An expatriate weighs in on electoral reform

Proportional system works for Kiwis, John Egan writes.

Six years ago, we relocated to Auckland, New Zealand from Vancouver.

In several ways, Auckland is 10 to 15 years behind B.C. Developing housing density, embracing multiculturalism and building mass transit are all areas where Auckland would do well to emulate British Columbia.

In terms of politics, two things surprised me about New Zealand.

First, voting is not limited to New Zealand citizens. Anyone who has a resident visa is eligible to vote after one year of residence.

Second, in New Zealand parliamentary elections, a proportional system is used rather than Canada’s first-past-the-post system.

The proportional voting system used here is Mixed Member Proportional. Not all MMP systems are identical. In New Zealand, a voter gets two votes, one for their local MP and one for their preferred party. There are 120 seats in parliament, with 71 seats representing specific ridings. The candidate who gets the most votes wins these seats.

The remaining 49 seats are allocated from party lists on a proportional basis to the national “party vote.” A party needs to either win at least one riding or get at least five per cent of the party vote to win “list” seats.

The party vote is most important because the allocation of seats is based on 120-seat proportionality, including the riding results.

In the last election, the Labour Party had a party vote of 36 per cent, which earned it 46 total seats. Since Labour won 29 ridings, it got 17 more “list” MPs. New Zealand First got seven per cent of the party vote but won no ridings; nine from their list became MPs.

There has not been an outright majority government in New Zealand since MMP was launched in 1996. Every government has either been a coalition of two or more parties or been a minority government with a “confidence and supply” agreement around a key set of priorities.

The New Zealand government elected last year combines both a coalition and a confidence and supply agreement with three parties.

You might assume this makes for a lack of stability, but the opposite is true. During postelection negotiations, commitments are made to specific bills, allocations of funding and even infrastructure initiatives. Once the government was announced, each party got part of what they campaigned for. Each of the government parties got some of their policies supported.

This sort of comprise is typical of a New Zealand MMP government.

Under first past the post, the National Party’s 44 per cent would have given it a false majority and the ability to implement policies — the 56 per cent of voters who supported the other parties would not have been representation in that government. Under MMP, the National Party got 56 seats. New Zealand First negotiated with both Labour and the Nationals and chose Labour.

MMP isn’t perfect. It is still difficult for independent politicians to win seats.

But a greater diversity of ideas makes its way into parliament and more voters have representation of their views.

MP sun der MMP have to work collaboratively. Unlike proportional systems like single-transferable vote or dual-member proportional, it is transparent where your two votes go.

And MMP doesn’t require weeks of counting ballots after an election. We knew 99 per cent of the results in last year’s election a few hours after polls closed.

Were I still living in B.C., I would vote yes to PR, ranking MMP as my first preference.

You might assume this makes for a lack of stability, but the opposite is true.