by frog
The Herald’s editor was in a lather over the weekend suggesting that a party with a minority of support had more right to govern than two parties with the majority of the popular vote:
But it is clearly not what most voters want or believe should happen. Around 80 per cent of them vote National or Labour and when they go to the polling booth they believe they are choosing a Government. If their party is beaten at the ballot box they accept it is fair and square. Parties trifle with that result at their peril.
In recent years there have been a series of governments (or, to use the technical term, multi headed monsters‘) formed under proportional representation systems in Scandinavia where the party with with most seats has not been part of the government. Interestingly, all of them have been right leaning governments. For instance -
Norway Storting: 1989-1990
Government Coalition Partners:
- Kristelig Folkeparti (Christian People’s Party, KRF) = 14 seats
- Senterpartiet (Centre Party, SP) = 11 seats
- Hoyre (Conservative Party, H) = 37 seats
Party with the most seats:
-
- Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party, A) = 63 seats
Norway Storting: 1997-2001
Government Coalition Partners:
- Venstre (Liberal Party, V) = 6 seats
- Kristelig Folkeparti (Christian People’s Party, KRF) = 25 seats
- Senterpartiet (Centre Party, SP) = 11 seats
Party with the most seats:
-
- Arbeiderpartiet (Labour Party, A) = 65 seats
Norway Storting: 2001-2005
Government Coalition Partners:
- Hoyre (Conservative Party, H) = 38 seats
- Kristelig Folkeparti (Christian People’s Party, KRF) = 22 seats
- Venstre (Liberal Party, V) = 2 seats
Party with the most seats:
-
- Det norske Arbeiderparti (Norwegian Labour Party, DnA) = 43 seats
Sweden Riksdag: 1991-1994
Government Coalition Partners:
- Centern (Centre Party, Ce) = 31 seats
- Kristdemokraterna (Christian Democratic Party, CD) = 26 seats
- Folkpartiet liberalerna (Liberal Party, Li) = 33 seats
- Moderata samlingspartiet (Conservative Party, Co) = 80 seats
Party with the most seats:
-
- Arbetarepartiet-
Socialdemokraterna (Social Democrats, SD) = 138 seats
- Arbetarepartiet-
Sweden Riksdag: 2006-
Government Coalition Partners:
- Moderaterna (Moderate party, MS) = 97 seats
- Folkpartiet liberalerna (Liberal People’s Party, FP) = 28 seats
- Centerpartiet (Centre Party, CP) = 29 seats
- Kristdemokraterna (Christian Democratic Party, Kd) = 24 seats
Party with the most seats:
-
- Socialdemokraterna (Swedish Social Democratic Party, SD) = 130 seats
Denmark Folketing – 1988-1990
Government Coalition Partners:
- Det Radikale Venstre (Radical Liberals, RL) = 10 seats
- Det Konservative Folkeparti (Conservatives, Con) = 35 seats
- Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti (Liberals, Lib) = 23 seats
Party with the most seats:
-
- Socialdemokratiet (Social Democrats, SD) = 56 seats
Denmark Folketing – 1990-1993
Government Coalition Partners:
- Det Konservative Folkeparti (Conservatives, Con) = 30 seats
- Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti (Liberals, Lib) = 30 seats
- With support from Radikale Venstre (Social-Liberal Party) = 7 seats
Party with the most seats:
- Socialdemokratiet (Social Democrats, SD) = 71 seats
Iceland, the Scandinavian country that we hear the most about recently for not being able to handle the current financial crisis, does not seem to have had such a coalition government. Likewise two-party, first-past-the-post systems with out the checks and balances of proportional representation don’t seem to fared so well for Britain and the United States when it comes to financial crisis prevention.
Published in Campaign | Justice & Democracy | Parliament by frog on Tue, October 28th, 2008
Tags: , monsters, proportional representation, Scandinavia
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Frog, you have forgotten your history. Why do you think New Zealanders wanted to bring in MMP? One of the reasons was that in 1978 & 1981, in spite of winning more votes, the Labour Party was forced to keep the Opposition Benches warm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, do let’s remember that. It was about the majority party not being able to form a government. Coincidentally in a two party FPP system, the majority party is also the largest party, hence the electorate were disgruntled.
This does not apply in MMP, where we must talk of the majority coalition forming a government instead. If the largest party isn’t a part of the majority coalition, so what? It means, trivially, that a majority of people preferred that it wasn’t.
At the moment in NZ, you can’t even argue that people don’t know what they’re voting for, with all but the Maori Party declaring a preference. (Even Peter Dunne has given up his “principled stance” of whoring for either side.)
But take an easier example. Suppose we had three parties with the following election results; A=30%, B=30%, C=40%. Would we really be put out if AB formed a govt? I don’t think so. The problem here is that people are still thinking FPP when that doesn’t apply any longer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m sure there are some Labor (sic) supporters in Australia who would share John Key’s view. After all, Labor is the biggest party there in EVERY election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve got a better one: the New Zealand Parliament of 1928 – 1931:
Government coalition partners:
Liberal Party (29.8% of the vote) = 27 seats
Labour party (26.2% of the vote) = 19 seats
Largest Party
Reform Party (34.8% of the vote) = 27 seats.
Yes, it’s happened in New Zealand. But 50 years of two-party rule under FPP has blinded us to our own history.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John-ston: Frog, you have forgotten your history. Why do you think New Zealanders wanted to bring in MMP? One of the reasons was that in 1978 & 1981, in spite of winning more votes, the Labour Party was forced to keep the Opposition Benches warm.
Indeed. But the real outrage there was that the unfair electoral system meant that the number of seats assigned did not follow the popular vote. Quite the opposite in fact; in 1978 National won 11 seats more than Labour with fewer votes.
MMP is a fair electoral system. This means that – give or take overhangs (which if you demand electorates, you cannot complain about) and the shrinking “wasted vote” – the outcome in the House reflects the vote. So, more votes equals more seats. Good.
But the real point at issue here is simple: it’s that in a democracy, the majority should rule. What you seem to be saying is that “in a democracy, the plurality should rule, despite not having majority support’. That attitude can only be described as deeply undemocratic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a matter of interest, didn’t the Royal Commission recommend a 4% threshold rather than 5% for party representation? And what is the reasoning behind the current practice that waives the threshold for a party of a successful electorate candidate? Where’s the ‘democracy’ in that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Idiot, while you have a point, consider this:
Let us say that come election day, anywhere between 46% and 48% of the vote goes to National, that would be a pretty strong mandate. If you consider it, National got similar percentages in 1990, 1975 & 1960; while Labour got similar percentages in 1987 & 1972. Each of those elections have been considered landslides.
Furthermore, bear in mind that it would seriously damage MMP if National is forced to keep the Opposition benches warm; people would believe that it, like FPP, was a system that locked winning parties out of power.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the Nat led coalition can muster 48% and the Labour led coalition 52%, then surely the 52% coalition has the stronger mandate?
The winning party is the one that can form a govt. To argue anything else is to argue the minority should rule. This was bad when it happened under FPP and would be bad if it happened under MMP. Fortunately, the only way it can happen under MMP is if a party indicates it will go one way and then goes the other.
MMP might get damaged, but only because the media isn’t doing its job of pointing out the obvious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
john-ston Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am
> Let us say that come election day, anywhere between 46% and 48% of the vote goes to National, that would be a pretty strong mandate. If you consider it, National got similar percentages in 1990, 1975 & 1960;
doesn’t really follow. General Ne Win was declared the winner of the 1990 election in Burma, when he got 16% and his opponent got 82% (I think it was supposed to be a rigged election, and when the dictator realised he had failed to rig it, he decided to ignore the result instead). That doesn’t make 16 to 82 a legitimate winning margin. Just because something has been done a certain way before doesn’t make it automatically the right and proper way to do it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The idea that 52% over-rules 48% isn’t ideal, but it’s better than the idea of 48% over-ruling 52%.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)