MMP: This Time It's Binding
172 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
3410,
It's about time someone asked Bob and Co. what part of "non-binding" is beyond their pin-head powers of comprehension.
Well, to be fair, it's confusing because whilst "non-binding" has the word "binding" in it, it actually means the opposite of binding. You can see how people would find that pretty weird.
-
3410,
he has precisely nothing useful to contribute to any serious public policy debate because, on previous form, he's either:
1) Clinically psychotic.
2) A compulsive liar.
and/or
3) Functionally illiterate and innumerate to a degree that would suggest he suffers from a dense cluster of severe learning disabilities.But seriously, his problem is his complete inability to conceive that "common sense" may be insufficiently informed.
-
Graeme: Wasn't 'vote yes to get no' only one of a number of problems with the Smacking referendum? If the MMP referendum question was 'should a system in which MPs are elected by a distribution of votes that are both based on local electorates and a proportion of the national vote as part of a good constitutional structure be part of parliamentary representation in New Zealand?' he might have a point.
Also, the coattails appear to have turned into a life-raft. In my understanding, those that wear coattails are not usually politically marginal, although, in the case of the Titanic at least, they sometimes end up in life-rafts.
+1 for keeping MMP, by the way. Without wanting to sound like a concern troll, I do worry about the way that people who basically support the system can get into some (extremely interesting but decidedly) bitter arguments about the threshold before considering how they're going to defend the thing itself in the face of people who, you know, want to get rid of it.
-
Oh, and before you say anything, I joined a Facebook group, so I've done my bit.
-
Damm, I knew my refusal to join Facebook would hurt me eventually. I now feel alienated and disengaged
-
Until then, its just another item in the file that proves he has precisely nothing useful to contribute to any serious public policy debate because, on previous form, he's either:
While your host's views on Mr McCoskrie are a matter of record, your host would sleep easier if such assessments were prefaced with the words "in my opinion" ;-)
-
Graeme: Wasn't 'vote yes to get no' only one of a number of problems with the Smacking referendum?
Yes. And now Bob is making a point about one of them. That it wasn't really a problem at all, just something people were saying at the time because they wanted to ignore the result.
And Bob was making this point via an ironic press release. That people seem to take as an indicator that irony is dead. For some odd reason.
That said, the only problem I had with the smacking referendum question was the inclusion of the word "good", and even then I'd note that "good [care and] parenting" is a phrase that actually appears is Sue Bradford's amended section 59, so it shouldn't have been too confusing for anyone.
-
Oh, and before you say anything, I joined a Facebook group, so I've done my bit.
Not yet, you haven't. You do your bit in two years' time.
First tick "I vote to retain the present MMP system"
Second tick "I vote for the Single Transferable Vote system (STV)":-)
-
Way back in the early 90s, in the run-up to MMP, someone (can't remember who) reckoned it had popular support mainly because Helen Clark & Simon Upton didn't like it.
Also Bolger's preferred option was an upper house, but someone else who I can't remember pointed out that he already had one, in the form of the Business Roundtable.
-
While your host's views on Mr McCoskrie are a matter of record, your host would sleep easier if such assessments were prefaced with the words "in my opinion" ;-)
Fair enough, and for the benefit of the lurker from Sue, Grabbitt and Runne the following in purely in my most humble opinion, of course. :)
But seriously, his problem is his complete inability to conceive that "common sense" may be insufficiently informed.
I was being totally serious. I'm with Tom Stoppard that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts. IMHO, even by the standards of lobbyists Bob has way too much form when it comes to being somewhat cavalier with basic matters of fact that don't fit his case.
I'd sincerely love to be able to put that down to a psychotic disorder or learning disability, because there is a line between advocacy and dishonesty. Or there should be.
-
Currently the poll on nzherald.co.nz is Do You Want NZ's Voting System To Change From MMP?
After 6059 votes it's 49% Yes, 51% No.
I see some awesome disinformation campaigns ahead of us.
-
You do your bit in two years' time.
First tick "I vote to retain the present MMP system"
Second tick "I vote for the Single Transferable Vote system (STV)"+1
-
Damm, I knew my refusal to join Facebook would hurt me eventually. I now feel alienated and disengaged
Or are you just recalcitrant? I received a demand from a friend via the email account I've had since about 1991 to join Facebook "so he could keep in touch with me". Email is just too koryu now.
-
Best find so far from the Your Views brains trust:
I would vote MMP with the following conditions.
1) 100 M/Ps with no list seats, every MP would have to have a majority in his/her electorate.
Awesome.
-
George spake:
Under FPP, every vote that is not in a marginal seat that year is a wasted vote. There is no other way to describe it.
When I first started voting it was under FPP. I was in an electorate where the MP enjoyed a huge majority. Essentially anyone their party put up was a shoo-in, regardless of talent or personality. To me voting in an election quickly became fairly pointless; the incumbent always won, the nearest rival always lost by a substantial margin. Given the area I was in change to that was very unlikely. MMP seemed to offer a reason to bother turning up to vote; with the party option my voting wasn't immediately a waste of time.
-
Is there much evidence that people who didn't vote under FPP started to do so under MMP? I'd be surprised - people who are convinced by the "rational voter's paradox" will feel similarly powerless under both political systems. Actually, I'd think they'd feel disinclined to engage any kind of democratic system, even including participatory democracy.
-
1) 100 M/Ps with no list seats, every MP would have to have a majority in his/her electorate.
Um... err. How do we elect electorate MPs now -- give it to the second placed candidate, just to be fair? :)
I see some awesome disinformation campaigns ahead of us.
It would also help if some MMP advocates could dial all the way back on the "you're with us, or you're an evil tool" self-righteousness. Even if I'm inclined to agree with your conclusions, the tone just raises my hackles to no good end.
-
It would also help if some MMP advocates could dial all the way back on the "you're with us, or you're an evil tool" self-righteousness. Even if I'm inclined to agree with your conclusions, the tone just raises my hackles to no good end.
I meant there would be disinformation from both sides since it was so close and, y'know, that's what happened last time. No tone intended.
-
every MP would have to have a majority in his/her electorate.
... How do we elect electorate MPs now -- give it to the second placed candidate, just to be fair? :)
Nope. At the moment they need a plurality. Thus Peter Dunne was elected MP for Ōhariu despite 67% of voters in the electorate voting for someone else.
-
I meant there would be disinformation from both sides since it was so close and, y'know, that's what happened last time. No tone intended.
JamesW: That was intended as a general observation, not a personal dig. And I do agree with you that I'd love to see more light than heat from both sides on this one -- just as I did around the civil unions bill and the repeal of section 59.
Nope. At the moment they need a plurality. Thus Peter Dunne was elected MP for Ōhariu despite 67% of voters in the electorate voting for someone else.
Thank, Graeme, that makes sense. So, I guess any electorate where the winner doesn't gain an absolute majority will presumably have to settle the question with some kind of run-off down the road. But how is that going to go down with the crowd who want to cut the size of Parliament and/or dump MMP because it's all a waste of money?
-
Seeing as people are talking about threshold changes, you may want to look at some numbers DPF ran last month, on the effect of thresholds from 4% to 0% would have had on MMP elections from 1996 - 2008.
Bill and Ben party holding the balance of power after the 2008 election (assuming the lack of threshold didn't affect voting patterns).
Fuck it. I'm all in I/S with this no threshold thing. That sounds like way too much fun.
-
Fuck it. I'm all in I/S with this no threshold thing. That sounds like way too much fun.
Aw... if you really want to have some fun why not abolish elections, dump batches of candidates on an island and select our Parliament Battle Royale style!
-
Bill and Ben ... holding the balance of power after the 2008 election ... That sounds like way too much fun.
Oh no. Just Bill.
-
And I do agree with you that I'd love to see more light than heat from both sides on this one -- just as I did around the civil unions bill and the repeal of section 59.
I guess we're doing our little bit, right now. This could become a thread that will never die.
Oh no. Just Bill.
Heh, I wonder if Ben would lament that it wasn't the Ben and Bill party if the thresholds were lowered to 1 seat.
Frankly I don't see how Bill would have held the 'balance of power' any more than every other MP who could defect, withhold support etc. In such a fragile majority, everyone holds the balance of power.
-
select our Parliament Battle Royale style!
LOL, I've loved Beat Takeshi ever since "Violent Cop" aka "Watch Out! This Guy's Crazy".
Post your response…
This topic is closed.