An election method to replace MMP

[IH Farrow]

[2nd attempt]


Gary Swing writes in response to my comment:

Ian: MMP is a fraud for voters since the only vote that really counts in 
the composition of the Parliament is the Party List vote (since a win 
in a constituency means one less Party List seat entitlement) while 
the system requires the completion of two ballot papers, leading the 
voters to believe that they have 'two votes'.

Gary: Both votes count. One for a local representative, one for
proportionality.

It is important to be explicit about the terminology, and I suspect that New Zealand voters may have misunderstood the exact operation of MMP when they voted for it in a referendum.  In the German MMP model, on which the New Zealand system is based, the system endeavours to produce strict proportionality in the parliament (Bundestag) based upon votes cast in the Party List ballot.  Therefore any electoral wins in constituencies (districts) will be offset by having the entitlement to a Party List MP reduced by the same number.  The only vote that really counts in this system is therefore the Party List vote.

This is different to the Mixed Member electoral systems used in Japan and Russia where there are effectively two elections for members of the Diet / Duma.  Under those systems elections for constituency (district) seats and Party List seats are treated separately so that there is proportionality in the members elected under the Party List system and simple majority first-past-the-post elections for the constituencies (districts).  Wins in constituencies (districts) do not reduce the entitlement to a Party List seat in the Diet / Duma.  

I understand that the Japanese system which is part of an 'electoral reform' has been abused by politicians through the facility which enables them to nominate in both the constituencies and the Party List elections (out of office on Sunday, back in office on Monday).  There are also restrictions on the ability of independent candidates to nominate for the Party List elections.  These corruptions of the system and general disquiet about the direction of Japanese politics have contributed to historically low levels of voter turnout.

I will still 'cast my lot' with the ordinal voting systems used to elect parliaments in Ireland, Malta and Australia.  Voters in these countries continue to demonstrate that they are sufficiently numerate to be capable of ranking candidates and parties on ballot papers in order of their preference every three or four years.  This can be applied to a range of elections, whether for single member constituencies, such as the Australian House of Representatives or to multi member constituencies elected by STV proportional representation, such as the Irish Dail.  The non-ordinal systems are, IMHO, poor alternatives that might be better suited to less numerate societies.

Regards


Ian Farrow	
e-mail: 	ifarrow at aip.com.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3541 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/19980415/cc526770/attachment.bin>