Election chance to get rid of mad MMP voting

MMP. It stands for Mixed-Member-Proportional representation and it was introduced in 1996 to apportion seats in Parliament because the number of seats a party received was supposedly better related to the number of votes that party received.

Under MMP every voter receives two votes: one for a local candidate in their electorate, and one for a party.

Unfortunately MMP has failed New Zealand and at best could be described as Mad-Mis-Proportional representation.

It has failed because it establishes a system where votes for minority parties are worth more. Although the votes for minority parties are not worth literally more, per MP, minority parties have a large amount of influence over the decisions that are made by the Government.

For example, in the 2008 general election the Act Party won a mere 3.65 per cent of the vote, not even enough to get past the 5 per cent threshold that allows a party to get a seat in Parliament.

Yet because one Act candidate in one electorate was voted in, four other Act MPs made it into Parliament.

They didn't win any electorates of their own. Effectively they were voted in by the people of Epsom, who elected an Act MP.

So how come a vote in Epsom is worth so much more than everywhere else? Are the people of Epsom more important than me?

Believe it or not, it gets worse. Votes for minor parties end up earning those parties more seats in Parliament than votes for a major party.

In the 2008 general election, the winning National Party received 12 times more votes than the Act Party, yet the National Party only received 11 times more seats in Parliament.

The Labour Party received 10 times more votes that Act, yet only ended up with eight times as many seats.

So why is it that that the 3.65 per cent of voters who opted for Act have more proportional representation per MP than the 45 per cent who voted for National?

As no single party has held a majority since the introduction of MMP, governments have been formed by coalition.

This means that to take power the parties that the majority voted for must grovel at the feet of the minority. As a result, parties that only received a small minority of the vote suddenly have great bargaining power and force policies upon major parties, which the majority didn't vote for.

The 3.65 per cent of the population who voted for Act have been able to use their representation to push significant policies through Government, such as the "three strikes then you're out" rule for criminals.

When the majority of the population voted for one of the two major parties they didn't vote for a policy like this.

The premise of our democracy is that the majority rules, although the minority are still represented. MMP lets the minority rule.

This disenfranchises the public. Since MMP's introduction, voter turnout has never been above 80 per cent, dropping from the 85 per cent pre-MMP figure.

Why aren't people voting? Because the majority realises that under MMP their votes no longer carry any weight because the minority parties hold the parties they would vote for hostage.

This year we have a chance to rectify the wrongs of MMP and through the referendum bring back an electoral system that gives true representation.

So at this year's election take a stand against the misrepresenting ways of MMP and in the referendum vote for change.

Chris Ryan, Year 11, Howick College