Maori Seats

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

Forums › Politics › Maori Seats

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 22

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827326 22-Jul-2017 21:36

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

What is an overhang? The votes are fixed, the seats are fixed. I dint follow what an overhang means. In this context forget Maori seats, thats a red herring. (Red Herring means it seems linked, but its not)

http://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/bulk-upload/documents/Overhangs_submissions.pdf

Thanks. You are correct, wasn't aware of that.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827327 22-Jul-2017 21:38

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

[q

What is an overhang? The votes are fixed, the seats are fixed. I dint follow what an overhang means. In this context forget Maori seats, thats a red herring. (Red Herring means it seems linked, but its not)

The number of seats though is not fixed.

And then I asked what overhang means, which you answered

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827328 22-Jul-2017 21:42

Batman:

I recall the Civilian party ...

A good party with innovative ideas

increased taxes for the poor and decreased taxes for the wealthy to disincentivise poverty
giving a llama to every child living in poverty
one free tub of ice cream for every citizen

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827331 22-Jul-2017 21:49

Handle9:
Wiggum:

Batman:

All I know is if you win a seat, you get that seat.

But if you don't win a seat, and you have 5% party vote, you get some seats, proportionate to some magical formula.

If you have 51% party vote, your seats depend on the above, usually you get more than your party vote because some party votes under 5% will be lost.

I don't think thats really true.

Conservative party for example got 4% of the party vote, yet they don't get any seats. The whole system is flawed IMO.

Maori party obtained less votes than the Conservatives, yet they have seats.

Of course so did Act and United Future (and far less than the Maori Party). Don't let that worry you though, I guess they are ok in your view.

Party preferences aside, I don't think the system like it is, is really fair. Especially now from what I have learned from @tdgeeks example of wasted votes.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827333 22-Jul-2017 21:59

Wiggum:

Handle9:
Wiggum:

Batman:

All I know is if you win a seat, you get that seat.

But if you don't win a seat, and you have 5% party vote, you get some seats, proportionate to some magical formula.

If you have 51% party vote, your seats depend on the above, usually you get more than your party vote because some party votes under 5% will be lost.

I don't think thats really true.

Conservative party for example got 4% of the party vote, yet they don't get any seats. The whole system is flawed IMO.

Maori party obtained less votes than the Conservatives, yet they have seats.

Of course so did Act and United Future (and far less than the Maori Party). Don't let that worry you though, I guess they are ok in your view.

Party preferences aside, I don't think the system like is is, is really fair. Especially now from what I have learned from @tdgeeks example of wasted votes.

Yes, they are wasted. But if you allowed every party to get access to Parliament based on Party Vote with no threshold you have a mess. Frivolous party will be there, and clearly in numbers, as that lack of management means every idiot can throw a party together and join the fun. Thats abuse of democracy, so we have rules that aim to reward a serious party. Should my 12% example happen, that 12% is awarded to the parties that did gain seats, proportionally. Thats as fair as that can get. Those 3 parties can try harder next time. Maybe drop it to 4% or 3% is an option. Maybe keep at 5% but allow 2%+ parties to be in Parliament in much reduced or non voting capacity. But at the end of the day there needs to be a line drawn. Its the same line that can mean one party wins a 25,000 electorate by 1 vote.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827336 22-Jul-2017 22:05

tdgeek:

Wiggum:

Handle9:
Wiggum:

Batman:

All I know is if you win a seat, you get that seat.

But if you don't win a seat, and you have 5% party vote, you get some seats, proportionate to some magical formula.

If you have 51% party vote, your seats depend on the above, usually you get more than your party vote because some party votes under 5% will be lost.

I don't think thats really true.

Conservative party for example got 4% of the party vote, yet they don't get any seats. The whole system is flawed IMO.

Maori party obtained less votes than the Conservatives, yet they have seats.

Of course so did Act and United Future (and far less than the Maori Party). Don't let that worry you though, I guess they are ok in your view.

Party preferences aside, I don't think the system like is is, is really fair. Especially now from what I have learned from @tdgeeks example of wasted votes.

Yes, they are wasted. But if you allowed every party to get access to Parliament based on Party Vote with no threshold you have a mess. Frivolous party will be there, and clearly in numbers, as that lack of management means every idiot can throw a party together and join the fun. Thats abuse of democracy, so we have rules that aim to reward a serious party. Should my 12% example happen, that 12% is awarded to the parties that did gain seats, proportionally. Thats as fair as that can get. Those 3 parties can try harder next time. Maybe drop it to 4% or 3% is an option. Maybe keep at 5% but allow 2%+ parties to be in Parliament in much reduced or non voting capacity. But at the end of the day there needs to be a line drawn. Its the same line that can mean one party wins a 25,000 electorate by 1 vote.

Is this not limited to MMP though?

Ie FPP would not have these problems? What was the reasoning for switching to MMP?

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827344 22-Jul-2017 22:17

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Wiggum:

Handle9:
Wiggum:

Batman:

All I know is if you win a seat, you get that seat.

But if you don't win a seat, and you have 5% party vote, you get some seats, proportionate to some magical formula.

If you have 51% party vote, your seats depend on the above, usually you get more than your party vote because some party votes under 5% will be lost.

I don't think thats really true.

Conservative party for example got 4% of the party vote, yet they don't get any seats. The whole system is flawed IMO.

Maori party obtained less votes than the Conservatives, yet they have seats.

Of course so did Act and United Future (and far less than the Maori Party). Don't let that worry you though, I guess they are ok in your view.

Party preferences aside, I don't think the system like is is, is really fair. Especially now from what I have learned from @tdgeeks example of wasted votes.

Yes, they are wasted. But if you allowed every party to get access to Parliament based on Party Vote with no threshold you have a mess. Frivolous party will be there, and clearly in numbers, as that lack of management means every idiot can throw a party together and join the fun. Thats abuse of democracy, so we have rules that aim to reward a serious party. Should my 12% example happen, that 12% is awarded to the parties that did gain seats, proportionally. Thats as fair as that can get. Those 3 parties can try harder next time. Maybe drop it to 4% or 3% is an option. Maybe keep at 5% but allow 2%+ parties to be in Parliament in much reduced or non voting capacity. But at the end of the day there needs to be a line drawn. Its the same line that can mean one party wins a 25,000 electorate by 1 vote.

Is this not limited to MMP though?

Ie FPP would not have these problems? What was the reasoning for switching to MMP?

FPP. The two main parties always win all the seats. Social Credit way back in the day always polled well, never got a seat. They did one time.

Labour got the popular vote one time, National won the election

MMP allows minority parties to have a say.

It also causes more likelihood of a coalition which also allows minority parties to not only have a say but to effect action, aka doing a deal to partner the main party seeking a coalition.

Also, and unsure if seen as primary benefits or not, coalitions tend to make the main party more conservative as they lost the ability to do what they like when they like as they would win every bill vote, but now they usually have to rely on the deals they made and that may make some bills a compromise, than a default bill vote win

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

debo

307 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1827359 22-Jul-2017 23:25

I think there is a way for the big parties to game the system under MMP.

If a well known Labour candidate is sitting in a safe Labour seat, then they should quit Labour and join and run under the closely affiliated "Labour 2" party. "Labour 2" will not contest the party votes and Labour will not contest that particular seat. As such, the candidate will still win that seat, and Labour will not waste some of its party vote on a candidate that has already won a seat. Obviously, Labour and "Labour 2" form a coalition. Doing so, Labour effectively gets one more seat in government.

It would be risky move for marginal seats because the candidate will not be on a party list as backup in case they lose.

Consider 2014. Labour won 27 electorate seats but got only 5 list seats. If 20 of the electorate seats were won under "Labour 2" then Labour would have got 25 list seats instead of 5.

Hope this makes sense.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827380 23-Jul-2017 00:47

Fred99:

Positive discrimination aka "affirmative action" does have a history of some success in reducing negative social indicators.

Apartheid (in SA) had the sole intent of preserving massive privilege to a small white minority who held all the wealth - and held on to that behind the barrel of a gun.

There's nothing to debate - you're on a soap box - and at risk of coming across as a racist.

And it's just so much better in South Africa now, isn't it. And just look at Rhodesia - another success story...

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1827407 23-Jul-2017 07:47

Wiggum:

Batman:

If you get seats and 51%, you get 51% of the seats.

Thats incorrect. We only know about overhangs and how many seats there will be after results are in.

So 51% of votes, can result in less than 50% of seats.

How?

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827436 23-Jul-2017 09:04

frankv:

Wiggum:

Batman:

If you get seats and 51%, you get 51% of the seats.

Thats incorrect. We only know about overhangs and how many seats there will be after results are in.

So 51% of votes, can result in less than 50% of seats.

How?

http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/research/journals/otago036316.pdf

Jump to pg16, see the overhang. Lots of other related info in there too. Very interesting.

Note that is from a few years back.

In 2008, the Maori Party won five electorate seats. However, their party vote of 2.39 per cent would have entitled the Party to only three seats. Hence, the present parliamentary overhang of two has increased Parliament‟s size to 122 members. This means in order to form a government, the number of votes needed is 62. The latest ONE News Colmar Brunton poll has the National Party on 49 per cent. Assuming the Maori Party‟s electorate seats are held at the next election, National, if they received 50 per cent (or slightly more) of the party vote, would not have requisite numbers to form a single party government. This outcome woulld be completely undemocratic and fundamentally contrary to the expressed will of the New Zealand public

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827438 23-Jul-2017 09:11

I have always preferred the FPP system as it is truly democratic within your geography.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1827444 23-Jul-2017 09:22

Pumpedd:

I have always preferred the FPP system as it is truly democratic within your geography.

Is it?

If an electorate was won narrowly, thats a win for say 51% votes. Another electorate is a huge win, its a win with 80% votes. Essentially the latter one, shows 30% of votes were wasted as they gave no result. This is why a party can, and has, won an election by more electoral wins but less overall votes. MMP allows every party vote to count. And avoids the lopsided electorates skewing the results.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1827499 23-Jul-2017 10:47

tdgeek:

Pumpedd:

I have always preferred the FPP system as it is truly democratic within your geography.

Is it?

If an electorate was won narrowly, thats a win for say 51% votes. Another electorate is a huge win, its a win with 80% votes. Essentially the latter one, shows 30% of votes were wasted as they gave no result. This is why a party can, and has, won an election by more electoral wins but less overall votes. MMP allows every party vote to count. And avoids the lopsided electorates skewing the results.

No system is perfect.

But a system like we have now that gives the power to the minority parties is grossly unfair. In my book a win is a win. Its the same in sports and all through life....why should politics be any different.

Currently we vote for a party after consideration of their policies etc, but after election night it can all be thrown out the window as back room deals get done to gain power and we end up with policies we would NOT have voted for.

This coming election it is looking like Winston will be King maker....and who does he have in his party....its full of nobodies...including an ex crooked MP. This is not the making of good Government.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1827507 23-Jul-2017 11:09

This is a good point, though I don't agree with it. As with all things, it is a trade-off and a matter of proportion. Politics is not a game, though some seem to think so. But the problem with FPP, and the reason it was changed, is that in practice it creates a situation where you have only two-party rule and large disenfranchised minorities who never get a say. If one party gets 51% of the vote, that means 49% of the electorate is left out in the cold. That hardly seems fair either.

I am not a fan of MMP. It gives too much influence to political parties, which then take on a life of their own. Politics becomes party politics, rather than what is in the best interests of the country. My own preference would be no parties with official status, though political clubs could exist, and an STV system of voting. I don't know that it would be any better in practice, but it seems fairer to me and would be worth at least trying.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 22