This is how you change the Government – electorate vote Goldsmith if you are on the Epsom roll

Written By: - Date published: 1:05 pm, September 11th, 2017 - 32 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, act, budget 2017, campaigning, Deep stuff, democracy under attack, national, Politics, same old national, vote smart - Tags: ,

National has this cosy arrangement whereby it essentially gifts the seat of Epsom to its puppet party ACT. This then gives the right an extra vote in Parliament.  Basically Epsom gets two MPs for the price of one.

The worse ACT polls the greater the benefit of this arrangement.  And given current polling this is indeed a gift to the right.  If the principle is that each vote should be as valuable as every other vote then this arrangement should cease.  But National and ACT are rolling it out again in the hope that the playing field can be skewered in their favour, one more time.

The solution is simple although I know a few people who went through personal anguish at the thought last time.  All people have to do is vote Paul Goldsmith with their electorate vote.  They can then give their party vote to Labour or the Greens.  But if enough progressives vote Paul then ACT can be no more.

These are the results from the last election.

Note how many Nats decided they should give Goldsmith their electorate vote and how Seymour’s majority (4,250) is less than the combined electorate votes achieved by Gender and Wood (6,491).

This time it is a smaller field.

With the lack of independents and the Conservative Party languishing I suspect that a lot of those votes will break against Seymour.  So ridding our Parliament of the ACT party is within progressives’ power.

What is required is for Epsom residents to go into the polling booth, get your voting paper, go to the solitude of the individual booth, extract your pen, look at the list, tick Labour or Green whatever is your preference, then look at the electorate candidate list and tick Paul Goldsmith.

Then leave, go to Church and confess, or go to a pub and have a shot of Whiskey, or go for a long walk, or go to City Mission and wash dishes, just go and do something.

Because you would have done something good for our country.  Even if you have exercised your democratic choice in favour of someone who frankly is quite weird and has a built in hatred of poor people.  He is no different to the other candidate.

Because by your sacrifice the prospects of a progressive Government will be increased.

I know how difficult this will be.  My whanau who live in the electorate confessed that they went into the polling booth with the intent of electorate voting Goldsmith but when it came to the crunch they could not do it.  I understood their pain.

But if we are to rid ourselves of this Government we all have to do what we can.  And the progressive electors in Epsom are in a special place.  Because if they vote Paul Goldsmith with their electorate vote then that abomination that is the ACT Party may be consigned to political history.

And what will be interesting is if National’s polling declines further.  According to Matthew Hooton on Radio New Zealand today if National’s polling dips slightly to 37% then Goldsmith faces the prospect of not being returned to Parliament.  It will be interesting to see what his response will then be.  Does he start actually campaigning for the electorate vote?

32 comments on “This is how you change the Government – electorate vote Goldsmith if you are on the Epsom roll ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. UncookedSelachimorpha 1
    11 September 2017 at 1:12 pm

    Makes perfect sense. If I was in Epsom that is exactly what I would do.

    Go Goldsmith!

  2. Sans Cle 2
    11 September 2017 at 1:26 pm

    I’ve been there, done that and got the t-shirt. It broke my heart not to vote Julie Anne Genter in 2014.

  3. Ad 3
    11 September 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Good writing Mickey.

  4. Ad 4
    11 September 2017 at 1:37 pm

    Sorry for the tangent but National has been exceeding smart with this over multiple terms.

    I hate seeing the Greens so close to Parliamentary death. There is still a chance they exit.

    I’d like to see Shaw get this kind of whiffy Epsom deal with Wellington Central’s Grant Robertson.

    Winston got smart with his Northland seat: NZF are safe.

    Greens are not. They need to rebuild out of this smarter, with deals that gain them security into the long term.

    • DSpare 4.1
      11 September 2017 at 1:57 pm

      A Shaw/ Robertson deal would make sense, but Nelson might be a better spot for a GP/ Labour deal, (given the GP bequest that has to be spent in the area & Nick Smith’s unpopularity). But I imagine that the Ardern Labour-led government will implement the recommendations of the 2012 MMP review (or at least that’s what Shearer said at the time):

      Shearer said that after thousands of public submissions and millions of dollars, National was ignoring the review because it didn’t suit the Government.

      “The Government chucked it all out only because of very narrow political interests, it’s own interests of course, to keep Mr Banks in Epsom and try and bring a few ACT MPs behind him,” he said…

      Labour and the Greens backed the Electoral Commission recommendations but ACT said it did not support them and NZ First opposed lowering the threshold for winning seats in Parliament.

      National also opposed lowering the threshold.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8674192/Governments-MMP-review-response-slammed

      http://www.elections.org.nz/events/past-events-0/2012-mmp-review/results-mmp-review

      • Ad 4.1.1
        11 September 2017 at 2:20 pm

        Nick Smith will never be beaten on his supermassive majority. Total waste doing deals there. He’s not liked in Auckland and in the activist left, but it’s his as long as he wants it.

        • DSpare 4.1.1.1
          11 September 2017 at 3:13 pm

          The combined Labour & GP party vote total for Nelson in 2014 wasn’t so very much less than the National party vote: 14,782 (9,401+ 5,381) to 16,904 and I imagine it will be tighter this year. The problem is the way that Smith picks up split votes from the likes of the Conservatives and NZF – but I feel that is largely dependent on his visibility as a government minister.

          http://archive.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/elect-splitvote-30.html

          Boyack at 48 on the Labour list seems a possible new MP if Labour crack 40%, but with the Māori seat candidates being off the list that might not be possible after all. In any case it seems more likely that Labour might opt to not stand a candidate in a seat they don’t have, than for Robertson to not seek to maximise his electorate vote even at the expense of the party. But then, I might just be biased against him.

          Hopefully this is all academic; as it didn’t happen this election, and if Labour implements the EC’s recommendations, coat-tailing will be eliminated. 4% is still too high for the threshold to my mind though, but there is specific provision in the recommendations for this to be reviewed (with an eye to lowering it); 1% might be too low for many, but even 2% would improve parliament’s representation.

  5. DSpare 5
    11 September 2017 at 1:39 pm

    These are the split votes stats from 2014:

    http://archive.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/elect-splitvote-12.html

    Parker is number 10 on the list, so will get into parliament anyway, Wood is now over in Mt Roskill – electorate voting for Labour in Epsom makes no sense at all this year. In 2014 Wood got 50% & Goldsmith 31% of the 5,045 Labour party votes – hopefully this will be turned around this year. The GP’s 4,706 voters did better with 37% Genter (Coates this election) & 44% Goldsmith.

    The problem is that even if all Labour & GP voters strategically vote, National had 23,904 party votes in 2014 (hopefully fewer this time); 60% Seymour 30% Goldsmith. Strangely though; of the mere 1,023 ACT party votes, only 76% electorate voted for Seymour & 18% went for Goldsmith. Why??

  6. AB 6
    11 September 2017 at 1:52 pm

    From Stuff:
    “Egyptian archaeologists have discovered a tomb of a prominent goldsmith who lived more than 3,000 years ago, unearthing statues, mummies and jewellery in the latest major find …”
    Hmmm – mummies and jewellery – sounds like Epsom and sounds like a resurrection for Goldsmith.
    Go you good thing Paul G – emerge from the dust of ages triumphant!

  7. Delia 7
    11 September 2017 at 1:58 pm

    Just take your Labour vote and give it to Paul, I would because I am tired of the damaging Seymour with his dislike for teachers, and his complete naivety about the real world just sitting pretty there, because National put him there.

  8. Karen 8
    11 September 2017 at 1:59 pm

    Good post Mickey – just one point that you alluded to but didn’t spell out – Act are currently polling so low that if Seymour wins Epsom the Nats will get an overhang seat .

    • mickysavage 8.1
      11 September 2017 at 5:06 pm

      Thanks Karen. Perversely the worse ACT does in the party vote the more valuable the seat is. Interesting that they seem to have given up trying to get even a second MP.

      Although in 2002 when the National vote started to collapse it went in many unusual directions.

      • Chris 8.1.1
        11 September 2017 at 8:37 pm

        I understand the attraction of ousting ACT altogether, but if there’s no chance of ACT getting a second MP, doesn’t voting for Goldsmith leave the numbers the same? Are you suggesting that the benefit of this strategy is really about removing the toxic extreme right influence, rather than numbers in the House?

        • mickysavage 8.1.1.1
          11 September 2017 at 8:40 pm

          Right now ACT will get a disproportionate amount of say if they get anyone elected. If they hit 5% of the vote then all strength to them but otherwise it is a rort.

          • Chris 8.1.1.1.1
            11 September 2017 at 8:45 pm

            But if we assume ACT can only ever get one MP, will getting rid of them in the way you propose mean a nat-led government will have less votes in the House? Or for that matter, less chance of forming a government?

            • McFlock 8.1.1.1.1.1
              11 September 2017 at 8:56 pm

              no.

              Under MMP, they count the electorate MPs the supplement up to a parties proportion of the list vote.

              So Goldsmith winning an electorate would just kick a nat list MP out of parliament.

              But Seymour winning puts that nat list MP back in, and gives ACT an electorate MP.

              That’s why the nats have endorsed ACT in loads of elections. Extra vote, because it’s not like ACT will go with Labour.

            • Andre 8.1.1.1.1.2
              11 September 2017 at 9:13 pm

              It depends on exactly what the vote numbers are for all the parties, but National gifting Epsom to ACT gives the Nat-ACT bloc one extra seat in most cases, or at worst if they’re really unlucky the ACT seat comes at the expense of the last Nat list seat.

              If the nationwide vote for ACT falls below about 0.4%, then ACT being gifted Epsom becomes an overhang seat, a total freebie (like Dunne’s seat is for the the 2014-2017 term).

              If the nationwide vote for ACT falls between about 0.4% and 1.2%, then the St-Lague formula allocates one seat to ACT and the ACT vote isn’t wasted. This one seat will come at the expense of one of the other parties being allocated list seats, and since it depends on the exact number of votes for each party that meet the threshold for inclusion, it’s pretty much random which party it comes from. In this election, Labour, Greens, NZFirst, National are all likely to get list seats, and maybe the Maori Party too. So there’s a 20% to 25% chance gifting Epsom to ACT will cost National one list seat so the Nat/ACT bloc comes out even, and a 75% to 80% chance that some other party hostile to the Nats loses one list seat.

              If ACT go over about 1.2%, then Seymour would coat-tail in a second ACT MP.

              So all around, gifting Epsom to ACT is at worst a come-out-even proposition for the Nats, and in most cases gains them one (or more) votes in Parliament.

        • cathy 8.1.1.2
          11 September 2017 at 8:55 pm

          no, if Act get the seat, they get into parliament. but they don’t have enough party votes in fact to earn any seat, so the seats allocated to the combined party votes of the other parties must add up to 100% ie 120 seats. so Act has an additional seat which means there are 121 seats. this means National has the advantage of all their party vote seats plus an additional hangover puppet seat and their epsom candidate gets a list seat.

          if their candidate wins the seat that additional seat doesn’t happen.

          the thing i detest is that seymour has about .1% party vote which entitles him to less than nothing, so he’s there courtesy of national, but he pontificates on and expresses his toxic views with a real sense of entitlement, just as if he was a real mp

  9. Brian 9
    11 September 2017 at 3:49 pm

    Already my intention, though, I fancy I will feel queasy all through the process.

  10. esoteric pineapples 10
    11 September 2017 at 4:41 pm

    It’s not that hard to vote for someone other than the party you support in an electorate seat for strategic reasons. I’ll be giving the Green Party my party vote but I will be giving my electorate vote to the Labour candidate as he has a good chance of beating out the National candidate at this election. While having a Labour MP will not alter the number of Labour seats in Parliament, it means that the Labour point-of-view will constantly be in front of the public instead of the National point-of-view. The value of this cannot be under-estimated. The Green candidate has no chance of winning the seat and he is being promoted by the Green Party this time round as this helps in raising the Green profile during the campaign. In the last election he sometimes didn’t get invited to meetings or to give his opinion in the media as he was not considered to be a serious challenger.

  11. mikesh 11
    11 September 2017 at 4:46 pm

    I see that Future NZ´s Wellington Central candidate is now standing in the Ohariu electorate instead. I wonder if Brett Hudson will be asking his supporters to vote for Bale Nadakuitavuki.

  12. Carolyn_nth 12
    11 September 2017 at 4:48 pm

    Epsom voter here. I have no compunction about doing my left wing duty. I understand that most everywhere else the party vote is what counts.

    The system should be changed to end the coat tail rort, as suggested by the commission. But the dodgy Nats rejected the idea cos, want an extra MP for themselves.

  13. Carolyn_nth 13
    11 September 2017 at 7:34 pm

    Retrieved from my letter box this evening: a leaflet with big bold letters saying

    “DON’T LET DAVID SEYMOUR BRING ASSISTED SUICIDE TO NEW ZEALAND”

    Lots of stuff about why assisted suicide is a bad thing. Leaflet ends with:

    “TAKE ACTION
    Vote strategically – DON’T vote for David Seymour or ACT
    ….
    Authorized by R. Joubert 14/121A Selwyn Street Onehunga, Auckland”

    • Nick 13.1
      11 September 2017 at 7:58 pm

      Yes Carolyn_Nth my friend lives in Epsom and she got one of those assisted suicide drops too.
      She usually votes National but I have persuaded her to go Labour Green and she likes Jacinda. So reading this post, I guess the strategy is vote Natz in her electorate. A question, will this strategy backfire in any way ? I ask because she might get confused if i tell to vote Natz again lol.

      • Carolyn_nth 13.1.1
        11 September 2017 at 8:11 pm

        The idea for those on the left is to party vote Labour/Green, but give the electorate vote to Goldsmith (a National Party candidate).

        It won’t backfire voting for Goldsmith. If he gets in on the electorate vote, it won’t mean any extra MPs for National – it only means an extra MP to align with National if Seymour wins the electorate vote.

    • Ross 13.2
      11 September 2017 at 9:26 pm

      Seymour’s assisted suicide bill is about the only useful thing he has done during his time as MP. Ironically, it might cost him votes and his seat.

  14. Hanswurst 14
    12 September 2017 at 1:38 am

    In Epsom, only an electorate vote for Paul Goldsmith is a vote against David Seymour. A vote for any other candidate is a vote for David Seymour. That is how to look at it. That, and an electorate vote for Paul Goldsmith, and only an electorate vote for Paul Goldsmith, is a vote to change the government.

    If one thinks that way, I imagine it’s a lot easier to vote for Goldsmith.

    • Ross 14.1
      12 September 2017 at 6:23 am

      Alas, some Green and Labour voters won’t be able to stomach the thought of voting for the National candidate, so Seymour will probably get back in.

      • Hanswurst 14.1.1
        12 September 2017 at 6:27 am

        They should each take a photo of Seymour’s gormless, grinning mug into the voting booth with them, and try looking him in the eye while not ticking Goldsmith. If they can still manage to put the tick somewhere else, they’re made of sterner stuff than most.