Re-Evaluating consensus in New Zealand election reform

Abstract

It is commonly believed that a norm of consensus-based election reform exists in New Zealand. However, this belief has yet to be tested with systematic study of changes to the democratic rules of the game. This article empirically analyzes the extent to which partisan and restrictive election rules have been proposed and enacted since passage of the Electoral Act 1956. Using a novel matrix of election lawmaking, a wealth of primary textual sources, and interviews with key actors, the data show clear evidence that election reforms are routinely partisan and have occasionally curtailed democratic participation. An analysis of election lawmaking by political party reveals that Labour is responsible for most partisan election reforms, whereas National has passed most demobilising enactments. These trends extend to proposed members’ bills and across multiple governments. The findings highlight the need for scholars to take seriously the importance of a broader array of election reforms beyond the electoral system, including voter and registration administration, franchise rules, ballot initiatives, electoral governance, and campaign finance. It also underscores the need for systematic study of election reforms in a wider variety of countries.