This is why we need a threshold

One of the questions under consideration in the review of MMP is what the threshold should be to allow a party to enter parliament, or whether there should be a threshold at all.

This is why there should be a threshold and why the threshold for registering as a party should be higher:

TV star and comedian Ben Boyce has been discharged without conviction for a botched fake pilot stunt which was condemned by the aviation industry and Prime Minister John Key. 

 The former Pulp Sport star was discharged, alongside The Rock host Bryce Casey and TV producer Andrew Robinson at the Manukau District Court today. . .

The trio were charged with providing false information in an attempt to gain access to a secure area after a skit for the TV3 series WannaBen in September 2011 went wrong.

This is the Ben of the Bill and Ben Party which gained .56% of party votes in the 2008 election.

With no threshold he could have been in parliament.

Having a threshold is no guarantee against idiots gaining seats and power.

But having a higher hurdle to jump before being able to register as a political party and a threshold of at least 5% does make it harder and gives some protection against the plague-on-all-their-houses votes inflicting this sort of accidental MP on the country.

8 Responses to This is why we need a threshold

  1. Keeping Stock's avatar inventory2 says:

    It would have been even worse had both Bill and Ben got into Parliament Ele.

    Like

  2. homepaddock's avatar homepaddock says:

    Indeed I2 – either or both proves my point.

    Like

  3. Bill was first on the Bill and Ben Party list 🙂

    Like

  4. Compared with the criminal record of one former political party leader for child rape, and a few former MPs convicted of corruption and civil fraud, one fake pilot stunt is at the lighter end of the criminal spectrum.

    Like

  5. homepaddock's avatar homepaddock says:

    Agreed Will, but your examples reinforce my contention.

    Like

  6. John's avatar John says:

    If people are willing to vote against all major political parties then they should be recognised. The current political arena has failed to represent a portion of the country, that is their problem and they should either change their tactics to try and appeal to this embittered minority or decide that they do not want to represent them and carry on, bearing potential consequences. We shouldn’t impose high barriers to representation because some of us think other peoples opinions are redundant. A high barrier reinforces the two party binary and stifles broad representation.

    Like

  7. homepaddock's avatar homepaddock says:

    John people who vote aainst major parties are recognised and if the party they vote for get a seat or 5% of the vote they gets seats in parliament.

    No threshold at all would make governing almost impossible.

    Like

  8. adam2314's avatar adam2314 says:

    As an import of over 50 years and still not a citizen .. ( What is the advantage ) ???.

    I think that the vote should be limited to ” Citizens ” only..

    Citizenship only available after 5 years.. Continuous residency.

    Four weeks absence per year ( Holiday ) accepted.

    As for the threshold. Hmmmm.. 7.5%.

    Ensuring that there really is a following..

    Like

Leave a comment