Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.

View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
7 posts

Wannabe Geek


  Reply # 529795 5-Oct-2011 21:13 Send private message

/me is debt free (completely)...

2603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 50

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 529931 6-Oct-2011 09:43 Send private message

polglase:
Linuxluver:
As for MMP, what is "disproportionate" power?

A government either has a majority...or it doesn't.

Those are the only proportions that really matter.

Example: If 61 out of 120 MPs don't back them...why pick on the smallest part of the 61 who don't support the Government? The reality is that a majority of the elected erpresentatives - from a variety of parties - do not support the Government. This "disproportionate power" meme is a fallacy. If you don't have a majority, you don't have a majority. 

Sounds like bullying, to me. :-)


This is getting off topic, it really is a minor issue for me, I'm not that bothered by it. 

All I meant to say is I don't like the situation that may arise where a party with one seat (or five etc) and perhaps 0.8% (or some other smallish number) of the vote could potentially hold the balance of power and choose the next government... the point being that a small minority party could, under MMP, potentially choose the winning party and therefore wield an amount of power in Government that is disproportional to their vote... do you see what I mean or am I missing something?


I understand your point very well and it is based on a fallacy.

The 0.8% of the vote isn't holding up the works. It is the 50.8% who are - together - holding up the works.

One MP or 5 CAN'T out-vote the rest of a parliament in agreement.  

So it isn't fair, accurate or even rational to blame the smallest portion of the MAJORITY who do not support government policy.

The government simply doen'st have a majority...and they want someone to blame. Pick on the little guy. 

A "winning party" that doesn't have a majority in the House is just one more minority and they and their supporters need to get theirs collective heads around that and stop pretending they have a right do whatever they please despite the majority of voters NOT supporting them.




____________________________________________________
If you're not curious, your brain is already dying...if not dead.



212 posts

Master Geek


  Reply # 529940 6-Oct-2011 10:24 Send private message

Linuxluver:
polglase:
Linuxluver:
As for MMP, what is "disproportionate" power?

A government either has a majority...or it doesn't.

Those are the only proportions that really matter.

Example: If 61 out of 120 MPs don't back them...why pick on the smallest part of the 61 who don't support the Government? The reality is that a majority of the elected erpresentatives - from a variety of parties - do not support the Government. This "disproportionate power" meme is a fallacy. If you don't have a majority, you don't have a majority. 

Sounds like bullying, to me. :-)


This is getting off topic, it really is a minor issue for me, I'm not that bothered by it. 

All I meant to say is I don't like the situation that may arise where a party with one seat (or five etc) and perhaps 0.8% (or some other smallish number) of the vote could potentially hold the balance of power and choose the next government... the point being that a small minority party could, under MMP, potentially choose the winning party and therefore wield an amount of power in Government that is disproportional to their vote... do you see what I mean or am I missing something?


I understand your point very well and it is based on a fallacy.

The 0.8% of the vote isn't holding up the works. It is the 50.8% who are - together - holding up the works.

One MP or 5 CAN'T out-vote the rest of a parliament in agreement.  

So it isn't fair, accurate or even rational to blame the smallest portion of the MAJORITY who do not support government policy.

The government simply doen'st have a majority...and they want someone to blame. Pick on the little guy. 

A "winning party" that doesn't have a majority in the House is just one more minority and they and their supporters need to get theirs collective heads around that and stop pretending they have a right do whatever they please despite the majority of voters NOT supporting them.


I don't feel as if we are on the same wavelength.

Let's use the following (hypothetical) example

On election night the results are:

Party A - 45%
Party B - 33%
Party C - 11%
Party D - 6%
5% of the vote on parties who failed to reach the threshold.

Imagine Party B and C have announced before during or after the election that they will not work with Party A under any circumstances because of irreconcilable differences and they form a coalition.

I may have done this all wrong, so forgive me if I have, but wouldn't Party D end up effectively choosing the next government depending on who they sided with?

That possibility, however remote, is what I was referring to. It doesn't seem right to me that a party with 5% of the vote have the influence to choose the Government. Particularly as it could exclude the party with the largest share of the vote. This is the disproportionate power I was referring to even if I didn't explain it very well Smile.

But at the end of the day all systems have pros and cons and I don't mind MMP at all, I don't have a a better solution to offer up. It was really just a throwaway OT comment.

 

1559 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8

Subscriber

  Reply # 529958 6-Oct-2011 11:00 Send private message

polglase: I may have done this all wrong, so forgive me if I have, but wouldn't Party D end up effectively choosing the next government depending on who they sided with?

That possibility, however remote, is what I was referring to. It doesn't seem right to me that a party with 5% of the vote have the influence to choose the Government. Particularly as it could exclude the party with the largest share of the vote. This is the disproportionate power I was referring to even if I didn't explain it very well Smile.


Party D would be referred to as the 'Kingmaker".

766 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 38

UberGroup

  Reply # 529998 6-Oct-2011 11:49 Send private message

Ref: Winston Peters




All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated 


1647 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 32


  Reply # 530372 6-Oct-2011 21:18 Send private message

It really depends on the leadership within the other parties.
In early MMP days 'A' would give away a lot to get 'D' on side just so they could hold the reins.... But, personally, I think the present Government is the first one that has been a good MMP implementation.

John key did not have to have 2 minor party partners, but by doing so it has given, stability, a more representative government, and the major party did not have to give away too much of it's mandate to pull it together.

Historically this has not been the case and the coalition partners have become 'Kingmakers', resulting in them have undue power and influence for their electoral mandate.

1750 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 35

Trusted

  Reply # 530380 6-Oct-2011 21:34 Send private message

Yeah right, you overlooked ACT who have got a lot of there stupid (ultra right) bills passed as part of there Kingmaking deals.

I would like to see the Greens in coalition, so they can lock up National's crazy ideas and throw away the Key.

237 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 15

Trusted

  Reply # 530381 6-Oct-2011 21:46 Send private message

hellonearthisman: Yeah right, you overlooked ACT who have got a lot of there stupid (ultra right) bills passed as part of there Kingmaking deals.

I would like to see the Greens in coalition, so they can lock up National's crazy ideas and throw away the Key.


Out of curiousity, is there a comprehensive list of the bills that the Act Party had passed?

Another point to ponder; if ultra right is stupid, what is ultra left?




Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 530414 6-Oct-2011 23:43 Send private message

MikeSkyrme:
hellonearthisman: Yeah right, you overlooked ACT who have got a lot of there stupid (ultra right) bills passed as part of there Kingmaking deals.

I would like to see the Greens in coalition, so they can lock up National's crazy ideas and throw away the Key.


Out of curiousity, is there a comprehensive list of the bills that the Act Party had passed?...


Probably is a list somewhere but I suspect it is very much shorter than the green one tries to make out. I suspect there are actually more Government bills that Act opposed with the opposition than supported with National?

There are, as far as I know, only 2 current Act members bills -

Regulatory Responsibility Bill - "This bill aims to improve parliamentary laws and regulations in New Zealand by specifying principles of responsible regulatory management to apply to the Government in pursuing its policy objectives, and by requiring the Crown to report on its compliance with the principles." Which to me seems to be something of a good thing but I suppose some would think that parliamentary responsibility is far right. But there again in its first reading there were more Labour members votes for it than National ones?

Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill - "The purpose of this bill is to uphold students' rights to freedom of association". Has passed final reading and upset the left leaning ones.

1750 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 35

Trusted

  Reply # 530430 7-Oct-2011 01:31 Send private message

The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill has really put the boot into student government, will have to see what damage this will cause, no more health care will be up on that list of 'in the old days we had...'

Rodney Hide and the super city, if that not a gem for the King makers. And omg what a mess he has mad there - "Recommendations of the Royal Commission were not fully accepted, he selecting instead a local structure of 20-30 community boards, without a separate concept of Maori representation."

The National/Act/Maori Party/United Future MMP deal is no worse than any of the deals Labor/NZFirst had.

2603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 50

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 530588 7-Oct-2011 15:06 Send private message

polglase:
Linuxluver:
polglase:
Linuxluver:
As for MMP, what is "disproportionate" power?

A government either has a majority...or it doesn't.

Those are the only proportions that really matter.

Example: If 61 out of 120 MPs don't back them...why pick on the smallest part of the 61 who don't support the Government? The reality is that a majority of the elected erpresentatives - from a variety of parties - do not support the Government. This "disproportionate power" meme is a fallacy. If you don't have a majority, you don't have a majority. 

Sounds like bullying, to me. :-)


This is getting off topic, it really is a minor issue for me, I'm not that bothered by it. 

All I meant to say is I don't like the situation that may arise where a party with one seat (or five etc) and perhaps 0.8% (or some other smallish number) of the vote could potentially hold the balance of power and choose the next government... the point being that a small minority party could, under MMP, potentially choose the winning party and therefore wield an amount of power in Government that is disproportional to their vote... do you see what I mean or am I missing something?


I understand your point very well and it is based on a fallacy.

The 0.8% of the vote isn't holding up the works. It is the 50.8% who are - together - holding up the works.

One MP or 5 CAN'T out-vote the rest of a parliament in agreement.  

So it isn't fair, accurate or even rational to blame the smallest portion of the MAJORITY who do not support government policy.

The government simply doen'st have a majority...and they want someone to blame. Pick on the little guy. 

A "winning party" that doesn't have a majority in the House is just one more minority and they and their supporters need to get theirs collective heads around that and stop pretending they have a right do whatever they please despite the majority of voters NOT supporting them.


I don't feel as if we are on the same wavelength.

Let's use the following (hypothetical) example

On election night the results are:

Party A - 45%
Party B - 33%
Party C - 11%
Party D - 6%
5% of the vote on parties who failed to reach the threshold.

Imagine Party B and C have announced before during or after the election that they will not work with Party A under any circumstances because of irreconcilable differences and they form a coalition.

I may have done this all wrong, so forgive me if I have, but wouldn't Party D end up effectively choosing the next government depending on who they sided with?

That possibility, however remote, is what I was referring to. It doesn't seem right to me that a party with 5% of the vote have the influence to choose the Government. Particularly as it could exclude the party with the largest share of the vote. This is the disproportionate power I was referring to even if I didn't explain it very well Smile.

But at the end of the day all systems have pros and cons and I don't mind MMP at all, I don't have a a better solution to offer up. It was really just a throwaway OT comment.
 


Thanks for following through.

My point was: In ignoring that parties B and C *also* do not support the would-be government, it is easy to miss why Party D looks like they are dictating to Party A.

The reality is that if *any* of Party B, C or D agree with Party A on a given issue, *any* of them can help party A compose a majority on that issue.

In the scenario you put forward, the only party who want "disproportionate power" is Party A. This is because they want to pass their legislation without having a majority in the House.

Yes, I do not accept one tiny party can dictate to everyone else...because the simple reality is, they can't do that by themselves at all. They must be part of a majority of MPs who collectively agree.

5 MPs, by themselves, can't do very much at all.

This is why the "disproportionate power" is a fallacy. The majority *always* rules the day, whoever it is made up on any given vote. No minority - be it Party A or any other - has the right to override anyone / everyone elese if they do not have majority support.

As for Parties B and C never back Party A, that is thinking from the old FPP days. The reality is that governments today can and do cobble together majorities on any reasonable issue that has major public support. 

On unreasonable policies or policies that do not have major public support......then, yeah...they may have to wait for the next election. 

No one is holding anyone to ransom. Voters didn't give a majority to any of the present minorities....and they are ALL minorities. In the scenario you put forward, any TWO parties can pass laws. 





____________________________________________________
If you're not curious, your brain is already dying...if not dead.



532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28


  Reply # 530638 7-Oct-2011 16:21 Send private message

Linuxluver: ...Yes, I do not accept one tiny party can dictate to everyone else...because the simple reality is, they can't do that by themselves at all. They must be part of a majority of MPs who collectively agree.
 
5 MPs, by themselves, can't do very much at all.

 
They can negotiate requirements peculiar to their ideology (and parties other than the two major parties run predominantly on ideology) during a support agreement with the party seeking power.  If these are not things that the two major parties would otherwise of implemented themselves, and they often are not, then it is a case of a minority dictating terms which the majority of the representatives of the voters do not regard as desirable. Labour, for example, has caved in to the various demands of a coalition party (Progressive) having only one member in the house and 1.2% of the vote.

  The minority party can also threaten to withdraw their support if their new demands on the government are not met during the term of the government. Doesn't even need MMP or a minority party for this to happen as the Australian Labour Governement is finding from the various threats of support withdrawal by the 2 (without checking, think there are 2) independant MP's.

  Alliance with only 10 seats in parliament ended up getting their Dim Jim the position of Deputy Prime Minister in the 1999 Labour Government, one assumes that in that role he was given more clout than the presence of 10 Alliance weirdos could ever have deserved in the formulation of policy.

gzt

3745 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 105

Subscriber

  Reply # 530657 7-Oct-2011 16:56 Send private message

Linuxluver: No one is holding anyone to ransom. Voters didn't give a majority to any of the present minorities....and they are ALL minorities.

Example of that process in action today:

"The Government wanted to make the bill fully retrospective, but had to water it down to gain the numbers to pass the bill. Attorney-General Chris Finlayson had no option but to yield to Labour and Act demands for select committee hearings, which resulted in changes including dropping retrospectivity with respect to pending trials, a clause explicitly upholding the protection of the Bill of Rights, and a timeframe of six months instead of 12 months. The bill retains the provision where past convictions cannot be challenged on the basis of the Supreme Court decision. Yesterday Mr Finlayson praised all parties for the passing of the bill. "It's not a victory for any one political party. It is a bill that is a product of this Parliament and a credit to this House.""

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10757132



2729 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 180

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 530945 8-Oct-2011 17:27 Send private message

just read NBR article :-

Economically speaking: Credit agencies expose government spin (subscriber only)

excellent article! i hope government do more to improve our economy... debt clock is increasing and no one is brave enough to admit this issue and stop it from going further





2603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 50

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 530952 8-Oct-2011 17:53 Send private message

nakedmolerat: just read NBR article :-

Economically speaking: Credit agencies expose government spin (subscriber only)

excellent article! i hope government do more to improve our economy... debt clock is increasing and no one is brave enough to admit this issue and stop it from going further


Dude....They WANT the deficit. They NEED it to use as an excuse for handing stuff over to the private sector (their mates).

If this wasn't the case they would raise income taxes back to where they were and the deficit would begin to shrink....though more slowly now because they have already borrowed so much 

Think of it this way: They explode the debt, cut taxes for the rich....leaving the less-rich to pay for for the debt...and use the debt as a excuse to transfer profitable assets from you and me to...them and their mates.

It's all WIN for them...and we get left with the debt.

The "conservative" (they are actually extremists) GOP did it in the US and our local branch of the economic rape & pillage gang, the National Party, are doing the same thing here, right now.

Don't vote for them if you want to do something about the debt.

If you DO vote for National....then learn to love the debt. There will be a lot more of it. It's part of the plan...and YOU'RE paying for it while they take the assets off you...thank you VERY much.   





____________________________________________________
If you're not curious, your brain is already dying...if not dead.



1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic








Twitter »
Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new jobs are posted to our jobs board:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:




News »

Trending now »
Hot discussions in our forums right now:

Forms of government for New Zealand
Created by charsleysa, last reply by KiwiNZ on 20-Apr-2014 18:55 (120 replies)
Pages... 6 7 8


MH370 - Call for Search & Rescue Help
Created by DS248, last reply by Sideface on 17-Apr-2014 17:28 (735 replies)
Pages... 47 48 49


why does the tax payer have to pay for the prince and princess' 6 star holiday?
Created by joker97, last reply by Geektastic on 17-Apr-2014 15:49 (67 replies)
Pages... 3 4 5


Naked Broadband, who's made the switch.
Created by Presso, last reply by richms on 20-Apr-2014 23:04 (31 replies)
Pages... 2 3


galaxy s4 now on 4.4.2
Created by nzrock, last reply by jeffnz on 20-Apr-2014 14:10 (59 replies)
Pages... 2 3 4


Whats the best wife friendly media centre?
Created by amorpeth, last reply by jonolynn on 19-Apr-2014 20:20 (14 replies)

Snap suffering Trans-Tasman congestion 18/04?
Created by Lias, last reply by NonprayingMantis on 19-Apr-2014 00:05 (26 replies)
Pages... 2


Help ! Home business connection and VDSL dead. yikes.
Created by Scotsman, last reply by Scotsman on 17-Apr-2014 21:10 (26 replies)
Pages... 2



Geekzone Live »
Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.

Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.