Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I guess that depends what you mean by the rule.
If you mean "if you win an electorate seat, you get your party vote share of MPs even if it's less than 5%", that would be easy to change to "you just win electorates, no list MPs for you until you get to 5%".
Yeah, that's what I meant. I definitely think under MMP the electoral seat should go to the winner, that being much of the point of MMP (as the name suggests).
All electorate victories however, would be an overhang
Oh bugger. Is that the reason the committee recommended the current system then?
I haven't had a look at I/S's argument for no threshold yet. Maybe that's the way to go.
And then, I always liked STV.
-
"...he is the man in waiting"
What Graeme said, and also the Electoral College do not technically have to vote in Obama (though I'm sure they will).
-
Ben, you have some interesting thoughts on swing voters, there.
1) Not giving a crap about philosophy is total pragmatism.
Actually, Pragmatism is a philosophy. And it accords with your own views a bit, I’d say…
My own personal view. I do not hold fast to any particular truth, because I believe doing so makes it harder to actually find it. I see the likely set of 'profound differences' simply as competing theories which each have evidence for and against.
-
put__a__tive
-
I think "crap" is the word you're looking for.
I agree with the sentiment that it isn't entirely rational to vote out Labour at this time. I understand traditional National supporters voting for their party, sure. But so many swing voters went National on a "it's time for a change" basis. That isn't rational. I find it a little ironic that the pututive conservative party gained a lot of votes on a change-for-change's-sake basis.
-
But just because the differences between the center-right and the center-left aren't exactly those that marked the Protestant Reformation, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Sure, but there's arguably as much or more actual policy difference between ACT and National than between National and Labour.
-
I will say, what really disgusted me about Roger Douglas's appearance on the Saturday night coverage was how contemptuous he seemed. This did not seem like a man happy to be back in parliament- at least not in the traditional sense of the word. Oh no, this was a man hellbent on retribution.
Oh yeah, I noticed that too. He seems a bit bitter, all things considered.
-
And so it's nothing other than a vote for the exact middle. Definitely not a vote for Act, and esp not for Douglas. If Act exerts any influence, then Key will disappoint a lot of people who thought nothing would be very different under this kinder, gentler National government.
…
It's easier if you see Labour and National as centrist parties with only minor variation on how they want to run the show.
You know, maybe Labour and National should consider forming a coalition. Serious.
-
[Richard:] It would seem that New Zealand's long national nightmare of peace of prosperity is finally over.
Nice.
-
huff huff huff...
just caught up on the posts I missed last night/this morning.
Craig:
BY the way folks, if you're expecting me to counter bitter, nasty and patronising with equally bitter and nasty gloating, I'll be happy to oblige with the following...
Have a nice morning nursing the hangover and pissing on the hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens who had the unmitigated cheek to vote in a manner which you, in your infinite wisdom, do not approve of.
Fixed it for you!
(On the other hand) Islander:I am a reserved and non-public person...
...who made abrasive statements on a public forum, you do realise?