WI: New Zealand Went Back To FPTP?

[Uhura's Mazda]

In 2011, a non-binding referendum was held on whether to change the voting system. 56% voted in favour of keeping MMP, while 41% voted against, most of them wanting a return to FPTP. If No had won the Referendum, there would have been a second referendum, on or before the 2014 general election, between MMP and FPTP, with the result of that being applied in 2017.

So what if No had won, and FPTP had somehow won the second referendum? Would that be the only time a country had voted for FPTP with a proportional status quo? And how would the various parties have managed in a situation which effectively removes any chance for minor parties to enter Parliament without Coromandel-type deals? Would National go on to win a 1990-esque majority in 2017, against a divided opposition?

 

[Shadow Master]

I don't understand?

In 2011, a non-binding referendum was held on whether to change the voting system. 56% voted in favour of keeping MMP, while 41% voted against, most of them wanting a return to FPTP. If No had won the Referendum, there would have been a second referendum, on or before the 2014 general election, between MMP and FPTP, with the result of that being applied in 2017.

So what if No had won, and FPTP had somehow won the second referendum? Would that be the only time a country had voted for FPTP with a proportional status quo? And how would the various parties have managed in a situation which effectively removes any chance for minor parties to enter Parliament without Coromandel-type deals? Would National go on to win a 1990-esque majority in 2017, against a divided opposition?

That doesn't make sense (at least to me), as historically you seem to be saying that NO did win, hence no change from MMP. Did you mean what if YES had won?

Also, what the heck are MMP and FPTP? Sorry, I just don't know enough to give more input till I know more. Do you have a wiki link for us to read?

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

I don't understand?
That doesn't make sense (at least to me), as historically you seem to be saying that NO did win, hence no change from MMP. Did you mean what if YES had won?

Also, what the heck are MMP and FPTP? Sorry, I just don't know enough to give more input till I know more. Do you have a wiki link for us to read?

Yes = Keep MMP
No = Change the voting system.

It wasn't a very logical referendum.

MMP
FPTP
2011 referendum.

 

[Pericles]

I'm not sure if any other country has ever done this, though it seems likely. National would probably have the edge going into 2017 given they are polling in the high 40s. I think for one thing the minor parties would be gone, and I doubt Gareth Morgan would set up his own party in such an inhospitable political landscape. I think a 1990-esque majority sounds likely, perhaps a bit less if the opposition consolidates and Little can make National vulnerable by 2017. The problem is of course we aren't at 2017 yet. This simulator could help, I've found it very useful in the past. Another question is, is it the same amount of seats in parliament? And what is the PoD or is there just a handwave?
Using the simulator, I got this result based on the current poll averages.
2017 NZ election
John Key-National: 97 47%
Andrew Little-Labour: 23 29%
James Shaw/Metiria Turei-Green: 0 11%
Winston Peters-NZ First: 0 10%

All other parties were below 5% of the vote and also got 0 seats, even if they currently have an electorate seat(it is possible they could acquire a seat elsewhere but it'd be harder). Of course you could adjust the totals elsewhere but National has such a big lead they would still win comfortably providing nothing changes between now and the 2017 election.

Btw, very minor think, but I always think of First Past the Post as FPP, and I think it says that on the Wikipedia page too.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

I'm not sure if any other country has ever done this, though it seems likely. National would probably have the edge going into 2017 given they are polling in the high 40s. I think for one thing the minor parties would be gone, and I doubt Gareth Morgan would set up his own party in such an inhospitable political landscape. I think a 1990-esque majority sounds likely, perhaps a bit less if the opposition consolidates and Little can make National vulnerable by 2017. The problem is of course we aren't at 2017 yet. This simulator could help, I've found it very useful in the past. Another question is, is it the same amount of seats in parliament? And what is the PoD or is there just a handwave?
Using the simulator, I got this result based on the current poll averages.
2017 NZ election
John Key-National: 97 47%
Andrew Little-Labour: 23 29%
James Shaw/Metiria Turei-Green: 0 11%
Winston Peters-NZ First: 0 10%

All other parties were below 5% of the vote and also got 0 seats, even if they currently have an electorate seat(it is possible they could acquire a seat elsewhere but it'd be harder). Of course you could adjust the totals elsewhere but National has such a big lead they would still win comfortably providing nothing changes between now and the 2017 election.

Btw, very minor think, but I always think of First Past the Post as FPP, and I think it says that on the Wikipedia page too.

A handwave. Maybe Key comes out in favour when he realises it will keep the Nats in power for longer.

That's honestly a really scary majority, and probably would be even from a Tory perspective. I presume 120 MPs would be kept, if that's in the simulation. I'd also be pretty sure that Peter Dunne would keep his seat in 2017, given that it would be about half the size. Not sure about what Epsom does - on the one hand, the Nats don't need to bet on ACT getting a coat-tail seat, on the other hand, Epsom is Epsom.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

But would the Greens and Winnie really just roll over and disappear?

 

[Pericles]

But would the Greens and Winnie really just roll over and disappear?

They'd probably get a few votes in the 2017 election. Maybe Peters could keep his Northland seat but that seems unlikely.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

They'd probably get a few votes in the 2017 election. Maybe Peters could keep his Northland seat but that seems unlikely.

That's if he wins it in the first place, ITTL.

Thinking about it, I reckon Labour would stand aside for the Greens in a seat or two as a Progressive Alliance sort of thing, as long as the Greens didn't contest close Lab-Nat seats. Whether the voters would comply is another matter.

 

[Pericles]

That's if he wins it in the first place, ITTL.

Thinking about it, I reckon Labour would stand aside for the Greens in a seat or two as a Progressive Alliance sort of thing, as long as the Greens didn't contest close Lab-Nat seats. Whether the voters would comply is another matter.

Oh yes of course butterflies.