No Right Turn posts that the National Party is opposing a citizens' jury into electoral finance laws, calling it "part of a grubby deal done between Labour and the Greens over the Electoral Finance Act".
Why does National so consistently oppose anything democratic? Perhaps the reality of democracy in the MMP era has created a deep seated aversion to it among that party's leadership. It is a consistent tendency.
They want a referendum on MMP, the voting system that finally gave Kiwi voters a vote that actually allows them to elect representatives from the party they want to represent them.
They keep their policies secret from everyone - including their own members and most of their MPs. Exactly who is drafting their policies isn't clear.
Whatever their history, National is today not a party steeped in democracy or transparency.
I followed the recent Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform in the Canadian province of Ontario. While there last year, I met many of the CA members and talked to them about the process and their experience of it. It sounded like an excellent way to arrive at a solution everyone could buy into.
Daily review 15/09/2025
6 hours ago
One of the submissions to the Ontario Citizens Assembly was from the New Zealand ambassador to Canada. His account of the New Zealand referendum on electoral systems showed that it was not what it should be, as could also be gathered from an Ontario CA official briefing on the subject.
ReplyDeleteThe same unfortunately was true of the Ontario CA process itself, tho rather different from the NZ experience.
I have discussed this on a web page called:
Ontario Citizens Assembly and due process for future assemblies. Adjacent pages on the index also discuss the British Columbia CA, my submissions to both CAs and a critique of the two Ontario CA reports.
Richard Lung.
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com
Anon: I knoew Graeme Kelly. He is a politician schooled in the First Past the Post and it is apparent from his wn submission hat there are aspects of MMP that he sees from the perspective of an MP who held a "safe" Labour Party seat and who later was a high-ranked list MP. For exmaple, he sees list MPs providing representative services to local communities as "mischievous" whereas in my own personal experience, it is one of the best aspects of MMP. You don't have just one "local" MP from one party who monopolises your electorate. You have several MPs, one local and some list - from a variety of parties - who would ALL represent you actively. You have choice. Yes, this is a potential threat to the existing local MP as one of these list MPs may just take his seat off him at the next election.
ReplyDeleteOther issues raised by Mr. Kelly can be seen in the same light: from the perspctive of his own self-interest or party interest. Few of his comments in the submission actually addressed what is in the VOTER'S interest.....and I'm a voter. He certainly did not speak for me in his submission. He spoke for himself his party and their view of executing government. All self-serving. Even if Mr. Kelly couldn't see it as such, that is how it came across to very voter I discussed it with.
Thanks, Truth Seeker for your response.
ReplyDeleteYou say about MMP "You have choice." The trouble is it is not the voters' choice. MMP is a doubly safe seat system. Even if a safe seat in the constituencies is lost, another safe seat well up on the list kicks in for the losing candidate. Because of this, the Richard report for Wales condemned MMP for preventing voters from being able to reject candidates, which the report regarded as a fundamental right. Hence their advocacy of the single transferable vote.
There are many drawbacks to MMP, which is something of a Pandora' Box, as a result of being an electoral system that doesnt properly elect. (As discussed on several of my own web pages.)
I wont repeat my judgment on Mr Kelly made in my submission.
You will have to be less partisan or dogmatic about MMP if you want to earn the title "Truth Seeker" before the world. MMP may be fashionable but under criticism, it is a discredited system or anti-system.
Richard Lung.
Thanks, Richard.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment. let's compare the two systems - FPP and MMP - from the perspective of choice.
Who picks the winning candidates?
FPP - the party.
MMP - the party.
What does each system allow the voter to do?
FPP - one vote for one candidate in one electorate.
MMP - one vote for one candidate in one electorate AND
- One vote for a party nationally, including every member on its list as a group.
Hopefully it now becomes obvious that MMP provides voters with MORE choices as to both what individual they support locally AND what party they support nationally. This really IS more than FPP can offer.
I have little time for "safe seat" arguments as my vote under FPP never counted inany other electorate but the one I voted in. So as far as MY vote was concerned, all those other seats were beyond my democratic reach and mine beyond theirs.
At least under MMP, my party list vote DOES give me a democratic franchise that exists outside my own electorate -whether the local person I voted for wins or not.
That IS better than FPP in every wah that matters to me. Both systems have "safe" seats and when you LOOK at which seats are safe - guess what! - it's those FPP local seats that are the safest by far, not the list seats, especially for the large parties where the share of the vote may rise high enough that they don't get any list seats at all - or very few.
MMP clearly gives any voter more power over parties nationally AND at LEAST the same power over the one local rep.
MMP is better. It has to be as the voter has more choice and more power.
Richard: Your assertion about MMP being "discredited" simply doesn't stand unless I see it as the faith statement it appears to be.
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence to support such a statement.