MMP may have shocks in store

By Colin James

Stand by. At our second shot at MMP we could have some arithmetical acrobatics on election night.

After the election, Parliament will be made up of the people who are elected in the 45 North Island, 16 South Island and six Maori electorates, plus enough people from the lists of parties that qualify to make up the numbers to, probably, 120.

The seats will be allocated according to the formula described briefly on this page. Sounds simple?

Well, in the past week or so with Labour showing some slippage, it became conventional wisdom that the Greens might be Labour's saviour. But they also might not.

They might not even if Jeanette Fitzsimons wins Coromandel and the Greens (having then won a seat allowing them to share in the carve-up of seats) thereby get three seats or so, as recent polls have suggested.

Under the MMP counting system by which the seats are allocated, the Greens would most likely add only one or two seats to the left's total.

If we average the political polls held in October, the Greens would have displaced one National MP but also one Labour and one Alliance MP. The net gain to the left would therefore have been only one.

It is just mathematically possible, depending how the votes fall, that the Greens might add nothing to the left's total. It is also just mathematically possible the Greens might add a net three.

So a few party votes up or down for the five main parties could make a crucial difference to how minnows affect the overall result.

Take another example. If, as is distinctly possible, Derek Fox wins Ikaroa-Rawhiti in the eastern North Island as an Independent not contesting the party vote, the total seats divided up among parties that do contest the party vote would go down from 120 to 119. That would be to keep the total, including the Independent's seat, at 120.

Whether Mr Fox would in that case affect the left's chance of an outright majority would depend on whether an Alliance or Labour MP was ranked No 120 on the MMP count or some other party's MP was. That is something of a lottery.

These scenarios are not far-fetched. With a plethora of parties and Independents standing with real prospects of getting seats, we could have arithmetical acrobatics on election night.

Moreover, the final count 12 days later is likely to produce a different ranking order from election night, and the impact on major party positions of minnows which get seats could swing from favouring one side to the other.

The Greens might add two seats to the left's total on election night but only one on the final count, or vice-versa. Mr Fox, Mauri Pacific, Te Tawharau and United could have similar random effects at the margin.

And what if a party demanded a national recount of the party vote, a real possibility in a tight election? (The Electoral Office reckons a recount would take until close to Christmas.)

The displacements at the margin could all change again.

How about this one? One one-hundred-and-twentieth - one seat out of 120 - is 0.8 per cent. You might therefore think that a party would need 0.8 per cent of the party vote to get a seat.

Not so. Averaging the two national polls in October which separately recorded the United party vote gives United 0.4 per cent - but also (just) one seat.

At least that would save you from another MMP quirk - an overhang.

If a party wins an electorate seat, but not enough party votes to qualify for a seat, the party keeps the electorate seat and the total size of Parliament goes up by one, to 121. That would very likely happen if Tau Henare wins Te Tai Tokerau or Tuariki Delamere wins Waiariki.

And what a delicious irony that would be. Voters increasing Parliament at the same time as they are probably voting in a citizen's initiated referendum to cut its size by 21 seats to 99.

But how can you get seats if there is a hurdle of 5 per cent before you qualify? Because the hurdle is waived if a party wins an electorate seat.

So if New Zealand First were to get 4.98 per cent on the party vote and no electorate seats, it would be out of Parliament. But if Winston Peters wins Tauranga or Tutekawa Wyllie Te Tai Tonga or Brian Donnelly Whangarei, the party would get six seats.

If none of those three wins an electorate seat but one comes very close, it might well be worth filing a High Court petition (as Mr Peters successfully did in Hunua after the 1978 election).

A High Court hearing can take six months - and if successful, six MPs would have to be removed from office to make way for the NZ First contingent.

Not surprisingly, some MPs in the two big old parties are determined that if no other change is made to MMP next year, ducking the 5 per cent hurdle just by winning one electorate seat should be ditched.

One of the big old parties has another difficulty with MMP. In 1996 Labour polled 1.9 per cent more in electorate votes than in party votes. This excess was wasted, since it did not add a single seat to Labour's total.

On the October averages, Labour's excess electorate support was 4.1 per cent. Labour's own polling has uncovered surprising leads in provincial seats - Rotorua and Wairarapa, for example.

Wins in those electorates would be exciting for candidates Stephanie Chadwick and Georgina Beyer but potentially disastrous for Labour in a tight race. Labour needs its supporters to vote Labour the party, not for Chadwick or Beyer.

Defenders and advocates of MMP insist it is a "simple" system. Actually, it is full of nice little snares which, if triggered, appear anything but simple - let alone fair.

But it's what you voted for, isn't it?