Was the last time when MMP acted as it could when the John Key National Party invited the Māori party to effectively cross the floor and join the government?
But would any party consider doing so today…in either political direction?
What we are seemingly left with is a 21st century version of the old 2-party system now divided within themselves into what we can term a left and right bloc. Yes, many voters now reject the division into left and right, but this division still seems to be the easiest way to describe them. In short, what was Labour has now become the left bloc and what was National has become the right. NZ First was the synthesis of the two blocs but has now matured into being more comfortably part of the right, in part as the Overton window has shifted simultaneously left and right on socio-cultural issues.
The left bloc is now Labour, Greens and Te Pati Māori and the right bloc is National, New Zealand First and ACT.
The rise of Opportunity toward the 5% threshold is meant to be representative of a new non-bloc centrist option that in theory would align with either bloc. However, it seems most of the support for Opportunity is coming from those who were or are Labour or Greens, far more than National or ACT or NZ First. Would Opportunity support revolt if Opportunity leadership decided to support the existing Coalition government (reconfigured as it well might be internally) after election 2026? If they do, are they a true centrist party, or rather a left bloc cos-playing one? A similar question would arise if there was an alternative centrist party that gathered most support from within the existing right bloc and had supporters who only wanted it to support the right bloc not a left bloc government. I must stress that this is only conjecture as to how Opportunity might knock politically, but I’m not sure how agreeable most NZ voters currently are to true centrism in fully pragmatic mode.
What to do?
I want to raise what is a thought-experiment suggestion, that has two options within it.
In MMP we currently have 2 votes: an electorate vote and a party vote. This can be undertaken in a variety of ways: two ticks for same party, two ticks for same left or right bloc, or ticks divided between blocs (what we have seen in a number of Auckland Labour seats that vote electorate Labour and party National…and then there are the 3 Green electorate seats as well).
But is a 2-tick, two vote system delivering a parliament and a coalition government we might either want or need? What would facilitate proper strategic voting either within a bloc or across them?
That’s why I am wondering aloud whether we need to shift to a 3-tick election?
There are two ways this could operate.
The first is that we retain 1 vote for the electorate and then have 2 party votes, which need to be for different parties.
The second is that we move to 2 votes for the electorate [so each electorate has 2 MPs from different parties to represent the increasing diversity in most electorates] and retain 1 party vote.
The first option gives more power to the party vote; the second option returns more power to the electorate vote.
The first option increases electorate accountability and electorate outcomes, whether within a bloc or across them. This could be good at local, electorate level but I’m not sure it would add anything to a better performance of government at national level. I can’t see it properly diversifying governing coalition blocs.
The second option increases party representation and, I’d argue, accountability, whether within a bloc or across them. This would, I suggest, potentially increase diversity within a governing coalition bloc and would certainly provide more representation from smaller parties. It would certainly result in more strategic voting, within a bloc and across and between them. It could potentially see a growth in support and representation of what are now minor parties and could see the growth of new ones. Would the 5% party vote threshold need to drop to say 3.5% or 4%? I’d suggest it could and probably should.
Yes, we would need more MPs but I’m not convinced calls for a smaller parliament or retaining the size of the current one would or have delivered the best government we could desire or expect.
Here’s some questions.
If we had Option One of 2 electorate votes and 1 party vote, how would you have voted in 2023 and how would you vote in 2026?
If we had Option Two of 1 electorate vote and 2 party votes, how would you have voted in 2023 and how would you vote in 2026?
What could be the possible outcomes in both elections with either option?
Which option would you be happier with?
Would this make MMP work better?
It certainly wouldn’t make it work any worse…
It might even see a (re)turn to proper cross-party coalition government…whether within a bloc or, hopefully, between them.
Mike Grimshaw (PhD Otago) is associate professor in sociology at the University of Canterbury. This article was sourced HERE
The left bloc is now Labour, Greens and Te Pati Māori and the right bloc is National, New Zealand First and ACT.
The rise of Opportunity toward the 5% threshold is meant to be representative of a new non-bloc centrist option that in theory would align with either bloc. However, it seems most of the support for Opportunity is coming from those who were or are Labour or Greens, far more than National or ACT or NZ First. Would Opportunity support revolt if Opportunity leadership decided to support the existing Coalition government (reconfigured as it well might be internally) after election 2026? If they do, are they a true centrist party, or rather a left bloc cos-playing one? A similar question would arise if there was an alternative centrist party that gathered most support from within the existing right bloc and had supporters who only wanted it to support the right bloc not a left bloc government. I must stress that this is only conjecture as to how Opportunity might knock politically, but I’m not sure how agreeable most NZ voters currently are to true centrism in fully pragmatic mode.
What to do?
I want to raise what is a thought-experiment suggestion, that has two options within it.
In MMP we currently have 2 votes: an electorate vote and a party vote. This can be undertaken in a variety of ways: two ticks for same party, two ticks for same left or right bloc, or ticks divided between blocs (what we have seen in a number of Auckland Labour seats that vote electorate Labour and party National…and then there are the 3 Green electorate seats as well).
But is a 2-tick, two vote system delivering a parliament and a coalition government we might either want or need? What would facilitate proper strategic voting either within a bloc or across them?
That’s why I am wondering aloud whether we need to shift to a 3-tick election?
There are two ways this could operate.
The first is that we retain 1 vote for the electorate and then have 2 party votes, which need to be for different parties.
The second is that we move to 2 votes for the electorate [so each electorate has 2 MPs from different parties to represent the increasing diversity in most electorates] and retain 1 party vote.
The first option gives more power to the party vote; the second option returns more power to the electorate vote.
The first option increases electorate accountability and electorate outcomes, whether within a bloc or across them. This could be good at local, electorate level but I’m not sure it would add anything to a better performance of government at national level. I can’t see it properly diversifying governing coalition blocs.
The second option increases party representation and, I’d argue, accountability, whether within a bloc or across them. This would, I suggest, potentially increase diversity within a governing coalition bloc and would certainly provide more representation from smaller parties. It would certainly result in more strategic voting, within a bloc and across and between them. It could potentially see a growth in support and representation of what are now minor parties and could see the growth of new ones. Would the 5% party vote threshold need to drop to say 3.5% or 4%? I’d suggest it could and probably should.
Yes, we would need more MPs but I’m not convinced calls for a smaller parliament or retaining the size of the current one would or have delivered the best government we could desire or expect.
Here’s some questions.
If we had Option One of 2 electorate votes and 1 party vote, how would you have voted in 2023 and how would you vote in 2026?
If we had Option Two of 1 electorate vote and 2 party votes, how would you have voted in 2023 and how would you vote in 2026?
What could be the possible outcomes in both elections with either option?
Which option would you be happier with?
Would this make MMP work better?
It certainly wouldn’t make it work any worse…
It might even see a (re)turn to proper cross-party coalition government…whether within a bloc or, hopefully, between them.
Mike Grimshaw (PhD Otago) is associate professor in sociology at the University of Canterbury. This article was sourced HERE
5 comments:
How about no list MPs. All MPs are directly elected by their electorate and therefore more accountable to the voter. Yes that is FPP. I did not vote for MMP. I wonder if there is a correlation between MMP and the decline of New Zealand?
The problem lies in list MP's. They owe their total existence to the party leader. The actual voters are of zero importance to them, so their entire focus is greasing up the boss.
They can even be so bad that, despite having no chance they could ever win an electorate, by sucking up to the leader they still get in. They can not be voted out. This is the biggest problem.
Well, what a conundrum. How about no political parties at all and just ballot, with a filter, for about 25 potential ministers. Much less complex, all round.
Once upon a time, nz had the good ol' 'non-binding referendum on 'numbers of pollies', go figure the majority/respondents wanted 'them' reduced.....and the pollies said 'ohh well, it's a non-binding referendum'.
Now 'we' have list m.p's-seat polishing grifters.
When/if my pet has fleas-they're terminated!!!!
Why bother with further complexities for MMP? We should move to Supplementary Member with 80 electorate seats and 40 list seats and be done with it. Works in Hungary and Japan so why not here?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.