I still argue we did it because we were too lazy to have a decent look at alternative systems way back when we were deciding we hated First Past the Post.
One of the more interesting factoids of the campaign was when James Shaw told us last week he had seen research that shows we are actually getting less knowledgeable about MMP as people are born into a system that they never really bother to study properly.
This Government, despite MMP, having been a First Past the Post operation has hardly been a shining light and one of their great failures was to not take the astonishing First Past the Post-style majority and convince more of us to come along with them.
By not doing that, the resentment that has built is the same resentment that built under Muldoon-type Governments, whereby we were merely sheep who were lucky enough to be allowed to vote once every three years.
Of all the weird rules of MMP the overhang is probably the least trouble and, in part, explainable.
But the coattailing isn't and if we were to make a change that would be it. An electorate, although important, is not so important it should drag extra seats along with it well below the 5% threshold.
The threshold also is fine. Any less and you are dealing with weirdos and the number of weirdo parties lined up this year shows you the level of crazy we could be open to.
But to take the cake is the "death of a candidate" rule and its subsequent by-election. The rule, with its extra MP and therefore a larger parliament thus disrupting the proportionality, is so stupid it defies logic and quite obviously should be changed.
Why a list MP gets installed until the by-election and then stays makes no sense.
And the fact it could decide a Government is even more bat-shit crazy.
The trouble with MMP, apart from its potentially bizarre outcomes, is it is too complicated. The sheer amount of communication I have received from people this year clearly confused about the value of their electorate vote as opposed to their party vote, is frightening.
And 99.9% of us would not have even known about the dead person rule. And there is nothing wrong with a dead person rule if the dead person rule isn't complete and utter insanity, which it is.
Which makes it not only confusing but stupid as well.
Yet an entire country could be run as the outworking of that one new entirely invented seat we don't actually need.
Go figure.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
This Government, despite MMP, having been a First Past the Post operation has hardly been a shining light and one of their great failures was to not take the astonishing First Past the Post-style majority and convince more of us to come along with them.
By not doing that, the resentment that has built is the same resentment that built under Muldoon-type Governments, whereby we were merely sheep who were lucky enough to be allowed to vote once every three years.
Of all the weird rules of MMP the overhang is probably the least trouble and, in part, explainable.
But the coattailing isn't and if we were to make a change that would be it. An electorate, although important, is not so important it should drag extra seats along with it well below the 5% threshold.
The threshold also is fine. Any less and you are dealing with weirdos and the number of weirdo parties lined up this year shows you the level of crazy we could be open to.
But to take the cake is the "death of a candidate" rule and its subsequent by-election. The rule, with its extra MP and therefore a larger parliament thus disrupting the proportionality, is so stupid it defies logic and quite obviously should be changed.
Why a list MP gets installed until the by-election and then stays makes no sense.
And the fact it could decide a Government is even more bat-shit crazy.
The trouble with MMP, apart from its potentially bizarre outcomes, is it is too complicated. The sheer amount of communication I have received from people this year clearly confused about the value of their electorate vote as opposed to their party vote, is frightening.
And 99.9% of us would not have even known about the dead person rule. And there is nothing wrong with a dead person rule if the dead person rule isn't complete and utter insanity, which it is.
Which makes it not only confusing but stupid as well.
Yet an entire country could be run as the outworking of that one new entirely invented seat we don't actually need.
Go figure.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
MMP has to go.
Bring back FPP.
Got to keep it simple, as complicated makes 'dodgy stuff' possible.
Hipkins must be hoping a good chunk of Labour's electorate candidates peg out in the next 3 days.
We can bi**h and moan all we like about our Mickey Mouse Parliament, it's not going to change any time soon.
It pays to understand when, where and why MMP first started circa 1949. Doing so will emphasise how NZ's bastardised version, with its numerous rorts, has become, and embedded itself.
As long as my derriere points to the ground I will NEVER understand why in the 1990s a majority of NZ'ers voted for MMP rather than alternatives like STV; and reaffirmed by tiny majority that decision 12 years ago.
Beggars for punishment!
One can only hope DeeM/
It is a silly rule and has no material impact on anything other than an extra bit of cost for the by election.
Remember we are live at this moment under what is materially a FPP outcome and if you still think its a good system, think about that.
Agree with anonymous above. MMP has to go, it's an absolute dog of a system, which ironically only advantages the would be politicians with their gaggle of unelected, answerable to no-one in the public arena, list mp's. It's a ridiculous system of top down government, which has led to authoritarian dictatorship type government, as we have had to endure for 6 long disastrous years. We deserve so much better
Just to put the record straight, Mike, because I was there and remember the change to MMP.
The need to change from FPP was demonstrated when Bob Jones party got 13% of the vote, but failed to win a seat. So, a change was needed.
The vote was then put to the public to choose:- MMP, yes or no.
There was no other choice offered, none of the possible proportional systems were considered.
The MMP model was based on General Marshalls solution to bring back Democracy to Germany after the 2nd World War and not allow a Nazi type One Party domination by Fear of a so called Democratic State as happened there in the 30's.
It seems the NZ MMP system was adapted by the two Parties in NZ as a way of guaranteeing their Power grab no matter their lack of competence too Lead…you get what you pay for and in NZ we have Power List MP players in Govt that hold no responsibility to the people..NZ is broken.The Leadership factories (Defence Forces) are dismembered…..so I'm voting for my local ACT MP who at least has a few years in the army in the days where he must have learnt the meaning of integrity at least.
As a born and bred Aussie for 32 years before coming to NZ we had and still do have Preferential voting which works very effectively. NZ would be well advised to adopt this system because every political party from day one has to state who their first, second, third preference will be if they were to form the next government. This would be the end of the king maker issue and solve who will go with who after the election. This removes all doubt for the public. I voted for this system initially, and MMP is a dog.
Post a Comment