The votes lost by supporting such a system.
I'm suggesting the big parties might possibly go for it, which means their PR machines get on board. Ideally they both get on board and there's no fight about it at all.
My take is the big parties have the option to point out that they can stop bending to the will of the little ones by getting more of them in to pick through. Labour can go anti-Green and National can go anti-ACT. That's probably a vote gainer for them anyway, give or take.
Labour can quote that they only have to take the Green's good policies then, so as not to lose any green-leaning reds. Ditto for Nat and ACT.
The people who only vote for either National and Labour (or stay home) should take any potential future difficulties easier if it directly cuts ACT and UF and NZF and Green off at the knees. The question would be on swing voters who already flop toward whoever TV talks about that cycle. If they all jumped on Winston running an anti-tiny-party campaign that could block everyone. Hard to know.
Biggest difficulty would be getting the little parties on board. Some of them are really only a handful of people between elections. Have them set up with alternate sets of adds to run in the last week of the campaign.
The whole thing must be quite a lot smaller in reality. People paying a few billion in taxes that they never actually pay and have it show up as both tax and spending in government books is ... weird. Do they even keep track of where their actual tax comes from, rather than just the theoretical stuff?
To summarise, you target the big two. Threaten an arbitrary swing against the due winner and hope to get both of them to commit before the election so you don't even have to deliver. There's benefit for them in it by weakening the smaller parties, giving them more options after our usual tight elections.
Wouldn't be any of this urgency nonsense though, so I guess the ascendant fascist trend in National may not bite. They still dream of 51% after all.
If my take on this is correct, what is your solution?
I'm not sure. Let's see if I can essay one up.
The low turnout we're getting should scare the crap out them, but they trust their PR spending to keep any populist upstart from grabbing all the stay-homes and taking over. I wouldn't put it past an extremely rich person to out-PR them still, but at the moment they all get a better ROI buying policy from National.
NZF and Greens benefit as the third and fourth parties (with a Christian group to replace NZF eventually, maybe). They'd be weakened by more small parties existing, have to be. Four parties is what 5% gives us, and with 3 or 4% we should stabilise at five parties with a swinger in the center. At least, that's the international trend long term.
If we do fall back to four parties permanently, two left and two right, it's much the same as the old FPP deal. You either get Nats+1 or Labs+1.
Where was I? Right. How do you get the politicians who think they're sneaking unpopular policies through via the old 2-party system in drag to vote for a system that would deliver a more representative government and may fragment their old power blocks?
I guess you try to start a movement which can get the non-voters off their ass. Not for yourself, but for one of the big two. Deliver an extra 100k(?) votes to the first party who'll fix the system and let everyone get representation, and none to either if they refuse. A carrot for the one who'd lose otherwise. Get the no-seat minor parties onboard, that should give you a few tens of thousands to start with, not that they'd all agree.
You'd need some real money though, because the PR battle would be legend, and it's hard to fight for giving small minorities a voice, because they are small minorities and thus have no voice.
And realistically, it won't get much better for them even with a seat or three in parliament. Small groups have less choice of people to front, and are never going to look as good on anything they talk about as a result (imagine one random Labour MP having to front everything), and they'd be highly unlikely to get much policy through (unless it's widely popular stuff the big two or four can't sponsor for fear of their extreme wings, like not hitting your kids).
Why do you support ‘no party vote threshold’
Hi, I'm not Graeme, but I do support the very low party vote threshold (of about 0.8 seats, or a 1.4 first divisor, as you will). Anyhoo, to me it's a pretty damned simple case now of the majority stealing votes from the minority to give themselves more power to push through legislation without popular support. Like selling state assets or sea-floor drilling and mining.
The current system also gives more power to the small parties who do happen to get into power. It's much easier to run a minority government when there's more of them to choose between to find each majority, play them off against each other, and minority government is what kiwis keep voting for (and have done basically forever).
More parties would leaves the little ones free to vote for their own policies, rather than get tied up in coalition compulsions.
When a party grabs 3% of the vote now, those seats instead go two to National and one each to Labour and Green. That's not right. At all. What happens is that people who want to vote for those parties (Alliance, ALCP, Christian flavour of the month, Hunting and Fishing, whatever) end up mostly staying home because the polls say it's hopeless, giving us these low turnouts. We had 10% of the electorate not turn up specifically because they thought their vote wouldn't count. That's 12 seats. That should count, even if they're split between five or six parties. Even if half of them still vote for Labour and National.
You can't just ignore those people's will because you disagree with them or are worried it'll be harder for the majority to bulldoze policy through anyway. Or obviously you can, because you're the majority and that's what happens now. You shouldn't ignore them though. It's rude and presumptuous.
Bla, bla, bla.
Shorts, loose, big pockets, and covers the knees for warmth. Polyprop longs under in very cold weather. Bike top, often with a loose long-sleeve open-front shirt over for sun/wind protection and because it's brighter than my bike tops. Flouro overjacket in dim light or night rides. Cheap-ass shoes.
Gloves, fingerless. Silly pretend-helmet, legal. Light, awesome. Drinks, up to three. Bike, hardtail trail, goes anywhere but the big drops. Off for a week on the trails at Naseby tomorrow. Really must get to bed.
Seems a lot safer to put more visible parked cars between cyclists and motorists.
It's not. They're getting rid of them in various countries already, the turning vehicles don't see you at all. Safest solution is shared space, no road markings at all, lines just make the drivers act like they own the place.
Thank you. I’m sorry, I chickened out. Also, I need help.
Awesome, now I'm an adult.
But at the same time I/S you seem to be claiming that you have a right to experience and interact the content, which you yourself refer to as product.
You mean like radio, and tv, and libraries, which also contain newspapers and magazines, and the internet (you might have heard of it, it also duplicates all of the above)? Yes, people do have a great many rights to experience and interact with content.
For the most part, people are dead keen to get you to experience their content. They actually pay people to deliver more users to get that experience, with ads. Radio is mad-keen to get you to hear songs for free, and Russel would love a million extra kiwis to read his blog every day.
The one thing the law explicitly forbids those content providers from doing is running programs on my computer without my consent. That's the illegal thing here. Trying to get around my "ad blockers".
And so my right to decide what’s displayed on my site, next to my work, is unimportant? Good to know.
I can see the pictures, for .gif and .jpg and .png and even .bmp, which lets you track traffic and everything just fine at the server level, as does a simple count of page views by IP. What people block with so-called "ad blockers" is programs that try and run on users' computers.
You, Russel, have no right whatsoever to run programs on my computer. None. Zero. Ziltch. Things want to run on my computer, they need to ask my permission, and the default answer is "hell, no". If your business model demands otherwise, you need to rethink it.
Yes, Dotcom's getting people to install a parasite, but at least he's offering people a choice and some clear incentive. You get a stealth one through an ad network and you get nothing.
That's just the police. There's also the courts, the prisons, parole, monitoring and record-keeping. Also, it may be wrong, the police budget is only $1.4 billion per annum, so they'd be using over 7% of their budget on pot.
If that is right, it's pretty clear who's hooked on the marijuana, eh.
11.4% of prisoners are in for drugs or "antisocial", excluding people also charged with "more serious" traffic or violence offences.
51.4% for being "Māori". Well, no, you'd expect some, so only ~40%.