The Impact Of Mmp On New Zealand

FPTP offers a clear, elected MP that is responsible for their constituency, and can be held accountable if the constituent’s issues are not heard. For example, Sandra Osborne is the MP for the Ayrshire constituency, and is known as the sole representative of the constituents. If anyone wants their views represented in the House of Commons, they can contact Sandra directly and raise their issue with her. This clear link between a voter and an MP increases representation for voters, as their views can be raised in parliament. However, AMS doesn’t provide this clear link between a voter and an MSP, as the constituencies are: too large; contain multiple MSPs and are divided between constituency MSPs and regional MSPs. Because of there being 2 different types of MSPs – one elected and one not- there may be animosity between representatives that are supposed to be working together. There have been cases of constituency MSPs referring to list MSPs as “a lower breed” of politician. If there is conflict between MSPs that are supposed to be working together, are they able to fully represent a voters views? This divide may also create confusion for voters, as they may not know who to contact with their issues. There is also the problem of what are, essentially, unelected MSPs. List MSPs are decided by the party, not by the voter. AMS also doesn’t allow for by-elections, resulting in

The second rule that Sartori created was, “A party qualifies for relevance whenever its existence, or appearance, affects the tactics of party competition and particularly when it alters the direction of the competition- by determining a switch from centripetal to centrifugal competition either leftward, rightward, or in both directions- of the governing-oriented parties” (1983, p.19). This rule further highlights the importance of minor party preferences, and the role they have in the Australian system.

Under a minority government, no party has ultimate control of making policies, it instead rules on consensus with the other parties, conversely, in a majority government, a single-party dominates the legislative process. Though complex agreements between opposition parties, the governing party can maintain confidence. For example, countries including Canada use contract parliamentarism, where opposition parties agree to support the government in return for policy on other concessions (Akash et al., 2010, p. 216). While this promotes collective responsibility, parties are still able to decide their own position on most matters. Therefore, parties collaborate to protect minority agreements that “often survive a full parliamentary term” (Akash et al., p. 216). This can result in motions being passed that cover a broad variety of different topics that ultimately can address issues that all parties see lacking in

It has become widely accepted that Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. However, this system may not be in the best interest of Canada any more. There are many reasons why Canada should change its electoral system to a mixed member proportional one, a variant of proportional representation. With a first past the post system, the elected officials will always be of the majority and this excludes minorities from fair representation. Adopting MMP can create stronger voter turnouts, more personal campaigning, better individual representation, and better party selection. John Hiemstra and Harold Janson, are both in favour of a MMP electoral system. They understand that with the switch, the citizens will get more representation in

In this essay I will assess the outcomes of Additional Member system, First Past the Post system and the Closed Party List system. The F-P-T-P system is used to elect the members of House of Commons and local government in England and Wales. Voters select candidates, and do so by marking his or her name with an ‘X’ on the ballot paper. This reflects the principle of ‘one person, one vote’. The Additional Members system is used in Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly, and Northern Ireland Assembly and Greater London assembly. It is a mixed system made up of F-P-T-P and party-list elements. The Regional party list (or the closed party list) is used to elect the

Since party politics began in Canada, the style in which leaders are elected is comparable to a horse race. Using the single member plurality (SMP), more commonly referred to as “first past the post,” method of seat allocation in both the House of Commons and each province's Legislative Assembly, whoever gets the most votes is asked to form the government; this only takes into accounts the number of seats a party wins, not the overall popular vote. In a political system not limited to two parties, like the United States, many times over 50% of Canadians do not want the party that won, to win. In this current electoral system, votes are wasted, smaller parties are terribly misrepresented and, in some cases, a party with a lower percent of

A parliamentary government is a democratic form of government which operates on a party system. It is the most popular and widely adopted form of democracy. A state that operates on a parliamentary system is run by two executives, firstly the head of state who is either a monarch or president who then appoints a prime minister as the head of government. A parliament can be run by either a single majority political party or as a coalition government in which more than one party collaborate to form the government. In this essay I will be assessing the key strengths and weaknesses associated with a parliamentary government. In doing so I will conclude that whilst a parliamentary government has weaknesses its strengths outweigh these and therefore it is the superior form of democratic government.

After all, a central aspect of the proportional representation argument is that the government should be formatted in a manner that allows for the fair representation of the political opinion of Canadians. However, Kam points out how legislation is passed in an effort to represent the will of the majority of Canadians. But, he also argues that there is no such thing as a true majority, as there is no single policy that voters prefer to all others. In turn, he claims that “manufactured majorities” created as a result of the SMP system are not necessarily a bad thing, as they give parliament the stability needed to pass legislation. In comparison, he points out how the MMP system would give power to a number of smaller parties, and that these parties would impair parliament’s ability to pass policy.

Advocates of the parliamentary form of government suggested a few competitive strengths of this system of government. Since it has gained a stable parliamentary majority, the government is able to smoothly process its legislative project. In addition, the government is adequately furnished that it could still choose to adopt measures designed to support the national interests while many strong sectional groups oppose such measures (Dyck, 2012). The prime minister is the leader of this type of government, who is obliged to be responsive to all its people’s demands. Also, the people have the right to vote and replace the prime minister due to any incompetency of governance that does not address and fulfill their desires. This is known as the non-confidence vote; the government may be removed when it has lost confidence in the parliament, and cause the head of state to resign a new government (Dyck, 2012). An example of such measure occurred in Britain on March 28th, 1979. When James Callaghan’s labour government was defeated in the House of Commons just by one vote, it was forced into an early election that was won by the opposition leader Margaret Thatcher (Dyck, 2012). In this case, it can avoid or at least reduce the period of legislative gridlock, because of its flexibility in elections and the power is centered in the country’s prime

Micro-parties have been apart of the democratic landscape in Australia for many years but rose to prominence in Australia during and after the 2013 Federal election where the election delivered the biggest Senate crossbench in modern history. Due to their size the micro-parties have no real chance of forming government but they do have a huge opportunity in influencing electoral outcomes. Competition in any industry is positive and with the influx of micro-parties in Australia, most having an impact on the electorate and appealing to voters the new look Senate can be seen as a major win for Australian democracy.

The system that the Law Commission ultimately recommended was the mixed-member proportional electoral system. In the MMP system a portion of representatives, usually between 50 and 60 percent, are elected from single-member districts, similar to FPTP, with the remainder of seats being elected from party lists, based on the party’s share of the popular vote (Law Commission 22). Each voter gets to cast two votes, one for the party that they support and another for the representative member that they prefer. Party lists can be either closed, where voters are not able to influence the order of candidates, or open, where voters have the ability to influence the ranking of candidates. A threshold for representation is usually set in order to prevent fringe and extremist parties from gaining seats in government. This system is used in Germany, New Zealand, Venezuela and Lesotho (Joseph 113).

Voters are not the only people who benefit from the practice of party discipline. The practice is also fundamentally important for the stability of the Canadian government. Being a pluralist country means there are groups (political parties) of differing ideologies that represent

The New Zealand government at both a Local and National level is an excellent example of a modern, Representative Democracy. Different election systems, including First Past the Post (FPP), Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV), are used to allow electors to select representatives to sit on Councils, Boards and in Parliament. Some elements of Constitutional Monarchy are present in the New Zealand system of democratically elected representatives within a constitutional Monarchy contrasts well with the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

New Zealand is currently practicing democracy system, a system where the powers are vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representations such as public elections (Merriam-Webster online dictionary, n.d). Hence, parliamentary elections must be done every three years to elect new members of Parliament (MPs). On 1986, the formation of Constitution Act 1986 make UK completely powerless to legislate for New Zealand as the residual

(New Zealand Government, 2015, para. 1). Prime Minister John Key, the main advocate for change, officially launched such discussion last year in a public address he gave at Victoria’s University in Wellington. One of the main points presented in Key’s (2014) speech were his views on how he believes Moreover Key (2014) also argued (para. 88). So far the Prime Ministers proposal failed to inspire the public. On the contrary, it has produced a substantial amount of controversy. The main arguments seem to revolt around the issues of cost, process, national symbol, history and change. This paper will look more closely into each of these aforementioned public differences and close with my own view concerning this debate.