Strategic voting

196 comments on “Strategic voting ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Draco T Bastard 1

   20 October 2014 at 7:14 am

   Enough already, time for the Left to use the same tactics as the Nats (on voting that is, they can keep their dirty politics).

   Exactly and when the RWNJs come out with accusations that we’re being hypocritical we say that we’re playing the way the game is played. Playing any other way is losing.

   Then we change the rules once we have power to make the RWNJs play style illegal citing just how corrupt it is.
   • TheContrarian 1.1

     20 October 2014 at 11:47 am

     So you’ll make the activity you just engaged in to gain power illegal because it is corrupt?

     Is that what you are suggesting?
     • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1

       20 October 2014 at 1:48 pm

       Yes.

       Reason: Because playing nicely while the other team isn’t is a recipe for getting screwed.
       • TheContrarian 1.1.1.1

         20 October 2014 at 2:45 pm

         Very little integrity in that.

         Draco – 4 days ago:
         “Yep, the next left government needs to start making these things that National that are wrong but not illegal actually illegal so that we can hold the fuckers to account.”

         I hope you’ll also be holding yourself account since you are, hypothetically, making an action committed by the left illegal.
         • blue leopard 1.1.1.1.1

           20 October 2014 at 3:01 pm

           I disagree @The Contrarian,

           Your logic is odd. Changing election strategy in order to get into power, so one can change unjust laws/rules is not lacking in integrity.

           It is an intelligent way to discourage a culture of ignoring the ‘spirit of the law’ (or in this case rules) and to stop making it easy for parties who are happy to take this attitude toward rules from getting elected into government in future.
           • TheContrarian 1.1.1.1.1.1

             20 October 2014 at 3:51 pm

             “Your logic is odd. Changing election strategy in order to get into power, so one can change unjust laws/rules is not lacking in integrity. ”

             Yeah but you are changing election strategy into one you are openly admitting is unjust.

             As I said, which Draco agreed, you’ll make the activity you just engaged in to gain power illegal because it is corrupt. This means you are openly engaging in behaviour you KNOW to be corrupt.
             • blue leopard …

               20 October 2014 at 4:07 pm

               “Yeah but you are changing election strategy into one you are openly admitting is unjust.”

               It is even more unjust to act in a manner that allows it to continue.

               This means you are openly engaging in behaviour you KNOW to be corrupt.

               I have commented about the corrupt aspect of this behaviour elsewhere on this thread.

               Comment 14.1.1.3

               Comment 14.1.1.1.2

               In short, following a ‘corrupt’ practice in order to gain power to stop the corrupt practice [by changing the rules] is the lesser questionable practice than acting in a manner that allows the ‘corruption’ to carry on for longer.
               • TheContrarian …

                 20 October 2014 at 7:45 pm

                 As long as your comfortable with your level of corruption (Draco’s words – not mine) in relation to others then go nuts – have a good time.
                 • blue leopard …

                   20 October 2014 at 9:10 pm

                   If you are quoting Draco, please provide a link because I can’t see that he said that in this conversation. I hope you aren’t misrepresenting him.

                   Oh and in future, I suggest that you own what you are saying rather than implying it is someone else that is saying it or if it is really not your belief, then you should leave it for that other person to say it. It is much simpler that way.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     20 October 2014 at 10:48 pm

                     Reread Draco’s comments, particularity this exchange”

                     “So you’ll make the activity you just engaged in to gain power illegal because it is corrupt? ”
                     D: “Yes.”

                     And here:
                     “Then we change the rules once we have power to make the RWNJs play style illegal citing just how corrupt it is.”

                     Pretty crystal clear.

                     You yourself:
                     “In short, following a ‘corrupt’ practice in order to gain power to stop the corrupt practice [by changing the rules] is the lesser questionable practice than acting in a manner that allows the ‘corruption’ to carry on for longer.”

                     And again:
                     “I think technically it can correctly be called corrupt because it is a corruption of the original purpose of the rule…”

                     You both admit it is a corrupt practice you’ll be willing to engage in yourselves in in order to gain power. Oh yeah, but then it will be illegal because, hey, it’s corrupt after all.

                     So yeah, that lacks integrity
                   • blue leopard …

                     21 October 2014 at 12:43 am

                     Do you think that voting in a manner that gets the party you want in is lacking in integrity?

                     You are highlighting the awkward situation that the left is in with regard to strategic voting, however are not acknowledging the extenuating factors which I have cited regarding why I think we should vote this way given the circumstances and intentions.

                     My quote was ‘technically’ the technique is corrupt – as in a corruption of the initial purpose of the rule, however I have also commented that it is on the edge to call it corrupt.

                     I would have the rule changed so that this type of voting wasn’t required but have also discovered today that the rule I thought would fix it wouldn’t.

                     I don’t think it is hideously lacking in integrity to vote in this manner particularly when the the other side is doing it – seems a bit stupid not to under those circumstances and if there is the intention to address the rules so they are not so convoluted. If you think otherwise, so be it.
2. Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 2

   20 October 2014 at 7:54 am

   The Herald article does not show the breakdown of votes for TTT. Here is the Election Results link: http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-69.html

   There were fewer than 800 votes difference between Hone and Mr Davis. (After 950 were discarded ..)

   1,938 voters were National.
   3,296 were NZF.
   Both those parties were directed by their leaders to hang their hats on Davis.
   (And Labour knew in advance, at least with National, that such would be the case.)
   • Colonial Rawshark 2.1

     20 October 2014 at 8:33 am

     Wow, the other parties really ganged up to screw Hone over. And the NZ underclass got screwed along with that.
     • karol 2.1.1

       20 October 2014 at 8:43 am

       And that’s the risk if the left starts strongly promoting strategic voting – the right out strategising them.

       At the very least, those promoting a left strategic vote would need to be sure the right couldn’t just gang up on them in response. I think that would have been possible in Ohariu, for instance. So promoting left strategic voting there would probably just be a wasted effort.
       • boldsirbrian 2.1.1.1

         20 October 2014 at 8:48 am

         That’s a good point karol
       • phillip ure 2.1.1.2

         20 October 2014 at 10:18 am

         @ karol..all the greens had to do..was not stand a candidate…

         ..nothing to do with ‘ganging-up’..
       • The Lone Haranguer 2.1.1.3

         20 October 2014 at 10:44 am

         “The right outstrategise them”

         Thats their job Karol, and its the lefts job to come up with workable and winnable strategies to beat them.

         Sadly, the left spends way more time eating their own, than working on strategies so that they can go dining on those of the right.

         The fight for the direction of the Labour party, has taken precedence over being an effective opposition at this time. Meanwhile the Nats are out doing their stuff knowing the best and brightest in Labour are focused on a leadership battle.
     • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 2.1.2

       20 October 2014 at 8:57 am

       Reply to Colonial.
       And, according to that Herald article, the votes against Hone came from Auckland. Auckland has way less in common with the North, especially the far North, than Sydney does with Auckland. So how about we have Sydney, eg, determining who represents Auckland then.

       WHO is representing the Mana of the North? Oh yeah, the big mining and real estate reps, Anadarko and the big oil seekers ready to swamp the pristine coastline, the frackers and the drillers, the internationalists, the overseas “investors” in this beautiful land who are set to carve it up and remove ownership affordability from all in Aotearoa.

       Nice one Labour. Something for the History books, eh. What a great achievement for our future.
       • Colonial Rawshark 2.1.2.1

         20 October 2014 at 12:07 pm

         And, according to that Herald article, the votes against Hone came from Auckland. Auckland has way less in common with the North, especially the far North, than Sydney does with Auckland.

         THIS
     • Clemgeopin 2.1.3

       20 October 2014 at 9:06 am

       Yep, they ganged up upon the only leader who was valiantly fronting the socialist principle of eliminating poverty.

       Had Labour supported Hone and courageously welcomed IMP as a potential coalition partner, most likely there would have been a Labour led government today.

       An election that has gone so wrong.
       • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 2.1.3.1

         20 October 2014 at 9:17 am

         And just yesterday on Q&A, Parker and Robertson have said that Labour should have ruled out IMP earlier.

         That really shows Parker’s and Robertson’s values, aye?
         • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 2.1.3.1.1

           20 October 2014 at 9:21 am

           As long as they repeat that, they are playing Nats game, dancing to Nats tune.
           • Murray Rawshark 2.1.3.1.1.1

             20 October 2014 at 11:35 pm

             It’s the tune that Labour adapted from Thatcher and Friedman, back in 1984. Now they all dance to it, except Winston First and Mana. Winston First dances to the old National tune. Mana dances to an indigenous adaptation of the old Fabian tunes of Michael Joseph Savage. It’s a tune the others would like to ban.
         • wekarawshark 2.1.3.1.2

           20 October 2014 at 1:38 pm

           “And just yesterday on Q&A, Parker and Robertson have said that Labour should have ruled out IMP earlier.”

           Little said it too (earlier). But refused to say what he would do if a Mana MP was going to make or break it for Labour forming govt.

           Anyone know where Mahuta stands on this?
       • Tangled_up 2.1.3.2

         20 October 2014 at 9:29 am

         Had Labour supported Hone and courageously welcomed IMP as a potential coalition partner, most likely there would have been a Labour led government today.

         Disagree. Even KDC has publicly said that his brand was poison. Labours big drop in support in the last few months was voters refusing to entertain the possibility of IMP in Govt.

         Now had KDC and the IMP not come along and then yeah, maybe MANA could have been somewhere in the mix with a left coalition.
         • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 2.1.3.2.1

           20 October 2014 at 9:43 am

           “KDC has publicly said that his brand was poison.”

           On election night when he spoke briefly: “The brand ‘kim dotcom’ was poisoned. I was not aware of that.” Poisoned by an ongoing media campaign.

           Labours big drop in support in the last few months was voters refusing to entertain the possibility of IMP in Govt.

           That, right there, is big media spin.
         • phillip ure 2.1.3.2.2

           20 October 2014 at 10:16 am

           @ tangled..

           “..Labours big drop in support in the last few months was voters refusing to entertain the possibility of IMP in Govt…”

           ..that is just simplistic/factually incorrect bullshit..
         • Clemgeopin 2.1.3.2.3

           20 October 2014 at 11:40 am

           But Cunliffe and Labour DID distance themselves from KDC and IMP and said they didn’t WANT them in government. But the vote was still poor. So your theory does not stack up.

           Had Labour supported Hone and IMP, the party vote of IMP would have had a boost securing about 3 to 5 IMP MPs due to the electorate+party vote, then Nats/ACT/Dunne would not be the government running the show today.
           • Colonial Rawshark 2.1.3.2.3.1

             20 October 2014 at 12:11 pm

             Cunliffe and Labour distancing themselves from Internet Mana was seen as reaching out to the comfortable middle classes while cutting off ties with the MP who put in the “Feed the Kids” bill.

             Strangely enough, this strategy did nothing to motivate Labour voters to turn out.

             TL:DR the more Labour tries to play tunes acceptable to the MSM, the more Labour will decline.
           • Tangled_up 2.1.3.2.3.2

             20 October 2014 at 1:02 pm

             But Cunliffe and Labour DID distance themselves from KDC and IMP and said they didn’t WANT them in government. But the vote was still poor. So your theory does not stack up.
             Yes they tried to distance themselves; but Key and the media wouldn’t let them. A vote for Labour is a vote for Kim Dotcom was all that was needed to scare away the swing voters.

             Had Labour supported Hone and IMP, the party vote of IMP would have had a boost securing about 3 to 5 IMP MPs due to the electorate+party vote, then Nats/ACT/Dunne would not be the government running the show today.
             Well we can only speculate. Even to get just 3 MPs their party vote would have to have been more than twice what they ended up getting. That’s a massive “boost”. And also even if miraculously they more than doubled their party vote a net gain of 2 seats for the left wouldn’t have given a majority anyway.
             • blue leopard …

               20 October 2014 at 1:14 pm

               ” A vote for Labour is a vote for Kim Dotcom was all that was needed to scare away the swing voters.”

               I agree that was the likely belief among some (many?) but that shows a big failure of the left.

               Fact:
               >>KDC was never going to be in parliament<<

               Had the left spent more time asserting that fact and less time leaving people believing junk-lies by treating IMP like it was something to be feared and loathed, then the NZ population may have understood the facts of the matter over the spin. Perhaps?
               • Tangled_up …

                 20 October 2014 at 1:27 pm

                 True. Though it seems that people (many?) really didn’t like KDC and with him constantly in the media/moment of truth etc I’m not sure that there’s much the left could have done to counter all this negative attention.
                 • blue leopard …

                   20 October 2014 at 1:34 pm

                   Yes, you know, I actually do wonder the same thing myself, but it would have been really nice to have at least seen the left try to counter these memes.

                   Had they done so, we would now not be left wondering.

                   I really am getting a bit frantic over this, because we are simply ordinary folk, (I am and am assuming you are too 🙂 ), yet these people/parties we are talking about are professionals and are supposed to be experts in their field yet I am seeing great gaping holes/failures in their strategies and I really just don’t understand how this can occur.

                   They are the ones with time to work these things out.
                   They are the ones being paid to work these things out.

                   I just wonder wtf is going on? Really I do.
             • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks …

               20 October 2014 at 1:16 pm

               Even to get just 3 MPs their party vote would have to have been more than twice what they ended up getting.

               More people voted for IMP than voted for the Maori Party. (2 reps)
               More than twice as many voted for IMP as voted for ACT.
               More than 6x as many voted for IMP as for UF.
               (yet each of those parties have reps in the gov.)
               http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/partystatus.html
               • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark …

                 20 October 2014 at 1:20 pm

                 Ugh. That is just so very wrong.
               • Colonial Rawshark …

                 20 October 2014 at 11:46 pm

                 Manuka. Yes, it is a tale of woe. One which Labour insists is OK.
     • 4 across 2.1.4

       20 October 2014 at 10:51 am

       maybe the electorate votes of TTT where used to elect someone more in line with the values held by the electorate. maybe the electorate didn’t want hone anymore? or are you saying the maori voters of TTT are to stupid to do anything but what a political figure tells them?
       • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 2.1.4.1

         20 October 2014 at 1:26 pm

         “Too Stupid” ?? Or the system stacked against them!

         Excerpt:
         28,000 special votes across the country were disqualified for various reasons. In Tai Tokerau alone, 1,000 Maori special votes were disqualified. Some of the reasons were:
         • People had moved address (although still in the Tai Tokerau)
         • Although they were already enrolled – they’d been cut off because they hadn’t updated their information
         • The new address people had given was not accepted
         • Although they’d voted in past elections, there was no record of their enrolment
         • If they’d been in prison, they’d been removed from the roll
         And we have recently learned that some of these problems have been around since Matiu Rata left Labour to form Mana Motuhake back in 1979!
         http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1410/S00113/positive-result-from-recount.htm
         • SHG 2.1.4.1.1

           20 October 2014 at 1:47 pm

           Summary: the votes of stupid lazy people don’t count. Everyone wins.
           • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 2.1.4.1.1.1

             20 October 2014 at 2:17 pm

             SHG: ” the votes of stupid lazy people don’t count.”

             Only if you equate “stupid lazy people” with being Maori, in TTT anyway. Some of the problems encountered, from that same link above:

             “polling booths without Maori roll voting papers;
             Maori people being turned away because their name wasn’t on the roll;
             Maori people being turned away because they didn’t have their ‘easy vote’ card;
             Maori people being told they can’t cast a special vote;
             Maori people being told they can’t vote at certain polling booths;
             Maori people being told to wait while Pakeha voters were served first;
             Maori people being told they have to travel more than 40kms to vote;
             Maori people not being offered assistance to vote;
             and Maori people having their identity questioned because of their many names.”
             • SHG …

               20 October 2014 at 2:30 pm

               That link is to a press release by Hone Harawira. Thus I take everything in it with a grain of salt.
               • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks …

                 20 October 2014 at 3:29 pm

                 Hone first raised the question of these voting problems after the 2008 election. They were still there in 2011. He laid a formal complaint. The Minister responsible for the Electoral Commission seems to have shown the same respect for that formal complaint as you have for the press release, as the same problems were/ are there in this year’s election. (The Minister responsible at the time was Ms Collins, I believe.)
                 • blue leopard …

                   20 October 2014 at 3:33 pm

                   +1 Manuka

                   I was wondering whether SHG takes as skeptical an approach toward John Key’s press releases…
                   • SHG …

                     20 October 2014 at 3:58 pm

                     At least press releases from John Key don’t read like “waa waa waaaaaa white motherfuckers”
                   • blue leopard …

                     20 October 2014 at 4:17 pm

                     Oh?

                     So you prefer:

                     “mmm mmm mmmmmmm I’m a white muttha-fukka suck on this lie, bitch, and if u disagree wit me u r deluded”
                   • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks …

                     20 October 2014 at 4:31 pm

                     BL, Don’t feed the troglodytes – some of them get paid $$$s for any reactions, for successfully disrupting threads
                   • blue leopard …

                     20 October 2014 at 4:43 pm

                     @Manuka

                     I think you’ll find that most of the comments I make to t-things are not responded to – i.e. it isn’t food.

                     I wouldn’t immediately view SHG as one, think they have been around for quite some time, but might be wrong on that.
               • Molly …

                 20 October 2014 at 10:53 pm

                 Had a friend who was a scrutineer this election.

                 Witnessed both instances of people being redirected to another polling booth, and also being redirected to cast a Maori electorate vote.

                 Possibly more common that you have considered.
   • SHG 2.2

     20 October 2014 at 8:04 pm

     You may not have noticed, but there were no National or NZF candidates on the ballot paper.
3. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3

   20 October 2014 at 8:04 am

   ..and people say right wingers are stupid.
   • RedLogixFormes 3.1

     20 October 2014 at 8:27 am

     … just more willing to game the system.

     Actually this is why Antony’s call is doomed to fail. Left and right wing people value things differently. Left-wing people are not especially stupid either and most of them will have noticed that by voting for the Nat candidate in Epsom for instance would be tactically a good idea. But they don’t because it ‘feels wrong’. It violates a larger value which is that democracy is meant to be an expression of support for not just some candidate’s name – but for what they stand for.

     And for the same reason Paddy Gower would indeed have a very productive field day with the ‘dirty deal’ – because it would not be consistent with the ‘fairness and equity’ values the left stands for. People would instinctively sense it as a rank hypocrisy.

     The Nats by contrast are allowed to get away with all manner of crap – because everyone knows that’s what they stand for.
     • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.1

       20 October 2014 at 8:44 am

       Although part of it is nothing more than the anti-Left media beat up machine at work, dressed up as Paddy Gower etc finding any excuse to take the moral high ground (choke). Much of the remainder is the phenomena of Left politicians who believe that fighting dumb is somehow noble. Kill Internet Mana off. Keep the Greens at arms length. Top up Peter Dunne’s retirement accounts.

       Well this is the message for the Labour Party: one of the reasons people have stopped voting for you is because what they see out of the Labour Party is getting dumber and dumber. They see a political party where the will to win, the fighting spirit and the chance to make a real difference has been replaced by Wellngton navel gazing, poor political instincts, and a head office machine who thinks corporatisms like “Vote Positive” are a good idea.

       So what we need is “fairness and equity” armed with the ability to make every single vote count for maximum impact. Which in the course of internal union politics and internal Labour Party politics, should be a very familiar concept.
       • karol 3.1.1.1

         20 October 2014 at 8:47 am

         I disagree. Strategic voting plays into one of the narratives that turns a lot of potential voters off, resulting in political disengagement: ie treating politics as a game.

         And Lusk was pretty certain that voter disengagement turns of more potentially left than right voters.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.1

           20 October 2014 at 9:36 am

           If we make it clear that we’re going to change the rules after the election so that such gaming of the system can’t be done as recommended by the review that National ignored (that really needs to be highlighted) then using the same gaming will work – once.

           Then once we get into power we change the rules immediately to show that we’re serious about elections being honest. National will, of course, immediately, look for other ways to game the system.
         • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.1.1.2

           20 October 2014 at 9:44 am

           Strategic voting plays into one of the narratives that turns a lot of potential voters off, resulting in political disengagement: ie treating politics as a game.

           Hold up. Why ask Labour to stay in an FPP mindset when every other party has clearly moved on. The Labour leadership hasn’t and doesn’t support strategic voting. Yet political disengagement from Labour is occurring in droves.

           So my thesis is different to yours: its not treating voting like a game which turns voters off. It is that voters get turned off Labour when Labour fights dumb, it doesn’t fight at all, or it appears fundamentally unable to accept that we are no longer in an FPP world.
           • karol 3.1.1.1.2.1

             20 October 2014 at 11:08 am

             There’s a difference between left parties working within the MMP format in a loose alliance, and the so-called “strategic voting”.
             • Colonial Rawshark …

               20 October 2014 at 12:15 pm

               It’s a fundamental feature of MMP that citizens get two votes, and that those two votes can be split. In Epsom you can see that both National and Green supporters are willing to use that MMP feature far more than Labour supporters.

               If you ignore this ability to split party vote from electorate vote, then you ignore a fundamental aspect of what MMP entails at the grassroots electorate and voter level.
               • McFlock …

                 20 October 2014 at 1:02 pm

                 Split voting is different from removing your support for the candidate you want to win and giving it to a candidate you dislike in the hope that the candidate you despise will lose.

                 The former is about preference, the latter is just a further degradation of the system.

                 And the party telling the electorate to vote for someone else is quite surreal. Leave the surrealism to the nats: they’re already in a fantasy land.
                 • blue leopard …

                   20 October 2014 at 1:09 pm

                   What? And allow those in fantasy-land to win power?

                   No way, Jose!
                   • McFlock …

                     20 October 2014 at 3:41 pm

                     So we must beat the surrealists by becoming surreal?

                     Where does it stop: should we have paid attack bloggers and hate-mongers panty-sniffing people we deem to be corrupt and hateful?
                   • Colonial Rawshark …

                     20 October 2014 at 3:48 pm

                     I maintain that the electorate wants to see a Left which can play sharp, smart politics above board and within the rules, in order to win.

                     Giving Dunne a Cabinet spot far in excess of his party vote, knee capping Hone and Laila out of parliament, and pushing Seymour up into privilege again far in excess of his party vote, isn’t smart and it isn’t necessary.

                     I don’t even think there’s even any moral high ground to go with that.
                   • blue leopard …

                     20 October 2014 at 3:55 pm

                     @ McFlock

                     Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies.

                     Your logical fallacy is the ‘slippery slope’.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 October 2014 at 3:55 pm

                     Nothing too much to dispute there, CV( “CV-R”? 🙂 ).

                     But if the electorate decides that the Left parties instructing their supporters to anti-vote isn’t completely and unequivocably “above board”, you and I both know that Steven Joyce will be arguing moral equivalence with Seymour and Dunne’s pay-offs, with the full cooperation and support of the MSM. KDC/IMP all over again.

                     Which seems a bit much for two electorate seats that depend on a knife-edge result for their overhang to mean a thing.
                   • Colonial Rawshark …

                     20 October 2014 at 4:00 pm

                     CV-R, oooh sounds like a new advanced model of Colonial Viper 😈
                   • McFlock …

                     20 October 2014 at 4:27 pm

                     BL, you might think it’s a logical fallacy, but it’s a perfectly valid concern. I’m not bringing up an extreme hypothetical, and I’ve sure brought up a number of other points against the Left parties adopting anti-voting tactics.

                     You’re supporting the idea that the left copy one of the tories’ many dodgy tactics, simply because it might stop the other side winning.

                     Why that one and no other?
                   • blue leopard …

                     20 October 2014 at 4:36 pm

                     I have made it perfectly clear what the end is, work toward the end and that is that. There is really no reason why it should lead on to more copy-cat behaviour of National’s trashiest behaviour, particularly when there is a clear aim to achieve.

                     The other stuff (two-tier strategy) shows a far more obvious case for damage to the left because it goes much more against core principles of the left than voting for a candidate that you might not ordinarily vote for, in order to get the party in that you consider more principled, does.

                     p.s It is a logical fallacy, not simply ‘me thinking it is’.

                     p.s.s.I do acknowledge it is a concern worth noting, though 🙂

                     p.s.s.s think I’ll start using CV-R for CR
                   • McFlock …

                     20 October 2014 at 5:27 pm

                     There is really no reason why it should lead on to more copy-cat behaviour of National’s trashiest behaviour, particularly when there is a clear aim to achieve.

                     Quite simply, because the justification is that they are successful, we are not, therefore, we should copy them.
                     So when (as these things come to pass) we are not successful, the next impulse is to have another iteration of that pattern. Especially if we get elected, change the rules, and then lose when the tories invent another way to abuse the system.

                     Seriously, as soon as we cross the threshhold of the ends justifying the means, it becomes like the One ring – very difficult to put down, and the more it’s used the more it sucks from you.

                     The other stuff (two-tier strategy) shows a far more obvious case for damage to the left because it goes much more against core principles of the left than voting for a candidate that you might not ordinarily vote for, in order to get the party in that you consider more principled, does.

                     At this perspective it is much more against core principles.

                     After an election or two where both sides have been blatantly gaming the system? Maybe not so much. Especially when tory tactics adapt to deal with it.
                   • blue leopard …

                     20 October 2014 at 9:02 pm

                     @McFlock,

                     It is not an inevitable course of action that the continuation of copying would occur, at all, because once the aim has been achieved there is no need to keep copying, and as I already said, it is one thing to copy something that barely can even be considered corrupt, and it is another to copy something that is obviously that way.

                     I think CV-R got it correct somewhere else on this thread – something about it being like the left have been characterising this business of electorate votes as corrupt for their own purposes, it has failed to have the desired effect and now it has boxed them into an untenable position where they look like hypocrites if they start doing it themselves. (Hope i haven’t misrepresented what CV said, apologies to CV if I have).
                   • McFlock …

                     20 October 2014 at 9:32 pm

                     no, it’s not inevitable.

                     And that’s what people have told themselves in every slippery slope in history.

                     We disagree as to whether anti-voting is a corrupt practise.
                     But even by the description you attribute to CV (and ISTR somethign similar), the fact is that the Left parties have indeed left themselves in a position that they will be tarred as blatant hypocrites for at least the 2017 election.

                     As I said, KDC/IMP all over again.

                     So even if the principled stand was an electoral error, because it was taken in the first place abandoning it would be another electoral error.
         • Olwyn 3.1.1.1.3

           20 October 2014 at 10:48 am

           I think there is a difference between gaming the system and showing a real hunger to win. It would have been easy for Labour to say, with one voice, “IMP is a new party still to earn its stripes and will not be a part of our government. However, we respect their desire to represent our poorest citizens, and if they get in under their own steam, we will welcome their support for C & S, and look at implementing their ‘feed the kids’ program.”

           What we got instead was a group of Labour contenders treating IMP as a greater threat than National. This makes Labour look as if its willingness to win is conditional on approval from the right: an attitude that is the diametric opposite of Roosevelt’s bold “They hate me and I welcome their hatred.” Which of course alienates people who would normally vote for them, and brings relief to people who would never vote for them. Lose-lose.
           • karol 3.1.1.1.3.1

             20 October 2014 at 11:14 am

             I strongly support Mana. I always thought IMP was a bad idea, and an unnecessary new party.

             It had KDC’s identity all over it – a gamer out to win. He launched into it without a lot of consideration of the unintended consequences – him becoming a target at focus for right wing forces, very much into the Game mentality, rallying all their forces against IMP and the left generally. And he didn’t really work in a true alliance with the rest of the left parties.

             KDC set a short term goal of winning, using whatever methods possible. It trumped the longer term, more substantial approach of building a narrative: a narrative that is strongly grounded in left wing values. And in so doing it undercut left wing values and delivered them to the well oiled right wing smear machine.

             There is no short cut to building a coherent, coordinated left wing movement, grounded in clear left wing values and principles.
             • Olwyn …

               20 October 2014 at 11:30 am

               KDC himself now thinks his brand is “toxic” and harmed Mana. I personally have nothing against KDC, and am grateful to him for drawing our attention to the extent to which we are spied on. But whatever mistakes Mana/KDC may have made – they were not the opposition.

               Look at the difference between Labour’s treatment of IMP and Key’s treatment of the Conservatives, whose leader also attracts controversy.
               • karol …

                 20 October 2014 at 11:39 am

                 Did I ever say KDC or IMP were the opposition? My position is not so clear cut. It’s possible to disagree with the whole IP enterprise, and to be supportive of KDC’s case in the spying thing.

                 I don’t particularly like the KDC persona – to me his public persona is not in accord with left wing values. And in the election, he and IP largely worked to distract from strongly opposing Key and the Nats.

                 I also think other left wing parties could have worked together in a stronger alliance – and that doesn’t need to have included strongly promoting “strategic voting”.

                 It’d be better to educate more people on the importance of the party vote.
                 • Olwyn …

                   20 October 2014 at 11:55 am

                   Sorry – my emphasis was in reference to my own earlier comment – that Labour ‘s treatment of IMP showed a lack of hunger for winning, and not in reference to anything you said. I agree that there is no short cut to building a movement, but I also think that hunger for change sometimes means taking risks – which, by definition, don’t always come off.
                   • Colonial Rawshark …

                     20 October 2014 at 12:19 pm

                     that Labour ‘s treatment of IMP showed a lack of hunger for winning

                     And also a predilection to fall straight into the right wing framing of Internet Mana and KDC.
                 • Colonial Rawshark …

                   20 October 2014 at 12:23 pm

                   It’s possible to disagree with the whole IP enterprise, and to be supportive of KDC’s case in the spying thing.

                   How can you disagree with IMP getting so very close to getting Hone Harawira into Parliament as a party leader, and getting Laila Harre into Parliament as a party leader.

                   The IMP approach really only screwed up on 2 counts.

                   1) KDC should have quietly disappeared in the last month of the election campaign. Therefore, no Moment of Truth etc.

                   2) More time and resource needed to be poured into Te Tai Tokerau to secure an extra 1K to 2K votes for Hone.
                   • blue leopard …

                     20 October 2014 at 12:51 pm

                     I was more than a little surprised and disappointed that Hone wasn’t strongly visible.

                     I thought that the money would be used to ensure that he (and thus his message) was.

                     I, therefore, am of the opinion that Hone remaining invisible was one of the biggest mistakes. He was the leader from the previously existing party and I fail to understand why he didn’t get as much airtime as Laila. (Laila was good, she was very good, but Hone should have been visible too)

                     Perhaps this was out of their control? That the TV programmes approached Laila , but I suspect something could have been done, that wasn’t, from the party’s side to get more balanced coverage (of Hone as well as Laila).
             • blue leopard …

               20 October 2014 at 12:34 pm

               Karol,

               You do realise that IMP was the only leftwing party to grow their support in this year’s election? (compared to election 2011), unless you consider NZ First as left wing.

               While initially very supportive of the idea of Mana joining with IP, I did develeop reservations toward KDC’s approach as time went on, however it was entirely possible that people could have chosen to see through all the vitriol and spin directed toward KDC and IMP and to recognise that they were actually addressing the two most important issues in this country: poverty and privacy (spying or abuse of power). They were also promoting a very savvy idea of developing internet business in this country.

               At the very least, it would be great to see people recognising these things about IMP after all the pomp & ceremony and tension of the election campaign has died down.

               KDC’s biggest ‘crime’ was speaking out IMO, I think New Zealanders are way too disapproving of speaking out and protest, and difference. I don’t think this norm is serving us well at all.

               I actually wish that KDC would stay in the public eye, with the view that people would actually start to get used to this way of being and then there would be some chance that the suffocating tight grip of ‘don’t rock the boat’ unspoken [but-not-very-unspoken-if-u-break-it] rule in this country might actually be loosened from around our necks, mouths and lives.
               • marty mars …

                 20 October 2014 at 3:05 pm

                 + 1 I agree with most of that. It could be that The Internet Party was just a bit too much too soon for many and that with a longer lead-in time the public would have got used to them.

                 Personally I think ‘they’ wanted Mana and Hone out of parliament and KDC provided the hook to do that – if he hadn’t come along the unholy ganging up in TTT would still have occurred.

                 I do also think that Hone was quiet during the election campaign – the car accident, the shot through the window, disgruntled Mana candidate, the tiredness he must have felt by servicing his large electorate and being the ‘man of Mana’ may have all contributed plus he gave Laila plenty of room to grab the spotlight and promote IMP.

                 Mistakes were made and I don’t think the same ones will be made next time.
                 • blue leopard …

                   20 October 2014 at 3:20 pm

                   “Personally I think ‘they’ wanted Mana and Hone out of parliament and KDC provided the hook to do that – if he hadn’t come along the unholy ganging up in TTT would still have occurred.”

                   Absolutely agree, I have been noticing Hone being singled out and targetted for years, I can’t remember which Waitangi day it was (probably all of them), but I believe it was 2013, media attention was very much focused on Hone’s family and ‘how dastardly they were’, this was seeding ideas in peoples’ heads early.

                   They followed this ‘idea’ later in the year with coverage of Hone’s relations being in court. The narrative was one that was totally trying to connect ‘negative’ with Hone in peoples’ minds. I am in no doubt about this.

                   Then KDC came along and they totally picked the weakness. ‘German’ (foreigner), ‘Hitler’, ‘Fat’, ‘influencing politics’ The negative reports about Hone stopped and negative reports of KDC didn’t end.

                   I don’t know who ‘they’ are either, but am guessing it is the corporate agenda because Mana are pretty clear on where they stand over the damage corporates create and have policies to address that.

                   The other reason I think ‘they’ is an active corporate agenda, is because they are the ones with the money and means (ownership of media) to influence the narrative in this way. (Heck unsure about the grammar in this paragraph!)

                   I really would like KDC to continue in the public eye, we really need to get over ourselves, yet can fully understand why he might choose not to.
               • SHG …

                 20 October 2014 at 9:01 pm

                 Errr, IMP didn’t exist in 2011. The Internet Party was only founded THIS YEAR.

                 I guess then that IMP increased its share of the vote by INFINITY PERCENT!!11
                 • blue leopard …

                   20 October 2014 at 9:16 pm

                   Yes, I was rather hoping that people would get the sense of my referring to an increase for IMP without going all pedantic on it.

                   Sigh Oh well.

                   Never mind, infinity percent sounds like an achievement anyway 😉
           • Murray Rawshark 3.1.1.1.3.2

             21 October 2014 at 12:57 am

             Olwyn, Labour saying that would mean accepting that they do not represent our poorest citizens. Labour will never admit this, even though their policies are designed to better the situation of the middle so that something will trickle down to the bottom. They’re just NAct, but aiming a bit lower.

             I believe they do see Mana as a greater threat than NAct because if they accept that Mana fills a gap, what is their own reason to exist?
             • Colonial Rawshark …

               21 October 2014 at 1:08 am

               Similar dynamic to the Occupy movement in the USA. Occupy Wall St was a threat to the ruling elite – but particularly to the Democrats not the Republicans. Why? Because Occupy made it very easy to see that what the Democrats said they stood for, and what they actually did, were two very different things.
         • SHG 3.1.1.1.4

           20 October 2014 at 1:52 pm

           Treating politics as a game is the only way to win at it. Anyone who doesn’t treat politics as a game deserves to lose.
       • left for deadshark 3.1.1.2

         20 October 2014 at 9:14 am

         Here,here CV
         As a favorite New Zealand son would have said,(use your brains).
         • RedLogixFormes 3.1.1.2.1

           20 October 2014 at 10:00 am

           People do not use their brains in quite that simple, reductionist way you hope.
     • karol 3.1.2

       20 October 2014 at 8:45 am

       Agree with this. Strategic voting by the left could bring a load of unintended consequences.
       • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.2.1

         20 October 2014 at 8:57 am

         But so could campaigning with the Greens and also letting a small truly left wing party develop in its own time.

         Sooner or later Labour is going to get to the point where it has nothing left to lose. Its only 1-2 elections from there now, actually.
       • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.1.2.2

         20 October 2014 at 9:27 am

         Strategic voting by the left could bring a load of unintended consequences.

         Like government
         • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.2.2.1

           20 October 2014 at 9:48 am

           People here are advocating for Labour to keep fighting an FPP war. Don’t support Hone Harawira, take his seat. Push Annette Sykes from contention. Personally gift Dunne another 3/4 million dollars in Ohariu.

           But Labour gets to keep the (false, and losing) moral high ground of ignoring the flexibility and nuances of MMP.
           • Tautoko Mangō Mata 3.1.2.2.1.1

             20 October 2014 at 10:33 am

             This is where the potential coalition needs to work more as a TEAM rather than as isolated units during the election period.
             Be open and honest about it. In some electorates, there could be spokespeople (rather than candidates) with the meme ” we endorse the xxxxx candidate who is the coalition candidate for this electorate vote. However only a party vote for Labour will give us the power and influence to implement Labour’s excellent policies in the coalition government.
             For a progressive representative in this electorate vote ……..Name, Party vote Labour
         • phillip ure 3.1.2.2.2

           20 October 2014 at 9:48 am

           @ gormless..

           ..+ 1..

           ..i mean..it hasn’t worked for national..has it..?

           ..swamped in ‘unintended consequences’ as they are..
           • blue leopard 3.1.2.2.2.1

             20 October 2014 at 12:07 pm

             +1 Gormless Fool’s comment was a gud ‘un 😆
   • blue leopard 3.2

     20 October 2014 at 12:03 pm

     +1 Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarell @ 3

     …seems to be a bit of a blindspot being discovered here…
4. boldsirbrian 4

   20 October 2014 at 8:10 am

   None of the candidates has yet shown any insight into the realities of strategic voting that I am aware of. They seem to be all singing off the same song sheet, that gaining votes at the expense of all parties is better than targeting votes at the expense of the right.

   I would particularly like Nanaia’s views on this, as she is still my most favoured candidate. She considers one of her major achievements is the “success” on the Maori seats. It WAS an achievement, but a misguided goal .

   All of the Maori seats have the possibility of benefitting Mana and Labour in a pre-election coalition deal. Several Mana electorate seats and Labour party votes in a couple, and Green Party votes in another couple. Nothing would signify coalition better.

   Labour also has the power to make this term, Dunne’s last.
   • Chooky 4.1

     20 October 2014 at 8:18 am

     +100 boldsirbrian
   • phillip ure 4.2

     20 October 2014 at 8:30 am

     also labour only won those maori seats because maori party/mana split the vote..

     ..(should they reach some agreement on the carve-up of the seats..labour are toast in those seats..)

     ..and thinking about the ohariu result never fails to get me somewhat apoplectic..(not good this early hour of the morning..)

     ..how the greens insistance on both standing a candidate there..

     ..and on not instructing their supporters to vote tactically..(but really..just standing the candidate was their major self-hurting screw-up..

     ..they couldn’t even think that one thru..?..f.f.s..!)

     ..how both these idiot-actions gifted the seat to the man who has kept them out of govt..(!!!)..now..how on any level..is that not seriously fucked up..?..the greens ‘gift’ a seat..to their mortal enemy..how can that not bring on an attack of face-palming on the part of the observer..?..)

     ..dunne ‘won’ by his 800 votes..

     ..the green candidate got over 2,500 votes..

     ..and thereby set a new benchmark in ‘hollow-victory’..

     ..if the left/progressives don’t get this sorted out..this how to win under mmp..

     ..they will just face serial-defeats..

     ..it’s as simple as that..
     • sabine 4.2.1

       20 October 2014 at 8:36 am

       good to know that i am not the only one that gets the hives every time i see Dunne.
       It pisses me off to no end. End to say that the Green voters need to be instructed? Really what would they have needed? A letter by, with candy bar attached?
       This election was a bout wining and if not possible to inflict harm and keep enablers out. And the labour and the greens have both helped their opponent.

       but hey now we get to vote for the middle manager that caused that fuck up in the first place.
       Aren’t we lucky?
       • boldsirbrian 4.2.1.1

         20 October 2014 at 8:45 am

         @ sabine (4.2.1)

         It pisses me off to no end. End to say that the Green voters need to be instructed? Really what would they have needed? A letter by, with candy bar attached?

         It’s no use getting pissed with the Greens. All the Greens needed, and even wanted (even asked for) was cooperation leading up to the election. Labour invited Greens voters to compete against them. Result: Dunne.
     • boldsirbrian 4.2.2

       20 October 2014 at 8:41 am

       .
       @phillip ure (4.2)

       Dunne’s win was not the Greens fault. It was Labour’s fault for treating the Greens with contempt in the election campaign.

       Labour needs to urgently learn about the realities of MMP. Perhaps Labour could hire John Key as a consultant, just on this particular issue
       • phillip ure 4.2.2.1

         20 October 2014 at 8:53 am

         i’m calling bullshit on that..bold brian..

         ..i realise labour ‘refused to co-operate’..

         ..(tho’ we still don’t know what level of co-operation the greens were seeking..)

         ..but for the greens not to make that unilateral decision to get rid of their mortal enemy..dunne..by the simple act of just not standing a candidate against him..

         ..still deserves one of the braindead-awards from that election..(how can it not..?..)

         .and don’t get me started on how dumbarse green voters in ohariu must be..

         ..as sabine noted..what do they actually need done to point out the bleeding obvious to them..?

         ..are they unable to think for themselves..?

         ..are they really that fucken dumb..?

         ..those 2,500+ green voters in ohariu..

         .(and their green party leaders..)
       • sabine 4.2.2.2

         20 October 2014 at 8:54 am

         Rubbish, the Green know that they go with Labour. Full stop.

         The green posed smugly grinning with David Cunliffe.

         what should they need? hampers, instructions, footmassages? Maybe some verbal gushing about their electric cars?

         Holy moly, really If the Green and labour needed more instruction and incentives to work together in order to defeat the people that are going to sell this country, its resources, its plains, its mountains, and its forest and rivers to the higher bidder and fucked be the citizens, than both parties are useless and should go bust.

         Labour can go manage something in human resources and the Green party can apply world wide for the Job of the green office Manager.

         I needed no instruction on how to vote in this election and in many others. I have always voted for what long term is best for the country, usually this means either greens or labour depending on where I live and who needs the party votes.

         I need no one to tell me that I should under no circumstance enable Dunne to help National sell the family silver.

         The Greens are grown People, they have been on Camera all the time, on Facebook, on any social media possible. And they could not think that standing a Candidate in Ohariu would be lost votes? No that is not labours fault, that bit of Hubris can be laid on to the steps of the green party office,.

         NO Discipline. Thats why the left looses.

         Also I am still waiting for the Green Ghost Candidate of Te Atatu South to manifest her/himself. Cause that was the one person during the election that was missing in action. Internet Mana – present and out and about. National – the blue shirts were everywhere every day. labour – Phil Twyford basically lived in his Van and hung out on every Streetcorner out West. The Green Candidate- must have been waiting on instructions from the Green and the Labour Party.
         • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.2.1

           20 October 2014 at 9:48 am

           It wasn’t standing a candidate that was the problem. In fact, as it stands they pretty much have to. The problem was that they didn’t strongly suggest to their supporters to vote for the Labour candidate.

           This fiasco also shows why we need preferential voting in electorates. Then the Greens could have chosen Greens first, Labour second and National third (I maintain that we need to have it so that there’s at least three preferences marked).
           • phillip ure 4.2.2.2.1.1

             20 October 2014 at 10:43 am

             @ draco..

             “..t wasn’t standing a candidate that was the problem. In fact, as it stands they pretty much have to…”

             it was ‘the problem’..and no..they don’t ‘have to’…

             .it’s not compulsory…
             • Draco T Bastard …

               20 October 2014 at 3:02 pm

               /facepalm

               It’s not compulsory but it is pretty much required to boost their allowed advertising spend. I’ve explained this to you before.

               What you’re suggesting would probably have resulted in Dunne winning an even greater majority.

               As I said, we need preferential voting in electorates rather than FPP.
               • phillip ure …

                 20 October 2014 at 4:46 pm

                 and i replied to you before..

                 ..some/a soupcon of advertising spend..?..vs..getting rid of dunne…

                 ..and the greens chose ‘a’…(!)

                 ..(well done..!..those greens..thinking of the common-good there..eh..?..)

                 ..and please further expand on yr claim the greens not standing ‘would probably have resulted in Dunne winning an even greater majority.’

                 ..i’m probably a bit slow…but i can’t see how you came to that conclusion..

                 ..and as for pref-voting..you had may as well wish for ponies for all of us..

                 ..we have to deal with the realities of the here and now..

                 .and one of the ugly ‘realities’ of the election tactics used by the greens..

                 ..was the gifting of ohariu to dunne..
                 • The Al1en …

                   20 October 2014 at 5:29 pm

                   Which candidates from what parties in which seats said tactical vote to unseat tory/crony mps?
                   If any of them said it, it didn’t get much airtime as I never heard the message on the news, but fortunately I have a brain and don’t need to be told how to vote, so tactical vote is what I did anyway, par for the course.
                   Can’t criticise the people who didn’t though, just ’cause the result is off. Just like it’s not the fault of the greens that labour dismissed their offer of a more unified campaign, instead sending an every man/woman for themselves message.

                   Haters gotta hate and spinners gotta spin.
                   Scapegoating to arse cover the failure of the extreme left to engage any of the forgotten million, or the center left to pick up 5-10% of swing votes.

                   Has to be the fault of MT and RN. 🙄
               • The Al1en …

                 20 October 2014 at 5:17 pm

                 “/facepalm
                 I’ve explained this to you before.”

                 You’re not the only one, on both counts.
           • Rodel 4.2.2.2.1.2

             20 October 2014 at 11:04 am

             DTB
             If the left are being encouraged to wrought the voting system as the right does then the system is faulty and needs to be strengthened or even changed.

             Personally I like to vote for a person who represents my values rather than a party with preselected people who I probably know little about.

             At a party meeting I attended some years ago where list candidates were being chosen I was not impressed by the hasty superficiality of the process. The general public had little or no input into the selections and I’m sure weren’t very aware on election day of who the list candidates were.

             STV (preferential voting) or some other form of instant runoff system that is resistant to manipulative voting and all votes count for something should be adopted .
             At present it feels a lot like gerrymandering.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               20 October 2014 at 3:54 pm

               If the left are being encouraged to wrought the voting system as the right does then the system is faulty and needs to be strengthened or even changed.

               Yes, the system is faulty. We even had a review on it that suggested some fixes – a review that National subsequently ignored as it obviously didn’t fit their agenda of continuing to screw over the country.

               BTW, the word you were looking for is rort.

               Personally I like to vote for a person who represents my values rather than a party with preselected people who I probably know little about.

               The majority of people vote along party lines because a) it’s easier to keep track of what the party’s policies are than an individuals and b) tribalism. This is pretty much why we don’t have independent MPs voted into parliament.
               • Rodel …

                 20 October 2014 at 8:11 pm

                 yea ‘rort’ not ‘wrought’ Thanks.
                 Still prefer to vote for a person.
         • Colonial Rawshark 4.2.2.2.2

           20 October 2014 at 9:52 am

           NO Discipline. Thats why the left looses.

           Bingo. That and pretending there is some sort of moral high ground in fighting an FPP war.
           • phillip ure 4.2.2.2.2.1

             20 October 2014 at 10:25 am

             @ colonial..

             “..and pretending there is some sort of moral high ground in fighting an FPP war…”

             ..i agree…that one is also a total head-fuck..

             ..where the hell is the ‘immorality’ in strategic-voting in an mmp environment..?

             ..especially when not doing so hands victory to yr opponents..

             ..on a silver platter…

             ..just..so..dumb..
       • Sabine 4.2.2.3

         20 October 2014 at 10:40 am

         I call BS. There were a lot of pictures floating around of the Green Leaders sitting with Cunliffe and smiling from one ear to the other.

         I actually thought it was good that the Greens campaigned on their own to show case their policies and their ideas. But underlining it was always clear to me and those around me that should labour pull of the win, it would be the Greens that they would go into a coalition with.

         So essentially the Greens would have gotten into Parliament with Labour, and they would have campaigned on their own. Win Win. Any gains they would have made would have been on the strength of their policies and their candidates.

         Nope, in my view it is the party purists that lost these two seats for us.
         . Green and only Green, or labour and only Labour when clearly in Ohariu and Te Tau Tokerau it would have been better to vote for the ”other”, and the same counts for Auckland Central.
       • ghostwhowalksnz 4.2.2.4

         20 October 2014 at 2:03 pm

         Its the Greens fault for running in electorate seats at all.

         Its crazy as it has prevented them going above above 11% as some voters feel they have given them one vote but not two.

         if you only want voters to make one choice, then only give them one
5. RJL 5

   20 October 2014 at 8:27 am

   You do have to bear in mind that, for example, the 40% (or so) of National voters who *didn’t* for the Seymour hologram in Epsom, might be motivated to do so if there was a very explicit Labour/Green direction to vote for the National candidate. So, mobilising Labour/Green voters to vote strategically might merely galvanise more National voters.

   The fact of the matter is that 63% of Epsom voters are National voters. It’s not really viable to dislodge ACT from Epsom as long as ACT has National support.
   • sabine 5.1

     20 October 2014 at 8:45 am

     Epsom is the one seat that I care the least about. It was clear from the onset that unless Labour and Green hold their noses and vote Act will manage to sneak by.

     but Ohariu, Te Tau Tokerau and also Auckland Central.

     Again, this is not so much about winning only, but also to show dicipline in the face of a fearsome opponent and his party machine.

     What did we get? Dunne, Davis and the Kaye…why did we get it? Because both on the red and the green side of the spectrum we did not vote in our best interest.

     but I am sure the Green in Ohariu and Auckland Central will feel good in their purity and have another vegan feast, and labour can pat themselves on the back for keeping Hone it his place.

     At the end of the day (TM), the loosers are the Citizens of NZ. The National Party is now unchecked, and will be unchecked until the Circus of the Leader Ship Selection and the working in time is over. By then the first year of Nationals Privatisation Coup has passed, the populace will be stunned into silence, and we will be looking at another Leadership selection – because the white middle manager are as useless as they have shown themselves to be during the election time. .

     The problem with the left is that they want to be holier than thou and they have no discipline. None. What so Ever!
     • phillip ure 5.1.1

       20 October 2014 at 8:58 am

       oy..!..sabine..leave the ‘vegans’ out of this..!

       ..factcheck:..no green mp’s are vegans…

       ..(and their brains are clearly befuddled by their consumption of animal flesh/fats/bye-products..

       ..they’ll do that to ya..!..those flesh/fats/bye-products..)
       • Sabine 5.1.1.1

         20 October 2014 at 2:10 pm

         I am an omnivore for what is it worth. but funnily enough, one of the biggest articles in the Herald about the greens on election day was about their vegan feast. …I thought it was funny as to what was prioritized.

         As for vegans, i was given a lecture by some 20 year olds the other day that I can;t use Honey as that would be cruel to the bees. I am sorry, but the vegan movement lost me there and then, and with it a lot of respect. Honey is one of the oldest form of medicine on this planet, and i can’t use it because it would be animal abuse? Tui!

         I can understand anyone who does not eat meat, but in saying that, I used to be hungry a lot some 20 odd years ago….I have learned that when one is hungry enough, one eats what is served, not what is emotionally pure. However, with increasing income it is easier to be picky in how my food is produced.
         • phillip ure 5.1.1.1.1

           20 October 2014 at 5:03 pm

           “..…I thought it was funny as to what was prioritized. ..”

           ..especially when none of them are vegans…eh..?

           ..but it is an improvement from my green-years..

           ..when i tried..sometimes politely..sometimes not..(and to little avail..)..

           ..to point out that maybe ..trying to look at the big-picture..green party bbq’s were an idea/practice that needed re-evaluation..(and that the vegan option was the only one guaranteed to offend nobody on ‘clean’/unclean-food grounds..)

           ..so good on them for getting that right now..shame they also haven’t got on board..but they do so love their leather..eh..?..

           ..and yr slagging of vegans for not eating honey..is just bullshit..

           ..one of the basic premises of a vegan lifestyle/choice is the decision to not take the lives of living-creatures..just so they can eat..

           ..so were they to be ok about bees being killed so the food they have saved for winter can be ripped out and eaten..

           ..they cd be accused of inconsistancies..

           ..and it’s honey..it isn’t a bloody cure for cancer..is it..?

           ..and some chinese swear by some of ‘the oldest form of medicine on this planet’..

           ..,ground up rhino-horns/tiger-penises..etc..etc..

           ..so that ‘medicine over killing bees’ argument from you has more holes than a vegetable-colander..

           ..eh..?

           ..so yr ‘tui’ right back at ya..eh..?
           • Chooky 5.1.1.1.1.1

             20 October 2014 at 5:13 pm

             @pu…bee keepers take honey comb with honey but not all of it …and they supply the bees with sugar syrup in their hives …so the bees do not die of starvation at all in winter…no probs with taking honey!

             …also many hives swarm because the numbers are too great or too many queens …and begin hives elsewhere starting from nothing
             • phillip ure …

               20 October 2014 at 5:28 pm

               and no bees die…eh..?

               ..and their winter food supplies..are replaced with sugar-syrup..

               ..and once again..no bees die/starve..eh..?

               ..and globally..bee numbers in decline..

               ..but just carry on..!..eh..?
               • Chooky …

                 20 October 2014 at 6:09 pm

                 @pu ….bee keepers have been harvesting honey for 15,000 years

                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beekeeping

                 Recent crises in bee numbers and colony collapse disorder ( CCD) is a recent phenomenon due to things like pesticides and neonicotinoids, loss of habitat, pathogens , Immunodeficiencies and infestations of Varoa mite …not beekeepers collecting honey per se…it is not in their interests to starve bees

                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder

                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
                 • phillip ure …

                   20 October 2014 at 7:17 pm

                   people have also been grinding up tigers’penises/rhino horns for a very long time..

                   ..plus slavery has been a constant for as long..

                   ..and so yr longevity-as-reason-to-continue-point is..?
                   • Chooky …

                     20 October 2014 at 7:36 pm

                     @ Pu …the point is that recent bee hive collapse is NOT due to taking honey and starving bees to death! ( read the links)

                     … you are an idiot!

                     …most beekeepers I know love their bees…and do NOT kill their bees..but do their best to keep their bees healthy and protect them from things largely outside their control eg recent invasion into NZ of Varoa mite and other nasties eg ( American Foul Brood)

                     …kept bee hives often survive a lot longer than hives in the wild!

                     …..suggest you take up beekeeping and get some real life experience with bees!..and you will find beekeepers planting trees/bushes / crops which are food supply for their bees
                   • phillip ure …

                     20 October 2014 at 7:46 pm

                     much like piggery owners ‘love’ their little wee piglets..eh..?

                     ..(they make money from them..they are a cash-crop..

                     ..yes..they ‘love’ the money they make from them..

                     ..end of story..

                     ..and yr claims that no bees die..and no bees are harmed from their winter supply of food being taken from them..

                     ..are nonsensical..
                   • Chooky …

                     21 October 2014 at 8:34 am

                     except people dont eat bees! ( unlike pigs)

                     …and bees swarm and take off and build new hives with their new queens all the time ….so are always starting up from scratch in the wild with no honey stores

                     ….really all bee keepers are doing are providing bees with nice warm safe houses and taking some honey as rent

                     ( also in order to protect bees from Varoa mite and AFB beekeepers have to go to considerable trouble and use considerable skill)

                     you know sweet- f- all about bees and bee keeping!

                     i might also add that the African bee varieties in South America do not seem to have the problems of the North American and European bee varieties…so whatever it is that is killing these off does not apply to the African variety ( natural selection at work?) Some beekeepers are now working with African bees in North America and getting very good results with none of the problems of hive collapse ( incidentally colony collapse is a problem which has happened every so often throughout the centuries …so not a new problem)
                   • phillip ure …

                     21 October 2014 at 8:51 am

                     u r clearly having comprehension-issues with the reasons vegans decide to just leave bees alone..

                     ..to not ‘just charge them some rent’..

                     ..(which is quite the euphemism for removing the winter food-supplies for a hive of bees..eh..?..)

                     ..vegans in general eschew any animal bye-products..

                     ..which honey surely is..

                     ..what do you find so difficult to understand about that..?

                     ..how about you tell me how you justify killing and eating animals..?

                     ..when ..as vegans prove..you don’t have to..
                   • The Al1en …

                     21 October 2014 at 9:13 am

                     Knock it on the head, Philip, ffs.

                     “..how about you tell me how you justify killing and eating animals..?..when ..as vegans prove..you don’t have to..”

                     All about the blame game with you it seems.
                     You could get nutrition from a pill these days, just like in the Jetsons, but you don’t, so Justify defiling mother earth with your hoes and hybridised seedlings when you don’t have to.
                     That is the level of your argument. 🙄
                   • phillip ure …

                     21 October 2014 at 9:19 am

                     “..Knock it on the head..”

                     ..that is yr area of expertise..
                   • The Al1en …

                     21 October 2014 at 9:28 am

                     Double tap for blogging zombies… Your area of expertise.
                   • Chooky …

                     21 October 2014 at 9:49 am

                     @ pu…how about you tell me how you justify killing vegetables?

                     ….and I take it that you NEVER grow veges to eat ?( if so you are a murderer)

                     …and …oh no!… (if you dont have a vege garden and kill the sweet little veges yourself) …., you dont get other people to do your dirty work do you?

                     …and what about the fruit trees and the nut trees….you must not take their babies and eat them !!!!….that is a wicked thing to do!
                     ( they didnt grow their nuts and fruits for you to eat!)

                     …oh so you eat grass?…but have you asked the grass if it wants a haircut….that is so NOT fair !!!!…poor grass…you are exploiting the grass…….!.

                     you vege eating, vege killing , plant mutilating, tree freeloading, baby nut and fruit eating…. vegan bastard!

                     …call veganism an excuse for living!
                   • phillip ure …

                     21 October 2014 at 12:05 pm

                     whoar..!

                     ..flightless-bird totally ‘loses it’…
                   • The Al1en …

                     21 October 2014 at 6:39 pm

                     “except people dont eat bees! ( unlike pigs)”

                     Them pigs will eat anything
                     Or
                     Mmm, honey roasted ham
                   • Colonial Rawshark …

                     21 October 2014 at 7:28 pm

                     Al1en you stirrer 😛
                   • The Al1en …

                     21 October 2014 at 9:06 pm

                     And I don’t even eat the stuff 😆
           • phillip ure 5.1.1.1.1.2

             20 October 2014 at 5:35 pm

             and another ‘omnivore’ sneering at vegans..eh..?

             ..it isn’t like we don’t already have enough of them..eh..?

             ..those ‘sneering omnivores’…
           • Clemgeopin 5.1.1.1.1.3

             22 October 2014 at 3:48 pm

             ..,ground up rhino-horns/tiger-penises..etc..etc..

             Now there is an alternative anyway. Scientists and doctors are now able to print out body parts! Horns, penises, nipples and stuff are sure to follow soon, I presume. Oh, what joy for vegans!

             body-parts-scientists-can-3-d-print
             • phillip ure …

               22 October 2014 at 4:08 pm

               i actually welcome the impending arrival of the likes of realistic-to-consumer lab-grown/printed-out meats and the like..

               ..(and of course..mufree..the milk substitute..that is once again..’realistic to consumers’..can be used for baking etc..)

               ..i am not naieve enough to think that everyone will go vegan anytime soon..they are too addicted to the tastes/oral-sensations..

               ..and/but no animals are harmed with lab-grown meats..

               ..so i have no problem with people eating that..

               ..want lab-grown tiger-penises..?

               ..fill yer boots..!
       • The Al1en 5.1.1.2

         20 October 2014 at 5:53 pm

         “their brains are clearly befuddled by their consumption of animal flesh/fats/bye-products….they’ll do that to ya..!..those flesh/fats/bye-products..”

         Extremist veggie claptrap.
         When contemplating befuddlement, those in glass houses shouldn’t throw walnuts.
         • Chooky 5.1.1.2.1

           21 October 2014 at 9:54 am

           yup…too many nuts …nuts have gone to the brain….gone completely nutty
     • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2

       20 October 2014 at 9:54 am

       The problem with the left is that they want to be holier than thou and they have no discipline. None. What so Ever!

       QFT

       And that needs to change ASAP. Once in government we can change the rules so as to enforce more honest electioneering.
   • Colonial Rawshark 5.2

     20 October 2014 at 8:52 am

     What you are describing is the normal reaction/counter reaction of election campaigns and electoral reactions. It can go the other way of course. If there is a credible campaign to get more Green and Labour voters voting National and ACTs margin gets whittled away by a few thousand, the soft National party voter might very well join in.

     Your overall point is a good one though – at the end of the day it will probably only make enough of a difference if there is also a general swing against National.
     • RJL 5.2.1

       20 October 2014 at 12:19 pm

       Yes, normal reaction cycle. But the cycle means it is dangerous to say “we win if only this changed”, without acknowledging that if you make a change, then the opponent does too.

       In Epsom, specifically, the “soft National voter” is probably most of the 40% of National voters who are already voting for the National candidate. Seymour’s 60% are the *committed* National voters.
6. tc 6

   20 October 2014 at 9:08 am

   “…but the nice guys are finishing last. Enough already, time for the Left to use the same tactics as the Nats…”

   Agree however the left has shown despite clear evidence that strategic voting was required in both 2011 and 2014 they value ‘principles’ over winning.

   National thanks the left for this noble but losing strategy, and is taking notes on the labour leadership circus in preparation for 2017.

   Sabine @ 5.1 nails it.
   • phillip ure 6.1

     20 October 2014 at 9:15 am

     “..National thanks the left for this noble but losing strategy..”

     i understand that dunne has a shrine in his bedroom..that he gives thanks to morning/nite/each time his ‘party-leader’ pay-cheque arrives..

     ..and i am told it contains pictures of russel norman and metiria turei..
7. Zolan 7

   20 October 2014 at 9:21 am

   I don’t see the point in rolling Dunne when there’s no risk of others coat-tailing in.
   UF doesn’t provide the same cover for bad policy as ACT, and is probably less useful to National than one of their own.

   Actually winning Ohariu for the Left would be something, although it’s still just an electorate seat.
   • Sirenia 7.1

     20 October 2014 at 10:02 am

     The Green candidate in Ohariu did not seek the electorate vote and told people to vote for the Labour candidate. It could be that the Green voters were Nat voters who disliked both Dunne and the National candidate (who got in on the list) and that it was their protest vote.
     • phillip ure 7.1.1

       20 October 2014 at 12:42 pm

       @ sirenia..

       ..sirenia just walks away with todays’ long-bow award…

       ..for that whopper..

       ..whoar..!
     • ghostwhowalksnz 7.1.2

       20 October 2014 at 2:05 pm

       Why the hell was she even standing if she didnt ‘want their vote’.

       Its batshit stupid to stand and then say dont vote for me.
       • blue leopard 7.1.2.1

         20 October 2014 at 2:10 pm

         I have heard, via other comments on the Standard, that having an electorate candidate helps to strengthen the party vote – perhaps this has to do with greater visibility in the district or something (unsure).
         • phillip ure 7.1.2.1.1

           20 October 2014 at 5:20 pm

           @ blue leopard..

           ..yeah..that is usually the reason proffered..

           ..that ‘greater visibility’ from electorate-meetings and the like.

           ..turnout to most of those meetings..aside from candidates and their teams/family..

           ..is minimal most of the time..

           ..and the ‘greater exposure’ is at best a line or two in a local-rag..

           ..so..basically..as a reason to stand..vs the strategic-benefits of not standing..(c.f..ohariu..)

           ..those reasons/arguments to stand just do not stand up..

           ..and of course..candidates standing everywhere means they are not available to the general campaign..(as mana found out..to its’ loss..)

           ..a well-focused party-only vote in an electorate has the potential to pull far more votes..

           ..than a few electorate meetings..and a line or two in the local giveaway rag..
   • Colonial Rawshark 7.2

     20 October 2014 at 10:02 am

     You roll Dunne in order to remove one support MP from the National Government and make them ever more reliant on the Maori Party.
     • Zolan 7.2.1

       20 October 2014 at 12:37 pm

       Ok, I forgot Ohariu was actually winnable by the Left, rather than just a choice between UF and National.
8. Papa Tuanuku 8

   20 October 2014 at 9:59 am

   I find the approach of this post a bit self defeating.

   It’s not about the green voters in ohariu voting for the labour candidate, it’s about the greens not standing a candidate. Standing a candidate, making it easier for Dunn to get in, is a betrayal of the majority of people, especially when you weigh up the crap that Dunn has voted for and gotten away with.
9. William 9

   20 October 2014 at 10:16 am

   “Enough already, time for the Left to use the same tactics as the Nats… ”

   Of course the opportunity to use those tactics is probably three years away. In the meantime there’s changes that could be made. Silly Judith is no longer the minister making decisions, surely it makes more sense at this stage to campaign together to have the 2012 MMP Review recommendations implemented.
10. Chooky 10

    20 October 2014 at 10:25 am

    wont hold my breath but strategically speaking the vote for the new Labour leader should be Nanaia Mahuta

    … Mahuta is the one with integrity and broad working class and female and Maori and Polynesian appeal …( ie the old Labour Party before it got rogered by the white middle class boys )

    …and imo she would grow into the job and become a great leader ( she has more parliamentary and flaxroots experience than the other ambitious middle class white boys and she is well qualified with an MA Hons in Social Anthropology…plus she comes from a line of very esteemed Maori with great MANA )

    …if she is not elected as leader …i think a break away Labour Party should be formed in tight coalition with Mana/Int and the Greens ( and Winnie NZF…if he behaves himself)…and the Maori Party ( if willing)

    ….and it will be RIP or bugger this NZ Labour Party
    • Clemgeopin 10.1

      20 October 2014 at 11:10 am

      Very good points, (but I would rather the recalcitrant disloyal leaking louts leave instead).
11. Clemgeopin 11

    20 October 2014 at 10:57 am

    One does not need much intelligence, wisdom or common sense to understand that in order to have a greater chance of being able to form a government under MMP, the left oriented progressive parties MUST contest the seats in a strategic manner in all crucial and marginal seats. There will not be too many of those seats.

    May be about a dozen at the most, but would make a big difference to whether we can form a government or not. The obvious ones at the last election were TTT, Epsom, Ohariu and some Auckland seats. There may be a few other electorates that others here are aware of. The wise heads of the parties, Labour, Greens, IMP and perhaps even NZF should get together well before the next elections and work out possible seat arrangements for mutual benefit to ensure success in forming the government. There is no shame in working cooperatively in an MMP environment so that votes are not foolishly split in crucial electorates. National have realised this basic imperative. Time for other parties to follow suit in their own interest.

    It would be a worthwhile for number crunchers to look at the results of the recent election in each seat and identify the possible crucial electorates for this purpose for the next election in 2017.
    • Chooky 11.1

      20 October 2014 at 11:17 am

      +100 Clemgeopin ….. to 10.1 and 11
12. Tiger Mountain 12

    20 October 2014 at 11:35 am

    Labour put a good heave into Te Tai Tokerau’s West Auckland end, something they did not manage in various general seats, so it came from influential levels.

    Keith Locke’s 5 cents…
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/20/the-politics-of-electorate-accommodations/
    • Chooky 12.1

      20 October 2014 at 12:12 pm

      +100 Tiger Mountain…..thanks for that …really good article by Keith Locke and analysis by Graeme Edgeler of the Legal Beagle blog

      …a Left coalition could have won that Election… despite the onslaught of the right wing msm and dirty PR attacks !

      ….pathetic that Labour etc couldnt get their strategic act together like the right wing
13. Watching 13

    20 October 2014 at 12:14 pm

    boldsirbrian said: Labour also has the power to make this term, Dunne’s last

    No – it will be the Nats who kill off Dunne in 2017.

    Understand what happen in Oharui this election is that Dunne only got 4k odd party votes & created a parliament overhang of 121 seats.
    There was no real benefit to the Nats, Key understood this, and Dunne didn’t even bother presenting his wish list to Key. Sure he got his Ministerial job but there is no UF policy included – unlike act

    So what would have happen if the Nats party voters had also voted for the Nats candidate in Oharui.
    – We would have a 120 seat parliament.
    – The redistribution of party votes (4k) is so small that it has negligible impact on the party vote percentage.
    – The Nats would now have 61 seats – by my calculations – but its ok to correct this assumption if I have it wrong. Even if I am wrong the Nats will still be 60/120 – not a majority but closer

    So what would have happen if the Labour candidate vote has ousted Dunne:
    – We would have a 120 seat parliament.
    – Little would not be contesting the Labour leadership & would be replaced by Anderson – what would the benefit be? with no increase in numbers.
    – Anderson would be a one term electorate MP in a tough environment – as the combine Dunne/Hudson electorate votes does suggest it’s solid Nat country.
    – Labour no longer has Dunne to remind the public of Keys election deals

    Karol’s comments are worth reading – because if you do something it doesn’t mean a particular outcome will follow. Like in sport or negotiations the other side (if prepared) will also adapt if you change.
    • Colonial Rawshark 13.1

      20 October 2014 at 12:48 pm

      No – it will be the Nats who kill off Dunne in 2017.

      Your reasoning is flawed.

      Dunne still represents an *additional* support MP for the NATs, while National still gets all the MPs due to them from their high party vote.

      Therefore the NATs will keep Dunne around for 2017, 2020, 2023,…
14. McFlock 14

    20 October 2014 at 1:12 pm

    The rotten boroughs are an aberration. They’ll disappear as soon as national trends away from the monolith party it currently is.

    Epsom and Ohariu are a result of the fact that damned near a quarter of eligible voters chose to note vote. The Left joining the nats in playing silly buggers with the system is not goint to improve that statistic, and that’s the statistic that hurts the Left.

    Some of it is general apathy, but I think a lot of it is Russell Brand-style active disengagement. And that lets the bastards win.
    • blue leopard 14.1

      20 October 2014 at 1:29 pm

      All left-wing parties made it pretty clear that had they got into power they would be addressing the rules that allow for this ‘rotten borough’ phenomenon to occur.

      Ignoring the effects of these ‘rotten’ strategies and continuing with a strategy that allows the parties playing these ‘rotten’ strategies to win power, is getting the left going nowhere and fast.

      Once a left-wing government finally wins power, can you just take time to picture how much time and energy is going to have to be spent simply reversing the damage that is being created by these National governments? The more this goes on, the less progressive approaches will be able to be put into place when progressives finally get into parliament. If no improvements are felt by the general public, then the chances of the progressives being voted out quickly again, are actually quite high.

      Had the left chosen to meet the ‘rotten’ strategies with some of their own – the problem of ‘rotten boroughs’ could well have been being addressed in the next year.

      I just don’t see that forgoing ‘rotten’ strategies when it allows the ‘rotten’ strategies to continue for longer is a very sound conclusion to draw.
      • McFlock 14.1.1

        20 October 2014 at 2:24 pm

        Look, it’s the age-old dilemma of whether lowering oneself to the standards of the openly corrupt will be justified by the advantage it might give one.

        That’s predicated on two assumptions, though: that being openly corrupt will give one the same advantage, or at least achieve a desired outcome; and
        that the desired outcome will justify the means by which it was achieved.

        In this case, the first is extremely doubtful, to my mind. The second is similarly a bold call to make.
        • Colonial Rawshark 14.1.1.1

          20 October 2014 at 2:33 pm

          although utilising one of the most obvious aspects of MMP that all parties voted for during electoral reform i.e. vote splitting is hardly a lower or corrupt standard.

          Problem is of course is that Labour has made a rod for their own back because that is how they have been portraying it for years…
          • Tracey 14.1.1.1.1

            20 October 2014 at 2:38 pm

            I agree its their holier than thou stance which now bites them but I honestly think its cos too many in their strategy are still believing discrediting left and right will make them the biggezt party… despite all evidence to the contrary.
          • blue leopard 14.1.1.1.2

            20 October 2014 at 2:53 pm

            Good point CR

            I think technically it can correctly be called corrupt because it is a corruption of the original purpose of the rule, which I assume was that if someone is locally supported strongly enough, they deserved to have their party vote represented in parliament.

            …actually it is a bit of a dumb rule from the outset, now that I have attempted to understand it’s purpose… 🙁

            Have I missed something?

            Oh! I guess what I have missed would be: allowing a way for a smaller party to gain representation because the threshold is pretty high. (i.e. a way to bypass the high threshold was built into the system)
          • McFlock 14.1.1.1.3

            20 October 2014 at 3:16 pm

            “Vote splitting” is choosing the best party to vote for, and then the best person as electorate MP, where the best candidate does not belong to one’s preferred governing party.

            What goes on in Ohariu and Epsom is the opposite to what MMP was supposed to achieve: it is intended that the winning electorate MP determines the government by skewing the composition of parliament with an overhang.

            Further corrupting that system is not likely to result in better government.
          • Chooky 14.1.1.1.4

            20 October 2014 at 5:06 pm

            …and I believe it is not about principles or “lowering oneself” or “corruption” it is all about , as Parker said: “We must be the main party of the left.”…

            …in other words it is about top dog competitive dinosaur WASP attitudes and non- cooperation with other parties on the Left……Labour can not see the bigger picture ….it is completely insular and is still stuck in FPP mentality …..
            • Colonial Rawshark 14.1.1.1.4.1

              20 October 2014 at 5:14 pm

              Labour fully expects to regain its rightful electoral throne around the 35% to 45% mark.

              Pretty much what the NZ Liberals thought at the turn of the 20th century.
              • Chooky …

                20 October 2014 at 5:57 pm

                well they are not doing a good job of it!
              • greywarshark …

                20 October 2014 at 9:48 pm

                The Pretender to the Throne will come again.
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s08AOiRmy3w – The Platters dish it out.
                Very apt.

                Oh-oh, yes I’m the great pretender
                Pretending that I’m doing well
                My need is such I pretend too much
                I’m lonely but no one can tell

                Oh-oh, yes I’m the great pretender
                Adrift in a world of my own
                I’ve played the game but to my real shame
                You’ve left me to grieve all alone

                Too real is this feeling of make-believe
                Too real when I feel what my heart can’t conceal

                Yes, I’m the great pretender
                Just laughin’ and gay like a clown
                I seem to be what I’m not, you see
                I’m wearing my heart like a crown
                Pretending that you’re still around

                Songwriters
                RAM, BUCK
                Note : Humour for TS
                Metrolyrics
        • Tracey 14.1.1.2

          20 October 2014 at 2:36 pm

          the race to the bottom?
        • blue leopard 14.1.1.3

          20 October 2014 at 2:41 pm

          I am not excellently pleased about finding myself promoting ‘dodgyish’ approaches*, however, I would say I was falling into the ‘desired outcomes will justify the means’ category (that you offered)

          …and I did state the justification very clearly: that if Labour got in it sounded like they would remove the coat-tailing which would stop the problem completely.

          So I would appreciate if you acknowledge that the ends is that of stopping the dodgy means being possible!

          Corrupt seems like bit of a strong word to use, yet if voting for an electorate candidate, that you wouldn’t otherwise vote for, in order to get more support for the party you want in power is corrupt, then surely voting in a manner that allows this wrought to continue is a case of [perhaps unintentionally] supporting the corruption?

          *It is debatable whether asking someone to vote in a manner that allows a more principled government to get in is that dodgy. Convoluted: yes Dodgy: debatable.
          • McFlock 14.1.1.3.1

            20 October 2014 at 3:36 pm

            Firstly, coat-tailing is only part of the problem: neither dunne nor seymour brought additional mps in. However, by throwing the campaign in those electorates, national managed to preserve its tight-rope majority.

            Secondly, whether a party that stoops to the others’ level would create a “more principled” government is doubtful. The basic principle becomes that the “principled” party requires worthy intent of others, and because that is a good outcome it can use less-than-worthy intent to achieve that goal. Suddenly the rules apply to other parties, not it it. The new opposition points out the hypocrisy, and becomes even dirtier when it gets in power next time. Or would, but the principle of worthy intent doesn’t apply to the principled party, so… (ethicists and movie buffs might note this hypocrisy from the Batman movie “dark knight”, where batman uses invasive mass surveillance to beat the joker just this once, but destroys it afterwards because it should never be used. Well, until the next “just this once” comes along, and only by a secretive billionaire with significant personality disorders).

            Thirdly, arguing that not becoming corrupt allows a corrupt government to continue ignores the fact that it simply means that one corruptly-formed regime replaces another.

            But there’s still the more practical point that it assumes that anti-voting by the left will occur in a vacuum. The left fucked up the 2014 campaign somehow, in probably several different ways. The biggest problem was not a few thousand votes in two wealthy and long-term tory electorates, it was 25% Lab 11%Grn. Becoming as corrupt as the tories in two electorates will simply serve to harm real efforts to solve that problem.
            • blue leopard 14.1.1.3.1.1

              20 October 2014 at 8:44 pm

              Your first point poses a real problem for my theory, you are quite correct – removing coat-tailing won’t affect the problem being discussed.

              I might have to revise my views to this:

              The left should continue with the similar strategy as the right with regards to voting for whatever electorate candidate is the most effective to get the left into power until rules change to address the issue over someone gaining, say 0.22% of the vote yet getting to represent the equivalent of 1% of the vote, in parliament.

              Perhaps the threshold should be dropped to 1% while we are at it and then there would be less need for that type of bypassing of the threshold from the outset?

              I am unclear why you are expressing so much concern about ‘corruption’ with regard to voting for a candidate that will get one’s party into power when it is almost semantics to call it corruption from the outset, while you seem to ignore the type of behaviour the Nats have been conducting for years now that would either come under the category of corrupt, unprincipled, damaging or all three.

              I am finding it difficult to argue this point because the point is so blatant I don’t actually ‘get’ what you are objecting to. Apart from maybe the argument that it might not work anyway, which is a bit of a futile one when it can be responded to by ‘why not try and see?’.

              The best thing for me to do, I guess, would be to type a comprehensive list of all the dodgy things that have gone on since National have been in power, so I could jog your memory and then ask you to please weigh up what you think is most unprincipled and corrupt between allowing the terrible actions of this government to continue or voting for a candidate that might actually get these buggers out of power?
              • McFlock …

                20 October 2014 at 9:22 pm

                I know the nats are bad, m’kay?

                If the left drag themselves down to the nat level (trying to game the system just for a margin for error that only counts if the left parties substantially up their support well in excess of that in the first place), it basically shits on the difference between the two blocs and still would leave key in government after the 2014 election. But maybe labgrn would be on 20%:9%, because they’d be even more of a joke than they are now.

                FFS, most of the self-loathing labourites who comment here have a problem with labour caucus members apparently selling out Labour Party principles. All the anti-vote plan would do is provide more ammunition for Labour party schisms – but this time, it would actually be the result of a clear decision to sell out in this electoral cycle. The nats would have a field day.
    • phillip ure 14.2

      20 October 2014 at 5:24 pm

      @ flock..

      ..those brand don’t-vote!-arguments can have some gravitas in a f.p.p.-environment..

      ..but not under mmp…
15. wekarawshark 15

    20 October 2014 at 1:42 pm

    A friend said to me recently that in her group people were confused because they couldn’t see how Labour could win the election with all the small parties on the left in existence (compared to the right). These are people who would probably vote GP and were worried. LOTS of work to be done here on educating people about MMP and how it actually works (these were 20 and 30 somethings).
    • blue leopard 15.1

      20 October 2014 at 2:04 pm

      I actually caught myself thinking that way more than a few times.

      I kept comparing Labour’s polling with National’s and feeling a bit hopeless – like how is the left going to win. I kept forgetting to add in the Green’s or other left-wing parties.

      I think that the polling reports started being a bit better about adding Labour + Green together and comparing it to National (not sure about that), but even so, it required quite a concerted effort to stop comparing solely Labour’s support (30ish) with National’s (47ish).
      • wekarawshark 15.1.1

        20 October 2014 at 2:09 pm

        I think they did get better (and an improvement on 2011). The MSM are daft, but Labour are dafter still. Had they accepted the GP offer of co-operating during the election, the MSM would have had no choice but to add their numbers together.

        The only way that Labour will ever be the government on its own again is if the GP collapses. Ain’t gonna happen, so all elections from now on have to be about coalition govts (and not some pissy We’re Really in Charge but you can tag along thing by Labour).
        • blue leopard 15.1.1.1

          20 October 2014 at 2:13 pm

          Ah! Thanks for the confirmation re improvement in reporting.

          lol re Labour being dafter still +100
    • Colonial Rawshark 15.2

      20 October 2014 at 2:09 pm

      Who have grown up politically in the era of MMP but still don’t get it. Sigh.
      • wekarawshark 15.2.1

        20 October 2014 at 2:11 pm

        I know. I was quite shocked. I’ll have to ask where they get their political news from. I’m guessing some are still watching TV or talking to their parents/aunties/uncles etc.

        It might explain why the GP vote was lower than expected. Too many people thinking that they should vote Labour in order to keep National out (and then too many Labour voters voting for Peters).
        • blue leopard 15.2.1.1

          20 October 2014 at 2:17 pm

          Gosh, I wonder why they would conclude Labour was the only choice in order to keep the Nats out?

          It is not as though that is what Labour were telling everyone, or anything…erhem…
          • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 15.2.1.1.1

            20 October 2014 at 4:04 pm

            It is not as though that is what Labour were telling everyone, or anything…erhem…

            +1,000,000

            Indeed
      • blue leopard 15.2.2

        20 October 2014 at 2:22 pm

        That is why I put in that comment @14.1. It seems to require a concerted effort not to simply compare Labour with National.

        Old habits die hard? And perhaps the way things are reported?

        All I can say, is I only voted in one FPP election, so it is weird – yet I guess Labour has been very much the largest leftwing party in most of those elections, since.
      • Sabine 15.2.3

        20 October 2014 at 2:41 pm

        do they still teach civics in school, or has that been cancelled together with the arts, PE and Home Ed?

        This might explain why the young ones don’t know how their vote will affect the system.

        But in saying that, i really believe that a lot of the young ones simply don’t feel represented by the government (unless they are blue shirts who had young ones in masses at least out west).

        I also know of a few middle aged ones, without children, or not married, etc. that simply saw no reason to vote as none of the policies discussed would have affected them positively in any which way.

        I don’t blame people for not voting, if in Parliament a MP can vote abstain, so should the public come election day.

        I fault the Parties for having Policies that are only geared to the ones that have children (some of us don’t have children), while not addressing the root cause – namely the poverty of the working parents.
        Lifting the minimum wage should have gotten way more spiel than the free doctor visits for kids. Etc etc.
        Compulsory Kiwi/safer without any guarantee of a payout after 40 odd years? Really is there still someone around who thinks that was a good idea? Nothing against the Kiwi safer (i have one), but make the money available every 5 – 10 years. Peoples lives change, stuff happenes and clearly the Kiwi safer will never pay the same amount of interest than the one that is charged on a loan by the bank. etc. etc. etc.

        so really better education in schools to our political process and political history…how many know who John Savage was? And policies that are geared towards the voting public….all of the voting public not as interest groups but as the citizens of a country that will do well if we all keep up our end of this generational contract that binds us.
16. blue leopard 16

    20 October 2014 at 2:30 pm

    Let’s not forget the marvellous tutorial that TVNZ/Q&A/Colmar Brunton supplied to the people of Epsom on how to vote strategically if you wanted National to win:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1408/S00164/qa-colmar-brunton-snap-poll-on-epsom.htm

    That was so good and helpful of them for National

    Not biased on TV anyone?
    • wekarawshark 16.1

      20 October 2014 at 6:30 pm

      that was indeed appalling.
17. Instauration 17

    20 October 2014 at 10:14 pm

    Mea Culpa – sorry.
    Me a Leftie (and residential sphere of consensus x 5) in ECB stragecially voted for Murray to cement ABC (anyone but Colin). Sorry Greg.
    Party vote safe.
    • Instauration 17.1

      20 October 2014 at 10:47 pm

      But then Murray is not bad !
      I’ve asked him one electorate question and one MFA question in the last term.
      The electorate question was addressed adequately and the MFA question was addressed superbly, including a rebuke of the Department, and website update. (Palestine)
      Both questions were addressed in the Christmas holiday “slow time” – can’t ignore this as an electoralist – even me.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS