Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #5: How Hard Is It? (updated)

Public Address

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:46:22 +1300

Discussion from blog post.

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:46:22 +1300

And comments opened. Sorry guys.

Jeremy Andrew

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:53:22 +1300

The voting public is not smart enough to know what is good for them, and must be led to the correct answer by their intellectual and wealthy betters.

Sacha

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:01:43 +1300

What does the Electoral Commission think about this?

Brendon Steen

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:03:35 +1300

Are there no rules against deliberately misleading people about the way voting works? There should be. As you say, they could easily make their point without being misleading.

merc

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:13:10 +1300

Copywriter fail. Why are we even having this referendum again, MMP is not demonstrably badly skewed, is it? I would have liked to see the 4 year term referendum instead.

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:13:14 +1300

What does the Electoral Commission think about this?

I didn't seek comment from it, so I don't know. It's possibly more of an advertising standards things, however.

Sacha

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:13:43 +1300

As you say, they could easily make their point without being misleading.

Lesson learned, then?

merc

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:14:32 +1300

It is definitely an Advertising Standards Commission thing, without question it is misleading advertising.

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:16:59 +1300

Are there no rules against deliberately misleading people about the way voting works? There should be. As you say, they could easily make their point without being misleading.

Maybe.

The Electoral Referendum Act 2010 states that the Electoral Act 1993 applies, with any necessary modifications, to the referendum.

Section 199A?

merc

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:24:33 +1300

I could make a very strong case to have that ad pulled on the basis that there is no arrow leading from the MMP tickbox suggesting your selection terminates there.

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:30:33 +1300

I could make a very strong case to have that ad pulled on the basis that there is no arrow leading from the MMP tickbox suggesting your selection terminates there.

Feel free. I believe the ASA tries to make decisions very quickly during election campaigns, and I imagine they'd apply?

merc

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:35:40 +1300

I retired as a copywriter many many years ago when I learned that...I am not interested in another's guilt because I cannot change it, I am however interested in mine, because I can.
The whole MMP thing is a sideshow, we got it arguably by stealth in my view and?

merc

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:48:58 +1300

Oh dear I just read under the STV points the words, "Very complicated", AFAIK you must substantiate this kind of claim.

Hans Versluys

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:14:30 +1300

And again, no indication of the increase in number of Maori seats under all MMP alternatives. Something that could attract Maori voters to their cause (or rednecks to vote MMP). Missed opportunity.

dave crampton

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:24:26 +1300

I thought exactly the same thing when I first saw the ad and was just waiting for your blog post to point it out. Never disappointed.

Rich of Observationz

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:37:47 +1300

Is there anything around SOEs making policy announcements during an election period. Sounds a bit complicit to me..

Ian MacKay

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:59:41 +1300

I support MMP.
If I just vote in favour of MMP and not tick an alternative, does that make MMP stronger, weaker, the same?
If I did give a second tick to say PV, would that help to undermine say SM?

Steve Barnes

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:05:45 +1300

199A Publishing false statements to influence voters

So, 2 days before the election National must take down its hoardings promising a "A Brighter Future"?. The luminance of the Sun will be influenced by National, a statement of fact that the person knows is false in a material particular.

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:24:33 +1300

I support MMP.
If I just vote in favour of MMP and not tick an alternative, does that make MMP stronger, weaker, the same?
If I did give a second tick to say PV, would that help to undermine say SM?

1. The same.
2. Yes. It would make it?

Geoff Pritchard

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:25:22 +1300

If I just vote in favour of MMP and not tick an alternative, does that make MMP stronger, weaker, the same?
If I did give a second tick to say PV, would that help to undermine say SM?

Casting a vote on the second question does not affect MMP's chances?

Adam Maynard

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:35:40 +1300

Why does MMP require 120 MPs?

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:58:34 +1300

Why does MMP require 120 MPs?

Because, if it has fewer MPs , then either:

1. Electorates will have to be too large, or
2. There will not be enough list MPs to ensure proportionality.

That said, I dispute that FPP can work with 99 MPs (or 120 for that?

Steve Barnes

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:24:30 +1300

MPs have not really crossed the floor against their party in a very long time in New Zealand.

This is something I would like to see more of, you know, a proper Parliament instead of a blatant abuse of power.

At the end of every debate that is not supported?

Adam Maynard

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:24:41 +1300

Thanks, I thought that might be the reason but was wondering if there was some legal requirement for the number of electorates or something.

Steve Withers

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 20:08:27 +1300

I'd recommend voting to keep MMP and make STV your backup choice. It's the only alternative on offer that is remotely proportional....despite the talk of only 3 to be elected for district....which would NOT be proportional. It's still better than one (a.k.a. "PV", which is really just a single-member version?

Jeanette King

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:24:38 +1300

I'd like to keep MMP (with some minor tweaks re thresholds, etc) so my strategy is to vote for keeping MMP and with the second part I'm thinking of voting for FPP on the basis that if we do end up with another referendum with MMP vs the top polling?

izogi

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:30:46 +1300

MPs have not really crossed the floor against their party in a very long time in New Zealand.

Although (I think) they've occasionally had disputes with their parties to the extent that they've left them, or been kicked out, and afterwards started voting more independently. Not to suggest that this?

linger

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:43:25 +1300

Your strategy may have some chance of backfiring given that:
(i) apparently the majority of the electorate support National; and
(ii) FPP is more than fair to major parties, such as National.
Plus the government should be given as little room as possible to stack the deck in the second?

linger

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:47:08 +1300

Did this even happen under FPP?
Not clear what you mean by ?this?.
crossing the floor? Yes ? e.g. Marilyn Waring under Muldoon.
(As National had only a 1-seat majority, this was enough of a threat to provoke Muldoon into calling the 1984 snap election.)
going independent/ forming new parties??

Emma Hart

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:24:29 +1300

going independent/ forming new parties? Not as far as I remember.

(though ... when did Winston leave National?)

Anderton left Labour and formed New Labour well before MMP.

linger

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:15:36 +1300

Right!

From Wikipedia?s page on Anderton:
When Anderton disobeyed party instructions to vote in favour of selling the Bank of New Zealand (which Labour had explicitly promised not to do), he was suspended from caucus. In April 1989, believing that Labour was beyond change, Anderton resigned from the party. [?]?

Tom Semmens

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:13:17 +1300

Jesus, I have heard that Jordan Williams and he's the most glib snake oil salesman I have ever heard. He is the sort of guy who would have you counting all your fingers after shaking hands with him.

The Shirtcliffe funded anti-MMP campaign was intellectually dishonest and relied on the?

Graeme Edgeler

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:56:58 +1300

Did this even happen under FPP? The earliest ones I remember were in the early MMP years.

There were occasional votes where MPs cross the floor, under both MMP (Donna Awatere-Huata on Maori seats, Taito Phillip Field on Civil Unions), and FPP (Marilyn Waring on nuke ships(?)), but these have?

Graeme Edgeler

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:00:57 +1300

I?d like to keep MMP (with some minor tweaks re thresholds, etc) so my strategy is to vote for keeping MMP and with the second part I?m thinking of voting for FPP on the basis that if we do end up with another referendum with MMP vs the top polling?

Paul Campbell

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:30:29 +1300

Not clear what you mean by ?this?.crossing the floor? Yes ? e.g. Marilyn Waring under Muldoon.(As National had only a 1-seat majority, this was enough of a threat to provoke Muldoon into calling the 1984 snap election.)going independent/ forming new parties? Not as far as I remember.

To be fair?

Rich of Observationz

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:57:16 +1300

Yes, the UK parties (including the Liberals. in fact, especially the Liberals) are very broad coalitions. We in NZ also don't have the dividing issues that UK politics has around the EU.

tussock

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:01:32 +1300

They're not trying to get that one right, eh. It's as much of a lie as you can reasonably tell about every option but the one they want. Like every other privately funded add in existence.

I mean, STV's complicated for innumerate literate people with strong opinions I guess. 99?

Steve Barnes

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:59:28 +1300

if we wanted that sort of independence in New Zealand (which is what the anti-MMP crowd says is good about FPP/SM) then we?d need a lot more MPs (so that the executive and patronage couldn't extend far enough to overwhelm an independent caucus).
I can't quite see your logic here,?

Graeme Edgeler

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:04:37 +1300

I can?t quite see your logic here, surely the anti MMP crowd want executive control and to neuter the independence of independents and small parties?

People who oppose MMP do so for a number of different reasons.

Some, like Ruth Richardson, oppose it because it means governments cannot be decisive?

Steve Barnes

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:22:49 +1300

Yes, I can see what you meant now.
I suppose I am a little off topic, I was thinking in the broader term of the way Parliament functions rather that how we elect them. However, the fact that FPP can be seen as entrenching power with the larger parties and?

Kyle Matthews

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:46:12 +1300

The current system allows opposition by filibuster which only has the effect of slowing down the passage of a bill, not developing it.

Not really. Any government legislation can't be filibustered just by moving into urgency. And private bills filibustering is limited, as Labour's attempts to stop VSM found out.?

Sacha

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:26:02 +1300

the way Parliament functions rather that how we elect them

It hasn't been adjusted enough to match MMP, let alone some of the other decision-making traditions this nation's cultures know.

DeepRed

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:29:00 +1300

Not really. Any government legislation can?t be filibustered just by moving into urgency. And private bills filibustering is limited, as Labour?s attempts to stop VSM found out.

The same thing happened with the Clark Govt's repeal of the Employment Contracts Act in its 1st term – the filibustering was a?

Steve Barnes

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:40:22 +1300

the filibustering was a symbolic gesture rather than an actual gridlock tactic.

Exactly, it is one step up from "We don't like this bill". There's little else you can do if the Government benches have the numbers and the vote is compulsory, ie. whipped.
I have long thought that the?

Graeme Edgeler

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:58:20 +1300

It hasn?t been adjusted enough to match MMP, let alone some of the other decision-making traditions this nation?s cultures know.

It has been adjusted a lot. Proportional representation on Select Committees; the role of the Business Committee; speaking slots; party votes are a particularly big one, but in a number?

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:36:20 +1300

My post has now been updated, noting the Vote For Change has amended its decision tree advertisement, no longer implying that if you vote to keep mmp that you can?t also vote for your favoured alternative, and also providing information about their claims about the number of MPs needed under?