Vote for more accountable MPs

Jordan Williams is a public and commercial lawyer based in Wellington and is spokesman for Vote for Change. www.voteforchange.org.nz.

On Saturday we will vote on whether MMP should stay as our voting system. The most important question in the referendum is the first. Only a vote for change provides for a second referendum in 2014.

Change does not get rid of MMP; but it will give Kiwi voters the chance to in 2014. If voters decided to retain the current system then politicians control any changes made.

That is hardly going to make MPs more accountable. It's the foxes guarding the hen house. For that reason alone, you should tick change.

The second question asks what system you would prefer if we do change from the current one.

In 1996 New Zealand went from the extreme of the First Past the Post (FPP) voting system to another extreme, MMP. FPP nearly guaranteed majority government. MMP nearly guarantees the opposite, minority government.

MMP has replaced winner-takes-all results with a bidding war every three years between National and Labour for the votes of a small party to form a government. The tail wags the dog.

Minority government is not always bad, but makes it much harder to keep politicians accountable as we do not know what party is responsible for what. MMP makes it easier for politicians to blame each other.

The middle option is Supplementary Member (SM). SM has the best features of MMP and FFP, local accountability and minor parties being represented in Parliament.

Those who originally supported MMP argued that it would produce governments that were more accountable to voters. That has not happened. MMP makes politicians accountable to parties, not voters.

Under FPP, the vulnerable politicians in marginal seats would stand up for the interests of their constituents. Their neck was on the line if their party strayed too far from the wishes of the public.

Under MMP, those vulnerable MPs stick to their party line to ensure they are rewarded with a high list position.

Democracy works because we can "boot the rascals out". Booting MPs out under MMP is hard. A lost MMP electorate just means an additional list MP.

Rejected electorate MPs too often sneak back in on a party list because they follow the party line and the party gives them a good list position.

For the local MP, Chester Borrows, the electorate seat of Wanganui doesn't matter. He is a near certainty to get back into Parliament. He is high on the National party list.

It is harder to boot out a Government under MMP. It is usually the small parties with the balance of power that get to decide which major party forms the Government.

In 1996, having bagged Jim Bolger throughout the campaign, Winston Peters choose to keep that National Government in office.

In 2005, Mr Peters toyed with the voters by talking on both a red and a blue telephone during the campaign. He wanted the country guessing who he would back.

With SM a lost electorate does not give a party another list MP. The party vote proportion is used only to allocate the proportion of list MPs. The party vote doesn't over-rule the electorate results.

With SM accountability to electorates is increased. Electorate MPs have more of an incentive to stand up for their constituencies to keep their seat.

MMP is often credited for our improved diversity in Parliament. While our MPs are now more reflective of society MMP is not the sole cause. Georgina Beyer, the world's first openly transsexual MP was not elected thanks to MMP. She won the rural FPP Wairarapa seat. Don't be fooled that only MMP ensures minorities are represented.

The argument that it was MMP that brought more women into politics is also questionable. All over the world more women are entering parliaments, under all sorts of electoral systems. Here, most of the high-ranking female MPs are electorate MPs. Most of Labour and National's high list positions are occupied by males.

There are is some advantages of having list MPs. Parties are able to bring into Parliament skilled individuals that might not otherwise be suited to representing a constituency. This only happens rarely, with more party hacks and failed electorate MPs getting safe list seats than skilled individuals.

The current system gives us at least 50 list MPs. Vote for Change argue that 50 is too many. Parliament has too many party cheerleaders rather than the skill and diversity.

SM reduces the number of list MPs to 30. SM reduces the ability of failing electorate MPs relying on the list to get back into Parliament.

The current system is labelled as a proportionate system. In process it is - if a party wins say 10 per cent of the party votes, it will win approximately 10 per cent of the seats in Parliament. But a proportionate process does not mean proportionate results. Too often small parties hold the balance of power. The current system gives those small parties much more power than their vote suggests.

SM allows for representation of the small parties, without disproportionate bargaining power.

A vote to "change" does not boot out the current system but it does ensure voters have the final say on our electoral system.