Tauranga MP Simon Bridges is hoping a ‘better' voting system will be chosen after this year's referendum being held alongside the November 26 general election.
He plans to vote against the current system, MMP, in favour of the supplementary member system.
Simon Bridges likes the supplementary member eletoral system for New Zealand.
The National led government is not taking a position on the MMP referendum, but Simon personally believes MMP hands too much power to minor parties.
'(It) gives too much control to the behind-closed-door dealings of party bosses who decide our party lists,” says Simon.
'The supplementary member system takes the best of MMP while also helping to ensure that the tail doesn't wag the dog and that our democracy is done out in the open rather than behind closed doors.
'Under SM there are still party lists that allow parties to ensure there is diversity, but there are also more local MPs representing specific geographic regions.
'In effect, the supplementary member system is a cross between FPP and MMP, taking the best tendencies of both.”
Simon does not believe voters want a return to first past the post – the voting system in place before MMP.
Simon will be backing SM strongly in the lead up to the election.
Read about the five suggested electoral systems here.
12 comments
Gee really?
Posted on 31-05-2011 08:36 | By Chris
Colour me surprised when Mr Bridges promotes the less-fair, non-proportional voting system. You always did tow the party line, Bridges. Also, I love his characterisation of SM - 'In effect, the supplementary member system is a cross between FPP and MMP, taking the best tendencies of both.”. Wow, just wow.
FFP
Posted on 31-05-2011 10:14 | By Openknee8ted
Under FFP it is no use having an opposition, because they can't do anything. No tails wagging the dictatorship dog. So we may as well not have the opposition and do without the cost to tax payers of the losers who are effectively employed to do nothing.
14GK
Posted on 31-05-2011 11:08 | By 14GK
It's interesting that Mr Bridges prefers change - and it's not First Past the Post as alleged by Brendan Horan elsewhere on this site. For myself I would prefer fewer List MPs making it to Parliament and believe that could still happen under MMP. Certainly 60 getting in on the List is way too high - maybe 30 is better?
MMP is best
Posted on 31-05-2011 12:39 | By dgk
MMP prevents the kind of dictatorships that National and its MP's prefer. Like situations where the minority dictate who is in power that we had under FPP.
Single Transferable even better
Posted on 31-05-2011 13:02 | By Rich
I find it interesting that both last time there was a vote on this issue, and this time, too, the Single Transferable option has not been discussed as a positive option for people getting to really pick who they would prefer to be have represent their electorate, even though it does so more than FPP, MMP or Supplemental.
MMP the only way
Posted on 31-05-2011 15:36 | By ronillian
I guess it makes sense that the 2 large parties would not like representation of minor parties in Parliament reflecting the will of the people!! Too fair!! Any system other than proportional representation is unfair and disenfranchises a good % of the population. MMP may need tweeking but it's simply unfair and not logical to throw the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting MMP in its entirety. A vote for MMP in teh referendum is a vote for a revised MMP system. Minorities deserve a voice in parliament in proportion to their numbers.
Simon with respect
Posted on 31-05-2011 19:09 | By Nigel Barker
Surely there are far more important things to get your teeth into than this crap. You took absolutely "NO" "ZILCH" notice or concern about the many many parents that opposed the anti smacking *((%#$&()*. Why should we believe you on this??? I am sure you get the message without me spelling it out. And I might ad that I speak as a parent of two adopted children (when we could do that in NZ) and a foster parent of many others. Simon I even took the time to visit you and discuss in detail how the "help for the elderly" was being abused - grossly abused by the providers & I had proof. Do you remember what you told me?? Now who is it that is saying the system needs looking at?? Simon if you really have the courage of your convictions meet with me again and as said previously I 'will' provide evidence of how "YOUR NATIONAL" system is being screwed by millions. I did try another way to communicate with you - result- waste of my time. Simon in my opinion you are way way to young to become "a typical politician". And of course you are not yet illegible for "the life time perks" Heard of K.I.S.S.?? Keep It Simple Simon!!
80 MP seats max,
Posted on 01-06-2011 09:27 | By POCO O POCO
The best system is a preferential voting option not some hand picked party list with political listers no one has ever heard of sprouting forth.Ditch the list and the 4 maori seats and lets get on with life.
change to MMP
Posted on 04-06-2011 17:54 | By Glen Clova
Something has to be done to the system as at the moment a party which had more votes than all the minor party's put together didn't have one member of Parliament.
Democracy?
Posted on 10-06-2011 15:01 | By morepork
Here's how it is supposed to work: 1. Discuss the issues. 2. Have a vote. Some win, some lose. The ones who lose accept that the majority didn't like their solution and set about changing minds for next time. They don't bleat about not being represented (they actually WERE represented; they just had a losing position) and the majority don't just impose their mandate with roughshod jackboots. (Although they have a mandate it isn't a licence to ignore the concerns of the minority.) The system is supposed to be for the good of ALL, with a chance every few years for ALL to see if they changed their minds in the light of what happened. Instead, we have a personality circus, with the loudest claiming to be the "rightest", no real communication or attempt to understand opposing viewpoints, policy often being dictated by the Party line (even if a candidate personally disagrees with it), and petulant minorities disrupting the whole system (strikes, even terrorist attacks in some countries, certainly refusal to accept the majority vote) with the resultant polarization into extremes, which makes compromise almost impossible. In my opinion, MMP doesn't work because it gives disproportionate power to minorities. If they didn't have that option they'd have to get on with managing with policies they didn't vote for and showing up the shortcomings in those policies (that's why you have an Opposition in Parliament), with a view to getting the electorate to change their minds next time. First Past the Post is a "purer" form of Democracy, but it can be brutal when issues are hotly contested and won by a narrow margin. It is still better than MMP, inasmuch as it reflects the will of the majority of the people who voted. (It may not reflect the will of the country as a whole if many people do not vote, but it is then fair to conclude that people who didn't vote don't care, or reject the whole system. (It would be interesting to see what would happen if absolutely NOBODY went to the polls on election day... :-))) In Oz it is mandatory to vote, although you can spoil your paper as a protest against the system. (Doesn't achieve much, but some would argue that voting doesn't either, and at least it makes you feel better.) So, if you are still with me and agree that neither MMP nor FPP are a "Good Thing" Then what are the other options? Simon likes Supplementary Member, but I'm not so sure. You still get unelected list MPs and I'm not sure that we need or want MORE members to choose from. I didn't know much about the Single Transferable Vote system so I looked it up. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote) I was surprised to find it is widely used and it seems to me to be very fair. It transcends Parties and comes down to individuals in specific electorates (Democracy originally was not intended to be a Party system). At least it doesn't allow a List MP to be placed in an electorate, and you are likely to get someone you expressed SOME preference for, rather than accepting a stranger placed by a party. Apparently, the main objection to it is that people find it too hard to vote... It requires the ability to be able to count to three :-)
REQUIRED FIRST IS ..
Posted on 12-06-2011 17:11 | By THE RING MASTER
The voters need to be fully informed of the 'truth' not the political football / fee good / look good stuff that is sprewed out three yearly.
@ RING MASTER
Posted on 13-06-2011 13:49 | By morepork
Truth, huh? Unfortunately, that particular commodity is very hard to get a hold of and tends to change its shape depending on who is propounding it. Our best defence is to teach our young people to think for themselves and balance what is credible against what is being offered. Politics really has very little to do with truth; it is about providing what is palatable. That's why we (generally) get the politicians we deserve. If we weren't such pushovers, we might get better Government... :-)
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.