The results of the referendum on our voting system are now in, and we have decided to retain MMP. Now we turn our attention to how this system might be adapted to better serve the interests of the electorate and the principle of proportionality.
As an ordinary voter who is in favour of MMP, I want nevertheless to write about an aspect of the political discourse around MMP to which I object. I also want to make a suggestion about a feature that I think we might change.
Political commentators often talk about “wasted votes”. These votes are, of course, those cast for minor parties that fail to cross the 5% threshold, and fail to win an electorate seat. They are discounted when determining the allocation of parliamentary seats.
In a democracy the only votes that are truly “wasted” are those that are never cast in the first place. Of votes cast, “wasted votes” are those that are classed as “informal votes”. Most voters vote with the intention of achieving some effect, though the system renders some of these intentions ineffectual.
Let me illustrate from my own voting habits. In the 2008 election, my party vote went to the Progressive Party. I voted this way because I wanted to see Jim Anderton’s colleague, Matt Robson, whom I regarded as an effective politician, returned to Parliament. I knew that Anderton was almost certain to retain his electorate seat (which, of course, he did). This meant that the Progressives did not need to receive 5% of the party vote to get another candidate in (something around 1.5%, I think, would have done it). As it happened, not enough of my fellow voters also cast their votes for the Progressives. My “strategic vote” was ineffective, and hence “wasted”.
In my opinion, to call these votes “wasted” is not only insulting, but it is inherently anti-democratic if it operates to dissuade voters from following their inclinations. Moreover, these votes are, in effect, not so much “wasted” as disregarded. And in a sense, they are also “diverted” or “transferred” to other successful parties.
This is because when MMP was devised, Parliament decided that it is the proportion of party votes a party receives that decides the number of seats allocated to that party. But when a proportion of the party votes are removed from the equation, the allocation of seats is adjusted to allow for that. Hence, party votes do not translate into seats on a “strictly” proportional basis.
Rather a mathematical formula called the Sainte-Laguë allocation formula is used. I don’t fully understand this: could we have one of our political commentators, or political science experts explain it in plain English, please? But the effect of it appears to advantage the parties that are left in the pool, as it were: particularly the parties that poll the higher percentages of party votes.
To illustrate: in this election, National got just on 48% of the party vote, which on strictly proportional terms would give it 58 seats in a 120 seat Parliament. Instead, if it retains Waitakere (at the moment this seems likely), it gets 60 seats, which is 50% of the seats. In 2008, with 45.5% of the votes, National received 58 seats (55 seats would have more closely represented their “percentage share”).
MMP as it currently operates also allows for parties that gain one electorate seat to have their share of the party vote counted: so that, for instance, in 2008 the Act Party by winning Epsom and getting 3.65% of the party vote, was allocated five seats. NZ First, of course, polled 4.07% of the party vote, but did not win an electorate seat, so that their share of the party votes was discounted.
In my opinion, the Electoral Commission’s website is misleading when it states that “a party vote cast for a party that does not cross the threshold has no impact on the number of seats other parties receive”; or that these party votes “are not in any way reallocated to other parties”. The effect of the formula is that they are. To “sell” MMP as a system whereby the percentage of seats a party receives is “roughly equivalent” to the percentage of its party vote, is “false advertising” to say the least.
I believe that the number of seats a party receives under MMP should more straightforwardly reflect the percentage of party votes it gets. This will be achieved, I think, by lowering the 5% threshold so that allocation of seats more closely reflects the party vote percentages. On current polling figures, this should also do away with the need for “overhang” seats.
At any rate, the system should also be adjusted so that the number of seats in Parliament is capped at 120. Any party that gains only an electorate seat should be allocated only that seat, unless it is also able to cross the (lowered) threshold. This would move the MMP system closer to a Supplementary Member style Parliament, but would retain sufficient “list seats” to retain the proportionality of MMP.
Finally, as MMP comes under review, could we please have some good education about the system, and a decent debate, in the pages of the Herald? What are the merits and demerits of the opinions expressed above? Some, like me, will favour lowering the 5% threshold, others will want to see it raised. What are the pros and cons of lowering it? What are the pros and cons of raising it? And by how much should it go up or down? There are other elements of the system that need review. What are they, and what changes will deliver the best outcomes?
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Do the polls predict or produce the outcome?
I suppose we are stuck with incessant opinion polls, especially before an election. For a long time, I've wondered how much the polling affects the way people vote when they get to the ballot box. I have suspected that oftentimes they can produce "self-fulfilling prophecies" of the outcome. In fact, one political commentator was quoted in The New Zealand Herald as saying that one reason for the low turnout this election was the fact that the polls had persuaded many that the result that eventuated on the day was a "foregone conclusion". Sometimes, of course, the polls can get it very wrong. This election they seem to have got in pretty right.
In recent days, I've been wondering whether anyone has done any analysis of the effect that polls have on voting decisions and outcomes. As it turns out, someone has. On Radio New Zealand's Sunday morning "Media Watch" today (5th December), the topic of the influence of polls on voting was discussed (Google "Radio New Zealand", look for the link to Chris Laidlaw's "Sunday" programme, and you find there a link to the programme).
A PhD student at the University of Otago, her name is Michelle Nichol (if I caught it correctly), has studied this question, and the answer is that, yes, polls definitely affect the outcome. But just to back up a minute, I should say that the discussion began with the presenter saying that there had been a record number of polls this election. And they had come "thicker and faster", partly because of the shortened period of the campaign preceding polling day. These polls, he opined, had been "partly to inform the public, but mostly to give the media something to report on in their own news outlets".
Michelle's study has shown, as I said above, that polls definitely affect the outcome of elections. She offered the opinion that Parliament would have looked different without them. There are three ways in which polls have an influence. These have to do with "the bandwagon effect", "the underdog effect", and the effect polls have on "strategic voting".
The "bandwagon effect" refers to the way in which a popular party (as shown in the polls) attracts votes to that party. Her research has shown that this effect dominates over "the underdog effect". There can be a six percent to ten percent movement towards a party in the ballot on account of the "bandwagon effect". This is especially the case if one party is well out in front, as was the case this time. The more popular the party the more strongly the "bandwagon effect" operates. So in this case, the polls do have a very strong tendency to act as "self-fulfilling" prophecies.
The "underdog effect", as the name suggests, has the result of boosting votes for a party that is perceived to be the "underdog", to be receiving a poor showing (perhaps in the public mind, an unfair showing?) in the polls. But in this case, the effect is likely to produce only a two to three percent gain in a party's share of the vote. You can listen to the broadcast for interesting commentary on how the "underdog" effect (and to a degree the "bandwagon effect") influenced the fortunes of both Act and NZ First. It seems that polling is likely to be more inaccurate in the case of minor parties, and to that extent perhaps more damaging to their fortunes.
Should polls be banned for a period (say a week or two) before an election? Michelle was inclined to think not. For one thing, it is likely to drive polling "underground", with the result that misleading polls may circulate, or that (even if the polls are a reasonably accurate reflection of public opinion) certain groups will learn of the results and others will not. Besides that, she said, democratic societies consider that one cannot ban the taking of polls, though some may wish to ban the publishing of them. But in this internet age that is pretty well impossible. Some countries, however, do ban the publishing of polls before an election: many Eastern European countries do, she said, but also Greece, Switzerland (interesting this), and Spain.
One effect of the media's delight in running polls, research has shown, is that often the media gives more space, or attention, to polls rather than the issues. Someone has done a study, and has discovered that in this election (or it may have been an earlier one) ten percent of coverage relating to the election was given to the poll results, while a further 23% was devoted to discussion of coalition possibilities based on the polling.
So, are polls a good thing or a bad thing? These are my reflections, now: as I said at the outset, they are probably inevitable, and perhaps they are helpful to a degree in helping the electorate make up its mind. I tend to agree with Michelle that it is not wise to ban polls. But what is required is to educate voters to be "critically aware" of the influence of polls; and also to be thoughtful about making up their minds, and try to arrive at educated decisions. Perhaps, cumulatively and over time, polls give a good indication of the way in which voters are likely to vote. But on individual polls, people should consider this: the sample in relation to the overall number of voters is extremely small, miniscule, almost to the point of vanishing in percentage terms. In this latest pre-election round of polling, I noticed that a number of the polls were based on a sample of 750 voters (and the margin of error posted was usually +/- 3.5% or thereabouts). Against the total number of people on the electoral roll, a sample of 750 voters works out at about 0.00002289% of the electorate. Or, if you prefer, of the 2,254,581 people who actually cast their vote on November 26th, the sample represents 0.00003326% of those who voted. Over against the other percentages that are thrown around in an election e.g. the 5% of total votes required for a party to enter Parliament (short of winning an electorate, some of which were won in marginal seats in this election on about 12,000 to 15,000 votes), those are pretty small percentages.
In recent days, I've been wondering whether anyone has done any analysis of the effect that polls have on voting decisions and outcomes. As it turns out, someone has. On Radio New Zealand's Sunday morning "Media Watch" today (5th December), the topic of the influence of polls on voting was discussed (Google "Radio New Zealand", look for the link to Chris Laidlaw's "Sunday" programme, and you find there a link to the programme).
A PhD student at the University of Otago, her name is Michelle Nichol (if I caught it correctly), has studied this question, and the answer is that, yes, polls definitely affect the outcome. But just to back up a minute, I should say that the discussion began with the presenter saying that there had been a record number of polls this election. And they had come "thicker and faster", partly because of the shortened period of the campaign preceding polling day. These polls, he opined, had been "partly to inform the public, but mostly to give the media something to report on in their own news outlets".
Michelle's study has shown, as I said above, that polls definitely affect the outcome of elections. She offered the opinion that Parliament would have looked different without them. There are three ways in which polls have an influence. These have to do with "the bandwagon effect", "the underdog effect", and the effect polls have on "strategic voting".
The "bandwagon effect" refers to the way in which a popular party (as shown in the polls) attracts votes to that party. Her research has shown that this effect dominates over "the underdog effect". There can be a six percent to ten percent movement towards a party in the ballot on account of the "bandwagon effect". This is especially the case if one party is well out in front, as was the case this time. The more popular the party the more strongly the "bandwagon effect" operates. So in this case, the polls do have a very strong tendency to act as "self-fulfilling" prophecies.
The "underdog effect", as the name suggests, has the result of boosting votes for a party that is perceived to be the "underdog", to be receiving a poor showing (perhaps in the public mind, an unfair showing?) in the polls. But in this case, the effect is likely to produce only a two to three percent gain in a party's share of the vote. You can listen to the broadcast for interesting commentary on how the "underdog" effect (and to a degree the "bandwagon effect") influenced the fortunes of both Act and NZ First. It seems that polling is likely to be more inaccurate in the case of minor parties, and to that extent perhaps more damaging to their fortunes.
Should polls be banned for a period (say a week or two) before an election? Michelle was inclined to think not. For one thing, it is likely to drive polling "underground", with the result that misleading polls may circulate, or that (even if the polls are a reasonably accurate reflection of public opinion) certain groups will learn of the results and others will not. Besides that, she said, democratic societies consider that one cannot ban the taking of polls, though some may wish to ban the publishing of them. But in this internet age that is pretty well impossible. Some countries, however, do ban the publishing of polls before an election: many Eastern European countries do, she said, but also Greece, Switzerland (interesting this), and Spain.
One effect of the media's delight in running polls, research has shown, is that often the media gives more space, or attention, to polls rather than the issues. Someone has done a study, and has discovered that in this election (or it may have been an earlier one) ten percent of coverage relating to the election was given to the poll results, while a further 23% was devoted to discussion of coalition possibilities based on the polling.
So, are polls a good thing or a bad thing? These are my reflections, now: as I said at the outset, they are probably inevitable, and perhaps they are helpful to a degree in helping the electorate make up its mind. I tend to agree with Michelle that it is not wise to ban polls. But what is required is to educate voters to be "critically aware" of the influence of polls; and also to be thoughtful about making up their minds, and try to arrive at educated decisions. Perhaps, cumulatively and over time, polls give a good indication of the way in which voters are likely to vote. But on individual polls, people should consider this: the sample in relation to the overall number of voters is extremely small, miniscule, almost to the point of vanishing in percentage terms. In this latest pre-election round of polling, I noticed that a number of the polls were based on a sample of 750 voters (and the margin of error posted was usually +/- 3.5% or thereabouts). Against the total number of people on the electoral roll, a sample of 750 voters works out at about 0.00002289% of the electorate. Or, if you prefer, of the 2,254,581 people who actually cast their vote on November 26th, the sample represents 0.00003326% of those who voted. Over against the other percentages that are thrown around in an election e.g. the 5% of total votes required for a party to enter Parliament (short of winning an electorate, some of which were won in marginal seats in this election on about 12,000 to 15,000 votes), those are pretty small percentages.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Simple Simon Economics
Sometimes I think that I'll write a book with the title, "Simple Simon Economics". You know the rhyme: Simple Simon met a Pieman going to the fair; said Simple Simon to the Pieman, "Let me taste your wares". Said the Pieman to Simple Simon, "Show me first your penny." Said Simple Simon to the Pieman, "Sir, I have not any".
Let me rewrite it: "Simple Simon met a Piechartman detailing economic affairs; said Simple Simon to the Piechartman, "Let me try your theories". Said the Piechartman to Simple Simon, "Show me first your savvy". Said Simple Simon to the Piechartman, "Sir, I have not any."
Indeed, I'm not much up with economics; pie charts, and theories I don't savvy. So I'm a "Simple Simon" when it comes to such matters. However, I observe and try to understand how the world works, and this is some of what I notice.
- Tax cuts put more money back into consumers' pockets, money sloshes around the economy so that it picks up: this is a good thing.
- Wage rises for lower paid workers puts more money back into consumers' pockets, money sloshes around the economy so that the economy picks up: this is a bad thing.
- Directors and shareholders believe that to attract the top talent required to run a company, high salaries must be paid, and must be competitive with the international market, this is a good thing.
- Workers (often supported by unions) believe that their skills and effort deserve more reward and higher wages: this is a bad thing.
-If a company is successful and makes good profits, and returns good dividends to shareholders, this is generally thought to be due to the good management and work of the CEO and directors, who deserve a reward.
- If a company is successful and makes good profits, and returns good dividends to shareholders, it does not seem to occur to "the powers that be" that loyal staff and hardworking employees should share in the rewards as well as the directors and the CEO, and, of course, the shareholders.
As a society thinks, so will it be (to paraphrase loosely Proverbs 23:7, KJV). What we need is not new economic policies, whether of the right or the left. We need a new way of thinking. It's not about "the politics of envy" or "the economics of greed". It's about recognizing that the success of any economy rests on the input and the hard work of many people in all strata of society. It's about recapturing the sense of society and a social compact.
Let me rewrite it: "Simple Simon met a Piechartman detailing economic affairs; said Simple Simon to the Piechartman, "Let me try your theories". Said the Piechartman to Simple Simon, "Show me first your savvy". Said Simple Simon to the Piechartman, "Sir, I have not any."
Indeed, I'm not much up with economics; pie charts, and theories I don't savvy. So I'm a "Simple Simon" when it comes to such matters. However, I observe and try to understand how the world works, and this is some of what I notice.
- Tax cuts put more money back into consumers' pockets, money sloshes around the economy so that it picks up: this is a good thing.
- Wage rises for lower paid workers puts more money back into consumers' pockets, money sloshes around the economy so that the economy picks up: this is a bad thing.
- Directors and shareholders believe that to attract the top talent required to run a company, high salaries must be paid, and must be competitive with the international market, this is a good thing.
- Workers (often supported by unions) believe that their skills and effort deserve more reward and higher wages: this is a bad thing.
-If a company is successful and makes good profits, and returns good dividends to shareholders, this is generally thought to be due to the good management and work of the CEO and directors, who deserve a reward.
- If a company is successful and makes good profits, and returns good dividends to shareholders, it does not seem to occur to "the powers that be" that loyal staff and hardworking employees should share in the rewards as well as the directors and the CEO, and, of course, the shareholders.
As a society thinks, so will it be (to paraphrase loosely Proverbs 23:7, KJV). What we need is not new economic policies, whether of the right or the left. We need a new way of thinking. It's not about "the politics of envy" or "the economics of greed". It's about recognizing that the success of any economy rests on the input and the hard work of many people in all strata of society. It's about recapturing the sense of society and a social compact.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Challenge of Ministry in Post-Christendom Australasia
Last Sunday (26/06/2011), while on an ashcloud enforced stopover in Brisbane, I went to an inner city church. It was an 11 a.m. service (there had earlier been a 9.30 a.m. service, which may have been the main service). I arrived there at about 5 minutes before the service was due to begin. There were not many people there at that point: the woman minister, one or two people on the door, and two or three others in the pews. There was also a young couple there, with a new baby, and a couple of young boys. They were there for the baptism of their baby boy. Another young woman stood nearby: it transpired that she was the godparent, and, if I recall correctly, was a sister of the baby's mother. In the next few minutes other members of the baptismal family arrived: perhaps about eight or nine adults, and three children (ranging in age from about six to nine). One set, a couple with the three children - two boys and a girl - sat in the pew in front of me. The adults were in their early to mid-thirties.
As the service began, the man got out an electronic gadget and began fiddling with it. He brought up a game and passed the device to one of the boys. Meanwhile the service got under way with a "Call to Worship", followed by a hymn. The minister led off valiantly, and we sang along, though the father of the boys made no attempt to sing, nor even to stand. It soon became obvious that, whatever the commitment of the parents bringing their baby for baptism (and they'd had their two older boys baptised as well), their friends and family had little connection with the church.
(As we were singing the hymn, I became aware of a woman's voice, with an American accent, singing strongly. I discovered at the end of the service, that a number of people had joined the congregation (and had been sitting in the pews behind me) swelling the numbers to perhaps about 25-30 persons, including the children).
The minister had a nice easy style, and did a very good job in the lead up to the baptism. There was a slot for a talk to the children, and she explained the meaning of baptism. The main message was that it stood for the fact of God's love for us. The baptism was conducted in a relaxed manner: and the father of the baby, at least, spoke out the promises reasonably strongly. A member of the congregation was called up to present the family with a baptismal candle, the certificate, a card (which members of the baptismal party were invited to sign and write comments for the child to read as it grew up), and a children's book of Bible stories.
The children went off to a transcept to one side of the sanctuary with an older woman in the congregation to engage in various "craft-type" activities, while we adults listened to the reading. There were, in fact, two printed in the order of service (Romans 6:12-23 and Matt. 10:40-42), but the minister, perhaps wisely, decided to read only the reading from Matthew. This was followed by a "Reflection" on the reading in which the minister spoke of what we receive in "welcoming a child" (the example of humility, for one). It was at this point that a woman (perhaps in her late thirties) got up from the pew two in front of me, and came to sit next to the mother of the children sitting in the pew in front of me. They proceeded to carry on a conversation (reasonably discreetly: I was intent on listening to the "reflection", so I don't know whether I could have followed the conversation had I concentrated on that instead). Meanwhile, a man who was sharing the pew with the woman who had moved (perhaps her husband/partner?) was sitting slant-wise in the pew reading the Bible. I do not know whether the minister noticed the semi-disrespectful inattention of a portion of her congregation, but if she did, she did not show it.
Once the "reflection" finished (and after an offering) we had some prayers during which the women continued their conversation...At some point during the service (perhaps during the sermon?; after the prayers?) an older man, who several times looked around towards the back of the church, got up and walked to the back. In a few moments, he returned carrying a child (perhaps a grandchild?).
As I left the service, I commended the minister on having taken the service very nicely. But I also left with a sense of having been reminded of the challenges of ministry today, especially to those with little connection with the church. Whatever the motivations of the couple who brought their child to be baptised, it seemed obvious to me that their friends were there not entirely willingly. They came out of a desire to support their friends perhaps, but they had little interest in the service and were enduring it.
Currently, I am a bit removed from the "frontline" of ministry. My experience last Sunday was a salutary reminder that we need in the church to be alive and open to the situation of many in society today who know little of church culture, let alone the message of the gospel. I don't doubt that the scenario I encountered last Sunday could well be replicated, in one form or another, on this side of the Tasman. I don't mean to be judgmental of the non-churched participants in that service (leaving aside, perhaps, a certain expectation of an attempt at common courtesy, and some attempt to adapt to the situation). I write this as a reminder that ministry today must be carried out with grace, imagination, and a lively sense of how to connect with people whereever they are coming from, and whatever their understanding of "church". All things considered, I thought that that church (its minister and the few "regulars" who assisted her) did well in that respect.
As the service began, the man got out an electronic gadget and began fiddling with it. He brought up a game and passed the device to one of the boys. Meanwhile the service got under way with a "Call to Worship", followed by a hymn. The minister led off valiantly, and we sang along, though the father of the boys made no attempt to sing, nor even to stand. It soon became obvious that, whatever the commitment of the parents bringing their baby for baptism (and they'd had their two older boys baptised as well), their friends and family had little connection with the church.
(As we were singing the hymn, I became aware of a woman's voice, with an American accent, singing strongly. I discovered at the end of the service, that a number of people had joined the congregation (and had been sitting in the pews behind me) swelling the numbers to perhaps about 25-30 persons, including the children).
The minister had a nice easy style, and did a very good job in the lead up to the baptism. There was a slot for a talk to the children, and she explained the meaning of baptism. The main message was that it stood for the fact of God's love for us. The baptism was conducted in a relaxed manner: and the father of the baby, at least, spoke out the promises reasonably strongly. A member of the congregation was called up to present the family with a baptismal candle, the certificate, a card (which members of the baptismal party were invited to sign and write comments for the child to read as it grew up), and a children's book of Bible stories.
The children went off to a transcept to one side of the sanctuary with an older woman in the congregation to engage in various "craft-type" activities, while we adults listened to the reading. There were, in fact, two printed in the order of service (Romans 6:12-23 and Matt. 10:40-42), but the minister, perhaps wisely, decided to read only the reading from Matthew. This was followed by a "Reflection" on the reading in which the minister spoke of what we receive in "welcoming a child" (the example of humility, for one). It was at this point that a woman (perhaps in her late thirties) got up from the pew two in front of me, and came to sit next to the mother of the children sitting in the pew in front of me. They proceeded to carry on a conversation (reasonably discreetly: I was intent on listening to the "reflection", so I don't know whether I could have followed the conversation had I concentrated on that instead). Meanwhile, a man who was sharing the pew with the woman who had moved (perhaps her husband/partner?) was sitting slant-wise in the pew reading the Bible. I do not know whether the minister noticed the semi-disrespectful inattention of a portion of her congregation, but if she did, she did not show it.
Once the "reflection" finished (and after an offering) we had some prayers during which the women continued their conversation...At some point during the service (perhaps during the sermon?; after the prayers?) an older man, who several times looked around towards the back of the church, got up and walked to the back. In a few moments, he returned carrying a child (perhaps a grandchild?).
As I left the service, I commended the minister on having taken the service very nicely. But I also left with a sense of having been reminded of the challenges of ministry today, especially to those with little connection with the church. Whatever the motivations of the couple who brought their child to be baptised, it seemed obvious to me that their friends were there not entirely willingly. They came out of a desire to support their friends perhaps, but they had little interest in the service and were enduring it.
Currently, I am a bit removed from the "frontline" of ministry. My experience last Sunday was a salutary reminder that we need in the church to be alive and open to the situation of many in society today who know little of church culture, let alone the message of the gospel. I don't doubt that the scenario I encountered last Sunday could well be replicated, in one form or another, on this side of the Tasman. I don't mean to be judgmental of the non-churched participants in that service (leaving aside, perhaps, a certain expectation of an attempt at common courtesy, and some attempt to adapt to the situation). I write this as a reminder that ministry today must be carried out with grace, imagination, and a lively sense of how to connect with people whereever they are coming from, and whatever their understanding of "church". All things considered, I thought that that church (its minister and the few "regulars" who assisted her) did well in that respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)