Waka jumping bill

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Waka jumping bill

gzt

17122 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#240848 29-Sep-2018 10:38

I assume it is still legal for a list MP to vote independently if they want to they will get kicked out of parliament afterward. A government could still lose a vote based on a list MP?

Presumably if a list MP makes any noises about that beforehand or in some cases raises the slightest suspicion of representing voters interests their party may choose to kick that mp out of parliament as a precaution. Lack of discussion will take a lot of politics out of the public and it will be less democratic.

List MPs are the elected representatives of list voters that's how the system works. If you don't think they are reliable don't vote for those people to represent you. This is a bad law and not good for diversity in a democracy.

1 | 2

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2098483 29-Sep-2018 12:00

Not sure what I think about this. My first impulse is to say it is wrong, and a parliamentary representative should only be able to be replaced by a new election. But on reflection, list MPs are not directly elected, but are selected by their party so why shouldn't the party be the one to replace them if they are booted out of the party? I guess my problem is I don't believe in the current system anyway. I am against political representation based on parties. I think that leads to corruption, back-room deals and the old boys network. I don't like FPP but I also don't like MMP, though I think it is slightly less awful. In my perfect world representatives would be elected by STV and political parties would be reduced to clubs, with no special legal status.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2098484 29-Sep-2018 12:06

And no party whips ie bullies.

gzt

17122 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2098579 29-Sep-2018 16:59

Rikkitic: But on reflection, list MPs are not directly elected, but are selected by their party so why shouldn't the party be the one to replace them if they are booted out of the party?

List MPs are directly electing that list. Voters vote for those MPs to represent voter interests in parliament. We don't vote for parties we vote for people and those people represent our interests in parliament. NZ is a representative democracy.

A party should not be able to kick a list MP out of parliament for representing the interests of the voters who put the MP there for that reason. A party does not put MPs in parliament and remove them from parliament at a whim - it is voters who are choosing those list MPs during an election to represent voters interests in parliament.

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#2099842 2-Oct-2018 09:53

My view is split - list MPs should vote along party policy, but electorate MPs can differ.

List MPs weren't elected as individuals, they are literally making up the numbers. As it is now, parties can exercise votes on behalf of their absent MPs.

I'd go further and say we don't actually need list MPs at all. Parties could be given additional votes they can exercise.

Mike

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2099879 2-Oct-2018 10:55

The trouble with this bill is it places too much power in the hands of the party leadership. If a leadership battle is brewing the current leader can remove any list MPs they might think will vote against them in favour of more agreeable members down the list (and keep going down the list until the only list MPs left are lackeys). This might not be much of an issue in National or Labour with a strong electorate MP caucus but NZ First or Green would certainly be susceptible to such leadership. Secondly over three years policy positions and ideas change in reaction to changing circumstances and new information. What seemed like a good idea going in to an election might need to be modified or abandoned completely two years down the line. Individual MPs need the freedom to react to these changes as they see fit. They may not feel they can if it goes against the leader's wishes due to the first point.

In theory it seems like a good idea but it breaks down under detailed analysis of the problems some situations could produce.

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2100264 2-Oct-2018 19:15

Rikkitic: In my perfect world representatives would be elected by STV and political parties would be reduced to clubs, with no special legal status.

The problem with this is, with no party machinery or assistance, only the wealthy that can afford to fund and promote their own campaign will be elected. You will end up with a much less representative democracy. Which I'm sure is exactly the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.
I look at it from the opposite side of things, where if your party (or even an independent) gets 1% of the vote nationally, they get 1% of say in the running of the country. So no overhangs, and if you win an electorate but only get 0.25% of the national vote, you get 0.25% of a say. The democratic processes within a party would need to be open to scrutiny.

I find it ironic that Winston as one of the original Waka Jumpers last century is now championing it as a (non manifesto) bottom line.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2100275 2-Oct-2018 19:27

Dingbatt:

I find it ironic that Winston as one of the original Waka Jumpers last century is now championing it as a (non manifesto) bottom line.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2100315 2-Oct-2018 19:48

I'm talking about departing National in a huff and setting up his own party, not when his own Maori MPs deserted him. Hence the 'original' label.

Maybe I should have said 'The' original Waka Jumper because I can see the confusion. But that would diminish the contribution of people like Marilyn Waring to the political landscape.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2100320 2-Oct-2018 19:53

That is how I read it. I was just adding an exclamation of agreement.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

17122 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2100332 2-Oct-2018 20:37

MikeAqua: List MPs weren't elected as individuals, they are literally making up the numbers.

I'm sure there are electorate MPs exactly the same from the voter pov. In the FPP of days gone by that was par for the course of electorate MPs as you will remember.

No, list MPs are elected as individuals by the electorate.

MikeAqua: I'd go further and say we don't actually need list MPs at all. Parties could be given additional votes they can exercise.

In the extreme case you propose, these 'votes' can be controlled by one individual who has nothing but a party constitution saying that individual has the final decision for all the party 'votes' in parliament and that will then happily be enforced by the state. No thanks. I want actual people in parliament exercising their actual brains without constriant.

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2100556 3-Oct-2018 10:45

MikeAqua:

List MPs weren't elected as individuals, they are literally making up the numbers. As it is now, parties can exercise votes on behalf of their absent MPs.

I'd go further and say we don't actually need list MPs at all. Parties could be given additional votes they can exercise.

That might be true if list MPs only voted in the house and performed none of the other duties an MP does. Things like holding ministerial portfolios, sitting on select committees, even talking to the public require an actual live person.

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#2100723 3-Oct-2018 12:26

That might be true if list MPs only voted in the house and performed none of the other duties an MP does. Things like holding ministerial portfolios, sitting on select committees, even talking to the public require an actual live person.

And we used to do all of that with 60-odd MPs. List MPs don't actually have a local constituency they have to serve or talk to.

They are talking heads making up the numbers, for an annual salary. Many of them are unelectable as electorate MPs.

Mike

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#2100747 3-Oct-2018 12:48

gzt:
MikeAqua: List MPs weren't elected as individuals, they are literally making up the numbers.

I'm sure there are electorate MPs exactly the same from the voter pov. In the FPP of days gone by that was par for the course of electorate MPs as you will remember.

[1] No, list MPs are elected as individuals by the electorate.

MikeAqua: I'd go further and say we don't actually need list MPs at all. Parties could be given additional votes they can exercise.

(2) In the extreme case you propose, these 'votes' can be controlled by one individual who has nothing but a party constitution saying that individual has the final decision for all the party 'votes' in parliament and that will then happily be enforced by the state. No thanks. I want actual people in parliament exercising their actual brains without constraint.

(1) In practical terms, I disagree. People generally vote for parties ('party vote') or leaders - not the list.

(2) That happens now with small parties. One person is elected and dictates as party leader what the other MPs in that party must do. If they fail, they are gone for not following the party line. The exception to this is conscience votes and I don't think list MPs should vote on those.

I see a big difference between a list MP and an electorate MP.

A list MP who happens to live in an electorate has absolutely no mandate to specifically represent the people of that electorate.

An electorate MP in one of several candidates to have stood in front of an electorate and said "I would like to represent you" and the electorate has voted on that basis. To me that is an important community scrutiny.

Not wanting to pick on the Greens, but IIRC Jeanette Fitzsimons is the only Green MP an electorate has ever elected.

Mike

gzt

17122 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2101058 3-Oct-2018 21:16

Clearly you're not fond of MMP. Ironically enough it's provided NZ with a more dynamic political system where geographical based electorate MPs now work a lot harder to gain and retain an electorate seat.

NZ had long outgrown simple geographic electorates and now we have much better representation in parliament.

List MPs are elected by the electorate and they represent that electorate in parliament.

gzt

17122 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2109763 17-Oct-2018 14:05

Wow this really surprised me. A number of media are reporting that Jami-Lee Ross -an electorate mp- could have been kicked out of parliament if he was ejected from the National party caucus. I did not know this crazy legislation applied to electorate MPs who disagreed with leaders.

Preempting any of that Ross has resigned anyway and there will be a byelection so none of that applies.

MikeAqua: My view is split - list MPs should vote along party policy, but electorate MPs can differ.

List MPs weren't elected as individuals, they are literally making up the numbers. As it is now, parties can exercise votes on behalf of their absent MPs.

I'd go further and say we don't actually need list MPs at all. Parties could be given additional votes they can exercise.

Clearly based on your comments above you will agree with me that this ability political parties have gained to remove even elected electorate MPs from parliament is not a good thing for democracy.

1 | 2