Henry Cooke’s frontpage article in the Post yesterday opened with a striking sentence: “There is an attempt – a very nascent one – from a very rich right-wing man to fundamentally skew the New Zealand election.” The man is Harry Mowbray, father of the siblings behind the Zuru toy company, and Cooke reports that he “has been calling around looking to get a campaign going that exploits the ‘overhang’ in MMP to get the current parties of the coalition an advantage.” Mowbray apparently believes “anywhere from 10 extra MPs to 30 is possible.”
I moved from Tasmania over 30 years ago and still hear about 'the under arm incident' and even get goaded ocassionally for my Aussie connection and how you can't trust Aussies. Of course, we all know under arm bowling was allowed within the rules but was unethical as it was not in the spirit of the game of cricket. This gaming of the MMP electoral system is akin to under arm bowling in that it is not illegal but it is certainly not ethical or in the spirit of MMP as it was envisioned. If it was, it would be explicitly recognised in the related legislation. If NZ had a written constitution, like Australia, then I would be sure that such gaming would be challenged as being unconstitutional based on the values and principles set down in the constitution.
There are no members of parliament that have not been on an electoral ballot paper, there is no such thing as an overhang and parties cannot decide for themselves who sits in the parliament, they must stand for election. It is wholly undemocratic ti have unelected members of parliament as ministers in government and is a serious corruption of democracy too, I believe. It makes it possible (and it has happened) to buy a seat in the parliament and the cabinet for a person who has not stood for election. Even a member of the Chinese Communist Party has sat in the parliament this way, I understand.
I certainly won't be voting for any party promoting split voting as a strategy to increase its coalition no.s, as it is a vote for 'dirty politics' and we end up with even more unrepresentative, coalition governments than we have now under MMP. I would happily support changes to MMP that maintained proportional representation with a fixed no. of seats in the house. How about a house of review above the house of reps too, again like Tasmania, to 'keep the bastards honest'.
PS I am a citizen of NZ and have spent more than half my life here; it's a neat place but its political system could be better governed with a few more checks and balances, I think.
I don't agree that this kind of manipulation is contrary to the spirit or the intention of the Mixed Member Proportional system. The system was intended to allow maximum scope for the existing party machines (and the colonialist political establishment that they represent) to maintain their grip on power, while mollifying those among the voting class who felt that they were not represented, indeed were disenfranchised, by the First Past the Post system. There was an element of political cynicism in the MMP project from the start.
The lesson to be drawn from all the MMP shenanigans of the past three decades, of which this is but the last, is that we need fundamental and radical constitutional reform led by the people, not by colonialist politicians.
I do not need Mowbray to tell me to split my vote. I always vote for the party I want and for the electorate candidate I like, of who is on offer. They have not always been the same party in the past and I guess will not necessarily ever be. Sometimes not all parties have candidates in an electorate.
I think it is OK to split my two vote choices if I want to - and I do not see it as underhand or dishonest or trying to game a system.
Isn't there a problem for National if it doesn't get the most party votes though? The party with the most party votes gets first dibs at forming a Hovernment?
Isn't it every party's prerogative to undercut other parties' promises? National to undercut those Act made in 2023, and certainly this election to undercut NZF buying BNZ. Act likewise will probably try to derail the supermarket intervention "promise".
If you're into this idea that you're electing a "coalition" then the individual promises of the parties in the coalition have to go out the window, because they're not congruent. But if you already like Act's policies and vote for them, you're not the type of person that needs to be convinced to split their vote. The problem is convincing people who are currently two ticks National that a vote for Act or NZF won't disrupt what they were voting for, like the Social Media under 16 ban, or even the India FTA. That's going to be the problem here.
I moved from Tasmania over 30 years ago and still hear about 'the under arm incident' and even get goaded ocassionally for my Aussie connection and how you can't trust Aussies. Of course, we all know under arm bowling was allowed within the rules but was unethical as it was not in the spirit of the game of cricket. This gaming of the MMP electoral system is akin to under arm bowling in that it is not illegal but it is certainly not ethical or in the spirit of MMP as it was envisioned. If it was, it would be explicitly recognised in the related legislation. If NZ had a written constitution, like Australia, then I would be sure that such gaming would be challenged as being unconstitutional based on the values and principles set down in the constitution.
Tasmania has a proportional representation process: (https://www.tec.tas.gov.au/info/Publications/HareClark.html)
There are no members of parliament that have not been on an electoral ballot paper, there is no such thing as an overhang and parties cannot decide for themselves who sits in the parliament, they must stand for election. It is wholly undemocratic ti have unelected members of parliament as ministers in government and is a serious corruption of democracy too, I believe. It makes it possible (and it has happened) to buy a seat in the parliament and the cabinet for a person who has not stood for election. Even a member of the Chinese Communist Party has sat in the parliament this way, I understand.
I certainly won't be voting for any party promoting split voting as a strategy to increase its coalition no.s, as it is a vote for 'dirty politics' and we end up with even more unrepresentative, coalition governments than we have now under MMP. I would happily support changes to MMP that maintained proportional representation with a fixed no. of seats in the house. How about a house of review above the house of reps too, again like Tasmania, to 'keep the bastards honest'.
PS I am a citizen of NZ and have spent more than half my life here; it's a neat place but its political system could be better governed with a few more checks and balances, I think.
I don't agree that this kind of manipulation is contrary to the spirit or the intention of the Mixed Member Proportional system. The system was intended to allow maximum scope for the existing party machines (and the colonialist political establishment that they represent) to maintain their grip on power, while mollifying those among the voting class who felt that they were not represented, indeed were disenfranchised, by the First Past the Post system. There was an element of political cynicism in the MMP project from the start.
The lesson to be drawn from all the MMP shenanigans of the past three decades, of which this is but the last, is that we need fundamental and radical constitutional reform led by the people, not by colonialist politicians.
I do not need Mowbray to tell me to split my vote. I always vote for the party I want and for the electorate candidate I like, of who is on offer. They have not always been the same party in the past and I guess will not necessarily ever be. Sometimes not all parties have candidates in an electorate.
I think it is OK to split my two vote choices if I want to - and I do not see it as underhand or dishonest or trying to game a system.
Isn't there a problem for National if it doesn't get the most party votes though? The party with the most party votes gets first dibs at forming a Hovernment?
Government.
I have split my vote ever since MMP came into force.
Tamihere, who is a multimillionaire and President of the racist Maori Party was the catalyst that got this voting option the ink it richly deserves.
I too have been telling everyone to split their vote this year.
Electorate vote National but party vote ACT.
National today resembles a jellyfish - no spine.
Yes, it will result in some senior ministers being tossed out.
As they should be due to their inability to keep the promises they made to get elected.
An increased ACT presence in the next coalition government will ensure that promises made are promises kept.
Isn't it every party's prerogative to undercut other parties' promises? National to undercut those Act made in 2023, and certainly this election to undercut NZF buying BNZ. Act likewise will probably try to derail the supermarket intervention "promise".
If you're into this idea that you're electing a "coalition" then the individual promises of the parties in the coalition have to go out the window, because they're not congruent. But if you already like Act's policies and vote for them, you're not the type of person that needs to be convinced to split their vote. The problem is convincing people who are currently two ticks National that a vote for Act or NZF won't disrupt what they were voting for, like the Social Media under 16 ban, or even the India FTA. That's going to be the problem here.