MMP: This Time It's Binding

  • Russell Brown,

    Can the 2011 referendum on MMP fix anything that's broken? And what will happen on the way to a result?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22747 posts Report Reply

172 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 7 Newer→ Last

  • George Darroch,

    What is broken?

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Compie,

    Does Peter Shirtcliffe still have buckets of money to run another disinformation campaign.

    Anything with less representation will be a crime against democracy - full stop!


    Dunedin/Vancouver • Since Nov 2006 • 114 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    2011: Referendum

    2014: Referendum

    2017: First election, using new system.

    Prediction: Labour to win absolute power (sic) on a minority vote. (Anti-MMP crowd: "D'oh!")

    Actually my real prediction is that we'll keep MMP. But, you know, it would be funny ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1319 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Withers,

    MMP has provided stable, effective government while at the same time limiting the effective dictatorhships we used to suffer under with First Past the Post.

    It has been able to do this BECAUSE it is a fully proportional voting system.

    Kiwis would be mad to throw away their ability to elect the people they want.....

    I don't think they will.

    The threshold could be reduced to 3% or 4% and get rid of the 1-seat exception to proportionality. Restore the 50/50 ratio between list and local. The list MPs have been doing a fine job - especially for the minor parties.....while the safe seats for the major parties have been a refuge for deadwood since 1855.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 312 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    If we must dump MMP, then STV is the best of a bad lot.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5415 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    If we must dump MMP, then STV is the best of a bad lot.

    We fought for this democracy. We're not going to just hand it back to them. I'm not, anyway.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    What is broken?

    Well -- like Winston Peters or loathe him -- some people would say that NZ First getting twice as many votes as Act but no seats was unfair.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22747 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    Well -- like Winston Peters or loathe him -- some people would say that NZ First getting twice as many votes as Act but no seats was unfair.

    So change that.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Brent Jackson,

    some people would say that NZ First getting twice as many votes as Act but no seats was unfair.

    Yes, it was. But that's because the threshold is too high.

    I reckon 2.5% is about right.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Glenn Pearce,

    some people would say that NZ First getting twice as many votes as Act but no seats was unfair.

    I thought they both got around 3.5 - 4 % of the party vote, ACT being the slightly lower of the two ?

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 499 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    What is broken?

    ... like Winston Peters or loathe him ...

    Yeah. Winston has been MMP's biggest flaw.
    Other than that, brilliant.
    Worth fighting for.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Well -- like Winston Peters or loathe him -- some people would say that NZ First getting twice as many votes as Act but no seats was unfair.

    Some people may also say that, in 1999, it was unfair that 67 electors in Tauranga allowed a pack of oxygen thieves to ride back into Parliament on his coat-tails. It all evens out in the end. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • LegBreak,

    67 electors in Tauranga allowed a pack of oxygen thieves

    Can I just say that’s one of my favourite expressions.

    Given people (apparently) can’t understand MMP, how are they expected to get STV?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    Given people (apparently) can’t understand MMP, how are they expected to get STV?

    They won't.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    So change that.

    Sure. But the referendum can't do that. It'd be baby, bathwater, etc. That was the point of the question above.

    I should note that I'm very strongly in favour of retaining MMP.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22747 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    Sure. But the referendum can't do that. It'd be baby, bathwater, etc. That was the point of the question above.

    I should note that I'm very strongly in favour of retaining MMP.

    Indeed. I know you are playing devils advocate. But I'm angry that we're even being asked the question.

    The point of this referendum is not: how do we make Parliament more democratic. That would be a very good question to ask.

    It is: do you like that people you do not like are elected to Parliament, and should we change things to ensure they cannot, and your guys are more likely to be elected?

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    MMP: This Time It's Binding

    So much for my presumptive post ... about how this isn't a binding referendum :-)

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Grigg,

    I should note that I'm very strongly in favour of retaining MMP.

    Same. NZ is one of the more perfect democracies in the world, with a tiny bit of sensible fine tuning being all that may be needed. God help us all if we go back to FPP or to the confusion of STV.

    Just another klong... • Since Nov 2006 • 3283 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    The point of this referendum is not: how do we make Parliament more democratic. That would be a very good question to ask.

    That would be a really bad referendum question...

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    So much for my presumptive post ... about how this isn't a binding referendum :-)

    Well, yes, technically the first one only binds the government to stage a binding second referendum if required, but ... bloody lawyers.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22747 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    get rid of the 1-seat exception to proportionality.

    Why?

    That makes the system less proportional, not more.

    Sorry, but hating Winston isn't a good enough reason for effectively removing the vote (and that is the pratical effect) from supporters of small parties.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1711 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Well, yes, technically the first one only binds the government to stage a binding second referendum if required, but ... bloody lawyers.

    Now they haven't released draft legislation yet, but I very much doubt this will be the case.

    The upcoming referendum will bind absolutely no-one. There will be no requirement to hold a second referendum built into the law setting it up and any attempt to include one will be meaningless. There being a second referendum rests solely on whoever is elected to govern (and has a legislative majority in the House) at the next election deciding to honour any pre-election pledge to follow what the public wanted.

    Sorry, but hating Winston isn't a good enough reason for effectively removing the vote ... from supporters of small parties.

    It's not hatred of Winston, but dislike of ACT :-)

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    There being a second referendum rests solely on whoever is elected to govern (and has a legislative majority in the House) at the next election deciding to honour any pre-election pledge to follow what the public wanted.

    This suggests an obvious political strategy: Protect MMP, de-elect National.

    The problem is that Labour isn't too fond of democracy itself.

    It's not hatred of Winston, but dislike of ACT :-)

    Either way, its no justification for effectively taking the vote off people. After all, I don't like either Phil Goff or John Key. the electoral system should therefore be stacked so that the votes of Labour and National supporters do not count.

    It's ludicrous and undemocratic - but its what threshold advocates are special pleading for.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1711 posts Report Reply

  • Samuel Scott,

    I find it funny that the press/National angel on this assumes that National will win the next two elections. I mean I wouldn't put money on Labour winning in 2011 at this stage but a lot can happen in two years...

    South Wellington • Since Feb 2008 • 315 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    So change that.

    Sure. But the referendum can't do that. It'd be baby, bathwater, etc. That was the point of the question above.

    I should note that I'm very strongly in favour of retaining MMP.

    Is it totally impossible that one of the options in the second referendum could be "the status quo"? I'm asking if the first referendum could guarantee change, or if the second, having laid out the options in more detail, could actually give the opportunity to reject change?

    Also, is it impossible for one of the other options in the second referendum to be 'tinkered with MMP'?

    I don't know the answer to these questions...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10630 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.