Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You haven't lived until you've seen Tony's weekly politics review wherein he invariably -- and I mean invariably -- describes MPs as "those shirt-lifters and rug-munchers in parliament".
-
Oh, yeah, I meant Tony Amos (who makes Kevin Black look like John Peel).
-
Mesmerisingly bad.
Someone's really gotta YouTube some of that show. It's awfulness would soon become legend.
-
"Hey yeah that was 'Hooked on a Feeling' and if you're gonna be hooked on anything it might as well be a feeling eh, make it a good one, have one for meeeeee."
That sounds like Kevin Black, now to be seen on Triangle's The Beat Goes On, quite possibly the worst TV show in New Zealand's history.
-
Your ideal level of threshhold?
-
Well, I don't think that's quite concurring.
-
You're quite right. I was mistaken. I still don't think it's right that a party that scores 4% nationally should win that share of the house due to a single constituency win.
It's unfair, IMO, against those parties (and supposters thereof) that have broad, rather than concentrated, support and it encourages gaming of the system because it rewards with greater power the voters in electorates that vote in a Hide, Dunne, or Anderton.
-
My partner has finally agreed with me that TV One news isn't worth watching, and is switching to 3.
3 News is hardly worth watching, unless you require news about Lady Gaga's ex-boyfriend, unusual car crashes on YouTube, odd TradeMe auctions, Tiger Woods' many mistresses, or Madonna's adoptions.
-
That's it; I'm fucking going.
-
So if you win an electorate seat on the night and your Party is below the threshold, then that’s all you get. If that Party’s vote goes above the threshold then proportionality would be applied. Thoughts?
Agree. Given that the usual Nat/Lab split is very roughly equal, those "third" parties that slip through the middle actually have a dispropotionately large influence. To allow them 5% of the house with only one electorate win compounds that further.