Whose ox is gored?

And are libs having buyer's remorse about MMP?

There’s an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" where Larry David arrives in time for an appointment with his doctor. Despite this, the receptionist permits another patient, who had a subsequent appointment, to go before him because she arrived earlier. Not taking this lying down Larry gets into an argument with receptionist, and eventually the doctor himself, over the perceived unfairness.

This prompts a rule change at the doctor's office. The next time Larry goes to the doctor, he is careful to make sure he arrives early. However, the same other patient arrives after him and is seen first, because she had the earlier appointment and the practice had changed its rules after Larry’s complaints.

But Larry now favours the old role. He argues about it again. Because the only rule that Larry really believes in is that he should get to go first.

Apropos of that, Dame Anne Salmond voiced a sentiment that I have heard from many liberal New Zealanders in the last month. "I have never heard so many Kiwis express dismay at what they see as a failure of the democratic process as at present," she said. All of a sudden, the power that minor parties wield in shaping policy has become something of a crisis of democracy.

It's worth noting that Dame Salmond's perspective may be more reflective of her social and professional circles than the broader New Zealand populace. Polling released today showed the new coalition with growing support overall, to the detriment of Labour. It’s a bit like the famous remarks of Pauline Kael in 1972 about being shocked by Nixon’s win given she only knew one person who voted for him.

But even so, this is just the reality of MMP. By design, smaller parties hold the balance of power. They will always punch above their weight when it comes to influencing policy direction.

I suspect the problem really comes down to whose ox is being gored. I suppose it is possible that Salmond would also see it as a failure of democracy if Te Pāti Māori had held the balance of power and drove some hard bargains from Labour. I probably wouldn’t bet money on it though.

I didn’t vote to keep MMP in 2011. And, in fact, my primary concern here did revolve around the disproportionate influence minor parties tend to wield under this system. I think it’s anti-democratic.

Think about the election we’ve just had. National and Labour between them polled poorly compared to other elections. Nevertheless, the two centrist parties polled in aggregate almost 65% of the voters. That indicates that the median voter remained very much in the centre of political life.

However, the effect of the MMP system is such that it tends to skew the balance of power away from the centre in coalition governments, towards the support parties which tend to sit on the wings. This invariably results in policy directions that may not accurately reflect the preference of the majority of voters. It’s almost inevitable except in the less common situation where it’s a centrist support party calling the shots.

But, as I say, I don’t support MMP.

I am not quite sure where people who have consistently supported MMP get off making these criticisms. If you champion giving power to a wider range of political perspectives you can hardly complain when that wider range includes voices with which you do not agree. Democracy is not democracy when it is selectively applied.

MMP was designed to allow for a broader representation. It's doing exactly that. It's just that the outcomes this time round do not align with the political preferences of many academics, journos and left wing politicians.

This tendency for selective reasoning seems to be increasingly common. Whether it’selection outcomes, social media feeds and workplace opinions, there's a growing expectation that things should always align with one's personal belief, preferences and expectations. But that’s not how the world works.

The problem is not so much the rules themselves, but how people react when the outcomes seem unfavourable. Systems produce winners and losers. What's important is how we handle the wins and the losses.

Being a “good loser” is important. Because if your opponents can’t expect you to accept your losses, why should they accept your wins?