• Full Story

Brash prefers 'discredited' SM voting system

Email
Print

Mon, 02 May 2011 12:47p.m.

Don Brash

Don Brash

By Dan Satherley

MMP campaigners have hit out at Don Brash's call for New Zealand to ditch MMP for the supplementary member (SM) system.

According to this morning's New Zealand Herald, Dr Brash says he does not support returning to first past the post, instead pushing for SM.

Under SM, only a fraction of the total number of seats is allocated by a proportional vote.

“SM is an unpopular and discredited electoral system that sustains the worst aspects of first past the post,” says Sandra Grey, Campaign for MMP spokesperson.

“Under SM the votes of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders will be wasted as people’s choice of party would only be allocated to 30 list seats.
“Just like first past the post, this is likely to mean New Zealand will be governed by a political party that does not have the support of a majority of voters.”

Under MMP in its current form, the party vote directly relates to the number of seats a party receives in Parliament, provided it wins an electorate seat or 5 percent of the vote.

Under first past the post, whichever party wins the most electorates wins – the actual share of votes doesn't matter. The most notorious example of this in New Zealand election history occurred in 1981, when Social Credit got 21 percent of the vote, but only two seats in Parliament.

"That doesn't feel quite right in my view, so you do want a way in which small parties can have some representation in Parliament," says Dr Brash.

But his preferred system – SM – isn't proportional either, and nor is it popular with the public.

“Only 5.6 percent of New Zealanders supported SM the last time it was tested, at the 1992 referendum," says Ms Grey.

"More recently only 4 percent supported SM in last year’s UMR poll, down from 9 percent in their 2009 poll.”

SM is considered a combination of FPP and MMP, but does not deliver proportional results, favouring parties with larger shares of the vote. Compared to MMP, it is easier for parties to form a Government without coalition partners.

Prime Minister John Key is also believed to support SM.

3 News

 

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

11 Jul 2011 11:24a.m.

Laurence Hill wrote:

I'll admit that MMP is flawed and frankly there's not a perfect voting system out there but all of the other systems are exceptionally disproportionate and have failed recently in getting any real system in Fact The conservatives had to take the unusual step of relying on another minor party to form a govt ie MMP SM and Pref were used in the Aussie election and as a result Labour got back in because a few power hungry independent MP's backed them! All we really need to do is refine MMP and we will be fine the reason the Nats don't like it is because when done properly the smaller parties can keep the larger ones accountable and responsible.

04 May 2011 07:44a.m.

James J.Read wrote:

The advantage of Suppliaamentary Members as an electoral system is that we would have the same number of M.Ps as at present, but fewer List M.Ps.Having been a parliamentary candidate, I like the idea of 20 more M.Ps directly voted by the people.

03 May 2011 02:11a.m.

Ty wrote:

Maybe getting too old, but the days when ex Minister / Mayor Banks was scared of anything was when we had the FPP voting system and a Mr Muldoon. Then Mr Jones set up a party – achieved 12% of the vote and not one seat. While Social Credit with 7% held 2 seats. That’s FPP! Anyone / Party with all the power is not a fair portion of what the people believe, while I can’t stand the Greens they have people who believe and the 7% + are vindicated. The system we have of MMP is great, the results in the Australia Federal Election is a prime example 12% of the national vote for the Greens but 1 seat, not a fair crack of the whip ! MMP, 5% Cross over or win a seat – The Party vote wins. Fair and the big Blue or Red can't rule with a big M

02 May 2011 02:49p.m.

John Davis wrote:

Every few elections we seem to swing radically to the far left or the far right as the main parties embrace lesser more radical partys in a desperate attempt to get into power. Hell we even have a new more extreme Mana party as a result Its a never ending cycle of being fed up with our governments excessive pandering to special interests at the expensive of nzers.

02 May 2011 02:44p.m.

Joel wrote:

@ Erm... The thing is that "idiots" are people too and have the right to political representation the same as everyone else in any true democracy. Perhaps it's not MMP you have a problem with but the concept of democracy?

02 May 2011 02:11p.m.

Erm... wrote:

The problem with MMP is that it gives political clout to idiots.

02 May 2011 01:53p.m.

Gary wrote:

Everything that Brash prefers has been discredited.

02 May 2011 01:50p.m.

Wolfman wrote:

Just shows they were right when they said Dinosaurs Brains a the size of a Pea.

02 May 2011 01:39p.m.

Grant wrote:

'johnmillian' you forget to take your anti- psychotic medications today again.

02 May 2011 01:36p.m.

Ruz wrote:

Because Brash does not like FFP, it will for this reason that I vote for it at referendum time. Under this system we get eother Labour or National which will enable us to get rid of the extreme left and right parties, the loonies and the one-man band paries. Its not perfect but at least the tail dosen't wag the dog.