There's something about MMP ...

There is something about the MMP (Mixed Member Parliament) system that is leaving countries deadlocked in elections this season. Both New Zealand and Germany have heads of political parties fighting to be strong enough to form a stable government.

Before I get into this whole election thing, I want to say that it has been a very entertaining election. The campaign period is 6 weeks long, and it has been a crazy six weeks. There have been leaked emails, secret meetings, accusations of National policies being dictated by American think-tanks, a candidate betting his left testicle on the outcome of the election (which led to National leader Don Brash asking his candidates to not mention their testicles), harrassment charges, another candidate threatening to run naked through the streets of Epsom if Rodney Hide was re-elected, and so much more. It went right up to when the ballots were being counted! On election night, someone stole a plane from an airfield in Auckland, theatened to crash it in to the Sky Tower (the tallest building in Auckland), before crashing into the harbour, all supposedly in an attempt to get his wife back. Staying home on Saturday night to watch the results come in was very entertaining.

One more thought before I begin. New Zealand is all in one time zone, which means all the polls open and close at the same time. I think this is much better than in the United States. First of all, there can be no campaigning on election day. All billboards must be covered up, all bumper stickers removed, all leaflets trashed, etc. Supporters can only wear the party colours, not specific names. Also, all media coverage starts when the polls close. I think it is a bad situation when, in the United States, you have coverage beginning three hours before people in California stop voting. If I was a left-leaning Californian who heard that Bush had carried most of the East Coast, it would possibly get me out to the voting booths whereas before I wouldn't have voted. It can also swing the other way. If I was the same voter and saw the Bush had carried so many states that mine probably wouldn't matter, I may be discouraged and stay away from the polls whereas before I may have voted. Therefore, media coverage before polls close skews voter turnout. I believe everyone should vote (especially because I say you can't complain if you don't vote, and everyone always wants to complain), but I also think the media should lay off until the polls are closed.

Now, on to MMP and New Zealand (and Germany).

For those of you who don't know (and that probably includes the majority of you Americans!), MMP is a style of government which, in practice, allows the smaller parties to play a larger role in politics. Every Kiwi has two votes; one vote for the party you most wish to see in control of the government and one vote for who you want your political electorate representative to be. This means that you can vote for two different parties in the same election. All elected representatives are guarenteed a seat in Parliament. Each party also receives seats proportional to its percentage of party votes. So, if there are 100 seats in Parliament, and Party A got 20% of the national vote, it would get 20 seats. Now, pretend that 10 candidates from Party A won their electorates. This means that Party A gets to pick its next 10 highest party members (called "list candidates") to take the remaining allotted seats in Parliament. Additionally, in New Zealand, a party must poll at least 5% of the vote or win at least 1 electorate seat to take a place in Parliament. Otherwise, its votes are discarded. (The Greens had a close call with this, polling something like 5.07% and winning no electorates.)

One thing about MMP is that you can vote strategically, as many Kiwis did. Let's say that Party A is in control of the government, and you want a Party B controlled government. However, you support your local Minor Party C candidate and want them back but know that nationally the party won't poll 5% of the vote. This is what happened in Epsom. The people of Epsom voted to return Rodney Hide, a member of the ACT party, to Parliament, but overwhelmingly used their party votes to support National (National would be linked to Republican, Labour to Democrats, Labour is the incumbant controlling party). The Epsom-ites knew that without winning their electorate, ACT would be out of Parliament, thereby reducing the number of coalition options for National. Mr. Hide, despite being written off early in the election, swept Epsom and will be returning to Parliament.

New Zealand Parliament has 120 seats. There is an overhang, though, because the Maori party won 4 electorates but only enough percentage of votes for two seats in Parliament. This means that there are 122 seats in the new Parliament. A stable government needs to have at least a majority of 62 seats or a minority coalitions where it has support from the smaller parties without a formal coalition. Labour has held a minority coalition with the Greens (think way left wing tree huggers) in the last Parliament with support from NZ First and United Future. This worked because National polled its lowest percentage ever (I think) in the last election.

Now, there are problems similar to what has happened in Germany. Here is how it stands:

• Labour squeaked by with 50 seats.
• National more than doubled its MPs with 49 seats.
• NZ First, led by the boisterous Winston Peters, saw a loss and returned with 7 seats. (Incidentally, this is the first time in 21 years that Winston Peters did not win his electorate.)
• The Greens are next at 6 seats, all from list candidates.
• The Maori party is a new party and showed well with 4 MPs, all winners of electorates.
• ACT has two MPs, Rodney Hide and someone else based on polling percentages.
• Jim Anderton's Progressives are still in with just one seat, Jim Anderton.

Now, these numbers may change a bit. Nearly 200,000 "special" votes (meaning votes cast outside home electorates) have not been counted and will not be released until early October. They will probably end up leaning more towards the left as they have done in past elections. This is because most of those votes cast outside electorates are students away at university, a sector that traditionally votes left (Labour and Green).

Clearly, no one has a majority. Labour is probably keen to continue to work with the Greens and the Progressives, both of which have clearly expressed interest in a formal coalition (the Greens even want cabinet seats). This gives Labour 57 seats, still far from a majority. The next option would be talking to NZ First. Initially, this sounds OK, seeing as how Peters has pledged to support whichever party garnered most of the votes, but our problem lies in the fact that Peters and the Greens don't get along at all, and NZ First probably wouldn't support a formal coalition with the Greens, especially not with Green members in cabinet positions. The Maori party would be more likely to go with Labour than National, although it has had its differences with both. Helen Clark even snubbed the Maori Party during the election, referring to it as 'the last cab off the ranks' in coalition potential. ACT will work with National, it can be assumed, and although United Future said it would talk first to the party with the most votes, it looks more likely to 'cozy up to National' than Labour, to quote the daily newspaper, The Dominion Post.

In my opinion (and I am no political strategist, I am getting a lot of this from what I have read), with that one extra seat, Labour has more momentum and potential to form a stable government. Helen Clark (the current PM and leader of the Labour party) could form a minority government with lots of confidence and supply deals and agreements from the different parties, much as she has done for the past three years. However, I don't think Labour won the election. Don Brash, the leader of the National Party, just led a revitalisation of his party, doubling the number of MPs it is bringing to Parliament and creating a lot more support than it has had in previous years. National will be a formidable foe in the next Parliament and a strong opposition member.

From what I understand, this is nearly exactly what is happening in Germany right now, just with different parties. Angela Merkel beat Gerhard Schroeder by less than one percentage point, and now the race is on the be able to form a stable government. I personally want Angela Merkel to win based on the fact that she would be the youngest chancellor, the first woman chancellor, and the first chancellor to have grown up in East Germany. I don't pretend to know the policies of either of the major parties, nor what would be best for Germany, but it is amazing that Ms. Merkel could rise so far, so fast (15 years), from political anonymity.

I will keep you updated on whatever happens, no worries. Consider this your world politics lesson for the day.