So I did a little digging to determine how party lists are actually determined in New Zealand. The party brass pick themselves with little if any in input from the party members. The justification for this is 'balance', be it gender balance, ethnic balance, age balance, geographic balance, etc. The party is used as a recruitment tool - similar to what is done in our system by promising a "star candidate" a safe riding but instead giving the recruit a high ranking on the party list.
In some cases the selecting of the list starts out democratically from the party membership but this has morphed into a "recommendation" to the party executive. Even then the party leader has a final veto.
Another reason the list is managed within the inner circle is that some MPs tire of fighting to get a Electorate seat and negotiate their way onto the party list.
Comments (3)
And some of our “star candidates” get parachuted into safe ridings. Greg, MMP is not going to bring about heaven on earth. Politicians will still be politicians. All MMP will do is create a legislature more reflective of the votes of the electorate. That’s all.
Posted by Greg | August 8, 2007 3:28 PM
Posted on August 8, 2007 15:28
Indeed. My thoughts, as of this moment, are that MMP allows politicians to behave even worse than they do now. What I have to decide is whether improved representation more than makes up for this or not.
Posted by Greg Staples | August 8, 2007 3:44 PM
Posted on August 8, 2007 15:44
It’s not just improved representation. Another factor is that because more parties can win power voters have some real alternatives for electing “watchdog parties” into power. That won’t stop politicians from doing stupid things, but it will serve as an additional set of checks and balances, so when politicians act overly stupid they have to pay the price.
Posted by Paul Nijjar | August 9, 2007 1:31 AM
Posted on August 9, 2007 01:31