July 15, 2004
Summary: An editorial by Dr. Muriel Newman that discusses
the proportional representation electoral system of New Zealand, and how it has
shaped the political landscape of the country.
Newman On-Line ’Äì The Big Double-Tick
By Dr. Muriel Newman
July 15, 2004
This week, Newman On-line looks at National’Äôs plan to win the next
election, and examines the options available for the voting public. At its
annual conference over the weekend, the National party boldly announced that it
intends to ’Äògo for gold’Äô at the next election ’Äì meaning that, from now
until the next election, National will claim that it can win over 50 percent of
the party vote and govern alone.
The assertion that a major party can govern alone under MMP is just as
disingenuous now as was when Labour first mooted it during the 2002 election.
The only difference is that, when it made the claim, Labour was consistently
polling above 50 percent.
The reality is that, under our style of MMP, no party has ever governed
alone. While it is theoretically possible, it just does not happen in practice.
It would be like claiming that our Parliament could one day be made up entirely
of women ’Äì while it is not impossible that 120 women could be elected, the
chances of it happening are zero.
New Zealand’Äôs MMP proportional voting system is most closely based on the
German model, which was first introduced into West Germany after World War II.
As well as New Zealand, Scotland and Wales have now apparently adopted the
system. Under MMP, there are no examples of parties governing alone.
That is why claims that voters need to give both their votes to a major
party, thus allowing it to govern alone, a gross misrepresentation. In reality,
that claim is simply code for that party wanting to gain control of the
all-important list votes.
It is the list votes that determine how many seats a party gains in an
election. Under our MMP system, if a party gains fewer than the crucial five
percent threshold ’Äì and doesn’Äôt hold an electorate seat ’Äì it will fail to
gain the critical mass needed to get it into Parliament. In that case, all of
its party votes are wasted.
If, on the other hand, a party gains fewer than five percent of the party
votes, but wins an electorate seat, then all of its lists votes count and
contribute towards gaining list Members of Parliament.
The Labour Party’Äôs strategy at the 2002 election was to claim that it could
govern alone. Accordingly, it campaigned for the all-important party vote in a
manner similar to First Past the Post. Further, given that Helen Clark had
called a snap election ’Äì and become the only Prime Minister in our history to
call an early election when there wasn’Äôt a national crisis ’Äì the major
election focus and attendant publicity was Labour.
On election night 2002, Labour collected only 41 percent of the party vote
’Äì nowhere near the 50 percent it claimed it could achieve. The reason is that,
under MMP, voters take an interest in the additional representation that minor
parties bring to Parliament. They support the minor parties with their party
vote ’Äì in fact, it is the party votes of Kiwi voters that shape Parliament and
ensure that it is truly characteristic of New Zealand society.
That is essentially the reason why ’Äì in a country that recognised that the
two old parties had largely fallen into the ’Äòborn to rule’Äô trap, and were no
longer listening ’Äì they voted to introduce MMP.
An analysis of the polling results since MMP’Äôs introduction shows that,
while the two main parties’Äô combined poll is often over 80 percent between
elections, it drops to between 60 and 70 percent during an election campaign.
Since our present election cycle appears to be no different to previous cycles,
the winning party at the next election could be expected to poll somewhere in
the vicinity of 40-45 percent.
This, of course, means that the winning party will once again need the
support of a coalition partner ’Äì whether in government like the Progressive
Party, the Alliance and New Zealand First, or sitting on the cross-benches
delivering confidence and supply, like ACT, the Greens and United.
A new style of polling has recently been carried out to assess the shape of a
National or Labour-led government. It showed that, as far as a National-led
government was concerned, 87 percent of people favoured ACT as National’Äôs
coalition partner ’Äì with 67 percent favouring New Zealand First. The preferred
coalition partner for a Labour-led government was the Greens on 76 percent, with
New Zealand First on 58 percent. New Zealanders are an independent people, who
like to give things a go ’Äì which is probably the reason so many voted for MMP.
As we approach our fourth MMP election, surely it is now time that MMP came of
age. To do that, more voters should be opting to exercise their own independence
by choosing not only the best MP to represent their electorate in Parliament,
but using their party vote to strategically choose the minor coalition partner
they would like to see support their major party of choice.
Strategic voting is the bane of the large parties. They don’Äôt like to see
voters splitting their vote. Instead, the major parties ’Äì which will
overwhelmingly win the majority of the 69 electorate seats ’Äì want to be given
the power to choose their coalition partner themselves. The problem is that
sometimes that choice is not one that the electorate feels comfortable with ’Äì
as was certainly the case when National chose New Zealand First as its coalition
partner after our first MMP election in 1996.
In other words, the debate over the party vote is a one about electoral
power. If voters want to give their power away to politicians, they should
double-tick the party of their choice. If, on the other hand, they want to
retain that power themselves, then they should use their party vote to support
the minor party they would like to see as a coalition partner in government.
In light of the increasing unease over the Labour Government’Äôs agenda, a
change in government at the next election looks increasingly likely. If National
is to lead that new government, it will need to recognise the voting public’Äôs
ability to see through simplistic double-tick campaigns. National will also need
to realise that no party is big enough ’Äì or will do well enough ’Äì to govern
alone. Labour was arrogant in assuming it could in 2002. I don’Äôt believe that
National will be that arrogant and assuming.