An article from NZ Stuff looks at a recent poll and the likely government-formation scenarios for the election expected in about a year.
… a result of 45 per cent on election night would put the Treasury benches within National’s reach. But – and this is where the worry beads get pulled out – not close enough to be assured of crossing the line. Based on Saturday’s poll results, National would hold 57 seats and could muster another two with the help of its natural allies, ACT and UnitedFuture. Close – but not close enough to break out the cigars.
Labour, in the other camp, would hold just 51 seats, but can call on its natural allies the Greens and the Progressives, taking it to 58 seats.
Under this scenario, the Maori Party is kingmaker.1
The article notes that there are plenty of reasons why neither party would like that, although the Maori party has voted with Labour just over half the time while voting with National only about a third of the time. In fact, it is the Greens that the Maori party is closest to on a wide range of issues.
As for strange-bedfellows coalitions, the article notes:
Of course, MMP has ways of making uneasy fits work – the Greens and Labour are incompatible on numerous policy fronts (take trade, for instance). But the lessons forced on both by the genetic engineering standoff [in 2001-02] – coupled with the comfort that comes from having fashioned together a good working relationship over Labour’s eight years in government – have stayed with it.
The Maori party need not have cabinet seats or any other formal role in a coalition, of course.
The Maori Party may yet decide to stay on the cross-benches – that debate is still raging within the party.
National then might be able to form a minority government courtesy of an abstention deal from the Maori Party on confidence and supply – but its agenda would be hostage to a Parliament which, on voting record, would be predominantly Left-leaning.
Imagine that! A government “hostage” to the people’s representative agents!
____
Thanks to Greg, in the previous thread, for sending the item along.
The same news item is also discussed at No Right Turn.
- The article later notes that the results projection assumes NZ First will not be in parliament, but that one can’t count Winston Peters out. Indeed, as discussed in the previous NZ thread, he will probably run and win again in his old district of Tauranga. Obviously, the projections assume Hide will again win Epsom, keeping the ACT in. [↩]
That’s a very common way to frame discussions about PR and coalition government in general. At the root of it is a distrust of democracy, conscious or not.
In certain extensions of the logic, elections are good for nothing but “accountability.”
It’s tempting to convict the media of a lot of things – making arguments for fair representation while bemoaning the deal-making it requires, for instance. But they don’t speak with one voice.
Your point is an interesting one. We’ve been reading a lot about democracy and (economic) development lately. Does anyone hear the echo?
Seed planted by Jack — 21 November 2007 @ 00:15
I suspect one of the media’s problems with PR is that it detracts from the horse race. After the last general election the NZ media was almost uniformly negative through the government formation because semiprivate discussions between numerous parties are difficult to dramatise in a way that sells advertising space.
The whole campaign for the House (and government) in Australia has been reported as a horse race with the focus on the polls the media promotes and sells, and very little attention to actual policies or issues. The Australian media has dramatically under-reported the senate election, beyond occasionally mumbling the cliché that STV is the most complex voting system known.
Seed planted by Alan — 21 November 2007 @ 02:00
It’s interesting that Australian Liberal/ National campaign advertising, in the last couple of days, has swung from “A Rudd Labor Govt will be radical and dangerous” to “A Rudd Labor Govt will be in thrall to the Greens in the Senate, and the Greens want to ban cars and give drugs to schoolchildren” (I paraphrase somewhat but this is the gist).
Seed planted by Tom Round — 21 November 2007 @ 02:04
Looks like New Zealand is going to either have a hung parliament or a razor edge photo finish.
MMP in New Zealand has also lead to bare majority coalitions wheras under FPTP one party won a thumping majority.
Perhaps if the Maori party is Kingmaker then the Maori electorates should be abolished since MMP gives Maori representation naturally through List seats.
Is it possible for the National Party to win an absolute majority under MMP?
Are there any countries where parties win majorities under the systems proprotional representation systems?
Excluding Turkey, and countries that used manifactured majority PR. I mean countries where there is no percentage threshold and high to mid district magnitudes. I know Mozambique, South Africa, and Nambia, and Thailand 2005 election.
I think Costa Rica in one of it’s most recent elections I think 2002 had a party win an overall majority but does it count.
Why is it so rare for a party to win an absolute majority under a PR system?
Seed planted by Suaprazzodi — 21 November 2007 @ 05:07
A government “hostage†to the people’s representative agents!
Hmm, try representative agents held hostage by other representative agents. Also note that the Maori Party is likely to again benefit from MMP ‘overhang’.
Moe discussion at Kiwiblog.
Seed planted by Errol — 22 November 2007 @ 10:33