Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe

614 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 21 22 23 24 25 Newer→ Last

  • bmk, in reply to linger,

    Indeed as repeatedly happened in NZ.

    All electoral systems can be gained to some extent; some more than others. And as far as I can see MMP is what works best for us considering we seem to be wedded to the idea of having a local MP. I think the local MP isn't strictly necessary as if you used pure proportional representation you would be bound to have an MP in your region anyway, although the legislation would have to be clear that they had to assist you.

    I do think STV with sufficiently large wards would work as well.

    At present though I think MMP is working but the threshold urgently needs to be reduced (which solves the problem of coat-tailing as well).

    Since Jun 2010 • 327 posts Report Reply

  • Trevor Nicholls, in reply to BenWilson,

    Which is not theory, it's what happened, over and over

    I wouldn't call giving a majority party a majority of seats "gaming the system". Gaming the system requires a party receiving fewer total votes getting a governing majority. As far as I can recall NZ has only once had a government which received fewer votes than the main opposition party (the margin was tiny, and the opposition won the next election by a convincing margin).

    Wellington, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 324 posts Report Reply

  • bmk, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,

    Historically, despite occasional huge majorities for one side or the other, electoral boundaries in NZ have always been drawn by balanced committees, haven't they?

    Boudaries have always suited National here. I don't know whether through deliberate gerrymandering or just the urban/rural split (I'd like to think the latter). In 1993 National got 35% while Labour got 34.6% and yet National got 5 more seats. The Alliance who were on Labour's left got 18%. On a MMP election - the left would have had a comfortable majority.

    In 1978 Labour got a higher vote count but 11 fewer seats! In 1981 Labour also won the vote but got 4 fewer seats.

    Since Jun 2010 • 327 posts Report Reply

  • Trevor Nicholls, in reply to bmk,

    OK, well I have been misinformed. Ignore me :-)

    Wellington, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 324 posts Report Reply

  • linger,

    (Today we get gerrybrownleeing instead: making living conditions in an electorate so unbearable that opposition voters decamp to other regions.)

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1938 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,

    I wouldn’t call giving a majority party a majority of seats “gaming the system”.

    I would if the majority given is far in excess of the majority polled.

    ETA: And that’s also on the proviso that you even accept a party getting much less that 50% of the cast votes a “majority” just because it’s bigger than the nearest competitor. In 1981 Social Credit got over 20% of the votes cast, and won 2 (out of 92) seats. I think that may have been the high water mark of how fucked FPP was, that Labour got more seats, and Social Credit a further 20%, between them they had 60% of all votes cast, and still Muldoon got another 3 years.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10655 posts Report Reply

  • Trevor Nicholls, in reply to BenWilson,

    I would if the majority given is far in excess of the majority polled

    On that basis you'd have to reject the result of every election that is held for a single position, unless it was unanimous.

    Wellington, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 324 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,

    On that basis you’d have to reject the result of every election that is held for a single position, unless it was unanimous.

    Why?

    Brazil is heading for Round 2 of its presidential election. France and (I believe) many other countries have a similar system: If no candidate wins a majority in Round 1, the top two candidates have a run-off. Winner is first to win over 50%.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Trevor Nicholls, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    Because 1-0 is "far in excess of" 51-49.

    Wellington, NZ • Since Nov 2006 • 324 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov, in reply to BenWilson,

    This is what I found so incredibly stupid about killing off Mana. It’s like Labour don’t have a tactical bone in their bodies.

    If Russel Norman could also please drop the ensuring ‘IM lost the election for the left’ routine that would be smashing. Green kept all its seats and won the highest number of popular votes in its history. Labour cold shouldered IM and lost 2 seats. In this piece we see Norman’s vivid depiction distorted by the audacious and violent brush work that came to characterise his later impressionist style?

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to bmk,

    Boudaries have always suited National here. I don't know whether through deliberate gerrymandering or just the urban/rural split (I'd like to think the latter). In 1993 National got 35% while Labour got 34.6% and yet National got 5 more seats. The Alliance who were on Labour's left got 18%. On a MMP election - the left would have had a comfortable majority.

    Another factor was that Mike Moore carried the baggage of the Roger Douglas faction, and still does to a certain degree. The Alliance was only too happy to fill the vacuum on the Left flank. Unfortunately, FPP was still in effect.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5439 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to linger,

    Thanks DeepRed, that’s the one. The Japan Times ran the same article pretty much word for word.

    Still no mention of it in the NZ media yet.

    If the global boycott really did go ahead, how would middle NZ react? Would it wake up to what's happening on the seas? Or would it go Tea Party over why the catch of the day is off the menu?

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5439 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Kumara Republic,

    If the global boycott really did go ahead, how would middle NZ react? Would it wake up to what’s happening on the seas? Or would it go Tea Party over why the catch of the day is off the menu?

    The Govt would spend 3 weeks blaming Labour. Middle NZ would be allowed to eat the glut of seafood at knock down price. TeamKey would fudge the News announcing that “everyone gets a snapper” ’cos that’s what NZers really care about. Of course credit to Team Key. When information finally got noticed, TeamKey would announce it was a left wing smear campaign conspiracy theory and it would be Nicky Hager’s fault. Middle NZ would agree and go back to eating the glut of boycotted seafood saying that nice Mr Key needs a medal ,he would knight himself, pop off to one of his holiday homes, (he gained when he skirted the GFC that he helped create ).He would invite the All Blacks to a Banquet of seafood ,they would dine and dance the evening away,televised for the middle NZ big screens who would watch with glee and squeals. Neck morning, Te Granny would headline “Team Key saves NZ , 3 MoreYears!!! and middle NZ would head out for lattes which would be cheaper than instant because of the glut of milk and the minimum wage having gone down. That nice Mr Key, he really cares.
    This is what will happen. Business as usual, remember.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Kumara Republic,

    Hospital pass...

    Or would it go Tea Party over why the catch of the day is off the menu?

    Maybe that's why National created that job for Shane Jones?
    A Heat Sink...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7948 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    think it could be done. Imagine an Australian type scenario where they have the Liberal-National coalition. National here includes both groups of that party – they could create a Country party and they would win all the rural electorates if they told their supporters too vote Country MP and National candidate.

    But even if you did it, and say created a 10 seat overhang through your Country party winning 12 seats and having a 1.5% list vote, only half of that is advantage, as you've raised the number of votes needed to pass anything by 5.

    So it would only take a 4% backlash against the National Party for such an obvious ploy to break even. And you'd give campaign material to your opposition for Africa. And even if you finished ahead by a couple of votes for one election, you'd be stung further in the following one.

    Australia again doesn't really compare - those are two historical parties in coalition. That's very different from making a party out of thin air entirely to game the electoral system.

    as they have with ACT and UF, both parties whose leaders have been formers National MPs

    Dunne was a Labour MP from 1984 - 1994. Never been National Party.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to bmk,

    Imagine an Australian type scenario where they have the Liberal-National coalition.

    If it were two parties in an MMP coalition minus overhangs, yes. Just as Labour could easily become an ongoing coalition of an urban liberal and a working bloke party if their current factions insist. Oh, the right already thought of that..

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19735 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Kyle Matthews,

    Dunne was a Labour MP from 1984 – 1994. Never been National Party

    Heh, I actually knew that, too. But someone argued so blue in the face the other night to me that he had always been a Nat that it caused mental interference. I guess I can't tell the difference cognitively. Walks like a Nat, quacks like one.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10655 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    Nicholas Shepherd shares his opinion on the fears.

    The fears are that an openly gay parliamentary leader might fail to connect with Maoridom

    Quite distinct from the connection likely to be enjoyed with that paragon of enlightenment: the Pakeha

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I guess I can’t tell the difference cognitively. Walks like a Nat, quacks like one.

    The hair is very right wing as well.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    What about that Andrew Little, eh? ‘Pundits’ (Bryce Edwards at least) saying he could walk through the middle into the job. But while he seems a sharpish political operator, he comes across dry and dull; a most unlikely prime minister.
    As the huffle dies down, I'm liking David Parker. Straight bat, no bullsh*t, decent. And not a candidate.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2110 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    As the huffle dies down, I’m liking David Parker. Straight bat, no bullsh*t, decent. And not a candidate.

    Not to mention his willingness to work constructively with potential allies.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4593 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    he comes across dry and dull; a most unlikely prime minister.

    Oh come on! The man likes The Clash, The Smiths and Woody Guthrie. ;)
    It is also said ,he's a good debater. That can help anywhere. Dry and dull is just an opinion so that don't really matter unless you and only you get to choose eh?

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    This is an interesting read from the time capsule, how things have changed.I’m enthused by what Little has to say, also:

    1988 Labour prime minister David Lange joked that Clark “was so dry she was combustible"

    Ideally Little could work closely with Parker to stave off any fire hazard.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to mark taslov,

    David Lange joked that Clark “was so dry she was combustible”

    Those wet & dry 80s, when it was said of Thatcher that if it was wet she believed she could walk on it.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4593 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie,

    The Rabelaisian wit of David Lange:

    ...he saw that they did cause burn their regents alive like red herring, saying, Now God forbid that I should die this death! for I am by nature sufficiently dry already, without heating myself any further.

    François Rabelais, Gargantua and Pantagruel

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4593 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 21 22 23 24 25 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.