MPs’ Representational Roles in MMP Systems. A Comparison between Germany and New Zealand

Taking a rational choice approach, it is often suggested that Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral systems produce two types of representatives: electorate MPs who are elected directly in a constituency, are thus dependent on votes within their constituency and will therefore primarily represent their constituency, and list MPs who win a seat via the party list, are thus dependent on a good position on the party list for re-election, and will therefore primarily represent their party and interest groups. This so-called ‘mandate divide’ is, however, limited since list MPs may previously have been electorate MPs (and vice versa) and since most MPs campaign both as list and electorate candidates. We cannot assume that these experiences have no effect on MPs’ behaviour or the way they define their role (e.g. Manow 2013). The current study adds to the existing literature on representation in MMP systems by asking MPs themselves who they believe they represent. It investigates how the ways in which MPs have campaigned (for list, electorate or both) and the ways they have been elected relate to the way MPs define their representational role. In addition, it asks MPs for their perceptions of the representational role and prestige of list and electorate MPs. The study uses a two-case approach, comparing New Zealand (NZ) with Germany. Both countries have similar MMP electoral systems but different lengths of experience with this system (it was introduced in 1949 in Germany; in 1996 in NZ). Having previously used a First-Past-the-Post electoral system, NZ has a strong tradition of constituency work, and it has districts encompassing fewer voters compared with Germany. These characteristics may mean that NZ MPs (both list and electorate) will be more likely to primarily represent their constituency compared with German MPs. Yet, debates around the introduction of MMP in 1996 and the subsequent referendum in 2011, highlighted the difference between list and electorate MPs, which may result in a greater difference in the representational role of list and electorate MPs in NZ compared with Germany. Results, based on interviews with 25 MPs in Germany and 27 in NZ, confirm the rational approach idea and indicate a trend, in Germany but particularly in NZ, of electorate MPs being more likely than list MPs to say that they primarily represent their constituency, though list MPs who also campaigned actively in a constituency tend to argue that they primarily represent this constituency. In both countries, when asking MPs about their perceptions of the roles of list and electorate MPs, electorate MPs are more likely than list MPs to think that there is a difference – in particular in prestige. Compared with German electorate MPs, however, NZ electorate MPs more often explicitly say that they would not want to be a list MP. They also tend to more openly wonder about the role of list MPs, except of list MPs with an ethnic minority background. In sum then, it appears as if NZ MPs are still “grappling” with the concept of list MPs.