I may have been a little hard on the Greens at the end there. When the Electoral Commission reviewed MMP in 2012, it recommended lowering the threshold to 4 per cent among several other things. Golriz Ghahraman’s Private Members Bill would have introduced all of these changes. I call this a bonus video, since it’s a tangent from my last video, short in length, and Patrons weren’t charged for this one. Fair credit, this video was inspired by a comment made by Jim Cullen, I forgot to mention this in the video, sorry Jim.
@liamcollins9183
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right its a holdout from the First Past the Post era, before 1996, to ensure that Maori were fairly represented in parliament. As far as I'm aware, they're unique to NZ, and its because the Maori are the indigenous population of NZ, and they signed the Treaty of Waitangi with Britain in 1840, which granted them the same rights as British citizens. The seats were established in 1867, the ensure Maori had representation, and as a peace measure after the NZ Land Wars.
@jordanoh4223
3 жыл бұрын
Preferential voting would fix all of this without the need to lower the threshold
@michaelgjoyce
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right It's a way to better deal with issues that have resulted from Colonialism and to honour commitment made in our Treaty. One of the issues was an electoral system that effectively prevented significant Maori representation in parliament, despite it being Illegal due to the agreement between the Crown and Maori to ensure the indigenous people have sovereignty. Some say it's not as necessary now we have a decent situation around proportional representation. However, that would be coming from a place of extreme ignorance about our history. The U.K. would be a better place if the views and needs of the whole country were represented. No need for anything like electorates for different cultures in the U.k. because you already have separate parliaments in any case,but proportional representation would be a step forward. I prefer the Maori electorate model, as it allows focus to be brought to issues unique to our indigenous people in a way the country can get behind supporting or fixing. Nothing Racist about it.
@snapdragon9300
3 жыл бұрын
He'll no, advance Nz in power? Did you see the Tova o brian interview of them? They had Qanon inspired policies! And Nz first were being investigated for donor fraud.
@bhoenix3213
3 жыл бұрын
@@jordanoh4223 They also suggested that.
@tobycorbett3136
3 жыл бұрын
My favourite thing about the Green members Bill is that Winston Peters called lowering the threshold “opportunistic”, didn’t really work out for him to well.
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
Very true
@rebelgusanos
3 жыл бұрын
Hang on. He said it's opportunistic, didn't do it and played by the rules. No fault there for that.
@loah_1
3 жыл бұрын
@@rebelgusanos it's just ironic because if it had passed, Winnie would have stood a better chance for getting in again for another term.
@timato98
3 жыл бұрын
@@loah_1 Would only be ironic if he wanted to lower the threshold this time around - which it would then seem like he was being opportunistic himself. No irony in sticking to his guns (I'm not a NZF supporter for the record)
@banjopete
3 жыл бұрын
Too well, Einstien.
@nem447
3 жыл бұрын
Setting it at 5% also keeps the whack'o and conspiracy parties out!
@Uebeltank
3 жыл бұрын
Not in the United States. Of in Germany, a country that actually uses MMP.
@franklinlewis1097
3 жыл бұрын
Well it keeps them out of New Zealand, new conservative is so gross 🤮
@tricktrevnz
3 жыл бұрын
even the so call weirdos have a right for there vote to be counted they most likely think the majority are weirdos who is to say who is right if the major parties have enough support they can goven and in nz case if there was a lower threshold in the last election where national had the highest vote by far they would have been able to form a coalition most likely with nz first just nz first would have not had as much influence
@kiwihib
3 жыл бұрын
@@franklinlewis1097 Well they were low key like the billboard I used to go past on the way home "Keep New Zealand Ours"
@otinelmeszaros9885
3 жыл бұрын
100% agree
@Psyk60
3 жыл бұрын
I wish we only had 7.5% wasted votes in the UK. I'm not sure what the actual figure is, but by the nature of FPTP it's guaranteed to be at least 50%.
@Quintinohthree
3 жыл бұрын
Only 45.3% of voters didn't vote for their MP, but we should also count votes for elected MP's above a 1-vote plurality. Also, as low as a turnout there was, we should consider there to be many elligible voters who simply did not want to waste their vote to start with.
@Psyk60
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right Yeah, I'm a big supporter of fixing the UK's voting system. My preference is STV, but I'd also be happy with MMP like New Zealand. Both systems are already used within the UK, just not for UK general elections. Realistically the only way it's going to change is to get Labour behind it and form a pact with other parties (all the smaller parties already support it). The Conservatives would never support changing from FPTP.
@liamcollins9183
3 жыл бұрын
@@Psyk60 They could also introduce ranked choice voting, both in local seats (like AV as used in Australia), and in the the party vote too. I.e. if I voted for TOP, who only got 1.4%, rather than being wasted, my vote goes to my second choice (i.e. Labour), which means I feel free to vote for new and small parties without my vote being wasted, but if they don't get to 5%, then at least a party I find acceptable gets my vote instead.
@stevehutton6984
3 жыл бұрын
FPTP is an awful system. Since we changed to proportional in 1996 in NZ, it has improved politics in many ways. The main one is that everyone feels represented, and everyone is represented. I personally think USA will stay in its current chaos UNTIL it gets some form of fair system
@explodethebomb
3 жыл бұрын
@@stevehutton6984 Not the 7.5% who voted for parties that received no seats
@calebweldon8102
3 жыл бұрын
I like the idea of lowering the threshold to maybe 4% it’s still high enough to avoid a dozen parties but allows more of those third tier parties that have a real base of support but dipped down a bit
@robmill292
3 жыл бұрын
Are you crazy?? It should be increased to 10% at least!!
@wandefter
3 жыл бұрын
4.5 lol
@davidhoward437
3 жыл бұрын
@Kevin Warburton It's extremely disingenuous to suggest that only 45-51% are represented in the NZ parliament. Or are you arguing against majority rule? In that case just admit that you are anti-democracy.
@robmill292
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right Well I don't care that you are bloated with your own puffed up 'intellectual' image but 5% is not enough to represent the people in a parliament where there are only 120 seats. And winning a seat should not add extra numbers to the national vote count either which we call 'coat tailing'. You win a seat and go to the house - thats ok, but the party must get at least 10% to represent the country as a whole if they want a coat tailing boost up.
@jackgibbons6013
3 жыл бұрын
@Kevin Warburton un democratic, but also a stabilising measure. Minor parties get way more air than they deserve and it would lead to more extreme parties on both ends, which destabilises the country.
@matthewlillywhite8014
3 жыл бұрын
I think lowering the threshold to 4% would be good idea. But I also think that NZ should adopt a STV voting system for its single member electorates and allow STV for the party vote so the 7.5% of Kiwi’s who voted for parties which didn’t qualify meant that their second choice party would get a boost.
@SaudiHaramco
3 жыл бұрын
In Germany in the Weimar Republic we used to have tons of small parties with a few or just a single seat in the parliament who wouldn't cooperate which made effective governing almost impossible and helped the rise of the Nazis. Having more than just 2 or 3 options is very important but having too many parties in parliament makes it really hard to form a stable government.
@CzornyLisek
3 жыл бұрын
But is it problem of parties or problem of procedures that don't force working together and conceding toward common goal
@jamiengo2343
3 жыл бұрын
@@CzornyLisek mate, if ten parties form a government, than it will be impossible for them to work together successfully, end of. It’s not a problem of the procedure, it’s just logic and common sense.
@CzornyLisek
3 жыл бұрын
@@jamiengo2343 Somehow many nations show it is possible There just need to pure willingness or procedural force to make parties work together Also many nations where passing any bill long time tend to be most democratic and generally happy with government when it come to reached decision And so far I have seen more and worse problems from countries effectively run by single party than ones lead by many if not - none.
@jonasfelisilda5777
3 жыл бұрын
That's what happening in israel.
@ConnorLonergan
3 жыл бұрын
@@jonasfelisilda5777only recently and only because of the dislike of Netanyahu. Otherwise, the Israeli parties were able to cobble together a board coalition of either a unified left or unified right (depending on which period of Israel we are looking at)
@rohannaik6275
3 жыл бұрын
I'm glad to see a channel cover New Zealand civics, so thank you. I see so many channels cover the US, but I always find that it leaves out the vast number of people who don't live there and have no ability to vote in their elections.
@Tony.H03
3 жыл бұрын
As a Dutchman I'm usually rather proud of the direct proportional representation, but let me tell you: you do *not *want 15 parties in Parliament in a 150 seat parliament. Tiny parties in a huge parliament (see European Parliament) is fine, but when coalitions need to be built in smallish parliaments (ours is too small for the population, admittedly) it's hell.
@Tony.H03
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right oh we do not have one of the best systems in the world. Our system only worked for as long as it did because of our very peculiar national history of identity based voting, but now after individualism has destroyed that, it's damn near impossible to make stable coalitions. We're quickly heading to Belgian territory. In addition, small parties in an already small parliament make for a very ineffective parliament that can not perform their government checking duties well, meaning, ironically, the government is way less democratic because our representatives just vote how the govt tells them to because they hardly have time to dive deep. In addition, because splinter parties so easily get representation, in the modern media landscape, especially since social media, there can be so much pressure on parties from different sides they very easily splinter off, which only exacerbates the problems I mentioned. There are ways to fix that (more seats for one thing would help greatly), and I agree (and based on your username I think we don't agree on much ;p) the idea of direct proportional rep like we have is something to be proud of, true democracy. But I fear for the next elections.
@thecheaperthebetter4477
3 жыл бұрын
@@Tony.H03 thanks for the explanation, I was all for removing the threshold (I supported a small party) but your explanation makes sense, you need that balance. :)
@sammyherbert
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right one of the problems with fully proportional voting is the forming of coalitions. You find that most governments end up forming with one of the major parties 'teaming' up with one or a few fringe parties to make up the numbers. This gives fringe parties way more power and sway than necessarily elected, and in extreme cases can lead to splitter groups forming. Like most things, there are obvious pros and cons.
@michaelgjoyce
3 жыл бұрын
From the stories I see here, I don't think proportional representation changes a culture. I think most of the problems I'm hearing are problems the given society has. Higher thresholds eliminate the fringe, and it's a trade off that countries are willing to accept. I would point out that direct democracy (Everyone votes on everything) is "truer" democracy than anything involving parties.
@tricktrevnz
3 жыл бұрын
even the so call weirdos have a right for there vote to be counted they most likely think the majority are weirdos who is to say who is right if the major parties have enough support they can goven and in nz case if there was a lower threshold in the last election where national had the highest vote by far they would have been able to form a coalition most likely with nz first just nz first would have not had as much influence
@Sandra.Molchanova
3 жыл бұрын
We tried having a 7% threshold and it was terrible, so the lower, the better. I hear 3% is considered optimal
@duncandixon6203
3 жыл бұрын
My name is Duncan Dixon, and I approve this message
@campbellbailey9614
3 жыл бұрын
Oh my god no. Possibly 25 to 99 % but no lower.
@freakingemu
3 жыл бұрын
We (the Dutch) just have a treshhold of what’s needed to get 1 seat which is 0,67% of the vote
@finlazzi9903
3 жыл бұрын
In Finland we have the best system, no threshold. Hasn't resulted in fracturing the parliament.
@freakingemu
3 жыл бұрын
@@finlazzi9903 yeah that's the same here the threshold to join is getting enough votes to get 1 seat
@timthefox1757
3 жыл бұрын
I love your NZ related videos! Because one day I want to life there! And you really helped me understand the elections etc! Too show my gratefulness I will support you on Patreon. Just give me a few minutes!
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks, your support is greatly appreciated, I hope you like my other videos too.
@thecheaperthebetter4477
3 жыл бұрын
Welcome to come... once COVID is over ;)
@timpyrules
3 жыл бұрын
Im from the Netherlands and tbh Id like a new rule where you need at least 5% of the vote to enter parlement. There are waaaayyyy to many 1-3 seat parties who represent a small minority that dont influence politics at all, they are just clogging up the system and those people have idealogical similar parties but they just want to vote on their niche one and in my opinion it would make ruling the country easier if we adopted a 5% minimum. Germany also hold a 5% minimum I believe
@Quintinohthree
3 жыл бұрын
Would you want a 20 seat parliament? Because that's what a 5% threshold really is in a purely proportional system.
@VhenRaTheRaptor
3 жыл бұрын
Not a big surprise that Germany has 5%. Our MMP is pretty much [minus a few fringe areas and removal of the federal set up] pretty much exactly the same as Germany's system. MMP, Additional Member and Personalized Proportional Representations are all pretty much different names for the same basic concept of a system. Some details in implementation might differ, but basically the same system.
@louischadfield139
3 жыл бұрын
I agree, I'm from New Zealand and I don't feel like there's a problem at all. 5% is a good threshold to keep representation whilst not allowing an influx of super small parties.
@timpyrules
3 жыл бұрын
@@Quintinohthree Thats not how any of this works m8
@timpyrules
3 жыл бұрын
@Cairo Mitchell-Acason No not really but before this certain politicians who held more radical views operated in the bounds of a idealogically similar party. Furthermore NL has whats called a preferential vote meaning if someone from a small party ran in another parties list, if he/she gets enough votes she is guaranteed a seat in that party. Meaning if you really really really like that 1-2 seat party they can run under the umbrella of another party and would then still represent the minority. And another related thing whats happening now is that these minorities are overrepresented because when forming a coalition everyone needs to stick on board meaning if you enter a coalition with 3 seats you can use that as a nuclear option to get wayy more representation than you deserve because you can always threathen the coalition.
@Trolligarch
3 жыл бұрын
I was wondering this actually. Thanks for this short explanatory video!
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
You're very welcome.
@liamcollins9183
3 жыл бұрын
@@Soliloquy084 but remember this is still just the preliminary vote, the special votes get released tomorrow, which historically favour the left, so Labour may yet actually crack 50% of the vote.
@millevenon5853
3 жыл бұрын
@@liamcollins9183 what are special votes?
@liamcollins9183
3 жыл бұрын
@@millevenon5853 late enrolments, overseas votes, and votes from outside a persons own electorate. This election they make up about 480k votes, roughly 1 in 6. They also tend to be younger voters and lean left. They generally take about 3 weeks after election day to be released.
@millevenon5853
3 жыл бұрын
@@liamcollins9183 wow. That's very good. People are tired of right wing politics it seems
@spaceknight1982
3 жыл бұрын
The 5% MMP threshold was introduced in Germany to stop ideologically extreme minor parties from gaining a voice in Parliament...basically to stop Neo-Nazis and communists and bias results toward moderate and centrist parties. I'm...generally fine with that although it might strike a better balance at 4% or 3%. It does help keep the crazies out.
@pashakdescilly7517
3 жыл бұрын
I believe that France had a low threshold, and it was raised to 5% to try and keep the Front Nationale out of parliament
@senseiadam-brawlstars9465
3 жыл бұрын
Now the AfD is at 10% lol
@peterhind9401
3 жыл бұрын
Sorry but the 5% threshold hadn't kept the crazies out. Sadly the Greens are still there with their extreme left wing economic policies and their hatred of the traditions and history of New Zealand.
@senseiadam-brawlstars9465
3 жыл бұрын
@@peterhind9401 It's there to not have 20 tiny parties that will make it impossible to form a stable government (See Germany in the 1930s.)
@DGAMINGDE
3 жыл бұрын
@@senseiadam-brawlstars9465 Also he is completely incorrect. The greens are actually somewhat syncretic on their economic policies and even govern in the state of Baden-Württemberg in a right-leaning economic way. Also a 5%-threshold in Weimar would have done nothing to stop the far-left and far-right KPD, DNVP and NSDAP.
@MarcoGPUtuber
3 жыл бұрын
0:44 I didn't see a listing for the Soliloquy Party so they're my write-in candidate and party.
@daddyleon
3 жыл бұрын
Maybe that's the unelected monarch??
@anerkas
3 жыл бұрын
4 or 5 % is okay most of europe use these thresolds, In Italy we had 2% and it was a mess, do not lower it, it will be 5% for us too with the new electoral law. Plus since you have MMP a party can bypass the thresold by winning a seat. Germany has your same system and it works great from what i know. I was often told in class that germany and new zealand have the best electoral system. So i think you shold keep it as it is.
@pCadavez
3 жыл бұрын
Genuine curiosity, what do you mean by 'a mess' exactly? Is it too hard to get agreements?
@anerkas
3 жыл бұрын
@@pCadavez every person who has ever been on tv and his dog think they need to form their own party and run for elections, then even if a 45% party forms a coalition with two 3% parties they act like they should be 100% equal, demands key cabinet ministers and such. Plus our average government is very unstable.
@Quintinohthree
3 жыл бұрын
@@anerkas The problem there is people acting like they deserve everything and not making compromises. A 1 seat threshold has made the Netherlands quite successful.
@Quintinohthree
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right Indeed, under a largest averages distribution like D'Hondt, an MP for a party that doesn't meet an arbitrary threshold but does have more than 1/n of valid votes where n is the number of seats to be allocated, a party having received few botes will almost always have received more votes per seat than the party that received the most votes.
@davidhoward437
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right This is how democracy works!
@franticranter
3 жыл бұрын
i think the 5% threshold is important tho. it stops fringe extremist parties, and allows for somewhat strong parties. 49% to 53% really ain't that bad in terms of proportionality. in 2015, the tories in the UK got 37% of the vote and 57% of seats. that's what's bad
@matrixace_8903
3 жыл бұрын
*party I don't agree with
@awijaya2116
3 жыл бұрын
@@matrixace_8903 In 2005, Labor got 40.7% of the vote but 62% of the seats. It's just as bad the other way around. No matter how you slice it, this is undemocratic, especially since in a roundabout way you're voting for which party gets the prime ministership.
@franticranter
3 жыл бұрын
@@awijaya2116 you talking about new zealand labour or UK labour? because if you're talking about UK labour, whilst I am a labour supporter, I also think that that is bad. it's now about which party get's an disproportionate amount of the seats (all tho the tories getting a disproportionate amount in 2015 added salt to the wound, cus the tories), it's about any party getting a disproportionate amount of seats, about it not being democratic. i dislike first past the post, not because it propelled the tories to power unfairly in 2015 (as bad as that was), but because it propells any party to power unfairly. this ain't a partisan thing, it's about democracy
@awijaya2116
3 жыл бұрын
@@franticranter UK Labour, since that's the example you brought up in the original comment
@ITristan
3 жыл бұрын
Looks like Labour's Labour has finally paid off
@_MrMoney
3 жыл бұрын
r/DadJokes
@scaredyfish
3 жыл бұрын
How about ranked choice in the party vote. If your first choice doesn’t meet the 5% threshold, your vote goes to your second choice. It could be the same (basically STV) in the electorates. The downside is that it starts to get a bit complicated, but at least no votes are wasted.
@keacoq
3 жыл бұрын
YES. Just a second choice does it. No need for more ranking than that. Limiting it to two choices makes it easy to understand, easy to implement, easy to count.
@eostyrwinn5018
3 жыл бұрын
Couldn't you remove the entire wasted vote by also using a ranked system? Then all the people who voted for something that didn't make the cut still get counted.
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
A few people have made this suggestion. The two problems I see with it are 1) voting becomes more complicated - for the political junkies who watch this sort of video it seems easy but a lot of people already struggle to understand MMP as it is and 2) it further incentivises major parties to make Epsom style deals to prevent their support parties vote from being passed onto their opposition.
@janikeuskirchen
3 жыл бұрын
@@Soliloquy084 Do people really struggle though? They might not think through the exact electoral dynamics but I feel like they get the gist (the difference between the two votes and what they are for). Here in Germany where we also use MMP, I think most people understand it. Replacing an "x" with a ranking shouldn't be too complicated. Your second point seems valid and interesting though. I haven't thought of that before. Edit: As @F_F_F_ has pointed out, you can still put an "x" next to a party which should be counted the same way as putting a "1" next to a party and not ranking any other parties. So people could continue to vote the same way as right now if they wanted to or if they didn't understand the ranking.
@f_f_f_8142
3 жыл бұрын
@@Soliloquy084 About 1) It would not be required for people to rank at all. Just mark a single party if you are sure they reach the threshold. And if you rank you only need like 3 parties before the ones you like include a big one. 2) I don't see how it incentivises deals. Voters only switch between 2 and 3 parties so the only question is: will they vote 'A then B' or 'B then A'. You don't need to convince voters of a right wing party for example to put another aligned right wing party on the 2nd spot.
@Nikolaj11
3 жыл бұрын
@@Soliloquy084 What's an Epsom style deal?
@carmenradk6992
3 жыл бұрын
@@Nikolaj11 it was when a major party (right wing) did not compete for a seat ( in Epson) so their ( the major party's )supporters voted for another party ( extreme right) so they won a seat because they couldn't get to the 5% threshold and would not have got into parliament. Effectively manipulating the result in order to gain coalition seats.
@kingbibihabibi
3 жыл бұрын
Israel used to have a threshold of just 1%, but they've progressively raised it to 3.25% to reduce the number of ridiculous small parties that were able to win seats and become kingmakers in coalition negotiations. At the last election, only about 0.8% of votes were wasted on parties that didn't cross the threshold.
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, Israel is often the go to example. I used the Netherlands out of laziness since I have the graphics already made for there.
@janikeuskirchen
3 жыл бұрын
Only 0.8%? That's pretty good. In the 2013 German election, it was around 15% which is ridiculous.
@stevehutton6984
3 жыл бұрын
As a kiwi, and now that we've had this system for 20 years, I'd vote for 5% threshold. And yes Israel had the limit too low (plus they're in a pretty unique position compared to most countries, so not really a typical case)
@splitinfinitives
3 жыл бұрын
I think there's a danger of reading too much into the idea of the threshold being the main determinant of the number of parties. To be sure, there is an effect of the number of parties increasing as the threshold decreases, but the Netherlands and Israel have a similar number of parties despite Israel having a threshold that's nearly 5x higher (and much closer to NZ's 5% than NL's 1/150th). NL would have only 8 parties if the votes went the same way but with the 3.25% threshold (assuming that people voted the same way, which I accept is slightly dubious). The bigger determinant is the number of socio-political 'cleavages' (that's the political science terminology), which determines roughly how many groups need representing. The cleavages are more or less independent of the electoral system/threshold - the election rules merely augment that number (a little if you're talking about thresholds for party list votes, or a lot of you're talking about majoritarian systems) Israel has more social cleavages and so more parties arise, regardless of the threshold.
@stevehutton6984
3 жыл бұрын
@@splitinfinitives Interesting. Yep I'm thinking Israel is not a very representative case of a country, given the variety of forces meeting there. The different cleavages as you say. I've never studied political science so i don't pretend to know. Maybe there's an ideal percentage for each country. I think in NZ it's between 4 and 5 - in practice the parties who can't reach 5 tend to be too obscure. I guess Israel is still trying to find its ideal (and on the surface they don't seem to have found it yet)
@Gallalad1
3 жыл бұрын
As someone who lives in an STV country, the idea of cutting out 7.5% of people not having any say in the governance in the country makes me deeply uneasy
@michaelbirkett4932
3 жыл бұрын
So New Zealand has the exact same electoral system design as Germany
@thegreenrabbit
3 жыл бұрын
Yup after the referendum held in 1993 choosing to change fptp and then chosing your prefered electoral system the german mmp won and thats what we based our system off.
@epicrandomperson1998
3 жыл бұрын
I quite like the proportionality of low thresholds, but that might just be because I'm from the UK which has a stupid system for electing the lower house and a literally unelected upper house. It would be great to see some smaller national parties in parliament here
@liamcollins9183
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right Well since theres just 48 list seats in the NZ parliament, at the very least the threshold should be 1/48, or 2.08%.
@shaulpagis-sharon4484
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right It sure sometimes is. In my country (Israel) they raised the threshold significantly a couple of years ago, from 2% to 3.25%. Sure, the PM and some coalition members said it is necessary in order to get more stable coalitions but the person who proposed this change (then foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman) actually proposed it in order to force some parties he didn't like out of parliament (the parties supported mostly by the Arab minority) and actually campaigned on this issue. The funny thing is that in the very next election cycle the parties Lieberman wanted to disenfranchise joined together and became stronger than ever while his own party got hit by a major scandal lost lots of votes and almost lost their place in parliament because of the change they proposed
@acommenter
3 жыл бұрын
Sadly, we had a referendum on using AV instead of FPTP in 2011 but the UK proved that at least 70% of the country were morons by rejecting it.
@dairallan
3 жыл бұрын
@@acommenter AV isnt proportional. Having said that, the entire thing was fucked by the Lib Dems, from their insistence on AV (which is just FPTP with a bias to an established third party) to their acceptance of a referendum to get it. Every aspect was fucked up by them.
@kiwihib
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right We had two referendum's and both have ended up with what we have now just because you have a lot of right wing parties some so out of here fighting over the right wing vote we moved to this because people were sick of the party with the of the amount the votes didn't get elected for a lot of the time moving to a electaric based on population in that area helped a little bit but still left a lot of us out but you still have to have threashold or else it just becomes a bit of a farce.
@EriqireM
3 жыл бұрын
Transferable Party Vote. Party's are removed from voting one at a time, from least popular to most popular. The "discarded" votes are then instead "transferred" to their next choice. This is repeated until all remaining parties qualify for Parliament.
@BoraCM
3 жыл бұрын
Like this, parties won't have an incentive to keep a support party in Parliament for the sole purpose of not letting their opponents gain any seats, like how National usually reserves an electorate for ACT. I think that using this system and lowering the threshold to 0.83% of the national popular vote is the best combination.
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
I'm not 100% convinced that having a system that increases the incentive for deals like in Epsom is the right choice.
@EriqireM
3 жыл бұрын
@@Soliloquy084 There is a "Perverse Incentive" here. You could see major parties back extremist canidates to dilute opposition vote share. Two Solutions: -Remove the threshold and risk broad coalitions. Or -Reinforce the threshold. Require that a party reach 5% as the only method of qualifying for party MP's.
@janikeuskirchen
3 жыл бұрын
Yes, I've thought of this before too! Perhaps the electorate seat could then also be elected via ranked-choice voting (pretty much the same mechanism) so both votes are ranked votes.
@f_f_f_8142
3 жыл бұрын
this was actually proposed in Germany before (with a depth of only 2 and called "Ersatzstimme" "back-up vote").
@randomanonymous60
3 жыл бұрын
I don't mind 5%. 4% would probably be fine, but any lower would make things worse. Maybe for the electorate seats they can introduce ranked choice. I was afraid that the split vote in Auckland central would lead to national gaining the seat. Doesn't make sense if even though 2 left parties get 60-65% of the vote but a right party wins. It did not happen in this case but it was a possibility.
@liamcollins9183
3 жыл бұрын
They could also introduce ranked choice in the the party vote too. I.e. if I voted for TOP, who only got 1.4%, rather than being wasted, my vote goes to my second choice (i.e. Labour), which means I feel free to vote for new and small parties without my vote being wasted, but if they don't get to 5%, then at least a party I still find acceptable gets my vote instead
@randomanonymous60
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right Everyone already knows the requirements to be elected an MP. No one is taking your position away after being "Elected". And what do you mean by someone? That's the system. There's no "someone" or a person deciding if you get enough votes or not. The main problem with a lack of threshold is lack of stability and governments possibly not being able to be formed. For example look at Italy. Its a struggle for them to form a government and even when they do it often falls apart.
@randomanonymous60
3 жыл бұрын
@@liamcollins9183 I agree with that completely as well.
@marshalldavout7541
3 жыл бұрын
@@liamcollins9183 That is exactly the change that is needed. As it stands, a new party that would get a small marginal vote, and maybe build to a bigger one, cannot run the first time because people will not vote for them, risking 'wasting their vote'. Ranked choice would fix that and allow new parties to emerge (if they have support)
@tricktrevnz
3 жыл бұрын
even the so call weirdos have a right for there vote to be counted they most likely think the majority are weirdos who is to say who is right if the major parties have enough support they can goven and in nz case if there was a lower threshold in the last election where national had the highest vote by far they would have been able to form a coalition most likely with nz first just nz first would have not had as much influence
@nathandrake5544
3 жыл бұрын
There is a simple solution to the problem of wasted votes, which I'm surprised that no country has adopted: use a party list ranked ballot. It would be similar to RCV, but instead of ranking individual candidates you rank each party from your most to least preferred. This means that if you are favorite party doesn't meet the threshold your vote will be translated to your 2nd preference, and continue down the line if necessary until all votes count towards one of the parties that meet the threshold without any being discarded.
@heidirepp7462
3 жыл бұрын
I hate that my vote for the conservative party is considered waisted and my vote taken for another!
@PJWALKER440
3 жыл бұрын
Australia’s senate ballot *optionally* operates this way. The ballot has the parties along the top, a big dividing line, and the party lists below. Voters can either: 1. Vote ‘above the line’ - ranking parties, and allowing their preferences within each party to be determined by the party list order. 2. Vote ‘below the line’, putting the individual candidates in whatever order they like.
@bhoenix3213
3 жыл бұрын
The Greens' policy included a ranked system
@keacoq
3 жыл бұрын
Just a second choice is sufficient.
@EvdogMusic
3 жыл бұрын
Just have the Party Vote be ranked: that way, if your first choice doesn't make the threshold, it may put your next choice over it or add to their share if they already are. No more wasted votes! May as well make the Constituency vote ranked, while we're at it.
@economicsinaction
3 жыл бұрын
The videos are definitely back! I like it!
@unknown-hf3jg
3 жыл бұрын
Lower the threshold to 4% and introduce rank choice voting for both electorate and party vote.
@redoktopus3047
3 жыл бұрын
I think keeping it at 5% but with ranked choice or range voting would be best. gives smaller parties a chance while discouraging factionalism. :D
@MrJethroha
3 жыл бұрын
Only having a few percent of votes wasted is leagues ahead of a first past the post election, in which you could have a majority of votes wasted if the electorate is divided into more than two parties.
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
Oh absolutely, fptp is a terrible system. But, the fact that there is a much worst option available doesn't mean we shouldn't think about improving the system we have.
@EvdogMusic
3 жыл бұрын
MMP is still FPTP at the constituency level...
@laurencefraser
3 жыл бұрын
@@EvdogMusic only because selling the public (and politicians) on MMP was hard enough as is.there are still people claiming that MMP is some sort of evil scam (usually to let labour win when they think National should have because Labour is somewhat less incompetent at the whole coalition thing.)
@3of11
3 жыл бұрын
Any one else find it funny that "older" more established and powerful democracies (US, UK) get stuck with relic / oudated election system but the newer ones seem to get the fancier more modern voting systems.
@carmenradk6992
3 жыл бұрын
We changed our system(NZ) in the early nineties, before that we had the Westminster (UK without the house of lords) system. I would like to see the UK and the U.S. go for some election reforms, but maybe they're not ready yet?
@liamcollins9183
3 жыл бұрын
@@carmenradk6992 the people are, but the powers that be in the current systems aren't. Even in NZ, many senior politicians scaremongered the crap out of MMP in the 1996 referendum.
@laurencefraser
3 жыл бұрын
@@carmenradk6992 once upon a time we had a house of lords equivalent too. It didn't take long before (if memory serves) they realised how utterly absurd that was, given the state of New Zealand at the time, and vote themselves out of existance.
@IkeOkerekeNews
3 жыл бұрын
@@carmenradk6992 Maine has switched over to ranked-choice, and people in Massachusetts and Alaska will be voting on it this year.
@carmenradk6992
3 жыл бұрын
@@IkeOkerekeNews we had four systems to choose from, first past the post ( which we had at the time) MMP (mixed member proportional) what we ended up changing to, STV ( single transferable vote) which is what I think you are using now. And I can't remember the 4th choice. I'm glade we went with MMP over the single transferable vote (rankings) we use STV in our local body elections and it seems to encourage huge amounts of candidates to vote for. Anyway good luck with your voting and the election💙
@AmazingDuckmeister
3 жыл бұрын
New Zealand: has 7.5% wasted vote. UK: hold my beer
@daddyleon
3 жыл бұрын
Hurray for bonus videos! It's like a desert after a meal!
@julianskinner3697
3 жыл бұрын
It doesn't need fixing We don't want fringe groups in parliment
@hamish241
3 жыл бұрын
Ok I strongly dislike the greens, but the threshold should be lowered at least 1%
@feels_bad-man
3 жыл бұрын
How about ranked choice voting? If the voters' first choice party doesn't meet the threshold, why not have their votes go to a second choice party, assuming said party reached the threshold?
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
There are a few downsides, ranked choice voting. It makes voting more complicated, for the political junkies who watch this sort of video it seems easy but a lot of people already struggle to understand MMP without the additional complication of IRV. Also, it incentivises deals like Epsom with ACT as letting a smaller support party not make it means splitting their votes up between those that do.
@keacoq
3 жыл бұрын
Just a second choice of party does the job. Is easy to understand and implement and does the job.
@millevenon5853
3 жыл бұрын
In South Africa we have purely proportional representation. You win 1% votes, you get 1% of the seats
@2fast4u_rms
3 жыл бұрын
there is a problem with the system we have in Holland. We now have to many parties. our current government is a coalition of 4. and we have around 16 parties in parliament. three one seat parties. we could use a threshold
@LOLquendoTV
3 жыл бұрын
Surely they cant all be massively different enough to make coalitions hard i.e Im guessing those 4 parties are either a left or rightwing alliance
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
Yup, that is the general criticism of proportional representation.
@2fast4u_rms
3 жыл бұрын
@@LOLquendoTV thats where the problem comes in. when you want a make a coalition of for you have to compromise. which leads to parties giving up op issues they promised during elections. two of the smaller parties are gonna lose a lot of votes next march.
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
It's entirely possible for a parliament to be hung. Look at Belgium.
@2fast4u_rms
3 жыл бұрын
@@Soliloquy084 i think we'll go that route the next elections. this current coalition is here just to box out on far right party. but unfortunaly we have another one that on the rise. and one party has already said it doesnt want to form a coalition with them
@TomJohnson67
3 жыл бұрын
Looking forward to the video! Only 17 minutes left.
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
I hope you like it
@kokounknown3531
3 жыл бұрын
Chill out this video was suggesting an idea. Not changing it. Aotearoa is fine at 5%.
@Quintinohthree
3 жыл бұрын
I'm very much in favor of lowering the threshold, however I understand lowering it all the way to 1/120 might cause issues with the MMP system. With New Zealand having 48 list seats, I'd think 1/48 (2.08333...%) would be an appropriate threshold, as I suspect this would be the lowest at which a party would be guaranteed to win a seat under a 1/120 threshold scenario and any lower it would depend on how electorate and list results relate thus a party with 1/120 votes might not actually win a seat whereas a party with 1/48 votes would be guaranteed.
@syrrysaver2775
3 жыл бұрын
For some reason I thought NZ already had ranked choice voting. It's imo one of the best ways to avoid "wasted votes" regardless of the rest of the system.
@trijoco2330
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video! Was wondering how this worked on election night, seems so obvious now
@ELUnderwood
3 жыл бұрын
My perfect system would have no political parties
@ELUnderwood
3 жыл бұрын
@Jeri Brown The only variable I'm changing is the amount of political parties. Doesn't change the system of government.
@Quintinohthree
3 жыл бұрын
@@ELUnderwood How would you do that?
@liamcollins9183
3 жыл бұрын
@@ELUnderwood images of the Ukrainian parliament brawl come to mind... 🤣
@davidhoward437
3 жыл бұрын
Hitler abolished all political parties but one. Would that suit you? But seriously... are you suggesting that political parties be banned? Who do you trust to administer and enforce this ban?
@ELUnderwood
3 жыл бұрын
@@davidhoward437 Don't need to ban them just don't put political affiliation on the ballot
@jh5401
3 жыл бұрын
I believe the TOP party also has a policy of lowering the threshold to 4%
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
I haven't looked it up but I would assume they would support that.
@cjbaynas
3 жыл бұрын
I believe they don't actually have it as an election promise since there seems to be no mention of it in their website. However, some of their supporters and even party members are now starting to discuss it on social media, at least.
@korakys
3 жыл бұрын
The threshold should be 3.4% in New Zealand in my opinion (just enough to get 4 seats). It is most optimum to set the eligibility thresholds from 3 to 4%, with 2 being the absolute minimum and 5 being the absolute maximum that can still be called credible. Setting it too high can result in large amounts of wasted votes, setting it too low often results in single issue parties gaining a few seats and making a nuisance of themselves and it encourages fragmentation too. The optimum number of parties for any legislature is no fewer than 4 and no more than 8.
@jkitty542
3 жыл бұрын
I shared this video with my friends in New Zealand. They’re all Green Party and didn’t think you were too harsh on them.
@maximilianomadrigal6661
3 жыл бұрын
They could move to ranked choice voting, it will prevent fracturing and keep the 5% vote
@davidhoward437
3 жыл бұрын
Which is what they have now.
@maximilianomadrigal6661
3 жыл бұрын
@@davidhoward437 so why are votes thrown away?
@f_f_f_8142
3 жыл бұрын
what I find fascinating in this debate about fractured parliaments is the fact that adding like 10 parties with one seat each would not be as big of a problem than adding 2 medium sized ones. I am not sure how a system could take this into account though...
@notenoughpaper
3 жыл бұрын
Idk I think you should be able to rank candidates for the first vote and rank parties for the second vote. If your party wont meet the threshold, your vote would be allocated to your second most favorite vote. Issue with that kind of system is that the ballot would be more complicated and it would probably take longer to analyze the results
@chrismckellar9350
3 жыл бұрын
This is done in some local council elections. Personally, it is to confusing considering if you don't know the candidates. MMP is the better option.
@sammcconnell8319
3 жыл бұрын
The idea of Advance NZ getting anywhere near a seat in parliament gives me serious anxiety
@franklinlewis1097
3 жыл бұрын
Same for me with New Conservative 😰
@staffybullterrier7678
3 жыл бұрын
NZPP are the only ones who could of stopped agenda21.... If u don't believe me, wait n see.......
@sammcconnell8319
3 жыл бұрын
@@staffybullterrier7678 it seems you might not have actually taken the time to read agenda 21. I would recommend understanding what it actually proposes. It's nothing to be concerned about.
@staffybullterrier7678
3 жыл бұрын
@@sammcconnell8319 I hope ur right... Cos who really knows huh!!??....🤔 We will see soon. , More freedoms taken away... More rules... only when it's at people's doorstep will they or you finally realise.. they are not here for you... It's the opposite . And it is already in some places in the world... 🤔
@janikeuskirchen
3 жыл бұрын
I feel like this is somewhat related to how in the US, due to the electoral college system, a president can be elected with a minority of the popular vote. In parliamentary systems with electoral threshold, a government coalition can get a majority of seats in parliament and thus form a government even if they received a minority of popular votes. I think this is problematic. And I haven't really found much information on this, so I feel like this isn't really talked about much (contrary to the US electoral college's flaw). I did the math once for elections in Germany and this happened 5 times (I'm not 100% sure I did the math correctly, so anyone who wants to correct me, please do): 1969: SPD, FDP (48.44% popular vote vs. 51.21% of seats) 1994: CDU, CSU, FDP (48.35% popular vote vs. 50.74% of seats) 1998: SPD, Greens (47.63% popular vote vs. 51.57% of seats) 2002: SPD, Greens (47.08% popular vote vs. 50.75% of seats) 2009: CDU, CSU, FDP (48.36% popular vote vs. 53.37% of seats)
@erin9377
3 жыл бұрын
It's a very different issue. In the US a candidate can win the election even if they don't win the most votes. That can't happen in proportional systems. But the problem you talked about, with wasted votes, is a definite issue. In 2013 in Germany, the CDU/CSU came up just five seats short of a majority (49.3%) with only 41.5% of the vote because almost 16% of votes were wasted, including for the FDP (4.8%) and AfD (4.7%). The worst example I know of is Turkey, which has an incredibly high 10% threshold, which often causes parties to lose despite winning many votes. In the 2002 election, seven parties won more than 5% of the vote, but only two passed the threshold and won seats. 46.3% of votes were wasted. Erdogan's AKP won 34.3% of votes and a ridiculous 66% of the seats, while the only other party in parliament was the CHP which won 19.4% and 33% of seats. But the electoral system hasn't been changed because it's a huge benefit to the AKP. It's terrible.
@kiro9291
3 жыл бұрын
wow you make politics sound so civil or is Kiwi politics just civil in general? I would not know
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
We certainly have our heated moments
@alexkay3448
3 жыл бұрын
Depends who you're comparing it to. All of the general nasty scheming and bitterness of politics can never really be erased; but it's certainly not as horrific as many European countries and there's significantly less populism (especially now that NZ First is out). However, we have our moments en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitangi_dildo_incident
@franzfanz
3 жыл бұрын
@@Soliloquy084 Ah... Ponytailgate...
@liamcollins9183
3 жыл бұрын
It has its heated and weird moments, but compared to countries like the US, it generally is.
@stevehutton6984
3 жыл бұрын
The underlying reality makes it civil. Our public service in NZ is in fact independent of politics and not corrupt. I've worked in two big govt departments and know that to be true. Politicians don't appoint public service positions. So things work smoothly, run by neutral professionals. Our elections are peaceful and smooth running. Gosh, even a health crisis gets dealt with by health professionals (and we are enjoying the fruits of that) Basically everything's more civil
@xerosereify
3 жыл бұрын
Yes I definately think they should lower the threshold! Risking losing all our minor parties due to the 5% limit would be as bad as having a too fractured parliament. Also i know plenty of people that would have prefered to vote for parties like top but didnt because they knew it would be a wasted vote. It would be nice for those peoples views to be represented more
@exandil6029
3 жыл бұрын
0:24 Is that Cyrodiil and Morrowind?
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
Yes
@Direxit
3 жыл бұрын
And the Summerset Isles
@kieranmorris7315
3 жыл бұрын
MMP is great, but you spoil it by still using FPTP, should use something like STV with MMP, for the party vote. I don't know how the electorate seat votes are calculated, but if they are also using FPTP that needs to change. In Aus we use something like MMP for the Senate, but split by the state's and territories so it isn't a national vote, but it still uses STV (Well we can also select among the individual senators if we chose which makes it ranked choice voting, not a single vote that gets transferred between parties or candidates).
@VhenRaTheRaptor
3 жыл бұрын
To use MMP with STV would require instead of 71 Electorates [and 49 leveling seats], we would need to have something like... conservatively 8-10~ electorates each with 7-8 MPs in them. What you use is STV for the senate, flat out STV. Except with probably too small bodies so it isn't proportional enough.
@nosaj127
3 жыл бұрын
The most logical change to the aussie system would be to make the senate cover australia as a whole, i know we're a federation, but we've moved on a bit. Still keep the lower house boundrys intra-state. That way we would have a majortarian lower house and a more proportional upper, might cause some headaches for gov of the day, deal with it.
@laurencefraser
3 жыл бұрын
Nah, use approval voting. Nearly as simple to explain as FPTP, but produces a "least dispreferred" result like ranked voting would. The downside is the increased likely hood of runoff votes being needed. ... There's probably a reason it isn't generally used for much of anything more important than deciding what to order for dinner...
@nozzk
3 жыл бұрын
If you vote for a party that doesn't reach the threshold, your vote is essentially re-allocated to one of the parties that reached the 5% threshold. That is, under the current system, around half the people who (for example) voted for NZ first or the Conservatives basically had their vote re-allocated to Labour. NZ should introduce Alternative Vote for the party vote - allow voters to express a preference order. If the party that a voter preferences #1 to doesn't make the 5% threshold, then their vote is re-allocated to their #2 choice. And if the #2 didn't reach the threshold, then their #3 choice etc. until the vote is allocated to a party that made the 5% threshold.
@nozzk
3 жыл бұрын
@leftfoot a)please look up the definition of the word “essentially” - b) the point of the video is that Labour won 49.1% of the vote but received 53% of the seats. For every 0.83% of the vote that goes to non-elected parties, an elected party gets an extra seat above what their proportion of the vote entitles them.
@flashboy3000
3 жыл бұрын
I definitely think 5% is too high. New Zealand needs more parties in government. We almost had only four parties this time round, which does not bring enough unique views into our government!
@joeypotter6051
3 жыл бұрын
Maybe, but some of those parties have pretty diverse candidates, so while they all believe in the same policies etc, there is a wide diversity of experience and opinion. And I don't want the unique views of the New Conservatives, Advance NZ or Destiny Church in our Parliament, personally.
@flashboy3000
3 жыл бұрын
True. But some 55,000 New Zealanders do want those views in our parliament, and their voices are now not being heard. And I'm not saying reduce it to 1%. 4% is more realistic.
@laurencefraser
3 жыл бұрын
@@flashboy3000 and (I say as someone who voted for a party which didn't clear the threshold) in many cases, the fact that they didn't get what they want on that front is a good thing! There is a point where pandering to the idiots is actively detrimental to the process.
@meskbren
3 жыл бұрын
Hello from Ireland. I am a big fan of the MMS system that is used in New Zealand as it strikes a balance between having a local representative and allowing smaller parties a chance to get representation. We use PRSTV and while it certainly has its advantages and it is better than either the First Past the Post or a pure list system, there are drawbacks. Constituencies are quite small (3-5 seats) so supporters of smaller parties in some parts of the country are unlikely to see their party elected (if their party even runs a candidate in their area). Also the competition between MPs in the one constituency amplifies the parish pump politics that pervade political life here. Some possible changes for NZ (or Ireland in the extremely unlikely event they change our electoral system): * constituency seats will have preferential voting - not just first past the post * lower the threshold to 4% - not any lower - you don't want multitudes of tiny parties like in Netherlands or Israel (3 elections in one year anyone?). * one controversial change I would definitely make is that candidates have to choose either list of constituency. I don't like the idea of booting out a local MP only to see him/her get back to parliament via the list. They shouldn't be able to do both. On a more general note, I like the way politics seems to be done in New Zealand in general. Politicians are well-engaged with policy and they seem to conduct themselves very well (I have looked at clips from the NZ parliament).
@Quintinohthree
3 жыл бұрын
What's wromg with a couple small parties? There will always be plenty large parties.
@laurencefraser
3 жыл бұрын
The electorate vs list system runs into a small problem: what if the party's leader loses their electorate? Or the party's share of the party vote doesn't exceed the number of electorates it won so the leader can't be brought in via the list? Repeat for the deputy and everyone the party wants in ministerial roles...
@Quintinohthree
3 жыл бұрын
@@laurencefraser It's actually a peculiar quirk of Westminster-derived systems that members of government have to be members of Parliament. In the Netherlands members have Parliament have to.resign when they accept a position in government. And of course, a party leader not being a member of Parliament isn't exactly a problem.
@meskbren
3 жыл бұрын
@@Quintinohthree of course there is nothing wrong with a few small parties. But if you look at the Netherlands and Israel there are dozens of parties including some very small ones. For instance in Netherlands, the SGP - a Calvinist fundementalist party - always gets 2% or less but has been in parliament since 1918 but they refuse to sit in government as they see themselves as a 'testimonial' party. Mind you, India has First Past the Post and there are dozens of small (usually regional) parties with a small of number of seats in the Lok Sabha.
@Quintinohthree
3 жыл бұрын
@@meskbren You still haven't answered what is wrong with small parties, you have merely illustrated how it is they exist. For what it's worth, I think small parties represemt people, that's what they're for and that makes them totally ok.
@yuvalne
3 жыл бұрын
In Israel we have a strictly proportional system, and the threshold was originally at 1%, but has over the years risen to the current 3.25%, which is still quite a bit lower than 5%.
@NathanHeaver
3 жыл бұрын
the title really confused me for this video after the referendum on cannabis being 53% as well are you going to some more videos on that?
@Emsworth377
3 жыл бұрын
I totally agree. The threshold should be 3 or 4%, but should definitely not go below that, otherwise you may get fringe parties of extremists in like the Advance party.
@uriargaman7241
3 жыл бұрын
Hey from Israel with a 3.25% threshold that threw us into 3 elections in a row, while sticking with our longest serving threshold, 1%, would have produced an immidiate coalition. There should be no threshold, extra seats allocated based on the largest remainder. Silencing minorities to make governing easier (which, again, is not always the the result) is authoritarian.
@campbellbailey9614
3 жыл бұрын
I think we should put the threshold up to 90%.
@TS-oe6jw
3 жыл бұрын
We should have Proportional Representation like the Netherlands. Turning citizens votes into "Wasted votes" like they do in NZ is incredibly undemocratic. I most likely won't vote in the next election due to this fact.
@truedarklander
3 жыл бұрын
Perhaps Ranked choice and a lower treshold would be a better deal?
@TS-oe6jw
3 жыл бұрын
@@truedarklander Agreed.
@azbgames6827
3 жыл бұрын
Then fringe parties like Advance/NZPP, NCP or TOP would get in which is a bad thing
@truedarklander
3 жыл бұрын
@@azbgames6827 I mean, not necessarily. Not commenting on the quality of the parties you mention but a more fragmented parliament isn't inherently worse.
@truedarklander
3 жыл бұрын
@@TS-oe6jw I think a decent compromise would be 3% and Ranked choice.
@ZTO333
3 жыл бұрын
I hate the minimum. To me what should matter most is proportionality. Your percentage of the legislature should match as closely as possible the percentage of people who support the party. Government is supposed to be the representation of the people's will, after all
@dogmirian
3 жыл бұрын
I don't know about the percentage (it is clear to me this is a balancing issue between the desire for accurate representation and effective governance that requires more data and understanding then I have), but I would vote for changing the party vote (and the local vote for that matter) from fptp to some form of instant-runoff voting (like single alternative vote). It wouldn't fix the problem of accurate representation, but it would get us closer to that desire without sacrificing the effectiveness of the government by making coalition building too bloated.
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
"it is clear to me this... requires more data and understanding then I have" This is a wonderful statement and I wish more people thought like that. I guess the downside of IRV is that it makes voting more complicated, for the political junkies who watch this sort of video it seems easy but a lot of people already struggle to understand MMP without the additional complication of IRV.
@dogmirian
3 жыл бұрын
@@Soliloquy084 *Remembering trying to explain MMP to parents (who are uni profs) who've been living in NZ for over 20 years now* You're might be right that IRV might be more complicated than I originally thought XP
@DynoKea
2 жыл бұрын
I personally think 5% is probably too high. I'd argue somewhere along the lines of 2-3% is probably better, allowing smaller parties the chance to get in, but not too many. It also stops weird situations where a party gets 4% and no seat, while another will get 5% and suddenly they've got 6 or 7 seats. A lower bar where a small percentage of the votes only makes a small number of seats difference makes far more sense..
@rogerroberts5167
3 жыл бұрын
Democracy however it is enacted is always awful but the alternatives are worse. Belgium finally got a government after many many months for horse trading. This is the problem with many small parties winning seats. On the other hand, Britain is currently ruled by the conservatives with an eighty seat majority even though they obtained far less than 50% of the vote. So they control parliament but many parts of the population feels unrepresented. There is no ideal solution. But as I said before, the alternatives are worse. Dictatorship? Communism? I think I will stick with Democracy.
@cornondajacob
3 жыл бұрын
Communism is an economic system; not a ruling system 😁
@rogerroberts5167
3 жыл бұрын
@@cornondajacob Tell that to the population of the People's Republic of China. I think they will be surprised to find that they are not ruled by the Communists.
@cornondajacob
3 жыл бұрын
@@rogerroberts5167 would you consider capitalism a political system? Because in that case it has been responsible for far more deaths than communism has
@rogerroberts5167
3 жыл бұрын
@@cornondajacob China is now, in fact, a country with a capitalist economy and a communist political structure. Capitalism probably has caused more deaths than communism since the latter is a failed system and the vast majority of the world operates under a capitalist, democratic structure. 80% of the world producing 65% of unnatural deaths is probably about right
@cornondajacob
3 жыл бұрын
@@rogerroberts5167 Anyway back to the original point. As communism is an economic model, a more accurate comment would have read: ‘Dictatorship? Unitary one-party states?’ As ‘Dictatorship? Communism?’ Is, ‘scary political system? Buzz word I’ve only heard as one thing since the Cold War that I don’t properly understand?’
@chrismckellar9350
3 жыл бұрын
Leave the threshold at 5%. Lowering it could end up with a fractured parliament. Getting into parliament is about good policies not idiotic polices like from NZPP/Advance NZ, etc. The current party set up for the next parliament is a good representation of voter wants.
@Quintinohthree
3 жыл бұрын
Getting into parliament is about representing people. Getting into government is about having good policies.
@chrismckellar9350
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right - When did I say that I didn't support the Maori Party. I think Maoridom should have their own political party. Maoridom has traditionally voted Labour for candidates in the Maori electorates but this time, the Maori Party pushed Maoridom to vote for them as electorate candidates and party vote labour, hence Rawiri Waititi 'winning' the Waiariki seat. I hope he wins it when all votes have been counted. What the Maori Party did was strategic planning and this is what democracy and MMP is about.
@staffybullterrier7678
3 жыл бұрын
What was the idiotic policies from advanceNZPP Chris?
@chrismckellar9350
3 жыл бұрын
@@staffybullterrier7678 - Conspiracy theories,, NZ will be in lock down from 4 Nov 20, force vaccinations, etc
@staffybullterrier7678
3 жыл бұрын
@@chrismckellar9350 agenda21 is that a conspiracy too?
@abdullahsagga7195
3 жыл бұрын
I'm. Just happy that Winston is out.
@jessedaniel3315
3 жыл бұрын
Just take note that with special votes labour has a very tiny majority now with 50.01%, but have 65 seats instead of 64
@rogerlewis6488
3 жыл бұрын
I believe the threshold should be 0.83% so that every vote counts. There is no logical reason why this should not be the case apart from control and power, which is not a suitable reason for setting a higher threshold.
@JudgeEomer
3 жыл бұрын
Would there not be a way to rank parties in the party vote (a la STV) so that any votes whose chosen party did not reach the threshold would be transferred to their next preference, and thus not wasted?
@dairallan
3 жыл бұрын
I feel the Scottish system with Regional lists works better than the nationwide system party list in New Zealand. There's no need for a threshold at all as using D'Hondt and Regions, there is effectively a threshold of around 8% in any single region. This gets rid of the artificiality of a threshold, prevents drastic fracitonalisation and allows for the potential of a niche regional party getting representation in their area while having a relatively low vote overall (not currently found but was found previously with the Scottish Socialists who only really got any support in a couple of Regions).
@donosaur2341
3 жыл бұрын
0:26 Incredible, I had no idea that Morrwind, Cyrodil, and the Sommerset Isles could vote in New Zealand elections!
@janikeuskirchen
3 жыл бұрын
Isn't a fractured parliament only bad in a majoritarian-parliamentary system where you need at least 50%+1 to form a government? What do you think of a directorial system like Switzerland or "directorial-parliamentary" system like Northern Ireland where seats in the cabinet are allocated to parties roughly proportionally to their seats in parliament? I suppose such a parliament can be arbitrarily fractured and therefore also be more representative (also, see principle of consociationalism).
@______608
3 жыл бұрын
2 ways I can see to make the system better are: 1)Replace the FPTP races in the electorates with IRV ones and 2)Have a party list where people can rank their parties, so that if they don't meet the 5% threshold, the votes can be transferred rather than wasted like over here. Imo that would be much more representative
@pauljackways1473
3 жыл бұрын
I have never had my vote count for anything
@pauljackways1473
3 жыл бұрын
@Jeri Brown I voted for TOP, an objectively superior party to all others
@joeypotter6051
3 жыл бұрын
@@pauljackways1473 Except that voting for them is still a wasted vote at this point in time. But keep trying and maybe one day they'll break the threshold :) (I mean that sincerely even though I've never voted for them.)
@liamcollins9183
3 жыл бұрын
@@pauljackways1473 it would be great if they introduced ranked choice voting, both in local seats (like AV as used in Australia), and in the the party vote too. I.e. if I voted for TOP, who only got 1.4%, rather than being wasted, my vote goes to my second choice (i.e. Labour), which means I feel free to vote for new and small parties without my vote being wasted, but if they don't get to 5%, then at least a party I find acceptable gets my vote instead.
@pauljackways1473
3 жыл бұрын
Well NZ had that choice but were all too stupid to allow the objectively good Single transferrable vote. I don't actually believe we should have democracy, as the public can't possibly know all the information required to make informed decisions, and the vast majority dont even try. Look up Technocracy. TOP was basically advocating for it.
@liamcollins9183
3 жыл бұрын
@@pauljackways1473 While I agree that STV is the best system, as it offers a good balance between proportionality and local representation, MMP was the system recommended by the Royal Commission back in the 80s, and it was on this basis that people chose MMP over other options, and is still far better than First Past the Post. The problem with technocracy is that it has a paternalistic nature, and can lead to a divide between the rulers and ruled, and would marginalise much of the public, and could ride roughshod over local interests, with little accountability. Over time this can cause resentment which will eventually boil over. Technocracy has its place within the Civil Service, whose job is to advise and serve the elected Government. A good contemporary example of this working well, is Public servants like Dr Ashley Bloomfield advising the Prime Minister in regards to Covid, which she uses to make her decisions. This way, decisions are based on expert advice, but the person who makes the final call is accountable to the voting public.
@BandidoDescalzo
3 жыл бұрын
👏👏 Lower the threshold to one Seat 👏👏 I made this comment before you said about this. Haha. Nice.
@davidhoward437
3 жыл бұрын
The theshold *is* one seat, the constituency seat. Tha Maori Party won a seat this way.
@RobBryher
3 жыл бұрын
No thresholds. The system shouldn't be deleterious of any votes at all. If it's hard to form coalitions, that's fine. A party or parties will have to govern on a case-by-case, minority or confidence and supply basis.
@HenrythePaleoGuy
3 жыл бұрын
I think a 3% threshold would be a good balance, although a Netherlands style could work as well.
@kiwiworldview318
3 жыл бұрын
If you’re going to have MMP, then all votes should actually count. Arbitrarily treating a whopping 7.5% of the populations vote as “discarded” disenfranchises them, and goes against what MMP is supposedly about. That’s not a truly democratic process.
@dkk9819
3 жыл бұрын
A threshold is a good thing but leads to wasted votes and strategic voting. The solution would be to turn the second vote into a ranked vote. That way you can keep the threshold and people can vote for small parties without wasting their vote.
@acommenter
3 жыл бұрын
I really don't like MMP because it suffers from the same spoiler effect that FPTP has, just to a lesser extent. Also having a threshold would exacerbate that. I don't see fractionalisation being intrinsically a problem, as long as the spoiler effect has been accounted for. most large parties could be split into a few smaller parties, allowing the electorate to vote on the which administration they prefer but they are likely to form a government at the end of it all. In other words I think STV is a superior system.
@sam.mckoy123
3 жыл бұрын
STV isn't a replacement for MMP, it would be an addon. It also technically works for FPTP.
@CH-ek2bm
3 жыл бұрын
I find your voice so relaxing
@ruskiny280
Жыл бұрын
Wish we had this system in the UK.
@ProjSHiNKiROU
3 жыл бұрын
My proposal: Allow ranking in party votes, so those wasted votes due to 5% are transferred to next in line (this is like IRV or STV for party votes with only 1 elimination round that removes parties
@Donut-Eater
3 жыл бұрын
3rd video in the past 4 weeks pog
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
but only the fourth of the year :( so had to try and catch up
@FreeJaffa92
3 жыл бұрын
As an American you make me laugh when you say proportional representation at 5% versus 4% of the vote. haaa. So jealous.
@FreeJaffa92
3 жыл бұрын
@Far Right will all due respect the Netherlands has a few to many party’s. 6-8 seems about the right number. I am also biased by what I see as the failure of the Israel system ( that is similar) to maintain a wide range of political view without oppression.
@charlesmadre5568
3 жыл бұрын
As a Hongkonger I'm jealous that seats in the House of Reps all have a similar number of voters. Half the seats in our legislature represent under 500 voters each.
@wandefter
3 жыл бұрын
4% does make sense more
@magicduke8386
3 жыл бұрын
My grandfather Doug Woolerton used to be an Mp for NZ First and he helped found it. His name is Doug Woolerton if anyone is wondering .
@mhillis8086
3 жыл бұрын
I’d been keen for it to lower to 1 or 2 percent of the vote at least then won’t have so many wasted votes
@mhillis8086
3 жыл бұрын
@Jeri Brown good point but 7% of votes are wasted that still seems little to high plus if you only have 1 seat (with your 1%) you don’t have to much pull, also sucks if your party got 4% of the vote and don’t get in that’s a lot of kiwis opinions discounted haha I’m probably just biased because I wasted my vote tho, maybe somewhere in between like 3%
@firstname6685
3 жыл бұрын
4% might be better. Certainly don't want it low enough to risk getting Advance NZ loonies into parliament though.
@jhfridhem
3 жыл бұрын
Another way to give more proportionality could be to have empty seats for blank votes and to represent parties that didn't make the cut. Though I have only ever seen this being considered on the internet.
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
Empty seats at the back wouldn't actually change anything though. They wouldn't vote so wouldn't matter. I think there might be extra seats anyway in case of overhangs but I'm not 100% sure.
@jhfridhem
3 жыл бұрын
@@Soliloquy084 Depends on the system, would change it in systems where a vote requires a majority voting yes.
@wandefter
3 жыл бұрын
America should use this system
@Donut-Eater
3 жыл бұрын
that is only an 8% multiplier
@Soliloquy084
3 жыл бұрын
so nothing to worry about then
@MRFlackAttack1
3 жыл бұрын
The solution to me would be to try and have less wasted votes. Maybe have a preference system like we do in Australia, so if a party doesn’t meet the threshold for representation, it’s votes are reallocate according to the preferences of the voters.
Пікірлер: 556