Page 383 of 1298

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:48 am
by Gordon Bennett
Seneca of the Night wrote:I see the Victoria University Council are proceeding with the name change. I've seen some pig headed obnoxious decisions in my time but this is pretty remarkable. I'm reading the newsletter now and where they talk about widespread support about the only person they can conjure up is the gimp like retard masquerading as mayor who is neither a Wellingtonian or a Vic graduate. What a shambles.
The VC recused himself from the discussion and the vote was supported (somewhat surprisingly) by both staff reps and (even more surprisingly, some might say staggeringly) by both student reps.

Important to note that most of the current council make up resulted from the National Party reforms of tertiary sector oversight (reducing council size from 20 to 12 and including a higher proportion of political cronies). Government appointees were not reduced in number whilst, in comparison, professional university staff lost representation of any kind.

Personally, I'm ambivalent to the name change, but I can't wait for the proposed logo change to become public. I bet that'll be a blast.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:29 am
by Gordon Bennett
Seneca of the Night wrote: EDIT: Victoria has some unique problems. It's actually a pretty good high quality established university in a decent city, but due to the nature of its cirriculum is just nowhere at all on any league tables. Just off the charts non-existent. So I guess they're trying to deal with that issue as best they can.
Law, Psychology and Earth/Marine Sciences do pretty well as far as I can tell. But yeah, you're not wrong.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:06 am
by deadduck
Gordon Bennett wrote:
Santa wrote:Imagine if you will a coalition government introducing electoral reform to benefit itself. Namely to ensure the minor partners get back in on a reduced threshold requirement.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12135073
To be honest, I've been hoping to see this kind of reform for years, regardless of which side of the divide it benefits in the short term. Coat tailing needs to go, and the sooner the better. ACT does not deserve on vote proportion to be in Parliament and are only there on the off chance that they can deliver a disproportionate benefit.

Let us not forget either that the Electoral Commission proposed these reforms in the previous Government's term and it could equally be seen as the previous government rejecting an independent body's suggestions as those changes would not benefit them.

David Seymour can fudge off too. This comment: "It is completely in the Government's interests to drop the threshold to 4 per cent and have no coat-tailing because neither of the Coalition or confidence and supply partners are going to win a seat realistically and they are going to be in some danger of dropping below five per cent."

Of course NZ First or Greens can realistically win a seat if either cut a deal with Labour just like ACT. In fact, in pure political terms, Labour probably should have cut a deal with the Greens in Nelson.

David Seymour is not coat tailing, he won an electorate seat. It would only be coat tailing if he brought a second MP with him. And why would that be unfair? It is only in proportion to the % of vote ACT get. If they don't get the votes, they don't get the seat. If they get the votes, they get the seat whether you like them or not.
Are you suggesting that in order for an MP to get elected into parliament they are required to join a large party? Or are you suggesting that a single seat winner should not be allowed to enter parliament? Or are you suggesting that National should be forced to run against ACT in Epsom? All three scenarios are unworkable and unhealthy in our democracy.
The only thing that needs to change with MMP is a change to the threshold. But lowering the threshold will affect the proportionality in parliament with several of the current parties losing seats due to there being less reallocated proportion. If the likes of TOP or some other party get in with 2 or 3%, Labour and the Greens would probably lose a seat each.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:12 am
by eugenius
❄️

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:24 am
by Gordon Bennett
deadduck wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
Santa wrote:Imagine if you will a coalition government introducing electoral reform to benefit itself. Namely to ensure the minor partners get back in on a reduced threshold requirement.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12135073
To be honest, I've been hoping to see this kind of reform for years, regardless of which side of the divide it benefits in the short term. Coat tailing needs to go, and the sooner the better. ACT does not deserve on vote proportion to be in Parliament and are only there on the off chance that they can deliver a disproportionate benefit.

Let us not forget either that the Electoral Commission proposed these reforms in the previous Government's term and it could equally be seen as the previous government rejecting an independent body's suggestions as those changes would not benefit them.

David Seymour can fudge off too. This comment: "It is completely in the Government's interests to drop the threshold to 4 per cent and have no coat-tailing because neither of the Coalition or confidence and supply partners are going to win a seat realistically and they are going to be in some danger of dropping below five per cent."

Of course NZ First or Greens can realistically win a seat if either cut a deal with Labour just like ACT. In fact, in pure political terms, Labour probably should have cut a deal with the Greens in Nelson.

David Seymour is not coat tailing, he won an electorate seat. It would only be coat tailing if he brought a second MP with him. And why would that be unfair? It is only in proportion to the % of vote ACT get. If they don't get the votes, they don't get the seat. If they get the votes, they get the seat whether you like them or not.
Are you suggesting that in order for an MP to get elected into parliament they are required to join a large party? Or are you suggesting that a single seat winner should not be allowed to enter parliament? Or are you suggesting that National should be forced to run against ACT in Epsom? All three scenarios are unworkable and unhealthy in our democracy.
The only thing that needs to change with MMP is a change to the threshold. But lowering the threshold will affect the proportionality in parliament with several of the current parties losing seats due to there being less reallocated proportion. If the likes of TOP or some other party get in with 2 or 3%, Labour and the Greens would probably lose a seat each.
Don't be so bloody obtuse. Seymour only exists as an MP because coat tailing exists as the National Party knows that if he gains a % or two through some fluke they gain a disproportionate benefit from having him with a seat. Seymour wouldn't win Epsom without the Nats giving him the seal of approval. I'm not suggesting National be forced to run an effective candidate against him (not really plausible anyway as there always a way to make the local candidate ineffective as Paul Goldsmith has demonstrated), but removing the bizarre incentive that the current system affords in such circumstances. Seymour's existence as an MP makes a mockery of Epsom.

Let's just note that in Epsom, ACT won the seat but only a mere 1.78% of the party vote in that seat. It's a rort, and you know it.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:55 am
by eugenius
Of course it isn’t .

If it was I’m sure the boreds most impartial political pundit most certainly would have acknowledged it.

Fair suck of the sav!

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:02 am
by Wilderbeast
deadduck wrote: The only thing that needs to change with MMP is a change to the threshold. But lowering the threshold will affect the proportionality in parliament with several of the current parties losing seats due to there being less reallocated proportion. If the likes of TOP or some other party get in with 2 or 3%, Labour and the Greens would probably lose a seat each.
I want to see the threshold lowered, and have no issues with parties losing seats they shouldn't have due to reallocations.

Just curious, why do you mention Labour and Greens losing a seat? National would as well, or that's my understanding. I thought it was just straight proportional or is there more to it?

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:16 am
by eugenius
Act supporters are famously optimistic.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:17 am
by eugenius
Act supporters are famously optimistic.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:25 pm
by grouch
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
Santa wrote:Imagine if you will a coalition government introducing electoral reform to benefit itself. Namely to ensure the minor partners get back in on a reduced threshold requirement.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12135073
To be honest, I've been hoping to see this kind of reform for years, regardless of which side of the divide it benefits in the short term. Coat tailing needs to go, and the sooner the better. ACT does not deserve on vote proportion to be in Parliament and are only there on the off chance that they can deliver a disproportionate benefit.

Let us not forget either that the Electoral Commission proposed these reforms in the previous Government's term and it could equally be seen as the previous government rejecting an independent body's suggestions as those changes would not benefit them.

David Seymour can fudge off too. This comment: "It is completely in the Government's interests to drop the threshold to 4 per cent and have no coat-tailing because neither of the Coalition or confidence and supply partners are going to win a seat realistically and they are going to be in some danger of dropping below five per cent."

Of course NZ First or Greens can realistically win a seat if either cut a deal with Labour just like ACT. In fact, in pure political terms, Labour probably should have cut a deal with the Greens in Nelson.

David Seymour is not coat tailing, he won an electorate seat. It would only be coat tailing if he brought a second MP with him. And why would that be unfair? It is only in proportion to the % of vote ACT get. If they don't get the votes, they don't get the seat. If they get the votes, they get the seat whether you like them or not.
Are you suggesting that in order for an MP to get elected into parliament they are required to join a large party? Or are you suggesting that a single seat winner should not be allowed to enter parliament? Or are you suggesting that National should be forced to run against ACT in Epsom? All three scenarios are unworkable and unhealthy in our democracy.
The only thing that needs to change with MMP is a change to the threshold. But lowering the threshold will affect the proportionality in parliament with several of the current parties losing seats due to there being less reallocated proportion. If the likes of TOP or some other party get in with 2 or 3%, Labour and the Greens would probably lose a seat each.
Don't be so bloody obtuse. Seymour only exists as an MP because coat tailing exists as the National Party knows that if he gains a % or two through some fluke they gain a disproportionate benefit from having him with a seat. Seymour wouldn't win Epsom without the Nats giving him the seal of approval. I'm not suggesting National be forced to run an effective candidate against him (not really plausible anyway as there always a way to make the local candidate ineffective as Paul Goldsmith has demonstrated), but removing the bizarre incentive that the current system affords in such circumstances. Seymour's existence as an MP makes a mockery of Epsom.

Let's just note that in Epsom, ACT won the seat but only a mere 1.78% of the party vote in that seat. It's a rort, and you know it.
:nod:

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:05 am
by deadduck
What you morons fail to grasp is that any changes you make apply equally to all potential candidates. You have to put your dislike of the ACT party aside for one moment and consider how unfair you would find it if someone you supported won an electorate seat but was rejected from parliament on the basis they were allegedly coat tailing.
A change to legislation will be used as a means to delegitimise independents or small parties trying to enter parliament for the first time and further entrench the status quo parties. It's a further barrier to entry that is completely unnecessary.
In principle entry to parliament should be as easy as possible for a healthy democracy and if that means putting up with the occasional David Seymour or Jim Anderton then that's fine by me.

If someone from TOP or United Future or the Maori Party won a seat would you consider them equally illegitimate MPs? You can't have it both ways, it's one rule for all.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:12 am
by deadduck
Gordon Bennett wrote:
Let's just note that in Epsom, ACT won the seat but only a mere 1.78% of the party vote in that seat. It's a rort, and you know it.
Come on, this is real MMP 101 stuff. You know this line of argument is completely fallacious.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:26 am
by Gordon Bennett
Act are not winning the seat on their own merits. Locals were told to vote for them. If act were winning on their own merits, I wouldn’t have an issue. Which means you need to remove the incentive for other parties to ‘let’ a minor party win a seat for dubious reasons. I don’t care which party it is - if you can’t win the seat on your own merits, then you don’t deserve the seat. There’s nothing you can do to convince me that Seymour is winning that seat due to his or act’s policy platform.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:19 am
by Auckman
guy smiley wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:Act are not winning the seat on their own merits. Locals were told to vote for them. If act were winning on their own merits, I wouldn’t have an issue. Which means you need to remove the incentive for other parties to ‘let’ a minor party win a seat for dubious reasons. I don’t care which party it is - if you can’t win the seat on your own merits, then you don’t deserve the seat. There’s nothing you can do to convince me that Seymour is winning that seat due to his or act’s policy platform.

I'm not across the specifics of this case.. but are you trying to suggest that a candidate who wins the vote is illegitimate? That somehow, opposing parties could influence voters enough to swing a victory against their own candidates?
My god yes.

National gave the signal to their voters in Epsom "we are only campaigning for the party vote" - ie: "we want you to vote for David Seymour as the local MP but National for the party vote". It is an MMP tactic which was first used with then Green leader, Jeannette Fitzsimons, in Coromandel at the 1999 election when Helen Clark ran the same line.

Once a party wins a seat, depending on their percentage, they could have several other MPs in parliament even though the party never actually reached the 5% threshold. This is called "coat-tailing". The other MPs come in on the coat-tails of the one electorate MP that won a seat. It is the only way ACT have survived for so long.

Coat-tailing is bad. Coat-tailing must go.

I support:
- get rid of coat-tailing
- reduce the threshold to 4% (although I don't mind 3%) - interestingly enough, Winston doesn't support 4%. He still wants 5%.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:19 am
by Dark
Gordon Bennett wrote:Act are not winning the seat on their own merits. Locals were told to vote for them. If act were winning on their own merits, I wouldn’t have an issue. Which means you need to remove the incentive for other parties to ‘let’ a minor party win a seat for dubious reasons. I don’t care which party it is - if you can’t win the seat on your own merits, then you don’t deserve the seat. There’s nothing you can do to convince me that Seymour is winning that seat due to his or act’s policy platform.
:lol: :lol:

Cry me a river

He got voted in for one reason

The people of Epsom CHOSE to vote him in.

I think most of the 93% of voters in NZ (the ones who didn't vote NZF) didn't vote for one bloke to decide who the govt was going to be, but it's what happened

It's called MMP

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:39 am
by maxbox
UncleFB wrote:
douche_chill wrote:
maxbox wrote:Jacinda breaking out the te reo in front of the UN general assembly was particularly cringe inducing (seeing as she like 80 percent of the country is not fluent or even conversant)
x( Do people still think like this? Move to Australia, or the 50s.
:lol: You're quite witty when you're not fluffing bizzle all the time.
booji boy wrote:See Unclefb this is why I like John Key. He's been gone two years but the leftie snowflakes on here are still having a name calling, whiny sook about him. :lol:

By way of comparison I love Jacinda. ;)
:lol: Also, we all know that SeN will be whining on here about her at least two years after she finishes as PM too.
My point was that it seem very very forced as in "oh look another whitey premier is butchering the indigenous language for 30 minutes of political gain"

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:55 am
by Gordon Bennett
Dark wrote: It's called MMP
It's this version of MMP and you can get rid of the incentive and get rid of the bullshit at the same time. The massive gap between the electorate vote and the party vote in Epsom demonstrates that the locals don't want an ACT MP. This sort of rubbish is the best argument for getting rid of constituency MPs entirely and go to a fully party-vote based system.

ACT is just the best example. How would you feel if Labour did a similar deal with the Greens if they're in danger of falling below 5%? Both are a blatant misuse of the electoral system that National had a chance to dispose of 5 years ago, and perhaps the current government might take a chance to get rid of now.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:15 am
by Wilderbeast
deadduck wrote:What you morons fail to grasp is that any changes you make apply equally to all potential candidates. You have to put your dislike of the ACT party aside for one moment and consider how unfair you would find it if someone you supported won an electorate seat but was rejected from parliament on the basis they were allegedly coat tailing.
A change to legislation will be used as a means to delegitimise independents or small parties trying to enter parliament for the first time and further entrench the status quo parties. It's a further barrier to entry that is completely unnecessary.
In principle entry to parliament should be as easy as possible for a healthy democracy and if that means putting up with the occasional David Seymour or Jim Anderton then that's fine by me.

If someone from TOP or United Future or the Maori Party won a seat would you consider them equally illegitimate MPs? You can't have it both ways, it's one rule for all.
I agree with all of this. It’s why I support lowering the threshold. Act benefited as they didn’t have to reach 5% but their share of parliament was always proportional to their vote. Call it coat tailing if you want, but it would be ridiculous if the alternative was followed (an MP won a seat and their party won 4% but they weren’t allowed more MPs as didn’t reach 5%.

I think it was dead duck that used New Plymouth as an example. If the entire city voted for a party unanimously, it would be considered too minor to be included as didn’t break 5%. Is New Plymouth an insignificant part of the county? This implies it is.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:09 am
by deadduck
guy smiley wrote:
Auckman wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:Act are not winning the seat on their own merits. Locals were told to vote for them. If act were winning on their own merits, I wouldn’t have an issue. Which means you need to remove the incentive for other parties to ‘let’ a minor party win a seat for dubious reasons. I don’t care which party it is - if you can’t win the seat on your own merits, then you don’t deserve the seat. There’s nothing you can do to convince me that Seymour is winning that seat due to his or act’s policy platform.

I'm not across the specifics of this case.. but are you trying to suggest that a candidate who wins the vote is illegitimate? That somehow, opposing parties could influence voters enough to swing a victory against their own candidates?
My god yes.

National gave the signal to their voters in Epsom "we are only campaigning for the party vote" - ie: "we want you to vote for David Seymour as the local MP but National for the party vote". It is an MMP tactic which was first used with then Green leader, Jeannette Fitzsimons, in Coromandel at the 1999 election when Helen Clark ran the same line.

Once a party wins a seat, depending on their percentage, they could have several other MPs in parliament even though the party never actually reached the 5% threshold. This is called "coat-tailing". The other MPs come in on the coat-tails of the one electorate MP that won a seat. It is the only way ACT have survived for so long.

Coat-tailing is bad. Coat-tailing must go.

I support:
- get rid of coat-tailing
- reduce the threshold to 4% (although I don't mind 3%) - interestingly enough, Winston doesn't support 4%. He still wants 5%.
Deadduck and I discussed some of this over a beer last year and I think I owe him an apology for not grasping the detail of how it can be gamed as you’ve outlined. I’m with you on the rest of it. :thumbup:
It can only be "gamed" to the proportionality of the vote. No party can get seats they aren't entitled to this way and the proportionality of the parliament is a actually a truer reflection of the election results.

There's no question National are taking advantage of the way the system is designed in order to keep Seymour and ACT in parliament but to change the system just because of one unlikable MP would have effects on independents and other small marginal parties the consequences of which are much worse than putting up with ACT's lone MP.

Propose me a system that prevents "gaming" but doesn't also keep out new or small parties or independents and I'd be on board, but no one has yet. At the moment our MMP is heading towards a 3-party system and that was never the intention of it and can't be good for the country.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:20 am
by deadduck
Last year in Christchurch there was an independent (Raf Manji) running against Gerry Brownlee. If he had won, he would have had no party for the party vote share.

By your logic GB the party vote % would imply Ilam wanted either a Nat or Labour MP even though an independent won. It makes no sense, the party vote and electoral vote don't have to correlate for a result to be legit. If Epsom didn't like Seymour they wouldn't vote for him. Paul Goldsmith still ran.
You're ignoring the rights of an electorate to choose their own representation.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:51 am
by JB1981
What happens with coat-tailing if the electorate MP who brought say three other members in with them (if that number is possible for a party that failed to reach 5%) stands down/dies and their party fails to win the by-election? Are the coat-tailing MPs removed and seats redistributed proportionately?

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:02 am
by Gordon Bennett
deadduck wrote:Last year in Christchurch there was an independent (Raf Manji) running against Gerry Brownlee. If he had won, he would have had no party for the party vote share.

By your logic GB the party vote % would imply Ilam wanted either a Nat or Labour MP even though an independent won. It makes no sense, the party vote and electoral vote don't have to correlate for a result to be legit. If Epsom didn't like Seymour they wouldn't vote for him. Paul Goldsmith still ran.
You're ignoring the rights of an electorate to choose their own representation.
I'm with you if you take out the fact that National direct people in Epsom to vote for ACT and those people clearly change their voting habit to do just that. Goldsmith was on the ballot, for sure, but as to whether he "ran" - well, he very much didn't campaign to win the seat. That kind of practice is gaming the system and it all relates to that coat-tailing incentive. If it wasn't there, it wouldn't happen.

If other parties need to get over 5% (or 4% if that changes) to get wider representation, then the same principle should apply to single-seat MPs - ACT shouldn't get additional MPs until they're over the 4% threshold.

If a candidate stands and wins on their own merit - as Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton did a number of times - then I have absolutely no problem with that. But I don't see why a party should get additional seats just because they've won an electorate, especially when this encourages morally dubious practices.

I contend that if you got rid of that potential bonus and made electorate winning MPs subject to the same threshold, than National wouldn't waste their time playing with Epsom. In a properly contested election in that seat, National would win every time - the party vote in that seat demonstrates it.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:04 am
by Gordon Bennett
deadduck wrote: There's no question National are taking advantage of the way the system is designed in order to keep Seymour and ACT in parliament but to change the system just because of one unlikable MP would have effects on independents and other small marginal parties the consequences of which are much worse than putting up with ACT's lone MP..
It's not just about Seymour. Labour could have pulled out of Nelson to give Matt Lawrey a clear run (if the Greens were at real risk of falling below 5%). That would be equal amounts of bullshit if it were to happen and be successful.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:20 am
by Fat Old Git
guy smiley wrote:So somewhere along the line what I understood to be the basis of the NZ MMP system changed... I thought it was a contest for each electorate coupled with the percentage of the overall vote leading to seats. Was that it and if so why was it changed?
I'm not sure it's changed. You get 2 votes. I for who you want to be your local candidate, and another for your preferred party. Even without any of the games the parties play it more than possible that you may prefer a local candidate who isn't from your preferred party. I know a few people who voted national for example but would never vote for "bulldozer" Brownlee. Which I understand completely. He's my local MP but has never received my vote.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:48 am
by Fat Old Git
guy smiley wrote:Then where does ‘coat tailing’ fit into that? I thought your two votes were for local / national representation but from what is being said there’s a weighting gained from local votes gained? Or am I just being dumb and misunderstanding the discussion here?
If you get a candidate voted in, and have a high enough percentage of the overall party vote you can bring in list MPs wish you to match that percentage without having to make the 5% threshold. So a party that wins ones seat and got 3.5% of the party vote will end up with several MPs in parliament. But a party that won no seats and got 4.9% of the vote won't have any. Their party vote essentially gets split between all those parties who gain entrance into parliament.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:52 am
by Santa
The problems with a party vote only system are:
- The party is in total control of the individuals that enter parliament not the people
- No local MP function which is actually quite important
- No by-elections which while slightly odd are also quite useful
- No scope for independents to run, hopeless as they are
- A much bigger barrier to entry for new parties

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:13 am
by Wilderbeast
Santa wrote:The problems with a party vote only system are:
- The party is in total control of the individuals that enter parliament not the people
- No local MP function which is actually quite important
- No by-elections which while slightly odd are also quite useful
- No scope for independents to run, hopeless as they are
- A much bigger barrier to entry for new parties
Still not convinced on local mp's.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:18 am
by Santa
Wilderbeast wrote:
Santa wrote:The problems with a party vote only system are:
- The party is in total control of the individuals that enter parliament not the people
- No local MP function which is actually quite important
- No by-elections which while slightly odd are also quite useful
- No scope for independents to run, hopeless as they are
- A much bigger barrier to entry for new parties
Still not convinced on local mp's.
Some of them do lots of local work. Greasing the local wheels. Doing good deeds etc.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:28 am
by Dark
Wilderbeast wrote:
Santa wrote:The problems with a party vote only system are:
- The party is in total control of the individuals that enter parliament not the people
- No local MP function which is actually quite important
- No by-elections which while slightly odd are also quite useful
- No scope for independents to run, hopeless as they are
- A much bigger barrier to entry for new parties
Still not convinced on local mp's.
Electoral MPs actually get held to account* and have show they have the electorate best interests at heart or they get handed their arse next election.

The majority of list MPs to jack all apart from rock up 3 days a week in the arvo for a few hours for 4 weeks and then have two weeks off to yell Yay or Ney depending on what they are told a few times.

*Unless it's an entrenched one party always seat

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:30 am
by deadduck
Gordon Bennett wrote:
deadduck wrote:Last year in Christchurch there was an independent (Raf Manji) running against Gerry Brownlee. If he had won, he would have had no party for the party vote share.

By your logic GB the party vote % would imply Ilam wanted either a Nat or Labour MP even though an independent won. It makes no sense, the party vote and electoral vote don't have to correlate for a result to be legit. If Epsom didn't like Seymour they wouldn't vote for him. Paul Goldsmith still ran.
You're ignoring the rights of an electorate to choose their own representation.
I'm with you if you take out the fact that National direct people in Epsom to vote for ACT and those people clearly change their voting habit to do just that. Goldsmith was on the ballot, for sure, but as to whether he "ran" - well, he very much didn't campaign to win the seat. That kind of practice is gaming the system and it all relates to that coat-tailing incentive. If it wasn't there, it wouldn't happen.

If other parties need to get over 5% (or 4% if that changes) to get wider representation, then the same principle should apply to single-seat MPs - ACT shouldn't get additional MPs until they're over the 4% threshold.

If a candidate stands and wins on their own merit - as Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton did a number of times - then I have absolutely no problem with that. But I don't see why a party should get additional seats just because they've won an electorate, especially when this encourages morally dubious practices.

I contend that if you got rid of that potential bonus and made electorate winning MPs subject to the same threshold, than National wouldn't waste their time playing with Epsom. In a properly contested election in that seat, National would win every time - the party vote in that seat demonstrates it.

National may suggest Epsom voters vote for Seymour but there is nothing that actually compels them to do that. If they really wanted rid of him, they wouldn't vote for him. Perhaps they like having an MP who is locally focused? There is a difference between having an MP who's in his office every second week and being in an electorate like Mt Albert who get basically no attention from Ardern.

Whilst there is still a threshold we simply can't get rid of the coat tailing provision. I would argue that if anything is to go, it should be the threshold. After all, the concept of coat tailing only arises because of the threshold, if there were no threshold then everything would simply be proportional representation.

As has been raised, 5% is in reality an extremely high barrier. In the 2017 election, to achieve 5% of the vote required 129,595 votes.
It's more people than live in Nelson and Rotorua put together. It's more people than live in the whole of Taranaki.

Having no threshold at all would mean that for a party to get one MP just requires 1/120th of the vote and to get two needs 2/120th of the vote. Not only is this extremely simple, it's fair and it's still a reasonable barrier. 2/120 is about 1.7% which in the 2017 election was still around 44,000 votes. TOP received over 63,000 votes and were kept out. That's more people than live in New Plymouth yet they get an electorate MP.
In fact the justification for the size of an electorate at the moment is to keep the electorates to a population of around 59,700 people. That's only about 2.3% of the votes and you don't need to win them all to win the seat. Chris Bishop won Hutt South with fewer than 20,000 votes. Greg O'Connor won Ohariu with fewer than 18,000 votes. Yet a party needs 129,595 votes? It makes no sense. It shouldn't be 4.9% = 0 MPs and 5.1% = 6 MPs

Perhaps if there was a proliferation of tiny parties in parliament we might need a threshold, but we're down to 5 and perhaps by 2020 it will be just 3. There's no point in it.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:33 am
by Ghost-Of-Nepia
Dark wrote: The majority of list MPs to jack all apart from rock up 3 days a week in the arvo for a few hours for 4 weeks and then have two weeks off to yell Yay or Ney depending on what they are told a few times.
This is delightfully wrong but good on you for having a go.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:40 am
by Tehui
I'm one of the people who prefer the status quo with MMP. If you lower the electoral threshold, you risk parliament having too many parties and it becoming too fractured and unwieldy to govern. What NZ politics really lacks is another centre party alongside NZ First. At the moment, NZ First holds way too much leverage. It's a shame that the Opportunities Party didn't receive more support.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:41 am
by Dark
Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote:
Dark wrote: The majority of list MPs to jack all apart from rock up 3 days a week in the arvo for a few hours for 4 weeks and then have two weeks off to yell Yay or Ney depending on what they are told a few times.
This is delightfully wrong but good on you for having a go.
Enlighten us with with the important work your average backbench bottom 10 list MP for the Nats and Labour do GoN

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:45 am
by deadduck
Tehui wrote:I'm one of the people who prefer the status quo with MMP. If you lower the electoral threshold, you risk parliament having too many parties and it becoming too fractured and unwieldy to govern. What NZ politics really lacks is another centre party alongside NZ First. At the moment, NZ First holds way too much leverage. It's a shame that the Opportunities Party didn't receive more support.
I think they probably would have got more votes if they had a locked in electorate win. Many people are skittish voters and shy away from voting for marginal parties in fear of their vote being "wasted". I imagine a fair number of potential TOP voters were last minute mind changers.

The reason for this behaviour is, of course, the size of the threshold.
It's also why NZF can expect their support to plummet once Winston Peters retires/returns to his sarcophagus.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:47 am
by Wilderbeast
Dark wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
Santa wrote:The problems with a party vote only system are:
- The party is in total control of the individuals that enter parliament not the people
- No local MP function which is actually quite important
- No by-elections which while slightly odd are also quite useful
- No scope for independents to run, hopeless as they are
- A much bigger barrier to entry for new parties
Still not convinced on local mp's.
Electoral MPs actually get held to account* and have show they have the electorate best interests at heart or they get handed their arse next election.

The majority of list MPs to jack all apart from rock up 3 days a week in the arvo for a few hours for 4 weeks and then have two weeks off to yell Yay or Ney depending on what they are told a few times.

*Unless it's an entrenched one party always seat
I don't believe this, and you allude to it in your post. I think a party is much more likely to be held to account in the shift of an electoral seat, as opposed to the person themselves. Not many seats are held by someone not in National or Labour and a lot of them are no-names. There is a reason for that. During Key's reign, National cleaned up an awful lot of electorate seats. Pretty sure they were riding the tails of a popular govt and PM.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:52 am
by Dark
Wilderbeast wrote:
Dark wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
Santa wrote:The problems with a party vote only system are:
- The party is in total control of the individuals that enter parliament not the people
- No local MP function which is actually quite important
- No by-elections which while slightly odd are also quite useful
- No scope for independents to run, hopeless as they are
- A much bigger barrier to entry for new parties
Still not convinced on local mp's.
Electoral MPs actually get held to account* and have show they have the electorate best interests at heart or they get handed their arse next election.

The majority of list MPs to jack all apart from rock up 3 days a week in the arvo for a few hours for 4 weeks and then have two weeks off to yell Yay or Ney depending on what they are told a few times.

*Unless it's an entrenched one party always seat
I don't believe this, and you allude to it in your post. I think a party is much more likely to be held to account in the shift of an electoral seat, as opposed to the person themselves. Not many seats are held by someone not in National or Labour and a lot of them are no-names. There is a reason for that. During Key's reign, National cleaned up an awful lot of electorate seats. Pretty sure they were riding the tails of a popular govt and PM.
There is a reason why Dunne got voted in for so long. He didn't need any cups of tea under Key and was a minister in both Labour and Nat govts

It was because he was an excellent MP for his electorate

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:03 am
by mr bungle
Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote:
Dark wrote: The majority of list MPs to jack all apart from rock up 3 days a week in the arvo for a few hours for 4 weeks and then have two weeks off to yell Yay or Ney depending on what they are told a few times.
This is delightfully wrong but good on you for having a go.
Correct. He should have made mention of Electorate MPs also ;)

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:06 am
by Ghost-Of-Nepia
Dark wrote:
Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote:
Dark wrote: The majority of list MPs to jack all apart from rock up 3 days a week in the arvo for a few hours for 4 weeks and then have two weeks off to yell Yay or Ney depending on what they are told a few times.
This is delightfully wrong but good on you for having a go.
Enlighten us with with the important work your average backbench bottom 10 list MP for the Nats and Labour do GoN
I wouldn't disagree that they arguably have a quieter time during recess, but during sitting weeks:
- select committees (all Nat MPs are on one, and some Government MPs are on two)
- policy planning
- stakeholder meetings for their portfolios (if they're in Opposition)
- caucus policy group meetings
- a caucus meeting weekly (which takes anything from an hour to 2 1/2 hours on a Tuesday morning)
- oral question preparation (if they have a question in the House)
- Government backbenchers (and Opposition ones for that matter) get lumped with the most time in the House on roster, so writing speeches or refining debate notes for a bill there's every chance they knew nothing about until they were told they were speaking on it at procedures that morning.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:28 am
by booji boy
guy smiley wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
guy smiley wrote:Then where does ‘coat tailing’ fit into that? I thought your two votes were for local / national representation but from what is being said there’s a weighting gained from local votes gained? Or am I just being dumb and misunderstanding the discussion here?
If you get a candidate voted in, and have a high enough percentage of the overall party vote you can bring in list MPs wish you to match that percentage without having to make the 5% threshold. So a party that wins ones seat and got 3.5% of the party vote will end up with several MPs in parliament. But a party that won no seats and got 4.9% of the vote won't have any. Their party vote essentially gets split between all those parties who gain entrance into parliament.
Ok... that’s a slight distortion of the way I understood it and to me it makes no real sense. I always saw it as direct electorate voting plus the overall vote percentage but what you’re describing is quite different. Was that a modification to the original model? It seems screwy to me, an inaccurate representation of voter wishes.
No modifications. What don't you get about it? The only inaccurate representation of voters wishes is if you vote for a party that doesn't win a seat and fails to meet the 5% threshold. The Greens scraped in after their leadership debacle with approx 6% I think. They were never going to win a seat and were polling just on or below the 5% cut line so it looked dicey for them during the election campaign but they survived. TOP (The Opportunities Party) on the other hand created a lot of interest but could only muster about 2% of the vote so those voter wishes were lost.

ACT as others have pointed out only survive because National gifts them the Epsom seat. If National changes tactic and put a strong candidate in Epsom ACT would be gone.

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:41 am
by Wilderbeast
booji boy wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
guy smiley wrote:Then where does ‘coat tailing’ fit into that? I thought your two votes were for local / national representation but from what is being said there’s a weighting gained from local votes gained? Or am I just being dumb and misunderstanding the discussion here?
If you get a candidate voted in, and have a high enough percentage of the overall party vote you can bring in list MPs wish you to match that percentage without having to make the 5% threshold. So a party that wins ones seat and got 3.5% of the party vote will end up with several MPs in parliament. But a party that won no seats and got 4.9% of the vote won't have any. Their party vote essentially gets split between all those parties who gain entrance into parliament.
Ok... that’s a slight distortion of the way I understood it and to me it makes no real sense. I always saw it as direct electorate voting plus the overall vote percentage but what you’re describing is quite different. Was that a modification to the original model? It seems screwy to me, an inaccurate representation of voter wishes.
No modifications. What don't you get about it? The only inaccurate representation of voters wishes is if you vote for a party that doesn't win a seat and fails to meet the 5% threshold. The Greens scraped in after their leadership debacle with approx 6% I think. They were never going to win a seat and were polling just on or below the 5% cut line so it looked dicey for them during the election campaign but they survived. TOP (The Opportunities Party) on the other hand created a lot of interest but could only muster about 2% of the vote so those voter wishes were lost.

ACT as others have pointed out only survive because National gifts them the Epsom seat. If National changes tactic and put a strong candidate in Epsom ACT would be gone.
National could claim Epsom any time they wanted. There have been polls on Epsom asking who their preferred candidate is and Paul Goldsmith won. Then if they were given a nudge who would they vote? Almost all of them switched to Act. They know the game and are happy to play.

The bolded bit is interesting too. Some people would say if a party gets more electorate seats than it's party share, and generates an overhang (the maori party has managed this before I believe), then they are over-represented in parliament. Basically, the 2 vote electorate vs party system doesn't quite work out as nicely as we like to think. Considering people only care about the parties anyway (how else do you explain 99% of electorate MP's being National or Labour), I'm not convinced on the value of electorate MP's*

*I have also not thought about this a lot, and I'm not advocating their removal without someone (not me) doing some good analysis on it.