Hard News: Don't bother voting
219 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
Matthew, I was aware, and am also aware that the NZ MMP system was very largely based on the German model. I don't see a grand coalition as bizarre. What is bizarre is the refusal to accept the idea, to insist on party politics unto the death. Particularly now when what looks like the biggest political challenge during my lifetime is unfolding simultaneously. A strong bipartisan and centrist leadership is actually vitally needed now, not the pissly wrangling with the likes of Peter Dunne, Winston Peters and Rodney Hide that we are going to get.
If blame for this lack of commonsense must be leveled, it unfortunately finds it's way to most of us. We're the ones who insist on the quite arbitrary splitting of massive blocks of votes into parties, when the intention of representative democracy is actually that you have human beings with individual discretion in Parliament, not blind followers of party whips. The insistence on partisan arguments over everything from the trivial to the colossally important is stupidity that we only find it hard to see because it's at such a high level.
Yes it was a fascinating film. Not for insights into history, since McNamara doesn't seem to understand any of it. The insight is into HIM and how such an obviously clever person can be so damned wrong. It's an insight into power and technocracy.
Cheers for that post. Sincerely.
I think "bizarre" was perhaps the wrong term to use in a way- I mean it in the sense of "peeking behind the curtain to find out what's really theer."
If we are honest, there will be politicans from both the Labour and National parties which aren't separated that much in terms of policy and ideology outlook. There will, of course, be others who most certainly are.
But to acknowledge that openly with the formation of a "grand coalition" -and I think what happened in Germany is that certain ministers from the incumbent SPD party agreed to join it, while others did not, so even in its "grand" form, there were some compromises- would really throw a spanner in the works as to how a lot of people do view party politics. It'd be interesting to wonder whether it would ever come to that in NZ though.
You're right about the Fog of War- like many of Errol Morris's films, it's about the relationship which people can have with the truth- and how it stands up to other people's take on the same events.
-
Found this via the Daily Dish. Liked it. Had to go back and watch all the original Wassup TV spots. Laughed. Then felt a little flat when I realised 8 years goes by very fast.
Enjoy.
-
For those who don't remember it - here's the original:
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=L38wthA4Ld0
And yes - somewhat ironic that McCain has done rather well out of the sponsors of the commercials.
-
As for coalition wrangling, the one partnership that is always ruled out seems to me one of the most natural - Labour and National.
Ahh, Grand Coalition.
I think the problem with this is the population of the country maybe too small for such a thing and then it really would be a case of "why bother voting". It would end up as being a small cabal of "people of influence" running the country with little or no input from society as a whole, let your imagination run riot with that concept.
I have aways held the view that, roughly, half the people in a stable society think "how will this help me?" (Right Wing) and the other half think "how will this help us all?" (Left Wing) It's like the old Good Vs Evil but without the mutual exclusivity.
On one hand it would put an end to the constant bickering and endless accusations of corruption and skulduggery in an effort to bring down the government of the day in order to gain power but how would it prevent cronyism and blatant abuse of power?
Damn it, we would have to have a pretty powerful and independent fourth estate to counter a near totalitarian state and we just don't seem to have that in any shape or form. -
Oh and tim Xlunt video ;-)
-
So the overhanger-on has just announced that he will graciously permit National to form a coalition with him. TVNZ reports:
Dunne says he has not told Labour leader Helen Clark of the decision, and nor will he stand down from his current post as Minister of Revenue.
Man of principle, as ever.
It is not clear how this will affect United's Future, as the party's voter was out when the media called.
-
It would end up as being a small cabal of "people of influence" running the country with little or no input from society as a whole, let your imagination run riot with that concept.
More of the status quo, then?
Seriously, the idea of representatives not being in big blocs is how our form of democracy started, and the whole superimposition of a right and left wing is an afterthought. I think it's a testament to the 'western' way of thinking, that we force it into camps. That's why I've always hated the threshold system in MMP.
I mean I don't really give a crap about right or left wing. It's individual issues that matter. I don't think our parties align themselves that way either - it's more a case of left and right wing aligning themselves with the parties than the other way around, since what is right wing in one country or time is left in the other.
As for the danger of a grand coalition being totalitarian, I highly doubt it. They would continue to be centrist or their support would drop and they'd lose power. Internally they would wrangle a great deal and would actually not bring forward anything that wouldn't be to the liking of both sides, which would make them less wild in their swings from centrism than the current setup is.
If it's hard to get your head around, that is more of a statement about where your head is at than the impracticality of the option. I'm not pointing at you especially, Steve, that "your" is pointing to the whole nation.
-
Ahh but.
If there were no threshold where is the cut-off point?
If someone gets just one vote they get a seat? of course not, it would be like getting rid of parliament all together and we don't do anything until the majority of the country agrees. There has to be some cut-off point so how do we determine that?As for the danger of a grand coalition being totalitarian, I highly doubt it. They would continue to be centrist or their support would drop and they'd lose power.
Who would they loose power to?
Anyone with an agenda, other than one that fits in with the wishes of the majority, would have to get more than 50% of the vote and to get that, well it is a contradictory situation and it just couldn't happen.
The likely outcome, IMODO (in my own deranged opinion, it's mine, you cane have it ;-)) Is that it would only take about 15% of the population to say , "What about me, it isn't fair, I've had enough and I want my share" and you'd have a revolution on your hands.
I can get my head around it and I think I make a valid point even though I do say so myself. -
<quote>
Ahh, Grand Coalition...[....]
On one hand it would put an end to the constant bickering and endless accusations of corruption and skulduggery in an effort to bring down the government of the day in order to gain power but how would it prevent cronyism and blatant abuse of power?
Damn it, we would have to have a pretty powerful and independent fourth estate to counter a near totalitarian state and we just don't seem to have that in any shape or form.
<quote>Yeah, that's my take on it too, if I'm honest. In theory, it could work, but it would require a pretty strong watchdog-like persistence from not just the fourth estate but from other independent channels too.
Incidentally- and this makes NZ's recent inclusion in that stupid article about "dirty election" in Foreign Policy even more nauseating- according to the World Transparency Index, NZ is no. 1 along with Denmark and Finland, in terms of openness and lack of corruption. I suppose the country's small size may have something to do with it, but it's an encouraging fact, anyway.
-
If there were no electorates and say 100 seats, then you need 1% for each seat. 14% 14 seats. Less than 1% no seats. Sounds great to me.
-
If there were no threshold where is the cut-off point?
If someone gets just one vote they get a seat? of course not, it would be like getting rid of parliament all together and we don't do anything until the majority of the country agrees. There has to be some cut-off point so how do we determine that?Exactly. I think the threshold is always going to be somewhat arbitrary, but it's absolutely necessary to have one.
5 percent is probably about right, but then again,it's offset by the fact that a number of parties- ACT, United, Progressives, maybe even the Maori Party, won't make it despite winning electoral seats. So I've found the current compromise somewhat flawed, but it'd tough to perfect.
-
Sorry for the double post, but taking it back to the original Herald editorial, something needs to be addressed. Namely, what the hell does the below comment even mean?
Labour's hopes rest now on some cataclysmic occurrence, an event resounding enough to shatter the current template.
So they are suggesting that the results of their particular poll are so authorative that in order for them to be wrong, something "cataclysmic" has to occur. And what exactly would that be? That every National supporter suddenly dies in an earthquake? Seriously, that editorial is really bizarre.
-
So let's think about the 50% thing. If we have 100 seats, as Ian suggests, but we keep regional/electorate seats 50% of the seats go to list seats, meaning each seat is worth 2% as we have 2 votes, one party and one candidate/local representative. And, TA DAAA we magically have our cut off point @ 2%. Piece of piss, eh?
-
Well clearly the lowest the threshold can be is 1/120th of the total party vote, since there are 120 seats. Any lower would make no sense. But that would make sense. Then anyone who can get that number of votes can get a seat. There would be no need at all for parties then (although there would still be advantages to them (for the parties if not for the country)).
-
Steve - doesn't quite work like that - the list seats are top-ups:
[Assume no threshold]
Get 1 electorate seat, and 1% of the vote. 1% of 100 seats is 1 seat - you've already got a seat so you don't get a list seat.
Get no electorate seats, and 1% of the vote. 1% of 100 seats is 1 seat - you don't already have a seat so you get a list seat.
In a 120 seat Parliament, one seat is worth 0.8333% of the vote, but that's not the threshold, a party could get a seat even if they fall short of that. For example, in 2005, Destiny NZ got 0.62% of the votes, but without a threshold, would still have qualified for a seat.
-
Who would they loose power to?
Other parties at any election. Of course if they do actually go fascist there wouldn't be any elections but I can't see that happening - why would they need to do that if they were getting voted in anyway, not to mention that it would not be tolerated by the population?
-
What Beagle said! It's totally conceivable that the threshold could have been made at one seat formed from party votes - that's what I was trying to say, and what I meant by 'no threshold'.
It would certainly mean more parties would get in, including plenty of nutjobs. But there would also be some quality people too, who don't get in currently, and furthermore there are also plenty of nutjobs in there under the current system. I don't think the arguments for thresholds are usually made around the prevention of nutjobs - they usually come from beliefs about the need for 'stable' government. Parties keep the troops in line, so they don't chop and change. That's the idea. The fact that the entire party can chop and change is not addressed at all and happens all the time in our current system, but that's considered stable.
-
Well clearly the lowest the threshold can be is 1/120th of the total party vote, since there are 120 seats. Any lower would make no sense.
It depends what you think a threshold is. A legal threshold (which we currently have) is the minimum level of support a party needs to qualify for seats in the House. You could abolish the threshold, but that wouldn't mean that everyone who gets a vote is election, you just go through the process of working out who gets the seat until you've filled up 120 of them.
We don't have thresholds in our first past the post elections, or in our STV elections. And local bodies are fill to the brim of people who've been elected. And you don't need them in MMP. Passing a legal threshold doesn't have to mean you'll get a seat, it could just mean that 'we'll bother working out whether you're entitled to one'.
-
ummm ... full. But I think you got it anyway.
-
And insert a "not" in there too. Do'h!
-
Steve - doesn't quite work like that - the list seats are top-ups:
so. we make the number of electorates X/2 where X is the number of seats and allow X/2 number of list seats
One seat is equal to 2(X/100) and the cut off is 2%.
Does that work? -
So. Has Dunne done his dash?
-
so. we make the number of electorates X/2 where X is the number of seats and allow X/2 number of list seats
One seat is equal to 2(X/100) and the cut off is 2%.
Does that work?not really (you're not talking about getting rid MMP are you - those would be numbers under supplementary member).
Under MMP, if there are 100 seats, then 1 seat is 1% of that. It doesn't matter whether that seat is a list seat or an electorate, it's still a seat.
-
I don't think that is, exactly, what SM is. That system relies on a plural vote, one member plus one list AFAIK
In a situation where you live in a safe seat for party A you may wish to be represented by party B nationally but also want your local MP who, regardles of party affiliation, is your brother in law (no, strike that) a really good person. -
Graeme, when I say 1/120 I'm only approximating. I guess in reality the calculation is quite a lot more complex since there are potentially a lot of wasted votes on every party that doesn't meet the threshold, and all the 'between threshold wastage too' especially since we don't round votes up, so an actual threshold per seat would be set after counting. Or some other method, like you say. Filling the seats biggest vote count first until they're all there - that could prevent overhangs I guess, if that seems like a big problem. Doesn't to me - the method of voting in parliament is on binary propositions so it's either passed by a majority, or it isn't. How many people is really of no consequence to the fairness of it.
You can argue the minutiae but I think everyone can pretty much understand the idea of no thresholds without knowing the exact algorithm. At the large end of the vote count it would be neatly proportional. At the small end it would probably not be, some people could get in by tiny advantages over other people, one vote differences would be technically possible. But they'd also be allotted to very small numbers of people so their influence over the final outcome would not be particularly unproportional.
Certainly the thresholds as they do exist are a long way from allowing one person to hold one seat on the basis of enough party votes and no electoral votes at all. The wasted vote factor is far higher than under a no-threshold system - currently EVERYONE who votes for a party that doesn't make 5% (and has no electorate) has no representation at all. It's possible to imagine scenarios with a lower threshold system where the same or more wastage occurs, but the likelihood of it seems considerably less. So I can only conclude that wasted votes are an intended consequence of the current system.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.