Hello from Ed Hitchcock, New Zealander in France
-
Hello all
I am here because I am interested in improving the New Zealand MMP system. In particular I want to address the problem of wasted votes that result from application of the 5% threshold. Those wasted votes create perverse incentives and make enemies of allied parties. I am proposing that voters be given a second choice of party vote. If the first does not pass the threshold, the vote goes to the second. Easy done, and eliminates the problems. Lowering the threshold becomes much less important.
See ott.nz or onthethreshold.nz. (Two addresses, one website)
I think that many thresholds in electoral systems work the same way. A second choice is easy to understand and to implement. I'm looking for advice, comments, even support maybe.Ed Hitchcock www.ott.nz
-
@frenzed Hello, and welcome to the Voting Theory Forum!
I'll try to take a look at this proposal and make some comments in a bit.
This in unrelated to the substance of the proposal but the title card on your website is a bit difficult to read against the background image.
-
@marylander Thank you for your welcome.
And the comment about the title.
As we all know, appearances are often more influential than content. I will look for a solution....
Ed -
@frenzed I do agree that the threshold can waste votes and add chaos to outcomes, and that this is a flaw with New Zealand's MMP system. I think that adding a second choice would mitigate (but not fix) this problem.
If this change is adopted, it will need to be made clear that the second choice does not provide a second chance for small parties to clear the threshold if they missed it on the first count.
One issue with a lot of preferential systems that may apply here is that it can be slow to count if all of the ballot data isn't gathered in a central location. If polling places only report the first choice party vote and constituency result initially, then they will have to wait until every polling place finishes reporting these results, and then go back and count the second choices of votes for parties that did not enter Parliament. To avoid having to do a second count, each polling place would have to count first choice-second choice combinations.
There are some criticisms I have of MMP generally, but that seems to be outside the scope of this discussion, especially if this is intended to be considered by the government review of the electoral system which is only considering minor changes to the MMP system.
-
@frenzed Welcome. This is a topic I have thought about before. I do not like voting for parties as a rule so I have not bothered to put time into it. I do however I have an idea how to fix this properly. I put a longer explanation on the other post.
-
@keith-edmonds said in Hello from Ed Hitchcock, New Zealander in France:
I do not like voting for parties as a rule so I have not bothered to put time into it.
I'm with you on that. The less parties play a role the better, as far as I'm concerned. I see parties (in the US, anyway) as an unfortunate side effect of our bad voting system (i.e. as a strategic hedge due to vote splitting), rather than something that must play a major role or even exist.
-
@marylander Thank you for your comments. I share your concerns about preferential systems. vote counting can be slow and complex.
My proposal is for one second choice, that depends only on the count of first choice votes. This keeps things simple. Early counts of first choices usually make clear which are the threshold passing parties. Sometimes there will be something close, in which case counting will need to provide for both possibilities.
Once you have the threshold information, the results for each voting place are quite independent, and results for groups of voting places just involve addition of vote numbers.
In the NZ context fast vote counting is essential. Except in rare cirumstances a final result is expected on election night.
In general I do not like preferential systems. A second choice is easily done, provided the criterion is easily determined. But more complex preferences that depend on district-wide totals are to me a nightmare.
Regards
Ed
(my first detailed reply, I cannot see your message to check I have responded to all the points you make) -
@rob It is a nice idea to dislike parties, but in my view they are necessary. We need politicians to work in cooperation in groups, because the other option is dictatorship.
The problem in the US (and in many jurisdictions) is that the elections system freezes out all but two estalished parties.
The solution (for me) is a system with lower barriers to entry for new parties, and one which allows smaller parties with dispersed support to gain representation.
MMP does that very effectively. New Zealand's implementation of it works well, except that I suggest that a second choice of party vote would improve it.
Ed Hitchcock www.ott.nz
-
@frenzed said in Hello from Ed Hitchcock, New Zealander in France:
We need politicians to work in cooperation in groups, because the other option is dictatorship.
I don't see how you arrive at that.
Unless you consider groups to include things like "the Senate," any a particular Congressional committee, or some sort of special interest group that concentrates on a single issue (e.g. the Sierra Club). But those aren't parties. Parties tend to encompass everything, that is, a politician is a member of one party to the exclusion of other parties. That makes everything tribal, as well as correlating things that aren't necessarily correlated in every voters' mind. (for instance, say I am anti-abortion but pro-gun control)
I like the idea that both voters and candidates can consider each issue independently. Parties tend to force them together.
The problem in the US (and in many jurisdictions) is that the elections system freezes out all but two estalished parties.
Sure. Duverger's law. That's because of plurality voting, which I think most of us consider "the enemy."
A recent election for mayor of San Francisco (where I live) had 8 candidates, none of which were affiliated with a party. This worked because there was a ranked choice election. (IRV is not perfect, but it sure is better than plurality).
Some of the candidates "teamed up", advertising together and such. (saying things like "whichever of us you put first, put the other one second") Various special interest groups endorsed one or more candidates, but the candidates weren't "members" of any group, at least not to the exclusion of other groups.
How is that dictatorship? Even if it is for a parliamentary type election (Senate, Congress, board of Supervisors, etc), I don't see how parties are needed or benefit anyone if the election method is resistant to vote splitting.
