Berry Backs MMP with Changes

Stephen Berry's picture
Submitted by Stephen Berry on Tue, 2011-11-22 03:04

Press Release

Stephen Berry

Berry Backs MMP with Changes

Tamaki Independent candidate Stephen Berry gave his qualified support to the MMP system today. “Overall I support retaining MMP but believe some changes need to be made to improve it. We need to eliminate the five percent threshold, slash the number of MPs to 99 and abolish separate Maori seats!”

Stephen Berry believes the necessity of strategic voting in Epsom for the last three elections is an example of a fundamental flaw in the current MMP system. “The purpose of MMP is to make our elections as democratic as possible. However the five percent threshold means voters in Epsom having to vote for candidates they do not support in order to affect the national result. I say the solution to this is to remove the five percent threshold altogether. If a party gets 2% of the vote they should get 2% of the seats in Parliament.”

Some critics of Berry’s advocacy for eliminating the five percent threshold point out this will mean there are more parties in Parliament and make it more difficult to establish a stable Government. Berry points out, “Totalitarian regimes are often more stable than democratic ones but that doesn't mean they are a good thing. The purpose of having a democratic election system is not to ensure a stable Government, but to provide representation for voters. The most democratic way to do this is through proper proportional representation. I would even argue that a system which makes stable Government more difficult could be seen as a positive. This would make it more difficult for a Government to raise taxes, increase economic regulations and write new laws that violate individual rights.”

Stephen Berry also states that 120 MP’s is far too many politicians for a country the size of New Zealand and it should be reduced to 99 as demanded by the citizens initiated referendum which passed with 81% of the vote in 1999. “When it comes to matters of electoral law I think it is very appropriate that the will of the majority of voters be enacted. Slashing the number of MP’s to 99 will save $2.8 million in MP salaries alone. With less busy body politicians in Parliament cooking up schemes to build utopia at the expense of individual freedom, the liberties of all New Zealanders will also be a bit safer.”

Finally Mr. Berry states that in the twenty first century is a horrendous democratic aberration to have seven Parliamentary seats for which the voting qualification is racially determined. “It is time the Maori seats were abolished immediately. A separate system of Parliamentary seats for Maori is pure state racism and absolutely diametrically opposed to the proper values of a free or democratic society. There should be no Maori parliamentary seats, no Maori seats on Councils and no unelected Maori boards with council votes. Anyone who supports this hideous apartheid in our electoral system is a racist.”

The sheeple of NZ...

Marcus's picture

...will probably vote to keep MMP.

Change would require at least 50% vote, would it not, and polling hasn't got close to that.

They seem to like politicans dicking them around and playing party politics with their votes both before and after the election in the most cynical manner possible. Either that or they simply don't understand what they are voting for or against.


Yes, and it seems faraway

gregster's picture

An equation as simple, and self-evident I would have thought, as Freedom = Prosperity, seems to have the infantilised voters running to the breasts of Nanny for protection.

Weapons would be

Mark Hubbard's picture

Weapons would be self-defeating, Gregster. We just need people to fall in love with philosophy, and understand freedom.

Bothered Hubbard

gregster's picture

We can't expect to go straight to the ideal. (Unless we've stockpiled enough weapons.)

Stephen, I can't accept that.

Mark Hubbard's picture

Stephen, I can't accept that. All I need cite for my case is how far US politicians have taken freedom from their constitution.

No politicians, at all. They're like nuclear warfare: use them and everything just gets all fucked up.

And why do I need a politician speaking for me on foreign relations? If in my interests I'll trade with other businesses from other countries; I don't need a politician between me and them to stuff that all up. If foreigners invade NZ, then we have an army. We don't need policy surrounding army: they are there to protect us if invaded, that's all. Court system decides all other issues, domestically.

You'll have to do better than that. I can't think of one reason a free society would want to play with the devil of having a single politician.

... Now I've got to get back to my email to fascist, Kate Wilkinson, and her ruddy 360 page Food Bill which apparently is going to regulate out of existence one of my chief loves: Farmers Markets. I've got a power of pissed-offedness built up at the moment that can only be exercised by Shiraz and bad language sent to a meddling bloody politician who stands for a party that supposedly stands for limited government: 360 pages of regulations certifying sellers of fruit and bloody vegetables. White hot rage ...

If MMP passes it will be

Stephen Berry's picture

If MMP passes it will be subject to a review - but who by and whether we get to vote on the final product is questionable.

Mark - The ideal model would be to have a constitution that limits the role of Government just like the US had when it was founded. The hard part is ensuring politicians do not act outside of it.

Government would still have a role in foreign relations with other countries, there would still be a need to make decisions about our military and our police force including policies and what is to be done with the money they have.

I like this

gregster's picture

"Anyone who supports this hideous apartheid in our electoral system is a racist."

We don't get this modified MMP option in the vote. I voted last weekend. What then Stephen?

MMP instability may be a hindrance to political parties' actions but it also is a hindrance to a party's actions for the better.

They just won't have much to

Mark Hubbard's picture

They just won't have much to do and we won't need many of them.

I can't see any need at all. Just the odd administrator. What would be their function?

Unless you have a well defined function for them, they will be dangerous. Have you ever met a politician who didn't have what they thought was a good idea that should be foisted on everybody - that's their sole reason for getting up each morning as they see it. Political policy making is not required in a libertarian minarchy, and the minute you put politicians in the mix, elected, then the only thing guaranteed is State-creep over time surely?

I think there is always going

Stephen Berry's picture

I think there is always going to be a place for democratically elected polticians even in a libertarian minarchy.
They just won't have much to do and we won't need many of them.

Stephen Berry also states

Mark Hubbard's picture

Stephen Berry also states that 120 MP’s is far too many politicians ...

One politician is too many Smiling The referendum should include the option to do away with party politics altogether and move to a constitutional republic (libertarian minarchy).

Mind you, there wasn't a lot of hope of that happening.

I'll be watching the results for Tamaki with a lot of interest on Saturday night.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.