Thursday, January 13, 2005

A New Electoral System

Reading Brash's witterings and various comments on them inspired me to think up a new electoral system - you could call it "A La Carte" voting.

Basically each party gets allocated a number of seats "N" proportional to their vote.

How they allocate the seats is up to them, but it has to be a predetermined system.

For instance, party A could have a conventional ordered list and elect the top "N" people on the list.

Party B could count votes by electorate, and elect those of their candidates who "won" by the biggest margin in each electorate (or lost by the smallest margin).

Party C could list candidates by preference and let the voters decide on an STV basis.

I'm sure there are other ways I haven't thought of..

Wouldn't it be fun! NZ would always win any competition for the wierdest voting system.


Greg Stephens said...

In some European jurisdictions people get to vote for the party and for the order of the list (this is not compulsory though).
Or we could a ranking form of MMP. So if the party you vote for doesn't get any seats then your next choice would get your vote.
I'm sure that there are tonnes of different ways to have a screwed up electoral system but one of the key things is being simple. Since we apparently couldn't figure out STV then prehaps we should stick with MMP.

Rich said...

I'm mostly trying to be satirical - I can't see anything wrong with MMP and don't believe there is any clamour for referenda every 10 years on our voting system.

Having said that, since Brash thinks we have too many MPs I've thought of a way of allowing for that to. Parties could choose to return say, one MP for each four elected, that MP getting four votes (but only one salary).

Greg Stephens said...

While most people reckon we have too many MPs, I don't.
The 'correct' number of MPs (as determined by political scientists with too much time on their hands) is the cubic root of the population size. Thus NZ should have 160 MPs. The Royal Commission on the Electoral System wanted 140 but thought the public wouldn't like it so recommended 120.

Rich said...

I agree we don't have too many MPs. The cost of Parliament is tiny compared to overall public spending.

Having fewer MPs and by extension, fewer ministers means that ministers have bigger departments and less political control over the public servants.