Having said that, i think there would be some perception of a lack of mandate if National’s lead was over about ten per cent. i dont think it would be a problem if the margin of 45-40, but if it is 48-35, then i think we might have a problem. Note i view that as a problem of perception, rather than reality.

L

What you are touching on is a scary level of ignorance in the wider population about how government really works, and in particular how MMP works.

I remember thinking about years ago is how, for all their faults, the USA does actively teach the subject of Civics in its schools. I’m not sure if that by itself is the whole solution, but it has to be better than the default ‘know nothing’ position on politics many New Zealanders seem to take a perverse pride in holding.

If a decently informed group of people had been in that Herald focus group they would have likely, as you did, rejected the question put to them as meaningless. Instead as a nation we are largely the ill-informed pawns of disinformation and misdirection.

Aside from the obvious idiocy of electoral reform by straw poll, the question to which they responded was particularly fallacious. According to the link above, “they were asked whether New Zealanders would see a party that finished second as the rightful government.” Let’s be crystal fucking clear: a party does not form a government, unless it gets a majority. Parties comprising a majority in parliament form a government. That means, on the basis of the hypothetical five-party coalition, Labour would not be the government, they would be a part of the government, and the remainder of the government would be formed by other parties who between them made up majority. The question is misleading, so it’s hardly surprising that the answers are meaningless.

L

Obviously the Bastards are worried

Sixty percent would be in favour of capital punishment too, in an opinion poll. Fortunately, instant opinion does not make laws. We have a debate first.

“Finishing second” is nonsense, as a moment’s thought would make clear.

If National get 36% and ACT 15%, we won’t get a Labour government, even if Labour get 37%. I won’t like the result, but it’s totally democratic, and I’m not going to fake outrage and stir up a backlash just because I can’t count.

But when they were asked whether New Zealanders would see a party that finished second as the rightful government, the verdict was clearcut. Sixty per cent said the country would not, 20 said it would, and 20 were unsure.

Like i said, you may not agree with it, but a majority of the country would be outraged at the idea that a lower polling party would be able to enjoy “the baubles of office”. The backlash would be more than it’s worth.

I doubt Labour will come in this low, my pick would be somewhere very close to 40 per cent. i also think National will be close to 45 percent, but will struggle to find enough coalition partners. I think National themselves are coming to a similar conclusion, hence the scare-mongering from John Key, and the ever-increasing bile levels on Kiwiblog.

Occam’s razor. I’m not buying this wild and wooly KBR conspiracy that he’s locked in a grim battle for dominance with David Cunliffe, and further that he would purposefully sabotage his party’s fortunes in order to gain an advantage. Since when was looking incompetent and losing an election a good career move? just look at the last person who fits that description – he’s back to tending his kiwifruit orchard.

Honestly, pull the other one.

L

Is matt taking part in your project yet?

pretty scary really – are there really that many people lacking a functional moral compass that labour can poll 32%?? it beggars belief that over 10% support the Greens – a group of politicians who have argued for minimising the ability of police officers to defend themselves, pretty disgusting really. what is wrong with these people???

as for that pensioners leaflet rort – labour should be forced to pay for that from their own pockets.

fact is good people don’t vote labour

[lprent: No but from that sample it looks like a good candidate]

The real test is if a coalition can be agreed with parties that represent the majority of the seats, so that they will be able to get their policies/bills passed in parliament. It’s possible that Nats with 45% could make such an agreement with the MP.

But if the MP decided to go with the Nats, only on the basis of the Nats having the (dubious idea of) “moral authority”, it’s possible that coalition would only last 2 minutes before another general election was called. The government has to be able to get a majority vote in parliament for most of the things they propose, otherwise they’d be a lame-duck government. If the MP was very strongly opposed to some Nats Bills, they could say that they will no longer support the Nats on confidence and supply. The government would fall – an election would be called.

OTOH, Clark (leading with a minority of Labour party seats) has shown she is very capable of negotiating successfully with several parties. Consequently it’s possible that she plus the Greens, could negotiate with the MP to ensure that the proposed Bills are passed, and that none of the coalition partners become so unhappy that they withdraw confidence and supply.

When the government is formed in the first place, they have to have a sufficiently strong coalition agreement to look like they will survive the parliamentary term.

Actually, for me a very good outcome would be a shaky coalition between the MP & Nats. The government would probably fall very quickly. In the subsequent election Labour (with proably a new look, new Leader) would then be likely to win the most votes.

So I say, if the MP want to go with the Nats because of the (dodgy) “moral authority” argument, then go to it.