Hard News: Don't bother voting
219 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
I don't sell them, so all you can get a cut of are the expenses. So yes please!
Send me a picture; maybe I could buy one.
Oh, but it's been done. Do we even still bother? I guess we ought to, seen as they keep at it...
I remember that march; it was fun (thanks for organising it, BTW)
-
I remember that march; it was fun (thanks for organising it, BTW)
It was, rather, wasn't it? The Scoop release has the text of Tze Ming's speech in front of Parliament, I never realised that. Like a guest post from the past.
-
'Song for Sarah'
-
"That reminds me of the hand-wringing post-election punditry about how 'polarised' New Zealand was."
though while we should be proud of our democracy we shouldn't be complacent about it, there's still a lot to debate about and with alan greenspan kind of leaving the church today ,how we run our economy certainly seems to have various people eyeing the polars.
-
Idiot Savant: I knew that I had read of the idea about doing a List Only somewhere, and discover that it was your website. So thanks for the ideas, and pleased to see them up for discussion.
-
Send me a picture; maybe I could buy one.
Don't let Rob hear you say that.. :)
-
imho, the 5% threshold is too high.
one vote out of every 20 electorate votes cast.
that is a huge barrier and denies people legitimate representation of their views.i suggest halving it AND only giving an exemption for parties that win TWO electorates. this one-seat business is particularly crappy.
In theory, party A could win 4.9%, no electorates and get zero seats. Party B might win 2.1%, one electorate and get three seats. That's pure bullshit.
Under my suggested change, a party that wins 2.5% and no electorate gets three seats. A party that wins one electorate and 2.4% gets one seat (rather than the three under the current rule).
Not perfect but better. And best of all, it's goodbye to all those one-man shows masquerading as parties.
-
woops.
"party votes cast" -
though while we should be proud of our democracy we shouldn't be complacent about it,
Certainly not, but a little bit of perspective and temperance doesn't hurt either. I've quoted Shaw's observation that newspapers seem incapable of distinguishing between a bicycle accident and the end of civilization. And, sorry Jeremy, there's no "complacency" involved in saying that a finely balanced election result does not mean this country is "polarized", unless you actually think a functional and pluralistic parliamentary democracy is somehow a bad thing.
-
stephen walker wrote :
i suggest halving it AND only giving an exemption for parties that win TWO electorates.
I was thinking along the same lines myself.
Also, are there anything problems with avoiding overhangs by reducing the total number of seats available by the seats that would otherwise overhang, so that there is always only 120 MPs ? Might be some tricky (or iterative) processes involved, but I am sure it'd be possible : Calculate seats proportionally per party from the 120 available for those parties exceeding the threshold. Any parties that received more Electorate seats than their proportional allotment is assigned those seats, and the 120 is reduced by that amount, and then proportionally distributed amongst the remaining parties.
Makes things tidier, I think.
Cheers,
Brent. -
Italy had a long, semi-continuous, stable government with the Christian Democrats in power between 1946 and 1992. Beat that with a stick (I know I felt like it).
Giovanni, you'd know the history of your country ten times better than I would.
But I did a 1st year history essay in 1993 on the Italian political system. My conclusion was that the lack of stability they'd had in coalitions over the past few decades was largely down to the low level of proportionality so that coalitions needed to be held together by umpteen parties at the various levels, and when they had (what the Italian expert in my department would call a "very Italian") falling out the government fell over and had to be reconstructed with a bunch of the other parties for a while longer.
the fragmentation would make it easier to govern, not harder; a government would have more options to shop around and gain a majority on legislation.
That's a big presumption. Yes there would be more parties in government, but each of them would have slightly less MPs, so everything would have to have one or two more parties to get over the line. That would be harder - getting an extra one or two parties to agree to pass everything.
Also, to hold a government together, you'd have to keep 5 political and personal egos in line, instead of the current 3 or 4.
-
Steven wrote:
mho, the 5% threshold is too high.
one vote out of every 20 electorate votes cast.
that is a huge barrier and denies people legitimate representation of their views.I dunno. There is a rate of mental illness in society (whatever it is) that perhaps we need to account for and whilst I think that representing the needs of those citizen's is important, it can kinda mess up the rest of the system if the threshold is too low. They're has to be some allowance for what back when I was doing my undergraduate degree and a lot of "exams" had a multi-guess component, for what we called "the monkey score", being the rate at which a monkey (or drunk student) would score if they either just randomly ticked boxes, or selected column "c" all the time. If you can't get 5 people out of hundred to vote for you, perhaps you're really out there on the cutting edge, or you just had a brain-fart when coming up with policies.
I kinda wonder if forcing everyone to vote is such a good thing. If people are interested enough to vote, good for them. But if people are not interested, thanks for giving up your right to participate and thanks for not diluting the worth of vote of those people that are interested. By all means have an easily accessible process to allow people to vote if they want to....perhaps this paragraph/post is a brain fart, as I haven't really considered this before, nor pondered if NZ were to change the threshold in which direction and to what % should we change it.
I do agree with the Kyle's comment regarding keeping many ego's in the one box...I think there are a bunch of countries that demonstrate that. Top of mind is NZ and Winny-the-P.
-
Well, ballocks, Russell. I know Duncan Garner doesn't actually like subtleties unless they're covered in melted cheese, but what does "if possible" mean.
Those were my words -- I meant "if there are enough votes to attempt to form a government and there's no real showstopping reason not to".
Why do we just repeal the whole fucking Electoral Act and subcontract the selection of Parliament to pollsters and the all-seeing brown eye of the Fourth Estate?
I don't think it has anything to do with the press, really. The Greens ruled out a coalition with National and expressed a desire to coalesce with Labour. They've made their intentions admirably clear.
-
But I did a 1st year history essay in 1993 on the Italian political system. My conclusion was that the lack of stability they'd had in coalitions over the past few decades was largely down to the low level of proportionality so that coalitions needed to be held together by umpteen parties at the various levels, and when they had (what the Italian expert in my department would call a "very Italian") falling out the government fell over and had to be reconstructed with a bunch of the other parties for a while longer
Would it be possible for me to have a word with the Italian expert in your department? Or you could slap him or her on the thighs very hard on my behalf, I'm really not that fussed.
Here's the thing: imagine you have National in power for the next forty-six years. (Stopped shivering yet?) Never, or seldom, alone, most often in coalition with bits and pieces parties, two or three or even four at a time. Only at the end, for a period of a little over ten years, does one of these partners exceed 10 per cent of the vote, at which point National throws them the bone of the occasional prime ministership. Would you call this "unstable"? It's the closest I can think of to one party rule in a Western democracy. But then of course if you're always alone in power you do bicker, and you get corrupt, and factions start to form within your own party, which is what happened; our governments collapsed all the time not because the small parties wielded power, but because the Christian Democrats staged endless internal power struggles. These collapses didn't always lead to early elections (although we seldom made it the requisite five years without one, it has to be said), but rather to the "rimpasto", a game of musical chairs in which ministerships were swapped to reflect the changing fortunes of the factions within the ruling party.
Not sure what any of this has to do with proportionality, with FPP it would have been worse if anything.
-
Oh, the Herald's pre-emptive strike on MMP is really underway now:
Doubtless the discontent would be no more serious now if power went to the second and third parties past the post. But it is clearly not what most voters want or believe should happen. Around 80 per cent of them vote National or Labour and when they go to the polling booth they believe they are choosing a Government. If their party is beaten at the ballot box they accept it is fair and square. Parties trifle with that result at their peril.
It's a fairly astonishing piece of work which appears to suggest that Labour should decline to form a government, even if it has the numbers, because that wouldn't be fair.
-
I don't think it has anything to do with the press, really.
Oh, sure it does. I guess the flirtation with being focused on policy rather than using polls to game coalitions was too good to last (and all it took was the global economy having its 19th Nervous Breakdown), but I miss it.
And could someone remind me what the Greens "bottom lines" are again? It seems to me that assuming the Greens are Labour's reliable allies are as ill-founded wishful thinking as that equally fatuous Herald editorial. And am I the only person who would really like the pakeha commentariat to get the fuck over themselves, and stop treating Maori like brain-damaged children?
And my final grump, if I see one more pundit bleating about how bored they are, I'll scream. General elections are many things, but I don't think keeping ADHD-struck hacks amused is really a priority.
-
Around 80 per cent of them vote National or Labour and when they go to the polling booth they believe they are choosing a Government.
It would appear that around 80 per cent of New Zealanders have no idea how MMP works.
-
It's a fairly astonishing piece of work which appears to suggest that Labour should decline to form a government, even if it has the numbers, because that wouldn't be fair.
Oh, come on Russell... I did find that editorial somewhat unconvincing (then again, I seems have a little more faith in the intelligence of voters -- and their ability to keep calm and carry on, regardless -- than your average pundit.
But you're really telling me that if Don Brash has somehow cooked up a National-ACT-United Future-New Zealand First harem of inconvenience, it would have taken with perfect equaminity in these parts? Tui billboard time.
-
It would appear that around 80 per cent of New Zealanders have no idea how MMP works...
But you're really telling me that if Don Brash has somehow cooked up a National-ACT-United Future-New Zealand First harem of inconvenience, it would have taken with perfect equaminity in these parts? Tui billboard time.
...and that includes Craig.
-
Friday: Declare Victory.
Saturday: Declare any other result but a National victory is just cause for rioting by angry white people.
Sunday: Publish a map of handy grassy knolls in case Helen Clark wins???
That editorial today is kinda wierd, they seem to be saying that unless National win they'll replace their inaccurate and hysterical anti-EFA front page editorials with inaccurate and hysterical anti-MMP ones.
One suspects that if Labour manages to put together a Labour-Green-Maori-NZ First-Progressive majority coalition after the election the Herald will start demanding a military coup.
Their editorial writers really are channelling David Farrar far to much these days.
-
Surely any political party is already a coalition,one of like minded individuals who may agree or disagree on a given policy, but compromise/negotiate to achieve common objectives. So a coalition government is merely an extension of this principle?
-
Daniel: Yes. However, the National Party and its cheerleaders still don't seem to have grasped this.
National's biggest problem is they havn't split apart yet, so they lack a proper conservative coalition partner. ACT is a cargo cult collection of fringe merchants who frigten little children.
What the right needs is their version of the Greens - a socially conservative (but not foaming at the mouth socially conservative like the myriad of fundy parties out there) and economically robustly "traditional" in its support of rural industries, small business and regulation to support the productive secctor.
A sort of Green Party, but for high Anglicans.
I have always thought the biggest threat to the left's current natural hegemony is a Federated Farmers Party led by Bill English, in coalition with an urban liberal National Party.
-
Surely any political party is already a coalition,one of like minded individuals who may agree or disagree on a given policy, but compromise/negotiate to achieve common objectives. So a coalition government is merely an extension of this principle?
And to achieve that coalition, the compromise will involve all manner of parties( like NZF, which personally I thought,many here were pretty quick to lynch) which is why it doesn't help when your choices are limited, to go all out "guns blazing" everytime a party member may speak the truth or you feel like stirring a bit 'o'shite. Seems to be a sure fire way of alienating yourself.
What the right needs is their version of the Greens - a socially conservative (but not foaming at the mouth..
Then who would replace ACT ? Oh I see... you said "not foaming" :) ...Eh? The Greens foam? I need Coffee.I go now.
-
Tom - I kind of agree with you - but I can imagine more of a town/country businessman/farmer split in the Nats
-
I have always thought the biggest threat to the left's current natural hegemony is a Federated Farmers Party led by Bill English, in coalition with an urban liberal National Party.
Sounds rather like a local version of the National Party of Australia, formerly the Country Party, aka the little caboose of the Nat-Liberal coalition. Over time the OzNats have attracted a disproportionate share of flakes and flat-earthers, and have had ongoing flirtations with such nasties as the League of Rights.
As such parties represent special economic interests before all else they're limited to advocating a Muldoon-style exclusive socialism, where wealth is redistributed only to special interests, rather than where demonstrable need exists. The Australian Nats are largely bankrolled by the mining sector. Considering its size and economic importance it seems a little strange that its primary political advocates are largely a bunch of shonks.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.