Tony Sayers: Looking at Electoral Solutions

In the aftermath of the NZ Election, some wise heads suggested that it might be time for a review of the MMP voting system. I refer to:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/361059223/some-say-mmp-stuffed-and-support-change-growing

Many of us would agree that we need to put on our ‘thinking caps’ to offer solutions.

Both MMP and FPP systems have their faults. Fixing one fault can create another.

I pondered over where the middle ground lay.

On one hand, I would like to see proportionality preserved, whilst constraining the size and cost of Parliament on the other.

Considering the current political landscape and the prevailing issues before our government, whoever they may be, I put my pen to paper to see if I could formulate something to toss into the debate.

I hold no degree in Political Science, I am a humble citizen who looks at the situation through the lens of the ordinary Joe in the street.

I came up with the following:

There would be 100 seats in Parliament and that does not change.

Each citizen has a single vote for a party / or independent candidate.

You do not vote for an electorate candidate or race-based seats.

The percentage of votes won per party / independent, determines the number of seats they will occupy in the house, on the basis of 1% = 1 seat.

If an independent wins more than one percent of the vote, Ie: one seat, they may choose to grant the surplus percentage to a party, or other independents of their choice. This gives them bargaining power in potential alliances, or

if they choose not to distribute those surplus votes as preferences, then they can be utilised as votes representing vacant seats they hold through their percentage, when the house votes upon a bill.

A popular independent member will be in possession of the power that his percentage represents, translated into votes on bills.

(Decimals of a percentage will be rounded off in the accepted manner, the same as with currency).

Geographic electorates and Maori seats would become obsolete.

The country votes as one national electorate.

Parties campaign on their manifestos and the calibre of those on their party list.

Independents campaign on their manifesto.

Voters express their one vote, influenced by the manifesto and the spectrum of candidates within the party, or independent candidate they vote for.

Those party seats won, are filled from a party list, where candidates have been ranked by their party.

Should their party win power, seat allocations would be attributed to those who preferably, hold the requisite qualifications and background suited to a portfolio, (Eg: Ex-policemen for police; Ex-teacher for Education; Ex-farmer for Agriculture, a lawyer for Justice).

Those in the party, not in line for a portfolio, are then chosen on seniority and parliamentary experience.

List members are ranked upon merit, not on race or gender.

Voters are on one national roll and equal.

This system would put a check upon the size and cost of Parliament.

It is far from perfect, but it might be an improvement upon the status quo, since it preserves proportionality.

You cannot please everyone, but it would alleviate some of the tensions that have been building in this country relating to race, gender and wokeism. This proposal removes divisions.

If we all sit around and criticise the state affairs and do nothing, we will be stuck with the same outcomes in the next election. I have chosen to put my neck out and be constructive. Others may have better ideas and they are very welcome.

Tony Sayers is a retired school Principal - in Australia and New Zealand – who has worked in the Law Enforcement, Engineering, Maritime and Union sectors.