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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)