| New Zealand | |
 This article is part of the series: |
|
|
|
|
|
General
|
|
 |
|
|
Other countries · Atlas Politics portal |
|
Electoral Reform in New Zealand has, in recent years, become a political issue as major changes have been made to both Parliamentary and local government electoral systems.
Contents |
Parliamentary Electoral Reform
All New Zealand elections from 1914 to 1996 consistently used the British system of 'first past the post' (FPP) for parliamentary elections (bloc voting and runoff voting were also used in some elections before 1914). This system had consistently favoured the two largest parties, since 1936 being National and Labour. Indeed, the system distorted electoral results, such as in 1978 and 1981, when National won more seats even though Labour had won more votes. Both parties would focus their efforts on marginal electoral seats, and 'safe' seats with large working class or farming populations were taken for granted.
In 1984, Labour was elected to power. Deputy Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, also Minister of Justice, established the Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1985. The Royal Commission's report, in 1986, entitled Towards a Better Democracy recommended the adoption of Mixed Member Proportional. Initially, the report was largely ignored outside of academic circles. The Electoral Reform Coalition was formed to lobby the government for a referendum on the electoral system.
At the 1987 election, Prime Minister David Lange promised to hold a referendum on changing to MMP at, or before, the next election. None was held, and thus at the 1990 election, National (under Jim Bolger) promised to hold a referendum before the 1993 election.
1992 electoral system referendum
In 1992, a non-binding referendum was held on whether or not FPP should be replaced by a new, more proportional voting system. Voters were asked two questions: whether or not to replace FPP with a new voting system; and which system should be adopted instead. A second, binding, referendum was to be held the following year, in which voters would choose between FPP and the new system chosen to replace it.
The first question asked voters if they wished to retain FPP or change electoral systems. The result was in 84.5 per cent favour of replacing FPP, and 15.3% against.[1]
The second question asked voters which new system should replace FPP. Voters could choose between the following:
- Mixed Member Proportional (MMP); also known as the Additional Member System used in Germany, Scotland, and Wales; in which roughly half of the seats are elected by FPP; and the remainder are filled from party lists to top-up the local seats so as to ensure a proportional overall result;
- Single Transferable Vote (STV); a proportional system used in Ireland and Tasmania; in which the country is divided into multimember constituencies; and voters rank candidates in declining order of preference;
- Supplementary Member system (SM); commonly called the parallel system, used in Japan and previously in Russia and Italy; a semi-proportional mixed system with proportional representation used only for the seats filled by lists; and a larger proportion of seats elected by FPP.
- Alternative Vote; used in Australia and Fiji elections; similar to FPP but with voters ranking candidates in declining order of preference (now called Instant Runoff Voting in the USA).
An overwhelming majority of those favouring a new electoral system voting for MMP. The percentages of the vote cast for the four possible electoral system options offered in the second question were:
- Supplementary Member 5.5%
- Single Transferable Vote 17.5%
- Mixed Member Proportional 70.3%
- Alternative Vote 6.6%
1993 electoral referendum
The second, binding, referendum was held at the same time as the 1993 election. The Electoral Reform Coalition was the main advocate of MMP. MMP faced an uphill battle, as acknowledged in the pro-MMP poster to the side, since the proposed model was for increase in the number of MPs from 99 to 120. Many senior politicians and businesspeople were opposed to MMP. Bill Birch, then a senior National Cabinet Minister, had said MMP would be "a catastrophic disaster for democracy", Ruth Richardson, former Minister of Finance in Jim Bolger's government said MMP "would bring economic ruin". Peter Shirtcliffe, leader of the Coalition for Better Government, a group opposed to MMP and former Chairman of Telecom New Zealand said MMP "would bring chaos".[2] Despite this, a majority (53.4%) of voters favoured MMP.
Introduction of MMP
The first election using MMP was held in 1996.
As a result, National and Labour lost their complete dominance in the House. Neither has yet been able to hold a majority within the House under MMP. Instead, electoral results have required them to form coalitions to govern. Indeed, since 1998 there have been minority coalition governments relying on supply and confidence from parties outside of government.
Prior to the switch to MMP, New Zealand largely had a two party system, with government interchanging between Labour and National since 1935. With the introduction of MMP, particularly with New Zealand's unique provision for parties to win list seats despite getting less than the 5% threshold if they win one local seat, there has been a widening of political parties represented within the House. After the 1996 election, there were six political parties. The Greens separated from the Alliance for the 1999 election, and with the creation of the Māori Party in 2004, there became eight parties. The number of political parties was expected to fall[citation needed] (as happened in Germany after their adoption of MMP), but has in fact increased.
The transition to MMP has caused disproportionality to fall.
| Election | Disproportionality | Number of Parties in Parliament |
|---|---|---|
| 1946-1993 average | 11.10% | 2 |
| 1996 | 4.36% | 6 |
| 1999 | 3.01% | 7 |
| 2002 | 2.53% | 7 |
| 2005 | 1.11% | 8 |
| 2008 | 5.21% | 7 |
(source: Jonathan Boston, Stephen Church, Stephen Levine, Elizabeth McLeay and Nigel Roberts, New Zealand Votes: The General Election of 2002 (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2003) [1]
Local Government Elections
Up until the 2004 local body elections, all territorial authorities were elected using the bloc vote (although often referred to as first-past-the-post). In 2004, at the discretion of the council, they could use the single transferable vote. Eight local bodies used STV in the 2007 local body elections. All regional authorities must still use FPP. All District Health Boards must use STV.
See also
- Constitution of New Zealand
- Elections in New Zealand
- Electoral system of New Zealand
- History of voting in New Zealand
|
||||||||
References
- ^ MMP Symposium Paper
- ^ "Decision Maker - MMP's First Decade". 2006. http://www.decisionmaker.co.nz/guide2006/tbp_MMPfirstdecade_05.html. Retrieved 2009-02-05.
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
