Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:26 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17767 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426 ... 445  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 6305
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3286
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3489
Santa 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.


Some of them do lots of local work. Greasing the local wheels. Doing good deeds etc.



Much of what government does is put into effect locally.

A hospital, motorway, school, or police in Auckland is very different to being put into Dunedin. It's good to have a fair chunk of parliament reliant on electorate votes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38643
Location: in transit
booji boy wrote:
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.


I’m reading posts here telling me parties are getting MPs in on less than 5%.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 6305
guy smiley wrote:
booji boy wrote:
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.


I’m reading posts here telling me parties are getting MPs in on less than 5%.


Of the Party Vote. But they win their electorate seat.

As an example let's say you have an electorate that has 5,000 voters. They are National supporters and 75% of the Party Vote goes to National. But let's also say that the local National MP is unpopular whilst the Labour MP is a much more popular candidate and does good things for the local electorate and accordingly wins the local electorate seat by winning say 3,500 to 1,500 electorate votes.

To explain the Epsom situation it is a National stronghold and they would probably win 70-75% of the party vote in that electorate and win the seat if they contested it. However since they have 44% of the overall party vote winning that seat wouldn't provide them any extra seats in parliament. So they gift it to Act by instructing National supporters to vote for the Act candidate whilst still giving National their party vote. Then Act is able to win the seat and come into parliament as a National coalition partner. In the past this meant bringing in additional MPs on the coattailing rules. However Acts support is so low these days only David Seymour is in parliament given their paltry share of the party vote was 0.5%.

Parties like NZ First and the Greens rely on winning >5% of the Party vote to get into parliament as they don't win any electorate seats. Although from 1993-2005 Winston used to hold the Tauranga electorate seat.

Comprende?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8809
How’s that opposition going then eh ?

Bit of a shambles if you ask me .

Simple Simon won’t last the distance , I think that’s a given .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8041
Location: Vandean Coast
Yeah he and Paula are looking pretty unelectable. Not helped by the fact she seems to be styling herself based on Disney villains


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8809
No more naughty parties then I take it ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38643
Location: in transit
booji boy wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
booji boy wrote:
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.


I’m reading posts here telling me parties are getting MPs in on less than 5%.


Of the Party Vote. But they win their electorate seat.

As an example let's say you have an electorate that has 5,000 voters. They are National supporters and 75% of the Party Vote goes to National. But let's also say that the local National MP is unpopular whilst the Labour MP is a much more popular candidate and does good things for the local electorate and accordingly wins the local electorate seat by winning say 3,500 to 1,500 electorate votes.

To explain the Epsom situation it is a National stronghold and they would probably win 70-75% of the party vote in that electorate and win the seat if they contested it. However since they have 44% of the overall party vote winning that seat wouldn't provide them any extra seats in parliament. So they gift it to Act by instructing National supporters to vote for the Act candidate whilst still giving National their party vote. Then Act is able to win the seat and come into parliament as a National coalition partner. In the past this meant bringing in additional MPs on the coattailing rules. However Acts support is so low these days only David Seymour is in parliament given their paltry share of the party vote was 0.5%.

Parties like NZ First and the Greens rely on winning >5% of the Party vote to get into parliament as they don't win any electorate seats. Although from 1993-2005 Winston used to hold the Tauranga electorate seat.

Comprende?


Comprehende 'as an aitch...

yeah. I do. The way this has been debated gives the impression that some are in parliament on less than the party vote threshold... the lack of logic in the way that was presented had me thinking there was some mechanism allowing that.

To clarify... what some call coat tailing is otherwise known as List MPs, right?

I don't understand the resistance to that principle. I guess some see that as a negative as it allows 'unelected' members into parliament? Minor party representation is important though, it underpins the MMP system. DO away with that and you surrender diversity to a two party political system and just look at how well that's working for Australia, or the US.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11594
I don't mind the Epsom-type deals tbh. At the end of the day, it is the voter in the booth by him/herself deciding what to do. If they were motivated to vote tactically, then that is up to them. So if Seymour wins in Epsom or Winston wins in Northland or JF wins in Coromandel, or some Green bloke wins in Nelson, I'm fine with that. Tactical voting could go the other way too. Labour voters in Epsom (if they exist) might try and vote for National's Goldsmith in a bid to get rid of Seymour and ACT, but party vote Labour.

However, the party of that electorate MP shouldn't automatically benefit unless they get over the magical 5% threshold. That is unfair on other parties which failed to get over the 5% threshold.

btw, List MPs are just as legitimate as Electorate MPs. List MP "electorates" are technically the whole country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15193
Location: Auckland, NZ, Earth
I live in Epsom. National would easily win it should they ask. People here only vote ACT because of the potential of ACT getting another MP through the list.

Would take a complete miracle for Labour to win this seat. Could make a movie about it. I think there is one Labour voter in the entire electorate. He only earns 150k a year so struggles to pay the rent. His Chinese landlord asked him for a bit of "extra on the side" to make up the shortfall.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2120
guy smiley wrote:

To clarify... what some call coat tailing is otherwise known as List MPs, right?

I don't understand the resistance to that principle. I guess some see that as a negative as it allows 'unelected' members into parliament? Minor party representation is important though, it underpins the MMP system. DO away with that and you surrender diversity to a two party political system and just look at how well that's working for Australia, or the US.


Your coat-tailing would be bringing in some list MPs on the basis of a constituency win. You win an electorate, the threshold for getting your proportionality recognised as MPs falls from 5% to 0%. Most stark a few elections back when ACT got 5 MPs based on Epsom + a 3.5% share of the vote whilst NZ First got zero MPs with a 4% share of the vote.

ACT currently have a seat despite only getting a 0.50% vote share (which would equate to less than a seat in a fully proportional parliament)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1454
Gordon Bennett wrote:
guy smiley wrote:

To clarify... what some call coat tailing is otherwise known as List MPs, right?

I don't understand the resistance to that principle. I guess some see that as a negative as it allows 'unelected' members into parliament? Minor party representation is important though, it underpins the MMP system. DO away with that and you surrender diversity to a two party political system and just look at how well that's working for Australia, or the US.


Your coat-tailing would be bringing in some list MPs on the basis of a constituency win. You win an electorate, the threshold for getting your proportionality recognised as MPs falls from 5% to 0%. Most stark a few elections back when ACT got 5 MPs based on Epsom + a 3.5% share of the vote whilst NZ First got zero MPs with a 4% share of the vote.

ACT currently have a seat despite only getting a 0.50% vote share (which would equate to less than a seat in a fully proportional parliament)

MMP in IMHO is a crock of shit, a bloody dog's breakfast.
No amount of tinkering will ever make it right.
It saddles us with more politicians than we need and as a consequence lowers the average IQ of the House.
The horse trading that follows an election is too susceptible to corruption and self serving cynicism and results in serving up a government that nobody really wants.
No wonder the politicians love it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3286
Gordon Bennett wrote:
guy smiley wrote:

To clarify... what some call coat tailing is otherwise known as List MPs, right?

I don't understand the resistance to that principle. I guess some see that as a negative as it allows 'unelected' members into parliament? Minor party representation is important though, it underpins the MMP system. DO away with that and you surrender diversity to a two party political system and just look at how well that's working for Australia, or the US.


Your coat-tailing would be bringing in some list MPs on the basis of a constituency win. You win an electorate, the threshold for getting your proportionality recognised as MPs falls from 5% to 0%. Most stark a few elections back when ACT got 5 MPs based on Epsom + a 3.5% share of the vote whilst NZ First got zero MPs with a 4% share of the vote.

ACT currently have a seat despite only getting a 0.50% vote share (which would equate to less than a seat in a fully proportional parliament)


This is incorrect, pretty sure David Seymour has never been an overhang (i.e. ACT has always had at least one seat allocated).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:39 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17117
Wilderbeast wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
guy smiley wrote:

To clarify... what some call coat tailing is otherwise known as List MPs, right?

I don't understand the resistance to that principle. I guess some see that as a negative as it allows 'unelected' members into parliament? Minor party representation is important though, it underpins the MMP system. DO away with that and you surrender diversity to a two party political system and just look at how well that's working for Australia, or the US.


Your coat-tailing would be bringing in some list MPs on the basis of a constituency win. You win an electorate, the threshold for getting your proportionality recognised as MPs falls from 5% to 0%. Most stark a few elections back when ACT got 5 MPs based on Epsom + a 3.5% share of the vote whilst NZ First got zero MPs with a 4% share of the vote.

ACT currently have a seat despite only getting a 0.50% vote share (which would equate to less than a seat in a fully proportional parliament)


This is incorrect, pretty sure David Seymour has never been an overhang (i.e. ACT has always had at least one seat allocated).


ACT got 0.69% of the vote, a party would require .83 to qualify for a seat proportionately.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21647
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
BillW wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
guy smiley wrote:

To clarify... what some call coat tailing is otherwise known as List MPs, right?

I don't understand the resistance to that principle. I guess some see that as a negative as it allows 'unelected' members into parliament? Minor party representation is important though, it underpins the MMP system. DO away with that and you surrender diversity to a two party political system and just look at how well that's working for Australia, or the US.


Your coat-tailing would be bringing in some list MPs on the basis of a constituency win. You win an electorate, the threshold for getting your proportionality recognised as MPs falls from 5% to 0%. Most stark a few elections back when ACT got 5 MPs based on Epsom + a 3.5% share of the vote whilst NZ First got zero MPs with a 4% share of the vote.

ACT currently have a seat despite only getting a 0.50% vote share (which would equate to less than a seat in a fully proportional parliament)

MMP in IMHO is a crock of shit, a bloody dog's breakfast.
No amount of tinkering will ever make it right.
It saddles us with more politicians than we need and as a consequence lowers the average IQ of the House.
The horse trading that follows an election is too susceptible to corruption and self serving cynicism and results in serving up a government that nobody really wants.
No wonder the politicians love it.



I totally disagree. It gives us the EXACT government we voted for with some built in checks and balances (legislation must get thru 3 caucuses to become law). I love it and I could never agree to going back to the Muldoon type governments of old


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1454
Enzedder wrote:
BillW wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
guy smiley wrote:

To clarify... what some call coat tailing is otherwise known as List MPs, right?

I don't understand the resistance to that principle. I guess some see that as a negative as it allows 'unelected' members into parliament? Minor party representation is important though, it underpins the MMP system. DO away with that and you surrender diversity to a two party political system and just look at how well that's working for Australia, or the US.


Your coat-tailing would be bringing in some list MPs on the basis of a constituency win. You win an electorate, the threshold for getting your proportionality recognised as MPs falls from 5% to 0%. Most stark a few elections back when ACT got 5 MPs based on Epsom + a 3.5% share of the vote whilst NZ First got zero MPs with a 4% share of the vote.

ACT currently have a seat despite only getting a 0.50% vote share (which would equate to less than a seat in a fully proportional parliament)

MMP in IMHO is a crock of shit, a bloody dog's breakfast.
No amount of tinkering will ever make it right.
It saddles us with more politicians than we need and as a consequence lowers the average IQ of the House.
The horse trading that follows an election is too susceptible to corruption and self serving cynicism and results in serving up a government that nobody really wants.
No wonder the politicians love it.



I totally disagree. It gives us the EXACT government we voted for with some built in checks and balances (legislation must get thru 3 caucuses to become law). I love it and I could never agree to going back to the Muldoon type governments of old

Good to see you're back ENZ.

What I posted was my opinion.
You're free to disagree.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8041
Location: Vandean Coast
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
guy smiley wrote:

To clarify... what some call coat tailing is otherwise known as List MPs, right?

I don't understand the resistance to that principle. I guess some see that as a negative as it allows 'unelected' members into parliament? Minor party representation is important though, it underpins the MMP system. DO away with that and you surrender diversity to a two party political system and just look at how well that's working for Australia, or the US.


Your coat-tailing would be bringing in some list MPs on the basis of a constituency win. You win an electorate, the threshold for getting your proportionality recognised as MPs falls from 5% to 0%. Most stark a few elections back when ACT got 5 MPs based on Epsom + a 3.5% share of the vote whilst NZ First got zero MPs with a 4% share of the vote.

ACT currently have a seat despite only getting a 0.50% vote share (which would equate to less than a seat in a fully proportional parliament)


This is incorrect, pretty sure David Seymour has never been an overhang (i.e. ACT has always had at least one seat allocated).


ACT got 0.69% of the vote, a party would require .83 to qualify for a seat proportionately.



Not necessarily, it depends how much waste vote there is. For example in the last election 4.68% of the potential seats were reallocated. ACT proportions increase accordingly and then the reallocated vote goes through the algorithm to decide who gets those shares of the seats and it's likely ACT was allocated some of that to bring their proportion into line with their 1 seat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:04 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17117
BillW wrote:
Good to see you're back ENZ.

What I posted was my opinion.
You're free to disagree.



FPP simply gave a government that a minority (and sometimes not even a plurality) of the people wanted with more or less absolute power. I don't believe certainty of government is as important as representation especially given that MMP hasn't resulted in unstable governments.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20260
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
BillW wrote:
Good to see you're back ENZ.

What I posted was my opinion.
You're free to disagree.



FPP simply gave a government that a minority (and sometimes not even a plurality) of the people wanted with more or less absolute power. I don't believe certainty of government is as important as representation especially given that MMP hasn't resulted in unstable governments.


Which was the main fear expressed by FPP supporters in the 1993 referendum. Stability does rely on the behaviour of our political representatives though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:27 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17117
Tehui wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
BillW wrote:
Good to see you're back ENZ.

What I posted was my opinion.
You're free to disagree.



FPP simply gave a government that a minority (and sometimes not even a plurality) of the people wanted with more or less absolute power. I don't believe certainty of government is as important as representation especially given that MMP hasn't resulted in unstable governments.


Which was the main fear expressed by FPP supporters in the 1993 referendum. Stability does rely on the behaviour of our political representatives though.


Sure, but likewise FPP relies on the government not abusing its power as the NZ system with no upper house has almost no real checks and balances.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2120
deadduck wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
guy smiley wrote:

To clarify... what some call coat tailing is otherwise known as List MPs, right?

I don't understand the resistance to that principle. I guess some see that as a negative as it allows 'unelected' members into parliament? Minor party representation is important though, it underpins the MMP system. DO away with that and you surrender diversity to a two party political system and just look at how well that's working for Australia, or the US.


Your coat-tailing would be bringing in some list MPs on the basis of a constituency win. You win an electorate, the threshold for getting your proportionality recognised as MPs falls from 5% to 0%. Most stark a few elections back when ACT got 5 MPs based on Epsom + a 3.5% share of the vote whilst NZ First got zero MPs with a 4% share of the vote.

ACT currently have a seat despite only getting a 0.50% vote share (which would equate to less than a seat in a fully proportional parliament)


This is incorrect, pretty sure David Seymour has never been an overhang (i.e. ACT has always had at least one seat allocated).


ACT got 0.69% of the vote, a party would require .83 to qualify for a seat proportionately.



Not necessarily, it depends how much waste vote there is. For example in the last election 4.68% of the potential seats were reallocated. ACT proportions increase accordingly and then the reallocated vote goes through the algorithm to decide who gets those shares of the seats and it's likely ACT was allocated some of that to bring their proportion into line with their 1 seat.


Indeed. My point was to illustrate that even in proportional representation, you don't ever get the precise proportions you voted for.

I think there's an index for this. In the last FPTP election, the disproportionality index was ~12% and now it's around 2.5% (as I recall - I've probably got those percentages a little bit off)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3286
MMP has certainly made it more difficult for governments to push through their agenda though, as no one has had an outright majority. The closest was when national could use Act or UF/Maori to get a majority.

Some may see this as a weakness, others see it as a strength. Kind of depends on your attitude to the agenda.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20260
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
BillW wrote:
Good to see you're back ENZ.

What I posted was my opinion.
You're free to disagree.



FPP simply gave a government that a minority (and sometimes not even a plurality) of the people wanted with more or less absolute power. I don't believe certainty of government is as important as representation especially given that MMP hasn't resulted in unstable governments.


Which was the main fear expressed by FPP supporters in the 1993 referendum. Stability does rely on the behaviour of our political representatives though.


Sure, but likewise FPP relies on the government not abusing its power as the NZ system with no upper house has almost no real checks and balances.


Which is why I prefer MMP.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11594
Enzedder wrote:
BillW wrote:
Gordon Bennett wrote:
guy smiley wrote:

To clarify... what some call coat tailing is otherwise known as List MPs, right?

I don't understand the resistance to that principle. I guess some see that as a negative as it allows 'unelected' members into parliament? Minor party representation is important though, it underpins the MMP system. DO away with that and you surrender diversity to a two party political system and just look at how well that's working for Australia, or the US.


Your coat-tailing would be bringing in some list MPs on the basis of a constituency win. You win an electorate, the threshold for getting your proportionality recognised as MPs falls from 5% to 0%. Most stark a few elections back when ACT got 5 MPs based on Epsom + a 3.5% share of the vote whilst NZ First got zero MPs with a 4% share of the vote.

ACT currently have a seat despite only getting a 0.50% vote share (which would equate to less than a seat in a fully proportional parliament)

MMP in IMHO is a crock of shit, a bloody dog's breakfast.
No amount of tinkering will ever make it right.
It saddles us with more politicians than we need and as a consequence lowers the average IQ of the House.
The horse trading that follows an election is too susceptible to corruption and self serving cynicism and results in serving up a government that nobody really wants.
No wonder the politicians love it.



I totally disagree. It gives us the EXACT government we voted for with some built in checks and balances (legislation must get thru 3 caucuses to become law). I love it and I could never agree to going back to the Muldoon type governments of old


yep, agree entirely. FPP was the biggest crock of shit. MMP is the best system in the world in my opinion. Every govt MUST command at least 50% of the votes; not 39% or 40% or 43%. MMP is far more democratic than FPP. The restraint on "elected dictatorship" allows for more considered incremental change, rather than the overnight nuttiness of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia.

Also, there is far more chance of parties working across the aisle in MMP parliaments - eg: today, the govt and National have agreed on the child poverty bill. Greens have been working with National for bipartisan deal on climate change targets. These kinds of collaboration would've been very very rare under FPP (maybe only during wartime).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21667
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
If we did away with the 5% threshold, or dropped it significantly, do you think we would see an increase in support for the minor parties as more voters might give them more of a look if they felt their vote was more likely to be counted?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3286
Fat Old Git wrote:
If we did away with the 5% threshold, or dropped it significantly, do you think we would see an increase in support for the minor parties as more voters might give them more of a look if they felt their vote was more likely to be counted?


Yes, is this a bad thing though?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7302
Wilderbeast wrote:
MMP has certainly made it more difficult for governments to push through their agenda though, as no one has had an outright majority. The closest was when national could use Act or UF/Maori to get a majority.

Some may see this as a weakness, others see it as a strength. Kind of depends on your attitude to the agenda.


The benefit of an agenda and the power to push it through is policy coherence and integration. The flipside is a hodge podge of special interests, comparative inefficiency
and potentially increased policy contradiction.

There are benefits to inefficiency though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21667
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Wilderbeast wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
If we did away with the 5% threshold, or dropped it significantly, do you think we would see an increase in support for the minor parties as more voters might give them more of a look if they felt their vote was more likely to be counted?


Yes, is this a bad thing though?


Probably not. There are arguments for and against the threshold.

I'm really just wondering if the low figures we see for most of the minor parties are a true reflection of peoples views.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:05 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: Wellington
Fat Old Git wrote:
If we did away with the 5% threshold, or dropped it significantly, do you think we would see an increase in support for the minor parties as more voters might give them more of a look if they felt their vote was more likely to be counted?

I’m open to this. However, I’d like to see more critical analysis of the smaller party’s (actually....all parties) list, especially those likely to get in. For God’s sakes....we almost got Hayley Holt in.

Hayley. Holt.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am
Posts: 1213
Location: W.A
Hayley Holt would be a far better representative than the majority of parliament. With the quality of MPs we have, I'm surprised people vote at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1454
Kahu wrote:
Hayley Holt would be a far better representative than the majority of parliament. With the quality of MPs we have, I'm surprised people vote at all.

Sometimes the choice that you are presented with is an insult to your intelligence.
Not voting is a legitimate option.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8041
Location: Vandean Coast
kiweez wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
If we did away with the 5% threshold, or dropped it significantly, do you think we would see an increase in support for the minor parties as more voters might give them more of a look if they felt their vote was more likely to be counted?

I’m open to this. However, I’d like to see more critical analysis of the smaller party’s (actually....all parties) list, especially those likely to get in. For God’s sakes....we almost got Hayley Holt in.

Hayley. Holt.


Well we did get Chloe Swarbrick, the 23 year old former fashion writer and cafe owner who once did a publicity stunt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 6305
kiweez wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
If we did away with the 5% threshold, or dropped it significantly, do you think we would see an increase in support for the minor parties as more voters might give them more of a look if they felt their vote was more likely to be counted?

I’m open to this. However, I’d like to see more critical analysis of the smaller party’s (actually....all parties) list, especially those likely to get in. For God’s sakes....we almost got Hayley Holt in.

Hayley. Holt.


Was she with the Greens? Too far down the list? :lol:

TOP managed 2% but I'm sure others would have voted for them if they didn't think it was a wasted vote knowing they wouldn't achieve the 5% threshold. They may have cobbled together 3-4%. Maybe?

But would having all these minnow parties in parliament really add much benefit?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3286
deadduck wrote:
kiweez wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
If we did away with the 5% threshold, or dropped it significantly, do you think we would see an increase in support for the minor parties as more voters might give them more of a look if they felt their vote was more likely to be counted?

I’m open to this. However, I’d like to see more critical analysis of the smaller party’s (actually....all parties) list, especially those likely to get in. For God’s sakes....we almost got Hayley Holt in.

Hayley. Holt.


Well we did get Chloe Swarbrick, the 23 year old former fashion writer and cafe owner who once did a publicity stunt


Chloe Swarbrick has been doing pretty well. She certainly manages to get her way into the media an awful lot, which is half the battle in politics. I'd take Swarbrick over Golriz or Davidson in a heartbeat, but not Genter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3286
booji boy wrote:
kiweez wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
If we did away with the 5% threshold, or dropped it significantly, do you think we would see an increase in support for the minor parties as more voters might give them more of a look if they felt their vote was more likely to be counted?

I’m open to this. However, I’d like to see more critical analysis of the smaller party’s (actually....all parties) list, especially those likely to get in. For God’s sakes....we almost got Hayley Holt in.

Hayley. Holt.


Was she with the Greens? Too far down the list? :lol:

TOP managed 2% but I'm sure others would have voted for them if they didn't think it was a wasted vote knowing they wouldn't achieve the 5% threshold. They may have cobbled together 3-4%. Maybe?

But would having all these minnow parties in parliament really add much benefit?


If NZ First doesn't hold the balance of power? Yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8041
Location: Vandean Coast
Diversity of viewpoint is important.
Same rationale for having more women on company boards, more diversity in the workplace etc. Research shows organisations work better when there is more diversity of ideas.
Even if they're not in government, simply having more voices in the Opposition than Bridges and Bennett would be beneficial to NZ's government. The way the large parties are run all we hear from are the few MPs in the leadership group and the rest are basically pointless in terms of contributions to public debate because they just toe the party line put out by the leaders.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8041
Location: Vandean Coast
Wilderbeast wrote:
deadduck wrote:
kiweez wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
If we did away with the 5% threshold, or dropped it significantly, do you think we would see an increase in support for the minor parties as more voters might give them more of a look if they felt their vote was more likely to be counted?

I’m open to this. However, I’d like to see more critical analysis of the smaller party’s (actually....all parties) list, especially those likely to get in. For God’s sakes....we almost got Hayley Holt in.

Hayley. Holt.


Well we did get Chloe Swarbrick, the 23 year old former fashion writer and cafe owner who once did a publicity stunt


Chloe Swarbrick has been doing pretty well. She certainly manages to get her way into the media an awful lot, which is half the battle in politics. I'd take Swarbrick over Golriz or Davidson in a heartbeat, but not Genter.


Golriz is an interesting character. She is certainly a valuable contributor but if you follow her on twitter she tweets so much in opposition to Labour and NZF you wonder why she hasn't quit in disgust already. It's amazing that the Green party have allowed themselves and their ideas to be subjugated so much in this govt.
I think she does tend to fall into the trap of blaming everything that's bad on racism or colonialism or some other -ism where it's white men's fault.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3286
deadduck wrote:
Golriz is an interesting character. She is certainly a valuable contributor but if you follow her on twitter she tweets so much in opposition to Labour and NZF you wonder why she hasn't quit in disgust already. It's amazing that the Green party have allowed themselves and their ideas to be subjugated so much in this govt.
I think she does tend to fall into the trap of blaming everything that's bad on racism or colonialism or some other -ism where it's white men's fault.


Then we have Marama, who wants to reclaim the plum word.

Golriz has one major asset, one she doesn't realise she has. She drives a lot of right wing commentators f**king insane. They are always going out of their way to criticise her. If she wanted to be a little bit clever, she could troll a few of them into making complete fools of themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NZ Politics Thread
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34912
Wilderbeast wrote:
deadduck wrote:
kiweez wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
If we did away with the 5% threshold, or dropped it significantly, do you think we would see an increase in support for the minor parties as more voters might give them more of a look if they felt their vote was more likely to be counted?

I’m open to this. However, I’d like to see more critical analysis of the smaller party’s (actually....all parties) list, especially those likely to get in. For God’s sakes....we almost got Hayley Holt in.

Hayley. Holt.


Well we did get Chloe Swarbrick, the 23 year old former fashion writer and cafe owner who once did a publicity stunt


Chloe Swarbrick has been doing pretty well. She certainly manages to get her way into the media an awful lot, which is half the battle in politics. I'd take Swarbrick over Golriz or Davidson in a heartbeat, but not Genter.


I suspect chloe has enviable time management skills. She has certainly packed in a lot in a small space of time. Her simple but elegant dress sense suggests she has that rare ability of being naturally organised. I think she joined the wrong party but it got her straight into parliament. I could see her switching to Labour one day. Future pm material possibly.

Golly is dopey as fck but very entertaining. Probably a stayer too.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17767 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426 ... 445  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BBB, BBC 2, brat, comets, Dubh01, Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], Jay Cee Gee, Sinkers, Turbogoat, vintage_cox and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group