One of MMP’s benefits is an increase in proportionality and a decrease in wasted votes.
The Electoral Commission’s proposal to get rid of the overhang by reducing the number of list seats by the number of electorate seats which exceed a party’s would do the opposite.
It would reduce proportionality and increase the number of wasted votes by discounting some party votes.
If, as happened in last year’s election, there was a one seat overhang there would be one fewer list MP.
But there could be a lot more than one electorate seat out of proportion to its list vote because this provision would encourage gaming.
Parties could get candidates to stand as independents in electorates and not stand a candidate themselves in exchange for the independent’s support in parliament and potentially government.
This could result in several independent MPs and a corresponding reduction in list MPs.
If people don’t like the way candidates who win seats can bring in other MPs on their coat tails, they’d like the potential to game the system in this manner even less.
I can’t follow the Commission’s logic for this proposal
It would get rid of the coat-tail provision and replace it with something far more unfair and open to abuse which also reduces proportionality.
Under the Electoral Commission’s proposals, there will be 70 electorate MPs, and 50 list MPs. It doesn’t matter how many electorates are won by independents, or by parties which win less than the threshold, there will still be 50 list MPs. There can be no reduction in the number of list MPs below that.
Also, if we like the proportionality of MMP, getting rid of the overhang would have made the result more proportional at the last election.
Parties can stand or support fake independents now, with the same effect as you fear under the EC’s proposals. Independent MPs do not currently cause overhang. The Electoral Commission’s proposal is simply to treat electorate MPs from sub-4% parties the same way as independents are treated now.
I looked at some of the issues around how these work under the current system in my post here: http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/infrequently-asked-questions/
There are a number of arguments against removing the one seat rule, and against changing overhang (the two aren’t necessarily linked, and could be dealt with other ways), but this is not one of them. The proposed changes do not make your scenario any more likely than the current law.
Graeme – Your knowledge of electoral law is far superior to mine but I don’t understand how removing the overhang doesn’t affect the number of list votes that count. There’s a one seat overhang now, if this rule had applied at the last election we’d have to have one fewer list MP to keep parliament at 120.
That is right. These proposals, applied to the votes at the last election, would have meant there would have been 70 electorate MPs and 50 list MPs, down on the 51 list MPs we currently have.
Saying there could be a reduction in list MPs makes it sound like there will be fewer than 50, which isn’t the case.
However, even if you don’t read it that way:
1. the result at the last election would have been more proportional if we had no overhang as the Commission proposes.
2. tying this to independent MPs is misleading, because the Commission’s proposal does not change the treatment of independent MPs. Independent MPs do not currently cause overhang.
3. The issue you raise about parties supporting independent MPs (which is also often suggested as parties running separate party vote and electorate vote parties) can happen now, and is just as (un)likely to happen whether the Electoral Commission’s proposals are adopted or not.
You are clearly right that removing the one-seat rule will negatively effect the overall proportionality of Parliament. That is the concern with doing that. The prospect of gaming the system in the way you describe does not change under the proposals. To the extent that it is possible, the risk is already there, and does not change.
Your description of “I don’t understand how removing the overhang doesn’t affect the number of list votes that count” is also problematic. It’s not so much a list vote (which might be what you’d call it under SM), but a party vote. All the votes count in determining who gets how many seats overall. What the Electoral Commission is looking at changing with its proposed overhang rules is: does the party vote determine how many of the 121 seats each party gets, or how many of the 120 seats each party gets?
Consider the last election, under the EC’s proposals, National would have lost a seat. National got 47.31% of the vote: 59 of 121 seats is 48.76% of the House; 58 of 120 seats is 48.33% of the House. It’s likely most parties will be over-represented, because of wasted vote, but this tends to be fairer. I did the numbers for every election with a 5% threshold and no overhang vs with overhang, and the EC did the numbers with 4% and no overhang vs with overhang and the proportionality change is sometimes to more proportional and sometimes to less, but the differences are never especially large either way.
The reason that the Electoral Commission has proposed the changes it has to overhang is that it has proposed getting rid of the one-seat rule (for different reasons). Ask yourself which is fairer: the Maori Party winning three electorates, and enough party votes for two seats overall, and ACT and United Future winning 1 electorate each, and enough votes for 1 seat overall each, and National missing out on 1 extra list seat which would have given it even more strength over its fair share, or the same results happening and National being given 3 seats extra, and Labour and NZF being given one more each (which is what would happen if we abolished the one-seat rule but kept overhang – major parties would get bonus seats for every seat one by a sub-4% party, even if they were already over-represented).
The idea of a system which would give National more seats might be tempting (for me), but of course the electoral system should not advantage or disadvantage any party or parties.
Why would it have been National that lost a seat if this rule had applied at the last election when the last MP in to parliament on the party vote was from the Green Party?
Why would it have been National that lost a seat if this rule had applied at the last election when the last MP in to parliament on the party vote was from the Green Party?
Because the last MP in to Parliament on the party vote was from the National Party.
(ref: http://electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/e9/html/e9_part2.html – the 120th quotient is a National MP)
of course the electoral system should not advantage or disadvantage any party or parties
I do get the feel that the vast majority of comment has been approaching it from this angle.