The Proportional Representation Fallacy

MMP is supposedly a proportional representation system of Government. Supposedly we elect a Government that is proportionally representative of the views in society. So explain to me why the Government is made up of Labour, the Progressives, the Greens, United Future and New Zealand First?

According to official election results the National Party received 39% of the vote. Note: I am not singling out the 2005 election for any partisan reasons, and the National Party did the same thing previously). Instead of a Government being formed in proportion to the wishes of the people, the party with the largest number of votes stitched together agreements with "minority" parties to get over a 50% threshold in order to govern. This effectively relegated the wishes of those who voted for ACT, the Maori Party and National to the opposition benches. Clearly the wishes of the people were not listened to.

This has resulted, as I have pointed out previously, in a situation where we have the minority parties setting an agenda out of proportion to the views they represent in society. We can have a party that represents the views of only 5% of the population, getting support for legislation, when a party that has 39% support does not get to put forward policies it had in its manifesto. This is the phenomenon of "the tail wagging the dog".

Hopefully this immoral and unrepresentative electoral system will be overturned. Given the level of disenchantment I hear from people I associate with I think a referendum would show people support ditching the system.

However, I suspect that if the final decision is left to the politicians then they are not going to back the majority view of the people, but will try to make the system more palatable. The corporations they work for (i.e. the political parties - they are just businesses in my view) are not going to want to lose their grip on power.

Here are some suggestions for how MMP could be made more palatable:

1. Axe it (well as I said that is about as likely as hell freezing over)
2. Abolish the Westminster Parliamentary System (chances about the same as MMP being abolished)
3. Change the percentage requirement for a vote to pass in Parliament from 50% to 75%

If the threshold for a vote to pass in Parliament was increased from 50% to 75% then the major political parties would have to be more accommodating of each other (the idea of the Grand Coalition). Immediately following a general election those parties that represent the majority views of the people would have to work out a way to work together on issues, and establish a much more collaborative approach. The political minorities would be relegated to supporting or opposing legislation in proportion to their representation in society.

The Electoral Commission needs to look into this. If the threshold is raised to 75% then the matter of how an election is run, first past the post or some form of proportional representation, is largely irrelevant. 50% is too low a threshold for making decisions with regard to a country.

Ask a stupid question....

There's been a lot of debate in the media on the current Electoral Finance Bill. I even found someone other than a politician who supports it. http://jtc.blogs.com/just_left/2007/08/why-we-need-the.html I think Mr Carter needs to re-read what he wrote, and think things through. The last election was 'bought' using tax payer's money, and I am not referring to the $700,000 over expenditure by the Labour Party. If I need to spell it out, the purchase price was Student Loan Interest, 20 Hours Free Early Childhood, and increases to the Working for Families entitlement.

Anyhow, as you probably guessed, I think the whole concept of the Electoral Finance Bill is a debate about the wrong issue. First we need to look at our entire Parliamentary system, before we decide how we get people in there.

I refer to the Westminster Parliamentary System as being "auto-combative". We have political parties arrayed as Government and Opposition. Quite frankly, this is wrong. Would any corporation, sports club or Women's Institute arrange their governing body in this manner? They would not, as the logical outcome would be a total utter shambles. Yet we let politicians in New Zealand arrange themselves on this inefficient manner.

Parliament should be New Zealand's top-level boardroom. It should be comprised of a group of people who are working together for the benefit of all the shareholders of New Zealand Limited.

Okay, before all you who can't see the foregoing as metaphorical, I do not mean that the country should run as a "business", but that there are parallels. (Perhaps I should have stuck with something more benevolent like the "Women's Institute").

So we have to do away with the Westminster Parliamentary System. It is a sacred cow that does not seem to be questioned, and yet it is so obviously problematic in delivering good governance.

For all their faults, businesses do a very good job of governing themselves. Many, many sporting bodies and volunteer organisations do well too.

So, stop the debate about how people are funded into Parliament, and debate how we can better organise Parliament.

Just to tantalise readers, here are my suggestions:
1. abolition of political parties
2. a 5 year political term for an MP
3. 20% of electorates are put up for election each year (rather than a General Election once every 5 years)
4. a more cohesive local and national government...

MMP - wrong, wrong, wrong

If you wanted the worst form of government possible, you would not choose MMP (Mixed Member Proportion) as your electoral system. You would opt for anarchy. MMP only delivers the second worst form of government.

The New Zealand electors were conned in the selection of MMP. Back in the '80s when we voted in a referendum, and the overwhelming majority selected MMP I doubt that 2% of the population understood what they were letting the country in for.

MMP may deliver a proportionate representation of the views of the populace (notice that I said "may") in terms of the number of MPs in Parliament. However, in combination with the "auto-combative" Westminster Parliamentary system operated in New Zealand it is an utter failure at delivering good government.

Here's what MMP does.

Firstly, a proportionate number of MPs representing all the views of the populace is elected to Parliament. There should be proportionately the same number of fringe looneys in Parliament as there are in society, and the same proportion of "politically correct" (as in, "I'm right, you're wrong") as there is in the general population.

Secondly, under the Westminster Parliamentary system, in order to form a government a political leader (let's call them a Prime Minister) needs to have the support of 50% or more of the members of Parliament. Negotiations take place between the various parties (here that means Political Parties) and a compromise is reached. Policies are traded off in order to reach a position where these 50% of MPs can share the power of being in government.

Smart readers will have spotted the problem already. Prior to the election political candidates can (within reason) promise anything they like. If elected, and they get invited to the negotiating table, they can simply trade off their "principles" and go back to the voting public with an excuse. They claim that in the overall picture it was better for them to be on the Treasury benches rather than in Opposition and holding out over a principle.

In order to maintain "Confidence and Supply" support, the major coalition partner needs to support legislation put forward by minor partners. In this current Parliamentary session the coalition has supported legislation put forward by an informal member i.e. the Greens have offered to support Labour, United Future and New Zealand First on confidence and supply while not being formal members of the coalition. Without the former, the latter 3 would lose the Treasury benches.

The result is that while there is supposedly a proportionate number of moderates, liberals, conservatives and loonies in Parliament, there is actually disproportionate representation in the development of policy. The minor views actually hold a disproportionate amount of influence on the Treasury benches.

How hard is it for voters to see this?

Maybe I haven't quite been hard enough of MMP as I should. However, I am prepared to cut it a bit of slack that with the right Parliamentary system it might have merit. However, in combination with the Westminster system it is an abject failure.

I haven't at this point gone into the problems of Political Parties, especially how they have been disproportionately empowered by MMP. In a later post I will fill you in.