from wiki "next NZ election"
Voters in New Zealand will elect 120 members to the unicameral New Zealand House of Representatives under the mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting system, a proportional representation system in which 72 members will be elected from single-member electorates and 48 members from closed party lists. [ the top-up].
How to prevent false majority
If top-up members were increased to half of the total members, say to 72, (increase of 24) then no way for a party to take majority of seats without majority of votes.
a party can take far more SMD seats than its vote share but if so does not get more top-up seats so no way to go up past 72 (half) unless vote share says so.
Preferential voting would decrease vote waste, increase portion of vote used to actually elect someone, allow supporters of party below threshold to influence representation even if not electing their first choice.
Candidate can be elected with 34 percent (give or take) of votes in a district, thus .34 of 1/72nd of NZ population - give or take -- some districts are larger or smaller than others - is potentially enough to elect a member.
Other than overhang problem, each party is due one seat for each 1/120th of votes cast for parties eligible for representation.
PR is based on votes able to be used to elect someone - votes for parties under threshold are not counted.
Parties with less than threshold are not eligible for top-up seats unless they got one or more SMD seat.
So one-seat rule empowers parties who might otherwise be denied rep due to being under threshold.
Lowering threshold "empowers" more and more parties and makes more vote eligible for counting for PR.
If all votes are counted for PR (likely an impossibility) then .83 percent of the vote is enough for a seat.
(possibly "effective threshold" for one seat is less than .83, because of how many votes are not valid for PR counting)
Reducing it below .83 percent thus in some cases would make no difference.
Threshold at any level higher than .83 does mean some party with more .83 percent may be denied rep. unless it wins a seat (if one seat rule still in effect).
And "cliff" like threshold causes dis-proportion effect of slight increase.
The higher the threshold, the more sudden the jump for those who make it.
5 percent threshold: going from 4.99 percent to 5 percent of votes cast could mean jumping from 0 seats to 7 (possibly more, depending on how many votes are valid for PR counting)
4 percent threshold: going from 3.99 percent to 4 percent could mean jumping from 0 seats to 4.8 (4 or 5?), (possibly more, depending on how many votes are valid for PR counting)
3 percent threshold: going from 2.99 percent to 3 percent could mean jumping from 0 seats to 3.6 (3 or 4?), (possibly more, depending on how many votes are valid for PR counting)
2 percent threshold: going from 1.99 percent to 2 percent could mean jumping from 0 seats to 2.4 (2?), (possibly more, depending on how many votes are valid for PR counting)
so the lower the threshold (with .83 being about the minimum), the less the windfall benefit of attaining threshold.
If threshold is maintained at 5 percent, it could be softened by saying any party would be eligible for top-up, if it takes say 15 percent of the vote in six or more ridings (possibly 57,000 votes or more, equivalent of 3 percent of NZ's 2M votes).
Or that any party would be eligible for top-up, if it takes say 15 percent of the vote in four or more ridings (possibly 40,000 votes or more, equivalent of 2 percent of NZ's 2M votes).
Or that any party would be eligible for top-up if it takes say 8 percent of the vote in 36 ridings (about 4 percent of NZ's overall votes)
And leeway could be given to allow vote percentage to be taken altogether in the six or 36 districts, or it could be done more strictly percentages required district by district.
The requirement could be an average of at least 15 percent in each of the six districts or could be a minimum of at least 15 percent in each district - one is looser than the other.
Transferable votes, if used, may allow small party to jump the threshold if transferred votes (transferred back-up preferences) are counted for threshold.
These or other some such "coming in through the back door" rules could soften even a 5 percent rule.
if there are enough backdoor rules, the threshold, even if left at 5 percent, would cease to be much of a problem.
unfairness under present system
A party can have 9000 votes, this is enough to be elected to one seat if all is in one district but if it is spread over 2 districts no seat. so under existing rule, party would not win a seat and not be eligible for top up,
While another party could have one main candidate and get 9000 votes in one district to take the seat and be eligible for top-up
While another party could have 4.5 percent of votes (90,000 votes) spread equally across the whole country and not be eligible for top-up.
NZ's existing rules do not recognize the gradients of support between none at all and having enough to win a seat. "empowering" parties who have support somewhere in those gradients is way to find there is justice and fairness and open-ness.
===============================
Comments