Shirtcliffe’s anti-MMP campaign launches

112 comments on “Shirtcliffe’s anti-MMP campaign launches ”

• Comments are now closed

1. pollywog 1

   28 June 2011 at 9:53 am

   These guys are screaming for a bucket of bullshit to be thrown over them.
   • Blue 1.1

     28 June 2011 at 12:37 pm

     Well “bullshit” is what you’re best at PW. You have to be a Mana man, given your mastery of what you believe to be English.
   • Deadly_NZ 1.2

     29 June 2011 at 1:18 am

     There’s no contact us on their web page, and I’ll be royally screwed before i go on that virus ridden bullshit site Farcebook, or the how to become illiterate in 147 characters Twatter.
2. MarkM 2

   28 June 2011 at 9:57 am

   Good to see you guys want an intellectual argument about the merits for and against MMP and dont plan on running a “Ranting , frothing at the mouth ,attack on anyone who dares speak against MMP” campaign.

   [lprent: You know better. Address a person, because apparently addressing the machine gets my moderating attention. I nearly gave you a ban for talking to the machine (and thereby wasting my moderating time explaining that machines don’t think (see the policy)) until I read the context of pollywogs comment. ]
   • ianmac 2.1

     28 June 2011 at 10:13 am

     When thinking about changing from MMP, have a look at those who most want the change. (From Morning Report email.) Shirtcliffe, Basset, Franks, Harvey, Key, Jordan Williams, Brash…….
   • Blighty 2.2

     28 June 2011 at 10:14 am

     the intellectual argument for MMP is simple and there has been no real counter to it:

     ‘Of the existing representational electoral systems, MMP does the best job of letting people vote for a party that closely conforms to their own political views without their vote being wasted. Therefore, MMP means that Parliament reflects the political spectrum of the population better than any other system.’

     Of course, that’s not to say it couldn’t be tweeked. I would get rid of the threshold and the Maori seats. But, even as it stands, MMP is far more proportional and fair than any other option. This can be proven empirically using the Gallagher Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_Index
     • Peter 2.2.1

       28 June 2011 at 11:00 am

       I would add that in a diverse plural modern society MMP is essential. Without it the wide spectrum of opinion would not be represented. Instead we would have a moneyed untouchable minority with no real interest is wider issues lauding over the populous.
       • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1

         28 June 2011 at 7:12 pm

         You mean just like what happens in the US and the UK?
     • ianupnorth 2.2.2

       28 June 2011 at 4:24 pm

       So you must be all for MMP given the article states

       Thus the disproportionality of the 2005 New Zealand election is 1.11, which is very low by international standards.
     • Tea 2.2.3

       29 June 2011 at 2:03 pm

       I would go a couple more steps removing greens and act.
       All no votes go to the majority party tally.
       • Colonial Viper 2.2.3.1

         29 June 2011 at 2:10 pm

         Yes, lets bolster the position of our 2 largest parties against everyone else.

         You know, because between them they’ve done such a great standup job on covering all the issues from every corner of the community we don’t need anyone else in parliament. Who needs small party driven initiatives like KiwiBank and home insulation anyway? 😛
       • KJT 2.2.3.2

         29 June 2011 at 2:14 pm

         So. Who needs alternatives to the present economic fuckups perpetuated by NACT and Labour. Eh!
   • pollywog 2.3

     28 June 2011 at 10:16 am

     Intellect is overrated when a bucket of bullshit says so much more…visceral imagery trumps intellect anyday.

     Banksy and Damien Hirst anyone or some crusty old neo classical impressionist *yawn* ?

     yeah i thought so…
     • Blue 2.3.1

       28 June 2011 at 12:39 pm

       “Intellect is overrated” – gee and you want to raise the minimum wage. You are the classic cautionary tale for kids “stay in school or you become him”.
       • prism 2.3.1.1

         28 June 2011 at 1:00 pm

         Blue – I guess that’s your political colour and you want to make everyone else blue too. Pollywog was being sarcastic or ironic if you understand just one of those words. I think you over-rate your intellect. It’s not the exquisitely smart brain and mind that counts in the world, it’s the ability to take an informed overview that considers outcomes and others wellbeing – not just a partisan knee-jerk personal reactive sound or word-bite.
   • Morrissey 2.4

     28 June 2011 at 11:36 am

     MarkM, the only people running a ranting attack are Shirtcliffe’s people. Obviously you didn’t listen to the Vote For Change spokesman Jordan Williams on National Radio this morning. He ran away from a golden chance to argue his case.

     No sign of any desire for “intellectual argument” on that occasion.
     • Frank Macskasy 2.4.1

       28 June 2011 at 8:19 pm

       Indeed, Morrissey. I heard the interview this morning as well. Jordan totally avoided mentioning what alternative system they prefer over MMP. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2492309/battlelines-drawn-in-campaign-to-decide-voting-system.asx

       And this, I believe will be one of their weaknesses (aside from links to some very dodgy people/groups in the shadows).

       Not naming an alternative to MMP is not likely to go down well with the punters – people want a credible alternative option. Just saying “vote for change” – without suggesting what constitutes that change – is like saying “government needs to fix things up”. Vague and inane.

       The trouble comes when “Vote for Change” picks an option.

       FPP? Been there; done that; and National nicked the t-shirts (as well as mandates) in 1978 and 1981.

       STV? Yeah, good luck with that. If some folk have difficulty understanding MMP, then have fun trying to explain the mechanics of STV (or PV).

       SM? Aside from some kinky connotations, no one knows what SM is. And purely by linking it to FPP,. may may folk wary of such an unknown system.

       I’ll be curious as to what Jordan and his friends have to offer to the electorate. It’ll have to be one hell of a message, to persuade the majority to change the system – again.
3. KJT 3

   28 June 2011 at 10:11 am

   The merits of MMP are pretty well known after many discussions on this site and others.

   Those who oppose MMP want to roll back to the time when a small group of politicians wielded absolute power. When National could gerrymander electorate boundaries to get in with 40% of the vote. When it was a two horse race between two parties.

   Shirtcliff and co should not be allowed to unduly try an influence public opinion. Democracy should not be a contest of who has the most money to throw at advertising.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.1

     28 June 2011 at 7:14 pm

     Democracy should not be a contest of who has the most money to throw at advertising.

     No it shouldn’t but that’s what the moneyed interests want it to be.
4. the sprout 4

   28 June 2011 at 10:13 am

   more corporate attempts to subvert NZ democracy.
   you’d think they’d be satisfied with the installation of John Key. then again, they are never satisfied until there’s nothing left worth having, then they move on to the next victim.

   this is why National/Shirtcliffe really hates MMP:

   http://thestandard.org.nz/why-national-really-hates-proportional-electoral-systems/
5. Lanthanide 5

   28 June 2011 at 10:35 am

   One wonders why we haven’t seen a calculated attempt by a political party to ‘gerrymander’ the MMP system.

   We could potentially see what I have in mind at the upcoming election, if Mana and Maori Party can form an alliance.

   It’d go like this: use your electorate votes for the Maori Party, and your list votes for Mana (except TTT where they vote in Hone). Both parties could actively campaign on this platform. It would ensure an overhang from the Maori Party while also delivering 3-5 MPs for Mana, maximising their power as a bloc in parliament.

   I went to the electoral calculator on the elections website, and plugged in the results from the 2008 election. Then, I made a new party, Labour List, and gave it 100% of all of Labour’s party votes, while allowing Labour to retain it’s existing electorate MPs.

   Under such a result, there would be 143 MPs in parliament due to overhang from Labour electorate winners. Labour + Labour List would get a total of 64 MPs, with Greens and Jim Anderton making up another 10 for a majority of 74 / 143, with 2 MPs spare of the bare majority of 72/143 required.

   Is there anything in the MMP rules to prevent such a blatant gerrymander, where two or more parties deliberately declare a nationwide campaign to maximise their list and electorate votes? At the moment we have this on a localised level with Epsom and Ohariu (and Wigram? I think Labour always did campaign there though), but what I’m talking about here is something much bigger.
   • Graeme Edgeler 5.1

     28 June 2011 at 10:52 am

     There is not. Although, if your “Labour” party didn’t submit a list, this wouldn’t cause an overhang, instead, proportionality between party votes would be maintained over a smaller number of seats (120 minus the number of electorates won by independents and parties not contesting the party vote)
   • Blighty 5.2

     28 June 2011 at 10:57 am

     National considered splitting into electorate vote and party vote parties but decided it wouldn’t work. they were right. any major party attempting that would be crucified. the voters would be so pissed off at this attempt to subvert the system that the swing vote would all go to the other major party and a lot of the base would go to to a minor party on the same side. There might also be legal issues in proving they’re actually separate parties.

     it might work, though, on a minor scale. Mana taking Maori party votes, Maori Party taking the seats. To a degree, Maori roll voters already get ‘two for one’ by voting Maori Party candidate and Labour party, causing an overhang.
     • Lanthanide 5.2.1

       28 June 2011 at 11:12 am

       Yeah, I think a larger party trying it would meet with very limited success. But small parties, and in particular those that contest the Maori electorates because of their nature, could get away with it. For one election, at least.
   • felix 5.3

     28 June 2011 at 11:24 am

     One wonders why we haven’t seen a calculated attempt by a political party to ‘gerrymander’ the MMP system.

     We have, every three years, in Epsom.
     • lonelyavenger 5.3.1

       28 June 2011 at 11:30 am

       Act have received a number of seats roughly proportionate to their Party vote in every election they have contested under MMP, as have United and the Progressive Coalition. Do you have something against proportional representation?
       • wtl 5.3.1.1

         28 June 2011 at 11:34 am

         I wouldn’t call it propotional if a party with 3.6% gets 5 MPs, but a party with 4% gets no MPs. But YMMV.
         • lonelyavenger 5.3.1.1.1

           28 June 2011 at 12:06 pm

           That is because of the broken 5% threshold. We should be calling for lowering the threshold to get more proportionality rather than making up spurious accusations of gerrymandering against parties we don’t like.
           • wtl 5.3.1.1.1.1

             28 June 2011 at 12:14 pm

             I completely agree. But your original comment suggested that the outcome was ‘proportional representation’. Due to the broken threshold (as you put it), the result was not proportional.
           • lprent 5.3.1.1.1.2

             28 June 2011 at 12:39 pm

             I think that the law should change should move to the 4% threshold that the Royal Commission originally suggested. The reasons for having a threshold in place are just as important now as when the commission proposed it. 5% to my eye looks like it is slightly too high for parties that do have a reasonably sized mandate. They struggle to get over it without getting into some weird coalitions with other groups (Act getting swallowed by the sensible sentencing trust being a good example albeit for a party in decline).

             But margin of error political parties that have been dragged extra MP’s in with the electorate provision haven’t exactly covered themselves with glory in the government. They appear to be too small to be stable and have a tendency to disintegrate.

             I think that we should remove the provision that allowed a electorate MP to carry through party votes.

             However none of that is relevant for the referendum later this year. I can’t see any reason to change from MMP. The alternatives look worse.
       • felix 5.3.1.2

         28 June 2011 at 11:44 am

         ACT gets those seats for one reason and one reason only – because National steps aside in Epsom.

         If National contested Epsom and won then Epsom voters would be represented by one electorate MP just like everyone else. Instead they’re represented by one electorate and 4 list MPs.

         That’s how you gerrymander MMP.

         But you knew that.
       • lprent 5.3.1.3

         28 June 2011 at 11:47 am

         Umm. Perhaps you’d elucidate your views on how NZ First failed to get into the current parliament? You seem to have cherry picked your examples.

         But if you’d ever seen Worthless ‘trying to win’ in Epsom over the last couple of elections and all but pushing national voters into a booth with Act ticked on the ballot I suspect you’d accept that Act requires nationals help to get MP’s.

         However I don’t think that it will happen this year. Voters in Auckland are too pissed off with Act, including in Epsom.
         • Lanthanide 5.3.1.3.1

           28 June 2011 at 11:54 am

           You think that Act will fail to win Epsom and not make it back?

           Bold prediction. I think as the gap between National and Labour tightens, voters in Epsom will swallow a dead rat if it means a National-lead government.
           • lprent 5.3.1.3.1.1

             28 June 2011 at 12:53 pm

             Yep.

             The way that the super-shitty was done pissed off a lot of Epsom voters.

             The whole exercise with Heather pissed off many women there (I get that from all sides of the political spectrum).

             John Banks isn’t exactly liked around Auckland city, more tolerated by the center and right because the alternatives were worse (it is always fun trying to find anyone who actually likes Banks – even if they did vote for him). But people won’t tend to vote for him if he is allied to a distasteful party.

             After all voters in Epsom can just vote National – then they are not responsible for inflicting Act on the rest of Auckland.  

             I think that National could put up a monkey and it’d get more votes in Epsom than the Act candidate will. If I was living there I would hold my nose and vote for the National candidate. 

             The only way that National could ensure that Act has a good chance this time would be to not stand a candidate or to find out “too late” that they have a reprehensible history. I am pretty sure that won’t happen because it would just be too crass and the voters would reward them appropriately.
             • Lanthanide …

               28 June 2011 at 1:01 pm

               When are electorate candidates required to be finalised for all parties, btw?

               When will we know where, if at all, Winston and Brash are standing, for example?
     • Mac1 5.3.2

       28 June 2011 at 12:04 pm

       Which is why the National party should really be named, if truth in advertising be sought, the “National (but not including Epsom and Ohariu) Party” or the “Almost National Party.”
       • Chris 5.3.2.1

         28 June 2011 at 4:35 pm

         Agree with Epsom but Ohariu is a bit different since Peter Dunne has generally had such a large majority. Not really playing the system there
       • Deadly_NZ 5.3.2.2

         29 June 2011 at 1:41 am

         or the almost 100 % party.
6. Frank Macskasy 6

   28 June 2011 at 10:38 am

   Gee, I wonder what system the so-called “Vote for Change” will choose? FPP? Or SM (Supplementary Member), which is another version of FPP that empowers the two main parties???

   What really annoys me is that proponents of FPP/SM are mainly supporters of National (with some Labour) – the two big parties. Going back to FPP or SM simply empowers them, and takes away our power to choose alternatives.

   This is not freedom of choice, this is gerrymandering.

   And their comment is laughable; “After every MMP election, “we have gone to bed wondering what the Government would look like. That’s not democracy.” ”

   Under FPP (and most likely SM), we had the following results in 1978 and 1981;

   1978

   National % of votes:
   39.8% National # of seats: 51

   Labour % of votes: 40.4%
   Labour # of seats: 40

   Social Credit % of votes: 16.1%
   Social Credit # of seats: 1

   Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_1978

   1981

   National % of votes: 38.8%
   National # of seats: 47

   Labour % of votes: 39%
   Labour # of seats: 43

   Social Credit % of votes: 20.7%
   Social Credit # of seats: 2

   Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_1981

   It is unbelievable that in both elections Labour won MORE votes – but National won more seats and became governments.

   These are the skewed, bizarre results that FPP/SM deliver.

   By what stretch of the imagination is this democratic?
   • Anne 6.1

     28 June 2011 at 11:07 am

     The skewed result always favoured National under FPP. The main reason was: the electorate boundaries were drawn along geographical lines so that the provincial/country electorates had significantly less population than their urban counterparts. So even though the majority of the punters voted for a Lab. govt. they nearly always got a Nat. govt. If we went back to FPP (or a derivation which was really FPP in drag) exactly the same thing would happen.

     MMP = Democracy in action. A simple and easily understood slogan for the pro-MMP campaign.
     • wtl 6.1.1

       28 June 2011 at 11:29 am

       I remember someone else putting it more succintly and elegantly before (but not exactly sure who):

       FPP favours National because the average electorate is centre right.
       MMP favours Labour because the average elector is centre left.
     • Lanthanide 6.1.2

       28 June 2011 at 11:57 am

       Hang on, what you’ve said doesn’t gel here.

       “The main reason was: the electorate boundaries were drawn along geographical lines so that the provincial/country electorates had significantly less population than their urban counterparts. ”

       But that is no longer the case. Electorates are sized based on roughly equal populations. So given that, there will be many more urban electorates now (see Auckland for example) compared to rural ones. So I don’t take it as given that National would necessarily always win in a new FPP system like they used to.
       • wtl 6.1.2.1

         28 June 2011 at 12:59 pm

         You might be right. But ultimately whether FPP favours National or Labour will come down to the distribution of voters throughout NZ.

         Let’s run a simple FPP thought experiment, and ignoring the possiblity of gerrymandering electorate boundaries:

         – Assume that the support for Party X and Party Y is 50/50 when averaged over a number of years.
         – The divide this voters into equal size electorates.
         – Given a purely random distribution of voters, all electorates should have 50/50 support for both parties, and therefore on average the seats will go 50/50 for each party.
         – However, if the voters for one Party X tend to be more aggregated in a few electorates, whereas for Party Y it stays random, then what will happen is for these electorates we will get very high levels of support for Party X (e.g. 80/20). However, the other electorates will have a slightly greater support for Party Y (e.g. 55/45), because the Party X voters have been depleted in these electorates.
         – In that case, Party X will win a few electorates with large majorities. But Party Y will win more electorates with small majorities. (This reason for this is ultimately because more Party X votes are ‘wasted’).

         While this is a rather simplistic scenario, I would argue that voters that tend to vote for Labour are likely to be more aggregated in certain localities (e.g. South Auckland), which will lead the Labour losing out under these conditions. Of course National supporters may also be aggregated in certain areas (e.g. Epsom), but I think to a lesser extent.

         Edit: If you are feeling up to it you could do a more empirical analysis by looking at the electorate votes in the more recent (post-MMP?) elections.
       • McFlock 6.1.2.2

         28 June 2011 at 1:25 pm

         Agreed – my impression (a wee bit before my time) is that the problem was what the US call “redistricting”. Rather than Labour having narrow majorities in several electorates, they’d have large majorities in a few.
         • Anne 6.1.2.2.1

           28 June 2011 at 2:07 pm

           That is exactly what used to happen.
       • Anne 6.1.2.3

         28 June 2011 at 2:04 pm

         But that is no longer the case. Electorates are sized based on roughly equal populations.

         Agreed Lanthanide but, in time, under a form of FPP I doubt it will stay that way. I base that on my observations and experiences back in the 70s & 80s. After every Census the Boundaries Commission would reset the electorate boundaries. National and Labour were allowed to nominate one person each who would sit at the table and lobby on their behalf. Yet every time the reset boundaries would end up favouring National. Labour used to be incensed but what could they do?

         I guess it would depend on who was appointed to the Boundaries Commission – or whatever it may be called now. You can bet your bottom dollar the NActs would make sure it happened under their watch so that they could appoint their mates. The riposte to that would be Labour would do the same. I don’t think so because Labour have a far greater committment to the concept of democracy than the Right could ever have.
7. nadis 7

   28 June 2011 at 10:42 am

   Bob Harvey was on the wireless today framing the campaign as desiring improvements to proportional representation, not a move back to FPP.

   If the argument is framed in that manner then most people would be pro looking at changes. Harvey also expressed horror at the concept of politicians designing any changes.

   I have no opinion or real knowledge of Bob Harvey but he seemed quite genuine and well intentioned on Radio Live.

   There are some obvious issues around MMP which could probably be improved but bear in mind with no threshold we would have had one of Bill or Ben in parliament…… that could have been embarrassing if the wrong one was #1 on the list.
   • Frank Macskasy 7.1

     28 June 2011 at 10:50 am

     If Harvey said that (and I’ve no doubt he probably did – soothing noises, and all that), then he obviously isn’t aware that if MMP is selected as the system of choice by voters, then Parliament will hold a review into MMP to refine some of the “bugs” in the system.

     If that is Harvey’s concern, then why support an anti-MMP group? The only other proportional system on the ballot papers is STV. Which means that if we choose STV – are we going to have yet another referendum in five election cycles (approx 15 years)?

     Perhaps we can change our electoral system every fifteen years?

     I’d give Feudalism a go in 2065…
   • ianmac 7.2

     28 June 2011 at 10:52 am

     That is important news about Bob Harvey since he has been claimed by the anti-MMP lobby and been roundly abused for apparently being so. Needs confirming one way or the other.
     Above from Eddie: “I love that they’re trying to draw attention to having Bob Harvey as one of their six named supporters because he’s a former Labour Party President.”
     • mickysavage 7.2.1

       28 June 2011 at 11:09 am

       Bob is like your favourite mad uncle.  He can drive you insane and has some dotty ideas but people still like him.
        
       My experience of him is that he will agree with the last person who talks to him.  He was able to achieve things out west because of some very good people working behind him and supporting him.  But when he is left to himself he gets a bit lost.
        
       What I would like to know is what role Simon Lusk is playing and who is paying for the campaign.
   • felix 7.3

     28 June 2011 at 11:36 am

     bear in mind with no threshold we would have had one of Bill or Ben in parliament…… that could have been embarrassing if the wrong one was #1 on the list.

     Yeah, so glad we had that threshold to keep nutters like David Garrett and Hilary Calvert out too.
     • nadis 7.3.1

       28 June 2011 at 11:39 am

       agreed – but add in catherine delahunty too
       • Pascal's bookie 7.3.1.1

         28 June 2011 at 12:19 pm

         If Delahunty is the threashold then you def need to include Douglas, Bascowen, and whoever it was that decide to hire Perigo to write the press releases.
8. Peter 8

   28 June 2011 at 10:47 am

   If you want your vote to count vote MMP
9. alex 9

   28 June 2011 at 12:03 pm

   What dinosaur wrote this? Shirtcliffe is well retired. What is he meant to be? Some kind of bogeyman to frighten children?

   Seriously, focus on the real, and dangerous people running the anti-MMP campaign. MMP is desperately needed for a truly democratic government. This post does the pro-MMP campaign a disservice. Get into the 21st century already.
   • felix 9.1

     28 June 2011 at 12:49 pm

     Seriously, focus on the real, and dangerous people running the anti-MMP campaign

     Which definitely includes Shirtcliffe. Why do you want people to forget about him?
10. tsmithfield 10

    28 June 2011 at 12:16 pm

    1. Eddie, I am quite disappointed to see the blatant ad-hominem attack that seems to be the sole purpose of your article. That is a very childish way to debate and shows you as no better than those you seek to criticise IMO.

    2. A number of contributors above have asserted that MMP is the most democratic electoral system so the debate is over. Wrong. The most democratic system would be binding referendum on every government decision. So, if democracy is the only consideration for a system of governance, then that is what we should do. However, democracy isn’t the only consideration. There are factors such as efficiency of law making, cost, practicality etc. So the debate is still very much alive.

    Surely one of the most democratic things we can do is to debate how we are governed. That attitude of some contributors above to apparently want to shut down the debate would seem to be highly undemocratic and dictatorial.
    • felix 10.1

      28 June 2011 at 12:45 pm

      I like proportionality. 50% of votes = 50% of seats. 2% of votes = 2% of seats.

      I don’t want our system to become less proportional.

      If you have an idea for a more proportional system I’m all ears.

      But Shirtcliffe doesn’t. And Key doesn’t.

      So what do I gain by debating how to make our system worse?
      • Colonial Viper 10.1.1

        28 June 2011 at 12:51 pm

        I love it when Righties say that they are disappointed in us. Makes me feel warm all over.
      • tsmithfield 10.1.2

        28 June 2011 at 12:55 pm

        As pointed out above, democracy, or proportionality, as you point out, isn’t the only consideration in a governing system. For instance, if proportionality was absolutely important, then we wouldn’t have the 5% threshold. There are other considerations, as I pointed out above. So, its a question of finding the right balance between democracy, efficiency of government etc. It is quite democratic to have a discussion on what the mixture should be in that balance. Simply putting your fingers in your ears and going na na na na isn’t going to change that.
        • felix 10.1.2.1

          28 June 2011 at 1:17 pm

          1. Democracy and proportionality are not the same thing. Don’t try to align my argument with yours by way of such an obvious piece of bullshit.

          2. Do you see me arguing in favour of the 5% threshold? Don’t try to put my name to your strawmen.

          3. If all you have are ideas to reduce proportionality then why should I bother with them? I’m not at all interested in reducing proportionality.

          4. I’m also not interested in injecting myself with the plague, as I’m in favour of a plague-free bloodstream. You may interpret this as putting my fingers in my ears and going na na na to plague-based discussion if you wish, but I’m under no compulsion to share your insanity.
          • tsmithfield 10.1.2.1.1

            28 June 2011 at 2:38 pm

            “1. Democracy and proportionality are not the same thing. Don’t try to align my argument with yours by way of such an obvious piece of bullshit.”

            Didn’t say they were. Can’t you recognise an either/or argument?

            “2. Do you see me arguing in favour of the 5% threshold? Don’t try to put my name to your strawmen.”

            Never said you were arguing in favour of the 5% threshold. Just pointing out that there is an arbitrary boundary at this point now. Therefore, if we are prepared to limit proportionality now for the sake of expediency, there is no reason we shouldn’t discuss the degree to which we limit proportionality in balancing the other requirements of an electoral system.

            “3. If all you have are ideas to reduce proportionality then why should I bother with them? I’m not at all interested in reducing proportionality.”

            Fair enough. But other people are. So if you want to keep your head in the sand and not engage in discussion, then you might find something is forced on you that you don’t like.

            “4. I’m also not interested in injecting myself with the plague, as I’m in favour of a plague-free bloodstream. You may interpret this as putting my fingers in my ears and going na na na to plague-based discussion if you wish, but I’m under no compulsion to share your insanity.”

            Grow up.
            • felix 10.1.2.1.1.1

              28 June 2011 at 7:31 pm

              Your reply to my point no.2 negates the rest of your response to me.

              I have not argued for retention of the 5% threshold therefore I cannot be held to the logic of those who do.

              Try again dimwit. With a bit of honesty this time.
    • MarkM 10.2

      28 June 2011 at 12:53 pm

      T Smithfeild

      Refer my post number 2.
      I dont want FPP but I cant fathom how a system when their were 120 odd electorates and the winner of the most formed a Government , can be called undemocratic.
      Conversely a system that allows a small minority to hold the majority to ransom can be called democratic viz a viz NZ First etc.

      MMP needs reforming and the best way to do so is by an open debate.

      MMP got through last time on an anti Shirtcliffe campaign.

      Playing the same card this time is likely to have the opposite efect as most people dont like to be suckered twice
      • felix 10.2.1

        28 June 2011 at 12:57 pm

        … I cant fathom …

        Pro – por – tion – al – i – ty.
        • MarkM 10.2.1.1

          28 June 2011 at 8:00 pm

          Felix

          cant understand what proportionality has to do with FPP and democracy , but I guess you are proving my point that MMP adherents dont what an intellectual debate.
          • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1.1

            28 June 2011 at 8:04 pm

            MMP needs reforming and the best way to do so is by an open debate.

            Shirtcliffe and National/ACT want to reform MMP but ditching it in the bin.

            Not much to debate eh? After all, they aren’t actually interested in improving the system, unless you consider burying it “improving”.
          • felix 10.2.1.1.2

            28 June 2011 at 8:14 pm

            It’s very simple, MarkM.

            Proportionality means someone who gets 50% of the votes gets 50% of the seats.

            And someone who gets 32% of the votes gets 32% of the seats.

            And someone who gets 7.5% of the votes etc etc.

            This means everyone’s vote counts as much as anyone else’s. The FPP system we had before doesn’t deliver this. Neither does SM.

            If you want to change to a less proportional system than we have now it means you want some votes to be worth more than others. Do you?
      • Frank Macskasy 10.2.2

        28 June 2011 at 8:24 pm

        “MMP got through last time on an anti Shirtcliffe campaign.”

        Nonsense.

        I was around during the campaigning, and there was no such “anti Shirtcliffe” campaign. If people criticised Shirtcliffe it was because he was the mouth-piece for the so-called “Campaign for Better Government”. As such, criticisms were directed at what he said – which was often dis-ingenuous and outrageously dishonest.
11. AlphaKiwi 11

    28 June 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Keep MMP with the following amendments.

    1. Reduce MPs to 80.- 40 Party list and 40 electorate.
    2. Scrap Maori seats.
    3. Reduce threshold to 4%.
    4. MPs and candidates must choose between running for an electorate seat OR a Party list seat. Not both.
    5. Extend elections to every 4 years.

    I believe this would be more democratic and much better value for money while still being able to deliver and effective government.
    • Colonial Viper 11.1

      28 June 2011 at 12:53 pm

      So how many people in an electorate per electorate MP now?

      I think the threshold could go to 4% and election cycles out to 4 years. We’ll see.
    • Lanthanide 11.2

      28 June 2011 at 1:07 pm

      1. Disagree. 120 is just the right amount of MPs. If we had to reduce it I’d be more in favour of a 70/20 split for electorates/list.
      2. Disagree. Disenfranchising a minority cannot be done without the minority’s support, which they won’t be doing any time soon.
      3. I’d go for 3.5%, but 3% or 4% might be easier to sell in terms of being a round number.
      4. Agreed, but at least with an exception for the leader and vice leader or 2 co-leaders being allowed on both lists.
      5. Maybe.
    • wtl 11.3

      28 June 2011 at 1:13 pm

      1. Keep 120.
      2. Up to those on the Maori role.
      3. Eliminate threshold entirely. If a party gets enough votes for an MP, it gets an MP.
      4. Implement some kind of open list system instead.
      5. Only if approved by a seperate referendum.
    • AlphaKiwi 11.4

      28 June 2011 at 1:50 pm

      I don’t think New Zealand has the ability to produce 120+ good quality MPs. To date this has been the case.
      • Colonial Viper 11.4.1

        28 June 2011 at 8:07 pm

        I don’t think New Zealand has the ability to produce 120+ good quality MPs. To date this has been the case.

        Of course it does. Producing 20 good All Blacks at one time is actually a bigger challenge.
        • AlphaKiwi 11.4.1.1

          28 June 2011 at 9:14 pm

          Then why haven’t we?
12. Frida 12

    28 June 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Forgive me if this is a dumb question or it’s been asked before. But I truly don’t comprehend why the biggest opponents of MMP are usually the far right. Don’t they realise that without MMP, the RWNJs that make up the ACT lot wouldn’t even be in Parliament?! I just don’t get why they are campaigning to change it. Can someone please enlighten me? This is a genuine question as it has puzzled me for a long time.
    • Blue 12.1

      28 June 2011 at 12:48 pm

      I agree Frida, no MMP, no nutjobs – ACT, Greens, Winston and his loonies, all gone and the world would be a better place.
      • the sprout 12.1.1

        28 June 2011 at 1:33 pm

        MMP doesn’t mean the nutjobs go away, it means they join the major parties and create all sorts of problems and inefficiencies.

        What MMP does do is quarantine the nutjobs into their own fringe parties where they are free to argue with each other and not distract and disrupt the larger parties quite so much.
        • Frank Macskasy 12.1.1.1

          28 June 2011 at 1:49 pm

          Well, I wouldn’t quite put it in those words, but essentially you are correct.

          Under FPP, Labour and National were “umbrella” parties for various groups. There was no way of telling which faction was in ascendancy. (The prominence of the Douglas Faction in Labour took most people by total surprise.)

          Under MMP, those factions distill out, and the constituent factions form their own parties.

          Which is another reason why MMP is preferable; you more or less know what you’re voting for.

          Under FPP, no one has a clue who is in the ascendancy. And during the 1970s, essentially one man ruled this country: Robert Muldoon.

          A return to FPP (or SM) will simply mean that the smaller parties will fade away – but the activists will re-join The Big Two.
        • lprent 12.1.1.2

          28 June 2011 at 2:17 pm

          What MMP does do is quarantine the nutjobs into their own fringe parties where they are free to argue with each other and not distract and disrupt the larger parties quite so much.

          And they interact in places like this to find the wider universe of thought. It is always amusing seeing people come out of their silo’s full of hope and run straight into the older skeptics who enjoy undercutting arguments.
      • felix 12.1.2

        28 June 2011 at 1:49 pm

        Exactly Sprout. Where does Blue think the nutjobs who gave us ACT and NZ First came from?
      • Frank Macskasy 12.1.3

        28 June 2011 at 8:26 pm

        “I agree Frida, no MMP, no nutjobs – ACT, Greens, Winston and his loonies, all gone and the world would be a better place.”

        Really, Blue? So basically you just want one party in parliament?

        You know what that’s called, don’t you… http://tinyurl.com/4rxalj
        • KJT 12.1.3.1

          28 June 2011 at 9:42 pm

          No nutjobs!

          Are you going to ban NACT and Labour from being in Government.

          They have already proven to be incompetent nut jobs. The only reason why people still vote for either is they are not given a choice beyound voting in the lot you did not like last time.

          The nut jobs are the ones who think the current economic system and level of inequality are sustainable in a finite resourced world.

          The nut jobs are the ones who continue with Neo-Liberal corporatism even though it has failed. Not only in terms of sustainability and equality, but also by their own measures.

          The nut jobs are the ones who vote for Governments that allow asset stripping of NZ and its people for the benefit of their Governments overseas puppet masters.

          The nut jobs are the pretend Journalists who support them with crap in the media.

          Lastly, the nut jobs are in Parliament already. Who think their opinion should override those of 4 million others who are affected by them.

          “No one who wants that amount of power should ever have it”.
        • Blue 12.1.3.2

          29 June 2011 at 7:02 pm

          Don’t think I mentioned one party at all Frank, in fact, lets face it I didn’t. So lets have less hysteria and more reason eh? If the voters decide to have one party or two or three, who cares, it is them that decide. I have a zero tolerance for society’s fringe dwellers claiming to have all the answers but lacking the horsepower intellectually and organisationally to change views and make any impact. What bugs me the most is that when they lack support its always the voters that get the blame (they don’t understand us….blah blah), rather than the obvious reason – the voters don’t agree with them and don’t want them to have their vote. The left really need to give the voters a bit more respect to make their decisions without being patronised.
          • Pascal's bookie 12.1.3.2.1

            29 June 2011 at 7:11 pm

            If the voters decide to have one party or two or three, who cares, it is them that decide.

            Good oh then. So you’re down with a parliament proportionally representative of the party vote from all electors. If we scrap the 5% threshold MMP will deliver something pretty close to exactly that. Good to have you aboard.
            • the sprout 12.1.3.2.1.1

              29 June 2011 at 8:13 pm

              voters don’t get to decide how many parties are in Parliament – electoral systems are the primary determinants of how many parties any given polity has. FPP necessarily resolves to a two party state.
    • Lanthanide 12.2

      28 June 2011 at 1:08 pm

      Because their are more fringe parties that RWNJs hate that get into parliament, than fringe parties that RWNJ’s like that get into parliament.

      See Blue for an example.
    • Colonial Viper 12.3

      28 June 2011 at 1:11 pm

      Thing is, the 3% of New Zealanders who are hard right wing deserve proportional representation in Government just like the 3% of New Zealanders who regularly smoke pot and think that legalising marijuana might not be such a bad idea.

      Unless of course you don’t thinkthat a democracy should represent everyone, just ‘acceptable’ people.
      • Draco T Bastard 12.3.1

        28 June 2011 at 7:46 pm

        Unless of course you don’t thinkthat a democracy should represent everyone, just ‘acceptable’ people.

        Which is why I think the threshold needs to be dropped entirely.
13. Frida 13

    28 June 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Sorry, you’re misrepresenting me. I don’t count the Greens as RWNJs.
14. Frida 14

    28 June 2011 at 1:33 pm

    @lathanide – okay, I get that. But under FPP they wouldn’t be there themselves (except for Epsom). So it seems to me that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face?

    @Colonial Viper, if that comment is directed at me (I wasn’t sure), where have I said that RWNJs don’t deserve to be represented? I’ve never said that. I support MMP. My question concerned why Shirtcliffe, Franks, Brash etc oppose it, when their party wouldn’t be in Parliament without it….
    • Draco T Bastard 14.1

      28 June 2011 at 7:48 pm

      IMO, it’s because they’re dictators. Having to take account of other peoples rights and opinions upsets them.
15. Frank Macskasy 15

    28 June 2011 at 1:43 pm

    Take note of “Vote for Change”‘s public statements. They are most likely to be the “on message” themes that VfC will promote.

    Those themes will be easy to refute.
16. mickysavage 16

    28 June 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Hmmm.
     
    It seems that the democratic Voters for Change has an executive of two, Peter Shirtcliffe and Jordan Williams.

    Hell, Bob Harvey is a member too …
     
17. Frida 17

    28 June 2011 at 2:02 pm

    The lovely Prenderghastly is on the supporters page.
18. ianmac 18

    28 June 2011 at 3:28 pm

    Vote MMP. Then get the modifications discussed and agreed upon. Wonder if the Referendum is a cunning plan to distract from the central issues around the next Election?
19. ianupnorth 19

    28 June 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Can I just add another conundrum – the three year term is crap, please make it five!
    • AlphaKiwi 19.1

      28 June 2011 at 4:54 pm

      Yes! I suggested 4, but 5 is better. Less time wasted on election bribing. Maybe could throw in a few referendums at the halfway term and election time too then 🙂
20. Tanz 20

    28 June 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Yay. Go Peter! About time. MMP has only weakned NZ. Lists!
    • Draco T Bastard 20.1

      28 June 2011 at 7:52 pm

      Wrong, neo-liberalism and the failed economic policies that come with it have weakened NZ.
      • Colonial Viper 20.1.1

        28 June 2011 at 8:11 pm

        Particularly bad when both our major parties had/are having their love affair with Right Wing Chicago School Neoliberalism, and now hardly anyone under 40 remembers what social democracy is about, they just know all the bullshit economic terms to do with deficits, interest rates and “balancing the budget”.
21. deservingpoor 21

    28 June 2011 at 7:14 pm

    So New Zealand has an opportunity to democratically vote on whether to do away with proportional democracy?
    Despite the last decade’s whinging on talkback radio and MSM about “the tale wagging the dog” I doubt that will happen. There has been an entire generation come through taking it for granted and they won’t be easily persuaded to change the status quo (I hope).
    However if Kiwis do vote to return to FPP or some variation of it, we should be stripped of the right to vote altogether and invite Prince William to come and be our benevolent dictator until we are able to prove that we can be trusted to use democracy responsibly.
22. logie97 22

    28 June 2011 at 7:36 pm

    Noted the revealing comments on Morning report by Jordan Williams.
    Talking over the top of pro-MMP campaign organiser, Sandra Grey, who happened to mention the words “National Government” he said, “We are turning this into a political debate…” and he wanted the debate to be apolitical. Two minutes later he is decrying MMP… “Do we really want the government having to rely on the Hone Harawiras and the Winston Peters, who may hold the balance of power, to determine how we get stable government?” Well, yes, obviously a good few people do. (Both of those MPs are/were Electorate MPs by the way).

    Me thinks this body do not like representational democracy. They only want their own voices to be heard.

    Well Mr Williams, you probably pay your taxes but so does Harawira. No taxation without representation – and MMP is the closest system to making that one vote count – the Party Vote. None of the other systems come near that.

    Jordan Williams and his ilk should be campaigning to refine the issues of 5 pcnt thresholds and the coattail aspects of an otherwise proportional system.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2492320/two-sides-square-off-in-battle-over-voting-system.asx
23. millsy 23

    28 June 2011 at 7:57 pm

    Why not just get rid of democracy all together and just have a ‘council of wise elders’ who would be made a business people and old white men, who will ensure austerity now and forever.

    And that is what it is all about, its about hobbling any form of progressive/socialist/left/social democratic view in the House., and keeping those views out of government on a permanent basis. It has never been about democracy, accountablity or transparency. Never will be. It is about the permananet entrenchment of the neo-liberal capitalist right, and the socially conservative god-botherers as their sidekicks.

    It reminds me of what right-wing poiliticians did in the states. When they realised they couldnt carry on about ‘niggers’ any more, they started going on about ‘law and order’, and ‘welfare queens’ and ‘failing schools’.
    • Colonial Viper 23.1

      28 June 2011 at 8:15 pm

      The Left never came up with languaging and forcefulness to defeat the Right in the US. They still haven’t. The Right consistently set the agenda and the Left are consistently behind.

      In fact, the Democrats aren’t even a left party, their just another capitalist work for the corporates political party, which is maybe a bit softer and kinder on the edges occasionally.

      Useless.
      • millsy 23.1.1

        28 June 2011 at 8:20 pm

        Correct. On the US based news and comment sites (the left viewpoint ones), I read every day about how Democrat councils, mayors and governments are just as keen to impose austerity as the Republicans. Andrew Cuomo and Jerry Brown are examples that come to mind.
        • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1

          28 June 2011 at 8:41 pm

          ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats. Puke. Both parties have been leading the US into a hole for 30 years. When you see who has benefitted from the current state of affairs: it is the wealthiest 1% of the population. As this group has gotten even more disproportionately rich through tax cuts, it has spent more and more of that new income influencing government and politics to give it even more money. This activity is a “virtuous cycle of investment “. Too bad it means that the finances of the country collapse and you become indebted as a nation to China, even as you have a thousand or two thousand billionaires amongst yourselves.

          And now they have taken off every single restriction around political advertising by corporates things are going to deteriorate even faster.

          Its funny watching elderly sick Republicans sitting in Medicaid provided wheelchairs campaigning for smaller government and for cutting government spending on entitlements (like Medicaid).
24. millsy 24

    28 June 2011 at 8:00 pm

    Same thing with the BCIR referendum people, though that’s more of the tool that the god botherers want to use to stop people going weird and wonderful shit like sleeping with whoever they like, and making their own familiy arrangements, and learning about evolution, etc.
    • KJT 24.1

      28 June 2011 at 9:47 pm

      If and when we get a real democracy I think both the Neo-Libs, and their allies the God botherers, will be in for a shock.

      I heard a rumour about a research project, that found if people were asked to vote on policies without being told which party advocated them, 80% supported Green policies. When asked who they would vote for 50% chose the “nice John Key”.

      Go figure.
      • KJT 24.1.1

        28 June 2011 at 10:12 pm

        http://www.alternet.org/news/151435/conservative_politics_increasingly_out_of_whack_with_public_opinion_–_is_an_anti-gop_backlash_coming_up?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

        “And almost two-thirds of Americans agree that we should raise taxes on the rich to address the deficit”

        “Meanwhile, 53% of Americans — a majority — support same-sex marriage.”.

        New Zealanders are less religious and more progressive, generally, than Americans.
25. Ianupnorth 25

    29 June 2011 at 6:06 pm

    This Photoshop clearly indicates why countries need an MMP system
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=440574456037&set=o.117203521630597&type=1&theater

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS