STOP THE PRESSES

[labellementeuse]

GUYS. If National gets elected, they will run a referendum on repealing MMP. I know that I'm mostly preaching to the choir here, but - spread it around!

I think it's time for some election year icons...

Comments

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Because they feel that voting for other right wing parties, with the exception of ACT, won't bring the government down? In 2002 right-leaning voters did what you were suggesting and scattered their votes over a broad spectrum of parties. The result was a rout in Labour's favour.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

This is potentially true, and a reflection of the fact that the right wing parties don't actually seem to like to work together. Had they been a little more co-operative it wouldn't have been hard to see United Future and NZ First working with National and Rodney for the last four odd years instead of with Labour.

If National manage to get over 50% of the vote and a virtually free pass to rule the country however they want, well, then that's the will of 50% of the country and, though I'll complain and disagree with their policies no doubt, I won't be unhappy with the system.

But if they want to change the system I'll be really worried, and the combo of 50% and a desire to change is really getting to me.

I do hope the minor parties swell during the campaign.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to say that National won't get over 50% of the party vote, but if they do it will be an event almost entirely without precedent. I'd say National's support has probably begun to peak, but Labour's clawback is a bit overdue, so who knows?

I think the reason Peters and Dunne (or, more charitably, New Zealand First and United) went with Labour in 2005 was simply that Labour got more votes than National. It's true, if a deal could have been done between National and the Maori Party, Labour could have been excluded from office, but I think both Winston and Peter felt that voters would punish them severely come 2008 for effectively overturning the popular mandate for Labour to remain in power (albeit only barely). The fact that they both had already established working relationships with Labour probably helped (although both have worked with National in the past, so perhaps not).

National are probably never going to truly accept MMP, or at least not until they can start consistently winning elections under it. Even Labour don't seem entirely reconciled to it - remember Helen's calls in 2002 for a Labour majority government? I felt that was against the spirit, if not the letter of MMP.

If it's any consolation current polls show 43% support for MMP vs 39% for FPP. That's close, and presumably the outstanding 18% who would prefer other systems would break one way or another for one system in a two-option referendum. But it does seem to show that many of those who support National also support MMP (although they might not be opposed to the idea of a referendum).

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

I can understand them going for Labour because it had a slightly larger voteshare, but if no agreement could be reached I don't think it would have been too big a deal if they said "We couldn't agree on how to run this government, so we are talking with National" though I could be wrong. Obviously too much time with Winston doing that would raise spectres of last time he did it...

Yeah, the big parties really don't look chirpy when they consider not have the majority of seats even if they win most of the votes. Do I mean plurality or something like that?

Oh good, there's a fair chunk who do like MMP, that does make me feel better. Cheers!

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I think you're right about the option to go with National being open, but given the centre-right parties' existing agreement with Labour, such a failure to reach agreement was unlikely. The point stands though - if one is primarily motivated by disgust towards Labour (and I think most of the people telling pollsters they'll vote National are), a vote for United or NZ First is probably not seen as a strong enough blow against Labour's chances of forming the next government.

If by plurality you mean a greater share of votes than any other party, then yes. (I presume under the current system you're referring to party votes)

I'm actually quite sanguine about a referendum since I think it is quite likely that MMP will be retained. I like to think the memory of the 78-93 period is still strong, although among voters of our generation it may not be. Still, if there was a vast majority against MMP, it would be, IMO, difficult to form an argument as to why it should be retained.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm, defying the will of the majority in order to retain a system that allows a better representation of peoples' votes... You're right, it's a tricky one.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Well, if one is willing to go down that path, there are systems that provide a better representation of people's votes than the current one.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

Well, I think it's actually a dangerous road to go down, but I constantly feel like smacking people around the head and saying 'just do it my way, I know best.'...

However, what methods were you thinking of out of curiosity?

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Well if you're willing to be similarly deferential to people who know better than you it's a defensible position.

Off the top of my head removing the 5% threshold would up the representativeness quotient.