Those who originally supported MMP argued that it would produce governments that were more accountable to voters. That has not happened. MMP makes politicians accountable through their political parties rather than directly to voters.
Under FPP politicians in marginal seats would stand up for the interests of their constituents. Their neck was on the line if their party strayed too far from the wishes of the public. Under MMP, those vulnerable MPs are more likely to stick to their party line to ensure they are rewarded with a high list position. That is undemocratic.
Democracy isn't necessarily good at picking "the best" people. But democracy works because we can "boot the rascals out". Booting MPs out under MMP is hard. With the exception of Epsom and Act, under MMP electorates don't matter. A lost MMP electorate just means an additional list MP. Rejected electorate MPs can too often sneak back in on a party list. They are then accountable solely to the party hierarchy who determine the list. That is undemocratic.
SM means seats matter, so electorate MPs are accountable. With SM a lost electorate doesn't give a party another list MP, because the party vote proportion is used only to allocate the proportion of list MPs. The party vote doesn't overrule the electorate.
With SM accountability to parties is reduced. Electorate MPs have more of an incentive to stand up for their constituencies to keep their seat.
List MPs
List MPs know they can't rock the boat. They are in Parliament representing party brands. During the course of the campaign there is nothing more frustrating than list MPs from both major parties encouraging Vote for Change and expressing their displeasure with MMP, only to then publicly stick to their "party lines" about MMP at public meetings. Is that what we want our democracy based on?
Diversity
MMP is often credited for improved diversity in Parliament. While our MPs are now more reflective of society, MMP is not the sole cause. Georgina Beyer, the world's first openly transsexual MP, was not elected thanks to MMP. She won the rural FPP Wairarapa seat. Don't be fooled that only MMP ensures minorities are represented.
The argument that MMP brought more women into Parliament is also questionable. The whole Western world, no matter the voting system, is electing more women into parliaments. Here, the most senior female politicians are not list MPs. Most of Labour's and National's high list positions are occupied by males.
A compromise
There are some advantages of having list MPs. Parties are able to bring into Parliament skilled individuals that might not otherwise be suited to representing a constituency. But unfortunately they are the exception rather than the norm.
MMP gives us at least 50 list MPs. Vote for Change says 50 is too many. We worry Parliament has cheerleaders rather than the skill and diversity MMP promised. SM reduces the number of list MPs to 30 and reduces the ability of failing electorate MPs relying on the list to get back into Parliament.
Proportional process is not proportionate resultsMMP is labelled as a proportionate system. In process it is - if a party wins 10 per cent of the party votes, it will win approximately 10 per cent of the seats in Parliament. But a proportional process does not mean proportionate results. The parties that hold the balance of power are in the stronger position in the bargains made to form a government.
But small parties do ensure important issues are on the political agenda. SM allows for their representation, without the disproportionate amount of bargaining power.
Vote for Change
Voting for change doesn't get rid of MMP. It gives us a second referendum in 2014. For fewer list MPs, electorates that matter and a diverse but more accountable parliament, I'll tick SM.
Jordan Williams is a public and commercial lawyer in Wellington and is spokesman for Vote for Change. www.voteforchange.org.nz
