So, just to get this right, people are upset that someone who won a seat, and decided to become part of a coalition to form a government, couldn't ask (demand) a couple of consessions, which, in return for getting, they most likely agreed to support a far larger amount of policies, which they may or may have not been in agreement with?
So Banksie and Dunn get what, 10 things that National will support them on, but in return they support 50, or 100? How is that not democratic?
I guess you could jump on the "Epsom" bandwagon, but apart from a cup of tea, how is it any different to just about all of the Green candidates who were standing for seats, but were only chasing the party vote?
Actually, IMO the most undemocratic thing is standing for a party, and not for a constituency. Who should an MP be accountable to? The party or the people?
Byrned: Actually, IMO the most undemocratic thing is standing for a party, and not for a constituency. Who should an MP be accountable to? The party or the people?
If you agreed with MMP apart from that (don't know just saying) then STV would be your favored option. In the STV option all MPs are electorate constituency MPs and voting for those MPs is direct. There are multiple MP's per electorate, so a vast majority of people in an electorate end up with someone they voted for representing them in parliament. Except for the minor party voters.
IMHO (and kind of off topic) - personally I vote for the party with the policy mix I want, so the party vote side of things actually suits me in MMP. To me this represents national interest in a more focused way rather than regional interests represented by electorate MPs. If an elected electorate constituency MP did not deliver, or in fact delivered the opposite then I would actively vote against them. If a party had someone like that on their list, then I would not vote for that party at all, and instead actively vote in favor of a party which was very clear about the item of concern. I think the mixed electorate and proportional system works very well in this regard.
During the original MMP vs FPP debate prior to the 1993 referendum, the accountability of list MPs thing was the key point in the debate. In practice it doesn't seem to have been a problem.
Essentially there has never been an elected representative recall provision in the electoral system so any real accountability has always been election time only.
Note: The 'specials' vote count was completed today - 57.77% to continue with MMP.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
