Entry 228, on 2005-09-23 at 14:53:58 (Rating 1, Politics)
Last weekend, both Germany and New Zealand had elections using the MMP (mixed member proportional) proportional voting system. In MMP the number of people in the new parliament for each party is proportional to the total number of votes that party gets. In New Zealand, Labour got 41% and National 40%. Previously New Zealand used a "first past the post" system where individuals were voted in when they got the most votes in an electorate.
The problem with FPP was that, based on the total vote, it was often unfair. On one occasion a party won even though they had less than one third of the total votes. And smaller parties often got no MPs at all even if they had 10% or even more of the total vote. The good thing often quoted about FPP was that it always gave a definite result - except in the unlikely event that the two parties got exactly the same number of MPS, which never happened.
The problem with MMP is that its unusual for one party to get enough votes to govern alone, so there are usually deals made between different parties to form a government. Both Germany and New Zealand use a similar form of MMP, and both have ended up with uncertain results where the two main parties have ended up with almost equal votes, with smaller parties holding the balance of power.
Naturally critics of MMP have used this to show that it is a system which we should stop using. But are they right? If the vote for major parties is so close, is it fair that the one, which through the machinations of the voting system happened to come out on top, has a mandate to rule without question? I don't think so.
Personally, I think that if a party has to compromise and moderate its original policies to fit in with a coalition, then that's they way it should be. If the party had a true mandate from the voters it would have enough votes to govern alone. The fact that this rarely happens just shows there is no real consensus amongst voters.
MMP does have its faults. Sometimes smaller parties do have too much power when they place conditions on cooperative agreements with coalition partners. And the fact that the big party which gets second has little or no influence in the new government even when they get almost as many votes as the party which got first, is not ideal. But I think that's a lot better than giving a party absolute power when it has just 32% of the total vote.
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE
