MMP

Most democracies use a "first past the post" system -- that is, each constituency votes for their preferred candidate, and the one who gets the most votes represents that area. The party that gets the most representatives then is the "ruling" party. That seems quite reasonable; however, that "winner take all" approach means the elected representatives don't necessarily reflect the electorate.

In America, this is most clearly seen in the electoral college, but it can also be seen in Congressional races. For example, in the last US election, 45.2 million Americans voted for a Democratic senator while only 39.3 million Americans voted for a Republican senator, yet Republicans kept control of the Senate by focusing on where the votes were cast. Because each state gets two senators regardless of population, votes in small states are "worth" more than large states. Similarly, in "swing states" (where the election is close), votes are worth more than "safe states" because winning by one vote is the same as winning by a million votes. According to wallethub, a vote in New Hampshire is "worth" 84 times more than a vote in New York!

Of course, this isn't a recent phenomenon, and isn't limited to the US: In the last UK elections, Labour received 42.2% of the popular vote while the Conservates received 42.1%. However, Conservatives captured 318 seats (48.9%) while Labour only captured 262 (40.3%).

In 2011, the UK held a referendum to change the "first past the post" vote with what they called "alternative vote." It suffered a resounding defeat, although I believe it was because the Conservatives--who benefited most from the current system--ran a successful campaign of fear and doubt. Under "first past the post" a vote for a third party is effectively wasted because that candidate has no chance of winning. Alternative Vote would have allowed voters to cast multiple votes, specifying the order of preference, so voters could vote for a third party candidate followed by a major candidate, knowing their vote would count either way.

In the 1980s, New Zealand was suffering a similar situation but took a different approach. The first-past-the-post system had encouraged a two-horse race between National and Labour, and third parties were completely sidelined. In 1978, Social Credit won 16% of the vote but only one percent of the seats. In 1981 they won 21% of the vote but only 2% of the seats. At the same time, Labour received more votes than National, but National won more seats. When Labour won in 1984, the set up a Royal Commission to review the situation. The Royal Commission recommended an alternative that had been forced on Germany after World War 2.

In March 1933, the Nazi party won the German Federal election with 44 percent of the popular vote. This was enough to seize control, install its leader as a dictator and dissolve the Reichstag. All other parties were then banned. At the end of World War II, the Allies wanted to resume democracy but prevent one party from seizing control again.  They came up with a "party list" system to ensure proportional representation system, which worked like this: Each voter got to vote for a candidate and a party. They did not have to be the same. The candidate still won using the first-past-the-post system, but the party vote was then used to allocate additional seats to ensure the electorate reflected the national vote.

Using the US senate race as an example, imagine if voters from each state voted for one candidate and one party. 50 Senators would be chosen by direct ballot, but the other 50 would be allocated to based on the party vote.  If the Democrats received 53% of the votes but only 48% of the seats (as they did in the last election), they would be allocated 29 additional seats; whereas if the Republicans only received 46% of the votes but won 52% of the seats, they would be allocated 21 seats.  Thus, the Senate would have 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans to match the proportion of the party vote.

The idea in Germany was that by preventing one single party from dominating politics, they would be forced to form coalitions and work through compromise.  In the US 2016 election, third parties won nearly 5% of the vote; if that had been reflected in the results, neither the Democrats nor Republicans would have won an outright majority and would have had to form a coalition with one of the smaller parties.

In 1993, New Zealand formally adopted the system, calling is "Mixed Member Proportional" (or MMP) for reasons I do not understand.  There are 121 seats in Parliament; 71 are elected directly in regional elections and 49 are allocated from the party vote.  In the 2014 election, National and Labour still claimed the lion share (76% of the seats between them) but five other parties were represented, and National had to form a coalition with New Zealand First.

I mention all of this as a prelude to the 2017 election, being held in two weeks, which has been an absolute roller-coaster ride.  Unfortunately only permanent residents can vote, and I won't be eligible until December.  (I also want to talk about the saga of Kim Dotcom, an Internet millionaire who bought his way into New Zealand citizenship in 2009 and has been fighting US extradition on money laundering and racketeering charges since 2012, but in the meantime has bankrolled a new political party, called the Internet Party.)