Exhaustive Notes on New Zealand Electoral Systems: From First Past the Post to Mixed Member Proportional

Administrative Announcements and Course Context - V-stream Recording Issues: Technical difficulties impacted the recording of the previous week's lecture. While a recording indicator exists, it was not visible to the lecturer. Students are assured the issue is reportedly resolved. - Assessment Policy regarding Guest Speakers: Content from Tamatha Poole's guest visit will not be included in any assessments to ensure fairness, as some students were unable to access notes or recordings due to weather events and technical issues. - Schedule Adjustments: The sequence of lectures has been modified due to weather events. The lecture on electoral systems is occurring now, which may slightly mismatch the original reading schedule, but the course intends to be back on track within the next week. - Upcoming Assessment: A test is scheduled for Week 12. Students are encouraged to complete the readings on electoral systems before this date. # Defining Electoral Systems and Global Comparisons - Definition: An electoral system is the formal mechanism used to elect representatives to a parliament. - Historical Origins in New Zealand: The New Zealand colonial government adopted (or "plagiarized") the United Kingdom’s electoral system during the 19th century. - Variations in Outcomes: Different systems produce vastly different political results. Examples include: - Australia: Employs a “two-party preferred” system involving the distribution of voter preferences. - Canada and the United Kingdom: Continue to use the First Past the Post (FPP) system. - New Zealand: Uses Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) since 1996. - Impact on Voter Behavior: Academic literature indicates that the type of electoral system can shift how individuals choose to vote, meaning comparisons between systems (e.g., “what if this FPP election was MMP?”) must be handled with caution. - The Lange Quote: The late Prime Minister David Lange (elected 1984) famously remarked: “Asking politicians to design an electoral system is like asking panel beaters to design intersections.” This implies politicians will naturally design systems that provide the greatest advantage to themselves and their specific political parties. # The Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) System Structure - The Two-Vote System: Each voter receives two distinct votes: 1. Electorate Vote: Determines the geographical representative for the voter's specific area. 2. Party Vote: Determines the total number of seats a party receives in the House of Representatives. This is considered the more important vote as it dictates the overall composition of Parliament. - Electorate Composition: - There are 65 General Electorates. - There are 7 Maori Electorates. - Seat Allocation: Political parties create “party lists.” If a party's entitlement based on the party vote exceeds the number of electorate seats they won, they draw candidates from this list to “top up” their representation. - Requirement for Representation: To enter Parliament, a party must meet at least one of two criteria: - Win at least $5\%$ of the total party vote. - Win at least one electorate seat. # Calculating Parliamentary Seats: Thresholds, Coattailing, and Overhangs - The Threshold and Coattailing: - If a party fails to reach the $5\%$ party vote threshold but wins an electorate seat, the threshold is waived. This is known as the "coattailing provision." - Example (2008 Election): The ACT party won only $3.6\%$ of the party vote but won the Epsom electorate; they received 5 MPs. Conversely, New Zealand First won $4.1\%$ of the party vote but won no electorates, resulting in 0 MPs. - Basic Seat Arithmetic: - Total seats in Parliament typically equal 120. - If a party wins $40\%$ of the party vote: $0.40 \times 120 = 48$ seats total. - If that same party won 30 electorate seats, they would receive $48 - 30 = 18$ list seats. - If a party wins $15\%$ of the party vote: $0.15 \times 120 = 18$ seats total. If they won 0 electorates, all 18 MPs would come from the party list. - Overhang Seats: An “overhang” occurs when a party wins more electorate seats than their party vote percentage entitles them to. This increases the total size of Parliament beyond 120 (e.g., to 121 or 122 seats). This frequently occurs with Te Pāti Māori. # Geographical and Demographic Distribution - Electorate Density: There is a high density of electorates in metropolitan areas, particularly Auckland (e.g., Mount Albert, Epsom, and Mount Eden). - Political Clusters: The National Party typically performs better in large, rural electorates, while other parties may concentrate strength in urban centers. - Maori Electorates (7 Total): - Te Tai Tokerau - Tāmaki Makaurau (Auckland area) - Hauraki-Waikato - Waiariki - Te Tai Hauāuru - Ikaroa-Rāwhiti - Te Tai Tonga - These electorates reflect the distribution of voters on the Maori roll and ensure indigenous representation. # Governing Arrangements and Coalition Dynamics - Consensus Democracy: Unlike FPP, MMP rarely results in a single party holding an absolute majority ($50.1\%$ or higher). The only exception since 1996 was the 2020 election where the Labour Party won a majority alone due to COVID-19 impacts. - 2017 Election Case Study: - National Party won $44.45\%$ of the vote (the largest single party). - Labour Party (“the Dude Bro Alliance” in the lecture scenario) formed a government by negotiating with New Zealand First (“My Little Pony”) and the Green Party (“Fishing and Beers”). - Result: A minority coalition government between Labour and NZ First, supported by a “confidence and supply” agreement from the Greens. # Historical Context: The First Past the Post (FPP) Era - Mechanics of FPP: Voters had only one vote for a local representative. The candidate with a plurality (the most votes, not necessarily a majority) won the seat. The party with the most seats formed the government. - Mechanical Effects and Anomalies: - Disproportionate Rewards: FPP often gives the first and second-place parties more seats than their actual share of the national vote. - The "Wrong Party" Wins: In 1978 and 1981, the National Party won more seats and formed the government despite receiving fewer total votes than the Labour Party. - 1978 Statistics: National won $55.4\%$ of seats with only $39.8\%$ of the vote. Social Credit won $16.1\%$ of the vote but only $1.1\%$ of the seats (1 seat). - Elective Dictatorship: Former PM Robert Muldoon's era is often described this way because the executive (Cabinet) had total control over policy with very few checks. Factors included: - Single-chamber (Unicameral) system: New Zealand lacks an Upper House or Senate (unlike Australia or the U.S.) to review legislation. - Cabinet Collective Responsibility: Once Cabinet agreed, laws could be passed with extreme speed. # Reasons for the Shift to MMP - Legitimacy and Participation: Under FPP, voters in “safe seats” (e.g., a National voter in a solid Labour seat) often felt their vote was wasted and stopped participating. MMP ensures every party vote counts toward the final parliamentary composition regardless of geography. - Diversity of Representation: Pre-MMP parliaments were often monocultural and dominated by Pakeha men, as candidate selection was controlled by small party committees. MMP party lists allow parties to intentionally increase the representation of women, indigenous people, and migrant communities to reflect contemporary New Zealand. - Reform Timeline: - 1986: Royal Commission suggests an electoral system change. - 1992/1993: Referendums were held. The 1993 referendum asked: “Should we keep FPP or change to MMP?” - 1993 Result: $53.9\%$ voted for MMP; $46.1\%$ voted for FPP. - 1996: The first MMP election was held. # Historical and Modern Reviews of MMP - 1996 Post-Election Chaos: The shift was initially difficult; a breakdown in the National/NZ First coalition in 1999 led to public skepticism. - 2011 Review: PM John Key initiated a “kicking the tires” review. Voters chose to keep MMP ($57.8\%$). Key recommendations (not yet fully implemented) included: - Removing the coattailing provision. - Lowering the party vote threshold from $5\%$ to $4\%$. - 2023 Review: Recent recommendations included: - Lowering the threshold to $3.5\%$. - Addressing the ratio of electorate seats to list seats. As the population grows, the number of electorates increases, which eats into the number of list seats available under the 120-seat cap. # Examination Revision Topics - Key topics for the Week 12 test: - 1. Limitations of political polling (from previous lecture). - 2. Defining and explaining the coattailing provision. - 3. Understanding and identifying “overhang” seats. - 4. Procedural math: Calculating the number of list and electorate seats based on hypothetical percentage outcomes.