Hide begging for his political life

74 comments on “Hide begging for his political life ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kenny 1

   11 October 2010 at 3:27 pm

   Hide won’t be around at the next election (why do you think they got rid of Garrett?)… Rodney is going to get rolled.

   They will have a candidate there and National would be foolish to oppose him/her too strongly because the seat is worth more than one MP to either party. What the elecorate make of this is another matter.
   • Zeebop 1.1

     11 October 2010 at 10:55 pm

     National needs me! Says Rodney.

     National sanction and support ACT because…

     …there is more than one MP to either party… in it for them.

     National, a proclaimed center rigth party, can’t compete without ACT!

     Its own policies are not saleable, because National doesn’t believe in them, it needs ACT!

     It needs ACT in order to switch out moderate policies for further right
     policies while in government – as it has.

     Because supporting and sanctioning ACT does more for National than
     provide an extra MP or two. It means being able to offer a more
     moderate platform at the election, and make it easier when they
     win to move to the right with an ACT ally. In fact it makes it
     harder for them to sell a moderate center if the country has
     had enough og right wing politics.

     Key’s support of ACT at the next general election is thus a
     bad policy, since the country will be offered the choice of
     another three years of looney right ACT-Nationalism, and
     make it EASIER for Labour to win if ACT likely fail to get into
     parliament.
   • Margaret 1.2

     12 October 2010 at 10:28 am

     I think John Key may be in the process of dumping Rodney anyway.

     Key wanted Rodney there to do the dirty work so any mud or anger went straight to Rodney and left the National Party squeeky clean.

     Rodney has now finished the dirty job so does John Key need him anymore?

     Remember money men do not make decisions based on how it is going to effect people (skills they do not have) they only base decisions on what it is going to do to the ledger.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1

       12 October 2010 at 10:55 am

       Well, the mud has certainly stuck to Rodney and Act but I’m not too sure that National have come out of the partnership spotless.
2. comedy 2

   11 October 2010 at 3:34 pm

   Here’s a suggestion Rodney – earn the votes of the public or fuck right off.
   • pollywog 2.1

     11 October 2010 at 3:39 pm

     Here’s a suggestion Rodney – fuck right off.

     FIFY
   • felix 2.2

     11 October 2010 at 8:05 pm

     Good call, comedy. The rainbow’s looking good btw.
3. prism 3

   11 October 2010 at 3:43 pm

   Epsom anagram – mopes.
4. Rex Widerstrom 4

   11 October 2010 at 3:49 pm

   I think “begging for his political life” characterises it unfairly.

   Any third party – be it Greens, NZF, Act, whoever – risks losing not because its policies or its candidate(s) are unpopular but because people worry about “wasting their vote”. Things need to reach a “tipping point” as they did with NZF in 1995 whereby people are confident that a 3rd party vote will count.

   Overcoming that uncertainty is an enormous task, and one I can’t see third party candidates overcoming without deals such as Act has with National in Epsom. It also means an independent, no matter whether they’re the best candidate ever to put their name forward in the history of politics, doesn’t have a hope either. And that, IMHO, is a very bad thing… and one we should be talking aboiut overcoming, not using as a stick with which to beat Act and Hide (when there is a forest full of branches to do that with anyway).

   The slim to no chance of winning without a deal is no reflection on the calibre of the candidate, it’s yet another disadvantage of MMP (which retains FPP for electorate voting). Multi-member electorates with STV would fix this. In such a race both Banks and Hide could stand, and conceivably both could be elected. Or not. That would be a real test of the popularity of both.
   • Graeme Edgeler 4.1

     11 October 2010 at 4:03 pm

     What you describe as a disadvantage of MMP is a disadvantage of the 5% threshold. Get rid of it and your concern about wasted party votes evaporates.
     • Rex Widerstrom 4.1.1

       11 October 2010 at 5:02 pm

       No Graeme I’m talking about the way people think when casting their candidate vote. Each electorate run-off is a mini FPP election.

       You might, for instance, very much like the Act candidate in your electorate but as they aren’t liked much within Act itself they may be too ar down on the list to win a list seat.

       To vote for that candidate as your electorate MP many people would want to feel they had a fair chance of winning and thus that a sufficient number of other voters felt as you did.

       And for an independent, with no list on which to rely, that’s doubly true.
   • Pascal's bookie 4.2

     11 October 2010 at 4:05 pm

     Hang on a minute mate, the Greens don’t have such a deal, nor do the maori Party, nor did NZ First as far as I can remember.

     And I think it is a pretty big part a reflection on the candidates and policy that they are at that tipping point you accurately describe. Big centrist parties are BCPs because most people like to think of themselves that way. Small ideological parties are SIPs because not many people think of themselves that way.

     The greens got closest to being wiped out in 05 from memory, and that tipping point was certainly an issue. It’s the only time I’ve voted for Labour and I had to get good and drunk to do so, and did so purely because of the risk that they would get 4.* percent and Brash would be PM with all that entailed for the economy, race relations, foreign affairs and all the bloody ragged rest of it. Aside from that though I’m not really seeing where the small parties avoid that problem through deals.

     NZF, Anderton’s solo act, and the Dunnie party survive(d) through having an established pollie with a loyal electorate. It’s only ACT that get in on via the nudge wink wingnut welfare system.

     Of course I could be completely batshit and missing the obvious, but I’d like to be told where.
     • Sean 4.2.1

       11 October 2010 at 4:24 pm

       NZF, Anderton’s solo act, and the Dunnie party survive(d) through having an established pollie with a loyal electorate. It’s only ACT that get in on via the nudge wink wingnut welfare system.

       Of course I could be completely batshit and missing the obvious…

       No, I think you are on to it.
     • Rex Widerstrom 4.2.2

       11 October 2010 at 5:24 pm

       Fair points Pb, and reflective of the fact I didn’t express myself very well in the original comment.

       You’re right about the MP and the Greens… they’ve surpassed that tipping point and it’s a measure of their appeal that they’ve done so. NZF is kinda different… more akin to the Anderton / Dunne factor in that people were really voting for one man, but unlike them in that it wasn’t because of Winston’s performance as an electorate MP. But remember Anderton and Dunne had the advantage of having been MPs for a BCP for a long time; people knew what they were getting. Neither would haver stood a chance as an independent (which, for all their fiction about being party leaders, is essentially what they are). And so had Winston, for that matter.

       And also let’s remember that Dunne benefited many times from facing no, or only token, opposition from one or other BCP.

       I’m envisaging the problem faced by, say, a good candidate who can’t get enough traction in their own party to be ranked high enough on the list to get in that way, or by an independent.

       Saying that such a candidate needs to do a deal whereby they face no real challenge in order to be elected in their own right is therefore somewhat unfair. True, but unfair, in that it’s not the candidate’s fault.

       To take the Epsom example; Act is so knackered that it has no hope of making 5 percent. There may however, be a sizeable proportion of the electorate still prepared to vote for Rodney Hide… but only if their vote isn’t wasted through too many other right-leaning voters casting their ballot for National. National standing a strong candidate would thus frighten them into voting for that candidate even if they truly prefer Hide.

       Not saying that is the situation, just that it could be, and that it’s hard to divine. I’d like to see Hide (and anyone else standing, for that matter) face a situation where they were picked solely on their merits as an MP, with no extraneous considerations clouding the choice. That doesn’t happen under the mini-FPP race that decides each electorate.

       Gawd, that’s probably no clearer… *sigh*
       • Lanthanide 4.2.2.1

         11 October 2010 at 6:03 pm

         I’m not aiming this criticism at you, but the whole idea of “wasting your vote” in an electorate doesn’t really make sense.

         If you prefer Rodney, but vote for National anyway (when clearly no left-wing party would win the seat), then you have effectively wasted your vote by voting for someone you didn’t want. If you vote for Rodney and he loses, I don’t really see that as “wasting” your vote, unless by doing so you let someone you really don’t like win the seat by splitting the vote.
         • Rex Widerstrom 4.2.2.1.1

           11 October 2010 at 7:30 pm

           Alright, let’s try a different hypothetical. Let’s look at Mana, which is ideal because there won’t be a party vote consideration at the byelection.

           I’m a left voter. I don’t like the way Kris Fa’afoi was parachuted in. In fact, I’m so pissed of at yet another carpetbagger being put up on the assumption that myself and my fellow voters will automatically tick Labour that I want to go out of my way to make sure he doesn’t get in.

           In terms of individuals, the candidate who impresses me most is from the Greens. But if I cast my vote that way, and not enough other people follow suit, I’ll have “wasted” it. So to send a message to Labour do I vote for Hekia Parata, whom I don’t mind as a person, and just swallow the fact that I’m voting for a representative of a party I don’t like, or take the risk and support the Greens candidate?

           In fact if I’m like a lot of people I’ll watch the polls. Which is why small parties always seem to poll higher than they do on election day. Their support is effectively people hpoing “If I say I’m supporting (say) the Greens, then maybe my neighbours will too”. But then not enough people say so (it doesn’t reach the tipping point), doubt sets in, and they vote “the big party I hate least” come polling day.
           • Margaret 4.2.2.1.1.1

             11 October 2010 at 8:23 pm

             Right on the button, I like what you say

             You never know though we may get braver as the year goes on and feel we want to vote for our values, and if Labour wants our votes then they have to be greener.
           • Lanthanide 4.2.2.1.1.2

             11 October 2010 at 9:06 pm

             Sorry, I find your example completely incomprehensible.

             It makes utterly no sense to me whatsoever that you would vote National to teach Labour a lesson, for fear that voting Green is a waste of your vote. If you vote for the National candidate, and they don’t win, have you again “wasted” your vote? Seems all you can do is vote for whoever is going to win, otherwise you will have to consider your vote “wasted”. That makes no sense.
             • Armchair Critic …

               11 October 2010 at 9:23 pm

               My party vote is wasted unless I vote for the National party candidate. Dairy country, no way the farmers will vote any other way. I still can’t bring myself to tick their box, so my electorate vote is always wasted.
               What Rex suggests sort of does make sense. For example, in Epsom at the next general election it might be smart for Labour and Green supporters to vote National for the seat, and Labour or Green for the list. That would mean the National candidate would be more likely to get in for the Epsom seat instead of ACT.
               Having said that, in 2008 it would not have worked. Labour, the Greens and National totalled 16,119 votes, some 4,983 votes behind Hide, who received 21,102 votes. And we would have been blessed had Richard Worth (whatever happened to old Dickie??) instead.
               In 2011 it could be a different story. Who is to say there aren’t 3,000-odd voters out there in Epsom who aren’t that happy with Rodney and ACT.
               • Lanthanide …

                 11 October 2010 at 9:38 pm

                 I know where Rex is coming from, but the example he’s given doesn’t make sense.

                 IMO, the only way to say your vote was ‘wasted’ in an electorate vote is if you voted for your preferred candidate who you suspected had no real chance of winning, and a result your 2nd preferred candidate who could’ve won the electorate instead lost to the opposition candidate. In that case, you wasted your vote by voting for someone who was not likely to get in at the expense of your 2nd preferred candidate.

                 The example Rex gave is pathological – you’re not happy with your generally-preferred candidate, so you vote for the opposition to punish them instead? Really in this case it makes more sense to not vote, or to park your vote where you think it is unlikely to harm either way. Of course, under my definition above, if you voted Green instead of Labour and as a result National got in despite G+L having a majority, I would say you wasted your vote by letting the opposition in when you could’ve easily won it had the vote not been split.
           • mcflock 4.2.2.1.1.3

             11 October 2010 at 10:58 pm

             the other point to consider is that if you want the Green candidate to win, vote for them, and they lose, your vote is still not “wasted”.

             If Labour started getting their votes whittled down towards Green candidates in a single electorate, that is an incentive for the Labour MP to act a bit more green in parliament.

             If Labour lose by just a little bit, National have an incentive to moderate their behaviour or become a one-term govt. Do people really think that the govt would have backed down on e.g. mining, moderated the VSM bill, incrementally introduced 90 day fire at will (as opposed to 1 year FaW for everybody) etc if ACT got 12%? The fact is that they know their grip on power is tenuous, regardless of the polls at the moment. All they need is one big clusterfoulup and the polls will flip like a coin. I’m not saying it will happen, but ACT have learnt that pride goeth before the fall. So has Banks.

             Hell, if we lose the RWC badly enough the govt might lose the election.
             • Colonial Viper …

               11 October 2010 at 11:07 pm

               Hell, if we lose the RWC badly enough the govt might lose the election.

               Hence why Key may choose a date which falls before the start of the RWC.
         • Margaret 4.2.2.1.2

           11 October 2010 at 7:58 pm

           Never ever would I – vote for Rodney, I must call myself green – red -red – green, either or, which one will get my vote?
     • Lanthanide 4.2.3

       11 October 2010 at 6:05 pm

       Voting for Labour because of being scared that the greens would only get 4.*% of the vote – what if your single vote was the one that tipped them from 4.99% to 5.00% and got them into parliament, and by voting for Labour and the resulting electoral calculus let National et all slip through the middle? Obviously if the Greens were only polling around 2-3% that’d be another matter.

       Also, looking at it from a ‘worth’ perspective, 1 vote going to the greens who’re sitting at ~5% is worth more than 1 vote going to Labour who’re sitting at ~40%. That 1 vote can either push the Greens over the 5% threshold or increase their MPs from something like 6 to 7, whereas your single vote for Labour might increase their MPs from 50 to 51. If you truly care about green politics, clearly the former is in your best interests.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.3

     11 October 2010 at 4:47 pm

     There’s two problems with MMP. The electorates and the 5% threshold. The electorates because they’re unproportional and the 5% threshold because it keeps parties out of parliament when they should actually be in there. To fix this we need to get rid of electorates and drop the threshold to 1/120 of the voting population.
     • Rex Widerstrom 4.3.1

       11 October 2010 at 5:07 pm

       My thoughts exactly, with one proviso.

       I like the idea of electing MPs at large but given that people don’t pay much attention now (cf the DHB elections where those with A, B or C surnames were more likely to get ticked) it might be asking a bit much to expect people to consider hundreds of names.

       So larger electorates, with multiple MPs, come close to the ideal while keeping things bite-sized.
       • Lanthanide 4.3.1.1

         11 October 2010 at 6:08 pm

         The ballots are randomized on a per-person basis (any two random people won’t have the same order of candidates on their ballot), so the ABC surname problem has been dealt with already.
         • Draco T Bastard 4.3.1.1.1

           11 October 2010 at 6:17 pm

           Wrong

           NRT has a bit to say about the DHB elections.
           • Rex Widerstrom 4.3.1.1.1.1

             11 October 2010 at 7:33 pm

             I/S is dead right in his diagnosis but not, IMO, in terms of the cure.

             Less democracy is never the answer. Give DHBs real power, then hold them accountable.
           • Lanthanide 4.3.1.1.1.2

             11 October 2010 at 9:09 pm

             Right, well that’s Auckland for you. Here in CHCH we do things properly and have the names for all races randomized (I personally witnessed it on 3 voting papers).
5. prism 5

   11 October 2010 at 3:49 pm

   To Epsom.

   Pomes –
   I had a little nut tree
   Nothing did it bear
   But a sour kumquat
   And a rotten pear
   The leader of National
   Came to visit me
   All because of my little nut tree.
   • hateatea 5.1

     11 October 2010 at 4:18 pm

     ROFL.

     If Rodney’s ego wasn’t so out of control that he seems heading towards an imminent trainwreck, one would be tempted to let the ‘nuts’ fall where they may and let he and Banksie duke it out but if Rodney survives his own party’s internal machinations, something needs to be done for the sake of the country.

     The Supercity and ECAN are enough already!

     captcha: subsequent
     • Bored 5.1.1

       11 October 2010 at 4:52 pm

       Oh how are the mighty fallen?

       Self inflicted wounds ( so lets leave him to finish himself off)>
   • Huang Y.G. 5.2

     11 October 2010 at 5:40 pm

     @ prism

     Did the leader of the National
     at your little nut tree
     smile and wave
     and take a photoshot?
     • prism 5.2.1

       11 October 2010 at 8:02 pm

       No Huang YG it was a behind closed doors secret meeting – no pesky reporters around to snitch on the ‘horse-trading’! I’m 99% sure of that.
6. toad 6

   11 October 2010 at 3:53 pm

   Banks is yesterday’s man. If National are serious about wanting to see the back of ACT, they won’t stand Banks in Epsom, especially now he is tainted with the Mayoralty defeat. They’ll stand Steven Joyce.
   • Pascal's bookie 6.1

     11 October 2010 at 4:06 pm

     Where does John Key live when he’s not in wellies or on holiday?
     • BLiP 6.1.1

       11 October 2010 at 4:36 pm

       Fairyland.
     • Akldnut 6.1.2

       11 October 2010 at 7:15 pm

       In the garden sprinkling fairy dust everywhere
7. ianmac 7

   11 October 2010 at 4:02 pm

   In due course I hope MMP adjustment will bring the threshold down from 5% to about 2-3%.
   • Lanthanide 7.1

     11 October 2010 at 6:11 pm

     I think 3.5% is a nice number. Big enough to make an appreciable difference, but still small enough for a newly-formed party to get in there. ACT might even slip in there with that threshold, but I expect that Dunne and Anderton would probably pick up a few more party votes, as well as NZF. ‘sall good.

     It equates to 4.2 seats btw, current 5% = 6.

     captcha: appreciating
     • prism 7.1.1

       11 October 2010 at 8:08 pm

       I don’t think we would be served by having less than 3.5% threshhold. I remember hearing about another country with low threshholds and all the rank nutters got in and the place became ungovernable as far as hard decision making was concerned, ie deciding not to go to war, not to use massive retaliations, and sensitive social issues etc.
     • felix 7.1.2

       11 October 2010 at 8:21 pm

       Isn’t that just creating the same issue at a slightly lower level?

       What’s the rationale for having a threshold any higher than the proportion equal to 1 seat?
       • Lanthanide 7.1.2.1

         11 October 2010 at 9:15 pm

         As prism alludes to, having a very low threshold, 0.8% as you advocate, would easily lead to many smaller 1-person parties, reducing the ability of the major parties to form stable governments or pass legislation effectively in a timely manner. If you think the tail wags the dog at the moment, it’d be much worse in a parliament with 5-8 smaller 1-man parties.
         • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2.1.1

           11 October 2010 at 9:53 pm

           I doubt that you’d get that many “1-man” parties.

           And it appears that I owe JA and PD an apology, it appears that they did get enough votes for 1 seat each.
         • felix 7.1.2.1.2

           11 October 2010 at 11:15 pm

           Hmm. I don’t see any tails wagging dogs. Which tails and dogs do you mean exactly?

           I’d like to see more independents and smaller parties – that would provide for the possibility of a wider range of views i.e. more representation. It doesn’t matter how stupid or crazy or fringe they are, if there’s a constituency for them then they should be there.

           If that means larger parties find it more difficult to dominate the agenda, good.

           The perversity of the current system is that it rewards crazy fringe dwellers like the ACT party with a degree of influence in excess of the size their constituency which is probably in reality closer to the size of the Bill & Ben constituency.
           • lprent 7.1.2.1.2.1

             12 October 2010 at 12:08 am

             To take an extreme example, perhaps you should read about the past 60 years of party political history and the subsequent governments in the Knesset? Hardly an inspiring example of lower thresholds.
8. BLiP 8

   11 October 2010 at 4:14 pm

   What’s that Winston chap up to these days?
   • comedy 8.1

     11 October 2010 at 4:19 pm

     http://mirror.uncyc.org/wiki/Winston_Peters
9. tc 9

   11 October 2010 at 4:22 pm

   Methinks the ‘banks for epsom’ is either more poetic licence from granny or listening to much to the rantings of a sore loser…either way it’s pretty far fetched.

   Bet M Laws wished he could get every idiotic thought splashed throughout the MSM….oh hang on, shit he does already damm.
   • Akldnut 9.1

     11 October 2010 at 7:58 pm

     umm Poetic – Epsom – Poems

     There was a young man named John
     Who really thought he was the key
     To solve Aucklands problems in one foul swoop
     So onto it, he set Rodney

     Now Rodney was full of shit
     He stole our democracy
     After he screwed us all, well he took a hit
     By taking his girl to see “Disney”.

     Now Rodney was lining us up
     He had the super city dead in his sight
     But when he left us out and set up his mates
     He found we don’t die with out fight.

     He thought that his mate Banks
     Would clean up the scum with ease
     He mis-understood that the crew from the hood
     Would bring Banksie to his knees

     Now Banksie’s got nowhere to go
     He thinks “Epsom’s a nice place” you know
     I’ll put up my hand and show that one man band
     That it’s National that runs this show.

     Poor Rodney he got it amiss
     And that Banksie, he’s just a clown
     They got their arse kicked and we take the piss
     Cause they all live in Brown Town
     • prism 9.1.1

       11 October 2010 at 9:44 pm

       Akldnut – your poem goes with a swing – get a tune and a New Orleans band and do a street march with it.
10. Tiger Mountain 10

    11 October 2010 at 4:58 pm

    The fact that ACT is not widely supported is what Hideney has to face. Threatening Helen Clark on the electorate, ooh scary, and undignified brown nosing of National won’t cut it for ACT in the end.

    Tweaking the threshold is needed, 4% might be a bit closer to an optimum level that would keep the “total raving looney party” out while granting parliamentary seats to parties that have a genuine level of popular support.
    • ianmac 10.1

      11 October 2010 at 6:57 pm

      Not sure of the maths but even at 1% the “loonies” would have to be pretty organised and if they were that good, then perhaps they deserve to be “in.”
11. Margaret 11

    11 October 2010 at 5:18 pm

    STV isnt that what they call “first past the post in drag”!

    National know they can’t fool the population into going back to FFP thats why they have chosen STV being careful not to push it too much, they are still hopingthey cann still say “trust me I know what I am doing”.

    Maybe that’s the problem NZ’s have realised they can’t trust this man.
    • Rex Widerstrom 11.1

      11 October 2010 at 5:38 pm

      STV “FPP in drag”?

      Where are you getting your information?! Not according to the UK Fabians (that post is a guest one, written by a professor who authored an STV scheme promoted by the Lib Dems, but I assume they agree with his opinons) or local academics either.

      As the second linked article summarises things quite neatly:

      Arguments in favour of STV emphasise its fairness and its potential to effectively represent the preferences of voters. There are fewer wasted votes and those elected are more likely to have the support of a majority of voters – we will be more able to identify someone on council we have contributed to electing. Arguments against STV, though, emphasise its complexity in requiring voters to rank candidates, count votes and allocate preferences. [my emphasis]

      So while there are arguments to be mounted against it, “FPP in drag” certainly isn’t one of them.
    • toad 11.2

      11 October 2010 at 5:52 pm

      No, Margaret, not with multi-member electorates. But that gets too difficult in New Zealand, because to make it reasonably proportional, the South Island and Maori electorates woul have to be huge, which detracts from the local democracy principle.

      I think in New Zealand the better option would be to have under MMP an AV/PV (Alternative Vote/Preferential Vote) election for the electorate MPs, where voters have can rank candidates, rather than just pick one, and with the preferences of the bottom polling candidates being reallocated until there is a clear winner.

      Possibly add onto that a prohibition on candidates being both electorate candidates and on the Party list.

      The combination would give voters much more ability to get rid of MPs they don’t like.

      And drop the threshold. Much as I hate the racist and populist politics of NZFirst and wish they would disappear forever, it is a travesty of democracy that they failed to get any MPs into the current Parliament despite polling higher than ACT or the Maori Party.

      But these are all reforms to MMP – not alternatives to it, as I think it is the most democratic electoral system we can have, although its current form could be improved on.
      • prism 11.2.1

        11 October 2010 at 9:39 pm

        toad I found it a bore ranking my hospital board votes instead of just voting for the people I want. I rated someone 3 that I was going to rate 9 even though I was trying to do everything correctly. It is more work when you have 7 or 12 to vote for and have to read up candidate booklets. FPP was easy – and to say that voters will find STV better than MMP is a mistake. More voters are going to be put off by the demands of the STV system.

        In Australia parties know that people get flummoxed and will hand them cards showing the best way of citing preferences to agree with any deals that have been made between parties and candidates. It is a bit dodgy and the clean system can get diluted as I think, is already the case of giving progressive counts for loc bod elections while still in progress. I haven’t read when the count for DHB will be finished either. That election seems to fade in interest which gets focussed on loc bodies.
    • Draco T Bastard 11.3

      11 October 2010 at 6:30 pm

      I think you’re thinking of SM rather than STV.
      • toad 11.3.1

        11 October 2010 at 6:47 pm

        I presume that reply is to Margaret, rather than me. I think SM is a dog of an electoral system. It is basically FPP, with a few scraps for the parties that can’t win an electorate. On that basis, a party could get 25% of the vote, but still only 4 or 5 seats.
      • KJT 11.3.2

        11 October 2010 at 6:56 pm

        SM. Sado-masochism is voting for NACT or Labour. Unless they both see the futility of the current economic and political system.
        We should have democratic control of our country. Not politicians.

        http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/search/label/Politics.%20Democracy.

        “Follow Switzerland and make New Zealand’s Government arrangements
        a democracy instead of a pretend one.
        We should control our country, not, 122 self appointed incompetents, the OECD or IMF, or a bunch of failed idealisations from a few true believers in neo-liberalism.”
        • Draco T Bastard 11.3.2.1

          11 October 2010 at 7:22 pm

          We should, yes, but we need to be sure that people are making informed choices first rather than irrational ones.
          • Lanthanide 11.3.2.1.1

            11 October 2010 at 9:18 pm

            See also: California’s massive debt and repeated failures to raise taxes due to direct democracy.
            • KJT 11.3.2.1.1.1

              12 October 2010 at 9:18 am

              See also New Zealand parliaments repeated policies which are not supported by most of us.

              Direct democracy may have prevented Muldoons spending for election bribes. The 1984 Labour Governments throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Ruthenasia etc.
              We would have also had women’s suffrage and Gay rights sooner as it was the politicians that held them up.

              One unpublished study here showed that most people, given a choice of policies only, preferred green Policies. The same people when given a choice of parties chose John Key. Go figure.

              See also Wisconsin and other US States responsible decisions from BCIR. Why quote one State and one decision. Research shows that decisions arrived at by BCIR are often better and better supported by research than those made by Politicians. If people have to make a decision themselves they tend to look into it more deeply.,

              The political parties in the States are also reducing taxes to the extent they cannot pay back debt or support disadvantaged people. It is a reflection of their society, not the type of Government.

              People did make an informed and rational choice here given the available options. The only way in NZ to get rid of a parties policies you do not like is to vote in the lot you did not like last time. We only have the choice of Neo-lib heavy or Neo-lib slightly lighter.

              Lastly as “No right turn” says. “Even if we make the wrong decisions at the end of the day it is our decision to make”.
          • KJT 11.3.2.1.2

            12 October 2010 at 9:39 am

            True.
            Unlike some though I do not believe capitalism and a decent socialist society are mutually exclusive.
            The problem with badly regulated or un-regulated capitalism is the cheats prosper.

            Capitalism is fine as a means of resource allocation if it is DEMOCRATICALLY regulated to take externalities into account and so people cannot cheat the system.

            New Zealander’s as a group have proven to have a pretty good sense of fairness and justice. I think we can be trusted to get it right more often than a self selected group of marginally competent politicians.

            Often when some one says the public’s choices are un -informed it is simply because it is not “their choices”.
12. gingercrush 12

    11 October 2010 at 6:53 pm

    I dislike STV simply because I believe it adds too much complication and you would have to give parties more power. Because for STV to truly work you need to rank all candidates with those you want numbered first and those you really don’t want numbered last. Parties would have to give out those details presumably on polling day as they do in Australia. STV itself I believe would actually be a turn-off for many voters who simply could find themselves unwilling to vote.

    That doesn’t mean STV is wholly stupid. The idea that if your first choice doesn’t make it but someone else you like does certainly has its merits. Hence why for New Zealand I prefer the idea of an additional/alternative vote for both electorate and party votes. If you supported New Zealand First in 2008 its highly likely you would have preferred a Labour run party. If you were an Alliance supporter no doubt you’d prefer a Labour-Greens government. Under this scenario if your party does not make the required threshold then your additional vote is included so if you chose the Greens, they’d have an extra vote. Some votes would remain wasteful if for instance your first vote was the Alliance and your additional vote went to the RAM party. But I think on the whole instead of the 5% or more wasted vote we had in 2008 you’d get far less. Remember as it stands the wasted vote as such is passed onto all those parties that did make it into parliament. So the 500 or so RAM voters last election, most of those would have gone to National.

    The real strength would be in electorate battles where electorates like Auckland Central went to National because the Green candidate attracted a large number of votes. In any election you could have about 5-8 different results with an additional/alternative vote. It could also be used strategically for instance in Epsom at the 2005 election. Hide won that electorate by 3, 102 votes. The Labour candidate had 6, 000 votes compared to Worth’s 12, 000 votes. In such a situation a Labour voter may well prefer a National electorate MP over Hide being the electorate MP.

    In regards to the threshold. I think there does need to be a threshold. Having no threshold could give way too much power to parties that attract 1 or 2% of the vote. There is enough public upset over how much power Act, New Zealand First, Alliance, United Future have had with Labour and National government let alone parties with even lower support. 4% as originally suggested would be an idea. A threshold is also necessary as while a party could enjoy 1% vote its probable most of the country actually wouldn’t want such a party represented.
    • Draco T Bastard 12.1

      11 October 2010 at 7:19 pm

      A threshold is also necessary as while a party could enjoy 1% vote its probable most of the country actually wouldn’t want such a party represented.

      It’s not up to the rest of the country to decide who represents you (Most of the people didn’t want act represented in parliament :P). Then there’s the minor technicality that the Progressives and the Peter Dunne party are in parliament with significantly less than 1% of the vote. To put that in perspective 1% of the vote is about the same as an entire electorate. Both PD and JA got plurality, not majority.

      You have to have a threshold but it should be set high enough so that 1 person voting for himself doesn’t get into parliament but also low enough so that if a party gets enough votes to represent 1 seat then they actually get 1 seat (1/120 for a 120 seat parliament). It’s not that much different from what we have now except that parties that are presently kept out by the biased system would get the needed representation.
    • Lanthanide 12.2

      11 October 2010 at 9:24 pm

      There is no real requirement that you rank every single candidate in an election under STV. In fact, leaving some candidates unranked is actually worse than ranking them in the bottom half of the sheet. If they’re in the bottom half of your ranking, they could conceivably still get a vote attributed to them. But if you don’t rank them at all, then they don’t get a vote under any circumstances.

      As such, what you’ve described with alternative/additional vote is essentially STV where you get to rank #1 and #2 only, and no more. In terms of simplicity I think this would be a workable solution (people have difficulty understanding 2 votes as it is, let alone being forced or allowed to rank every candidate).
13. ron 13

    11 October 2010 at 7:13 pm

    There is a simple solution:
    National should stand Banks
    ACT should stand Rodney
    If EITHER of them get in we should chuck Epsom out of the Union – because they simply shouldn’t be allowed to continue being so STUPID.

    Captcha – nowhere
    • RobertM 13.1

      11 October 2010 at 8:25 pm

      A fail safe test of the IQ and EQ and vision of the Remuera voter. And if those three abilities exist in Auckland and NZ.
      Compare with what comes out of the richest London, Jo-Burg and Melbourne seats.
      Mr Hooton I think you should retire early to a nice little bungalow on the Sydney shore. I agree with the NBR analysis. But is there really any pointwhen you stoop to being Johns errand boy and speech writer.
14. swordfish 14

    12 October 2010 at 11:03 am

    Yep, Margaret’s definitely thinking about SM rather than STV. Nact’s pushing for SM because it “sounds” like a proportional system but, in fact, is very similar to FPP in its consequences.

    STV certainly has its advantages but I’d agree that most punters find it just a little too complex. I’d stick with MMP, establish the threshold at 100,000 party-votes (rather than a percentage), and – ah, what the hell ! – make voting compulsory as well (as in Aussie).

    Traditionally, Labour voters (especially those on the lowest income) are the least likely to turnout. Compulsory voting should therefore add, what ?, another 10, perhaps 15 % to the Labour/Centre-Left vote ? Permanent Centre-Left government. Works for me !
    • KJT 14.1

      12 October 2010 at 8:23 pm

      Labour has not been left or centre left for some time. Even with 9 years of opportunity they still continued with Neo-lib policies only slightly salted with some of those we normally associate with left wing Government.

      Which i strongly suspect, along with a lot of “we know best” is why they lost the election.
15. Ian 15

    12 October 2010 at 6:35 pm

    Sad? Piss off, it’s funny.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 11 October 2010 at 2:08 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS