Used to be a thing that not everyone had to go to school at all, because there didn't seem to be much use for more people who could read, write, and do basic arithmetic. For a start, people who could read and write were rich, some of them could even afford pepper, and how would things even get done down on the manors if everyone could read and write and be rich?
But it turned out, not just with primary education that reading and writing for the entire population in every occupation was incredibly powerful, primary education was enough to solve farming for instance, quickly reducing the labour requirements by about 90% while dramatically raising outputs, even in the armed forces it worked such that once one country tried it every country either kept up or was quickly dominated by military force.
But that it was the same again with secondary education in the arts, culture, sciences, and mathematics, even sadly tinged with the racist nationalism of the time, not having that was bad for your culture and country in a big way, because those racist nationalists were good at stuff, including being an effective army, despite their racist nationalism.
It's the same with tertiary education, of course; law, medicine, economics, the sciences, sociology, advanced mathematics, engineering, data management, having a surfeit of people with those skills in every area of society would make us immensely powerful and rich compared to the world of our parents, and we're on the way already as more and more people are doing just that.
Yes, it's hard to imagine taxi drivers and check out operators in world of full of lawyers and doctors (he says, ironically). But just because you can't imagine a world where everyone is better educated than you and I, doesn't mean it won't be completely amazeballs and kick everyone else's ass, just like it has every other time this has happened in the past.
Honestly, it's a bit like people being worried about how the remaining shit jobs that no one really wants to do might go away. That's not a bad thing, in the past that has always turned out really well for everyone.
Cheers, linger (p3). Apparently I was comparing the final count with the projected final count, in which the left did a bit better than projected. Duh. :)
It's a pretty solid result for the left, and for the right. Very similar turnout for both as 1996 (~34% of enrolled voters each), only with a reduced centre vote. Have to expect the next one to be a huge left swing to whichever parties are left in the mix for 2020 if National goes in here again.
Out of interest, anyone know how many people are cut of the enrolled list each three years for convictions now, and how many get back on in time?
Oh, it's such a long story, but here's a summary in a comment. (1.4 first divisor, because) alt.history of no threshold!
1996: Christian Coalition (5) and ALCP (2) were discarded, National + NZFirst loses majority, leaving either National + Christian or Labour + Alliance choice for NZFirst. Winston went right because negotiations were simpler with one party, and then the Shipley govt. happened.
National 41, Labour 35, NZ First 16, Alliance 12, ACT 8, Christian 5, ALCP 2, United 1.
1999: Christian Heritage (3), Future NZ (1), and ALCP (1) are discarded. No great change, Labour + Alliance + Green majority cut to 8 from 24.
Labour 48, National 37, Alliance 10, ACT 9, Greens 6, NZ First 5, Christian 3, Future NZ 1, ALCP 1, United 0+1.
2002: Outdoor Rec (2), Christian Heritage (2), Alliance (1), and ALCP (1) are discarded. Interesting government, Labour + Progs + United majority cut from 4 to 0, but there's a pile of centre parties to play the issues on, probably Outdoor Rec give them back the 4 seat majority.
Labour 50, National 25, NZ First 12, ACT 9, United 8, Greens 8, Progressive 2, Christian 2, Outdoor 2, Alliance 1, ALCP 1.
2005: Destiny NZ (1) is discarded. No change in Labour + NZFirst + Green majority, the seat went to National. Most likely, many more minor parties would still exist without the threshold, ALCP, Alliance, Christians, likely splitting both wings a bit more, though National recovering the racist vote helped them anyway.
Labour 50, National 47, NZ First 7, Greens 6, United 3, Māori 3+1, ACT 2, Progressive 1, Destiny 1.
2008: NZ First (5) is discarded. Boom. National + ACT + United Majority cut from 2 to 0. Māori Party or NZ First needed for a majority, and National + NZ First + Māori are a majority. Very different first term for the National party government most likely, probably no way to bolt together a Labour government.
National 55, Labour 42, Greens 8, NZ First 5, ACT 5, Māori 3+2, Progressive 1, United 1.
2011: Conservative (3) is discarded. National + ACT + United majority lost, many options exist for National majority on bills, but NZ First is the most likely option I can see for government.
National 57, Labour 33, Greens 14, NZ First 8, Conservative 3, Māori 2+1, Mana 1, ACT 1, United 1.
2014: Conservative (5) and Mana (2) are discarded. National + ACT + United majority lost again. Again, almost certainly National + NZ First government, give or take for that having been the government previously and how that affects voting.
National 57, Labour 30, Greens 13, NZ First 10, Conservative 5, Māori 2, Mana 2, ACT 1, Unitied 1.
2017: TOP (3) and Māori (1) are discarded. Maybe Mana still exists after being a voice for the left in government, who knows, maybe some party survives in the centre instead of the constant implosions outside parliament. Probably the swing left gives us a Labour + Green + NZFirst, though a National + NZFirst government only lost four seats. Again, speculative depending how people actually vote.
National 54, Labour 45, NZ First 9, Greens 8, TOP 3, Māori 1, ACT 0+1.
Basically, we get right wing neoliberal governments because of this, and always have. Winston has also played the "I'll go with the biggest party" card a few times to try and eliminate the competition from the centre, and I'm not sure that works for him if there's no threshold to help kill them off.
So, uh, NZ First lost 675 votes after specials were counted. Difference of opinion in what counts as a clear intention to vote for a party? I guess a lot got excluded in the official count for everyone and they just didn't get many specials to top it back up.
Uh, just to note, a lot of people's Electorate Votes are more important than their Party Vote, certainly in previous elections, the representation of the Māori Party, Mana Party, United Future, and ACT were dependant on them winning electorate seats for most of their existence.
Few less this time, but their lack of representation also comes down to people's Electorate Votes (the Labour-Green electorate deal got rid of United Future, for instance).
I'm not sure it's 10% of people in that situation, but given that 96% of people who answer surveys agree they are not already dead while doing so, it's probably close enough. As long as we have the 5% threshold, some people's electorate votes will remain more important than their party vote.
Your electorate vote is also important for getting a local MP who isn't a terrible person sometimes, which might be a nice thing for some people.
He means he voted National and is upset they won't be able to do whatever they want for the next three years. He owns like six houses, man, what if there's a CGT? Trouble! That's what.
9 possible governments? I count more.
National - NZF coalition.
National minority, NZF for C&S.
Labour - Green - NZF coalition.
Labour - Green coalition, NZF for C&S.
Labour - NZF coalition, Green for C&S.
National - Green coalition.
National minority, Labour for C&S.
National minority, Green for C&S.
Labour minority, Green - NZF for C&S.
Or, I guess, a few with NZF or Greens abstaining on C&S for National minority. Or, Labour - NZF getting ahead of National for Greens to abstain on C&S.
Lots of minority government positions possible. Only ones seem impossible are National - Green, and of course National - Labour because it makes people vote for Nazis or something.
They could have a database entry to not send out the EasyVote card to the returned enrolment checks.
But leave them enrolled.
Then do a check after the election, that if those missing people voted anyway (which is checked to defend against people casting multiple votes) they stay enrolled, and if they didn't they're purged.
Person fails to have updated contact address and also fails to vote, they can enroll again before the next one, person voting is fine. Still clears the list.
Probably somewhat more easy to abuse, but theoretical abuses never seem to matter as long as there's no way to automate it via a machine, given the impossible nature of a massive conspiracy. As long as we're physically voting with an orange marker, easier enrolment is a convenience for everyone rather than an existential threat to the system.
The National party ain't much like it was in the 70's either, and Labour even further away. They just never changed their names, even though a few in National used to fly other colours.
*electorate, not electoral. Hehe.
Greens in most places were campaigning for Party Vote only, there's not all of the Green party voters would prefer the Labour candidate even when the greens leave out a candidate (as they did against Peter Dunne which saw him give up the contest). From what I saw of Labour candidates, they were also strongly asking for Party vote.
But really, a lot of people who are National party voters will happily elect a competent and experienced Labour party electorate MP. You can't assume anything about the electorate votes, IMO.
I don't think that the electoral vote is a big deal. National voters will vote for a local Labour electorate candidate, and Labour voters will vote for a local National electorate candidate, because you can.
If the Labour party had 46% to National's 36%, the blue bars would be grouped a long way above the line too. The electorate votes simply don't swing as far as the Party votes do.