One of the reasons that MMP opponents often cite is that it gives
minor political parties leverage that is way above reasonable given
their party vote share. ACT and NZF combined got 14.72% of the party
vote in 2023 with ACT also taking 2 electorates. However the policies
outlined in the respective coalition agreements are heavily loaded in
favour of the minor party.

Against this though, many voters were not around prior to the adoption
of MMP in 1996 so they have no personal experience in how FPP
governments were elected. The Muldoon governments were elected with
under 40% of the popular vote, so we got policy actions that a
majority of voters rejected.

I don't see any solution to this beyond NZF and ACT losing voter
support. There is simply no way to reasonably limit any coalition
government to adopting minor party policies.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 11:30:46 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

One of the reasons that MMP opponents often cite is that it gives
minor political parties leverage that is way above reasonable given
their party vote share. ACT and NZF combined got 14.72% of the party
vote in 2023 with ACT also taking 2 electorates. However the policies >outlined in the respective coalition agreements are heavily loaded in
favour of the minor party.

Against this though, many voters were not around prior to the adoption
of MMP in 1996 so they have no personal experience in how FPP
governments were elected. The Muldoon governments were elected with
under 40% of the popular vote, so we got policy actions that a
majority of voters rejected.

I don't see any solution to this beyond NZF and ACT losing voter
support. There is simply no way to reasonably limit any coalition
government to adopting minor party policies.

I suspect that National were out-maneuvered in the coalition
negotiations- first they had little policy that they were committed to
beyond helping landlords and other donors, and "tax cuts"; secondly
Luxon and Willis were both very inexperienced at politics or business negotiations. Winston Peters has seen it all before - he and Jones
just wanted a legacy and money to spend. Seymour had been well
prepared by the Atlas Network and had a suite of policies that he
wanted - some of which he had convinced National were their idea. We
can be grateful that National was only prepared to support one policy
to a first reading. But coalition governments must negotiate and be
prepared to work together - and that is where this government does
fall down.

As far as the election system is concerned, the "threshold" makes the
problem worse by cutting out small parties from getting a very small
number of representatives, but being able to make a difference. TOP
for example had drawn support from both Labour and National - they
would have helped increase options in forming a government.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-06-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

One of the reasons that MMP opponents often cite is that it gives
minor political parties leverage that is way above reasonable given
their party vote share. ACT and NZF combined got 14.72% of the party
vote in 2023 with ACT also taking 2 electorates. However the policies outlined in the respective coalition agreements are heavily loaded in
favour of the minor party.

Against this though, many voters were not around prior to the adoption
of MMP in 1996 so they have no personal experience in how FPP
governments were elected. The Muldoon governments were elected with
under 40% of the popular vote, so we got policy actions that a
majority of voters rejected.

I don't see any solution to this beyond NZF and ACT losing voter
support. There is simply no way to reasonably limit any coalition
government to adopting minor party policies.

In the real world it is often a small minority which punches above it
weight.

No election system is perfect, so the question is can a system get closer to perfection than it is at present?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 15:20:30 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

As far as the election system is concerned, the "threshold" makes the
problem worse by cutting out small parties from getting a very small
number of representatives, but being able to make a difference.

If you don’t have a reasonable threshold, then you end up like Israel,
with various extremist and religious “fringe” parties becoming tails that wag the dog.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1 Jul 2024 05:11:03 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2024-06-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

One of the reasons that MMP opponents often cite is that it gives
minor political parties leverage that is way above reasonable given
their party vote share. ACT and NZF combined got 14.72% of the party
vote in 2023 with ACT also taking 2 electorates. However the policies
outlined in the respective coalition agreements are heavily loaded in
favour of the minor party.

Against this though, many voters were not around prior to the adoption
of MMP in 1996 so they have no personal experience in how FPP
governments were elected. The Muldoon governments were elected with
under 40% of the popular vote, so we got policy actions that a
majority of voters rejected.

I don't see any solution to this beyond NZF and ACT losing voter
support. There is simply no way to reasonably limit any coalition
government to adopting minor party policies.

In the real world it is often a small minority which punches above it
weight.

No election system is perfect, so the question is can a system get closer to >perfection than it is at present?

I agree - I cannot think of any regulated solution that would work.
One option I thought of but discarded is that any party with less than
(say) 10% of the party vote can only negotiate confidence-and supply agreements, with no representation in Cabinet. However the old
problem of a party having MPs crucial get a Parliamentary majority
still applies and cannot be overcome.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1 Jul 2024 05:11:03 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2024-06-30, Crash <[email protected]d> wrote:

One of the reasons that MMP opponents often cite is that it gives
minor political parties leverage that is way above reasonable given
their party vote share. ACT and NZF combined got 14.72% of the party
vote in 2023 with ACT also taking 2 electorates. However the policies
outlined in the respective coalition agreements are heavily loaded in
favour of the minor party.

Against this though, many voters were not around prior to the adoption
of MMP in 1996 so they have no personal experience in how FPP
governments were elected. The Muldoon governments were elected with
under 40% of the popular vote, so we got policy actions that a
majority of voters rejected.

I don't see any solution to this beyond NZF and ACT losing voter
support. There is simply no way to reasonably limit any coalition
government to adopting minor party policies.

In the real world it is often a small minority which punches above it
weight.

No election system is perfect, so the question is can a system get closer to >perfection than it is at present?

Clearly that depends on what characteristics you believe give
"perfection". Personally, I would like to see a lower threshold, and
I would also like to see preferential voting for electorate seats.
Others will have different views - some would like multi-member seats
- for example combining three electorates and electing the top three
in a preferential count. That may well make it harder for a small
party to gain a seat - ACT undoubtedly hope that they will not need
the 'nod and wink' arrangement they had with National again, but it
did work to keep at least one ACT MP in Parliament . . .

What changes if any would you make to NZs parliamentary election
system, Gordon?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)