A petition is currently circulating asking that an appropriate degree and form of proportional representation be introduced into our electoral system. This subject has been in discussion now since 1974 when a parliamentary select committee was set up to study electoral reform. The results of this committee were amendments to the Electoral Act in 1974 and 1975 such as lowering the voting age to 18. However, the electoral system itself was not changed.

In short, proportional representation means that the percentage of the vote that each party receives determines its percentage of the seats in parliament. This system results in everybody's vote being of equal weight and being counted in the election of an M.P. unless the party the person votes for receives so few votes as to be ineligible to a seat. It metes out precise justice for all parliamentary parties, is totally democratic and ensures that the political views of nearly all are presented in parliament.

In contrast, the present electoral system involving the first past the post method of election results in the votes of those who do not support the "winner" in each Government instead of a National one; this in 1977? Clearly change is needed a large number of safe party seats so that the making and unmaking of Governments comes to rest in the hands of an accidentally privileged minority of electors—those who live in marginal electorates.

In each election the whim of about 2% of floating voters in half a dozen or so of the marginal electorates determine which of National or Labour will be the next Government. Even in the "landslide" electorates had voted Labour instead of National, there would have been a Labour Government instead of a National one? Western Hutt 55, Palmerston North 71, Hastings 246, Lyttelton 500, Dunedin North 485, Wellington Central 539, Eden 639, Gisborne 661, Manurewa 680, Rangiora 691, Waitemata 694, Wairarapa 735; a total of 5996. For the usual close election this number is usually around 2000.

The present system acts as a dissentive for people to vote for third parties thereby strengthening the two party confrontation system, with, upon each being elected, the undoing of much of what the other has started.

A table of general election results reveals the discrepancies between the percentage of votes and percentage of seats that N.Z. parties have received under the present system. This was particularly great in 1954, 1966, 1972 and of course 1975. The 1954 result demonstrates that under the present system it is possible for a party to gain more votes than the other yet end up with fewer seats. In 1966 the views of 174,000 people had only one representative in parliament. In 1975 the views of 200,000 people had no representative at all.

It is clear that the present system results in minority views being under represented or not represented at all, so that one of the functions of parliamentary democracy as the body which scrutinizes the conduct of the executive, asks questions, expresses doubts and acts as a forum and focus for public criticism and debate, is defeated.

Forms of Proportional Representation

There are several different variations in use each having been developed by the particular country to suit its own individual circumstances. But the two main systems that were considered for adoption in Britain by the Hansard Society Commission on Electoral Reform are the single transferable vote and one which can be called the additional member system. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages and neither are necessarily the best form for New Zealand. This would be the subject of submissions by all interested parties and groups once the principle is accepted. The petition is solely concerned with establishment of the principle (for a discussion of the various electoral systems in use see "Voting in Democracies" by E. Lakeman and J. Lambert).

Personally neither system appeals very much. Two proposals that I think would be best are either (a) retain the present set-up, except, only those candidates who receive a majority of the votes in their electorate be declared elected. The remaining seats to be allocated to each party so that its total number of seats is equivalent to its percentage of the total vote. For example, for the 1975 election the allocation of seats should have been National 41, Labour 34, Social Credit 7, Values 5. As it was 46 candidates received a majority of the vote in their electorates. 35 National and 11 Labour. The allocation of the remaining seats would have been—National 6, Labour 23, Social Credit 7, and Values 5. (b) use an extension of the Local Body electoral system (which is itself the single transferable vote system) and treat the whole country as one constituency (as in Israel). Each voter would be given a list of all candidates standing of which he or she crosses out the names of all candidates except the number for the seats to be filled. The only disadvantage of this would be a rather large ballot paper.

Arguments Against

The main argument against proportional representation is that it produces political instability in that a situation can arise whereby third parties hold the balance of power, whereas the first past the post system usually produces a government by one party even when it receives less than half the vote.

But the balance of power situation is still possible under the present system, as is the case in Britain at the present time and advocating the ability of one party to do all it wishes against the will of the majority is being undemocratic, and when the ruling minority becomes as low as 39% of electors, the elementary rights of citizens come into question. This minority rule situation has existed in New Zealand now for the last 26 years and on a number of occasions before that as well.

If a coalition Government is needed under a proportional representation system then each issue is decided by a majority of electors as represented in parliament by their elected parties. If a party gains a majority of the vote, then it is able to put its own policies into effect. Under either situation there exists political stability, consensus and democracy which can be seen in the economic prosperity social health, relative absence of industrial troubles in those countries which have proportional representation such as Sweden and West Germany.

Another argument against proportional representation is that under it some constituents may end up with an M.P. which few of them voted for, if the additional seat form is being used. However, under the present system many people end up with an M.P. which few voted for and since party preferences account for at least 87% of voting behaviour the parties are justified in selecting their own M.P.s for the seats they are eligible for although all candidates for the seats should stand in constituency elections.

Position of the Parties

Any change to the Electoral Act re quires either a 75% majority in the House of Representatives, or a majority in the popular vote via a national referendum. It seems likely that until both National and Labour agree to a proportional representation system there is little chance of there being one.

Conclusion

In a truly democratic society any citizen should feel that he or she can influence government. How many of us feel this in 1977? Clearly change is needed and electoral reform is just part of a much needed and long overdue reform of our whole political system. Support for the petition will assist in getting the principle of reform accepted and acted upon.

Geoffrey Churchman

1.	The Report of the Hansard Society Commission on Electoral Reform (London) 1976.
2.	Do you get value for your vote? L.J. Robinson 1976.

(This article does not necessarily reflect the views of Salient or V.U. W.S.A.)