Crash Course in New Zealand Politics

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

Forums › Politics › Crash Course in New Zealand Politics

1 | 2 | 3

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#531502 10-Oct-2011 13:38

It makes perfect sense. How does it make any sense at all that those 5%ers get to hold the balance of power?
"no one likes you but here, you get to decide the fate of the nation. And while you are at it you can demand silly polices or you will chose the other side"
That's just insanity.

To get anything done you need one faction in control. Otherwise with NZ politicians such as Goff etc you will just end up with one huge kindergarten style squabble.

Maybe what we really need is more referendums, the people get to vote on big policy changes. Then again the majority of people are quite dumb. By dumb I mean ignorant of all the facts. Or unwilling to listen to the full story.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#531504 10-Oct-2011 13:41

Linuxluver:
As for the math issues: There is NO WAY 5 or 10 MPs in a small party can out vote the other 110 or 115.

You know that's not what I mean. I meant that when it's time for the post election coalition forming that 5% can say "give us this policy, or make so and so a minister" If the support is wanted then those demands have to be conceded.

jonb

1796 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

Trusted

#531507 10-Oct-2011 13:45

Zeon:

I agree that the 5% threshold is stupid and unfair so it would be much better to get rid of that then the popular vote would be almost perfect. That's really the only weakness I see in the current MMP system.

The only other problem that causes distortion then is the situation with the Maori seats where for example the Maori party got far more seats than their party vote should support. I'm no fan of the Maori seats and think they should just be removed.

I agree that the 5% is threshold, and whether the party gets lucky to have an electorate MP is where MMP gets unfair.

It's interesting that the Maori seats aren't even up for review in the referendum, and so the people who vote against MMP, hoping to replace it with a first past the post system, may actually find that the Maori seat MPs have even more influence than they currently do.

lyma

13 posts

Geek

#531535 10-Oct-2011 14:42

See - this is why I need to know more about NZ politics (background, etc etc) so I can meaningfully contribute to debate!

nickb800

2735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 829

Trusted

#531537 10-Oct-2011 14:47

I see everyone has got their 2c in on MMP, here is quite a cool way of explaining the alternatives
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/mmp-referendum-explainer-video-4455693

lyma

13 posts

Geek

#531559 10-Oct-2011 15:38

Great little video, Nickb. He spoke entirely too fast for my liking and as an Aussie not used to MMP, would have liked more explanation about the current system but obviously video not tailored to the me's of the world! Will watch again when have done more MMP research!

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#531576 10-Oct-2011 16:14

jonb: MMP (apart from giving the ACT Party undue influence) seems to be about the best of the bunch for parliamentary systems. I'm from the UK and MMP seems much better than first past the post, I'm not so savvy as to how it compares to the Aussie system though.

The 'unfairness' of the current system is best explained by using ACT as an example - the have a single electorate MP, and under 5% of the party vote, but 5 MPs. Compare that to NZ First, who also had just under 5%, but there sitting elecotrate MP, Winston Peters, was voted out so they have no MPs in parliament - their party vote counts for nothing. The Green party has MPs woing to getting over 5% of the party vote? I'm not 100% sure how it all works either to be honest!

The referendum question about in the next elecion is basically because some rich guy who gives lots of money to the National Party doesn't like it, so National agreed to a referendum about it. I can't remember who the name is without researching it, but it's the same person who was key in getting John Key as leader instead of Bill English. Most people seem happy with it, or at least are not actively against it, so I predict the referendum will vote to keep MMP. In any case, the vote is not to get rid of MMP, just to vote for a review, the result of which may even decide to keep MMP!

I like it that it gives people a voice who otherwise wouldn't have one. Not just the smaller parties, but also people like who live in an electorate that has no chance of changing hands, be it National or Labour, and would otherwise have a wasted vote, like the AV system in Australia.

Personally, as a left leaning voter I'm not sure who to give my party vote though, Labour or the Greens. Seems the Greens are amenable to joining a coalition with National at the next election, and National wouldn't rule them out either as the Greens seem to have some business friendly policies this time around. With ACT potentially being evicted altogether this time around (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=10757619), there is a chance of left leaning coalition with Maori, Greens and United First.

That would depend on National not having an outright majority though, in which case they can do pretty much as they please after the next election.

That's my view of NZ politics, after living herefor a four years. Prior to that I know next to nothing..

well I think he stated he was after how the system worked not your opnion on left over right.

Some of your claims need clarification. David Longe promised to have a vote in 1987 but didn't so National said they would and in 1992 a referendum was held where over 70% voted for MMP. The current vote has nothing to do with any rich guy and has been promised and ignored by succesive governments.

Basically no one really knew what MMP would do but didn't like the FFP 2 party system especially Labour whom won more votes but because of zoning got less seats so the left are the ones that like it as the Greens are, by nature , socialist and won't stray far from it and have done well from MMP.
Most people now dislike the list MP's that may lose electorate but still get in.
Although MMP has good points as in stopping the Government of the day doing stupid things it also has a negative effect where hard decisions can't be made unless you pander to minor parties but it is a trade off.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 458

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#531588 10-Oct-2011 16:39

lyma: I realise some of you will roll your eyes at this...

A discussion about the best religion would complete the set

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#531597 10-Oct-2011 17:21

TheUngeek: It makes perfect sense. How does it make any sense at all that those 5%ers get to hold the balance of power?
"no one likes you but here, you get to decide the fate of the nation. And while you are at it you can demand silly polices or you will chose the other side"
That's just insanity.

To get anything done you need one faction in control. Otherwise with NZ politicians such as Goff etc you will just end up with one huge kindergarten style squabble.

Maybe what we really need is more referendums, the people get to vote on big policy changes. Then again the majority of people are quite dumb. By dumb I mean ignorant of all the facts. Or unwilling to listen to the full story.

The one point you seem to be missing......is that they aren't just "5%" if they are in this position. They are part of 50%+ - whichever way they go.

Get your head around that or you'll continue to mis-understand what is really happening.

5% of MPs have no power at all if the other 95% disagree.

It's when 46% agree with them that they have any power...and that power is the power of the MAJORITY.....and is not inherent in this 5% or that 5%.....but in the 50%+

Don't you see the inherent contradiction in your own argument? You don't like minorities, but you want one minority faction most people didn't vote for to be in control.

Think about that. I know it's hard to fight through erroneous preconceptions....but have a go anyway.

_____________________________________________________________________

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

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#531600 10-Oct-2011 17:24

No, you are mistaken, what happens when those 5% are looking to join the 47% to form a government. that is what I am talking about.
The tail wags the dog.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#531601 10-Oct-2011 17:25

jeffnz:
jonb: MMP (apart from giving the ACT Party undue influence) seems to be about the best of the bunch for parliamentary systems. I'm from the UK and MMP seems much better than first past the post, I'm not so savvy as to how it compares to the Aussie system though.

The 'unfairness' of the current system is best explained by using ACT as an example - the have a single electorate MP, and under 5% of the party vote, but 5 MPs. Compare that to NZ First, who also had just under 5%, but there sitting elecotrate MP, Winston Peters, was voted out so they have no MPs in parliament - their party vote counts for nothing. The Green party has MPs woing to getting over 5% of the party vote? I'm not 100% sure how it all works either to be honest!

The referendum question about in the next elecion is basically because some rich guy who gives lots of money to the National Party doesn't like it, so National agreed to a referendum about it. I can't remember who the name is without researching it, but it's the same person who was key in getting John Key as leader instead of Bill English. Most people seem happy with it, or at least are not actively against it, so I predict the referendum will vote to keep MMP. In any case, the vote is not to get rid of MMP, just to vote for a review, the result of which may even decide to keep MMP!

I like it that it gives people a voice who otherwise wouldn't have one. Not just the smaller parties, but also people like who live in an electorate that has no chance of changing hands, be it National or Labour, and would otherwise have a wasted vote, like the AV system in Australia.

Personally, as a left leaning voter I'm not sure who to give my party vote though, Labour or the Greens. Seems the Greens are amenable to joining a coalition with National at the next election, and National wouldn't rule them out either as the Greens seem to have some business friendly policies this time around. With ACT potentially being evicted altogether this time around (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=10757619), there is a chance of left leaning coalition with Maori, Greens and United First.

That would depend on National not having an outright majority though, in which case they can do pretty much as they please after the next election.

That's my view of NZ politics, after living herefor a four years. Prior to that I know next to nothing..

well I think he stated he was after how the system worked not your opnion on left over right.

Some of your claims need clarification. David Longe promised to have a vote in 1987 but didn't so National said they would and in 1992 a referendum was held where over 70% voted for MMP. The current vote has nothing to do with any rich guy and has been promised and ignored by succesive governments.

Basically no one really knew what MMP would do but didn't like the FFP 2 party system especially Labour whom won more votes but because of zoning got less seats so the left are the ones that like it as the Greens are, by nature , socialist and won't stray far from it and have done well from MMP.
Most people now dislike the list MP's that may lose electorate but still get in.
Although MMP has good points as in stopping the Government of the day doing stupid things it also has a negative effect where hard decisions can't be made unless you pander to minor parties but it is a trade off.

[Oops - got my attritbutions wrong. You weren't talking to me.]

As for list MPs...they are elected by the party vote...so I don't care what happened to any of them in their local seat. Chances are I didn't have a vote there anyway.

Whangarei used to elect John Bank s and didn't elect a lot of people I thought were much better....so if they got in on the list....that would be excellent.

I have a party vote...and I cast it for the team...and it elected some of the people from the team.

That's excellent. FPP never let me do that. list MPs are elected via the party vote as a group...and people shouldn't get confused about that. But some insist on it.

_____________________________________________________________________

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

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#531603 10-Oct-2011 17:28

P.s I am not saying I want one minority in control, you are adding your own things to my statements....
I saying I do not want the 5% to have the power they do now

jonb

1796 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

Trusted

#531604 10-Oct-2011 17:28

Linuxluver:

[Oops - got my attritbutions wrong. You weren't talking to me.]

Yeah that was me. I thought it's ok seeing as it's a thread on NZ Politics, rather than NZ political systems..

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#531643 10-Oct-2011 20:00

Personally I think that the whole argument around minor parties "holding the country to ransom" depends largely on whereabouts a particular minor party stands on the political spectrum. The Greens are highly unlikely to support a National led government, and likewise Act is highly unlikely to support a Labour led government. Admittedly the Maori party have been supporting National on confidence and supply during this term, but that has arguably attracted a bit of a backlash.

Winston, on the other hand, was a bit of a different animal. He was historically able to sit on the fence and ultimately support whichever of the two big parties was willing to offer him the best "baubles of office" but because of his past behaviour John Key has now ruled out working with him and it's unlikely that he'll get back into parliament anyway.

Yes, we've had some dramas under MMP but I personally believe that our MMP environment has gradually stabilised over the last 15 years and it would be a shame to drop it now.

Kaos36

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

#531786 11-Oct-2011 09:10

A popular Government without popular information nor the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives
- James Madison

Don't ask me what the above means I have no idea, it sounds intelligent so deserves to be posted at GZ... :P

Worst Response To A Crisis:
From a readers' Q and A column in TV GUIDE: "If we get involved in a nuclear war, would the electromagnetic pulses from exploding bombs damage my videotapes?"

1 | 2 | 3