Well, it's about one year out from the election and it is time to do another post on MMP. Just Left and No Right Turn have done posts on MMP which are worth reading, and although Carter gets more comments on his blog than I do on mine, I get more than No Right Turn (for reasons which are obvious), and get enough readers who read both their blogs to do a post - even though they don't comment much here. So this post is in light of Government formation.

Some people know that we don't vote for a Government in this country, we vote for a Parliament and certain members of Parliament and their staff decide who the Government is to be once we have decided the composition of Parliament. Some say that MMP is undemocratic as we don't directly have a say on who forms the Government. Some say it is the party with the most votes who is the Government - that is blatantly false. Never has been, even under FPP.

Under FPP it was the party with the most seats that got hold of power, but that party didn't necessarily have the most votes - as happened in 1978 and also in 1981 when National got fewer votes than Labour but had an 11 seat majority. Some believe that with MMP, the party with the most seats have an automatic right to form the Government. That's incorrect as well. You don't have to be the party with the most seats or the most votes under MMP to be the main party in a colation Government.

But MMP is a lot more democratic that a system where a party gets 20 percent of the votes and just two MPs - as what happend in 1978 - or when National gets in power despite 65 percent of the population voting for other parties - as happened in 1993. Had 1993 been an MMP election the Alliance would have got 23 seats (a handful of seats fewer than National got in 2002), and NZ First would have got 10 seats instead of two.

It is usually the party with the most friends in Parliament who collectively have more seats than everyone else who form a MMP Government - and these friends - ie all MP's of that party - not only don't have to be in Government, they don't even have to be on the same side of the left/right political divide. Therefore opinion polls are not about which party those polled thinks will "win the election", they are about which party will have the most friends in Parliament with the most seats after the election to form a government.

One Green commentator on Carter's blog stated that he voted Greens because he wanted them to have representation in Government. He appeared to forget that Greens currently have two government spokekpeople - for NZ Made and Energy Eficiency, but under FPP wouldn`t even be in Parliament. But if greenies vote Green to get Government representation, will they be happy to have a representative in Buy NZ Made under a National Government, possibly with a deal that they abstain on confidence and supply?

It's not beyond possibility, is it?

spinning a referendum on MMP

Graeme Hunt doesn't like MMP. So he got UMR Research to ask 750 people what they thought and concluded that there is strong support for a referendum.

Yet 43 percent of those polled had a neutral opinion on MMP. That's not strong support. In fact a higher percentage thought MMP was had a positive impact rather than negative - nearly twice as many, in fact. Look at his justification.

"What New Zealanders are unhappy with is the power MMP grants to small parties which are unable to win constituency seats. They don't want to see the tail wagging the dog as happened over the anti-smacking debate."

Actually, at the end of the smacking debate, the dog wagged the tail. That's why the legislation passed. Furthermore how many small parties are in parliament that have not gained constituency seats? One. How many parties are in Parliament that have not had a party member who was an MP previously - none.

There appears to be more opposition to the list than the minor parties. But Hunt doesn't want to spin that way because he supports the supplementary system.Hunt is the author of Why MMP Must Go: The Case for Ditching the Electoral Disaster of the Century. Yet the interpretation of his UMR poll is just spin in line with the book - and even then it doesn't measure up.

Wilson tipped to quit Parliament

And not a moment too soon. Feminazi Margaret Wilson was never elected - she`s a selected list MP, not an elected representative - she has never been in opposition, but became a minister straight after entering Parliament. As far as I know she is the only MP to have become a minister straight after entering Parliament and a speaker without being in Opposition.

She has never had a real job - all her jobs have been funded by the taxpayer - so its time that she got a real job.

MMP: reduce the five per cent threshold?

I'm, back, been a bit busy lately.

Destiny New Zealand announced yesterday that is is contesting the next election. It was the highest polling party outside parliament in 2005, getting 14,210 votes (0.62 per cent), 100,000 votes short of getting past the five per cent threshold. It is currently polling more than the Progressives. However it is futule to compare Destiny's position with the Progressives as Jim Anderton has an electorate seat.

Some have suggested that the threshold should be lowered or abolished. Let's have a look at this. Options that have been discussed are are an abolition, a reduction to 4 percent as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, or to 0.8 percent, the equivalent of one electorate seat.

Only one person would have benefited by a reduction to 0.8 per cent at the last election:Destiny's Richard Lewis, as all other parties that got between 0.8 percent and the threshold got an electorate seat as well. IN Previous elections, the Alliance would probably have been in Government in 2002, but with fewer seats. The Alliance (13) and NZ Firsts (17) combined seats in 1996 were greater than National's haul in 2002.

The sole advantage (if you could call it that) a one percent reduction in the threshold as recommended by the RCES would have made is that Graham Capill would have got into Parliament in 1996 for three years, as the only party to get between four and five per cent of the vote without getting an electorate seat post MMP was the Christian Coalition in 1996. So reducing it to 4 percent won't change much.

if the threshold was 0.8 per cent, though, any Christian Coalition of Destiny/Christian Heritage/ NZ Family Rights would have not got one seat in 2005 either as its combined vote was just 0.79 per cent - just outside!

Here's their votes in 2005
Destiny 0.62%
Christian Heritage 0.12%
NZ Family Rights 0.05%


DPF has some figures.

However, if we had have had a 0.8 pecent threshold from 1996 we would have had more parties in Parliament.

In 1996 we would have had Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis (1), Christian Coalition (5).

In 1999 we would have had Christian Coalition (3), Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis (2), Future New Zealand (1)

In 2002, The Alliance, Christian Heritage, Outdoor Recreation (1 seat each).

In 2005 there would have been no change.

If I was former United Future MP Gordon Copeland I`d be campaigning on reducing the threshold to 0.8 per cent, rather than removing the anti-smacking Act. Barring a miracle, its the only one of two ways he is going to get back into Parliament. However, even if Copeland's Future New Zealand Party was to go into coalition with Destiny, Christian Heritage and NZ Family Rights, he is not likely to get back into Parliament -bui even if the threshold is dropped to 0.8 percent he will have to have an almighty scrap with Destiny's Richard Lewis to get the top spot on the list.

He's got as much chance as the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and Destiny New Zealand of getting into Parliament after next year's election. Which is nil. And its also a shame. He deserves to be in Parliament. He is one of the best MPs UFNZ has ever had.

Maori in Parliament

A few quick thoughts on Maori representation..

It is interesting that of all the minor parties in Parliament, including the Maori Party, just one entered Parliament through an MMP election. All such parties when formed were/are headed by people from other political parties, most of whom had already been in parliament as MP's. One notable exception is Russell Norman of the Green Party, a party who, like NZ First, contains all list MP's. ie: had FPP been our electoral system, the Greens and NZ First would not be represented in Parliament - and of course the Maori Party would be the only party to have the same number of MPs as it currently does, given that it does not have list MP's..

Which brings me on to Maori representation. We have 21 Maori MP's in Parliament. Just three of these MP's were initially elected off a general seat, although all three are now list MPs, and one is about to retire. The only electorate MPs who are Maori are from the Maori Party. National says it wants to get rid of Maori seats by 2014. What that would essentially do is get rid of the Maori Party from Parliament, without elevating Labours vote, which I don't think is what the Royal Commission on the Electoral System had in mind, because any Maori Labour MPs would not represent Maori interests as much as they could. It doesnt matter if Dover Samuels was a General list MP or a Labour electorate MP, he would not represent Maori interests to the extent of a Maori Party MP.

So the Maori Party relies on Maori seats to be in the House. If the Maori party was to go and the seats remain, they'll go to Labour. So you can see why National wants to get rid of the Maori seats -it actually minimises opposition to National.

But the Royal Commission on the Electoral System wanted Maori in Parliament, and actually suggested a 4 percent threshhold rather than the current 5 percent in the hope that perhaps a Maori party will be elected - but as we now know, the threshhold was irrelevant to when the Maori Party entered Parliament through a by-election and it was irrelevant at the last election. Ironically, The RCES saw MMP as the best means of providing effective Maori representation. Well, that depends on whether you mean Maori representation or Maori representation, and how much weight you give to list seats.

In any case not too Many Maori have been elected to a general seat - Winston Peters and Georgina Beyer are two of the most recent, and they're now both list MPs.

So the RCES did support the Maori seats - sort of - and it is wrong for National to say that they didn't. Perhaps the RCES did not forsee that any Maori Party didn't need to have the political threshhold lowered to enter Parliament.