FPP elections considered harmful

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

Forums › Politics › FPP elections considered harmful

1 | 2 | 3

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1643263 30-Sep-2016 12:19

Rikkitic:

STV is unquestionably better, but most people don't understand it.

what happens when you would only be prepared to vote for one of the choices under that system?

I found on our local elections that the other candidates were often unacceptable to me for a variety of reasons, so I would in those circumstances not want my vote ending up assisting them into office.

Perhaps we should be able to vote AGAINST people as well as FOR people...!

SaltyNZ

8874 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9566

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1643264 30-Sep-2016 12:21

Geektastic:

what happens when you would only be prepared to vote for one of the choices under that system?

Then you simply number that candidate 1 and leave everything else blank.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1643267 30-Sep-2016 12:24

local body elections are harmful period.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#1643307 30-Sep-2016 13:41

Geektastic:

Rikkitic:

STV is unquestionably better, but most people don't understand it.

what happens when you would only be prepared to vote for one of the choices under that system?

I found on our local elections that the other candidates were often unacceptable to me for a variety of reasons, so I would in those circumstances not want my vote ending up assisting them into office.

Perhaps we should be able to vote AGAINST people as well as FOR people...!

Some organisations allow negative voting. Southern Cross for example.

Mike

Sounddude

I fix stuff!
1935 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 640

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1643309 30-Sep-2016 13:45

dclegg:

We really all should pay closer attention to the Simpsons. They predicted this would happen.

Its funny how right the Simpsons are at times. They predicted Trump running for president a few years ago too.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1643313 30-Sep-2016 13:47

Rikkitic:

STV is unquestionably better, but most people don't understand it.

They psyche themselves out.

Ask them to rank the All Blacks or the Black Caps or the Black Ferns or the burger menu at Mcdonalds in order of preference and they have no trouble at all.

If you can count, you can vote in STV.

What they are really saying is they know nothing about politics or who to vote for. That isn't the voting system's fault.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184
Inactive user

#1643459 30-Sep-2016 19:03

Christchurch & ECAN are FPP. My ward has 3 contenders, the incumbent who I absolutely HATE with a passion, and two others I really couldn't care less about. These muppets split the vote against this guy, if it was STV then I could effectively vote "either, but not that guy".

ECAN 'city ward' has 4 vacancies, but I'm only interested in 3 of them. If it was STV I could rank them highest, rank the not-nut-jobs after that, and leave the crazys blank. Because it's FPP I can't vote against the crazies (there wasn't even any point figuring out who they were), I can't even vote for a forth 'meh' person because I can't risk my vote for them working against my votes for those I really want to vote for.

It's downhill from there, with a mayoral choice of "incumbent, Tui BIllboard, and nut job", and 3 runners for 2 positions on my community ward - 1 of which is good buddies with the ward incumbent I hate so I'm automatically voting for the other 2 and there's no point even finding out who they are.

I'm down to deciding on the CDHB, where I actually get STV and heaps of choices - but stuff all info who these people are. I'm probably not voting for "functional medicine" guy, or mr "tomatos and raspberries for 40 years so canz DHB naow?", and I'll probably avoid the anti-fluoride crowd - beyond that I've got nothing to go on. [edit: oh yeah, also not voting for the klown, or the schizophrenic who believes schizophrenia isn't real and all schizophrenics should be released and compensated.]

/rant

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1643507 30-Sep-2016 20:36

PaulBags: Christchurch & ECAN are FPP. My ward has 3 contenders, the incumbent who I absolutely HATE with a passion, and two others I really couldn't care less about. These muppets split the vote against this guy, if it was STV then I could effectively vote "either, but not that guy".

ECAN 'city ward' has 4 vacancies, but I'm only interested in 3 of them. If it was STV I could rank them highest, rank the not-nut-jobs after that, and leave the crazys blank. Because it's FPP I can't vote against the crazies (there wasn't even any point figuring out who they were), I can't even vote for a forth 'meh' person because I can't risk my vote for them working against my votes for those I really want to vote for.

It's downhill from there, with a mayoral choice of "incumbent, Tui BIllboard, and nut job", and 3 runners for 2 positions on my community ward - 1 of which is good buddies with the ward incumbent I hate so I'm automatically voting for the other 2 and there's no point even finding out who they are.

I'm down to deciding on the CDHB, where I actually get STV and heaps of choices - but stuff all info who these people are. I'm probably not voting for "functional medicine" guy, or mr "tomatos and raspberries for 40 years so canz DHB naow?", and I'll probably avoid the anti-fluoride crowd - beyond that I've got nothing to go on. [edit: oh yeah, also not voting for the klown, or the schizophrenic who believes schizophrenia isn't real and all schizophrenics should be released and compensated.]

/rant

OMG...that's one of the best posts I've ever read on GZ.

I bow down low to you. Sir. You're clearly awesome. Serious.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1643566 30-Sep-2016 23:03

PaulBags: Christchurch & ECAN are FPP. My ward has 3 contenders, the incumbent who I absolutely HATE with a passion, and two others I really couldn't care less about. These muppets split the vote against this guy, if it was STV then I could effectively vote "either, but not that guy".

ECAN 'city ward' has 4 vacancies, but I'm only interested in 3 of them. If it was STV I could rank them highest, rank the not-nut-jobs after that, and leave the crazys blank. Because it's FPP I can't vote against the crazies (there wasn't even any point figuring out who they were), I can't even vote for a forth 'meh' person because I can't risk my vote for them working against my votes for those I really want to vote for.

It's downhill from there, with a mayoral choice of "incumbent, Tui BIllboard, and nut job", and 3 runners for 2 positions on my community ward - 1 of which is good buddies with the ward incumbent I hate so I'm automatically voting for the other 2 and there's no point even finding out who they are.

I'm down to deciding on the CDHB, where I actually get STV and heaps of choices - but stuff all info who these people are. I'm probably not voting for "functional medicine" guy, or mr "tomatos and raspberries for 40 years so canz DHB naow?", and I'll probably avoid the anti-fluoride crowd - beyond that I've got nothing to go on. [edit: oh yeah, also not voting for the klown, or the schizophrenic who believes schizophrenia isn't real and all schizophrenics should be released and compensated.]

/rant

Funny! Yes, ours was not dissimilar.

I had no idea who to vote for in the DHB - frankly as a concept they are alien to me and even after more than 10 years living here, I have never met a member, seen evidence of a meeting or in any other way been made aware of their activities. I go to the hospital or doctor and it works, so whatever they do must be working.

We had one guy who wrote some spiel about grilling eels by the riverbank - his chances of getting my vote for anything ended right there - and a whole load whose claim to fame was that they had been born in the region, had lived in the region and expected to die in the region. That says "no drive, no ambition and no interest in the rest of the world" to me, so "no vote"!

There was a surgeon and two doctors on the list - so since they are bright enough to understand medicine, they got my votes, along with a couple of others who had worked as board directors internationally so probably had some sense.

Functionally I expect the election to make little or no difference at the coalface - and I found it odd that there was no actual electioneering: aside from a booklet that came with the voting papers, which had a small paragraph written by each, I had neither seen nor heard of them up to that moment.

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#1643623 1-Oct-2016 02:30

As far as I can see, the voting system is not really the key issue. The bigger issue is that our political system continues to elect people. Those people just don't seem capable of doing what is best for all of us. They break promises. They make expedient and short term decisions, sometimes for their own benefit. Look at the magnitude of the increasing costs (not just money) from concentrating more power in the hands of fewer politicians in Auckland.

That's one reason why I seriously dislike STV. It gives the appearance of greater control to voters but the elected officials don't seem to be any more responsive or effective. Maybe there is evidence that we get better outcomes or, in the medium to long term, are more satisfied by those we elect under STV than we are under FPP. But i just don't see it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1643682 1-Oct-2016 10:07

I don't know how good STV is, or democracy, or voting at all, but I certainly prefer it to FPP, which guarantees that much of the electorate is denied the candidate they have chosen. That hardly seems fair and it leaves a large number of disappointed voters each time. Maybe that is why so few bother to vote.

I also have no idea what the District Health Board does, but this time, at least, I found it easy to choose. My DHB is the one that was asleep at the wheel while most of Havelock North was being poisoned by their drinking water. So I went through the list, dismissed the anti-floride candidate as a conspiracy flake, and voted for all the other first-timers, unvoting the incumbents in the process. The more decades they say they have been on the Board, the more I unvoted them. I figure the beginners can't do any worse, and I have an aversion for career politicians anyway.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184
Inactive user

#1643904 1-Oct-2016 17:44

Is it the DHBs job to chlorinate/ensure water quality, or the councils? Fluoride will be a DHB issue from sometime next year, but as I understand water supply & quality is otherwise the councils purview.

STV is better than FPP in that you're getting what you actually vote for. There's plenty of opportunity outside just voting to engage, and if you really don't like what's going on your could run - and you'd be more likely to get somewhere under STV.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1643988 1-Oct-2016 22:32

PaulBags: Is it the DHBs job to chlorinate/ensure water quality, or the councils? Fluoride will be a DHB issue from sometime next year, but as I understand water supply & quality is otherwise the councils purview.

STV is better than FPP in that you're getting what you actually vote for. There's plenty of opportunity outside just voting to engage, and if you really don't like what's going on your could run - and you'd be more likely to get somewhere under STV.

It should be the duty of specialist water and sewage providers. It isn't - which is why it is generally a bit hopeless.

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 169

#1644019 1-Oct-2016 22:53

The issue isn't the FPP so much... The issue is that when the results are in the voting turnout will be well less than 50% ... People over the age of 60 will be over represented in that, people under the age of 30 will be under represented...

It isn't rocket science. If the youth want to be heard, want to have their issues acknowledged and address - then they have to get off their behinds and vote. Until that happens, no one will pay them any attention at all.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 161

#1644036 2-Oct-2016 00:21

Geektastic:

Rikkitic:

STV is unquestionably better, but most people don't understand it.

what happens when you would only be prepared to vote for one of the choices under that system?

I found on our local elections that the other candidates were often unacceptable to me for a variety of reasons, so I would in those circumstances not want my vote ending up assisting them into office.

Perhaps we should be able to vote AGAINST people as well as FOR people...!

But your vote(s) can/will/and do end up with candidates you didn't vote for, and more importantly dont want to benefit from your vote, under STV Voting. (like the Wellington City Council have)

That's the major failing of STV, and makes it far worse that FFP IMHO.

The best voting system for local council/local body elections would be an MMP type system.

1 | 2 | 3