DUCKPOND

Patrick Gower in The New Zealand Herald is reporting that 49% of respondents in an opinion poll would like to see the multi-member proportional (MMP) electoral system abolished. 35.8 percent wished to retain and 15.2 percent did not know.

A simple majority will see the voting system in New Zealand changed, except the referenda will be held over the next two electoral cycles, and change if voted will be introduced in 2017 beginning at the next three year election in 1911.

Presumably the opponents of MMP have an alternative system in mind, other than one imagines winner take all, or first past the post, which created the dissatisfaction that gave rise to the MMP system in the first place. It might be observed that like Queensland, and so other places, including Sweden, New Zealand has a unicameral parliament, which means that without a proportional system minority parties would be excluded. Maori had designated electorates in the old simple plurality system.

In this system, minority parties once they have won an electoral seat or passed the threshold of votes get representation in the parliament, and sometimes membership of the government. Sometimes, as has happened in Israel for example, parties and their leaders have chosen the perks of ministerial office to being on the opposition benches. Although, unlike Germany, from which the system is derived at part of the post second war settlement, there have been no grand coalitions, which is the past experience would seem to have been a bad move by the Social Democrats.

The governing National Party seems have had been elected on the basis of changing the MMP, or least revising it. The article notes:

The Government has said an independent panel will be appointed to conduct a public education campaign in the lead-up to the 2011 referendum. It will have a budget of $6 million. The referendum itself will cost $11.5m.

Five Parliaments have been elected under MMP since the system was introduced in 1996.

During last year’s election campaign, National promised a referendum on the voting system.

MMP resulted from a royal commission into the electoral system that was set up by the fourth Labour Government and reported in 1986. It recommended a referendum on the adoption of MMP.

National’s then leader, Jim Bolger, promised to hold a referendum if his party was elected, which it was in 1990.

In a referendum in 1992, 84.7 per cent voted for change and 15.3 per cent wanted to retain first-past-the-post.

Of the four alternatives offered, MMP got 70.5 per cent support, STV (single transferable vote) 17.4 per cent, PV (preferential voting) 6.6 per cent and SM (supplementary member) 5.6 per cent.

A binding referendum pitching MMP against first-past-the-post was held at the same time as the 1993 general election.

The result was 53.85 per cent for MMP and 46.14 per cent for FPP.

Still the polling results are interesting, but not sufficient to indicate real dissatisfaction with the system that would lead to a change. I suspect that if the referendum was counterpoised the MMP against First Past the Post, then the support for the existing system may increase. Looking at the 1992 voting results on the alternative systems, given the political institutions, MMP is probably still in a far stronger position than the polling suggests. To change the voting system will effectively to reduce minority representation.

POSTSCRIPT:

So what is the likely outcome? Who knows but it will be very interesting. I expect that an attempt will be made to fine tune the existing MMP system, by restricting the possibility for grand coalitions and by circumscribing the influence of the minor government partners. The TTP system was too susceptible to top-down influence, and by some reason MMP is to open to bottom-up influence. So may be the smaller players have to play a smarter game if they want to stay in the game long term and keep their places at the Cabinet table.