Politics professor counters Willie Jackson's 'one person, one vote' argument

Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson said He Puapua is not Government Policy. Photo / NZME

Opinion

Willie Jackson argues that 'one person one vote' is just one value within democratic principles, not the only one. But everyone having a vote or votes of equal weight to elect those who represent them is not just one value, it is a foundational principle. As such, it is recognised in the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Of course, in local government, where there is only one vote, we talk of one vote/one value. Under MMP we can talk of two votes of equal value. It is the same principle.

Examples from other countries simply illustrate that the principles of democracy are rarely applied as fully as they could or should be. Analysed in depth, democracy is a matter of degree. Countries can be more democratic, or less, or not at all.

Of course, no one votes for the British House of Lords; it has quite limited powers, and many people would like to see it abolished.

The US electoral college and Senate are elected by one person-one vote within each American state. But because there is such variation in populations between states and US elections are held under the first-past-the post system, the outcome at the federal level is often undemocratic.

Because the results of US federal elections have become increasingly perverse of late, American democracy has entered the 'flawed' category in many people's estimates, including that of the influential weekly magazine The Economist.

It is hard to believe that Willie Jackson was indifferent to the election of Donald Trump as US President on a minority of the popular vote, and would really want to argue that the US is no less of a democracy as a result.

The rights of non-residential property owners to vote in local elections in New Zealand are a tricky topic. Only one vote per property is allowed. Within any local government area, all votes remain of equal value. But if a person owns multiple properties across local Councils, they can cast more than one vote, but for different Councils.

The same practice is possible if a person holds citizenship of more than one country, and can often have rights to vote in each. Few people object to this.

A non-residential vote in local government is justified on the grounds that local government is funded on rates, a property tax, and so the principle here is 'no taxation without representation'.

Voting in general elections used to be based on property qualifications, until the principle of voting equality for everyone became established. One can observe that non-residential voting rights are a throwback to that pre-democratic period, and go on to argue for their abolition of non-residential voting on those grounds.

Willie Jackson acknowledges that Aotearoa has changed from a majoritarian democracy to 'a more moderate, consensual and participatory democracy'.

On most estimates of the quality of democracy, our country rates high. 'Co-governance' has become part of that process. Co-governance is also something that is neither either/or: we can have more or less of it.

Some aspects of co-governance conflict with votes being of equal value, with implications for the quality of our democracy. We do not know how far the government intends to take us in that direction, nor the specifics of their thinking.

What we have seen so far smacks of ad hoc and reactive constitutional tinkering, rather the application of consistent principles.

Perhaps after Willie Jackson presents his paper to Cabinet responding to He Puapua, we will find out more.

Jack Vowles, Professor of Comparative Politics
Victoria University of Wellington