Posts by Tom Semmens
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
that’s possible even worse for democracy that re-introducing FPP.
Why? Does having to get 15,000 members sound to much like hard work for you?
Here you are displaying our current political elites typical aversion to engagment with the voters and a typical obsession with the mechanism of the electoral process rather than the actual state of our democracy. If our political parties had a cumulative total of 3-400,000 members then I would argue that FPP would probably produce a more democratic outcome than the current social-political environment that our MMP system exists in.
In other words, tinkering with the electoral system won’t solve problems caused by our hollowed out democracy.
-
This would also play into the hands of parties representing the interests of the wealthy
Huh? Any less than being the ACT party with 501 members and mega-rich funders? Obviously, if you have only 15,000 members and have a membership fee of $10,000 then that would make a nonsense of my idea - but that is just a silly objection in reality. Less than forty years ago, with a population of three million, Labour and National boasted memberships approaching six figures. We should atrivce to re-produce that level of political engagement. And they wouldn't exactly be broke - a party with 25,000 members charging $30 membership PA would have up to 2.25 million to contest an election, a princely sum for a campaign.
One of the interesting things about the massacre in Norway was that the ruling party even held a popular youth camp. Wouldn't it be great for the NZLP to have summer camps for hundreds of young people, or for the National Party ball to be the highlight of the social calendar in places like Gore and Howick?
, because the majority of people won’t read it.
And this objection also doesn't hold water either. The publication of membership numbers and fee structures is EXACTLY the sort of rude and easily digestable populist information people would be interested in reading. Trawling through partylists and bio's to re-write it? No so much.
-
Allowing voters to re-rank lists would be one fix.
This would be a significant turn off for voters IMHO. It relies on an assumption of political engagement that simply isn’t there. Most people are not political junkies. They just want to vote for a party once every threee years based on a bunch of prejudices, self-interest and fair dollop of class and tribal identification. They expect the political process to be self-managing, and would resent having to re-write party lists for parties that are too dysfunctional to come up with a decent list on their own.
Another fix would be to:
a) raise the number of members a party needs to register for an election for the purposes of contesting the party list to a significant number like, say, 15-20,000. And don’t give me any crap about this being an undemocratic barrier to entry – if you can’t persuade 15,000 people to lay down some cash to be party members (.35% of the population) from 4.3 million people then you are just astroturfing and don’t deserve to be able to contest the party list vote. Do the hard work, build a constituency, get your members, become a proper popular political movement, THEN contest the election, not the lazy, arse about face way we currently do things.
b) except for the provisions in the broadcasting act, ban all funding to political parties except for that generated from membership dues, and make the total numbers of party member and membership fees public knowledge.
c) Impose term limits on list MPs.
Taken together, these measures would force the careerist political class to re-engage with a party base and would make a broadbased political party attractive as it would allow voters to judge for themselves political legitimacy based on party membership and it would be the ONLY means of generating income for contesting elections.
-
Our implementation of MMP relies on people joining political parties and influencing their internal list ranking processes. Party membership numbers have plunged over the last few decades for various reasons. The system has not been changed.
Just saw this! I don't agree with this in the slightest.
Our implementation of MMP has created a powerful DISINCENTIVE for parties to encourage broadbased membership, since in doing so all that would happen is the power of the elite party cadres would be diluted. By keeping membership at a minimum the party cadre is able to easily manipulate the all-powerful list to produce outcomes that often more serve the internal jockying of political courtiers than reflect the desires of the party membership or the the wishes of the wider electorate.
Anyway, I am studying for an exam so it is back to the flash cards now...
-
Hard News: The Politics of Absence, in reply to BenWilson,
Sure, local MPs are powerful people, but why go to them in particular?
Ever sat in a room with your boss negotiating a pay rise for union members? It is always a good trick to remind them that only one side of the table was elected to be there.
An elected representative has enormous mana – the legitimacy of the people. That mana can jolly well get things done that jolly well need to be done.
-
Who are the young Labour MPs working hard in their electorates? I can think of Kris Fa’afoi and Chris Hipkins as “young” Labour electorate MPs, are there others?
This caused me to think.
Labour people in Auckland often don’t seem to realise that the rude health of the party up here – with quality candidates like Jacinda Adern, Phil Twyford, David Shearer and Carmel Sepuloni isn’t reflected nationwide. Labour seems moribund in the provinces, where the Keyites dominate with 70%+ support. A lot of the candidates in other parts of the country seem to me to often be ineffective apparachiks of the party machine. Labour is in serious danger of becoming just an urban (and largely Auckland) based Party.
-
The fact of the matter is the Hollow man Steven Joyce is in charge now and his cynical view of the media, and his contempt for voters and democracy itself ,is a significantly more accurate assessment of reality than the pious hopes and vain expectations of those on the left.
The Bonapartism of his carefully crafted cult of Key is extraordinary, and becoming dangerous.
-
Hard News: Who owns the news?, in reply to Islander,
(Disclaimer of an odd sort: I dont watch "Coro" - but my mother does.
Feel her wrath, idiot programme-controllers!)I threw some baiting burley into the water of a phone conversation with my Mum last night over Coro street, and let's just say the freeding frenzy of great Whites aint got nothing on my Mum's reaction.
-
Forbes.com interviews our man Rastani and it seems he checks out.
he may not be a full-blown city trader, but he is a trader.
-
Hard News: Who owns the news?, in reply to John Farrell,
If he is a hoax, then move over Stephen Colbert - you just got some serious competition.