Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: Election 2017: the no threshold hypothesis

Dennis Frank

Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:27:06 +1300

A similar historical analysis has today been published here: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/13-10-2017/third-parties-under-mmp-a-comprehensive-retrospective/

Worth considering this from the author: "voters appear to treat the threshold as a measure of viability. Below this, the risk of a third party losing their seat seems to deter voters: if the party’s electorate is lost, a party…

tussock

Mon, 09 Oct 2017 17:13:02 +1300

Oh, it's such a long story, but here's a summary in a comment. (1.4 first divisor, because) alt.history of no threshold!

1996: Christian Coalition (5) and ALCP (2) were discarded, National + NZFirst loses majority, leaving either National + Christian or Labour + Alliance choice for NZFirst. Winston went right…

Dennis Frank

Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:12:48 +1300

I'm sympathetic to the diversity perspective, and confident the ALCP would have prospered under MMP with no threshold since cannabis users passed the majority here some years ago according to polls (albeit that many would have voted for established parties for other reasons).

Proliferating sectarianism is the downside: last count…

izogi

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 20:36:40 +1300

Obviously, voters would behave differently if there was no threshold

This is an important consideration, I think. It's hard to predict what would really happen with no threshold or a lower threshold. There'd be a much greater incentive for new parties instead of trying to work inside an existing party.…

Paul Campbell

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:14:21 +1300

You misunderstand MMP. Winston merely gets media attention and this silly line that he holds “balance of power” because he doesn’t announce intentions until after everyone else. Greens also have “balance of power” if you want to run that line.

Actually my point was that with the numbers shown above…

Bruce Ward

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 17:00:37 +1300

The fact that we have a situation where parties can legitimately tell voters that they'll risk wasting their vote if they vote for what they really want, is shameful.

This!

izogi

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 16:42:53 +1300

In any case, if the main concern is that small parties can't function reliably enough (something I disagree with), it's not as if there aren't still options that would help make the system fairer.

eg. At least give voters some form of alternative vote, so we can express where we…

linger

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 16:05:36 +1300

Yes indeed. National of course has even been marketing itself explicitly on its "stability" as opposed to any option relying on negotiations between different parties. This is of course a big fucking lie, on several levels: (i) the last few National governments have actually relied on such negotiations; and (ii)…

izogi

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:40:07 +1300

It was not true of the Alliance (10% in 1996), nor United Future (6.7% in 2002), nor ACT. It is unlikely to be true of NZF post-Peters. Even the Greens have recently demonstrated the potential for personal disagreement to disrupt a party

I'd suggest that both National and Labour have…

Kevin McCready

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:31:36 +1300

You misunderstand MMP. Winston merely gets media attention and this silly line that he holds "balance of power" because he doesn't announce intentions until after everyone else. Greens also have "balance of power" if you want to run that line.

Nick Kearney

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:07:34 +1300

But the Cons are only a extreme party you don't like. You shouldn't be permitted to choose a democracy you like.

Sacha

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:49:56 +1300

One of these people is paid to do this

And one of these people is supposedly a professional journalist.

Jason Kemp

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 13:23:30 +1300

I suspect if there wasn't a threshold more parties would be formed, and therefore more parties represented in parliament.

I agree. Removal of the threshold would change voter behaviour. One recommendation back in 2012 was to drop from 5% to 4% – maybe that is part of the answer. Not…

linger

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 12:22:59 +1300

I don’t agree that a low threshold necessarily increases instability, nor that a high threshold prevents instability, nor that stability itself should be allowed to trump all other considerations.
(i) We will never know whether the Conservatives would have imploded that fast if they’d got into Parliament. We only know…

simon g

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:25:18 +1300

On the one hand, we have a post like this, which analyses the numbers and adds to the sum of public information.

On the other hand, we have a piece like this on Stuff, which pretends to analyse the numbers but manages to ignore all votes falling under the threshold.…

Craig Young

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 11:11:01 +1300

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. The Conservatives were basket cases- they self-destructed (almost) only a year after they came close to the five percent threshold. Allowing a lower threshold is a recipe for political instability and until recently, I would have said that it excluded extremist outfits…

Nick Kearney

Sun, 08 Oct 2017 06:49:42 +1300

It's the result based on the lists filed with the EC of course. I suspect if there wasn't a threshold more parties would be formed, and therefore more parties represented in parliament.

Paul Campbell

Sat, 07 Oct 2017 23:59:44 +1300

And Winston would still hold the balance of power

Josh Petyt

Sat, 07 Oct 2017 23:47:18 +1300

This has been my position for many years now. I do not agree with NZ First on many of its positions and the Conservatives gave me the willies but for their supporters to be denied representation based on the threshold is blindingly undemocratic.

Christiaan

Sat, 07 Oct 2017 23:10:56 +1300

Such a shame not to have TOP in this parliament 👎🏼

Public Address

Sat, 07 Oct 2017 23:10:56 +1300

Discussion from blog post.