Anyway, my issue today comes from the right wing Kiwiblog. In this post he goes through the scenarios if New Zealand had been operating under Supplementary Member instead of MMP since 1996. Basically the conclusions are: Bigger parties would have been bigger, Smaller parties would have been smaller. What he doesn't point out however is that this is unfair - the percentage of seats parties received wouldn't have been as close to the percentage of votes that they got as it would have been under MMP. That's basically my point, so I'm just going to leave you with the numbers - have a look at them if you have trouble getting to sleep tonight.
| 1996 General election | |||||
| Party Vote | MMP Seats | Difference | SM Seats | Difference | |
| National | 33.84 | 36.67 | 2.83 | 44.17 | 10.33 |
| Labour | 28.19 | 30.83 | 2.64 | 37.5 | 9.31 |
| NZ First | 13.35 | 14.17 | 0.82 | 11.67 | -1.68 |
| Alliance | 10.1 | 10.83 | 0.73 | 3.33 | -6.77 |
| ACT | 6.1 | 6.67 | 0.57 | 2.5 | -3.6 |
| United | 0.88 | 0.83 | -0.05 | 0.83 | -0.05 |
Short Analysis: Alliance would have gotten fucked over (6% less seats than they should have) and National and Labour would have been the two big winners.
| 1999 General election | |||||
| Party Vote | MMP Seats | Difference | SM Seats | Difference | |
| Labour | 38.74 | 40.83 | 2.09 | 56.67 | 17.93 |
| National | 30.5 | 32.5 | 2 | 33.33 | 2.83 |
| Alliance | 7.74 | 8.33 | 0.59 | 3.33 | -4.41 |
| ACT | 7.04 | 7.5 | 0.46 | 1.67 | -5.37 |
| Greens | 5.16 | 5.83 | 0.67 | 2.5 | -2.66 |
| NZ First | 4.26 | 4.17 | -0.09 | 1.67 | -2.59 |
| United | 0.54 | 0.83 | 0.29 | 0.83 | 0.29 |
Short Analysis: ACT and Alliance would have been the big two losers while Labour would have received a huge 17% more seats than it was entitled to.
| 2002 General election | |||||
| Party Vote | MMP Seats | Difference | SM Seats | Difference | |
| Labour | 41.26 | 43.33 | 2.07 | 60 | 18.74 |
| National | 20.93 | 22.5 | 1.57 | 29.17 | 8.24 |
| NZ First | 10.38 | 10.83 | 0.45 | 3.33 | -7.05 |
| ACT | 7.14 | 7.5 | 0.36 | 1.67 | -5.47 |
| Greens | 7 | 7.5 | 0.5 | 1.67 | -5.33 |
| United Future | 6.69 | 6.67 | -0.02 | 2.5 | -4.19 |
| Progressives | 1.7 | 1.67 | -0.03 | 1.67 | -0.03 |
Short Analysis: Labour and National would have been the big winners, Labour by 18% and National by 8% - NZ First, ACT, Greens and United Future would have all been underrepresented by between 4 and 7 percent.
| 2005 General election | |||||
| Party Vote | MMP Seats | Difference | SM Seats | Difference | |
| Labour | 41.1 | 41.32 | 0.22 | 44.17 | 3.07 |
| National | 39.1 | 39.67 | 0.57 | 44.17 | 5.07 |
| NZ First | 5.72 | 5.79 | 0.07 | 1.67 | -4.05 |
| Greens | 5.3 | 4.96 | -0.34 | 1.67 | -3.63 |
| Maori | 2.12 | 3.31 | 1.19 | 5 | 2.88 |
| United Future | 2.67 | 2.48 | -0.19 | 1.67 | -1 |
| ACT | 1.51 | 1.65 | 0.14 | 0.83 | -0.68 |
| Progressives | 1.16 | 0.83 | -0.33 | 0.83 | -0.33 |
Short Analysis: Seen a pattern yet? 2005 wouldn't have been as bad, National and Labour would have gained 3-5% at the expense of mainly NZ First and the Greens.
| 2008 General election | |||||
| Party Vote | MMP Seats | Difference | SM Seats | Difference | |
| National | 44.93 | 47.54 | 2.61 | 56.67 | 11.74 |
| Labour | 33.99 | 35.25 | 1.26 | 31.67 | -2.32 |
| Greens | 6.72 | 7.38 | 0.66 | 1.67 | -5.05 |
| Maori | 2.39 | 4.1 | 1.71 | 6.67 | 4.28 |
| ACT | 3.65 | 4.1 | 0.45 | 1.67 | -1.98 |
| Progressives | 0.91 | 0.82 | -0.09 | 0.83 | -0.08 |
| United Future | 0.87 | 0.82 | -0.05 | 0.83 | -0.04 |
Short Analysis: National would have been overrepresented by 11%, mainly at the expense of the Greens.
Conclusion: I am sick of html and am waiting for this post to have mega formatting issues as soon as I post it. Here's hoping..
Proper Conclusion: SM is really the worst of both worlds - unfair to small parties like FPP and still contains the pesky list elements of PR that no one likes. MMP on the other hand is really the best of both worlds, sure it has PR features (it is PR!) but it is also pretty darn fair at allocating seats while retaining local electorates.
