Technical point on MMP

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Technical point on MMP

gcorgnet

1096 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 273

ID Verified

#307172 26-Sep-2023 07:29

Hi all, I have a quick question and haven't been able to find anything relevant online, so I thought I would seek the wisdom of this crowd.

In a few articles, poll results are being shared. When it comes to Te Pati Maori, their percentage seems to be aroudn the 2-3%, and the articles mention that this would give them 3-4 seats in parliement.

Yet, when it comes to Winstown Peters, they indicate that he needs to be over the 5% threshold for his party to be able to get back into parliement.

I'm wondering where this difference come from? Are some partiers not subject to the threshold?

* Note: This is a genuine curious question. I am not trying to kick off any heated debate about race or politics. Just trying to understand, thanks

Handle9

11925 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3131918 26-Sep-2023 07:41

It’s nothing to do with race.

If you win an electorate seat then the threshold is waived. It was the same situation as ACT in Epsom for a number of elections.

Te Pati Maori will likely hold Waiariki so they get the extra MPs up to their proportional vote.

gcorgnet

1096 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 273

ID Verified

#3131921 26-Sep-2023 07:50

Handle9: It’s nothing to do with race.

If you win an electorate seat then the threshold is waived. It was the same situation as ACT in Epsom for a number of elections.

Te Pati Maori will likely hold Waiariki so they get the extra MPs up to their proportional vote.

Nice! Thanks for that. I knew there would be a simple explanation to this yet wasn't able to find information when reading about MMP.
Also find it strange that news article don't ever seem to cover this subtlety in their reporting.

Thanks!

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#3135769 28-Sep-2023 11:06

I think it's a stupid rule that the threshold is waived just because the party gets an electorate seat. It blurs the distinction between electoral candidate vote and party vote.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3136180 29-Sep-2023 02:07

Paul1977:

I think it's a stupid rule that the threshold is waived just because the party gets an electorate seat. It blurs the distinction between electoral candidate vote and party vote.

I disagree. When an electorate votes for a candidate, it would be an undemocratic insult to then say "ooh, too bad so sad your candidate's party only got 4% so nope, they're not your MP"

Yes it results in, well, ACT thanks to Epsom - but it's the best outcome of all the bad outcomes.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#3136327 29-Sep-2023 09:53

Kyanar:

I disagree. When an electorate votes for a candidate, it would be an undemocratic insult to then say "ooh, too bad so sad your candidate's party only got 4% so nope, they're not your MP"

Yes it results in, well, ACT thanks to Epsom - but it's the best outcome of all the bad outcomes.

I think he is saying that they should not get a share of the party vote as opposed to the MP doesn't get in. So in your Epsom example excluding the last cycle it would have been David Seymour only.

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#3136537 29-Sep-2023 13:32

itxtme:

Kyanar:

I disagree. When an electorate votes for a candidate, it would be an undemocratic insult to then say "ooh, too bad so sad your candidate's party only got 4% so nope, they're not your MP"

Yes it results in, well, ACT thanks to Epsom - but it's the best outcome of all the bad outcomes.

I think he is saying that they should not get a share of the party vote as opposed to the MP doesn't get in. So in your Epsom example excluding the last cycle it would have been David Seymour only.

I think they should get to represent their electorate, as they were voted in to do, but shouldn't count as one of 120 seats in Parliament as their party didn't get enough votes to have a say at the national level. This means they could eliminate the concept of "overhang" seats as well. With the current system a party with 2% (or less) of the party vote can get seats in parliament, and potentially even be "King Maker", while another party with 4% of the party vote gets no seats. To me that is undemocratic.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3136622 29-Sep-2023 16:12

Ah ok, yeah I definitely would agree with you there.