This is probably not the kind of reform our Prime Minister has in mind, but I’d like to tinker slightly with our system and allow a ranked choice of electorate candidates (keeping the party vote system as is). That way, voting for minor parties will not be such a risk of wasting your vote in electorate seats.
For me, this is an issue that seems to fly under the radar but is vitally important. How many people have you heard complain about the duopoly of the two major parties? This would go some way towards making those parties campaign on their merits rather than on tradition, and I hope it forms part of any coalition agreements we see emerging from this election. (Will it? Probably not, since it’s not a big deal for most people right now.)
It works for council elections, it can work for general elections too.
If it tinkering you want.
How about eliminate the party vote all together; and STV the electorate seats.
Set a representation number and have that many MP’s; parliament expands as the population does.
Currently we have 120 MP’s for ~4.2M voters; but only 60 electorate seats. So ~70k voters per electorate.
However if we kill off the party vote it moves to 35k voters for each electorate, with twice as many electorates. In the past we had a lower ratio, in 1996 we had 120MP’s to approx 2.3M voters ~20k voters / MP. To get back to that ratio the current number of MP’s would need to expand to 210.
Maybe 30k/MP would be reasonable; so 140MP’s seems like less of a crazy jump.
If we keep parliament the same size; our representation is diluted further with each passing year.
I hadn’t considered that the rising population might be an issue that people would like to address here. I know it’s been a concern in the US in the House. For me I’m comfortable with having 120 MPs as I don’t want to pay more MP salaries. I can understand why other people might think otherwise.
I’m also reluctant to dump the party vote system. I’m in the regions and my politics are out of step with pretty much everyone around me. With the party vote system I can vote for the party of my choice and know that my vote counts towards their final total. If it were done with an electorate only, my voice would be gerrymandered into not being heard at all, even with smaller electorates.
Look at Paul Goldsmith, he has been lumped with Chris Penk’s portfolios, bringing him up to 11.
MP’s can’t possibly handle 5 portfolios effectively, how can we expect good governance, if we knowingly overload the decision makers ensuring the quickest easiest decisions get made.
Ideally I’d like to see max 3 portfolios per MP.
As for gerrymandering, math will sorry you out. Just rule that length of the district boundary, must be the shortest possible length. At that point gerrymandering becomes impossible.
I agree that Goldsmith now has too many portfolios and you’re right about how this imperils good governance. It seems to me though that National already has options within its existing caucus and doesn’t need more MPs if the goal is simply to distribute the workload. This is more of a choice from the prime minister about how he delegates work and voters can decide what they think about it, I guess.
Labour was similar, as I recall — there were a few ‘super ministers’ in charge of a lot.
I take your point regarding gerrymandering. It’s not quite the right word. Replace it with a word that means ‘made to vote in elections where my vote will not materially affect the outcome whereas under the current system it can’, if you like.
There are plenty of electorates where your vote make little difference.
I’m in the Taupō electorate. This has been a strong national seat for 18 years. Voting against national here, though I will, isn’t going to change the outcome.
Fair enough. Hence why I’ve been arguing to retain the party vote system under my proposed tinkering rather than moving to electorates only.