The election results this year are bad. Even if you voted for the national coalition, I think you should be angry about this year’s results because they go against the point of MMP. I have two ideas of how to fix overhangs and make sure the government is always proportional, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
Idea 1, the simpler solution: Just add more list seats. Fill up all the electorate seats, then add list MPs until there are at least the base number of seats, and adding another seat would make it less proportional. Pros: It’s simple, intuitive, and makes more sense than allowing overhangs. Cons: There could be a lot of MPs in the house.
Idea 2, STV + MMP: This idea uses STV or some other ranked system to elect the electorate MPs, which would be better than the FPTP we use for them now. But in this case, if an overhang happens, the overhang seat with the thinnest majority would be recalculated with the previous winner’s votes transferred. Pros: it works in a better system for the electorates, and it makes for a consistent size of parliament. Cons: It’s slightly more confusing for the voters, and calculating the seats could take much longer.
I have been thinking about this for a couple of days now; here is my proposal for how to fix the overhang issue:
Note - by fix, I mean maintain the two vote system, whilst also preserving proportionality (as closely as possible); whilst also pissing off the fewest people.
Note 2 - this system does not completely eliminate the overhang, but will significantly limit its influence.
The proposed system will work; from the voters point of view; exactly as the current system does with a party vote and a candidate vote.
Each party is afforded precisely one overhang seat if the vote count comes out that way. Limiting the size of parliament to 120 + (the number parties)/2, rounded up. So with seven parties the limit is 124, this is unlikely but possible.
Any other overhang seats are “flipped”; to the second place getter; starting at the closest races in each electorate. These are the places where a few hundred votes either way would have put the second place candidate in. This is going to piss off a bunch of people, but this is statistically the fewest people that are pissed off.
The only dispensation where a seat cannot be flipped is if the seat is that of the party leader(s).
The allowance of one overhang seat; means that parties HAVE to campaign on the party vote, as more seats means nothing to them beyond that. This also allows for TPM to get say 2.5% of the party vote which would allow 3 seats, but have a 4th from their allowed 1 seat overhang.
The reason I have settled on this as the “best” option, is three fold.
- Fewest changes for the voters of NZ; educating the public on a new system is difficult.
- 1 seat overhang, still reflects the will of the people if a party really does have a whole bunch of great candidates but shit party…seems weird but possible.
- Candidates will really have to work not to have their seat be a “close” race, be visible and serve their communities.
Current election results:
- Nat @29.2 gets 36+1; 37 E, 0 L
- Lab @29.4 gets 36; 21 E + 4 E from TPM flip + 5 E from NAt flip, + 6 L
- Grn @13.3 gets 16; No change to E/L
- Act @10.9 gets 13; No change to E/L
- NZF @9.8 gets 12; No change to E/L
- Opp @6 gets 7; No change to E/L
- TPM @0.4 gets 0+1; 1 E 0 L
This gives a 122 seat house, compared to the 131 seats we are looking at.
The current election results are quite unfair to TPM under my system; mainly because their strategy to shift party vote was well executed. If they got their 2023 result of 3.1% it wouldn’t be so distorted. The numbers would shuffle around a bit and that 3% would likely have come from Lab/Grn.
TPM 2023 would have got 4 seats + 1 in overhang; giving them 5 instead of the 6 they actually got in 2023.
2023 would have see a 121 seat house rather than a 122 that we actually got.
make the parlament larger to 140 seats 70 electorate seats 70 party seats
I don’t see how STV is confusing for voters: you just rank the candidates in order of how much you like/hate them…
But the main issue is if we try to get STV, we’ll more likely end up losing MMP entirely as people will vote for FPP in a referendumb…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_New_Zealand_voting_system_referendum
I would rather see a referendum which specifically says that FPTP is not an option as it is structurally unfair.
Then gives the options.
FPTP was the most popular last time as well, so yes, I would want it explicitly ruled out as well
IMHO it’s not that’s it’s confusing, it’s that plenty of old “who moved my cheese?” people who are accustomed to FFP are still bitter that there are minor parties “of numpties and yahoos” in parliament and blame MMP. They’re kind of right, MMP allows for more parties in parliament, but that’s not actually a problem: it’s just different.
If we wait a few years for a large chunk of those voters to die then we can have a referendum where the leader of the National party doesn’t stick their oar in to the referendum (like Key did with the flag bullshit) appealing to a bunch of voters that won’t matter in a few years
STV is commonly used in local council elections (but still a lot of FPP too), so it should be familiar to many voters.
I can’t believe that referendum was 15 years ago! It seems more recent but perhaps I’m just remembering Luxon saying he wants another one.
I can’t believe that referendum was 15 years ago!
True, i didn’t realise it was that long ago, maybe people’s perception of STV might have changed since then…
Opportunity is proposing Citizens Assemblies. I think the question of making the electoral system more fair, is the perfect question to put to a CA.
Review options and talk to experts, produce recommendations to the government, hold the government to account when they don’t take the proposal forward…
I voted for MMP back in the day, now I’m showing my age.
I think a STV/MMP hybrid system now makes more sense, at least for the party vote. For the overhang, do we go down the road of shifting the thresh hold up? I’m not sure that I like that idea.
Germany has already had and solved this issue, This is a good place to start.
We would be foolish not to take the lessons they learned.
Germany have NOT solved the problem. In 2024 they simply did away with overhang seats entirely, which I’m not keen on. I feel like if you win an electorate, you should get a seat.
Pre 2024, they added extra seats… Applying that formula to the current election would add a whopping 650 seats, for a 770 seat parliament… (This is why Germany did away with that system, incidentally)
This is what parliament would look like under that system:
- Labour: 231 seats
- National: 230
- Green: 105
- ACT: 86
- NZF: 77
- Opp: 47
- TPM: 5
Whatever the solution is, it ain’t that!
The article is essentially describing STV with extra steps, if I understand it correctly, which might be a solution. I’m not certain how I feel about STV. Changing the number of electorates or switching to wards is neither here nor there imo.
ETClarify: In the context of switching to STV, I thinking switching up electorates is neither here nor there. It would obviously be quite impactful in the current system
Thanks - the solution may well be to reduce the number of electorate seats so that we still have someone nearby to areas but not so many. We could do the same to list seats. Maybe our parliament size is reduced so it’s not so unreasonable to keep proportions?
I’m just spouting things now. Any suggestions on other ways to solve the problem? I think I ultimately believe the parliament share should be approximately proportional to party vote, but I don’t have a good idea of how to achieve that.
I have no idea to be honest.
I had a friend suggest treating the Māori roll separately. For this election that does make the numbers a little more sane (still quite a large parliament, but we potentially wouldn’t need a new building lol) but that has all sorts of potential to screw over Māori voters, and I wouldn’t trust any solution that tried to separate the two rolls for scaling.
I’m busy reading about STV, and that has problems too. It’s better than FPTP but it does still have a tendency to favour larger parties, and isn’t great in terms of proportional representation. I’m not sure how Op’s idea of MMP+STV would work, but it would probably be better than what we have now? I think?
The more I think about it, the more I realise why Germany just said fuck it. Win enough of the party vote to get your electorate seats, or lose em. It’s definitely simpler.
I’m honestly just glad this isn’t going to fall to me to figure out.
I’m not sure how Op’s idea of MMP+STV would work, but it would probably be better than what we have now? I think?
It kinda sounds like the candidate with the most votes may not be elected for the electorate based on something outside of their control?
The more I think about it, the more I realise why Germany just said fuck it. Win enough of the party vote to get your electorate seats, or lose em. It’s definitely simpler.
Yeah it’s not a bad idea. I think maybe we could have a threshold. Like your first overhang seat is free but after that you need the votes. That would make it much harder to manipulate, and the effects of manipulation would be capped.
I’m honestly just glad this isn’t going to fall to me to figure out.
Yeah, maybe when we do reviews that produce recommendations perhaps we enact those recommendations? 😂 who am I kidding
Interesting, why did they choose that system over any other?
Are you from Germany?
It would be gods to hear the opinion of a German.
Nah, I’ve just been speaking to one online ha ha ha! I would be interested to know that too
Very interesting, thanks
@absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz mentioned this opinion piece.
It discusses how the same problem has been solved overseas. I am concerned that overhang gaming will become the new normal, so far we have the coalition retaining government on less than 50% of the vote, and the special votes are unlikely to put them above the 50% mark.
Just linking to my other comment for visibility, but, no, Germany didn’t solve the problem, they side stepped it. Their solution is problematic IMO
I have an idea…
I was thinking about this today: that you can just fill up just seats until the party vote proportions are met.
Sure it might mean they have to squeeze 200 MP’s into the chamber, so what? I assume there’s some natural limit to the number need that’s some clever factor of the 79 electorate seats… but can’t be bothered trying to work that out.
I’m not entirely sure what value the FPP electorate seats bring anyway.
See my other comment. It would be more like 770 MPs, not 200
I’m not entirely sure what value the FPP electorate seats bring anyway.
I think the electorate seats are to make sure every area of the country has someone local that represents them. Otherwise you’d get the whole parliament full of Aucklanders and Wellingtonites, and there would be no local office with an MP you could talk to.
I get the reason for electorate seats, but I don’t see why they need to be FPP. At least let us do a ranking.
Some electorate MP’s are much better than others. In Taupō we have Louise Upston, we literally never see her at any local events or anything. I have been living here for 15 years, not once has she turned up.
Contrast that to my BIL in Waikanae; his local MP goes to community events every week, is at park run most Saturdays, and is easy to get face time with.
I don’t know anyone who isn’t a business owner that has had face time with Louise.
Maybe a little apples and oranges there.
Sure. Louise might still be a shitty representative.
But Louise couldn’t drive from her constituents to the beehive in the same amount of time your BILs MP can cycle.
Whilst true, I have been in Taupō for a long time and NEVER seen her at a community event.
I guess the idea is that local people should vote in someone who is visible! But MPs also typically (always?) have a local office that can be contacted if you do want to talk to the MP. I have in my time seen many requests from local MPs to try to resolve issues people are having with government.
I tried that a few years ago, WRT an issue with the MoE, got a few platitudes from a staffer and that was about it. No followup or ways to raise the issue with the MoE just bland nothing responses.
Typically it just gets handled through the standard complaints process just with more urgency. MPs don’t really have the power to change the outcome (unless they also happen to be a minister of the department, then they might have some power). It’s also a way to make it visible if there is a government change needed as the MP might have some influence on government policy.
For the record, the complaints process does regularly lead to changed outcomes. Staff fuck up sometimes and in my experience the complaints process does lead to reviewing and changing outcomes where needed.
But also I haven’t seen this process at MoE and I’m pretty sure they are one if the departments with a bad reputation 🤷
Apparently Germany already had this issue. I have no idea, I just don’t want the American system here at any cost
Just linking to my other comment for visibility, but, no, Germany didn’t solve the problem, they side stepped it. Their solution is problematic IMO
