FPTP versus MMP

[otago]

We have MMP in NZ, have had it for the past twelve years.
One thing it does do is make every vote count, no more of of governments getting in with less overall votes than their opposition.
Some complain it makes it hard to get things done because of smaller parties who make up the governing coalition being a drag.
Which is all to the good.

Our main opposition party are stating to whine about MMP, saying that it is unfair.
Their main problem is that they have very little in the way of partners to form a coalition.
All in all it is better, my only question is would we be better looking at STV where absolute loyalty to the party is not so important.
FPTP can be very poor, as in Britain where the Labour party kept power with only 38% of the vote.

 

[Nobody]

what is STV?

 

[ravensfire]

Or MMP, or FPTP, and why should we care?

-- Ravensfire

 

[jeps]

MMP sucks. FPTP is bad. there are many better options, but i choose FPTP over MMP, because I HATE list members.

 

[otago]

what is STV?

Here you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

 

[Babbler]

what is STV?

Or MMP, or FPTP, and why should we care?

-- Ravensfire

They are methods electing legislatures.

FPTP (First past the Post): The country is divided into districts, each electing one member. The candidate with most votes wins. Overall control is decided on how many districts, and therefore candidates win. Used in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.

MMP (Mixed Member Proportional): The country is divided into districts, each electing one member. Voters have two votes; one for the district and one for the party at large. The party list vote is used to assign seats to parties in proportion of its share of the list. Used in Germany and New Zealand.

STV (Single Transferable Vote): The country is divided into districts, each electing several members. Voters rank the candidates 1, 2, 3, etc. in order from most to least preferred. Candidates then must get a certain threshold of votes to be elected, where the second preference votes are assigned to other candidates until all the seats are filled. Used in Australia and Ireland.

 

[CCA]

We have MMP in NZ, have had it for the past twelve years.
One thing it does do is make every vote count, no more of of governments getting in with less overall votes than their opposition.
Some complain it makes it hard to get things done because of smaller parties who make up the governing coalition being a drag.
Which is all to the good.

Our main opposition party are stating to whine about MMP, saying that it is unfair.
Their main problem is that they have very little in the way of partners to form a coalition.
All in all it is better, my only question is would we be better looking at STV where absolute loyalty to the party is not so important.
FPTP can be very poor, as in Britain where the Labour party kept power with only 38% of the vote.

Well every vote counts....

As long as the party gets over 5%

 

[Sims2789]

We have MMP in NZ, have had it for the past twelve years.
One thing it does do is make every vote count, no more of of governments getting in with less overall votes than their opposition.
Some complain it makes it hard to get things done because of smaller parties who make up the governing coalition being a drag.
Which is all to the good.

Our main opposition party are stating to whine about MMP, saying that it is unfair.
Their main problem is that they have very little in the way of partners to form a coalition.
All in all it is better, my only question is would we be better looking at STV where absolute loyalty to the party is not so important.
FPTP can be very poor, as in Britain where the Labour party kept power with only 38% of the vote.

PLZ DNT USE ABBRS.

 

[really]

FPTP can be very poor, as in Britain where the Labour party kept power with only 38% of the vote.

We have Single Transferable votes in Ireland with multiple seat constituencies (it makes for long counts)

The current coalition leading party has been returning near majorities with about 38% of the vote for decades and has been in power for most the the past 25 years. (22 out of 30)

 

[History_Buff]

Either is better than FPTP in my opinion.

 

[Mountain-God]

I think we've had a heck of alot more Democracy in NZ since the introduction of MMP.

The only problem we have is the lack of Law around MPs who jump ship - or has that been changed? To my understanding it's still a case that an MP can change party - whereas they were elected according to their affiliation, I believe that should require either a new local election or the MP be kicked out.

I notice the only political groups complaining about MMP are those which don't actually have a lot of support from the democracy and, thus, prefer MMP where it was either or.

At least with MMP it is more inclusive - granted a smaller party might occasionally punch above it's weight, but only to the degree others are willing to compromise.

And that's the essence of Democracy.

I'd hate to live under the 2 party system we did - and I see others having to put up with. It's only one step better than single party politics. And most of us can agree, that ain't cool

 

[Mountain-God]

We have Single Transferable votes in Ireland with multiple seat constituencies (it makes for long counts)

The current coalition leading party has been returning near majorities with about 38% of the vote for decades and has been in power for most the the past 25 years. (22 out of 30)

I'm not a fan of any system which elects that kind of 'majority' - 38% is a decent chunk of people, but hardly seems appropriate to rule the country... Fewer than half rulling the other?

I like MMP - requires cooperation of over 50%.

 

[classical_hero]

Australia is a STV system and it is very good in getting your vote counted even if you want to send a message to one of the big parties and prefer not to have vote for the other party but still make your vote count against the party you want to send a message to.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

The Canadian electoral system is based on the single member; simple plurality electoral system at both the Provincial and Federal level. The result is a majority can form with only 40% of the popular vote. There are 301 seats. However, more than often you produce minority governments.

-Gives the impression that candidates have no representation in some areas despite capturing 15-30% of the vote

-Parliamentary composition will be less regionally represented.

- Minor parties will always receive a smaller percentage of seats compared to their actual vote count.

The chief alternative is Proportional Representation; the number of members elected from each party coincides with their share of the popular vote.

Problem with this system is it encourages ideological polarity and enable extremist parties to achieve representation in the legislature.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

By the way I love threads on electoral reform!

Canadians who were scandalzied by George Bush's victory in 2000 should consider that Bush won a larger share of the eligible electorate than Chretian did in 2000. Few contest the legitamacy of our election. However, we do not reward parties in proportion to their share of the popular vote and the U.S. is historically a two party system.

 

[bhsup]

FPTP please. The others may be fine and well for other people, but I could not stand such a system.

 

[Kerozine]

I'm having a very hard time understanding how people can so passively agree with FTPT as a proper, democratically representative lol, electoral system..