Cracker by Damian Christie

Read Post

Cracker: Mr Transparent

46 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Craig: I don't see how Christian's living in London implies that he supports the undemocratic UK electoral system?

    I don't know that he does, but one would think the United Kingdom is rather unstable moral high ground to affect any kind of political or moral superiority over those dumb fascist Yanks. Get back to me when Gordon Brown is elected Prime Minister in his own right, someone - anyone - is prosecuted over the 'cash for peerages' scandal, and election turn-out increases for once.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12040 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Damian, you asked the wring question about MMP. The question should be:

    "Do you want your vote to count in the next election?".

    And, sadly, Do you know what MMP or FPP or STV is?

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6281 posts Report Reply

  • Jo S,

    With regards to people not knowing what political acronyms are, I wonder how much of it is sometimes being put on the spot.
    I was sitting here going "I'm sure I know what STV stands for ..." until a very quiet voice from the back of my brain whispered "..single transferrable vote", which I'm still not absolutely convinced is right.

    Sometimes I think people would rather plead ignorance than be wrong... especially in public

    is it autumn yet? • Since May 2007 • 80 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Sometimes I think people would rather plead ignorance than be wrong... especially in public

    Hmmmm. Tautological thought? Have you considered becoming a National party speech writer? ;-)

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4931 posts Report Reply

  • Damian Christie,

    Aside from Winston - and remember he was around a looooong time before MMP - I think MMP has worked pretty well. Parties have negotiated confidence and supply over key issues, such as Kiwibank, Buy NZ Made campaign etc, and whether you think they're daft or not, at least some proportion of the people agreed with and voted for those policies. The fact that MMP is German, and was devised to stop someone like Hitler coming to power again, doesn't make it a bad thing does it?

    If we drop MMP, it won't be to bring in STV. STV was IMHO always the better system, but the MMP pushers had the jump on the campaign, and it became FPP vs MMP, not FPP vs another system. If we dump it, people aren't going to go "fuck, might as well have a crack at another system I have no idea about".

    I'm interested to know how much of the Nats push for the BINDING referendum is pandering to the perceived public appetite, and how much of it is because they too want to return to the days of unbridled power with only 30% of the vote.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1130 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Well, by definition even under MMP the electorate votes of a hell of a lot of people "count for squat" -- because they're either invalid, or cast for unsuccessful candidates. In my own electorate of North Shore - one of the safer National-held seats - 14,453 (or 38.72%) of the electorate vote was 'wasted'. In Otaki, the "wasted" vote was 21,055 - or 54.53%.

    Yes but luckily there's this whole other vote, of which 90%-ish all count. Which would be about twice any FPP campaign.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6208 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    I'd suggest one improvement to MMP would be abolish dual voting, so one's party vote went to the party of the chosen electorate candidate. With maybe a reverse threshold as well (so an electorate candidate would have to get 5% of the national vote as well as a majority in the seat to be elected).

    Or, more radically, have only list MPs.

    Or, to get complex, a system of regional lists with the number of elected MPs being corrected to achieve proportionality.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4467 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Ashby,

    I'd suggest one improvement to MMP would be abolish dual voting, so one's party vote went to the party of the chosen electorate candidate.

    No, no and again, no. It would for one thing kill the independent candidate stone dead for all time. All the minor parties would also disappear overnight. It would effectively disenfranchise a lot of people. Under MMP if you think the candidate for your chosen party is a dickhead you can vote for someone else yet still support 'your' party and vice versa.

    Here in Scotland, despite vowing never to vote Labour again (Iraq), I gave a personal vote to a Labour chappie in our Scottish Parliament electorate because of his principled stand against and voted for another party in the party vote. Your system removes that flexibility entirely and would in effect turn electorate candidates into list members.

    Dundee, Scotland • Since May 2007 • 425 posts Report Reply

  • rodgerd,

    If voters vote National without paying attention to policy, simply because they want change, then they'll get a democracy they deserve, much like U.S. voters.

    That would be fine, but I'm concerned I'll get the government they deserve, too.

    t people occasionally got to vote in a government they wanted. Wasn't that what we did in '84?

    Oh, right. People voted for Roger Douglas in '84, did they? Really? Sure about that?

    And they never actually voted for Muldoon, although they ended up with nine years of the bastard. Those of us stuck with the under-35 tax have a few choice words for that idea, I suspect.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 512 posts Report Reply

  • rodgerd,

    I'd suggest one improvement to MMP would be abolish dual voting, so one's party vote went to the party of the chosen electorate candidate.

    Terrible idea. Harry Duynhoven routinely got in with a huge wodge of National voters who vote for him because they think he's a great MP, but want to vote for a National government in the party vote.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 512 posts Report Reply

  • Malcolm,

    MMP has real problems - but so do all systems. I think MMP has at least made both major parties more centrist. As right-leaning centrist myself, I think that's a pretty good thing.

    Since Apr 2007 • 69 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Austin,

    I'd hate to lose MMP go, with the ability to vote party and candidate, having now lived in the UK for a bit. The idea that governments can rise or fall based on a few dozen electorates and that the rest can go to hang seems a silly basis for electoral selection. However I guess with the current polls and Glasgow East / Crewe several hundred electorates may be at risk that usually wouldn't be.

    But the very idea that because my seat is a rather safe Tory seat (and the local rep seems well enough) that I effectively sit this one out is a little repugnant after voting in NZ. I might well want the Tories in power, or the Lib Dems to gain a couple more seats, or the UKIP to bring us out of Europe (lol) but if I vote for anyone but the former my vote is going to be just a symbol and nothing more.

    London • Since Nov 2006 • 896 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    I'd suggest one improvement to MMP would be abolish dual voting, so one's party vote went to the party of the chosen electorate candidate.

    Hell NO! I'll be voting for my National electorate puppet (I think it's Richard Worthless again) this year, because I live in Epsom and it's either swallow that fish or waste my vote, and contribute to Rodders (and by extension Act) possibly getting into Parliament.
    However, I have no desire to see National in power. Keeping Act out is one way of trying to ensure that, but it doesn't mean I want them to get my party vote too. Under your plan, I'd lose the ability to try and keep both National and Act out because voting one way on one vote would automatically cast my other vote the same way.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3910 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Ashby,

    Rodgerd, selectively editing my words to make them look like I didn't say what you did is dishonest in the extreme.

    Besides you completely missed the point, while it is true that under FPP you could get into power on 35% ish of the vote, the 35% who did vote for the govt got the govt they voted for. Whereas under MMP you vote for a party and they may be in govt but constrained/pushed by coalition partners you didn't vote for. I'm sure Labour voters didn't vote in favour of Winston Peters as Minister for External Affairs.

    Have you got it yet or are you going to just rant some more?

    Dundee, Scotland • Since May 2007 • 425 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    So, are you saying it's preferable to be governed by a single party that 65% didnt vote for than a coalition that 48% didnt vote for?

    35% of the people might like that, but that seems less like democracy to me? Also, the 48% might be more comfortable that the main party they didnt vote for IS constrained at least a little....

    If the coalition was so fractious and unstable that nothing got done, like in some parts of the world, I can see why that would be bad... but so far, we havent had that experience in NZ.

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Damian Christie,

    Hell NO! I'll be voting for my National electorate puppet (I think it's Richard Worthless again) this year

    While I completely understand why you'd do that Matthew, isn't it sad that we have to think like that, rather than actually voting for the candidate we'd like to see win, no matter what their chances?

    Anyway, if I lived there I'd probably vote for Rodney simply because of the colour he contributes to the political landscape. As compared to say, Richard Worth (who tried to be my friend on Facebook the other day...ew). But of course that's just my opinion, and I can see many many reasons why you'd vote the way you do.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1130 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    I'd suggest one improvement to MMP would be abolish dual voting, so one's party vote went to the party of the chosen electorate candidate.

    Ugh... think Peter Dunne & United Future.

    Since Nov 2006 • 2074 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    So, are you saying it's preferable to be governed by a single party that 65% didnt vote for than a coalition that 48% didnt vote for?

    Well, Fletch, we don't vote for coalitions either - no matter how hard the punditocracy try to game 'em before hand.

    If the coalition was so fractious and unstable that nothing got done, like in some parts of the world, I can see why that would be bad... but so far, we havent had that experience in NZ.

    From a certain POV, the government that governs least, governs best. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12040 posts Report Reply

  • Brent Jackson,

    Damien Christie wrote :

    While I completely understand why you'd do that Matthew, isn't it sad that we have to think like that, rather than actually voting for the candidate we'd like to see win, no matter what their chances?

    That's what STV would do for us ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 421 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    Well, Fletch, we don't vote for coalitions either - no matter how hard the punditocracy try to game 'em before hand.

    You're right, we dont vote for coalitions.... but the smaller the portion of voters who feel disenfranchised by the result, the better in my mind....

    48% thinking "i didnt vote for these idiots" is (usually) better than 65% thinking the same....

    I'm not saying it's perfect..... but I do think it's better than FPP.

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Well, Fletch, we don't vote for coalitions either - no matter how hard the punditocracy try to game 'em before hand.

    Well in some elections you do to an extent, if the parties have declared them beforehand - '99 Labour and Greens for example.

    But under FPP you don't vote for parties either, you vote for a candidate and just know that they're a member of a party. So technically, in the one FPP post election that I voted for, the country got at most about 0.5% or so of what anyone voted for.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6208 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.