This article first appeared in The Edge Malaysia Weekly on May 4, 2020 - May 10, 2020

NEW Zealanders decided to change its voting system after the party that won the national vote did not form the government in two elections — in 1978 and 1981.

“It’s called a wrong winner election,” says Robert Peden, a former chief executive of the New Zealand Electoral Commission.

The voting system in use then was the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, he tells The Edge in an interview. There were a number of other parties that won significant portions of the votes but won next to no seats.

After a series of referendums, voters chose to move to a mixed member proportional (MMP) system, where MPs are elected in two ways — where voters choose a party to support and a candidate to represent them in the area they live in.

For any reform process, a well-informed national discussion is vital, says Peden. “The process for identifying the voting system needs to be very inclusive and well-conceived because there are many options. When you start to work on them, you realise that there is no perfect voting system,” he says.

One of the attributes of the FPTP system is that it will tend to deliver a single party government, Peden explains. “The expectation on FPTP is that it will amplify the votes that a party wins beyond its national share of the vote. That is an advantage of FPTP for those who choose it.”

New Zealand’s search for a new way of electing its representatives began in 1985 with the establishment of a royal commission on the electoral system. It operated for 18 months and consulted widely with the public. The commission looked at alternative voting systems, particularly four: supplementary member system (mixed majoritarian member system), preferential voting (PV), which Australia uses, MMP and the single transferable vote.

In its report published in 1986, the commission set out its reasons why it thought the MMP was the most suitable for New Zealand.

“The MMP is a moderate proportional system that seeks to balance proportionality, that is, fairness to parties with effective government and maintaining local connection between a constituent and his leader,” says Peden.

In the 1990 election, both major parties promised to hold a referendum. The winning party held an indicative referendum in 1992, which had two parts. The first part asked voters whether they wanted to stay with FPTP or change the voting system. An overwhelming 85% voted for change. In the next part, they were asked that if they wanted change, which systems they wanted.

In a standalone referendum in 1992, 70% voted for MMP from the 55% of voters who turned up.

In 1993, the government said it would hold a binding referendum. It enacted the Electoral Act 1993, which provided for MMP. The Act said it would only come into force if a majority of people voted for it.

“That was very powerful and gave it a lot of legitimacy,” says Peden.

The margin was not huge: 54% voted in favour, versus 45 against.

In 2008, the government said it would hold another referendum just to make sure New Zealanders get an opportunity to kick the tyres, referring to a saying about checking the tyres on a used car before deciding whether to buy it.

The referendum was held in 2011, using the format of the 1992 referendum. Out of 73.5% of the electorate who turned out, 57.8% voted to keep the MMP.

To date, New Zealand has had eight elections under the MMP system.

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.