Voting for electoral system change

Peter Shirtcliffe may be 80, but he has a lot of say in this new anti MMP “Vote for Change” group, and spokesperson Jordan Williams is merely helping him along a bit.

The group's rules show the committee has just two people: spokesperson Jordan Williams and Peter Shirtcliffe. However Simon Lusk is also involved.This committee holds office until the next Annual General meeting of the society – usually held in May - six months after the election. Perhaps it`ll be a post-mortem on the referendum – that’s if the group has not already been wound up.

If members want to call a special general meeting it can be up to four months before it is held, but if Shirtcliffe and Williams want to hold one, they can do so within 14 days of a committee meeting.

The group’s founding members include Peter Shirtcliffe, Aaron Hape, Annabel Young, Chris Parkin, Emma Daken and Michael Bassett – most signed up by Jordan Williams – all who support one of two electoral systems. The good news about this group is that anyone can apply to join. The bad news is that the couple on the committee can remove any member, or refuse any prospective member, for pretty much any reason – like intending to vote for change to STV. Their decision is final. Only certain "votes for change" are permitted.

Now back to the electoral systems and the possible review of MMP. The “Vote for Change” group believes the review process is flawed as it is up to the politicians to “fix” MMP. Furthermore they’ve said that those who support a review of MMP are really admitting that MMP is “flawed”.

On Morning Report, Williams said that his group is about discussing “what of the four alternative” electoral systems should replace MMP. Yet the group refuses to discuss the benefits of Preferential Voting and the STV systems.

So in reality, the group is about “which of two alternative” electoral systems – First Past the Post or Supplementary Member - should be preferred, with the result being Supplementary Member, as decreed. Those who support any other system could be deemed as acting “contrary to the aims of the society”, as their vote for change is not what Williams and Shirtcliffe propose.

As both Williams and Shirtcliffe have come out in support of Supplementary Member (SM), if other members disagree with an impending announcement to support the SM electoral system, because they support First Past the Post, will that affect their membership, will they be coerced to support SM - or will they be told to shut up.

Read more...

Why Don Brash supports the Supplementary Member electoral system

New Act leader Don Brash today announced his support of the Supplementary Member (SM) electoral system - and no one should be surprised. It's the only electoral system that gets him what he wants.

Although he doesn’t like MMP much, he doesn’t want to go back to First Past the Post either. Entry to Parliament via the list is effortless if you have party backing for a high list place, as Brash did under National. He thinks Supplementary Member should be able to let smaller parties be represented in Parliament, and likes the fact that the list has let people like himself into parliament, but prefers that there are fewer list place. He welcomes under SM, that there will be fewer places, and that minor parties on the Left would get disproportionately fewer of them.

That is because under SM, only the list seats are proportional, and the electoral system guarantees a huge majority for a party that wins both a lot of electorates and a large share of the party vote. MMP is a proportional representation system.

Brash does not support proportional representation, or the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1986, that rejected supplementary member. While he wants to see limited and disproportionate power of minor parties in Parliament, he is aware that, under current polling, changing to SM won’t make too much difference to Act if it wins Epsom.

Not so the Greens. If Act were to win Epsom under SM, it would have about the same number of list MPs under SM and MMP, whereas if the the Greens were to get 10 percent, they'd have a proportionately bigger reduction of MP numbers under SM compared to MMP.

Brash also noted that it was not fair that in 1981, Social Credit got 21 per cent of the vote but only two seats. It is also not fair that Social Credit would have got proportionally fewer list seats than other parties under Supplementary Member. Of course, the electoral system is a factor on how people vote, so the 1981 vote may have been slightly different under a MMP or SM electoral system.

Actually, in both 1978 and 1981, the winning party, National, got more than half of the seats with less than half the vote and that was the catalyst behind the electoral system change to MMP.

Here's an illustration from The Standard blog that compares the MMP vote to what the SM vote would have been in both 1999 and 2008.
As you can see, the number of Alliance MP's would have halved under SM in 1999, and the Greens,while having a higher share of the vote in 2008, would have the same number of seats after both elections.

According to the Greens, had the 1996 election been held under Supplementary Member with 100 seats, the 35 list seats would have also been unevenly distributed, National and Labour would have had about the same number of seats they would have in a 120 member parliament, to the detriment of the smaller parties, who overall would have had proportionally fewer. NZ First elevated its share of the vote due to its hold on the Maori seats.

Don Brash wants to reduce Maori representation – which will be less under SM and FPP - and then scrap the Maori seats.

That’s why Brash likes Supplementary Member and wants the Maori seats gone. Under First Past the Post he would never have been an MP as he admitted he would not have resigned from the Reserve Bank to be selected as a candidate.

Read more...