KEY POINTS:
The Electoral Commission, official guardian of our democracy, was strangely subdued until yesterday on the Electoral Finance Bill. Created 13 years ago, with MMP, the commission has never been a force for its improvement. The commission has been content to explain the system as textbooks do rather than
learn from our experience.
Never has this been more evident than in the commission's response to a survey it has recently conducted on the decline in numbers who vote at elections. Chief executive Helena Catt attributes the decline to deficiencies in knowledge of what MPs do and to attitudes to list MPs in particular.
Half of the 3000 voters surveyed strongly believed list MPs were not as accountable as electorate MPs, she said. "In fact, 53 per cent think that a sitting electorate MP who loses an electorate seat should not be able to return to Parliament through the party list."
Dr Catt said there was a long way to go before it was accepted that all MPs are equally accountable. "List MPs are elected, not just selected," she said, "and we certainly believe that the media and voters need to scrutinise party lists thoroughly at election time."
She is talking electoral theory, not reality. List MPs are not elected by anyone outside the mysterious procedures of party councils. They have no personal political territory as electorate MPs do. They are not "accountable" in the sense that they must make themselves available to their electors, attend local functions and listen to the concerns and complaints of all sorts of people.
The names of some backbenchers in Parliament today are completely unknown to the public. Where previously a quiet MP would be at least recognised in one region of the country, today a lowly ranked list MP can come and go unnoticed. No byelection is needed to replace them; their seat is filled by the next available name on the party's last election list.
List MPs may choose to nurse an electorate their party hopes to win, but the system does not require it of them. They are free to attend to national constituencies of supporters or sectors of interest and call this their accountability. They have no personal reliance on a district's approval; in fact, many who lose an electorate can return to Parliament on their party's list.
The commission cannot be surprised that more than half of its survey respondents dislike this aspect of MMP. Yet it still believes "education" can change their minds. Persistence in the face of disbelief ceases to be education and becomes futile propaganda.
The commission should be advocating a change or, if creative thinking is outside its brief, it should be pointing out that such thinking needs to be done. How hard would it be to devise something that would let voters, not parties, choose all MPs in a proportional system?
One simple way would be to award each party's seats to the candidates who received the most votes in electorate contests. That would ensure that every candidate had to stand in an electorate and worry about its view. Senior MPs, including ministers, could no longer relinquish electorate duties and rely on their high list placing for survival. Parties could no longer bring into Parliament people lacking broad appeal.
The latter consequence would be seen as a demerit by those who celebrate MMP for the diversity of representation it allows. But if they believe diversity is more important than accountability to a general electorate they should say so, not pretend that the accountability is equal. The Electoral Commission needs a reminder that no system is perfect and, when it seeks voters' views, it should respect their verdict.