A A

Two decades after Scotland and New Zealand adopted a mixed member proportional electoral system, neither country has looked back, but the system has helped bring about some unexpected political developments.

Both countries have seen coalition governments formed with centrist nationalist parties. But the system has retained the confidence of voters. In New Zealand, a 2011 referendum that was effectively a re-match of the first-past-the-post/mixed member proportional debate ended up returning a majority in favour of the proportional system.

On April 23, P.E.I. voters will have the choice of “yes” or “no” on the question of whether to adopt a mixed member proportional (MMP) electoral system. The Island currently uses a first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Scotland adopted MMP in 1999, while New Zealand adopted the system after a referendum in 1993.

How does MMP work?

Under MMP, voters get two votes. One vote is for a district (or regional) representative, much like what exists in P.E.I. today. According to Referendum P.E.I., under an MMP system, two thirds of the legislative representatives would be chosen this way.

The second vote would be for a selection of party candidates on a list. These candidates would be Island-wide; political parties would choose candidates that appear on the list. One third of the legislative representatives would be chosen this way.

Several key details about how the system would work in P.E.I. have not yet been determined, such as the threshold of votes a party would need to field candidates for the proportional list.

For the 18 district seats, the distribution of seats by party was derived from the proportion of seats won by each party for the 27 seats of FPTP, to the 18 district seats that have been outlined in a map prepared by Referendum P.E.I. The nine seats allocated proportionally or by party were derived by using an online D’Hondt calculator. This is an estimate prepared by The Guardian. Referendum P.E.I. has not released an estimate of what past elections could have looked like under MMP.

In P.E.I., opponents of MMP, represented locally by the group No What to Vote, argue that MMP produces weak, unstable governments. The group says allocation of seats to proportional representatives puts more power in the hands of political parties and less power in the hands of local voters.

The group has also argued that rural ridings will lose democratic representation; there will be fewer district representatives and bigger ridings. No What to Vote has said the MMP system is “dangerous” as it could allow fringe or far-right parties to gain a toe-hold in P.E.I.

On the other side, the Vote Yes P.E.I. campaign argues that MMP would allow more diversity of parties and ideology in P.E.I.’s government. They point to the 18 seats the Liberals gained in the legislature (a 67 per cent majority) following the 2015 election despite winning only 40.8 per cent of the popular vote. Smaller parties, such as the Greens and NDP, would have gained seats in P.E.I.’s legislature in 2015 if it had been held under MMP.

Vote Yes P.E.I. says that while MMP would likely produce more minority governments, this would be beneficial in that it would force parties to form coalitions in order to remain in power.

The Guardian reached out to political experts in Scotland and New Zealand to find out what changes voters could expect if MMP were adopted locally.

Michael Keating.

Scotland

Michael Keating, a professor of political science at the University of Aberdeen, says mixed member proportional was adopted in the Scottish Parliament partly to make it distinct from the UK Parliament and partly to encourage coalitions between parties.

"There was a feeling in the country that if we had a new parliament just elected by first-past-the-post, Labour (party) would win all elections with a huge majority," Keating said in a phone interview.

MMP was adopted in the country in 1999.

"Nobody's ever suggested we go back from proportional representation," Keating said.

Like in P.E.I., there have been concerns about political representation of rural areas. Keating noted that some districts have been granted a constituency seat despite smaller populations.

“There was a special rule that was put into the act that the Orkney and Shetland Islands could each get one constituency member, even though between them they wouldn't have enough people (for a full seat)," Keating said.

Keating said some of the Highland constituencies have also grown in size but said this has “not really been a big issue”.

But Keating said the system has allowed individuals in some rural ridings more of a choice in terms of which representative to reach out to on issues of local concern.

"The fact that you have a constituency member and list members means you've already got somebody to go to," he said.

"If you're a Conservative and you don't want to go to your local Scottish Nationalist (member of the Scottish Parliament) you can find a Conservative one to go to."

Although the MMP system has allowed smaller parties, such as the Green party and the Scottish Socialist party to win seats, it has not given rise to far right or extremist parties, Keating said.

In recent elections, the country has seen a sharp rise in the popularity of the Scottish National party, which has been compared to the Parti Quebecois in Canada. The party, which advocates for a more sovereign Scotland, is considered center-left and won a majority of seats in 2011, a rarity in Scottish politics.

But, in a surprise turn, Keating said the adoption of MMP has also aided the country’s Conservative party.

"The Conservatives opposed proportional representation, but they were the ones who benefited from it,” he said.

After nearly being wiped out in elections in 1997, the party gained 18 seats in the 1999 elections, solely due to proportional seats. The party currently holds 31 seats.

“They only got back in because of proportional representation," Keating said.

Jonathan Boston.

New Zealand

Like P.E.I., for most of New Zealand’s history, the country’s politics had functioned as a two-party contest between Labour and the National Party.

The island state adopted MMP in 1993 following two national referendums.

According to Jonathan Boston, a professor of public policy at the Victoria University of Wellington, the referendums were preceded by a lengthy period of public debate.

The country held two referendums on the issue – a non-binding referendum in 1992 and a binding referendum in 1993. The 1993 was an overwhelming win for MMP – 54 per cent of voters chose the system over FPTP.

New Zealand’s eight elections since 1993 have resulted in four National and four Labour governments, although each party has had to form coalitions with smaller parties. Elections have taken place on average every 3.3 years.

The country is currently governed by a coalition between Labour, led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and the New Zealand First party, which is considered to be a centrist nationalist party.

Boston does not believe that the adoption of MMP has resulted in a rise of fringe or far-right political parties.

"The party system will reflect the political culture. If you have a lot of racists in your society, that will be reflected in the political system," he said.

"I don't think electoral rules, ultimately, are going to make that much of a difference."

New Zealand has been governed by minority or coalition governments since adopting MMP. Boston believes proportional systems can be designed to provide incentives for parties to continue negotiating rather than having repeated elections.

He pointed to the Swedish system, which has fixed election elections, even in cases where elections are called mid-term.

"That creates a very strong disincentive for politicians to mess it up. Because nobody wants to be blamed for having an early election," Boston said.

Twitter.com/stu_neatby