Hard News: Don't bother voting
219 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
I think Rodders might spit the dummy if Winston was invited to the National cabinet table.
-
Giovanni: pentacoalition? I'm holding out for "quincunx".
Heh. But seriously, we had the Pentapartito in Italy for several terms (Christian Democrats, Socialists - don't ask - Liberals, Republicans, Social Democrats), and it was fun fun fun. One summer they even formed a hydra that they themselves called "monocolore frastagliato" - an incredibly baroque way of saying "single-party plus" - but that in other circles was quickly re-dubbed "explosive dissentery". Good times.
FWIW (which is to say, nought point zilch) I would be nervous of Labour forming a five-party coalition that barely made it to 61, with National as the first party in parliament by quite a margin sitting on the opposition benches. The risk of going back to voting early and National winning in a true landslide with a mandate to ditch MMP would be considerable, I fear. I wouldn't be averse to Key trying his and at governing with Hide and Turia and Douglas and his own ship of fools for a bit, on the other hand. I think it would make for good viewing.
-
I'm holding out for "quincunx".
A word you need to take care to pronounce very carefully; unless you're Matthew Hooton, in which case you'd relish the opportunity to mispronounce it in public repeatedly.
-
3410,
BTW, when was the last time Key explicitly ruled out NZF for a Nat-led coalition?
-
Key reiterated today that he still has not trust in Winston Peters. From that position, he can't credibly enter into coalition with NZF.
Then again, perhaps he's prepared to burn credibility if that's what takes to be PM.
-
I was just tangentially advocating ditching or minimising the threshold and leaving everything else untouched.
Low or no thresholds are what allowed Hitler into goverment and brought endlessly unstable governments to places like Italy an Israel. The reason for setting a 5% threshhold like Germany's was that that had delivered stable coalition governments for many years.
-
Low or no thresholds are what allowed Hitler into goverment and brought endlessly unstable governments to places like Italy...
Pant, pant... uhf... sorry, I was in the attic, shifting some boxes.
Anyways, no, that's a myth. Italy had a long, semi-continuous, stable government with the Christian Democrats in power between 1946 and 1992. Beat that with a stick (I know I felt like it).
It's not small parties that make it difficult to form strong, stable governments, anyways: it's the strict proportionality. Give the relative majority party an allotment of bonus MPs, and that will be overcome (not that I'm advocating it, I like strict proportionality). -
Someone suggested that all electorate seats be dropped.
Threshold dropped to 1 or 2% to keep real "fringe folk" out.
Strict adherence to say 120 seat house.
Therefore 51% would definitely mean majority rule. Maori seats would remain? -
Low or no thresholds are what allowed Hitler into goverment
People keep saying this, but its simply not true. Look at their election performance. The Nazi Party gained 6.5% in its first election in 1924. it was in the doldrums for a few years after that, but it gained 18.3% in the 1930 elections, 37.4% and 33.1% in the 1932 elections, and 43.9% in the 1933 elections which finally saw them assume government.
As for Italy and Israel, I think that is far more a result of political culture than the electoral system. Compare it to the Netherlands, which similarly has no threshold, but doesn't have any rela problem with stable government (when a party quits the cabinet, another one joins, and everything just keeps on going)
-
Ian: "fringe folk" are as deserving of representation as anyone else. The only defensible threshold is none at all. Pure St Lague works well in a number of European countries, and we should adopt it here. At the least, it would stop this truly vile tactic on the part of the large parties to try and push smaller ones out of parliament, thus stripping the people who voted for them of representation.
-
Therefore 51% would definitely mean majority rule. Maori seats would remain?
Not if you're getting rid of electorates entirely. But in a list-only system, you can guarantee maori representation without affecting overall proportionality by using a Maori list.
-
The Netherlands is a very prosperous and racially homogenous nation. What makes you think New Zealand's political culture would resemble the Netherlands and not that of Israel?
-
Sue,
But i already voted
i have the ickle cutie sticker and everythingshould i ask for my vote back?
;) -
I/S:
New Zealand is a society that is way more politically polarised than we care to admit. Doing away with the threshold assumes a level of economic, political and social homogenity we simply don't have, and the 5% threshold keeps in check some of the more extremist ends of our political spectrum. I prefer more democracy than FPP, but MMP shouldn't come at the cost of good governance.
After all, history shows that when it boils down to it, people will choose order over law, and no democracy over a surfeit of it.
-
New Zealand is a society that is way more politically polarised than we care to admit. Doing away with the threshold assumes a level of economic, political and social homogenity we simply don't have, and the 5% threshold keeps in check some of the more extremist ends of our political spectrum.
I'm going to have to disagree there, NZ is pretty homogenous politically, compared to most countries I'm aware of (certainly waaaaaay more than my home country). Where are all these radicals on the outside of parliament looking in? Are the destiny church and the socialist workers' party your "extremes"? Is the National Front, that can't compete at the city council level and wouldn't muster an MP regardless of the threshold? Thing is, we do have a 5% threshold and in the last ten years it's kept out the Alliance and a couple of christian parties, in terms of entities that would have achieved representation hadn't been for that barrier. None of them would be considered "extremist" parties anywhere on the planet.
-
Given that the Greens have ruled out a coalition with National and expressed a desire to support a Labour government if possible, I don't think anyone's being overly presumptuous.
Well, ballocks, Russell. I know Duncan Garner doesn't actually like subtleties unless they're covered in melted cheese, but what does "if possible" mean. Why do we just repeal the whole fucking Electoral Act and subcontract the selection of Parliament to pollsters and the all-seeing brown eye of the Fourth Estate?
-
The Netherlands is a very prosperous and racially homogenous nation.
Um, we're a very prosperous nation too, and we're not much less racially homogeneous than the Netherlands.
We're also not occupying an armed and angry group of territories, and no New Zealand Prime Minister has died of non-natural causes whilst in office, nor have any of the political parties fought civil wars.
NZ: more like the Netherlands than Italy or Israel.
-
This is a good time to remind everyone you can have your say on the electoral system, if only the agencies-and-financing side.
-
New Zealand is a society that is way more politically polarised than we care to admit.
Tom: That reminds me of the hand-wringing post-election punditry about how 'polarised' New Zealand was. Oh, fuck-nuts, you mean we had a peaceful but finely balanced general election that didn't result in mass bloodshed, Some people are never fucking happy, are they?
-
Tom:
The Netherlands is a very prosperous and racially homogenous nation. What makes you think New Zealand's political culture would resemble the Netherlands and not that of Israel?
Because that's very much how its turning out? Look at the way our Parliament has operated over the past nine years - we've managed stable minority government, drawing support from a variety of sources. We have widespread cross-party consultation and a high degree of consensus on legislation (National and ACT are frequently the only parties not voting for a bill - the latter because they fundamentally disagree with it, the former because they still have an outdated FPP mindless opposition attitude). Coalitions are loose, and negotiations tend not to feature the "bottom lines" we saw in 1996; instead there's an understanding that there has to be a government, and so you need to find areas you can agree on, not bash heads with absolutist bullshit which does no-one any good.
But like the man said, reality has a liberal bias :)
Doing away with the threshold would see a few smaller parties in parliament (1 in 2005; 3 or 4 in 2002). the fragmentation would make it easier to govern, not harder; a government would have more options to shop around and gain a majority on legislation. And it would be far better for our democracy.
Finally, democracy isn't about "good governance" - it's about our governance. It should not be constrained simply in order to limit policy discussion to options you are comfortable with.
-
Finally, democracy isn't about "good governance" - it's about our governance. It should not be constrained simply in order to limit policy discussion to options you are comfortable with.
...and I/S make me fire up the T-shirt printer again. You're costing me a small fortune in ink, mate.
-
You're making T-shirts out of my comments?
Hey, do I get a cut?
-
The Herald's contempt for democracy is now a matter of public record. The newspaper that used to be a champion of MMP has become - thanks to a change in editorial staff - the paper that wants to get rid of MMP. The arguments for and against haven't changed - just the staff.
Similarly, they have been overtly campaigning for National and it must be galling for them to see that lead fading.
Declaring victory now may be the only taste of it they get.
We'll have to see how people actually vote.....funny that the Herald is so confused they don't get that.
I get more sense from blogs these days. The Herald editorial policy in NZ politics is bizarre and - frankly - dishonest.
-
Is the National Front, that can't compete at the city council level and wouldn't muster an MP regardless of the threshold?
Speaking of which, they're having their "flag day" in Wellington tomorrow. Feel free to go along and tell them what you think of them and their hateful version of patriotism.
-
You're making T-shirts out of my comments?
Hey, do I get a cut?I don't sell them, so all you can get a cut of are the expenses. So yes please!
Speaking of which, they're having their "flag day" in Wellington tomorrow. Feel free to go along and tell them what you think of them and their hateful version of patriotism.
Oh, but it's been done. Do we even still bother? I guess we ought to, seen as they keep at it...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.