Democracy endangered by ignorance and incapacity....

There are still a lot of people out there who don't understand how MMP works. Having watched them struggle with it for 20 years in some cases, I've worked out that the errors they make are too often based on a lack of understanding how the old First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system worked. Confusion on the role of parties and the selection of candidates is common, even among people who have previously been elected as members of Parliament. You would think that at least they would know how things work....but apparently not. Too often they conflate the party into the institution of government. It's a logical flaw common from an era when one party WAS the government and the line between party and government became all but invisible at times. They struggle with the (long-over due and much-needed) separation between party and 'government' that MMP as introduced. They appear to not be able to see it.

In their minds, one party is still the "government", even though it does not have majority support. Other parties now participating in government are seen by these people as usurpers and not legitimate. "Loser parties" that shouldn't even be there. The connection between the votes and the seats isn't relevant in their minds.

Yesterday, the New Zealand Herald (Thursday, May15th) featured a letter from Ralph Maxwell, a former Minister in the Lange Labour government. Mr. Maxwell is also a prominent figure in the "battle" against the Electoral Finance Act.

Maxwell's letter was the feature letter and given a large headline: "MMP: Party Hierarchies Gain". The headline maintained my ongoing impression of consistently negative and/ or misleading headlines about MMP in the Herald.

The letter itself was dismal, being free of accurate content. I fear for the mind of its author. (I can't find a link to it, so will type it out at the end of this post.)

Contrary to Maxwell's claim, the change under MMP to 120 seats and the 50:50 ratio of local to list seats was always part of the MMP recommendation going right back to the 1986 Royal Commission report. I have a copy. Over time, in actual practice, that ratio has 'naturally' adjusted to something like a 60:40 ratio through the addition of new local seats while the total number of seats remains the same.

Despite his history as a Labour Party activist, Mr. Maxwell is also obviously confused about the role of "party hierarchies" in political parties. Who else should lead and organise a party if not the leadership and elected (usually by party members) officeholders of that party? Granted the unions in the Labour Party have had a great deal of power, distinct from individual grassroots members. It's been that way for nearly a century. Long before MMP was introduced.

What is his problem with MMP? If Mr. Maxwell wants to choose candidates for a party, under MMP or any other system, he should join a party and take part. That's how it's done. Parties have always chosen their candidates. Parties have also typically reserved the right to "vet" local candidates for suitability, as we recently saw in the battle for the National Party nomination in Selwyn. No one wants another Alamein Kopu or another John Kirk. MMP did not change this. That is how it has always been done. As a former Labour Party MP, you'd think Maxwell would know this.

Perhaps he is just being cynical, saying whatever needs to be said to win support....true or not. That sort of thing happens all the time. Given his background ad experience, you would not expect him to et some many things wrong on the facts and in conceptual terms.

Under the First Past the Post system, 100% of the power was given to just one "party hierarchy". At least under MMP, we now have several "party hierachies" actively participating in government. That has been a huge improvement.

Mr. Maxwell's manifest confusion and error about how the New Zealand political system works and the shape of MMP, isn't enough to justify a referendum to change it. His fear that the government will put the election back a year is almost in the loony-tune category.

Maxwell's recommendation that we return to first past the post and one-party government in order to prevent multiple parties passing legislation (proposed by the largest party, who would rule alone under FPTP) is close on to being bizarre. As I said at the start, I fear for his mind.

A separate issue is why Maxwell's letter was featured at all, given the embarrassing errors it contained. It was not a useful contribution to any debate. It can only mislead people who might not know nay better. Was it just because of who he is? Mr. Maxwell didn't choose the negative headline.

Jeremy Hall's letter, which followed Maxwell's, was both factual and coherent, making the point that several parties were needed under MMP to pass the EFA, while under FPTP one party could have done it without needing anyone else's support. The headline was "Legislative Hurdle".

To me, that headline was misleading and plays on the idea that MMP slows things down, which is usually portrayed as a negative by MMP opponents. To me, it is one of the best things about the MMP system: a check on unbridled power. The very thing that Ralph Mxwell is complaining about.

Maxwell's letter:

I support your corespondent, R. W. Earp's call for a referendum on MMP. As one who worked strenuously for the introduction of MMP, I am disgusted by the outcome of its implementation. The major increase in the size of the House and the savage cutback in the number of electorates to a mere 50 per cent of the seats, leaving 50 per cent of the House to list MPs, were not part of the original referendum. (Me: Yes they both were.) It was a design decided by the two major parties. Listing all candidates, including those who won a constituency seat, places huge, undemocratic power in the hands of party hierarchies. The same pathway that foisted the Electoral Finance Act and the legislation, retrospectively, of Labour's $800,000 pledge card on us could be repeated to shift a year's election back until we are through an economic downturn or some other trumped up emergency. New Zealand First's seven list votes could again be relied upon to force through necessary changes to our electoral law. We urgently need a referendum this year for the public to decide whether we return to the first-past-the-post system, retain MMP, or align ourselves with the Australian preferential vote voting system.

Ralph Maxwell, Tauranga

If anyone needs a refresher on MMP, look here