Should there be a review of the present MMP electoral system?
If we are to be governed competently at a national level, it is essential that our elected representatives act as if we all live in this community together and that by definition would accommodate the interests of society’s diversity while also recognising that our commonality is primary. This becomes increasingly important as the Nation’s population becomes culturally more diverse because we also need our society to remain cohesive.
MMP tends to amplify narrow interests or extremist positions within our parliamentary representatives instead of building a broad societal cohesion. Under MMP political parties build narrow support bases with similarly narrow agendas. MMP also disincentivises cooperative behaviour between political parties due to this causing a loss of their “market” appeal.
Furthermore under the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral model the concept of “representative” has been corrupted from its intended one of being a person who represents the majority of a community within an electorate, to one more closely aligned to the one used to fill Noah’s ark where parliament is meant to have one from each of the many respective cultural groups and gender identities that now comprise our nation.
The primary problem with narrow interest groups forming political parties is that it overlooks the fact that Parliament is there to administer the nation for the greater collective good and our parliamentarians need to be people of considerable ability and experience who are also closely connected to the entirety of the community they represent, not to narrow interests or cultural groupings.
MMP has led to a number of smaller parties entering parliament with narrow agendas that do not reflect the collective best interest or the preferences of the majority. MMP has also resulted in minor parties having disproportionate influence over the policy preferences of the majority.
Activist groups best represent the specific interests within our society. A broadly based representative political structure will be sensitive to the specific interests of community groups or interests within society because it will want to attract the largest number of votes and so all parties will need to be broadly appealing.
MMP also seems to result in the minor parties elevating people into parliament who would be unlikely to get past an electorate selection committee. Once there these list MPs are then beholden to a party hierarchy not to an electorate, and that appears to result in a substantial number of people getting into parliament whose only obvious talent is to vote as directed by the party leadership, not to reflect the wider electorate’s interests.
The recent issues within the Green Party highlight the problems with MMP. Because 50% of Parliament’s members are not representing the electorate they are representing their respective party hierarchies and in the minor parties that may mean that all of their parliamentary seats are list seats not electorate seats. And because the minor parties derive places in parliament mostly or entirely from party votes and not electorate votes they are more vulnerable to this control by party hierarchies rather than an electorate.
MMP is also skewing parliamentary representation away from regional NZ towards Urban NZ and in particular Auckland and Wellington as many list MPs are from the main urban areas – and it is effectively disenfranchising regional New Zealand.
MMP has resulted in government being even less representative than was the case under FPP. We presently have a government comprising parties that more than 90% of the electorate didn’t vote for and that have policies that may be largely opposed by the great majority of the electorate.
However, some form of preference or ranked choice voting process is certainly better than the winner takes all results from the traditional first past the post (FPP) electoral model and is likely to result in governments that have majority electoral support than MMP.
Feel free to Vote below and / or go to the next question – Should NZ use an STV/ranked preference voting system ?
Each question is seeking a response on a range through “yes+” “yes-“ “neutral” “no-“ “no+” where the plus indicates strong support minus indicates mild support.
13 Comments
Submit a Comment
Join Us in the Journey
Get Involved
- Vote & / or comment) on key questions.
- Subscribe to the mailing list.
- Read the blog posts & comment
- Improve local body systems
- Sign the petition. We are reviewing the best options to make this online. TBA
In my view, our democratic system is not fit for purpose and its main failings are:
1. The disproportionate influence of wealth and power through “old mates” networks
2. Allowing large donations to political parties and unfettered lobbying
3. Election cycles that result in short term focused policy reversals and financial waste
4. Insufficient consensus for policy change
5. The loss of public ownership of all forms of natural resource and knowledge accumulated over generations (which shifts the wealth that should be available to all us to a limited few).
Problems 2, 3 and 4 could be fixed quickly – within just one election cycle if we put our minds to it. The solutions for problems 2 and 4 should be obvious, with my suggestion for 3 being:
a) Divide the country into 72 electorates
b) Arrange for 2 geographically disparate electorates to vote on a rotating basis every month of the year
c) In its designated month, every electorate would elect one individual by popular vote to serve that electorate for a 3 year term. (No party votes.)
d) Support every elected representative by a citizen advisory group (CAG) randomly selected from their electorate (not by a political party). And give each CAG the authority to fire the elected representative if 80%, or more, of the CAG’s members agree that the representative is not meeting the wishes of the electorate.
The end result should be a parliament more representative of the general population. More importantly, parliament would be subject to refreshment on a monthly basis. If the politicians are getting things wrong in the public’s view, parliament’s makeup would quickly change as new pairs of electorates vote over the following months.
I have thought for a long time that if we had what were effectively by-elections on a regular, organised basis, the Government of the day would much more readily be held to account. If a dominant party lost several of these elections in succession, one would hope that they might take the hint and change their policies.
I agree totally about the capture of Government by wealthy interests and lobbyists.
I wrote this a friend years ago.
Do we aspire to be like Singapore or Samoa, both have their good points and bad or can we be a good mixture of both.
Unfortunately we have had the lowest common denominator mentality in our govt. for far too long and I fear we are closer to Samoa now.
The rot started 30 to 40 years ago, I hope its at the end of its cycle but I’m not holding my breathe.
It’s no good worrying about it, the system has been worked to protect the guilty, reward the incompetent and punish the silent, we will be well gone by the time nz hits rock bottom and there is nothing to be done under the present system.
And that’s where the problem lies.
Everyone knows or feels there is a problem.
No one really understands how the political party system works.
They believe their vote is the only deciding factor and that’s it.
Its like voting for a way to be killed every 3 years, its doesn’t matter and the result is the same.
I don’t know for sure how it works, but If I was going to guess, it would be something like this.
A person becomes interested in politics.
They look at the parties and decide which one suits their outlook.
They join.
They become involved.
They meet like minded people.
They decide they have something to offer and can make a difference.
They work to be noticed.
If they do and say the right things, eventually the party machinery might notice them.
If everything works right for them , the party machinery picks them to represent the party.
If on the day, they are elected, they belong to the party.
There is a position called the whip, and I can only imagine it got its name for being the person who whips the members into shape.
From the day they are elected, they cannot have an opinion that is different from the party, they cannot vote against the party or support another party.
They go to their electorate and put out what little fires they can and if they stay long enough and follow the party line, eventually they might get near the reins of power.
Even then they must do what the leader says.
Every 3 years people get all excited about democracy, all the promises and bribes are made and , election time, and then it all settles down to the normal lies and bullshit.
And that’s the problem, all democratic countries have multiple houses or state govt. that keep the fanatics in check.
We don’t and because of the size of the population and our shallow talent pool we don’t want that.
Once we have a fanatic as leader, whether it was Muldoon or Clark, Lange or Adern, they keep going until even the average kiwi has had enough.
My solution is to change the election cycle.
3 years is 156 weeks, there are 72 electorates so roughly every 2 weeks there would be an election in a seat for parliament . Rotating through the 72 seats in roughly 3 year cycle, elected members serve 3 years but if they don’t behave, they could be either opposition or govt, depending how every other member is performing.
That means that the majority govt. would have almost an instant response from the electorate on any decisions they made.
This would take the power away from the burocrats and place it firmly in the hands of the people.
This would force them to be honest, force them to engage with the electorate.
Most results would probably be fairly stable but you could imagine that with the present situation, the govt. would have gained quite a few seats over the last year or stayed stable but with this latest debacle you could see them losing seat after seat in a 3 month cycle.
Imagine where politicians had to be honest and not rely on spin.
Imagine the self interest of a politician that could see their election coming up and shit happening and them actually standing up for what was right.
Imagine politicians actually working together for the best interests of the country
Imagine where the elected member had to defend every decision , being such a small country, their seat might not be the next election but their neighbour might be, and they had better be working hard to keep their seat.
Imagine if at the next sign of arrogance from these politicians, one of theirs might be up for the next seat election.
Imagine if a politician had a good idea and they could put it out there, without being committeed to death.
Imagine being able to support another members good idea, without being held to ransom by the party machine
I think even the Maori would be happy with that system, its more in keeping with the tribal system of localized power.
It’s taken 40 years to get us to where we are now and it will take another 40 to either give up completely or fight our way back.
It’s no good looking backwards and complaining.
We have to have a long hard look at what we want to be like in the future and fix things so we can achieve that.
We’ve tried being woke, we’ve tried apartheid, we’ve tried borrowing ideas from every other “out there” country in the world, it’s probably time to go back to what being a kiwi was all about, common sense, hard working and practical.
Hi Cliff I agree with your first point but reducing the number of electorates to 72 has a number of drawbacks – the first is that it reduces the talent pool available in parliament for filling the most senior roles and it also reduces the level of contact between the electorate and the elected representatives and finally the major problem with it is that a smaller group is more easily open to capture or dominance by a few -that is a big enough problem with out present bunch at 120 – which is why I support an increase in the number of electorates. Also a greater number of representatives would be expected to bring a greater diversity of views and experience to parliament.
I picked 72 electorates because that’s the number we have at present, but I agree with your comments about increasing the number to increase the talent pool. If we were to remain with a 3 year term for MP’s and were to implement elections that “roll” through the country every month, any multiple of 36 would result in a “tidy” number of MP’s being elected every month. 144 electorates would result in an increase in the talent pool and the possibility of “refreshing” MP’s at the rate of 4 per month.
I was proposing that all existing 120 parliamentarians have to be directly elected hence the 120 seats and upping that number proportionate to the growth in the population since 1990 when the present electoral model was established would be the basis for the increase – I think monthly elections would be too destabilizing to the proper running of parliament hence the “half term” over lap to bring a mix of the benefits of longer parliamentary term with a shorter electoral cycle. However these points are really in the realm of possibilities the big questions are do we replace MMP with STV and do we bring in purely publicly funded politics as that in itself provides a powerful feedback mechanism.
Even with STV we will have the problem with “safe seats”. Typically only 15% – 20% of voters live in marginal seats, and they are the only ones who can change the Government. Do we really want a system where 80% of voters have no say in which Party should run the country? Under MMP every vote has equal value.
MMP or proportional representation works well in Europe because the governing coalitions represent the broad middle of the political spectrum, with the more extreme interest parties holding less influence. The problem with New Zealand is that the two middle ground parties have blindly refused to work together so we are stuck with the same destructive extreme left/right swings that we always had under FPP.
The MMP system was intended to be reviewed. It never happened
There was a review in 2012. “The MMP Review came out of the 2011 Referendum on the Voting System, when most voters chose to keep MMP as our voting system. This triggered an independent review of MMP which we carried out.” Seven recommendations were made.
Where’s the action on MMP? is a good recent update on the 2023 review.
The Independent Electoral Review (the review) was set up by the Minister of Justice to review Aotearoa New Zealand’s election laws.published on 16 January 2024.
The full list of reports is over here as it is wider than just MMP. That was quite wide ranging to be fair.
Editor: in your comment of September 11, you suggest that monthly rolling elections would be “destabilizing”. My view is that the government of the day should feel that their performance is “always under review”, with electorate feedback on unpopular decisions becoming clear long before we get to the end of the present 3-year cycle. I think it is critical that we find a way to prevent the booms and busts that inherently follow the present form of election cycle. While many wealthy individuals clearly find a way to profit from financial cycles, the bulk of the population are threatened with devastating job loss and/or the loss of their house (if lucky enough to own one).
The process of government should lead to steady progress to a better situation for most of us – not a roller coaster.
My sense is that we need more than just electoral reform. The democratic model as it currently stands creates a polarised system which doesn’t allow for a balance of ideas….neither of the main parties have a monopoly on good policies but what happens is that every 3 years, the policies of the previous incumbent get tossed out and replaced by the policies of the new government. This has led to long term structural degradation, significant waste of public monies (cook strait ferries is a classic example) and little to no progress in matters of real importance: health, education, environment, poverty, sustainability, etc. I believe that any discussion on electoral reform needs to consider how to create structures that consider long term needs and outcomes…ministry for the future or bill of rights of future generations. We also need to limit the influence of lobbying groups and wealth in the political landscape.,our system is clearly broken and is in desperate need of a complete overhaul. Am keen to follow the progress of this initiative.
I certainly agree that MMP needs a further review, mainly on the basis that it has strengthened to an absurd degree the influence, the necessity of, political parties. This is rather ironic given that NZ was in my opinion voting to do away with FPP in a reaction to the excesses of the Executive under the leadership of Robert Muldoon. To some degree Geoffrey Palmer reinforced this reaction through his writings on “Unbridled Power”.
The essence of representative government is surely that we the people chose our representatives and retain the power to unseat them. I agree with a Parliament of sufficient elected members to be known and accessible within the electorate. (ie snall electorates) We send them to Wellington to represent the electorate,..not to have them represent Wellington to the electorates.
Palmer in fact recommended an increase in the number of MP’s to enable Parliament to function better than it did with fewer MP’s at that time.
I guess a number around the current establishment.
I am not in favour of our representatives spending too much time in Wellington (less they become corrupted!! )
I think STV would provide sufficient opportunity for broad representation, but I am unconvinced about your other points. If MMP was a knee jerk reaction, we don’t want another lurch in any particular direction. As an avowed conservative I favour gradualism and measured approach with plenty of time for education and discussion.
Finally, I think it too easy to blame “old mates networks” or undue influence of money..the “sisterhood” or “Uni collegues” of recent years are just as deplorable.
As someone who has been involved in (National) Party organisation at the electorate level, I could say that far too many Kiwis don’t join political parties or trouble themselves with fund raising, putting forward remittance, candidate selections, etc., but leave it up to the core party faithful, and then moan at the result!
Every voter should have some contact with their local MP and help to keep him/her grounded in the feelings of the ordinary citizen. It is no wonder that Parliament no longer has local MP’s, like Mike Minogue, who were prepared to cross the floor to vote against their own party when it tried to legislate for something the electorate strongly opposed.
We seem further away from the sovereignty of the individual citizen..MMP has a lot to answer for but a state bureaucracy with excessive delegated authority is surely even worse.
The “documentary” “Yes Minister” should be part of school civic studies.
We have a toxic combination of a voting system that does not function as it should, a parliament and cabinet that do not function as they should, and a host of elected MPs who do not function as they should. Just reforming the voting system will not fix our broken, disorderly political parties, government and governing bodies. One of the major problems I see is that we have people appointed to positions of power who are not experts on the systems those positions are meant to guide.
This is certainly the case in parliament and cabinet, as we can see. However, I wonder what the status is now of our civil servants – is the general decline in parliamentary standards also reflecting or indeed causing a similar decline in the standards of our civil service? These people are also key for our common good.
Anyway, my first major concern with our nominative democracy (that’s the type of democracy in which I get to vote every set term for an MP who is supposed to represent and present my interests, but who actually has to vote according to party line, and where I have no other real input) is that people with unsuitable (or a lack of) qualifications are chosen by the political parties to be put forward as candidate MPs, and the rort continues from there. I want to see better quality people. How do we get them? They’re busy working, raising their families, caring for their communities. Is it the case that those who choose to join political parties with an eye to getting elected to parliament are not doing things that make them experts suitable for leadership in their fields, but rather, they’re interested more in politiking? We had, a few years ago, an overabundance of lawyers in parliament. I don’t know what the percentage of lawyers in parliament is now, but any over-representation of any one profession in parliament is clearly not acceptable. It’s not representative! Interestingly, the over-involvement of legal professionals in NZ politics does not guarantee and has not always resulted in excellent legislation that benefits the country and its peoples…to the contrary, I suggest. We have a raft of legislators now who are producing laws that are hindering and compromising our country and everybody in it (I suggest everything in it too, as we see from the deprivation of the land and water environments, so important for the health of all humans, plants and animals).
My second major concern is that NZ citizens do not have any input into the laws made by parliament. Yes, we can make submissions, all well and good, and long may this continue. But this is not enough if submissions can be ignored, which is clearly the case. There is no point in me “having my say” via a submission if it does not need to be taken into account.
Thanks for starting up this website. Some of us do appreciate your efforts, so don’t loose heart.