Thursday 28 September 2017

MMP With FPP Characteristics: New Zealand's DIY Electoral System.

Mixed Feelings About Mixed Member Proportional Representation: In 1993, New Zealanders embraced MMP partly out of conviction, but mostly out of a desire to blacken the eyes of those who had used FPP to turn their country upside-down for no good reason. Since then, the Kiwi voter has fashioned a DIY electoral regime: somehow incorporating the majoritarianism of the old system into the checks and balances of the new.

MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN about who “won” the 2017 General Election. Sharp differences have emerged between those who have judged the outcome as a clear National victory, and those who insist that Labour, with the assistance of the Greens and NZ First, has every right to anticipate forming a new government. In essence, this dispute turns on whether New Zealand’s political system is a straightforward creature of the Law, or something constantly emerging from the customs and practices of the people who inhabit it. I place myself among the latter.

In fairness to all the legalists out there, I must acknowledge that in terms of such formal constitutional conventions as New Zealand possesses (and there are surprisingly few) there is absolutely nothing to prevent the Labour Leader, Jacinda Ardern, from advising the Governor-General that she has negotiated an agreement with NZ First and the Greens which places her in command of a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives. Upon confirming that advice, the Governor-General would have no option but to invite Jacinda to form a government.

That Labour, NZ First and the Greens can do this is not in dispute. What is disputed, however, is whether such an agreement will be negotiated. The distance between “can” and “will” is vast – and filled with obstacles.

The greatest of these obstacles is the persistence of the electorate’s political vision. Although New Zealand has been conducting MMP elections for 21 years, the memories and expectations of voters old enough to have participated in elections conducted under the rules of First-Past-The-Post (FPP) continue to exert a powerful influence on the public’s understanding of political events – as anyone who reads the Letters-to-the Editor columns will attest. The most persistent of these political after-images – that the party obtaining the most votes gets to become the government – is particularly tenacious.

Augmenting the electorate’s persistence of political vision, is the enduring resentment of those New Zealanders who have consistently voted to retain and/or restore the FPP system. A substantial minority, around 40 percent of the electorate, emphatically rejects the idea that New Zealand is well-served by proportional representation. These citizens remain firmly wedded to the simple plurality, single-member constituency, system of electing members of parliament. Among such voters, the legitimacy of the MMP system’s Party lists and List MPs continues to be hotly contested.

Even among those who support MMP, considerable confusion still exists as to the relative importance of the Party Vote and the Electorate Vote. Among voters there is a widespread misapprehension that Members of Parliament elected to represent their local communities deserve higher status than MPs elected off a Party List the public had no part in drawing-up. The key role of the Party Vote in determining the outcome of a general election continues to elude many voters.

It is tempting to argue that, when determining the political future of the country, the misapprehensions and ignorance of ordinary voters should not be accorded any special weight. Certainly, our electoral legislation makes no such allowance. If electors allocate their two votes according to the mistaken assumption that their Electorate Vote counts for more than their Party Vote, then that’s just too bad. They should have paid closer attention to the Law.

Unfortunately for the legalists, New Zealand’s politicians cannot afford to be so definitive. Our political leaders know that while the Electoral Commission must operate according to the strict rules of the Electoral Act, their own operations must be guided by the rules the electorate assumes to be in force. These DIY electoral rules have grown out of the custom and practice of the politicians whose job it has been, since 1996, to make MMP work. In making these political choices, our leaders have paid considerably more attention to what the voters think they should do, than to what the constitutional conventions laid down in the Cabinet Manual actually empower them to do. In doing so, they have created a whole new set of “unofficial” conventions.

The most important of these is that the party winning the most votes, and taking the most seats, must be allowed to form a government. To say this represents outdated FPP thinking is true – but irrelevant. Most New Zealanders balk at the prospect of being ruled by a “coalition of the losers”. In their minds, a plurality is as good as a majority – and that “majority’ must rule. This widely-held (albeit completely erroneous) view of electoral best-practice leads the voters inexorably on to the next-most-important convention: that it is the duty of whichever small party is best positioned to do so (ideologically and/or practically) to supply the largest party with the votes it needs to give New Zealand “strong and stable” government.

The fact that the voters have got it all wrong is nowhere near as important as the fact that they believe themselves to be in the right. After all, this is how all previous MMP governments have been formed, and a consistently large majority of voters are firmly of the view that this is how all future MMP governments should be formed. Perhaps the best way of describing New Zealand’s DIY electoral system is: MMP with FPP characteristics. It may not have the slightest justification in either law, or the officially-defined constitutional conventions, but woe betide any politician who sets his, or her, face against it.


This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Wednesday, 27 September 2017.

22 comments:

Kiwiwit said...

As you say, there is nothing to stop Jacinda Ardern stitching together a "coalition of the losers", except perhaps the fear that such a coalition may fall apart within months and the fact that the electorate tends to punish failure to govern effectively. Victory goes to the bold and we will see whether Ardern has the courage to seize the Beehive offices.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Bugger it. Some bloke on the radio put it correctly. It's the numbers that count. Just the numbers.

Charles E said...

It's more simple than that Chris. The public want simplicity as it rightly equates it with stability. So they think a two party coalition is more likely to last three years. And surely they are right. I'm sure a huge majority do not want another election for three years and will punish anyone who causes it.
If the Greens just gave their votes to Labour, making Labour say 41%, then the public would quite easily go with an NZF-Lab gov.
So it's the Greens who are the spoiler for Labour. Such a pity they did not quite finish them off. Pity for Labour that is.
And you can guarantee that if NZF do go with the Lab-Grn election losers, then when it blows up, Winnie will blame the Greens.

Victor said...

A truly excellent post, Chris, with which I largely agree.

Even so, I'm not wholly sure whether or not, if it has the choice, Labour would be better-off sitting this one out.

As Shakespeare's Brutus puts it in "Julius Caesar:

"There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures."

So which way is the tide flowing and is this as much of a flood as we can expect?

Perhaps the special votes will cast some light on this, even though they're unlikely to change the overall shape of things.

BTW I've got a feeling (and no more than a feeling) that you and your fellow commentators might be underestimating the impact of mass late voting.

To quote the Second Witch in the "Scottish Play":

"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."

(I'm, of course, using "wicked" in the current coloquial, non-derogatory way)

Break a leg!

Polly. said...

Chris,
at last a writing of sanity to our political system.
Of course the National party should form the next government.
That's what the majority of New Zealanders voted for.
Should Winnie try to form a government with Labour and the Greens on the present voting figures,(Special votes may or may not have slight difference to the known figures now)then we would have minority political parties running our economy.
Instability would raise it's ugly head and the biggest political party, their majority supporters would rebel, chaos amongst the people, then chaos in financial markets would be New Zealand's future.
Doe's Winnie and his political party want that situation?.
I doubt that.

Victor said...

GS

No, it isn't just the numbers that count.

A government deemed to be illegitimate would be stymied at every turn, out of office after three years and (in the case of Labour) unlikely to return.

So the question remains whether a government opposed by the highest scoring party would be seen as legitimate.

In Denmark or Ireland, it would be. In Germany it might be. But New Zealand? I really don't know.

Chris is right to raise this concern.

David Stone said...

Victor
I have that suspicion about the specials too. I think everyone is underestimating the effect they are going to have.

Polly
We have an MMP system of voting to select a government; No longer First passed the Post. MMP will nearly always present an administration that is a negotiated compromise. We voted the system in because we were dissatisfied with the representation for significant minorities, and because we objected to the absolute power that FPP gave a sometimes minority government.
The present situation is exactly what was voted for , and whatever comes out of the negotiations is the best that can be done to implement democracy under this system. Whatever negotiated outcome negotiated now by the representatives we have elected is as legitimate as any other. Anyone who objects to what is now negotiated needs to campaign for some alternative electoral system they think is superior.
D J S

pat said...

my god its amusing watching the desperation.....speaking of stability,.National,Act, United and the Maori party....stable in its destruction.

Kat said...

@Polly

Explain again why national should form the next govt when if say you take the electorate of Whangarei as an example both the combined electorate vote for Lab/NZF/Green is more than National and the combined party vote for Labour/NZF/Green is more than National.

In short what this election has thrown up so far is more voters in NZ voted AGAINST National. And in the MMP system we have that makes National the LOSER. And the specials are most likely to make it even WORSE for National.


Hello.....hello.....hello.....hello......have you heard the one about whats the difference between a National supporter and a computer............

AB said...

Chris - by elevating these misconceptions to the status of 'conventions', you simply increase the chances of them becoming just that. They are nothing like that solidified yet - and to prevent them becoming so it is high time that we saw a party with a plurality not in government, just so everyone can get over it.

AB said...

Chris - what if the situation was reversed and there was a single monolithic party on the left with a plurality, and three parties on the centre-right with a majority?
Do you think for a moment that the voices we now hear insisting on these bogus 'conventions' would be raised at all?

swordfish said...

Chris

You say

"The greatest of these obstacles is the persistence of the electorate’s political vision... The most persistent - that the party obtaining the most votes gets to become the government – is particularly tenacious... that the party winning the most votes, and taking the most seats, must be allowed to form a government. To say this represents outdated FPP thinking is true – but irrelevant. Most New Zealanders balk at the prospect of being ruled by a “coalition of the losers”. In their minds, a plurality is as good as a majority – and that “majority’ must rule. This widely-held (albeit completely erroneous) view of electoral best-practice leads the voters inexorably on to the next-most-important convention: that it is the duty of whichever small party is best positioned to do so ... to supply the largest party with the votes it needs to give New Zealand “strong and stable” government.... a consistently large majority of voters are firmly of the view that this is how all future MMP governments should be formed... woe betide any politician who sets his, or her, face against it"

Until relatively recently, True

One or two Polls over the past decade have suggested strong public sentiment in favour of the idea that the party receiving the most votes should form the subsequent Government (eg 79% agreeing in a 2008 Colmar Brunton).

However Jacinda-mania (and Labour’s subsequent revival) may have mitigated this view – Eg a recent Herald ZB Kantar TNS poll found more voters feeling NZF should make any coalition decisions on the basis of policy wins (38%) rather than simply going with the largest party (35%) – albeit with a hefty 27% still Unsure

swordfish said...

Chris

"Even among those who support MMP, considerable confusion still exists as to the relative importance of the Party Vote and the Electorate Vote ... The key role of the Party Vote in determining the outcome of a general election continues to elude many voters ... If electors allocate their two votes according to the mistaken assumption that their Electorate Vote counts for more than their Party Vote, then that’s just too bad. They should have paid closer attention to the Law."




2014 New Zealand Election Study
Party or Electorate vote more important

Party vote more important 56% (2011 = 42%) (2005 = 58%)
Equally important 25% (2011 = 38%)(2005 = 30%)
Electorate vote more important 10% (2011 = 9%)(2005 = 6%)
Don't know 10% (2011 = 12%)(2005 = 6%)

Mike said...

@Polly

"That's what the majority of New Zealanders voted for."

I guess you didn't do the whole maths thing at school Polly? Because anything less than 50% is not a majority and the National Party received less than 50% of the vote.

So to correct you, the majority of New Zealanders voted against the National Party.

Mike said...

Polly

"That's what the majority of New Zealanders voted for."

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Not sure which figures you've been looking at or maybe your maths isn't too strong but a majority in this context means more than 50%. in actual fact the majority of New Zealanders voted against the National Party which received less than 50% of the vote.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"That's what the majority of New Zealanders voted for."
Er........ no. The majority of New Zealanders voted for whoever forms the government. I don't think you really understand MMP.

Anonymous said...

It's time for NZ to embrace MMP, has to happen sometime. Most of your fellow commentators are also thinking in FPP win/lose terms rather than MMP consensus politics, this is simply wrong & not what was intended when MMP was introduced - everyone seems to have forgotten Nationals last 2 FPP governments achieved with less of the popular vote than Labour due to gerrymandered electorates.

JanM said...

The changes do seem to be a bit much for those whose thinking has not moved on - makes me giggle. I'm older than many of them (including you, Chris, by quite a margin!) but have tried not to stay in last century's time warp. I really like the idea of multiple parties negotiating for best outcomes, and would like to see the ego-driven FPP system buried without trace. I guess the 'old fart brigade' will get dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century eventually - not much choice really - love it!

Victor said...

To Polly and her critics

Yes, critics, you're right. A majority voted against National but an even larger majority voted against Labour and a vastly larger majority than that voted against NZ First.

We can deduce nothing from such rhetorical games, which merely serve to further confuse matters.

The way that just about any genuine parliamentary system works is that the person deemed most likely to form a government capable of commanding a majority in the chamber gets entrusted with trying to form that administration.

This is the case now and was also the case before MMP was introduced. And it was also the case before the rise of mass political parties, when alliegances were more fluid and majorities easily eroded by splits, factionalism and backbench revolts.

So much for theory. In practice, though, as Chris points out, FPP has bequeathed us a gladiatorial and binary tradition of winners and losers and it's not wholly clear whether, as a nation, we've left that tradition fully behind or whether it continues to play on our perceptions.

So it will be a bold step to form what some may well consider an illegitimate "coalition of losers". That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. But the possible consequences need to be carefully weighed.

There's little point in putting Labour and its allies into office, just to run the joint for three years and then retire in perpetuity to the back benches, if not into oblivion.

Meanwhile, with respect to perceptions, it doesn't help that, unlike most continental European countries, we have a modified version of the UK House of Commons' floor plan, with government and opposition facing each other at a distance of just over two sword-lengths.

No, I'm not suggesting changing this. I'm just pointing out that it probably helps shape our perceptions.

mikesh said...

Perhaps it is not the largest party that should form a government but the largest ¨possible¨ coalition. On present numbers that would be a NAT/NZF coalition with 67 seats. A LAB/NZF/GRN coalition would only have 61 seats. However it would not always be the case that the largest ¨possible¨ coalition would include the party with the most MPs

sumsuch said...

Tripe.

Reason isn't just a fancy, it's vital now.The problems of Human's immediate gratification have come due. The bills must be paid. No more room for succouring nonsense, it's the time for powerful persuasion.

sumsuch said...

Felt uneasy in my back-thoughts over the last 24 hours you'd print my latest comments. All the stages these days are owned so you have to please. Those who love the people must understand their duty in this respect.

So the greatest vote-catcher party should have the right of way? Which implies trusting Labour? Never. Or until they deny 84. Or never.