About MMP...
Now I understand how the left in New Zealand survived over the last century.
National was the ‘natural party of government’, and Labour's time in power was usually short. But there's something unique for the left in New Zealand, a tradition of strong grassroots movement that keeps the spirit alive.
Here's the first one I'm aware of since the election night:
We respect National's desire to hold a public referendum on the issue. A second referendum on the issue is not something to fear, but an opportunity for New Zealanders to show they believe in fairness in their electoral system. The Campaign to Save MMP will be an independent, non-partisan effort to inform voters of the benefits of MMP and show them the downside of other electoral systems.
Well, good luck.
However, I'm also aware of the weakness of MMP demonstrated in the last election, the case of NZ First and ACT:
- ACT: 3.72% of the vote, 5 MPs
- NZ First: 4.21% of the vote ... no MPs.
That's all because Rodney had won the Epsom seat.
I acknowledge the fact that 5% threshold is needed to keep extremists and idiots out of the parliament, and I think that kind of threshold should be in place because there are really idiots out there.
But ACT's (and United Future, Progressive ... ) case just exposed an if scenario - lets assume that 1% of eligible voters are idiots(Sure I don't mean people who voted ACT are idiots), and 50%+ of them live in one electorate?
Well I mean, if the local idiots want one of their kind to represent them in the Parliament, I have no problem with that, that's what local representation is all about.
But does that mean other 50% of the idiots who live in other parts of country should also be represented, given the fact that they only make up 1% of total voters?
Well, your call.
It can happen. The case I can think of (just for fun) is if I'm an extremely rich cult leader and I call half of my idiot followers to move to the same electorate, it won't require a lot of money from me as those idiots will pay for themselves.
I think we should make the current 5% threshold a concrete one. Village idiots can still be represented as the electorate seats still count, but winning an electorate seat should not release any party from that rule.
To compensate minor parties the threshold can be reduced to 4 or 3 per cent. Or it can be like, for every one electorate seat a party had won, remove 0.5% or 1% of the threshold requirement.
I don't quite understand why some people found MMP 'confusing'. What part of "Everyone has two votes, one for party and one for local representation" they don't understand so they want to dump it?
The system does need a bit of change, but I failed see the need to dump it, well unless there are real alternatives that are both simpler for some ... well ... to understand and yet still fair to everyone else. I don't know what that alternatives can be, but clearly FPP is not one of them.
