The Case for Lowering the Threshold
Time to make every vote count — by Laila Harrè
Here’s something to share to counter the more extreme comment doing the rounds, some of which is bordering on hysterical — even bullying.
As few as 7,000 voters can elect a constituency MP, but over 100,000 Party Votes can be disregarded if a party doesn’t meet the 5% threshold, this is not fair.
The 5% threshold should be lowered and the one-seat threshold (coat-tails rule) removed. It was National and Labour that ignored the Royal Commission and put a threshold in place that would make it very difficult for new movements to be elected into Parliament.
Every single new party that has won seats since MMP started in 1996 (Greens, Maori Party and MANA Movement) began with at least one MP who was already in Parliament.
The current threshold of 5% is a protection racket for incumbents. The one-seat exception has led to patronage deals which give some National voters — like in Epsom — more say on election outcomes than up to 100,000 voters whose votes can be wasted.
The Internet-MANA agreement is not a National style patronage deal. It is a transparent agreement between two independent parties who share a common immediate objective — to change the government — and respect each others’ values.
We will develop a shared platform of policy priorities. The agreement assures Internet Party supporters that they will not have to vote for their second choice to make sure their vote is counted.
Regardless of how we feel about the current electoral system, our agreement protects our supporters’ right to have their party votes counted. I’ll debate our critics on this anytime. Journalists included.
For an excellent overview of the threshold issue, check out Dr Rob Salmond’s submission to the MMP review:
