It’s a pretty special situation where you get praise just for not cheating but John Armstrong heaps it on Simon Power today.
Power has gone with the only acceptable structure for a vote on MMP. A two-stage decision where we first decide whether we want change and indicate our preferred alternative then, if a majority want change, a run-off between MMP and the most preferred alternative. It’s the same set-up as the referenda that chose MMP in 1992/1993.
So Power’s not screwing the scrum at this level. Well, that’s something I guess.
It’s slightly concerning that it has taken him this long to come up with the obvious structure (how hard is it to say ‘same again, thanks’?) and that he still won’t tell us what alternative electoral systems will be offered . Its not like there is a huge list of viable choices. Just go with the same options as last time with FPP in MMP’s place – SM, STV, FPP, and AV. Of course, SM came dead last that time, which wouldn’t fit the Right’s agenda.
I can see MMP winning at the first stage although there will certainly be a massive campaign from big business and National for FPP’s step-brother SM. It’s going to be up to the Left to remind people of why we chose MMP, and expose the interests of the people who want to get rid of it.
It’s going to be up to the Left to remind people of why we chose MMP
No its not. Plenty of those on the Right want MMP too.
I am fairly sure the hard right…you know ACT…will be pushing very hard for the retention of MMP.
Given that all the likely alternatives we’re being offered are terribly regressive in terms of representativeness, I’d seriously consider picking FPP as your preferred alternative just to sabotage the possibility of SM getting in.
Go figure of course that National wouldn’t want to offer a MORE representative system.
Ari,
Why not just vote to retain MMP? If more than half do, there will be no 2014 referendum.
L
because we get two votes first time ’round.
What option should we pick in the second question [to ensure MMP has the best chance if there’s a second referendum]?
Mm — the second question isn’t conditional on voting for change in the first question?
In that case Ari’s strategy makes perverse sense.
L
Why the expensive review?
well I know the Nats had the review in their election campaign but the promised 1999 review was only cited in a National Party minority select committee report(1999I think) that the press ran with It was never cast in stone.
As It appears highly likely that MMP will be retained ,was this”tyre kicking exercise” just a sop to the right wing of the Nat party? And if so a particularly expensive one
By 2011 40% of voters will have never known voted in any other way then MMP
What is SM?
Always wondered why STV didn’t get a hearing.
Sado masochism ?
“The Electoral Reform Coalition was formed to lobby the government for a referendum on the electoral system.
At the 1987 election, Prime Minister David Lange promised to hold a referendum on changing to MMP”
So who’s doing the lobbying now? & why is this even happening?
I have always quite liked the idea of the Swiss system – difficult to get more democratic that their system. probably.
Of course, NZers may not be ready for that much democracy….
Well MMP doesn’t seem to have helped the Greens anyway. See my blog http://www.greenbranz.org/?cat=26