So how do people of no fixed abode get enrolled to vote? And do overseas citizens have an electorate to vote in if they don’t have a current address here in New Zealand?
Bearing in mind this is just an idea and might be horribly flawed ...
I don't see any reason to need a fixed abode at all to vote for a party. You'd already be enrolled assuming enrollment was automatic at age 18 or say when you got residence.
You'd only need a fixed abode if you wanted to vote in an electorate.
My guess is voting in electorates would drop significantly with this system and that might cause issues.
And overseas voters would automatically get a party vote. I'm not sure they would need and electorate vote would they? I guess if they owned a home they were planning on returning to they could nominate that as their address and electorate if they wanted to do that.
Does that make sense?
And you know where they live how?
(I support everything else mentioned there, but not this.)
What if you didn't need to vote for an electorate - then where you lived would not really matter at all?
Sure if you WANT to vote for an electorate you could enroll for that electorate.
But since the most important thing is the party vote and that's calculated nationally anyway why not automatically enroll everyone for the party vote at 18?
Effectively that would mean two rolls
One in which everyone is automatically enrolled: to vote for a party
And the other electorate roll where you have to be enrolled with an address: to vote for a local candidate.
But I'd suggest the media grow a spine
I did say slightly fair.
Frankly I think our media has been hugely responsible for maintaining this FPP mentality. They like having a simple story to tell because they can tell it in the 25 seconds between ad breaks.
It's been left to media like The Spinoff to actually do real journalism.
To be slightly fair to the MSM Labour and National refuse to share the stage with the "minor parties".
If Labour believes in MMP they should flat out refuse to ever do a two party debate again.
But in the main you are bang on - the NZ media have behaved irresponsibly this election.
Journalists love to believe they bring truth to power and that they serve society. This election campaign we saw the reverse, a media only too happy to bury truth underneath a mountain of pointless polls.
I don’t understand how that works. Dont the smaller party's get any?
What linger said.
yes the smaller parties theoretically get some of the benefit but say for this election 46% of those votes go to National 36% go to Labour and the others get the scraps.
More specifically the seats are handed out according to the vote proportion - it is possible for only the two biggest parties to get any of those seats.
The greatest benefit of excluding those votes accrues to the biggest parties - which of course is why the rule will never change.
But then we add that back into the calculation.
No, we add it back to the big parties. The actual opinions of those voters has been discarded.
One of the weirdest things about the discussions of who will form a coalition with whom has been the idea that it's a bad thing for one party to have to compromise.
But compromise is good, we teach our kids to compromise to reach a consensus solution to a problem, we reach compromises in business and our day to day jobs.
Compromises are about recognising that some things are very important to other people and other groups.
Surely we want our representatives in parliament to understand compromise and work towards achieving a government that can make appropriate and fair compromises.
All the talk of bottom lines and lines in the sand is just childish (looking at you MSM).
If he threshold was 1% more people would vote for those minor parties BECAUSE their vote would count.
Same applies to a transferable vote system.
But it won't happen because those votes would come from National and Labour and they won't allow such a change to be made.
We're better than that.
Are we? Really?
Lets be honest.
We let the Roast busters get away with rape.
We let the dairy farmers in Canterbury steal water and destroy rivers.
We let a housing bubble continue.
We let our poorest live in cold damp crowded homes.
We let children go to school unfed.
We let our health system fail our most needy.
We let Christchurch fester after the earthquakes.
We can blame this National government all we like but we chose that government by either not voting or actually voting to allow these things.
We all made small choices that enabled this.
I think it's been their problem all along: all about policy, hardly ever about people.
There's a part of me that responds to the desire to focus on ideas rather than personality.
First don't be a dick
And second, you are going to be met with surprises in government, situations will arise that you can't predict. So personality comes into play for the voter who needs to know how you are likely to respond.
TOP failed on both counts.