In case you missed Errol’s link in a previous comment thread:
Key announces National-led govt
The details are rather fascinating. Please follow the link, and if so inclined, come back here to discuss!
Although I am planting this under Coalition governance, the government technically is not a coalition. Or is it? Only one party is in cabinet, but others have “ministers outside cabinet,” an innovation pioneered by the previous Labour government (and much criticized at the time by National). More precisely, it’s a minority government, but with a series of signed agreements with other parties.
Propagation: Seeds & scions (36)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBacks
To graft a scion to this planting, please use the following URL:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=1906
(Non-MT bloggers click here to send pings.)
Grafted scions that are not compatible with this planting's stock will die or be pruned out by the Orchardist.
About the comment form
Please note that the name you enter below and the first several words of your comment will appear on the right sidebar of the blog's front page, under "Propagation." New propagators might want to look at the comment policy.
Please do not enter long URLs into the seedbed. Either mark them up using html hyperlinks or convert them to a "tiny URL." Thank you!
The soil is ready for planting:
`
Canadian-style. Ugh. They can do better.
Seed planted by Idealistic Pragmatist — 16 November 2008 @ 19:43
What’s “Canadian-style” about this?
Seed planted by MSS — 16 November 2008 @ 19:55
Canadian-style. Ugh. They can do better.
Under MMP? National (provisionally) only need to get either ACT or Maori to abstain to pass votes. You’re hard pressed to get a “better” situation in a “proportional” system.
Seed planted by ErrolC — 16 November 2008 @ 20:01
It’s Canadian-style in that it’s not a true coalition.
In Ontario in 1985 the Liberals took power in a minority government, with four seats less than the outgoing Progressive Conservatives, after reaching an Accord with the New Democratic Party and ousting the PC government on the first confidence vote in the new House. The Accord was like New Zealand’s “confidence and supply” agreements, but with no ministerial positions for the NDP. It had a closely negotiated, precisely spelled out legislative agenda for a two-year term, including many of the NDP’s most popular planks. After two years the Liberals called an early election, taking credit for everything the NDP pushed them into, and got a huge majority.
In 2004 the federal Liberals won re-election with only a minority. Again, no coalition, but a series of negotiations, most notably a package of amendments to the 2005 budget: in place of $4.6-billion in corporate tax giveaways, NDP Leader Jack Layton secured investments in affordable housing, training, public transit, energy efficiency, development assistance and wage protection. But with no stable agreement, the government decided to call an early election, fell before it could jump, and lost power.
In Canada minority governments look unstable. Stable coalitions with a majority would work much better, but with four parties in a Parliament elected under a winner-take-all system suited to only two parties, shifts in vote splits can create artificial majorities, tempting governments to call early elections.
New Zealand has a fair voting system, and should be able to create European-style stable coalitions, so it’s a shame to see them having to use patchwork ad-hoc solutions, even though they’re better than the Canadian counterparts were.
Seed planted by Wilf Day — 26 November 2008 @ 12:00
Was the 1985 Ontario Liberal-NDP Accord published at the time? I think it would be a rare case, for Canada, of (relatively) formalized interparty agreements, correct? In other words, not to quibble excessively, but I still do not see how the sort of agreements that seem now to be the norm in New Zealand would be “Canadian style,” as most minority situations I am aware of in Canada have resulted in the more ad hoc transactions between the largest party and one or more smaller ones of the sort Wilf alludes to in the case of the 2004-05 federal Liberal minority.
What I would call the “typical Canadian style” of minority government indeed does look unstable (although I am not sure they really are, except in some instances). However, the New Zealand agreements have been quite stable. The first legislative term after MMP was adopted (1996-99) was quite unstable, and the 2002 election was a few months early due to inter-party conflict (and the Labour Party’s attempt to pull off something like what the Ontario Liberals did in 1987).
On a more normative level, it is not clear to me that formal coalition cabinets are “better” than the emerging NZ pattern (although I would agree that the NZ pattern is preferable to the “Canadian,” which, as I have said, I see as distinct from that in NZ). NZ inter-election policy-making has been marked by different programmatic legislative coalitions on different issues, at the same time that “stable” agreements have been forged between the minority government and its formal external support partners. No governing arrangement is ideal, but this NZ pattern looks pretty good to me.
Seed planted by MSS — 27 November 2008 @ 14:00
“Was the 1985 Ontario Liberal-NDP Accord published at the time?” Not only published, but a copy was to be found on every senior civil servant’s desk at Queen’s Park shortly after it was signed. It was a detailed four-page accord titled “An Agenda for reform: proposals for minority Parliament, May 28, 1985″ much like the New Zealand “supply and confidence” agreements, and much like the agreement which will, I expect, be drawn up in the next few days between the Bloc Quebecois and the incipient Liberal-NDP coalition. The 1985 accord stated “While individual bills, including budget bills, will not be treated or designated as matters of confidence, the overall budgetary policy of the government, including the votes on supply, will be treated as a matter of confidence.”
It worked well, as New Zealand’s agreements have worked. I still prefer German-style majority coalitions where the bills are certain to pass unamended. But from the viewpoint of transparent democracy, perhaps these ugly looser agreements provide more responsive government.
Seed planted by Wilf Day — 29 November 2008 @ 10:46
Wilf concluded, “But from the viewpoint of transparent democracy, perhaps these ugly looser agreements provide more responsive government” than majority coalitions (which facilitate the passage of unamended government bills).
Yes, I think I prefer the looser arrangements (ugly or otherwise), on normative grounds.
Of course, I’ll take either–or even majority-party ‘responsible’ cabinets, for that matter–over the especially ugly lawmaking processes that make policy for my jurisdictions.
Seed planted by MSS — 30 November 2008 @ 13:58
If the costs of opening an office and staff were the same in the cities and the countryside, I can see the rationale for extra funding for large, rural districts. But in fact the office and staff will be more expensive in the smaller, more densely populated districts. Wouldn’t the extra distance and higher costs cancel out?
I don’t know if there is an allowance for the different expected costs of rent and staff in rural vs urban (or big city vs small city vs large town). Each district got one office, their hours vary. Remember that the largest district is the Maori one that covers the South island, more than half the area of NZ. One of the general seats affected is the one that covers the West Coast of the South Island – the Southern Alps result in a long skinny seat. The resulting travel times to see your representative aren’t really acceptable. There is also a good case IMO for increasing the allowed campaign costs for candidates in these seats.
Seed planted by Errol — 29 April 2009 @ 18:17
If the costs of opening an office and staff were the same in the cities and the countryside, I can see the rationale for extra funding for large, rural districts. But in fact the office and staff will be more expensive in the smaller, more densely populated districts. Wouldn’t the extra distance and higher costs cancel out?
There was funding provided for one office per district. I don’t know if there is allowance for different staff and rent costs in large city vs small city vs large town.
Remember that the largest Maori seat covers the South Island, more than half the area of NZ. One of the General seats effected is West Coast (of the South Is), which is long and skinny due to the Southern Alps. The resulting travel times to your representative (or someone who works for them) isn’t really acceptable. IMO candidates for these seats should also be allowed higher campaign costs.
Seed planted by Errol — 29 April 2009 @ 18:42
Errol: Part of the post-election agreement between the National and Maori Parties was that the larger districts (all but one of the Maori seats and IIRC 2-3 of the general ones) would get funding for an additional office to serve constituents.
Ed: If the costs of opening an office and staff were the same in the cities and the countryside, I can see the rationale for extra funding for large, rural districts. But in fact the office and staff will be more expensive in the smaller, more densely populated districts. Wouldn’t the extra distance and higher costs cancel out?
There was funding provided for one office per district. I don’t know if there is allowance for different staff and rent costs in large city vs small city vs large town.
Remember that the largest Maori seat covers the South Island, more than half the area of NZ. One of the General seats effected is West Coast (of the South Is), which is long and skinny due to the Southern Alps. The resulting travel times to your representative (or someone who works for them) isn’t really acceptable. IMO candidates for these seats should also be allowed higher campaign costs.
Seed planted by Errol — 30 April 2009 @ 03:05
By chance, the Opposition asked a Question in Parliament about this today. Press Release has more info/spin.
Seed planted by Errol — 30 April 2009 @ 03:50
Suggestions for reforming NZ’s MMP at
NZLawyer Online, via Kiwiblog
Seed planted by Errol — 11 May 2009 @ 04:30
> ” the Southern Alps result in a long skinny seat”
Where’s Sandra Day O’Connor to ensure “compactness”?
Seed planted by Tom Round — 11 May 2009 @ 18:40
The current setup is the least-bad option. There are effectively 3 passes through the Southern Alps, and not much population immediately East of them. Making sections of the West Coast part of districts centered to the East makes things worse. Part of the requirements for boundries is to maintain communities of interest as much as possible, and ‘Coasters’ identify with each other more than people in Otago and Canterbury (the district goes right up to the city of Nelson to the NE as it is.)
Useful map at
http://www.elections.org.nz/mapping/
Seed planted by Errol — 11 May 2009 @ 21:10
Is NZ going to change some aspects of MMP?
I would say that the threshold requirement should be change, 2 electoral seats to override the 5% threshold. Is that a good idea? Why not open the party lists up? Sorry for the pun.
And Australian style preferential voting for the electorate seats?
It seems to me that NZ style minority governments have been very stable, however most countries that use PR have somewhat slightly dominate party systems. NZ party system is very balanced, one cannot say whether the National or Labour Parties are dominated parties like the Swedish Social Democrats or Ireland’s Fianna Fail party.
Another thing to consider for NZ is that parliamentary terms are 3 years maximum, which are really short and early elections tend to be rare. I think early elections would be more likely in NZ if elections were held every 4 to 5 years. Why does NZ have elections every three years? The only other countries to have election every three years is Australia and Mexico, that I can think of. Is there any historical background on this?
*Sweden and Ireland use PR, and Social Democrats and Fianna Fail have always been the largest party for years, and it is rare when these parties are in opposition.
Seed planted by Suaprazzodi — 12 May 2009 @ 14:20
I’ve never thought that alternative vote for the single-seat districts would make sense under MMP. Isn’t that just making the list-PR tier work harder (to compensate)?
Open lists make sense to me. So does changing the threshold to 2 electorates or (perhaps) 3 or 4% of the list vote (rather than 1 electorate or 5%). Maybe once the ‘legacy’ MPs like Dunne are all gone, the 1-electorate rule will be removable.
On the short terms, Denmark and NZ are the only two parliamentary systems with terms shorter than 4 years that I can think of. It made sense for NZ when governments were so powerful under FPTP and a small assembly (which the cabinet could easily dominate). It would make sense now to lengthen the term, but I doubt that would get much popular support.
(One or more Australians may correct me, but I think their country has de facto 3-year terms to avoid having Senate and House elections at different times.)
Seed planted by MSS — 12 May 2009 @ 16:58
Remember that US elections are every two years. We deal with this in the US by making the government a creature of the executive, elected every four years. So the “real” elections are every four years (and turn-out is always much lower for the non-presidential federal elections).
One complication with the US switching to a parliamentary system is that the terms for the House of Reprsentatives would likely have to be increased. But if you had a parliamentary system there would be less need for a mid-term quasi-referendum on the president’s performance. Also, I think the high rate of incumbent reelection in the US may have something to do with the short terms, voters seem to figure that they can always vote out an incumbent a short time later and get a challenger more to their liking.
Seed planted by Ed — 12 May 2009 @ 17:32
MSS @16: I’ve never thought that alternative vote for the single-seat districts would make sense under MMP. Isn’t that just making the list-PR tier work harder (to compensate)?
I can see how the alternative vote would be less important than it is under FPTP, but I can’t see that it doesn’t make sense at all. Can you elaborate? Thanks!
Seed planted by Bob Richard — 12 May 2009 @ 18:16
Most MMP systems, voters are given two votes, one vote for their favorite party list, and another for their local representative, a single seat district.
How many jurisdictions worldwide use one vote MMP systems? Germany originally had it this way, then went toward a two vote MMP system. Isn’t there one German state that has a one vote MMP system? Isn’t Mexico the only country in the world to use a one vote MMP system?
How does one vote MMP work compare to two vote MMP? Is there a one vote MMP less or more proportionate than two vote MMP?
And I guess parallel system is impossible in a one vote MMP system too as well.
Of course, one can’t have open party lists under a one vote MMP system.
Australian preferential voting could be used in conjunction with a one vote MMP system. That would be pretty neat.
A large party needs the votes of a small allied party to get elected in a SMD, and the small party gets elected in the closed party list seats, of course the small party has to run in every district to get list votes as well under a one vote MMP using Australian style preferential voting.
Seed planted by Suaprazzodi — 12 May 2009 @ 19:15
> “One or more Australians may correct me, but I think their country has de facto 3-year terms to avoid having Senate and House elections at different times.”
De facto and de jure. Maximum 3 years for the Reps, plus (normally) fixed 6 years for the Senate, but complicated by:
(a) Senators’ terms start and finish on 1 July, but the actual Senate poll can be held up to 12 months before that; and
(b) double dissolutions are possible, causing all seats in both Houses to fall vacant. In which case, the new Senators’ terms are backdated and deemed to start on the previous 1 July (so the short- and long-term classes expire around 2 and 5 years after the DD election, instead of 3 and 6).
Thus, after the Dec 1975 DD (the Whitlam Dismissal), the new Senators’ terms expired on 1 July 1978 and 1 July 1981 – as if they’d begun on 1 July 1975. Thus elections were held in Dec 1977 and Oct 1980, in advance of the Senate changeover.
Now that DDs have faded in the rearview mirror, [*], we’ve reverted to a basic pattern of elections every 31 to 36 months since 1987.
[*] Rare for the first three-quarters of a century (1914 and 1951), then suddenly 4 within 13 years (1974, 1975, 1983, 1987). In 1992 I foolishly predicted that DDs would continue in frequency. In practice, of course, the Labor/ Liberal hard men realised that a DD only halved the Senate quota and made it less likely the Govt would win a majority. It might get one deadlocked Bill passed (abs maj in a post-election joint sitting), but would make a rod for its back by letting more minor players into the Senate for the next 2 to 5 years.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 13 May 2009 @ 08:53
Mexico indeed uses a single-vote mixed-member system, but it is not MMP.
Seed planted by MSS — 13 May 2009 @ 14:36
How is Mexico’s system not MMP? Is it parallel system or a cross between the two? When is a MMP system cease to be one?
Seed planted by Suaprazzodi — 13 May 2009 @ 15:29
Please follow the link in my previous comment, where you should find the answer (and we can discuss further there, perhaps).
Seed planted by MSS — 13 May 2009 @ 15:52
On the threshold question in NZ, there is a related article excerpted and linked to at No Right Turn.
Seed planted by MSS — 13 May 2009 @ 19:08
MMP referendum news
NZ Cabinet preparing for MMP referendum:
“Cabinet has started discussing the referendum on the electoral system that National promised it would hold, Prime Minister John Key said today.
Under the campaign pledge a referendum would be held before or at the same time as the 2011 general election, asking voters whether they want to change from MMP to another system.
…”
version with more opinions
version with optional moving pictures.
Seed planted by Errol — 07 September 2009 @ 05:29
“If a majority want a change, a second referendum would be held offering options to replace MMP.”
So if you wanted to advance to STV, but didn’t want to regress to FPTP, should you vote yes or no on the first referendum?
Seed planted by Tom Round — 07 September 2009 @ 21:45
Depends on the exact form of the process, and the opinion polls. I’d like revisions to our current form of MMP to be part of the discussion too.
The process could be adjusted to make certain outcomes more likely, while still appearing ‘fair’.
Seed planted by Errol — 08 September 2009 @ 02:15
Do most people expect that “stick with MMP” would be an option on the second referendum?
Seed planted by Vasi — 09 September 2009 @ 03:09
Vasi, that’s how it was done last time, I doubt most people have an opinion (yet). They have just started talking about it in cabinet, and we only have the occasional vague opinion poll currently.
Seed planted by Errol — 09 September 2009 @ 07:42
Referenda outline and timing
announced
With 2011 General Election, “do you want a change from MMP?” and “if changed, what to?”.
With 2014 General Election, a binding “MMP vs X”.
Question wordings, alternatives offered to be developed.
Current media stories are just repeating the press release, but MSM coverage will be at http://www.nzherald.co.nz, http://www.stuff.co.nz
Seed planted by Errol — 19 October 2009 @ 23:14
Australia is currently having an analogous debate over the process for deciding whether and if so, how to become a republic. The monarchists alternate between arguing that “You can’t ask voters to pick on republic model before you’ve asked them whether they want any republic at all” and arguing that “You can’t ask voters whether they want a republic in the abstract – you need to offer them a specific model”. This Arkansaw Traveller tactic has more traction than its logical content would suggest.
I suppose at least the Aust debate isn’t bedevilled by the same meta-problem as NZ’s is, in that an FPP supporter could consistently say “I think AV/STV is so bad I don’t want to use it in a referendum to choose between AV, STV, MMP and FPTP.” A Borda supporter might argue that we need to use Borda to choose between Borda and other systems. At least Aust republicans all agree that the Governor-General would need to sign the bill for the constitution alteration if it passed at referendum…
Seed planted by Tom Round — 20 October 2009 @ 19:11
Tom, hopefully everyone can see the difference between using a method to answer one question, vs it being the label for an electoral system, of which how voters answer their question is only a part.
We already use different systems for different elections, and their hasn’t been a lot of complaints about this.
Seed planted by Errol — 20 October 2009 @ 20:32
Errol, indeed I see the difference. I note that polities often use diff systems for elections vs mutliple-choice referenda. Eg Swiss use party-list and runoff respectively; California uses FPP and (disguised) Approval; Puerto Rico uses MMP (well… sort of… MSS, how would you taxonomise it?) and runoff.
Ironically, pre-1993 NZ used FPP for both elections and the triennial alcohol poll (although I understand, from a conversation with Prof Peter Aimer, that the “keep status quo” option always exceeded 50% so the question was moot).
However, the tendency to uniformitise voting systems seems to be stronger in Australia than elsewhere (and I’m looking at you, NZ, and you, Scotland… anywhere else on the planet with a “Dunedin”?). We use AV in our rare multi-choice referenda (eg national song, 1977) and either single- or multi-seat AV/STV for pretty much all nat and state (and most local) elections. Interestingly, even when non-AV/STV systems have been used (party lists in SA and ACT, MNTV in Qld local elections), they have been “disguised” as AV/STV, ie voters are still invited to number candidates (or lists) preferentially, not use ticks or crosses or strikethroughs…
There may even be a sound reason for using, in a referendum, a system that no-one seriously advocates for elections – Borda, perhaps, or Approval?
One view is that “FPP was the status quo for legislative elections in NZ, so simplest to default to that for a referendum on whether to change” – ie, avoiding infinite regress in debate over first principles by appealing to historical specificity. Against that, it is easy to see differences between referenda and legislative elections – differences that opponents of referenda (who often, though certainly not always, tend to coincide with supporters of FPP) focus on to argue against having referenda at all.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 20 October 2009 @ 22:34
I wouldn’t expect commenters here to have trouble, the NZ electorate is another story.
Splitting the alcohol change vote was crucial in the 1920s. A classic case of poll-rigging via setting the question.
Seed planted by Errol — 21 October 2009 @ 01:36
This is one really interesting discussion, but I should note that Puerto Rico does not use MMP: see The Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly Electoral System on my ElectionsPuertoRico.org website for a detailed description of our electoral system.
I would categorize it as a parallel type of system, except that instead of a PR component we have SNTV, plus a special, limited top-up mechanism that only comes into play when a party wins over two-thirds of the seats in either house of the Legislative Assembly.
Seed planted by Manuel Alvarez-Rivera — 22 October 2009 @ 22:04
Manuel, thanks for clarifying. “The pre-1980s Japanese House of Councillors system with a post-1987 Malta add-on” would have been closer to the mark, it seems.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 26 October 2009 @ 02:54