Written By: - Date published: 11:58 am, November 1st, 2008 - 101 comments
Categories: election 2008, progressives, vote smart -
Tags:
Last election, 7,000 people gave their votes to very small left-wing parties that never had any chance of winning a seat in Parliament. That’s 0.3% of the vote; a small but not insignificant amount. If those votes to the Alliance and Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis had gone to the Greens instead (who, after all, have 99% of their policies in common), the Greens would have won another seat.
This election, there are two more micro left wing parties – the Workers’ Party and the Residents Action Movement. Two parties with, as far as I can tell, identical policies and ideology that sit comfortably within the ideals of the Greens and Labour, just more extreme, but have no hope of getting elected (RAM came last or nearly last among the organised candidate blocs in every local council election that it contested last year).
I have a lot of sympathy for these parties and their policies. It is important to have groups that pulling the political spectrum left. But that is no reason for voters to waste their votes on them.
Last election, the micro parties and the Progressive took a combined 33,000 votes, each one of them wasted when they could have been contributing to more seats for the Left. If that happens again, it may be the difference between keeping the Left in power and a National-led government. Which leads to a sad but inescapable conclusion – voting for a micro party rather than a party that will return to Parliament is like voting for a National-led government.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
amen toad,
go green cameron.
Toad: Have to make up my mind Green or Labour?
Thinking on about modifying YouTube ads. 08 Wire has a beautiful
ad “correcting” the John/John ad. My guess is that Nats might wish that they had kept quiet rather than draw attention to it!!!!
http://08wire.org/2008/10/31/video-an-abject-apology/
Speaking of micro-party ACT:
RNZ has
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
from Key and Hide this evening which is a little more revealing than the very short clip from the TVNZ news.
Key again ruled out any possibility of having Roger Douglas as a Minister. Hide (standing right next to Key) says just get them into parliament and “we’ll work on that” after the election.
When pressed, Key fumbles that he can’t “see a change” in his position but stops short of actually confirming it.
It all sounds far from convincing.
John I notice you using words like “people” in the street, “choice”, “making decisions” etc.
This is all language of bourgeois individualism which serves bourgeois democracy. Workers Party works in unions and you havnt managed to get workers to take a collective vote against Labour and for WP, so why not respect workers democracy instead of pandering to bourgeois individualism?
Time comes and you can get workers to vote collectively to stand union candidates against Labour I will listen to you with a new interest – a class interest.
Ianmac
lprent
I really really really hate, yes really I do, the use of the bloody passive voice “believed to be Mike Williams”. Believed by sodding who? Based on fncking what? Unless that is made clear there is no there there, just a BS insinuation. Journalistic copout.
GW Bush is believed to be behind 9/11. John Key is believed to be a lying sack of shit. Napoleon, Jesus H Christ and various incarnations of Satan’s minions are believed to be spending their days in tight white overcoats in secure hospitals all around the world. SFW.
Will probably vote RAM. I don’t think they came last in every single position they contested, and they’ve had more than the lion’s share of publicity compared to the other micro-parties. If anything, blame the media for ignoring up and comers, which MMP is supposed to value.
Seems odd though, considering Labour’s bashing of JK for talking about an MMP referendum, the standard would then go and attempt to tell voters that their democratic right doesn’t matter unless they cast it in a certain way. Almost sounds like you’re advocating FPP, doesn’t it?
[lprent: The Standard is a program running on a computer.
It doesn't have opinions and doesn't advocate anything.
Look at the name of the author on the post and address the person who wrote it.
Read the About. The posters have differing opinions]
Hi Steve,
Your comment about our performance in the local council elections in 2007 is a flat out lie.
I am extremely concerned that you are spreading falsehoods about RAM’s electoral performance on your blog, constituting a misleading statement to voters.
Spreading lies about political opponents is, in my understanding, pathetic and deserves nothing but utter derision.
You said: “RAM came dead last in every local council election that it contested last year”
I invite you to examine the election results online in 2007 at http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/members/elections/results2007.asp .
We did not come dead last in every local council election we contested.
In Mount Roskill, I stood for the community board for RAM and I received more votes than three other candidates – including one from the Labour-anointed City Vision ticket. That’s not dead last.
Our candidate for Avondale-Roskill Council, Valerie Alexander-Vui, received more votes than c. eight candidates out of a contest of seventeen – beating Labour-anointed people too! That’s not dead last.
Our candidate for the Tamaki-Maungakiekie Council position, Rachel Asher, received more votes than four other candidates out of a field of thirteen. That’s not dead last.
Please alter the text according to reality, Steve, and stop distorting RAM’s record to intimidate people out of voting for us. There was a swing to the right in the Council elections in 2007 that delivered left-leaning City Vision a wipeout. Where was the mention of that?
Kindest regards,
Oliver Woods
RAM Candidates Co-Leader
I doubt Francois will find very many historians who agree with the thesis that Rosa Luxemburg caused fascism. Interestingly though, while I’ve insisted that I was not trying to draw parallels between her time and our own (only noting that her characterisation of reformist parties was more true now than then), others have proceeded to do exactly that.
Even more interesting is that everything in Francois’s rationalisation for voting Labour 100% supports what I said. I find that a very depressing outlook. According to Francois, the only way workers can get anything is by “not alienating” the rich. Certainly the Labour Party agree with that. Whereas Trotsky posed a choice of Socialism or Barbarism, Francois poses an equally clear choice; Capitalism or mass destruction, chaos, death and dictatorship. It really comes back to my original point. The WP wants to build socialism, the Labour Party wants to protect capitalism. We’re not just slightly more radical versions of Labour, we have completely opposing objectives.
Cheers,
John
The WP wants to build socialism, the Labour Party wants to protect capitalism. We’re not just slightly more radical versions of Labour, we have completely opposing objectives.
Well done. Your defense of the WP’s objectives has clarity and passion. But the choice we face in a few weeks time is not between capitalism and socialism… it is between a National or a Labour led coalition govt. The primary question is, which would you prefer? The secondary question is, does a vote for the WP assist or detract from that?
Besides capitalism appears to be crumbling under the weight of it’s own monstrous hubris ….regardless of how we cast our votes.
Every voter that casts their vote “strategically” according to some pundit instead of what they support or believe in, is a wasted vote and another sign of democracy defeated at the source, which is no surprise to see being promoted in the main stream, like here.
Every voter that casts their vote “strategically” according to some pundit instead of what they support or believe in, is a wasted vote and another sign of democracy defeated at the source, which is no surprise to see being promoted in the main stream-like here.
Not really. Most of our new taxes introduced will have a disproportionate effect on the very wealthy- but we associate them directly with negative behaviour, so that those who’ve earned their money through productive enterprise actually get a tax break.
Taxation is really the only area of significant difference. The Alliance wants to tax wealth, and the Greens want to tax waste. Both approaches should end up with significant reductions to the burden of lower-income earners.
No, it does not. It becomes a “no vote” by virtue of not counting towards any parliament. That’s not to say it’s a waste of time- it certainly sends its own message that you would rather your vote didn’t count than that you handed it to someone more moderate- but it does mean you leave yourself more open to a National government than if you voted for someone who voted for one of the parties likely to pass the threshold or win an electorate.
Voting is about personal expression as much as choosing a government, Red. If that expression matters more to someone than that their vote counts to “swing” the government more in their direction, then that is their choice.
We can advise. We can argue. But I think that there are a few on the Left- and I’m looking at Steve/Clint here, in addition to say, Chris Trotter- that forget that a person’s vote is their own to cast as they choose, even if you view that choice as a “waste”. There is no “duty” to support someone who’ll do better for them, or who you think they may broadly agree with. Down that road lies entitlement, which we often criticise the Right about. That sort of support has to be earned. If the Labour Party loses out on forming a coalition because it is too moderate, or because it is too leftist, because it can’t promise enough, or because it’s lost our trust, or because of any other reason involving genuine appeal to voters, that is the fault of the Labour Party, and nobody else.
Not to say that we shouldn’t aggressively try to convince people of the merits of our parties. We should. But we should do it without blaming people who we should be trying to get on-side.
DSC08,
If we had a pure proportional representation system, then you would be correct, every vote would count. But we do not, we have an MMP system. The reality is that all votes cast for parties that do not reach the 5% threshold, or lack a charismatic candidate who can win an electorate seat… are wasted.
That is a fact that cannot be sheeted home to any of the authors or posters here at the Standard. Come election day we get to choose between a National or Labour-led coalition govt. Welcome to reality… now pick a lane.
PS. If you really cannot bring yourself to vote Labour (and I can live with your reasons why) then how about the Greens? A vote for them is most unlikely to be wasted.
Ari,
Well written and well thought out. I entirely agree with you.
But MMP’s 5% threshold does not.
“I believe Noam Chomsky has stated similar things along those lines, bringing down the system by joining it, hes a staunch libertarian-socialist.”
I have been reading Chomsky for years. The mere insinuation that he would advocate this is rediciulous.
From his book “Failed States”:
Subversion of democracy by concentrations of private power, of course, familiar:mainstream commentators casually observe that “business is in complete control of the machinery of government” (Robert Reich), echoing Woodrow Wilson’s observation, days before taking office, that “the masters of the government of the United States are the combined Capitalists and Manufacturers of the United States”. America’s leading twentieth-century social philosopher, John Dewey, concluded that “politics is the shadow cast on society by big business” and will remain so as long as power resides in “business for private profit through private control of backing, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda.” Accordingly, reforms will not suffice. Fundamental social change is necessary to bring menaingful democracy.
This is just one example of Chomsky displaying he does not beleive in Capitalism of reforming capitalism (i.e the Labour party and the Green’s)…..
I will be voting for the WP and beleive that my vote could change the world.
Voting Labour or the Greens will certainly never do that. Just ask the people of Ruatoki, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and Palestine!
I will be voting for the WP and beleive that my vote could change the world.
But in reality you may as well not bother getting out of bed come 8th November.
Fundamental social change will happen, when the the people fundamentally change what they believe in and place value on. We have been seduced into worshipping money and power, but on the day we begin to place a greater value on justice and service to others… then the world will change. This may happen sooner than expected, and on that day the 5% MMP threshold will matter not a jot.
Unfortunately next Saturday is too soon.
RedLogix.
Not one election EVER has been won by the margin of one vote. It is a false premise, voting by the individual is a purely symbolic act, it always will be.
All the bloodshed that has been spilt ad. infinitum for this symbolic act to be availabe to the individuals in society un-tampered with, has been about the complete opposite direction of trying to control others at it’s core, which is the rubbish rational being brought into here with “strategic voting”, only got a few lanes as counting etc
Much like rubbish rational that justifies the accounting fault in the current financial system.
And without addressing this fault(or addressing it in a manner in which the majority of the benefit goes to the state and not the individual) as to different degrees RAM, The Alliance or the Workers party want to do, will lead to this again, and again, and again:
Latin American’s ‘New Left’ In Crises As the ‘Free Market’ Collapses
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21104.htm
Not one election EVER has been won by the margin of one vote. It is a false premise, voting by the individual is a purely symbolic act, it always will be.
I do get it. The right to vote, and the right to cast that vote untrammelled by the will of others is both vital and fundamental. As is the right to throw it away if you wish.
But at the same time all those individual acts of voting get added up, and the big numbers at the end determine who gets to form our government. You cannot evade that either.
On Nov 8th the rest of us are participating in an election, that for better or worse, will determine whether we get a National or Labour led coalition govt. It is that simple.
Please answer this simple question. Which outcome would you prefer?
(And neither is not an option.)
I reject your self-imposed limitations as i do of the current financial system’s accounting flaw,
DSC08,
It is not me that is imposing the restriction here.
1. On Nov 8th there is an election.
2. The outcome of that election will be the formation of a government.
3. That govt will be led by either the Labour or National parties.
Now I fully appreciate that there are some people who do not want either of those parties to lead the government. But that is not one of the choices on offer next Saturday. (And I had nothing to do with setting these parameters… don’t blame me for reality.)
You are perfectly free to cast your vote for WP, DSC, or RAM. They represent worthy and useful causes…. but please do not delude yourselves into thinking that by doing so you are actually participating in the election in any meaningful way.
M Walker:
Chomsky votes Democrat. You can find him on youtube somewhere endorsing Obama.
He wants and end to capitalism, but he hasnt sold enough books to make that happen yet.
Ari and DSC08:
It seems that voting for you is a “personal choice”. How nice for youselves.
No-one here has the faintest idea about what is meant by ‘workers democracy’ (even at the most miserable level exercised in unions today) and its bearing on bourgeois elections.
But Ari: your “personal choice” approach means you overlook the reality that those who “choose” to vote WP or RAM in the belief that it is a personal act of “anti-capitalism” are acting as a MINORITY of petty bourgeois individuals, against the MAJORITY expression of union collective support for a Labour-led government.
Like I said before, when those to the left of Labour who claim to speak in behalf of workers interests have taken the trouble to win support for their positions in the unions and can creditably put up candidates with strong union support, then there is a case for putting them above the 5% threshold so they can get into parliament and vote against going to war, for nationalising the banks, and overthrowing parliament etc.
In the meantime posturing as alternatives to Labour when party votes cast for you contribute to putting National into power is a petty bourgeois indulgence.
Why? Because you turn your backs on the defence of the victories and concessions won by organised labour in the past and present, which are really important as a platform for labour to rebuild its class strength against the right, and indulge yourselves in “personal choices” that are only possible on the basis of those collective gains of past struggles.
You have another “choice” which is to give up on bourgeois democracy where citizens vote as individuals and adhere to the norms of workers democracy.
Stand your candidates on your program to win support for your program, but respect the interests of organised labour and call for party votes to a Labour led government.
The way i participate with my vote, which won’t be for RAM, WP, Alliance, Labour, Green or National, for reasons outlined above, will be no less meaningful than your vote RedLogix.
And you can build up as many artificial constructions as you need to comfort yourself in what you personally derive out of your single vote, but it will remain no less or more “meaningful” than mine or anyone elses in the physical world.
I’m not sure you entirely got me with that last comment- the threshold doesn’t relate to what I said at all. Expressing yourself is a key component of elections, and doing it in the knowledge that you are not effecting the outcome is still a powerful act.
As for the threshold: Anyone who wins even one list seat outright deserves it in my opinion. Even nutters like Rodney Hide, and the utterly corrupt like Winston.
Yeah, you definitely didn’t get my point. Let me put it this way:
I’m a believer. Not in Christ, not in Islam, but in Democracy. The way other people get when you defile their temples? Yeah, I get that way when people try to deny the idea that votes are an earnest expression of your beliefs and hopes, and are valuable enough for that alone regardless of their actual effect on the election.
Don’t fuck with democracy.
No, I acknowledge that as reality. My point is that voting is a message even if you don’t actually effect the outcome. For one, the youth vote was largely ignored in the country because of terrible statistics on turnout of young voters. Even showing up to vote is a message, and until Labour realised it could achieve a dramatic swing in the youth vote, it didn’t bother with too much student-friendly policy.
You’ll also have to excuse me for not believing in the collective. I am an individualist at heart and believe that the collective derives its legitimacy from the support of individuals alone, and that no amount of bullying or “toe the line!” type messages will ever add to that legitimacy. They might stifle organised dissention- but in Labour’s case that would not get them the extra enthusiastic support they will need for a fourth term, even with their highly motivated activist core. The only reason to say “You CAN’T vote for RAM/WP/Alliance” is because you want to destroy potential competitors. To me, that’s a betrayal of what leftism is about. We celebrate many voices and build each other up and work together. We’ve learned from the failures of states like the USSR, and won’t fall into authoritarianism again, no matter how much the right tries to push us in that direction.
You can tell I’m a Green when I talk about grassroots support, right?
edit: I should point out that I have a lot of sympathy with class-warfare type ideology. That said, I view communism/marxism as a post-economic utopia that’s not really relevant to today’s political environment, so… if you really want to talk to me in earnest, I suggest we talk in neutral language instead of marxist terms.
DSC,
I am sure that when you cast your vote on Saturday it will have significant personal meaning for you. I have no intention or desire to take that away from you.
But if the party you vote for fails to reach MMP’s 5% threshold, it will have no direct meaning in terms of the election outcome.
But as a wasted left-wing vote it will indirectly make it easier for the National party to form a government. That is the actual meaning your vote will have.
In reality you will be voting in support of National. Is that what you intended?
Labour’s not “left-wing”. National, Labour, there’s no freakin’ difference, they all “shoot to kill” working families with their neo-liberal poision. The Greens used to be a bit different, but then they accepted “emissions trading” – bribing big business not to wreck the planet quite so quickly. So what’s the alternative?
None of the parliamentary parties stand for anything actually different – with the exception of the Maori Party, and since I’m not on the Maori roll they’re not an option for me. So, what – choose which variety of vampire you want to suck your blood for three years, or start building the alternative, right here, right now?
What is particularly interesting about this post is that the author felt the need to tell an outright lie about RAM’s local body electoral performance (neglecting, for example, the 3-year term won by Cr. Robyn Hughes). This shows where the author sees the real threat to be.
Ari,
Again I totally agree. You state your case eloquently … but sadly the ideal that you are committed to is undone by the pragmatism of MMP’s 5% threshold.
It’s not me trying to bully anyone into “toeing the line”… it is the hard cold reality of the voting system that will be used to count the votes on Saturday night.
DUH, i intend who i vote for, and which as i pointed out doesn’t include National.
My individual vote will remain what it is, a symbolic act grounded in the physical universe, your single vote it seems will be a “real politik” vote grounded in abstract theory that it is somehow more significant because of your “chosen” approach, and that people who don’t feel the same way about their choice are actually voting for something they didn’t, despite clearly in the physical world that is not the case.
END OF STORY.
Okay, thanks RedLogix. I had got the impression you were essentially beating people over the head with the threshold- obviously that was personal bias
No big deal, I should probably trust you better than that. 
I certainly agree with you that while we continue to have a 5% threshold, small parties who are below that point should really focus on electorate votes first, then build up their party votes, strategically speaking. Once they’ve got an electorate in the bag, they’re a lot safer of a bet.
Ondine- We only very barely accepted the ETS, and we’ve done a lot of work trying to show the public how deeply flawed it is and why we need stronger measures- and also on preventing National from trying to backslide it.
I’m not sure where you can say we betrayed our principles- it was a choice between doing nothing proudly, and doing something reluctantly. Both choices were “wrong” choices for us in some respects. As a pragmatic party we got offered a couple of key concessions at the last minute that made signing up just good enough to put votes on paper, including the insulation fund and a national biodiversity strategy to help ensure carbon-offsetting doesn’t cover the entire country in bloody pinus radiata
If you want to support the Greens otherwise but have concerns about the (very hard) decision to support the ETS, I highly suggest you get in contact with someone from the party and see if your exact concerns are being addressed. I’m pretty confident that’s the case.
DSC,
This discussion has nothing to do with “real politik” or “grounded in the physical universe”… it is the result of the MMP 5% threshold. That you cannot idealise away, it is real, and will be applied to the result on Saturday night.
Go ahead and vote for your micro party.. but you will be voting in support of National.
In the meantime real life calls. Enjoy your Sunday.
Michael Walker – In “What We Say Goes” Chomsky declares that every radical must be a reformer. He goes on to talk about using any opportunity to make positive change you can.
That’s not even mathematically true. Voting for a party that doesn’t pass the threshold doesn’t support National in the slightest- it has absolutely no impact on who gets what seats. The only difference between that and not voting is that it makes it harder for OTHER parties to get over the threshold. The only way that National could possibly benefit from this is if it edges out NZ First from the threshold. And with polling what it is in New Zealand, I don’t think we even know whether it’ll be that close.
Have fun with real life
I’m off soon too.
Again, I want the Standard to stop outright lying on their blog. I knew that you would make a facetious change to the comment, but I didn’t realise you would continue to spread misinformation about RAM’s electoral performance.
The comment implies we did far worse than we really did in the local elections. We received more than 100,000 votes overall and although we lost our elected ARC councilor Robyn Hughes narrowly in Manukau City, we improved on our overall performance since the 2004 elections.
As I stated above, many of our candidates did very well performance wise – Robyn Hughes in the ARC elections in Manukau City, Rachel Asher for Council in Maungakiekie who beat candidates from organised candidate blocs, Valerie Alexander-Vui for Council in Avondale-Roskill who beat a number of people from ‘organised candidate blocs’ and even me for Mount Roskill Community Board where I beat two or three candidates from the ‘organised candidate bloc’ you say.
So can you please make the changes to the comment that make the comment factually correct and stop spreading outright falsehoods about RAM’s electoral performance in the 2007 local elections in Auckland?
Your readers may want the context of our vote performance as well, considering your favoured ticket City Vision got decimated all over the city. City Vision’s ticket, which did well in the 2004 elections, was decimated as part of the swing to the right in 2007 that seriously affected RAM as well.
How about writing up how many Labour and Green affiliated Councilors lost their seats in 2007 to National Party clones? I guess that wouldn’t fit within your narrative of falsehoods of trying to run RAM down would it?
Kindest regards,
Oliver Woods
RAM Candidates Co-Leader
[Oliver, I have nothing against RAM and I care about it too little to try to run it down. My concern is that if people vote for RAM (or the WP or whoever) rather than the Greens or Labour, they are increasing the likelihood of a National government. Even you can acknowledge that is the reality of the matter. A person thinking of voting RAM is more opposed to a National government than they are to a Labour one, despite the simplistic rhetoric that they're 'both the same'. Given that, they should vote for the lesser of two evils rather than throw their vote away, empowering the Right. SP]
“National, Labour, there’s no freakin’ difference, they all “shoot to kill’ working families with their neo-liberal poision”
You mean like the Working for Families package? (National voted against that, by the way) Is that poison to working families?
each one of them wasted when they could have been contributing to more seats for the Left
You cant say each one of them wasn’t wasted without substantiating it. You may be right, but you may be wrong.
Some of them were reallocated to the right, others reallocated to the left.Some of them may well have contributed to more seats to the left- and if more of them were from right leaning parties many right leaning voters contributed to the left through reallocation.
That makes no sense and doesnt sound like you ‘substantiated’ what you were saying, dave. Sounded like speculation to me.