Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
and I kinda like the idea of open lists
What do you mean by an 'open list' Graeme?
For example: within the Tauranga electorate not enough people might want Winston to represent them, but across the country lots of people might vote Winston in.
This is why they shouldn't put on buses from retirement homes to polling booths!
Second: just because a minority in a local electorate don't want someone, doesn't mean that across the country enough people do.
I quite like the MMP system. But I think it'd be misleading to say that many people vote for party X because they like person #12 on their list. They might vote for a party because of a couple of individuals - probably the leader, given our 'presidential' campaigns that we seem to have these days, a local MP etc.
But most people vote for a Party. While I'd like to see him get in, I can't imagine 40,000 people or so outside of Wellington Central will be voting Labour to get Grant Robertson in. He'll either get in by winning his electorate, or by Labour getting enough party votes. He'll help get some of those party votes by virtue of being 'Grant' rather than being 'Labour', but most will be earnt by 'Labour' and the PM.
There are some problems with MMP. If you want Grant Robertson to get in via your party vote, you need to vote for everyone above him on the list. He only gets in if they all make it. What if you think the chap above him on the list is a complete tosser?
-
FFS, Kyle, how about the fact we allow those merchants of death known as Fonterra to export their toxic animal fat
Wait, you're comparing milk to cigarettes? Do you want to try that again?
-
Good grief. Corrente and others have been posting this video of one of the pro-Clinton protesters interview outside the meeting as if it's a good look.
She seems a little confused. The first half of what she said is that if Obama is the nominee, we hand McCain the election. She seemed to think that this was a bad thing.
She then said that she was voting for McCain, and would never vote for Obama. She didn't seem to see the contradiction in helping McCain, who is a bad thing.
Either way she's an idiot, she's from California, her vote's not going to make a difference whatever way she goes, Democrats will take that state easy.
-
I wish they would accept that the "my air" claim is null and void.Kyle, you don't own air.Its not yours so I figure , you may have to share it, so yes..
Yes true, 'our' air. Which implies collective responsibility about what we put in it. We legislate what we put in petrol, what comes out of factories, but we allow tobacco companies to sell a toxin to people to puff it out. From a distance it's somewhat bizarre.
-
Yes, it is. Underage drinking in itself constitutes non-sensible behaviour.
I suspect some other countries where 'underage' drinking is commonplace, and handled a lot more maturely than NZ's version might disagree.
-
If I sit down next to you, and you don't like the smell, you are quite capable of moving, aren't you?
Ironically, if I sat down next to you, and my dog did a big crap, and then I walked off and left it, I'm up for a $300 fine.
But if you sit down and blow toxic fumes into my air, I have to move? Please.
I'm with Jill. If you occupy a public space, you have the responsibility not to make it unpleasant for others. Most smokers are aware of that and are happy to inconvenience themselves out in the cold, considering the direction of the wind etc, while feeding their addiction.
If you don't like that, don't remain addicted to such a pointless drug.
-
The guy Kim Hill spoke to this morning about that was fascinating.
He was wasn't he? JFK was a user. No wonder he didn't blink during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
-
__Maybe the laws can be adjusted so that they cover 'irresponsible use of drugs', but you can't make laws based on what 'sensible people do'.__
Of course you can. Liquor laws, for one. Drink sensibly: no problem. Drink and drive / public intoxication / serving minors, etc.: the law intervenes.
That's not a good example. If our liquor laws were based on 'sensible people', then all the sensible people under 18 would be allowed to purchase and drink alcohol. And presumably all the irresponsible ones as well.
-
My point was that we, surely, only to be "protected" from a minority of the people and those should be the most dangerous rather than the most unpopular.
Well, various drugs that are currently illegal (and legal as well), are to a lesser or greater extent, dangerous to self, or to others. But yes, very political.
-
It comes down to trusting the average person, not the lowest common denominator
If it's a question of whether laws/punishment should apply in the area, that's a fair question to ask. But trusting the 'average person' can't be the test for whether a law is applied.
If that was the case we wouldn't have laws for murder and rape etc. By most people's definitions of 'average person', those actions shouldn't happen. We have the 'lowest common denominator' people in our society, and that's often where our laws are applied.
I know that most people who smoke a bit of pot are responsible with their use of the drug, don't smoke around people who don't want it, don't provide it to children. Sadly there are some (a minority I would guess) who don't act responsibly. They'll provide drugs to youth, they'll smoke around their children. They'll use other drugs which make them incapable of fulfilling their duties as a member of our community - either a job, a parent, or just a reasonable citizen.
Maybe the laws can be adjusted so that they cover 'irresponsible use of drugs', but you can't make laws based on what 'sensible people do'. Sensible people aren't the ones we have laws for because it's the insensible stuff that we have to worry about as a society.