HomeUncategorisedMMP is For Losers

MMP is For Losers




In the last General Election 44.4% of the country voted for National. Whereas 36.9% voted for Liarbour. And only 7.2% voted for Winston First (most believing he would form a coalition with National.) But instead Winston Peters formed a coalition with Liarbour and selected Cindy as the PM, with himself as deputy.
To do this deal they still didn’t have enough votes, so had to bring even more extreme lefties into the coalition – The Greens. Hence The COLL (Coalition of liars and losers)

So where you can argue the majority of voters were seeking a center right government for New Zealand, have ended up with a left-wing government, full of extremists with a few self serving dinosaurs.
The problem with MMP is it gives too much representation to the minority groups and the lunatic fringe. The outcome of the compromises that are made, double dealing and horse trading to form a coalition government does not reflect the wishes of the voting public.

MMP was designed to provide a greater voice to minority groups. The Green party, who are in the current coalition government with the Labour and NZ First parties gained only 6.3% of the MMP party vote, yet make up 14% of the total number of Ministers in the NZ government, and therefore have a very large representation. The National party however, who gained 44.4% of the MMP party vote have nothing!

So in the desperation to give greater representation to minor parties has been at the expense of the largest party vote. The system is flawed and should be replaced with something like STV (single transferable vote) where you vote your 1st, 2nd and 3rd preference.

Previous article
Next article


  1. The problem I have with your commentary above is this sentence:

    “So where you can argue the majority of voters were seeking a center right government for New Zealand.”

    It’s been a long time since the National Party was truly a center right party.



  2. Never trusted MMP from Day One. Now we have awful people like Golriz and Marama Davidson in Govt. At least it’s pissing off the lefties with the Old Geezer stuffing up their hair-brained schemes.



  3. MMP is a truly stupid idea.
    I have a preference for STV.

    The biased royal Commission said it was too difficult to work!
    Well, most of Australian elections use STV. Virtually all the AU States plus the Federal Senate.
    Many of NZs councils use STV as do the DHBs.
    Ireland has been using STV since the 1920s. Not a lot of computers there to work it out and they seem to have been able to do it. An electoral system that has run for 100 years.

    MMP is used by: –
    New Zealand; Germany; Lesotho; and Bolivia.
    Great company. Not!
    Adopted very briefly then dropped by:-
    Albania; Hungary; and Romania where in each case it was very short lived; none even lasted 10 years.

    There are proponents in Canada pursuing it but it has been rejected multiple times in multiple provinces. The ones keen to pursue it are the Greens, whom we know are never about democracy.

    MMP was a piece of mischief by the Commission.
    Somehow the stupid MMP idea was promoted and THE option in the 1993 referendum.

    I suspect people disliked the FFP system so they opted for change and the option was MMP.
    FPP is a terrible system e.g. in the 2015 British General Election the Brexit Party, then under Farage. received 12.5 % of the vote -so approx. the total of NZ First plus Greens vote percentage in NZ 2017- but only achieved 1 seat of 650.
    Scottish National Party received 4.7% of the total vote yet got 8.6% of seats; while the Lib Dems received 8% of the vote for 1.2% of seats.
    Now that needs reform but with the Brexit fiasco we know what the Brit polis think of democracy!

    Peter Shirtcliff saw this uneducated bias towards MMP a few weeks out in 1993 and made a move along with a group of others to educate people. They took out full page newspaper adverts.
    At the time Shirtcliff was Chairman of Telecom and this had a bad reputation- justified – and the media climbed into him attacking the man and not listening to the message.
    It was a fact free play on emotions by the media who live for mischief.

    Not much has changed.
    Media attack the person ; and Telecom, even after a name change, is still crap.
    Just wait for the RWC.
    But the electoral system changed. Not really for the better.

    The great thing about STV and naming preferences of 1,2,3 is under a decent system you don’t need to name a 2, 3, 4 if you don’t want to or are not connected enough to events. If you are engaged you can give weight to your vote by working the numbers. It counts.
    By and large the stupid MMP system is based on the total party vote. The electoral vote is a popularity contest with minimal impact.
    MMP = Dumb idea although Lesotho and Bolivia may not agree with me.



  4. Small wonder the left wing parties campaign for PR!

    What would you do if you won a world war and you had to impose an electoral system on the defeated enemy? I don’t know about you, but I’d dream up an electoral system that would paralyse the enemy and prevent them from rising again under a strong leader!

    Which is why the US imposed MMP on Germany after the war. It is was designed to be a broken system that prevented strong, coherent government. And good old gullible NZ, under the ultimate political Benedict Arnold – Jim Bolger – decided to opt for the worst of all electoral systems along with a particularly retarded innovation of our own (the Maori seats and Maori roll).

    And we failed, TWICE, to kick it to the curb? Amazing. When we look at what the rhetoric was about why we needed to get rid of FPP – it was because twice Labour won the popular vote by a couple of thousand votes and National won the electorate seats.

    However, last election National won the popular vote by TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND votes, but find themselves on the opposition benches. So if we judge, MMP by the flaws that led to FPP's demise, then it’s a hundred times worse than FPP.

    And what's Labour's swiss ball specialist doing while he's hiding out in the UK? He's heading up the electoral reform society – funnily his profile doesn’t mention that embarrassing night at Dame Annette’s place before he bolted from the country.

    Back to the topic though, we’ve had 8 MMP elections and three times MMP has put Winston in the position of having the power to select who governs. Two of those three times, he’s selected the losing party because they offered the better baubles. We have a system that bestows the choice of government on minority parties, it is a system that positively incentivises pork-barrelling. It seems to me to be as far away from a good electoral system as it’s possible to get.

    And it gives truth to the words of the US founding fathers, who described democracy as “Mob rule, where 51% can take away the rights of the 49%”. Another apt description for democracy was “Two lions and a sheep, deciding what to eat”.

    Finally, what is it about the NZ psyche that, like a battered woman and her abuser, we decided to stay with the system that abuses us?



    • I wish we had a recall system like the Brits introduced

      Not much coverage in the lying, whoring MSM on why there was a by-election needed in Peterborough last week.

      It was because of a lovely bit of legislation introduced recently, that allows for an MP to be unseated from their electorate if sufficient signatures can be obtained for ‘no confidence’ from within the electorate.

      The Peterborough Labour PM was kicked out because she broke the law.

      It turns out that the Justice Cabinet Minister is about to experience the same fate.

      The problem would be that Labour can’t win many electorate seats so we’d need a special “Twat Only On the List” category for recall to get rid of the CoL.

      It would be so much fun, so democratic and so “open and transparent”!



  5. The principle of MMP might have worked quite well for a small population like NZ if it not had the inequality addition to the original structure. A wonky algorithm added to weigh the vote to favour minority parties in a disproportional way. Hence the real party vote is “adjusted” making the P in MMP a falsity making it more like a hybrid MMD (Mixed Member Disproportional). ALL votes should of equal value to truly reflect the proportional preference of ALL voters. The current system is just a joke only enjoyed by those who enjoyed a 1+ party vote to get then at the big trough against the majority vote.



  6. I prefer the Supplementary Member system (SM) which is used in Japan ( and South Korea, I think). The only, but key,difference to MMP is when the party vote is taken into account.
    Under SM the electorate votes are the same but the party vote only applies to the list seats. So in NZ the 64 electorate seats are taken away from the 120 seats in Parliament giving 56 list seats –the number of list seats a party gets is proportional to the proportion of party votes it gets.
    Under the current system the number of ALL seats the party gets is proportional to the party vote percentage. To me this devalues the electorate seat. In a sense the electorate vote is a waste of time, in terms of the overall make up of Parliament.
    Under SM I think you get the best of FPP and PR systems. Smaller parties get a chance but get only proportionate power.



  7. No comments have yet mentioned the Maori seats.

    The original of having this apartheid electoral system in New Zealand was to give Maori a legislated independent voice in our Parliament. Whilst many, including myself, do not believe that race based seats are fair and reasonable, it can be argued that the concept is meritorious, so we have allowed it to continue – and have seen Maori achieve much over the years through negotiations with their major coalition partner.

    Alas this is no longer the case – and Maori will suffer as a result. Unless their voice is independent from the two major parties then decisions will be made along party lines, and not consider what is best for Maori.

    As a precedent has been set, it would not be unreasonable for – say – electors of Chinese origin to demand a similar formula be applied so that they also have an independent voice in our Parliament. This could gain momentum as their number approaches and overtakes the number of electors who identify as Maori.

    The Maori seats have had their time, and under the present arrangement are meaningless. They should be abolished !



Recent posts

Taking The Piss

Have Your Say

Saturday Fun

Metaverse Passports

Recent comments

Sooty on Have Your Say
howitis on Have Your Say
howitis on Have Your Say
howitis on Have Your Say
howitis on Have Your Say
howitis on Have Your Say
Curious on Have Your Say
howitis on Have Your Say

Pike is our weekly review of the most popular posts and comments seen on YSB in the past week.
clear sky
10 ° C
10 °
10 °
87 %
2 %
13 °
18 °
19 °
19 °
19 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar