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.
Effectivly what the 2011 referendum was about. That is what that “preferential” system was about. But its all there STV, FPP
Yeah I am not sure it really was. The option I want wasn’t listed. I want our current MMP system, but with a transferable vote.
Generally the options in that referendum seemed to involve voting for candidates and those people forming parliament. I want our electorate/party system, but being able to rank first, second, third choice etc.
It’s basically criminal that the referendum didn’t include the exact system I want 😋
But seriously, we could easily implement this and it would be way more democratic than this system where if you vote for someone that gets 4.2% of the vote, the 5 MPs they should qualify are just not counted and are given to other parties instead. I get the feasibility of 120 different parties trying to make a coalition, but STV for selection of parties, otherwise using the existing system, would get a lot closer to people’s actual views because no one would need to guess whether their preferred party might get 5%.
I guess what i see is an ideal system for new zealand, that builds on what we already have is a mix of STV and MMP.
You get the same form you get now, parties on one side, individuals on the other. If you want you can do what you do now and tick one party and one member and be done. However you could also have the ability to rank either the parties or the members or both. When either or both are ranked then your ballot goes into run off with those preferances, if you just tick then it either skips the run off stage or you get parties and members to submit their own prefences ahead of voting and your vote will go into run off using those preferences.
Yeah something like that is what I imagine too. I think our voting system needs tweaks, not replacement. And I definitely don’t want to go to a world where the right bloc can win 51% of the vote in every electorate and get 100% of the seats.
Kind of. I’m not suggesting a move from MMP.
It could work with the party system as well, like if your party vote doesn’t meet the 5% cutoff then transfer
100% this.
STV would work extremely well as a party vote.
It would effectively eliminate the “wasted vote”; if your first choice doesn’t get in, your vote then transfers to your next choice.
That’s true.
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.
I consider the minor parities to be far worse versions of their majors and seeing how easily people are swayed towards extremes I think our country would be cooked by this. The current system means they have to earn their vote through building trust over the years.
I really can’t agree with this.
The 2023 election was the least MMP election since MMP came in. With a clear left right split; it was very much like first past the post, with extra steps.
Minor parties represent the views of those voters; weather or not you agree with or not. I don’t really see Greens as worse Labour; or Act as worse National.
I also it doesn’t really work when considering NZF; whom have worked with both sides are they worse National or worse Labour?
That’s an interesting perspective given that some parties have held their seats for decades. Do you really think the parties have earned trust or that some people just vote for them out of habit?
I take a ‘build it and they will come’ approach: I think that if it is possible to actually get in, the minor parties will be able to consistently find better candidates who are willing to invest the time. Right now there is often no point, except for the top of the party list.
If you really think that minor parties place the country at risk I guess you’d be in favour of electoral systems that reduce their chances of getting in.
They have held their seats and and spent time in government and I think that has shown that they are absolutely incapable of governance of the country.
