Vote smart: The Maori seats

33 comments on “Vote smart: The Maori seats ”

• Comments are now closed

1. dave 1

   2 November 2008 at 2:50 pm

   If you favour the Maori Party candidate in your seat, and you think you can trust them to support working with a Labour-led government, then go ahead and vote for them

   why? the vote wont even be reallocated. You may as well vote for the Bill and Ben Party or the National party in a seat that they are never going to win – like a Maori Seat (heh)
2. Robin Grieve 2

   2 November 2008 at 3:25 pm

   Yes a clever way to get more votes. It gives those in the Maori seats 2 votes while we white people only get 1. Might work once but will probably signal the death of Maori seats. Also any voting manipulation to undermine the will of the people is undemocratic ( I suppose that is why so popular with an oppressive left wing lot like labour) could be the death of MMP. Yes it could work once but the long term cost will be a return to FPP.

   Anyway why would Maori want labour? It is labour that have got them where they are now and they don’t seem particularly happy about that,it would be different if they could get good healthcare, education, law and order, work, etc. If they vote as they always have they will get what they have always had but if they want a new and decent future they won’t get that from labour or greens.
   Say high to Batman and my condolences how Helen has dumped on him again. When is he going to stand up to her? Be a man Batman!
3. Anita 3

   2 November 2008 at 3:28 pm

   dave,

   I think the point kinda missed in the original post is that in seats where Labour has a shot at winning there is an argument, if you believe that the Māori Party will coalesce with LPG, that the best outcome for the LPGM bloc as a whole is for the M candidate to take the electorate votes and for all the party votes to go to L, P or G (but not M).

   Basically the LPGM bloc benefits from the biggest possible Māori Party overhang  they’re free extra disproportionate LPGM seats.

   If you believe the LPGM bloc exists 🙂
4. Steve Pierson 4

   2 November 2008 at 3:29 pm

   Robin. 70 % of Maori say they want Labour. If you can’t understand why, maybe you should get to know some.

   dave. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I’m saying give your candidate to the Maori Party and party vote to Greens or Labour.
5. lprent 5

   2 November 2008 at 3:29 pm

   Dave: I think that your understanding of the MMP and overhangs is quite flawed. In fact I’d say that you’re still thinking FPP.

   It will help any party that hits 5% and doesn’t overhang. In other words any non-micro party that isn’t Act, United Future, Progressive, or the Maori party and is likely to get or exceed the 5% threshold. I don’t think Winston is likely to win Tauranga…

   Since there are still a lot of voters that don’t vote in the Maori electorates, voting tactically there will probably turn the election provided that they use their votes well.

   Of course it isn’t likely to help the Nats… They’d prefer if the maori electorates had a low turnout.
6. Steve Pierson 6

   2 November 2008 at 3:30 pm

   yeah, Anita, I’m not endorsing the Maori Party candidates explicitly because they won’t state a preference for working with the Left.
7. Anita 7

   2 November 2008 at 3:37 pm

   lprent,

   Huh? 🙂

   Arguably an overhang disadvantages every party that doesn’t overhang. Each seat is a smaller proportion of the total number, so is slightly less influential.

   Let’s say a party’s party vote gives them 35 seats  they kinda deserve 35/120 of the influence, instead they’ll get 35/(120+overhang) of the influence.
8. Steve Pierson 8

   2 November 2008 at 3:50 pm

   Anita. your point that the effect on proportionality is small is an important one.

   The difference between 35/120 and 35/125 is only 1% (29% vs 28%)
9. Anita 9

   2 November 2008 at 3:55 pm

   SP,

   What say it’s the difference between the government and opposition benches?

   To echo 08wire for a moment, if NUFAct gets more than half the 120, but LPGM get more than half the 120+overhang, that’s a pretty big deal.
10. lprent 10

    2 November 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Anita: You’re correct – busy day getting ready for e-day

    It will help any party that hits 5% and doesn’t overhang that gets voted for in a overhang seat.
11. gobsmacked 11

    2 November 2008 at 4:01 pm

    Robin said:

    “any voting manipulation to undermine the will of the people is undemocratic”

    Actually, voting IS the will of the people. It’s nothing else but.

    If people freely express their will in a way you don’t like, tough. I don’t like having ACT in Parliament, but if National voters in Epsom are smart enough to “manipulate” the voting, by their free choice, that is a democratic outcome.

    I will bet you anything you like that National’s claim to a Parliamentary majority (“the will of the people”) will depend on their strategy of deliberately NOT winning a seat. Now that is funny.
12. dave 12

    2 November 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Anyway why would Maori want labour?

    Here’s why the Maori Party wouldn’t want Labour. They`d be more likely to get the Maori seats entrenched if they went with Nationa.l

    Helen Clark said today she supports entrenchment of the Maori Seats. Thats why. The Maori Party go with Labour then National already have an official policy of not entrenching the seats and will oppose it. Since Parliament must pass the 75% entrenchment provision with 75% at some point in the process National can and will veto it.

    But…If the Maori Party go with National – and the only reason they would is if they agree (along with all their other demands) to entrench the seats – then Labour must back entrenchment or lose all the Maori seats – perhaps for a very long time.
13. Steve Pierson 13

    2 November 2008 at 4:30 pm

    dave. no. it doesn’t take a 75% majority to entrench legislation. the section of the Electoral Act (s268(1)) that lists the entrenched sections can be amended by simple majority
14. Steve Pierson 14

    2 November 2008 at 4:32 pm

    yeah, Anita, that would be a problem but I doubt it will come up.
15. dave 15

    2 November 2008 at 4:44 pm

    The section of the Electoral Act (s268(1)) that lists the entrenched sections can be amended by simple majority

    Its not that simple, Steve.

    To amend it thus would be unconstitutional s so it will never be amended. That section is our maximum constitutional protection. To amend it you’ll have to amend or suspend standing order 267 under standing order 4 and if anyone ever tries to do that , it will be the biggest outrage Parliament has ever seen. It’ not even worth considering.
16. dave 16

    2 November 2008 at 5:28 pm

    Steve, I misunderstood your earlier comment, sorry. It DOES take a 75% majority to entrench legislation thanks to SO 267, even though the entrenchment provision is in itself is not entrenched.
    267 Entrenched provisions
    (1) A proposal for entrenchment must itself be carried in a committee of the whole House by the majority that it would require for the amendment or repeal of the provision to be entrenched.
    (2) A proposal for entrenchment is any provision in a bill or amendment to a bill that would require that that provision or amendment or any other provision can be amended or repealed only by a majority of more than 50 percent plus one of all the members of the House.

    So, do you want to retract your 4:30pm comment?
17. dave 17

    2 November 2008 at 7:25 pm

    things gone a bit quiet Steve…. has the news just sunk in?
18. lprent 18

    2 November 2008 at 7:39 pm

    dave: If the other ‘lefties’ are like me, then today they’re feeling exhausted from the canvassing, meetings, organizing, and in my case – prep work for e-day.

    I’m just surprised that anyone has time to blog or comment at all. But that probably explains a lower than usual weekend (after yet another record week) with the right populating this weekend (and the creep in of trolls).
19. Akldnut 19

    2 November 2008 at 7:49 pm

    lprent you’re spot on there – been canvassing, delivering and preparing for e-day all week and then the wife got into me bout doing some work at home lol. Now I’m really buggered
20. Ari 20

    2 November 2008 at 7:53 pm

    While I think that voters should be aware of tactical voting options, I’m gonna have to disagree with SP on this one. I think it’s far more ethical to double-tick the Maori Party.

    Granted, I don’t think that it completely jeopardises the system to have an overhang and I think MMP will survive it just like FPP survived governments that did not have the support of the popular vote. But I believe in the principle of proportionality and small parties, and having the left take a lot more advantage from that overhang consistently would really undermine that proportionality.
21. Steve Pierson 21

    2 November 2008 at 7:56 pm

    dave. i wasn’t aware of the SO, still don’t agree with the argument that means the Maori Party should cynically go with National.

    145 comments so far today, dave, that’s compared to 49 on your blog in the last two weeks. so, quiet is relative i guess
22. dave 22

    2 November 2008 at 7:58 pm

    Ari, I totally agree – ps the “right” don’t need to campaign – the elections is won.
23. dave 23

    2 November 2008 at 8:51 pm

    Still don’t agree with the argument that means the Maori Party should go with National.

    Why not? what part dont you agree with?
24. Francois 24

    2 November 2008 at 9:13 pm

    Can you take the ‘Maori’ Party out of the list of ‘Progressive’ party websites until they openly declare their preference for a left-wing government?

    Thanks,
    Francois
25. lprent 25

    3 November 2008 at 12:28 am

    Francois: I put them on the progressive side based largely on their long-term voting record (which is why NZF was never there). Generally their voting record is similar to the greens outside of the specific positions each party exposes as their own. That has been acknowledged by both parties (sorry too tired to dig up links).

    I also limited the parties in the list to those with sitting members. I would have added parties who were over the 3-4% threshold on polls and could have hit the threshold.

    That is a completely arbitrary set of decisions. But there are a *lot* of parties. What I was more concerned about was that I didn’t want to clutter up the screens too much or increase the amount of download time for the site massively. It was mainly there as a convenient way to put in a link to the party website
26. lprent 26

    3 November 2008 at 12:40 am

    akldnut:

    been canvassing, delivering and preparing for e-day all week

    I’m kind of lucky. These days I use my skillset to concentrate on making sure that the code and data for supporting all of those things are as good as I can make them for a number of electorates. It is a pretty effective use of my volunteer activist time (as is this site). Hopefully it will help give the right a nasty shock how efficent the grassroots systems and the e-day systems are at delivering votes.

    The downside is that I never really stop between elections anymore. I just keep working on the systems. But it is mostly fun – my hobby (and work) focus around code and systems

    And my partner has me putting on the open source packages (got to love OpenOffice) for her laptop at present…… 😯 Oh well bedtime.
27. Ari 27

    3 November 2008 at 8:43 am

    Ari, I totally agree – ps the “right’ don’t need to campaign – the elections is won.

    Well, sure, but I think it’d be more helpful to the left if they continued to campaign after shooting themselves in the foot so effectively so many times recently. 🙂
28. Lew 28

    3 November 2008 at 9:42 am

    Steve: Why is it cynical? It seems to me like the risk of short-term pain (derived from general National policy) versus the certainty of long-term gain for Māori voters (if the Nats do indeed support the entrenchment).

    It’s a complicated move, though – the māori party would cede a lot of support to Labour in the Māori electorates, which it would have to earn back gradually if it were to continue dominating those electorates. It would also give Māori electors a chance to see what National are actually about, and (if what most Māori suspect about their policy is true) firm grounds upon which to never vote for them or support them again.

    L
29. no ideaology 29

    3 November 2008 at 10:09 am

    It would appear Helen protecting the Maori Seats into law is a very desperate act to try and make it over the line.

    This would be against the democratic rites of the majority in New Zealand. This will no doubt be seen through by the majority on Election day.

    [the other seats are entrenched under current law. The word is ‘rights’, a ‘rite’ is cultural ceremony. SP]
30. Felix 30

    3 November 2008 at 10:27 am

    Heh. Elections are a democratic “rite” in a sense.

    I’m going to take a stab and say that the ironic misspelling in the name “no ideaology” was completely unintentional.

    Hilarious though.
31. Lew 31

    3 November 2008 at 10:30 am

    no idealogy: How is granting all electoral seats equal protection in law anti-democratic?

    L
32. bill brown 32

    3 November 2008 at 10:43 am

    I was reminded of this post after hearing about Key’s one sentence flip-flop regarding the entrenchment of the M seats.

    Down to < 1 second now, still 6 days to go.

Links to post

1. Did Helen’s fall straighten out her teeth?Here’s Helen : Ahabloging.com: posted on 4 November 2008 at 6:14 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS