Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Also, Mr. Dentith would make the point that it's a conspiracy even if it actually happened, and conspiracy theories aren't fallacious by definition. Apologies if that point has been made already upthread.
I don't think it has been. The use of "conspiracy theory" is often used as a very powerful rhetorical device to wave away inconvenient claims. one of my favourite quotes on the matter comes from Noam Chomsky:
There's nothing more remote from what we have been discussing than a conspiracy theory. If I give an analysis of, say the economic system, and I point out that GM tries to maximize profit and market share - that's not a conspiracy theory; that's an institutional analysis. It has nothing to do with conspiracies. That's precisely the sense in which we've been talking about the media. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is one of those that's constantly brought up, and I think it's effect simply is to discourage institutional analysis.
You can see just this kind of example in a New Zealand context this week, where Colin Espiner throws away suggestions that National plans to partly privatise ACC as a "conspiracy theory", "peddled" by Labour. This despite the fact that the partial privatisation of ACC (oops, sorry, the "opening of the work account to competition") is openly in the National Party policy statements (PDF) on ACC.
-
Now perhaps you could share with the group what National's motives were in promoting the referendum that introduced MMP in the first place. Especially when neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Opposition were keen on the idea, to put it mildly.
In my partisan recollection (although my dad was quite active in the Nats until 89), it was firstly that the electorate was thoroughly sick and tired of voting the bastards out, only to get the other bunch of bastards in, neither of whom had any notion of accountability because FPP ensured a two party stranglehold on the electorate. Mr Lange, as was his wont, promised a referendum for 1987, but his party really really did not like the idea. Bolger, for reasons unknown to me, promised one in 1990, and having broken a list of promises longer than his arm, decided to keep this one.
That's my short version.
-
The first question I always ask in the social sciences is why? Without this answer, the other answers are merely details. In this case, why are we having the referendum?
The answer is that National, in their 1999 minority report to the review of MMP, argued that there should be a referendum on keeping MMP. Since that point, they have argued this strenuously. They have also argued that the review that was promised and conducted actually meant a referendum. This piece of misinformation, that "we were promised a referendum", has been promoted heavily by those who disliked the last Government, to the extent that a substantial number of New Zealanders believe it.
We should ask what motives National would have for promoting a referendum that would possibly get rid of MMP.
-
Look at the UK, where the parties are pretty much identical and "democracy" is just a matter of tone and personality.
In the UK they tried to change from FPP to STV in 1917. The House of Commons voted for it five times, and every time it was blocked by the House of Lords. Which tells you a lot about both STV and the House of Lords (and the necessity of changing both systems over there).
-
Those who consider that all non-proportional voting systems are undemocratic must consider that any system with a single winner (like an electorate contest, or a presidency) is not democratic.
I consider that they are significantly less democratic. Thus, they should only be used sparingly (weak heads of state, for example).
For certain things, yes. Where there are strong reasons why representatives of particular bounded constituencies need direct representation (as in geography in historic New Zealand), single member, winner-take-all constituencies should take precedence. Where that need is less, but still exists, a mixed system can exist.
-
Auckland is a bloody funny shape. Stretched a long way north along a coastline, and through a relatively narrow isthmus funnelling out to the south and east while to the west it wraps around two harbours.
Unusual, but not radically so. Sydney is at least somewhat comparable geographically, being sandwiched around harbours and inlets.
-
Just like around Wgtn Harbour. From Petone to Oriental bay, try getting to the shoreline and paddling in the sea. Motorway, rail line, ferry, wharfs, Event Centre, Te Papa, Overseas Terminal,
Like in Auckland, these obstructions were constructed in the first half of the century. There is no chance of getting back the natural waterfront. There is, however, the chance to create an active waterfront that is interesting and usable. This Wellington has done, and done well. Auckland could learn this without difficulty, if its representatives were properly interested.
-
And there can only be one MP for Wellington Central.
Which is why we have a mixed member proportional system. Our system recognises a strong desire for local representation, but balances this out with proportionality at a national level. The changes proposed threaten to strip us of the latter arrangement.
then why isn't any system that requires a winner-takes-all result - like an electorate seat, or a presidency - automatically undemocratic?
Like most things, democracy is a continuum. Various arrangements are more and less democratic, but nothing will be absolutely so.
For single or limited (~ <5 member) constituencies, I would want STV which requires a plurality of preferences. This would be more democratic. Ireland, for example, elects its president in this way. Incidentally, their president is similar to the one Keith Locke is proposing in his Head of State Referenda Bill.
-
I think the US Presidential election was basically democratic despite the fact John McCain doesn't get to be President for 45.7% of the term.
There can only be one president. A parliament is not similarly constrained.
-
Actually, it is.
Democracy. It's quite a hard word to say, isn't it.