A reminder of the Herald poll on page 4 of this thread.
Relevant today as misinformation and misunderstanding of MMP abounds. Don't read Stuff comments - or a bunch of other outlets - if you'd like to believe that NZ voters understand their own democracy, and the system they chose in a referendum only 6 years ago.
There's an MMP election in Germany today. Perhaps they could show us how it's done.
Thanks for doing this, Graeme.
A point overlooked by many of the talking heads is that numbers can and do change during a term. Parties break up (NZ First, Alliance in the first two MMP terms), parties are formed when MPs break away (the Maori Party, Mana), individuals leave parties to become independent (pushed, or jumping), by-elections, etc.
This is relevant now because a putative Lab-NZF-Green deal would require Winston to keep all his caucus on board, and given past behaviour, there's a non-zero chance that some hitherto unknown NZF MP will be seduced across the floor by a bauble or quit the party on "principle". Not tomorrow, but next year, who knows?
And if there's a NZF-Nat deal, the anti-Nat numbers need to increase to stop any maverick from becoming Alamein Kopu when NZF quit the coalition over the [Insert Name Later] scandal of 2018. (I know she was Alliance, but the point stands - the party-hopping prevention law died years ago).
I'd say there's almost no chance of Labour/Greens having 62 on election night, and even L/G plus Maori Party is a long shot.
But the real concern is that there will be negotiations based on incomplete numbers, and specials will change the picture (i.e. give the only correct picture) after the narrative has been established. It could be the 2017 version of 2005 "the rural booths came in and National had won, only to be robbed by the big urban booths at midnight". Obviously it's idiotic to pretend that votes have different values depending on when they are counted, so ... thank goodness there are no idiots in our media, and they all totally understand MMP (*cough* Hosking ...).
On the plus side, the prospect of National celebrating a "win" and then specials taking away a seat or putting the Greens over 5% would be one to savour ...
The media focus is on Advance Voting, but it's the enrolment numbers that really matter. For 18-24s they're not encouraging, and there are major differences, e.g.
My optimism/pessimism level fluctuates like the spring weather, but anyway:
Optimistic - because post-Helen the Labour party has been varying degrees of disappointing, sometimes depressingly so, and it now looks better (not just in polls but in general "vibe") than it has for over a decade, more like first term Helen
Pessimistic - because the Greens were supposed to go into a Lab/Green gov't in a position of strength (10%+) but now won't, and since every minor party in the MMP era has lost support in government, they will have a real battle even (or especially) if they finally get what they've always wanted
Optimistic - because if National win, it will be very unpopular very soon, and soon Peters will join Dunne in retirement and the left will win a landslide next time
Pessimistic - because National will have won in the worst way, and all the wrong lessons will be learned
Optimistic - because if Labour aren't going to move on tax until 2020 anyway, win or lose, better to do it properly from opposition, with a bold reform programme, instead of having it defined and diluted by ruling in/out things that need to be addressed. Give the "working group" a blank sheet, nothing off the table, and if they say "CGT on everything, and cut income tax or GST" then that can be considered properly, not on the hoof
OK, enough already.
I would have liked Jacinda to put him on the spot, to counter-attack from left field (sic).
e.g. on the inevitable which-way-Winston questions, she could say:
"As Prime Minister, I want to bring people together, not drive them apart. So I can tell you now: there will be no referendum on the Maori seats. I would rather be in opposition than preside over a destructive, divisive conflict that will hurt us all and achieve nothing. How about you, Bill?"
In fact, I think she would be telling the truth. She has time on her side and could lead a Winston-less government next time, if not this time. But even if she was insincere, she'd be making English look waffle-weak ("Er ... won't negotiate in the media") or he'd have to commit one way or t'other, both bad options for National's base.
I know, I'm armchair strategising, which is easy,but still: it has been frustrating to watch. Defending against lies is incredibly difficult, counter-attacking to change the discussion is a better option. She hasn't been great at that.
My take is that publicising the Labour `make it up as you go along' tax policy has worked for the Nats big time. Labour has not offered any excuse to the public to explain why nine years of opposition isn't ample time to design a credible economic policy - they just keep dodging the question. The Nats just needed to point this out to floating voters to deflate the bubble.
And this is why they lie. If that is your "take" after all the evidence, then lying works, and next time they will lie some more.
I voted today (Auckland CBD).
I enrolled after the August cut-off date, so I wasn't on the printed roll. My own fault (well, I'll share it with the people at my previous address, not forwarding my mail). But anyway, I've learned my lesson: if you move house, you should re-enrol, not procrastinate. I was told today I had to cast a special vote, which I duly did.
It doesn't really matter, it was easy to enrol a few days go and easy to vote today. We were all in one queue, all voting in the same place. The difference was the box I put my ballot paper in - it was full to overflowing. Given its demographics, Auckland Central is going to have a truckload of special votes.
This is not a party political thread, so I'll keep this "neutral", but when you're watching the results on election night, think about the specials. They have changed the provisional result in previous elections, and the make-up of the government formed. Feel free to shout this at telly pundits on Saturday.
(ETA: Emma mentioned the tablet in the other post. I had assumed that my enrolment details would be available to the staff (I enrolled a week ago, and checked my details on the Commission website online before I went out to vote - so I'm definitely enrolled). But they didn't seem to have anything except the printed "book").
Policy proposal for next election (any party welcome to adopt it):
"We will make tertiary education completely free, but only if 90% of under-30s enrol."
I mean, 68%, come on, put down your Walkman (check this reference - Ed) and get cracking.
*shakes zimmer frame at passing young person*
There's been a lot of coverage of advance voting but less coverage of people not enrolling at all.
97% of the olds, but only 67% of the youngs. That makes any "youthquake" a fairly mild tremor ... so far. It's the difference between Labour having to accommodate Winston or the Greens.